19950275 Ver 1_Complete File_19971117

t ` -- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 17, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To Michel'le' Suverkrubbe
Thx,o.ugh.:, John ? Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell CL6
,&?J e
SOL
D EHNR

SOj,ect: Finding of No Significant Impact for Interstate 40 from West of
SR 185,0 ;(Sandy, Ridge Road) at Kernersville to East of Holden 'Road
at Greensboro
Guilford County
State Project No. 8.T491604, T.I.P. No. I-2201; EHNR #98-0306
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. This project will involve fill in up to 14.0 acres of wetlands at 37
locations. Up to twenty stream systems will be modified with culvert
.extensions and/or channel changes. DWQ offers the following comments
based on the document review:
ANCDOT is reminded that DWQ has wetland and stream mitigation
thresholds independent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
requirements. Even if the Corps issues Nationwide Permits for each
wetland crossing, and does not require wetland mitigation (given the
magnitude of impacts, this is unlikely), DWQ. will still require wetland
mitigation since `cumulative impacts exceed one acre 115A NCAC
2H.0506(h)(2)}. Similarly, we will require stream mitigation for any
stream impacts exceeding 150 feet linear distance of any perennial
stream (15A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6), even if the Corps does not.
require mitigation. NCDOT has deferred mitigation planning to the
permitting phase of this project. Although DWQ will be able to accept
contributions to the Wetland Restoration Program, DOT is advised to
.proceed with mitigation planning as soon as possible since the Corps
may not. be able to accept WRP funding to satisfy the 404 Permit.
requirements.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
.4 it
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
November 17, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the FONSI, an Individual Water
Quality Certification will be required for this project. Final permit
authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that issuance' of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
I2201FON.DOC
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LTX?FA
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Wafter Quality 21
James Hunt, Governor p E H N F-1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 17, 1997
MEM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorne
From: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Interstate 40 from West of SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville to East of Holden Road at
Greensboro; Guilford County
State Project DOT No. 8.1491601, T.I.P. No. I-2201; EHNR # 97-0834
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The project will involve fill in up to 14.0 acres of wetlands at 37
locations. Up to twenty stream systems will be modified with culvert
extensions and/or channel changes. DWQ offers the following comments
based on the document review:
A) NCDOT proposes to widen the existing four-lane divided facility by
adding two to four additional lanes throughout the project corridor,
along with auxiliary lanes at various locations. The median will consist
of a 22-foot lane separation with jersey type barriers throughout the 9.3
mile highway. Due to the highly urbanized character of the area, plus
the need to maintain high volumes of traffic throughout construction,
onsite widening alternatives are severely limited. We concur with
NCDOT's alternative selection within the context of widening, and agree
that the Do Nothing alternative is impractical; however, we feel that
other alternatives were dismissed prematurely. We would be interested
in seeing further consideration given to traffic management practices
such as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes or Transit Service. Even after
this interstate is widened, any methods which would help to persuade
local travelers to use carpools or mass transit would be encouraged by
our agency. We sincerely hope that NCDOT will consider some creative
ways to reduce the number of vehicles in use, so that I-40 might not
need to be widened yet again. With respect to NCDOT's preferred
widening alternative, we would be prepared to endorse NCDOT's specific
project design provided that the FONSI includes more detailed
information regarding the following subjects:
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
July 17, 1997
Page 2 of 3
Wetland mitigation - NCDOT anticipates that the wetland impacts
associated with this project may be authorized under Nationwide
Permits, and hence that mitigation may not be required. NCDOT is
advised that since the total project impacts will exceed one acre,
mitigation will be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules {15A
NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)1. With this in mind, NCDOT should identify and
discuss a mitigation site in the FONSI. NCDOT is reminded that DWQ will
accept contributions to the Wetland Restoration Program to mitigate
impacts.
Stream impacts and mitigation - NCDOT has provided a map (Figure 7B)
showing twenty locations where surface waters may be impacted. Also,
Table 1B lists existing structures at eleven of the fifteen existing stream
crossings along the project corridor. We ask that NCDOT provide a
specific description of each of the twenty streams identified in Figure
7B, along with a summary of the impacts expected at each site. This
should include all culvert extensions and stream relocations.
Descriptions of stream impacts should include jurisdictional status
(intermittent or perennial), existing stream dimensions, stream
classification, type of culvert structure proposed, and the linear
distance of stream impact. Where culverts and/or stream relocations
exceed 150 feet linear distance of channel at any stream crossing,
mitigation may be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules 115A
NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)). In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation
proposal should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
Temporary wetland and stream impacts - Assuming that traffic will be
maintained on I-40 throughout construction, it is likely that temporary
fill may be required to create haul roads and place culverts. If at all
possible, we ask that NCDOT identify these areas in the FONSI. NCDOT is
advised that full restoration of any temporary fill areas will be required
in accordance with Condition #4 of General Certification 3114. On May
27, 1997, DWQ submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact
areas to NCDOT. We anticipate finalization of this policy prior to the
construction of this project.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from
upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
This should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in
the FONSI.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
- I -
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
July 17, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual 401 Water
Quality Certification may be required for this project. Final permit
authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
I2201EA.DOC
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet 1190
DWQ - Water Quality Section R,FQ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
* Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
's( Cyndi Bell (DOT)
O Eric Galamb
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES)
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater)
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
FROM:
RE:
vc;J11997
FM/IR QM1vT41
$CjFN??S
Reg./ Prg. Mgmt Coordination Branch
O Farrell Keough (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
* Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville ' O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
O
O
O
Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
NO CONINIEN COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis.\circmemo - mac version
p
d .k
Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.T491604
TIP Project 1-2201
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)
Date?,H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nicho L. Graf, P. E.
PL,,< Division Administrator, FHWA

Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.T491604
TIP Project 1-2201
.4
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
September 1997
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
:gZ7
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
{+{?{J{Nt/tldltdddl
,?, .,,?i ?: ???•v.?FESSlapfgl.?y
J. W son Stroud
SEAL _
Project Planning Unit Head = 6976
•
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.
I1.
III.
IV.
TYPE OF ACTION .............................................................................1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................1
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ...............................2
A. PERMITS ............................................................................. 2
B. RAILROAD COORDINATION ....................................................... 2
C. AIRPORT COORDINATION ......................................................... 2
D. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 3
E. UTILITIES ............................................................................. 3
F. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ................................................................ 3
G. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........................................................ 4
H. MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY ..................................................... 4
1. NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ................................................ 4
J. FLOODWAY MODIFICATION ....................................................... 4
K. STREAM MODIFICATION ............................................................ 4
L. GEODETIC SURVEY MARKERS .................................................. 5
M. BICENTENNIAL GREENWAY ...................................................... 5
N. SIDEWALKS ............................................................................. 5
SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS .............................................................................5
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS .......................................................7
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..........7
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 7
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE
PUBLIC HEARING ..........................................................13
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................15
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING ...................15
V111. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................16
TABLES
Table 1 - Recommended Noise Barrier Summary ............................................6
Table 2 - 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels ........................................7
Table 3 - Stream Classifications ....................................................................10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
APPENDIX
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ............................. A-1
Major Investment Study (including comments received) ........................... A-17
Public Hearing Notice and Handouts ....................................................... A-28
a
Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.T491604
TIP Project 1-2201

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action,
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment, which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and
impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
Interstate 40 from just west of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville to
just east of Holden Road at Greensboro in Guilford County. The project limits
are shown in Figure 1. The existing four-lane divided facility is to be widened to
a six- to eight-lane, divided facility with a 6.6 meter (22 feet) median. A concrete
Jersey-type barrier will be constructed in the median to separate the eastbound
• and westbound traffic. Auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations. Many
of the interchanges and local roads along the project will be revised as needed
to accommodate the proposed mainline widening. Inadequate structures along
the project will be replaced to conform to current design standards. Retaining
walls and expressway gutters will be used along the project to minimize right of
way impacts. This 14.9 km (9.3 mile) long project has an estimated cost of
$82,454,000, including $63,200,000 for construction and $19,254,000 for right
of way acquisition.
2
The subject project is included in the 1998-2004 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP recommends widening Interstate 40 from
west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) to east of Holden Road. The proposed
improvements are to be federally funded. The TIP has allocated $13,590,000 for
right of way acquisition and $55,750,000 for construction to give a total
allocation of $69,340,000. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 1997 and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998.
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. PERMITS
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), a permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Due to surface water and wetland impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
or Individual Permit will likely be necessary for this project. The final decision
concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
B. RAILROAD COORDINATION
Norfolk-Southern Railroad is planning to add a third high speed rail line
and a railroad service road parallel to and west of the existing two tracks which
cross under Interstate 40 between Patterson Avenue (NC 6) and Wendover
Avenue. The dual structures which carry Interstate 40 over the railroad will be
replaced with one structure which will accommodate the proposed railroad
improvements. Any improvements to Interstate 40 which may impact the
railroad will be coordinated with the Norfolk-Southern Railroad.
C. AIRPORT COORDINATION
Based on a crane height of 24 m (80 feet), incidents could occur where
construction crane heights might penetrate any of the Primary or Transitional
Surfaces or the 100:1 ratio associated with the Piedmont Triad International '
Airport. Six interchanges were reviewed where these incidents could occur;
NC 68, Regional Road, Gallimore Dairy Road, relocated Chimney Rock Road,
Chimney Rock Road, and Guilford College Road. Gallimore Dairy Road will
require the submission of a 7460-1 form (Notice of Proposed Construction of
Alteration) and the review of FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) since the
100:1 ratio will be penetrated. Chimney Rock Road and relocated Chimney
Rock Road will also require the submittal of a 7460-1 form and the review of FAA
once the 100:1 ratio will be penetrated. NCDOT will submit the 7460-1 forms for
all six interchanges.
3
D. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
If any underground storage tanks (UST's) in the area have a potential to
be involved with the proposed improvements, these sites will be investigated for
possible fuel leakage prior to the right of way acquisition phase. Three
properties to be acquired have underground storage tanks on their property:
the BP Gas Station, the Exxon Gas Station, and the Olive Mountain Convenience
Store. Auto Brokers, a company involved in the sales and service of
automobiles, will need to be investigated for UST concerns also.
Colonial Pipeline has a petroleum storage and distribution facility located
in the vicinity of Gallimore Dairy Road and Chimney Rock Road. Subsurface
investigations will be performed to establish baseline conditions around the
property before any right of way acquisition or construction begins.
E. UTILITIES
The proposed improvements will impact water, sewer, gas, power,
television, and telephone lines. Impact to utilities due to the proposed
improvements are considered to be medium to high in severity. Utilities which
will be impacted by the project will be relocated prior to construction. During
construction, care will be taken to prevent damages to utilities along the
project. The contractor will prepare a work schedule which will minimize
impacts on water, communication, power, and other utility services. The
appropriate utilities or local government officials will be consulted concerning
possible relocation of utilities.
F. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There are a number of design exceptions anticipated for the project.
They are listed below.
A design exception is anticipated for a 35 mph design speed on Merritt
Drive.
A design exception is anticipated on Burnt Poplar Road for a horizontal
curve approaching the intersection with Gallimore Dairy Road through the
previously dedicated right of way.
A design exception is anticipated for the horizontal curve on Gallimore
Dairy Road at the southern tie to existing Gallimore Dairy Road due to the
existing curvature.
A design exception is anticipated for the vertical curve on Chimney Rock
Road to avoid impacts to the oil tank farms's fence and to avoid closing an
intersection during construction.
A design exception is anticipated for the 4.82 m (15.8 feet) vertical
clearance on NC 68 under Interstate 40.
4
G. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
NCDOT will ensure that sediment and erosion control devices will not be
placed in wetland areas, except for devices such as silt fences and rock dams in
drainage areas which limit sediment getting into the wetland areas.
H. MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
A Major Investment Study (MIS) has been completed for the subject
project. The results of the MIS indicate that widening Interstate 40, is the best
alternative to address the immediate traffic needs along Interstate 40, but that
the other alternatives addressed in the MIS will continue to be considered in
future planning for the Interstate 40 corridor. The MIS and comments on the MIS
are included in the Appendix on pages A-17 through A-27.
1. NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
One hundred fourteen residences and seventeen business are predicted
to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria (NAC). NCDOT recommends the construction of three
noise walls as part of this project, contingent on the completion of the project
design and public involvement process. A fourth site was investigated for noise
abatement measure, but only one receptor out of twenty-nine was impacted due
to the presence of a natural earth berm and tree line. Also, based on
preliminary noise studies completed to date, the NCDOT intends to install noise
abatement measures at a fifth site in the form of a barrier on the north side of
Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) and Guilford College Road
(SR 1546). If during final design conditions substantially change, the abatement
measure might not be provided.
J. FLOODWAY MODIFICATION
Floodplain impacts will be assessed in detail during final hydraulic
design. If floodway revisions are required, NCDOT will coordinate with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities for approval.
Some preliminary assessments have been performed, and floodway
modifications will be required at Holden Road in the vicinity of South Buffalo
Creek and at Merritt Drive in the vicinity of South Buffalo Creek.
K. STREAM MODIFICATION
Approximately 110 m (360 feet) of channel realignment of South Buffalo
Creek will be required just north of Interstate 40 and west of the Norfolk-
Southern Railroad. The existing single barrel reinforced concrete box culvert at
this location is above headwaters and will be retained and extended. Other
stream modifications and realignment will be avoided to the extent practicable.
Where avoidance is not practicable, the new stream modifications and
realignments will be designed in accordance with current guidelines and
coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.
ill,
5
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is currently
developing the definition of a stream and defining where the storm drains end
and intermittent stream begins. Since the proposed project impacts between
45 linear meters (150 feet) and 152 linear meters (500 feet) of stream channel,
NCDOT will be required to notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
NCDWQ. If the impacts exceed 152 linear meters, the COE will require an
Individual Permit and a stream restoration mitigation plan from NCDOT.
L. GEODETIC SURVEY MARKERS
Fourteen geodetic markers will be impacted. The N.C. Geodetic Survey
will be contacted prior to construction.
M. BICENTENNIAL GREENWAY
The Bicentennial Greenway is a bicycle and pedestrian facility which will
stretch from High Point to Greensboro for a distance of 16 miles. NCDOT has
determined that the proposed Greenway will not cross Interstate 40 at the
proposed Gallimore Dairy Road interchange. NCDOT prefers that the greenway
cross Interstate 40 at the proposed Chimney Rock Road grade separation and
will continue to coordinate with Guilford County on this issue.
N. SIDEWALKS
The City of Greensboro has an active Sidewalk Program and the City is
committed to developing and maintaining pedestrian facilities in an effort to
encourage walking as a safe and alternative mode of transportation in the most
cost efficient manner. The City has identified six locations along the Interstate
40 project for sidewalk replacement or new sidewalk construction. During the
final design phase of the project, NCDOT will coordinate with the City to
determine where sidewalk will be placed. All existing sidewalk removed during
construction will be replaced.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed improvements will provide additional travel lanes which
will alleviate current and future capacity deficiencies along the studied portion
of Interstate 40. In addition, interchange and service road revisions will provide
safer access to businesses and neighborhoods in the project area. More
efficient travel and improved access will result in increased economic benefits
to users of the facility and surrounding businesses.
No substantial impacts to plant and animal life are expected. Impacts to
wetlands will be approximately 5.7 hectares (14.0 acres) spread across thirty-
seven sites. No federally-protected threatened or endangered species will be
impacted. No recreational facilities or sites eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland impacts are expected. The
6
proposed improvements will not cause substantial negative impacts to air
quality. It is anticipated eight residences and eight businesses will be relocated
as a result of the project.
One hundred fourteen residences and seventeen business are predicted
to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria (NAC). NCDOT recommends the construction of three
noise walls as part of this project, contingent on the completion of the project
design and public involvement process. A fourth site was investigated for noise
abatement measure, but only one receptor out of twenty-nine was impacted due
to the presence of a natural earth berm and tree line. Also, based on
preliminary noise studies completed to date, the NCDOT intends to install noise
abatement measures at a fifth site in the form of a barrier on the north side of
Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) and Guilford College Road
(SR 1546). If during final design conditions substantially change, the abatement
measure might not be provided. Table 1 below presents the Recommended
Noise Barrier Summary.
TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED NOISE BARRIER SUMMARY
Cost per
Barrier# Benefited Barrier Barrier Estimated Benefited
Location Receptors Length (m) Height m) Barrier Cost Receytor

Site 1 37 754 4 to 5 $567,625 $15,341
Site 2 65 639 4 to 5 $462,625 $7,112
Site 3 30 392 5 $296,426 $9,881
Site 4 Not recommended due to presence of natural barriers. One impacted receptor.
Site 5* 15 590 5 $373,100 $24,872
#These barrier locations are shown in Figure 3 of the Environmental Assessment
*Based on preliminary noise report. Final design noise report is pending.
The information presented below in Table 2 was included in the
Environmental Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in
exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to
the roadway within local jurisdictions.

•
7
TABLE 2 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels
'Maximum Predicted Maximum
Leq Noise Levels Contour
dBA Distances
(m)
Project Segment 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
1-40, From SR 1850 to NC 68 81 71 72 78.1 116.2
1-40, From NC 68 to Outer Loop 82 78 72 81.6 121.8
1-40, From Outer Loop to SR 1546 80 75 70 65.2 99.4
1-40, From SR 1546 to SR 1541 80 76 71 69.2 104.8
1-40, From SR 1541 to NC 6 81 77 71 65.2 99.4
Notes: 1. 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from the center of the
nearest travel lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the
center of the proposed roadway.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued
within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public
Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of CE's, FONSI's, ROD's, or the Design
Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this
public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that
noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of
Highways and the FHWA on June 10, 1997. The approved Environmental
Assessment was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for
review and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was
received from the agency (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verbally submitted
their comments). Copies of the correspondence received are included in the
Appendix (pages A-1 through A-16) of this document.
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8
U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Water Quality
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Environmental Health
*Winston-Salem Regional Office
*Division of Land Resources
Natural Heritage Program - Division of Parks and Recreation
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation - Natural Heritage Program
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
*Guilford County
*City of Greensboro
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (verbal comments)
Comment: Where possible, use asymmetrical widening to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to wetlands.
Response: Where practicable, NCDOT will use asymmetrical widening to
avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands.
Comment: The proposed improvements require that approximately 110 m
(360 feet) of South Buffalo Creek will be relocated. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers request that NCDOT minimize to the extent practical impacts to South
Buffalo Creek. The impacts of the stream relocation and the wetland impacts
associated with this relocation will need to be mitigated. Any part of the creek
which is placed in a culvert will need to be mitigated in an off-site stream.
Finally, NCDOT should follow the Stream Relocation Guidelines when relocating
South Buffalo Creek.
Response: NCDOT will avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands to the
maximum extent practicable. During the permit phase of the project, NCDOT
will determine wetland and stream impacts in coordination with the U.S. Army r
Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality of the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. If required, a mitigation plan will be
developed for wetland and stream impacts.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities
rather than to construct new highways. NCDOT should minimize wetland
impacts to the maximum extent practicable and should provide mitigation for all
unavoidable wetland impacts.
9
Response: NCDOT will minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable. During the permit phase of the project, NCDOT, DWQ, and the
USCOE will review the project to determine if a mitigation plan will be required
for impacts to wetlands and streams.
Division of Water Quality
Comment: We concur with NCDOT's alternative selection within the context of
widening, and agree that the Do Nothing alternative is impractical; however, we
feel that other alternatives were dismissed prematurely. We would be
interested in seeing further consideration given to traffic management practices
such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes or Transit Service. Even after this
interstate is widened, any methods which would help to persuade local travelers
to use carpools or mass transit would be encouraged by our agency. We
sincerely hope that NCDOT will consider some creative ways to reduce the
number of vehicles in use, so that 1-40 might not need to be widened yet again.
Response: A Major Investment Study (MIS) was prepared for this project and
was included in the Environmental Assessment. The final version of the MIS is
included in the Appendix of this report (see pages A-17 through A-27). The MIS
considered seven alternative strategies to address traffic capacity deficiencies
along Interstate 40, including transportation demand management and HOV
lanes. In the MIS, NCDOT concluded that widening Interstate 40 is the best
alternative to address the immediate traffic needs along Interstate 40. The
remaining six alternatives studied in the MIS will be considered in future
planning for the Interstate 40 corridor.
Comment: NCDOT is advised that since the total project impacts will exceed
one acre, mitigation will be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules
(15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)}. With this in mind, NCDOT should identify and
discuss a mitigation site in the FONSI. NCDOT is reminded that DWQ will accept
contributions to the Wetland Restoration Program to mitigate impacts.
Response: During the permit phase of the project, the wetlands will be
delineated and wetland impacts will be assessed and coordinated with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). Once these impacts have been identified,
the USCOE will determine the type of permit and whether mitigation will be
required. At that time, NCDOT will develop a mitigation plan (if needed) which
may include a mitigation site and/or contributions to the NCDENR's Wetland
Restoration Program.
Comment: We ask that NCDOT provide a specific description of each of the
twenty streams identified in Figure 7B (of the Environmental Assessment), along
with a summary of the impacts expected at each site. This should include all
culvert extensions and stream relocations. Descriptions of stream impacts
should include jurisdictional status (intermittent or perennial), existing stream
dimensions, stream classification, type of culvert structure proposed, and the
linear distance of stream impact. Where culverts and/or stream relocations
exceed 150 feet linear distance of channel at any stream crossing, mitigation
may be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC
10
2H.0506(b)(6)1. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal
should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Response: As noted on page 29 of the Environmental Assessment in Section
2, Water Resources, East Fork Deep River and Long Branch are designated as
WS IV, while South Buffalo Creek is designated as C NSW (nutrient sensitive
waters). The designation WS IV denotes that these waters are protected as.
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; local programs to control non-point source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required. WS IV waters are also suitable for all Class
C usage which includes aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class C indicates suitability for fish and
wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and agriculture, but the NSW
designation requires limitations on nutrient inputs. As noted in the
Environmental Assessment, unnamed tributaries carry the same best usage
classification as the waterbody to which they are a tributary. The classification
of each stream crossing shown in Figure 7B of the Environmental Assessment is
presented below in Table 3. The impacts at each site will consist of impacts
associated with culvert extensions and/or stream relocations. During the permit
phase of the project when detailed design is available, jurisdictional status
(intermittent or perennial), existing stream dimensions, type of culvert structure
proposed , and the linear distance of each impact will be provided. Wetland
impacts and stream impacts will be identified, and, if required, a mitigation plan
will be developed to address these impacts.
TABLE 3 Stream Classifications
Stream Crossing Shown
in Figure 7B of the
Environmental Assessment
1-3,5
4
6-8
9
10-20
Description DEM Classification
Tributaries to East WS IV
Fork Deep River
East Fork Deep River WS IV
Tributaries to Long WS IV
Branch
Long Branch WS IV
Tributaries to South C NSW
Buffalo Creek

11
Comment: It is likely that temporary fill may be required to create haul roads
and place culverts. If at all possible, we ask that NCDOT identify these areas in
the FONSI. NCDOT is advised that full restoration of any temporary fill areas will
be required in accordance with Condition #4 of General Certification 3114.
Response: At this time NCDOT cannot identify areas where haul roads will be
required to construct the proposed improvements. However, NCDOT will fully
restore areas that have been filled temporarily to construct the proposed
improvements.
Comment: DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken
from upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project. This
should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in the FONSI.
Response: On page 46 of the Environmental Assessment under item j., it is
noted that borrow sources will not be located in wetland areas. This and other
measures listed in the Environmental Assessment will be enforced during
construction.
Comment: DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated
into the construction contract awarded for this project.
Response: Comment noted. See Section III.G. "Construction Impacts" of this
document.
Division of Forest Resources
Comment: We have no objections to the needed improvements.
Response: Comment noted.
Division of Environmental Health
Comment: If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,
plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of '
Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Plan Review Branch.
Response: Comment noted.
i
Winston Salem Regional Office
Comment: Appropriate permits will be required for construction and
operation of wastewater treatment facilities, sewer system extensions, and
sewer systems not discharging into state surface waters and for ones that do
discharge into state surface water and for dredging and filling. Any open
burning must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 213.1900. An erosion and
sedimentation control plan will be required. A 401 Water Quality Certification
will be required. Notification of the proper regional office is required if "orphan"
underground storage tanks are discovered during excavation.
12
Response: Comments noted.
Division of Land Resources
Comment: This project will impact 13 geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
Response: Comment noted. Page 30 of the Environmental Assessment notes
that no High Quality Waters occur within the project area, nor are there any
point source discharges locally.
Comment: The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Response: Comment noted.
Guilford Countv
Comment: Guilford County has strongly expressed its preference in previous
correspondence and conferences for Alternative 3 - Gallimore Dairy Road
Interchange for the Bicentennial Greenway crossing of Interstate 40.
Response: NCDOT opposes allowing the Bicentennial Greenway to cross
Interstate 40 via the Gallimore Dairy Road interchange. This single point urban
diamond interchange with its inherent higher vehicular speeds and unique
turning movements is not the safest location for bicyclists and pedestrians to
cross Interstate 40. NCDOT prefers that the greenway cross Interstate 40 at the
proposed Chimney Rock Road grade separation and will continue to coordinate
and confer with Guilford County on this issue.
City of Greensboro

Comment: Alternatives to the automobile should and will be considered in the
long-range as part of the solution to the congestion problems on 1-40. On
May 14,1997, the Greensboro Urban Area MPO approved the findings of a Major
Investment Study (MIS) for the 1-40 corridor, supporting the conclusion that
widening is the most practical alternative at this time. However, during the
approval process for the MIS, the NCDOT explicitly stated that the preferred
alternative did not prevent consideration of other modes of transportation in the
future. This statement was made in response to concerns expressed by the
Greensboro Transit Authority that alternative strategies should be more closely
13
examined. Therefore, we support our earlier position that widening is the most
practical alternative at this time, but alternatives to the automobile will be an
important consideration in long-term solutions.
Response: On page 21 of the Environmental Assessment, NCDOT notes that
the Greensboro Transit Authority commented that some of the alternatives
presented in the MIS should be more closely examined. In the MIS, NCDOT
concluded that widening Interstate 40 is the best alternative to address the
immediate traffic needs along Interstate 40. The other alternatives addressed in
the MIS will be considered in future planning for the Interstate 40 corridor. The
final version of the MIS and comments on the MIS are included in the Appendix
(see pages A-17 through A-27).
Comment: Page 25 of the Environmental Assessment under Neighborhood
Characteristics and Social Impacts currently reads: "There are 164,204 males
and 183, 216 females residing in Guilford County." In this paragraph, the phrase
"there are" should be replaced with , "According to the 1990 census..." to clarify
that these are not current statistics.
Response: On page 25 of the Environmental Assessment, the above
referenced paragraph states that the information is from the 1990 Census data.
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
A prehearing open house was held at Ben L. Smith High School on July 8,
1997, and a Public Hearing was held on July 22,1997 at the school also. A
combined total of approximately 100 citizens attended the prehearing and the
public hearing. The comments received during and following the hearings are
presented below. The news release, the prehearing and public hearing
handouts, and news articles are shown in the Appendix (pages A-28 through
A-41).
Comment: Dr. Robert Griffin of Raleigh's Crossroads United Methodist
Church requested that NCDOT modify the plans so that more widening will take
place on the west side of Guilford College Road rather than on the east side to
minimize impacts to the church.
Response: The northbound right turn lane on Guilford College Road for the
eastbound Interstate 40 on-ramp will be shortened and lane widths will be
reduced to 3.3 m (11 feet) to minimize impacts to the church.
Comment: Highwoods Properties, which is located on the corner of Albert
Pick Road and Gallimore Dairy Road south of Interstate 40, opposed the
termination of Albert Pick Road and the proposed asymmetrical widening of
Gallimore Dairy Road south of Interstate 40 to the west onto Highwoods
properties.
14
Response: During the design phase, NCDOT will coordinate design
alternatives for Albert Pick Road with Highwoods Properties. In addition, the
lane widths proposed for Gallimore Dairy Road will be reduced from 3.6 m (12
feet) to 3.3 m (11 feet) with the proposed edge of pavement on the east side to
remain unchanged. The berm width will be reduced to 1.2 m and a small
retaining wall will be added to lessen the impact to the Highwoods Properties
parking areas.
Question: What is the proposed typical section of the proposed Burnt Poplar
Road Relocation through the Gallimore family property.
Response: In this location, Burnt Poplar Road will be a 12 meter(40 feet) face-
to-face curb and gutter, three-lane section.
Comment: There were several comments regarding the closing of Merritt
Drive during the removal and reconstruction of the Merritt Drive bridge over
Interstate 40. The need for closure, the safety of the detour route, impacts to
Hunter Hills Baptist Church, and possible improvements to Hilltop Road were
common concerns.
Response: The bridge carrying Merritt Drive over Interstate 40 was built in
1957. It was built symmetrically about the right of way provided for it at that
time. Today development has occurred along Merritt Drive such that it is
bounded by Hunter Hills Baptist Church in the northwest quadrant, residences
in the southwest quadrant, and an apartment complex in the southeast quadrant
of the Interstate 40/Merritt Drive junction. Based on current design standards,
the new bridge will have to be constructed at a higher elevation over Interstate
40 to provide adequate vertical clearance for trucks passing underneath Merritt
Drive. Due to the widening of Interstate 40, the new bridge will also have to be
longer than the current structure. Also, due to the proposed widening of Merritt
Drive to five lanes, the new bridge will also have to be wider than the current
bridge. Trying to maintain traffic on Merritt Drive while the new bridge is .
constructed was ruled out because of severe impacts to adjacent properties
that would result. Therefore, Merritt Drive at the bridge will be closed and traffic
will be routed along High Point Road. Any improvements to Hilltop Road will be
performed under a separate project. NCDOT will strive to limit the amount of
time that Merritt Drive is closed to traffic.
Comment: Bill Bergen presented a petition on behalf of 16 businesses
requesting that Burnt Poplar Road between Chimney Rock Road and Citation
Court be upgraded to a minimum of three lanes.
Response: Widening Burnt Poplar Road to a three lane facility is beyond the
scope of the subject project and is not recommended.
Comment: David James, representing the Teamsters' Union, requested that
their access to the Interstate 40 westbound exit ramp to Sandy Ridge Road
remain in place.
15
Response: To enhance safety, the Teamsters' access to this ramp will be
removed and access will be provided via an service road constructed from Triad
Road, as recommended in the Environmental Assessment and at the public
hearing.
Comment: Norman Heap and Richard C. Wells asked about the construction
sequencing of the project.
Response: The Traffic Control Unit of the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch
will develop a Traffic Control Plan which will include details regarding
construction sequencing, traffic shifts, use of traffic control devices, signing,
temporary and permanent pavement marking details, and other features to take
the motorist through the construction zone as quickly and safely as possible.
Comment: Carolina Tractor (CAT) requested their property be acquired as an
advanced acquisition.
Response: This process may be underway as part of the Greensboro Western
Urban Loop project (TIP Project U-2524). If it is not underway, CAT needs to
make an official request under the U-2524 project.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The MIS as presented in the Environmental Assessment has been
finalized and is presented in the Appendix (with comments) on Pages A-
through A- . The lane widths on Gallimore Dairy Road will be reduced to 3.3 m
(11 feet) from 3.6 m (12 feet) with the edge of pavement on the east side to
remain unchanged. The berm width will be reduced to 1.2 m and a small
retaining wall will be added to lessen the impact to the Highwoods Properties
parking areas. The typical sections will be modified to reflect these changes.
There are no other revisions to the Environmental Assessment.
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 1190 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible,- adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of
new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
There are 5.7 ha (14.0 acres) of wetland impacts anticipated as a result of
the project. With the exception of not building the project, there are no feasible
means of avoiding the wetlands taking. NCDOT will minimize impacts on
wetlands through the use of best management practices.
It has been determined there-is no practical alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practical
measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
16
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state,
and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation that this project will not have a significant
adverse impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not
controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to
natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. No known
Section 4(f) properties are involved, no significant impact on air or water quality
is expected, and no effects on federally listed threatened and endangered
species are anticipated. There are no feasible means of avoiding the loss of
5.7 ha (14.0 acres) of wetlands. Impacts to those wetlands will be minimized
through the use of Best Management Practices. The impacts to wetlands will
likely require a mitigation plan which will be developed through coordination
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed project is consistent with
local plans and will not disrupt any communities. In view of the above
evaluation, it is has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is
applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact
Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required.
EFL/plr
APPENDIX
CL,
.
V
I t ??r
Lf L = - 1997 l
North Carolina
PROJECT, NIANAGEM. epartment of Administratio
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
July 28, 1997
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development Branch
- Transportation Building
Raleiah. NC 27611
Dear Mr. Webb:
EI
-1 V 2 8 1997
Program Developrnent Branch
1
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary

Re: SCH File # 97-E-4220-0834; Environmental Assessment Proposed Improvements to I-40 from
West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Rd.) at Kemersville to East of Holden Road at Greensboro; TIP
41-2201
Q . ?9llOb
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region G
Melba McGee, DEHNR
??? E 1 IiFO
?U6 2 1997
c
,2 o JI ;lt_.
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employcr
A-1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor M- M
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ®F==HNFZ
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORA.10MUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
c?
FROM: Melba McGee t
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE:. 97-0834 I-40 Improvements from West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at
Kernersville, Guilford County
DATE: July 25, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
REcE: iv
JUL 2 8 1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, W 4 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C
N ?"
?f An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 500/1. recycled/100,1. post-consumer paper
A-2
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEI-ii\iR
FROM:
DATE:
David Cox, Highway Project Co ator
Habitat Conservation Program -
July 23, 1997

SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for I-40 Improvements, from west of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge
Road) at Kernersville, Guilford County, North Carolina. TIP No. I-2201, SCH
Project No. 97-0834.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our continents are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDO T proposes to improve I-40 from west of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Read) at.
Kernersville to east of Hulden Road in Greensboro. The proposed project will widen the existing
four-lane divided highway to a six- to eight-lane section with a 22 foot median. The project
length is approximately 9.3 miles Projected wetland impacts for the recommended alternative
total approximately 14 acres.
We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather than to construct
new highways. NCDOT should minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable
and should provide mitigation for all unavoidable wetland impacts.
At t1lis time, we concur with the EA for this project. However, we recommend that the
PONSI include a better description of wetland mitigation.
A-3
Memo 2 July 23, 1 997
Thank you for the opportunity to cornm:azt 011 t1116 E-A. If we can be of any Amher
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Washington
A-4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Wafter Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Joncthan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.E., Director
MW."ITTA
A&4 '* *
Y7
1 ti; rA
k mom,
ED F_= F1
July 17, 1997
ME"IN10RANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe

Through: John DorneiCr4?'
From: Cyndi Bell C (??
Subject: . Environmental Assessment for Interstate 40 from West of SR 1860
(Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville to East of Holden Road at
Greensboro; Guilford County
State Project DOT No. 8.1491601, T.I.P. No. I-2201; EHNR N 97-0834
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The project will involve fill in up to 14.0 acres of wetlands at 37
locations. Up to twenty stream systems will be modified with culvert
extensions and/or channel changes. DWQ offers the following comments
based on the document review:
A) NCDOT proposes to widen the existing four-lane divided facility by
adding two to four additional lanes throughout the project corridor,
along with auxiliary lanes at various locations. The median will consist
of a 22-foot lane separation with jersey type barriers throughout the 9.3
mile highway. Due to the highly urbanized character of the area, plus
the need to maintain high volumes of traffic throughout construction,
onsite widening alternatives are severely limited. We concur with
NCDOT's alternative selection within the context of widening, and agree
that the Do Nothing alternative is impractical; however, we feel that
other alternatives were dismissed prematurely. We would be interested
in seeing further consideration given to traffic management practices
such as High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes or Transit Service. Even after
this interstate is widened, any methods which would help to persuade
local travelers to use carpools or mass transit would be encouraged by
our agency. We sincerely hope that NCDOT will consider some creative
ways to reduce the number of vehicles in use, so that 1-40 might not
need to be widened yet again. With respect to NCDOT's preferred
widening alternative, we would be prepared to endorse NCDOT's specific
project design provided that the FONSI includes more detailed
information regarding the following subjects:
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Ra!e!gh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX " 733-9959
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500,16 recyc!ed/100% post consumer paper
A-5
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
July 17, 1997
Pase 2 of 3
Wetland mitigation - NCDOT anticipates that the wetland impacts
associated with this project may be authorized under Nationwide
Permits, and hence that mitigation may not be required. NCDOT is
advised that since the total project impacts will exceed one acre,
mitigation will be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules {15A
NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2) }. With this in mind, NCDOT should identify and
discuss a mitigation site in the FONSI. NCDOT is reminded that DWQ will
accept contributions to the Wetland Restoration Program to mitigate
impacts.
Stream impacts and mitigation - NCDOT has provided a map (Figure 713)
showing twenty locations where surface waters may be impacted. Also,
Table 1B lists existing structures at eleven of the fifteen existing stream
crossings along the project corridor. We ask that NCDOT provide a
specific description of each of the twenty streams identified in Figure
7B, along with a summary of the impacts expected at each site. This
should include all culvert extensions and stream relocations.
Descriptions of stream impacts should include jurisdictional status
(intermittent or perennial), existing stream dimensions, stream
classification, type of culvert structure proposed, and the linear
distance of stream impact. Where culverts and/or stream relocations
exceed 150 feet linear distance of channel at any stream crossing,
mitigation may be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)1. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation
proposal should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
Temporary wetland and stream impacts - Assuming that traffic will be
maintained on I-40 throughout construction, it is likely that temporary
fill may be required to create haul roads and place culverts. If at all
possible, we ask that NCDOT identify these areas in the FONSI. NCDOT is
advised that full restoration of any temporary fill areas will be required
in accordance with Condition #4 of General Certification 3114. On May
27, 1997, DWQ submitted a draft restoration policy for temporary impact
areas to NCDOT. We anticipate finalization of this policy prior to the
construction of this project.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from ,
upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
This should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in
the FONSI.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
A-6
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
July 17, 1997
Paee 3 of 3
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual 401 Water
Quality Certification may be required for this project. Final permit
authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
' concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
.are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
I2201EA.DOC

A-7
i

July 8, 1997
Clayton, NC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Interstate 40 Improvements from SR 1850 to Holden Road in
Guildford County
PROJECT: #97-0834 and TIP #I-2201
DUE DATE: 7/21/97
We have reviewed the above subject document of June 1997 and have the following comments:
1. We have no objections to the needed improvements. -
2. The project will impact some urban type woodland and forested wetlands. There is an
acreage breakdown for the wetlands, but none for the upland woodland. Thus, we do not
know how many acres of total woodland will be impacted by the project.
PC: Mike Thompson, Warren Boyette - CO
Vic Owen. D 10
File
A-8
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONL MENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES 6? -7 -C
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
County ,
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Type of Project
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C.0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
C This project will be classified as a non-community -public water supply an' must: comply with
f
state and federal drinking water monitorir_g requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section; [phone].
C If this project is constricted as proposed: we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information. regarding the shellfis : sanitation progra
M, Me applicant should contact the She.____h Sanitation Branc _ at ,1, 726-6327.
The spoil disposal osal area(S) Pr0Fesed for thisP' roJjea may Produce a mosquito breeding Probiern.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control rneasures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Marage_mnent Section at [phone].
C The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an emensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health deparment or the Public Health Pest Mzzageme_ t Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health depari-ent regarding their
L=' requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. sea.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal nnetheds, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Se-ion at [phone].
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department: regarding the sanitary
u facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the constrscion; Ian- for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmcntal Health; Public Water Supply'
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
,,?,?br/esg Bpd/'Z 7
Reviewer Section/Branch ` Date
DE: K 1i92 (Rc iscc S!°3) A-9

State of. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office.
its S/? D
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
7 -G-_;' 2-.21-9 7
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to Comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same ?- N rm
Regional Office.
l m P
PERMITS
'Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment
facilities. sewer system extensions. 8 sewer
systems net discharging into state surface waters.
NP ES - permit to discharge into surface water anciar
'Permit to ccera:e anc construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Application 90 Pays before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-applicatior
technical conference usual
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspecucr.
Pre application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permi: to
construct was:ewater treatment facility-granted after NPDEE P.epty
time. 30 days a:ter receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
r- I
I Water Use -_rr t Fre acp! canon techn cai conference usually necessary
?I Well Construction Permit Complete acdhcalion must be received and permit issued
I prior to the ins:ailation of a well.
Apbhcaucr, co-_y must be served on each adjacent nrartar ,rode,;,
C e..ge and Fiil Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usua. Fming
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department o!
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fitt Permit.
? ermit to r_ns:ruc: & operate Air Pollution Abatement
citiues arc!cr -emission Sources as per 15A NCAC NIA
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
i must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D:Gi
Vn0
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
C NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Grcup
C I Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.oEoc
l The Sedimentation Pollution Control Ac: of 1973 must be property adCressec for any land disturbing activity An erosion 8 secimentatic
?I control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbec. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sed: i a: least 30
davs before becmmna acrivtty A fee of S30 for the firs: acre and 520.00 fen each additional acre or part must accompany ire ^ia^
CI The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be aearessed with respell: to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
CII Mining Permit
CII North Carolina Eurning permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
C counties in coas:al N.C. with organic soils
CI Oil Refining Facilities
CI Dam Safety Permit
On-site inspecttcn usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bar-- amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected lane Ar.y area
mined greater than one acre must be permitea. The appropriate CcnC
must be received before the permit can be issued
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if Permit
exceeds a days
On-site insoec:icn by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. InsceVions
should be reauestea at least ten clays before actual burn is WanneD."
N/A
o al .ocess
Time
(statutory t r-e
limit;
30 Pays
(90 cas
90-120 ca -s I 4
IN
30 days
(N,,%;
7 cars I
(15 Ca.;s
c.,s
t90 c-:?:
60 Ca. ys
(90 Days;
i
60 days
(90 clays;
20 cat's
13C cavs
(2C Days;
30 days
IE0 Cays)
1 day
(NIA)
1 day
(N!A)
90120 Days
(NIA)
11 permit recuirec. application 60 days before begin construction
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans 3C Pays
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNA aoprov
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces (E0 d"Ys)
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200.0C mus: ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
oerceritage or :ne total protect cost will be reouirea uoon ccrnd1e!idn
A-10 Cc?::,%e- cr.
T iT.e
C
C
5
C
C
C
C
C
C
(siatu;c'v Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS I.mit,
File surety bona of 55.000 with EHNR running to State of N C 10 davs
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well coenea by drill operator snail. upon (N'A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and re;ulat ons
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. IN,A
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.2C davs
descriptions i5 drawings of structure 8 proof-of ownership IN, A)
of riparian property.
60 ca.,s
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (120 cavs;
5;Z day<_
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (15% days:
22 cars
i
CAMA Permit fer MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany acclicalion (25 days:
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. It any monuments need to be moved or destroyed- pease notify
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Eox 27667. Rale!gn. N.C. 27611
i Abandonment of any wells. if required. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
oufication of the proper regional office is requested if °orpnan" underground storage tanks (USTSi are discovered eurinc any excavation c:e,a-,cn.
1 Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. ca.s
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING
AND
,
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN THE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT
PRIOR TO BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES.
nti?

