19950944 Ver 1_Complete File_20150907

%b I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
April 16, 1993
To: Mr. Eric Galanb D F_ "f
$xjRCfii' It G.
FROM*Christa L. Atkins p REFE NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
G
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

-1
b
` APR Z 31993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I WATER-QUALITY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Christa L. Atkins
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Greensboro, US 220 from SR 2342 (Cotswold Terrace)
to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road). Guilford County, Federal
Aid Project No. F-45-2(14), State Project No. 8.1491501,
TIP Project R-2309 AA (0.83 mile)
The scoping meeting for the subject project was held on March 37., 1993.
The following persons were present at this meeting:
David B. Foster DEHNR
Eric Galamb DEM
David Yow NCWRC
Felix Davila FHWA
Jay Woolard Traffic Control
Glenda Gibson Roadway Design
Kathy Lassiter Roadway Design
Sid Autry Location
Danny Rogers Program Development
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics Design
Tim Coggins Structure Design
Ned Chapman Structure Design
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
Amy Breese Administrator's Office
Frank Vick P&E
Linwood Stone P&E
Tom Kendig P&E
Troy Dover P&E
Christa Atkins P&E
The TIP calls for widening the existing roadway to a multilane
facility. The total estimated TIP cost is $14,420,000 ($300,000 for R/W,
$1,100,000 for construction, $20,000 for prior years costs, and
$13,000,000 for post year R/W and construction).
1 S-

The project is broken into three sections:
Section AA: (From SR 2179 to SR 2182)
Section AB: (From SR 2182 to 0.2 mile north of SR 2313)
Section B : (From 0.2 mile north of SR 2313 to NC 68)
Only section AA is funded prior to year 2000. For this reason, the planning
document will cover only section AA. A Categorical Exclusion will be
prepared for this 0.83 mile project.
The original project limits began at SR 2179 (New Garden Road). Since
this project was programed, the City of Greensboro has built a 5-lane curb
and gutter facility (64 feet face to face) with sidewalks on the west side
(0.5 mile). Project R-2309 AA will begin at SR 2342 (Cotswold Terrace),
where the City's project ended. The recommended typical section for this
project is a 5-lane curb and gutter facility. An additional 2 feet of
pavement will be added on the outside lanes to allow bicycles to share the
road with motor vehicles (68 feet face to face). The project will end at
SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road). Cost estimates will be obtained for the new
project limits.
Project U-2524, the Western Loop of Painter Boulevard, crosses R-2309 AA
at its midpoint. Painter Boulevard. will- be a 4-lane divided facility with a
partial cloverleaf interchange at US 220. This project is scheduled for
right of way acquisition to begin late in. Fiscal Year 1994 and construction
to begin in Fiscal Year 1996.
Horsepen Creek also crosses within the project limits. This creek is
in a water supply watershed and just outside a water supply critical
area.
CLA /

3
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
February 24, 1993
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. Eric Galaab DEN - DEHNR, 6th Flour
FROM REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
Christa L. Atkins & S
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS In FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

,w. SfATEq,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
February 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental nc
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 220 from SR 2179 (New
Garden Road) to NC 68, Guilford and Rockingham
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. F-45-2(14), State
Project No. 8.1491501, TIP No. R-2309
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 31, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Christa Atkins., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
CA/plr
Attachment 6K. N I?s0 Gh -{Zl?
L? C/r®SSLkA w S Aso
F? (t-h l Ws?i r?s?1
m/, c-risw
C -?JS w
_ / onc a, r/d ?- (0
YvS a -/J
i-? f
?3 Z c,r?s?? s ?'
1?- -32-40,5)

Project Scoping Sheet (R-2309)
Date Feburarv 22, 1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1993
E
DS sign ? 994
TIP ?k R-2309`
Project ?k 8.1491501
F.A. Project # F-45-2(14
Division 7
County Guilford-Rockingham
Route US 220
Quad Sheets: Lake Brandt, Summerfield, and Ellisboro
Functional Classification
Urban Principal Arterial (from SR 2179 to the Urban Area Boundary)
Rural Principal Arterial (from the Urban Area Boundary to NC 68)
(This portion of US 220 is included on the proposed National Highway
System and the National Truck Network)
Length 11.2 miles
Purpose of Project:
* Provide additional lanes to existing US 220 to adequately serve current and
future traffic volumes and improve safety.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
Widen existing NC 220 from SR 2179 (New Garden Road) to NC 68.
The recommended improvements are as follows:
From SR 2179 to SR 2182 (1.4 miles)
Widen symmetrically to a five-lane curb and gutter section (64-foot
face to face).
From SR 2182 to 0.2 mile north of SR 2313
Widen to a five-lane shoulder section (64-foot pavement including
2-foot paved shoulders).
Page 1
Project Scoping Sheet (R-2309)

From 0.2 mile north of SR 2313 to NC 68
Widen to a four-lane divided section (2 @ 28-foot pavements including
2-foot paved shoulders and a 30-foot grassed median)
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment
followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Type of funding: Federal and State
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or
other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid? N/A
Type of Facility: Principal Arterial
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
5-lane curb and gutter section from SR 2179 to SR 2182
5-lane shoulder section from SR 2182 to 0.2 mile north of SR 2313
4-lane divided, 30-foot median from 0.2 mile north of SR 2313 to NC 68
Interchanges 1 Grade Separations _ - Stream Crossings 4

Typical Section of Roadway:
64-foot face to face curb and gutter from SR 2179 to SR 2182
64-foot pavement including 2-foot paved shoulders from SR 2182 to 0.2 mile
north of SR 2313
2 @ 28-foot pavements including 2-foot paved shoulders and a 30-foot grassed
median from 0.2 mile north of SR 2313 to NC 68
Traffic: Current 16,870 vpd at the south end of the project
8,275 vpd at the north end of the project
Design Year (requested by April 2, 1993)
% Trucks
Page 2
Project Scoping Sheet (R-2309)

Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 50-60 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Prior Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20 , 000
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,100,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 300 , 000
Post Year ROW and Construction . . . . . . . $ 13,000,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,420,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect
cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
_ Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
_ Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . ... . $
_ Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Page 3
Project Scoping Sheet (R-2309)
_ Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Subgrade and Stabilization. $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . ._ . $
_ Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
- New Bridge x $
- Widen Bridge x $
- Remove Bridge x $
- New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
- Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining-Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
_ Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
_ Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Gua--trail . • . . . . . . . $
_ Fenci)?,g: W.W. and/or C.L. $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Signing: _ New. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . $
_ Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
_ Revised . . . . . . . $
_ RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
_ With or Without Arms. . . . $
_ If 3R: _ Drainage Safety Enhancement. $
- Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
- Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers
_ Delineators . $
Other . . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $
Page 4
Project Scoping Sheet (R-2309)
_ Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes _ No X
Existing Right of Way Width: 50 feet (maintained)
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared. By: Christa L. Atkins Date: February 22, 1993
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INI.T. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Manager, Program and
Structure Policy Branch
Design Services Asst. Highway Admin.
Geotechnical Secondary Roads Off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Landscape
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Planning & Research Chief Engineer
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engineering DEHNR
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division. Engineer for
handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your
proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after
comments.
Page 5

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT O
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN"I'AL
BRANCH
US 220
FROM SR 2179 (NEW GARDEN ROAD)
TO NC 68
GUILFORD AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
R - 2309
FIG. 1

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
;17

021
/J?
TO: -
_PC GQlamb REF. NO. O ROOM, BLDG.
&M-c
FROM:
d& REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
`'
F
el 1
V
ACTION`
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME - ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS" ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS XFOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE. ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

