M329

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Due (firm deadline):

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air )'Soil & Water o Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville ? Groundwater "ildlife ? Water Resources

? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation ? Other
ater Quality '-tx,4
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OTRegion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
c No objection to project as proposed.
o No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
Az I UrUll I V:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
E
L
US 29
Proposed Danville Bypass
US 29NA Route 58/US 265 Interchange
Caswell County, State Project No. 6.481009
TIP Project No. M-329
? O
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION H Clod
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF r?
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]

2- ?/"
2? q9 ?
Date r William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
US 29
Proposed Danville Bypass
US 29NA Route 581US 265 Interchange
Caswell County, State Project No. 6.481009
TIP Project No. M-329
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
February, 1999
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
J?Z?
Karen Boshoff
Project Development Engineer
obert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Development Unit Head
C?>?" &?/' A"??
9y9pS'L?D?SeA4S0ey'9
JON
a SEA!
n a 11282
0
•••.....•• S
111,11110:91
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Summary
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Tyke of Action
This is a State Administration Action, combined State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has determined this project will have
no significant impact on the human environment. This combined State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact adequately and accurately discusses the need,
environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that a State Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is not required.
The finding of no significant impact completes the environmental review record. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.
2. Additional Information
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Transportation Building
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
3. Special Permits Required
This project will likely require an individual permit from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) due to the amount of linear stream impacts and potential impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) will be needed prior to the
issuance of the individual permit.
4. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to reimburse the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), an agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia, for
the construction of part of an interchange with the proposed VA Route 58 Danville Bypass
(hereafter referred to as the Bypass). The proposed interchange is located at the existing
Business VA Route 29NA Route 265 (US 29) interchange south of Danville on the North
Carolina/Virginia state line (see Figure 1). The Bypass will be constructed by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) from existing VA Route 58 west of Danville in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to VA Route 265 (US 29) south of Danville. Part of the proposed
interchange extends approximately 0.76 kilometers (0.47 miles) south of the Virginia/North
Carolina border along US 29 into Caswell County. The work within the State of North Carolina
involves partial construction of the interchange south of Danville and the extension of Green
Tree Road (SR 1354) in North Carolina to connect with Sydenham Street (VA Route 1141) in
Virginia.
The total estimated cost for constructing part of the interchange in the State of North
Carolina is $ 3,690,000, which includes $ 3,500,000 for construction and $ 190,000 for right of
way acquisition.
This State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact details impacts
occurring within the State of North Carolina.
Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed VA Route 58 Danville Bypass project was initiated as part of a VA Route
58 Corridor Development Program that was established in 1989 by the Virginia General
Assembly. The Corridor Development Program was established to create and enhance a safe and
efficient highway system connecting the communities, businesses and residents of the
southwestern portion of Virginia with the communities, businesses and residents in the
southeastern portion of Virginia. The proposed interchange on the Virginia/North Carolina
border forms the southeastern terminus of the VA Route 58 Danville Bypass project.
Impacts to unnamed tributaries to the Dan River are anticipated within North Carolina.
Approximately 961 meters (3,154 feet) of streams (perennial and intermittent) will be impacted.
An estimated 0.26 hectares (0.64 acres) of wetlands will also be impacted. Approximately
11.8 hectares (29.2 acres) of natural habitat will be impacted due to project construction.
An additional 6.5 hectares (16.2 acres) of right of way will be required for the proposed
project in North Carolina. One abandoned home will be impacted.
6. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated at this time.
ii
7. Coordination
This project was coordinated with the following federal; state, and local agencies during
this study:
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
US Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Land
Resources
NCDENR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
Caswell County - Office of Economic Development
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, this project will not have a
significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The project has been
reviewed by federal, state, and local agencies and no objections have been raised. No major
objections to the project were voiced at the Design Public Hearing that was held on
November 20, 1997, in Danville, Virginia. For these reasons, it is concluded that a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this project.
9. Summary of Special Project Commitments
An individual permit will likely be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) due to the amount of linear stream impacts and potential impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands resulting from the proposed project. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) -
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of the individual permit.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................1
A. General Description of the Proposed Improvements ...........................................1
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project ..........................................................................1
C. Project Status and Historical Resume ..................................................................2
D. Characteristics of the Existing Facility ................................................................2
1. Length ......................................................................................................2
2. Route Classification ........................................................................... ......2
3. Existing Cross Section ....................................................................... ......2
4. Existing Right of Way ....................................................................... ......2
5. Access Control ................................................................................... ......3
6. Speed Limit ........................................................................................ ......3
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures ........................................................ ......3
8. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................. ......3
9. Utilities ............................................................................................... ......3