OWa 0El£CJA-'E? PROGQ,em tJaDF2 i L:?c J?t'?'?' ' "'
;-
co
U
N
S rrs ?vJ
?a. ?> 11)10 on.
o,
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
n r?i
? Asheville Regional Office
? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Euiiding
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] (91-9) 486-1541
u Mooresville Regional Office IJ Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Dave Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
.
-SrnTE"t9?-
27106

A-11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
A&4
ID EHNR
PROJECT REVIEW COMME.*JTS
Project Number: 97- 083¢ County: Gu,1114r61
Project Name: -¢v S ? pjai. +" 5.14-9160)
,6ffics-•of State Planninc - Geodetic Survev
This project will impact I3 geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State -
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3836.
u Inl QI-( 7 - 9 - 97
Reviewer 1 Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is recuired to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
&?/ '4 zaa,,?, ?Z11-57 7
Geological Survey Sec is ewer Land Quality Section Dam- Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
F.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Te!ephone 919-733-3833 FAX [phone] A_12
An EGucl Opportunity Affirmctive Action E npieyer 504 recyc:ed/ 10% post-censurner pc::er
offi?
+,v `DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Deot. of Cultural Resources
?A chives-History Bldg.
Raleigh NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Deot. of Agriculture
Dept. of Crime Cont./ Public Safety
Dent. of Cultural Resources
Dept. of Env. Health, & Natural Res
Dept. of Transportation
Piedmont Triad COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
STATE NUMBER: 97-E-4220-0834 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 06/27/1997 C/
AGENCY RESPONSE: 07/22/1997-l ! ld
REVIEW CLOSED: 07/27/1997
,C)
i
Iu ? I_
-7 I 1 (y(1
APPLICPNT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Envircnmental Assessment U
DESC: Prcposed Improvements to I-40 from West of SR 1850 (Sandy idge Rd.) at
Kernersville to East of Holden Road at Greensboro; TIP #I-2201
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 91-E-4220-0217
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
ir_tergove=-:mental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS P_ RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: C
_I NO COMMENT
L?! COMMENTS ATTACHED
l
SIGNED BY:
DATE : l / 4---/r -
?D ?qq A-
V

,)N_ 16 1997
l

•1.?,,.. ,; TATS ? .,?:HOUc
LE C` EAR;NG
N199??
A-13

GUILFORD COUNTY
PLANMNG AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTTv ENT
August 12, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager r n
Planning and Environmental Branch
?=-
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201 r'Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR I-40 IMPROVEMENT FROM SANDY RIDGE ROAD (SR 1850)
TO EAST OF HOLDEN ROAD, GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT IR-40-3(76)20,
STATE PROJECT 8.1491601, TIP PROJECT I-2201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This letter is in response to the Intergovernmental Review
Process for this project.
Guilford County has strongly expressed its preference in previous
correspondence and conferences for Alternative 3 - Gallimore
Dairy Road Interchange - for the Bicentennial Greenway Crossing
of I-40.
We have recently discussed this matter with Doug Galyon, our
Board of Transportation representative, and John Watkins,
Division Engineer, and are awaiting the final decision on this
matter.
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated.
sincerely,
DeLacy.M. Wyman, AICP
Director of Planning
cc: Roger Cotten, County Manager
Jim Elza, Director, Planning and Development Department
Ann Wood, Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Post Office Box 3427 - Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Telephone: [phone]
A-14
ill
Office of the Mayor
City of Greensboro
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
r
GREENSBORO
July 18, 1997
?le. CJt?
r ,Y
319
z 9,7
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Interstate 40, From West of SR 1850
(Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville to East of Holden Road at Greensboro,
Guilford County, Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207, State Project
8.1491601, TIP Project I-2201
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment for the subject
proposed highway improvement. On behalf of the City of Greensboro and the Greensboro
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), please accept this letter in support of
the major findings contained in the document. Based on our review, we find no major
omissions or factual errors in the Environmental Assessment that would preclude a "Finding of
No Significant Impact." There are a few points, however, that deserve clarification. These
items are outlined below:
Page 20. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Currently reads:
"No alternate mode is considered to be a practical alternative. Highway transportation is the
dominant mode of transportation in the area... ...Alternatives to the automobile would not be
cost-effective in this area."
Alternatives to the automobile should and will be considered in the long-range as part of
the solution to the congestion problems on 1-40. On May 11, 1997, the Greensboro Urban Area
JVIPO approved the findings of a Major Investment Study for the 1-10 corridor, supporting the
conclusion that widening is the most practical alternative at this time. However, during the
approval process for the MIS, the NCDOT explicitly stated that the preferred alternative did not
prevent the consideration of other modes of transportation in the future. This statement was
made in response to concerns expressed by the Greensboro Transit Authority that alternative
strategies should be more closely examined. Therefore, we support our earlier position that
widening is the most practical alternative at this time, but alternatives to the automobile will be
an important consideration in long-term solutions.
4141 One Governmental Plaza, P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 [phone]
A-15
Page 24. The Piedmont Triad-Regional Transportation Study
Currently reads:
"Transportation officials from Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point, Randolph County,
Forsyth County, and Davidson County are developing a regional transportation plan... ...The
group's mission is to develop the plan to accommodate development in the area through the
year 2025."
The study is a joint effort between transportation officials from the Greensboro,
Winston-Salem and High Point Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in cooperation
with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and local land use planning agencies.
r
This includes the planning departments of Greensboro, High Point, Guilford Counry and the
Winton-Salem/Forsyth City/County Planning Board. Randolph and Davidson Counties are
only involved to the extent of their participation in the High Point MPO. The mission of the
study is "to provide a regional transportation planning process and a plan based on a selected
land use scenario for the Piedmont Triad. " To this end, the study is looking at alternative land
use and transportation scenarios to achieve the most efficient system. As a part of this plan, the
traffic model projections are carried to the year 2025.
Page 25. Neighborhood Characteristics and Social Impacts
Currently reads:
"There are 164,204 males and 183,216 females residing in Guilford County. In terms of racial
composition, there are..." -
In this paragraph, the phrase "there are" should be replaced with, "According to the
1990 census... " to clarify the fact that these are not current statistics.
These comments are minor clarifications of the facts contained in the Environmental
Assessment. They do not suggest the need to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
and would not preclude a "Finding of No Significant Impact." The City of Greensboro and the
Greensboro Urban Area MPO support this project, and the process to keep it on schedule.
Thank you for soliciting local government input on this matter.
Ii, Sincerely,
L
Caroly . Allen
Mayor, ity of Greensboro
Cc: Ann Wood, PTCOG
A-16

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
April 14, 1997
Richard Atkins, PE, Director
Greensboro 'Department of Transportation
Paul Koch, PE M,
Statewide Planning Branch
GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Major Investment Study (MIS) for I-40 from SR 1850 to west of SR 1358
(TIP I-2201) in Greensboro, Guilford County
Enclosed, please find a written discussion of the subject project as a major investment study (MIS). FHWA
has asked us to treat the I-2201 project as an MIS and consider alternatives (i.e. ride-sharing. transit, etc.) to
the proposed widening. The enclosed report discusses these alternatives and concludes that widening is the
best alternative to meet the purpose and need of project I-2201. It states several justifications for this
determination including the existing and projected volumes of traffic, adjacent improvements to I-40,
current transit facilities, and the project schedule.
As part of the MIS process, we need comments on the enclosed report from the Greensboro Transit
Authority (GTA) and approval, via resolution, of the report's conclusions by the Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC). In order to both include the consideration of I-2201 as an MIS in the Environmental
Document, and ensure that the current project schedule is not delayed, I am requesting that comments from
GTA be submitted to me by May 7, 1997. The comments should specifically address the report's
determination that widening is the best alternative. I would also like to request that this item be placed on
the TCC/TAC agenda for their scheduled meetinLy on May 20, 1997.
If you have any questions, please call me at 733-4705 extension 44.
enclosure
r4
cc!Ed Lewis, NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch w/enclosure
Carol Carter, NCDOT Public Transportation Division w/enclosure
Greensboro File

A-17
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY FOR INTERSTATE 40
FROM SR 1850 TO WEST OF SR 1398
IN GREENSBORO, TIP I-2201
A. Definition of a Major Investment Study
As part of the development of the long-range transportation plan, it is necessary to
fulfill the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). A Major Investment Study (MIS) is a planning too] that fuses the principles of
ISTEA and NEPA. Under the metropolitan planning regulations (23CFR 450 Subpart C)
the MIS focuses on corridor or subarea transportation demand and other problems that
may lead to a high type transit or highway investment with a substantial capital
investment or impact on the metropolitan transportation system.
The purpose of the MIS is to develop information about the likely impacts and
possible benefits of alternate transportation investment strategies at the corridor or
subarea level. The study should include all reasonable alternatives for addressing the
identified transportation purpose and need. Only those alternatives that have a reasonable
likelihood of being an effective solution or component should be carried forward in the
study. An MIS is a cooperative effort between the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), the Greensboro Transit Authority, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's Divisions of Highways and Public Transportation, and the
Federal Highway Administration.
B. Purpose and Need
Interstate 40 is of primary importance because it runs through North Carolina
connecting six of its urbanized areas including the Greensboro Urban Area. It also
connects North Carolina with Tennessee. Traffic on this facility is composed of both
intrastate trips and local trips inside the urban areas. Present truck percentages, historic
traffic growth rates, future traffic projections, and scheduled and recommended
construction projects along the I-40 corridor are all consistent with high levels of future
congestion.
The traffic volumes along I-40 within the I-2201 project limits increased 5.19c per
year to 81,600 vehicles per day (vpd) from 1990 to 1995. Traffic projections show
volumes ranging up to approximately 127,000 vpd in the year 2020 with the completion
of the urban loop projects.
It is anticipated that over 40% of that traffic will be through traffic or traffic with
neither end of the trip stopping inside the urban area. According to the 1994 NCDOT
Highway Traffic Statistics Report, I-40 between NC 68 and Wendover Avenue, presently
carries about 15% trucks.
A-18
_•'4/14/97
All of the factors above contribute to the need for improvement. The current
volume of traffic on this stretch of I-40 exceeds the highway's effective capacity, and the
demand volume is estimated to double by the design year. Finally, the high truck
percentage limits the effectiveness of some transportation improvement alternatives.
Each of the alternates considered in this document will be examined according to how
well it will resolve these problems.
C. Long-Range Transportation Plan
Federal regulations call for an MIS to be conducted as part of the long-range
transportation plan update. The last major update of the Greensboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan was completed in 1989 prior to the MIS requirement becoming
w effective. However, the long-range plan update included extensive public involvement,
and analyses of projected traffic volumes, travel patterns, safety, air quality, freight
movement, etc. Revisions to this plan, primarily based on as-built or as-planned projects,
have been made as recently as 1996.
This plan is also being updated as part of the Triad Regional Transportation Plan.
This will be a comprehensive transportation plan evaluating alternative transportation
improvements for the entire Triad Region. During this update, principal roadways such
as I-40 will undergo detailed analysis for various modal travel options.
0
D. Air Quality
The most recent Regional emissions analysis of the Transportation Plan was
conducted in 1995 using a future transportation network that included the programmed
widening of I-40 (specifically the I-2201 project). The emissions analysis found the
Transportation Plan was in conformance with the State Implementation Plan for
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Greensboro
Urban Area MPO approved the FY 1997-2003 TIP on July 9, 1996. The USDOT made a
conformity determination on the Transportation Plan and FY 1997-2003 TIP on
December 24, 1996.
E. Alternate Strategies Considered
Each of these six strategies were examined, either in the planning study or in this
document, to see if they met the purpose and need of the project.
1. Do Nothing--The traffic volumes on I-40 near the planning area have been
growing at a rate of 5.1 % per year. If no improvements are made, other than what is
scheduled in the 1996 State Transportation Improvement Program, traffic volumes on
I-40 are projected to be as high as 127,000 vpd by the year 2020..
2. Transportation Demand Management--There is a transportation demand
management (TDM) agency, Ridesharing Vanpool Services of the Piedmont (RSVP),
which serves the entire study area. TDM measures such as vanpooling and employer-
sponsored flex times can have a positive effect on peak hour home-to-work trips along
the subject corridor. But, due to the significant existing and projected traffic volumes
A-19
4/14/97
along I-40, and the fact that a large portion of this traffic is either through trips or trucks
spread over the entire day, TDM would not reduce enough trips to negate the need for
widening. TDM should be encouraged, however, and will most likely be considered as
regional planning becomes more established in the Triad.
3. Transit Service--The Greensboro Transit Authority's existing bus routes primarily
serve radial trips into and out of the downtown area and do not serve as an alternate to
I-40 for regional and through traffic. The programmed high speed rail improvements are
underway between Raleigh dnd Charlotte and follow the I-85 corridor. The high speed
rail corridor does not provide an alternative to I-40 west of Greensboro. Because of the
nature of the existing and planned transit system, the current funding limits, the high
number of through trips and trucks on I-40, and the timing of this project, major local
transit alternatives are not considered to be a reasonable strategy for solving or
significantly impacting the present transportation problems of I-40. They will, however,
be examined in the new Triad Regional Plan.
4. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes--An investigation into the viability of HOV lanes
for I-40 through the planning area shows that an insufficient number of vehicles will be
removed from the traffic stream to warrant separate travel lanes. For example:
If the above-mentioned 127,000 future"?lehicles per day and a 10 percent peak
hour percentage factor were used there would be a possible 12,700 vehicles on the
highway during each peak hour. The majority of the HOV users would be on the
highway during the peak hour. Travel surveys conducted during the development of the
Triad regional model indicated that the average vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) for home-
to-work trips in the area is 1.12. This would make 14,224 persons during each Peak hour.
Adding these gives 28,448 persons making trips during the peak hours of the day. An
October 1987 HOV lane study by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas stated that two successful HOV programs, the Shirley Highway Expressway in
Washington D.C. and the El Monte Busway in Los Angeles, move at least 30 percent of
the total person-trip movement on the freeway from the mainline freeway lanes to the
HOV lane. Therefore, there would be a possible 4,267 persons transferred to the HOV
lanes during each peak hour in this analysis. To determine the number of vehicles
removed, each peak hour should be divided by the respective VOR. These two numbers
can be added together to give the total number of vehicles, 7,620, that shift from the total
ADT into the HOV lanes. If that number were subtracted from the ADT there would still
be 119,380 vehicles in the original four freeway travel lanes. This remaining volume is
almost double the 60,000 vpd maximum capacity for a four-lane freeway.
5. New Facilities--The Greensboro Area is developing rapidly. Both residential and
commercial development are consuming available land. This section of I-40 is bounded
by fairly dense development. The programmed Greensboro Outer Loop also connects
with I-40 in the project corridor. Because of the lack of open land and the potential for
significant disruption to existing development, construction of new-location facilities
parallel to I-40 are not a desirable solution to the capacity problems.
3

A-20
I-2201 MIS. Greensboro
4/14/97
6. Adjacent Projects--I-40 east of Greensboro is currently under construction and is
being widened to 8 lanes. The I-40 bypass around Winston-Salem to the west was
completed in 1993. Also as previously mentioned, the programmed Outer Loop will
include an interchange with I-40 between Chimney Rock Road and Guilford College
Road. This will result in 9 interchanges along a 10.9 mile section of the interstate. 1-40
through the Greensboro Area is currently only a four-lane freeway cross section. Even
with these existing and proposed projects, the congestion problems on I-40 will still exist.
7. Widening--Traffic forecasts show that I-40 will experience congestion by the year
2020 and carry up to approximately 127,000 vpd. This is much higher than the 60,000
vpd capacity recommended for the design of a four-lane freeway facility from the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual. It is also higher than the suggested 80,000 vpd for a six-lane
freeway facility.
F. Conclusions
After considering all the above alternatives it was determined that widening the
facility would be the best course of action because:
1. If nothing is done, the anticipated traffic will overburden the existing facility and
increase congestion and reduce safety on the facility.
2. A significant portion of the present travel on this facility is through traffic. A
high percentage is also truck traffic. Neither of these travel types are conducive to
travel management within the planning area. The existing local bus system does
not serve the type of travel that would contribute to significant travel 'eduction
along I-40. A regional bus system or express local bus for targeted commuters
could contribute some congestion relief to this corridor, particularly in peak hours,
but would still not negate the need for widening addresses by the I-2201 project.
3. From the cursory analysis for high occupancy lanes, there would not be enough
vehicles or riders transferred out of the main traffic stream to warrant the addition
of extra lanes. However, as future conditions prompt examination of further
improvements, more detailed analysis of HOV lanes should be considered in the
alternatives analysis.
4. Due to existing development and the lack of available land, no new highway-type
facilities can be reasonably accommodated along the existing I-40 corridor
through the urbanized area. There would be extensive environmental and socio-
economic damage to the area if a major new facility with a wide right-of-way is
introduced.
5. The existing interstate projects on either end of the subject section will cause a
bottle-neck effect through the area, decreasing travel safety and increasing
congestion. The new.interchange will increase the number of weaving sections
through the area also reducing safety along the four-lane section. Adjacent
A-21
I-2201 MIS, Greensboro
4/14/97
projects will not significantly decrease the volume of traffic on the interstate
through the area.
6. The approximate 127,000 vpd is higher than both the four-lane and six-lane
recommended capacities in the Highway Capacity Manual.
7. Transportation Demand Management strategies such as vanpools, carpools, and
park-and-ride facilities, should be examined both locally and regionally along this
segment of I-40. These TDM strategies would not negate the need for
improvements, but should be examined in long range transportation plans.
This document serves as the Major Investment Study (MIS) for I-40 through the
Greensboro Area. It identifies the reasonable alternatives and strategies studied for the
I-40 corridor and reports on the alternative selected for the corridor. The selected
alternative will be carried forward into the project development stage where a NEPA
document will be prepared.
G. Coordination
This document may be incorporated into the planning document for this project by
the Planning and Environmental Branch of NCDOT. This MIS reflects a cooperative
effort between the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
the Greensboro Transit Authority, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
Divisions of Highways and Public Transportation, and the Federal Highway
Administration. The correspondence from the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, the
Greensboro Transit Authority, and the NCDOT Public Transportation Division are
attached. n ot- I n
A-22
c ST T[a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIVISION GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Poole, Ph.D., P.E., Manager, Statewide Planning Branch
From: Sanford Cross, Director, Public Transportation Division S?,k
Subject: Major Investment Study for I-40 Widening Project (TIP I-2201) in the
Greensboro Urban Area
The Public Transportation Division has reviewed the above referenced study-and has the
following comments:
1) We recognize that this study is being conducted in the late stages of planning
for facility improvements (in conjunction with the North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program), therefore it is difficult to make recommendations which will
have impact on the project already planned for implementation. We also realize that
there will probably be further need for multi-modal improvements in this corridor in the
future and wish to monitor the corridor and all planning projects to increase the I-40
corridor carrying capacity.
2) We would like to address the High Occupancy Vehicle issue again as the
urban area begins to look at multi-modal solutions for further carrying capacity in this
corridor. The methodology presented in this major investment study is somewhat
simplistic in its effort to determine the future effectiveness of HOV on the I-40 corridor.
The Division recognizes that we need to work with the Statewide Planning Branch in
determining an appropriate methodology in evaluating the effectiveness of HOV
facilities. The Division would be willing to share in the undertaking of this activity so
that we can have an agreement on a better methodology for future studies.
Given these findings, the Public Transportation Division believes that the subject study
has sufficiently investigated alternative transportation modes for the presently
programmed widening of I-40 (TIP I-2201) as proposed in the Greensboro Urban Area
and the 1997 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program. We will retain the
opportunity to re-evaluate other multi-modal opportunities in the corridor as further
planning through the MPO or the Piedmont Triad Region monitors the surrounding area
PHONE [phone]--}715 F. k\ (c)11'1733-1.391 A-24
Dr. Ron Poole, P.E.
8/13/97
Thank you for the opportunity to work with your staff, and to comment on this study.
We look forward to working on all of the major investment studies listed in your
program of work in the future.
If you have any questions, please contact Carol Carter, at 733-4713, extension 226.
STC\cac
CC: Mr. Paul Koch, P.E., SWP
Mr. Richard Atkins, P.E., City of Greensboro
2
A-25
i?
. r.
U_
-s:
-_+ N
? r N
?z
:.o
CO
o
¢ N
0 o
n ? n
U) N
Z?U
?C1Z
C7 a
h
Om
} Z
~ W
U w
C7
iJ
P?
r
?J
0
A-26

RESOLUTION
Resolution Concerning the Major Investment Study for the Widening of I-40 in Guilford
County (TIP No. I-2201)
WHEREAS A Major Investment Study (MIS) is a federal legislative requirement of the 1991
, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); and
'WHEREAS The MIS requires the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
, coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), transit operators, and
4 local decision-makers in deciding on the design concept and scope for a corridor/subarea .
major investment; and
WHEREAS The widening of I-40 from SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) to west of SR 1398 (Freeman
, Mill Road) is programmed in the FY 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as project number I-2201; and
WHEREAS The selection of widening as the preferred alternative in the MIS is specific to the scope
, and schedule of the I-2201 project and does not preclude consideration of other
alternatives in future planning ; and
WHEREAS, The NCDOT is in the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
I-2201 project; and
WHEREAS, The NCDOT commits to providing the Greensboro Urban Area MPO the-opportunity to
review and comment on the preliminary draft EA.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this 20th day of May, 1997 by the Transportation Advisory
Committee of the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization that widening existing I-
40 from SR 1850 to west of SR 1398 is the preferred alternative to satisfy the purpose and need of the TIP
I-2201 project.
J
Mayor Carol33''i7?;5. Allen, Chairperson
Transportatiofl Advisory Committee
I do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the excerpts from the minutes of the
Transportation Advisory Committee of said City. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the
Transportation Advisory Committee this the 20th day of May, 1997.
,t
q OJ, n r
Notary Public
MIJ ?'Cx6-a3-9-17

A-27

sat 1'??
1* ? S .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
H. F. VICK, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. 1'.0. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR June 18, 1997 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM G
TO: Secretary Garland Garrett, Jr.
FROM: C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E. ?j
Manager
Citizens Participation Unit
2
RE: . Notice of a Prehearing Open House and a Public Hearing on
Improvements to 1-40 from West of SR 1850, Sandy Ridge
Road, to East of Holden Road in Greensboro
The following Notice is furnished for your information:

JUN 1 10, 1997

1-2201: Under this project, it is proposed to widen existing 1-40 to six and eight
lanes with auxiliary lanes in several locations.
CBGjr:cdh
cc: Mr. J. Douglas Galyon, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Ron Poole
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Henry Moon, III, Right of Way Agent
FHWA

A-28 (9
NOTICE OF A PREHEARING OPEN HOUSE AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON IMPROVEMENTS TO 1-40 FROM WEST OF SR 1850, SANDY RIDGE ROAD,
TO EAST OF HOLDEN ROAD IN GREENSBORO
Project 8.1491601 1-2201 Guilford County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above public
hearing on July 22, 1997 at 7:00 PM in the Ben L. Smith High School Auditorium,
2407 South Holden Road, Greensboro.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed alternate locations,
right of way requirements and procedures, relocation advisory assistance, and the
Federal-State relationship. The hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions, comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining to the proposed project.
Additional materials may be submitted for a period of 15 days from the date of the
hearing to: C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
A prehearing open house will be held on July 8, 1997 between the hours of
4 PM and 7 PM in the Ben L. Smith High School cafeteria. Department of
Transportation representatives will be present to answer questions and receive
comments regarding this project. Interested individuals may attend this informal open
house at their convenience during the above hours. There will be no formal session
held at this open house. An opportunity to register to speak at the public hearing will
also be provided.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen existing 1-40 to six and eight lanes
with auxiliary lanes in several locations. In addition, interchanges, bridges, and service
lanes will be modified as needed to accommodate the widening and to meet current
design standards. Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses
will be required because of the widening.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
A copy of the Environmental Assessment and a map setting forth the proposed
location and design are available for public review at the Department of
Transportation's Division Office at 1584 Yanceyville Street in Greensboro. A copy of
the Environmental Assessment is also available at each of the nine Guilford County
Public Libraries. .
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the meeting to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] to provide adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements can be made.
PLEASE NOTIFY ANY TENANTS WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.
A-29
INTERSTATE 40
July 22, 1997
A-30
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
Present truck percentages, historic traffic growth rates and future traffic
projections, continued local development, and scheduled and recommended
construction projects along the Interstate 40 corridor all indicate future traffic
congestion. A large portion of this traffic is through traffic since I-40 connects six of
North Carolina's urban areas. These factors indicate the need for improvements.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's procedure for
including the public as apart of the project's planning process. The Department of
Transportation is soliciting your views on the location and design of widening
Interstate 40 between Sandy Ridge Road and Holden Road.
The Department of Transportation's views of the above are set forth in the
Environmental Assessment. Copies of this report have been and are available at
the Division Seven Office on Yanceyville Street in Greensboro.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here you are urged to participate by making your
comments and/or questions a part of the Official Public Hearing Transcript. This
may be done by having them recorded here tonight, writing them on the comment
sheet and leaving it with a Department of Transportation representative here
tonight or by submitting them in writing during the 15 days following the public
hearing to:
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E.
Public Hearing Officer
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important,
however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN.
Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the
alignment and design by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
All spoken and written comments received through the public involvement process
will be thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered before any final decisions are
made.
A-31
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This is a proposed Federal-aid Highway Project and will be constructed under the
Federal-aid Highway Program. Funding for this project will be 80% from Federal
funds and 20% from State funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for
the selection, scheduling, location, design, and construction of the project. The
Board is responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the roadway after it is built.
The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of
the previously mentioned activities to ensure that the project is designed and
constructed to Federal-aid standards.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 9.3 miles
Typical Section: From Sandy Ridge Road to the future Greensboro Western
Urban loop (near the existing Chimney Rock Road):
Four lanes in each direction divided by a raised concrete barrier.
From the future Greensboro Western Urban Loop to Holden
Road:
Three lanes in each direction divided by a raised-concrete
barrier.
In addition, auxiliary lanes will be provided in both directions
between NC 68 and Patterson Avenue.
Right of Way: The proposed right of way width will vary with construction
easements in some locations to contain construction.
Relocations: 8 residences
8 businesses
Estimated Costs: Construction: $63,200,000
Right of Way: $19.254.000
$82,454,000
Schedule: From Sandy Ridge Road to east of Chimney Rock Road:
Right of Way Acquisition - October, 1997
Let to Contract - October, 1998
From east of Chimney Rock Road to Holden Road:
A?
Right of Way Acquisition - r, 1997
Let to Contract - February, 19
B
All schedules are based on the availability of funds.

A-32
4
L
R
W
Ec ?c
D N A O
'f" G L
7 r?"?y y
b N
Es
EE
u ? v
y
L
m
W 3 °= dt
r /1 v N
U Ea cc:
V 1 ?
O
V 1 ° '" F t
O ? Vl
EE
` O N
V N ?
Ec
m
N
??
(v, ?
~y Ec
_ ?.
Q EE D
?v
O EE
O N
> v1 ?... d L
N
a
R
1-1
I m.
O
C
as

1.
N
N
z3
o0 -
W c
V
_U
a
O
O
Wa
z O
Q .?
R
O
a
_U v
Mc
W
'O
C
to
O
W
s
F
It;
L
a
O
C
?o
O
u
m
Ec
w_
M
E
?O N
Al ?,
Ec
'O N
rf `
?D N1
E c'
Ec
.O _
Ec
?O
n v,
Ec
i
Ec
?O N
Ec
b
? v
L

R G
L ?
m
1
'9

O
O
o
oj
G
u
_ O

Z Y Q =
CZS
?
L t
V:

L C
v. -7 N
ffQ.. 6J

? o
v

C7
Q?
G
G
O
G.

u
L r
N
A-33
COMMENT SHEET
Interstate 40 from West of Sandy Ridge Road to East of Holden Road
Combined Public Hearing
I-2201 Project 8.T491604 Guilford County
July 22, 1997
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:

Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-34
0/-IL
July 9,1997
1-2201 Pre-Public Hearing
Approximately 50 people came by with an additional 15 NCDOT staff on hand to
answer questions. Boardmember Doug Galyon was there. Greensboro Mayor
Carolyn Allen was there and she wanted to know the status of the proposed
Bicentennial Greenway crossing of Interstate 40. 1 briefed her.
The majority of comments dealt with the closure of Merritt Drive for -18 months,
but Mike Cowan noted that the structure could be built and open to traffic in 12
to 15 months. One gentleman asked about the possibility of extending the
proposed noise wall on the north side of Interstate 40 further west to buffer his
yet to be built house. I told him that even if there was an existing house in that
location that more than likely it would be considered an isolated receptor.
Therefore, a noise wall would not be warranted. I suggested that he submit any
questions or comments about the project to Public Involvement using the form
distributed at the hearing. There were other comments, and I guess Carl will get
those out to us.
The Greensboro News and Record was there as was WFMY-TV. There were no
"hot button" issues, but Craig McKinney of the Greensboro DOT said Mayor
Allen might be considering a new culvert crossing of Interstate 40 for the
greenway. I told Craig that would be the worst alternative to propose.
The meeting ended promptly at 7:00 PM and the Public Hearing is scheduled for
July 22.

A7`1f6117 MeTL6-

4
A-35
INTERSTATE 40
From West of Sandy Ridge Road to East of Holden Road
Project No. 8.T491604
TIP No. I-2201
Guilford County
Prehearing Open Douse
Ben L. Smith High School
July 8, 1997
T
0
A-36
PURPOSE OF PREHEARING OPEN HOUSE
Welcome to today's prehearing open house for Project 1-2201, proposed improvements
to 1-40 between Sandy Ridge Road and Holden Road. The purpose of this open house
is to acquaint you with the details of the project and to provide you with the opportunity
to ask questions about the project prior to the upcoming formal public hearing.
Department of Transportation representatives are here to answer questions and take
your comments regarding this project. There is also a comment sheet attached to this
handout on which you may submit written comments. Comments presented at this
function will be reviewed and considered the same as the spoken and written
comments received at the formal public hearing.
PROJECT NEED
Interstate 40 is of primary importance because it runs in an east and west direction
through North Carolina, connecting six of its urbanized areas, including the Greensboro
Urban Area. Traffic on this facility is composed of both through trips and local trips
within the urban area. Present truck percentages, historic traffic growth rates and
future traffic projections, continued local development; and scheduled and
recommended construction projects along the Interstate 40 corridor all indicate future
traffic congestion.
The traffic volumes along Interstate 40 within the project limits range from 52,000
vehicles per day east of Holden Road to over 95,000 vehicles per day west of the
proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop. By the year 2020, these volumes are
expected to reach 74,000 and 127,000 vehicles per day at those locations.
Approximately 40% of this traffic will be through traffic with truck traffic comprising
approximately 24% of the overall traffic.
All of these factors add to the need for improvement. The current traffic volumes on the
portion of Interstate 40 exceeds the highway's effective capacity. In the future,
conditions are expected to become worse as traffic volumes increase.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is proposed to make improvements to a 9.3 mile section of 1-40. The proposed
section from Sandy Ridge Road to the future Greensboro Western Urban Loop (near
the existing Chimney Rock Road interchange) will be a basic eight lane median divided
facility using a raised concrete jersey type median. From this location to Holden Road
the cross section will consist of a six lane median divided. facility with a jersey type
median barrier. In addition, auxiliary lanes will be provided in both directions between
NC 68 and Patterson Avenue.
A-37
monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage
increases, increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program
is available to assist business owners. Your Relocation Agent can explain this
assistance in greater detail.
THE PUBLIC HEARING
A formal public hearing will be held for this project on July 22, 1997 in the auditorium of
this facility. The hearing is held to solicit and gather public comments regarding this
project. It is not held to be a public debate between citizens and Department of
Transportation personnel or a debate among citizens with opposing views. It is held in
a formal setting and will be recorded so that a record is made. You may register to
speak at this hearing at today's prehearing open house or just prior to the public
hearing. Those who do not register will also be given the opportunity to speak. In
addition, the opportunity for written comments will be provided. These comments will
be received for a minimum of 15 days after the hearing and will be reviewed and
addressed as though they were spoken at the hearing.
t
A-38
COMMENT SHEET
Interstate 40 from West of Sandy Ridge Road to East of Holden Road
Prehearing Open House
I-2201 Project 8.T491604 Guilford County
July 8, 1997
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COIVIlVIENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-39

)a.:•
D
D
i

iW
t
NOTICE OF A PREHEARING OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC
HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS TO 1.40 FROM WEST
OF SR 1850, SANDY RIDGE ROAD, TO EAST OF
HOLDEN ROAD IN GREENSBORO
Project 83491604 1-2201 Guilford bounty
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the
above public hearing on July 22,1997 at 7:00 PM in the Ben L Smith
High School Auditorium, 2407 South Holden Road, Greensboro.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed alter- 1
nate locations, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and the Federal-State relationship. The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions, comments,
and/or submittal of material pertaining to the proposed project. Addi-
tional materials may be submitted for a period of 15 days from the
date of the hearing to: C.B. Goode, Jr., P.E. at P.O. Box 25201, Ra-
leigh, NC 27611.
A prehearing open house will be held on July 8, 1997 between
the hours of 4 PM and 1 PM in the Ben L Smith High School cafeteria.
Department of Transportation representatives will be present to an-
swer questions and receive'comments regarding this project. Inter-
ested individuals may attend this informal open house at their con-
venience during the above hours. There will be no formal session
held at this open house. An opportunity to register to speak at the
public hearing will also be provided.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen existing 1-40 to six
and eight lanes with auxiliary lanes in several locations. In addition,
interchanges, bridges, and service lanes will be modified as needed
to accommodate the widening and to meet current design standards.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses
will be required because of the widening.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C.B.
Goode, Jr., P.E.at P.O. box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone 919-
250-4092.
A copy of the Environmental Assessment and a map setting forth
the proposed location and design are available for public review at
the Department of Transportation's Division Office at. 1584
Yanceyville Street in Greensboro. A copy of the Environmental As-
sessment is also available at each of the nine Guilford County Public
Libraries.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary'aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the meeting to comply with the
American Disabilities Act. To receive special services, please contact
Mr. Goode at the above address or phone number or fax 919-250-
4208 to provide adequate notice'prior to the date of the hearing so
that arrangements can be made.
?=?•`-rte. a•« ,.w,..

I
` ;,p n• urn! 9 .? t •O C?-: , .• •rt'. :l.l.?: ?•,,_,.
' mM°::
tzh trl ? 7r ro 1
t-+ 't rD :
t
ry. i
.n' t:r C O C :1. 114' O rr* IL
F1 .cFP, a - . , 0
•?:
-h in. ro r
' w . M ado' pC
0-409
00 is b tn.
QI , 1 1' ?.p
rr. E;
-y aq p O ry to ro O ro J4
(y ry . ...o r(?q;
t- El
la. RA M 0
IQ M. 01) 4 0
rwrp Cc) 0'y rs
A. O -0 ?j ..M 0 CA:.. ...0 ... ,. ,'
p rr Cr
'A, 2
& 81: In. 0
Or* n rn rGiN C:o t r ?:
a?o•v?'G? ?: alp
CI) M I T:
5* CD
Q. m 15F
°••.?7drow: @ G opc
n.°'oOwrnaoC m
RDb Q''k1 pyi'ro0 ....A.,rt?.,, N•,Q C ..: ,is
!C.b+ p'h ff., Fr pi?' O.: pl ?'s:Fi!Ii .41 n ff:psrow 'w'
o A. Iraq C ° 0. (FQ f1. t? M.
y t ' is
121
aC p'?
y H N. G? •R oapg. rn N'C•1°'E+p ?•:.
C,
E0 0 -0,,
ri D
0
VrA!
O N . Vn p, r07 (o Ia. O. R rJ*.
.0 -1 0
0 CD (D
0 4.5 A 5.
..ro aybo oro ::, s.
E; M E;
c' n t7 R. m ,°, w p 0 W F;
1%0
03
CA En
o ro 2.•c Cr E4. r. o
O N Cr ?w y y G
y
kq?? '*.o
ro tr to ?• O p' (?D
Q•cpit C ° o.m p .. G 0 I''•
En p. In 0
?•. (D ?• ' y rw•?rpr'C l'YD
w b w to q' tj y ty
y y ?
O
c
%
)
'a.
G (p n '?'
`
C ,
,..,
ro ,' y
G?.
Vt' ' 00 W o
yy

F
' []• ° .y-' Q.'Q• to
p
C nn?
ro ° w'
N
O(D
to
r
' -
D G
tn tr•
'ty p r• F1 ,
rr M
(D
f4
,n rf ro ro
° •O '.] En tn' . y
m
R.
(O p
pt?
L+•
O rt ?. N CD y
?O ..
y y R A." CD
ITJ fD f
Q O p 'N O
O
p y to
'
C a
q N
O o ;
."
a .
v (t)- 11 ;o

O y w `C ?... ?, .._ ?n?c' A. , ? __ ,? n , ? ,? p.,. y A w o, `.'1 (7 "'O `r' i (•? (o ,?' o ?, ' •o "?' 'a• p ;U ?' . ? ?• % f? . -
7li,?• o c ro • .?t'•??•c Cw y o w 0 .? ?a.?•n' ?:: '° y ro
°wp,•C_1-3 11?'Owt(GDoow'p wNwto:3 q°'?? 7wP4 9 P?.n° vyroiy? ° 14 M,- p,',O w Pr-,A3 . can p.yjyw,d`C.o ,?
?? p ? n (an in (°qD p ?-'v' ro ?,??C(;, C,% H (pi?'(°D''?:.ro ro M ?Ou1 K c (D ?°w 7o,?'. 0 trop ON ?y o pt.m .H(o'„rop.!p o ro m ?mph
roro ?y to .•. w 1. oo ro : r+ w ' rn+t ; "+ 'C ; M.!It o w d w - . p. 1" tr C ,... D y (?'
R? (oc•?? (?'i,(Dr. cD E (orn tyro
o?o ?p ti o o m t:h p. =
(D Cn Cr pro ro o??. •c p:tnp°•:w .
7dporoM0WtrEn to rorot?oro? o. ?,v;o?n c, (^ zroyro rx.
p
oto p'e oo ••r.ro y.+ 0l... w,, ...??'wa.;q E? ro ro o rr y?-. C b;
p p?t7 cLO w ? ro Fn' f-.`''.?rro ro rn Pi », cD
M 3 ?'ro _w ?p CLa p 47O y ro O El
(D'?
0. r. w `C p, t3. C ,: (D y .,, . ro b O pOq n p O Ei rn O ro n? K rte' ry m (], C f1 N N „°,, tY M O p
x l}t" ?'(OD ty p ,,,, 'o fr ?'T.'ro ??jv,,?? w oo? cr(D. 0 (D
Cr o :c1? o Fi'
ry
.+ C 0 00 Q ffo ' . C ro i? r?11 to N lD to p. y °
a. o O a " (o' is °. t,. n ro c w '' ro •. rt In ty d ro y C o o m p ro I ta' 1 t p, r.- •'t,1,-`
ro p o-r : I q y N O p ry n ?O N H m .-•`C Q, Vt n0 :t. C A n P p° a', ' p p L] ,G .
G p' ro ?• G ° 7? CD. ro w o o c' N a4 ro ro O pas o• .?aq C p .. y ro .. tp pp? C tr O .w aq
o F.o aq O p roaq O r p4J, p ro °p•w p ro ro Pt ro n ro 's ro ro y b'n C ro ,. F• „
`n tnA? .. (,p tinb?•[y(D(D GAS r: r~ otn ror'i?' o ror°.?Kp•?p°
' .. O w' rooro°row?fcn O't?Irro? q? rower ?_ w roro
ty - O r•r ..y p' to H<y•:.,:. Cr.C.N. .
O ,..:.?•R.(?D•°? O O `C ro ro p•p w o O? ?ro CT ?1.;7.y H
?Y n pu.~' t•+ro w p tiT'r,?''y n• 9• lD•rfD•rr~ :1.n'C7 ?, (D O':. ?f O.?C O O yI w.
to ro ty aift N:M'17 ?,r? (D (D ,`p:• p. ('l •p•('1 :OaQC•? .?: .:
?j p•
°' ' w ro , r P .? , r o (D (D. R. ".. p to p tp ?1 :; (D_
y w ro
y y G18. c o r• o- oa ° rn ro ro p, (D
m (Da
C3 D. -0 ? a aq n o y.
C p? ?y y O ro, . p C °y. ro p. ?• .? ,-. ?`C w `? ro i w ?3} N ". C5 C oq'. y !::°. p•1.:., .
M * o w .b tr ryi t7C O it] ro p oq ro ? ?- "' (? 7.p ? C . °o O ro ° ..
0
N '""•i o' r+ y n ?.... p7 ro .?•. O e-r O ??•' to (n O' w (D Y rn to (n 0 g C .-•• p? C? C
' ro o a 7.' ro a to A 'D C.•+o0 • 3 rt o 0 . (n 0 (D G (D En W to t cD v, o to o. (D y ro [] P rC G rr
z
N

M
0
a
?-t

.i
S.
4

i
Y
cn
c!)
N
cn.

c!]
U
b?.A

.o _

;.
p
Qa
Q p? ?aa J
..
pb uepIo .
:. cn.
co
H

T d d ?
?

LL-
6y
py

8461/ion

_ GO
c a

m

r
? -
11.84) '441) Nu
0 A) co w cu
m ''D •d y y' U '•' O n o +'
cATJA U'C7 O y' c'' w
ccc'v
cu 93
U C p o 72
rC aC+ Ua+
X bp ax) C."
C y r C o O y R c
E co...U81 ?c-o?cc3'aD
CO cc o
3?3aSbZ eobD n??o.YC
O> C a, o O
c• 3
O c w CL
0 (U
(D co CU
CCsC. c ca W
5 0 a) (U ca t &.'v
c a) c? ? 30 ?n:. ca a a
oooocou c:2Yooom6,6
m
cuoW'. in oto
cEa•v°a)? 384) cs.a)
3OEI.,UUca =-Q)c- U
U2 0 Q) .c a) Y Y r O c
>+w 1 bDS _? Y fr ..0.
o N ((! o Y E c a)
C C Y Y Q) y,, '?
A is ca G o b bbp co C° L ..U . N o
a ++ O '> 'U v' u O c p U bD O G
cu cu 0 o co
?+a)
in aoi o ° E
CZ ca a n yCU U o ?.> c' a)
m 3E" bn°z c y.?
o e
00 . to COD O
y c .'tn O c_ y .:L O Y
C Q oC C cu -cE:E U .= ;-? o O c DD
Uw v) R Y U 3E-+ 3.5
a)
.c O %. v so, c 0 o p fl O O O O e?a?a?l C d s. c' y'O O b•ti GCc, •C C
Y - c.; " 3 +C-' O y yw,r w co CG. 840+ ' O U Q) Q > C Y C C h 847 a)
r? U •o... o a) c c c
cYWc -0= ?bD 0-0 s,> l °oo^f?;a?3 arc
co x a) . c c U=, c o bD a) O a) a) m y O a) >, •o cu
f.. ^ c •? .C
° w o 0 += + •c ?, O o R 'cc ca m a) .? Q) En
?• y? o c, Y y w a) >, a) 3 c C a)
bD' >' to C S cu i o O "co C 3 O tOa a) L7 ca r. ~- a) CO c9 y .> cu cu v°i w C C o
c mc. °3a?,a) wc°a 000.".?i7?Aoc.Gcawow
v) C F 3..,°«. cW ° o s0. 0, n C' 91. E- c?^a ° ca
IL) O - te a ob y C `°- " Ey U C- ° i >, Q )cc u d W U y O G y
a? 00.
cts o o a 0, E c,OC c E o mw•c>-. M
o0 o a) v ?CZ U o cba-~o
o c o >a cc `"? a) a?a; ?°, 3 m? ?o c $ 3ta ao ° o cA cci•o ?o
.c •- ...
m? eDGL y
cu >. 0 "o
y ?r+ Y
CZ .0 0 (U cu co
° 0 :3 cc c°i 3
o 0 0 (U (D (V CU CU
cn cn. c C 'C c. v > 3 0' o Y c "" Y v sU..° i CD
:u xA`_.o U?,oo 0.0 vi c a o a
0 r cu 0 Cc cu 0-
U3 ca
a) Z ?'?3aEpn CcaEc?.>U'?Y?cUa)
cu O N a°. 84)-0 cu G c>'tl N c UA ooh-, .0 U
O -0.0 1. ° x > c E. w
Qay, ?n o 3,c o c n arc U•.,_ ca c O
cu 3 -A=U2? cooob"o°?°.nca?(?cdo
h «S a) Co O O O O cu a tC„ '? v) sa'. O O
U vi a) LL Y a) O O bD E U V1 0
V) n v p. y C+J a mac,, 00 r? ? ?o Y o >sYi 0 4w. cu 0
j. i W Uy
a) 6 a; ) y 3 oY v) Co c cx a°iv°_ o c 841_1? cu ai c> e j
a ?s°1.y??ROa)?'^ ocaNO?o0?c'ami0oa
?'.b a? W °)-0U oCvic°).a0 a??c?xaa)i•?°°3
O" O O.? >4 ? A --' ? co SwF ? ? o a.c o? oa try -c bDC u
v, °: 0
V3 u a W . x n 3 c U ?x 3 c 3 cafe oES
A-41
1
Y
1

FIGURES

M
Bus t,
)
?a \\ BEGIN
"e PROJECT= 4
1850 ?? -
- - ?? 1695
/ 4
' o
tl •u
c w I h
v ? I I
I
t.. i ? u ? 9 R \ \\
(
- SEE ?
1833
a
M
Y?/` ~ J /r I ? ? I - ?? ICI \`
MATCHLINE - "
- - ' IM Regional Road ` j' I fl I
1 All
L n I ?' it ,, (I) ?' \
• Ia ,I °? Ins Its I :`. ?
h ICI I / g (> \
Cliz
ri 4 I+ I I„ °CA 40
adj
to I: ' :_ .? ° / ' ? ? •.r• 11 f,
_ ?+ I> ! I I
.. Iii: • I;i i,? I / r I ` I _
D. Oill,
OIQI
I ti
o m
C- z
\ n / I
i o QQ ` L I
A % ' N
CD :3 !(l '
X ! I ??
0
n 1 \
1s

(i)
oor
2! Eiv A
e?OO0
b
N
C Z rn ?
p
Y •?-170
'
-1r*+DZ? n?O?x
a oOOmN
10 0 x2:2
0ba

- ")0 <COO
oO?
N° 0 100
dxyr.
?
+Zmm^i
Mn?
Z'4D „a
w .c

6
c oN2?

