U-3326_complete file

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 08-0022 County: Rockingham
Due Date: 08/14/2007
Date Received: 07/19/2001
Project Description: Proposed Widening of NC 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from South Scales Street to NC 14; TIP
#U-3326

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Wildlife Environmental Health
Mooresville Groundwater

Raleigh Solid Waste Mgmt
Land Quality Engineer Wildlife - DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
=
.,
Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
RAO / D
JUL. 2 4 2007
QUALt;v
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Reidsville
Rockingham County
WBS Element 34924
Federal Project Number STP-2913(1)
State Project Number 8.1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
ate Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., vironmental Management Director
)rpqroject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
11o
Date John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Adminisi
Federal Highway Administration
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Reidsville
Rockingham County
WBS Element 34924
Federal Project Number STP-29B(1)
State Project Number 8.1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
July 2007
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Karen S. Reynolds
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Engineer
-ryt-J 1/1 ? 111,6 7
Eric Midkiff, P.E. VV,
Central Project Development Engineer
a '-
SEAL
19791
C' Mip\???
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................1
III. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES .......................................... 2
IV. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ................................................3
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................4
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSSMENT....... 4
A. US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office .................................. 4
B. US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office ............................... 5
C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality ........................................................... 5
D. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission........ ................................. 6
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................... 7
VIII. AGENCY COORDINATION ..................................................................... 8
IX. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................9
A. Structures ................................................................................... . 9
B. Design Details .................................................................................9
C. Typical Section ...............................................................................11
D. Jurisdictional Topics, a. Waters of the United States ...................................11
E. Air Quality Analysis .............................:..............................................12
F. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................12
G. Control of Access .................................................................... .......13
H. Publicly-Owned Land .........................................................................13
1. Sidewalks ..........................................:...........................................13
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...............................14
TABLES Page
Table 1 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................
3
Table 2 Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts ..........................................
12
Table 3 Relocation Impacts .....................................................................13
FIGURES
Figure 1A
Figure 1B
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
Figure 3
Figure 4
APPENDICES
Project Vicinity
Project Location
Typical Section - Shoulder
Typical Section - Curb & Gutter
Revised Lane Configurations
Wetlands and Streams
Appendix 1 ....... Federal and State Agency Environmental Assessment Comments
Appendix 2 .......Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreements
Appendix 3 ....... Design Public Hearing Public Notice & Agenda
Appendix 4 ....... Advantages of the Four-Lane, Median Divided Section
Appendix 5 .......Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
Appendix 6 .......Rockingham County Board of Education Right-of-Way Acquisition
Approval Letter
Appendix 7 ....... City of Reidsville Sidewalk Design Revision Agreement Letter
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
From SR 2670 (South. Scales Street) to NC l4 ,
Reidsville
Rockingham County
ArBS'Element `34924
Federal Project Number'STP-29B(1)
State Project Number 8.1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
110raulic Desian Unit
• The proposed widening project is mostly within existing right-of-way and involves the extension
of box culverts at three major stream crossings. One of these box culverts is located at a stream
crossing within a floodplain. The anticipated results" or limits of expected impacts to the
floodplain are' minimal The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and local authorities, during the final design stage, to.-ensure `compliance
with applicable floodplain?ordinances.
• Hazardous spill basins will be, required at all stream crossings from the intersection of US 29
Business, (Freeway Drive) with S,R 2670 (South Scales Street) to the intersection of Freeway
Drive with SR 2500 (Lawndale`Drive).
Roadway Desigik Unit and 'Proaram Development Branch
• The Roadway Design Unit will coordinate with the City of Reidsville in the design of a sidewalk
proposed along the. eastern edge of US 29, Business (Freeway Drive). The sidewalk will be five
` feet in width. The sidewalk will begin on the northern side of the Lawndale'Drive (SR 2500)
intersection and will terminate at the intersection of Vance Street (SR 2525). The North Carolina
Department of. Transportation (NCDOT) will share eighty percent of the construction cost of the
sidewalk and the City of'Reidsville will share twenty percent of the construction costs. Any
additional right=of-way necessary to complete the sidewalk will be funded by the City" of
Reidsville.
s
• As approved by the Rockingham County Board of Education on February 13, 2006, permanent
right-of-way will be purchased from the Mos Street Elementary School property, along Moss
Street, in order to construct the project. No right-of-way,, including temporary or permanent
easements, will be purchased from or encroach onto the Moss Street Elementary School property
along US 29 Business (Freeway Drive). The Moss Street Elementary School fence, along
Freeway Drive, will be reinstalled upon completion of this widening project. Should the Moss
Street Elementary School sign be impacted due to construction, it will be reinstalled as part of
this widening project.
Finding of No Significant Impact
July 2007
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (F.ONSI). The FHWA has determined that this project will not have
any significant impact on the human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the
Environmental Assessment, which has been independently evaluated by - the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the
proposed project.
The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve US 29
Business (Freeway Drive) by widening the current two-lane facility to a multilane facility,
from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity and level of service of US 29 Business. The need is
based on the current facility operating near capacity. The traffic forecast for the 2025 design
year indicates that there will be a demand for a facility, with a higher vehicle capacity. The
proposed facility at this location should accommodate at least 18,000 addition vehicles per
day. The total length of this project is approximately 6.7 miles. Figures IA and 1B depict
the project location and vicinity.
The proposed improvements to US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) are federally funded
and are identified as Project Numbers U-3326A and U-3326B in the 2007-2013 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Section U-3326A, 2.0 miles in length, begins at
SR 2670 (South Scales Street) and ends at US 158 (Richardson Drive). Section U-3326B,
4.7 miles in length, begins at US 158 (Richardson Drive) and ends at NC 14. Both project
sections will be let to contract, simultaneously. Right-of-way acquisition and construction
for U-3326A and U-3326B are scheduled in federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, 'respectively.
The total estimated cost of the project is $56,899,250, consisting of $14,199,250 for right-of-
way acquisition and $42,700,000 for construction.
The proposed project is located in Rockingham County, in the northern piedmont area of
North Carolina. Within the Functional Classification System for highways and roads, US 29
Business is identified as an Urban Minor Arterial. in Section A of the project. Section A is
located within the Water Supply Watershed Protected Area of Lake Reidsville and
Troublesome Creek. In Section B, US 29 Business is designated as an Other Urban Principal
Arterial and is not included in any watershed areas.
Alternate 5 was selected as the preferred alternative for the project. This best-fit
widening alternate maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignments along Freeway
Drive and provides the best balance between roadway improvements and social -
environmental impacts throughout the project corridor. Two typical sections are proposed
for the US 29 Business improvements. A four-lane, raised curb and guttered median section
with eight-foot shoulders is proposed for U-3326A. Four feet of the shoulders will be paved.
These paved shoulders could accommodate bicycles from South Scales Street to Richardson
Drive, although no bicycle route is planned for Freeway Drive. The earthen shoulders are
recommended in Section A to avoid single-point discharges into the streams within the Water
Supply Watershed Protected Area of Lake Reidsville and Troublesome Creek.
In U-3326B, a four-lane, raised median section with curb and gutter is proposed.
Section B is more commercially developed than Section A and contains more spatial
constraints along the project corridor. Additionally, U-3326B is outside of the Water Supply
Watershed Protected Area. of Lake Reidsville and Troublesome Creek. The proposed
medians are 17.5 feet wide in both typical sections. A five feet wide sidewalk is planned for
a portion of the eastern side of Freeway Drive. The sidewalk will begin on the northern side
of the SR 2500 (Lawndale Drive) intersection in Section A and will terminate at the
intersection of SR 2525'(Vance Street). Figure 2A depicts the typical section for U-3326A,
while Figure 2B depicts the typical section for U-3326B.
III. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Constructing the proposed action will result in impacts to surface waters and
jurisdictional wetlands. In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), an Individual Permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
NCDOT will implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, as specified by
"NCDOT Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B.0024).
The proposed project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water W
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
Existing flood hazards along adjacent properties at all stream crossings will be evaluated
in the final hydraulics design to ensure that all practicable measures are taken to minimize
flooding problems to upstream properties. This action will be taken to ensure that the
proposed roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have an
adverse affect on the existing floodplain area or on the associated flood hazards. The
2
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local.
authorities, in the final design stage, to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain
ordinances.
IV. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Table 1 contains a summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the proposed
action. The impacts in this table are associated with Alternate 5 (Best-Fit), the preferred
alternate for this project.
Table 1: Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Category Units Proposed Action
Project Length Miles 6.7

R
id
i
l R
l
i Total 7
es
ent
a
e
ocat
ons
Minority
3

Bu
i
ti
R
l Total 17
s
ness
oca
e
ons
Minority
2

T
l R
l
i Total 24
ota
e
ocat
ons
Minority
5
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0
Potential Hazardous Material Sites Each 14
Wetlands Acres 0.023
Stream Impacts Linear feet 3,074
Protected Species Species 0
Noise (0 - 6 dBA) Impacted Properties
(Residence - Business 2
Architectural Resources Eligible Properties 0
Archaeological Resources Eligible Properties 0
Air Quality - Carbon Monoxide
Concentration NAAQS Standard * In Compliance
Construction Cost Dollars $ 42,700,000
Right of Way Cost Dollars $ 14,199,250
Total Cost Dollars $ 56,899,250
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Maximum CO permitted per hour average = 35 parts per million
3
V.- CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
_The Environmental Assessment was approved by NCDOT and FHWA in February
2006. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal,
state, and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*) indicates that a written
response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence received are included
in Appendix 1 of this document.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (USACE)
US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
* US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office (USFWS)
* US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office (USEPA)
US Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta (USEPA)
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Instruction
* NC Dept. of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO)
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
* Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Intergovernmental Affairs
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Rural Planning Organization)
Rockingham County Administration
Rockingham County Public Schools
City of Reidsville Administration
City of Reidsville - Department of Community Development
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSSMENT
A. US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office
Comment: "Due to the suburban/urban nature of the project area, the Service has minimal
concern at this time. Wetland impacts are small (0.02 acre) and stream impacts
are not unreasonable (2,580 - 2,744 linear feet of small headwaters). Although
unavoidable, we do note that impacts to upland forest edges are significant -
(33.8 acres of Piedmont Mixed Hardwood and 7.0 acres of Virginia Pine
Dominate Forest)."
Response: Comment noted. See Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters of
the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams.
Comment: "There are two federally protected species listed for Rockingham County -
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will have no
effect on both species. Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the
4
project will have no effect on the James spinymussel. Based on the results of
plant surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, the Service concurs that the project
will have no effect on the smooth coneflower. We believe that the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the EA have been satisfied."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and
wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the United States and the
potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources."
Response: Comment noted.
B. US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office
Comment: "The Summary of Impacts Table 1 is fairly comprehensive. Terrestrial forest
impacts are summarized in Table 8, page 36, of the EA. Excluding
maintained/disturbed areas, impacts to terrestrial forests for all three
alternatives are estimated at 41.1 acres."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "For the three widening alternatives (#1, 3 & 5), wetland impacts range
between 0.021 and 0.023 acres and stream impacts between 2,580 and 2,744
linear feet. As with other key environmental indicators, (residential and
business relocations, noise receptors, hazardous material sites, etc.), the impact
differences between the three alternatives are not substantial. The only real
differences are that Alternative 3 has two additional business relocations (18)
than does #1 or #5 (16), and stream impacts. Alternative #1 has the least
impact to streams: 2,580 linear feet."
Response: Comment noted. See Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters of
the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams.
Comment: "EPA does not have a 'preferred' alternative at this stage of the process and
would like to hear comments/concerns from other agencies at the next Merger
Meeting (CP 3 LEDPA)."
Response: The Concurrence Point 3 Meeting was held on March 15, 2007. Merger
Process Team concurrence was obtained for the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), Alternative 5.
Comment: "EPA has noted the environmental (Green sheet) commitments on page 1 of 1,
with emphasis on the hazardous spill catch basins at all stream crossings in the
first mile of the project area due to WS III CA."
Response: Comment noted.
C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality
Comment: "This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
5
Little Troublesome Creek and Troublesome Creek are class C; NSW waters of
the State and class WS III; NSW water of the State respectively. DWQ
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMP's are
implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to both creeks and their
tributaries. Little Troublesome Creek is identified as, 303(d) Waters of the
State, for impaired use for aquatic life due to impervious surface runoff
sources. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion
control BMP's be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Little
Troublesome Creek and its tributaries. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout the design and construction
of the project.. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS
CA (Water Supply Critical Area) classifications. Review of the project reveals
the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical Area in the
project area. The NCDOT will be required to design, construct, and maintain
hazardous spill catch basins in the project area. The number of catch basins
installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would
enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream, and in
consultation with DWQ."
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Part VIII. Agency Coordination for discussion of
hazardous spill basins and the avoidance and minimization of potential impacts
to Little Troublesome Creek. Refer to Section IX, Part. D: Jurisdictional
Topics, a. "Waters of the United States," for explanation of impact changes to
the streams.
D. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "At this time, the NCWRC does not have a preferred alternative. Due to the
urban nature of this project, we do not have any specific concerns, at this time.
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Impacts to streams vary
with alternatives and are expected to total approximately 2,580 to 2,744 linear
feet, impacting 18 streams. Impacts to wetlands vary from 0.021 to 0.023
acres.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. NCDOT has selected
Alternate 5 as their preferred alternative. Alternative 5 is a four-lane, median
divided facility with curb. and gutter in the business district and shoulder
section on the remainder of the project. NCDOT has conducted surveys for the
Federally Endangered P.leurobema collina (James spinymussel), it was
determined habitat is not present for this species within the project."
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters
of the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams. (Refer
to Appendix 1 for the resource agency comment sheets.)
6
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO
THE PUBLIC HEARING
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Combined Public Hearing
was held on May 16, 2006, in the Cafeteria of Reidsville High School in the City of
Reidsville. An informal open house session was held from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The
formal public hearing was then held at 7:00 p.m. Approximately 100 citizens attended both
sessions of the public hearing. Comments received during and since the combined public
hearing are summarized below.
The majority of comments focused on the proposed four-lane divided typical section for
Freeway Drive. Citizens and business owners along existing US 29 Business expressed
concern regarding access to their properties once a four-lane divided facility is constructed.
Some business owners felt that patronage and profits will be negatively impacted due to a
loss of direct access to Freeway Drive. Additional median breaks and full-movement median
openings were requested to reduce negative impacts to business and property owners along
US 29 Business and Richardson Drive. Many business owners and citizens expressed
support for the widening of Freeway Drive; however, most respondents favored the
construction of a five-lane facility enabling right and left-turn access from a center turn-lane
to businesses along the project.
On September 12, 2006, NCDOT personnel met with representatives from the City of
Reidsville to discuss the construction of a four-lane divided cross-section for the widening of
Freeway Drive versus building a five-lane cross-section for this project. Based upon the
input and response from business owners, citizens and upon coordination with local officials,
the following revisions were made to the four-lane divided alternative preliminary plans.
(Refer to Figure 3A to 3R for the revised lane configurations that resulted from the above
plan revisions.)
• Three left-over movements were included along Freeway Drive.
• Six full-movement crossover revisions were included along Freeway Drive.
• Expressway gutter was added in several locations along Freeway Drive to reduce
impacts to business properties.
• In several locations, curb and gutter was added along Richardson Drive to reduce
impacts to business properties.
• Loop and ramp revisions were made to reduce impacts to business properties at the
interchanges and to allow adequate spacing between adjacent median openings.
• The Harrison Drive interchange alignment was shifted and dual Freeway Drive
bridges were added to eliminate the necessity of a temporary construction detour.
• The proposed access road along Freeway Drive for the Harris property was relocated.
• A control-of-access break was provided along North Scales Street for the Martin
property-
• A control-of-access break was provided along Freeway Drive for the Burton
Cemetery and the Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville Property.
• State Street was revised to a curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms. The
roadway width was increased from 18 feet to 20 feet.
7
• The alignment for the service road in the vicinity of State Street was shifted closer the
Freeway Drive alignment and revised to a curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet
berms. The roadway width was increased from 18 feet to 20 feet.
• A portion of SR 2670 (North Scales Street) was revised to a local design typical
section from an arterial typical section to reduce impacts to adjoining properties. (8
feet shoulder, 4:1 front slope, and variable 2:1 to 4:1 back slope).
NCDOT was notified on January 17, 2007, that the Reidsville City Council approved the
construction of the four-lane divided cross-section, including the revisions listed above, for
the US 29 Business-Freeway Drive project. This decision was based upon input and
response from business owners and citizens within the project limits.
VIII. AGENCY COORDINATION
A Section 404 / National Environmental Polity Act (NEPA) Merger Team was formed
for this project and consists of representatives from the following state and federal agencies:
• US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (USACE)
• US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration - NC Division (FHWA)
• US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office (USEPA)
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office (USFWS)
• NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO)
• NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA)
• Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Rural Planning Organization) - Non-Signatory
Merger Team Meetings were held to review the project purpose and need, the
alternatives under consideration and impacts associated with the alternates. On March 15,
2007, the Merger Team selected Alternate 5 as the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for this project. Alternate 5 is presented in this FONSI and
is the preferred alternative for the US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) improvements. During
the LEDPA Merger Meeting, the Merger Team also discussed avoidance and minimization
measures for this project and reached concurrence on Point 4A. Hazardous spill basins will
be installed at all stream crossings located in the water supply watershed protected area. This
will occur from the project beginning, at the intersection of US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
with SR 2670 (South Scales Street), and will end at the intersection of Freeway Drive with SR
2500 (Lawndale Drive). Interchange ramp and loop environmental footprints were reduced to
further minimize the jurisdictional impacts of this project. Refining alignments, increasing
slopes in some areas and using improved mapping for quantifying impacts were additional
avoidance and minimization measures agreed upon during the Concurrence Point 4A
Meeting. The Merger Team will revisit Avoidance and. Minimization of jurisdictional stream
impacts for the Little Troublesome Creek crossing during the Concurrence Point 4B Meeting.
The 30% Hydraulic Plan Meeting (Concurrence Point 4B) will be held by the Hydraulics
Unit on a future date. During this meeting, additional slope design measures for the crossing
of Little Troublesome Creek will be evaluated. (Refer to Appendix 2 for the Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreements.)
IX. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Structures
One additional bridge is proposed for the project. Dual bridges on Freeway Drive are
now proposed for the NC 87 / NC 65 (West Harrison Street) interchange. Realigning the
'interchange slightly to the north and proposing dual structures will eliminate the necessity of
a temporary, on-site detour bridge to maintain traffic during construction of the project.
Retaining walls are proposed in several locations to minimize or avoid impacts to
business, church and cemetery properties within the project area.. Overall, 1,774 linear feet
of retaining wall will be built. The proposed northbound off-ramp of the NC 87 / NC 65
(West Harrison Street) interchange includes 1,180 linear feet of retaining wall. The
installation of this retaining wall is to minimize impacts to a business located in the
southeastern quadrant or Quadrant C of this interchange. Along Burton Cemetery on the
Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville property, 479 linear feet of retaining wall is
planned to avoid impacts to that property. Impacts to the Zion Tabernacle of Prayer Full
Gospel Church, Inc. will be minimized with a 115 linear feet retaining wall along SR 1998
(Wentworth Road).
A. retaining wall may be considered to further avoid or minimize impacts to the Little
Troublesome Creek crossing of US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) just north of SR 2462
(Sunnycrest Drive). The Merger Process Team will further discuss this option during the
Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for the 30%.Hydraulic Design Review, mentioned in Section
D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. Waters of the United States.
B. Design Details
Preliminary roadway design plans were presented to the public at a hearing on May 16,
2006. (See the public notice and public hearing brochure in Appendix 3.) Based upon the
comments and'suggestions from business owners and other citizens at the public hearing and
upon coordination with the City of Reidsville, the following plan revisions were made to the
four-lane median divided alternative:
¦ A left-over movement was added for SR 2942 (Rabbit Trail).
¦ A full-movement crossover was added for SR 2500 (Lawndale Drive).
¦ Expressway gutter was added along Freeway Drive to reduce impacts to the Huffman Oil
Company property.
¦ Expressway gutter was added along Freeway Drive to reduce the impacts to several
business owners in the area.
9
• Curb and gutter (2'-6") was added to reduce the impacts to the frontage of the Trent and
Thompson property along US 158 (Richardson Drive).
¦ Curb and gutter (2'-6") was added along US 158 (Richardson Drive) to reduce impacts to
the Goodman property.'
¦ Ramp D was deleted from the northeast quadrant of the Freeway Drive and US 158
(Richardson Drive) interchange.
¦ The Loop C configuration was revised to allow left turns from westbound traffic on US
158 (Richardson Drive).
¦ The concrete island was removed from the west ramp terminal to SR 2414 (Reid School
Road) to allow left turns into the Medical Complex on the Elton Trent property at US 158
(Richardson Drive).
• Ramp A of the Freeway Drive and US 158 (Richardson Drive) interchange was revised to
reduce the impacts to the Eye Care Center property.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Freeway Crossings.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Reidsville Center.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Vance Crossings.
¦ The NC 87 / NC 65 (West Harrison Street) Interchange alignment was shifted and dual
Freeway Drive bridges were added to eliminate the necessity of a temporary construction
detour. Freeway Drive will have dual structures over NC 87 / NC 65. Ramp A was
deleted and Loop B added, aligning the ramp and loop terminal across from SR 2065
(Mark Road) to allow commercial access. The Access Road intersection to NC 87 / NC
65 was relocated 400 feet to the west.
¦ A full-movement crossover for Duke Power was added along Freeway Drive.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added at Sparks &. Sons Service Station.
¦ The Access Road intersection for the Harris property was relocated to the Sparks & Sons
and Barbara Loy property line along Freeway Drive. A driveway access to the Sparks &
Sons parking lot was added along Freeway Drive.
¦ The SR 2670 (North Scales Street) Interchange-Ramps B and C were revised to provide
better spacing from the acceleration/deceleration lanes to the full-movement crossover at
Sparks & Sons Service Station. The acceleration/deceleration lengths of Loops B- and C
were revised to provide better spacing to the back-to-back left-over movements at the
proposed Food Lion and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. driveways. A control of access
(C/A) break was provided. at SR 2670. (North Scales Street) for the Martin property.
¦ A C/A break was provided at along Freeway Drive for the Little Salem Christian Church
of Reidsville property.
¦ Back-to-back left-over movements for Food Lion and Lowes were added approximately
850' west of NC 14 along Freeway Drive.
¦ Transition areas from US 158 (Richardson Drive) were revised to local ditch design (4:1
front slope, 8 feet width and 4:1 back slope). The 2'-6" curb and gutter was extended
from Richardson Drive.
¦ Transition areas from NC 87 / NC 65 were revised to local ditch design (4:1 front slope, 8
feet width and 2:1 back slope). 2'-6" curb and gutter was added on NC 87 / NC 65 to
reduce the impacts to Love Tractor Sales, Inc.
¦ State Street was revised to a 2'-6" curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms. The
width was changed from 18 feet to 20 feet.
10
¦ The alignment of the service road in the vicinity of State Street -was shifted closer to
Freeway Drive and revised to a 2'-6" curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms.
The width was changed from 18 feet to 20 feet.
¦ SR 2670 (North Scales Street) was revised to a local design typical section from an
arterial typical section (8 feet shoulder, 4:1 front slope, and a variable 2:1 to 4:1 back
slope).
C. Typical Section
A four-lane, median divided facility is proposed for the entire project length of 6.7
miles. The project improvements, from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to US 158
(Richardson Drive), will be constructed with earthen outside shoulders, four feet of which
will be paved. The paved shoulders can accommodate bicycles along this portion of the
project. The remaining 4.7 miles of the project in U-3326B is highly commercial and will
include curb and gutter to reduce impacts to the adjacent business properties. The curb and
gutter section is proposed along US 29 Business / Freeway Drive from US 158 (Richardson
Drive) to NC 14, the northern project terminus. Figure 2A shows the shoulder typical section
for U-3326A. Figure 2B shows the curb and gutter typical section proposed for U-3326B.
Alternative 5 was chosen as the preferred alternative for this project. This decision was made
in collaboration with an interagency team including the NCDOT, the FHWA, the USACOE,
the USEPA, the USFWS, the NCDWQ, the NCSHPO, Piedmont 'Triad Council of
Governments and various other local officials. After evaluating all of the available
environmental information, including quantifiable impacts, non-quantifiable impacts and
qualitative impacts, the interagency team selected Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1, -the four-lane, median divided alternative which included earthen shoulders
along the entire project length, was not chosen due to the many impacts it would impose
upon adjacent business properties in Section B. Alternative 3, the five-lane alternative with
earthen shoulders along the entire project length, was not chosen for safety reasons, as well
as for the many impacts that the earthen shoulders would impose on existing business
properties in Section B. "The Advantages of the Four-Lane, Median Divided Section" is
shown in Appendix 4.
D. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Project wetlands and streams were verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers
in January 2004. Prior to the Merger Team Meeting for Concurrence Points 3 and 4A, an
error in the stream impact calculation was discovered. The total stream impacts presented in
the Environmental Assessment for all three studied alternatives should have contained an
additional 330 feet. Table 2 shows the anticipated wetland and stream impacts as compared
to the quantities presented in the Environmental Assessment. Jurisdictional water impacts
were minimized by adding hazardous spill basins, refining alignments, increasing slopes in
some areas, reducing interchange ramp and loop sizes and using improved mapping for
quantifying impacts. The Merger Team will revisit Avoidance and Minimization of
jurisdictional stream impacts for the Little Troublesome Creek crossing during the
11
Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for the 30% Hydraulic Design Review. Figure 4 shows the
wetlands and the water resource locations within the project area.
Table 2: Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts
Environmental Assessment Wetland Current Wetland Impacts
Inn pacts - Alternate' 5 Alternate 5
0.023 Acres 0.023 Acres
Environmental Assessment Stream Current Stream Impacts
Impacts - Alternate 5 Alternate 5
2,744 Linear Feet 3,074 Linear Feet
E. Air Quality Analysis
Rockingham County was designated as a moderate non-attainment area for
ozone (03) under the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November
22, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reclassified Rockingham County from a
moderate non-attainment area to a marginal non-attainment area. Rockingham County is
currently under an Early Action Compact. The effective date of the non-attainment
designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008. Section 40 CFR, Parts 51 and 93, are not
applicable until April 15, 2009 (one year after the non-attainment designation becomes
effective). An explanation of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) is shown in Appendix 5.
F. Relocation Impacts
Table 3 compares the relocation information provided in the Environmental
Assessment to the updated relocation data. The Environmental Assessment identified seven
residential and sixteen business that will be displaced in Alternative 5 (Preferred). Based on
preliminary plan revisions since the public hearing, one additional business will be displaced.
Since there are many small businesses located along Freeway Drive within the project area,
the displacement of seventeen businesses is not a significant impact within this commercial
district. It is likely that some of these displaced businesses may relocate within the project
area or commercial district. Due to the increased capacity and level of service resulting from
the project along Freeway Drive, the displacement of these businesses will not affect the
proposed land use in this commercial district.
12
Table 3: Relocation Impacts