10. Geodetic Markers ..................................:............................................ ......3
F. Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................3
II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................4
A. Build Alternatives Considered .............................................................................4
B. Recommended Alternative ...................................................................................4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................5
A. Length of Proposed Project and Project Termini .................................................5
B. Typical Section Description ................................................................................. 5
C. Right of Way ........................................................................................................ 5
D. Access Control ............................................................... 5
......................................
E. Design Speed ....................................................................................................... 6
F. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis .............................................................. 6
G. Drainage Structures .............................................................................................. 6
H. Landscaping ......................................................................................................... 7
I. Degree of Utility Conflicts ................................................................................... 7
J. Noise Barriers ..............................................................
. 7
.
......................................
K. Geodetic Markers ......................................................... 7
........................................
L. Design Exceptions .......................................................... 7
.....................................
M. Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................... 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................8
A. Social Effects .......................................................................................................8
1. Land Use ..................................................................................................8
a. Existing Land Use ........................................................................8
b. Proposed Land Use ......................................................................8
C. Project Consistency with Local Plans ..........................................8
2. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................8
3. Neighborhood Characteristics ..................................................................9
4. Relocatees ................................................................................................9
5. Public Facilities ........................................................................................9
6. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................10
a. Historic Architectural Resources .................................................10
b. Archaeological Resources ............................................................10
B. Economic Effects .................................................................................................11
C. Environmental Effects .........................................................................................11
1. Physical Resources ...................................................................................11
a. Water Resources ..........................................................................11
i. Best Usage Classification ................................................11
ii. Water Quality ...................................................................12
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................13
b. Soils and Topography ..................................................................13
2. Biotic Resources ......................................................................................14
a. Terrestrial Communities
b. Wildlife and Aquatic Communities .............................................15
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
3. Jurisdictional Issues .................................................................................16
a. Waters of the United States ..........................................................17
i. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................17
ii. Anticipated Permit Requirements ....................................19
iii. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ........................19
b. Rare and Protected Species ..........................................................21
i. Federally Protected Species .............................................21
ii. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
Species .................................................................21
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation .........................................................................22
5. Farmland ..................................................................................................22
6. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis ....................... 23
7. Air Quality Analysis ................................................................................23
8. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks ...........................23
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..........................................................................23
A. Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies ............................23
B. Citizens Informational Meetings/Public Hearings ...............................................24
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..................................................................24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
TABLES
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph of Proposed Project Location
Location of Proposed VA Route 58 Bypass
Proposed Interchange Improvements
Perennial and Intermittent Stream Locations/Drainage Pipe Locations
Table 1 Physical Characteristics to Surface Waters .......................................................... 12
Table 2 Soils Occurring in the Project Study Area ........................................................... 14
Table 3 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .................................................... 16
Table 4 Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................... 17
Table 5 Federal Species of Concern for Caswell County ................................................. 22
APPENDICES
Appendix A Relocation Report
Appendix B Relocation Programs
Appendix C Comments received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
US 29
Proposed Danville Bypass
US 29NA Route 58/US 265 Interchange
Caswell County, State Project No. 6.481009
TIP Project No. M-329
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of the Proposed Improvements
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to reimburse the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), an agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia, for
the partial construction of a portion of the proposed VA Route 58 Danville Bypass at the existing
Business VA Route 29NA Route 265 (US 29) interchange south of Danville (see Figure 2). The
proposed Bypass will be constructed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) from
existing VA Route 58 west of Danville in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to VA Route 265
(US 29) south of Danville (see Figure 3). A portion of the proposed project extends
approximately 0.76 kilometers (0.47 miles) south along US 29 into Caswell County from the
North Carolina/Virginia state line. The work within the State of North Carolina involves partial