0 +
0 (A

?
%
M

x G)
T m
"1 z
m
ry-
1' I
iftlw
I I \ \ II`

lit

cc,
i °
100,
Z ??
O
W &M ?-.
M, Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
A Cyndi Bell (DOT)
O Greg Price (airports, COE)
O Steve Kroeger (utilities)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/HQw)
O
* Toxicology
O Larry Ausley
O
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section

Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)?p, `
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Coleson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th) O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
11?
?p
RE. -r-7- qo
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any,
by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE: -'
? NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo.doc
. -Ilk
r 9
me -state 40
From West of SR 1850 (San4'v Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Read at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.1491601
TIP Project 1-2201 R I ?Ci
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
640-97 Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
1? 97
Da a Nich s L. Graf, P. E.
?VtDivision Administrator, FHWA
it 4
Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.1491601
TIP Project 1-2201
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
June,1997
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
l?r?.Gt1Z?
Ed Lewis
•q•,???
Project Planning Engineer ???pa•••
CA Ro
J. ils Stroud i $ E AL
?
Project Planning Unit Head 's 6 916
r
r /
41, K-- IN
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager '•., V. PREP;`
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT ???•""""'r
Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number IMF-40-3(84)207
State Project 8.1491601
TIP Project 1-2201
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action,
Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes
to improve Interstate 40 from west of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road ) at Kernersville to east
of Holden Road at Greensboro in Guilford County. The existing four-lane, divided facility
is to be widened to a six- to eight lane, divided facility with a 6.6 meter (22 feet) median.
Auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations. Interchanges and service roads along
the project will be designed and revised as needed to accommodate the proposed
mainline widening, and inadequate structures will be replaced. This 14.9 km (9.3 mile)
long project has an estimated cost of $82,454,000, including $ 63,200,000 for
construction and $19,254,000 for right of way acquisition. The 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has allocated $ 69,340,000 for the proposed project,
including $13,590,000 for right of way acquisition and $ 55,750,000 for construction.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide additional travel lanes which will
alleviate current and future capacity deficiencies along the studied portion of
Interstate 40. In addition, interchange and service road revisions will provide safer
access to businesses and neighborhoods in the project area. More efficient travel and
improved access will result in increased economic benefits to users of the facility and
surrounding businesses.
One hundred fourteen residences and seventeen businesses are predicted to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Based on
a final design noise analysis, NCDOT recommends the construction of three noise walls
as part of this project, contingent on the completion of the project design and the public
involvement process (See Figure 3, Sheets 8 and 9). Table 8 on page A-64 in the
Appendix summarizes the expected noise barrier effectiveness with the noise walls in
place. A fourth site was investigated for noise abatement measure, but only one receptor
out of twenty-nine was impacted due to the presence of a natural earth berm and tree
line. Based on preliminary noise studies completed to date, the NCDOT intends to install
noise abatement measures (Site 5) in the form of a barrier on the north side of
Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) and Guilford College Road (SR 1546)
(see Figure 3, Sheet 7). This preliminary indication of likely noise abatement measures is
based upon preliminary design for a barrier 5 meters (16 feet) high and 590 meters (1900
feet) long and at a cost of $373,100 that will reduce the noise level by 7 dBA for 15
i
receptors. If during final design these conditions substantially change, the abatement
measure might not be provided. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement
Policy, the Federal /State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued within
the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The
Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway project will be the
approval date of CE (Categorical Exclusion), FONSI (Finding Of No Significant Impact),
ROD (Records Of Decision), or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For
development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are
responsible for insuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed
facility.
No substantial impacts to plant and animal life are expected. Impacts to wetlands
will be approximately 5.7 hectares (14.0 acres) spread across thirty-seven sites (see
Section IV and Figure 7A). No federally-protected threatened or endangered species will
be impacted. No recreational facilities or sites eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland impacts are expected. The proposed
improvements will not cause substantial negative impacts to air quality. It is anticipated
eight residences and eight businesses will be relocated as a result of the project.
4. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Special Permits Required
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, a permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for
discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Due to
surface water and wetland impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit or
Individual Permit will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision
concerning applicable permits rests with the COE. A Section 401 Water Quality
Certification is required from the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources before issuance of the Individual Permit.
b. Geodetic Survey Markers
Fourteen geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N. C. Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
C. Railroad Coordination
The Norfolk-Southern Railroad has plans to construct a third track and a
service road at its Interstate 40 crossing just west of Patterson Avenue. The
bridges which carry Interstate 40 over the railroad will be constructed at a greater
length to provide for the railroad construction. Any improvements to Interstate 40
which may impact the railroad will be coordinated with the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad.
d. Underaround Storaae Tanks and Hazardous Materials
If any underground storage tanks (UST's) in the area have a potential to be
involved with the proposed improvements, these sites will be investigated for
possible fuel leakage prior to the right of way acquisition phase. Three properties
to be acquired have underground storage tanks on their property. These
ii
properties include the BP Gas Station, the Exxon Gas Station, and the Olive
Mountain Convenience Store. Auto Brokers, a company involved in the sales and
service of automobiles, also will need to be investigated for UST concerns.
Colonial Pipeline has a petroleum storage and distribution facility located
in the vicinity of the proposed Gallimore Dairy Road interchange and the Chimney
Rock Road interchange (see Figure 3). Subsurface investigations will be
performed to establish baseline conditions around the property before any right of
way acquisition or construction begins.
e. Utilities
The utilities conflict along the project is considered to be in the medium to
high range. There are underground gas, telephone, cable television, water, and
sanitary sewer utilities in the project area. Any relocation of public utilities along
the project will be coordinated with the appropriate utility or local government
agency.
f. Noise Abatement Measures
Based on preliminary noise studies completed to date, the NCDOT intends
to install noise abatement measures in the form of a barrier on the north side of
Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) and Guilford College Road
(SR 1546) (see Figure 3, Sheet 7, Proposed Noise Wall Site 5). This preliminary
indication of likely noise abatement measures is based upon preliminary design
for a barrier 5 meters (16 feet) high and 590 meters (1900 feet) long and at a cost
of $373,100 that will reduce the noise level by 7 dBA for 15 receptors. If during
final design these conditions substantially change, the abatement measure might
not be provided.
A design noise report was completed for four other locations proposed for
noise abatement measures. These locations are presented in Figure 3, sheets 8
and 9. The results of this study indicate three of the sites are favorable for noise
mitigation. The fourth site, located on the north side of Interstate 40 between NC 6
and Merritt Drive, had only one impacted site out of 29 due to the natural earth
barrier and tree line located between the receptors and Interstate 40. These
natural barriers will not be changed by the widening of Interstate 40. Table 3
presents the Recommended Noise Barrier Summary.
A final decision on the installation of abatement measures will be made
upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
g. Floodway Modification
Floodplain impacts will be assessed in detail during final hydraulic design.
If floodway revisions are required, NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and local authorities for approval.
Some preliminary assessments have been performed, and a floodway
modification will be required at Holden Road in the vicinity of South Buffalo Creek.
h. Stream Modification
Approximately 110 m (360 feet) of channel realignment of South Buffalo
Creek will be required just north of Interstate 40 and west of the Norfolk-Southern
iii
Railroad. The existing single barrel reinforced concrete box culvert at this
location is above headwaters and will be retained and extended. Other stream
modifications and realignment will be avoided to the extent practicable. Where
avoidance is not practicable, the new stream modifications and realignments will
be designed in accordance with current guidelines and coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is currently
developing the definition of a stream and defining where the storm drains end and
intermittent stream begins. Since the proposed project impacts between 45 linear
meters (150 feet) and 152 linear meters (500 feet) of stream channel, NCDOT will
be required to notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and NCDWQ. If the
impacts exceed 152 linear meters, the COE will require an Individual Permit and a
stream restoration mitigation plan from NCDOT. If other stream relocations are
identified as design studies continue, they will be identified in the final
environmental document.
Major Investment Study (MIS)
The MIS is included in the Appendix, Pages A-32 through A-36. The MIS
has been sent to the City of Greensboro for approval and the approved MIS will be
included in the final environmental document.
As part of the development of the long-range transportation plan, it is
necessary to full the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A Major Investment Study (MIS) is a planning
tool thatfuses the principles of ISTEA and NEPA. Under the metropolitan planning
regulations (23CFR 450 Subpart C) the MIS focuses on corridor or sub-area
transportation demand and other problems that may lead to a high type transit or
highway investment with a substantial capital investment or impact on the
metropolitan transportation system.
The purpose of the MIS is to develop information about the likely impacts
and consequences of alternate transportation investment strategies at the
corridor or sub-area level. The study should include all reasonable alternatives
for addressing the identified transportation purpose and need. Only those
alternatives that have a reasonable likelihood of being an effective solution or
component should be carried forward in the study. This MIS is a cooperative
effort between the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), the Greensboro Transit Authority, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Division of Highways and Public Transportation, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.
Airports
If construction activities are expected to impact airspace 60 meters (200
feet) above ground elevation of the NC 68 interchange, then NCDOT will
coordinate the design with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and DOA
(NCDOT Division of Aviation) for their review and approval.
iv
6. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing roadway, alternative
alignments are not practicable. Due to the traffic and development characteristics of this
route, only a median divided facility was studied, with the number of lanes proposed
based on desired capacity. Impacts to existing development were considered when
determining interchange configuration and alignment.
The "No Build" alternative was considered and rejected, due to the traffic and
safety benefits provided by the proposed improvements. Also, pavement conditions
along Interstate 40 continue to deteriorate. Although past pavement rehabilitation
projects have prolonged the life of the existing pavement, those improvements were
designed for temporary pavement stability until total reconstruction of Interstate 40 could
be funded.
The "Alternate Modes of Transportation" alternative was rejected due to the fact
that highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the area, and the
project involves widening an existing highway, though public bus transportation would be a
likely supplement to improve the existing facility. The City of Greensboro provides bus
services along Wendover Avenue and Guilford College Road in the vicinity of Interstate 40.
The MIS for this project details the alternatives listed above and other alternatives
as well and is included on pages A- 32 through A-36 of the Appendix. The MIS determined
that adding lanes to Interstate 40 would be the best course of action (see page A-35 of the
Appendix). The City of Greensboro Transit Authority commented on this determination
(see page A-37 in the Appendix).
7. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There is one anticipated design exception which calls for a 35 miles per hour
design speed on Merritt Drive.
8. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Aviation Administration
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Department of Transportation - Division of Aviation
Centralina Council of Governments
Guilford County Commissioners
Guilford County
City of Greensboro
v
9. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................. 1
A. Purpose and Need ................................................................. 1
B. Existing Conditions ................................................................ 1
1. Length of Studied Section ............................................ 1
2. Project Termini ............................................................ 1
3. Functional Classification .............................................. 2
4. Existing Cross Section ................................................. 2
5. Right of Way ................................................................ 2
6. Alignment ....................................................................2
7. Structures ................................................................... 2
a. Bridges and Culverts ......................................... 2
b. Interchanges ..................................................... 5
C. Grade Separations ............................................ 5
d. Overhead Signs ................................................. 6
e. Vertical and Horizontal Clearances ................... 6
8. Access Control ............................................................ 6
9. Speed Limit ................................................................. 6
10. Railroad Crossings ...................................................... 7
11. School Bus Data .......................................................... 7
12. Airports ....................................................................... 7
C. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis ......................................... 7
1. Traffic Data ................................................................. 7
2. Capacity Analysis ...........:............................................ 7
D. Accident Analysis .................................................................. 9
E. Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan ..........................10
F. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area ..............10
G. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community .......................10
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................10
A. General Description ..............................................................10
B. Project Status .......................................................................11
C. Recommended Improvements ...............................................11
1. Length of Project ........................................................11
2. Typical Section ...........................................................11
3. Right of Way and Access Control ................................11
4. Structures .................................................................11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5. Interchange, Grade Separation, and Local Road
Improvements ............................................................12
a. Interchanges ....................................................12
b. Grade Separations ...........................................13
C. Local Roads .....................................................15
6. Auxiliary Lanes ...........................................................16
7. Design Speed .............................................................16
8. Permits .......................................................................16
9. Railroad Involvement ..................................................17
10. Greenways, Bikeways and Sidewalks .........................17
a. Greenways .......................................................17
b. Bicycles ...........................................................18
C. Sidewalks .........................................................18
11. Noise Barriers ............................................................19
12. Degree of Utility Conflicts ...........................................19
13. Anticipated Design Exceptions ...................................20
14. Cost Estimates ...........................................................20
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................20
A. Recommended Alternative ....................................................20
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation Alternative ......................20
C. "No Build" Alternative ...........................................................20
D. Major Investment Study ........................................................21
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ..............21
A. Land Use Planning ................................................................21
1. Status of Planning ....................:..................................21
2. Existing Land Use .......................................................21
3. Existing Zoning ...........................................................23
4. Future Land Use .........................................................23
B. Social and Economic Development .......................................25
1. Neighborhood Characteristics and Social Impacts .....25
2. Economic Factors .......................................................25
3. Public Facilities ..........................................................25
4. Relocatees .................................................................25
5. Environmental Justice ................................................26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
C. Cultural Resources ...............................................................26
1. Architectural Resources .............................................26
2. Archaeological Resources ..........................................26
D. Section 4(f) Resources ..........................................................27
E. Environmental Effects ...........................................................27
1. Biological Resources ..................................................27
a. Terrestrial Communities ...................................27
b. Aquatic Communities .......................................28
C. Protected Species ............................................29
1. Federally-Protected Species ..................29
2. State-Protected Species ........................29
2. Water Resources ........................................................29
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands ..............................................30
a. Permits ............................................................31
b. Mitigation .........................................................32
C. Avoidance ........................................................33
d. Minimization .....................................................33
e. Compensatory Mitigation ..................................33
4. Soils ...........................................................................34
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................................ .....34
6. Farmland ............................................................... .....34
7. Traffic Noise .......................................................... .....35
8. Air Quality Analysis ................................................ .....42
9. Stream Modification ............................................... .....45
10. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage
Tanks .......................................................... .....45
11. Geodetic Survey Markers ...................................... .....45
12. Construction Impacts ............................................ .....45
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................47
A. Comments Received .............................................................47
B. Citizens Informational Workshops .........................................47
C. Public Hearing ......................................................................48
TABLES
Table 1 A - Bridge Data ...................................................................... 3
Table 1 B - Major Drainage Structures ............................................... 4
Table 2 - Accident Rates .................................................................. 9
Table 3 - Recommended Noise Barrier Summary ............................19
Table 4 - Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands ......................................30
Table 5 - 72 dBA & 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels ............................38
Table 6 - One Hour CO Concentrations ...........................................43
Table 7 - Expected Noise Barrier Effectiveness ........................... A-64
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 6 -Limits of 100-Year Flood
Figure 7A - Possible Wetland Sites Investigated
Figure 713 - Location of Surface Waters
Figure 8 - Capacity and Lane Balance Diagram
Figure 9 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 10 - Other NCDOT Projects in the Area
Figure 11 - Urban Spatial Land Use Patterns
Figure 12A - Proposed Bicentennial Greenway
Figure 12B - Bicentennial Greenway Crossing Alternatives
Figure 13 - Single Point Urban Interchange
Figure 14 - Schematic of Interstate 40 at Greensboro
Western Urban Loop
APPENDIX
Relocation Reports ........................................................................ A-1
Division of Highways Relocation Programs .................................... A-6
Comments Received ...................................................................... A-8
Major Investment Study ............................................................... A-24
Traffic Noise Tables .................................................................... A-29
Air Quality Tables ........................................................................ A-49
Citizens Informational Workshop Handouts ................................. A-43
Project Breakdown Map .............................................................. A-52
Additonal Traffic Noise Table ...................................................... A-64
Interstate 40
From West of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville
To East of Holden Road at Greensboro
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number IR-40-3(76)20
State Project 8.1491601
TIP Project 1-2201
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose and Need
Interstate 40 is of primary importance because it runs in an east and west
direction through North Carolina, connecting six of its urbanized areas, including the
Greensboro Urban Area. It also connects North Carolina with Tennessee. Traffic on this
facility is composed of both through trips and local trips inside the urban area. Present
truck percentages, historic traffic growth rates and future traffic projections, continued
local development, and scheduled and recommended construction projects along the
Interstate 40 corridor (such as the proposed Interstate 73) are all consistent with high
levels of future congestion.
The traffic volumes along Interstate 40 within the 1-2201 project limits increased
5.1 % per year to a maximum of 81,6000 vehicles per day (vpd) from 1990 to 1995. Traffic
projections show volumes ranging up to approximately 127,000 vpd in the year 2020 with
the completion of the Greensboro Urban Loop projects 1-2401, U-2524, and U-2525 (see
Figures 9 and 10).
It is anticipated that over 40% of the traffic on this section of Interstate 40 will be
through traffic with neither the origin nor the destination of the trip inside the urban area.
Trucks comprise approximately 24% of the traffic along Interstate 40.
All of the factors above contribute to the need for improvement. The current
volume of traffic on this stretch of Interstate 40 exceeds the highway's effective capacity.
The demand volume is estimated to double by the design year.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section
The studied portion of Interstate 40 is 14.9 km (9.3 miles) in length. The
project vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and photographs of the project are shown in
Figures 2A through 2J.
2. Project Termini
The project's western terminus is just west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR
1850). At this location Interstate 40 consists of five 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
(three westbound and two eastbound) with 3.6-meter (12-foot) paved shoulders
and a 9.0-meter (30 foot) grass median (see Figures 2A and 26). Sandy Ridge
Road between the eastbound and westbound Interstate 40 terminals is a five-lane
roadway consisting of two 12 foot lanes in each direction with a center turn lane
with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved) which gives a 22 meter (72 feet) clear
roadway width through the bridge (see Figure 2B). The statutory speed is 55 mph
along Sandy Ridge Road.
The project's eastern terminus is just east of Holden Road. At this location
Interstate 40 consists of four 3.6 meter (12 feet) lanes (two in each direction), 3.3
meter (10 feet) paved shoulders with a 14 meter (46 feet) grass median (see
Figure 2A). Holden Road is a six-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter
(see Figure 2J). The posted speed along Holden Road is 45 mph.
3. Functional Classification
The studied portion of Interstate 40 is classified as a Rural Principal
Arterial-Interstate from west of Sandy Ridge Road to NC 68 and as an Urban
Principal Arterial-Interstate from NC 68 eastward through Greensboro.
4. Existing Cross Section
Interstate 40 is a four-lane, divided facility with 3.6 meter (12 feet) travel
lanes, 3.6 meter (12 feet) shoulders, and a 9.0 meter (30 feet) grassed median.
5. Right of Way
The right of way is symmetrical about the centerline of the median.
Generally, the existing right of way is approximately 80 meters (260 feet) in width.
Variable right of way limits exist throughout the interchange areas.
6. Alignment
The existing horizontal roadway alignment contains no curves greater than
three degrees, and the vertical grade does not exceed three percent at any
location along the project. The terrain in the vicinity of the project is classified as
rolling.
7. Structures
a. Bridges and Culverts
There are a total of twenty-nine structures located within the limits
of the subject project consisting of fifteen culverts and fourteen bridges.
Eight of the bridges span over Interstate 40 and six are Interstate 40
mainline structures. Existing bridges along the project are described in
Table 1 A, and eleven of the fifteen culverts are described in Table 1 B.

2

p

QS Q
= -
O?
0
N
I
Q 3 O iD ;D NNM N ;o ;o N N w
mo
a 3 Z4
P. N N N 0 N M M
r J
J
U U
W W

S
O o dO O O CD 00 eD Ill 1p O O M M
o
D Z N N D N OD OD M N c
N N
W
I-- J N J

?U ~U
Z
0? OD NNO O 0< N aD CM oD ill OO
V) J to MMM 00 Q J ^ R oi C4 MM
O O
(x x0 S) SU
M
+N
H U
? W 01 W

W Va Or O O O O O C U
Q O V7 O co 0 O r O O O
V W mQ b -va^
r N N v W p 0:
mQ 1? io "v IO IOt0
>v r rr N N r > WW r r r r r r rr
J
0
m z W

U U
W O Za H z0
m ,
U? O Of 01 O of N O = U? N 00 to O O N r
Q ?•+ LL Q 00

Of v CO CO

01 CO ?

1O W) v

t? U.
Q
?
P-
a
tO
00
IO
?
b
C
O1
00
v
ui CV
?, ?
` y y m
O U W
+
+
_ Z
WW M 0vM le le ^ D .J NW U.
I M 01 O Of m
ui .. ?' W m J
V
m
mJ 3 ?J

Q r
OD <OtON
Ip IA OD tOm
0 0 m
IA
O1 _

W m

O m

N m

N m

0 00 t0

o mm

0
0

m
Y
r
? ? ? 0?
?
m
]•m f
O
r
r
r 1
r a
r f
r 0
f 0
i
rr

C
3
m

uj V

w W
m Om

p
co t0lhOf
r 01 V CO) Of
m m
co N

1

p l0 co

0 co

co co

Of O

?- 0

Of

O
0
00
M r 10 N N N 0 m r r r N N M CO
mZ z
`
' a w
to
a

m^m
co
CO q
0 to
to
a

o CL U,
x
0
0 t
fi
v ..
W a OD
r w p V
0
1 0
) m
?? .
r
as

a
> `
?
m p
m
W r
m

0

wo

3:3:

0

O co
}
m

W

mAZ
H cn
Y
r
co Y J
> W
a
co
0
coo
d
mm
E
U
w
p
Q
U
a
?
QQ

O m
mm W
p
m
m
w
p 00
J Z JJJ mm
w W
Q o
d
m
O
W a
m
> mm
zzz
000
SS
°%
E
}
2
J
Z
0
0
?
Ww
p
55-0 n Z) H~ to O Z -j z C _3
0

www
yw Z
a W W 0

mm
m
Z
«
t
n
C7
U
a
3
a
Sx
en
TABLE 1 B - MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Location
Interstate 40 just
east of NC 68
Interstate 40
between NC 68 &
Gallimore Dairy Rd.
Interstate 40
between Gallimore
Dairy Road & Chimney
Rock Road
Interstate 40 just
east of Chimney Rock
Road
Flood Existing *
Stream Study Status Structure

Deep River Detailed 3@9'x9'
RCBC #550
Tributary of None 1@8'x7'
Deep River RCBC
Tributary of E. None 1@7'x6'
Fork of Deep RCBC
River
Long Branch None 1@6'x6'
Tributary of S. Flood
Interstate 40 at the Buffalo Creek Hazard
Norfolk Southern RR Zone
Interstate 40 at the Tributary of S. None
Holden Road Buffalo Creek
Interchange
NC 68 north of Deep River Detailed
Interstate 40
Wendover Avenue S. Buffalo Detailed
north of Interstate 40 Creek
Merritt Drive north of S. Buffalo Detailed
Interstate 40 Creek
Holden Road north of S. Buffalo Detailed
Interstate 40 Creek
* RCBC notes reinforced concrete box culvert
?I Vn8
RCBC
1@8'x8'
RCBC
1@8'x7'
1@8'x8'
RCBC
3@9'x9'
RCBC #547
RCBC
RCBC
RCBC
D
r•

L
4

b. Interchanges
There are six interchanges within the studied project limits. The
follow ing is a description of these interc hanges:
Route
Designation Local Name Type of Design
(1) SR 1850 Sandy Ridge Road Partial Cloverleaf
(2 ramps, 2 loops)
(2) NC 68 ----- Partial Cloverleaf
(3 Ramps,1 loop)
(3) SR 1554 Chimney Rock Road Full Diamond
(4) SR 1546 Guilford College - Partial Cloverleaf
Jamestown Road (3 ramps,1 loop)
(5) SR 1541 Wendover Avenue Partial Cloverleaf
(4 ramps, I loop)
(6) NC 6 Patterson Avenue Flyover (Only partial
access provided)
C. Grade Separations
There are five grade separations within the studied project limits
proposed for improvements. The Interstate 40 westbound exit ramp grade
separation over Regional Road is not proposed for improvements and is
not addressed below. Table 1 does describe this structure, however. The
following is a description of the grade separations proposed for
improvement:

Facility
Designation Local Name Type of Design
(1) SR 1695 Regional Road Under Interstate 40
(1 bridge)
(2) SR 1555 Gallimore Dairy Road Over Interstate 40
(1 bridge)
(3) ---- Norfolk-Southern RR Under Interstate 40
(2 bridges)
(4) ---- Merritt Drive Over Interstate 40
(1 bridge)
(5) --- Holden Road Over Interstate 40
(2 bridges)
5
d. Overhead Signs
There are several overhead directional and messaging signs
located over Interstate 40. These signs are supported by rigid aluminum
poles over the interstate. The vertical and horizontal clearances of these
overhead signs will be reviewed and, if needed, replaced to meet current
design specifications.
e. Vertical and Horizontal Clearances
The majority of the bridge structures located within the project
limits exhibit some type of deficiency with respect to current standards for
vertical and horizontal clearances. These deficiencies can be attributed to
two factors; (1) the Interstate 40 facility was originally designed to handle
a smaller number of vehicles per day and (2) interstate design standards
have been raised due to inadequacies identified in the original design
criteria.
Of the eight structures spanning Interstate 40, three conform to the
16'-6" to 17' minimum vertical clearance standard for Interstate and
Arterial routes. Of these four bridges, two are considered to have
inadequate horizontal clearances. Based on the stated insufficiencies, it is
anticipated that all of the bridges, except for the bridges carrying Sandy
Ridge Road and Wendover Avenue over Interstate 40 and the bridge which
carries Interstate 40 over NC 68, will be replaced. The NC 68 bridge is
proposed to be widened.
Of the six mainline Interstate 40 structures, only one, the NC 68
structure, meets the required minimum vertical clearance. Horizontal
clearances on the intersecting roadways are also substandard for the
existing cross-sections, and they allow no provisions for constructing a
wider roadway section under the interstate bridges. Taking into
consideration current design standards for vertical and horizontal
clearances, the required future cross-sections on the crossroads, the
required typical sections on Interstate 40, and the total investment
contemplated for the entire project, it will be more cost effective to replace
these structures than to retain and widen them (with the exception of the
NC 68 bridge, which will be retained and widened).
8. Access Control
Interstate 40 is a fully controlled access facility in accordance with
Interstate design standards; however, there are breaks in the control of access at
two of the interchange ramps. The Sandy Ridge Road and Guilford College Road
Interstate 40 ramp exits (westbound and eastbound, respectively) have direct
access to adjacent properties.
9. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the studied section of Interstate 40 is 77
kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
6
10. Railroad Crossings
The two tracks of the Norfolk-Southern Railway cross under Interstate 40
at a grade separation just west of NC 6 (Patterson Avenue). Two 140-foot long
bridges carry Interstate 40 traffic over the railroad.
11. School Bus Data
School buses do not use the studied segment of Interstate 40.
12. Airports
Piedmont Triad International Airport is located approximately 1.6
kilometers (1 mile) from the NC 68 interchange with Interstate 40. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) (see page A-9 in the Appendix) and the NCDOT
Division of Aviation (DOA) (see page A-19 in the Appendix) have requested height
restriction guidelines be observed for new construction or new construction
activities in this area since it is in the airport runway number 5 glidepath . If
construction activities are expected to impact airspace 60 meters(200 feet) above
ground elevation of the NC 68 interchange, then NCDOT will coordinate the design
with the FAA and DOA for their review and approval.
C. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis
1. Traffic Data
In the year 2000, it is predicted that Interstate 40 will carry traffic ranging
from 52,000 vehicles per day (vpd) east of Holden Road to 95,400 vpd west of the
proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop. In the 2020 design year, it is
predicted that Interstate 40 will carry traffic ranging from 73,800 vpd east of
Holden Road to 127,000 vpd west of the proposed Greensboro Western Urban
Loop. The percentages of trucks and duals on Interstate 40 are expected to
account for 18% and 6% of the above levels, respectively. Estimated average
daily traffic for the years 2000 and 2020 are shown in Figures 4A, 413, and 4C.
2. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level-of-service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these conditions
are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition
generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel
time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety.
Six levels are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are
available. They are given letter designations from A to F, with level-of-service A
representing the best operation conditions and level-of-service F representing the
worst.
Interstate 40 from west of Sandy Ridge Road to east of Holden Road was
analyzed to determine the year 2020 level of service provided to the traveling
public based upon the Interstate 40 improvements recommended in this report
being completed. This analysis addressed the mainline, ramp junction, and weave
area capacity along Interstate 40. The results of this analysis are discussed below
and are shown in Figure 8. As explained in Section II, this project proposes to
provide a basic eight lane section (4 lanes per direction) on Interstate 40 from
west of Sandy Ridge Road to the Greensboro Western Urban Loop (GWUL - TIP
7
Project U-2524) while a basic six lane section (3 lanes per direction) will be
provided on the remainder of the project.
Interstate 40 West of Sandy Ridge Road
The proposed typical section for this part of Interstate 40 is four lanes in
each direction to give an eight lane typical section. Analysis indicates that
eastbound Interstate 40 will operate at a level of service of "F" for the year 2020
traffic. The 810 meter (2600 feet) weave distance is not sufficient to provide an
adequate LOS. However, the project will be designed to increase the weave
distance and to provide a future fifth lane on Interstate 40 and a future second
lane on the Interstate 40 westbound exit ramp at Sandy Ridge Road. This
configuration will provide a level of service of "D" for the year 2020 traffic.
Westbound Interstate 40 will operate at a level of service of "E" for the
year 2020 traffic. A fifth basic lane on Interstate 40 westbound would provide a
level of service of "D" for the year 2020 traffic. A fifth lane is not proposed for
either direction under this, but the project will be designed to accommodate these
improvements under a future project.
Sandy Ridge Road to Gallimore Dairy Road
This section of Interstate 40 is proposed to have a basic eight lane section
(four lanes in each direction) with one or more auxiliary lanes (see Figure 8), and
this typical section would provide a level of service of "E" for year 2020 traffic. A
ten lane section (5 lanes per direction) would be needed from east of the Sandy
Ridge Road interchange to the NC 68 interchange to provide a level of service of
"D". The horizontal clearance under the Sandy Ridge Road bridge can
accommodate an eight lane section only. However, horizontal clearance under
the Sandy Ridge Road bridge can be increased to handle. future ninth and tenth
lanes. In addition, the proposed design will place the proposed retaining walls for
McCloud Road (SR 1882) and Natural Service Road (SR 1844) in a location to
provide for a future ninth and tenth lanes on Interstate 40. A jersey barrier lane
will be placed on the Interstate 40 side of these walls. Curb and gutter will be
utilized on the two service roads to limit right of way impacts.
The proposed geometry between NC 68 and Gallimore Dairy Road will
supply a level of service of "D" for year 2020 traffic.
Gallimore Dairy Road to Greensboro Western Urban Loop (GWUL)
The proposed geometry (twelve plus lane section) between the Gallimore
Dairy Road interchange and the proposed GWUL is sufficient to accommodate the
design year traffic volumes. A level of service of "D" will be provided for year
2020 traffic.
GWUL to Guilford Collecie Road
The proposed six lane section (3 lanes per direction) with a ramp to ramp
lane provided in each direction on Interstate 40 between the GWUL and Guilford
College - Jamestown Road (SR 1546) should be able to accommodate the design
year volumes if the proposed weave section between the GWUL on-ramp and the
Guilford College off-ramp can be extended to 549 meters (1800 feet) instead of the
current 427 meters (1400 feet). The mainline section will provide a level of service
of "D" for year 2020 traffic, and the weave area will provide a level of service of
8
"E" for year 2020 traffic. This weave area will be addressed during the design
phase of the project to determine if the gore to gore weave distance can be
increased.
Guilford Colleae Road to NC 6
The proposed six lane basic section from west of the Wendover Avenue
interchange to the NC 6 (Patterson Avenue) interchange would provide a level of
service of "E" for year 2020 traffic. This section would need to be widened to an
eight lane basic section (four lanes per direction) to provide a level of service of
"D" for year 2020 traffic. Eight lane widening is beyond the scope of work under
this project. However, all the structures from the Guilford College Road
interchange through the Holden Road interchange have been designed to
accommodate the additional width of one extra lane in each direction to provide
the required capacity for year 2020 traffic.
NC 6 to East of Holden Road
The currently proposed six lane section on Interstate 40 from east of the
NC 6 interchange through the Holden Road overpass is expected to accommodate
the design year 2020 traffic by providing a level of service in the "C-D" range.
The NC 6 (Patterson Avenue) exit ramp and entrance ramp were proposed
to remain as one lane ramps. The one4ane ramps would provide a level of service
of "F" for year 2020 traffic. Both ramps would need to be widened to two lanes to
accommodate 2020 design year traffic with the exit ramp providing a level of
service of "B" and the entrance ramp providing a level of service of "D". It is
proposed for these ramps to remain as one-lane ramps. However, the NC 6
interchange and Interstate 40 in the vicinity have been design to accommodate
the future widening of these ramps to a two-lane cross section.
D. Accident Analysis
Table 2 presents a comparison of accident rates along the studied segment of
Interstate 40 and the average statewide rates for interstate routes. The rates shown for
Interstate 40 were obtained from studies conducted from October 1, 1993 to
September 30,1996. The statewide rates were obtained from studies conducted from
1992 through 1994, which are the most recent available.
TABLE 2 ACCIDENT RATES
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Average Statewide Rates
For Interstate Routes
Accident Type Interstate 40 Urban Rural
All Accidents 140.77 159.7 59.2
Fatal 0.25 0.5 0.8
Non-Fatal 55.93 59.2 23.4
Wet 31.08 35.4 11.6
Night 25.48 36.4 17.3
9
These figures indicate the accident rates along the studied section of Interstate 40
were slightly below the corresponding average statewide rates for urban interstate
facilities. However, the accident rates along Interstate 40 exceeded all corresponding
average statewide rates for rural interstate facilities excluding fatal. As noted previously,
a small section of Interstate 40 is classified as "rural", while the majority of Interstate 40
along the project is classified as "urban".
Further review of the accident data reveals that many of the accidents were
concentrated in and around the interchange areas along the subject project.
Constructing additional travel lanes, lengthening acceleration and deceleration lanes,
adding auxiliary lanes, eliminating two breaks in access control at the Sandy Ridge Road
interchange and the Guilford College Road interchange, and standardizing the
interchange configurations will help reduce accidents occurring at interchanges. Rear-
end collisions and vehicles running off the road constitute the largest percentage
(approximately 75%) of the accidents. The proposed improvements will help reduce the
number of these types of accidents, as well as improve the overall safety of the highway.
E. Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
The thoroughfare plan for Greensboro was adopted by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation on February 7,1997 after being adopted by the City of
Greensboro, Guilford County, and the Transportation Advisory Committee. Figure 9
presents the adopted thoroughfare plan.
F. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
There are several proposed highway improvement projects in the vicinity of the
project. The Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP Project U-2524) will cross Interstate
40 in the vicinity of the Chimney Rock Road interchange and will be an important part of
the highway loop system around Greensboro. Future Interstate 73 will follow Interstate
40 from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Urban Loop as it traverses Guilford County.
Guilford College Road from south of Interstate 40 to High point Road is proposed to be
widened to a five-lane facility. Refer to Figure 10 to see the proposed highway
improvements in the area.
G. Benefits to the State. Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will alleviate the current and future capacity
deficiencies along the studied portion of Interstate 40. In addition, safety will be
enhanced along the project as a result of the proposed widening and interchange
improvements. The ability of emergency vehicles to respond quickly will be improved.
Road user costs savings will be realized as a result of more efficient travel, while
improved access will result in increased economic benefits for local businesses.
11. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
Interstate 40 from just west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) to just east of Holden Road in
Guilford County and Greensboro. The project area is shown in Figure 1. The existing
four-lane facility is to be widened to a six to eight lane facility with a 6.6-meter (22 feet)
median. A concrete Jersey-type barrier will be constructed in the median to separate the
eastbound and westbound traffic. Auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations.
10
Many of the interchanges and local roads along the project will be revised to
accommodate the proposed widening. Inadequate structures along the project will be
replaced to conform to current design standards. Retaining walls and expressway gutter
will be used along the project to minimize right of way impacts. The proposed
improvements are shown in Figure 3. This project has an estimated cost of $82,454,000
including $63,200,000 for construction and $19,254,000 for right of way acquisition.
B. Project Status
This project is included in the 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP recommends widening Interstate 40 from west of Sandy Ridge
Road (SR 1850) to east of Holden Road. The proposed improvements are to be federally-
funded. The TIP has allocated $ 13,590,000 for right of way acquisition and $55,750,000
for construction to give a total allocation of $69,340,000. Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1997 and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 1998.
C. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The studied portion of Interstate 40 is 14.9 km (9.3 miles) in length.
2. Tvoical Section
The proposed cross section from west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) to
the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (near the existing Chimney Rock
Road interchange) will consist of a basic eight lane, median divided facility with a
jersey-type median barrier. From this location to just east of the Holden Road
grade separation, the proposed cross section will consist of a basic six-lane,
median divided facility with a jersey-type median barrier. Auxiliary lanes will also
be provided along Interstate 40 in both the eastbound and westbound directions
from west of the NC 68 interchange to the NC 6 (Patterson Avenue) interchange.
Figure 8 shows the lane balance diagram for the project, and Figure 5A shows the
proposed basic typical sections for Interstate 40.
3. Riaht of Wav and Access Control
The acquisition of additional right of way and easements will be necessary
to contain the proposed improvements. Variable amounts of new right of way will
be required along the mainline facility and within the interchange areas.
Full control of access along Interstate 40 will be maintained. Access will
also be controlled along roads interchanging with Interstate 40 in the immediate
vicinity of the ramp terminals. All service road access to Interstate 40 ramps (at
the Sandy Ridge Road and Guilford College Road'interchanges) will be terminated
and access will be provided by other means. Improvements to roads crossing
Interstate 40 and to service roads are described in Section II.C.5. of this report.
4. Structures
There are fourteen bridges and fifteen drainage structures located along
this section of Interstate 40. All of the bridges except for the Sandy Ridge Road,
NC 68, and Wendover Avenue bridges will be replaced. Each structure will be of
11
sufficient length and width to accommodate the proposed Interstate 40 and
intersecting road improvements. In addition, each bridge will meet or exceed the
minimum vertical clearance requirements.
All of the culverts located along the project will be retained and extended
as needed as a result of the proposed improvements.
5. Interchange. Grade Separation, and Local Road Improvements
The following is a description of the proposed interchange, grade
separation, and local road improvements. These improvements are shown in
Figure 3.
a. Interchanges
Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850). Sandy Ridge Road is carried over
Interstate 40 by a recently constructed bridge which has a clear roadway
width of 21.6 meters (72 feet). This allows for a five-lane typical section
across the bridge, including a left turn lane. Interstate 40 is proposed to
carry four lanes in each direction under the bridge. This interchange is a
partial clover design with two loops and two ramps. It is proposed to
remove the two loops and to construct two ramps to provide a standard
diamond interchange. The existing westbound Interstate 40 exit ramp
access to two businesses in the northeast quadrant will be removed for
safety reasons. Access to these businesses will be provided via Triad
Road (SR 1924) located northeast of the interchange.
NC 68. Only minor improvements are proposed to the NC 68
interchange under this project. The bridge which carries Interstate 40
over NC 68 will be retained and widened to accommodate the proposed
widening of Interstate 40. Interstate 40 will have five lanes in each
direction (including auxiliary lanes) over NC 68. The proposed structure
dimensions will be 83 meters (272 feet) in length and 50 meters (164 feet)
in width.
Proposed Interstate 73 is anticipated to follow existing NC 68
southward to Interstate 40, Interstate 40 eastward to US 220, then US 220
southward through Asheboro. Any necessary improvements to the NC 68
interchange to accommodate the Interstate 73 routing will be proposed
under a separate project for Interstate 73.
SR 1555 (Ga//imore Dairy Road1. This grade separated crossing of
Interstate 40 will be removed and replaced with a single point urban
interchange (SPUI). The existing bridge will be removed and replaced with
a new structure (see Figure 13). The Burnt Poplar Road (SR 1607) and
Albert Pick Road (SR 1681) intersections with Gallimore Dairy Road will be
relocated further away from Interstate 40 to allow room to widen
Interstate 40, construct the proposed ramps, and improve operations of
Gallimore Dairy Road through the proposed interchange area.
Interstate 40 will have five lanes in the eastbound direction and six in the
westbound direction under Gallimore Dairy Road, including auxiliary lanes.
Gallimore Dairy Road will carry six lanes over Interstate 40.
12
Y
Guilford Co/%ge-Jamestown Road (SR 15461. The existing
interchange is a partial cloverleaf design with three ramps and one loop.
The Interstate 40 eastbound exit ramp located in the southwest quadrant
will be removed. A loop will be constructed in the southeast quadrant to
provide for traffic exiting eastbound Interstate 40. The existing Interstate
40 entrance ramp located in the southeast quadrant will be relocated
approximately 80 meters (260 feet) south to provide space for the
proposed eastbound Interstate 40 exit loop. The ramp and loop located in
the northeast quadrant will be shifted approximately 40 meters (130 feet)
northward to accommodate the proposed widening of Interstate 40. The
bridge carrying Guilford College-Jamestown Road over Interstate 40 will
be replaced with a structure having a clear roadway width of
approximately 23 meters (75 feet) to accommodate the proposed five-lane
section and a length of approximately 70 meters (230 feet). Interstate 40
will have four lanes in each direction under Guilford College - Jamestown
Road, including auxiliary lanes.
WendoverA venue (SR 1541. This interchange is a partial
cloverleaf design with four ramps and one loop. The existing bridge
carries seven lanes over Interstate 40. No improvements are planned for
this interchange under the proposed project. Ramp and loop tie-ins to the
widened interstate facility will be adjusted during construction. Interstate
40 will have three lanes westbound and four lanes eastbound (including an
auxiliary lane) underneath the bridge.
Patterson Avenue NQ & This interchange is a flyover design
which includes an eastbound left-hand exit ramp and a westbound
entrance ramp on Interstate 40. The left-hand exit ramp crosses
underneath westbound Interstate 40 to access Patterson Avenue. Under
the proposed improvements, the left-hand exit ramp will be changed to a
standard right-hand exit ramp. Eastbound Interstate 40 will be shifted
north of its present location and will parallel the existing westbound lanes
of Interstate 40. The right-hand exit ramp will run underneath westbound
and eastbound lanes of Interstate 40 to access Patterson Avenue. The
bridge carrying westbound Interstate 40 over the exit ramp will be
removed and replaced with a new bridge 73 meters (240 feet) long and 42
meters (138 feet) wide which will carry the eastbound and westbound
lanes of Interstate 40.
b. Grade Separations
SR 1695(Regiona/Road). Regional Road will,remain a grade
separation. The dual structures which carry Interstate 40 over Regional
Road will be replaced with a bridge 48 meters (157 feet) long and 50
meters (164 feet) wide to accommodate the widening of Interstate 40 and
the future widening of Regional Road to five lanes. (there are no
improvements proposed for Regional Road under the subject project).
Regional Road will continue to have access to Interstate 40 by way of
NC 68. Interstate 40 is proposed to have five lanes in each direction over
Regional Road, including auxiliary lanes. It is anticipated that Regional
Road will be affected by the proposed Interstate 73 interchange with
Interstate 40; any necessary revisions to Regional Road will be addressed
under a separate project for Interstate 73.
13
No improvements are proposed for the bridge which carries the
Interstate 40 westbound exit ramp over Regional Road. No improvements
are required for this structure.
Chimney Rock Road (SR 9554). This full diamond interchange will
be removed from its present location to make room for the proposed
Greensboro Western Urban Loop (GWUL) interchange with Interstate 40
(see Figure 14). Chimney Rock Road will be relocated approximately 640
meters (2,100 feet) west of its present location. Relocated Chimney Rock
Road will be carried over Interstate 40 at this new location with a proposed
bridge 93 meters (305 feet) in length with a clear roadway width of 12
meters (40 feet) and will be a two-lane, two-way facility. No direct access
will be provided between relocated Chimney Rock Road and Interstate 40.
Access to Interstate 40 from Chimney Rock Road will be provided at the
proposed Gallimore Dairy Road interchange (see previous section).
Relocated Chimney Rock Road will span six lanes in each direction
proposed for Interstate 40. A seventh future westbound lane under
relocated Chimney Rock Road associated with the GWUL will be built
under the subject project but will not be marked for travel. Building this
lane now will eliminate the need for intricate traffic control measures on
Interstate 40 when the GWUL is built.
Norfolk Southern Rai/wav. The dual structures will be removed
and replaced with one structure which will be of sufficient length to
accommodate the two existing rails, the proposed addition of a high speed
rail line, and a railroad service road under Interstate 40. The structure will
be built wider than what is normally required to handle traffic control
during construction and to provide sufficient bridge width for future two -
lane acceleration and deceleration ramps associated with the Interstate 40
/NC 6 (Patterson Avenue) interchange. The proposed bridge will be 53
meters (174 feet) long and 50 meters (164 feet) wide. The single structure
will carry four lanes in each direction, including auxiliary lanes, over the
railroad, but, as noted above, will accommodate an additional (future)
acceleration / deceleration lane in each direction.
Merritt Drive. This grade separation will remain a grade
separation. The existing bridge will be removed and replaced with a wider
bridge to carry a five lane curb and gutter cross section over Interstate 40.
Sidewalk will be provided on both sides of the bridge in accordance with
NCDOT policy for curb and gutter approaches. The new bridge will be
longer to provide adequate horizontal clearance for the proposed
widening of Interstate 40. The proposed bridge will be 100 meters (330
feet) in length and 22 meters (72 feet) in width. Interstate 40 will have +
three lanes in each direction under Merritt Drive.
Ho/den Road. This grade separation will remain a grade
separation. The dual bridges will be replaced with one structure (shifted
slightly to the west) which will carry the existing six-lane, median divided
facility over Interstate 40. The new bridge will be 83 meters (272 feet) in
length to span Interstate 40 and the width will be 35 meters (115 feet) to
carry the six-lane median divided roadway. Interstate 40 will have three
lanes in each direction under Holden Road.
14
C. Local Roads
Several local roads located near Interstate 40 will be modified as
part of the subject project, as described below. Proposed typical sections
for some of these roads are shown in Figures 5B and 5C. The proposed
improvements are shown in Figure 3.
National Service Road
r
National Service Road (SR 1844) is a two-lane, two-way road
located on the south side of Interstate 40 between Sandy Ridge Road and
NC 68. Generally, National Service Road consists of a 5.8 to 7.2 meter (19
to 24 feet) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 feet) grassed shoulders. Minor
improvements are proposed for this road. A retaining wall will be
constructed along the south side of Interstate 40 to limit right of way
impacts in this area.
McCloud Road
McCloud Road (SR 1882) is a two-lane, two-way road located on the
north side of Interstate 40 west of NC 68. The majority of McCloud Road
consists of a 7.2 m (24-foot) roadway with 2.4 meter (8 feet) grassed
shoulders. A gravel surfaced section of this road on the western end
[approximately 380 meters (1,250 feet)] will be paved and improved to
match the existing typical section of the paved section of this road. A
retaining wall will be constructed along the north side of Interstate 40 to
limit right of way impacts in this area.
Burnt Poplar Road
Burnt Poplar Road (SR 1607) is a two-lane, two-way road located
on the north side of Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue and NC 68.
Generally, it is a 7.0 meter (23 feet) roadway with a combination of grassed
shoulders or curb and gutter. Due to its proximity to Interstate 40, Burnt
Poplar Road will be relocated, shifted, widened, and resurfaced in various
locations. In the vicinity of Gallimore Dairy Road, Burnt Poplar Road will
be relocated to the north on new location to obtain a better spacing from
the proposed Interstate 40 interchange at Gallimore Dairy Road. A
retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of Interstate 40
between NC 68 and Gallimore Dairy Road to limit right of way impacts.
Citation Court
Citation Court is a two-lane, 9.8 meter (32 feet) face-to-face curb
and gutter roadway that forms a "T-type" intersection with Burnt Poplar
Road east of Gallimore Dairy Road. Approximately 170 meters (560 feet) of
this road will be relocated to intersect Burnt Poplar Road 70 meters (230
feet) west of its present intersection location. The proposed intersection
will be of the "four-legged" type, as Burnt Poplar will continue to the west
on new location and Citation Court will be extended to the south along
existing Burnt Poplar Road to a proposed cul-de-sac. Proposed Citation
Court north of Burnt Poplar Road will consist of a 6.8 to 9.8 meter (22 to 32
feet) wide curb and gutter roadway, and to the south it will consist of a 6.6
meter (21 feet) roadway with unpaved shoulders.
15
Albert Pick Road
Albert Pick Road (SR 1681) is a 7.3 meter (24 feet) roadway located
on the south side of Interstate 40 between NC 68 and Gallimore Dairy
Road. Approximately 680 meters (2200 feet) of Albert Pick Road on the
Gallimore Dairy Road end will be terminated at the entrance into the
Highwoods Business Park. Access to Interstate 40 will continue to be via
the NC 68 interchange. This termination will allow room to construct the
proposed eastbound Interstate 40 exit ramp for the proposed interchange
at Gallimore Dairy Road.
Hornaday Road
Hornaday Road intersects Nicholas Road (SR 1564) southwest of
the Guilford College Road south of Interstate 40. Approximately 250
meters (820 feet) of Hornaday Road will be relocated and extended to
cross Nicholas Road and intersect with Guilford College Road. Hornaday
Road is proposed to be a two-lane, 10.8 meter (36 feet) curb and gutter
road.
Fairfax Road
Fairfax Road (SR 1612) intersects Merritt Drive south of
Interstate 40. Fairfax Road will be relocated south of its present location
and will intersect Merritt Drive just south of its present location. Relocated
Fairfax Road is proposed to be a two-lane, 7.2 meter (24 feet) roadway
with shoulders.
6. Auxiliary Lanes
Due to the short distances between interchanges, eastbound and
westbound auxiliary lanes will be provided from NC 68 to NC 6. The majority of
this section will have just one auxiliary lane in each direction. However, between
NC 68 and the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (GWUL), two to three
auxiliary lanes will be provided along the westbound Interstate 40. Also, between
Gallimore Dairy Road and the GWUL, two auxiliary lanes will be provided in the
eastbound direction. Figure 8 shows the proposed lane balance diagram for the
project, including auxiliary lanes.
7. Design Speed
The proposed design speed along Interstate 40 is 110 kph (70 mph).
8. Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Due to surface water and wetland impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit or
Individual Permit will likely be necessary for this project (see Section VI.E. of this
report). The final decision concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
16
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required. This
certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
9. Railroad Involvement
Norfolk-Southern Railroad is planning to add a third high speed rail line
and a railroad service road parallel to and west of the existing two tracks which
cross under Interstate 40 between Patterson Avenue (NC 6) and Wendover
Avenue. The dual structures which carry Interstate 40 over the railroad will be
replaced with one structure which will accommodate the proposed railroad
improvements. The proposed improvements to Interstate 40 over the railway will
be coordinated with the Norfolk-Southern Railroad.
10. Greenways. Bikeways. and Sidewalks
a. Greenways
The Bicentennial Greenway (see Section IV.A.4. for additional
information ) is a bicycle and pedestrian facility which will stretch from
High Point to Greensboro (see Figure 12A). It will be 16 miles long when
completed, and 8.5 miles of it has been completed to date. Upon
completion, the greenway will connect several residential areas and
employment centers. It is anticipated that the greenway will serve
bicycling commuters as well as recreational users. Four possible
Interstate 40 crossing locations have been evaluated by Guilford County.
These locations are shown in Figure 12 B and are listed below:
1.) Regional Road (SR 1695)
2.) Proposed Pedestrian Overpass just west of Gallimore Dairy
Road
3.) Proposed Gallimore Dairy Road Interchange
4.) Proposed Chimney Rock Road Relocation and Grade
Separation
The County prefers alternative number 3 and has requested that
the proposed Interstate 40 / Gallimore Dairy Road single point urban
interchange (SPUI) include accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians
across the proposed bridge and through the interchange. The County has
requested a sidewalk 3.0 meters (10 feet) in width on the west side of the
interchange bridge for pedestrian use only. Bicyclists would be allowed to
cross Interstate 40 with vehicular traffic using the 4.2 meter-wide (14 feet)
outside travel lanes along Gallimore Dairy Road.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation does not expect
the placement of this greenway to alter the expected operational level of
service of the Gallimore Dairy Road interchange. However, the
Department is concerned with the potential traffic safety problems which
may arise from the introduction of pedestrians and bicyclists into the
complex interchange design (SPUI) proposed at this location. For this
reason, the NCDOT prefers that the greenway cross Interstate 40 at the
relocated Chimney Rock Road grade separation (alternative 4).
17
Coordination with Guilford County regarding the best location for
the proposed greenway crossing is in progress. The greenway will be
further discussed in the final environmental document.
b. Bicycles
There are several signed bicycle routes in Greensboro. However,
there are no signed bicycle routes which traverse the subject project.
There is one bicycle route that approaches Interstate 40 from the south
Y
along Sandy Ridge Road and terminates at Norcross Road, but it is
planned to follow Norcross Road to the west. The City of Greensboro
Department of Transportation (GDOT) has published A Guide to Bicyc/ing
in Greensboro which presents sources of information relative to bicycling,
rules and regulations concerning bicycle safety, and bicycle routes which
offer moderate bicycling within the city.
In the NCDOT's 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), there are three Independent Bicycle Projects programmed for
Guilford County. TIP Project E-2928 is the construction of a culvert
crossing of the US 311 Bypass near High Point for the Bicentennial
Greenway. TIP Project E-3604 is regional bicycle route signing near High
Point, and TIP Project E-3409 is bicycle route mapping and signing
throughout the Greensboro planning area. The TIP also presents several
Incidental Bicycle needs. One incidental need is the provision of bicycle
crossings of Interstate 40 from the new Interstate 40 near Kernersville to
Interstate 85 in Greensboro.
C. Sidewalks
The City of Greensboro has an active Sidewalk Program and the
City is committed to developing and maintaining pedestrian facilities in an
effort to encourage walking as a safe and alternative mode of
transportation in the most cost efficient manner. GDOT identified six
locations along the Interstate 40 project for sidewalk replacement or new
construction of sidewalks. These locations are listed below:
1) Bicentennial Greenway crossing location - determination
crossing location
2) Guilford College Road - construct crossing on west
from existing facility southward
3) Holden Road - replace existing sidewalk on the east side
4) Merritt Drive - replace existing sidewalk on the east side
5) Albert Pick Road relocation - construct sidewalk to connect
existing trails in office park
6) Chimney Rock Road relocation - construct sidewalk on the
west side
The city's request for sidewalk at these locations will be reviewed in
accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines. Other locations
along the project where sidewalk may be needed (such as on new bridges
which have curb and gutter approaches) will also be reviewed in
accordance with these guidelines. The City of Greensboro's sidewalk
request is shown on pages A-25 through A-31 in the Appendix.
18
11. Noise Barriers
Based on preliminary noise studies completed to date, the NCDOT intends
to install noise abatement measures in the form of a barrier on the north side of
Interstate 40 between Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) and Guilford College Road
(SR 1546) (see Figure 3), Sheet 7. This is Site 5. This preliminary indication of
likely noise abatement measures is based upon preliminary design for a barrier 5
meters (16 feet) high and 590 meters (1900 feet) long and at a cost of $373,100
that will reduce the noise level by 7 dBA for 15 receptors. If during final design
these conditions substantially change, the abatement measure might not be
provided.
A design noise report was completed for four other locations proposed for
noise abatement measures. These locations are presented in Figure 3, sheets 8
and 9. The first noise barrier site is located on the south side of Interstate 40
between the proposed eastbound exit ramp for Patterson Avenue and Merritt
Drive. The second noise barrier location is located on the south side of
Interstate 40 between Merritt Drive and Holden Road. The third noise barrier site
is located on the north side of Interstate 40 from approximately 400 meters (1,300
feet) west of Holden Road to Holden Road. The results of this study indicate three
of the sites are favorable for noise mitigation. The fourth site, located on the north
side of Interstate 40 between NC 6 and Merritt Drive, had only one impacted
receptor out of 29 due to the presence of natural barriers. Table 3 presents the
Recommended Noise Barrier Summary.
A final decision on the installation of abatement measures will be made
upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED NOISE BARRIER SUMMARY
Cost per
Barrier Benefited Barrier Barrier Estimated Benefited
Location Receptors Length (m) Height m) Barrier Cost Receptor
Site 1 37 754 4 to 5 $567,625 $15,341
Site 2 65 639 4 to 5 $462,625 $ 7,112
Site 3 30 392 5 $296,426 $ 9,881
Site 4 Not recommended due to presence of natural barriers. One impacted receptor.
Site 5* 15 590 5 $373,100 $24,872
*Based on preliminary noise report. Final design noise report is pending.
12. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The proposed improvements will impact water, sewer, gas, power,
television and telephone lines. Impacts to utilities due to the proposed
improvements are considered to be medium to high in severity. Utilities which will
be impacted by the project will be relocated prior to construction. During
construction, care will be taken to prevent damage to utilities along the project.
19
The contractor will prepare a work schedule which will minimize impacts on
water, communication, power, and other utility services. The appropriate utilities
or local government officials will be consulted concerning possible relocation of
utilities.
13. Anticiaated Desian Exceations
There is one anticipated design exception which calls for a 35 mph design
speed on Merritt Drive. 1w
14. Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is $82,454,000,
which includes $ 63,200,000 for construction and $19,254,000 for right of way
acquisition.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative consists of widening Interstate 40 to provide
additional travel lanes from west of Sandy Ridge Road to east of Holden Road. From west
of Sandy Ridge Road to the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (located near the
existing Chimney Rock Road interchange), a basic eight lane, median divided facility is
proposed. From the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop to east of Holden Road,
a basic six-lane median divided facility is proposed. The proposed median will be 6.6
meters (22 feet) wide with a continuous concrete median barrier 0.6 m (2 feet) in width.
The 6.6 meter median is proposed to minimize impacts to development. Full depth paved
inside shoulders will be 3.0 m (10 feet) wide, and the paved outside shoulders will full
depth and 3.6 m (12 feet) in width. In addition to the eight basic travel lanes west of the
Greensboro Western Urban Loop and the six travel lanes east of Greensboro Western
Urban Loop, eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes will be provided from NC 68 to
NC 6. Provisions for adding a ninth and tenth basic lane between NC 68 and Sandy Ridge
Road will implemented during final design.
Interchanges, grade separations, and local roads will be revised as discussed in
Section II.C.6. of this document. All bridge structures along Interstate 40 will be replaced
(except for the bridges at Wendover Avenue, the westbound off-ramp bridge at Regional
Road, NC 68, and Sandy Ridge Road) to accommodate the proposed widening and to
provide appropriate vertical clearances. Existing drainage structures will be retained
and lengthened.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the area, and the
project involves widening an existing interstate highway which serves regional and local
traffic. Alternatives to the automobile would not be cost-effective in this area.
C. "No Build" Alternative
If the "no build" alternative were chosen, it would have a considerable negative
impact on transportation in the project area. Interstate 40 through the project area is a
highly congested facility at present, especially during peak periods. With the projected
q
20
increases in traffic, the service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even
more. Increased congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel
times. Therefore, the "no build" alternative has been rejected. However, it does serve as
a basis for comparison to build alternatives.
D. Major Investment Study
The Major Investment Study (MIS) for this project details the alternatives listed
above and other alternatives as well. The MIS considered six alternative strategies to the
proposed widening of Interstate 40 and they are listed below:
1) Do Nothing Alternative
2) Transportation Demand Management Alternative
3) Transit Service Alternative
4) High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Alternative
5) New Facilities Alternative
6) Adjacent Projects Alternative
7) Widening of Interstate 40 Alternative
The MIS concluded that the widening of Interstate 40 is the most reasonable and is the
recommended alternative which is presented as such in the subject Environmental
Assessment. The MIS was presented to the Greensboro Transit Authority for comment.
Their comments indicated that some of the alternatives presented in the MIS should be
more closely examined are shown on page A-37. See pages A-32 through A-36 of the
Appendix to see the MIS. The approved MIS will be presented in the final environmental
document.
IV. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Planning
The proposed widening occurs within the jurisdictions of the City of
Greensboro and Guilford County. Both the City and County engage in planning
and zoning activities. In January 1992, the Guilford County Development
Ordinance went into effect and unified the zoning ordinances of High Point,
Greensboro, and Guilford County.
The County adopted its general Comprehensive Plan in 1986 and is now
developing a series of small area studies, based on the policies set forth in the
y general plan. The project area is addressed in two small area plans, the
Southwest Area Plan and the Airport Area Plan. The City of Greensboro has also
adopted a Comprehensive Plan Map.
The Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1997 (see
Figure 9). The County also completed the Wendover Avenue Corridor Study prior
to the completion of the Southwest Area Plan.
2. Existing Land Use
The survey conducted on existing land uses focused on the interchange
areas, as these areas are most likely to be directly affected by the widening of
Interstate 40. Some areas are very densely developed and urbanized, while
21
others appear to be in transition between the former rural character and more
urban development. A description of the development around each interchange
follows, beginning with the Sandy Ridge Road interchange (see Figure 11 for
existing land uses along the project).
Sandy Ridge Road
This interchange is the most rural in character of all the interchanges
within the project limits. Linear residential development occurs along much of
Sandy Ridge Road, interspersed with newer warehousing and distribution uses.
Many of these appear to generate a large amount of truck traffic. Convenience
stores and gas stations geared to travelers are also located at the interchange,
and this serves as the main access to the North Carolina Farmers Market.
K
NC 68
This interchange is very densely developed with hotels, restaurants, and
retail centers. Several large office complexes are also accessed from NC 68 and
include corporations such as CIBA-GEIGY and General Motors. This interchange
also provides direct access to the Piedmont International Airport.
Chimney Rock Road
Though not as densely developed as NC 68, this interchange also includes
some relatively high traffic generating land uses. Chimney Rock Road provides
access to the Martin-Marietta industrial complex. Other light industrial uses, such
as truck transfer stations, are located south of Interstate 40. North of
Interstate 40 is a large oil storage facility. An unused Coca-Cola bottling plant is
located near the interchange and is likely to be reused for industrial purposes.
Truck traffic is substantial at this interchange, particularly north of
Interstate 40. As some undeveloped land is available in the area, it is likely that
industrial development, and increasing truck traffic will continue.
Guilford College Road
A mix of vacant land and multi-family developments, both apartments and
townhouses, exist south of Interstate 40. Small shopping centers and other
consumer services are available along Guilford Road. Gas stations and a used
car sales business are located near the interchange.
The Guilford College Road area also appears to be in transition to more
dense, urban development. A small business park is under development. North of r
Interstate 40, linear single family residential development, as is commonly found in
rural areas, is located along Guilford College Road. Guilford College Road
provides access to a relatively new multi-family development and a single family
subdivision.
Wendover Avenue
North of Interstate 40, the land in the vicinity of the project is entirely
developed and is generally suburban in nature. A combination of land uses,
including shopping centers, restaurants, automobile dealerships, and
professional offices, is located in this area.
22
The land south of Interstate 40 is also well developed and is generally
suburban in nature. A combination of land uses, including shopping centers,
restaurants, automobile dealerships, and professional offices are located in this
area.
Patterson Avenue (NC 6)
Residential development occupies the east side of the Patterson Avenue
interchange with Interstate 40. Some mixed use development has occurred
northwest of the interchange.
3. Existing Zoning
The entire length of the project is within a designated scenic corridor
overlay zone which prohibits billboards, mobile homes, and other specked land
uses. More stringent setback and landscaping requirements are also applicable
to land development within the scenic corridor, which generally applies to the
area approximately 300 m (1000 feet) on each side of Interstate 40.
A variety of zoning districts occur throughout the project. Most zoning
districts in the immediate vicinity of the project are either industrial (light and
heavy), commercial (for neighborhood and regional shopping centers), or for
offices and institutional uses.
A few residential districts are located adjacent to Interstate 40, in the
vicinity of Guilford College Road, West Wendover Avenue, and Patterson Avenue.
The densities of these residential districts vary, but most are for multi-family
development. Agricultural and low density residential districts are located in the
Sandy Ridge Road area.
4. Future Land Use
The Comprehensive Plan Map for Guilford County and Greensboro
indicates that future land use along Interstate 40 is designated primarily for mixed
use development. The mixed use designation includes commercial, office, light
industrial, and multi-family residential uses.
The area between Guilford College Road and Wendover Avenue north of
Interstate 40 is designated for residential development, as is the southeast
quadrant at the Wendover Drive interchange with Interstate 40.
The land at the west project terminal is designated for agriculture and low
ti density residential development.
Southwest Area Plan and the Airport Area Plan
Two small area plans completed for the project area are the Southwest
Area Plan and the Airport Area Plan. These plans address in greater detail the
development policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Southwest Area Plan indicates that growth in the area has been
slower than growth in the most rapidly developing northwest portion of the county.
However, the rate of development in the southwest area is expected to increase.
Its employment base is expected to grow and will likely be comprised of retail
23
workers in neighborhood shopping centers and office workers. The county
anticipates that the Southwest Area will capture as much as one-third of all new
population growth in the county through 2010.
The Airport Area Plan addresses the Interstate 40/NC 68 interchange and
its vicinity. Development trends indicate the continued construction of offices,
warehouses, and other industrial uses clustered around the interchange and the
airport. Because of the constraints to residential development in the area due to
noise generated by the airport, commuting traffic to the Interstate 40/NC 68
employment center will likely be substantial.
Wendover Avenue Corridor Study
The Wendover Avenue Corridor Study sets a number of priorities, which
include the maintenance of the residential character of the corridor between
Interstate 40 and NC 68 and the concentration of higher intensity land uses at the
Interstate 40/NC 68 activity center.
Guilford County Bicentennial Greenway
The County passed a Park and Recreation Facilities Bond referendum in
1988 which included funds for the construction of a 16 mile greenway connecting
High Point, Jamestown, and Greensboro. Approximately 8.5 miles of the
proposed 10-foot wide asphalt greenway is completed. The next phase of
construction involves the Deep River/Gallimore Dairy Road Corridor. The county
proposes that the greenway will follow Deep River, then veer to the east through a
residential area before joining Albert Pick Road, which parallels Interstate 40 on
the south side. The county proposes that the greenway trail will follow Albert Pick
Road, then turn north at Gallimore Dairy Road, and cross Interstate 40 on its
overpass. No greenway right of way has been taken for the Interstate 40 project.
The Piedmont Triad Regional Transportation Study
Transportation officials from Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point,
Randolph County, Forsyth County, and Davidson County are developing a regional
transportation plan that will coordinate roadway, rail, and bus travel between the
communities and outlying area. The group's mission is to develop the plan to
accommodate development in the area through the year 2025.
Advanced Transportation Management Systems
In August of 1994, the IVHS Areawide Corridor Plan for the Triad region
was completed and approved by the transportation officials in this region. This
plan was coordinated and prepared by the Burlington, Greensboro, High Point
and Winston-Salem MPO's, and the Public Transportation and Rail Division and the
Division of Highways of the NCDOT. As stated in the plan, the Interstate 40
corridor will require Advanced Transportation Management Systems (ATMS) in
order to efficiently move vehicular traffic through this region. The estimated cost
for the ATMS, including surveillance, detection, incident algorithm software,
traveler information components, data communication infrastructure and system
integration, is $10 million.
24
B. Social and Economic Development
Neighborhood Characteristics and Social Impacts
Guilford County is located in the north central section of the state and is
bounded by Alamance, Randolph, Davidson, Forsyth, and Rockingham Counties.
The 1990 Census data indicates that Guilford County has a total population of
347,420. Its projected population total for the year 2000 is 394,958. There are
164,204 males and 183,216 females residing in Guilford County. In terms of racial
composition, there are 249,904 whites, 91,655 blacks, 1,637 American Indians,
Eskimos, or Aleuts, and 3,726 Asians or Pack Islanders.
The proposed action begins west of Sandy Ridge Road near Kernersville
and runs in an easterly direction through the City of Greensboro. Neighborhoods
and communities along the project are primarily commercial and industrial. At
various intervals, residential development can also be seen, including both single
family and multi-family dwellings. Most of the proposed improvements will take
place within the existing highway right of way.
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary
Data for September 1996) indicate that Guilford County had a total labor force of
210,670. Out of that total, 203,980 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total 6,690, or 3.2 percent.
The Interstate 40 corridor has experienced healthy growth in economic
development. The City of Greensboro has noted several projects in various
stages of development along the Interstate 40 corridor. The City provided site
plans for Northern Hydraulics' new site off Triad Road east of Sandy Ridge Road,
the Wendover Place Shopping Center and the Flow Drivers Mart located south of
Interstate 40 between Guilford College Road and Wendover Avenue, and the
Greensboro Auto Auction located north of Interstate 40 between Wendover
Avenue and the Southern Railroad. In addition, efforts are underway to bring a
Major League Baseball franchise to the Greensboro area.
The proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the economy. The
proposed improvements to Interstate 40 will enhance traffic flow and make it
easier for all commercial traffic to reach their destinations in an efficient manner.
3. Public Facilities
There are no public facilities that will be directly affected by the proposed
improvements.
4. Relocatees
It is anticipated 8 residences and 8 businesses will be relocated as a result
of the project. Six of the residential relocatees are tenants, and one of the
residential owners is a minority. Adequate replacement housing will be available
for all residential relocatees. The proposed improvements will not cause a
housing shortage in the area. Suitable business sites are available in the project
area for business relocatees, and business services will still be available after
25
completion of the project. The proposed improvements are not anticipated to
displace any farm or farm operation, schools, churches, public buildings, or other
institutional structures.
Relocation Reports for the proposed improvements are included in the
Appendix (see pages A-1 through A-5). These reports, which describe impacts
along the project, include a demographic profile of the displacees, as well as a list
of anticipated business relocatees. A description of the NCDOT Relocation
Assistance Programs is included in the Appendix on pages A-6 and A-7.
5. Environmental Justice
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations), a
review was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income populations
will receive disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
impacts as a result of this project. Of the sixteen relocatees required to move as a
result of the project, one business relocatee and one residential relocatee are
minorities. None of the residential relocatees are considered to be in the low
income classification. The project is being implemented in accordance with
Executive Order 12898.
Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment. Photographs, maps, and
information about the area of potential effect (APE) were reviewed with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The site was surveyed on by an NCDOT staff
architectural historian, and no structures were found to be over fifty years old.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National
Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required. SHPO
was afforded the opportunity to comment on this finding, and they concurred that
there are no National Register listed or eligible properties in the APE (see
Appendix, page A-23).
2. Archaeological Resources
A review of the files at the Office of State Archaeology indicated there are
no archaeological sites recorded in the immediate project area. The project was
surveyed by NCDOT staff archaeologists in November and December of 1990 and
in June 1993. As a result of these investigations, it has been determined that no
significant archaeological sites occur within the APE, and, therefore, the project
will have no effect upon any archaeological sites that are on or are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No further archaeological
investigations were conducted by NCDOT.