Displacees Relocations Identified in the
Environmental Assessment Revised Relocation.
Information..
Owners 4 4
Tenants 3 3
Residential
Total
7
7
Minority 3 3
Owners 10 11
Tenants 6 6
Business
Total
16
17
Minority 2 2
Farms 0 0
Non-Profit Organizations 0 0
G. Control-of-Access
A break in the control-of-access for the SR 2670 (North Scales Street) interchange with
Freeway Drive will be provided adjacent to the Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville
Property. This control-of-access break along the southbound lanes of US 29 Business
(Freeway Drive), just north of the SR 2670 (North Scales Street) interchange will be allowed
for entry to the church property and Burton Cemetery.
A second break in the control-of-access for this interchange will be provided along SR 2670
(North Scales Street) for the electrical supply company currently occupying the Mitchelene
A. Martin property.
H. Publicly-Owned Land
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, a narrow parcel of right-of-way measuring 0.02
of an acre will be acquired from the Moss Street Elementary School property in order to tie
back to the existing grade along Moss Street. The right-of-way purchase is considered a "De
Minimuis" action by the Federal Highway Administration and will have no adverse impact
upon the elementary school property or corresponding facilities. A letter of approval from
the Rockingham County Board of Education is shown in Appendix 6.
I. Sidewalks
As part of this improvement project, the 10-feet wide, multi-use path originally proposed
along Freeway Drive within the Environmental Assessment, will now be constructed as a 5-
feet wide concrete sidewalk. The City of Reidsville has agreed to share the cosi of the
13
sidewalk by twenty percent with the NCDOT. The sidewalk begins at Lawndale Drive, as
noted in the Environmental Assessment. Instead of terminating at the Little Troublesome
Creek crossing of Freeway Drive, the concrete sidewalk is proposed to continue northward to
the intersection of Vance Street. The concrete sidewalk location will alternate between the
berm and the toe of the fill slope within existing right-of-way. At the Little Troublesome
Creek crossing, the sidewalk is proposed along the berm. As such, no pedestrian bridge will
be necessary in this location. A letter of agreement from the City of Reidsville regarding this
sidewalk design revision is shown in Appendix 7.
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the environmental impacts for the proposed project and upon
comments from federal, state, and local agencies and the public, the finding of the Federal
Highway Administration is that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon
the human or natural environment.
The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint and no significant impacts
to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. Although seventeen
business relocations are expected, this is a small percentage of the existing business within
the Freeway Drive commercial area. It is also likely that some of these displaced businesses
will be relocated within the project area. Since the project area includes eighteen stream
crossings, the impact to 3,074 linear feet of streams is not excessive in the course of
widening this existing urban arterial. Earthen shoulders are proposed in the water supply
watershed protected area of Reidsville Lake and Troublesome Creek. Narrow medians and
curb & gutter are proposed in the commercial area to reduce the impacts to business
properties along Freeway Drive. Reducing the expected congestion along Freeway Drive
within the project area will boost the economy of this commercial district in the City of
Reidsville. Citizens within the project area were receptive to widening Freeway Drive and
understood that these improvements would increase the capacity and level-of-service along
this section of US 29 Business.
In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement
nor further environmental analysis will be required.
14
FIGURES
Figure 1A: Project Vicinity
Figure 113: Project Location
Figure 2A: Typical Section - Shoulder
Figure 2B: Typical Section - Curb & Gutter
Figure 3: Revised Lane Configurations
Figure 4: Wetlands and Streams
??:;}•. '•+ _ :::?. / 7 y f?s? Iw•W/ • . •1913,,
011
.I • .?,: '7rof S. slots / ot,f
min
?\ ^ ?/ , 73i_slfL•. te•,•n? "1, ffi1 k: ?p,•°aw• ` "+ C'``
:m IIIIIIII
maw i7C
., Ala=. ?? i- , • a •t. r
j • :...u .........
1i:1 ,eta •? . , • '
1 711 Ci,
W-1 li!1 i13 I t•%'.?:? Nem•sa ,? +) ?.S J' !Slater
f. I _1 / tu.
„ A?f? - - ???'eth ss_i L,' (.' •`?: `. 9 Creu•r4 ?"• ,.., V... ,30
a ? •,ii., ,:. +? 13-•r • ,N1 +. ,. / ,,3 I Qom:
-=I t. . v• ,'+j9,ti•''.. _.li ?S ..
191! Q ,e , v •?17? ,_elt ?? ?,?g ?,.•su]°
7!7L y,?, '• ( • • ,?d 't.2-.•?` K ? r
1531 „• •J ,•_' a 'J \ e:• v b? sfo .
END
Iss , ]su `'` PROJECT ?> s•a.r ,,,? '
7v1
1 wyerwo°rN •s, ViMi, . ,.`
I(
36
715. .. ?wL ` 1- .ot. lis
c / % ''•
_
11 e 9' I • i ;),/`:• O Imo! J .7 ::...
v/• '' REIDSVIIIE uy-I
a r 1,,:
'
r . .•7• .• • " ?•? \
iIIAL t Cn.e 11!4 1 • .Ct 13 493
w_a \
1 ` y ?? r 1f71 I w? g y 4. f o. UK
' s
1 ?' • lllL` .1 :lt: •t \ I Il?! 1119L
1
7!!? ti". ,:y?._-. .? I •t? 1111'
1.2
2AII 1.2. 'IX -f
WWI
.. • L>3 •1 • • 1u
LS3 li•/
ML 1.f1 7591 ? ILL a Itl1 IN 111J -•J ? ?` ••' ?1 ja' G°eM ? 1 ?
ua ma BEGIN. su/ ,?? av.l
scg-? `'1„i ?i PROJECT 1u, ?? ,a ?U ,u , R I r?
31LL ma 111ww1ew ••, 1l11 , / ••. :. ,:ti ?'• 1. ^ if.1 1
1Sf7 T. Iv I +o 1 1 L? ` ` y
/
loop
im .,T
101
.? 1ug >::s
PROJECT LOCATION
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- ?.
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Qt
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 29 BUSINESS (FREEWAY DRIVE)
FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET)
• TO NC 14 IN REIDSVILLE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
TIP NO.: U - 3326A/B
FIGURE 1A PROJECT VICINITY
r ?-

"
• ! .?r.L..?._
c`?
_ .L r: e :;1 ? -I .t
l
i
y o rt:::y

c4d

1 N1 ?i
OP O`N ^I ? p ??5::??°' P?D94D p •"? ,:;?.?•,• Q? C nl 0 '?O`? ....^,?-.^•: ??1
''rDt
St.
- 0000,0011 1 - v? ??i SI 57
n +
1 mss' D Vi
r
0
U o c? wtW.Y .
1 a:::;: ? w ? N hi ? +
? o F:t;:i h n " I
p
¦" k,
w 0 w n /
SOUTHEIth
1 Ct?}i:•: n 2s' i
.04 OL9Z as l I o: Stoles I x Cll?
l:;'t g0
•i II !•_.•?:tij: ?? ni YID' ^I ?
IrD°ryi ?^ t
^ n!
? °? ,I,rpU
n
CO Lu 4N
__j 01
o
o: :.:;•. > 44
N ? D °r
^ P4
1
?.: Q I w k, a
Ln
a
N
? ( 0 C'
?o ' z A 0a o 4%b, L; a .1
%D 41%# G] ? 1 C4
a f Pr• A ' l
17
?:.;.}• p ty ni
nl
4?• /
tri
000
=1 L •` ``i,? 1111,111l..II!1 / °n .'.Q /I2M'o82` //
PI"
I ? .
a. n
I n• ^^ I a
r 16 C? Do- % .OS . [I n, I z O .
? - _ _ a o .,I ,n w
-mvsvn h
I 1 ^ n SiC
O Y
?T^rr
•\1
? my Z
:
?CreeF. I
0.e
CI4
e ?
1
::;i • ova 1
m 0
H
W (Qo j
W
U-i
S ONW Q
3a>Za 0
u a0C a
V
vZQD
c Wy?Z0
IL
to 2
J
mNO0P
Nd1F
OD
i i ?O W
ft Ix
W 0
; .X F

, Z L)
I h :E
t d
P4 0

110
• n M ?
I
_ /

+:J

L o3i i
!

i L
^ N
6.C
i
e?• 1
n
t,
n; l
nl °
.o
L 9"
n?

Z
O
V
W
NI
w
W
L
W
?.- 0
Q N
Z
tie a
W ui
Q >
O
W
Z
cvl_
D
O
LL
a
W-
Y
D
N
W
CC
U
Z
O
U
W
CC
Q
3
all
w
LL
vi
m
N
to
%0 Q
N CV
M
?? ti

LO
W
Q
Z
Ime
W
H
Q
Z
O
V
W
V)
w
W
0
Cl
Z
Q
m
V
in
0
?I
W
Z
tile
D
O
LL
Q
V
tzp

N
w
Z
,0I
N
N
CC :51U-

SR 2670
(SOUTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)

tititr
SOUTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)

SR 2670 '
(SOUTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
4ILL
NM*
=No

lif
SOUTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
IFONSD
4ILL

FIGURE: M
SR 2942
(RABBIT TRAIL)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
?o
mm*
RABBIT TRAIL - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
SR 2942
(RABBIT TRAIL)
dO1S
O j
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
mop
mm
no*
RABBIT TRAIL - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& EB
4¦
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
SR 2500
(LAWNDALE DRIVE)
.LAWNDALE DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)

US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
mop
STOP
Mm*
SR 2500
(LAWNDALE DRIVE)
LAWNDALE DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
RIQUR& 3C
SR 2137
(McKOY ROAD)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)

L
q
4 em
- •
mo 0 Iff
=
m*
mmo
T
m ft
SR 2512
(SOUTH PARK DRIVE)

McKOY ROAD/ SOUTH PARK DRIVE US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2137
(McKOY ROAD)

• Now
US 29 BUSINESS
•
(FREEWAY DRIVE) • T?
m
w* ?