JUL - 719 3
WE iANDS GROUP
MATER UALITY SECTION
1-
dd,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1IANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, IR SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager 9• ala24e....
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 220 from SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace Road) to SR 2182
(Horsepen Creek Road) Greensboro, Guilford County,
Federal Aid Project No. F-45-2(14), State Project No.
8.1491501, TIP No. R-2309AA
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 220. The project is included
in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
The project calls for widening a 0.83 mile section of US 220 from two
lanes to a five lane curb and gutter facility. The project begins at SR 2342
(Cotswald Terrace Road) and ends at SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road). One
culvert along the project at Horsepen Creek will be extended. The project is
shown on the attached location map.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency.
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is desirable that your agency
respond by August 27, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Eddie
Keith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/pl r
Attachment

REED)
(T EST x 2t37 r • 1. LpKf j(,. '>?. 6HgA,?i .` .?`?` FO
DR 35
4Z•, f _? p0
v / <l 0?t a? '2p !"/
C4 %' .??w ?rN y - P a
Rlocs
Ln / y q? i yJQ 233 1.: / $ i¢
Y Y
it `?• a a a: xtR W
-----RO ?,• tig' . S,
END P JECTo
BRANDT
75L? z?B rr
CT / F °+Sv\ w'JGO w1NF" ?`?' tJr' / rf•PACE FAR
x
IGATE
W k
,?? 1 RD x F { w
76 TRAD.'
Tim
CT O a ?0??' ??28 ` ?? `'• i '?4 7?
WpcAr.URE RC ? o t? i ?C s Q/'?'?.'?Pf? ? re ?, Ln GM'
0R0VE Rv ?= c ?'
z W y
. ,3 ¢ d c?.% 'r. C
~ Y 0R
LD o - ?.. BEGIN PROJECT
`3T?S 2 BR1Aii 4 t"T ; CREE',T t R
V $ ? 38WgpGX'yE Dl DR;. .t / \C.?71
9
/OA WILL V? - {
oos?rpq
Ra
Lit ~\ L;M,TSN

n?
?
`?
?? LN P?4
?
r MO

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL
BRANCH
US 220
FROM SR 2342(COTSWALD TERRACE ROAD)
TO SR 2182(HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD)
GUILFORD COUNTY
R-2309AA

EL R0. - - 6UY1.Ra 90

7E{ JJ
b ROi, AW a

S
?/?'
\ ?jtQ % W
I?I? J z
a p

A
\' _ 9i. ?' wfT
FIG. 1

f
July 29, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart;jWater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0019; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 220 from SR 2342 to SR 2182
in Guilford County, TIP #R-2309AA
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. From the
information provided, it appears the project will cross
Horsepen Creek which is classified as WS-III NSW from its
source to U.S. Hwy 220 and as WS-III NSW CA from U.S. Hwy 220
to Lake Brandt.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
J

Melba McGee
July 29, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
9856er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
. y
e?,.. STATEa
51
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 21, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
rill _ 995
SUBJECT: Guilford County, Widening of US 220 (Battleground Avenue) from
SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace)yto SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road) in
Greensboro, Federal Aid Project No. F-45-2(14), State Aid Project
No. 8.1491501, T.I.P. No. R-2309AA.
On August 29, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
distributed a Categorical Exclusion document for the above referenced project
proposing to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
Appendix A (B-23). On September 8, 1995 the Corps of Engineers verified the
issue of NWP 23 (Corps of Engineers Action I.D. 199505578). The CE document
identified approximately 0.5 acres of permanent wetland impacts. The project
has been designed and will have approximately 0.9 acres of permanent wetland
impacts, 0.05 acres of permanent surface-water impacts and 0.1 acre of
temporary jurisdictional impacts. A copy of the project drawings showing the
project features in relation to the jurisdictional wetlands is attached.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext 314.
:Si ncer y
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. John L. Williams, P. E., P&E Project Planning Engineer
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
_ ; -? ????, ter;:: ..,,•,? ?? 01?--,? ?+ ??,
• +___?. ?•)1 `lam-?1' DSO
LAKE
ee N -
Fork ? ` / j
75
IRt
?' _? / ` • Cam
r:\'?.tr,,t END PROJECT
V : ?-
l?,a,' 220 Z '?? 10 stile-ille Fitcn
?? ?E11 iz0«° 7 I
is
65 A 298 8I I 51
\. t. 1 S !5g IS S 'Riam sbw Il Z
Ma lki?s
a
l.J !? t ? ,.: 1+ 50 ? t Osceola 1 Burl;nara+
t 6a 1 r S Rer,Y? Ri(
?' ummerGe gr0'wnS 4c I
Oak umm+t Monticc110 IO Rid
Altamahaty 62 10
tQke 29 t9
Ridge ? IOJ+Jt 5? OssiOC t
Gler Burlington
O /s
Idle ` 1r `' O R D an en
O SPfI Slo r 11 4?r ?' otdi R "x' ? a(t?{ansvill le -, -? ?? 70
G + sonvi O .? aM At,t
aR t _ ' )o scailia 00 ? • ?
8?f 7 • 1 ° 6 ac..n+r. + a•
I
' ? 68 ? s k k Tl to Ylmiset ? 7 Yr ++,, s 1
t 'Iamanc 6nh?m,
ed'e(iel r - + t S , SwZos 1I•
i it, 7oAe ?" 1 22, + ?ALAMANCE\
1 S ` Plca Sant Garden Iiti
/\?? aT 17 0 ! `e S t 6 I t21 X+meI N, II as
J -,4 y? w ? ? 6 s
_ ulian
{ • Chdd ee ,\.1 t7 C -j 49 Snow Camo
Z TbZit ' Glenda ;vel Cross
J t. ,. 2 Libe(\C 1
1 ? 2101' ....+1.ma .. .- ? v •w
VICINITY MAP,
\''
ILIA
1a a ? v =_?-?.
85
US 220 - '
.11 V. \ =- -
ITE 2 - 5
^?1 SITE '
??_ ?.,, ? SITE 1 BEGIN PROJECT
r -? 1 ^
150 ' ---.?J

o0 0
J0

. ! l l 8?U
? •n
.1000 500 0
Meter.
?-

-__/, 1. eS7 cot
^ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
?
• iIT! OFTRANSPORATION
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT # 8.1491501 (R-2309AA)
PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
F
A
?` erbLemoriai .
.
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR US. 220
2 SHEET 1 of 9 AUG 1995