26
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National
Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required. SHPO
was afforded the opportunity to comment on this finding, and they concurred that
the project will have no effect upon National Register-eligible archaeological
resources (see Appendix, page A-24).
D. Section 4(f) Resources
r No impacts to Section 4(f) properties will result from the subject project.
E. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources

Most of the plant communities along the Interstate 40 corridor have been
modified from their natural state. Growth maintenance occurs along roadside
margins and in powerline, pipeline and sewer corridors. Urbanization in a large
part of the proposed corridor has further altered natural communities with the
introduction and cultivation of exotic plants species, some of which have escaped
to replace or limit native vegetation. Six plant communities were identified within
the study corridor: pine-mixed hardwood forest, mixed hardwood forest, pine
woodlands, successional, urban/ disturbed, and alluvial floodplain. Specific
communities exhibited variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, slope aspect, disturbances). The
plant communities are described below.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Pine-Mixed Hardwood Forest
Pine-mixed hardwood cover occurs in small forest blocks located
in various locations along project corridor. The overstory trees consist of
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and white
oak (Q. alba). Midstory and shrub species include sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), dogwood (Cornus florida), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
The herbaceous layer includes vines such as greenbrier (Smilax glauca),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Other herbaceous plants include ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and Virginia
heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica).
y Mixed Hardwood Forest
Hardwood forests typically occur on uplands and are similar to the
pine-mixed forest above, except few pine are found in the canopy. The
canopy is dominated by several oaks species, red maple, black locust
(Robinia psuedoacacia), and hickory on drier sites. On more mesic sites,
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and occasional sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) may occur. The
understory consists of seedling trees, American holly (Ilex opaca), and
27
dogwood. The shrub layer is composed of eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), wild grapes (Vitis
spp.), and blue berries (Vaccinium spp.). Herbs include wild ginger
(Asarum canadense), Christmas fern, and southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides).
Pine Woodlands
Pine woodlands identified within the project area are normally the
results of land clearing or early successional stages from fallow fields.
The dominants consists of Virginia pine with or without shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata) or loblolly pine (P. taeda). Some hardwoods from nearby
plant communities such as red maple, white oak and hickories are
becoming established in the understory, depending on the stand age. r
Trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), greenbrier, and poison ivy are
frequently found here.
Successional
This plant community type is found in a few isolated pockets
adjacent to the highway near the western end of the alignment corridor.
This successional community is the result of recent logging, and the
process of regeneration from seeds and stump sprouts of the previous
forest is observable. Invasion and colonization by early successional
species is evident. In addition to many of the species mentioned in the
pine-mixed hardwood community, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), winged sumac (Rhus copallina),
mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), broom-sedge (Andropogon virginucus), and
blackberries (Rubus spp.) have successfully become established in these
disturbed areas.
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification is the dominant vegetational pattern
in the project area, common along roadside margins and within medians,
powerline, pipeline and sewer corridors and in commercial/residential
areas. Vegetation in these areas is composed mostly of grasses and herbs
that tolerate regular disturbance or management. Also included in this
community are those areas maintained as lawns, gardens, and
horticultural plantings.
b. Aquatic Communities
East Fork Deep River has an ecological classification of robin-
warmouth in the lower reaches near High Point Lake; the upper reaches
are of limited fishing significance due to small size (Fish 1968). Long
Branch is not classified, probably due to its small size. South Buffalo
Creek is also classified as robin-warmouth; because of severe pollution,
this stream has no recreational fishing significance (Fish 1968). However,
small fish such as creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), and shiners (Notropis spp.) are likely to exist in
these streams. Amphibians such as eastern newts (Notophthalmas
viridescens), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), chorus frogs

28
(Pseudacris spp.), and reptiles including northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon) and stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) are also expected to inhabit
streamside habitats.
C. Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any
action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of 2 May 1997, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) is listed as a Threatened species in Guilford
County. Threatened species are a taxon likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. A protected species review
(NCDOT,15 May 1995) was conducted for this project. A biological
conclusion of No Effect was rendered for the bald eagle based on
lack of suitable habitat. This biological conclusion remains valid.
No impacts to the bald eagle will result from project construction.
2. State-Protected Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and
animal species which may or may not be listed in the future. There
are no FSC for Guilford County.
2. Water Resources
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based
on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of
streams in the basin (DEM 1993). The best usage classification of unnamed
tributaries is the same as the water body to which they are a tributary. A best
usage classification of WS IV has been assigned to both East Fork Deep River
(DEM Index No. 17-2-(0.3) and Long Branch (DEM Index No. 17-2-1(1)) in the
project area to about 4.8 km (3 miles) downstream (DEM 1993). The designation
WS IV denotes that these waters are protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; local programs to control
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. WS IV
waters are also suitable for all Class C usage which includes aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
South Buffalo Creek (DEM Index No. 16-11-14-2) is designated as C NSW (nutrient
sensitive waters) from its source throughout the project area. Class C indicates
suitability for fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and agriculture,
but the NSW designation requires limitations on nutrient inputs.
29
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
WS I, or WS II Waters occur within the project area, nor are there any point source
discharges locally (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long
term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989,1991). Species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. There are two BMAN sampling stations
on South Buffalo Creek, several miles east of the project site. Station #8 is at the V
crossing of Mile Run Creek at SR 1400, in the city of Greensboro where the quality
(April 1986) was rated as poor. Station #78, several miles farther downstream of
#8 was rated as fair (August 1988) (DEM 1989,1991). Figure 7B shows all stream
crossings along the project.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal
Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are those waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to
the ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including wetlands, and all other
waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to
place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344).
East Fork Deep River, Long Branch, South Buffalo Creek, and 17 unnamed
tributaries are considered jurisdictional surface waters (see Figure 7B). These
tributaries are thoroughly described in Section 2.1.2. Criteria to determine the
presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. Thirty seven possible wetland sites are located in the
project study area. These wetland sites include headwater wetlands, bottomland
wetlands, and emergent wetlands (see Table 4 following and Figure 7A).
Emergent wetlands are observed along small intermittent streams.
Dominant plants observed here include soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sedge
(Carex spp.). Headwater forest wetlands are located near the upper reaches of
perennial and intermittent streams. Dominant canopy trees and shrubs include
tag alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood (Corpus ammomum), black willow (Salix
nigra), red maple, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweet gum, spice bush
(Lindera benzoin), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and elderberry. Bottomland
swamps are typically located adjacent to larger perennial streams. Dominant
plants located here include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm, tulip
poplar, river birch (Betula nigra), ironwood, and willow oak (Quercus phellos).
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands
perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by
intercepting and storing storm water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger
of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been
documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from
water that flows through them. The presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways
can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
30
Table 4 Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Wetland Site Wetland Type Wetland Impacts
(Estimated)
1 Headwater <0.1 ha 'j( Ac
2 Bottomland <0.1 ha
3 Headwater 0.2 ha Va A,,
4 Bottomland 0.2 ha
5 Headwater 0.1 ha
6 Bottomland 0.2 ha
7 Emergent 0.1 ha
8 Bottomland 0.1 ha
9 Bottomland 0.2 ha
` 10 Bottomland <0.1 ha
11 Headwater 0.1 ha
12 Headwater 0.1 ha
13 Headwater 0.1 ha
14 Headwater 0.1 ha
15 Headwater 0.3 ha *Y A
16 Headwater <0.1 ha
17 Headwater <0.1 ha
18 Headwater <0.1 ha
19 Headwater <0.1 ha
20 Headwater <0.4 ha
21 Headwater 0.2 ha
22 Headwater 0.2 ha
23 Headwater 0.3 ha
24 Headwater <0.1. ha
25 Headwater 0.3 ha
26 Headwater <0.4 ha
27 Bottomland 0.3 ha
28 Bottomland 0.3• ha
29 Headwater <0.1 ha
30 Headwater 0.2 ha
31 Headwater <0.1 ha
32 Headwater <0.1 ha
33 Headwater <0.1 ha
34 Headwater <0.1 ha
35 Headwater 0.3-ha
36 Headwater 0.2 ha
37 Headwater <0.1 ha
?,? = ly a?
a. Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from
project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit will be required from the U.. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Due to surface water and wetland impacts, a Section
404 Nationwide 14 Permit or Individual Permit will likely be necessary for
this project. Final decision concerning applicable permits rests with the
COE.
31
Nationwide 14 Permit
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) may be
applicable at most ditch and stream crossings found in the project study
area. This permit authorizes construction, provided the following
conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing; k
(2) the fill placed in Waters of the United States is limited to a filled
area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.33 ac);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal
flows and movement of aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a
Water of the United States.
Individual Permit
Projects that require Individual Section 404 Permits are those
which may have a significant impact on waters of the U.S. due to the size
or location of the proposed activity.
401 Water Quality Certification
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit or
Individual Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a
401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404
permit.
b. Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
maintain and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
32

C. Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According
to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measure
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. Avoidance is not a viable solution to elimination
of impacts associated with this project. The proposed action will primarily
involve widening of an existing corridor; realignment alternatives would
result in significantly greater impacts to natural communities.
d. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions.
Practicable means to minimize impacts to surface waters and
wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of ROW widths and/or fill slopes.
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary
ground cover during construction.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for
the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies and wetlands.
- Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
e. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and
the Department of the Army. However, compensatory mitigation is left to
the discretion of the COE.
33
4. Soils
Guilford County is situated in the central Piedmont Plateau. Topography is
characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage.
Elevations in the immediate project area range from approximately 287 m (940 ft)
to approximately 227 m (750 ft) above mean sea level. The project site is in the
western Carolina Slate Belt underlain by igneous and metamorphic rocks,
consisting mainly of granite. Metamorphosed gabbro and diorite occur in a small
area (DNR 1985). ,
At least five different soil associations including ten different soil series
were noted in the project area. Dominant upland soils include Cecil, Enon,
Madison, and Mecklenburg series. These are well-drained soils typical of broad
smooth ridges and interstream divides. All noted series comprise Urban land '
complexes which have been markedly altered by construction and urbanization.
Congaree and Chewacla soils are concentrated within narrow floodplain terraces
bordering a few streams within the study area. Congaree loam is usually well
drained, but is nearly level and subject to periodical flooding. Chewacla sandy
loam is frequently flooded, nearly level, and somewhat poorly drained. Chewacla
soil is found on terraces along some small creeks or tributaries; it is not classified
as hydric, but it may contain inclusions of hydric Wehadkee.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Guilford County and the City of Greensboro are participating in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Interstate 40 crossing of Deep
River and the crossings of South Buffalo Creek at Wendover Avenue (SR 1541),
Merritt Drive, and Holden Road are all included in the detailed flood study, having
an established floodplain and floodway with corresponding regulatory water
surface elevations. Figure 6 shows the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of these stream crossings. The crossing of
the tributary to South Buffalo Creek located just west of Norfolk-Southern Railway
is in a designated flood hazard zone, and the approximate 100-year floodplain
limits for this site are also delineated in Figure 6. The remaining stream crossings
are not in a designated flood hazard zone and are not included in the detailed
flood study. The floodplain areas which will be affected by the project are
primarily undeveloped and wooded. There are no known buildings in the vicinity
of any of the major stream crossings with floor elevation below the 100-year flood
level. In final hydraulic design, a detailed flood hazard evaluation will be made at
each stream crossing, and measures will be taken to ensure that the proposed
roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will have no
substantial adverse effect on the existing floodplain areas and associated flood
hazards. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and local authorities in final design to ensure compliance
with applicable floodplain ordinances.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which is already developed
is exempt from the provisions of the FFPA. As the project will occur almost
entirely within the existing right of way and will require acquisition of small
34
portions of land that is already used for purposes other than agriculture, this
project is exempt from the FPPA, and further consideration of farmland impacts is
not required.
7. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of Interstate 40 in Guilford County on noise levels in the immediate
project area. This 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 the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise
levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting 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 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic
noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
sources, including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and
highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises
from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since
the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate
sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB).
Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are
often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several
examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 on page A-38 in the
Appendix.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are
exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than
others, and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The
35
time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a
noise is offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance
of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources
(background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise
levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the
blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA. T
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of
individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible,
while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of
concentration may be interrupted by loud noises, while activities requiring manual
effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are
expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives.
Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises, including
airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation
to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly
over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the
planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are
set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A
summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table N2 on page A-39 in the Appendix. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the same
energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level
information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a
base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise
levels in the project area as measured at 15 meters from the nearest roadway
ranged from 78.6 to 79.6 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured
exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Table N3 (see Appendix page A-40).
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for
comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise
levels were within 2.1 to 3.1 dBA of the measured noise levels for the locations
where noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular
speed.
36
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables
which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual
changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict
highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the
Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised
March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic
noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier
type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing
four-lane median divided section from west of SR 1850 to the proposed
Greensboro Western Urban Loop to a basic eight lane divided section, and a basic
six-lane divided section is proposed from the Greensboro Western Urban Loop to
east of Holden Road. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were
included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents the "worst case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions
made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed
posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be
no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of
the design year 2015. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to
select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30, 60,120, 240, and 480 meters from
the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic
volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Table N4 on pages A-41 through A-47. Information included in these tables
consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient
and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
37
Traffic Noise Imoacts
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the
lower portion of Table N2 on page A-39 in the Appendix. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/
State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement
measures for new development for which building permits are issued within the
noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The
Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway project will be the
approval date of the CE (Categorical Exclusion), FONSI (Finding Of No Significant
Impact), ROD (Record Of Decision), or the Design Public Hearing, whichever
comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible for insuring that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 on page
A-48. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic
noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Table N6 on page
A-48 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors
in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range
from 0 to +4 dBA; thus, no receptors are expected to experience traffic noise
impacts due to a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. When real-life
noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most
people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound. Under Title 23 CFR
Part 772, there are 99 residences and 17 businesses impacted by highway traffic
noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours are 81.6 and 121.8 meters, respectively, from the center of the proposed
roadway (see Table 5). This information should assist local authorities in
exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the
roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on
noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land use with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise
impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to all impacted receptors.
38
Table 5 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels
Maximum Predicted Maximum
Leq Noise Levels Contour
dBA Distances (meters)
Project Segment 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
Interstate 40, From SR 1850 to NC 68 81 71 72 78.1 116.2
Interstate 40, From NC 68 to Outer Loop 82 78 72 81.6 121.8
Interstate 40, From Outer Loop to SR 1546 80 75 70 65.2 99.4
Interstate 40, From SR 1546 to SR 1541 80 76 71 69.2 104.8
Interstate 40, From SR 1541 to NC 6 81 77 71 72.7 109.7
Interstate 40, From NC 6 to SR 1616 80 75 70 65.2 99.4
Notes: 1. The 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from the center of the nearest travel
lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of the
proposed roadway.
3. A dBA is defined in Section IV.E.7. (page 35) of this document under Characteristics
of Noise.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the
lower portion of Table N2 on page A-39 in the Appendix. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either category.
Hiahwav Alignment
T Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation
of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs.
The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must
consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for
noise abatement for this project.
39
Traffic Svstem Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and
time of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise
abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed
roadway.
Noise Barriers
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 diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic
noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain full control of access, meaning commercial
establishments and residences will not have direct access connections to the
proposed roadway, and no intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally
be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters
long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
All impacted receptors were considered for noise mitigation. The
evaluation was accomplished in two steps. First, a qualitative barrier evaluation
was performed for each impacted receptor which considered each receptor's
FHWA NAC activity category, source-receptor relationships, impacted site
densities, and the ability to have continuous barriers. For many impacted
receptors, noise mitigation measures were deemed not feasible, reasonable, or
cost effective due to the aforementioned discussion concerning noise abatement.
However, the qualitative evaluation resulted in four potential barrier locations.
The second step of the barrier evaluation involved the computer modeling
of noise barriers at these four potential locations using the FHWA's noise barrier
simulation model OPTIMA. The analysis was accomplished by developing barriers
which would meet minimum noise reduction goals at the impacted sites.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend
to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in this case.
40
Mitigated Noise Impacts
As noted in Section II.C.11. of this document, there are three locations
proposed for noise barriers. A fourth site is not recommended for noise barriers
because 1 out of 29 receptors had an impact due to the presence of natural earth
barriers and or tree line. A fifth site appears likely to require noise abatement
measures. The expected noise barrier effectiveness for the three sites proposed
for noise barriers (see Figure 3, sheets 8 and 9 for these locations) are shown in
Table 7 on page A-64 in the Appendix. The number of receptors approaching or
exceeding NAC is projected to be none for noise wall location 1, thirteen for noise
wall location 2, and none for noise wall location 3. No receptors at these locations
are predicted to experience a substantial increase. The fourth location proposed
for a noise wall, Site 5, is expected to experience a 4-6 dBA reduction in noise. A
final design noise wall study will be performed to determine if a noise wall is
feasible at this site.
"Do Nothina" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative
were also considered. If Interstate 40 was not widened and was to remain a
4-lane divided highway, 69 residences and 4 businesses in the immediate project
area would experience traffic noise impacts within the next twenty years.
However, no receptors would be impacted by a substantial increase, since noise
level increases would be in the 0 to +2 dBA range. As previously noted, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. This small increase to the
present noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and living in
the area.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth
removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such
as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected, particularly from paving operations
and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and
man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Along this project, 114 residences and 17 businesses are predicted to
approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria in the Design Year of
2015. No receptors are expected to experience substantial traffic noise
increases.
All impacted receptors were considered for noise abatement. However,
only three potential areas are recommended for noise abatement (see Figure 3).
The number of receptors approaching or exceeding NAC is projected to be none
for noise wall location 1, thirteen for noise wall location 2, and none for noise wall
location 3. No receptors at these locations are predicted to experience a
substantial increase (see Table 7 on page A-64 in the Appendix). The fourth
location proposed for noise abatement, Site 5, is expected to provide a 4-6 dBA
41
reduction in noise. These proposed noise wall locations will be presented to the
public for their comment during the public review process for noise barrier
location.
8. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local
and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from
cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters)
of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration
components were resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient
CO concentration for the receptor in question for comparison with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are 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.
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
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. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
42
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent
of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide
emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the
result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles 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.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the
fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters bum unleaded gasoline eliminating
lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this
composite average had dropped to 0.0035 gram per liter. In the future, lead
emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make 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 NASA for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL30HC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptor to the project. 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 worst case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average
daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the completion year of 1995, the year 2000, and the design year of
2015 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE
5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division
of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8
ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst case air quality scenario was determined to be the intersection
of Interstate 40 and SR 1555 (Gallimore Dairy Road). The "build" and "no- build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptors for the years of
1995, 2000, and 2015 are shown in the Table 6.
43
Table 6 One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No Build
Sensitive
Receptor
1995
2000
2015
1995
2000
2015
R-1 9 3.3 3.1 3.2 4.1 5.4 6.2
R-20 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.1 5.4 6.4
R-21 3.2 3.1 3.2 4.0 5.1 6.0
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging
period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the
worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the "build" option is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level will not exceed the standard. See Tables Al
through A6 (pages A-49 through A-54 in the Appendix) for input data and output.
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro -
Winston-Salem - High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the
EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as
"moderate" nonattainment area for 03. However, due to improved monitoring
data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" 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 for
Guilford County. The Greensboro Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO
approval date of the FY 1997 TIP was July 9,1996. The USDOT made a conformity
determination on the FY 1997 TIP and Greensboro Urban Area Transportation
Plan on December 24,1996. The current conformity determination is consistent
with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There has been no
significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical distance
from dwellings, and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance.
Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort
of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
44
- ( r
Gam, ??Grl?? S 00
9. Stream Modification
Approximately 110 m (360 feet) of stream channel realignment (South
Buffalo Creek) will be required just north of Interstate 40 and west of the Norfolk-
Southern Railroad. The existing single barrel reinforced concrete box culvert at
this location is above headwaters and will be retained and extended.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is currently
t developing the definition of a stream and defining where the storm drains end and
intermittent stream begins. Since the proposed project impacts between 45 linear
meters (150 feet) and 152 linear meters (500 feet), NCDOT will be required to
notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and NCDWQ. If the impacts exceed
152 linear meters, the COE will require an Individual Permit and a stream
" restoration mitigation plan from NCDOT.
Other stream modifications and realignments will be avoided to the extent
practicable. Where avoidance is not practicable, these stream modifications and
realignments will be designed in accordance with the most current guidelines and
coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.
10. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
If any underground storage tanks (UST's) in the area have a potential to be
involved with the proposed improvements, these sites will be investigated for
possible fuel leakage prior to the right of way acquisition phase. Three properties
to be acquired have underground storage tanks on their property. These
properties include the BP Gas Station, the Exxon Gas Station, and the Olive
Mountain Convenience Store. Auto Brokers, a company involved in the sales and
service of automobiles, also will need to be investigated for UST concerns. Any
construction in these areas will receive special consideration and subsurface
investigations.
Colonial Pipeline has a petroleum storage and distribution facility located
in the vicinity of the proposed Gallimore Dairy Road interchange and the Chimney
Rock Road interchange (see Figure 3). Subsurface investigations will be
performed to establish baseline conditions around the property before any right of
way acquisition or construction begins.
11. Geodetic Survey Markers
Fourteen geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N. C. Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction activities,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be enforced
during the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-
of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the
plans or Special Provisions or unless disposal within the right-of-way is
permitted by the Engineer. In addition, disposal will not be done in wetland
areas.
45
b. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken
to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings
and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
C. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering
the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the
value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.
d. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor
before work is started. The schedule will show the time relationship
between phases of the work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion
and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the
erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those
provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance with the strict
erosion control measures as outlined in the Federal Aid Policy Guide FAPG
650, Subpart B. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of
berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
e. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
f. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
g. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
h. The construction of the project may cause some disruptions in
service to the utilities serving the area. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local
officials, and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various
construction procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to
be taken during the time of construction that will minimize interruption of
water service.
i. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the
need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this work will be made at the time.
j. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source. In addition, borrow sources will not be located in wetland
areas.
46
k. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to
brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both
during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Land Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office (DEHNR)
Division of Environmental Health
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of Emergency
Management
N.C. Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
City of Greensboro
Copies of the comments received are included in the appendix (See pages A-8
through A-31).
B. Citizens Informational Worksho[)s
Two Citizens Informational Workshops were held for the project. The first
workshop was held on August 13,1992 at Smith High School Auditorium and the second
workshop was held at the Holiday Inn on Burnt Poplar Road on July 20,1993.
An aerial mosaic showing the project study corridor and interchange study areas
was presented at each workshop. Each attendee was given the opportunity to review the
mosaic and ask questions and make comments. In addition, handouts were available to
all workshop attendees. Each handout contained a comment sheet which could be
completed and submitted to the Division of Highways. Copies of the workshop handouts
are included in the Appendix (pages A-55 through A-63). The handouts and aerial mosaic
displayed at the workshops described the proposed improvements as widening
Interstate 40 to as many as ten lanes, reconfiguring interchanges, and relocating some
secondary roads. Approximately five citizens attended the first workshop and
approximately thirty citizens attended the second workshop. Comments received
primarily pertained to the need for the project and the impacts to individual properties.
These comments were considered during subsequent planning and design activities.
47
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the completion of this report to provide
more detailed information on the proposed project to local citizens and to receive
additional comments.
EFUplr
48
FIGURES
ai IBS3 ?
'q'3 R
BUS r x0
r -
?' e I
.¢ a 1913
\ I I.
+92a I^-z"- k \
BEGIN
?? PROJECT ? tB:9 "? - _
1850
19,5 "?'? ? 19E0 ,938. \
IB59 1E'I ? \
19'9 .m 181 68 \ \
1695
/? a? - I s\iGpJ
CIS
18S'/ • y - ,929 -,°68 -E
1 _ 9 19x1 _ i c
, A - T\ ?5Si r
r ? 195- ' lam
m E I
a sanav o'_-3 ?y
CamC Or c-:e ,
^? r.w
1-x ..wi ? I
y \ A r
1 4 Me
\ lv ? 'f1 _ / I /?
? \ .? // / M \ 8 ? I ,622
\ i
-47
L!.:41
_ e?
i
.\,? / Ir ICI A Y
7- ---, ?? ?? I?
_ _ ? ? -, ? , ? I ? ICI ?! ? r`/ ? g i ?
MATCHLINE
Regional Road yam' ?I ?j?
14
Ik ¦
I ,,???? `t•I f ?
01
ply:: ?i \ I ??. :b ? oad I ? \\\
'' -' I IN Ch??ne ? 1 ¦ ?
- 4 I?r p yR ? a
Is I...
I 1- i I G) °1d
1. --- ? i Co?? ¦ /
01
I klk g I , ?-
\ . N
IU / \ .r i
¦ r 1
I
?a
I
/ - / Ij"
.f ? o m ? <?• ?? I'
1 c. z ¦
m o / v 1 ¦?
\
\
\ la ??_ ¦
? I
??aag,?lg
4.
u
0 R o

t
0 Dp 0 p°''nwv+n°6?'
x 0v

m c) Z- q m?
C T{ COro00O
r?17d
M% ?
z
x
>
-
-vDW-.L
0
N c
i
?
Oro
''100
iC)0.5g
n
°o,F^
m oxyr
MC)y>
zm
(n
?
? O
Z
v Z?
73 00Cl)?
j ?
7

C 0
v
0 G) .
. y
to 7

m T m
y z
a
? " y
t
¦
I
I.a

r; 1-
?? I;? i? Is /•
IV
I ?'
n
c
x
m
N
D
r ti C)
C)
orriz
oo?
z?
D
m
zo
cz
m
z?
? m
z?
o D
?o
o?
m m
ti rn
zz
f
?o
<c
oc
m -n
x ?
? O
z?
o?
mrn
O rn
n
d C
m r
rn
-o C
?z
00
`m m
n?
I J _.
x r
O O
d ?
z
n
m
D
r?
O
z
`z
m
D
m
Tj
O
0
0
m
z

? o r
O
m z
?o
z?
n
m
? C
m cn
o?
zz
o -?
D Y
m m
° D O
m
'? rn O
?CCr77
O
zD
? O O
m '? n
x
?C7O
rnz
o^n
„ r
zo
-? C
m ?
Cz
-? c
O m
-o r C
D n O
m
O m d
D ?
D
?m
z?
,.C m
n
oz
x
O r
..y O
Vy
? O
z
c
z0
-? x
Y

LOOKING EAST ON INTERSTATE 40. THE BRIDGI: IN
THE FOREGROUND HAS BEEN REMOVED AND
REPLACED.
LOOKING WEST ALONG INI EKS I A I E 40 A I SANUY
RIDGE ROAD INTERCHANGE.
LOOKING WEST ON INTERSTATE 40.
FIGURE 2
B
LOOKING NORTH AT SANDY RIDGE ROAD BRIDGE
OVER INTERSTATE 40.
LOOKING NORTH AT SANDY RIDGE
ROAD/INTERSTATE 40 RAMP/LOOP TERMINAL.
LOOKING SOUTH AT INTERSTATE 40/SANDY RIDGE
ROAD INTERCHANGE FROM THE TRIAD ROAD
INTERSECTION.
LOOKING SOUTH ALONG REGIONAL
ROAD. BRIDGES IN BACKGROUND
ARE TO BE REPLACED. THE NEW
PIERS WILL ALLOW FOR WIDENING
OF REGIONAL ROAD IN THE- FUTURE.

LOOKING WEST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 AT THE NC 68 INTERCHANGE.
LOOKING EAST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 FROM NC 68 TOWARDS
GALLIMORE DAIRY ROAD GRADE
SEPARATION.
FIGURE 2C
n
c
m
N
cz?o
a m r O
17?C'T
won
-? ?
c -7'
v Y a
r
Imo
c>?no
cnC?O?Q
cntmOC1
a 7 m
a
vz°0?0
? m C7 7? _
r--a
? b
,- Y
z0az
ozcnC)
d?c
?r
0
oho
z
m
o°r
zoo
?z
-C m
rf
O>
a
a ?
D m
ra-O
r- ?
?z
C) C)
m
D
a
z
Oz
a
0
a
r
°z

PROPOSED LOCATION OF
RELOCATED ALBERT PICK ROAD (SR
1681). INTERSTATE 40 AND ALBERT
PICK ROAD ARE IN THE
BACKGROUND. THE VIEW IS TO THE
NORTH.