construction of the interchange with the proposed Bypass and Business VA Route 29NA Route
265 (US 29). Sydenham Street (VA Route 1141) in Virginia will be extended on new location
and connected to Green Tree Road (SR 1354) west of the existing VA Route 29NA Route 265
(US 29) interchange (see Figure 4).
This State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact details impacts
occurring within the State of North Carolina.
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed Bypass is to enhance the flow of traffic along the east-west
corridor through the City of Danville and Pittsylvania County. The new route will also provide
an additional crossing of the Dan River and complete the final segment for a Southern Bypass for
the City of Danville.
The proposed interchange will provide access to the proposed Bypass from Business
US 29NA Route 265 (US 29) south of Danville.
C. Project Status and Historical Resume
The proposed VA Route 58 Danville Bypass project was initiated as part of the VA
Route 58 Corridor Development Program that was established in 1989 by the Virginia General
Assembly. The Corridor Development Program was established to create and enhance a safe and
efficient highway system connecting the communities, businesses and residents of the
southwestern portion of Virginia with the communities, businesses and residents in the
southeastern portion of Virginia. The proposed interchange on the Virginia/North Carolina
border forms the southeastern terminus of the VA Route 58 Danville Bypass project.
D. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Len
The portion of the proposed Bypass located in North Carolina stretches
approximately 0.76 kilometers (0.47 miles) in length along US 29 into Caswell County
from the North Carolina/Virginia state line.
2. Route Classification
US 29 in Caswell County is classified as a rural principal arterial in the vicinity of
the project. Green Tree Road (SR 1354) is classified as a rural local road and serves as an
access/service road to residences and businesses located immediately west of US 29.
Green Tree Road serves as an access road to a water pumping station for a rest area
located on US 29 approximately 2.25 kilometers (1.4 miles) south of the North
Carolina/Virginia state line.
3. Existing Cross Section
US 29 has an existing travelway width of 14.4 meters (48 feet) which includes
two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction of travel. Paved shoulders are
located on both sides of the traveled ways which include a 3.0-meter (10-foot) paved
shoulder to the right of traffic and a 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulder to the left of
traffic. The existing facility has an 18-meter (60-foot) grassed median.
The existing interchange ramps have pavement widths of 4.9 meters (16 feet).
Green Tree Road (SR 1354) is a two-lane facility with a 6.2-meter (20-foot)
pavement width and grassed shoulders.
4. Existing Right of Way_
The existing right of way along the mainline of US 29 in the project area has a
width of approximately 131 meters (430 feet). Green Tree Road (SR 1354) is located
within the right of way of US 29.
2
5. Access Control
There is full control of access along existing US 29 in the project area.
6. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit on US 29 is posted 55 MPH (90 km/h). No speed limit is
posted on Green Tree Road (SR 1354).
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are currently no bridges or major drainage structures along the portion of
the project located in North Carolina. There are two (2) existing pipes conveying streams
under US 29. A 1500 mm (60 in) pipe is located under US 29 approximately 300 meters
(984 feet) south of the North Carolina/Virginia state line. A 1200 mm (48 in) pipe is
located approximately 38 meters (125 feet) south of the state line under US 29.
8. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along the proposed project located in North
Carolina.
9. Utilities
Utility involvement along the proposed project located in North Carolina is
considered minor. Water and sewer lines run west of US 29 from Danville, Virginia, to
the North Carolina Visitor Center on US 29 in Pelham (located 2.25 kilometers
[1.4 miles] south of the North Carolina/Virginia border). The water and sewer lines are
located within the existing right of way of US 29.
A water pumping station is located within the proposed right of way limits of the
project in the southwestern quadrant of the proposed interchange. The pumping station is
located on Hatcher Road (also designated as SR 1354), a local dead end road that forms a
T-intersection with Green Tree Road (SR 1354).
10. Geodetic Markers
One geodetic marker is located within the proposed project limits in Caswell
County.
F. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes in the project area were generated for the year 1996 and the design year
2020. The information used to generate the traffic volumes assumed that all the
recommendations in the Danville Year 2000 Transportation Plan will be implemented. The
Danville Transportation Plan is currently being updated and traffic volumes are subject to
change. US 29 south of the North Carolina/Virginia state line has a 1996 traffic volume of
17,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The traffic on US 29 in the project area is expected to increase to
19,260 vpd by the design year 2020 with the implementation of the Bypass.
Current traffic volumes on Green Tree Road (SR 1354) are low and generally limited to
vehicles traveling to and from residences located along this road. Green Tree Road also provides
access to two businesses located next to US 29.
II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Build Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives for the proposed VA Route 58 Danville Bypass were studied. The
western terminus of Alternative A had a proposed trumpet interchange near the intersection on
VA Routes 51 and 58 west of Danville. The western terminus of Alternative B had a proposed
trumpet interchange on existing VA Route 58 near VA Route 878. Both alternatives utilized the
existing Business VA Route 29NA Route 58 (US 29) interchange for the southeastern terminus
of the proposed Bypass.
Two alternatives were considered for the proposed interchange. An alternative was
considered that would utilize the existing interchange. at Business VA Route 29NA Route 265
(US 29) south of Danville as much as possible. After further evaluation of the traffic function
and cost, it was determined that utilizing the existing interchange will be more costly and will not
provide adequate traffic service in the design year (2020).
B. Recommended Alternative
A modified Alternative B is the recommended alternative for the proposed VA Route 58
Danville Bypass (see Figure 3). The recommended alternative begins with an interchange at
existing VA Route 58 near Duncan Drive (VA Route 878) in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The
proposed alignment proceeds to the southeast and crosses over Berry Hill Road (VA Route 863).
A diamond interchange is proposed at Oak Ridge Farms Road (VA Route 1260). The mainline
crosses under Oak Ridge Farms Road and turns east before it crosses over Vandola Road (VA
Route 870). The proposed alignment crosses over the Dan River with a proposed bridge. The
proposed alignment then crosses under the Southern Railway, Princeton Road (VA Route 1140),
and Sydenham Street (VA Route 1141). Sydenham Street will be realigned and connected to
Green Tree Road (SR 1354) in North Carolina to maintain access to properties (see Figure 3).
A complete redesign of the existing Business VA Route 29NA Route 265 (US 29)
interchange is proposed. Two ramps have been added to relieve traffic congestion and to provide
for more direct access to the Apac-Virginia, Vulcan Materials, and Corning Glass Companies.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Proposed Project and Project Termini
The portion of the proposed interchange located in Caswell County, North Carolina has