°.°.°_: ?'• u 1 ?-•?- LEGEND
DENOTES FILL IN
q- h WETLAND
-c?? ? / y a ?' III I ---- -
LIMITS OF WETLAND STUDY
-0
-• ? ? r.r v 1 I I
CROSS-SECTION (SEE
SHEET
OF
?m I x?X A A
'?+ I m
A 00 '`a```z?r-J's? SCALE: 1:10 METERS
--
u ^? ? ^? 11 I y°9FS,fo-f'?r-sr?ov •r
A.
I'1 1, I j? Q
? n? o a? 1a i Z ?„ O o
. ! o O n
" '^ n1 ??' m I I ? b to
1 rpn t R7 L
s } r II 1 11.
TAE ^o ?.? 1 7-" I
.
p? 1 _ / `yp,ooo f1
Ib / 1
I.n
0 i414??N J I'' I^ / In I rr c`' //
600
I I: / 1 ( u co,'
4 c'` ' ^ 1 i 1 _ `° Edgar G Parrish Jr.
/ ?:.• ? ? r ? 1375-361 /
T I _\ 3135-118
14
1.4
"''''444444 ?/ ?' ? ' •\ /
TOE rAE <,.I7
I ??. m•:' SITE 1 /
John Barnard
3528-1975 I '
1 I
1175-436 I I 1 1
3166-609 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT # 8.1491501 (R-2309AA)
I F.A. PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
g° , i i ` \4 1 PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR _US .220
tQ - SHEET 2 of 9 40G 1995
MATCHLINE 1+4;30-
MATCHLINE 1+480
I ,
NQ ? i I I
tII '? I I
• n I i ? I
uZ` I ,
m I I 1
a 1
0 1 I I
I I a, I
A 1 'MI
I " i 1 1
1
I
I ; 1
1 I
1 ; I
SITE 2 S'
I ?I
---------
? I
I ?; 1
I ,
1 ; 1
-- 1 I
------------
I
1
I ; 1
? a I I I
I
-----------•- I 2j 1
. OJ
o y
------ ---- I
o I :I? I
011 'M
I n
, SIA
O ' 1
1 I
g? , 1 1
1 ? a 1 1
r/ ?9 1
hYa I I 1
i I 1 I
Treetop Apartments i i
I I
L'mited PartnersFlip
3478-1184 I I 1
I i 1
" I I 1
1 1 I
1, I I 1
1 I 1 ?
I I 1 I N
1 I I ?
7u
O
SITE 3
C
1 ` ?6
A
'?'----SITE 1
---- --------
---------------------- ------
-
3NI13dld IVIN
----is --------------------------
M/P+ 3NIl3dld NOUV1NVld*1SIX3
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M/8 -03 3NI13dld VIN
ti)_- -I---------- --------------------------
O
0
At
•y . ?1 m tp N A
r N r a ?
? . V O r
ONE ? I •
a
T
;I -P
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
y 9
0
N t
31m
IN v
1-0 13 u• I ,
I 1° 01 ai
MATCHLINE 1+700
V
SCALE: 1:1000 METERS
MATCHLWE 1+700
ii

ii
I'
m Treetop Apartments _
\\• o Limited Partnerstip i 1
?\ n 3478-1184 ,
Z ,
SITE 3

;; C
f' Z ? "

1 I

I I
r I • P1
m
t ?Y'O I
I ??----- o o O O• r I
I3g TAffTG° t.wE ? ? i I
o '
JRAP

•
1
I I
I

? r -r I

a p ?
1 -i

?zA
+ ?m RIB

yta
/
/• = z
? v+ I
1 g
r
?
i I
,

?/ µ C
c N j
?
1
? ? K 1
\'dA / / +
/ Uo
' N W i
/gyp u I

1 ICA-
4
1
I
i
1
i
I
1
1
i
I
I
1
I
I 1 ? ri?
m
I`?? I m I/?C 11
ilm 4 `N`. I I S lIq
I NI , 1 1 1111
??? ? 1 ?Ilt
I
I
1
i
1
1
O
311-__

I I
7TE 11 DENOTES FILL IN _
WETLAND
SCALE: 1:1000 METERS
L
41
Michael K Weaver
2560.175 i
979-325
3832-1713 /
/
3467-1880 /
/
3131-721
3542-1608 /
1
In ml '
o -' I
? TI
?^ oI
cI

m
0 1
i t
x?li\
,;, z I I
ogll
I\\
o i I \?
1
I
1
I?
I
1
I
1
1
I
i
r
/
/
/
/
/
/
o$ /
O / sq
N /
W /
/
/
/
'
1%'

1 ' I
I I
I ri ,
?o I 1 I

'

c i
II ,
cD I. N O
N
)
C7 c
N N cl)
N N I N N N
N
?

'
Z
Q } N Z
Q p C'
)
(i

W
Q
W
~ LLJ

cc
?
E _

...

uj

O Lli
L0

°
Cn (3 0_
Z O Z a=
(n a_
O j
( F= C7

X
w cc
a-.
I o
---
x
w
(n
I U)
Q z I
I a 08l'L£Z /
U_ l 1 U /
?

Z8 ti'LEZ / ( co o°
I ?D o
0 0
-;?-o
/ I r) cD
N +
Q
(m CD r

(O
I O O
(c! c; CO cV
C14
I
o' Q -o I` m
I }
N
c
lcn
o r 0) c y)

?
co
Z
CO N
T N
D Z ?
+ N Z
(0
Qp D O T I 0
rn x
T
z
Iw
?. _
+ N ?(_ U U
T Ix w l w -?
Iw
I N
D:

-O W
W
08l'l£Z ?
?

w
Z8b`?£z -?
a
o

I ? r ? ?

w

•

uj LL1

-- I
F
? W
Q J -cOV
. t
w F- ? w ww
z (A w.?

J O N
co cl) co m

(01 "rl

.
w
!,

..
_
Z .

N

O

N N N N
Q T -j
Q w~ 3:
w
(n uj w m
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
(n OF TRANSPORATION
w
> GUILFORD COUNTY
PROJECT # 8.1491501 (R-2309AA)
cD v N CD I F.A. PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
co N N N PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR US 220
0 I, SHEET 5 of 9 AUG 1995

CO Vt N C)
I
N N N N

? I
I
z
a
J
w
M
W m
,.,

z I
O
a

x I ?o
w ? Q J
?
a
?- J
w J
?-
? 3 ?
0
z o GZ6'o£Z
w
/
o /
1c,
CL, /
0
rn°
o
(q o
. 1--0
00
COP- I
cm +
r
I
o U
c\I N
co (.0 N O
T
Q? T z ?--
+ N N U
- x W
w
0
-'r
?86'0£Z t?
. ?
w 1
Lu z

z i
04
w
J
Q r
.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
W OF TRANSPORTATION
w k- GUILFORD COUNTY
> PROJECT # 8.1491501 (R-2309AA)
'a F.A. PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
I- m v N o PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR US 220
= cli I
Nl
"
N N
1 l
SHEET 6 of 9 AUG 1995

?l
-O
_O
1
O
0
.d

IA
I?
N (N !N 1Q\4 IN !N Itv
EGG 15' OF
Ic1E'TL14AC/O 11

O
I
. I ??r nyl
? gab

?? 3 o a

o
-0
a?
??E o I ° 3
G/E7'L ?',vo ?. 3
?

I
I k-k
?
I 1
N
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
O OF TRANSPORTATION
I p 3 GUILFORD COUNTY
'
3 PROJECT #
8.1491501 (R-2309AA)
F.A. PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR US 220
SHEET 7 of 9 AUG 1995

a.

m
U ?
p
ro
A °1
a
7 94

o
3
a
co
b
c
q a ° P
c7 f°
O -
v
N d O O
O O
O O
O 44*

C
F
a

U O
N Q
Z Q
Z O
N
Q
; °
;
c c
ro _
_ w
a ?
z Q ?

V
f-- O " N
m N
o O)
m Pf
in ?
2W C7

CV
p
N
5

0
°

c
T
ro
M C
0 ;
0
°
a
b O
W O
i ri
O
<
E
o

o

°
C
C n
N _
N
N
V
°
x U u. u e n
(n m •3 .7S
W to 4 a o
O 3 0
M
p 00

r °
O

Q

7
a
J J J J
° O
co O

° O c
n
+ + t
o
+ P
+ D
a
l7
y ° ° y
O O °m v
C
< P P co
- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
°
- GUILFORD COUNTY
a - N m PROJECT # 8
1491501 (R
2309AA)
.
-
F.A. PROJECT # F-45-2 (14)
PERMIT DRAWINGS FOR US 220