._.? T
m
ft
SR 2512
(SOUTH PARK DRIVE)

McKOY ROAD./' SOUTH PARK DRIVE-US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURF& M
US 158
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
. ?-
• SR 2414
• (REID SCHOOL ROAD)
If
REID SCHOOL ROAD - US 158
(EA)

Us Ise
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
It .4 *0%=
• SR 2414
(REID SCHOOL ROAD)
• THE INTERSECTION WILL BE RELOCATED
AN ADDITIONAL 170 FEET WEST OF THE
LOCATION PROPOSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT. THE INTERSECTION IS NOW
PROPOSED 700 FEET WEST OF THE
EXISTING LOCATION.
REID SCHOOL ROAD - US 158
(FONSI)
FIGURE- sE
Us Ise
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
US 29 BUSINESS •
(NORTHBOUND RAMP)
mow
T?
US 158 (NORTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
Us Ise
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
?l
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND LOOP)
US 29 BUSINESS •
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
US 158 (NORTHBOUND RAMPS) US 29 BUSINESS
WONSD
FIGURE: V
FREEWAY
CROSSINGS
dOlS
j
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) MOP
FREEWAY CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
FREEWAY
CROSSINGS
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) map
No*
FREEWAY CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGURE SG
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
OEM*
STOP
REIDSVILLE
CENTER
-REIDSVILLE CENTER - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
4 ¦
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
REIDSVILLE
CENTER
REIDSVILLE CENTER - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 3H
SR 2462
(SUNNYCREST DRIVE)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
d i

mop
ME*
NM*
SUNNYCREST DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2162
(SUNNYCREST DRIVE)
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) ¦EM
ty
MEN*
SUNNYCREST DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& 2
VANCE
CROSSINGS
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) _?
STOP
VANCE CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
VANCE
CROSSINGS
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) mop
STOP
mm*
VANCE CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGURE: i]
NC 65 - NC 87
US 29 BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND RAMP)
.
X11
NC 65 - NC 87
NC 65-NC 87 (SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
NC 65 - NC 87
US 29 BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND ON-RAMP)
US 29 BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND LOOP)
!1 ? .r

111
SR 2055 (MARK ROAD)
-YISC- (SERVICE ROAD) HAS BEEN
RELOCATED 424 FEET WEST OF
THE MARK ROAD / NC 66-NC 87
INTERSECTION.
NC 6S - NC 87
NC 65-NC 87 (SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: X
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
?p
mmy
Mwy
DUKE POWER - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
DUKE POWER
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
d 4k
4¦
rrm
MOP
??
mmo
DUKE POWER - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& 3L
DUKE POWER
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
I
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
1i
.000
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - NORTHBOUND RAMP)
AND US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
1
US 29 BUSINESS •
(NORTHBOUND LOOP)
l? •
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - NORTHBOUND RAMP)
AND US 29 BUSINESS
WONSI)
FIGURE. SM
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
L
4

SITE DRIVEWAY
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AND SITE DRIVEWAY
(EA)
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS SITE DRIVEWAY
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
•
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AND SITE DRIVEWAY
(FONSD
FIGURE: SN
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
(dO1S ,
t STOP
LOWE'S
FOOD LION/ LOWE'S - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
FOOD LION
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
f
DRIVEWAYS. WERE RELOCATED 250 FEET
SOUTH OF EXISTING LOCATIONS. (W FEET
SOUTH OF NC 14). BACK TO BACK
LEFT-OVER MOVEMENTS WERE INCLUDED
IN THE MEDIAN AT -L- (FREEWAY DRIVE)
STA. 314 * S0.
LOWE'S
FOOD LION/ LOWE'S - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
dOlS
Map
mml?
mv
«Z.
he=
FIGURE: 30`
FOOD LION
moons-
?N
0US 29 BUS:
S?Z Nd6,
RICHARDSON DRIVE- US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
? 2a1?
S?
.9N
y?
O•c? US 29 BUS.
?O
s?
RICHARDSON DRIVE- US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURM 3P
A
V
2
co
Z
?9
e?S
HARRISON STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
2
CD
2 F.0
MP
?s
?9
e?S
HARRISON STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 30
&s
SR 2670
F? Z610
5
NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
?1s
?9
SR 2670
5R Z670
NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSU
FIGURE- 3R
U-3326B)?
t U-3326A,
CAPE FEAR ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN RIVER BASIN
WETLANDS
a ry?^p STREAM 14 a 0.017 AC.
a yQ UT-LTC
US 29 BUS. j
(FREEWAY DRIVE) STREAM 13
LITTLE
AM 18 TROUBLESOME
•LR CREEK
STREAM 12
UT • WOLF
ISLAND CREEK
STREAM 11
1 UT • WIC\
l?M 10 CULVERT No. 1:
STREAM No. 8, UT - WIC
WIC (Ex. SB, 7'x r RCBC)

0r
SR 1438 sR ?.
12
1 Opy ??? o'.,
m
lob
N
J? ?P y
STREAM 16
UT • LR \ STREAM 16
UT•LAKE HAZARDOUS
`REIDSVILLE SPILL BASINS
REQUIRED
(First Mile of Project)
X10
M1610 ?
5IL00y `
J5 Z??
LL
WATER SUPPLY
WATERSHED
PROTECTED AREA %
(First Two Miles of Project)
BEGIN PROJECT
STREAM 8
UT • WIC
STREAMS
UT • wIC
REIDSVILLE
100-YR. 6 500-YR.
FLOOD ZONES
GL NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 29 BUSINESS (FREEWAY DRIVE)
FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET)
TO NC 14 IN REIDSVILLE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
TIP NO.: U - 3326
FIGURE 4: WETLANDS AND STREAMS SHEET 1 OF 1
OR,
0
o )
Np G STREAM 17
N? ?? /oR S-19 UT • UT4 (MC)
m? lip 4G 1
4 S
STITREMC6 Y
CULVERT No. 2: ?
STREAM No. 7 UT - WIC R;A STREAM 3
C r UT . WIC
(Ex D6, 8'x 8' RCBC) USTREAM 4 T WI '
% SR
STREAM 5j
UT - VVIC
FIGURE 4: WETLANDS AND STREAMS
CULVERT No. 3
STREAM No. 2, UT • WI
(Ex. SO, 6'x 6' RCBC(
V EAM 1
-WIC
END
ECT
ym
?m
10'GN
APPENDIX 1
Federal and State Agency
Environmental Assessment
Comments
w "` c0
United States Department of the Interior rPR 1
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE p v ?•:. r...?
Raleigh Field Office
Post Ot?ice Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
April 10, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your March 28, 2006 letter which requested comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife'Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the
widening of-US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in
Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3326). These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to the FEA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 6.7 mile portion of US 29 Business from two lanes to four or five lanes. There are three
build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 5),with Alternative 5 being the NCDOT-preferred
alternative.
The Service has been actively involved in the combined Section 404/NEPA Merger Process and
will continue to provide input through that process. Due to the suburban/urban nature of the
project area, the Service has minimal concern at this time. Wetland impacts are small (0.2 acre;
and stream impacts are not unreasonable (2,580 - 2,744 linear feet of small headwaters).
Although unavoidable, we do note that impacts to upland forest edges are significant (33.8 acres
O'L P iclmont 14ixed i'lard'v?ood and 7.0 acres of v'irginia Pine Dominant Forc3L).
There are two federally protected species listed for Rockingham County - James spinymussel
(Plectrobenra collina) and smooth coneflower (E'chinacea laevigata). NCDOT has determined
that the proposed project will have no effect on both species. Due to the lack of habitat, the
Service concurs that-the project.will have no effect on the James spinymussel. Based on the
results of plant.surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, the Service concurs that the project will
have no effect on the smooth coneflower. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must
be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; .(3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat..determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
`Pete Benham
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ, Winston-Salem, NC
Todd Tugwell, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
Subject: EPA Review of Federal EA for U-3326, US 29 Business, Rockingham Co.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:56:16 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail],nc.us
CC: Iston e@dot. state. nc. us, [e-mail]. nc.us, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Karen: Thank you for getting me a copy of the EA for review. EPA has completed its review of the February 2006 Federal EA
for this 6.7 mile long widening Merger project and I offer the following comments:
1. The summary of impacts Table 1 is fairly comprehensive. Terrestrial forest impacts are summarized in Table 8, page 36 of
the EA. Excluding maintained/disturbed areas, impacts to terrestrial forests for all three alternatives are estimated at 41.1
acres.
2. For the 3 widening Alternatives (#1,3 & 5), wetland impacts range between 0.021 and 0.023 acres and stream impacts
between 2,580 and 2,744 linear feet.
3. As with other key environmental indicators (Residential and business relocations, noise receptors, hazardous material
sites, etc.), the impact differences between the 3 alternatives are not substantial. The only real differences are that
Alternative 3 has 2 additional business relocations (18) than #1 or #5 (16), and stream impacts. Alternative #1 has the
least impact to streams: 2,580 linear feet.
4. EPA does not have a 'preferred' alternative at this stage of the process and would like to hear comments/concerns from
other agencies at the next Merger meeting (CP 3 LEDPA).
5. EPA has noted the environmental (Green sheet) commitments on page 1 of 1, with emphasis on the hazardous spill catch
basins at all stream crossings in the first mile of the project area due to WS III CA.
As we discussed on the telephone, I believe this project needs to remain in the Merger process and perhaps a combined CP
3/CP 4A meeting can be scheduled. .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions, please call me.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
-9 4 rmi/9nnR?_'10 PM
UZI Dort..... Carolina Wildife Resources Commission ?
Richard B, hanulani, Execurive Director
IvIEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ?-.
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 25, 2006
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) Widening from SR
2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville, Rockingham County, North
Carolina. TIP No. U-3326, SCH Project No. 06-0296
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish'and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen US 29 Business from SR 2670 to NC 14 in Reidsville. The total
project length is approximately 6.7 miles. Impacts to streams vary with alternatives, and are
expected to total approximately 2,580 to 2,744 linear feet, impacting IS streams . Impacts to
wetlands vary from 0.021 to 0.023 acres.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. NCDOT has selected alternative 5 as their
preferred alternative, Alternative 5 is a four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter in
the business district and shoulder section on the remainder of the project. NCDOT has
conducted surveys for the Federally Endangered Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel), it was
determined habitat is not present for this species within the project. _..At-this time?the NCWRC
does not have a preferred alternative. Due to the urban nature of this project )we do not have any
specific concerns at this time.
E0 39ti8 PPPPP7CPTr_ cn:bT gatP7 ic7 /f7n -
Memo
2 April 25, 2006
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, 'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
00 39Vd
e,. 5TA7ro
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNmNT OF TRANSPORTATION

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 12`h, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO:
Jeanetta Furney
NC State Clearinghouse
Administrative Building, 5`h Floor, Room #5026
FROM: Hemal Shah
Transportation Engineer
Triad Group, - Transportation Planning Branch
SUBJECT:
06-E-4220-0296
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
These are comments from the NCDOT - Transportation Planning Branch regarding North
Carolina State Clearinghouse of Administration Intergovernmental Review # 06-E-4220-0296.
The NCDOT, TPB would like to make the PDEA aware that there is a current TIP # R-2580
Project impacting this TIP # U-3326
R-2580 calls for the widening to multilane of US 158, from US220 to US29 Business (Freeway
Dr).
Please see the attached graphic for a better view of these proposals. If you have a?iy further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 733-4705 or email at [e-mail].
Attachments

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1554
s® ® ?,T P G
www. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH. NC 27601
Phone [phone]
C
Cb
?F W ATFR
?? pG
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
914 >> ,,
N YAY2006 9-f April 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM eta arl
Iys Z;
To: Melba McGee
From. Sue Homewood, Division of Water Qua ? -Salem Regional Office 77if'_
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed improvements to US 29
Business (Freeway Drive) from existing SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to Existing NC 14
in Reidsville, Rockingham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-29B(1), State Project
No. 8.1511901, TIP U-3326.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project,as presented,will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ-offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
L This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. Little Troublesome Creek and Troublesome Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State and class
WS III; NSW water of the State respectively. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to both creeks and their
tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
3. Little Troublesome Creek is identified as a 303(d) waters of the State for impaired use for aquatic
life due to impervious surface runoff sources. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Little Troublesome
Creek and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water
runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
4. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified. as Water Supply Critical
Area in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled
"Design-Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NC AC 04B .0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS
CA(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2c).enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
TIP# U-3326
Page 2
The NCDOT will be required to design, construct, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins in the
project area. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the
bridge, so that runoff would enter.said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream, and in
consultation with the DWQ.
General Comments:
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical, In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will berequired for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream.. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream.impacts with corresponding
mapping.
8. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
9. , NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be perniitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
rlP# U-3326
Page 3
13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
14. Uncured concrete shall not come into contact with surface waters. Concrete is comprised mostly of
lime (calcium carbonate) and when uncured)is very soluble in water, has a pH of approximately 12
and may cause fish and macro invertebrate kills.
15. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
16. If multiple pipes or.barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Streram channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
17. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual and NCS000250.
18. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
19. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
20. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
TIP# U-3326
Page 4
21. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
22. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964 or
[e-mail].
cc: Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
GaryJordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ 401/Wetlands Transportation Unit
NOR DEPARTMENT OFAADMINISrTRATION INGHOUSE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
3'
EO2
STATE NUMBER: 06-E-4220-029.6.~,_:....- ,- ,
2006 ,... -
DATE RECEIVED:"b4704/
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/01/2006
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/.04/2006
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEV DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIEDMONT TRIAD COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE.-National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposed Widening of NC 29 Business
14; TIP #U-3326
REFERENCE NUMBER: 02-E-4220-0483
--7009
1?g ?D44+,.
S
N,
APR 200,6
ti
s.
t
Ro Lm-1 JGHA'r'
(Freeway Drive) from South Scales Street to NC
CROSS-
or
C. S our tate response clearinghouse
by ouse the above
The attached project has been submitted to the N.
YO
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit
date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301-
indicated [phone].
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING JS SUBMITTED:
M NO COMMENT
CO NTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE : 1 l 1 f
A? ;%'
APPENDIX 2
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project
Team Meeting Agreements
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 3: LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE
(LEDPA)
US 29-Business Widening Project, NCDOT Highway Division 7, Rockingham County
NCDOT TIP Project Nos.: U-3326A & U-332611, WBS No. 34942
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-2911(1) State Project No.: 8.1511901
TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen approximately 6.7 miles of
US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane facility from approximately 150 feet south of SR 2670 (South Scales
Street) to SR 2686 (Richardson Drive), under U-3326A, and from SR 2686 (Richardson Drive) to approximately
1,050 feet north of NC 14, under U-3326B. TIP Projects U-3326A and U-33 :)26B are to be let to contract together.
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA): Based upon the current project development
Information, the LEDPA is Alternative 5, which is a best-fit widening of US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a four-
lane, median-divided, shoulder-section for U-3326A and a four-lane, median-divided, curb & gutter section for
U-3326B.
The Merger Process Team met on March 15. 2007, and concurs with Alternative 5 as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for the proposed widening of US 29-Business (Freeway
Drive) in Reidsville, NC.
USACE '<' ? .'"_ J5^,?.??v7 NCDOT
/
d
Any Williams Date Karen S. Reyno d ' Date
US - :31 « ?ar7
Christopher A. Militschheer Date
'311 00 -7
Felix Davila Date
NC WRG--'?? Tiavis Wilson Date
USFWS_/b?? -3//5_/Z04-7
Gary JordariJ Date
All,
Lttv?d 1?aMwr;yle7 /Uat
NCDCR
to /07
Renee-61ed '
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A: AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
US 29-Business Widening Project, NCDOT Highway Division 7, Rockingham County
NCDOT TIP Project Nos.:. U-3326A & U-3326B, WBS No. 34942
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-2913(1) State Project No.: 8.1511901
TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen approximately 6.7 miles of
US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane facility from approximately 150 feet south of SR 2670 (South Scales
Street) to SR 2686 (Richardson Drive), under U-3 )326A, and from SR 2686 (Richardson Drive) to approximately
1,050 feet north of NC 14, under U-3326B. TIP Projects U-3326A and U-3 )326B are to be let to contract together.
Avoidance & Minimization: The jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable, based on current information and design available at this time. mod--?
• , ,Ltr? r ,?? ..Ult acG e? _t1_A_
The -merger Process Team met on March 15, 2007, and concurs with the avoidance and minimization
measures for the proposed widening of US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) in Reidsville, NC.
USACg/4 "'7
Andy Williams j Date
Christopher A. Militscher Da et
FHWA'-'X' 3 [.5( 'V.7
Felix Davila Date
NCWRC--?-
Travis Wilson Date
NCDOT a/u i,,,- 31151c,7
Karen S. Reynolds Date
USFWS _3!s _Zoo-2
Gary Jorda Date
NCDWQ 7,?s'e'7
S ed 4A 4-76 Date
?I a
NCDCR 311
Da e
six /'Vkf-?1 L_?F,=
APPENDIX 3
Design Public Hearing
Public Notice & Agenda
y
.NOTICE OF A COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET) TO NC 14 IN
REIDSVILLE
WBS No. 34924.1.1 U-3326 Rockingham County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. followed by a Formal Combined Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the cafeteria of
Reidsville High School, located at 1901 South Park Drive, Reidsville, 27320.
NC Department of Transportation representatives will be available in an informal
setting to answer questions and receive comments regarding the transportation
improvements for this project. The opportunity to submit written comments or questions
will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above
mentioned hours. The formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m.
This project proposes to widen US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane
roadway from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville. The purpose of the
project is to improve travel time and safety along the existing US 29 corridor in
Reidsville. The project is about 6.7 miles in length. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this .project.
A map setting forth the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the Reidsville City Hall located at 230 ' West Morehead Street, Reidsville,
27320 and at the NCDOT Division District Office located at 920 Montgomery Street,
Reidsville, 27323.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ed Lewis, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1593, or email elewisa-dot. state. nc.us. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing. .
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis at the .contact information above as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.

x
o ?
r
Of 1R Aa5C
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) Widening
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street)
to NC 14 in Reidsvile
TIP PROJECT U-3326
Federal Aid No. STP-29B (1)
WBS Number 34924
Rockingham County
Combined Public Hearing
Reidsville High School
1901 South Park Drive
Reidsville
Informal Open House 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
. Formal Presentation 7:00pm
May 16, 2006
.os I42!
»? ` uJ
..ar L.o
o
_
^nel

.10

:I
?I
I
I
1 ,
a..e sI I i
I a. a
yys tl .?
.a `
.11 0 •M
201 aw+
?I11L ^ 72f7
2AU I w
.o
I
I
31 7Jp
31 i "J
a .s 1 a...
a. ? v
r?
1 nyrt ar. ti r?
_ 1
Is•a
tea
zm1!
sui ,t va -
yl O o
n
4j1
N
W? y
ay .1
M..•1? A. .S E
as
v..a• au. ,e F
5?5 y. i
54
N
A
4
O
O
a 0
4 1:
5
_ of /
?!M
1Ne
' V1"I 5. x ?
s..
to
>f
w ILI!
'.I GI .e 7, t
?,1.w x73x
*
l
,l
l .., dr.
,bJ U

?