?
GALLIMORE DAIRY ROAD/ALBERT
PICK ROAD INTERSECTION.
LOOKING EAST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 AT GALLIMORE DAIRY ROAD
INTERCHANGE. ALBERT PICK ROAD
IS AT RIGHT.
[ 16?'RL ?E
t
x „xx,
114
A t
4
W
V
W
W
W
O
U
C
O
w
w
? o
V?
w
z¢
o?
Q w
F-
zz
o°
z=
V ?
z°
?o
o¢
oC
?x
W
V
W
F-
> W
az
w
Z
¢
o W
T V
Wz
CG W
W -
?- z
z-
_o
V ¢
zo
o?
w w
¢ V
w
? w
w O
3U
V°
zo
?1
o=
o?

I
r.

1 9
--? , ,
¢
C
W
V
w
w
O
U
n
J
V ,
O ¢
s
z°
oN
00
?z
¢
r\
O
J
J
zo
O?
V ¢
Ow
0
w W
[- V
¢z
?z
W ?
z?
z
Vo
z¢
o?
¢ W
V
?- w
W O
U
V?
z°
o -'
J
?V
w
W
J
C7
N
w
x
O
x
Li
W
F-'
¢
F- W
r1 v
w z
zz
x
v w
z?
oz
w W
??
Ln >
LL) ¢
3x
w
C7 >
zo
oz
w
O 3

C
x
w
¢ w
F-
wz
z?
x
?W
az
z
W
i >
w ¢
cC
w
c^, >
zo
?o
oz
w
03
r ,
• 4
¢
O
w
¢
C7
LLIz
z¢
U
C7
O `-
?, z
¢ w
?z
?w
w >
3¢
x
w
zo
Cz
O w

Q
x?
?Q
z
u
v x
z?
c
¢w
w >
3 ?
x
w
?7 >
z C
?c
O w
03
LOOKING WEST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 AT PATTERSON AVENUE
INTERCHANGE.
LOOKING EAST ON INTERSTATE 40
AT LEFT HAND EXIT FOR
PATTERSON AVENUE.
LOOKING SOUTH AT EXIT AND
ENTRANCE RAMPS FOR THE
INTERSTATE 40/PATTERSON AVENUE
INTERCHANGE.
FIC;IIRE ?H
°;
??
R
>..
a
10,19,

LOOKING WEST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 AT MERRiI DRIVE GRADE
SEPARATION.
LOOKING NORTH ON MERRIT DRIVE.
FAIRFAX ROAD IS AT LEFT.
LOOKING SOUTH AT MERRIT DRIVE
BRIDGE OVER INTERSTATE 40.
FIGURE 2I

LOOKING WEST ALONG INTERSTATE
40 AT HOLDEN ROAD GRADE
SEPARA'T'ION.
LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS
HOLDEN ROAD BRIDGES.
LOOKING SOUTH ON HOLDEN ROAD
FROM INTERSTATE 40 BRIDGES.
FIGURE 2J
..
R vt
r
c
r

4
i

F, 4

ti ?
¦

H IIJ
o N
o I ?

G
N

W w r?w
W I oN.

d d d ^?
ca
" y
' ?

o
r
ON o `
,CD -
?o o

00

h?
f?
h
G „
NII ?
t
o to o ? ?`0
o ? o
dC7CJH
a%
o ? w N w
o1M

o w°
ql?
dr d?
o? ry
rn
0
W ? e'ia gTgrF
°
?TT1
O N 8
?
_ 1
O 7

-+Tazm zp?x
v?vmu?
rQ cn xzzz?
y?o0

zmmin
0z
?Z zv
< 3,>v
T
5 I
omO o ?z'
z? z
c
X O
-n 2
D r
`n
o ?
a
d
x
d
d
o?? wlr
elm
r--r
° D
was
?lw
N

aIN ?'

W
Ilk

W U1
W
C"
td
?Oy
~d?
rn n
00

4,
?
w

d?
0
w N ?
w
? ?tN
wI-n

AR
I w
cy,

N (1?
\W \ \
w r

w it
N ,

-411

t
l V
\
C7 C7
N
IA
70
,Q o N ' W
N o

-P
O
"It
0

r
c?
IIo
Q
i
O?
00
Nlw
oIh
I
_ i
?I W
N
, a e
414
N
w
o,
0
N
i
O
O
c
y ? 0
N lT1 ,'D
N ?
O ? N
y o
O °
0
O°
t-l N
O
C)
z

d d d H
y?
?ooo 0
N
?.e Iw
d d d? ? d d d ? clin; ?° r ?'No
C> r C?i t" .' o. N
.A y
o ?? o \ \ \ d y (ep
f7 o?-r?
O?r?? I'
IAXV) N
OrW ? ? y_
rMA
00
A, W N ?^ N r a
u
IWO
N1ob l7 d d
w rn r
to
?? o\
o
:1,
?%O-

-4W
n
O W
a
°zx
F-1

SIN 41
I
T
T

r
? C7 d C y
?H y
?-? '-C ?i
O

c 0 o N
N
C) 1,?
?
• N
TIP O O
C7 V V y x
C) o
En O
.r,
°fO 019

?
wIN NI-
?
N
Nw ? 0?
??Wi d
x

?r73
IL
rs
0
C)
0
x

m
W
TI

0.11
o >
OR x °

? n
,
?z??
nWo zzpvx
%
920 2
t
x
z
T
-
No?c) ,
,,
n
>
Ymo
0 G) F 70
zmmin
-I D
N
ov mo>!2

C
z

?W;u >
ro
z? Y

? >
Om z
? z
r
I /
-SIN
d d d
?C> c, 00
o c c c
r?Ob
W N,
dd??
?. O O cn
o; la ° O m
o C o
` I H
w1N
r b'

O
HI
r
0

n
0

C) O ? ---
M
0 0 0 0
o

-P ?
H
rn
O
?
?
dd
C7
W
N
cn C)
t
a,
11
??r?o
MINI
-0 o'0e ? ?a-oo
bo? ?
ZI'\
\ i i r
a
d
x
d
a ? aaa STgTF
O o _ x
=
0 0 a°
a?"' novw °a
m
D
?
-
j
L)ZA txt.. v0z
m
;-0
nz=?x
D
°
mc?
i
Nc
°0 F a
o

- -I D
C
n
5 03 0
?N? m
OZ z
C O-1 v -?
O m t
0
r

Nlw ?w
j
? I W,J
0 h
J LI L
H
H WN ---?'
O
r
z
OIo
v I-
.0 o Vi,
ro 0
1VJ
r
F.a
e W
r
Pa
1?
0
?i
Sit)
O
a J N
H
Flo H No
?I O o
xo
z
.?2ry
0 ? ? 0 b
H
z?
a
c
tTj
s ? Jam' „
C
m'
a-
N
S -0 - w
C < N p
0
O w
N Q
0
1 b
?r o
C.
c° o w
r PO
H CDa
-, o
0-4
C < ON
N a C
r
00 v'
't3 w
ON
0
CD O
?z
0 ^ W
0
a
a
o w ^ w
G < N C?
(D
ti
C
0
0
a
?a
CD
P,? 00
o
o H
0
cG ^VVV
p„ r
CD
? n
a' y
0 ,.?
oOz
CD
0
0

?i
'
w
a'
N

?C ^ w O
G <
CD 0.
n N D\
V
o

?
N C?
V

^ w
'- N O?

N O?

r

?_ ^ w
N ON ^
\
u
b I
'Lf O
0

C ?
w N
a.
G < ... O? Q T /1
n

?"n
O V `

cn 'o
? w
w M
`J
l

y
^ w
N O? O

?? ^_ W
N ?

-? w
N CN

^
w
N C?

V `
y
C ? w
G <

'1 N ?
y
M

C
c
a3osrgrF
0
7'I o
O P

-1
G)ZN
i
C T`-
COr? O
O
?Y<
?a
r- 0?0
?TDz? zz?
R l

o z z zr)
?oz
N a
zmr"v? >y
,n O??
cn? O? y
z
X ?
°o?
m mm
D r ?
i
? N
a?

00 N

ly N
In (fin
a

zz
n
°
^A

O

0
ITI

b
r

O N
U ?
? N
? A

DO

Otero vdaa gTgrd,

n
$PVO.vn°da
?2??

SZm?
:?p
=
4
vpvm%
?D??b, ?zz
?
G?p?'yY
?
N(7?Goo°
M
MZ Y"hp
Z
M
ZED
-n
c
W
z? z
rn ;0
0
?
H
°
m z
CA
W > y
rc-)
I

CrJ
w
N O?
y

1-1
1
1
FF??
11
r vv
F
r
O

c <
C
cr
M.
I CD
td
O
G
0^0 IJ
A

lD

V

?
a

O ^ w
N)
b

O

C ?

rF)

O
n

C*A
y
?"? •• w
N
00
N
z

O
G N
? A
0. ?
b
0
b
d
H
n
a
r
n
.d
O
v?
C?
y
O
z
a3a STq f
v?J or
?

O
Q R o

x
S
Q?
c
N$"voxvwoa

Szm-i to Po IV 0
?a< O
..j

TQmo
?QVmcn ?
nzo?x
xz
z

N
o
<o z
?
Y'i7p?
n
o
i0
°Cspo dx??
Z O Z -Z ',:'3 Y
OC
-n
G) Co
0 mo
m Q z
°G)
n r H
s
l 1
h--I
H
^°z
l 1
0
DO
0
x
x
0
0
1-0
r
0

a

w
w'
c
?? ^ w
?w
re
.^ w
w
8
'- w
N p?
w
N Q?
^^
1--1
S te- A

? 0 O? OO
rr
r ?
O

I ?

N 01

l ?? N ?
o ?
l 1

F--I

x

'
A N O1

? N
N v
x
0
?Z
b
r
O
g
N O?

w
N C?
000 N
? A
S 3
b
Pd
MO
V
O
\u^?J
V
y
C?
r
c?
O
V \ L
y
O
rz
V t

lk
V
A`/)
ONE X
Oi ?20NE X
i
M
W /
P?
ZONE X
?/ / \
A
ZONE X
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-ZONE X -
.
.
ZONE X
b
Z
m
ZONE X
I
ty ZONE X
1
`\\ LIMITS OF 100-
, YEAR FLOOD

SHEET 1 OF 3

t
s?
a
lr? i
J
I \
w \
I ,V
1e
1
,y

0
ro
yF

r0
yF

10,
w ® III iI ??
LIMITS
?
Cl)
m \
m I
I /
N
0
CA) L7
A
D

I

X zzz-2 n
?
a
N) °o
0

0
0 a
to
m
G) zy a
M
X
m 3
z
°'
r

t r
/? OyF
t
10,

ro `\
2F \
f
/ry j.
r B67E
?S
aea
? 1R
N?
.N
\u?
2F
14
E
?' roZ sF
eqe, F
To,
?v
?S+9
e•
n./
roe
f
,j
t
n
i

rr
r.
11,000,
ro
ZF
A SOS
MATCHLINE

0
D
pt\
11,48\
"01-4

I1
r0
yF
+
m
m
w
O ,
\I

f
C I
\ pp
,
\ ? v

d3e Sigh
Q? o
O
?rooo
nz0
X71 ? ?zz?n
N
Y n ?
-'
O :zv
-n
O zz?a
a
p M
zur
O z? a

m
? z 7
rn ? z
r
/ /rOyF I
g
"Oil
f
r0
?f
O
0 ~
d O \

ro
Z
/
r0
yF
+
aa? K
r0
r
OZF (?? °4a
f '" \ MATC LINE
. ?? ff- ~ ° 9F j I I

`?o
3 Ft
use ??
K
3
l`A Y rp
r0 "{? yF
yF
T AT
Vol
'Vo
`'o
t,
ro, f r01
e?e
eea it
f ?e
C ?
r01• °sr
F
yF
ab-
??4V \ C
4 aJ
t
r0
2F
f
V'Oy
F
at, i
f. V

t
yF
t

+
r0
F
yF
Amy
AA F'F r0
a? 4 ll
+ /

f zF \\
YF 'aJ9F \? •
.c
r°2
+
'o . ?

R
?a
J

?•RO? ? o eo '? ??aU? V'y-? ? ?_ .?????f \• s9O V ?? ,' ? • o ? V i?1,N?\` ', • .1 J • • ? iC.?°3? y?..? ? ??
n ? + 1,?_ Q V1 , l • ??
- °---- - ti• ?00?,?-J \\Om C ?? -?? ll// 6, .,?t' ° •°???? ° ?`Oll =,
O ? %n? ?? d ,\// 100.--._ ? ? \ o '\? j .? •n. ? O
y ? ?.' •• .? ( ;.j \ r 4ti? ?_ ? ?/ J \r?l? ?? ::jam ?e I ?? .o e
'?? \l )p ? ? • - '?f-\O_? ??..0- \ "' '? - ? -'O ,O \; ?' /??? / iii ?.,ul\; •• • -? ? -? `?"- `:
? ?0? `"- • 50 l?/? ??/? ? =.v"??,dj , ?'I l i?? : ? :?7 _ i Nm iI ',.i ? ? ?OM^ j •o \? ?1\
O_?--,? \ .?? O • '?y I li O ? ?//?O /)/,. i,. nch_-? ?_ ,- \??.:_ .._ \.,\??. O`; ' ?? ? l.?/O!// - - 1 --03? ? '-' ?
?`- e ° -? :O • -? X001 ??..?? ? ???101'000 8,o ??, , , ? ??, ?? (..?, o??' •: 9 ?
IPP
_Yvp
1:7 (05 ? '°-. es • ?\ ? l • V' n O' 889...
•• ?.
O
:rfD
ly?? ?1! .?".
? , ? . ,??J.? „? ? ,??\. ,? GUILFORD C ? •t `? •-?
?.. aso OLLEGE RD. S
R 1546)
Q \\\ ?\ \\.1 ?/ • • y? i Y ? :' • ; Ste" ?
G `} y ?
800 ? ? O ? `o :i .-_ ? • Q ? t A • ?y • + i .
it \ u /06 s ? \ %e ? •, ? • • • \1
8O ? ? ` ? CU ? ? ??O? X.870 ?) ?I??'S /??• ??+, .st
??? 0 « 2
r
O
'fl
o N ? m N .'? ? yT z
' ?? _ "r O \` -- ° lY? ? ? , ? . J • •.A 'fir
Q` r, Q ?°o\\ O \• 82 .I1 ' . / g30 my A
oo"
O N
a "/"' «<?//---850 ° • • ° -e:? 1 ?., ? ? 0 ? i
? -- -,^ S, .•o ??,?? /:",? ' w - ;I?1) ? DRIVE j?, d / ,:.. 4 _},.
J OF" Al,
Ln r--
04-
\ 1
r J
20
b0 O "
• O- j 9'' ?, HOLDEN ROAD
O
•? O • / s
_ :,cs - •.?_ ? - _ _ \\ °? 011
O (' • O'o00 n my(\ •?yOtt?_° •41_ II ?C• ?'\P1 ?''/P` :•?\: .00( ..x? l ?\ 1 /?•`'? 1t.'•?:.?0 \r
mio
WNk
)) O, .? ? ,, -. -: ? _ _ 6, rte,, °?,• 11 q i .-?? ` •?? ``? ? ? ?' _
O
`-
?;
/? g3o/ r\'?? ?° r ? • ?/ .. ?? (.... \` I `. ?:..1 f f ? ?f ??: 1?. .\\? ?'• ) 0 ?. ? O ' ° i0?5 Op6 S
C7 ?Z
YVII
(r ,.,, ; r` o _ ",??\•;:?,; o 950
960
•?""?) of f) ? ?-=,7 .: •; ?'1 ( c? . \/ ' • ° °
r?Al
°
_ ?-
30 • T• ?"'o ??
a90 •o • \ -,fv
p00 0 _ 1/' 9jo ///O llll??" ?.94p
• o o ? o
sao ? n
a\ ??\? ° • i° w ? C
\_
0 ° o
m o: p w
90 0 • `--?J a ?p? ° y/ n
0 0 0 900 ?j ? o
\„\ • • 900 I ? / °
? .. , ? o ° soo ? 0 90° \
OIL: o ` 0 0 °
1•
sOO /?? ? • , ? ? mss/ ? ?
\ . co I o
?J
.?.•.. 970 (q ? _ /. • i i ° g ?l ?? L
cf`d / 9 lP? O? O
L 8? 70
o _
00
1 50 ? ll ?y •192, ?_ O it l
N • ? _ ° `?. R? ? 11? ? ? (SR 1555) --
°
_ ?.• 1-900
ut_ -4
J "°
l •
`' ..
80 ? • Q • el rte'- 1
pn? yNF n' •-
J "
?p9 •
A/Q etleRs u/lle
`tl UI WINSTON-SALEM 15 Ml. " wirr5 t
KEkr?e
KERN RSVIL LE 4.6 M.
';f?l??' •. .,v \ ? ?m ? to 01q?•-dti ?I_ii?' .? '_x
tow u U i3 i
e-- ?
? Sandy Ridge Road
En of,6
960
i ?-
I A:
/
° ??• _
/-? • o mil, 8 a 900 ? o/?r?/llI ? C??
14
01
1 _r _l t`
/ 0 11 I
? ? $ ? ° .900 0 \\j \?l
1 OS o y
WAO
c ? • ? 068 ? ° • m
r d w
e' ? 9
u
Q?BS 11 ° n.- _ I 11 ?_ .???--bb_• Oa I-.? I ^_i
n? ul• o ? - 800 .059 ? ° :; __ ?'? ••" 1?`
o ! ad ell
°

(01-1 Ot
0 if
z
Z
°? ?' T I 1
M\l ". MI,
V\\\\-..? l_ \? 850.
11 ju
.e3°sgrFe,.
=
m R o
m y
0 C
;u oorbCO?
OR

N
C) r

n
°
x
n z
z
o O zx°?o
y Z
10 o...??

z??y
-n
Cl) z q
a
GE z
~T

m 7
r?
W r

x v o
o e0 ? 9 ? ?
_s • O yROad o??N • ?``?
?• Uy /3 a H?
/I o . bmo H \..
IA two. I\
5- - -- o : B£o col\\ ::,
00
?lhe ? t • I ' ? ? 850`
!06- r
? 'o so r•' a ???- ' rj?
• \•
m ? '/?? I , t, Sao 1/? _-0g? ?. BOp ~
All,
1
` J 1 r
O
Mr
l_ J
r"
C
k ?.
n
0
CD CD
A W
CD W
jF
N
G
?s
G
X
r
0
J
SANDY RIDGE RD. (SR 18501

N
GALLIMORE DAIRY RD.
(SIR 15551
CNIMMEY ROCK RD.
I..(SSRR 1559) RELOCATION
?y
t?
? I
N I
1
I
Tl i
m
OWN
DOO OJ
L
l ?} lO
O n^p p
ENO
O
I
t} t!
I
I
?j
\ s GP
e is
>y a
$?o
0
W
(?6--)
'it Z-A
j l I I~? ? ` _ J? "' ' '/?j' -? u \''6L 1•? ' m V `` `? ?•` >l? ?/ ??\? .?li? `` ?II?3--' \ ?/ ' \`-/'1\?, I `/
IT VI/ C,
'11, J
r &90
050
UPI
\\ Boo ro 1 `n it
?I
0 7 • py6 • O = ?J I ?,?.NI ? I O
?/ '_ • '' 11
? ? 8p X I rll 1 ) ? _- - 1?
lit
l? it
O ?vN l W• :t'
Ib ?Ul
a
tol
\j \r
cor
lit I
41-
B • . ??? ?' I I) 1 •?_. C (I((83_°- - ( '? ?I 1 , •? t'- ?? • ?• •^? 1 a • .
---(? ° • ' • 1 ` `•tb ••f /F•,
B' :/•' ?)• t- ml( ''•` ?.!? a ..II • \` I ?. ) m V '` :?-•JI •II? \•r4= - `.?
? • '!+• _ i •1I ' •• ""?.? ( / ?1 J )? \.. - `• ? ? dl /`J) v . ? , y '\I O • t?:i' (J• ' A?r?- ?? t..
ILA
l / • ? , \?? ' 1. 11 1, • ?Y - ••• - e W ' \•
° ' • %n .?\• •m''v• ?/•' ,•• \ ?? + \?? )) . ,`.\ ``??1 \?? ) j / C? ?•? ?? `f ??l? ¦/,._J? •b? % i ••••.. ' •w...•• E4 ?+ I ? • ? _• W /? l O a ` \1'
• m. • .r .:> •• m bd ' ?? ' :-''?? ?"==--J E`'?-c(.`1Y??\ = I? ? _`_-5_J 1 c9\S,•? \? (--_=? -?„ 2 "r,:pl ?s?%1 ) • ?) , _ _ b • ? s , ? ??,
-I,•\,•_u,?op I1) w? J'. ac •\\ • l? ~l ~+ ?r? t, •?'1 •-l: Y.? .. ?,a ?:.`. \? - 'J( 1 I a ``' c . y.°'- `\•_ l?' `??a?
J .I ?? I .) -"1•? 1.:.1'?? v: 1 )\ C i_ o.\ '?? °,? (m°, ri o ?r ?7 1'
91,
-IN
?? ?'•,: mac. ?'/••. ^?J _ ? ?? ) ? tl?--=' _ , r t/e ?. ??? ? .. _ ?, , ? (.. ; • -- LLLI .. /l I (: -
• ? •I r/ ?? ) +I? / I I (/ 1? \ l• a ? ?.i ,? ? I\\ u`l ?.•. •r '1' ) . .`\ _ ?,• .. 5. i H `4 ?????? ,` ;J r i f ; l ( ? L?j) ? ''
?,? F -, - • ?'? =6. ??-"?.. lei ? \.. 1 \ \ -=--_.?.. _-.J _. , (-,? ?,' I ,--a.
(l ? _?> ? ,\ . •?? , ? "?' • __- _ . ?? - - I ?o :> _?r C , ,? \-% '?•? ???N:.?,) ? -.?1\ ? ? •) /ate
if it
00
V\ C3
r'.%^, ?1 _? ? (? .jl_ II II' . q 0' ?? •? ..?I { ' I ? ,'ir? ?/ ?? ?.Ip •? (? l ? , , 1 /1' may,/
O ° - _' /;/`I? ?..a ,??\''\??..?=J/\ _t `\?•
•c? o '° ? f ll1 ?j "I? '? -??11? ? o _? , FI ( (_\4.°?O /llr -.B /H_OL/O_E ?. ' -ROAD VNA ' t\NORTH' ' / `%•
t , , ?I• ?)-?, ? _:,_..? ,I ,i' nm,. ? .-
-J 1 P? (( \
1 Gh ^ - 900 \.1 o V j~n I •I ? . • - /.. a ?/ ?\ /. ^` 1 fb ?y C ) ): ',. \\ c (C? ??
_?-1 ?I ?.?? )' • , _-.?\ _ •?/? ?, -) ? L.??• '•? L y ?? 6 ? ? ?ldl ? t?- - ?O'•"_ i Il? : ?I? I, ;/? r \I??li
J _I - ••) •• P'•?1 •I r S•' 1•,
r-? ,? \ ?-'?. ? > \ Y' ,ICI(°N_i. o?•?'t? ? (i ? ?? ? I
? ? ? ?: ? / -??? ? '`_ f? ?? (1 ter ?) , ;. ? ,.,
'fo
m NT,
N .,
i D '?"' ?' Z 'n, 1?- -`1 1, o" C'f ..' Q //I ( ' ?j i ?•q?? ••-?` • •• • 1 P• R7 IDOE r - .. 1
N 1 ) 1111 \?I _ ?A a, l j `• I C `?{ a'RE;r
M -n
t'n
..1_.
a ++ '
O
a
z
a
v
F1
F1

Dt::l
? a D

??? t C7

1 tiC
m
Q Z
rly

?
CD az
Z
o
CD
C
CD
+1
tttt
GUILFORD COLLEGE/
JAMESTOWN RD.
(SR 1546)

0010-
r O
0
O dly tt r
? ? r O
CD \
O W
O ?
o ?'? ??? tt O
un? v ? ? ? ttt ?e?O°''eq
4L,F
1,.1 /SA
? d
411 ttt /
SOUTHERN RAILROAD
Ei,
i * 1111111111 1 :??
l+,
.E
CD
^+jy ttt
0
o
a. o Cr1
a
CD CD
O I' a. p-
ao
o D w
C>
CD
" CD r.
rn
ar o
(D o CD
moo ?'
u
CD
CCD o

0
n z r°po

D
D m
AD
Z M
D x z4
G?Ob?
3 y Zx?°oo
Z Z d..y
D
{
m

G) ca ??zro
z z
c
m
m
OD
r y
J
a? tt
C
CO
.? . P4 r
TERSON 4y .
f 1NC 6
CD

F1 ?
\ O
Dc? Mf RRI ?T ORry f ? .
Ili ttt H0?0P ? -
C
CD
i

o
3 z
i 0
x V
m f ,°b C
?,? ? 1 ?> a ? > m ? n ? ? vJ m Cp
1i II O Z O =
°m
mo 0 0 ?O
O Z N O
Z Z G1 y
0
O
n Z
x
r

A
;

A p

s
;
A ;

O Q o 3? e
o
i
n
..??5
o ?z?m '?rdOz
rrj ?gomo
vOOm/n X74
??zzzn
I I 0
n-I. ?ef0%0
b p?
N
°oz?
? ox-70i?
zmm
cn
?NOz znjy?
HaC

m0
m
W
0.x'"
:,
22
o ?' o
N m OG) to

A

0
W
J
L W
6 i
H a
w F
Z
!) ^
v o

w

ao? W LV LL
o 0 Q
a
?? W
02U
C L.L ?-
zom;. - W J

41 0

(NrJ
W v
Z
C 2 q
CL.

c
) 0
u c
Q ?
Z o
! s

L
? p• Z
u, i
O O°=o
Z
C, d

O

7

1
DAVIDSON COUNTY f

lay ?

V-7
\ FORSYTH COUNTY
-_ .--_

-
d
J
\
` 1 )
G
a
a ? fir; l ?7.?F?i` l ? l
F i?'hl ? r I L? ?r , ?, ? ?/c8 / ?? ---- ??? ? ` _ ? I
-c
I
w f ? ? ? t? ?'
z l
j k
7

? 1
1 1? ?I

7
t7

o e
' 7 'all Q m

c- Z

R

I

I
r
f m p
1 ,
Church-5?- I
rn ?- ' I>I i 1- ?I?? n C

?''l?
1
l
1
I
•?
l?j
?? r... 0?,
I

ti-
10,
-
`y
G

h , i

\\(uhan _ 1 J J ----

l 9
I.
l

ALAMANCE COUNTY
- o
G
<o
o
b w
O

a0G*nr.

1? •
o nr
O O
fD
N ?
Q 0 ontlM'? _

N
m G?z
C ry.: .'t1
0> Z0
?7om
40pmcn ?zzn
?7 A

'

7 ?d

p CD

p

,
1
r
41
N ?r
i CD
?V :,^'
C. dO
o O Q Zl r d x ..j O
?zmmcn the
Y
y Cn f'?' `? r

a
O -
]
{zOz??C
U3 M -t cz
C ?? 7
pop?'i
C®
m n m 7_
r-ry

c
o

00 f7
? ® C/?
F?a
a
0
n
O
C
y
7 !
l II V
as p
? n I 0 ao 0
0
a 4 ?
Z3
EAST FORK DEEP . Aqf\
rr..rrrrr r V?
°
. L
W o
C/
err. EAST
N ?l
. o
k ? ° o 0 0 ©-
O °o O
o O oo
of
O °
l _ Q o
(D Qf)
of
°
?I O 010
? ? QOo®
0 QQQ© ? _.?
p
o o, O°Oo
00 OoO 1. ?' c
B?tnFq qo, ? / ) ?J 1
(-? ? 00 O O
?U O O of o O qt:
1 0 10
0
?va3°srgTF

;u
ow p
QO9?n°nvN?O-S
m
G?zHI

?
? ?rd?p
Szmo-,
Z
r"D
zH?
nZ?
?
v?vmcn
_o
?? Yx
x?zzn
?,
roy
y
?
N(7?0000
oo,Fo o
>Moo
4
x1?
'zmmz 4
mna?
-n ?zoz <?oe
G) 0° -< z>zro
m
;u CD

I -,u
v
_

H
G)
mm z

W H
r H
6
fW
f

°p C° °
a 4
oo o -'

?0 0,
n
n
? o

w n
? ?
? 'ti
7y `?I 1
o ?. J
l
L?. -0 ID
co c C7
o
v,
X d , O
?y ..
0 ??
0 P)
¢ °w °?• o
C] rn
Ln a

°O or o°O
0 °
?
? 0 0 0 oo0
00 00 O i O. U O
° \ 000 O 0 O o 0
io ) o? O a° 0 0
0000 °o
.o
00 o
00 o
01 °
o 0
O o ° o
0 0
fix o0 'A (Jooo
o -
O i !t°
G. _
G° 11000
l
L_.I --??C1C=

/ 1*" . 1
r,
I--1 1 \;I ?I' I I R
qmm? Z
1 r
r>
0
O
0

F O I o°
O
o lot
° O of
?a 0
o,0Of
of 0 °
o o p
vU
1
O.
u
01
? bd
n
,CD
r+
1?1 ? CD

?2 8 'b ?j (p 8
5 ? W
A
_ rn w
O
I: 1 a
.' 3.6
n n 1
N (A
1 C')
N
1
111!1 ttttti
4.2 18.0 21.6 4.2
N
m
I °
I m
z
z
C)
a

°
0 1
t.9? a
y
m
m
L
60
CD O
S Y 5 Y 1 O+ ul
w
n 3 n N
N - ?Z
1
+
co N Z7 co

N

r,

1 + A r W

n
m W
M w
W
D ,f
w

I
N
-0 rn
<
,
I t
?w
N

+ + 1

o
00
in (,

D +

N

it p m
p

N
(n
al
m 0
? O
o 11
w 1

\ ± o t0
Vim/ L i
1
ul ''

w Fmm "" .. / co •
w
Gallimore p
-
a
rY Road -- °
?- cq 45m UNIFORM TAPER ' R A N
° N 2
. ??
8
18'10.4.
/•,, 9 a
N

O 3
s
\
v po

N 7-7

+
±
1 1
W r
n

i ,

m
,

z
s
Ln °
W z
m o a ro
?.
L4
NIA, 1 ' . o o ~ -°a
+ 1
a > + +
LO N N La O
? a O
N
9
5Y .I
5•Y
n n
1 N
N 1
n I
a ? I I ? I? I-Ao
0
N

n
>0 0
009 ly,e3a gTglF
q,
R
CZ-D•I? ?+rooz
:R yz
-q n>z-n
v0 0m(n nzp?x
21 z
z

rv0?Cl)- X 7' 2
r)
nO b >
o
o0QF=ccn Y ^n 7?
zx?0
zmm i
m ?G7Y
-4>
?00z z
<OtC
o31 -<
;u cna 0
z
c ?
0-lo
m O m 2 KI
w ? z

o rr
T m

H V1
A

L

D
1111111Itttitt
A
a I v
N
1
N I

a O
-?

W A
A
Z I ^1
m
m a
W m
I

_Z
Y I
Y
v, m
? -o
?O
oZ
C
Q
VI
Z
o
c?c Z
OM
?m
n
o D
aZ
m
? N
LOOP

O O
o s? eaa Sigh
y
R

P$9r oM ?,??
oZ-Di? ?rooz
,TDZ? nzp?x
9OVmo xzzzn

mm^
Woo Zx??Y
?azm
-n
G) o?"?
cn? o?
z
z
o ?v y
Ill n m z
r •?
APPENDIX
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of TrrnSpnrtatl-n
Y. AREA RFI OCATt?N nrrlrr
E.f.S. ? CORRIDOR f--] DESIGN
PROJECT: 83491604 COUNTY GUILFORD Alternate AB of Alternate

1. D. NO.:
1-2201
F.A. PROJECT
N/A _
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-40 SANDYRIDGE ROAD TO HOLDEN RD.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
-i ype of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 160-260 0 20-40M 0 160-260 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 260.400 0 40-70M 0 260.400 0
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400.600 0
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 goo UP 0 100 UP 0 goo UP 0
displacements TOTAL 0 0 0 0
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NEGATIVE STUDY -- NO RELOCATION INVOLVED
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
I
BRAD BOWERS , 03-31-97 D_ i7
Relocation Agent Date Approved by Dale
,I., I -,.IVGI.7J U
LUngmal & 1 Copy: State Relocatinn i gpnt
2 Copy Area Rol/ratinn ntfi-?
A-1
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA. RFI OCATION O?FL?f
F.I.S. r_1 CORRIDOR ? DES10N
PROJECT: 83491604 COUNTY GUILFORD Alternate AC of Alternate
1-2201 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-40 SANDYRIDGE ROAD TO HOLDEN RD.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
1 yrP of
Di!:alacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 - 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 01 . 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 160-260 0 20-40M 0 160-260 0
res No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 260-400 0 40-70M 0 260-400 0
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? [770-100M p 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 p
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 up 0 Goo Ur 0
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 0 0
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NEGATIVE STUDY -- NO RELOCATION INVOLVED
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
EE 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9 Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
1y
BRAD BOWERS 's>' V 03-31-97
`-
Relocation Agent Date _ Ap roved b Date
rnrrn 1S A D...i.....J n1,ne ?
vnpmal rs. i copy: State Feloc.aUon Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-2
?RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina D?'P:+rtment of Transportntion
ARPA Rrt nCAI InN nrrp•r
EEE.I.S. F-1 CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
rROJFCT: 83491604 COUNTY GUILFORD Alternate BA of Alternate
-------
-
I.n 1-2201 F.A. PROJECT NIA
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-40 SANDYRIDGE ROAD TO HOLDEN ROAD

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
T ype of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities D-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U (J
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
_
Farris 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 S 0-160 0 0-20M 0 $ o-160 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 160-260 0 20-40M 0 160-260 0
Yes No Explain all "Y"ES" answers. 40-70M 0 260-400 p 40-70M 0 260-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 Goo UP 0 100 UP 0 Goo UP 0
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 0
1 0
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 3. THERE ARE BUSINESSES OF A SIMILAR NATURE & SIMILAR
X 4 . Will any business be displaced? If so, SERVICES IN THE GENERAL AREA.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees. minorities, etc 4. (1) A & B PARTNERS - PLl.lhl?ttl!? BUSINESS NON-MINORITY
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 5 FULL TIME & 5 PART TIME.
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? (2) SYSTEL OFFICE AUTOMATION OFFIrES & WAREHOUSE
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? NON-MINORITY APPROX. 50 EMPLOYEES
X 9. Are there large, disabled. elderly, etc.
families? 11. PUBLIC HOUSING IS AVAILABLE, HOWEVER. NO
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES NOTED ON THIS SEGMENT
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. ADEQUATE DSS HOUSING WILL BE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER,
housing available during relocation period? NO RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES NOTED ON THIS SEGMENT
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means? 14. FROM LOCAL LISTINGS, NEWSPAPERS ADEQUATE
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list BUSINESS SITES WILL BE AVAILABLE.
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
1

?J.72
BRAD BOWERS .> ' I 03-27-97 ! /J
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
I r•nn 1-, 4 Revised 02195 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Re!o:.ahon Agent
2 Copy Area. Pots a}Inn Off re
A-3
r REPORT
North C nr,?llnn D°F'rtmen+ of Trance-Cation
AREA PF! f?CAT!rW nrr t,r
a F.LS. F-1 CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
_PROJECT: 8.T491604 COUNTY GUILFORD Alternate BF3 of Alt?rnaf-
I.r). td?,.: 1-2201 F.A. PROJECT N/A --- -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-40 SANDYRIDGE ROAD TO HOLDEN ROAD

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCORIF LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Businesses 3 3 6 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M p _i0-160'J 0 0-20M 0 $0-160 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 160-260 0 20-40M 160-260 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40.70M 0 260.400 0 40.70M 6 260-400 80+
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 0 70-100M 18 400-600 60+
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 60+ 600 up
0
displacemenf9 TOTAL 1 0 84 90+
X 3 Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 3. THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES/SERVICES OF A SIMILAR
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NATURE IN THE GENERAL. AREA.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc 4. (1) BP GAS STATION - NON -MINORITY APPROX 5
EMPLOYEES 2 FULL TIME & 3 PART TIME - GAn/AUT0M0TIVF
X 5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? SERVICE.
X 6 Source for available housing (list) (2) BALLINGER PROPERTIES. INC., NON MINORITY 4
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? EMPLOYEES - 2 FULL TIME & 3 TART TIME - REAL ESTATE
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? SALES/RENTALS - DISPLACED DUE TO CONTROLLED
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. ACCESS.
families? (3) COMPUTER SHOP - 3 FULL TIME & 1 PART TIME NON-
X 10. WIII public housing be needed for project? MINORITY - COMPUTER SALES/SERVICE..
X 11. Is public housing available? (4) EXXON CORP. GAS/CONVENIENCE STOPS - NON-
X 12, Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing MINORITY - 1 FULL TIME & 3 PAP.T TIME - DISPLACED DUE Try
housing available during relocation period? CONTROLLED ACCESS.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within (5) OLIVE MOUNTAIN CONVENIENCE STORE - NON-MINOPITY
financial means? 1 FULL TIME & 3 PART TIME GROCERY /GAS - DISPLACED
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list DUE TO CONTROL ACCESS.
source). (6) AUTO BROKERS - MINORITY BUSINESS - 1 FULL TIME &
15. Number months estimated to complete 2 PAR TIME. AUTO SALES & SERVICE.
RELOCATION? 8. LAST RESORT HOUSING WILL BE UTILIZED AS NEEDED
11. PUBLIC HOUSING IS AVAILABLE THROUGH CITY OF GREENSBORO.
12. ADEQUATE HOUSING IS AVAILABLE
14 FROM LOCAL LISTINGS, NEWSPAPERS, VISUAL SURVEY. THERE APPEARS TO BE ADEQUATE BUSINESS SITES
AVAILABLE. r
6RAb BOWES 03-27-97
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
v, i" 1_. Y rNimbCU vzivl7 U
Original R 1 Copy: State P.O.— Pi!n kgcnt
2 Copy Area P-I -et,cn Office
A-4
RELOCATION REPORT
I
North Carolina nepartment of Trnnsportntinn
ARFA RFt OCATION nrrirr
FTIE.I.S. F__1 CORRIDOR F DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.T491604 COUNTY GUILFORD Alternate C of Alternate
I.D. tin.: 1-2201 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-40 SANDYRIDGE ROAD TO HOLDEN ROAD

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
1 ype of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 1 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0 0-20M 0 $0-160 p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 160-260 0 20.40M 1 160-260 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 260-400 0 40-70M 5 260400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 6 70-100M 18 400-600 30+
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 Goo UP p 100 up 60+ Goo up 60+
displacement? TOTAL 1 61 1 84 90+
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 3. NO BUSINESSES BEING AFFECTED BY THIS SEGMENT.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 8. LAST RESORT SHOULD BE IMPLFMENTED AS NEEDED
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. PUBLIC HOUSING AVAILABLE THROUGH CITY OF GREENS-
X 6 Source for available housing (list). BORO.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 12. IT IS FELT FROM LOCAL LISTINGS, NEWSPAPERS, VISUAL
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. SURVEY THAT DSS HOUSING WILL BE AVAILABLE.
families?
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 14. ADEQUATE BUSINESS SITES ARE AVAILABLE, HOWEVER. NO
X 11 . Is public housing available? BUSINESS AFFECTED ON THIS SEGMENT.
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? NOTE: AVAILABLE RENTALS BASED ON VISUAL SURVFYq ANr)
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within LOCAL LISTINGS.
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
n,

' J
BRAD BOWERS s ?? L 03.31-97
Relocation Agent Date Approved b U?1F
corm 15 4 Revised 02/95 d
Orginal R 1 r.npy: State Pelr?rair^n Ayc.!jt
7 Copy Area P,eIrratinn r`ff+cp
A-5
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs 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 will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
r or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are el i gi bl'e and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting 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 will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
A-6
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
Adisplaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will 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 finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
A-7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
' P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 19, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
ID, ?. J
CE/G\
F
0
ocT22
1990
OF
? ?ESEP,PCH?P?
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of September 15, 1990, requesting information
for 11I-40 from new I-40 near Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro; Guilford Co.;
State Project No. 8.1491601; Federal Aid Project No. IR-40-3 (76)207; TIP
No. I-220111 and offer the following comments.
Both Guilford County and Greensboro are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program; therefore, they regulate the use of the 100-year-frequency
flood plain and floodway. The effects of bridge and culvert modifications on
the hydraulics of the streams in this area should be evaluated and any adverse
effects should be in compliance with local flood plain regulations.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including disposal
of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands
should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation or
mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review
these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. John
Thomas, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
1
SLIgcerely, r y
i
Lawrence. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
f
It
A-8
fa /
Mt
7

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
NIOV 0 7 1990
-90
Fir. L. j. Ward. P.E-.
Manager. Flanning and Research Branch
North Carolina COT
P.O. Box 25201 -
Raleigh. NC 27611-5201
f`__... ?..n
Ucai ru . Ward:
Atlanta Airports District Office
1680 Phoenix Parkway, Suite 101
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
This is in reference to your request dated September 24, 1990, requesting
identification of potential environmental impacts, and permits or approvals
needed, in conjunction with the I-40 improvement project identified as
TIP 2201.
This agency has not identified any potential environmental impacts that may
be caused by this highway improvement project However. any improvement
made to intersection., grade structures. etc.. that would exceed 200 feet in
heinht above the ground elevation or would penetrate a 100 to 1 slope for a
horizontal distance of 20.000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest
runway on the Piedmont Triad International Airport would require this
agency's review and approval. We have enclosed FAA Form 7460-1 for your
information.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely.
Thom RoBert
Program Manager
cc:
Mr-. W. G. Plentl. Jr-., Director of Aviation, North Carolina DOT
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS A-9
:-M208
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE -r"
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM ,
NoC. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANN. 6 ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTICIN
SCOPING FOR COMMENTS ON IMPACT OF PROPOSED IPROVEMENTS TO
I-40 NEAR KERNERSVILLE TO I-85 AT GREENSBORO
TIP I-2201
SAI NO 91E42200217 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( 1 NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
i X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION G
r
A-10

f

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
kE MORANDUM
Oc;r 90
sE ECEIVED
P ET DOA OFFICE
TO: Chrys Baggett .,?5/?! 1 Z1 \\v?
state clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 91-0217 I-40 In>provements near Kernersville to I-85
Guilford County
DATE: October 25, 1990
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environnent, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed scoping notice. Comments fran our divisions have been attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
DM1: bb
attachments
cc: David Foster

P.O. BoN 27687, P deilh. North Carolmn 27,611-77687 Telephone [phone]
A-11
? 7990
w
CIO row pFF,CF A)
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart kw-`'
Habitat Conservation Project Leader
Date: October 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for improvements to I-40 from new I-40
near Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro, Guilford
County, North Carolina
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L.
J.'Ward of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from improving I-40 between Greensboro
and Kernersville. The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
is concerned over direct and indirect adverse impacts on
wildlife, fisheries, and wetland resources within and
adjacent to the construction corridor.
Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum of
September 24, 1990, we can express our concerns and requests
for information only in general terms. Our ability to
evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial
recommendations when reviewing project environmental
documents and permit applications will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the
study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included
in the inventories.
A-12
i 7 t.1 1\ T t r%
Memo Page 2 October 4, 1990
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
State and Federal species of special concern,
within, adjacent to, or utilizing study corridors.
1

3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all projected related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with
fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
j
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please call on us.
A-13
d i
Y
N-
State of North Carolina.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 4, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cottenr\u
Thru: Gary Thompson?("<
7990
,s<`',??RNSy?o
?0A ?FF??F
i
Charles H. Gardner
Director
4.1
Subject: 91-0217, Guilford County, I-40 from new I-40 near
Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro,
State Project No. 8.1491601, Federal Aid Project
No. IR-40-3(76)207, TIP No. I-2201
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 14 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT

t
I.
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
A-14 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
11
?i
i
L
C
f
L
C
C

L
C
C
C
C
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
_p -a l0 18 a
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Renional Office. Ti-
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit ::
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. =aply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit N/A
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property ov. er. 55 days
redge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources N/A (90 unyb)
pen burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be prc:erly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & s =imentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filec with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 cats before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be adcressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shor, :
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
1 Mining Permit Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds t days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required ..if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspe--:ions (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is plvined."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin constructicn.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNF ' approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control proc,am. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
PS-105
Continued on reverse H- IJ
Normal Pf?':
Time '
C
L_
C
C
C
C
C
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (N/A)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)

55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are locatec in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

-tom
? ??-??t? I o?919?
>f ?
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
-4
OCT 1990
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Offi
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone] -
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
RECEIVED
SECRETARY'S OFFICE
ti DOA

? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
A-16 8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
;/inston-Salem, NC 27106
i919)761-2351
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
o;%4' I{vsk[ A? Yt I le
Project Name 1 ?' ) T_ y5 44 C/?l t- ks 6 ye' Type of Project

-02,
";t 1 The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
'?- must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC IOD .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
s
Several water lines possibly are located In the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional Information Is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Hater Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC IDA .1900 et. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank. and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
L/' The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
v - /
V The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For lnformalton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
Reviewer Branch/Unit Da e
(' 'j, . L4FL
Project Number
County
i
A-17
d?Fo
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
October 1, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Ca s, Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0217
N.C. DOT - Proposed Improvements to I-40 near
Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro..
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.

A-18

4
F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI ?` ,r? ti ITt
DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATI
P.O. BOX 25201
JAMES G. MARTIN RALEIGH 27611-5201 rS DIVI F AVIATION
GOVERNOR A A ,4, N PARKWAY
` dial -DURHAM AIRPORT
THOMAS J. HARRELSON [phone]
SECRETARY December 18, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: A.S. Cline, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Bruce Matthews, Manager of Aviation Development=
Vv`
SUBJECT: TIP # I-2201, Widening of I-40 West of Greensboro
Initial review of the concept map indicates there will probably be no
interaction with known airport facilities. However, construction in
the vicinity of the NC 68 interchange will be directly in line with
runway 5 at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The relatively
close proximity of the airport (approx. 1 mile) may result in
restrictions on object heights such as construction cranes, roadway
lighting etc. In addition, it is possible that FAA might have
navigational aids in the general area which might need to be analyzed
prior to construction.