1 SHEET 8 OF_ AUG 1995

M mho
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 29, 1995
??aa
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEDED
7 1995
EWIRONMEN?TAL sCIENCES
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Guilford County, Widening of US 220 (Battleground Avenue) from
SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace) to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road) in
Greensboro, Federal Aid Project F-45-2(14), State Project
8.1491501, T.I.P. No. R-2309AA
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. The project involves the widening of a 1.34
kilometer (0.83 mile) segment of US 220 in Greensboro from two lanes to a
five-lane curb and gutter facility between SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace) and
SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road). Construction of the proposed project will
result in approximately 0.5 acres of permanent wetland impacts.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administr n as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). There e, we
do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propos d o pro eed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulat' s wi 1 be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

i
i August 29, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincer.ly,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
4
US 220 (Battleground Avenue)
From SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace)
to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road)
Greensboro, Guilford County
F..A. Project No. F-45-2(14)
State Project No. 8.1491501
TIP No. R-2309AA
A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
a e H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
fz 7 LJ
D' ate ichplas L. Graf P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 220 (Battleground Avenue)
From SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace)
to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road)
Greensboro, Guilford County
F. A. Project No. F-45-2(14)
State Project No. 8.1491501
TIP No. R-2309AA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental By:
i
Samuel E. Keith Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
%
4 21 SEAL
Richard B. Davis, P. E.
Assistant Manager, Planning and Environmental Br$nch 6944
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Administrative Action,
Categorical Exclusion.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 1.34 kilometer (0.83 mile) segment of US 220 in Greensboro,
Guilford County from two lanes to a five-lane curb and gutter facility
between SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace) and SR 2182 (-Horsepen Creek Road)
(refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the project location and recommended
improvements). The proposed improvements will provide a 19:2 meter
(64-foot) curb and gutter cross section with a center turn lane.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The
total estimated cost for the project is $2,087,500. This estimate
includes $1,600,000 for construction and $487,500 for right of way
acquisition.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will improve the traffic flow along US 220 as
well as improve safety. The additional travel lanes will help reduce
travel times and provide more efficient vehicle operation. The proposed
project will provide a center turn lane which will accommodate left
turning traffic and will reduce the potential for rear-end type
collisions.
Approximately 0.3 hectares (0.5 acres) of wetlands will be impacted
by the proposed project. The proposed project will result in no
relocations of residents, non-profit organizations, or businesses. Noise
levels at eleven residences and six businesses will approach or exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria, but no abatement measures are considered
feasible for the project.
4. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. The recommended
symmetric widening alternative best uses the existing right of way and
minimizes impacts to the project area.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the
current and projected traffic volumes.
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted
during the preparation of this categorical exclusion.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
N.C. Department of Instruction
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Greensboro
Mayor of Greensboro
Guilford County Commissioners
Guilford County Department of Planning and Development
6. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Sidewalk Provisions
Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of the facility as
requested by the City of Greensboro and Guilford County (see Section
I.B.8 for discussion of sidewalk provisions).
b. Greenway Accommodations
The existing signal at the US 220/SR 2499 (Drawbridge Parkway)
intersection has the capability to accommodate a pedestrian button
that will be installed when Phase IV of the Bicentennial Greenway is
constructed (see Sections I.B.9 and IV.C.4 for discussion of the
greenway).
7. Summary of Environmental Commitments
a. Two service stations are located along the project with
underground storage tanks (UST's) at each location. The
recommended alternative (symmetric widening) will not require
the acquisition of additional right of way in the area of the
UST's.
b. Hazardous spill catch basins will be constructed in the Horsepen
Creek area to prevent contamination of the water supply
downstream.
8. Permits Reauired:
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers
(COE) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States". Final permit decisions rest with the COE.
The subject project is also classified as a Categorical Exclusion
likely to come under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A) 23.
This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or in part,
by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a
category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 1
A. General Description ................................. 1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements .................... 1
1. Cross Section.. ............................. 1
2. Right of Way Width ............................. 2
3. Access Control ................................. 2
4. Drainage Structures ............................ 2
5. Design Speed and Speed Zones ................... 2
6. Railroads ...................................... 2
7. Parking ........................................ 2
8. Sidewalks........ ............................ 2
9. Greenways...................................... 3
10. Bicycle Provisions ............................. 3
11. Utilities ...................................... 3
12. Cost Estimate ............................ .... 3
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 3
A. Existing Roadway Inventory .......................... 3
1. Cross Section .................................. 3
2. Right of Way.. .. ........................ 4
3. Type of Roadside Development ................... 4
4. Structures.. ................................ 4
5. Access Control ................................. 4
6. Speed Zones .................................... 4
7. Intersecting Roads ............................. 4
8. Railroad Crossings ............................. 4
9. Sidewalks.. ............................... 4
10. Bicycle Provisions ............................. 4
11. Utilities... ... ............................. 5
12. Geodetic Markers ............................... 5
13. School Buses ................................... 5
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan..... 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ........................ 5
1. Signalized Intersections ....................... 5
D. Accident History .................................... 7
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 7
A. Recommended Improvements.... ...................... 7
B. Other Alternatives Considered ....................... 7
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................... 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
A. Social Environment .................................. 8
1. Neighborhood Characteristics.......... ....... 8
2. Public and Private Facilities .................. 8
3. Cultural Resources ............................. 8
a. Architectural Resources ................... 8
b. Archaeological Resources .................. 8
4. Relocation Impacts ............................. 9
B. Economic Environment ................................ 9
C. Land Use ............................................ 9
1. Scope and Status of Planning ................... 9
2. Existing Land Use .............................. 9
3. Future Land Use ................................ 9
4. Greenways.. ................................ 10
5. Section 4(f) Resources ......................... 10
6. Farmland ....................................... 10
D. Natural Environment ................................. 11
1. Ecological Resources ........................... 11
a. Plant Communities ......................... 11
b. Wildlife........
..... .................... 12
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities. 13
2. Rare and Protected Species ..................... 14
a. Federally Protected Species.. ...... .... 15
b. Federal Candidate and State Protected
Species .............................. 16
3. Physical Resources ............................. 16
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils............ 16
b. Water Resources..... .................... 17
C. Floodplain Involvement .................... 18
d. Wetlands .................................. 19
4. Air Quality .................................... 19
5. Traffic Noise .................................. 23
E. Contaminated Properties ............................. 28
F. Construction Impacts ................................ 28
G. Permits ............................................. 29
H. Mitigation .......................................... 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................ 30
A. Comments Received ................................... 30
B. Public Hearing ...................................... 30
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
' Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - 1994/2014 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4a - Proposed Intersection Treatments at SR 2342
Figure 4b - Proposed Intersection Treatments at SR 2499
Figure 4c - Proposed Intersection Treatments at SR 2182
Figure 5 - Roadway Typical Section
Figure 6 - 100-Year Flood Zones
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Agency Comments
Appendix B - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
US 220 (Battleground Avenue)
From SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace)
to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road)
Greensboro, Guilford County
F. A. Project No. F-45-2(14)
State Project No. 8.1491501
TIP No. R-2309AA
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 1.34 kilometer (0.83 mile) segment of US 220 in Greensboro,
Guilford County from two lanes to a five-lane curb and gutter facility
between SR 2342 (Cotswald Terrace) and SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road)
(refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the project location and recommended
improvements). The proposed improvements will provide a 19.2 meter
(64-foot) curb and gutter cross section with a center left turn lane.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way acquisition in
fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1997. The total
estimated cost for the project is $2,087,500. This estimate includes
$1,600,000 for construction and $487,500 for right of way acquisition.
Project R-2309AB will improve the section of US 220 from SR 2182 to
SR 2313. These improvements are currently scheduled for post year (after
the year 2001) right of way acquisition and construction.
Project U-2524 (Greensboro Western Urban Loop) will cross US 220 just
north of Horsepen Creek and provide a compressed diamond interchange with
US 220. U-2524 is scheduled for post year (after the year 2001) right of
way acquisition and construction (see Figures 2a-2c for location).
No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed
improvements. The project has been coordinated with the appropriate state