I
M W
moo

Ila .t om \ \ J „ o

L i? L J f
w
M
r C C V' -
I y _ ^ J Y
. n Z ? .
w a
M l

W
N?
9
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and level of service for US 29
Business (Freeway Drive).
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process. NCDOT is soliciting your views
on the location and design of the proposed widening of US 29 Business.
NCDOT's planning and environmental §tudies on the above project are presented in the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment. For the last 30 days, copies of this report and
today's hearing map have been available for public review at Reidsville City Hall located at 230 West
Morehead Street, Reidsville, and at the NCDOT Division District Office located at 920 Montgomery
Street, Reidsville.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several representatives of NCDOT are present at this meeting. Any of these people will be happy to
talk with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. Now that the opportunity is here,
you are encouraged to participate by voicing your comments to the NCDOT representatives at this
meeting, by writing. them on the comment. sheet and leaving it with one of the representatives, by
mailing them in by June 19, 2006, or by recording your statements during the formal hearing tonight.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Ed Lewis, Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
NCDOT
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that.THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY
MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings.
Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the alignment
by a majority vote of those present.
0
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has ended. NCDOT staff
representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, and Right of Way along with the Federal Highway
Administration will attend this meeting. When appropriate, local governmental officials also attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic service, social
impacts and public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may require additional study and
may be reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of
Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public. You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
Additional coordination about the project with federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources will
be done to obtain their comments about the project.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
"Capacity" is the number of cars and trucks that pass through a roadway section in an hour
depending on the roadway and traffic conditions. So capacity is measure of how well a road can
serve the amount of cars and trucks that use it. This measure is broken into six levels of service, or
LOS, with A being the best and F being the worst. For example, a big increase in the number of cars
and trucks on a section of road can cause congestion that decreases the capacity leading to a drop
in the LOS grade.. US 29 will operate at LOS F by the Year 2025 without the proposed
improvements. With the proposed improvements in place, US 29 Business would operatek overall at
LOS C in 2025.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
US 29 Business runs south to north within the project limits. It is identified as an Urban Minor Arterial
and an Other Urban Principal' Arterial in the Functional Classification System. The US 29 Business
corridor is included in local land use and development plans such as the Freeway Drive Corridor
Plan, the Reidsville Reflections 2010 Plan, and the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Reidsville.
U.1
The proposed project will widen miles of US 29 to a 4-lane freeway between SR 2670 (South
Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville.-..The project is divided into two sections (Project-0J 3326A and
Project U-33268). U-3326A begins at South Scales Street (SR 2670), ends at Richardson Drive (US
158), and is located within the water supply watershed of Reidsville Lake and Troublesome Creek.
U-3326B begins at Richardson Drive (US 158) and ends at NC 14. The project would have two 12'
wide lanes in each direction, a raised 17.5' wide curb and gutter median with shoulders to the outside
in Section U-3326A and curb and gutter to the outside in Section U-3326B.
The interchanges along the project will be re-designed as a result of the proposed widening, some
signals will be added, and the existing bridges will be replaced. The bridge carrying Wentworth
Street grade separation over US 29 Business will be replaced. Additional intersections will be re-
aligned to tie into US 29 Business at slightly different locations, and additional signals are proposed.
The majority of the project will have partial control-of-access (Generally one access to road per
parcel.). Full control-of-access (Generally no direct access to road) will occur at the three grade-
separated interchanges and corresponding interchange ramps within the project limits. The number
of driveway entrances will be reduced as well. Three two-lane, two-way service roads will be
constructed along Freeway Drive to provide access to those businesses that will lose their existing
access due to providing full control-of-access at the locations previously mentioned.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this project.
Great efforts were undertaken to limit the impacts of the proposed widening to the homes and
businesses. Although the posted speed limit has not been finalized at this time, the design speed is
50 miles per hour through the entire project.
The project is tentatively scheduled to start the right-of-way acquisition process in March 2008 and
the construction of the project is tentatively scheduled to start in October 2010. Please remember
that schedules may change.
ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
There are three build alternatives for US 29 Business proposed in the Environmental Assessment.
Alternative 1 maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignments along US 20 Business
(Freeway Drive). This is a "best fit" widening alternative that will provide two, 12-foot travel lanes in
each direction, a raised 17.5-foot curb and gutter median, and 8-foot shoulders on the outside. A
figure showing the typical section is attached.
Alternative 3 maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignment along US 29 Business. This
best fit, widening alternative provides two, 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a 16-foot center left
turn lane, and 8-foot outside shoulders. A figure showing the typical section is attached.
prid horizontal alignments along US 29.
Alternative 5 (Recommended) maintains the existing
Section A of this best.fit, widening altemative provides two, 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a
raised 17.5-foot wide curb and gutter median, and 8-foot outside shoulders. Section B is exactly the
same except it proposes curb and gutter to the outside. A figure showing the typical section is
attached. Alternative 5 is the recommended alternative.
A table showing each alternative and its summary of impacts is shown on the next page.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table I contains a comparative summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the
three build alternates. The impacts associated with the proposed project are described in
detail in Section III of this document.
Table 1: Summary of Impacts
Category Units Alternate 1 Alternate 3 Alternate 5
Project Length Miles 6.7 6.7 6.7
Residential Relocations Total 7 7 7
Minority 3 3 3
Business Relocations Total 16 18 16
Minority 2 2 2
Total Relocations Total 23 25. 23
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0 0 0
Potential HarArdous
Material Sites Each 14 14 14
Wetlands Each / Acres 3 / 0.021 3 / 0.021 3 / 0.023
Stream Impacts Each / Linear feet 18 / 2,580 18 / 2,614 18 / 2,744
Protected Species Species 0 0 0
Noise (0 - 6 dBA)_ Impacted Properties
(Residence - Business)' 2 2 2
Architectural. Resources Eligible Properties 0 0 .0
Archaeological Resources Eligible Properties 0 0 0
Air Quality :Carbon
Monoxide Concentration
NAAQS Standard '
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
Construction Cost Dollars S 41,300,000 S 41,100,000 S 42,700,000 .
Right of Way Cost. Dollars S 16,115,450 $ 16,537,900 S 14,199,250
Total Cost Dollars t 57,415,450 S 57,637,900, S56,899,2
50
Notes:
' National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Maximum CO permitted per hour average = 35 parts per million
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the State-
Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal funds and 20% State
Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of projects on
the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance cost after construction. The Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal-Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained to
Federal-Aid Standards.
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be staked' in
the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right of Way Agent will contact you and arrange
a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project will affect you. The
agent will inform you of your rights as a property owner. If permanent right of way is required,
professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The
evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then the. Right of Way
Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its highest and
best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you area relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of the project,
additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available. You will also be provided
with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments, moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional monetary
compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of
comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist business owners. The
Right of Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SIGN IN TABLE OR FROM
THE RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE.
Z
O
V
W
U)
ce
W
r ?
J
!-- O
Q =
Z
'+' Q
LOU w
J 0
Q _>
W
Qz
J
CG
O
U-
4.01
N
M
m
m
Z
_O
I-
Vi
M,. tW
W w
J
Z
ad Q.
W =
J N
a Z
W
N
3
%a
N
CV)
n
15 Nim
LO
W
Q
Z
w
W
t
Q
0
V
W
N
oG
W
0
LL
W-
LL.
?o
N
M
M

Z
O
V
W
(A
LO W
Z
Q Q
Z oC
fi.
L V
.J
Q W
•c
LL. N
t/7 CO)
N cj
W
y
co
COMMENT SHEET
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Combined Public Hearing - May 16, 2006
TIP Project No. U-3326 Rockingham County Project 34924
. NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
(Please include your thoughts about the three altematives along with your comments and questions.)
Comments must be received by June 19, 2006. Send comments to:
Ed Lewis, Senior Public Involvement Officer
Human Environment Unit
N. C. Department Of Transportation
1583 Mail Service Center----
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
900Z 19 L Asyy BuPssH ollgncl
£99 L-6691Z ON '451e18rd
-je;ueo eolAJeS 11eW £8S t
dun ;uewu0Lllnu3 usuinH - .LOa0N
sw?e-1 P3
9Z££-n
APPENDIX 4
Advantages of the Four-Lane,
Median Divided Section
ADVANTAGES OF THE FOUR-LANE MEDIAN DIVIDED FACILITY
Fact Sheet
Safety Benefits
• In comparison to a 5-lane facility with a central two-way left-turn lane, the four-lane divided median
facility separates opposing traffic and significantly reduces a wide range of common accidents,
including rear-end, right angle, head-on, and left-turn. The median also reduces property damage,
injuries and fatalities related to these accidents.
• By limiting motorist conflict points, medians eliminate potential conflicts such as: passing in the center-
turn lane; accelerating in the center-turn lane; head-on collisions; mid-block U-turns/crossing
maneuvers; and left-turns onto an arterial road.
• A median reduces driver confusion by concentrating maneuvers to an intersection where they are more
expected and more effectively controlled via traffic control devices. In comparison, many drivers do
not properly use center-turn lanes. Drivers who shadow, illegally pass, and accelerate in these lanes
are typically looking' for gaps and may not see another vehicle stopping or slowing immediately in
front of them, for example. During peak periods, the two-way turn lane becomes congested and
opposing vehicles attemptirig to turn left often rely on "courtesy gaps" and turn in front of slow
moving and standing traffic and are then struck by oncoming traffic in parallel lanes that does not see
these vehicles in time to properly react.
• As average daily traffic increases, the benefits of the four-lane divided median also increase in
comparison to the 5-lane facility-especially at a volume of 24,000 or higher.
• When left-turns are opposed by high volumes, movement is safer at. concentrated/well defined points as
provided by median divided sections.
• When through traffic nears 28,000 vehicles a day, motorists desiring to turn left from a 5-lane section
have difficulty finding a safe gap in oncoming traffic.
• A median section minimizes headlight glare from vehicles traveling in the opposing direction.
• A median section provides a refuge area for pedestrians (especially beneficial for elderly or handicap
persons) wishing to cross the facility.
Accident Reduction Data
• NCDOT engineers studied similar facilities along U.S. 421, N.C 132 and U.S. 17/Market Street in
Wilmington. From 1997 to 2000, the total accident rate of 4-lane divided facilities ranged from two
to six times less than the 5-lane facilities. In addition, for every 100 million vehicle miles of travel
the 4-lane median divided section will result in approximately $13.5 million dollars less in total cost
due to accidents than the 5-lane section.
• Research by the Georgia Department of Transportation revealed that 4-lane divided have 15% fewer
total accidents and 52% fewer fatal accidents than 5-lane sections.
• Michigan found they have 57% fewer accidents on 4-lane divided than 5-lane facilities and Florida
found they have 25% fewer accidents on 4=lane divided than 5-lane facilities.
• A study performed in Oregon on U.S. 101 in Newport-Lincoln City found that when a median is
provided the accident rates were relatively low even with a large number of access points. However
in the non-divided sections of the same facility, the number of accidents parallels the number of
access points.
• Replacement of a 5-lane section with a median divided section on Memorial Drive in Atlanta resulted in
a 47% reduction in the total crash rate on this facility and a 23% reduction in injury rates.
Secondary Benefits
• Medians improve traffic flow, which results in less congestion, less emissions and less consumption of
fuel
• Medians help the facility to operate at intended traffic speeds.
• Median divided sections require less pavement, resulting in less runoff, and provides the potential for
aesthetically pleasing landscaped areas.
• Medians maintain the integrity of the facility by encouraging quality development and promoting better
local management of land use.
• Median divided sections help to preserve community character
Note: More information on the safety studies and statistics outlined are available by calling BenJetta
. Johnson at [phone].
APPENDIX 5
Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
-3. U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
MSAT ATTACHMENT
In February 2006, the FHWA issued guidance for addressing Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs) in the environmental documents of all federally funded projects. All documents signed
by the FHWA after February 3, 2006 must include MSAT language that meets the required
guidance. Because no such language appeared in the Environmental Assessment, it is included
in the FONSI.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or
passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion
of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or
from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-
highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in Figure 1 below:
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards
were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority
of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21
and the primary six MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This document includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project.
-4- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Figure 1
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions,
2000-2020
VW
(trillionstyear)
6
DPM+DE+4G 07%