It is recommended that you contact Mr. Ted Johnson, Airport Engineer
for the Piedmont Triad International Airport at 919 665-5600. Mr.
Johnson can provide airport plans and mapping, including any height
restrictions which might affect development in this area. Mr. Johnson
can also locate any FAA navigational aids which might be in the
vicinity of I-40.
Please advise if we can provide any further information.
BEM: sap
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
A-19
- r+ Z\Z`s
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
116 West Edenton Street - Education Building
Raleigh. NC 27603-1712
MEMORANDUM
a/? 4, '' rY
= KOV 2 6 1990
t?. HVI?AY;; ?-
`t ??SEP?RG?
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
Highway Building
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
November 20, 1990
iDistribut?,,to:
Poole Vick ?' l 0 Quinn
Dudeck Prevat _ Bruton
Netlaam
horvacd DaVi3
_ Elliott Shuller
Nedwide
Modiin
Teweil U'lel-b

-
Eimore_ Springer
FROM: Charles H, r f
Assistan ?'uperintendent for Auxiliary Services
NC Depar of Public Instruction
217 W. Jones St., Ed. Annex I
RE: I-40 from new I-40 near Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro; Guilford
Co.; State Project No. 8.1491601; Federal Aid Project No.
IR-40-3(76)207; TIP No. I-2201
Please find attached communication from John A. Eberhart, Superintendent of
Greensboro Public Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment

A-20
.........«,._,...,,,.,, .,,,,;,,,, ,,,
GREENSBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CRAWER V
GREE'.S60RO N rti C-.CE OF CE I V E D November 8, 1990
i
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
State Department of Public Instruction
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
N 0 V "I 4 is 'J
SCHOOL F'Le`.h1NQ
Subject: I-40 from New I-40, Near Kernersville to I-85 at Greensboro;
Guilford County; State Project No. 8.1491601; Federal Aid
Project No. IR-40-3(76)207; TIP No. I-2201
Dear Dr. Weaver:
Pj*-#Ks-a be advised that my staff and I have carefully reviewed the map
regarding the identified road project. We do not see any problems that this would
create for our school bus transportation department. As you are aware, we do not
route any of our buses along I-40 because of the heavy traffic and the dangerous
conditions that exist.
Thank you for alerting us to this project.
JAE: rc
Sincerely yours
hn A. Eberhart
A-21

North Carolina Department of Cultural
MEMORANDUM /or _?N
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
November 8, 1990
Wi rr•
C,
L7 C ?
S `7 0
? O
,1rces

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ,
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer _.VA-
SUBJECT: I-40 from new I-40 near Kernersville to I-85
at Greensboro, Guilford County, State Project
No. 8.1491601, Federal Aid Project No. IR-40-3(76),
TIP No. 1-2201, CH 91-E-4220-0217
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the
above project, as well as your letter of September 24, 1990.
Since the major portion of this project is to be constructed within
existing right-of-way, it is unlikely that most of the proposed project
will affect significant archaeological resources. However, our files
indicate that Woodland period site 31Gf21 may be affected by the western
end of the proposed improvements.
Prior to project implementation, we recommend that this site be relocated
and evaluated in terms of its eligibility for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. Appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary,
can be developed after the evaluation is complete.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning.the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:lw
r

cc: T. PadgetL109 East Jones Street* Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-22 State Clearinghouse
?Y ,..SUT[o
?7Y, y M
N
North Carolina Department of Cultural
It
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: 1-40 east of Kernersville to SR 1616, Guilford
County, 1-2201, 8.1491601, IR-40-3(76)207, ER
94-7513
O
OCT 2 O'IW3
DIVISION OF
oll:4UWdiAU1ftd
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 20, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the phase I historic architectural survey report prepared by Clay
Griffith for the North Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the
project. We understand that no structures over fifty years of age are located in
the area of potential effect. Thus, we concur with the Federal Highway
Administration's determination that no National Register listed or eligible properties
are in the area of potential effect for the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Br ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slww
cc: " H. F. Vick, NCDOT
B. Church, NCDOT
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 A-23
V00 ;0
Oct 9 1993
'?-
Z O1V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso e?y?-:S?C'V OF
is
<<;, U'fwAY
chives
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Div
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Willi ,
October 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Improvements to 1-40 near Kernersville to 1-85 at
Greensboro, Guilford County, 1-2201, ER 94-7471
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 14, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the documentation prepared by Gerold Glover for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the revisions to the project in
the vicinity of SR 1607. We concur with Federal Highway Administration's
determination that the project as currently proposed will have no effect upon
National Register-eligible archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ^ZH. F. Vick
T. Padgett

11
A-24
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
CITY OF GREENSBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
February 21, 1997
Ed Lewis, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Interstate 40 Widening Project
TIP Project No. I-2201
Dear Mr. Lewis:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 3136
GREENSBORO, NC 27402-3136
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX NO: [phone]
Please find enclosed information on the City of Greensboro's pedestrian needs along the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's Interstate 40 Widening Project. The information has
been prepared in accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines dated April 20, 1994.
If you should require any additional information pertaining to the City of Greensboro's requests for
funding participation for sidewalks along this project, please contact me at 910-373-2810.
Thank you in advance for your consideration for these sidewalk requests.
Sincerely,
Tyrelle A. Evans
Transportation Planning Specialist
cc: Richard Atkins, Director, GDOT
Tim Westmoreland, Transportation Engineering Manager, GDOT
Steve Kennedy, Director, Greensboro Engineering Department
Paul Koch, Greensboro Urban Area Coordinator, NCDOT- Statewide Planning
enclosures
A-25
I40 WIDENING PROJECT
TIP 41-2201
The City of Greensboro Request for NCDOT Participation
in Sidewalk Funding for the Project
The following information pertains to the City of Greensboro's pedestrian needs within the
Interstate 40 corridor in the vicinity of the bridge crossings along the I-40 widening project. The
following are requests for six locations within the I-40 corridor in the vicinity of the bridges:
1. Greenway Trail Crossing @ 1-40 - coordinate efforts to determine location of trail crossing
2. Guilford College Road - construct sidewalk on west side from existing facility southward
3. Holden Road - replace existing sidewalk on east side
4. Merritt Drive - replace existing sidewalk on the east side
5. Albert Pick Road relocation - construct sidewalk to conned existing trails in office park
6. Chimney Rock Road relocation - construct sidewalk on the west side
The first section of this document addresses the questions set forth, and provides the information
requested in the "Quantifying the Need for Pedestrian Facilities" section of NCDOT's Pedestrians
Policy Guidelines. The second section of this document addresses the " Considering the Needs of
Pedestrians to Avoid Creating Hazards" section of the same guidelines.
QUANTIFYING THE NEED FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The following text address the seven criteria which are set forth in the NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy
Guidelines:
1. Local Pedestrian Policy: The City of Greensboro has implemented policies,
procedures, and ordinances which encourage and facilitate pedestrian traffic. Mixed use
developments which are accessible to pedestrians are encouraged through the Greensboro
Sidewalk Plan and the Guilford County Forecast 2015 Plan. The following demonstrate
the City of Greensboro's commitment to encouraging and supporting pedestrian traffic:
a) City of Greensboro Sidewalk Plan (scheduled for approval by City Council on
March 25, 1997)
b) 1997 Sidewalk Priority Listing (draft)
c) Guilford County Forecast 2015 Plan
d) City of Greensboro Development Ordinance (requires sidewalks on all
thoroughfare streets, and at other locations on collector, subcollector, and local
residential streets where a pedestrian traffic generator requires separation of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic)
e) Bicentennial Trail Crossing @ I-40
f) Greensboro Bicycle Maps (which include multi-purpose trails)

A-26
2. Local Government or Local Sponsor Commitment: The City of Greensboro has
continuously demonstrated a commitment to developing an integrated system of
pedestrian facilities through planning and funding pedestrian-related projects and
through the implementation of development requirements as documented above. In
addition, 1988 $3 million bonds were allocated for sidewalks.
3. ContinWty of Integration: Reference the attached maps and documents to see
existing community facilities, commercial development and transit facilities. Existing
and proposed pedestrian facilities conned these projects. A pedestrian link for all of
these facilities is needed along the four locations listed above.
4. Location: These projects are located in a Census defined urban area, along major
thoroughfares. Most of the properties in these vicinities are already developed, with
undeveloped properties projected to be developed within the next five years.
Guilford College Road - proposed extension of Hornaday Road east to connect to
Bridford Parkway. Proposed commercial development to occur within the boundaries
of the proposed Homaday Road, Bridford Parkway, Wendover Avenue and Guilford
College Road.
5. Generators: There are numerous existing pedestrian traffic generators such as
residential subdivisions, day care facilities, schools, neighborhood parks, greenways,
transit routes and commerial and industrial parks, within the prescribed 1.2 mile
corridor along the projects (see attached maps).
Guil ord Colle eye Road
Residential:
Charlestown Square Apts; Charlestown Village Condos; Bramblegate
Condos; Guilford Place Apts; Westview Valley Apts.
Community Facilities:
Raleigh Cross Roads United Methodist Church.
Public Transportation:
GTA bus route along Guilford College Road and Swing Road.
Commercial, Office, Shopping Center and Business Centers
Guilford-Jamestown Business Center; Ciba-Gieby.
Holden Road
Residential:
Seasons Chase. Apts; Amber Trace Apts; Pear Leaf Apts; Meadowbrook
Terrace Retirement facility.
Day Care:
Tiny Tot Play School.
Schools:
Hunter Elementary School; Smith High School.
Public Transportation:
GTA bus route along High Point Road.
Commercial, Office, Shopping Center and Business Centers
Koger Executive Office Center; Holden Executive Center; High Point
Road Commercial District.
A-27
Merritt Drive
Residential:
General Greene Apts; Colony Square Apts; Mosby Apts; Overland Crest
Apts; Vantage Point Place Homes; Fairview Apts.
Schools:
Hunter Elementary; Alderman Elementary School.
Community Facilities:
Hunter Hills Baptist Church; Faith Tabernacle Penecostal Holiness
Church; St. Johns Methodist Church; Hunter Hills Park.
Albert Pick Road relocation
Schools:
ECPI College of Technology.
Community Facilities:
existing trails throughout Airpark East Business Park.
Commercial, Office, Shopping Center and Business Centers:
Airpark East Business Park- commercial, office and business area.
Chimney Rock Road relocation
Commercial, Office, Shopping Center and Business Centers:
Chimney Rock Road Industrial Area.
6. Safety: The pedestrian facilities would serve to separate pedestrians from traffic
traveling at or above a posted speed of 45 mph. Given the nature of development and
mixed uses in the area, the pedestrian facility would indeed be utilized by senior,
handicapped citizens and children. Installation or replacement of sidewalks would
facilitate bridge crossings at I-40 and provide safe pedestrian movement.
7. Existing or Projected Traffic: Given the density of the existing and proposed
commercial and residential developments surrounding each proposed project usage of
the pedestrian facilities is expected.
CONSIDERING THE NEEDS OF PEDESTRIANS TO AVOID
CREATING HAZARDS
Unless adequate accommodation, for pedestrians are provided, the I-40 widening project with
bridge reconstruction creates an impassable barrier for pedestrians. Without the existence of
sidewalks to facilitate pedestrian travel to specific, safe crossing locations, potential hazards for
pedestrians crossing the roadway are increased.
Pedestrian facilities would serve to reduce conflicts with, and hazards to, the pedestrians who will
travel along these roadways which have large traffic volumes and dense, mixed-use developments.
A-28
r?..?.r.. ??.........:?., C:dn... Ilr Drinrifii 1 iefinn
STREET NAME FROM: STREET NAME FROM: STREET NAME
1 Alamance Church Road Bristol Road Willow Road
2 Apache Street English Street Banner Avenue
3 Banner Avenue Apache Street McConnell Road
4 Battleground Avenue Cornwallis Drive Westover Terrace
5 Battleground Avenue New Garden Road Westridge Road
6 Church Street Cornwallis Drive Tankersly Drive
7 Cone Boulevard Battleground Avenue Lawndale Drive
8 Cone Boulevard Lawndale Drive ebsting sidewalk
9 Cone Boulevard Church Street Marston Road
10 Cone Boulevard Marston Road Lafayette Street
11 Cornwallis Drive Elm Street Golden Gate Drive
12 Cornwallis Drive Hobbs Road Benjamin Parkway
13 Cornwallis Drive Benjamin Parkway Battleground Avenue
14 Cornwallis Drive Battleground Avenue Dellwood Drive
16 Comwallis Drive Elm Street Cleburne Street
17 Cornwallis Drive 1111 Cornwallis Drive 1117 Cornwallis Drive
18 Cornwallis Drive Lafayette Street Kirkpatrick Place
19 Cornwallis Drive 805 Cornwallis Drive Cleburne Street
20 Creek Ridge Road Elm-Eugene Street Randleman Road
21 Creek Ridge Road Randleman Road Rehobeth Church Road
22 Creek Ridge Road Four Season Boulevard Rehoboth Church Road
231 Creek Ridge Road Four Seasons Boulevard Vandalia Road
24 Cridland Road Latham Road Wendover Avenue
25 Florida Street Belmar Street High Point Road
26 1 Freeman Mill Road Coliseum Boulevard Lovett Street
27 1 Friendly Avenue Hobbs Road Holden Road
28 1 Friendly Avenue Greenwood Drive Westridge Road
29 Gatewood Avenue O'Henry Boulevard Wendover Avenue
30 j Gatewood Avenue O'Henry Boulevard Summit Avenue
31 Glendale Drive Rehobeth Church Road Tempe Drive
32 1 Green Valley Road Benjamin Parkway Westover Terrace
33 1 Guilford College Road Swing Road Wendover Avenue
34 Guilford College Road Hackney Road Market Street
35 Guilford College Road Lucye Lane Market Street
36 Hilltop Road High Point Road city limits
37 Holden Road Bicentennial Gardens Walker Avenue
38 Holden Road High Point Road Vandalia Road
39 Industrial Avenue Elm-Eugene Street Pleasant Garden Road
40 Latham Road Cridland Road Wendover Avenue
41 Lendew Street Green Valley Road Cornwallis Road
42 , Lindsay Street Elm Street Murrow Boulevard
43 Lindsay Street Beech Street Cumberland Courts
44 Lindsay Street Bessemer Avenue Sullivan Street
45 Market Street Holden Road Wendover Avenue
46 1Market Street Holden Road United Street
47 Market Street Guilford College Road Muirs ChapeUSpring Garden
48 Meadowview Road Beagle Street Holden Road
49 1Murrow Boulevard Lee Street Lindsay Street
50 Nealtown Road Huffine Mill Road White Street
51 New Garden Road Battleground Avenue Greenlee Road
52 Old Battleground Road British Lake Drive Battleground Avenue
53 Pisgah Church Road Battleground Road Lawndale Drive
54 1 Pisgah Church Road Pisgah Place Willougby Boulevard
RAJ
City of Greensboro Page 1 Department of Transportation
A-29
Dnhlir- Maraccitu Cirfiawallir Prinritv 1 ictinn
55 Pisgah Church Road Elm Street Willougby Boulevard
56 Randleman Road Creek Ridge Road Vandalia Road
57 Rehobeth Church Road Glendale Drive Vandalia Road
59 Rehobeth Church Road 1-40 Vandalia Road
60 Rehobeth Church Road Creekridge Road I-40
61 Salk Place/Wafter Reed Drive Elam Avenue Villa Drive
62 Sideenth Street Church Street O'Henry Boulevard
63 Spring Garden Street Holden Road Lindell Road
64 Spring Garden Street Holden Road Market Street
651 Tankersly Street Church Street Elm Street
66I Te)dile Drive Summit Avenue O'Henry Boulevard
671 Te)dile Drive Bogart Street Yanceyville Street
68 Vandalia Road Elm-Eugene Street Randleman Road
69 Vandalia Road Holden Road Groometown Road
70 Vandalia Road Gar Place Rehobeth Church Road
71 Villa Drive Elam Avenue W. Greenway North
72 ?Westover Terrace Battleground Avenue Green Valley Road
73 Willoughby Boulevard Elm Street Pisgah Church Road
74 Yanceyville Street Bessemer Avenue Meadow Street
75 Yanceyville Street 12th Street 16th Street
76 Yanceyville Street Cone Boulevard Lee's Chapel Road
City of Greensboro Page 2 Department of Transportation
A-30
3) Maintenance: Maintenance of signs on
private streets or drives shall be the
responsibility of the owner or Owners'
Association, as appropriate.
4
30-6-13.4 Block Length
Blocks shall not exceed a perimeter length of six
thousand (6,000) feet, except that a perimeter length
of up to twelve thousand (12,000) feet may be
approved in the Watershed Critical Area. Perimeter
length is the shortest perimeter measurement along
the abutting street right-of-way lines.
30-6-13.5 Sidewalks
Exept along controlled access facilities, sidewalks
shall be required on all thoroughfare streets, and at
other locations on collector, subcollector, and local
residential streets where a pedestrian traffic
generator requires separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. Sidewalks shall have a minimum
width of five (5) feet and be constructed on one side
of the right-of-way as determined by the Technical
Review Committee.
30-6-13.6 Utilities
(A) Public Water and Sewer Construction Requirements:
Water and sewer lines, connections, and equipment
shall be constructed in accordance with State and
City regulations within the City and within and
in conjunction with developments provided with
City water or sewer service pursuant to the City
and County Consolidated Water and Sewer Line
Agreement.

(B) Water and Sewer connection: Connection of each
lot to public water and sewer utilities shall be
required if the proposed subdivision is within
three hundred (300) feet of the nearest adequate
line of a public system, provided that no
geographic or topographic factors would make such
connection infeasible. Where public sewer is not
available, lots shall meet applicable County
Environmental Health Division regulations.
Approval of the Environmental Health Division
shall be obtained after Preliminary Plat
approval. The Final Plat shall show the
Certificate of Approval from the Environmental
Health Division as shown in Appendix 2 (Map
Standards).
(C) Underground Utilities: Electrical, community
antenna television, and telephone utility lines
30-6-19
A-31
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY FOR INTERSTATE 40
FROM SR 1850 TO WEST OF SR 1398
IN GREENSBORO, TIP I-2201
A. Definition of a Major Investment Study
As part of the development of the long-range transportation plan, it is necessary to
fulfill the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). A Major Investment Study (MIS) is a planning tool that fuses the principles of
ISTEA and NEPA. Under the metropolitan planning regulations (23CFR 450 Subpart C)
the MIS focuses on corridor or subarea transportation demand and other problems that
may lead to a high type transit or highway investment with a substantial capital
investment or impact on the metropolitan transportation system.
The purpose of the MIS is to develop information about the likely impacts and
consequences of alternate transportation investment strategies at the corridor or subarea
level. The study should include all reasonable alternatives for addressing the
identified transportation purpose and need. Only those alternatives that have a reasonable
likelihood of being an effective solution or component should be carried forward in the
study. An MIS is a cooperative effort between the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), the Greensboro Transit Authority, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's Divisions of Highways and Public Transportation, and the
Federal Highway Administration.
B. Purpose and Need
Interstate 40 is of primary importance because it runs through North Carolina
connecting six of its urbanized areas including the Greensboro Urban Area. It also
connects North Carolina with Tennessee. Traffic on this facility is composed of both
intrastate trips and local trips inside the urban areas. Present truck percentages, historic
traffic growth rates, future traffic projections, and scheduled and recommended
construction projects along the I-40 corridor are all consistent with high levels of future
congestion.
The traffic volumes along I-40 within the I-2201 project limits increased 5.1 % per
year to 81,600 vehicles per day (vpd) from 1990 to 1995. Traffic projections show
volumes ranging up to approximately 127,000 vpd in the year 2020 with the completion
of the urban loop projects.
It is anticipated that over 40% of that traffic will be through traffic or traffic with
neither end of the trip stopping inside the urban area. According to the 1994 NCDOT
Highway Traffic Statistics Report, I-40 between NC 68 and Wendover Avenue. presently
carries about 15% trucks.
A-32
1-2201 MIS. Greensboro
3/4/97
All of the factors above contribute to the need for improvement. The current
volume of traffic on this stretch of I-40 exceeds the highway's effective capacity. The
demand volume is estimated to double by the design year. The high through trip rate
gives rise to transit concerns. Finally, the high truck percentage limits the effectiveness
of some transportation improvement alternatives. Each of the alternates considered in
this document will be examined according to how well it will resolve these problems.
C. Long-Range Transportation Plan
Federal regulations call for an MIS to be conducted as part of the long-range
transportation plan update. The last major update of the Greensboro Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan was completed in 1989 prior to the MIS requirement becoming
effective. However, the long-range plan update included extensive public involvement,
and analyses of projected traffic volumes, travel patterns, safety, air quality, freight
movement, etc. Revisions to this plan, primarily based on as-built or as-planned projects,
have been made as recently as 1996.
D. Air Quality
The most recent Regional emissions analysis of the Transportation Plan wis
conducted in 1995 using a future transportation network that included the programmed
widening of I-40 (specifically the I-2201 project). The emissions analysis found the
Transportation Plan was in conformance with the State Implementation Plan for
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Greensboro
Urban Area MPO approved the FY 1997-2003 TIP on July 9, 1996. The USDOT made a
conformity determination on the Transportation Plan and FY 1997-2003 TIP on
December 24, 1996.
E. Alternate Strategies Considered
Each of these six strategies were examined, either in the planning study or in this
document, to see if they met the purpose and need of the project.
1. Do Nothing--The traffic volumes on I-40 near the planning area have been
growing at a rate of 5.1 % per year. If no improvements are made, other than what is
scheduled in the 1996 State Transportation Improvement Program, traffic volumes on
1-40 are projected to be as high as 127,000 vpd by the year 2020.
2. Transportation Demand Management--In the past there have been few attempts in
this area at Transportation Demand Management oriented toward reducing the number of
trips or number of vehicles on the roadways by encouraging other types of transportation
service. The Greensboro Transit Authority's existing bus routes primarily serve radial
trips into and out of the downtown area and does not serve as an alternate to I-40 for
regional and through traffic. The programmed high speed rail improvements are
underway between Raleigh and Charlotte and follow the 1-85 corridor. The high speed
rail corridor does not provide an alternative to I-40 west of Greensboro.
A-33
1-2201 MIS. Greensboro
3/4/97
Because of the nature of the existing and planned transit system, the current
funding limits, and the high number of through trips and trucks on I-40, major local
transit alternatives are not considered to be a reasonable strategy for solving or
significantly impacting the present transportation problems of I-40.
Transportation demand management (TDM) measures such as vanpooling and
employer-sponsored flex times could have a positive effect on peak hour home-to-work
trips along the subject corridor. But, due to the significant existing and projected traffic
volumes along I-40, and the fact that a large portion of this traffic is either through trips
or trucks spread over the entire day, TDM would not reduce enough trips to negate the
need for widening. TDM should be encouraged, however, and will most likely be
considered as regional planning becomes more established in the Triad.
3. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes--An investigation into the viability of HOV lanes
for I-40 through the planning area shows that an insufficient number of vehicles will be
removed from the traffic stream to warrant separate travel lanes. For example:
If the above-mentioned 127,000 future vehicles per day and a 10 percent peak
hour percentage factor were used there would be a possible 12,700 vehicles on the
highway during each peak hour. The majority of the HOV users would be on the
highway during the peak hour. Travel surveys conducted during the development of the
Triad regional model indicated that the average vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) for home-
to-work trips in the area is 1.12. This would make 14,224 persons during each Peak hour.
Adding these gives 28,448 persons making trips during the peak hours of the day. An
October 1987 HOV lane study by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas stated that two successful HOV programs, the Shirley Highway Expressway in
Washington D.C. and the El Monte Busway in Los Angeles, move at least 30 percent of
the total person-trip movement on the freeway from the mainline freeway lanes to the
HOV lane. Therefore, there would be a possible 4,267 persons transferred to the HOV
lanes during each peak hour in this analysis. To determine the number of vehicles
removed, each peak hour should be divided by the respective VOR. These two numbers
can be added together to give the total number of vehicles, 7,620, that shift from the total
ADT into the HOV lanes. If that number were subtracted from the ADT there would still
be 119,380 vehicles in the original four freeway travel lanes. This remaining volume is
almost double the 60,000 vpd maximum capacity for a four-lane freeway.
4. New Facilities--The Greensboro Area is developing rapidly. Both residential and
commercial development are consuming available land. This section of I-40 is bounded k
by fairly dense development. The programmed Greensboro Outer Loop also connects
with I-40 in the project corridor. Because of the lack of open land and the potential for
significant disruption to existing development, construction of new-location facilities
parallel to I-40 are not a desirable solution to the capacity problems.
A-34
1-2201 MIS. Greensboro
3/4/97
5. Adjacent Projects-4-40 east of Greensboro is currently under construction and is
being widened to 8 lanes. The I-40 bypass around Winston-Salem to the west was
completed in 1993. Also as previously mentioned, the programmed Outer Loop will
include an interchange with I-40 between Chimney Rock Road and Guilford College
Road. This will result in 9 interchanges along a 10.9 mile section of the interstate. I-40
through the Greensboro Area is currently only a four-lane freeway cross section. Even
with these existing and proposed projects, the congestion problems on I-40 will still exist.
6. Widening--Traffic forecasts show that I-40 will experience congestion by the year
2020 and carry up to approximately 127,000 vpd. This is much higher than the 60,000
vpd capacity recommended for the design of a four-lane freeway facility from the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual. It is also higher than the suggested 80,000 vpd for a six-lane
freeway facility.
F. Conclusions
After considering all the above alternatives it was determined that widening the
facility would be the best course of action because:
1. If nothing is done, the anticipated traffic will overburden the existing facility and
increase congestion and reduce safety on the facility.
2. A significant portion of the present travel on this facility is through traffic. A
high percentage is also truck traffic. Neither of these travel types are conducive to
travel management within the planning area. The existing bus system does not
serve the type of travel that would contribute to significant travel reduction along
I-40.
3. From the cursory analysis for high occupancy lanes, there would not be enough
vehicles or riders transferred out of the main traffic stream to warrant the addition
of extra lanes.
4. Due to existing development and the lack of available land, no new highway-type
facilities can be reasonably accommodated along the existing I-40 corridor
through the urbanized area. There would be extensive environmental and socio-
economic damage to the area if a major new facility with a wide right-of-way is
introduced.
5. The existing interstate projects on either end of the subject section will cause a
bottle-neck effect through the area, decreasing travel safety and increasing
congestion. The new interchange will increase the number of weaving sections
through the area also reducing safety along the four-lane section. Adjacent
projects will not significantly decrease the volume of traffic on the interstate
through the area.
4
A-35
I-2201 MIS. Greensboro
3/4/97
6. The approximate 127,000 vpd is higher than both the four-lane and six-lane
recommended capacities in the Highway Capacity Manual.
This document serves as the Major Investment Study (MIS) for I-40 through the
Greensboro Area. It identifies the reasonable alternatives and strategies studied for the
1-40 corridor and reports on the alternative selected for the corridor. The selected s
alternative will be carried forward into the project development stage where a NEPA
document will be prepared.
G. Coordination
This document may be incorporated into the planning document for this project
by the Planning and Environmental Branch of NCDOT. This MIS reflects a cooperative
effort between the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
the Greensboro Transit Authority, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
Divisions of Highways and Public Transportation, and the Federal Highway
Administration. The correspondence from the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, the
Greensboro Transit Authority, and the NCDOT Public Transportation Division are
attached.

A-36
CITY OF GREENSBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
May 7, 1997
t.

P.
4,99
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Koch, PE '
Statewide Planning Branch
FROM: Elizabeth James, Transit Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 3136
GREENSBORO. NC 27402-3136
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX NO: (919) 3732138
SUBJECT: GTA Comments regarding Major Investment Study (MIS) for
I-40 (TIP I-2201) in Greensboro, Guilford County
As the transit administrator for the Greensboro Transit Authority, I have
reviewed the report on the MIS for I-40 you had forwarded to our office in
a memorandum, dated April 14. My comments below address the
determination that widening the facility is the best alternative as outlined
in the report.
Given the level of vehicle trips projected for this corridor to the year
2020; I agree some alternative is necessary to address the level of vehicle
trips on I-40. Several of the alternate strategies identified in the report
should be more closely examined as a viable means to mitigate some
portion of these traffic demands. Alternatives such as vanpool programs,
express commuter bus services, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and
commuter rail are viable modes of transportation that can provide the
public options to single occupancy vehicle travel. These modes are most
successful in capturing work related commuter trips, which are typically
at peak hour times. Some of these services are currently being provided,
such as the Ridesharing Vanpool Services of the Piedmont (RSVP)
administered by the Winston-Salem Transit Authority. The other
services can be developed and delivered by the existing local transit
systems or by a regional transit authority similar to Triangle Transit
Authority, which provides a variety of services in the Raleigh, Durham
and Chapel Hill region.
cc: Richard Atkins, GDOT
Ed Lewis, NCDOT Planning & Environment Branch
Carol Carter, NCDOT Public Transportation Division
A-37
TABLE N1
BEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
-J
ti
T
a
A-38
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
?. Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
r'
s
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-39
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leg)
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rernersville to
SR 1616 (Bolden Road), Guilford County,
State Project N 8.T491604, TIP M I-2201
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. 1-40, 1463 Meters West of NC 68 Grassy 78.6
2. I-40, 1463 Meters West of Chimney Grassy 79.4
Rock Road(SR 1554)
3. I-40, 457 Meters West of Guilford Grassy 79.6
College Road(SR 1546)
4. I-40, 671 Meters West of Wendover Grassy 78.7
Avenue(SR 1541)
5. I-40, 945 Meters West of NC 6 Grassy 79.6
(Patterson Street)
6. I-40, 1219 Meters East of NC 6 Grassy 79.3
(Patterson Street)
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
-4

Y
s
A-40
V_
w
P
TABLE N4 PAGE 1/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # 8.T491604, TIP # I-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
................... .................. ...¢ .................. .............. ...a...... --------
1-40, From Beginning to NC-68
1 Business C I-40 68.3 R 69 I-40 68.3 R - - * 73 + 4
2 Business C " 74.3 R 68 " 74.3 R - - * 72 + 4
3 Business C " 141.4 R 60 " 141.4 R - - 64 + 4
4 Business C " 98.7 L 65 " 98.7 L - - 69 + 4
4A Business C " 74.3 L 68 " 74.3 L - - * 72 + 4
4B Business C to 132.3 L 61 to 132.3 L - - 65 + 4
I-40, From NC 68 to Greensboro Outerloop
5 Business C I-40 95.7 R 66 I-40 95.7 R - - 69 + 3
6 Business C 83.5 R 67 " 83.5 R - - * 71 + 4
7 Business C " 68.3 R 69 " 68.3 R - - * 73 + 4
8 Business C " 98.7 L 65 " 98.7 L - - 69 + 4
9 Business C to 75.6 R 68 " 75.6 R - - It 72 + 4
10 Business C " 83.5 L 67 of 83.5 L - - * 71 + 4
11 Business C " 98.7 R 65 " 98.7 R - - 69 + 4
12 Business C to 74.3 L 69 It 74.3 L - - * 73 + 4
13 Business C " 68.3 R 69 " 68.3 R - - * 73 + 4
14 Business C " 98.7 L 65 to 98.7 L - - 69 + 4
15 Business C " 98.7 L 65 " 98.7 L - - 69 + 4
16 Business C " 92.6 R 66 " 92.6 R - - 70 + 4
17 Business C " 77.4 L 68 It 77.4 L - - * 72 + 4
18 Business C " 86.5 R 67 " 86.5 R - - * 71 + 4
19 Business C " 104.8 R 65 " 104.8 R - - 68 + 3
20 Business C " 83.5 L 67 " 83.5 L - - * 71 + 4
21 Business C " 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 64 + 3
22 Business C " 138.4 L 61 " 138.4 L - - 65 + 4
23 Business C " 141.4 L 61 it 141.4 L - - 65 + 4
24 Business C " 132.3 R 62 " 132.3 R - - 66 + 4
25 Business C " 107.9 R 64 " 107.9 R - - 68 + 4
26 Business C " 71.3 R 69 to 71.3 R - - * 73 + 4
I-40 , From Greensboro OuterLoop to Guilford College Road( SR 1546)
27 Business C I-40 86.6 R 67 I-40 86.6 R - - 68 + 1
28 Business C " 92.6 R 66 " 92.6 R - - 67 + 1
29 Business C " 89.6 R 67 " 89.6 R - - 68 + 1
30 Business C " 110.9 L 64 " 110.9 L - - 65 + 1
31 Business C " 129.2 R 63 •' 129.2 R - - 63 0
32 Business C " 118.9 R 63 " 118.9 R - - 64 + 1
33 Business C " 129.2 R 63 " 129.2 R - - 63 0
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y --> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-41
TABLE N4 PAGE 2/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # S.T491604, TIP # I-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
I-40, From Greensboro OuterLoop to Guilford College Road(SR 1546) (Cont'd)
34 Business C I-40 98.8 L 66 I-40 98.8 L - - 67 + 1
35 Business C " 107.9 L 65 it 107.9 L - - 65 0
I-40, From Guilford College Road(SR 1546) to Wendover Avenue (SR 1541)
36 Business C 1-40 129.2 R 62 1-40 129.2 R - - 64 + 2
37 Residence B " 46.9 R 72 " 46.9 R - - * 76 + 4
38 Business C " 80.5 R 67 " 80.5 R - - 70 + 3
39 Residence B " 65.2 L 69 " 65.2 L - - * 72 + 3
40 Residence B " 114.0 L 63 " 114.0 L - - 65 + 2
41 Residence B " 165.8 L 58 " 165.8 L - - 61 + 3
42 Residence B " 123.1 L 62 " 123.1 L - - 65 + 3
43 Residence B " 159.7 L 59 " 159.7 L - - 61 + 2
44 Residence B •' 107.9 L 64 " 107.9 L - - * 66 + 2
45 Residence B " 162.8 L 58 " 162.8 L - - 61 + 3
46 Residence B " 196.3 L 56 " 196.3 L - - 58 + 2
47 Residence B " 53.0 L 71 " 53.0 L - - * 75 + 4
48 Residence B " 144.5 L 60 •' 144.5 L - - 63 + 3
49 Residence H " 129.2 L 62 " 129.2 L - - 64 + 2
50 Residence B " 168.9 L 58 " 168.9 L - - 60 + 2
51 Residence B " 74.4 L 68 " 74.4 L - - * 71 + 3
52 Residence B " 68.2 L 69 " 68.2 L - - * 72 + 3
53 Residence B 74.4 L 68 " 74.4 L - - * 71 + 3
54 Residence B " 123.1 L 62 " 123.1 L - - 65 + 3
55 Business C " 93.2 R 65 " 93.2 R - - 68 + 3
56 Business C •' 98.7 R 65 " 98.7 R - - 67 + 2
57 Business C " 80.5 R 67 •' 80.5 R - - 70 + 3
58 Business C " 150.6 R 60 " 150.6 R - - 62 + 2
59 Business C " 68.3 L 69 •' 68.3 L - - * 72 + 3
60 Business C " 156.7 L 59 " 156.7 L - - 61 + 2
61 Business C " 129.2 L 62 •' 129.2 L - - 64 + 2
62 Business C " 187.1 L 57 '• 187.1 L - - 59 + 2
I-40, From Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) to Patterson Street (NC 6)
63 Business C 1-40 129.2 L 62 1-40 129.2 L - - 65 + 3
64 Business C '• 159.7 L 60 " 159.7 L - - 62 + 2
65 Business C " 68.3 R 70 it 68.3 R - - * 72 + 2
66 Business C " 95.7 L 66 " 95.7 L - - 68 + 2
67 Business C " 74.4 R 69 " 74.4 R - - * 71 + 2
68 Residence B " 86.6 R 67 " 86.6 R - - * 69 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A

A-42
TABLE N4 PAGE 3/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Kernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # 8.T491604, TIP # I-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
?- RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY
....n ................ NAME DISTANCE
............... (m)
... LEVEL
.... NAME
..... DISTANCE (m)
............. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
....................... INCREASE
----
A lo I-40, From Wendover Avenue (SR 1541) to Patterson Street( NC 6) (Cont'd)
69 Residence B I-40 43.9 R 74 I-40 43.9 R - - * 77 + 3
70 Business C " 43.9 A 74 of 43.9 R - - * 77 + 3
71 Residence B " 98.7 R 65 " 98.7 R - - * 68 + 3
72 Residence B " 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - * 66 + 2
73 Residence B " 123.1 R 63 " 123.1 R - - 65 + 2
74 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 63 + 2
75 Residence B " 117.0 R 64 " 117.0 R - - * 66 + 2
76 Residence B " 98.8 R 65 to 98.8 R - - * 68 + 3
77 Residence B to 77.4 R 68 to 77.4 A - - * 71 + 3
78 Residence B '. 68.3 R 70 to 68.3 R - - * 72 + 2
79 Residence B " 61.2 R 71 It 61.2 R - - to 73 + 2
80 Residence B 59.1 R 71 " 59.1 R - - * 74 + 3
81 Residence B •' 59.1 R 71 " 59.1 R - - * 74 + 3
82 Residence B " 107.9 R 64 " 107.9 R - - * 67 + 3
63 Residence B " 126.2 R 63 " 126.2 R - - 65 + 2
84 Residence B " 129.2 R 62 " 129.2 R - - 65 + 3
85 Residence B " 40.8 R 75 " 40.8 R - - * 78 + 3
86 Residence B " 68.3 A 70 It 68.3 R - - * 72 + 2
87 Residence B " 89.6 R 67 to 89.6 R - - * 69 + 2
88 Residence B " 107.9 R 64 " 107.9 R - - * 67 + 3
89 Residence B It 135.3 R 62 " 135.3 R - - 64 + 2
90 Residence B " 153.6 R 60 " 153.6 R - - 62 + 2
91 Residence B " 135.3 R 62 " 135.3 R - - 64 + 2
92 Residence B " 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - * 66 + 2
93 Residence B " 89.6 R 67 to 89.6 R - - * 69 + 2
94 Residence B of 68.3 R 70 " 68.3 R - - * 72 + 2
95 Residence B to 45.7 R 73 " 45.7 R - - * 77 + 4
96 Residence B " 50.0 R 73 to 50.0 R - - * 76 + 3
' 97 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 " 56.1 R - - * 74 + 3
98 Residence B " 40.1 R 75 " 40.1 R - - * 78 + 3
99 Residence B " 65.2 R 70 " 65.2 R - - * 73 + 3
100 Residence B " 111.0 R 64 of 111.0 R - - * 66 + 2
101 Residence B It 111.0 R 64 to 111.0 R - - * 66 + 2
102 Residence B " 101.8 R 65 of 101.8 A - - * 67 + 2
103 Residence B " 129.2 R 62 It 129.2 R - - 65 + 3
104 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 to 144.5 R - - 63 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). to => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-43
TABLE N4 PAGE 4/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Kernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project N 8.T491604, TIP N I-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
1-40, From Patterson Street (NC 6) to golden Road (SR 1616)
105 Residence B 1-40 153.6 L 60 1-40 153.6 L - - 61 + 1
106 Residence B to 177.0 L 58 to 177.0 L - - 59 + 1
107 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 it 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
108 Residence B " 56.1 L 71 it 56.1 L - - * 73 + 2
109 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 to 56.1 R - - * 73 + 2
110 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 to 56.1 R - - to 73 + 2
111 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 to 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
112 Residence B " 101.8 L 65 " 101.8 L - - * 66 + 1
113 Residence B it 104.8 L 64 " 104.8 L - - * 66 + 2
114 Residence B " 56.1 L 71 " 56.1 L - - * 73 + 2
115 Residence B " 56.1 L 71 of 56.1 L - - * 73 + 2
116 Residence B " 107.9 R 64 to 107.9 R - - 65 + 1
117 Residence B " 101.8 R 65 to 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
118 Residence B to 101.8 R 65 it 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
119 Residence B " 62.2 R 70 to 62.2 R - - * 72 + 2
120 Residence B " 65.2 R 70 " 65.2 R - - * 71 + 1
121 Residence B " 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - 65 + 1
122 Residence B " 138.4 R 61 " 138.4 R - - 63 + 2
123 Residence B " 175.0 R 58 " 175.0 R - - 59 + 1
124 Residence B " 168.9 R 59 " 168.9 R - - 60 + 1
125 Residence B " 159.7 R 59 to 159.7 R - - 61 + 2
126 Residence B " 153.6 R 60 to 153.6 R - - 61 + 1
127 Residence B " 153.6 R 60 to 153.6 R - - 61 + 1
128 Residence B " 159.7 R 59 " 159.7 R - - 61 + 2
129 Residence B " 159.7 R 59 " 159.7 R - - 61 + 2
130 Residence B '. 153.6 R 60 It 153.6 R - - 61 + 1
131 Residence B " 104.9 R 64 of 104.9 R - - * 66 + 2
132 Residence B " 162.8 R 59 to 162.8 R - - 60 + 1
133 Residence B to 141.4 R 61 of 141.4 R - - 62 + 1
134 Residence B " 117.0 R 63 of 117.0 R - - 65 + 2
135 Residence B " 98.8 R 65 " 98.8 R - - * 67 + 2
136 Residence B " 77.4 R 68 " 77.4 R - - * 70 + 2
137 Residence B " 50.0 R 72 of 50.0 R - - * 75 + 3
138 Residence B " 43.5 R 74 " 43.5 R - - * 76 + 2
139 Residence B of 46.9 R 73 of 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
140 Residence B " 46.9 R 73 '. 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
141 Residence B of 46.9 R 73 to 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
142 Residence B " 50.0 R 72 " 50.0 R - - * 75 + 3
143 Residence B if 50.0 R 72 " 50.0 R - - * 75 + 3
144 Residence B to 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
NOTE : Distances are from center of the exi sting or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut ion.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (5 8/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 77 2).
.f
Ift
T
1
A-44
11
A
T
i
TABLE N4 PAGE 5/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project $ 8.T491604, TIP H 1-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 6 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
1-40, From Patterson Street (NC 6) to Holden Road (SR 1616) (Cont'd)
145 Residence B 1-40 144.5 R 61 1-40 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
146 Residence B .' 129.2 R 62 " 129.2 R - - 63 + 1
147 Residence B " 120.1 R 63 of 120.1 R - - 64 + 1
148 Residence B " 101.8 R 65 to 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
149 Residence B " 80.5 R 67 " 80.5 R - - * 69 + 2
150 Residence B " 74.4 R 68 " 74.4 R - - * 70 + 2
151 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 " 56.1 R - - to 73 + 2
152 Residence B to 46.9 R 73 " 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
153 Residence B " 156.7 R 60 " 156.7 R - - 61 + 1
154 Residence B " 147.5 R 60 " 147.5 R - - 62 + 2
155 Residence B " 138.4 R 61 " 138.4 R - - 63 + 2
156 Residence B to 135.3 R 62 " 135.3 R - - 63 + 1
157 Residence B " 117.0 R 63 to 117.0 R - - 65 + 2
158 Residence B " 120.1 R 63 " 120.1 R - - 64 + 1
159 Residence B " 114.0 R 64 '. 114.0 R - - 65 + 1
160 Residence B " 98.8 R 65 " 98.8 R - - * 67 + 2
161 Residence B 74.4 R 68 " 74.4 R - - * 70 + 2
162 Residence B " 190.2 R 57 It 190.2 R - - 58 + 1
163 Residence B " 92.7 R 66 " 92.7 R - - * 67 + 1
164 Residence B " 50.0 R 72 " 50.0 R - - * 75 + 3
165 Residence B " 95.7 L 65 It 95.7 L - - * 67 + 2
166 Residence B " 126.2 L 62 of 126.2 L - - 64 + 2
167 Residence B to 123.1 L 63 " 123.1 L - - 64 + 1
168 Residence B of 126.2 L 62 to 126.2 L - - 64 + 2
169 Residence B to 144.5 L 61 It 144.5 L - - 62 + 1
170 Residence B " 180.0 R 58 to 180.0 R - - 59 + 1
171 Residence B " 159.7 R 59 to 159.7 R - - 61 + 2
172 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
173 Residence B " 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - 65 + 1
174 Residence B to 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - 65 + 1
175 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 " 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
176 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 to 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
177 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
178 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 " 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
179 Residence B to 135.3 R 62 " 135.3 R - - 63 + 1
180 Residence B " 46.9 R 73 to 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
181 Residence B to 46.9 R 73 " 46.9 R - - * 75 + 2
182 Church E " 74.4 L 68/43 " 74.4 L - - 70/45 + 2/ + 2
183 Residence B " 43.9 R 74 " 43.9 R - - * 76 + 2
184 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 to 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-45
TABLE N4 PAGE 6/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # S.T491604, TIP # 1-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL A-
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL N AME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
I-40, From Patterson Street (NC 6) to Holden Road (SR 1616) (COnt'd)
lot-
185 Residence B I-40 101.8 R 65 I-40 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
186 Residence B " 53.0 R 72 " 53.0 R - - * 74 + 2
187 Residence B to 101.8 R 65 " 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
188 Residence B " 132.3 R 62 " 132.3 R - - 63 + 1
189 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 " 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
190 Residence B " 53.0 R 72 " 53.0 R - - * 74 + 2
191 Residence B " 98.8 R 65 " 98.8 R - - * 67 + 2
192 Residence B " 123.1 R 63 to 123.1 R - - 64 + 1
193 Residence B " 144.5 R 61 to 144.5 R - - 62 + 1
194 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 " 56.1 R - - * 73 + 2
195 Residence B " 56.1 R 71 " 56.1 R - - * 73 + 2
196 Residence B " 101.8 R• 65 •• 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
197 Residence B " 59.1 R 71 to 59.1 R - - * 73 + 2
198 Residence B " 98.8 R 65 " 98.8 R - - * 67 .+ 2
199 Residence B '• 98.8 R 65 " 98.8 R - - * 67 + 2
200 Residence B " 53.1 R 72 " 53.1 R - - * 74 + 2
201 Residence B " 101.8 R 65 " 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
202 Residence B " 104.8 R 64 to 104.8 R - - * 66 + 2
203 Residence B " 62.2 R 70 " 62.2 R - - * 72 + 2
204 Residence B " 138.4 R 61 " 138.4 R - - 63 + 2
205 Residence B to 132.3 R 62 " 132.3 R - - 63 + 1
206 Residence B to 150.6 L 60 to 150.6 L - - 61 + 1
207 Residence B " 150.6 L 60 " 150.6 L - - 61 + 1
208 Residence B " 162.8 L .59 It 162.8 L - - 60 + 1
209 Residence B " 168.8 L 59 to 168.8 L - - 60 + 1
210 Residence B '. 171.9 L 58 " 171.9 L - - 59 + 1
211 Residence B It 159.7 L 59 of 159.7 L - - 61 + 2
212 Residence B " 138.4 L 61 " 138.4 L - - 63 + 2
213 Residence B " 120.1 L 63 " 120.1 L - - 64 + 1 r
214 Residence B " 144.5 L 61 to 144.5 L - - 62 + 1
215 Residence B to 110.9 L 64 " 110.9 L - - 65 + 1
216 Residence B it 101.8 L 65 " 101.8 L - - * 66 + 1
217 Residence B " 98.8 L 65 " 98.8 L - - * 67 + 2
218 Residence B " 110.9 L 64 " 110.9 L - - 65 + 1 It
219 Residence B " 107.9 L 64 " 107.9 L - - 65 + 1
220 Residence B to 153.6 L 60 " 153.6 L - - 61 + 1
221 Residence B " 156.7 L 60 " 156.7 L - - 61 + 1
222 Residence B of 159.7 L 59 to 159.7 L - - 61 + 2
223 Residence B it 114.0 L 64 it 114.0 L - - 65 + 1
224 Residence B of 120.1 L 63 it 120.1 L - - 64 + 1
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48 ). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-46
TABLE N4 PAGE 7/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, From New I-40 East of Rerneraville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project A 8.T491604, TIP N I-2201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID A LAND USE CATEGORY
.. n........ ......... NAME DISTANCE
............... (m)
... LEVEL N
__. AME
u..- DISTANCE (m)
------------- -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
J
I-40,
From Patterson Street (NC 6)
to Bold
en
Road (SR 1616)
(Cont'd)
225 Residence B 1-40 126.2 L 62 1-40 126.2 L - - 64 + 2
226 Residence B " 129.2 L 62 " 129.2 L - - 63 + 1
227 Residence B " 168.9 L 59 " 168.9 L - - 60 + 1
228 Residence B " 181.1 L 58 to 181.1 L - - 59 + 1
229 Residence B " 162.8 L 59 if 162.8 L - - 60 + 1
230 Residence B to 141.4 L 61 of 141.4 L - - 62 + 1
231 Residence B " 43.9 R 74 " 43.9 R - - * 76 + 2
232 Residence B " 80.5 R 67 " 80.5 R - - * 69 + 2
233 Residence B " 47.0 R 73 " 47.0 R - - * 75 + 2
234 Residence B " 77.4 R 68 " 77.4 R - - * 70 + 2
235 Residence B " 138.4 R 61 '• 138.4 R - - 63 + 2
236 Residence B 123.1 R 63 " 123.1 R - - 64 + 1
237 Residence B " 117.0 R 63 " 117.0 R - - 65 + 2
238 Residence B to 114.0 R 64 " 114.0 R - - 65 + 1
239 Residence B " 47.0 R 73 " 47.0 R - - * 75 + 2
240 Residence B to 101.8 R 65 to 101.8 R - - * 66 + 1
241 Residence B " 138.4 R 61 " 138.4 R - - 63 + 2
242 Residence B " 43.9 R 74 " 43.9 R - - * 76 + 2
243 Residence B to 56.1 R 71 " 56.1 R - - * 73 + 2
244 Residence B " 123.1 R 63 to 123.1 R - - 64 + 1
245 Residence B " 120.1 R 63 •' 120.1 R - - 64 + 1
Z
I
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadways noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-47.
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
I-40, From New I-40 East of Kernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # 8.T491604, TIP # I-2201
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CPR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. I-40, From Beginning to NC 68 81 77 72 78.1m 116.2m 0 0 3 0 0