and regional review agencies, federal permit agencies, and local
government officials.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Cross-Section
The proposed cross-section provides a five-lane 19.2-meter
(64-foot) curb and gutter section with 3.6 meter (12-foot) travel
lanes and a 3.6-meter (12-foot) center turn lane (refer to Figure 5
for a sketch of the proposed cross-section). Sidewalks are proposed
on each side of the facility.
3
9. Greenways
Guilford County began construction of the Bicentennial Greenway
trail in 1994. Phase IV of the Bicentennial Greenway (which includes
the portion of the greenway in the project area) is scheduled for
construction in FY 1996 (see Figure 2 for greenway location in the
project area). Guilford County officials have requested that a
pedestrian button be added to the existing signal at the intersection
of Drawbridge Parkway and US 220 to assist pedestrians and bicyclists
in crossing the widened roadway (see letter dated April 28, 1994 in
Appendix). The mayor of Greensboro has also requested that safe
accommodations be provided for non-vehicular traffic in the project
area (see letter dated August 19, 1993 in the Appendix). The
existing signal at this intersection has the capability to
accommodate a pedestrian button that will be installed when the
proposed greenway is constructed.
10. Bicycle Provisions
No special accommodations for bicycles are recommended as a part
of this project except at the proposed greenway crossing at the
intersection of Drawbridge Parkway. A pedestrian button is proposed
for the traffic signal at Drawbridge Parkway to accommodate bicycle
traffic on the greenway. The pedestrian button will be installed
when Phase IV of the greenway is constructed.
11. Utilities
Telephone, gas, water, and sewer lines exist underground along
the project. Overhead power lines also exist along the project. The
project will likely require the relocation of some utilities, and the
severity of the conflicts is considered to be moderate.
12. Cost Estimate
Construction $1,600,000
Right of Way $ 487,500
Total Cost $2,037,500
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross-Section
From SR 2342 to Drawbridge Parkway the roadway exists as
two-lane section with curb and gutter on the west side of the roadway
and a shoulder on the east side. From Drawbridge Parkway to SR 2182
the roadway exists as a two-lane shoulder section. Turn lanes are
located at the intersections along the project.
5
11. Utilities
Telephone, gas, water, and sewer exist underground along the
project. Overhead power lines also exist along the project.
12. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers are located within the project area.
13. School Buses
Fourteen school buses make two trips per day for a daily total
of twenty eight bus trips along the project.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
US 220 is currently designated as a major thoroughfare on the
mutually adopted Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is classified
as an urban principal arterial.
C. Traffic and Capacity Analysis
The present (1994) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes range from
19,200 vehicles per day (vpd) to 28,400 vpd. Projected design (2014)
volumes range from 34,800 vpd to 50,000 vpd (refer to Figure 3).
The traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A to F. Level of service A, the highest
level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most
vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and
turns are made freely. With level of service B, traffic operation is
stable but more vehicles stop and cause higher levels of delay. Level of
service C is characterized by stable operation, with drivers occasionally
waiting through more than one cycle at a traffic signal. At level of
service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay for
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak
hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of
service F represents oversaturated or jammed conditions which are
considered unacceptable to most drivers.
1. Sionalized Intersections
A capacity analysis was performed at the existing and proposed
signalized intersections using current year (1994) and design year
(2014) traffic (refer to Figures 4a, 4b, 4c for the proposed
intersection geometries). Signalized intersections exist at SR 2342
(Cotswald Terrace), SR 2499 (Drawbridge Parkway), and SR 2182
(Horsepen Creek Road). Table 1 summarizes the results of the
analysis.
D. Accident History
A total of 63 accidents were. reported along the studied portion of
US 220 between March 1, 1990 and February 28, 1993. The primary types of
accidents were rear-end collisions (44.4 percent), accidents involving
left turn movements (25.4 percent), and accidents involving angle
collisions (15.9 percent). These three.types combine to account for 85.7
percent of all accidents on this portion of US 220. Forty six percent of
the accidents occurred at the intersection with SR 2342 and 27 percent at
the intersection with SR 2182. Forty six of the accidents along this
portion of US 220 occurred at these two intersections.
The total accident rate along the studied section of US 220 is 264.2
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm) compared to the
state average of 255.8 acc/100 mvm for similar routes. This accident rate
is slightly higher than the statewide average for similar routes. The
proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types of
accidents which presently occur along the project. The proposed project
will improve the overall safety and convenience for motorists using
US 220.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended alternative consists of widening the existing
facility to a five-lane curb and gutter section (see Figure 5). The
proposed cross-section is a 64-foot curb and gutter section. Proposed
widening will be symmetric about the centerline of the existing roadway.
The recommended improvements will be contained within the 30.5-meter
(100-foot) right of way. Temporary construction easements beyond the
right of way limits will be necessary. A permanent drainage easement will
be necessary at Horsepen Creek in order to extend the existing culvert.
Symmetric widening uses the existing right of way in the project area and
will not require relocating residences, non-profit organizations, or
businesses.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Since the project calls for widening an existing segment of roadway,
no other corridor alternatives were considered. However, other alignment
alternatives were considered, including: (1) asymmetric widening on the
east side of US 220, and (2) asymmetric widening on the west side of
US 220. The estimated cost for the east side widening is $6,152,500 which
includes $1,800,000 for construction and $4,352,500 for right of way
acquisition. The cost for west side widening is $5,772,500 which includes
$1,625,000 for construction and $4,147,500 for right of way acquisition.
These costs compare to an estimated total cost of $2,037,500 for the
recommended symmetric widening (includes $1,600,000 for construction and
$487,500 for right of way). Because both alternatives involve
substantially higher right of way costs, asymmetric widening was not
recommended for the project.
A survey was conducted by NCDOT archaeologists on
August 11, 1993 and no archaeological sites were located within
the project area. Due to the lack of such resources, it was
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
In a letter dated October 15, 1993 (a copy of the letter is
included in the Appendix), the SHPO concurred with the findings
of the NCDOT archaeologist.
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in no relocations of residents,
non-profit organizations, or businesses. _
B. Economic Environment
The North Carolina Employment Security Commission indicated that
during the month of November 1994, Guilford County had a total labor force
of 203,370. Of this number, 203,840 persons were employed and 6530 (3.1
percent) were unemployed.
The proposed improvement will enhance and improve the economic growth
'and development potential along this portion of US 220. Businesses along
the proposed project. route will be enhanced by increased visibility and
accessibility. In addition, the proposed project will eliminate some of
the traffic impediments caused by traffic congestion, thereby saving
energy and fuel costs.
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and
zoning jurisdiction of Guilford County. The County has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan and enforces a Development Ordinance, which
includes controls for all land development activities.
2. Existing Land Use
This project is in an area best characterized as one in
transition from rural, low-density land use to higher density,
suburban development. Typical of the suburban development is a
corporate business park, a residential subdivision, and an apartment
complex, all accessed from US 220. The existing development is
interspersed with undeveloped wooded areas, including the floodplain
for Horsepen Creek.
3. Future Land Use
According to the Guilford County Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, the general area of the improvement is designated for
residential development. The intersection of US 220 and Old
Battleground Road is designated for Mixed Use development, which
permits most land uses, except heavy industry. The map also
11
County in its Comprehensive Plan and Development Ordinance. Some
development has already taken place. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland soils is required.
D. Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The subject project is partially within the City of Greensboro
in Guilford County (Figure 1). The project site is located within
the Piedmont Physiographic Province, and the majority of the project
intercepts a floodplain that is surrounded by residential and
commercial development.
An ecological survey was conducted on April 26, 1994 to identify
vegetative communities and wildlife species located within the
project area. . Vegetative communities and wildlife were inventoried
and mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands were identified using
methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In house preparatory work was completed prior to the field
visit. The Guilford County Soil Survey, USGS quadrant map for Lake
Brandt, and the hydric soils list for Guilford County were studied to
identify potential wetland sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map for Guilford County was utilized to determine if any sensitive
resources are present in the project area. "Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Assigned to Waters of the Cape Fear River
Basin" (N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources) was consulted to determine the best usage classification
for area streams. N. C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and Fish
and Wildlife (FWS) files were reviewed to determine if any rare or
protected flora or fauna occurs in the project area.
Biotic Resources
Distribution and composition of biotic resources throughout the
project area reflect topographic positioning, hydrologic influences,
and past and present land use practices. The project area is
moderately urbanized, consisting of both forested and developed
areas. Wildlife observed during field investigations are denoted by
(*) in the text. Common and scientific names are provided for each
species listed. In subsequent references to the same organism, only
the common name is given.
a. Plant Communities
Three plant communities were identified in the project
area: Maintained Community, Piedmont Alluvial Forest, and
Vegetated Pond. Natural community profile descriptions, where
applicable, have been adopted and modified from the NCNHP
classification scheme (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
13
(Didelphis virginiana), and gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis). Beaver (castor canadensis) is probably well
established.
Avifaunal diversity is high. Bottomland habitat provides
refuge for many neotropical migrants and permanent residents. A
small flock of *black-and-white warblers (Mniotilta varia) were
seen at the bottomland/highway interface. These warblers
commonly nest in swamp hardwoods in the Piedmont. Other
migrants likely to inhabit the study area are the *wood thrush