'ALOZ01'.ilt ?Q%7
i 36itarlkae (E 't;
0
Einissions
(tons/year)
200,000
100,000
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are
held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth
rate of 2.5%. "DPM + QEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic
carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts
of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this document. Due to these
limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project
would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling; dispersion modeling in order
to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in
order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination
of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by
technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the
MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited
applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are
projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This
means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific
:Iuuu 2005 2010 2015 2020
-5- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation,
MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be
present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller
projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed,
although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the
emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a
limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM
under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to
quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions.
MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses
between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of
travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current
regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a
decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to
determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more
accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location
within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure
patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess
potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying
models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also .will focus on
identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the
NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion
models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in
establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of
MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure
assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about
project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to
accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the
portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific
location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There
are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the
various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of
occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any
calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than
the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this
information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
.6- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of
MSATs Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types,
there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse
health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to
large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency
conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates
of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or
benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the
levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants.
The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that
may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is
located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized
MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries.
This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most
current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data
are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure.
• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and
sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal.
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination
of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer
hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could
produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships
have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The
Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has
undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and. other topics. The final summary
of the series is not expected for several years.
-7- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems l. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs,
instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot
evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that
would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do
allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects,
the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations
or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy
to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not
capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the
relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a
determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the
human environment."
For each alternative in this project, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build.Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase
in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The
emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds;
according to EPA's MOB11LE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except
for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related
emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due
to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is expected
there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various
alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than
present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected
to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may
differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and
local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be
lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of
- 8 - U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each
alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher
under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. Localized increases in MSAT
concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the west side of US 29 Business when
widening occurs to the west and along the east side of US 29 Business when widening occurs to
the east. Lesser increases in MSAT concentrations with respect to each side of the roadway will
occur when widening is symmetrical. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the
duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately
quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum,. when a highway is
widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for
the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset
due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover,
will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide
MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health
Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality);
NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental
Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.
APPENDIX 6
Rockingham County
Board of Education
Right-of-Way Acquisition Approval
Rockhigham County Schools
Rockingham County Schools
511 Harrington Highway
Eden, North Carolina 27288
February 15, 2006
Ms. Karen S. Reynolds
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
R. William Holcomb
Associate Superintendent
[phone]; FAX [phone]
Thank you for your presentation to the Board of Education this past Monday evening
pertaining to the'Moss Street/Freeway Drive Intersection in Reidsville. As you know the
Board approved the right-of-way acquisition with the understanding that there will be no
adverse impact on the Moss Street Elementary School or any of its amenities. The
Board did include in their motion that any costs for safety fencing or sign relocation
needed due to the right-of-way reconstruction be covered by NCDOT.
Thanks again for your help in. this matter. If I can be of any further help to you, please
call me at 336-627-2611.
Sincere y,
R. William Holcomb
Acting Superintendent
Teaching All Students to Become Productive Citizens and Lifelong Learners
APPENDIX 7
City of Reidsville -Sidewalk Design
Revision Agreement Letter
Ki
City of Reidsville 230 West Morehead Street, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320 • [phone]
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
July 3, 2007
Mr. Linwood Stone, CPIM
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, VC 27611
Dear Linwood:
This letter is in response to a telephone conversation that 114ichael Pearce and I
had with Jim Speer several months ago regarding the construction of a sidewalk along
Freeway Drive in Reidsville. As we discussed with Jim, we understand that there are
enviroivnental and logistical issues associated with building a 10-foot-wide asphalt trail
along Freeway Drive. Therefore, it is reasonable and perhaps more practical to construct
a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk instead. It is our understanding that this sidewalk will be
constructed from Lawndale Drive to Vance Street. It is further understood that the
Green-way Trail that the City will, be constructing from Sherwood Drive will be able to
link up to this sidewalk.
We appreciate the willingness of you and your staff to work out these types of
design issues with us, and we look forward to enjoying the final results of this project.
Sincerely,
D. Kelly Aiinond
City Manager
cc: Michael Pearce, Community Development Director
Pap clad
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Reidsville
Rockingham County
WBS Element 34924
Federal Project Number STP-29B(1)
State Project Number 8.1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
D 7 .?_? ??ib.AJ®
ate? Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., vironmental Management Director
?;roject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
t 1107
Date, D,,, _John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Adminisi
Federal Highway Administration
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Reidsville
Rockingham County
WBS Element 34924
Federal Project Number STP-29B(1)
State Project Number 8.1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
July 2007
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Karen S. Reynolds
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Engineer
Fric Midkiff, P.E.
Central Project Development Engineer
SEAL
19791
%S? ?NGINE? ?`???
i???/RICI M, *` \\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................1
III. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ..........................................2
r IV. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ................................................3
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................4
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSSMENT....... 4
A. US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office .................................. 4
B. US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office ............................... 5
C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality ........................................................... 5
D. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission .........................................6
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................... 7
VIII. AGENCY. COORDINATION ...................................................................... 8
IX. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................9
A. Structures ...................................................................................... 9
B. 'Design Details ................................................................................. 9
C. Typical Section ................................................................................ •11
D. Jurisdictional Topics, a. Waters of the United States ...................................11
E. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................12
F. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................12
G. Control of Access .................................................................... .......13
H. Publicly-Owned Land .........................................................................13
I. Sidewalks ......................................................................................13
w X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...............................14
TABLES Page
Table 1 Summary of Impacts ...................................................................
3
Table 2 Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts ..........................................12
Table 3 Relocation Impacts .....................................................................13
FIGURES
Figure 1A
Figure 1B
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
Figure 3
Figure 4
APPENDICES
Project Vicinity
Project Location
Typical Section - Shoulder
Typical Section - Curb & Gutter
Revised Lane Configurations
Wetlands and Streams
Appendix 1 ....... Federal and State Agency Environmental Assessment Comments
Appendix 2 ....... Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreements
Appendix 3 .......Design Public Hearing Public Notice & Agenda
Appendix 4 .......Advantages of the Four-Lane, Median Divided Section
Appendix 5 .......Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
Appendix 6 .......Rockingham County Board of Education Right-of-Way Acquisition
Approval Letter
Appendix 7 ....... City of Reidsville Sidewalk Design Revision Agreement Letter
PKUJEC'F COMMITMENTS
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive);
From SR 2670 (South Scales` Street) to NC, 14
Reidsville
Rockingham County
"S Element 34924
Federal Project Number STP-29B(1)
State Project Number-g.,1511901
TIP Project Number U-3326
Hydraulic Design `Unit
• The proposed widening project is mostly within existing right-of-way and involves the extension
of,.box culverts at three major, stream crossings. One of these box culverts, is located at a stream V
crossing within a floodplain. The anticipated 'results or limits of expected impacts to the
floodplain. are minimal: The, Hydraulics' Unit will coordinate with the Federal :Emergency
Management Agency and local authorities, during the final design stage, to ensure compliance
with applicable floodplain ordinances.
• Hazardous spill basins will be required at all stream crossings from'the intersection of US 29
Business (Freeway Drive)' with SR 2670 (South ` Scales Street) Ito the intersection of Freeway
Drive with SR 2500 (Lawndale Drive).
Roadway Design Unit and Program Development Branch
• The Roadway Design Unit will coordinate with the City of Reidsville in'the design ofa-sidewalk
proposed along the eastern edge of US 29 Business,(Freeway Drive). The sidewalk will be five
feet in width. The sidewalk will begin on the northern side of the Lawndale Drive (SR 2500)
intersection and will terminate at the intersection of Vance Street>,(SR 2525). The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will share'eighty percent of the construction` cost of the
sidewalk and.the .City of Reidsville will share twenty percent of the construction costs. Any
additional right-of-way necessary to complete the sidewalk will be funded by the City of
Reidsville.
• As approved by the Rockingham County Board of Education on February 13, 2006, permanent
right-of-,way will be purchased from the Moss. Street Elementary School property, along Moss
Street, in order to construct the project. No right-of-way, including temporary, or permanent
easements, will be purchased from or encroach onto the Moss Street Elementary School property
along US 29 Business (Freeway Drive). The Moss Street Elementary School fence, along
Freeway Drive, will be reinstalled upon completion of this widening project. Should the Moss
Street Elementary School sign be impacted due to construction, it will be reinstalled as part of
this widening project.
Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of l
July 2007
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FHWA has determined that this project will not have
any significant impact on the. human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the
Environmental Assessment, which has been independently evaluated by - the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the
proposed project.
The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve US 29
Business (Freeway Drive) by widening the current two-lane facility to a multilane facility,
from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity and level of service of US 29 Business. The need is
based on the current facility operating near capacity. The traffic forecast for the 2025 design
year indicates that there will be a demand for a facility with a higher vehicle capacity. The
proposed facility at this location should accommodate at least 18,000 addition vehicles per
day. The total length of this project is approximately 6.7 miles. Figures lA and 1B depict
the project location and vicinity.
The proposed improvements to US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) are federally funded
and are identified as Project Numbers U-3326A and U-3326B in the 2007-2013 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Section U-3326A, 2.0 miles in length, begins at
SR 2670 (South Scales Street) and ends at US 158 (Richardson Drive). Section U-3326B,
4.7 miles in length, begins at US 158 (Richardson Drive) and ends at NC 14. Both project
sections will be let to contract, simultaneously. Right-of-way acquisition and construction
for U-3 326A and U-3326B are scheduled in federal fiscal years 2008 and 2010, respectively.
The total estimated cost of the project is $56,899,250, consisting of $14,199,250 for right-of-
way acquisition and $42,700,000 for construction.
The proposed project is located in Rockingham County, in the northern piedmont area of
North Carolina. Within the Functional Classification System for highways and roads, US 29
Business is identified as an Urban Minor Arterial. in Section A of the project. Section A is
located within the Water Supply Watershed Protected Area of Lake Reidsville and
Troublesome Creek. In Section B, US 29 Business is designated as an Other Urban Principal
Arterial and is not included in any watershed areas.
Alternate 5 was selected as the preferred alternative for the project. This best-fit
widening alternate maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignments along Freeway
Drive and provides the best balance between roadway improvements and social - `
environmental impacts throughout the project corridor. Two typical sections are proposed
for the US 29 Business improvements. A four-lane, raised curb and guttered median section
with eight-foot shoulders is proposed for U-3326A. Four feet of the shoulders will be paved.
These paved shoulders could accommodate bicycles from South Scales Street to Richardson
Drive, although no bicycle route is planned for Freeway Drive. The earthen shoulders are
recommended in Section A to avoid single-point discharges into the streams within the Water
Supply Watershed Protected Area of Lake Reidsville and Troublesome Creek.
In U-3326B, a four-lane, raised median section with curb and gutter is proposed.
Section B is more commercially developed than Section A and contains more spatial
constraints along the project corridor. Additionally, U-3326B is outside of the Water Supply
Watershed Protected Area. of Lake Reidsville and Troublesome Creek. The proposed
medians are 17.5 feet wide in both typical sections. A five feet wide sidewalk is planned for
a portion of the eastern side of Freeway Drive. The sidewalk will begin on the northern side
of the SR 2500 (Lawndale Drive) intersection in Section A and will terminate at the
intersection of SR 2525 (Vance Street). Figure 2A depicts the typical section for U-3326A,
while Figure 2B depicts the typical section for U-3326B.
M. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Constructing the proposed action will result in impacts to surface waters and
jurisdictional wetlands. In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), an Individual Permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
NCDOT will implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, as specified by
"NCDOT Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B.0024).
The proposed project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water _
Quality. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
Existing flood hazards along adjacent properties at all stream crossings will be evaluated
in the final hydraulics design to ensure that all practicable measures are taken to minimize
flooding problems to upstream properties. • This action will be taken to ensure that the
proposed roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have an
adverse affect on the existing floodplain area or on the associated flood hazards. The
2
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local.
authorities, in the final design stage, to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain
ordinances.
IV. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Table 1 contains a summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the proposed
action. The impacts in this table are associated with Alternate 5 (Best-Fit), the preferred
alternate for this project.
Table 1: Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Category Units Proposed Action
Project Length Miles 6.7
Total 7
Residential Relocations
Minority
3

B
ti
i
R
l Total 17
us
ness
oca
e
ons
Minority
2
Total 24
Total Relocations
Minority
5
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0
Potential Hazardous Material Sites Each 14
Wetlands Acres 0.023
Stream Impacts Linear feet 3,074
Protected Species Species 0
Noise (0 - 6 dBA) Impacted Properties
(Residence - Business 2
Architectural Resources Eligible Properties 0
Archaeological Resources Eligible Properties 0
Air Quality - Carbon Monoxide
Concentration NAAQS Standard * In Compliance
Construction Cost Dollars $ 42,700,000
Right of Way Cost Dollars $ 14,199,250
Total Cost Dollars $ 56,899,250
* National Ambient Air Quality Standards -Maximum CO permitted per hour average= 35 parts per million
3
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by NCDOT and FHWA in February
2006. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal,
state, and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*) indicates that a written
response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence received are included
in Appendix 1 of this document.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (USACE)
US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
* US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office (USFWS)
* US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office (USEPA)
US Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta (USEPA)
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Instruction
* NC Dept. of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO)
,NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
* Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Intergovernmental Affairs
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Rural Planning Organization)
Rockingham County Administration
Rockingham County Public Schools
City of Reidsville Administration
City of Reidsville - Department of Community Development
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSSMENT
A. US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office
Comment: "Due to the suburban/urban nature of the project area, the Service has minimal
concern at this time. Wetland impacts are small (0.02 acre) and stream impacts
are not unreasonable (2,580 - 2,744 linear feet of small headwaters). Although
unavoidable, we do note that impacts to upland forest edges are significant
(33.8 acres of Piedmont Mixed Hardwood and 7.0 acres of Virginia Pine
Dominate Forest)."
Response: Comment noted. See Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters of
the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams.
Comment: "There are two federally protected species listed for Rockingham County -
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will have no
effect on both species. Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the
4
project will have no effect on the James spinymussel. Based on the results of
plant surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, the Service concurs that the project
will have no effect on the smooth coneflower. We believe that the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the EA have been satisfied."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and
wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the United States and the
potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources."
Response: Comment noted.
B. US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office
Comment: "The Summary of Impacts Table 1 is fairly comprehensive. Terrestrial forest
impacts are summarized in Table 8, page 36, of the EA. Excluding
maintained/disturbed areas, impacts to terrestrial forests for all three
alternatives are estimated at 41.1 acres."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "For the three widening alternatives (#1, 3 & 5), wetland impacts range
between 0.021 and 0.023 acres and stream impacts between 2,580 and 2,744
linear feet. As with other key environmental indicators, (residential and
business relocations, noise receptors, hazardous material sites, etc.), the impact
differences between the three alternatives are not substantial. The only real
differences are that Alternative 3 has two additional business relocations (18)
than does #1 or #5 (16), and stream impacts. Alternative ##1 has the least
impact to streams: 2,580 linear feet."
Response: Comment noted. See Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters of
the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams.
Comment: "EPA does not have.a 'preferred' alternative at this stage of the process and
would like to hear comments/concerns from other agencies at the next Merger
Meeting (CP 3 LEDPA)."
Response: The Concurrence Point 3 Meeting was held on March 15, 2007. Merger
Process Team concurrence was obtained for the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), Alternative 5.
Comment: "EPA has noted the environmental (Green sheet) commitments on page 1 of 1,
with emphasis on the hazardous spill catch basins at all stream crossings in the
first mile of the project area due to WS III CA."
Response: Comment noted.
C. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality
Comment: "This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
5
Little Troublesome Creek and Troublesome Creek are class C; NSW waters of
the State and class WS III; NSW water of the State respectively. DWQ
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMP's are
implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to both creeks and their
tributaries. Little Troublesome Creek is identified as, 303(d) Waters of the
State, for impaired use for aquatic life due to impervious surface runoff
sources. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion
control BMP's be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Little
Troublesome Creek and its tributaries. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout the design and construction
of the project.. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS
CA (Water Supply Critical Area) classifications. Review of the project reveals
the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical Area in the
project area. The NCDOT will be required to design, construct, and maintain
hazardous spill catch basins in the project area. The number of catch basins
installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would
enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream, and in
consultation with DWQ."
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Part VIII. Agency Coordination for discussion of
hazardous spill basins and the avoidance and minimization of potential impacts
to Little Troublesome Creek. Refer to Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional
Topics, a. "Waters of the United States," for explanation of impact changes to
the streams.
D.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "At this time, the NCWRC does not have a preferred alternative. Due to the
urban nature of this project, we do not have any specific concerns, at this time.
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Impacts to streams vary
with alternatives and are expected to total approximately 2,580 to 2,744 linear
feet, impacting 18 streams. Impacts to wetlands vary from 0.021 to 0.023
acres.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. NCDOT has selected
Alternate 5 as their preferred alternative. Alternative 5 is a four-lane, median
divided facility with curb and gutter in the business district and shoulder
section on the remainder of the project. NCDOT has conducted surveys for the
Federally Endangered P.leurobema collina (James spinymussel), it was
determined habitat is not present for this species within the project."
Response: Comment noted. Refer to Section IX, Part D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. "Waters
of the United States," for explanation of impact changes to the streams. (Refer
to Appendix 1 for the resource agency comment sheets.)
6
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO
'THE PUBLIC HEARING
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Combined Public Hearing
was held on May 16, 2006, in the Cafeteria of Reidsville High School in the City of
Reidsville. An informal open house session was held from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The
formal public hearing was then held at 7:00 p.m. Approximately 100 citizens attended both
sessions of the public hearing. Comments received during and since the combined public
hearing are summarized below.
The majority of comments focused on the proposed four-lane divided typical section for
Freeway Drive. Citizens and business owners along existing US 29 Business expressed
concern regarding access to their properties once a four-lane divided facility is constructed.
Some business owners felt that patronage and profits will be negatively impacted due to a
loss of direct access to Freeway Drive. Additional median breaks and full-movement median
openings were requested to reduce negative impacts to business and property owners along
US 29. Business and Richardson Drive. Many business owners and citizens expressed
support for the widening of Freeway Drive; however, most respondents favored the
construction of a five-lane facility enabling right and left-turn access from a center turn-lane
to businesses along the project.
On September 12, 2006, NCDOT personnel met with representatives from the City of
Reidsville to discuss the construction of a four-lane divided cross-section for the widening of
Freeway Drive versus building a five-lane cross-section for this project. Based upon the
input and response from business owners, citizens and upon coordination with local officials,
the following revisions were made to the four-lane divided alternative preliminary plans.
(Refer to Figure 3A to 3R for the revised lane configurations that resulted from the above
plan revisions.)
• Three left-over movements were included along Freeway Drive.
• Six full-movement crossover revisions were included along Freeway Drive.
• Expressway gutter was added in several locations along Freeway Drive to reduce
impacts to business properties.
• In several locations, curb and gutter was added along Richardson Drive to reduce
impacts to business properties.
• Loop and ramp revisions were made to reduce impacts to business properties at the
interchanges and to allow adequate spacing between adjacent median openings.
• The Harrison Drive interchange alignment was shifted and dual Freeway Drive
bridges were added to eliminate the necessity of a temporary construction detour.
• The proposed access road along Freeway Drive for the Harris property was relocated.
• A control-of-access break was provided along North Scales Street for the Martin
property.
• A control-of-access break was provided along Freeway Drive for the Burton
Cemetery and the Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville Property.
• State Street was revised to a curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms. The
roadway width was increased from 18 feet to 20 feet.
7
• The alignment for the service road in the vicinity of State Street was shifted closer the
Freeway Drive alignment and revised to a curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet
berms. The roadway width was increased from 18 feet to 20 feet.
• A portion of SR 2670 (North Scales Street) was revised to a local design typical
section from an arterial typical section to reduce impacts to adjoining properties. (8
feet shoulder, 4:1 front slope, and variable 2:1 to 4:1 back slope).
NCDOT was notified on January 17, 2007, that the Reidsville City Council approved the
construction of the four-lane divided cross-section, including the revisions listed above, for
the US 29 Business-Freeway Drive project. This decision was based upon input and
response from business owners and citizens within the project limits.
VIII. AGENCY COORDINATION
A Section 404 / National Environmental Polity Act (NEPA) Merger Team was formed
for this project and consists of representatives from the following state and federal agencies:
• US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (USACE)
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - NC Division (FHWA)
• US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh Office (USEPA)
• US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh Field Office (USFWS)
• NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO)
• NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA)
• Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Rural Planning Organization) - Non-Signatory
Merger Team Meetings were held to review the project purpose and need, the
alternatives under consideration and impacts associated with the alternates. On March 15,
2007, the Merger Team selected Alternate 5 as the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for this project. Alternate 5 is presented in this FONSI and
is the preferred alternative for the US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) improvements. During
the LEDPA Merger Meeting, the Merger Team also discussed avoidance and minimization
measures for this project and reached concurrence on Point 4A. Hazardous spill basins will
be installed at all stream crossings located in the water supply watershed protected area. This
will occur from the project beginning, at the intersection of US 29 Business (Freeway Drive)
with SR 2670 (South Scales Street), and will end at the intersection of Freeway Drive with SR
2500 (Lawndale Drive). Interchange ramp and loop environmental footprints were reduced to
further minimize the jurisdictional impacts of this project. Refining alignments, increasing
slopes in some areas and using improved mapping for quantifying impacts were additional
avoidance and minimization measures agreed upon during the Concurrence Point 4A
Meeting. The Merger Team will revisit Avoidance and Minimization of jurisdictional stream
impacts for the Little Troublesome Creek crossing during the Concurrence Point 4B Meeting.
8
The 30% Hydraulic Plan Meeting (Concurrence Point 413) will be held by the Hydraulics
Unit on a future date. During this meeting, additional slope design measures for the crossing
of Little Troublesome Creek will be evaluated. (Refer to Appendix 2 for the Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreements.)
IX. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Structures
One additional bridge is proposed for the project. Dual bridges on Freeway Drive are
now proposed for the NC 87 / NC 65 (West Harrison Street) interchange. Realigning the
interchange slightly to the north and proposing dual structures will eliminate the necessity of
a temporary, on-site detour bridge to maintain traffic during construction of the project.
Retaining walls are proposed in several locations to minimize or avoid impacts to
business, church and cemetery properties within the project area. Overall, 1,774 linear feet
of retaining wall will be built. The proposed northbound off-ramp of the NC 87 / NC 65
(West Harrison Street) interchange includes 1,180 linear feet of retaining wall. The
installation of this retaining wall is to minimize impacts to a business located in the
southeastern quadrant or Quadrant C of this interchange. Along Burton Cemetery on the
Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville property, 479 linear feet of retaining wall is
planned to avoid impacts to that property. Impacts to the Zion Tabernacle of Prayer Full
Gospel Church, Inc. will be minimized with a 115 linear feet retaining wall along SR 1998
(Wentworth Road).
A retaining wall may be considered to further avoid or minimize impacts to the Little
Troublesome Creek crossing of US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) just north of SR 2462
(Sunnycrest Drive). The Merger Process Team will further discuss this option during the
Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for the 30%.Hydraulic Design Review, mentioned in Section
D: Jurisdictional Topics, a. Waters of the United States.
B. Design Details
Preliminary roadway design plans were presented to the public at a hearing on May 16,
2006. (See the public notice and public hearing brochure in Appendix 3.) Based upon the
comments and suggestions from business owners and other citizens at the public hearing and
upon coordination with the City of Reidsville, the following plan revisions were made to the
four-lane median divided alternative:
¦ A left-over movement was added for SR 2942 (Rabbit Trail).
¦ A full-movement crossover was added for SR 2500 (Lawndale Drive).
¦ Expressway gutter was added along Freeway Drive to reduce impacts to the Huffman Oil
Company property-
• Expressway gutter was added along Freeway Drive to reduce the impacts to several
business owners in the area.
9
¦ Curb and gutter (2'-6") was added to reduce the impacts to the frontage of the Trent and
Thompson property along US 158 (Richardson Drive).
¦ Curb and gutter (2'-6") was added along US 158 (Richardson Drive) to reduce impacts to
the Goodman property.
¦ Ramp D was deleted from the northeast quadrant of the Freeway Drive and US 158
(Richardson Drive) interchange.
¦ The Loop C configuration was revised to allow left turns from westbound traffic on US
158 (Richardson Drive).
¦ The concrete island was removed from the west ramp terminal to SR 2414 (Reid School
Road) to allow left turns into the Medical Complex on the Elton Trent property at US 158
(Richardson Drive).
¦ Ramp A of the Freeway Drive and US 158 (Richardson Drive) interchange was revised to
reduce the impacts to the Eye Care Center property.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Freeway Crossings.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Reidsville Center.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added on Freeway Drive at Vance Crossings.
¦ The NC 87 / NC 65 (West Harrison Street) Interchange alignment was shifted and dual
Freeway Drive bridges were added to eliminate the necessity of a temporary construction
detour. Freeway Drive will have dual structures over NC 87 / NC 65. Ramp A was
deleted and Loop B added, aligning the ramp and loop terminal across from SR 2065
(Mark Road) to allow commercial access. The Access Road intersection to NC 87 / NC
65 was relocated 400 feet to the west.
¦ A full-movement crossover for Duke Power was added along Freeway Drive.
¦ A full-movement crossover was added at Sparks &. Sons Service Station.
¦ The Access Road intersection for the Harris property was relocated to the Sparks & Sons
and Barbara Loy property line along Freeway Drive. A driveway access to the Sparks &
Sons parking lot was added along Freeway Drive.
¦ The SR 2670 (North Scales Street) Interchange-Ramps B and C were revised to provide
better spacing from the acceleration/deceleration lanes to the full-movement crossover at
Sparks & Sons Service Station. The acceleration/deceleration lengths of Loops B and C
were revised to provide better spacing to the back-to-back left-over movements at the
proposed Food Lion and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. driveways. A control of access
(C/A) break was provided.at SR 2670 (North Scales Street) for the Martin property..
¦ A C/A break was provided at along Freeway Drive for the Little Salem Christian Church
of Reidsville property.
¦ Back-to-back left-over movements for Food Lion and Lowes were added approximately
850' west of NC 14 along Freeway Drive.
¦ Transition areas from US 158 (Richardson Drive) were revised to local ditch design (4:1
front slope, 8 feet width and 4:1 back slope). The 2'-6" curb and gutter was extended
from Richardson Drive.
¦ Transition areas from NC 87 / NC 65 were revised to local ditch design (4:1 front slope, 8
feet width and 2:1 back slope). 2'-6" curb and gutter was added on NC 87 / NC 65 to
reduce the impacts to Love Tractor Sales, Inc.
¦ State Street was revised to a 2'-6" curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms. The
width was changed from 18 feet to 20 feet.
10
¦ The alignment of the service road in the vicinity of State Street was shifted closer to
Freeway Drive and revised to a 2'-6" curb and gutter typical section with 8 feet berms.
The width was changed from 18 feet to 20 feet.
¦ SR 2670 (North Scales Street) was revised to a local design typical section from an
arterial typical section (8 feet shoulder, 4:1 front slope, and a variable 2:1 to 4:1 back
slope).
C. Typical Section
A four-lane, median divided facility is proposed for the entire project length of 6.7
miles. The project improvements, from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to US 158
(Richardson Drive), will be constructed with earthen outside shoulders, four feet of which
will be paved. The paved shoulders can accommodate bicycles along this portion of the
project. The remaining 4.7 miles of the project in U-3326B is highly commercial and will
include curb and gutter to reduce impacts to the adjacent business properties. The curb and
gutter section is proposed along US 29 Business / Freeway Drive from US 158 (Richardson
Drive) to NC 14, the northern project. terminus. Figure 2A shows the shoulder typical section
for U-3326A. Figure 2B shows the curb and gutter typical section proposed for U-3326B.
Alternative 5 was chosen as the preferred alternative for this project. This decision was made
in collaboration with an interagency team including the NCDOT, the FHWA, the USACOE,
the USEPA, the USFWS, the NCDWQ, the NCSHPO, Piedmont 'Triad Council of
Governments and various other local officials. After evaluating all of the available
environmental information, including quantifiable impacts, non-quantifiable impacts and
qualitative impacts, the interagency team selected Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1,. the four-lane, median divided alternative which included earthen shoulders
along the entire project length, was not chosen due to the many impacts it would impose
upon adjacent business properties in Section B. Alternative 3, the five-lane alternative with
earthen shoulders along the entire project length, was not chosen for safety reasons, as well
as for the many impacts that the earthen shoulders would impose on existing business
properties in Section B. "The Advantages of the Four-Lane, Median Divided Section" is
shown in Appendix 4.
D. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Project wetlands and streams were verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers
in January 2004. Prior to the Merger Team Meeting for Concurrence Points 3 and 4A, an
error in the stream impact calculation was discovered. The total stream impacts presented in
the Environmental Assessment for all three studied alternatives should have contained an
additional 330 feet. Table 2 shows the anticipated wetland and stream impacts as compared
to the quantities presented in the Environmental Assessment. Jurisdictional water impacts
were minimized by adding hazardous spill basins, refining alignments, increasing slopes in
some areas, reducing interchange ramp and loop sizes and using improved mapping for
quantifying impacts. The Merger Team will revisit Avoidance and Minimization of
jurisdictional stream impacts for the Little Troublesome Creek crossing during the
11
Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for the 30% Hydraulic Design Review. Figure 4 shows the
wetlands and the water resource locations within the project area.
Table 2: Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts
Environmental Assessment Wetland
Impacts - Alternate 5 Current Wetland Impacts
Alternate 5
0.023 Acres 0.023 Acres
Environmental Assessment Stream
Impacts - Alternate 5 Current Stream Impacts
Alternate 5
2,744 Linear Feet 3,074 Linear Feet
E. Air Quality Analysis
Rockingham County was designated as a moderate non-attainment area for
ozone (03) under the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November
22, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reclassified Rockingham County from a
moderate non-attainment area to a marginal non-attainment area. Rockingham County is
currently under an Early Action Compact. The effective date of the non-attainment
designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008. Section 40 CFR, Parts 51 and 93, are not
applicable until April 15, 2009 (one year after the non-attainment designation becomes
effective). An explanation of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) is shown in Appendix 5.
F. Relocation Impacts
Table 3 compares the relocation information provided in the Environmental
Assessment to the updated relocation data. The Environmental Assessment identified seven
residential and sixteen business that will be displaced in Alternative 5 (Preferred). Based on
preliminary plan revisions since the public hearing, one additional business will be displaced.
Since there are many small businesses located along Freeway Drive within the project area,
the displacement of seventeen businesses is not a significant impact within this commercial
district. It is likely that some of these displaced businesses may relocate within the project
area or commercial district. Due to the increased capacity and level of service resulting from
the project along Freeway Drive, the displacement of these businesses will not affect the
proposed land use in this commercial district.
12
Table 3: Relocation Impacts
Displacees Relocations Identified in the
Environmental Assessment Revised Relocation
Information
Owners 4 4