2. 1-40, From NC 68 to Outer Loop 82 78 72 81.6m 121.8m 0 0 10 0 0
3. 1-40, From Outer Loop to SR 1546 80 75 70 65.2m 99.4m 0 0 0 0 0
4. 1-40, From SR 1546 to SR 1541 80 76 71 69.2m 104.8m 0 7 1 0 0
5. 1-40, From SR 1541 to NC 6 81 77 71 72.7m 109.7m 0 27 2 0 0
6. 1-40, From NC 6 to SR 1616 80 75 70 65.2m 99.4m 0 65 0 0 0
Total 0 99 17 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center o f nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
I-40, From New I-40 East of Kernersville to
SR 1616 (Holden Road), Guilford County,
State Project # 8.T491 604, TIP # I-2201
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=0 1-4 5-9 30-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1. I-40, Beginning to NC 68 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r
2. I-40, NC 68 to Outer Loop 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. 1-40, Outer Loop to SR 1546 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. 1-40, SR 1546 to SR 1541 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. 1-40, SR 1541 to NC 6 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. 1-40, From NC 6 to SR 1616 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 3 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2 ) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A-48
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, I-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:16
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
CLAS 5 (E) ATIM 60. MINUTES
LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. SR 1555 NB APPR
2. SR 1555 NB DEP
3. SR 1555 SB APPR
4. SR 1555 SB DEP
5. I-40 EB APPR.
6. I-40 EB DEP
7. I-40 WB APPR
8. I-40 WB APPR
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
-1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
-1.8 0.0 -1.8 -304.8
-304.8 -11.9 0.0 -11.9
0.0 -11.9 304.8 -11.9
304.8 11.9 0.0 11.9
0.0 11.9 -304.8 11.9
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. EEC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. REC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS ,
BUILD 1995
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
305. 360. AG 800. 15.9 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 645. 15.9 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 645. 15.9 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 800. 15.9 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 3375. 15.9 0.0 20.7
305. 90. AG 3600. 15.9 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG' 3600. 15.9 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG 3375. 15.9 0.0 20.7
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 3.3 3.2 3.4
DEGR. 39 296 211
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.40 PPM AT 211 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 39 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 296 DEGREES FROM REC2 .
A-49
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, I-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555 BUILD 2000
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:19
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. SR 1555 NB APPR
2. SR 1555 NB DEP
3. SR 1555 SB APPR
4. SR 1555 SB DEP
5. I-40 EB APPR.
6. I-40 EB DEP
7. I-40 WB APPR
8. I-40 WB APPR
1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
-1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
-1.8 0.0 -1.8 -304.8
-304.8 -11.9 0.0 -11.9
0.0 -11.9 304.8 -11.9
304.8 11.9 0.0 11.9
0.0 11.9 -304.8 11.9
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. EEC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
305. 360. AG 899. 12.2 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 720. 12.2 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 720. 12.2 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 899. 12.2 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 3856. 12.2 0.0 20.7
305., 90. AG 4115. 12.2 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG 4115. 12.2 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG 3856. 12.2 0.0 20.7
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND I CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 3.1 3.1 3.3
DEGR. 24 337 213
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 213 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.10 PPM AT 24 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.10 PPM AT 337 DEGREES FROM REC2
4-
r
L7
A-50
X
4
z -
I
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, I-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:20
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
BUILD 2015
VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPR EF R W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. SR 1555 NB APPR 1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
2. SR 1555 NB DEP 1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
3. SR 1555 SB APPR -1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
4. SR 1555 SB DEP -1.8 0.0 -1.8 -304.8
5. I-40 EB APPR. -304.8 -11.9 0.0 -11.9
6. I-40 EB DEP 0.0 -11.9 304.8 -11.9
7. I-40 WE APPR 304.8 11.9 0.0 11.9
8. I-40 WB APPR 0.0 11.9 -304.8 11.9
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M)
X Y Z
1. REC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. EEC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. REC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
305. 360. AG 1195. 10.1 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 945. 10.1 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 945. 10.1 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 1195. 10.1 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 5300. 10.1 0.0 20.7
305. 90. AG 5660. 10.1 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG 5660. 10.1 0.0 20.7
305. 270. AG 5300. 10.1 0.0 20.7
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 3.2 3.2 3.3
DEGR. 45 311 193
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 193 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 45 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 311 DEGREES FROM REC2 .
A-51
TABLE A4
CAL3QRC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, 1-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555 No BUILD 1995
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:21
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. SR 1555 NB APPR
2. SR 1555 NB DEP
3. SR 1555 SB APPR
4. SR 1555 SB DEP
5. I-40 EB APPR.
6. I-40 EB DEP
7. I-40 WB APPR
8. I-40 WB APPR
1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
-1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
-1.8 0.0 -1.8 -304.8
-304.8 -8.2 0.0 -8.2
0.0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
304.8 8.2 0.0 8.2
0.0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. REC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
305. 360. AG 800. 26.1 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 645. 26.1 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 645. 26.1 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 800. 26.1 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 3375. 26.1 0.0 13.4
305. 90. AG 3600. 26.1 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 3600. 26.1 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 3375. 26.1 0.0 13.4
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND I CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 4.1 4.0 4.1
DEGR. 47 299 207
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4.10 PPM AT 207 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4.10 PPM AT 47 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4.00 PPM AT 299 DEGREES FROM REC2
e
r'

A-52
TABLE A5
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, I-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555 NO BUILD 2000
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:22
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
t
VS = 0.0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO 108. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. SR 1555 NB APPR
2. SR 1555 NB DEP
3. SR 1555 SB APPR
4. SR 1555 SB DEP
5. I-40 EB APPR.
6. I-40 EB DEP
7. I-40 WS APPR
8. I-40 WB APPR
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
-1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
-1.8 0.0 -1.8 -304.8
-304.8 -8.2 0.0 -8.2
0.0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
304.8 8.2 0.0 8.2
0.0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. REC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
305. 360. AG 899. 35.5 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 720. 35.5 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 720. 35.5 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 899. 35.5 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 3856. 35.5 0.0 13.4
305. 90. AG 4115. 35.5 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 4115. 35.5 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 3856. 35.5 0.0 13.4
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
' concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 5.4 5.1 5.4
DEGR. 59 298 205
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.40 PPM AT 205 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.40 PPM AT 59 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.10 PPM AT 298 DEGREES FROM REC2 .
A-53
TABLE A6
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: I-2201, I-40/SR 1555 Guilford County RUN: I-40/SR 1555 NO BUILD 2015
DATE: 06/05/96 TIME: 09:22
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = 0.0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
1
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. SR 1555 NB APPR
2. SR 1555 NB DEP
3. SR 1555 SB APPR
4. SR 1555 SB DEP
5. I-40 EB APPR.
6. I-40 EB DEP
7. I-40 WB APPR
8. I-40 WB APPR
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1.8 -304.8 1.8 0.0
1.8 0.0 1.8 304.8
-1.8 304.8 -1.8 0.0
-1.8 0.0 -1.6 -304.6
-304.8 -8.2 0.0 -8.2
0.0 -8.2 304.8 -8.2
304.8 8.2 0.0 8.2
0.0 8.2 -304.8 8.2
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 19 (SW CORNER) -48.8 -103.6 1.8
2. REC 21 (SE CORNER) 45.7 -106.7 1.8
3. REC 20 (NE CORNER) 54.9 85.3 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
305. 360. AG 1195. 32.8 0.0 9.8
305. 360. AG 945. 32.8 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 945. 32.8 0.0 9.8
305. 180. AG 1195. 32.8 0.0 9.8
305. 90. AG 5300. 32.8 0.0 13.4
305. 90. AG 5660. 32.8 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 5660. 32.8 0.0 13.4
305. 270. AG 5300. 32.8 0.0 13.4
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 1.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
A-54
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1 REC2 REC3
MAX 6.2 6.0 6.4
DEGR. 59 297 204
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.40 PPM AT 204 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
THE 2ND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.20 PPM AT 59 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
THE 3RD HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.00 PPM AT 297 DEGREES FROM REC2 .
r

Z

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
1-40
NEW 1-40 EAST OF KERNERSVILLE
TO SR 1616 (HOLDEN ROAD)
GUILFORD COUNTY
T.1. R NUMBER 1- 2201
AUGUST 13, 1992
Informational Worksho
A-55
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
I-40 From New I-40 East of Kernersville
to
SR-1616 (Holden Road)
Guilford Counties
Federal-Aid Project No. IR-40-3(76)201
State Project No. 8.1491601
Transportation Improvement Program No. I-2201
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
This informational workshop is being held to review proposed
improvements to I-40 from New I-40 East of Kernersville to SR 1616 (Holden
Road). Any comments or suggestions concerning the proposed improvements
or areas of environmental concern in this study will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the
project study. It is realized that persons who are close to the project
want to know exact information about the effect on their home or place of
business. Exact information is not available at this stage of the
project's development. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right-of-way limits can be established. Therefore, it is not
possible for representatives of the N. C. Division of Highways to provide
exact information about the effect of the project on individual properties
at this time. More definite information will be available at a future
public hearing.
Written comments or requests for additional information should be
addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1992-1998 Transportation
addition of lanes to the existing
will require a minimal acquisition
shows the location of the project.
Improvement Program calls for the
facility. The proposed improvements
of right-of-way. The attached map
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvements consist of widening the existing four lane
facility.to eight lanes from new I-40 to east of Guilford-Jamestown Road
and six lanes from east of Guilford-Jamestown Road to Holden Road.
All interchanges and grade separations will be studied as a part of this
project.

10
A-56
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995
with construction scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997.
The above schedule is subject to the availability of funds.
EXISTING FACILITIES
The existing I-40 has pavement a width of 24' with shoulder widths
ranging from 4' to 10'. There are no curves in excess of 3 degrees and
one grade in excess of 3%. The average daily traffic along the project
ranges from 56,500 to 77,000 vehicles per day. Estimated traffic volumes
for the year 2015 are expected to range from 50,000 vehicles per day to
113,000 vehicles per day.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction - 35,900,000
Right-of-way - 8,000,000
TOTAL - 43,900,000
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and are subject to
revision in the later stages of planning.

I
A-57
i
` i
O
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP

GREENSBORO, N. C.
1-40, FROM NEW 1-40 EAST OF KERNERSVILLE
TO SR 1616 (HOLDEN ROAD), T. 1. P. NO. 1-2201
GUILFORD COUNTY
AUGUST 13, 1992
COMMENT SHEET

f
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND / OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO BE
MAILED TO: MR. L. J. WARD, P. E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
P. 0. BOX 25201 RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

A-59
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
1- 40
NEW I - 40 EAST OF KERNERSVILLE
TO SR 1616 (HOLDEN ROAD)
GUILFORD COUNTY
T. I. R NUMBER 1- 2201
JULY 20, 1993
Citizens Informational Workshop
3
V,
ill
A-6Q
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
I-40 From New I-40 East of Kernersville
to
SR-1616 (Holden Road)
Guilford Counties
Federal-Aid Project No. IR-40-3(76)207
State Project No. 8.1491601
Transportation Improvement Program No. I-2201
r
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
This informational workshop is being held to review proposed
improvements to I-40 from New I-40 East of Kernersville to SR 1616 (Holden
Road). Any comments or suggestions concerning the proposed improvements
or areas of environmental concern in this study will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the
project study. It is realized that persons who are close to the project
want to know exact information about the effect on their home or place of
business. Exact information is not available at this stage of the
project's development. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right-of-way limits can be established. Therefore, it is not
possible for representatives of the N.C. Division of Highways to provide
exact information about the effect of the project on individual properties
at this time. More definite information will be available at a future
public hearing.
Written comments or requests for additional information should be
addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1993-1999 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for the
addition of lanes to the existing facility. The proposed improvements
will require a minimal acquisition of right-of-way. The attached map
shows the location of the project.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvements consist of widening the existing four lane
facility to eight lanes from new I-40 to east of Guilford-Jamestown Road
and six lanes from east of Guilford-Jamestown Road to Holden Road. All
interchanges and grade separations will be studied as a part of this
project.
A-61
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995
with construction scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997.
EXISTING FACILITIES
r
The existing I-40 has pavement a width of 24' with shoulder widths
ranging from 4' to 10'. There are no curves in excess of 3 degrees and
one grade in excess of 3%. The average daily traffic along the project
ranges from 56,500 to 77,000 vehicles per day. Estimated traffic volumes
for the year 2015 are expected to range from 50,000 vehicles per day to
113,000 vehicles per day.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction
Right of Way
TOTAL
$37,300,000
$ 8,000,000
45,300,000
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and are subject to
revision in the later stages of planning.
A-62
___ Iii
._ __ - --- ?`i
D

r
9
r
e

i

TABLE 7
E3TECTED NOISE BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
Page 1 of 4
Without Barrier With Barrier
(1) (2) (2) - (1) (3) (2)-(3) (3) -(1)
Existing Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Net
Rer-ptor Noise Level Noise Level Increase Noise Level Decrease Impact
I.D. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Location # 1 (Case "A'?
1. 45 68 69 +1 63 -6* f -5
2. 46 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
3. 47 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
4. 48 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
5. 49 69 70 +1 63 -7*f -6
6. 50 69 70 +1 63 -7*t -6
7. 51 70 71 +1 64 -7*t -6
8. 52 70 71 +1 65 -6*t -5
9. 53 70 71 +1 65 -6*t -5
10. 56 63 66 +3 62 4t -11
11. 57 63 66 +3 63 -3 0
12• 58 64 66 +2 63 -3 -1
13. 59 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
14. 60 66 67 +1 63 -4f -3
15. 61 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
16. 62 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
17. 63 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
18. 64 67 68 +1 63 -5t 4
19. 65 63 66 +3 63 -3 0
20. 84 62 66 +4 63 -3 +1
21. 85 62 67 +5 63 4t +1
22. 86 66 68 +2 64 4f -2
23. 87 68 69 +1 65 -4t -3
24. 88 69 70 +1 66 -4t -3
25. 89 71 73 +2 67 -6*t 4
26. 90 70 72 +2 67 -5f -3
27 91 70 73 +3 68 -5t -2
28. 92 69 75 +6 69 -6*t 0
29. 93 69 76 +7 69 -7*t 0
30 94 69 75 +6 68 -7*t -1
31. 95 68 73 +5 66 -7*t -2
32. 96 68 73 +5 67 -6*t -1
33. 97 66 71 +5 66 -5t 0
34. 98 66 70 +4 66 -4t 0
35. 99 65 69 +4 66 -3 +1
36. 100 64 68 +4 65 -3 +1
37. 101 63 68 +5 65 -3 +2
38. 102 62 67 +5 64 "-3 +2
* Noise barrier feasible - Noise level decrease -> 6 dBA
t Used to determine reasonability - Noise level decrease > 4 dBA
§ This receptor is an apartment building that houses six units and therefore is counted six times when compared for feasibility.
A-64 0 This receptor represents two six unit apartment buildings and therefore is counted 12 times Mien compared for feasibility.
4*
a

r
H
r

C

1

TABLE 7
EXTECTED NOISE BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
Pagel of 4
Without Barrier With Barrier
(1) (2) (2)-(1) (3) (2)-(3) (3) -(1)
Existing Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Net
Receptor Noise Level Noise Level Increase Noise Level Decrease Impact
I.D. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Location # 1 (Case "A')
1. 45 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
2. 46 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
3. 47 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
4. 48 68 69 +1 63 -6*t -5
5. 49 69 70 +1 63 -7*t -6
6. 50 69 70 +1 63 -7*t -6
7. 51 70 71 +1 64 -7*t -6
8. 52 70 71 +1 65 -6*t -5
9. 53 70 71 +1 65 -6*t -5
10. 56 63 66 +3 62 4t -11
11. 57 63 66 +3 63 -3 0
12• 58 64 66 +2 63 -3 -1
13. 59 66 67 +1 63 -4t -3
14. 60 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
15. 61 66 67 +1 63 -4t -3
16. 62 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
17. 63 66 67 +1 63 4t -3
18. 64 67 68 +1 63 -5t 4
19. 65 63 66 +3 63 3 0
20. 84 62 66 +4 63 -3 +1
21. 85 62 67 +5 63 4t +1
22. 86 66 68 +2 64 -4t -2
23. 87 68 69 +1 65 -4t -3
24. 88 69 70 +1 66 4.L
-3
25. 89 71 73 +2 67 -6*t 4
26. 90 70 72 +2 67 -5t -3
27 91 70 73 +3 68 -5t -2
28. 92 69 75 +6 69 -6*t 0
29. 93 69 76 +7 69 -7*t 0
30 94 69 75 +6 68 -7*t -1
31. 95 68 73 +5 66 -7*t -2
32. 96 68 73 +5 67 -6*t -1
33. 97 66 71 +5 66 -5t 0
34. 98 66 70 +4 66 -4t 0
35. 99 65 69 +4 66 -3 +1
36. 100 64 68 +4 65 -3 +1
37, 101 63 68 +5 65 -3 +2
38. 102 62 67 +5 64 "-3 +2
* Noise barrier feasible -Noise level decrease 2:6 dBA
t Used to determine reasonability - Noise level decrease > 4 dBA
§ This receptor is an apartment building that houses six units and therefore is counted six times when compared for feasibility
.
A-64 13 This receptor represents two six unit apa=ent buildings and therefore is counted 12 times %%fien compared for feasibility.

? ? p ?' 150 ??? 1 Osce0li
•'•7 5 68
ummertie d Brwns Monticello ;0
$ummlt
` Oak SO 6 a J- 1:9
Rld¢e , r? Osslpr
17 D
rille? ?•,
GUILFORD COUNTY 6 ?y%I,? f 1 o R
dti 4 Gylllovil I[ o AYI v Mc?{ansrdl ,soon t
'^COITe¢e t 70 Sedalia 00
7° -''6 w ,
#41 68 e 5 J J 1 10 yih tset
` ed¢efiel •• 7 1 * + 6 alai
?! - me av 7 -Greensboro t
? I )DA ? 29A ? 22 3?7
17 1" 1 I 5 a I Pleasant Garden 7
4 11 2 p . ip 5 J z Klme
I
#40 S 610 6 ° 6 6 7
_ ulian
7 } IIU 1]]
1 7011 1.3
t r11 7007 7011 y .I t X.
71]1 `?
1 ? o +1693 \ __ .. .: .:1 J
Colfaa 11 '? ?% F 4 •c r ?'j( tr
7179 Y BUFFALO
!z G bard
T;..,:• .?? LAKE
J ? \ 71]] ]'067 Z]! h Point ,1G .Iy 4
oGy ?J ° 0a7 Airport st ;•' r . \ ` \
r? 7 '•717$ 7011 1 ]17!
7 ^ .`.tol? ?: a wool GREENSBOR
iaa - \ ! ; risndship < v, : POP. 135.647
7007 C'4 975 Guilford
College
tA•ur IF
is 2 Ifu lass
7 1.6 / ? J'
' !0 7 .l to I ar -'. .
list l
•1911 /1-? 1916.E 1St210 1167 I //)1 R
7 F"` FAU Guilford G
FAU
-" 12m 1
It761120- .g :?: 610 lo_ 1 1 `1 , 671 ,
r7 \ M .::.•.e: 7 1. IO 7.e J
:} ? 11]9 ?•.X:; .? ... lAtJ .I 70A
t.. 5ftlP4F E 3' .' 4
S
?F e
79 C,\
70A a
• ` DrsP River
•? 1
LAKE -- m--
'c HIGH
POINT /%:•59d s 1 / ?" ` ` r
I? ?so
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
- -?v , ; f y' o? J I TRANSPORTATION
JA`p.E TTOW?1 toy ` DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HIGH POl PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESERVOIR -'"'''?' IAU fJS ( BRANCH
? .... ;ira 1-40
a `;.; "'` " '•:: + '%? FROM NEW 1- 40 EAST
t
,oA OF KERNERSVILLE
rA = 70A V ?+ 1 TO SR 1616 (HOLDEN ROAD)
T. 1. P. NO. 1- 2201
• A-63
T A B L E 7 (Continued)
EXPECTED NOISE BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
Page 2 of 4
4
V

Without Barrier With Barrier
(1) (2) (2)-(1) (3) (2)-(3) (3) -(1)
Existing Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Net
Receptor Noise Level Noise Level Increase Noise Level Decrease Impact
I.D. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
39. 103 62 66 +4 63 -3 +1
40. 106 61 66 +4 62 -4t +1
41. 107 62 66 +4 63 -3 +1
42. 108 63 67 +4 63 -4t 0
43. 109 63 67 +4 64 -3 +1
44. 110 63 68 +5 64 -4t +1
45. 111 63 68 +5 64 4t +1
46. 112 64 68 +4 64 4t 0
47. 113 65 68 +3 65 -3 0
48. 114 66 69 +3 65 -4t -1
49. 115 66 69 +3 65 -41 -1
Location 42
50. 142§ 68 73 +5 '66 7*t -2
51. 1434 68 76 +8 65 11*t -3
52. 144 67 73 +6 65 8*t -2
53. 145 67 74 +7 66 -8*t -I`
54. 146 67 72 +5 65 -7*t -2
55. 147 67 69 +8 63 -6*t 4
56. ' 148 67 68 +1 63 -St 4
57. 149 67 69 +2 63 -6*t 4
58. 150 67 69 +2 63 -6*t -4
59. 151 67 70 +3 63 -7*t -4
60. 152 67 71 +4 63 -8*t -4
61. 153 67 73 +6 64 -9*t -3
62. 154 63 69 +6 64 -5t +1
63. 155 63 69 +6 63 -6*t 0
64. 156 63 68 +5 63 -5t 0
65. 157 63 68 +5 63 -5t 0
66. 158 63 67 +4 63 -4t 0
67. 159 63 67 +4 63 4t 0
68. 160 63 68 +5 64 -4t +1
69. 161 64 69 +5 65 -4t +1
70. 162 64 69 +5 65 4t +1
71. 163§ 58 68 +10 65 -3 +7
72. 164§ 56 66 +10 64 -2 +8
73. 165§ 57 67 +10 65 -2 +8
74. 166§ 57 68 +11 66 -2 +9
75. 167§ 56 66 +10 64 -2 +8
76. 173 53 63 +10 62 -1 +9
77. 174 53 63 +10 62 -1- +9
78. 175 53 63 +10 62 -1 +9
Noise barrierfemble-Noise level damease > 6 dBA
Used to determine rsasmabdity-Noise level dca+eace > 4 dBA A-65
77us reoeptor is an apartaierd buildingthat houses six units and therefore is axu>ted six times when cOnTared for feasibility.
Ibis moeptar rq rw= two six-unit ap nmt buildings and therefore is amuted 12 times when compared for feasibility.

T A B L E 7 (Continued)
EXPECTED NOISE BARRIER EFFECTTVENESS
Page 3 of 4
Without Barrier With Barrier
(1) (2) (2)-(1) (3) (2)-(3) (3) -(1)
Existing Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Net
Receptor Noise Level Noise Level Increase Noise Level Decrease Impact
I.D. (dBA (dBA (dBA) (dBA (dBA) (dBA)
79. 176 54 64 +10 62 -2 +9
80. 177 54 66 +12 63 -3 +9
81. 178 54 64 +10 61 -3 +7
82. 179 54 64 +10 61 -3 +7
83. 180 56 66 +10 62 -4t +6
84. 181 56 66 +10 63 -3 +7
85. 182 57 67 +10 63 4t +6
86. 183 57 67 +10 63 4t +6
87. 184 56 66 +10 63 -3 +7
88. 185 56 66 +10 62 4t +6
89. 186 54 64 +10 61 -3 +7
90. 187 54 64 +10 62 -2 +8
91. 188 56 66 +10 62 4t +6
92. 189 54 64 +10 62 -2 +8
93. 190 56 66 +10 63 -3 , +7
94. 191 54 65 +11 62 -3 +8
95.
96. 192
193 56
56 67
66 +11
+10 63
62 4t
4t +7
+6
97. 194 57 67 +10 64 -3 +7
98.
99. 195
196 55
55 66
66 +11
+11 62
63 4t
-3 +7
+8
100. 197 57 68 +11 65 -3 +8
101.
102. 198§
199§ 68
68 76
75 +8
+7 67
67 -9*t
-8*t -1
-1
103. 200° 64 71. +7 66 -5t +2
104.
105. 201
202 56
56 67
68 +11
+12 65
66 -2
-2 +9
+10
106. 203 58 69 +11 66 -3 +8
107.
108. 204
205 61
67 69
74 8
7 67
69 -2
-5t +6
+2
109. 206 68 75 7 70 -5t +2
110. 207 64 71 7 68 -3 +4
.
Location 43
111. 237 58 62 +4 58 -4t 0
112. 238 59 63 +4 59 4t 0
113. 239 60 64 +4 59 -5t -1
114. 240 61 64 +3 60 4t -1
115. 241 61 65 +4 60 -5t -1
116. 242 61 65 +4 60 -5t -1
117. 243 62 66 +4 59 -7t -3
118. 244 62 66 +4 59 -7t -3
Noise banierfeasrble -Noise level decease > 6 dBA
t Used to determine reasonability - Noise level decease > 4 M.A.
A-66 § 'this receptor is an ap u ma¢ building that houses six units and therefore is muted six times when compared for feasibility.
11 This receptor tepreseras two six-unit apartment buildings and therefore is counted 12 times uben compared for feasibility.

T A B L E 7 (Continued)
EXPECTED NOISE BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS
Page 4 of 4
Without Barrier With Barrier
(1) (2) (2) - (1) (3) (2)-(3) (3) - (1)
Existing Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Net
Receptor Noise Level Noise Level Increase Noise Level Decrease Impact
I.D. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
119. 245 63 66 +3 59 -7t -4
120. 246 63 67 +4 60 -7t -3
121. 247 63 67 +4 60 -7t -3
122. 248 62 67 +5 60 -7t -2
123. 249 62 66 +4 60 -6t -2
124. 250 61 66 +5 60 -6t -1
125. 251 61 65 +4 59 -6t -2
126. 252 60 64 +4 59 -5t -1
127. 253 59 63 +4 59 -4t 0
128. 254 61 64 +3 59 -5t -2
129. 255 60 64 +4 59 -5t -1
130. 256 60 64 +4 59 -5t -1
131. 257 60 63 +3 59 -4t -1
132. 258 60 63 +3 59 -4t -1
133. 259 58 62 +4 58 -4t 0
134. 260 58 61 +3 58 -3t 0
135. 261 57 61 +4 57 4t 0
136. 262 58 62 +4 58 -4t 0
137. 263 58 62 +4 58 4t 0
138. 264 58 62 +4 58 4t 0
139. 265 58 62 +4 58 4t 0
140. 266 59 63 +4 59 4t 0
141. 267 59 63 +4 59 4t 0
• Noise banierfeasible-Noise 1-1d- ,,6dBA
t Used to dd=im msonability - Noise level dcaca_ e > 4 dBA
§ This reapu r is an apart ro 2 building that houses six units and therefore is counted six tuna when compazsd for feasibility.
0 Toss r=pa tspttsernstwo =uut aparrrmt buildings and therefore is oouruzd 12 tunes wt= compared for feasibility. A-67
a
1+e?pl
v' 1
/ 4?3
a,c, mac,
11 e.,o c ?, SAS
w d er
y?.

?o????a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
6 May 1997
\1
Memorandum To
From:
J. Wilson Stroud Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
Christopher A.-Mu ray, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Proposed widening of I-40 from west of Sandy
Ridge Road (SR 1850) to Holden Road in
Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina. TIP
No. I-2201; State Project No. 8.T491604; Federal
Aid No. IMF-40-3(34)2.
Reference: Protected Species Review (NCDOT, 15 May 1995)
Attention: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project study area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent
information concerning waters of the United States and protected
species is also provided. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
CC: V. Charles E?ruton, Ph.D., Unit Head -
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: I-2201
'k -
JUL 21 19?
DVM
LABORATORY SECTION

i
Widening of I-40 from west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1-950)
to Holden Road in Greensboro, Guilford County
TIP No. I-2201
State Project No. 8.T491604

Natural Resources Technical Report
I-2201
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
CHRIS A. MURRAY, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
6 May 1997
y
1
TABLE OF-CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..............................................1
1.1 Project Description.... .......................... .1
1.2 Purpose .........................................4-:... .1
1.3 Methodology .......................................... .1
1.4 Project Area ......................................... .3
2.0 Physical Characteristics ................................. .3
2.1 Physiography and Soils ............................... .3
2.2 Waters Impacted ...................................... .4
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality .... . 4
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics ......................... .5
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ......... . 6
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................... .9
3.1 Plant Communities ................ ................. .9
3.2 Anticipated Impacts.t_o_.P1ant Communities............. 11
3.3 Wildlife ............................................. 12
3.3.1 Terrestrial .................................... 12
3.3.2 Aquatic ..............:......................... 13
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ...................... 14
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues .................................... 14
4.1 Waters of the United States .......................... 14
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters. 14
4.1.2 Permits ........................................ 18
4.1.3 Mitigation ..................................... 19
4.1.3.1 Avoidance .............................. 20
4.1.3.2 Minimization ........................... 20
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................ 21
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ........................... 21
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................... 21
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
species ........................................ 21
5.0 References ............................................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...................................2
Figure 2. Location of Surface Waters...... ................. .6
Figure 3. Location of Wetlands ............................... 16
LIST OF TABLES
?Y -
Table 1. Stream Resource Info rmation ........................ .8
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......... 12
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands .................... 15
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION -
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation-(NCDOT) proposes
the widening of I-40 from west of Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) to
Holden Road, Guilford County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Construction will include widening the existing roadway to 6 or 8
lanes, realignment or improvements to several interchanges,
construction of multi-lane connectors, and relocation of Burnt
Poplar Road and Chimney Rock Road (SR 1554).
1.1 Purpose
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to
assist in the preparation.-of an. Environmental Assessment. The
purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological
resources in the immediate area of potential project impact.
Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) and
assessment of biological features within the study corridor
including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a
preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have
been derived from a number of sources including U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Kernersville, Guilford, and
Greensboro, NC), National Wetland Inventory mapping, soil
Conservation Service Soil Survey of Guilford County (USDA 1977),
and January 1993 aerial photography (scale: 1:4800) furnished by
NCDOT.
The site was visited on July 28/29, 1994 and April 3/4, 1997.
Communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were
walked or visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately-61 m (200
ft) in width, symmetrical to the centerline of the existing
alignment. Impact calculations were based on potential
encroachment averaging 43 m (140 ft) each side of the centerline
along the entire alignment. Special concerns were evaluated
including potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and
water quality protection in East Fork Deep River, Long Branch,
and South Buffalo Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system
utilized by the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and
11-2 T, .,
laze
ItSF ?4 9
n 9 '4
J lii2
°,° ? a? •O 7us
]007 1014
cAlfe= / : y
1.2 1J
s 4 ??
V
2007 2 to
17
Start Project
9 ua' f

/. $ '
NAT. MIL PARK

BUFFALO 1.
LAKE v=

Pont s
?I

?''

GREENSBORO
ATOt ,,,E .. ?'? •`:,,,,
. - '
:

.'. ; Guilford
College ?
POP. 155.642
- ! FAu
fAJ l21 ?
rJ
t

? R,G w` ?•
Guilford
fAU
w? FAU f

21 . L
b')
`

421

w,. ,

1 40
i:_: I4 FAU

End Project
L_
1 l I
sor
21 7j fir C \7
N'? .7AATCH^ T'• , t1HE N tfAU? .... 7.0
70A ?? II 2 1
Iq 21
12
Deep Rirer
;4(85
f t
HIGH POIl
s: RESERVOIR
E(, 294
FAU.• •? ? 704 t Y ter' Q
LO P( .:..,.c.. t t
1= G
?.;1 r• ?U - - 6I 4021272
r2 9 4076 \? 1]9 V 1 p
68 7 1 ,.2
9 O J I U] 1 y1
70 p l n?9 6. n?o ".+?a 12]
AHIGH POINT it?? I ?? 1121 'S 11?? +oio 01
J ? l7eo
a:. )P111. 60.180 atr _ I '5,, ` ti , iIIQr26i3 2
\F'F ti 1127 .1
FAU
lt 011 I] FAU
.. •t?,` /?%:; ? '.^2 2 A ? ' IIX
1142 1" II]7 1103
.? ,.L•
k = J ,ll.e °........ ,.?
1 SCALE
f I 0 I 2 a A MMES
Environmental Services, Inc. Site Location Project No.: ER94-014.2
1318 Dale Street I-40 Widening
Suite 220 Guilford County September 1994
Raleigh, NC 27605 North Carolina -
Figure 1
N
2
3
Weakley 1990). When appropriate-, community classifications were
modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter
approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,-hydrology
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al.
1980, Potter et al. 1980, Hamel 1992, Webster et al. 1985).
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was
derived from available sources (DEM 1989, 1991, 1993) and the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Guilford County (1995).
Ecological classifications based on recreational fishing
potential were-determined.._by -u i-.izing Fish (1968,,) . Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
A listing of federally protected species (23 August 1996) with
ranges which extend into Guilford County was requested and
received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to
initiation of field studies. In addition, NCNHP records
documenting presence of federal or state listed species were
consulted before commencing this investigation.
1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs along I-40 in the
between Kernersville and Greensboro, Guilford
Residential homes, shopping centers, restaura
business are located adjacent to the existing
and agricultural activities are common in the
outside of the construction corridor.
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
V.; 2.1 Physiography and Soils
suburban area
County (Figure 1).
zts, and commercial
roadway. Farming
area, but mostly
Guilford County is situated in the central Piedmont Plateau.
Topography is characterized by rolling and hilly relief,
resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from approximately 287 m (940 ft) to
approximately 227 m (750 ft) above mean sea level. The project
site is in the western Carolina Slate Belt underlain by igneous
and metamorphic rocks, consisting mainly of granite.
Metamorphosed gabbro and diorite occur in a small area (DNR
1985).
4
At least five different soil associations including ten different
soil series were noted in the project area. Dominant upland
soils include Cecil, Enon, Madison, and Mecklenburg series.
These are well-drained soils typical of broad smooth ridges and
interstream divides. All noted series comprise-.Urban land
complexes which have been markedly altered by construction and
urbanization. Congaree and Chewacla soils are concentrated
within narrow floodplain terraces bordering a few streams within
the study area. Congaree loam is usually well drained, but is
nearly level and subject to periodical flooding. Chewacla sandy
loam is frequently flooded, nearly level, and somewhat poorly
drained. Chewacla soil is found on terraces along some small
creeks or tributaries; it is not classified as hydric, but it may
contain inclusions of hydric Wehadkee.
2.2 Waters Impacted
The project area falls within the confines of the Cape Fear River
Basin. Within this drainage basin there are two distinct
drainage areas, the Deep River drainage area and the Haw River
drainage area. In the Deep River drainage, the East Fork Deep
River commences north of I-40 near Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) at
the western end of the project corridor. East Fork Deep River
flows east and southeast, crossing under I-40 at NC 68; from
there it continues south-southeast to High Point Lake. Long
Branch, also part of the Deep River drainage and a tributary to
the East Fork Deep River, flows south, crossing I- 40 east of
Chimney Rock Road (SR 1554). A number of small, intermittent,
unnamed tributaries of the East Fork Deep River are crossed by
I-40. South Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Haw River,
commences north of I-40 near the Guilford-Jamestown Road (SR
1546) in the center of the project area. South Buffalo Creek,
located parallel to and north of I-40, flows to the east; most of
the associated small feeder tributaries to Buffalo Creek flow
from the south through pipes or culverts located under I-40.
2.2.1 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North
Carolina based.on the existing or contemplated best usage of
various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
The best usage A assification of unnamed tributaries is the same
as the water body to which they are a tributary. A best usage
classification of WS IV has been assigned to both East Fork Deep
River (DEM Index No. 1772-(0.3) and Long Branch (DEM Index No.
r
17-2-1(1)) in the project area to about 4.8 km (3 mi) downstream
(DEM 1993). The designation'WS IV denotes that these waters are
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds; local programs to control nonpoint
5
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. WS IV
waters are also suitable for all Class C usage which includes
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. South Buffalo Creek (DEM
Index No. 16-11-14-2) is designated as C NSW from its source
throughout the project area. Class C indicates suitability for
fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and
agriculture, but the NSW designation requires limitations on
nutrient inputs.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
WS I or WS II Waters occur within the project area, nor are there
any point source discharges locally (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses
long term trends in water-quality--at fixed -monitgxing sites by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989,
1991). Species richness and overall biomass are reflections of
water quality. There are two BMAN sampling stations on South
Buffalo Creek, several miles east of the project site. Station
#8 is at the crossing of Mile Run Creek at SR 1400, in the city
of Greensboro where the quality (April 1986) was rated as poor.
Station #78, several miles farther downstream of #8 was rated as
fair (August 1988) (DEM 1989, 1991).
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics
East Fork Deep River, Long Branch, and South Buffalo Creek are
the only named tributaries crossed by the project alignment.
Approximately 17 unnamed tributaries were also identified within
the corridor. Many of these smaller water bodies are
bank-to-bank systems that carry water only during flood periods.
Tributary locations are depicted on Figure 2 and typical stream
characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
\k
y
3
8
Table 1. Stream Resource Information
Map Number Average Average Average Benthic
Width (m) Depth (m) Flow Composition
E. Fork Deep River --
1 1.80 0.07 Slow Silt/Clay
2 0.30 0.02 Slow Clay
3 0.30 0.02 Slow Clay
4 7.60 0.02 Moderate Sand/Rock
5 3.00 0.07 Moderate Sand/Gravel
6 1.00 0.05 Slow Gravel
7 2.40 0.10 Mod./High Sand/Gravel
8 0.90 0.02 Slow Silt/Sand
Long Branch
\' .
9 1.20 0.07 -Moderate Sand/Gravel
South Buffalo -Ck. _--
10 0.90 0.05 Moderate Sand/Gravel
11 2.00 0.10 Moderate Rocky
12 1.50 0.05 Moderate Sandy
13 1.50 0.05 Moderate Silt/Sand
14 3.00 0.07 Moderate Sand/Gravel
15 1.80 0.05 Moderate Sand/Gravel
16 1.80 0.05 Slow Silt/Sand
17 1.50 0.05 Slow Sand/Gravel
18 1.80 0.05 Slow Sand/Gravel
19 0.30 0.02 Slow Gravel
20 3.70 0.10 Moderate Sand/Gravel
Refer to Figure 2 for tributary locations
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from
construction-related activities which may increase erosion,
sedimentation, and turbidity. Alterations of water levels,
changes in water temperature due to the loss of vegetative cover,
changes of incident light, and scouring of streambeds could
affect water resources during construction. In order to minimize
impacts to water resources in the entire project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters which wi•11 be strictly enforced during the entire life of
the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with DEM, has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters. Impacts can be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures during construction. Dikes,
berms, silt basins, and other containment measures can be use to
control runoff. Rapid re-seeding of disturbed areas will also
help alleviate sediment loading in stream channels.
9
Some long-term impacts to water-resources are expected as a
result of proposed improvements. Increases in impervious surface
areas will reduce infiltration and potentially result-in
increased runoff. Nutrients, hydrocarbons, toxic substances,
debris, and other pollutants have a greater likelihood o€--
entering receiving waters. Secondary impacts on area water
quality can be expected after project completion. Increases in
urban and commercial development can be anticipated along the
interstate corridor in spite of the fact that I-40 is a
controlled access facility. This development will add further to
the amount of impervious surfaces, and consequently contribute to
increased runoff and reduced infiltration. Erosion and flooding
can also increase, resulting in destabilization of riparian
embankments and further degradation of water quality.
It is not known at this time whether or not any of the streams
will require modifications or relocation. Should such actions be
required, NCDOT must coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources commission in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq.).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities
most of the plant communities along the I-40 corridor have been
modified from their natural state. Growth maintenance occurs
along roadside margins and in powerline, pipeline and sewer
corridors. Urbanization in a large part of the proposed corridor
has further altered natural communities with the introduction and
cultivation of exotic plants species, some of which have escaped
to replace or limit native vegetation. Six plant communities were
identified within the study corridor: pine-mixed hardwood forest,
mixed hardwood forest, pine woodlands, successional, urban/
disturbed, and alluvial floodplain. Specific communities
exhibited variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, slope aspect,
disturbances). The plant communities are described below.
Pine-Mixed Hardwood Forest
v -
Pine-mixed hardwood cover occurs in small forest blocks located
in various locations along project corridor. The overstory trees
consist of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), red maple (Acer
rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), and white oak (Q. alba). Midstory and shrub
species include sourwood (oxydendrum arboreum), dogwood (Cornus
florida), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The herbaceous
10
layer includes vines such as greenbrier (Smilax glauca), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Other herbaceous plants include ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), and Virginia heartleaf (Hexastylis virganica).
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Hardwood forests typically occur on uplands, and are similar to
the pine-mixed forest above, except few pine are found in the
canopy. The canopy is dominated by several oaks species, red
maple, black locust (Robinia psuedoacacia), and hickory on drier
sites. On more mesic sites, tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and occasional
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) may occur. The understory
consists of seedling trees,. Ames-can holly (Ilex.,,cpaca), and
dogwood. The shrub layer is composed of eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), wild grapes
(Vitis spp.), and blue berries (Vaccinium spp.). Herbs include
wild ginger (Asarum canadense), Christmas fern, and southern lady
fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
Pine Woodlands
Pine woodlands identified within the project area are normally
the results of land clearing or early successional stages from
fallow.fields. The dominants consists of Virginia pine with or
without shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) or loblolly pine (P.
taeda). Some hardwoods from nearby plant communities such as red
maple, white oak and hickories are becoming established in the
understory, depending on the stand age. Trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), greenbrier, and poison ivy are frequently found here.
Successional
This plant community type is found in a few isolated pockets
adjacent to the highway near the western end of the alignment
corridor. This successional community is the result of recent
logging, and the process of regeneration from seeds and stump
sprouts of the.previous forest is observable. Invasion and
colonization by early successional species is evident. In
addition to many of the species mentioned in the pine-mixed
hardwood community, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), winged sumac (Rhus
copallina), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), broom-sedge (Andropogon
virginucus), and blackberries (Rubus spp.) have successfully
become established in these disturbed areas.
11
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification is the dominant vegetational
pattern in the project area, common along roadside margins and
within medians, powerline, pipeline and sewer corridors,-and in
commercial/residential areas. vegetation in these areas is
composed mostly of grasses and herbs that tolerate regular
disturbance or management. Also included in this community are
those areas maintained as lawns, gardens, and horticultural
plantings.
Alluvial Floodplain
Alluvial floodplains identified within the project area are
commonly located near larger streams that flood during storm
events. Wetlands are present in,-many, but not al,l, of the
alluvial floodplain sites. The dominant plants encountered here
include sycamore, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple,
sweetgum, privet (Ligustrum sinense), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The sparse
herbaceous layer is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle, poison
ivy, and grape fern (Botrychium sp.).
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related
activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community (Table 2). Project
construction will result in the clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived
using the proposed encroachment outlined in Section 1.3. Project
construction does'not usually require the entire impact width;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
?Y