Hylocichla mustelina), *American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla),
and *yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica). Also seen
were *blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), *northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), *mourning dove (Zenaida asiatica) and
pileated woodpecker (Dryoucopus pileatus). Predatory birds such
as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and barred owl
(Strix varia are common and utilize bottomland areas for
nesting.
Fallen trees, stumps, and logging slash provide numerous
refuge sites as well as basking and foraging areas for a broad
range of reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians, in particular,
are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in
their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic. A few of
the reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the project
area are the northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), upland
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana}, pickerel frog (R. palustris), three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), painted turtle (Chrysemys pitta),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta).
From information obtained from the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission), fish species that are common to the study area, are
carp (Cyprinus carpio), channel catfish (Ictalurus catus), white
suckers (Catostomus commersoni), snail bullheads (Ictalurus
brunneus), flat bullheads I. platycephalus), and a few brown
bullheads (I. nebulosus). Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are common game
fish.
Maintained communities support mainly opportunistic
species, those animals adapted to urban environments. *Gray
squirrels, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), *Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), blue jay, and northern cardinal
are very common in this community, and may be seen foraging
along roadsides and in lawns. Also.common to this community is
the common house mouse (Mus musculus).
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Table 2 summarizes potential losses from proposed project
construction based on three alternatives. Calculations are
based on construction limits of approximately 42.7 m (140 ft).
15
species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
In North Carolina, protection of plant and animal species falls
under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
These species may or may not be federally protected.
a. Federally-Protected Species
t
Plants and animals with federal classifications' of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. As of March 28, 1995 the USFWS lists the following
federally protected species for Guilford County.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME STATUS
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a
half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest
living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the
bald eagle begins in December or January.. Fish are the major
food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots,
herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
An active eagle nest is known to occur in Greensboro on
Lake Higgins approximately one mile from the project area. The
proposed project will not disturb this nest.
The project area is not within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of
a large water body. Thus suitable nesting and foraging habitat
does not occur in the project area. It can be concluded that
project construction will not impact the bald eagle.
.
11
Groundwater is found at approximately 21 feet below land
surface in the upland sections. The drainage may be affected by
a high water table, which is usually related to nearly level
relief and found in the lowland sections. Some project corridor
areas will have good soil drainage, while other areas will have
poor drainage. At 1000 feet from the beginning of the project
and on for about 400 feet further is an area of roadway built up
about 10 feet and surrounded by standing water on both sides.
Horsepen Creek, the principal waterbody in the project
area, is underlain by soils in the Congaree Series. This series
consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed
in loamy alluvium.
b. Water Resources
Subject project spans Horsepen Creek and associated
floodplain located in the Cape Fear River basin. Point of
crossing is above headwaters (less than 5 cfs annual flow), and
Horsepen Creek passes through the project area by way of culvert
into Lake Brandt, a water supply intake for the City of
Greensboro. Channel width is approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet)
at point of crossing and water levels were 0.3 meter (1 feet).
Stream substrate is highly silted. Bottomland hardwoods comprise
the adjacent vegetation.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of
North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Horspen Creek has a "best usage" classification of
WS-III NSW CA. "Waters classified as WS-III are protected as
water supplies which are generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds; point source discharges are permitted;
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required; and suitable for all Class
C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification
"NSW" indicates waters needing additional nutrient management
(particularly fertilizer run-off) due to their being subject to
eutrophication. The Critical Area (CA) is defined as an area
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk from
pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the
watershed. The critical area can extend 0.8 kilometer (0.5
mile) from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which
the intake is located or to the ridge line of the watershed
(whichever comes first). Also, the critical can extend 0.8
kilometer (0.5 mile) upstream from and draining to the intake
located directly in the stream or river, or to the ridge line of
the watershed (whichever comes first).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by the sampling for selected benthic macro invertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. Good water quality is associated with both high taxa
19
d. Wetlands
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR
328.3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction
over the discharge of dredged or fill material into these waters
of the U.S. as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Three jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the
project area using methods in the Corps of Engineers Delineation
Manual (1987). Sites one and two are jurisdictional wetlands
associated with Horsepen Creek. Site three is a man-made
vegetative pond, and is isolated from a water body. Site one
can be categorized as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous community; and sites two and three as palustrine,
emergent, persistent communities, as defined by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Wetland communities were identified in the project
corridor on the basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic
vegetation and the presence of hydrology or hydrological
indicators. A summary of wetland impacts associated with each
site is provided in table 4.
TABLE 4 ANTICIPATED WETLAND IMPACTS
Hectares (Acres)
Site Alternate
1 2 3
Symmetric Widening West Side Widening East Side Widening
(Recommended)
*1 0.2 (0.4) 0.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.9)
**2 0.1 (<0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)
**3 0.1 <0.1
Total 0.3 (<0.5) 0.6 (<0.8) 0.6 (1.0)
*Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded
**Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
4. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from
intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air quality. The traffic is the center of concern when determining
21
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two 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 burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon. 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 NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC-A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration for each of the sensitive receptors 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
(1997), five years after completion (2002) and the Design Year of
2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and
the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
23
5. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of US 220 in Guilford County on noise levels in the
immediate project area (Figure N1). 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.
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.
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, and 3) The type of activity occurring where 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 riled
if an unwanted noise persists. The 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 repugnant than the same noises in the
daytime.
25
In general, the traffic
of variables which describe
speeds through a continual
surrounding terrain. Due to
assumptions and simplificati
traffic noise.
situation is composed of a large number
different cars driving at different
changing highway configuration and
the complexity of the problem, certain
ons must be made to predict highway
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 two-lane highway to a five lane curb
and gutter facility from the multi-lane section near SR 2342
(Cotswald Terrace Road) to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek 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 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and
1600 feet 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 N3. 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.
27
The project will maintain only limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
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 50 feet from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (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-13-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section
3.2, page 5-27).
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 2 qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in their case.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, six residences would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +1 to +9 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise
levels is more readily noticed.
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.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title
23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
29
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-3 of Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures ,
which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution'r. TThe
N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard
Specifications together with the policies of the Division of Highways
regarding the control of accelerated erosion on work performed by State
Forces.
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. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be approved without prior approval by the
Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the
Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in the services of any of the utilities serving the area.
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 the utility owner will be responsible
for this will be made at this time. In all cases, the contractor is
required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this
work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any
damage to water lines incurred during the construction process. This
procedure will insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are
relocated with a minimum of disruption to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made
to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and
after construction.
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 for paving operations and from
earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are
not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
G. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States". Final
permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers (COE).
FIGURES
7=[
L

4r

REEDY
6R GOR
DR 36 2i3S t ?QKE 4NOt ?.
O NULL RD
PD
C? / ,(? A ?? s? 'fSs 2A V r
A
E?
CARLSO"
QO ?'' ? ?'$ m Roo51 RD: ?u ? 4
1.N y qo -, / yJP 233 t ?, $ c =C
r, i G?K J t y o, ?p
ez PROJECT
,a LIMIT % BRANDjT `tt ?. jr.
RAGE F
C .c?wE P, L9ar
T w.?KJF '?^ Z' qq 28Ar
Yi SR It •2 a j QW;% Q 4SGA
1 I ,'' ?`q 7TW
T?
R C, ,,?Tp?NG O
WAY DR • . < PROJECT - o
LD SD. ^? ? J113YYYt ?4
LIMIT ?g$FIEL trAx??o
3`5 28fiARD" LT L
?- -laFbA?-YE ArCHFIE
C7 ?S ?
I$ANNOp -LN .Q aRASW LD
29ARDM'ELL FL - LAKS - QO {lam .r??,,= J +wEau?R *b
q
K
FIE
16 IAING cry $ . / -VA
Acrcff

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 220 (BATTLEGROUND AVENUE)
FROM SR 2342 (COTSWALD TERRACE)
TO SR 2182 (HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD)
GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
R - 2309 AA
1 mile 1
FIGURE 1

k a 6 - I
T
r7°ar
z
,ov
r

!
34
HorsePen 62
Creek R
04
62 h?`U
- 1
SR-21'32
Four Farms Rd
1 Deerfield Apts I
2
R -23 09iAA
Guilford County

o
a

M,c')aux
2 Road

r
24 \
2
L
.M? T ll
!
rIn L^:
24

24
Old B. 1We arcun Rd
1. ?
2
Brook'ield, Dr
24 .1 cg ?iwl
I;ve!I Spring
I i7
Retirement
?15 ^fw 18 21 C,
Deie!opment 24 ;-i
DrR•.,v Bridge Pkwy 28 I 228
-?
227 ? I vlv ---- y i
j ' --- - - --- i-
? rS-220 North of Greensboro
From SR-2342 To SR-2182
1994/2014 Est. ADT in Hundreds
'Us-220
6
174 t 174
,
L ! _.
I-
35 4 K '
633
163 'S
j
7
4

1 j
63 rn1?
_a. •1 1?
I I I
22
40 1% 4
(
1J4 1 114
20 t 207

5 ? 11 :
1 206 I

Apt Drivevvay
5 Y 1 4 206
1! ! i 157
?10 r 210
I
Hlun,svle}:c Apts !
-- i 6 2 114
12 a 206 1

a -- A 1-~-
12 ICYI rlr -+ I 6 114
I _9 s j colrn
I
9 2'J6 1
c? LL I
I
I
c
D' fi?_ 121
' t

i 216
i 276
i
Draw' Bridge
I
117:
6 270
j Court Apts

5 _
5
126 5 Treefo' Lane
227 4
1
231 ± 1 231
o
113
2t8 i l 4
' 44
1 1? _
i - .
25 j Z
y` C-O'. s'n a1d Dr
1210 :;i
t .:t
E i A
?g • ! _so
lJ?-22v
FIGURE 3
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CEOMETRICS
AT SR 2342 (COTSWALD TERRACE)

w
Z
w
Q
0
D
O
OC
0
W
J
H
c
m
0
N
N
co)

Figure 4a

PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
AT SR 2499 (DRAWBRIDGE PARKWAY)

SR 2499
DRAWBRIDGE PARKWAY

c
ch
N
0
m
r
m
O
c
v
C
m
z
c
m
Figure 4b
-- - - - - - - - - - - -
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
AT SR 2182 (HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD)
r
SR 2182
HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD

I I I
1 I 1
t I I
I I I
I I I
I ? I
I I I
ID
i I
r
I t I m
I I I ?
mC
I I I p U)
1 I I C N
I I I z
I I I v
I I I ?
I I 1 <
I I I m
. z
c
m
Figure 4c

R,
d
i
3
CD
r
(i
O
OD
M
m
m
0
N
N
i
CD
m
N
CD
w
'Cr
0
(A
L-
CD
m
N
d
N
CD
m
E
lo:
N
(A
m ?
m
olv
? I
^
m ?

E N Z
? T O

?° ^ W
m ?
m
N
m
N
v U
L

? N Q
? v Z
M
a
A k6

m 41

M
N

lh ul

1
E N
v
N I
m ?
m v
O
LL
1
1 1i
SR 2182 (HORSEPEH CREEK ROAD)
PROJECT
i \ LIMIT
\ oco
r? \
G?
ION
9
Olt,
\ 9?Fy\\ 220

ZONE

ZONE B
ZONE B,
`i
ZONE B

1, .a
i
?11
753
zon
-ZONE p?
Sa. ,, tERRI
ZONE B

ZONE B
ZONE C
ZONE A6
ROJECT
LIMIT
ZONE B
FIGURE 6

WITS OF 100-YEAR FLOO
APPENDIX
FM206
MAILED TO:
NCDOT
EDDIE KEITH
HIGHWAY BUILDING
RALEIGH/INTTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MS- JEANETTE FURNEY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
SCOPING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO US 220 FROM SR 2342 TO SR 2182 IN GUILFORD
COUNTY; TIP R-2309AA
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
;;,-INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 94E42200019- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 08/07/93-
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
ACKNOWLEDGEME-NT OF RECEIPT
FROM:
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM
Division
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trarfsporlation
FROM: David Brook '{ %Cl?i?h
Deputy State Histnri Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen US 220 from SR 2342 to SR 2182, Greensboro,
Guilford County, R-2309AA, 8.1491501, F-45-2(14), CH
94-E-4220-0019

!2 AUG 0 6 1993
;?-
archives and History
G HIGH:htA1;? +
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian survey the area of potential effect and report
the findings to us. Please submit photographs, keyed to a map, of any structures over fifty
years of age. Also include a brief statement about each structure's history and explain
which National Register criteria it does or does not meet. If there are no structures over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However,
the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location of
significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
to identify the presence and significance.of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be
assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
w'
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 QP

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
V
FEB 17 1995
Will iW&,,,1tiN ,-Jr.,
February 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highw?Ad- inistration
i
FROM: David Brook G/J
Deputy State :is*toric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Noneligibility and effects forms,
Multicounty
Attached are concurrence forms for properties not considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Guilford County, TIP R-2309AA, Widen US 220 from SR 2342 to SR 2182,
Greensboro

Granville County, TIP B-3336, Replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1110 over
Ledge Creek
Also attached are effects forms for the following projects:
Stokes County, B-2639, Replace Bridge No. 133 on SR 1668 over Dan River
Sampson County, TIP B-1381, Replace Bridge No. 14 on NC 411 over Black
River
Wilkes County, TIP R-2240, US 421 from east of Maple Springs to east of
NC 268, Wilkesboro
Wake, TIP R-2547A, Widening 1-440 (within median) to six lanes from US
64 to Poole Road
Caldwell County, TIP U-221 1, SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from SR
1933 (Southwest Boulevard) to US 321 (Hickory Boulevard)
Wake County, TIP R-2547-R-2641, US 64 Bypass and Eastern Wake
Expressway
Please sign, date, and initial the forms as needed and forward to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Planning & Assessment
moo^
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
E H N F1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee l;l'L
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0019 Widening of US 220 from SR 2342 Cotswald Terrace
Road) to SR 2182 (Horsepen Creek Road), Greensboro,
Guilford County
DATE: August 11, 1993