R
id
i
l Tenants 3 3
es
ent
a Total 7 7
Minority 3 3
Owners 10 11

B Tenants 6 6
usiness
Total.
16
17
Minority 2 2
Farms 0 0
Non-Profit Organizations 0 0
G. Control-of-Access
A break in the control-of-access for the SR 2670 (North Scales Street) interchange with
Freeway Drive will be provided adjacent to the Little Salem Christian Church of Reidsville
Property. This control-of-access break along the southbound lanes of US 29 Business
(Freeway Drive), just north of the SR 2670 (North Scales Street) interchange will be allowed
for entry to the church property and Burton Cemetery.
A second break in the control-of-access for this interchange will be provided along SR 2670
(North Scales Street) for the electrical supply company currently occupying the Mitchelene
A. Martin property.
H. Publicly-Owned Land
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, a narrow parcel of right-of-way measuring 0.02
of an acre will be acquired from the Moss Street Elementary School property in order to tie
back to the existing grade along Moss Street. The right-of-way purchase is considered a "De
Minimuis" action by the Federal Highway Administration and will have no adverse impact
upon the elementary school property or corresponding facilities. A letter of approval from
the Rockingham County Board of Education is shown in Appendix 6.
1. Sidewalks
As part of this improvement project, the 10-feet wide, multi-use path originally proposed
along Freeway Drive within the Environmental Assessment, will now be constructed as a 5-
feet wide concrete sidewalk. The City of Reidsville has agreed to share the cost of the
13
sidewalk by twenty percent with the NCDOT. The sidewalk begins at Lawndale Drive, as
noted in the Environmental Assessment. Instead of terminating at the Little Troublesome
Creek crossing of Freeway Drive, the concrete sidewalk is proposed to continue northward to
the intersection of Vance Street. The concrete sidewalk location will alternate between the
berm and the toe of the fill slope within existing right-of-way. At the Little Troublesome
Creek crossing, the sidewalk is proposed along the berm. As such, no pedestrian bridge will
be necessary in this location. A letter of agreement from the City of Reidsville regarding this
sidewalk design revision is shown in Appendix 7.
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the environmental impacts for the proposed project and upon
comments from federal, state, and local agencies and the public, the finding of the Federal
Highway Administration is that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon
the human or natural environment.
The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint and no significant impacts
to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. Although seventeen
business relocations are expected, this is a small percentage of the existing business within
the Freeway Drive commercial area. It is also likely that some of these displaced businesses
will be relocated within the project area. Since the project area includes eighteen stream
crossings, the impact to 3,074 linear feet of streams is not excessive in the course of
widening this existing urban arterial. Earthen shoulders are proposed in the water supply
watershed protected area of Reidsville Lake and Troublesome Creek. Narrow medians and
curb & gutter. are proposed in the commercial area to reduce the impacts to business
properties along Freeway Drive. Reducing the expected congestion along Freeway Drive
within the project area will boost the economy of this commercial district in the City of
Reidsville: Citizens within the project area were receptive to widening Freeway Drive and
understood that these improvements would increase the capacity and level-of-service along
this section of US 29 Business.
In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement
nor further environmental analysis will be required.
14
FIGURES
Figure IA: Project Vicinity
Figure 1B: Project Location
Figure 2A: Typical Section - Shoulder
Figure 213: Typical Section - Curb & Gutter
Figure 3: Revised Lane Configurations
Figure 4: Wetlands and Streams

Spas • ? • ?'? x'72 f
1 a?,•ao in. -,` `' :ow•? ,emu L'A? 2iLl
LKL
as •a. Lovelace x LUL tJ
`7,? - u v 3921 ?? + c !affil
v / ?.l 3 • _1 S F i ?OgVm ?
Miq • Ja a• Vaj
\J ' 392_ .S:L-"='a? OZ: 1_.,I } 31L _'- ,?O ?•. "' 'J
? 7L•2 333 " 1.0
Qussw
`1=1 j • ??aot -14 ?? ? - 1 ?• - 1 J 1!? 'no / .y :1'a` 00 '-,'i?° iJ32 '?:'y + •. ?'? t/ 31.1
H? lL'J' ??• ' .291 ?Ji.3 ?.-31-1 `
1? / .u.
L. '.ne`A - ti.e•` aL 'L•' ,( °M" ?, crew,,
' •?, ° .? a '. ? 193" ' ],]d. / I f•,..
31l??`• - ? ? ?. -. \, 1912 ?. . 1i! ,'?J9i '1:? -? ?? . .
a 11
IZ a,.• ? .? 3I91 , ?? ? ?i1 ( ' •C??C1 ]. y?c/ '' W ,7 :
?.,,?. 2.• . ,'--'. C' ?„ 73 `• END f ..._? g
19141
14 PROJECT
C u 2341 ,,,, s.,
\i ?• t ??/ vp }•C0, CnJ I r• u'3%.J io.wn..ll.? J ?
I ).0 1 Ow - I :... 2369
t iwtm wp.nt as. V = VsMst? • ??
!i I / I Ilr / 'L .9 at
? ` ?- L•11
At T
u"d
r ? 3.1
2La1
n .. 171 IS1 I 1 ].. 9 ;s+ O /?? as
v uu 5r REIDSVILLE r 3- 21•.
for ".03 -V
3711 + 7 -• „ ,:
• 1
]3u .44 ' 31!2 339 7 ]sIl .' '+
..• :. .rig ?-• .1 Zia .. `?? 1 7? 33!1. . ? \
uft
• :991 3JlL .r a• h: W. `L, J• 41133. L-
6 % '•t ti
las
?,7 .. • IIZZ wt'. y 'r `? . • 3J_1 ? ? JLa .
Vdq
4m : ? 1l3t ? t '• w ? .? ? ? , ? ? loves
? Ge•tis
ML JAM JAM 1l31 331! -'? \t ^ 11
BEGIN Jos r. +1.. iii r 7.,N iat 3W
r
°1,12 PROJECT 7l1L 't '
314E il91 Mwatw ' •. 1 7l71 i l ..? \ J 4?'. ',u .? ` R, ifll ?J
I
• 3lt1 731 ':? • 7 • '! yS -.pi • • 't11,1 `.1 I,? ] 1 ]s
} T .J .C ?1L 1 L!L T t ) wia..r No
1.3 un IT it
JAU
1 ltlA J!!J
PROJECT LOCATION NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 29 BUSINESS (FREEWAY DRIVE)
" FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET'
- - - - TO NC 14 IN REIDSVILLE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
_ _ - - ! TIP NO.:. U - 3326A/8
FIGURE 1A PROJECT VICINITY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
• .,,,ya._u.?...??..- --- asv.. ......... .._..---e.?r?^ ? ??yb.?pt??t?:r. r'd!a_ic.y? RR?ti•'•, .? • -r; y^/^?•`?
F!?_. _ ,. ... ?6 ri °I ,.,.? -I :tii ,` .l .r..i/eA-•.^.e?f_ :Yir' t
^ I
? OLN ^i ei f:>;< Fogg,t _n o m a, -'?'!? r :.,:
\O14h pC.^' n i:•::?>:''' =?W+pS, „ eI 1- ::.ni?e?..."_ ,, t ,.:.,??. 1s >?
_Nb
V4 01MA
-57
Creek
n t
.71 ° qd?e j
t'f !.,'? 'i.i(:. d, •P iii
tx.
CID
F:•::;:;
= F?' ?1' w o ?. n dl
,;:;;::;•:;•: a sourHS" a tyros
.04 0 L9 Z HS r salox 0'/ 0
9 Scolet •???'
Norm 1I .0. wow ^ Z ?u is ?? :il 1
o t ^ ° dr. Ce.
S ? "' ''bra
s S' C
m 0
N F
W U
W 0
< ON H
W}} W
>'•WJI-
_3 E I ;t 0
3 a
cc 65 5
Wy?Occv a
Um
w W M
ZQ?
4t? N p I . .
S UJ Z O
'o to CL.
to
mNO0F-
NfgH m
i n D0 W
U.
SC ?p P 07 oe bi !?,
St. H W
r+ of r, `'i ? (9 h f
uj TV
rI i
? W . rt e "i
C) CD
Cq C4
U G I
.01
-7 CP
:;;•
„'. I Q h ?.• ,,1 /I}i:•.' ^ I 1.1
oil V.
r.. ? "!o . ;fit. ?..R. ;? • ?'.,?, ..!?Y, *, i
tp. ,t ,? _ I ? ,I
/°. p 5 w e l h Ql L 9'
«? ?1 .I a rC
Lam' LO' " y I ?.? N n.
16 ? 0. C? .4. .05 . LI'
1. _ - _ _ _,n ?• n r
1.05 0l Ad_ fl f' _ _ h 0
7 1 „ • ? .I to
^

.:r
Z
0
V
W
N
ce
W
L
W
?- 0
a c=
Z
ce
W LU
J
ao
W
QZ
J
0
UI
F-
W-
Y
N
W
OC
V
Z
O
V
W
1
GG
O
a
ILL,. CO N
N
N M
W
7 M = LL
W pN(
Z
O
H
V
W
N
Ime
W
LOI 7
W
Q
Z
w
W
J
Q
0
Z
Q
ml
D
V
0
D
D
W
Z
O
LL
1-41
GC
D
W
w %0
LL N N
N
N M
W
Z LL
SR 2670
(SOUTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
%M
=No
SOUTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)

SR 2670
(SOUTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
li¦m
4?
4?