an approximate length of 0.76 kilometers (0.47 miles) heading south along US 29 from the North
CarolinaNirginia state line.
B. Typical Section Description
A small portion of the US 29 mainline in Caswell County, North Carolina will be
realigned to accommodate the redesigned interchange. The realigned US 29 will have two
3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction of travel and an 18-meter (60-foot) grassed
median. Paved shoulders will be 3.0 meters (10 feet) wide to the right of traffic and 1.2 meters
(4 feet) wide to the left of traffic.
The proposed interchange ramps will have variable travelway widths with 2.4-meter
(8-foot) paved shoulders to the right of traffic and 0.9-meter (3-foot) paved shoulders to the left
of traffic.
The realigned Green Tree Road (SR 1354) will have a pavement width of 5.4 meters
(18 feet) with grassed shoulders.
C. Right of Way
Additional right of way will be acquired on both sides of existing US 29 to accommodate
the redesigned interchange and the realigned service road (Green Tree Road) in North Carolina.
Approximately 6.5 hectares (16.2 acres) of additional right of way is needed for the proposed
improvements to the existing interchange and the realignment of Green Tree Road in Caswell
County, North Carolina. The county maintained water pumping station located on Hatcher Road
west of US 29 will not be located within the right of way of the proposed project.
The NCDOT is responsible for acquiring the right of way needed for construction of the
proposed project in the State of North Carolina.
D. Access Control
The proposed Bypass will be a limited access highway.
Full control of access will be obtained for the section of the proposed interchange south
of Danville located in Caswell County, North Carolina. The controlled access line on the
southwestern quadrant of the proposed interchange will be located between Green Tree Road
(SR 1354) and the ramp connecting US 29 in North Carolina and the proposed Bypass.
5
E. Design Speed
The design speed for the realigned mainline of US 29 is 100 km/h (62 MPH). The design
speed for the ramps associated with the proposed interchange vary between 80 and 90 km/h (50
and 56 MPH). US 29 will continue to have a posted speed limit of 55 MPH.
The realigned Green Tree Road (SR 1354) has a design speed of 50 km/h (31 MPH)
F. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The information used to generate the traffic volumes assumed that all the
recommendations in the Danville Year 2000 Transportation Plan will be implemented. The
Danville Transportation Plan is currently being updated and traffic volumes are subject to
change. US 29 south of the North Carolina/Virginia state line has a 1996 traffic volume of
17,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The traffic on US 29 in the project area is expected to increase to
19,260 vpd by the design year 2020 with the implementation of the Bypass.
The concept of level-of-service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic system and how these conditions are perceived by motorists and/or
passengers. A level-of-service (LOS) definition generally describes these conditions in terms of
such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort,
convenience, and safety. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined six (6) level-of-
service categories with letter designations from A to F. LOS A represents the best operation
conditions and LOS F represents the worst. Generally, highways are designed to operate at
LOS C during peak traffic periods. Traffic flow at LOS C is stable, but vehicle operation is
beginning to be significantly affected by other vehicles in the traffic stream.
It is anticipated that the proposed interchange will function at a level-of-service (LOS) A
in the design year (2020).
G. Drainage Structures
There are no major drainage structures along the proposed alignment. Two existing
drainage pipes located under US 29 (as described in Section I.D.7) will need to be extended. A
third pipe will be placed under the US 29 mainline and the proposed ramp and service road west
of US 29 approximately 367 meters (1,204 feet) south of the North Carolina/Virginia border.
Two pipes will be placed at different locations under the proposed ramps east of the US 29
mainline (600 mm and 900 mm diameter respectively). Three pipes will be placed at different
locations under the proposed ramps and service road (SR 1354 - Green Tree Road) located west
of the US 29 mainline. Figure 5 shows the locations of the proposed drainage pipes associated
with this project.
6
H. Landscaping
No special landscaping is recommended for the portion of the project located in North
Carolina. Standard landscaping will be provided as needed for erosion control purposes.
Degree of Utility Conflicts
Utility conflicts associated with the proposed project are considered minor. Water and
sewer lines, located west of US 29, run from the City of Danville in Virginia to the North
Carolina Visitor Center in Pelham. The Visitor Center is located approximately 2.25 kilometers
(1.4 miles) south of the North Carolina/Virginia border on US 29. A large portion of the sewer
line and a much shorter section of the water line will have to be moved due to the construction of
the proposed project.
A water pumping station is located west of US 29 off of Green Tree Road (SR 1354).
The pumping station is located on Hatcher Road (also designated as SR 1354), a local dead end
road that forms a T-intersection with Green Tree Road (SR 1354) west of US 29. The pumping
station will not be moved. Access to the pumping station will be increased by approximately one
(1) mile.
The NCDOT is responsible for relocating and/or adjusting any utilities in conflict with
the proposed project in the State of North Carolina.
Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are recommended for the portion of the proposed project located in
Caswell County, North Carolina.
K. Geodetic Markers
One geodetic marker may be impacted by the proposed project. The North Carolina
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
L. Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated at this time.
M. Cost Estimate
The total estimated cost for the construction of part of the interchange in the North
Carolina is $3,690,000, which includes $3,500,000 for construction and $190,000 for right of
way acquisition.
7
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The project area located in North Carolina is characterized by single
family residential, public utility facilities, and undeveloped lands. A quarry is
located next to the southeastern quadrant of the proposed interchange. Single
family development and a small commercial node are found along the
southwestern quadrant of the proposed interchange.
b. Proposed Land Use
Future land uses are anticipated to reflect existing land uses.
C. Project Consistency with Local Plans
Caswell County does not have land use or development plans for the
project area. The area of the project located in Caswell County is not restricted to
any zoning ordinances.
2. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Roadway improvements can sometimes lead to secondary and cumulative
impacts. Depending upon factors such as local land development regulations,
development demand, and water/sewer availability, additional development and sprawl
can be encouraged due to highway construction projects. Improvements to level of
service, better accommodations of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in travel
times can have land development impacts outside of a project area.
This environmental assessment does not address impacts within the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The proposed Danville Bypass located mostly within
Virginia will have secondary impacts within the state of North Carolina. The project area
has stronger economic ties with Danville, Virginia than with Caswell County, North
Carolina. The proposed Bypass will become part of the Danville metropolitan area and