The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper
Memo Page 2 August 9, 1993
project impacts. For purposes of reference, our
informational needs are listed below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. When
practicable, potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant
species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh,*N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
94?__vt?
r -
C
r
L

r
L
C
C
F
L
L
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.
Ail applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Reninnal (lffina Time
V
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 to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
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 Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. 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 as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
( prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentatioh Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan. (30 da s
1 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
J (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
J North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
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. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90-120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Darn Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
r?T n
t
`3m
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc ??? ^
Division of Land Resources ,
sec
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
r Project Number: 9 County:
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact 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.
v This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer 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 required 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 [phone].
/.'
Reviewer Date
v
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
July 29, 1993
Page 2
I
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The- mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement., and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
9856er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
-2-
All work restricted to existing high-ground areas will not require
prior Federal permit authorization. However, 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 within the aforementioned crossing of the waters and
wetlands of Horsepen Creek. Specific permit requirements will depend
on design of the project, extent of fill work within streams and wetland
areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other
factors.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for
review. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of development within waters and wetlands, the applicants should contact
Mr. John Thomas at the Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone],
for a final determination of the Federal permit requirements.
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.
Sin _L_?
Lawren a W. unders
Chief, Iann' g Division
nu
GUILFORD COUNTY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 28, 1994
Eddie Keith
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
FC-A d" e..,
Dear M-Ielr.-`
We appreciate very much your meeting with us on Tuesday to
discuss the widening of U.S. 220N and its relationship to
Bicentennial Greenway. As we indicated in the meeting, the
Greenway construction drawings are currently being prepared, and we
hope to let a construction contract this Fall (1994).
As we indicated, the Greenway will ramp up to U.S. 220N from
the east, and cross at grade to a sidewalk we will construct along
Drawbridge Parkway. Greenway users will need to be able to
activate a stoplight at the Drawbridge/U.S. 220N intersection in
order to be able to cross safely.
We also believe that sidewalks are justified along both sides
of U.S. 220N as part of the widening project. These will link high
density residential areas to shopping and allow safe access to the
Greenway. We understand that a 50% cost share with NCDOT for the
sidewalks may be required, and believe that funding can be obtained
from the County, the City, or a combination of the two.
We look forward to working with you as this project comes
closer to construction.
XSinc ely,
W. Bardsley
PM and Deve opment
,IV 4?
. yman, ief Planner
Planning and Development
i
F
Post Office Box 3427 • Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Telephone: [phone]

FIGURE 111 - PROJECT LOCATION
US 220 Guilford County
SR 2342 to SR 2812
TIP ##R-2309AA State Project ## 8.1491501
.1479 ?O 7"' /LAKE
- ---- \ `7.77 BPAfVT
1 1 ?I x77e 7777 I 17.7
J 7192 ??jp "7' ]]37 •? j9 777]
? Y .]]
331
h I
72-7
,-
.o]
1a3
ILIA
?' °
31!7
14 7] END ] Z 2 7
,TS S..
717, OS^I '0 07 3+?.
7-S ?1 I 1 01 "?s .2r 1
?I 1!!i,.? 73ao ].d3
1244
40
b = l?
L 06 .]O C 10, f? 77.7 Ric .01 .V31. il0.! 41. 1 7 tln , ot?/ ??'c 3.
-03
3159
0 0 0. 391 y 2M ? - ..•.'`;GURfORD COURT HOUSE
.,-GAME GROUND +
BEGIN NAT. MIL PARK
MI c??' .A
111! aol J2p/::::• 3312
.7e i-?
7e '7? 7p7 ?/ ':z' GREENSBORO
•f_ COUMRY
0 13f
114E PARK
4q;:2ar3 ii _ ]211.1 s 4 Er's °` .47
1
O
1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
n
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)
?v
ti
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.
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 220
From SR 2342 to SR 2812, Guilford County
State Project# 8.1491501 TIP#R-2309AA
2/2
x
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From Proposed Western Urban Loop to SR 2182
12D Residence B US 220 480 L
12E Residence B " 590 L
12F Residence B " 465 L
12G Residence B " 335 L
13 Business C " 80 R
14 Business C " 80 R
15 Residence B " 145 L
16" Residence B 140 L
17 Residence B 115 L
18' Residence 155 L

19 Residence B ". 155 L
20 Residence B " 145 L
21 Business C " 135 R
22 Business C " 105 R
A Y
45 US 220 480 L - - 54 + 9
45 " 590 L - - 51 + 6
45 465 L - - 54 + 9
49 335 L - - 58 + 9
62 " 80 R - - * 72 * + 10
62 " 80 R - - * 72 * + 10
57 " 145 L - - * 67 * + 10
58 " 140 L - - * 67 + 9
59 " 115 L - - * 69 * + 10
57 " 155 L - - * 66 + 9
57 " 155 L - - * 66 + 9
57 " 145 L - - * 67 * + 10
58 " 135 R - - 68 * + 10
60 " 105 R - - 70 * + 10

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).
,r
T
nl
F
-' t
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2309, US 220 Guilford County RUN: US 220
DATE: 06/17/1994 TIME: 21.21:45.63
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
LINK DESCRIPTION
BUILD 1997
VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
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. US 220 NB APPR -304.8 .0 .0 .0 305. 90. AG 1489. 16.4 .0 13.4
2. US 220 NB DEP .0 .0 1374.6 -21.3 1375. 91. AG 1489. 16.4 .0 13.4
3. US 220 SB APPR 1374.6 -21.3 .0 .0 1375. 271. AG 1489. 16.4 .0 13.4
4. US 220 SB DEP .0 .0 -304.8 .0 305. 270. AG 1489. 16.4 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 13 964.7 -35.1 1.8
2. REC 14 1039.4 -35.1 1.8
JOB: R-2309, US 220 Guilford County
MODEL RESULTS
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
MAX 3.7 3.7
DEGR. 277 275
RUN: US 220
BUILD 1997
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2309, US 220 Guilford County RUN: US 220 BUILD 2017
DATE: 06/17/1994 TIME: 21:22:28.36
v
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
CLAS 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH =. 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
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. US 220 NB APPR -304.8 .0 .0 .0 305. 90. AG 2191. 10.1 .0 13.4
2. US 220 NB DEP .0 .0 1374.6 -21.3 1375. 91. AG 2191. 10.1 .0 13.4
3. US 220 SE APPR 1374.6 -21.3 .0 .0 1375. 271. AG 2191. 10.1 .0 13.4
4. US 220 SB DEP .0 .0 -304.8 .0 305. 270. AG 2191. 10.1 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. REC 13 964.7 -35.1 1.8
2. REC 14 1039.4 -35.1 1.8
JOB: R-2309, US 220 Guilford County RUN: US 220 BUILD 2017
MODEL RESULTS
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.
L

WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM) .
(DEGR) REC1 REC2
MAX 3.5 3.7
DEGR. 276 279
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS O"b
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 1995055787 County Guilford
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent NC DOT / Frank Vick
Address Post Office Box 25201. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No.
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.) U .S. 220 from S. R.
2342 (Cotswald Terrace) to S. R. 2182 (Horse pen Creek Road). adjacent to Horesepen Creek.
Greensboro. Guilford Co unty. North Carolina . State Project No. 8.1491501. T.I.P. No. R-
2309AA
Description of Activity
Widening of U.S. 220 (B attleground Avenue) from S.R. 2342 (Cotswald Terrace) to S.R. 2182
oresoen Creek Road) resulting in 1.05 acre s of impacts to the jurisdiction al waters of
Horsenen Creek (re-desi gned nroiect with orig inal imnacts_of 0.5 acres authorized 9/8/95).
X_Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
NWP 23 Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and
conditions of this permit.
Regulatory Project Manager Signature ?•
Date September 29, 1995 Expiration
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.