SOUTH SCALES-STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
41tt
dltL

FIGURE M
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
SR 2942
(RABBIT TRAIL)
dO1S
j

RABBIT TRAIL - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC. HEARING MAP)

SR 2942
(RABBIT TRAIL)
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
ME*
RABBIT TRAIL - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGUR& EB

OM

US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
mmo
=No
EM%
STOP
SR 2500
(LAWNDALE DRIVE)
LAWNDALE DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)

US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
mop
mono
=so
ME%
STOP
SR 2500
(LAWNDALE DRIVE)
LAWNDALE DRIVE US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& 3C
SR 2437
(McKOY ROAD)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
4L
• t
SR 2512
(SOUTH PARK DRIVE)

McKOY ROAD, SOUTH PARK DRIVE US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2437
(McKOY ROAD)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
4 L

•
mono
SR 2512
(SOUTH PARK DRIVE)

McKOY ROAD,/''SOUTH PARK DRIVE-US 29 BUSINESS_
(FONSD
FIGURE: 3D
•
us 158
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
l
• SR =41,
• (REID SCHOOL ROAD)
REID SCHOOL ROAD - US 158
(EA)

us Ise
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
I L ra t=
• SR =414
(REID SCHOOL ROAD)
• THE INTERSECTION WILL BE RELOCATED
AN ADDITIONAL 170 FEET WEST OF THE
LOCATION PROPOSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL.
ASSESSMENT. THE INTERSECTION IS NOW
PROPOSED 700 FEET WEST OF THE
EXISTING LOCATION.
REID SCHOOL ROAD - US 158
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 3E
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND RAMP)

US 158 (NORTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
US 158
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND LOOP)
il
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
=4
mm%

US 158 (NORTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
WONSI)
f
FIGURE: V
US 158
(RICHARDSON DRIVE)
FREEWAY
CROSSINGS
dOlS
J
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
FREEWAY CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
FREEWAY
CROSSINGS
dO1S
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) _p
M*
M*
FREEWAY CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 5G
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
REIDSVILLE
CENTER
REIDSVILLE CENTER - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
ENT*
REIDSVILLE
CENTER
REIDSVILLE CENTER - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGURF& SH
SR 2.162
(SUNNYCREST DRIVE)
?? 11 4?
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
Map
own*
My
SUNNYCREST DRIVE - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2462,
(SUNNYCREST DRIVE)
%M
4mm
dO1S
Om
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) -?
SUNNYCREST DRIVE US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& 31
VANCE
CROSSINGS
dOlS
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
VANCE CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
VANCE
CROSSINGS
dOlS
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
STOP
VANCE CROSSINGS - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGURE: it
NC " - NC 87
US " BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND RAMP)
tilt
NC 65 - NC 87
NC 65-NC 87 (SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
NC " - NC 87
US " BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND ON-RAMP)
US " BUSINESS
(SOUTHBOUND LOOP)

111
SR 2055 (MARK ROAD)
-Yl3C- (SERVICE ROAD) HAS BEEN
RELOCATED 424 FEET WEST OF
THE MARK ROAD / NC 66-NC 87
INTERSECTION.
NC 65 - NC 87
NC 65-NC 87 (SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSD
FIGURE: X
DUKE POWER
dO1S 11 4*1=
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
mmp
mm*
mm*
DUKE POWER - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
DUKE POWER

dO1S

US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)

DUKE POWER - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURF& SL
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
11
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - NORTHBOUND RAMP)
AND US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
1
US 29 BUSINESS •
(NORTHBOUND LOOP)
l? •
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - NORTHBOUND RAMP)
AND US 29 BUSINESS
WONSI)
FIGURE: 3M
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
dL
US 29 BUSINESS
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)

.r
of

SITE DRIVEWAY
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AND SITE DRIVEWAY
(EA)
SR 2670
(NORTH SCALES STREET)
US 29 BUSINESS SITE DRIVEWAY
(NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP)
SR 2670 (NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AND SITE DRIVEWAY
(FONSI)
FIGURE: bN
FOOD LION
dOlS
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) _y
STOP
LOW E'S
FOOD LION/ LOWE'S - US 29 BUSINESS
(PUBLIC HEARING MAP)
FOOD LION
US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE)
dOlS
mop
mm*
mv

STOP
r
DRIVEWAYS. WERE RELOCATED 250 FEET
SOUTH OF EXISTING LOCATIONS. (60 FEET
SOUTH OF NC 14). BACK TO BACK
LEFT-OVER MOVEMENTS WERE INCLUDED
IN THE MEDIAN AT -L- (FREEWAY DRIVE)
STA. 314 * S0.
LOWE'S
FOOD LION/ LOWE'S - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 30
M
?N
°US 29 BUS:
?a
516 s ?
RICHARDSON DRIVE- US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
i\
5v Zoh
US 29 BUS.
5 ti5N6
cP,p
?N
cPd,
RICHARDSON DRIVE- US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURM aP I
aD
V
2
co
Z
?S
e?S
HARRISON STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
Z
C
2 ??OpO
MPS
his
?9
e?S
HARRISON STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGURE: 30
kst
?9
SR 2670
SR Z6,0
NORTH SCALES STREET - US 29 BUSINESS
(EA)
?IS
S
SR 2670
SR 2670
NORTH SCALES STREET = US 29 BUSINESS
(FONSI)
FIGUR& 3R
` U 3326B Jw-
-'t U-3326A,
STREAM 18
UT•LR,
R? 55
eELMON7
sR X436 sR ?,
0Je' ??1 0''.
Jy ?P y
STREAM 16
UT-LR \
STREAM 16
REIDSVILLE SPIILL BASINS
REQUIRED
(First Mile of Project)
ry6,1p ?
L
0?5
J5? n?W
zw
M.
.6
1M1
CAPE FEAR ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN RIVER BASIN
11 STREAM 14 oN 0.017 AC.
bQ• M1 UT•LTC
,
Us 29 BUS.
(FREEWAY DRIVE) STREAM 13
LITTLE
TROUBLESOME
CREEK
STREAM 12
UT - WOLF
ISLAND CREEK
\
TREAM 10 CULVERT No. 1:
UT • WIC STS M No. 8 UT • WIC
T S( Ex. 7' x r RCBC)
STREAM 11
UT • WIC1 u?
WETLAND S i
0.004 AC. 5? i?
(
STREAM 8 ..
UT • WIC I
5S
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 29 BUSINESS (FREEWAY DRIVE)
FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET)
TO NC 14 IN REIDSVILLE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
TIP NO.: U - 3326
FIGURE 4: WETLANDS AND STREAMS SHEET 1 OF 1
100-YR. 3 500-YR.
FLOOD ZONES
OQ

WATER SUPPLY STREAM9
UT
lc
o
-w
WATERSHED o
PROTECTED AREA N STREAM 17
?
(First Two Miles of Project) a Gs
UT - UT4 (WIC)
/p
Na ?
?
R
?
?
g
e
G
S
STREAM 6
,Y
CULVERT No. 2: UT • WIC
STREAM No. 7 UT • WIC
'
' ;STTREAM 3
M
RCBC)
(Ex. DB, 8
x 8 STREAM 4 -
UT wic
'
i
UT•WIC ?•.-..?
REI DSVI LLE ' SR
STREAM 5
UT • WIC

END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT I FIGURE 4: WETLANDS AND STREAMS
CULVERT No. 3
STREAM No. 2, UT •WIC
(Ex. SO, 6'x 6' RCBC)
TEA
?G
STREAM 1
X65 ` UT-wIC
10
,0
00 0
APPENDIX 1
Federal and State Agency
Environmental Assessment
Comments
United States Department of the Interior- 4A Pp FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE :.,5 ?.:.r...=
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 qtr ; - '
April 10, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your March 28, 2006 letter which requested comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the
widening of US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in
Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3326). These comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According .to the FEA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 6.7 mile portion of US 29 Business from two lanes to four or five lanes. There are three
build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 5),with Alternative 5 being the NCDOT-preferred
alternative.
The Service has been actively involved in the combined Section 404/NEPA Merger Process and
will continue to provide input through that process. Due to the suburban/urban nature of the
project area, the Service has minimal concern at this time. Wetland impacts are small (0.2 acre)
and stream impacts are not unreasonable (2,580 - 2,744 linear feet of small headwaters).
Although unavoidable, we do note that impacts to upland forest edges are significant (33.8 acres
Of ic'mont Mixed I-/ardc?ood and 7.0 acres of v'irginia Nne-Domiriant Forest).
There are two federally protected species listed for Rockingham County - James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). NCDOT has determined
that the proposed project will have no effect on both species. Due to the lack of habitat, the
Service concurs that-the project will have no effect on the James spinymussel. Based on the
results of plant surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, the Service concurs that the project will
have no effect on the smooth coneflower. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must
be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species. or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat. determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this FEA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32
Sincerely,
? ? ?
?FKEcoloeical Pete Benjam
Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ, Winston-Salem, NC
Todd Tugwell, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
Subject: EPA Review of Federal EA for U-3326, US 29 Business, Rockingham Co.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:56:16 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: Istone@dot. state. nc. us, [e-mail]. nc.us, [e-mail]. mil,
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Karen: Thank you for getting me a copy of the EA for review. EPA has completed its review of the February 2006 Federal EA
for this 6.7 mile long widening Merger project and I offer the following comments:
1. The summary of impacts Table 1 is fairly comprehensive. Terrestrial forest impacts are summarized in Table 8, page 36 of
the EA. Excluding maintained/disturbed areas, impacts to terrestrial forests for all three alternatives are estimated at 41.1
acres.
2. For the 3 widening Alternatives (#1,3 & 5), wetland impacts range between 0.021 and 0.023 acres and stream impacts
between 2,580 and 2,744 linear feet.
3. As with other key environmental indicators (Residential and business relocations, noise receptors, hazardous material
sites, etc.), the impact differences between the 3 alternatives are not substantial. The only real differences are that
Alternative 3 has 2 additional business relocations (18) than #1 or #5 (16), and stream impacts. Alternative #1 has the
least impact to streams: 2,580 linear feet.
4. EPA does not have a 'preferred' alternative at this stage of the process and would like to hear comments/concerns from
other agencies at the next Merger meeting (CP 3 LEDPA).
5. EPA has noted the environmental (Green sheet) commitments on page 1 of 1, with emphasis on the hazardous spill catch
basins at all stream crossings in the first mile of the project area due to WS III CA.
As we discussed on the telephone, I believe this project needs to remain in the Merger process and perhaps a combined CP
3/CP 4A meeting can be scheduled. .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions, please call me.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
..9, ai7i/7nns --10 PM
0 Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 93
MEMORANDUM Richard B. Hamilton, lrxecudve Direcror
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator .
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 25, 2006
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) Widening from SR
2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville, Rockingham County, North.
Carolina. TIP No. U-3326, SCH Project No. 06-0296
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen US 29 Business from SR 2670 to NC 14 in Reidsville. The total
project length is approximately 6.7 miles. Impacts to streams vary with alternatives, and are
expected to total approximately 2,580 to 2,744 linear feet, impacting IS streams. Impacts to
wetlands vary from 0.021 to 0.023 acres.
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA. NCDOT has selected alternative 5 as their
preferred alternative, Alternative 5 is a four-lane median divided facility with curb and gutter in
the business district and shoulder section on the remainder of the project. NCDOT has
conducted surveys for the Federally Endangered Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel), it was
determined habitat is not present for this species within the project ...At-this time?the NCWRC
does not -have a preferred alternative. Due to the urban nature -of this project)we do not have any
specific concerns at this time.
E0 39Vd APAPP7CPJr, Cn:nr ga97 /C7 /b12
Memo
2 April 25, 2006
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
b0 39V8 ----------
- - -
e.. STA7E°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 12th, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO:
Jeanetta Furney
NC State Clearinghouse
Administrative Building, 5th Floor, Room #5026
FROM: Hemal Shah
Transportation Engineer
Triad Group, - Transportation Plaiming Branch
SUBJECT:
06-E-4220-0296
LYNDO TIPPM
SECRETARY
These are comments from the NCDOT - Transportation Planning Branch regarding North
Carolina State Clearinghouse of Administration Intergovernmental Review # 06-E-4220-0296.
The NCDOT, TPB would like to make the PDEA aware that there is a current TIP # R-2580
Project impacting this TIP # U-3326
R-2580 calls for the widening to multilane of US158, from US220 to US29 Business (Freeway
Dr).
Please see the attached graphic for a better view of these proposals. If you have aiiy further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 733-4705 or email at [e-mail].
Attachments

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1554
G2 F1 04 ODA 0 P LE 31
www. NCOOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH. NC 27601
Phone [phone]
C
4
?F W A TF
O? RpG
Q -?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
B'9
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
AY2006 April 27, 2006
?ec T OFD ?,
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
?O
From: Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quali -Salem Regional Offic.=
J
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed improvements to US 29
Business (Freeway Drive) from existing SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to Existing NC 14
in Reidsville, Rockingham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-29B(1), State Project
No. 8.1511901, TIPU-3326.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is'our understanding that the project,as presentedwill
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. Little Troublesome Creek and Troublesome Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State and class
WS III; NSW water of the State respectively. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to both creeks and their
tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
3. Little Troublesome Creek is identified as a 303(d) waters of the State for impaired use for aquatic
life due to impervious surface runoff sources. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Little Troublesome
Creek and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water
runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
4. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified. as Water Supply Critical
Area in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS
CA(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
Transpdrtation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699=1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: h-t!g://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
TIP# U-3326
Page 2
The NCDOT will be required to design, construct, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins in the
project area. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the
bridge, so that runoff would enter-said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream, and in
consultation with the DWQ.
General Comments:
5. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
6. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be'required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
7. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream.impacts with corresponding
mapping.
8. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
9. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional, wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation. '
12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
TIP# U-3326
Page 3
13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality tq ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
14. Uncured concrete shall not come into contact with surface waters. Concrete is comprised mostly of
lime (calcium carbonate) and when uncured)is very soluble in water, has a pH of approximately 12
and may cause fish and macro invertebrate kills.
15. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
16. If multiple pipes or.barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
17. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual and NCS000250.
18. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
19. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWT maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
20. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Melba McGee
April 27, 2006
TIP# U-3326
Page 4
21. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
22. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964 or
[e-mail].
cc: Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
GaryJordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ 401/Wetlands Transportation Unit
NOR DEPARTMENT OF CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NM4BER: 06-E-42207029.5.., ...-_:..,F02
/
DATE RECEIVED:"047'04 2006
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/01/2006
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/04/2006
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
LDG - MSC 4617
ARCH IVES-HISTORY B
NC ?
RALEIGH .h
M APq 20

REVIEV DISTRIBUTION 06
ti
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP r
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION S
PIEDMONT TRIAD COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE--National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposed Widening of NC 29 Business
14; TIP #U-3326
REFERENCE NUMBER: 02-E-4220-0483
{f E Z 02- 7009
c- 0 D4,, E'
ql-11,04
?d C,1u•1GE?`Y'
(Freeway Drive) from south Scales Street to NC
CROSS-for The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghohe above submit yo intergovernmental review. Please review NCu27699p1301.by
indicated date to 1301 Mail
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
? CO NTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
?! ?v?
DATE: -?
J
APPENDIX 2
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Project
Team Meeting Agreements
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 3: LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE
(LEDPA)
US 29-Business Widening Project, NCDOT Highway Division 7, Rockingham County
NCDOT TIP Project Nos.: U-3326A & U-332613, WBS No. 34942
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-2913(1) State Project No.: 8.111901
TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen approximately 6.7 miles of
US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane facility from approximately 150 feet south of SR 2670 (South Scales
Street) to SR 2686 (Richardson Drive), under U-3326A, and from SR 2686 (Richardson Drive) to approximately
1,050 feet north of NC 14, under U-3326B. TIP Projects U-3326A and U-3326B are to be let to contract tosether.
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA): Based upon the current project development
Information, the LEDPA is Alternative 5, which is a best-fit widening of US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a four-
lane, median-divided, shoulder-section for U-3326A and a four-lane, median-divided, curb & gutter section for
U-3326B.
The Merger Process Team met on March 15, 2007, and concurs with Alternative 5 as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for the proposed widening of US 29-Business (Freeway
Drive) in Reidsville, NC.
USACE G??`/? '•.' 1'5AR•-?av7 NCDOT a,1z,'
Andy Williams Date Karen S. Reyno d ' Date / r
US - 3 <S /b-7
Christopher A. Miliucher Date
FHWA° -7- - r' '31 1510 7
Felix Davila Date
NCWR(???
Travis Wilson c Date
USFWS ?•. 3 s ioe-)
Gary Jordad) Date
NCDW W • K212 - 7
Ltl.vi,1 i%?, ~ q k-r Dat
NCDCR
Renee-bled to
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A: AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
US 29-Business Widening Project, NCDOT Highway Division 7, Rockingham County
NCDOT TIP Project Nos.: U-3326A & U-332613, WBS No. 34942
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-29B(1) State Project No.: 8.1511901
TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen approximately 6.7 miles of
US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane facility from approximately 150 feet south of SR 2670 (South Scales
Street) to SR 2686 (Richardson Drive), under U-3326A, and from SR 2686 (Richardson Drive) to approximately
1,050 feet north of NC 14, under U-3326B. TIP Projects U-3326A and U-3326B are to be let to contract together.
Avoidance & Minimization: The jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable, based on current information and design available at this time. ate--?
? t7 .fit- ..!/Lz C ,C,tcc .off _,c U_ 'sr L
The erger Process Team met on March 15, 2007, and concurs with the avoidance and minimization
measures for the proposed widening of US 29-Business (Freeway Drive) in Reidsville, NC.
USAC?cLv,??G?/,??.1----- ?
r Andy Williams 1 Date
Christopher A. Militscher Da e
FHWA_--/-f
Felix Davila / Date
NCWRC----
Travis Wilson Date
NCDOT a"U "_ 3 ,'?j/15/o
Karen S. Reynoldg Date
1
USFW$ 3V-,v ??
3 !s Zoo?
Gary Jord / Date
NCDWQ'z*' ,
a. I-vl Date _
NCDCR 3 1 ?1 a
Da e
Sit AA i