12
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to-Biotic Communities.
Community Biotic Community Impacts
Pine-Mixed Hardwood 4.8 ha (11.8 ac)
Mixed Hardwood 25.6 ha (63.2 ac) --
Pine Woodlands 0.3 ha (0.8 ac)
Successional 4.6 ha (11.3 ac)
Urban/Disturbed 68.4 ha (168.9 ac)
Alluvial Floodplain 2.5 ha (6.2 ac)
TOTAL 106.2 ha (262.2 ac)
Direct effects on wildlife population levels and habitat
value should not be significant. The project study area is
currently in a highly altered state and plants and animals here
are well adapted to disturbed conditions. -Flora and fauna
occurring in the disturbed-commurri ty are common throughout North
Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will
be re-established after project construction. Post-project
conditions should be very similar to current conditions. Species
adapted to disturbed and edge habitat will continue to thrive.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals
(moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction machinery used
during clearing activities.
Essentially all of the communities affected by proposed
interstate improvements are fringe areas of relatively limited
habitat value. Although the project will not negatively impact
overall community diversity within the Greensboro area, proposed
widening will contribute to the loss of existing habitat
bordering the I-40 alignment.
3.3 Wildlife
3.3. 1 Terrestrial
In spite of surrounding urbanization and resultant habitat loss
and fragmentation{ a diversity of plant communities provides
wildlife with the basic necessities of food, water, and cover.
Narrow forested strips along the tributaries and main stream
'channels serve as protective passageways for transient species
and corridors among different plant communities. Tracks of
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and small rodents were observed in the study corridor.
Other expected mammals include gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus),
13
shrew (Screx longirostris), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana).
Several species of reptiles and amphibians would be expected to
occur in the woodlands and creeksides. American toad (Btu-fo
americanus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) would persist here.
A diversity of avian species were observed. Permanent residents
observed included downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), common
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), starling (Sturnus vulgaris); mocking
bird (Mimus polyglottos), and mourning dove_(Zenaida macroura)
Summer residents noted here-included American robin (Turdus
migratorius), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris),
an immature Cooper's hawk-,(Accipiter cooperii), and indigo
bunting (Passerina cyanea). A small flock of Canada geese
(Branta canadensis), possibly semi-domestic, was observed during
field investigations.
3.3.2 Aquatic
East Fork Deep River has an ecological classification of robin-
warmouth in the lower reaches near High Point Lake; the upper
reaches are of limited fishing significance due to small size
(Fish 1968). Long Branch is not classified, probably due to its
small size. South Buffalo Creek is also classified as
robin-warmouth; because of severe pollution, this stream has no
recreational fishing significance (Fish 1968). However, small
fish such as creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), and shiners (Notropis spp.) are likely
to exist in these streams. Amphibians such as eastern newts
(Notophthalmas viridescens), spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.) and reptiles including
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and stinkpot (Sternotherus
odoratus) are also expected to inhabit streamside habitats.
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed proO"ect does not pose a significant threat to
wildlife; most construction will be concentrated within disturbed
right-of-way limits. Some resident terrestrial species such as
passerine birds, squirrels, eastern cottontail, and raccoon adapt
readily to short-term, minor changes. Some temporary
displacement in feeding areas or cover may occur due to
construction, but a new equilibrium will occur after project
completion. Infringement on the tributaries to the local
14
waterways will likely have temporary impacts on stream-dwelling
organisms due to increased sediment loads, but longterm loss of
aquatic habitat is not expected. Potential down-stream impacts
to aquatic habitat from increased sedimentation during
construction can be minimized by the implementation of stringent
erosion control procedures. Extension of culverts at crossings
of unnamed tributaries will maintain stream flow and allow for
continued viability of aquatic organisms.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities,
the proposed project will not result in significant loss or
displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
However, widening of I-40 will contribute to the cumulative loss
of wildlife habitat which has occurred, and is occurring,
throughout Guilford County.
The alternative to widening of the present highway would be
construction in a new corridor that would have significantly
greater impacts on both natural communities and wildlife
populations, with resultant increases in habitat
fragmentation.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United
States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section
33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Surface waters are those waters used in interstate
or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides,
all interstate.waters including wetlands, and all other waters
such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
,East Fork Deep River, Long Branch, South Buffalo Creek, and 17
unnamed tributaries are considered jurisdictional surface waters
15
(see Figure 2). These-tributaries are thoroughly described in
Section 2.1.2. Criteria to determine the presence of
jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Thirty seven wetland sites
are located in the project study area (Figure 3). These-wetland
sites include headwater wetlands, bottomland wetlands, and
emergent wetlands (Table 3)
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Wetland Site Wetland Type Wetland Impacts
(Estimated)
1 Headwater <0.1 ha
2 Bottomland <0.1 ha
3 Headwater 0.2 ha
4 Bottomland 0.2 ha
5 - Head?7ater 0.1 ha
6 Bottomland 0.2 ha
7 Emergent 0.1 ha
8 Bottomland 0.1 ha
9 Bottomland 0.2 ha
10 Bottomland <0.1 ha
11 Headwater 0.1 ha
12 Headwater 0.1 ha
13 Headwater 0.1 ha
14 Headwater 0.1 ha
15 Headwater 0.3 ha .
16 Headwater <0.1 ha
17 Headwater <0.1 ha
18 Headwater <0.1 ha
19 Headwater <0.1 ha
20 Headwater <0.1 ha
21 Headwater 0.2 ha
22 Headwater 0.2 ha
23 Headwater 0.3 ha
24 Headwater <0.1 ha
25 Headwater 0.3 ha
\k 26 Headwater <0.1 ha
27 Bottomland 0.3 ha
28 Bottomland 0.3 ha
29 Headwater <0.1 ha
30 Headwater 0.2 ha
y _
31 Headwater <0.1 ha
32 Headwater <0.1 ha
33 Headwater <0.1 ha
34 Headwater <0.1 ha
35 Headwater 0.3 ha
36 Headwater 0.2 ha
37 Headwater <0.1 ha
a_ a? S?•7h?
_ G

18
Emergent wetlands are observed along small intermittent streams.
Dominant plants observed here include soft rush (Juncus effusus)
and sedge (Carex spp.) Headwater forest wetlands are located
near the upper reaches of perennial and intermittent streams.
Dominant canopy trees and shrubs include tag alder (A1nus-=
serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum), black willow (Salix
nigra), red maple, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweet gum,
spice bush (Lindera benzoin), blackgum (Nyssa sylva.tica), and
elderberry. Bottomland swamps are typically located adjacent to
larger perennial streams. Dominant plants located here include
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm, tulip poplar,
river birch (Betula nigra), ironwood, and willow oak (Quercus
phellos).
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions
that wetlands perform in an aco.system. wetlands influence
regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm
water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented
to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials
from water that flows through them. The presence of wetlands
adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and
toxins.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from
project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the
COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." Due to surface water and wetland impacts, a
Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit or Individual Permit will likely
be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning
applicable permits rests with the COE.
Nationwide 14 Permit
V :
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) may be
applicable at most ditch and stream crossings found in the
project study area. This permit authorizes construction provided
the following conditions are met:
y _
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
F
(2) the fill placed in Waters of the United States is
limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.33 ac);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the
19
fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged, or otherwise
designed to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a water of the United States.
Individual Permit
Projects that require Individual Permits are those which may have
a significant impact on waters-of-the U.S. due to?the size or
location of the proposed activity.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from
the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit or
Individual Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from
the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation)
must be considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Y -
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States.
According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts, such measure should be appropriate to the scope and
degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
20
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Avoidance is not a viable solution to elimination of
impacts associated with this project. Proposed actions will
primarily involve widening of an existing corridor; realignment
alternatives would result in significantly greater impacts to
natural communities.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions.
Practicable means to minimize impacts to surface waters and
wetlands impacted by the proposed project include.:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and
temporary ground cover during construction.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs
for the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies and wetlands.
- Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken
in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between
the EPA and the Department of the Army.
21
4.2 Protected and Rare Species -
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law---{under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
by the FWS. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are
protected under provisions-of. Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA.
As of 23 August 1996, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
is listed as a Threatened species in Guilford County. Threatened
species are a taxon likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A protected species review (NCDOT, 15 May 1995) was
conducted for this project. A biological conclusion of No Effect
was rendered for the bald eagle based on lack of suitable
habitat. This biological conclusion remains valid. No impacts
to the bald eagle will result from project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal
species which may or may not be listed in the future. There are
no FSC for Guilford County.
5.0 References
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. "Natural Heritage
Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina."
Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States., U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual.," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Enginneer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
22
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of-the Inland Fishing Waters of
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. "Natural Heritage
Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina".
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.
1995. Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Guilford
County, North Carolina.'
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1988.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1991.
Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term
Changes in Water Quality 1983-1990.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1993.
"Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins."
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
V
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Rhode, F.C., R.G'. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell.
Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, &
Delaware. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press. t
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (3rd Approx.).
Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
23
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Soil Survey of
Guilford County. Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
?Y
f

?(e c?i??r? wile
. '.f !!IS
° I IN ,o o o , WINSTON-SALEM 15 MI wills
0
f? tv iv I !(ERN RSVILLE 4.6 Ml. KE r,
950 \ ???:. 0'••: • .: /?° ./'- 6 I ,.` .!? /'"?? = rOa • u ? • r 9 1 '
•`? :? r?r nreso?? ' (? (?? ?? \/ ?• /?` "--????., . ? r a1 ? `V \I
I: ? .?.- ?? \? ?9 ?. ° . ? ti9 a 11 II .lo .II_/ ? i•??N •' '•?'-. ? !, C..`
I .\,• o .?O • s o , -_d'L • rOEtf 11`11 • ..m^1 ? v• =T3 ?I ?- I ?•?` /? )
J S?.
,.?- ?•??• ?/? o • .?? . I • J\ 960
X11, .? ',.'•,? J p ° ate/
I• .n ??,?,\\v?J\?` \ . /i?? ,d • s/ 5-'t r--, fi 1? 1 ? t? 1, •p?L /? ? j
fir/ L ` `? \ - ! ? .° 0?6 0\\1• ? ??. .? ` n I-:. O, .a>==
• /?o ?U_ ` B t°. ?`g?? ` ° • •• \ 1° ?•_O 0 w p o a41/?? / t/
.°Ir m t D i/ .oo ? \ .(? !? III •...
?n ? --- .o -ter ?•' _ a _ _? ?c . / ;??1 i
1f o
1 O
V \p tmvn \\ ? • 000 / ?' Q s ? • ? ? / (S,. ? 5B? . ?? • / ,.?, _ _
r,
I''? ?• ? as,
\ BOO ' oyB . , ,),.•`'? ,?,_ _ ?`I`' ` ' ? _?:1 '?P?' • •? ??/..JI.+?.
J.j r•k
C:z Pd
x I
Mn,
? 11 ? 1 -(. -' ?? \ ? .co ? t, ? '.. •?I' I dI o !?^• ???? a+ ?J r '.
i!M
•?_.\\\. ? .?_ \'950 ??.???• °° ? l!?' ) rn Tim L Vy , ??`!•O./ ,A.`1? (??? (\?\ ?-.-. ??j /?•,?
' \ II ? ' ? ?/(-?.. /r? b : ? 1 f 1. i ? ? % ? r? 1 I <. /..? .• / ?J • / -?
'lot
0'. • o _'2
°
\1
\ ?S
?1' fD M
Y ? ?? -??_-? ? ? ??F; ? • oil ??\"
?` ' Cam. Bi
v?

\' _ -"?'. '-; ?-? 1 \?'??';(( /?f ?; ? c',?;'/°5? ?-?i"? I`? l?( r;??. ? I?\?? •? ?I %!?-?': II`?1 r _P I• ,?

5 _
II ? '~ ?) 8 B9o. ? i iti . °' p I " ? ? >:: ?,' 10 ?;, \ 'o/r •i.;i? --?. 1 { --
I 3 ?`Xl ??j? ?? ?I:_ ' ',---?? u '• . ? rV ??•: I? ,??'? ??\ 85U ? •; _I ? 1•'?//7:;;,.• U./:' ,:
??!, ? z ? ?,,, ;;?, ?? ? ?.?'_:s??// ? lam" >' ° : ??? _ X_?.-- ?,. ?? --_?: 4
?G ?? _ -emu I_.- :\?,. ? ' 1 ° ?' 00 °lt
? ? 1 1 O ? ?Oj. 0'• ?? ? ` Vv Te V ? ? I ? (1 ? ? `??. A?,...
qi;
V? ? ?1 /1 y?L l \'./7 • ? ?I l 1•?,\/ 4 ? _ 0_ Tans• a
\\ \\JJ ?? < • rO ? 'a N?=`r;l'
\ ? /p ~c +/1 ?,4: = O o ° ?v7\fi? 11\? \ J(/?::7 006 E o
?S ?IrJ ?'rr( )1 r ? (? ? ?,
G
??'• j .•,' I -- ? w ? /I •?• "7••?,-'? ?„ .i13 \1 J ? l `J \? i?,r?\?' ,? ;l•,?` '?;,?? ? .? ; t o-' 1 •. ?! : •%?`:,
,4, ft 1 • •?' ••_.•..
' •B•' '. •• \J'•! _ m• ^.: k.,, r?1C 11 ml ..ii a- 30- \ , ??'t ,1
s° • / .?' .i . ! o`l: .-\,"- '?,?. 1 ?'? ? ;,kC: a, ' 'S ` ? ??\,`l,_ ?? _ (•Cl•'- d fO°' ° I : \ : '•?1 •` .? .,jl ;I?? ;? .?{_-17 _ ?
? ? ° `, ? • it 1 ; • _ ? 1" "\//•? -. ??.! ? ` , _??Fo?=q: ?! ?•? -?,? I,o ,i?•_?• '•? „? y{
? -? % • ''?•'• /'•? ? -•?•`?`i: - •.,i„_???•II lC /\ ?, ?` ?.. If ,- •? ? dl /?? ) •lVb ? ? . ?., f• I\ ? • 1 -V? ?!:?'7n'I • ?•?1-'i- x•1.1..
_ , _ • -._S :I ate.+?`' vl r?`? C - r : ; y??? : ?° ?f \ . o... ,_ t • .: '•: :l 1?3 ?.,' ?,
.? ).. ,•• ?` n
?, Np ?. ` e\ ?; 1 u ! N (1.' _?_!_•_ ?I l? \\? Z i'. •m (,? 1 : , W A 1 °?`:
•° m. ••? ??, 'm Ud I •' ?..?, 1`°>t/?/???J1?1 ... ?ls_???? ?J 1? ??i?'- 1 'CIA 1..... rt po .?• II •.__: Wi?tb a
• -,?•'•,'?,, ?? ?? ? S r•?. ' ? 2 tall I ?
,° •? ? o • • ), ''? L.?-?, ?.. ? C' ` (i-J:- -1.1. ?¦. 1¦-?pul••• _??,.1 i. I!a _-.? ' ..W? ? c o ,
?? ??,? , ?,.•? - - ! • ;1 • , 1 1.-'? ? ?; •' r ' S ?(... ? - ??. \ ? . ;° LY - ? _ ,. c' - J,'..:-1? o-e ? .
C1. .1' Y1? 1? r ,'r'•_?:•'r. \•?: ;••, `.??..\\,? F `, 1 ' _ rB5° ?_ \1'
\ .I '?o'T \'• . \t_? V ?,\ •?. \ ,''`y -? J oa ,°o ?'•?. I • ;°,- l '1 •f/ 1?-/
=?I:. 1 i !/C• \1'n ?' ?'I _ [? ° • . ?, ., 1 ?(?..:_- c c ?. to ` i 1'ar
(•I `-1 •?
I .! ' `?? I ^t -? •? v (•' `.,1 " I) t ? ' a0 •\ ? '-? 1? ?i - _ 1 iu ?? • ?// ?•? .?„ • I•? 1 ?? ?' ' • r U •A,
1, Inj 43
I ? -? ( ? 1 •) ? ?.• / •;ell rtl a `. /- r J ??.,+.,..-•'.?:.° Ic?'_° •' ? ' t -. \' 1
i S.I. ? r ? •? `.\ \? .?1 ?' • •1 `•? `•• •? L /:. ..p2 ?. ?? C.' J/ (° ?' ti. ?? '', ?i?i?•;.11 •,,I•
:?: ,a?? jj 1 ?• '
?.' ? O •__? ? /• • I OI `_•I ?J G'? •\ ?• ' •',,?? ? g91i-\_• ?•?•t?'??4??I Il I ?'•.I?_.? ?I?. ...r` -':1 ! N !• • ? ? 1I ? (!', el,, •:?' ?.' • ` I •t .{_
rly
t u I 1 j.
-2, AR S
I 1 ? ? ns (Il_ _ _ C ::
°' ,, _ll??l ;? a•, ,//f I p ti? ?: ;/nr .? ? ?? •-? ? - o? \ - ? ??.p. ? '^k't•` \\?._c`.'I i?
-DEB - ', \ ; '/•: /.' ` O• ..• 1--••? n` ) '??? '?` J '?I 11f 'L?, -p ?? '?:- / •.?lli/in
.. .__.?\,; ,\;`••\, it ? I' l-? iO .\,n. Oo ?a-- C'• ??1 ? .?rii `•`\.`;i' .i l?O'•?..1 / \t -i ???? Ij it'? ~?t?ol` ? ?•^. ?°c ? ?IJ_s :>?'
, •rt• •--
c? I''`, \??_'I' I :?.=?;. , ?, 'e? ,?-- °:i) f?(l\ rn•LFgy11 ?p1?I/ -! //, r? ?1 ;.\,.\\
I 1 `' .? ' I O IV ?? , •- ? •? •? IMF ? I ,{ -?? \ ? ?•' " - ? N / t "" "-? ? O? \ \,1 \ .t C• 1 ? G ? p ,?'1
)::? - ? 1? ?•, 1 0. ••? ,7^,r
?O''"K a , _._ •? 11 1? -?' .-__i v ?,. t t".'Y a....`. -??r- _ \?9 - ' `,/I) ?t ! _,??"///?'•', • ?• `4-+, I \ f 1 H` /ice/'///?,
'?a:%. ..\ I - j I????II'•?l" •II II •a°.I ?..a`? .F -? 1 w .' t ?;` ?. 1 -.?` `" 4 ?J lr? ?Ju/> ,>`,?'j?. • I ?I?1 , I,?? t' '
1 'I, '?C1`!!? ?p:.?ll ??1 _er ,!-•• ?! ,'?-1?, //J)1 `-, O ???•?? , 1? 1, 1 1+D'i C_ a ROAD
Irv
• .?_?') ,??I ?(? 1. ?.III_ ??.• ?/ •/r o••r `I I- I •"? ` _ ?h•.? `__,- ? / I•. r ?i%/fh \ ? ? ?
_I
-I ? .1 . O ' ,•' . n •I ? ?.-. --'i-?? ?? - r• /: (?''• ? ? R ! ?__ f ll I ? t 1 .:?/ re•?.?'+ ??, i /(! ?--?_`
_I _-' .,i" i •? / /) 1 P• ?1. 7 I 3.. M adt1!!.`.,(?? i'.•a t\??q1 : JI 1 / ?b? i `!' ??
l - -?? t • . .??FC-Y - ? 1 ? I 1' ..il ? ? :? ? ? , ?• ?':I?cj .._t J ? \ ??)P '? +-/v?? 11? ?.?1'I?1I.. `, ? all • a°S. t, {? .1 } ?/? ?
I'd
\ /1 1 ? ! \_ J, ? C.. i'?C.\ c!O.yy a-? ff ( m_? ? mC ?S• - ?,,, ? ? V'?l_
„•s.,I,F ?IL_ j ?\ \ ? ?/ / ;:\\s -(^ig 1\'
3?y ) \' , II -'•`I i/? /''? 1.1 n \?? ?IIF?-)? t ` , _
1 m ° i?)? .il 1I _ I rr J.?\ ?c _r . •?. V4i y\??,o Lei - rj ;JX (D°??
C ?7r •,?p ', ). .?/ ,?/ r 1 1? ry 1.•?,t .1!'? eta • , ! , o
N Q z •? C""A ? ?: ?: ? ..,?? ?\\._.? ' 0-?1? I II J !.. ..1 `I'i \•) ?? :Ilj?(•
m n?., ? •o ?,-- ?:.a I?L? _•- ?,. .,:. ? ?.. (: ?: ?, ill ?t °i
D x?O 1 -- \I ??' ??_ ??, I .'7 Y?Q. _? •, ,? )y 17 R7! IDOE? ST;v
c7 D . z n 1 ? . I II _ a_ ?_ ?? L_ ---? r •? c ? f .
m =-1 p ••o , ? ) ?l I - ?.<1 I?= _-- -t_?\? •?''??? r ?; t ? ' 1 I ? . ?
_ 11 ) 1 061 _. `.
p Y •zf O ?. "?ti( _' ' ?l ,•.. ?p -?? ; ?' (rQ` Y y?
Z z x G' ?.' ?? /? ^?! ?.? \.L ? C off;,' o ? `• ?= ?????o ?I
M -n IF
Sy WN
z N/ 0 -1-T '" / •ti .?? / \` ?r " ? s
? iii /. , I 1 L C /? .:?j.sa I ••I ? ? ? ?? Ily/ ?1\? ? ?1 I '.. ? r•? -?•r \\
iV r in"
,1 ?? 1 I? y, \! t7 i •?/ \ \ _+?•?I-)p" / \? \?° '\` ?l I N r` •\? C?
.:? _??1? ? Y I / 'i?"Z' \?r?l.? - ? ? ? ??/ c ?i +-_ - 't? ---' •---=?1'- 1? ? I I y
?-? ?•IIr?IIh--? ? \\?'? '?f°-? '_,t\ _` •\ .?????'d %? -?i ? al??i'll=,J- (?: ? `?' (D .•.?r I? ? -11?I ?I? `I \ ~ rt--? A I({1(.y?`.f) 1
`. .:?_. :•}•?: ?_/ 1 ?/? •? l tlbt' I l-'I /l, _ 'i- ?_.. ;./-?1? !` ? P_. lQ.f ? ? -._ _? t-?" ? ? ._ 1 ? . _? . 1 r-.lr?.....!'=._(. \\ II,'. ( .)??-B?t? ? I WII•
\` - `/(? \?\ /K ?_I J-r . \\ I 1 \ \ 'i ,\qq r 6 ill `` ° V.
110
t..•1 ?r? r... / !i' I •.. \i\'/?'` \.1' -` ??I' I \\ti ;°°i ' ?? (__` .J /' -,` ',
1 ?? ?l„!?•:?1,`- '? •??/ ?'\./ , ' •.I?_ •? I I\C\ I a ` •? •\? ,. r`t ?? YUC,COz• ,
. If,
_.?' i •:I -?';, ^`??--' 1 :\ Y;`-_ _(__o? ? ?. I 't_....?. rl I' ( 'l,-: \ / /1, / ( ? ? a???• ? \ f` a
•u'' Q `? \ •r'0 ' ?' I?,i9°p•_ , .?.?• i??, l .. ??\•r° y>',i? . )?\ \':
04
a,\ ,
'' /•`t r---? •li '?(?1/-\\?_• CC..i?' /r /?'?.? (' f0•?I.b I OfJ O6Y 1 is"t•. r( •\.//o
j \ I `. ' ' 1?!/'?'f'r?v"\?l. \`iC ?/ •i f ?_ o='? / `?? jl. u: ?j.?+L cad Match Line %./.
• 4, J __ \
Illy
• •\• Ila..4.° d ?? ?l•/i? I / \?? ?--I'?'\... 3.. I , r t ')' _ 1? w I I ?t o .'??_
%
Ir c, I t- 1• \.: ?0? f jf
tl.b ?''C mil/ 1.? .\ ?,. •?? \ nl ?c° _i -`1.,`?. tl• (I/ ?\,?\J / ? ` ) :.• •, /• • ?G1 __ J
1?"••1?'V? o?t'/. ??il ,.,?? '1I•_//I I_..?-'/l L?'` 1.., ')//I ?/ Ji./ •/? v°,,( _
/? )//?.\, a ?,?\ t J J 1a% (..- i)?// ?\ / /1 11(?.• C\• JY? b
'? _ (")I /,/S' ;. L.?'/' ?,, '•''¢? l 1. ??r/!' ?? ,P
• o
\\ GU' N _1'1? (i •ui%l?f? ?`• :''
C. rv/ V, i' r I \(•\C?.)5;1 ?? `\ c? jam-i.J?oa ° /`.' ii '' (o,
,/
```J /.- / 1111x\ .J ?' \1\('? I) C ?. j =_ ° • / __t. _
1f' I ` [•?\I (! \ l I i- (' ) I _l'I U 1 / ° N/ %/\I/) ??:• 1 D -} r?/ 1 ?. - __/
??'? J - IN ' \1 / • ? L?) '"
" \ -.1\?_ ?, /•• N Ili '' : /i' - ?' ? 1/ ? /?? 1 \ / . /_ ? ; }`I 1,` -- .+ ?i
n ( _ 1/ •._/ f27 Ip• '?, 111ppp [•s/ II, .V-\ \{I1 ?_.'11?,?. ` i'''- ( jl?1J-'??? 'D//'--J( /'? _)l/
Oil
? , , i ?I ,' ? _ ?_ .' ?,r;?(`° t ?` ?,I; 'I I ? 1.> ?j• 1 ? r /' `I %? ?l- ---•``t J(? j _ _/ a=r?» ?G._? fa, ?^= /., , /`_
:.aII_F==='I .??u a .?:?/ „ l • 'iLIJ I `mil ?Ir''I )'-%?{`?IU /?/•???l ':?{-t? ---,•a"'//'%)/,? i?,.??J \`oi
f/
Vh.
cup I
/ p ?? )\ - . ?,' :c;%1\• J ?1-:?\?),'' HIV ' i it
:?'\`"?° ?? C ?] •w'- --?•;i \ •? .?:
/• 1 i ! 1 ••) 1, ? - , ?r,\ ? x r_4111 ! \ r??,JI' I •1' 1 ``\il , w I f I II \/, ??, 1 / ?? ,?.? ) u ?? ? _ = 1 n?`-, ? •`? / ? /'/?
' IL 1 l ?; \• I r ,, Y!J i¦/0 •/')\'`. ?I \? )?'1`\!\J\' 1y_S.
- '- "T• ??/(/lY ?'`? ? II I /'r .9? ( !'1? ?/ +1' ". ?:/? _"u%
1 / I ' ?.. ...???. /.11 \?./? ? _ __// ??? \' l?.` \ I// 3-?. `' •?roy 9)
= T p ', x.-.11 1 • L? /, _ I / r I'
), 11
I ( , , II :, ;..?.• - //V? S'9 ?
I 1 / 1• (
,, • , ',\ { ' r ?-?J f ? \\\ ??_? ?`? T y i. _ 'I. I •11. ?•• //' f_: ? / •C ? .f•. ?I ?. J" / 1 ! • ?
I 1f/`C r v '. ?l \_ x 1 ?' li' ( \ (• o '\__ 1/ 1? `
lil II. /_ .• G), ,`? . _ ,' \ 11 7, ( ( .) O y,/`
--?' {???? 5 ?; ?-.; .•\i?1r? (,?_r? o,=?. - ((h ??''I;II'I?.;i. y ??' .b ?,/ :l? ?. =?:.,IC?;._ / 11?_.a?,, g:. -?
.t r ! • I ! ? - .\ cq b e rO / 'tl i u' - _ , ?• r Io ?"` 't H• r\J, `` t? ? ?. I =? _-.
?, •).• J \\. .vd'•i I `?-_ = c<? ?.' / C'l %!?> Ir?1 \llt?. ??+?.t.f f //'• ( \?•,r a f') .I ? f" 1/' ?\)% ??,• (- _II\? )-
II (•?' < ; l\?. 111,- \?/.u o6 f? ( ?? 11 ?(ist\ pis/)\ '?.'-_rr. `(,`??1 II..(I ?•: I' ' "'ti A?•'\1?• Y.?, ItII\. ?I /Y`ol, C, i-
It all
', 2\/ I \ \ 7,.? -\?1• 11• ?? 1 •? p• ?y• ') ', a 1
•1, •\ IwdS.,t_??}x_13 n - hi? \C-• 1( ,?.?\? ) I 1/ Inl\?. ?J(S. ,? f\?, {'rJ/?li- k/ '° \ L? \. 4JJ ' •.\ _ °/
• '\' ••/.? 1 ! +1?•-? ^\//_/'-? It`? -=F_'T_h 'l ?/? l?Sl;- .\\ Ii I \/^^i ?l - ? a9? 1 ? ? G I. &. ?1 P ) all ??'
II .{ Ili I ` _ ?' •1. ?`Z . 4 v•\ _ ?\ • _ ? L??: ?\??? f ?/, ? .i =--I ? ,'/ _I rl---_ ,\\ .?j \J'a 1- ? r '1? ??F .a !? :..:?': ? /
10
/ f" •? ?'(?(• \? `\'?' II`V (?;? n0(•,/ , i ,(,\?' i IN/1???'`.i? It ?? / j II' l? ,•1 _?o _)/li\ :% '? \/
.31
n ?' - `(i '.•.f \/_?? ?.r ??J. •? tJ?\__ \\` , (Qr -12'??? (, YOOE '(/?:??-..)r••• .? J /. (_'??a.? 1?? ?l
1 v?? 1. m._?. / ? II
I _ j ._.l ! 't tr 1 / ?Y 11 (. `t,- r •?'r T
LU
`S. N ,...,..._'/'jy. (_? ! ?? `??'?I, ;I V+HS .?',? 1,'O/:f ?. ' i I?/ ri: A o ,'v?C????•1.•-•??,.?,,., .1l /•1 ???? •! ?1..
r (• I' ( I \ ! ' \`? , ??_J I • I Cb _/1•' . /'<!_j?/? .Il.`.C\ V ( U.,i _? '='u, ?,?-•7• •( ?-1
\
V, sw
1 , / 1 l\ ,., to .-.r, \ ??--' S? ?, ;I \ • f '`•'?\ ?-i U _ °, `
r c, - ?,;., ? ? . ? ? ice) , I •%?? ? ;? •? ?.: ' • ?,,; -? ?_.., / ?J'.'.(.(? ? 't?e_..,?,3:??_: ? t1
,,?• .\ ` .,v` ?1 \`.. ?, '?V i "1 H _?.... ° ?, j _ ..rbl •_ w. • /^Z' '1 l ?W, •/ ?I/' /I' ''?(-? ' ^?' \/ ,\? q - )
Co. i1 t Z
.f .,/ \ (. •/ ,? W(/
1 ' t '`r•'?^.? Sp \ - _ ,l , omi \ ?\_.-. )'1/ ?t //// v I? I 4!<I °L._e..) i- / _..??tOi,'
\\J ?( `11\\ 1\ '?\(N 1.?;\?\I?_\~l?__!? ?: rf ?O`It( (fii-?\j(I •`\/1' N •T'
. ( ) 1 {I 1 /? ??\'a, '1 1?,' ,.-__ /?o\/. ?\tt r-.'. _``I c,., ^`/?•. gip,. ?1`vU - ? f \;J `• H? _I
?,_ \ i ?i `j ? f _ ? ? )' ?,. \ ` \ _ /? / __ ? 1I III -?,e_ Ir _ 1 ? ? ,?11?(? _\C( `? .,1 i'_7 ? ? ;'.II ? i'(l r \j - `t (•' ,^ ? I ? a, ? 1 1" ,_,
1, 0
~'W':! /i•,'^ „ :`: •! •r .( ,; I_; I .? O`. - .",1 \l?, 1 't?-i,l\ , ,1J l' .1,=??'v I ?V/-\\\; `,( alni), ', !'' JII
• I 1
;'
'!'. I , l 1/ ) ((\ \ '! x _. ., .`:` , yl t ^ I? l? l 1 -J d Q i? f ') SI \i' ``I .\: :..i `I ?I:• \ ?.?''>:l ? ' ; I e4 '
/'. ??. .'1 ? ./\ ` f/ J //1 ti? I, l ? b)\ _ __ . c? • I .:I ' ,i ` • ???? J?? i ?,•.' I??•?-/ ?. I. ?..- 1 l ?'? `f -!
,.. , - •• .t ,`r t••••?J / _) ) '\?' ): ?. . II ?? \ ? .=(;,?, ±i- 1 ti .I,° L.:\;-\? -; I??:=?Q• • ?Ci??':.-? l __ / ? ?i ! i?_ .ar. !'
:?' .``... ,\ t .?\.S• Im .?.\\: _??°'. ?."-•) i ,U` Cc, ?.I y 1??7 _ II'\: ?_N %?...:o\\I??'?.
.i....11 1> ? 1`•?. \,JJ? on\, ?' C -/? WC]/'
O i/ • I 4? _ ' t '.l , ` ., J,./ J\ I/? _1?, i? ' P ¦. y? rr.•yr.?1.I • / I ?t - ?:: _ '1 ll ` ?\ '_ "c7 t2 O
', " `;• •r .'` 'r _4 ?: :. ... - j• )i: 1 \ IcL. a/\ d 1 I?,If \' ` O °CID'''?l --?_
G 'I ',)? •1 '•? '" V ?) I\I I \ • ?. _` :, :.. `1? \l 'I \ •c ?y i ai \ \ it
p\ 1 r r i Ir, ?? 1 ( ry;'" I I - I r M1,`,/ r I.
I+--3' \ r \. 1. ?, ',?.+r...\?' ? r. _, ? ??? i•' ' ?'. moo/ i' t'I', •'•,al 1,I,? )/;//. a?.. _/ r (l,.(- R -?? ??' ! r! /ll `0 .. )
?-' ? •ii ? 1•\•' ? .` ?O•') . ?. ? ( l • • .... l :( cb .-/ !F ? , ?'-7' ' r?c'.? ? i J ? I I - i 'g?l ,? ?P .? ? i
:?• .1^' 1.. •,%.'\`. 1 •\\\\rr,•? '))I\ i•/I \\'`\??'`?t•?µ.?-? 1, _\a \//>j I_ +I'(J !/\\• I,),'!' ( a: 1. ?1\?I1 01. I ?a•rll. i?.,,
(1 1 1.>; ?, ?t.. '?I?` 1/ ••` 4 ain'•• •? )l ,P? I f 1r/ ;. // ?> 1, _"?1 \\. \? i)( /' 1\ J ',• \ ! i' .
: ? \ ,i._ \'o ? +n ?( , r ? ? ' L`,I ) /?? ? ? ••i:.;;•?J t? ,.\ , /?/ J p' .'//,x'•/60 (. `.' I
v _ ._.J(' t e ?4 ?: •1 : ? I 1 ' ?. ,_, •' :]]p- - yy and Y/`_ ) 3 n :;l
( .r ' • , I 1 4r. \I '(N (? • / 'l 1, ? J 11 \ A ?•-' 1
d ( / l '
•??? + c
' I?I( / \ ?? )!r t f rp '98-/
(n t4 , 9 , 1 0
J /` !•• ,'"r g r % / oI' ?I {Ir:Fr ijt ll`?`:I/W. j _ t ' • {?. Q OQ' ??-:. J I (,?.( I' ?l ?:a-? J I / % , °' lU') 'I I •• '/ ,)? t r-? I _o?? r ?•t 1
• ' ?` ii / _
' •.S .Q p ?\ W =1? 1 • ' T---ar--? 1 Q I• I i? c-1,
?' O laiiTf' .i? r•.,oei? O( I ! ___`(:
t I, ..J I' \ . --- ¦-\!•? mil,\C N ?,II,•? I i CIl H_
o: .r t? ogD ?(
J • LQ Z?
S _ - -1
i4 -_ -?-_?_ ` .', :r? i - '? •. 1 ?\ 1 / • S `pp T\ \ 1 (:. (D N N F' Cn ' t ,' ?\' --? `.?' •/ ?. a
t }'?•• 1• \? _?I ? ? ? T N t " wl ? h? •oo r ? - ?/ W ? C4 O O O ;u ! p l t my, 11 u -.-<,': ?; N •) 7I ' a _ I ( r ./?` r d? Il? teh
:E: u
••???/?` )' 11\\ ] fr •)1 /?'v"' IIaI (_L-mo'o' lII`( N (D .?[)OZ \ r r `f,
", ; II, 1 ? ???,?.-•-?? r \ 1 ? • ' 1?1 ' ? ,?11 0, !• ?_ r • \' ,1, ? F-I rr x z Y - .. ?J ( ? . J? "- JJ . ?
•?I ?OI' \ (`! l' 1/G.• t\ •% \' I. ,, ry?,?s', 1 t ,n ?? o v 1?1 O rt ' I ' C G =-?_?i y?
-1 () Il ?`(?'-r. jG•,!?\p ],(?1?;?\` i?+t ;? .?) )•? I(--L? / O I.? o - -mom"' )
z0Ui •y -?(..._ ?_ ,` l/?
°.'.° ?? ;?' ,' 0`?'f (\ ,(: •. \\ ?(' I,( _.\U(l >< ) ?l? A ? ( 'i''I--'( ,1 ? m J ? ? ? , ?.J ? 1 I
v.Z =••, \?? IOC, ??b•C?-- \ t? I?-' :',1) 11? •?(?' ( ' 'd' '?.:?)? ?- [7 ? l (' ? , ?/ ? ?? //?;'`????
.. o r -??./)l A 4 •f Iii p9\yhC. 1?1: i Z\ ^I(.. ' J j q,??r/?/. 'r)
>?''?'???.?`-J!" II ?? '•••/? hl??){'.: •' \w,`l'•l j? 11? ' M ? ? ?Alo\ `'?'i .?,:' l ? /, ?lu??
°J .\',p C._f;/f? \?`/ •? (`_-•'I ./?\?y/\`S?(?•• ':••,i'''••;? ?l i??' ( `] ?I',? Qq?'
?? I r?r-S7 r ?: t ?,y` r. •??\?•.. , n,7?tll=? i .11. _?_?_-_ II -._._?I .?.`'I?_®?ce??f= ?.I r'? °1 "/'i ?l/i,)>>
.. Ch
:'f
,
II
ft ;1 J (j 830
• ..? _ II ? l/ _ /?.? Y'6 ___ ?- ? ,?• a (`J \? J, ?` ?',
All
;1 ?',?' I _ I u \ h ?\ ? b ( • 1. %'• L • •' /
°• I \ A0 -
Von
•? m? ?(/ •u -_?-11? l,i ???' a ?? ll' ,? ?< ? I
•?•? (Il; ' W.•'1 , ?i)i6 by 1
• (i <
( -1 i ° I Q ; u• ti 1
- 1
` 1 ,- V--. V mar/ -ter II \ I - '` 'r?
(1
( ??` _?\ l qJ r/ `r l\VfV/\' \ ii' \I 1! °' (] I Q. . S' ^\? \ ?) I /o - 'i
_ ?,' __-:. i \ -? 1 ; .. \:° ? • t O. k _l? i '.S n ? iil• - ;il I?b .... ' ' /; - ? 1';.
( \ \I. \,`? ?> `1 °o o 1 . a h j 11 1\ o== it ??/`' . • ?? % j /?C, I ,
1 'i I v • ] t _ I/\` Uri oo fl- IIS \•, I I? 1. / J
o \ , L i N
°. ==-r?=-?` I [ / _o.? ??•,\ -%?(,??f `.\'`° :?'I? `. f (114 5; ?r'?\.? 1i ? , ''9? ?P., m ? \ 1, i `)`"
o ( C?/ f° I •T I
A l
° ., ' I• )` n../ ?(.--='? \ 0.-
.t // ( I ?? _?'l.U O j il?' ,` 'f ' \ I ?^--\, r o 2 ' • .°'J1 'I'. Ci '/
I
A MOST
`6W? _ • of lu ? ? /l--1 pil
-7,0 ='R?•
! )+, \\,` ?I, l t C'.10 -\ \It ?/ ?"// ? `(° l ?-, • b j °?[? 1,, ee. ('. ? \ , f?. _ o_?i?;/'` ?I?.-_?? tea, i "- f ,
N II ° .',J`
CA >? ~ ??-\,_`? •`\ SS ?%j ? t 1o r\?// /:' __
(? 'I I \ ? t, i ? \?l\?l )_= I ?- 1,, \ \ ?Ni/ \?(_ • ° ??!/ _ ` ?(//)/ ° ? ?1' .\?\)\\1?.. ??/ I ?? ? ° o `??\?'/.1? ?% ??1I ° '- ?/ \I ?., `\
100
03 f:
.I ? . ' J ? .? ??-?l QO? ?_\ ? ? : ? ?%-__? I •? , 4';_ ° ' ?t? °: to
?: ) 1 \ ?• I ` ?? ; Jl l } :I ?\(( _- `? \ ` ° ? / ?o \ ?? ? '?-'/? c' \??' ?, ?_...'?? % ? ? \ . C - • (f \? 1 \? •111\
?. .. ° ? ??`?.' \;I? ?, .1\ l-v ., `'1 ?\ o ? l `'• ?? 4?"Y\.°-? ?1 !'? '') 1??_s ..:?_:.??\/.1 ?) ?% t?°J ?:. ,?II -`\? ? \???
? .s l l - 1
• -. - ? (' : , (p e- ,, ` ? __' tt / (\ _i- Y _?'-.% _ :??r- _? -", I i % i - _\ 1, r ?. V ? ?t \ \;,. 11?. 4 ?"° ? , ?lu
o i• ? )1, r? p .op V .1'?? 7 J.j °\ ' ? ? ,_ \ /1 ?' / ( ?.? = f.? ,?. ' ? c,`
?e -\ "• ---- ?' ???. l.? 1° ( (` - o ? I ^ \.
C -
' o ? , , .. ' % / I T--.--0 +?(?i. rn °I S ? ? ?l /?'/ , li' ((I I ?? 1 i/ C ti()r !? .. \??_-? ? ° • !.,,,? - (n /'I ?- (yyo_ ?i' I?
?'
/I !''1, ` `<+. "l\ ? !I q0 ???/ + '(e-.?•L . n / r ? ?/ ? +' '-.r??-? II,/? o ??\ I? ? ;l
\ \? ,) ?i/":? 1f,,) g'?? 1, ? / .po....ir ` •li' o ,I J??,i? I '/ r/n V ,
\\-
\?//qi?(\\`''?// - > \`•l/I -J? 7 - (11 9 (•• `•%• _• \' pV ./( ?( Y .'\?•.? III \I\GO
\\- \-\?
\( \ \ `r \ - \\/f I-?I s'Sty• `11 t)\lo ! \.II°• i f\l ,? ?)f?': r iCioi:.:,(1' 1 `(; /(' `\-
(U 00 ') /\• „ \., CI, ( \' f--?.. f` ll ? I t ?i ?\ % ? / (' o O _ I Vital \ ? ;1T i - t ? i I I . - °•` .'J
NN '.N
1 i \\l._._?,w\. 't?-r 1 i' ? ? \? ? ??- ) j I Ii ''.? ?) -? , \ -? ? - . i,. ? I ..• d `V? ? .,' ,O -) `
II I _ _\=a=_ \ /\/) \ ,f-f? I-(?"?\- \\? •ii W "ii ?/ \\ o\\`•.\ ' • '?! \], II /. flat
4
\° 1 I ?\\?' I/ ( f i8 "?• • lfi • ?. °'I. _ / j \ l (' t' • q0•
\ l 1 2) J j
(WP \ , ' ($' ? ? , \ I ? o
\ ,I?I ? ? ,L\??,• ? ?'P,;'(Q of ?' t'??t, -?._ _ / j :'?•?? ;`? ?\ %/ - -
I I 1- L(
\\\ 1. ???/ .,1? •\) •C 't W .`\' ?S7 \ I c .\ ., I
LA)
\ \ ' \ \ o\ N I? < -? ?? \
77-
?g cFi
to. J? /( ?Ga%wJ
? ) , -?, ,,. ,` ? ?, ??%Ir\`?-?1.\ ; I •l f\ ?' ;• .a? ' ??) r I del
. 4i
° - I \I C11; Match Line 3 j
1
-,- •-? " "I ,- t, ? `? (i `\ ?:: ;may(.;., ; ?'??'
- .. I ?` `.,'"\/? '-?110? /? Via. •,?•'. N°- ,;i ? -'_) '
K'(I it ;• - / ; \ 11\ '?O \:'Gj'CJ '` ` ),'\. J 'J f fI
/ ; I? . _ ` ??-. ? .? \.1 •' ?' ? •'o ? 1,//r
;XI
CCbb
,. f I,.'. / `1',b??`•` I\i\.":, `? ., , ? ? m 7? '? ? II n • . )!-_U- _ _- V , •__ , /n) '? c ... -i?/-• II / ,',

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 3, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of October 16, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated September 18,
1997, for the Improvements fore ,'•, Guilford County, North
Carolina (TIP No. I-2201). The FONSI is based on information
contained in an Environmental Assessment (EA), dated June 1997.
This report is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA and FONSI, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Interstate 40 from
just west of SR 1850 (Sandy Ridge Road) at Kernersville to just
east of Holden Road at Greensboro. The existing four-lane,
divided facility would be widened to a six- or eight-lane,
divided facility with a 22-foot median. A concrete, jersey-style
barrier would be constructed in the median to separate eastbound
and westbound traffic. Auxiliary lanes are proposed along the
corridor. The total length of the proposed project would be 9.3
miles.
Purpose and Need/Alternatives Analysis
The EA discusses both the purpose and need for the project and
the alternatives considered. The Service is pleased that the
required transportation improvements can be made by widening the
existing road rather than construction on new location. While we
believe that there should have been a consideration of various
traffic management systems to alleviate future congestion, these
aspects of project planning seem satisfactory.
ti
Wetlands and Waterways
The EA considered project impacts on wetlands. Preliminary plans
indicate that wetland impacts would be approximately 14 acres at
37 separate sites. These wetlands benefit not only fish and
wildlife resources, but also provide benefits to society, such as
reducing flood damage and improving water quality. In light of
these benefits, the Service believes that the project should not
produce a net loss of wetlands in the project area.
The FONSI indicates that the proposed project would impact
streams at 20 points along the corridor. The impacts at-each
point would consist of either relocation or culvert extensions.
The FONSI states (p. 10) that:
"During the permit phase of the project when detailed
design is available, jurisdictional status
(intermittent or perennial), existing stream
dimensions, type of culvert structure proposed, and
linear distance of each impact will be provided.
Wetland impacts and stream impacts will be identified,
and, if required, a mitigation plan will be developed
to address these impacts."
The Service believes that the impacts mentioned above should be
presented in documents required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Without adequate information, the extent of
adverse impacts to wetlands and waterways cannot be assessed.
Furthermore, without a proper assessment, it is premature to
determine that environmental impacts would be insignificant.
While the NCDOT has taken measures to avoid and minimize wetland
losses (EA, p. 33), the Service is concerned that much
fundamental information on the nature and extent of impacts to
aquatic resources (wetlands and streams) has not been determined.
We are especially concerned that the NCDOT has not taken the lead
in assuming that compensatory mitigation should be provided for
any unavoidable, permanent losses of these resources.
Overall, the Service cannot determine the true, long-term extent
of impacts to aquatic resources. Approximately 14 acres of
wetlands may be impacted, and compensation may, or may not, be
provided for these losses. Likewise, project area streams may be
impacted to various degrees at 20 points along the corridor, and
compensation may, or may not, be provided for these impacts. In
light of these unknowns, we believe that a finding of no
significant impact to aquatic resources cannot be justified at
this time.

3
Federally Protected Species
The EA evaluates (p. 29) potential project impacts to the only
species protected by the ESA that is known to occur in Guilford
County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Service
concurs that this species is unlikely to utilize the heavily
developed project area.
Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT, the Service
concurs that this project is not likely to adversely affect any
federally-listed endangered and threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for federal listing under the ESA, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; and/or,.(3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the EA and FONSI adequately describe
the purpose and need for the project and the alternatives
considered. However, significant data are lacking on the long-
term impacts of the proposed project on aquatic resources. While
such data may be considered sufficient to select a preferred
alternative, especially for widening an existing road, we believe
that current information cannot justify a determination of
insignificant impacts on these resources. The conclusion of the
FONSI does suggest (p. 16) that compensatory mitigation ". .
will likely be required . . .", but does not state whether the
FONSI is based a complete plan of compensation or some permanent
loss of the functions and values provided by the streams and
wetlands in the project area. The Service believes that any
permanent loss of these aquatic resources would represent a
significant impact. Based on the uncertainties surrounding these
resources, the Service does not concur with.conclusion of the
FONSI (p. 16) that . . this project will not have a
significant adverse impact upon the human or natural
environment."
4
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard
Hall at (919)-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
.J
John M. Hefner
Field Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:11/3/97:WP:A:guii2201.o97
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, Regulatory Branch, USA Corps of Engineers,
Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Charles Bruton, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC