19960719 Ver 1_Complete File_19960729

a s ? P, a 3
o? 0J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERhoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 17, 1996
0A
?
U. S Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P. W. S
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Rockingham County, Improvements to NC 87 from SR 2598 (Cook Florist
Road)/SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road) to US 29 in Reidsville, Federal
Project No. F-100-1(10), State Project No. 8.1470501, T.I.P.
No. R-2560DB.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The proposed improvements to NC 87 consist of symmetrically
widening the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane roadway with shoulders including a
continuous center lane to accommodate left-turning traffic. The length of the proposed
project is approximately 1.7 km (1.1 miles). Construction of the proposed project may
impact approximately 0.5 hectares (0.9 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate the 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.
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

2
If you have any questions or need additional information -please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone], Ext. 307.
Sincerel
H. r in Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
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
Mr. Michael L. Paylor, P & E Project Planning Engineer
I Y
NC 87
From SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road)/SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road)
to US 29 in Reidsville
Rockingham County
Federal Aid No. F-100-1(10)
State Project No. 8.1470501
TIP No. R-2560DB
Y
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
12-18-95 p? U. D
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
?or Planning and Environmental Branch
Z-0 - ? 5
Date kJ', ? Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 87
From SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road)/SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road)
to US 29 in Reidsville
Rockingham County
Federal Aid No. F-100-1(10)
State Project No. 8.1470501
TIP No. R-2560DB
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1995

Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ju 17 A. Hunkins, P. E.
Pr ect Planning Engineer, Unit Head
?.? cv, P
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
• ZH C.ARn ?'• .
SE AL i
118496
• s
i?/?s 19s
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Description of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Purpose of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
r 1. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . . . 2
2. Route Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Existing Typical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Existing Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Speed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . 3
8. Traffic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
9. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10. Utilities . .
? 4
11. Horizontal and Vertical
Alignment 4
12. Intersections/Interchanges and Type of Control 4
13. Degree of Roadside Interference. . . . . . . . . 4
14. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . 4
15. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
16. Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Mainline Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F. Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
G. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
H. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
I. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 7
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Typical Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
F. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
G. Intersection/InterchangeTreatment . . . . . . . . . 8
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
J. Changes in the State Highway System . . . . . . . . . 8
K. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
L. Multiple Use of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
M. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
PAGE
N. Noise Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
0. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
P. Utility Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Q. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
R. Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area . . . . . . 9
S. Anticipated Design Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
T. Geodetic Survey Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Postponement of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. "Do-Nothing" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 10
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . 11
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . 11
d. Project Consistency With Local Plans . . . . 11
2. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Rel ocatees 12
4. Public Facilities 12
5. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Architectural/Historic Resources. . . . . . 12
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Section 4(f) Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
D. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
a. Terrestrial Communities . . . . . . . . . . 13 `
b. Aquatic Communities . . . ... . . . . . . . 17
C. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Federally-Protected Species . . . . . 18
2. Federal Candidate Species . . . . . . 19
2. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
PAGE
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a. Nationwide Permit . . . . . . . . 24
b. Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a. Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
b. Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . 25
C. Compensatory Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . .
? . . 26
8. Impacts . . . .
Hazardous Wastes/Geological . . 26
9. Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. Farmland . . . 31
12. Construction Impacts 31
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A. Comments Received from Federal, State and
Local Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B. Citizens Informational Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . 34
VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
TABLES
Table 1 - Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2A - Mainline Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2B - Intersection Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3 - Accident Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4 - Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts . . . . . . . . 17
Table 5 - Soils in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 6 - Stream Characteristics . . . . . . . 20
Table 7 - Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional
Wetlands and Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . 23
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 - Projected 2000 and 2020 Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 - Proposed Five-Lane Typical Section
Figure 6 Proposed Intersection Configurations
Figure 7 - USGS Map Identifying Little Troublesome Creek, Unnamed
Tributaries, and Impacted Wetlands and Surface Waters
Figure 8 - 100-Year Floodplain Map
i I
APPENDIX A
Correspondence/Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B
Geological/Environmental Impact Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C
Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Relocation Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
APPENDIX 0
Citizens Informational Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
APPENDIX E
Highway Traffic Noise Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
NC 87
From SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road)/SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road)
to US 29 in Reidsville
Rockingham County
Federal Aid No. F-100-1(10)
State Project No. 8.1470501
TIP No. R-2560DB
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
To minimize surface water impacts, the following will be observed:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through
reduction of right-of-way widths, and fill slopes;
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and
temporary ground cover during construction;
- Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and Sedimentation
Control Guidelines during the construction phase of the project;
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies;
- Revegetation of cleared and grubbed areas along the roadways
soon after project completion to reduce loss of wildlife
habitat;
- Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharges
into streams and minimization of "in-stream" activities; and
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion and is
likely to fall under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)23, as
required by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Additionally, a
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
General Water Quality Certification will be required.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen NC 87 to a five-lane roadway (18-meter (60-foot) travelway) with
shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved. The improved
roadway will have a continuous center turn lane from SR 2598 (Cook Florist
Road)/SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road) to US 29 to accommodate left turns. In
the area of the US 29/NC 87 interchange (the northern project terminal),
NC 87 will be resurfaced and restriped to accommodate the proposed
five-lane section.
2
The project is located immediately south of the City of Reidsville in
Rockingham County and is approximately 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) in
length. The general location of the project is shown in Figure 1. The
proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
For the purpose of this document, NC 87 will be described as a
north/south highway and the roads intersecting NC 87 at the southern
project terminal, SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road) and SR 2594 (Holiday Loop
Road), will be referred to as SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road).
B. Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the project is to provide a facility with additional
lanes to accommodate the increased traffic which is anticipated to be
generated by the Reidsville Southern Loop (see Figure 2). By increasing
the number of lanes on NC 87 at this location, a safer facility with
greater vehicle capacity is anticipated.
C. Project Status
The NCDOT 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for symmetrical widening of the existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane
undivided roadway with shoulders. Right-of-way acquisition and
construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1998 and 2000,
respectively. The estimated cost of this project shown in the TIP is
$ 3,100,000, which includes $ 1,000,000 for right of way and $ 2,100,000
for construction. The estimated cost of improvements recommended in this
report is $ 2,972,000, including $ 872,000 for right of way and
$ 2,100,000 for construction.
The improvements to NC 87 are to be made within the minimum amount of
right of way. required to contain the proposed cross section. This project
is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the existing human
or natural environment. This action is considered to be a "Categorical
Exclusion," as defined by the Federal Highway Administration's
environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.177).
D. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 87 is approximately 1.7
kilometers (km) (1.1 miles).
2. Route Classification
NC 87 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial and is a Federal
Aid Primary Route.
3. Existing Typical Section
NC 87 is a two-lane roadway, including a 6.6 meter (22-foot)
paved travelway plus 1.2 meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders, throughout
the majority of the project area. However, at the US 29/NC 87
interchange, NC 87 is a two-lane roadway with a total horizontal
clearance of 23 m (76 ft.).
.
3
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right-of-way width along the studied section of.
NC 87 is approximately 30 m (100 ft.). The exception to this is in
the vicinity of the US 29/NC 87 interchange where the right-of-way
width varies.
5. Access Control
Currently, there is no control of access along the project, with
the exception of the US 29 interchange at the northern project
terminal.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 72 kilometers per hour (km/h) (45
miles per hour (mph)).
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Bridge No. 1 is a two-lane structure which spans US 29.
Constructed in 1968, Bridge No. 1 is approximately 71 m (236 ft.)
long with a clear roadway width of 23 m (76 ft.) and a vertical
clearance of 4.4 m (14.75 ft.) over US 29. Bridge No. 1 has a
sufficiency rating of 84 out of a possible 100 points and has an
estimated remaining life of 24 years.
8. Traffic Data
Current and projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on
NC 87 are shown in Table 1 below.
TABLE I TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(VEHICLES PER DAY)
YEAR HIGH LOW
1995 13,600 7,400
2000 18,400 9,900
2020 28,600 27,500
The traffic volumes generally include 1% truck tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 1% dual-tired (DT) vehicles. The design
hourly volume (DHV) is 10% of the ADT (see Figure 3 for complete
traffic projections).
9. Sidewalks
Currently, no sidewalks exist along this project.

4
10. Utilities
Utilities, including power lines and water lines for Rockingham
County, exist along the project.
11. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The terrain in the project area is described as rolling. The
horizontal alignment throughout the project is good; there are no
sharp curves along the project.
12. Intersections/Interchanges and Type of Control
NC 87 intersects three roads along the study area: SR 2598 (Cook
Florist Road), SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road), and US 29. The
intersections of NC 87 with SR 2598 and SR 2594 are at grade. The
NC 87/SR 2594 intersection is signalized; the NC 87/SR 2594
intersection is stop sign controlled. The US 29/NC 87 interchange
ramps are not signalized.
13. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is high at the northern end of the project
due to the two service stations and a motel on the west side of NC 87
and a convenience store and motel on the east side of NC 87.
However, throughout the remainder of the project, roadside
interference is low.
14. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings in the project area.
15. School Bus Data
Four school buses, which serve four different schools in the
area, travel along NC 87 in the vicinity of the project.
16. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within
3.2 km (2 miles) of the project.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how
these conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A
5
level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms
of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are defined
for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available.
They are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing
the best operational conditions and LOS F representing the worst.
1. Mainline Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for NC 87 as an
existing two-lane, undivided highway and a proposed five-lane
highway. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2A.
TABLE 2A
MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR NC 87
EXISTING 2-LANE PROPOSED 5-LANE
SECTION OF ROADWAY 2000/2020 LOS 2000/2020 LOS
From SR 2598 to SR 2594 D/E
From SR 2594 to US 29 E/E
A/B
B/B
The above capacity analysis demonstrates widening the existing
facility would significantly improve the level of service. Improving
the LOS along this segment of NC 87 will be beneficial; it will
provide a wider, safer facility which accommodates a greater vehicle
capacity.
2. Intersection Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the
intersection of NC 87 with SR 2598 and SR 2594. The results are shown
in Table 2B.
TABLE 2B
INTERSECTION CAPACITY
ANALYSIS FOR NC 87
EXISTING 2-LANE PROPOSED 5-LANE
INTERSECTION WITH NC 87 2000/2020 LOS 2000/2020 LOS
SR 2598 (unsignalized) A/B
SR 2594 (signalized) B/F
A/B
A/B
The proposed widening of NC 87 will substantially improve the
LOS at the two intersections listed in Table 2B.
F. Accident Analysis
A comparison of accident rates along NC 87 and the statewide rates
for rural, two-lane "NC" routes is shown in Table 3. The rates shown for
NC 87 were obtained from studies conducted from October 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1994. The statewide rates were obtained from studies
conducted by the NCDOT from 1992 to 1994.
TABLE 3 ACCIDENT RATES
[PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE KILOMETERS (MVK)]
STATEWIDE AVERAGE
FOR RURAL
RATES ALONG "NC ROUTES"
ACCIDENT TYPE NC 87 2-lanes undivided
All Accidents 100.5 124.7
Fatal 0.0 1.6
Non-Fatal 48.8 58.4
Nighttime 34.7 38.7
Wet Conditions 21.6 28.3
The results of the study show the total
studied segment of NC 87 is slightly below
Approximately 50% of the 23 accidents recorded
the three-year period were a result of "left
"angle" collisions.
G. Project Terminals
accident rate along the
the statewide rate.
along the project during
turn-cross traffic" and
. The southern terminal of this project is the intersection of NC 87
with SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road). NC 87 includes a through lane with a
shared left turn plus an exclusive right-turn lane in the northbound
direction and a through lane with a shared left turn and a shared right
turn in the southbound direction. SR 2598 has two-lane, two-way traffic,
with a through lane, shared left, and a shared right turn in the eastbound
direction. In the westbound direction, SR 2594 has two-lane, two-way
traffic, with an exclusive left turn and an exclusive right-turn lane in
the eastbound direction.
The northern terminal of this project is the ramp terminal on the
north side of the US 29/NC 87 interchange. NC 87 has a through lane plus
an exclusive left-turn lane in the northbound direction and a through lane
plus an exclusive right-turn lane in the southbound direction. At this
terminal, NC 87 is wide enough to accommodate five lanes of traffic;
however, it is currently striped for two lanes. North of the NC 87/ US 29
interchange, NC 87 narrows to a three-lane roadway, which includes a
northbound and southbound lane and a continuous center turn lane.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
The Rockingham County Thoroughfare Plan is in the process of being
updated by the NCDOT's Statewide Planning Branch. It is anticipated that
NC 87 will be designated a major thoroughfare (see Figure 4).
7
I. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The primary benefit of the proposed project will be the provision of
a multi-lane facility which will accommodate the increased traffic
anticipated to be generated by the Reidsville Southern Loop (TIP Project
U-2418) (see Figure 2). By increasing the number of lanes on NC 87 at this
location, a safer facility for motorists and greater vehicle capacity is
anticipated.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
The proposed improvements to NC 87 consist of symmetrically widening
the existing two-lane facility to a five-lane roadway with shoulders. The
proposed typical section will include a continuous center lane to
accommodate left-turning traffic.
B. Length-of the Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 1.7 km
(1.1 miles).
C. Typical Section
It is recommended that NC 87 be widened symmetrically to a five-lane
roadway with shoulders (18 m (60 ft.) edge of travelway to edge of
travelway). This width includes a 3.6-meter (12-foot) continuous center
lane for left turns. This roadway section also includes 3.6-meter
(12-foot) shoulders (1.2-meter (4-foot) paved and 2.4-meter (8-foot)
grassed). At the NC 87/SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road) intersection, a
3.6-meter (12-foot) raised concrete median is proposed for the southbound
approach to the NC 87/SR 2598 intersection. Figure 2 shows the proposed
widening of NC 87 and Figure 6 shows a graphic representation of the
proposed intersection configurations.
D. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph) for the entire
length of the project.
E. Right of Way
Approximately 45 m (150 ft.) of right of way will be necessary for
the entire length of the project. It is estimated that 2.9 hectares
(7.3 acres) of additional right of way will be required for the proposed
improvements.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this segment of NC 87. However,
the access control at the US 29/NC 87 interchange, located at the
project's northern terminal, will remain the same.
8
G. Intersection/Interchange Treatment
The NC 87/SR 2598 intersection will be widened to five lanes,
including two through lanes, one of which will have a shared right turn,
and an exclusive left-turn lane in both the northbound and the southbound
directions. Additionally, a 3.6-meter (12-foot) raised concrete median is
proposed on the southbound approach to the NC 87/SR 2598 intersection.
The NC 87/SR 2594 intersection, in the vicinity of the northern
project terminal, will be widened to include two through lanes, one of
which will have a shared right turn, and an exclusive left turn in the
northbound direction. In the southbound direction, NC 87 will be widened
to include two through lanes and an exclusive left-turn lane.
The only construction proposed at the US 29/NC 87 interchange will be
the restriping of NC 87 to accommodate the proposed five-lane facility.
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures
The existing bridge over US 29 (Bridge No. 1), located at the
project's northern terminal, has sufficient width to accommodate a
five-lane section; therefore, no improvements are proposed for the
structure. The roadway on this bridge will be restriped to accommodate a
five-lane facility with 23 m (76 feet) of lateral clearance on each side.
Any drainage pipes located on NC 87 will be retained and lengthened
based on additional hydraulic analysis and field investigation.
I. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that a Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5(a)(23) (for approved Categorical Exclusions) will be applicable
for this project. A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification will
be required by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR) for activities resulting in a discharge into any
streams involved with this project.
J. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
K. Bikeways
No special accommodations for bicycles have been identified for this
project.
L. Multiple Use of Space
Right of way along the project will be utilized for public utilities
(within certain limitations).
M. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are currently proposed for this project.
9
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed for this project.
0. Railroad Crossings
This project will not impact any railroad crossings.
P. Utility Impacts
It is anticipated that the project will impact power lines and
telephone lines for Rockingham County. According to preliminary utility
investigations, this project will have a minor impact on utilities along
` the project.
Q. Cost Estimates
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements are as follows:
Construction $ 2,100,000
Right of Way 872,000
TOTAL COST $ 2,9729000
R. Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
There are three other TIP projects in the project area:
1. TIP Project B-2864: Replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 2572,
Rockingham County. This project is scheduled for right-of-way
acquisition in Fiscal Year 1997 and construction in Fiscal Year
1998.
2. TIP Project U-2418: Reidsville Southern Loop; construction of a
multi-lane facility on new location from US 29 Business to NC 87
south of Reidsville, Rockingham County. Right-of-way
acquisition for this project is underway; construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1996.
3. TIP Project R-2560DA, B,_ Cs and D: Widening of NC 87 to a
multi-lane facility from SR 1547 (Routh Road) in Alamance County
to SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road), near Reidsville, Rockingham
County. This project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition
in Fiscal Year 2000; construction is scheduled for Post Year
(beyond the year 2002).
S. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated for this project.
T. Geodetic Surve Markers
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.
10
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended improvements consist of the following:
1. Widen NC 87 to five lanes from SR 2598 to the northern ramp
terminals at the US 29 interchange.
2. Restripe Bridge No. 1 over US 29 (to accommodate the proposed
five-lane facility).
3. Redesign the NC 87/SR 2598 intersection.
B. Design Alternatives
No new location alternates were considered. The only widening
alternate studied was symmetrical widening of NC 87. Widening exclusively
on the east side of NC 87 or exclusively on the west side of NC 87 was not
considered -due to the potential for increased wetland impacts on both
sides of NC 87 in the vicinity of the NC 87/SR 2598 (Cook Florist Road)
intersection. In addition, exclusive east or west side widening was not
considered due to the presence of gas stations on both the east and west
sides of NC 87 immediately south of the US 29/NC 87 interchange. Based on
studies conducted for this project, it is anticipated that symmetrical
widening will result in only minimal impacts to the natural and human
environment.
C. Postponement of Project
Postponement of the project would result in a continuing
deterioration of traffic and safety conditions in the future as traffic
demand increases, most notably in conjunction with the completion of the
Reidsville Southern Loop (TIP Project U-2418). Therefore, this
alternative is not recommended.
D. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited environmental
impacts that are expected to result from the project, there would be no
positive effect on traffic capacity and safety of the highway. The
increased traffic anticipated to be generated by adjacent project
construction would cause the level of service and safety of this facility
to decrease substantially. Therefore, this alternate is not recommended.
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternate modes of transportation are not considered practical
alternates. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation
in the project area, and the project involves widening the existing
highway. Furthermore, the purpose of the project is to improve the safety
and capacity along the existing project corridor; therefore, mass transit
and congestion management options do not meet the purpose and need of the
project. These options were not considered as part of this study.
11
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
At the southern project terminal there is a residence, a
commercial business, and a service station/used car lot. North
of the service station/used car lot there are scattered
residential and agricultural uses along the project corridor.
There is a higher concentration of commercial development in the
vicinity of the northern project terminal. This development
consists of a convenience store, a Comfort Inn motel, two
service stations, and a Holiday Inn motel.
b. Existing Zoning
The project area from SR 2598 to SR 2594 is zoned
Residential-Agriculture. From SR 2594 to US 29, the project
area is zoned Highway Commercial.(HC).
C. Proposed Land Use
According to local planning officials, the project area is
anticipated to experience small amounts of growth in commercial
uses along NC 87, southward from US 29. Approximately 0.8 km
(0.5 mile) of the project area, south of US 29, is expected to
have the most growth because of the area's proximity to a major
thoroughfare (Reidsville Southern Loop). No major developments
are expected in the near future for the remainder of the project
area.
d. Project Consistency With Local Plans
The proposed project is within the City of Reidsville's
planning and zoning jurisdiction. In 1990, the City adopted the
Reidsville Reflections 2010 and have been enforcing a zoning
ordinance since 1991. The City of Reidsville has no plans to
construct sidewalks or bikeways in the project area, nor will
the proposed widening conflict with any plans.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Rockingham County, which in
1990, had a population of 86,064. Rockingham County is located in the
north central part of the state and is bounded by Caswell, Guilford,
and Stokes counties.
The proposed NC 87 widening begins at SR 2598 near Reidsville.
The area adjacent to the project consists of woodlands, cultivated
fields, and scattered development. Development in the form of
commercial establishments increases as the proposed project
approaches US 29 in Reidsville.
12
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion; in
addition, it will not interfere with the function of facilities and
the provision of services.
3. Relocatees
Located within the project vicinity are two motels, two service
stations, and two other businesses. It is anticipated no relocations
will be necessary as a result of this project (see Appendix C, page
C-3). However, should any relocation of businesses or residences be
required, it is the policy of the'NCDOT to insure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. The NCDOT has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
(1) Relocation Assistance,
(2) Relocation Moving Payments, and
(3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or "Rent
Supplement."
See Appendix C for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs (pages C-1 and C-2).
4. Public Facilities
The proposed action will not impact any public facilities.
5. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
To comply with Section 106, the Area of Potential Effect
(APE) of the subject project was reviewed by the Historic
Architectural Resources Section of the NCDOT. It has been
determined that no structures over 50 years of age exist within
the proposed project's APE. The State Historic Preservation
Office has concurred with this determination (see Appendix A,
page A-4).
Since there are no other properties listed in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places within
the APE of this undertaking, no further compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is
necessary.
13
b. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological investigation of the proposed project
area by the Archaeological Section of the NCDOT found no
evidence of archaeological resources within the APE. A
previously recorded site (Site # 31RK120) was revisited during
investigation of this project segment. It has been determined
that this site is not eligible for inclusion in National
Register of Historic Places. The SHPO has concurred with these
determinations, and no further archaeological evaluation is
required (see Appendix A, pages A-5 and A-6).
Since there are no other properties either listed in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE of this undertaking, no further compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 is necessary.
B. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) resources include publicly-owned public parks or
recreation areas, publicly-owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
recreation areas, and historic sites. No Section 4(f) resources were
identified within the project area.
C. Economic Effects
During the month of March, 1995, Rockingham County had a total labor
force of 44,250. Out of this total, 42,470 persons were gainfully
employed. This left an unemployment total of 1,780, or 4%.
In the vicinity of the southern project terminal there is a
residence, a commercial business, and a service station/used car lot.
Near the northern project terminal there is a service station, a motel,
and two other businesses. Although these businesses are adjacent to the
project, no long-term negative impacts to these business are anticipated
to result from the implementation of the proposed project.
D. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: Mixed Hardwood Forest, Xeric Pine
Forest, and Disturbed Habitat. Community boundaries are
frequently ill-defined in some habitats; contiguous communities
often merge without any transition zone between them. Many
faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire
range of the terrestrial communities discussed.
14
Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community, which is prevalent throughout the project
area, has a diverse floral assemblage. The canopy is dominated
by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum),
tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipfera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), as well as several oaks, including
Southern red oak (uercus falcata), rock chestnut oak
(Q_ rinus), willow oak (Q_ p hellos), Northern red oak
(Q. rubra), and scarlet oak (Q_ coccinea). Scattered Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana) and short-leaf pine (P. echinata) are
located throughout the mid-story of this habitat. Dogwood
(Cornus florida), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), and
hazlenut (Cor_ylus americana) are scattered throughout the
subcanopy.
Several vines, including greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
guinguefolia), and cross vine (Aniostichus capreolata), are
located throughout the subcanopy and canopy layers. Blackberry
(Rubus sp.), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), bittercress (Cardamine
sp.), bellwort (Uvularia perfoliata), bedstraw (Galium sp.), and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) are located in the
herbaceous component of this community.
Mammalian species commonly occurring in forested habitats
often include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), and
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and small mice
prefer forests with -a thick layer of leaf litter. Eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) are rodents
that prefer mature forests dominated by hardwoods for foraging
and nesting habitat.
The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), and Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis) are residents of deciduous woodlands throughout
the piedmont. American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), and
upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triserita) are amphibians that
inhabit woodlands and often live under forest litter. Several
reptiles, including rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), inhabit woodland margins and mixed woods.
15
Xeric Pine Forest
Virginia pine and short-leaf pine
species inhabiting this upland community
represented in this habitat and include
sweet gum, and black cherry. Pipsissiwa
cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle, poiso
(Fragaria virginiana) are present in th
layer.
are the predominant
Several hardwoods are
willow oak, red maple,
(Chimaphila maculata),
n ivy, and strawberry
e herbaceous and vine
The barred owl (Strix varia), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), and brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta usilla) are avian
residents of coniferous woodlands throughout the piedmont. The
ground skink (Scincella lateralis) and mole kingsnake
(Lampropeltis calligaster) inhabit open pine forests.
Disturbed Habitat
This habitat encompasses several community types that have
recently been or are currently impacted by human disturbance.
These communities include roadside shoulder/maintained yards,
abandoned field, disturbed edge, and agricultural land. Wheat
is one of the primary crops grown in Rockingham County.
Roadside shoulder/maintained yards are land parcels in
which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non- to
early-successional state that appears to be regularly mowed and
likely receives frequent herbicide application. This portion of
the project area is dominated by herbs including fescue (Festuca
sp.), low hop clover (Trifolium campestre), vetch (Vicia sp.),
bitter cress, wild onion (Allium sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), and polygala (Polygala p..).
Abandoned fields are
farmed for several years.
short-leaf pine, Virginia
wild onion, broomsedge, bl
carolinianum), lespedeza
(Solidago sp.).
former croplands that have not been
This habitat has been overtaken by
pine, fescue, Japanese honeysuckle,
ack berry, Carolina geranium (Geranium
(Lespedeza sp.), and goldenrod
The disturbed edge, located between roadside shoulder and
pine or hardwood forest communities, appeared to be infrequently
mowed. Several small trees, most notably black cherry (Prunus
serotina), Virginia pine, short-leaf pine, princess tree
(Paulownia tomentosa), sweet gum, and red cedar (Juniperus
virginianus), are scattered throughout this portion of the
project area. However, this habitat is dominated by herbs and
vines including goldenrod, Lespedeza, broomsedge, blackberry,
and Japanese honeysuckle.
16
Few animals reside in maintained communities because of
limited size and complexity of the habitat; however, numerous
opportunistic faunal species use this habitat as a foraging zone
or a corridor between forested habitats. Avian species that may
reside in adjacent wooded habitats and forage in this community
include red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus),
Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), and brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum). The American common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) scavenge on
carrion.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) forage nocturnally in this habitat and are often
observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways. The least shrew
(Cryptotis parva), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)
frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by herbaceous
vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Snakes,
such as the black racer snake (Coluber constrictor) and eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), may venture into this
community to feed on small mammals and insects. The ground
skink (Scincella lateralis) is a reptile that inhabits disturbed
roadside habitats.
Construction of the project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related
activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. The following discussion
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 4 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities in hectares
(acres) resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the proposed right-of-way widths. The
right-of-way width for the project is approximately 30 to 46 m
(100 to 150 ft.). Project construction often does not require
the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
17
TABLE 4 ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
IMPACTS IN
COMMUNITY HECTARES ACRES
Mixed Hardwood Forest 1.3 (3.2)
Xeric Pine Forest 0.4 (1.0)
Disturbed Habitat
Roadside Shoulder/Maintained Yard 4.0 (9.9)
Abandoned Field 1.9 (4.6)
Disturbed Edge 0.8 (1.9)
Agricultural Land 0.7 (1.6)
TOTAL IMPACTS 9.1 (22.2)
The three biotic communities found within the project area
will be altered as a result of project construction. The
terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for faunal organisms. The loss of this habitat will
displace animals from this area, as they search for additional
suitable habitat. This may concentrate animals into a smaller
area, which can cause degradation of remaining habitat and
increased mortality due to disease, predation, and
starvation.
The proposed construction of the project will result in
habitat reduction. Individual mortalities are likely to occur
to terrestrial animals (shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction
machinery used during clearing activities. Strict erosion and
sediment controls will be maintained during project
construction. All cleared and grubbed areas along the roadways
will be revegetated soon after project completion to reduce loss
of wildlife habitat.
b. Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, piedmont intermittent stream
and small pond, will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of
the water resource reflect faunal composition and diversity of
the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a
water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
streams with slow flow rates include marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), and
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). The southern leopard frog (R.
sphenocephala) commonly inhabits the margins of ponds where they
forage for insects. The queen snake (Regina septemvittata)
frequently basks on limbs over water, but usually is observed
18
beneath stones and debris along water's edge. Members of the
sunfish (Lepomis spp•) genera, as well as black crappie (Poxomis
nigromaculatus) and common carp (Cyprinus caprio), may inhabit
the pond and unnamed tributaries located in the project area.
Construction activities will invariably impact the water
resources located at the project area. Increased sedimentation
and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. Changes in light incidence and water clarity will
affect the photosynthetic ability of primary producer species
inhabiting the streams and pond in the project area. The
suspended particles will also impact filter feeders inhabiting
the creek. These impacts eventually are magnified throughout the
food chain and ultimately affect faunal organisms located in
higher trophic levels such as fish, mammals, and reptiles.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow
due to interruption and/or additions to surface and groundwater
flow. The change in water level may severely impact spawning
activities of mobile and non-mobile organisms. Toxic runoff
from spills, construction runoff, and highway spills may result
in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area. Strict adherence to Best
Management Practices (BMP's) will be observed during the
construction phase of this project.
C. Protected Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE),
or 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 U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) lists only one federally-protected
species, smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), for
Rockingham County. A brief description of this species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N. C.: Durham, Granville, Orange, and
Rockingham
Classification: Endangered
The smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows
from simple or branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth
stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and
these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the
base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves
19
have short or no petioles and are smaller than the basal
leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and
solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are
gray-brown, oblong-prismatic, and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of
meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides,
power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone
bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from
calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are
found in soils derived from diabase, a circumneutral
igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant
sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous
plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist in
the subject property (i.e. roadside). Additionally,
according to the Rockingham Soil Survey, three
circumneutral soil types (Mecklenburg sandy clay loam,
Wilkes sandy clay loam, and Iredell fine sandy loam) are
located in the project area.
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted; no specimens of
this species were found. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the project will have no effect on the smooth
coneflower.
2. Federal Candidate Species
Candidate 2 (C2) species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Plants or animals with state designations of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are
granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture. No federal candidate (C2)
species are listed for Rockingham County.
2. Soils
Rockingham County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The topography of the project area, which is located approximately
226 to 250 m (740 to 820 ft.) above mean sea level, is characterized
as broad, smooth upland ridges and side slopes.
20
The project area is located within the Cecil-Pacolet-Appling
Association. This Association is a gently sloping to steep, deep,
well-drained soil that has a loamy surface layer and a loamy and
clayey subsoil. Table 5 provides an inventory of specific soil types
which occur in the project area.
TABLE 5 SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
MAPPING UNIT PERCENT HYDRIC
MAPPING UNIT SYMBOL SLOPE CLASS
Cecil-Urban land complex CeC 0-2 -
Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded CdB2 2-8 -
Appling sandy loam ApB 2-8 -
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, eroded MkB2 2-8 -
Sedgefield sandy loam SeB 2-8 -
Iredell fine sandy loam IrD 8-15 -
Vance sandy loam VaB 2-8 -
Wilkes sandy loam WkC 4-10 -
Madison sandy clay loam, eroded MbD2 8-15 -
Note: "-" denotes a non-hydric soil.
3. Water Resources
Water resources located within the project area lie within the
Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. One unnamed pond and five unnamed
tributaries (UT) of Little Troublesome Creek are located in the
project area. Little Troublesome Creek, which originates
approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) northwest of the project area, flows
southeasterly approximately 12.4 km (7.7 mi) to its confluence with
Haw River (Figure 7). Additional information concerning these water
resources is presented in Table 6.
TABLE 6 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
CREEK CREEK FLOW
TRIB. WIDTH DEPTH SUBSTRATE RATE
UT #1 0.9 m (3.0 ft.) 0.5 m (1.5 ft.) CL Slow
UT #2 1.8 m (6.0 ft.) 0.6 m (2.0 ft.) CL Slow
UT #3 3.7 m (12.0 ft.) 1.5 m (5.0 ft.) GR/CO/CL Slow
UT #4 0.6 m (2.0 ft.) 0.9 m (3.0 ft.) SL Slow
UT #5 1.5 m (5.0 ft.) 0.9 m (3.0 ft.) GR/CO/SL Slow
CL=Clay Loam; SL=Sandy Loam; GR=Gravel; CO=Cobbles
21
Three additional ponds are located within 46 m (150 ft.) of the
proposed right of way. Any substantial shift in roadway alignment
could result in impacts to these ponds. UT #3 and UT #5 drain two of
the ponds that are located outside the scope of the project area.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best
usage classification of unnamed tributaries is the same as the water
body to which they are a tributary. The best usage classification of
Little Troublesome Creek is C NSW (DEM, 1993). Class C waters are
defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a supplemental classification for waters
which require limitations in nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. A BMAN survey was conducted in May,
1985 along SR 2598, where it crosses Little Troublesome Creek. This
site is approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) south of the project area.
The survey indicated a poor BMAN bioclassification at the site.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. All dischargers are required to register for a
permit. No licensed dischargers are located in the vicinity of the
project area.
Construction related impacts to water resources include reduced
water quality, which can be attributed to increased sedimentation and
erosion during activities conducted in and adjacent to streams.
Roadway and construction machinery runoff will facilitate the
introduction of toxic compounds into streams. This activity can lead
to increased concentration of toxic compounds (oil, gas, etc.) on the
roadway from proposed construction related activities and increased
traffic. The toxic compounds can enter streams as a result of
construction work as well as precipitation. Increased amounts of
these compounds can adversely alter water quality of water bodies.
Activities in the streams will likely result in alterations of
the water level due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or
ground water flow. In addition, the destruction of natural
substrates often occur during the installation of culverts and pipes.
Removal of streamside canopy during structure and roadway
construction typically results in decreases in. dissolved oxygen,
temperature instability of the stream, and increases in sedimentation
resulting from devegetation of stream banks.
22
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the project
area, the NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines
will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project. This includes reduction and elimination of direct and
non-point discharges into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams. This can often be accomplished
through the installation of temporary silt fences and earth berms,
which would decrease impacts to the streams and their established
vegetation. Erosion control measures should be implemented where
soil is disturbed and maintained until project completion. Temporary
ground cover should be placed on all bare soil during construction.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Four wetland sites are located within the project limits (see
Figure 7). Additionally, one unnamed pond and five unnamed
tributaries of Little Troublesome Creek will be impacted by the
proposed project.
The vegetation of Wetland Site #1, located adjacent to an
intermittent creek, is dominated by several emergent plants,
including rush (Juncus sp.), seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), and common
cat-tail (Typha latifolia). Several black willow (Salix nigra) trees
were located in and along the creek bank. The sandy loam soil
present in the wetland exhibited a matrix color of 10YR 4/1, a color
that is representative of a hydric soil. Evidence of wetland
hydrology included saturation within 30 cm (12 in.). This wetland is
classified as Palustrine Emergent Persistent Saturated.
Wetland Site #2 is located upgradient to the unnamed pond
located in the project area. Ash (Fraxinus sp.) and red maple were
observed throughout the canopy of this wetland. The subcanopy was
dominated by alder (Alnus serrulata), iron- wood (Carpinus
caroliniana), viburnum (Viburnum nudum), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), and black willow. Grape (Vitis sp.), microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), sedge (Carex sp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata) comprised
the herbaceous and vine layer. The sandy loam soil located in this
wetland had a matrix of 10YR 4/1, which is indicative of a hydric
soil. Evidence of wetland hydrology included innundation, shallow
roots, and oxidized rhizospheres. This wetland is classified as
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Semi-permanently Flooded.
23
Wetland Site #3, dominated by rush, Japanese honeysuckle, wild
onion, elderberry, red maple, netted chain fern, and touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), is located adjacent to UT #5. The clay loam
soil exhibited a color of 10YR 3/1, which is characteristic of a
hydric soil. Examples of wetland hydrology evident at the site
included saturation in upper 30 cm (12 in.) and wetland drainage
pattern. This wetland is classified as Palustrine Forested
Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded.
Wetland Site #4 is located on a sand bar within the creekbed of
UT #4. Touch-me-not, partridge berry, and chickweed were located it
this area. The sandy loam soil exhibited a color of 10YR 5/1.
Saturation in the upper 30 cm (12 in.) was observed in this wetland.
This wetland is classified as Palustrine Emergent Non-Persistent
Temporarily Flooded.
The construction of the proposed project has the potential to
impact jurisdictional wetlands and will impact surface waters located
in the study area (Table 7). See Figure 7 for the location of
impacted wetlands and surface waters.
TABLE 7 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
SURFACE WATER
WETLAND IMPACTS IMPACTS IN METERS
WETLAND/TRIBUTARY IN HECTARES ACRES LINEAR FEET
Wetland #1 <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac)
Wetland #2 0.1 ha ( 0.3 ac)
Wetland #3 <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac)
Wetland #4 <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac)
Unnamed Tributary #1 61 m (200 ft.)
Unnamed Tributary #2 17 m (55 ft.)
Unnamed Tributary #3 34 m (110 ft.)
Unnamed Tributary #4 17 m (55 ft.)
Unnamed Tributary #5 34 m (110 ft.)
Unnamed Pond 0.1 ha ( 0.3 ac)
TOTAL 4.5 ha (<0.9 ac) 163 m (530 ft.)
Actual impacts may be less than reported because the entire
right of way is often not impacted by construction projects. The
amount of wetland and surface water impacts will be modified by any
changes in roadway design.
These impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands
perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow
regimes by intercepting and storing storm runoff, ultimately reducing
the danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands
24
have been documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and
toxic materials from water that flows across them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants
and toxins.
5. Permits
a. Nationwide Permit
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. 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."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States from
the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed
in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department where
that agency or department has determined pursuant to the Council
on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the natural or human environment and
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with
that determination.
b. Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally-permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of
the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a
prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
6. Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept
of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States. Mitigation of
wetland and surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
25
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
a. Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to wetlands and surface
waters. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
The purpose and need of the proposed project cannot be met
without impacting "Waters of the United States." Avoidance of
these waters is not a practicable alternative.
b, Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Implementation
of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions.
"Practicable" means to minimize impacts to surface waters
and wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through
reduction of right-of-way widths, and fill slopes through
surface waters or wetland areas;
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and
temporary ground cover during construction;
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
BMP's for the protection of surface waters and wetlands;
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent
to water bodies;
- Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge
into streams; and
- Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
C. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to wetlands and surface waters have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is
recognized that "no net loss" of wetlands and surface water
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every
26
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation, and enhancement of wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge
site.
Authorization under Nationwide Permits usually does not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1990 MOA
between the EPA and the Deaartment of the Armv.
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Rockingham County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The project does not cross any
designated flood hazard areas. The project is above headwaters;
with the exception of approximately 0.5 hectare (0.9 acre) of
wetlands which may be minimally impacted as a result of this
project, it does not appear that other environmentally sensitive
areas will be impacted. Since no significant wetland impacts
are anticipated, no individual permits will be required for this
project.
This project is not in a water supply watershed or a High
Quality Water (HQW) zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation
will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion control
measures. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practicable. Groundwater resources should not be
affected; little or no excavation will be needed. Figure 8
shows the limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of
this crossing.
8. Hazardous Wastes/Geological Impacts
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified four
sites which contain or have the potential to contain underground
storage tanks (see Appendix B, pages B-7 and B-8). A record search
of the DEM/Groundwater Section was conducted, and the information is
provided in Appendix B. Although some fuel pumps lie in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project, it is anticipated that no
hazardous material involvement will be encountered. Potential
hazardous materials involvement will be further evaluated by the
Geotechnical Unit.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor through Rockingham County. This coordination
revealed that there were no regulated or unregulated landfills or
dump sites within the project limits. Based on field reconnaissance
and the records search, there are no further potential environmental
problem sites that should affect the project.
27
9. Noise Analysis
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads,
power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise,
or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine
exhaust, drive train, and tire/roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A,
B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis
on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A
decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Several examples of
noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 (see page
E-1 in Appendix Q.
A review of Table N1 indicates most individuals in
urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from
many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
. In considering the first of these three factors, it is
important to note that individuals have different sensitivity to
noise. Loud noises bother some more than others, and some
individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The
time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgement
of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be
more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge
the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship
to noise from other sources (background noise). The blowing of
a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than
the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background
noises might be 55 dBA.
28
The third factor is related to the interference of noise
with activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult.
Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be
interrupted by loud noises while activities requiring manual
effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the
noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made
to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane
noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise.
In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and
control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or
are not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth
in the aforementioned federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772).
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Appendix E, Table N2 (see page E-2 of
Appendix C). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level
of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has
the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
C. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic
noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the
Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown
in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in
either category.
1. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a
way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must
consider the balance between noise impacts and other
engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a
matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from
noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is
not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
29
2. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective
noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for
noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and
level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
3. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise
levels can often be applied with a measurable degree of
success by the application of solid mass, attenuable
measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable
measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement
walls.
Sound barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the
sound path between a roadway and a receiver. Sound
barriers are evaluated by considering both the feasibility
and the reasonableness of providing the barrier.
Feasibility considers source/receiver relationships
and engineering aspects of constructing a barrier at
impacted sites. Determination of feasibility includes
consideration of whether a minimum of 6 dB of noise
reduction can be achieved, whether a barrier can be
constructed on the site topography, and the presence of
other noise sources in the area. For a noise barrier to
provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high enough
and long enough to shield receivers from substantial
segments of roadway.
An evaluation of reasonableness should demonstrate
that common sense and good judgment were used in
determining the location and effectiveness of the sound
barrier. The criteria includes sound barrier cost, decibel
reduction achieved, public support, the degree of noise
impact, required sound barrier height, and consideration of
potential safety and/or drainage problems. A "reasonable"
barrier must be cost effective. The NCDOT considers a cost
effective barrier as one costing no more than $ 25,000 per
effectively protected site (a site having 4 dB or more of
reduction). In general, barriers are not considered
reasonable for business or isolated residences. Even
though at least 6 dB of reduction are needed for a barrier
to be considered feasible, receivers experiencing 4 dB or
more reduction are counted when determining the
cost-effectiveness of a sound barrier. It should be noted
that the above criteria for determining the feasibility and
reasonableness of a sound barrier are only guidelines and
are not all encompassing.
30
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
eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor.
With the exception of the US 29/NC 87 interchange, the
project will maintain no control of access; commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the highway and all other intersections will
adjoin the project at grade.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend
to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case.
C. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are
expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals
living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to
daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
d. Summary
In dealing with the traffic predictions in the
vicinity of the project, a "worst case" scenario was used.
The maximum extent of the 67 Leq is 42.9 m (143 ft.). Five
residences and one business are predicted to approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Noise
levels are expected to increase 4 to 5 dBA by the design
year (2020). If the project is not constructed, three
residences will approach or exceed the FHWA NAC and
exterior noise levels will increase 1 to 4 dBA. Noise
abatement was considered and found not to be feasible or
reasonable for this project. Noise levels could increase
during construction, but will be temporary. This
31
evaluation completes
highway traffic noise
reports are necessary.
the assessment requirements for
(23 CFR Part 772) and no additional
10. Air ualit Analysis
This project is located in Rockingham County, which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 40 CFR, Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. An air quality analysis
was performed using Mobile 5 and CAL3QHC for the build and no-build
conditions for the years 2000 and 2020. It was determined that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (one-hour standard of 35 ppm
or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) would not be exceeded as a
result of implementing the proposed project. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done i-n accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA); no additional reports are
necessary.
11. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact all construction and
land acquisition projects have on prime or important farmland. The
U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine the
location of all important soils which may be impacted by the proposed
project. The U. S. Department of Agriculture determines which soil
types meet the criteria for important farmland soils, based on a
variety of factors which contribute to a sustained high yield of
crops. Primary uses in the project area are agricultural; however,
plans are underway for a transition from agricultural to primarily
commercial and residential uses. Therefore, the SCS has indicated no
mitigation of farmland will be required for this project.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential effects caused by construction, the
following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase:
a. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the
public's health and safety will not be compromised during
the movement of any materials to and from construction
sites along the project and that any inconveniences imposed
on the public will be kept to a minimum.
32
b. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent
endangering the safety and general welfare of the public
and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or
appearance of any public or private properties.
C. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with
all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees,
including those of the N. C. State Board of Health
regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste
will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard
Specifications of the Division of Highways. These
specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid
Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health
Services, N. C. Department of Human Resources.
d. 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
Resident Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active
public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted
without prior approval by the Resident Engineer. Such
approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the
Resident Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or
pollution.
e. The construction of the project is not expected to cause
any serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities
serving the area. Before construction commences, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor,
pertinent local officials, and the Division of Highways
will be held to discuss various steps to be taken during
the time of construction that will minimize interruption of
service.
f. Prior to construction, a determination will be made
regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether
the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at that time.
g. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be disposed of by the contractor. The
contractor will be encouraged to sell timber rather than
burning to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality.
Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to
the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
33
h. An erosion control schedule will be established by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work, which
must be coordinated to reduce erosion, and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance
with the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary
erosion control measures, such as berms, dikes, dams, silt
basins, etc., will be used as needed.
i. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources that the removal of material from the borrow
source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Resident Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
This project has been coordinated with the following federal, state,
and local agencies. Comments were received from the agencies marked with
an asterisk (*).
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U. S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Division of Land Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Region G Council of Governments
Rockingham County Commissioners
* City of Reidsville
34
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A; these
comments pertain to the original project scope which was the widening NC
87 from SR 1547 (Routh Road) to US 29 in Reidsville (R-2560 A, B, C, and
DA). Comments applicable to the subject project will be bracketed (?).
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
Two citizens informational workshops were held on July 12 and July
14, 1994 at the Williamsburg Elementary Gym and Alamance County High
School, respectively; approximately 400 people attended these meetings,
including 13 NCDOT representatives. These workshops were held to discuss
improvements to NC 87 from SR 1547 (Routh Road) to US 29 in Alamance,
Caswell,-and Rockingham Counties. No comments were received in opposition
to the proposed improvements outlined in this report. A copy of the press
release advertising the meeting and a copy of the handout made available
at the meeting is included in Appendix D (see pages D-1 through D-5).
VII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, the NCDOT and the FHWA conclude
that no adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation
of the proposed project.
MP/tp
R-2560DB
FIGURES

-
I S Pnce 7
f I
idge ,'lVzm"stEden 1 I, - 9 syhNd
tillsboro
N • • aAtf.?1
••
r•
00
rr
00
r•
,lp r• r•
% ROCKINGIMM COUNTY
i
A
?

f
I OMIT I
257
cot
SR 2592
t PROJECT
r? LIMIT
?f ?>r '.NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
(y?f TRANSPORTATION
i C 1' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
f BRANCH
/ rtiC 87
FROM SR 2598 (COOK FLORIST ROAD)l
-?-? SR 1394 (HOLIDAY LOOP RO.3D)
TO US 29 1'V REIDSTULE.
I ROC1tLIGIL-IM COCNTF
j TIP NO. R-256ODB
0 KILOMETERS 0.6 0 MILES 0.4 FIG. 1
f[

TIP NO. R-2560 DB
NC 67, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PROJECTED ADT 200012020
900
A 1-O0
2?! uc 800 213900
J gp0
1600
1700
2000
1700
2200
1300
L000
1300
21300
31500

END
PROJECT
/ S 2g
18600 /
24800
870
im
900
1200
1600
1000
Tm 19000
28600
NC 87
18700 7400
K
27600 9500
1500
1900
12800
18800
% TTST 1
% DUAL 5
% DNV 10
6soo 2594
71 -"o SR
7 NC 87
SR 2595
1475
3540
14700
17770
1250
3000
H
SF? --ftft_SS8 1600
10100
15600
230 400
540 700
874
11 1250
800
two
15100
5gD1
1900
Sp?
2600
BEGIN
PROJECT
FIGURE 3
{ •
co
WO
N aJ I:
c
r
a Oy
yQ
W
age
a?
a
3
L0
Q
O
F
0

2 ^ p
N v >
r d
A h,
? N
r
p N
40
r ?
O
v
f0 N
tv;
T C%l
v
2 T^ o
fva
N
N
cc
w
0
l
Q
W
N
0
_ a
a

W
a

i O

0
a

W
cl

h
W
0
a
0
? a
tn
w
ce.
co
w
DO
v0 0 Vi
?uj OIZ
W qQ ?'
000
L.
Co ?co
yWw
011
ac N '?
a r+ N
r j
TIP NO. R-256ODB
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATION
NC 87

SR 2598
(COOK FLORIST ROAD)

NC 87
I)
FIGURE 6A

TIP NO. R-2560DB
PROPOSED INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATION
NC 87

NC 87
SR 2594
(HOLIDAY LOOP ROAD)
FIGURE 68

PROJECT ao 1 I III
Cir 1
-16
00
UT #t2 ? 2?? ? 2571 '` ?
v -?
WETLAND SITE #1 WETLAND SITE #4
UT 1 786
UT #t3 WETLAND SI
vv I
UNNAMED POND ?--p? ?• /? i
\v/ UT*4
2594.
• ' I UT #5 WETLAND SITE #3
// , it J? `\"'•' ? ?'. .??? r_ • •
BEGIN - - : ?? t?
PROJECT V/
87
;-S-' • • .
781,
1r-
77
Park O
t
LEGEND
2435 'i ,; g6' rte' r .•-? I i
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY (UT) s°•
:i• •,'?\ ? ? '.'. ? - NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
I \-: • r `? _ i 2548 TRANSPORTATION
r l1 I ' - :? e !
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
\ ?.. BRANCH
V. 36
-°\ J/ 1 R-256ODB
?N. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
IfTTLAND AREAS AND
2600 STREAM RESOURCES
y ...?- -" 0 KILOMETERS 0.5 0 MILES 0.9
• , / r . FIG. 7
I
72
R-2560DB
APPENDIX A:
WRITTEN COMMENTS
• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
- WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 26402-1890
IN REPLYREPERM February 18, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H: Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways _
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
RD22"M
Dlvt` 1CN OF
This is in response to your letter of January 13, 1994, requesting
our comments on "NC 87, From SR 1547 (Routh Toad) to US 29 in Reidsville;
Alamance-Caswell -Rockingham Counties, Federa Aid Project No. F-100-1(10),
State Project No. 8.1470501, TIP No. R-2560" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199401265).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
projects, flood plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters
and wetlands. The roadway does not cross any COE-constructed flood control
or navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in Alamance and Rockingham Counties and
a portion of the planning jurisdiction of the city of Reidsville, all of
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Caswell
County does not participate in the NFIP. From a review of the September
1978 Reidsville Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), it appears that the road is
not located in an identified flood-hazard area within the city's jurisdiction.
Rockingham County is in the emergency program of the NFIP and, therefore, has
no detailed flood plain mapping. However, from a review of the pertinent
United States Geological Survey topo maps of the area, stream crossings
involve streams of less than one square mile. Therefore, they would not be
considered in significant flood-hazard areas.
From a review of the December 1981 Alamance County FIRM and Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps, the roadway crosses Haw River, Reedy Fork, and Travis
Creek, all of which are detailed study streams with 100-year flood elevations
determined and floodways defined. In addition, the.roadway parallels and
runs close to the flood plain of an unnamed tributary to Travis Creek, near
the intersection of SR 1552, which is shown on the FIRM as having 100-year
flooding from Travis Creek. We suggest that you coordinate with Alamance
County for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any possible
changes to their flood insurance maps and report.
a
i
i
{
k
A-1
-2-
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the following
comments. Review of the subject project indicates that the proposed work
may involve the discharge of fill material into several tributaries to the
Haw River, including Troublesome Creek, Giles Creek, Reedy Fork, Travis Creek,
and some other unnamed tributaries to the Haw River. It could also involve
the discharge of fill material into Hogans Creek, which is a tributary to the
Dan River. .
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 crossings of the waters and wetlands. 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. I
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of develop-
ment within waters and wetlands, your office should contact Mr. John Thomas at
the Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone], for a final determination
of 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.
yLawrSin erel
enc(
Chief, F
_ J
W. JuTd rs
S
a nni vision
A-2
Federal Emergency Management Agen
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
February 16, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
000
FM 2 t X94
Z
(f????RONME?A?,
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Alamance County, Rockingham and Caswell County, North Carolina
Routh Road in Reidsville
Project No. 8.1470501, TIP No. R-2560
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we
received January 20, 1994, for the above-referenced project.
Alamance County and Rockingham County, North Carolina, are
participating in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). They have floodplains and regulatory floodways
delineated on their Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, therefore, any
encroachment into the floodways must be in compliance with the NFIP
regulations.
Caswell County is not participating in the NFIP. However, we
recommend that any development within the County be in compliance
with the NFIP regulations.
The agency in charge must ensure compliance with the floodplain
management measures as enacted by the State of North Carolina. In
this regard, it is imperative your agency coordinate closely with
the appropriate staff in each county and the North Carolina State
Floodplain Management Section of the Division of Emergency
Management.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Bel Marquez
at [phone].
Sincerely,

Mary Anne Lyle, Acting Chief
Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment Branch
Mitigation Division

A-3
t i
Q? <<
TIP U R- Z s b O D B Federal Aid ? F ' t a-c - t County
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description us Z5 C1a4c?s? `i(z
-NC ?R 2S 4 t?f, w.? L I al
l
representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
`l
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
I/ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultadon
Other
All parties present agreed
V there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no progenies less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the IVationai Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
?`- Dace
Representative, NCDOT
F-siw or the'
v
Rep-° entative,
ivision Administrator, or otner
Agency
joate
Date
S
7
i
a
tate Historic Preservation Officer A-4 If a survey report is prepared, a :anal copy of t`us for,n and Lhe attached list will be included.

SaN e M '?
V
J•I
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr„ Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
July 6, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Hioway Administration
Department oifTransportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological report for widening NC 87 froN
SR 1457 (Routh Road) to US 29, Alamance,
Caswell, and Rockingham Counties, Federal Aid
F-100-1(10), State Project 8. 1470501, TIP R-
2560, ER 95-8992
Dear Mr. Graf:

i
i

Division of Archives and History
WiIliam S. Price. Jr., Director
Q
-JUL 10 1995
DtVISiCN OF
INIGHWAYS
Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1995, transmitting the revised archaeological
survey report by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project. As requested, we have grouped out comments
according to project segments.
R-2560, A, B, C. DA--from SR 1547'(Routh Road) in Alamance County northward
to SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road) in Rockingham County. Twenty-four prehistoric
and/or historic archaeological sites were recorded as a result of this portion of the
proposed road widening. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 AM340, 31 AM342, 31 AM343 & 343 * *, 31 AM344, 31 AM346,
31 AM347, 31 AM348 & 348 * *, 31 AM349, 31 AM351, 31 AM352,
1 RK130,,31 RKn13 5, 31 RK1?32, 31 RK133**, 3land131 RK134128 & 128 *
3
The above listed archaeological sites do not contain significant information or
sufficient integrity to quality them for National Register listing.
The following properties are located outside the area of potential effect and were
not evaluated:
31 AM341 & 341 * *, 31 AM345, 31 AM350, 31 RK129
If project plans are altered in the future it may be necessary to evaluate some or all
of these archaeological sites to determine their National Register eligibility.
A-5

it
P
f

Nicholas L. Graf
July 6, 1995, Page 2
R-2560 DB-From SR 2594 (Holiday Loop Road) to US 29 in Rockingham County.
One previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site, 31 RK120, was revisited
during investigation of this project segment. As noted in our memorandum of
March 8, 1994, to Frank Vick of the North Carolina Departmenr of Transportation,
it is our opinion that 31 RK120 is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D.
Given the results of the investigation detailed in the revised archaeological survey
report, we do not recommend additional archaeological investigation for either
segment of the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
(-SYacerely,
DaviJdB r Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 'H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
G. Glover
A-6

f
t
s
f
V
state of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment. Health, and katurat Resources
t
Due Date:
/NTERGOYERKMENTAL MIEW - PROJECT COMMEKTS Project Number
-
After review of this project it has been determined that the £MNR permit(s) andfor approve's indicated may need to be obtaittatl ins
order for Mss project to comply with North Carolina Lame.
Questions mparding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the fora.
lpforinstion arse guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
All applications N
l
.
VAgionai Office. oms
Process
Tstne
PERMrM SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS estuutoty trite
ee++iu
nett b Construct t operate wastewater treatment Application fp days before begin construction of ward of 3D days
teellities. Sewer System ItStensions. 9 teewar construction contracts On-site Inspection. Ptis,-400 Citim
systems Bet hatging into state surface waters. Nchw-al eoertonnee on" AC days)
permit to discharge into surface water wl0ltar
e Application 1W dart before begin activity. On-stte Inspection. OD-12D days
td operate and construct wastewater laoistttas
Z
n Pre-aoplrt:ation conference usual Additionally. eabletn permit to
arscharging into State &utIMS waters. Construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES nasiy 4WA)
time. 3D days after metal of plans at issue of NPDES
pormil+rucmever fs later.

are
30
Water Nee Mena Ptre•apptiamion eechntcof Conference usually necessary
0sA)
7 are
well ConatnlCiton Permit Complete avoieatton mit be received and yarn" issued
prior 10 the installation at a well.
(1S ears)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 56 oat's
edge and Flu Permit .. owner On-site inspection. Pre applicattor conference usual Ruing
mar esquire Easement to Fill teem N.C Department of A0 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
refit to construct t operate Au Pollution A balemeni 60 Gays
3
to:shares andlo• Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21K NIA (90 days)
y open burning assoLtatec with subject proposal
must be in eompl.ance with 151• NCAC 2DD520.
Demon of renovations of structures containing
50 days
as toe ms:etia' must be in compliance with 1SA
..AC 2D 052: which mgvires notification and removal WA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
t9C days)
gig 733.09"
plea Soutce Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.Ot100.
rte Sedimentation Pollulion Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbint activity. An erosion i sedrmentatto
control plan will be requited it ant or mote acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Se.-t.1 at least 30 20 days
30
CEst
Cats betae be.^-nnrn aCUvit A fee of Sr. for the first acre ar•d 52000 for earn addterone a:te of art must accompany the is" -
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the re'ettenced Cocas Ordinance: 00 days)
On site Inspection usual. Surety bond tiled with EKNA bond amount
j )dining Psrtnft varies with type mine and numbet of acres of affected tand Any area 20 days
s
f
o
mined greater than one acre must be pefmitreo. The appropriate bond )
f
i
car
must be received before the permit can be issued.
1 Worth Carolina Burning permit on-site )nspect;on by H.C. Division Forest Resources It porn 1 day
(NIA)
J siceeds A days
Specta? Gtound Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspeef;on by N.D. Division Forest Resources requlmd -It more 1 day
MIN
l
J counties In toasts: H.C. with organic solltt than five acres of ground Clearing activities are involved tnspecttons
should be relluested at least ten days before actual burn Is planned -
9o 120 days
1 ?
1 Oil Refining Facilities
tLA
(NIA)
It permit requ;ved, appticat;on 60 days before beg;n construction. 30 days
Applicant must have N C. qualified engineer to ptepate plans.
Diem Safety permit. lmpect construe-*---. ee•'.::•• .onsiruetion Is accotd;ng to LMNA SPPMV*
lam
And
it
tr
to
i
d
l
; days)
(60
A-7 .
p
g
o con
o
it perm
t un
er mosqu
ed plans. May alsu s?qu
a 4O4 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neees• -
sry to rtttfy liwaid Ctassificai;on. A m;n;mum fit of 1.200 00 must be'

• compr.ny We a;Dtict5on. An oddil;unat process;np fee bs5.e6 on a
t Gon
i
?.••.nttn. or the t::a• pro;rCt COST 4:•111 to to*vrer% uPri^ CW_ r.!P e
Nonrial hones,
Three
Olwwe7 time
VoUtTs GPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REDUIREMENTS Ianrtl
iik surety Coro of a.000 with ENNR running to two of N.C. 10 days
fats" m 00 as wWworr Oil or on won fonoitional that any well operwd by Oral operator WWI. awn ?/lA?,
_ aunoone+tnt. to piugW according to EmNR rwin and roommina.
Goophysicaf E:pferalm ftmat Application flied with ENNR a? least 10 ways prior b bsue of permit 10 Oars
Application ft fetter. NO standard avolrcitren imm. OVA)
(stele (ilea Carionm en Parrott Application fee bated on structure aft Is. enargW Must leww a tS20 ays
o"criptions a Orawinp of structure t proof of ownerstup 4WA)
of npa?fen props ty.
io Gays
rust Woof Ouallty Carltruuen WA (190 days)
65 Gays
CAUA Permit for MAJOR de.Nopr*em O30 W fee rtwat aecempany Sopheition (150 cyst
22 ears
LAMA ?errnff for MINOR devtloprrtart SW= fee !rust accompany application Q5 Gays(
Several gttldelK ntonarrients are 60"ted in or nor the project area If any fricinurnents need to be moved at Oestrored. please rlolrly: ..
N.C Geodelic Surrey. 6o, 27667, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
AUrrdonmtnt of any wells. If rtpuirse. must be in ac=nSance with Title 15A, Sutichapter 2=00.
Notification of the proper regional office Is npuesled if -pephan- underground storage tanks (t15TS1 are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 ears
r. .ynce with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 (C"319! Stornwaler Rules) It repuirsd.
(NIA)
Omar eomirwrits (altacn soettional pages as necessa'T. being carton to cite eomrrient authority):
ANI- CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING, --.ND
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES RESULrtING IN THE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES C= TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMW.!TER PERMIT
PRIOR TO BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES /? -
7/f

REGIONAL OFFICES '
Ouest;ons regarding these permits should be'addtessed to the Regional Orrice marked below.
ional Office
ville Re
Q A
h ? Fayetteville Regional office
g
s
e
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone]
(7041251-6208 _
? Vooresvilte Regional Office D Ra'eigh Regional Office
Suite 101
31;x7 Farrell Drive
$19 North Main Street. P.O. Box 050
NC 28115
Mooresville .
Ra'eiCh. NC 27609
1
.
17041 66}1699 A-8 33-2314
(9191
l Office
n
hi
R
t
i
' QV:rlm;ngton Regional Office
ng
a
on
eg
o
`JV.
as
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Ca-dinal Drive Extension
NC 28405
it
V:ashinglon. NC 27889 m_ngron.
Y:
R-2560DB
APPENDIX 8:
GEOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY
? wSTA7[o
.Y y_M
? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPOPTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
November 23, 1993
State Project: 8.1470501 (R-2560)
County: Alamance-Caswell-Rockingham
Description: NC 87 from SR 1347 in Aiamance County
to US 29 in Reidsville
Subject: Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
GEOLOGY
R. SAMUEL HUNT 11I
SECRETARY
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to increase the capacity and safety of
existing NC 87 by widening NC 87 to an undivided, five-lane, curb and
gutter section from SR 1547 (Barker Road) to US 29.
Methodology
A field reconnaissance was conducted along the existing project
corridor along `C 87 from SR'1547 (Barker Road) in Alamance County,
through Caswell County, to US 29 in Rockingham County to identify
identify potential UST sites. A records search of all appropriate
environmental agencies was also conducted in order to identify any
additional potential hazardous material sites along the project
corridor.
Physiography Relief and Drainage
The study corridor is located within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The topography is gently sloping to sloping tcith slopes
ranging from nearly level to steep. The highest elevation along the
project corridor is approximately 750 feet while the loF:es= elevation
is approximately 600 feet. The project corridor is moderately to
well drained and surface runoff is minimal. The nearby Haw River is
fed by Dry Creek, Traverse Creek, and Reedy Fork Creek in Alamance
County, and by Troublesome Creek in Rockingham County.
B-1
i
R-2360
page 2
Geology and Soils
The project corridor is located within the Charlotte and Milton
Belts, and the Carolina Slate Belt of the Inner Piedmont Region.
Moving north along the project corridor, felsic metavolcanic rocks
with metamorphosed intrusive gabbros and diorites that are foliated
to massive can be found. Further along the project corridor are
mafic metavolcanics of the Carolina Slate Belt that contain phyllites
and schists locally. Towards the end of the project corridor,
gneisses, schists, and amphibolites of the Charlotte and Milton Belts
are found.
The soils along the project corridor are of the Enon-Lloyd-Cecil
Association in Alamance County, and of the Cecil-Pacolet-Appling and
Vance-Cecil-Helena Associations in Rockingham County. The Enon soils
are light gray to brownish-yellow that come from mostly mafic to
partly felsic rocks. The Lloyd soils are dark reddish to grayish
brown that come mostly from greenstone schists. The Enon and Lloyd
soils are found on nearly level to moderately steep slopes. The
Cecil soils are vellowish-brown soils that occur mostly on broad
ridges, and come from mica gneiss and mica schist. The Appling soils
come from a granite gneiss and occur on broad ridges and'narroe: side
slopes. The Helena soils are found on lower side slopes and around
the head of drainageways and come from coarse-grained crystalline rocks.
The Pacolet soils are found on side slopes and come from crystalline
rocks of mixed gneiss and schist. The Vance soils occur on narrow
ridges and side slopes and come from coarse-grained granite and other
crystalline rocks.
According to the AASHTO Soil Classification System, the soils along
the project corridor range from A-3 and A-7 through Alamance and
Caswell County, to A-2 and A-4 into Rockingham County.
Mineral Resources
The state of 'forth Carolina ranks in the top five in clay production
T..ith Rockingham County being a principal clay-producing area,
although there are no current clay production sites to our knoe:ledge
on the project corridor. Other than clay production, there are no mineral
resources of economic significance known to be within the project corridor
Erosion Control
The slopes along the project corridor range from 2 - 40%, and the
relief is nearly level to moderately steep in some areas. The
project corridor is susceptible to erosion because many slopes are steep
and shallow, and the area is well drained. Standard erosion control
devices should be considered for this project.
1{
i
B-2
3
S
i
S
t
p
i
R-2560
page 3
Groundwater
Records of this area show that it is not an area of frequent flooding.
The seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet throughout the
uplands of the corridor. Groundwater should pose as no threat to
construction activities.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EVALUATION
A field reconnaissance survey conducted by the Geotechnical Unit
along the project corridor identified twenty-one (21) potential sites
for underground storage tanks (USTs). Of these, nine (9) are still
operational facilities. A description of each operational and
non-operational facility located on the project is as follows:
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
1. Ed Wilkins Service Center UST Owner: Lynch Oil
Box 997 N. NC 87 address unknown
Elon College, NC
There is evidence of UST removal at this site. There were
approximately three (3) USTs removed. This site is located in the
southeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 87 and SR 1547 (Routh
Road).
2. Pantry 161
Rte. 1 Box 102A
Elon College, NC 21244
Facility I.D. 1F: 0-023655
UST Owner: The Pantry, inc.
1801 Douglas Drive
Sanford, NC 27330
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (10000, 8000, and 8000 gal) [;STs
located on-site registered with DEM. The USTs are of steel construction
with cathodic protection and FRP piping. The two 8000 gal gasoline
tanks vere installed 3-9-75, and the 10000 gal gasoline tank was
installed on 3-6-84. The tanks are located approximately 63 feet
from the centerline of NC 87. This site is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of NC 87 and SR 1547 (Routh Road).
3. abandoned site
1162 N. NC 87
Elon College, NC
This site is mentioned only because this site is a large lot
containing above ground propane tanks.
B-3
R-2560
page 4
4. Wilson's Tire
1807 N. NC 87
Elon College, NC
This site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of NC 87 and SR 1530 (Gerringer Mill Rd.) Per the employees of
Wilson's Tire, there were approximately three (3) tanks removed from
this site, and there was evidence of UST removal present.
5. North Crest Market UST Owner: Midway Oil & Gas Co., Inc.
Rte. 1, Box 301 Hwy. 70 P.O. Box ag
Elon College, NC 27244 Mebane, NC 27302
Facility I.D. 0-00+004
There are two (2) gasoline USTs (8000 gal) located on-site registered
with OED;. The USTs are of steel construction v:7ith no cathodic
protection. The tanks were installed 3-1-73 and are located
approximately 66 feet from the centerline of NC 87. This site is
located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of.NC 87 and
SR 1671 (Eldon Rd.).
6. Fosco Auto Parts
N. NC 87
Elon College, NC
This site, located at the intersection of NC 87 and SR 2300 (Old NC
87) is abandoned and there is evidence (including vent pipes) that
approximately three (3) USTs and the UST system were removed.
7. Barber's Used-Parts
Rte. 1 Box 266
Elon College, NC 27244
This site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of NC 87 and SR 3100 (Gerringer Street). The employees of this
business said that USTs were removed from the site several years ago,
and there was evidence of tank removal present.
8. Piedmont Auto Parts
N. NC 87
Elon College, NC
This site is located at the intersection of NC 87 and SR 1622
(Laundry Rd.) and contains an abandoned building vith evidence that
the site may have been a previous gas station (vent pipes). The
building is located approximately 60 feet from the centerline of NC 87.
Evidence of a UST system removal could not be seen due to overgrowth
of creeds around the building. B-4
R-2560
page 5
9. Leigh's Stop & Shop
2833 Hi: y- 87 N
Al tamaha[•: , NC 27202
UST Owner: rlamance Oil Co.
1 525 W. Webb Ave.
Burl lncton, \C _7217
Facility I.D. 0-02+199
There are two (2) gasoline USTs (6000 gal) and one (1) diesel UST
(2000 gall-) located on-site registered with DEM. The USTs are of
steel construction and are located approximately 103 feet from the
centerline of \C 87. The tanks were installed 5-10-76. There was
one (1) monitoring well present on the site. Although no information
was found to document contamination of this site, the presence of a
monitoring well typically° indicates that there has been concern of
groundwater contamination. The site is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of NC 87 and SR 1561 (Hub Mill Rd.).
10. Country Appliance
3105 N. \C 87
Gibsonville, \C 27249
This site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
\C 87 and SR 1569 (hacks Chapel Rd.). There is evidence of the UST
svstem being removed. The system was approximately 69 feet from the
centerline of \C 87.
11. 87 \ ruction
\C 87
Gibsonville, \C 27249
This site contained an abandoned building with evidence of UST
removal. There were fill caps and vent pipes present for
approximately four.(4) USTs. The previous UST system site is
approximately 48 feet from the centerline of NC 87. The site is
located at the intersection of NC 87 and SR 1581 (Stony Creek Church
Rd.).
12. Carolina Market
Rte. 1 Box 287
Gibsonville-, NC 27249
There is evidence of the UST system removal from this site. The site
is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 87 and
SR 1578 (Troxler Mill Rd.). The removed pump island is approximately
75 feet from the centerline of NC 87.
B-5
R-2560
page 6
13. Concepts Unlimited
294 Hwy. 87
Gibsonville, \C 27249
No information is known about this site other than it contains an
abandoned building that may have been a gas station at one time.
There was no evidence of UST removal or presence. The site is
located just north of the Alamance-Caswell County line.
14. Countv Line Market
Rte. 1 Box 318-B9
Gibsonville, \C 27249
UST Owner: Mcalister Oil
P.O. Box 483
Reidsville, \C
Co.
27320
Facility I.D. 0-003036
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (10000, 10000, and 6000 gal), and
one (1) kerosene UST (3000 gal) located on-site and registered with
DEM. The tanks are of steel construction and the gasoline tanks have
cathodic protection, while the kerosene tank has been coated with
epoxy. The tanks were installed on 1-1-79 and on 1-1-86 and are
located approximately 57 feet from the centerline of \C 87. This
site is located in the east quadrant of the intersection of \C 87 and
SR 1159.
15. Pig Pen UST Owner: Eden Oil Co.
(previously Hwy. 87 Conv. Store) 124 Fieldcrest Rd.
Rte. 1 Box 359AA Eden, \C 27288
Gibsonville, NC 27249
Facility- I.D. ... 0-004297
This site is located at the intersection of `C 87 and SR 1414
(Brown's Chapel Rd.). According to the DEM registry and the fact that
the site is believed to have previously been the Hwy. 87 Convenience
Store, there were two (2) gasoline USTs (3000 and 10000 gal) removed on
12-1-88, and there is evidence of the UST system having been removed.
The excavated UST site is approximately 35 feet form the centerline
of \C 87.
16. J & E Grocery and Grill
Hwy. 87
Reidsville, NC 27320
UST Owner: Pat Brady Oil Co.
Madison St. Extension
Reidsville, \C 27320
Facility I.D. 0-031,704
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (6000 gal) located on-site and
registered with DEM. The tanks are located approximately 62 feet from
the centerline of \C 87 and were installed on 5-17-90. The tanks are
of unknown material with cathodic protected exterior and with FRP
piping. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of SR 2616 (Cherry Grove Rd.) and NC 87, and next to
Dennis Drive (private). B-6
7
St
4t
S
Z
i
S
R-2560
page 7
17. Ross Grocery
NC Hwv. 87 S
Reidsville, NC 27320
Facility I.D. 0-018624
UST Owner: J.D. Love Oil Co., Inc.
731 Madison St.
Reidsville, NC 27320
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (6000, 4000, and
on-site and registered with DEM. The tanks are all
construction with no cathodic protection. They are
approximately 63 feet from the centerline of NC 87
on 1-5-82. The site is located at the crossroads i
NC 87, SR 2614 (High Rock Rd.), and SR 2613 (Citty
4000 gal) located
of steel
located
and were installed
atersection of
Store Rd.).
18 Imports Plus UST Owner: Leroy Pegram
3867 Hwy. 87 S address unknovn
Reidsville, NC 27320
There was evidence of removal of a CST system on this site that
included approximately one (1) UST. There were two (2) heating oil
tanks in place approximately 114 feet from the centerline of NC 87
and should be mentioned due to possible spills. The site is located at
the intersection of SR 2598, SR 2594, and NC 87.
19 Reidsville Express Mart
Rte. 87
Reidsville, NC 27320
Facility I.D. 0-019783
CST Owner: Chatham Oil Co.
108 Main St.
Chatham, VA 24531
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (10000, 60000, and 6000 gal) and
one (1) diesel UST (2000 gal) located on-site and registered v;ith
DEM. The tanks ar-e all of steel construction with FRP piping and no
cathodic protection. The tanks are located approximately 50 feet from
the centerline of NC 87 and were installed on 5-7-84. The site is
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NNC 87 and
SR 2594 (Holiday Loop).
20 L & S Fast Stop ;2
NC Hwy. 87' S
Reidsville, NC 27320
Facility I.D. #: 0-018597
UST Owner: J.D. Love Oil Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 1148
Reidsville, NC 27320
There are three gasoline USTs (8000 gal), one (1) diesel UST (2000
gal), and one (1) kerosene UST (1000 gal) located on-site and
registered with DEM. They are all of FRP construction and piping with
no cathodic protection. The tanks are located approximately 54 feet
from the centerline of NC 87 and were installed on 4-1-88. The site
is located in the west quadrant of -the intersection of NC 87 and
SR 2594 (Holiday Loop).
B-7

i
s
R-2560
rage 8
0 Pat Brady ==5
Hwy- 87 S
Reidsville, \C 27320
Facilitv I.D. r=: 0-018519
UST Owner: Pat 'Brady- Oil Co., Inc
Madison St. Extension
Reidsville, NC 27320
There are three (3) gasoline I;STs (8000 gal) and one (1) diesel UST
(8000 gal) located on-site registered with DEM. The tanks are of
steel construction and were installed on 3-21-74. The tanks are
approximately 66 feet from the centerline of NC 87. The site is
located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 87 and
SR 2594 (Holiday- Loop).
Additional right-of-way acquisition should not be allowed to encroach
upon the L:STs within the project corridor. Purchasing property
containing USTs creates the liability for any leakage that may occur
and the possibility- for long-term, costly- remediation.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor through Alamance, Caswell, and Rockingham Counties.
The study revealed that there were no regulated or unregulated
landfills or dump sites within the project limits. The study did reveal
the existence of two (2) Groundwater Incidents within the vicinity of
the project. A search of the-files pertaining to these incidents was
conducted, and it was concluded that these incidents were either
resolved or posed as no threat to the subject project. Based on the
field reconnaissance and the records search, there are no further
potential environmental problem sites that should affect this project.
Sincerely,
5u, Lu?, Q.` LIJ11-4
Eileen A. Fuchs
Geotechnical Unit
B-8
R-256ODB
APPENDIX C:
DISCUSSION OF DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS RELOCATION
PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction
of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following
three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT
staff will, be available to assist displacees with information
such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an
owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost,
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
the Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to
owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-13). The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to
each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displace
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory
services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession or replacement housing which meets decent, safe,
and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a
90-day written notice after the NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible
to their places of employment. The relocation officer will
also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
C-1
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be
displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available
options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either public or private, or
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to-another site
(if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs
offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide
other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from
homes, businesses, non-profit organizations and farm
operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, the NCDOT will participate in
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals and
other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing
payments, increased payments, and incidental expenses may not
exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not
to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a
down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon
what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be
displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee
within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for
the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the
purposes of determining eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal
law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is
unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad
latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be
provided. Adequate replacement housing will be available for
all relocatees. Last Resort housing will be considered if
the financial situation of tenants or owners warrant such
action.
C-2

RELOCATION REPORT
T4: `!:, .
SAY 3 0 ? MAY ? 6 3 9
5
:Voltth C. ilina Department of Tuns nation
• .... AREA RELOCATIO OFFICE.
?n/ISiC. N. r
I?i1GNU?q?F ,t-uiiTtlTIUrl
Q E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJEZ'T: i 8.1470501 i Co1JN-rY I ROCItiZ?iG i Alternate 1 of 1 :alternate
I.D. NO.: ; R-2560 DB 1 F.A. PROJECT 1 F-100-1(10)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ! NC 87 FRO1?I SR 2594 (HOLIDAY LOOP ROAD) TO [-TS 29, \? ?R
r
Rti"II.LE. NC
EMS
......:: •:: .. . LNCOiti1E LE4-EL ,
ESTI31rL?TED DISPLA.CEES ::....
Type of
Disvlaeees ; j
I Owzlers i Tenants i Total
;Minorities
0-15M
Individuals 1 0 1 0; 0! 0
Families I 0 1 0! 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0' 0 1 0 v u:
Farms 1 0 1 0 1 0! 0 Owners
:
Non-Profit ! 0 i 0 I 0 1 0 0-203,1
!
I , .. ikDTSWE'R?IZZ. Ot'ES?IO S ..... 20-4034 j
i
ers
S"
" 40-?Oat
o
( R
Yes .
mow
YE
F?pidn all
er
ices
i
l be necessary 'l'
"o-looa•1 j
v
on s
ocat
Will special re
ct b
ff
b
h
' 100 vP I
I X y
e
e a
es
fil schools or churc
2. W
displace mene, roe u.
!
i .?
I 15-?SVI i 25-35211 35-?0t{ 50 U
0! 0 0: 0' 0
0i o1 0i 01 0
M OF D'%TUM G DSS D%ELTdLNG ANrAIL %ZLE
D i s o-ls0 1 0
0 i 1_0-250 1 0
0 ! 2=0-400 i 0
0 j 400-600 0
0 ( 600 UPI 0
0
For Sale i For Rent
0-2031 0 ; S O-150 ; 0
20-4031 01. 150-2-40i 0
40-7-031 ; 0 ' 250-400
'0-100]1 0 3 400-600 i 0
loo UP 0 ( 600 LT 1 0
.d 6o snmherl.
3. `V111 business services sal be available afterti
project?
.: X ' 4. will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 3. DONE AFFECTED
employees, minorities, etc.
! Y.- 5. `Vill relocation cause a hot -sing shortage? 11. REIDSNULE,1 C
o. Source for available housing (list).
i .•._._j i. Will additional housing promms needed? CONNUALN : -T THERE IS NO RESIDENTLAL OR
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? BUSLNESS RELOCATIONi L'W'OLN'ED. THERE N-U1 BE
, bled elderiv etc 4 - 5 MISC. SIG\'S S LIGHTS TO BE ?1O?7~D.
dia
Y 9. Are there )arse, , , .
.
.
. . ... families?.
F7 ' Y 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 1 11. Is public housing available?
N! 1 A 12. Is .it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
- - h0 using able during relocation period?
Ni A.... 13. Will there be a problem of housing within

.. financial means?
N,
1 A 14. Are suitable business sites available (list

..
- source).
`l.
.!..A 15. Number months estimated to eomvlete
_
-. _
3 MEADS 0-5-1_ 8 . ?5 _
Date
Form 1$A R-ftei.490
Z?? ??--7
.aproved by Date
ori¢inal 3:1 Copy* State Relocation ALent
2 Coov Area Relocation OLT=
i
R-2560DB
APPENDIX D:
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
I---- .
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 87
FROM SR 1547 (ROUTH ROAD) IN ALPMaNCE COUNTY
TO US 29 IN REIDSVILLE
Project 8.1470501 R-2560 Alamance-Caswell-Rockingham Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will conduct two
citizens informational workshops on the proposed widening of
NC 87. Those wishing to attend either of the following informal
open house workshops may do so at their convenience:
DAY ...... TUESDAY
DATE ..... JULY 12, 1994
LOCATION WILLIAMSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAFETERIA
ADDRESS .. 1404 MIZPAH CHURCH ROAD
TOWN ..... WILLIAMSBURG
TIME ..... 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M.
DAY ......
DATE .....
LOCATION .
ADDRESS ..
TOWN .....
TIME .....
THURSDAY
JULY 14, 1994
WESTERN ALAMANCE
1731 NORTH NC 87
APPROXIMATELY 4
4:00 P.M. - 7:00
HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA
MIKES NORTH OF BURLINGTON
P.M.
The purpose of these informational workshops is to present
information, answer questions and receive comments during the early
design stages of the proposed widening of NC 87. The proposed
project will widen the existing NC 87 roadway to a four-lane
divided highway.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will be
available to discuss the proposed project with those attending.
Anyone desiring additional information about the workshop may
contact Mr. Michael L. Paylor, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch, P. O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at [phone].
date of the workshop.
NCOOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids, and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
these workshops. To request this assistance you may call Mr.
Paylor at the above number NO LATER THAN seven days prior to the
D-1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

ALAMANCE - CASWELL - ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
NC 87
SR 1 547.(ROUTH ROAD)
TO US 29 IN REIDSVILLE
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 2560
JULY 12, 1994
Citizens Informational Workshop

t
2
Y
i
S
1
t
D-2
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC s7
From Routh Road to US 29 in Reidsville
Alamance-Caswell-Rockingham Counties
Federal Aid Project No. F-100-1(10)
State Project No. 8.1=70501
TIP No. R-2560
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to present proposed
improvements to N'C S7 in Alamance-Caswell -Rockingham
counties. The project begins at SR 1547 (Routh Road) and
ends at US 29 in Reidsville 01 km). Comments and
suggestions concerning the proposed improvements to NC 87 are
appreciated and will be considered during the project study.
The Division of Highways recognizes that individuals
living close to a proposed project want to be informed of the-
possible effects of the project on their homes and
businesses. However, exact information is not available at
this stage in the planning process. Additional planning
studies and design work will be performed be-Fore the actual
alignment and right of way limits are established. More
detailed information will be available at the public hearing
to be held at a later date.
Written comments or requests for additional information
should be addressed to:
MI H. Franklin VicL P. E.. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1994-2000 NC_DOT Transportation Improvement Program
calls for upgrading the existing two-lane highway to a multi-
lane facility.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
This project will be constructed in stages. Initial
right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year
1997, and construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year
1999. These schedules are subject to the availability of
sufficient highway funds.
D-3
S ?
i
f
EXISTING FACILITY
Length: 31 km (19.1 miles)
Roadway width: approximately i meters (22 feet)
Shoulder width: varies from 1 to 3 meters (^ to
10 feet) unpaved
Right of Way width: 30 meters (100 feet)
Terrain: rolling
Access control: none
Speed limit: primarily -55 mph
Traffic volumes: 1993:. 13,000 vehicles per day
(approximate) '?019; 31.960 vehicles per day
Structures:
Clear
Bridge Date Roadway
Number Descrintion Built Width
110 over Travis C reek 19=0 m (22 ft)
112 over Reedy Fork Creek 19-9 S-m (26 ft)
i19 over Haw Riv er 1949 S m (26 ft)
ESTIMATED COST
Right of Way S 1s,=10,000
31.990:000
Construction 000
400
S 47
Total Estimated Cost ,
,
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and
are subject to revision in the later stages of planning.

. i

D-4
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ALAMANCE - CASWELL - ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
NC 87
FROM SR 1547 ROUTH ROAD
TO US 29 IN REIDSVILLE
T. 1. P. NUMBER NO. R - 2560
JULY 12, 1994
COMMENT SHEET

NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND / OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO BE
MAILED TO: MR. H. FRANKLIN VICK, P. E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
P. O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
D-5-
86
:)st ^t.dl 3 d7 :o Snce I a5 C A W L L% ,3
Mjy00• 3 '
r o, 0° Least
K ?N Casv,5It Y30c' 11 r 1
taa?son a =went. n7 i29 156 c 62
1 LOCU31 Hd 1 , f
NS ` ' r s ' Reidsville Iso Fro
220 r 1 * H,9n10..Ns
•r I 1 10 M,Ittvdle
t En se o r 1 t Fdcn ? Rw
65 yy. •J 29 87 t S1 u
he t ' b?antSDUr I I 7 ProsOec 1
MatkInS
•• •• y Rv. • un.on
1
ALAMANCE-C ASWELL- •• ttamaha•i
szto 49
R" KIP3HAM COUNTIES
8, Gil %
let
.• •••? •• ' t c ' a, NV
O
••• •• In; 1 19
• , graham S. a le
•?•.• ALAMAN ?E,,
lj 7.•??. •w: , ?. li I v ''••( ' 14 yam, __ ? ? ,,,r ,.• ?
END or. ? . ua F
1120
PROJECT >-
i,.,.
it L
??\ 1'? ? 3}yl • `, SM?r „ 3 ,1-191 r
r LLLL
Q ssss : Q
uu
- ¦? i i -?\?? ??
w911omb•r0 S , •. 1111
20-
1. ? - / ` 7Hr, • , s nor ?. ywM?? ? ?'? +- ra
1.2
\,-.-- ? - 79'1 ?• ??? Sb,Yi.« ,.» .3 r,m
•v tl \/ \? •1 -?? ?„ee • J.. ?• 3 Q®C Im
JJJ `? is .tam t???•2?• ;e r.na. . !?
.o .. .. ..,P Lv M•rbiw.. <r -- 117:^'3•C ?k.1. ?-?. ?•: LLII. (.
^ iii .7 ) 3lL' 171! 1.4 1•s
iju
? L1 to Zii ' I ?! Ll t.i 13L _?
J ?T 3.•11 ? • ?•a ly,.: +? ,1:'% 2.3.
? r. • \
Sa
:LS ? L41 ^ L? 13 ^ tre, ,y I? SirW ? _? ?j113.:r- •' • ?•? LAKE 61
O.t.da .3 L? 'r3y 0, J e, M Sr•nr , 331 BI:RUNGiON ? n.
RES. t
L ti0 ' SLli IL41 }? IL r ?a •., ,>
O J r? i..U. ,:t • .s
op,
` t.sa it. -? : \ • O• , , 1971
Im 2w
Lffi L.1. , m ( 171E s • si' ?niif -P•- i..-.. .r
- IZ71 .i , - 1
I I_I < e l- ^ s 1111 ' '• .f ' tlw 3 +_ ?j.
^ v ' • . 1L ` L'! 7103 • A ', 3 i 2: ?' 11 0.id0v :p ' M
w L+i 1y ' ?S'
-Olzu
.i ? + . L.>: ? A1rem• a tJ i ra ?. -? ,• 1991 -•
•y 72?'3 APWr ?? ? . 1• , ,1:q ,wr •1.3 -l.l a {
1 ii I! ChP. IL3 3t_1 Lea. 1 ,? ` • , r 102 , pe
t fin. .• ??v ?? J'?- J?!
Cwk
i... 2m. 1. 1211.9 ,.:In$ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
sZxs? ir!• 4 tat DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1n° .--r :.i. ° a -.Y 0.3_•1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONME47AL
' BRANCH
m :_ _•..J ••• _ • ine a ? BEGIN
"''- iL 2'27 ILL ...
i•? - - > PROJECT . " NC 87
doge o ,iy ' '.?1 - ` • 3' FROM SR 1547 (ROUTH ROAD)
' • 7i `_- Q TO US 29 IN REIDSVILLE
2100 ,?? i'•' u o i ! ?0°, ?? ?• ?• ALAMANCE - CASWELL - ROCKINGHAMCOUNTIES
• Y R - 2560
.7 , tl.o - / a - ..O tt,
rut
G
21.3
?w
w c;. FIG. 1
R-2560DB
APPENDIX E:
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE
TABLES
.
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
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.
E-1
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

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

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

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

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
4 1

E-2

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP :. DATE
?-wzl 194
-TO
: REF, NO. R.-ROOM,
BLDG.
:.
j/?? .
FROM: ,"REF. NO. OR RO M..BLDG.
t
IMAeL
-
ACTION

i "PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTELAND FILE
? NOTE AND RETURN 'To ME '- ?.?.-'PER YOUR REQUEST
.?. RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS - b
ORYOUR-:APPROVAL
,
t
?NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
. ? PLEASE ANSWER - ?OR YOUR COMMENTS .
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE 0' SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE. ACTION ? 'INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

r
swE,
wn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF RANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 20, 1994
RECEIVED
DEC 2 8 1"4
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for proposed improvements to
NC 87 from SR 1547 (Routh Road) to US 29 in Reidsville;
Alamance-Caswell-Rockingham Counties, Federal Aid
Project No. F-100-1(10); State Project No. 8.1470501;
TIP ID No. R-2560
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. Initially, a scoping meeting
was held for this project on November 27, 1993. However, it is felt that
possible scope and alignment changes warrant another meeting. A scoping
meeting for this project is scheduled for January 26, 1995 at 2:00 P. M. in
the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). 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 6
call Michael L. Paylor, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842 Lti'
R4^ ~ ;?.
MP/plr
Attachment
,, Yom. l
(A I- CA)
gsuj
am'???r {
F '
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date December 21. 1994
Revision Date 12-20-94
'Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP r` R-?560
Project "r 5.1470501
F.A. Project -" F-100-1(10)
Division Seven
Counties Alamance, Caswell. Rockingham
Route NTC S
Functional Classification Rural Minor Arterial
Length 30.7 kilometers (19.1 miles)
Purpose of Project: INCREASE CAPACITY AND SAFETY OF EXISTING
NC S7 ADD IMPROVE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR CURRENT AND DESIGN YEAR
TRAFFIC.
Description of project (including specific limits and' major-
elements of work: WIDEN NC 87 TO AN UNDIVIDED,(FIVE-LANE CUF
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA AND FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA JAN 95
FONSI DEC 95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
f
Page
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility: MULTI-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 3
Typical Section of Roadway:
5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER (UNDIVIDED)
Traffic: Current 12.500 vpd Design Year 28.590 vpd
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . S
Right of Way. Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . S
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
Prior Years Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 3.200,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 49075.000
Prior Years Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 80.000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,355,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project: POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT
WITH HISTORIC RESOURCES; POTENTIAL WETLAND, NATURAL OR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (DEPENDING ON ALTERNATES OR ALIGNMENTS
SELECTED). THESE FEATURES HAVE ALREADY AFFECTED THE PROJECT
SCHEDULE AND MAY CONTINUE TO INFLUENCE THE SCHEDULE DEPENDING ON
THE SEVERITY OF IMPACT.
f
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling &: Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts (actually resurfacing) $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . S
Drainage (List any special items) . . . S
Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x S
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length S
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . S
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . .
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . S
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 (Misc. & mob, clear and grub) $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . S
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost S
Utilities. S
Right of Way Subtotal: S
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By: Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT.' DATE
Board of Tran. :Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental..
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope 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.
.?I
a
II
ALAMANCE-CAE•WELL-
ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
1 ?8• ?. '-? f
2j St evlll
4 Ruffin -- 9 may-- -• 11
'' 1
1 ? q .,! 4

a a
3 87

0° 1
0
10
Stsce
C A ? 2

1 1

(? '•)
p V t? K N Cas»Ue Y+
anceYvill B 3 B Leasb
m
ladison t Wen + h 2 6 62
29 ,58 1 6 1
i7 . %5 1 a Locust Hit
t
` 5 2 Reidsville 3 t Fro

i
220 3. * Hightower
1 , 4 10 Milesvdle Fitch
fl
s
I ] 1 o ' 1
t
?* 29
87 1 572 !9 RIM
7
? 'E I 2 1 158 ??,
? B
'.d`smsbw Mathin$ u 1 Prospec
' ? ?. ? ._ '
1
, ??.?? .
5 RurleRe . union
e 3 2
Rid
, ?
'? g
? ?
?*??? Itamaha fit 0 19
l
?
.•' `?
?? e
7
Glen *
????? ?` Win qn
eg
?
op 4w ev 70 0
? z' N
19
In raha
'
19 o'1c ? S s It
`?

E
? ..... 54
ALA MAN
Iz

t y,.
IISO - 11] 1129

_ -- • 1119 lA.

7 e
] /\ a t
END 11 ?,Maaa r ° ??
g + • 1,20 "??' ? L!?±
PROJECT •
•rv 2s22 J143 a ?o a :s: s '
1e. ,2 1142' wry .3 7
ep^f. r 260e (.. y 1133 • 1106 12! V
2527 11.93. M7ssvltla
sv9 •r
V° 2611 1 IIA terry _ 1104 a 6
x ? Gro+. . ) "' ` !.133
t6uu ' Ll3.t
2607
?5 2 .b .2
.? ?'• 9 .., C-0.
2603 1 .tdt!x611 1 1145 y- 1133 } O.
24y6 ? a xe 1.3 .y. "1G•mp i ?o ?+ Lo ,
362'3 tat; I ?b Springs - 9
44* 1103,
•??? x01 ?. 113 tl\ 1 7 f 1 SILL .1 1 1104 IS
113
Q 3 2653 a 1 1114 1111
W3siam3b," q
1. 2 14 1., 1139
vy 2.1 ..4._- • 2617_ .a i 1366 f3
0
t 2619 O
0 1147 1140 IS O
n1 d
bIB 1179 '$f0?h V- 1 1.8
•? 241• 2617 14 + 14 11.61E Sl*r -k (t:'1 L2 1194. .? 11ro
STONY
.9 • ??
\?5 :'? -- 7 1=00 ' J ]I4Y 7.4 Jt a Q! TN 1111 s gj
Lqf. .- \,a 2626 v \4? 26' - rlol .1111 1 2100 1 ^ 72141 o a 1112 O
9 'P 9 'Matkile.
.1 r\ \ _-?.#•--? ?`J 7 .•1526 1614)
2931. > /t 5 2627.2 1/1 2933 .4Q •r X24 - • 4 1 11 I -p 6
IF a,
f3 l:6. 2. ?4! ,e } ? ? ,D d?!.2 t.2 \ 1s 4 ,k !29!- 1
??• . } 2943 13.-T ,. ' 12.7 ;s - \. :Yi nS. T 1615
1 ?J43 '\ 2702 X701 I ShHo ti' 579 D 1560 i 60-9 LANE ?@
Stony 1611 b 1
Osceola 219 a p1, y n BL'RLINCTON
_.. t i •5 1{n^t !561 \ Sa 1. !.,!?n'uiC RES.
2704 I C!1. .1 $v'
4 2772 b •\.2 s? 912.•J 144.E V4
1` 7 i s ]L \9 !1 76 s 1? .1 3- 1
al ` •? . 2 3 '? Gillicirw; v 15.71 1 e4 Ise7 ;?' ,209.
137., o a 0 7
1,0 FAS 'd \ \ Gh T' • B 'y LQU
277.2 2772{ NP
2720 2716.

,~
1 15.1
'
J _ ?2,33 y 31 2717 Mh
vq a IZB.?
t? ? ron
'1 .9 dam
Ridge
'
272
2 L 270 N
•+' ,p 11 ?IS>:1 '} i/ '1?1 •'
e •a
2727 32£
V .9,• 27
\.0? 7
\1 2 }
?? Y- P IWI 1756.
2 20 f.
T L3?
'2 u
., .,2
Id N

\
J AIlama

HAW
1
'a7 1191
?•
j: - 1N-4---r- Iwz 1 't 1737
13Z
2 Q
r
\
2733
?
2 nt7
cl •
..
2715 )360
2713 1"7
i'4 ? 1.3
2y
.
13
1}// 1 ?
4
?'
DO
27
0 4 G
ip.
1 C _
F,(S
,
y
72
J
7 4 b
Q O
.3..3. •I
27g 7 Creep
.363
? „?
Ts!s
ssa 3732 .9 \.:6
"' - \` '• ,
\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?--- r - - • TRANSPORTATION
_ 2?z3 3zl4
~ 3nJ Al
.,---' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
2720 7 .4 2770 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.8
_,,.?
ti U --
? .? 3ZLQ
:b •a .a BEGIN •

• BRANCH
5 , r a xn' L3

2779 7
\• =
tE
''3?3, PROJECT NC 87

-
`O

/p

. LS 3R

15
`
FROM SR 1547 (ROUTH ROAD)
>
?0 , _ -B
03

29se 2719
223
? •J

i I

w D41687?
.2
TO US 29 IN REIDSVILLE
. _
b . w lag !
a
C
ALAMANCE - CASWELL - ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES
* - , 9
J
• 29
5 2766•
1 1
3Z!R , . 27-0 f. ' ,ta.>• 1 a9 . ,
Oyu ,7 R - 2560
2 .2 4 'i
?749 1549
+sB9
1F.
70 a o 276S 4 -, 9 ,Q 0 mile 1/2
.6 281; y .
7Yf?- 2799 b 27 FIG. 1