APPENDIX 3
Design Public Hearing
Public Notice & Agenda
i}
NOTICE OF A COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO US 29 BUSINESS
(FREEWAY DRIVE) FROM SR 2670 (SOUTH SCALES STREET) TO NC 14 IN
REIDSVILLE
WBS No. 34924.1.1 U-3326 Rockingham County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. followed by a Formal Combined Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the cafeteria of
Reidsville High School, located at 1901 South Park Drive, Reidsville, 27320.
NC Department of Transportation representatives will be available in an informal
setting to answer questions and receive comments regarding the transportation
improvements for this project. The opportunity to submit written comments or questions
will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above
mentioned hours. The formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m.
This project proposes to widen US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) to a multi-lane
roadway from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville. The purpose of the
project is to improve travel time and safety along the existing US 29 corridor in
Reidsville. The project is about 6.7 miles in length. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this .project.
A map setting forth the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the Reidsville City Hall located at 230 ' West Morehead Street, Reidsville,
27320 and at the NCDOT Division District Office located at 920 Montgomery Street,
Reidsville, 27323.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ed Lewis, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1593, or email elewisa-dot.state. nc.us. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing. .
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis at the contact information above as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.

a a
4
orwok
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) Widening
From SR 2670 (South Scales Street)
to NC 14 in Reidsvile
TIP PROJECT U-3326
Federal Aid No. STP-29B (1)
WBS Number 34924
Rockingham County
Combined Public Hearing
Reidsville High School
1901 South Park Drive
. _ . Reidsville
Informal Open House 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
. Formal 'Presentation 7:00pm
May 16, 2006
.ui

?I
I
I ?
a ,• .` S
v e .a
MI
je q^ R•.
1411 I ?;
eo
2W J' {
31 up
u I ii.
we, ano ?+
o?L Wanes . sus
a{
I U
7

\j
]44? _i:.: SR X9
ii. 9
9 6'
/

- AMA
e 9
na ta ?

c ?
.a ?r b
N
N
W,
M•.•?.ew A.
,. E
4ee.• >•,e F
a..-
s 1515
4 v. ?
M
Q
N
O e?
O
p~, be6
5
1512
sa
L•Il
.n:
aNO.
0
n
b
9
1
:
a
S;
m^

i•.
w
aut
L\ Z
fl-fiR
? ? U 7
faN Cj ? J ?_ L
3 J ? -
li7 v .. cC
S n v: ; Y
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and level of service for US 29
Business (Freeway Drive).
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process. NCDOT is soliciting your views
on the location and design of the proposed widening of US 29 Business.
NCDOT's planning and environmental §tudies on the above project are presented in the
environmental document -Environmental Assessment. For the last 30 days, copies of this report and
today's hearing map have been available for public review at Reidsville City Hall located at 230 West
Morehead Street, Reidsville, and at the NCDOT Division District Office located at 920 Montgomery
Street, Reidsville.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several representatives of NCDOT are present at this meeting. Any of these people will be happy to
talk with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. Now that the opportunity is here,
you are encouraged to participate by voicing your comments to the NCDOT representatives at this
meeting, by writing. them on the comment. sheet and leaving it with one of the representatives, by
mailing them in by June 19, 2006, or by recording your statements during the formal hearing tonight.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. Ed Lewis, Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
NCDOT
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY
MAY BE FROM YOUR. OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings.
Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the alignment
by a majority vote of those present.
C?
0
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has ended. NCDOT staff
representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, and Right of Way along with the Federal Highway
Administration will attend this meeting. When appropriate, local governmental officials also attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic c service social
impacts and public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may require additional study and
may be reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of
Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public. You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
Additional coordination about the project with federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources will
be done to obtain their comments about the project.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
"Capacity" is the number of cars and trucks that pass through a roadway section in an hour
depending on the roadway and traffic conditions. So capacity is measure of how well a road can
serve the amount of cars and trucks that use it. This measure is broken into six levels of service, or
LOS, with A being the best and F being the worst. For example, a big increase in the number of cars
and trucks on a section of road can cause congestion that decreases the capacity leading to a drop
in the LOS grade.. US 29 will operate at LOS F by the Year 2025 without the proposed
improvements. With the proposed improvements in place, US 29 Business would operate overall at
LOS C in 2025.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
US 29 Business runs south to north within the project limits. It is identified as an Urban Minor Arterial
and an Other Urban Principal Arterial in the Functional Classification System. The US 29 Business
corridor is included in local land use and development plans such as the Freeway Drive Corridor
Plan, the Reidsville Reflections 2010 Plan, and the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Reidsville.
v.7
The proposed project will widen miles of US 29 to a 4-lane freeway between SR 2670 (South
Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville-.'The project is divided into two sections (Project- 0=3326A and
Project U-33266). U-3326A begins at South Scales Street (SR 2670), ends at Richardson Drive (US
158), and is located within the water supply watershed of Reidsville Lake and Troublesome Creek.
U-3326B begins at Richardson Drive (US 158) and ends at NC 14. The project would have two 12'
wide lanes in each direction, a raised 17.5' wide curb and gutter median with shoulders to the outside
in Section U-3326A and curb and gutter to the outside in Section U-3326B.
The interchanges along the project will be re-designed as a result of the proposed widening, some
signals will be added, and the existing bridges will be replaced. The bridge carrying Wentworth
Street grade separation over US 29 Business will be replaced. Additional intersections will be re-
aligned to tie into US 29 Business at slightly different locations, and additional signals are proposed.
The majority of the project will have partial control-of-access (Generally one access to road per
parcel.). Full control-of-access (Generally no direct access to road) will occur at the three grade-
separated interchanges and corresponding interchange ramps within the project limits. The number
of driveway entrances will be reduced as well. Three two-lane, two-way service roads will be
constructed along Freeway Drive to provide access to those businesses that will lose their existing
access due to providing full control-of-access at the locations previously mentioned.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this project.
Great efforts were undertaken to limit the impacts of the proposed widening to the homes and
businesses. Although the posted speed limit has not been finalized at this time, the design speed is
50 miles per hour through the entire project.
The project is tentatively scheduled to start the right-of-way acquisition process in March 2008 and
the construction of the project is tentatively scheduled to start in October 2010. Please remember
that schedules may change.
ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
There are three build alternatives for US 29 Business proposed in the Environmental Assessment.
Alternative 1 maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignments along US 20 Business
(Freeway Drive). This is a "best fit" widening alternative that will provide two, 12-foot travel lanes in
each direction, a raised 17.5-foot curb and gutter median, and 8-foot shoulders on the outside. A
figure showing the typical section is attached.
Alternative 3 maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignment along US 29 Business. This
best fit, widening alternative provides two, 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a 16-foot center left
turn lane, and 8-foot outside shoulders. A figure showing the typical section is attached.
V-1 ? I
Alternative 5 (Recommended) maintains the existing pnd horizontal alignments along US 29.
Section A of this best.fit, widening altemative provides two, 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a
raised 17.5-foot wide curb and gutter median, and 8-foot outside shoulders. Section B is exactly the
same except it proposes curb and gutter to the outside. A figure showing the typical section is
attached. Alternative 5 is the recommended alternative.
A table showing each alternative and its summary of impacts is shown on the next page.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 1 contains a comparative summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the
three build alternates. The impacts associated with the proposed project are described in
detail in Section III of this document.
Table 1: Summary of Impacts
Category Units Alternate 1 Alternate 3 Alternate 5
Project Length Miles 6.7 6.7 6.7
Residential Relocations Total 7 7 7
Minority 3 3 3
Business Relocations Total 16 18 16
Minority 2 2 2
Total Relocations Total 23 25. 23
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0 0 0
Potential Hazardous
Material Sites Each 14 l4 14
Wetlands Each / Acres 3 / 0.021 3 / 0.021 3 / 0.023
Stream Impacts Each / Linear feet 18 / 2,580 18 / 2,614 18 / 2,744
Protected Species Species 0 0 0

Noise (0 - 6 dBA) Impacted Properties
(Residence - Business),

2

2

2
Architectural Resources Eligible Properties 0 0 0
Archaeological Resources Eligible Properties 0 0 0
Air Quality : Carbon
Monoxide Concentration NAAQS Standard • In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance
Construction Cost Dollars S 41,300,000 S 41,100,000 S 42,700,000 .
Right of Way Cost. Dollars S 16,115,450 S 16,537,900 S 14,199,250
Total Cost Dollars S57,415,45 0 S 57,637,900 S 56,899,250
Notes:
s National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Maximum CO permitted per hour average = 35 parts per million
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the State-
Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal funds and 20% State
Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of projects on
the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance cost after construction. The Federal
Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal-Aid Project is designed, constructed, and maintained to
Federal-Aid Standards.
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be staked in
the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right of Way Agent will contact you and arrange
a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project will affect you. The
agent will inform you of your rights as a property owner. If permanent right of way is required,
professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The
evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then the. Right of Way
Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its highest and
best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of the project,
additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available. You will also be provided
with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments, moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional monetary
compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of
comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist business owners. The
Right of Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SIGN IN TABLE OR FROM
THE RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE.
r
W
Q
Z
w
W.
z
O
I--
L)
W
vn
oG
W
Cl
.J
t/1
0
W
W
Z
oC
O
U-

W
M
3
Q
•o
N
M
CV)
m
O

W
cv)
N Y
W oC ?
H- Q t
Z = H
w? O. W
V?

J
Q

LLJ
Z H
O
I
W

W N 0
W
N
3
140
N
m
ce
W
to 0
W
?. O
Q N
Z
w/
W ?
Q p
W
H
•o
N
(r1
CV)

Z
O
oc
W
L
W
Z
Q Q
Z ad
D
u V
J
Q W
0
w-

%0
N
M co
C
COMMENT SHEET
US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR 2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14
Combined Public Hearing - May 16, 2006
TIP Project No. U-3326 Rockingham County Project 34924
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
(Please include your thoughts about the three alternatives along with your comments and questions.)
Comments must be received by June 19, 2006. Send comments to:
Ed Lewis, Senior Public Involvement Officer
Human Environment Unit
N. C. Department Of Transportation
1583 Mail Service Center--"---
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
90OZ 'al. Avvy SuposH ollqni
£8S L-669LZ oN 'N93191"
Jelueo eoliueS IIeW £8S L
mun 4uewuciinu3 ueuinH - JLOa0N
sIMe1 pa
Qzcs-n
APPENDIX 4
Advantages of the Four-Lane,
Median Divided Section
ADVANTAGES OF THE FOUR-LANE MEDIAN DIVIDED FACILITY
Fact Sheet
Safety Benefits
• In comparison to a 5-lane facility with a central two-way left-turn lane, the four-lane divided median
facility separates opposing traffic and significantly reduces a wide range of common accidents,
including rear-end, right angle, head-on, and left-turn. The median also reduces property damage,
injuries and fatalities related to these accidents.
• By limiting motorist conflict points, medians eliminate potential conflicts such as: passing in the center-
turn lane; accelerating in the center-turn lane; head-on collisions; mid-block U-turns/crossing
maneuvers; and left-turns onto an arterial road.
• A median reduces driver confusion by concentrating maneuvers to an intersection where they are more
expected and more effectively controlled via traffic control devices. In comparison, many drivers do
not properly use center-turn lanes. Drivers who shadow, illegally pass, and accelerate in these lanes
are typically looking for gaps and may not see another vehicle stopping or slowing immediately in
front of them, for example. During peak periods, the two-way turn lane becomes congested and
opposing vehicles attempting to turn left often rely on "courtesy gaps" and. turn in front of slow
moving and standing traffic and are then struck by oncoming traffic in parallel lanes that does not see
these vehicles in time to properly react.
• As average daily traffic increases, the benefits of the four-lane divided median also increase in
comparison to the 5-lane facility-especially at a volume of 24,000 or higher.
• When left-turns are opposed by high volumes, movement is safer at. concentrated/well defined points as
provided by median divided sections.
• When through traffic nears 28,000 vehicles a day, motorists desiring to turn left from a 5-lane section
have difficulty finding a safe gap in oncoming traffic.
• A median section minimizes headlight glare from vehicles traveling in the opposing direction.
A median section provides a refuge area for pedestrians (especially beneficial for elderly or handicap
persons) wishing to cross the facility.
Accident Reduction Data
• NCDOT engineers studied similar facilities along U.S. 421, N.C 132 and U.S. 17/Market Street in
Wilmington. From 1997 to 2000, the total accident rate of 4-lane divided facilities ranged from two
to six times less than the 5-lane facilities. In addition, for every 1,00 million vehicle miles of travel
the 4-lane median divided section will result in approximately $13.5 million dollars less in total cost
due to accidents than the 5-lane section.
• Research by the Georgia Department of Transportation revealed that 4-lane divided have 15% fewer
total accidents and 52% fewer fatal accidents than 5-lane sections.
• Michigan found they have 57% fewer accidents on 4-lane divided than 5-lane facilities and Florida
found they have 25% fewer accidents on 4=lane divided than 5-lane facilities. .
• A study performed in Oregon on U.S. 101 in Newport-Lincoln City found that when a median is
provided the accident rates were relatively low even with a large number of access points. However
in the non-divided sections of the same facility, the number of accidents parallels the number of
access points.
Replacement of a 5-lane section with a median divided section on L???., in resulted ___
• Memorial Drive in Atlanta 111
a 47% reduction in the total crash rate on this facility and a 23% reduction in injury rates.
Secondary Benefits
• Medians improve traffic flow, which results in less congestion, less emissions and less consumption of
fuel.
• Medians help the facility to operate at intended traffic speeds.
• Median divided sections require less pavement, resulting in less runoff, and provides the potential for
aesthetically pleasing landscaped areas.
• Medians maintain the integrity of the facility by encouraging quality development and promoting better
local management of land use.
• Median divided sections help to preserve community character
Note: More information on the safety studies and statistics outlined are available by calling BenJetta
Johnson at [phone].
APPENDIX 5
Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis
-3. U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
MSAT ATTACHMENT
In February 2006, the FHWA issued guidance for addressing Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs) in the environmental documents of all federally funded projects. All documents signed
by the FHWA after February 3, 2006 must include MSAT language that meets the required
guidance. Because no such language appeared in the Environmental Assessment, it is included
in the FONSI.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road 'equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or
passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion
of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or
from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
'29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene;
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-
highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in Figure 1 below:
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards
were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority
of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21
and the primary six MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This document includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project.
-4- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Figure 1
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions,
2000-2020
VW
(trillions/year)
6

rw matle kyrk
Einissions
(tons/year)
200,000
100,000
'"t tletwe fix;
?36?taelk?e ?i1ri;
ACLIkb yl63%
0
2000
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are
held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth
rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic
carbon and S04 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts
of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this document. Due to these
limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project
would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling; dispersion modeling in order
to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in
order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination
of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by
technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the
MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited
applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are
projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This
means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific
2005 2010 2015 2020
.5- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation,
MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be
present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller
projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed,
although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the
emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a
limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM
under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to
quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions.
MOBII,E6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses
between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of
travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current
regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a
decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to
determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more
accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location
within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure
patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess
potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying
models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on
identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the
NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion
models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in
establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.
• Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of
MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure
assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about
project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to
accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the
portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific
location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There
are also considerable uncertainties associated, with the existing estimates of toxicity of the
various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of
occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any
calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than
the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this
information against other project impacts that are better'suited for quantitative analysis.
-6- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of
MSATs Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types,
there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse
health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to
large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency
conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates
of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or
benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the
levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants.
The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that
may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is
located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized
MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries.
This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most
current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data
are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure.
• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and
sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination
of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer
hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could
produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships
have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The
Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has
undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary
of the series is not expected for several years.
-7- U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problemst. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs,
instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot
evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that
would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do
allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects,
the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations
or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy
to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not
capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the
relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a
determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the
human environment."
For each alternative in this project, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative: The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build.Altemative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase
in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The
emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds;
according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except
for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related
emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due
to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is expected
there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various
alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than
present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected
to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may
differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and
local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be
lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of
8 - U-3326
Draft FONSI Review
June 8, 2007
moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each
alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher
under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. Localized increases in MSAT
concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the west side of US 29 Business when
widening occurs to the west and along the east side of US 29 Business when widening occurs to
the east. Lesser increases in MSAT concentrations with respect to each side of the roadway will
occur when widening is symmetrical. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the
duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately
quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum,_ when a highway is
widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for
the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset
due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover,
will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide
MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health
Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality);
NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental
Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.
APPENDIX 6
Rockingham County
Board of Education
Right-of-Way Acquisition Approval
Rock'iagham County Schools
Rockingkam County Schools
511 Harrington Highway
Eden, North Carolina 27288
February 15, 2006
Ms. Karen S. Reynolds
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
R. William Holcomb
Associate Superintendent
[phone]; FAX [phone]
Thank you for your presentation to the Board of Education this past Monday evening
pertaining to the Moss Street/Freeway Drive Intersection in Reidsville. As you know the
Board approved the right-of-way acquisition with the understanding that there will be no
adverse impact on the Moss Street Elementary School or any of its amenities. The
Board did include in their motion that any costs for safety fencing or sign relocation
needed due to the right-of-way reconstruction be covered by NCDOT.
Thanks again for your help in.this matter. If I can be of any further help to you, please
call me at 336-627-2611.
Sincere y,
R. William Holcomb
Acting Superintendent
Teaching All Students to Become Productive Citizens and Lifelong Learners
APPENDIX 7
City of Reidsville -Sidewalk Design
Revision Agreement Letter

City of Reidsville 230 West Morehead Street, Reidsville, North Carolina 27320 • [phone]
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
July 3, 2007
Mr. Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N-C 27611
Dear Linwood:
This letter is in response to a telephone conversation-that Michael Pearce and I
had with Jim Speer several months ago regarding the construction of a sidewalk along
Freeway Drive in Reidsville. As we discussed with Jim, we understand that there are
environmental and logistical issues associated with building a 10-foot-wide. asphalt trail
along Freeway Drive. Therefore, it is reasonable and perhaps more practical to construct
a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk instead. It is our understanding that this sidewallc will be
constructed from Lawndale Drive to Vance Street. It is further understood that the
Greenway Trail that the City will be constructing from Sherwood Drive will be able to
link up to this sidewalk.
We appreciate the willingness of you and your staff to vrork out these types of
design issues with us, and we look forward to enjoying the final results of this project.
Sincerely,
D. Kelly Almond
City Manager
cc: Michael Pearce, Community Development Director
Paperer