will have better transportation connections with Virginia than with Caswell County.
Water and sewer services are available close to the project area in Caswell
County. Suburban/residential development can be anticipated from US 29 west to the
Dan River along NC 700. Less development, if any, is anticipated to the east of US 29
due to the presence of the quarry and the proximity of railroad lines. Most of the
secondary impacts are expected to occur within Virginia.
8
3. Neighborhood Characteristics
Caswell County is located in the north central Piedmont region of North Carolina
and is surrounded by Person, Orange, Alamance, Guilford, and Rockingham counties and
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Caswell County is part of the Region G Piedmont Triad
Council of Governments.
According to the 1990 Census, Caswell County had a population of 20,693. The
Office of State Planning (OSPL) estimated that in 1997 Caswell County's had a
population of 22,059. Caswell County experienced a population growth of approximately
6.6 % between 1990 and 1997.
The 1997 OSPL Estimates indicates that 13,452 (60.98 %) of Caswell County's
residents are white and 8,607 (39.02 %) are non-white. The OSPL Estimates for 1990
shows a Hispanic population of 136 (0.66 %) which is lower than the statewide average
of 1.16 %. The 1990 median age for Caswell County is 35.7 years, in comparison with
the state's average age of 33.2 years.
The proposed project does not divide any populated communities or
neighborhoods. The project area is void of any cultural or ethnic centers.
4. Relocatees
One residence was identified in the October 1998 relocation report as requiring
relocation. It was noted in the report that this residence appeared to be vacant. See
Appendix A, Page A-1 for the relocation report.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
1) Relocation Assistance
2) Relocation Moving Payments, and
3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
These regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are
compensated fairly for the loss of value of their property. See Appendix B for further
discussion of the NCDOT Relocation Programs (Pages B-1 and B-2).
5. Public Facilities
A water pumping station is located within the proposed project area. Relocation
of the access road, Green Tree Road (SR 1354) will slightly lengthen service trips to the
pumping station. Currently, the distance to the pumping station from US 29 Business
9
along Green Tree Road (SR 1354) is approximately 0.6 miles. This distance will be
increased by approximately one (1) mile with the relocation and extension of Green Tree
Road to connect with Sydenham Street (VA Route 1141) just north of the state line.
Water and sewer main lines located within the project area will be relocated. No schools
or institutions are located in or adjacent to the project area.
No police, fire, EMS, or other public service providers are located in or adjacent
to the project area. Public services should generally not be affected by this project,
although EMS or ambulance service to medical facilities within Danville, VA may be
enhanced. Residential and commercial areas currently accessible via an access road
(SR 1354 - Green Tree Road) west of US 29 already require county and state public
service providers to access these areas through Danville, Virginia. Relocation of the
access road will require a slightly longer trip into Virginia to service these areas.
6. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with the North Carolina Executive
Order XVI and General Statute 121-12(a). Executive Order XVI requires that state
agencies consult with the "North Carolina Historical Commission (GS 121-12) to
institute procedures to insure that State plans and programs contribute to the preservation
and enhancement of non-State owned buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects of
historical, architectural, or archaeological significance".
Potential historic architectural and archaeological resources within the proposed
project corridor were assessed. Based on investigations, the proposed project will not
affect cultural resources. This project is in compliance with GS 121-12(a).
a. Historic Architectural Resources
General Statute 121-12(a) requires that the North Carolina Historical
Commission be given an opportunity to comment if any properties listed in the
National Register are to be affected by the proposed project. There are no
properties listed in the National Register located with in the area of potential
effect (EPA); therefore, no further compliance with GS 121-12(a) is required.
b. Archaeological Resources
A review of the proposed project indicates that there is little likelihood of
significant archaeological sites in the project area. Much of the proposed new
interchange will be constructed on land already disturbed by land alteration
associated with the existing roadway and interchange ramps. There is one small
tributary stream located in the western section of the planned interchange, but it is
unlikely that significant archaeological remains will be located in this upland
terrain.
10
There are no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places within
in the project area; therefore, no further archaeological investigation was done.
B. Economic Effects
The 1990 median household income for Caswell County is $22,736 compared to the
state's average household income of $26,607. The per capita income is $10,070. The 1990
Census indicates that Caswell County has 3,247 persons (16.2 %) living below the poverty level,
of whom 1,192 (5.9 %) live at or below 50 % of the poverty level. According to the
Employment Security Commission, the county's employment rate as of September 1998 is 2 %.
This rate is lower than the state's 3.1 % unemployment rate.
Economic development opportunities associated with the proposed interchange appear to
be limited. The portion of the proposed interchange located in Virginia will provide direct
linkage to an existing commercial strip in southern Danville. The southeast quadrant of the
proposed interchange is unavailable for development because of the location of the quarry. The
southwest quadrant could develop since water and sewer lines are present and two businesses are
already in existence.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Physical Resources
Published resource information pertaining to the project area was gathered and
reviewed as part of a preliminary study on the natural resources. Information sources
included U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Danville), NCDOT aerial
photographs of the project study area (1:1200), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list
of protected species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
uncommon and protected species and unique habitats. NCDOT Natural Systems
Specialists conducted a field survey of the project area on November 12, 1998.
a. Water Resources
Water resources within the study area of the proposed project are located
within the Roanoke River Basin. All of the surface waters located within the
project study area are unnamed tributaries (Ut) to the Dan River. Field surveys
revealed that five (5) surface waters are located within the project study area.
Figure 5 shows the locations of the impacted streams.
i. Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned index numbers
and Best Usage Classifications for streams and tributaries in North
Carolina. Unnamed tributaries (Ut) carry the same index number and Best
Usage Classification as the named stream that they flow into. The DWQ
11
index number for the section of the Dan River closest to the project study
area is 22-(39)-[9/1/57] and the Best Usage Classification is Class C.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Physical
characteristics for the five (5) surface waters found in the project area are
provided in Table 1.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Table 1: Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Stream Width Depth 'Substrate Elotiv Estimated

Intermittent 0.61-1.22 in 5.08-15.2 cm Silt, cobble, slow 209 in (686 ft)
stream #1 (2.0-4.0 ft) (2.0-6.0 in) boulder
Intermittent 0.46-1.07 in 5.08-15.2 cm silt, cobble slow 67 in (220 ft)
stream #2 (1.5-3.5 ft) (2.0-6.0 in)
Perennial 1.22-1.83 in 12.7-17.8 cm silt, cobble slow 518 in (1700 ft)
stream #1 (4.0-6.0 ft) (5.0-7.0 in)
Perennial 0.61-1.22 in 7.62-15.2 cm Silt slow 45 in (148 ft)
stream #2 (2.0-4.0 ft) (3.0-6.0 in)
Perennial 0.91-1.52 in 5.08-15.2 cm silt, cobble slow 122 in (400 ft)
stream #3 (3.0-5.0 ft) (2.0-6.0 in)
ii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality.
The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. There are no
biological monitoring sites within the project study area.
A point source discharge is defined "as any discharge that enters
surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or any other well defined point"
(DWQ 1993). Discharges associated with wastewater treatment plant
facilities, as well as from stormwater collection systems at industrial sites
and in large urban areas, are considered point source discharges. Point
source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There is one
12
permitted discharger located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of the
project study area. Vulcan Materials Company/Shelton Quarry was issued
permit number NCG020155 on November 1, 1993. This permittee
discharges into an unnamed tributary to the Dan River approximately
213.4 meters (700 feet) south of the project study area.
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result
from activities associated with project construction. These impacts are
associated with the construction of drainage pipes and ditches.
Two (2) intermittent streams and three (3) perennial streams will
be impacted as a result of this project. Estimated impacts to the streams
are provided in Table 1. Estimated impacts were calculated using the
entire right of way. The entire right of way may not be impacted;
therefore, actual impacts to the streams may be less.
While estimated impacts to streams are preliminary at this stage of
the project development process, the details of stream involvement and
modification will be included in the application for the 401 Water Quality
Certification. Compensatory mitigation with regard to stream mitigation
is left to the discretion of DWQ. The necessary requirements regarding
stream mitigation will need to be coordinated with DWQ.
Channelization and sedimentation are probable impacts to water
quality. Scouring of the stream bed, soil compaction, and loss of shading
due to vegetation removal are also anticipated as a result of project
construction.
Precautions will need to be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. Stream banks of streams impacted by
channelization and/or relocation will need to be re-vegetated. Permanent
hazardous spill catch basins are not proposed since the project does not
involve any water supply stream crossings.
b. Soils and Topography
• Caswell County is located in the uppermost center of the Piedmont
physiographic region of the state. The elevation at the project study area ranges
from approximately 170.1 m-182.9 in (560.0-600.0 ft) above mean sea level.
A Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey has not been
completed for Caswell County. The Caswell County Soil Conservation Office
provided general descriptions of the soils likely to be present in the project study
13
area. Both Enon and Mecklenburg soils are likely found within the project study
area and are formed on broad and narrow ridges and side slopes (see Table 2).
Table 2: Soils Occurring in the Project Study Area
Mm Unit NTappini Permeability Slope ° Drainage Hvdric
Svmbol,;- Unit s Class
EnB Enon Slowly 2-8 well drained non-hydric
permeable
MkB Mecklenburg Slowly 2-8 well drained non-hydric
permeable
2. Biotic Resources
The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. This
section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between vegetative
and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Plant and animal
community descriptions are provided. Representative animal species likely to occur in
these habitats are cited. Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk
(*) in the text. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with sightings of individuals.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities, Dry Oak Hickory, Piedmont Bottomland
Forest, Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory, and maintained roadside, exist within the project
study area, and will be impacted by the subject project. The maintained roadside
community consists of the highly maintained shoulders and some less intensively
managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural communities. Significant
soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application, keep this community in an early successional state.
Dry Oak Hickory Community
The Dry Oak Hickory community includes herb and vine species such as
goldenrod, greenbrier, muscadine grape, and panic grass. Trees found in this area
include Virginia pine, white oak, Southern red oak, American beech, black haw,
rock chestnut oak, a vaccinium, black cherry, Northern red oak, mockernut
hickory, strawberry bush, white ash, sourwood, redbud, tulip poplar, black gum,
and sweet gum.
14
Piedmont Bottomland Forest Community
The Piedmont Bottomland Forest community includes herb and vine
species such as Japanese grass, Japanese honeysuckle, virgin's bower, common
grapefern, joe-pye-weed, and black rasberry. Due to human disturbances such as
clearing, some species listed for this community are not typically found in a
Piedmont Bottomland Forest Community. Trees present in this community
include Northern red oak, tulip poplar, sweet gum, Virginia pine, white oak,
mockernut hickory, dogwood, dwarf pawpaw, and green ash.
Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Community
The Dry Mesic Oak Hickory community includes herb and vine species
such as Christmas fern, crane-fly orchid, heartleaf, downy rattlesnake plantain, an
aster, wild yam, and a violet. Trees found in this area include rock chestnut oak,
mockernut hickory, red cedar, flowering dogwood, red maple, tag alder, Chinese
privet, white ash, sweet gum, tulip poplar, and American beech.
Maintained Roadside
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the roadside
community include fescue and plantain. In the areas that receive lower levels of
maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. Pussytoes, blackberry,
rabbit tobacco, bushclover, and crown vetch populated this community. Saplings
of Virginia pine, sweet gum, and red maple were also present in this community.
b. Wildlife and Aquatic Communities
Wildlife found in these communities are limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species that are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern
cottontail rabbit, raccoon, white-tailed deer, Virginia oppossum, and gray squirrel
may inhabit forested fringes. The most common reptiles found in such habitats
are eastern box turtle, and predators such as black racer, and eastern garter snake.
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow, American
robin, mourning dove, and European starling. Freshwater fishes likely to be
found in creeks such as perennial streams in the project study area may include
bluehead chub, cresent shiner, and creek chub.
Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting
and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Project construction will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction
concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to
become more susceptible to disease, predation, and starvation.
15
Since much of the project is on new location, it will fragment natural
communities. Roadways act as barriers to faunal migrations and will increase the
number of roadkills within the region. Wildlife crossings will become less
frequent and more difficult especially for less mobile fauna.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced
habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate to areas suitable for the
species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase of
competition for the remaining resources.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near these
resources will have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project study area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community,present in the study area (refer to Table 3).
The impacts are derived based on the entire right of way area (16.8 ha [41.6 ac]).
The entire right of way may not be impacted; therefore, the actual impacts to these
communities may be considerably less.
Table 3: Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community L p F Estimated impacts
y
Dry Oak-Hickory 4.12 ha (10.22 ac)
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 5.30 ha (I3.14ac)
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory 2.36 ha (5.84 ac)
Maintained roadside 5.02 ha (12.34 ac)
Total 16.80 ha (41.54 ac)
3. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular importance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
16
a. Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition
of "waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United
States include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and
wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any action that
proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States falls
under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
i. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are provided in
Table 4. Estimations for these impacts are based on the entire area
contained within the right of way including the existing and proposed right
of way. Often the entire right of way is not impacted; therefore, actual
impacts may be less.
Table 4: Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Weiland Estimated impacts
A 0.033 ha (0.08 ac)
B 0.074 ha (0.184 ac)
C 0.093 ha (0.23 ac)
D 0.056 ha (0.138 ac)
E 0.002 ha (0.005 ac)
Total 0.258 ha (0.637 ac)
Characteristics of wetlands located within the project area are
described below:
Wetland A
This wetland is located west of US 29 near the service road,
adjacent to perennial stream #2. The site is dominated by panic grass,
japanese honeysuckle, and japanese grass in the herbaceous layer. Soft
rush is present in the herbaceous layer but is not dominant. Dominant
species in the canopy layer include tulip poplar, sweet gum, tag alder, and
red maple. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area
17
of impact is approximately 0.033 ha (0.08 ac). Soils at the wetland were
l OYR 4/2 from 0-4 in, l OYR 5/6 from 4-9 in, and l OYR 511 from 9-14 in
with mottles of 7.5YR 6/8 that were common. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO1 Q.
Wetland B
This wetland is located west of US 29 near the service road,
adjacent to perennial stream #2. The site is dominated by panic grass,
japanese honeysuckle, and japanese grass in the herbaceous layer. Soft
rush was present in the herbaceous layer but was not dominant. Dominant
species in the canopy layer include tulip poplar, sweet gum, tag alder, and
red maple. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area
of impact is approximately 0.074 ha (0.184 ac). Soils at the wetland were
l OYR 4/2 from 0-4 in, l OYR 5/6 from 4-9 in, and 1OYR 511 from 9-14 in
with mottles of 7.5YR 6/8 that were common. The Cowardin classification
for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1 C).
Wetland C
This wetland is located west of US 29 near the service road,
adjacent to perennial stream #2. The site is dominated by panic grass,
muscadine grape, japanese honeysuckle, and japanese grass in the
herbaceous layer. Dominant species in the canopy layer include tulip
poplar, black willow, sweet gum, tag alder, and red maple. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils and shallow roots. The estimated area of
impact is approximately 0.093 ha (0.23 ac). Soils at the wetland were
IOYR 3/3 from 0-3 in, IOYR 3/2 from 3-9 in, and 1OYR 5/3 from 9-14 in
with mottles of 2.5Y 6/3 that were common. The Cowardin classification
for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1 C).
Wetland D
This wetland is located west of US 29 near the service road,
adjacent to perennial stream #1. The site is dominated by Chinese privet,
panic grass, Japanese grass, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, and
Virginia chain fern in the herbaceous layer. Dominant species in the
canopy layer include sycamore, red maple, and sweet gum. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils and drainage patterns. The estimated area of
impact is approximately 0.056 ha (0.138 ac). Soils at the wetland were
l OYR 4/3 from 0-11 in and Gley 6/1 OY from 12-14, both with 7.5 YR 5/6
mottles (common). The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine
Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1 Q.
18
Wetland E
The site is dominated by panic grass and Japanese grass.
Dominant species present in the canopy layer include black willow,
sycamore and sweet gum. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils and
standing water. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.002 ha
(0.005 ac). Soils at the wetland werelOYR 5/4 from 0-8 in and 10YR 511
from 8-14 in. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine
Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFOIC).
Estimated impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are provided in
Table 1 on Page 12. A total of approximately 961 meters (3,154 feet) of
streams (perennial and intermittent) will be impacted by the proposed
project. Figure 5 shows the location of the streams that will be impacted
by the proposed project.
ii. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to both jurisdictional surface waters and jurisdictional
wetlands are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public
water resources.
This project will require an individual permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to the amount of linear stream impacts
and potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification
from the NCDENR - DWQ prior to the issuance of the individual permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to 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. The issuance of a
401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404
permit.
iii. Avoidance, Minimization and Miti ation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
19
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According
to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of
overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder
widths.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those that result in the fill
or alteration of.
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
20
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the USACE and DWQ.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
[ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions in Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is considered to be a species
that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is considered to be a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
i. Federally Protected Species
As of January 15, 1999, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
does not list any federally protected species for Caswell County. In
addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on November 9, 1998 indicated that there are no
known occurrences of any federally protected species within the project
study area. Therefore, this project will not impact any federally protected
species.
ii. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are two (2) Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for
Caswell County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal
protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species that may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to
support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
21
Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the
NCNHP list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However the level of protection
given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species,
the species state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for informational
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Caswell County
Scientific Name Conznlon Name Habitat Status
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort No C
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil Yes C
Note: "C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if
present land use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or
Threatened).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit.
A review of the NCNHP database of the rare species and unique habitats
on November 9, 1998 did not reveal any records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Caswell County is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The proposed interchange will not affect any 100-year floodplains.
5. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order No. 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U. S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils are determined by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
economic resources. Land planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to the
same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The land proposed for development of the interchange currently contains single
family residences, a water pumping station, and an access road (SR 1354 - Green Tree
22
Road) to two businesses. The area has already experienced urban and suburban
development. No further consideration of impacts to prime farmland soils is required.
6. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Anal
A residence located southwest of the proposed interchange is the only structure
located near the proposed project. The structure is located approximately 93 meters
305 feet) west of Ramp C and 210 meters (689 feet) west of southbound US 29. The
noise transmission loss provided by the structure should be sufficient to moderate any
intrusive traffic noise. The project's impact on noise levels in the immediate project area
will not be significant.
7. Air Quality Analysis
The proposed project is located in Caswell County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is
not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
8. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
The primary purpose of a hazardous materials evaluation conducted for this
project is to identify properties within the project study area that may contain hazardous
materials and result in future environmental liability if acquired. These hazards include,
but are not limited to underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous waste sites, regulated
landfills, and unregulated dumpsites.
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted within the proposed corridor along
US 29 and area roads. In addition to the field survey, a file search of appropriate
environmental agencies was conducted to identify any known problem sites along the
proposed project alignment. No facilities with the possibility for USTs were identified in
the vicinity of the project during the field survey. The Geographical Information Service
(GIS) was also consulted and no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur
within the project limits. The field reconnaissance also did not reveal dumpsites or any
other potentially contaminated properties within the project corridor.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal State and Local Agencies
On September 3, 1998 letters were mailed to the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State Clearinghouse.
The letters were sent to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning
the proposed project. Comments were received from the following agencies:
23
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division
of Land Resources
NCDENR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
Caswell County - Office of Economic Development
An informal meeting was held on September 22, 1998 with representatives of the
USACE and the NCDENR-DWQ to discuss the scope of the project.
B. Citizens Informational Meetings/Public Hearings
A Citizen Information Meeting was held on May 16, 1990, at the O. T. Bonner
Junior High School in Danville to provide citizens with information concerning the VA
Route 58 Danville Bypass corridor. A Plan Review and Location Public Hearing was
held on December 5, 1991 to present proposed alignments to the public. The
Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the selected alternative for the Bypass on
July 16, 1992. The approved corridor was a modified version of the Alternative B that
was presented at the Location Public Hearing. Modifications to Alternative B were a
result of additional design considerations and comments received at the Location Public
Hearing. The approved corridor location was presented to the public on July 20, 1992 at
a Citizen Information Meeting. The recommended alternative was presented to the public
at a Design Public Hearing held on November 20, 1997 in Danville, Virginia.
On September 3, 1998, the Citizens Participation Unit of the NCDOT sent letters
to property owners to be impacted by the proposed project in Caswell County. The
letters included a copy of the proposed interchange design showing the additional right of
way that may be required. Property owners were encouraged to submit any comments
regarding the proposed project to the NCDOT. The comment period concluded
October 1, 1998. One property owner had a concern regarding access to his property.
Access will be provided to the property.
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

r
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this document
and coordination with appropriate federal, state and local agencies, it is the finding of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. This Finding of No _
Significant Impact completes the environmental review record, which is available for
inspection at the State Clearinghouse. A State Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
will not be prepared for this project.
24
TIP PROJECT NO. M-329
FIGURES
0

Ffir? C A
i
? I asville Ya
' S
rust Mil
? 150
' Mllevill}lf??
? ? M•tk,ns
? I

600 ? I
V ?r 1I? 1/ J
?Z•nl?(r?? -?// r`I ?? I Gol iCourse) •? -
•? 58,J ?1 T l??lllll? 8 °?_ • ?r 's ?.? ?' • ? C??\°o,,\?'?'; % ;?(
??/??L???.' 13; ?•c ?'•u Nh? ) 1 ?!?G?? G??i?I'`\ 540
,f//J?., /? q ?o ° t ',?t?I/ y. -•?';•.? : ! 29 ," ? Q, • so ? ?p. /1 • r r -
,620 ••???\ ?\ ??.•'`. (h! ?\ ,? ?r9 I??Gj \\`1?? ?I ??ti? ?F. rJ ?.
- ^> } / SWhitfield
-57
°ute 58 Bypass • °?° •% • L ° y?`ce ;E _ Route 265/Route 29 Bypass?_
` (propose)
?O / j/? it. c ?. ? ?? ?l - ----^'a?-??_..-\-ems - hite•,
T ?A ' C6_a (,? );` ((/ / ?? • .? , =',? ? 64 ° M \ ?? ?6ad'r? ?,? / VIRGINIA
LL,
NORTH CAROLINA
I J?r._ ??//? .??'\\lS? ?- Jy 14??`fY 1 Lf o0I "''\" ?. • \ ? ?1'• hitetown
\\_? \ ?,:J' o? ,? •707 I?(? `? $l' i?_,?'-, I\ II •jj ???
?r i / T2B?Y % N „?r _f 56 c ' 1 J 11? ii
ve-j
Sher n ,,\.? I ,ice;
u1
-00
m?\? 1 Project
"A 7
1 `
USGS Quad Map: Danville, N.C.
? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
`?. ?/ I ; u°°..•a a °"
`? ?I?l y!_`?'? ru lll??? ?/ `7 ??° • `_• ??i TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
`\ (/ ??r' `` / ° ?_ •/ l + P PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
f BRANCH
US 29 INTERCHANGE WITH THE
1?'r o //? I 9i ° :• ? Q' PROPOSED ROUTE 58 BYPASS
(DANVILLE BYPASS)
?!
% LEGEND:
/G'( CASWELL COUNTY
f> I '!I J ?_ • Proposed Route 58 Bypass TIP PROJECT NO. M-329
^ r Y /`i \J? ? ?? (Danville Bypass) 0 METERS 610

"
VI

4
x
ti

X-1

°r

s
PROPOSED ROUTE 58
DANVI LLE BYPASS
Pineview Road
Duncan Drive)
Berry HII Road
N

Oak Ridge Farms Road
BEGIN PROJECT 7 s
STA. 195+00 f PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
7 Meadowvie 50
Drive
DANVILLE
_Vandolo Church/ DANVILLE
Road

SCALE
0 1200 2400 METERS
70
andola Road
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
,
29
1
I
70 Princeton Road END PROJECT
JSTA. 314+10
14 6
Green Tree Road
NORTH CAROLINA
CASWELL COUNTY
FIGURE 3
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE 58 - 29
e- Ce Jy?OJ?
oll, ?O ?sw CIA
wll?
s ii??
AIARTIIVSVCLE OJ?? -10 ROUTE ? ROVSE 2651R?V B p pss
SB BY-PASS
VIRG7NlA STATE LINE YRGm STATE L*&
NORTH CAROLRrA STATE llrE NORTH CAROLVA STATE L!E
SR 1354 (GREEN TREE RD.)
N O
J
?O
FIGURE 4

1

\

ri ?I

7-4
ZM
rA
a
I
,l

4t

\

i?

I
\

\
LL U
O z
¢
c
z c]
z
O
C Li

F a -
O

0)
- >-
a O N
>
a- ¢z_i O ?j

LL) 3wa.
U
O O
CD IE M: Z C14

¢Z0 O
zo=wa Z
J F- LL > F- O CL -?
O¢owz U U I'
(r - ow L- Q)
aoz z O

UoOUz V)
O

2(n(nwo?
-
)
' n
?l
-
F-Z''
- O O
(r a>0>
0 cr --' W z
zl-0a w
O

O

\
\ r
If,
A
i
z
? Z

\

ti
r
TIP PROJECT NO. M-329
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION REPORT
RELOCATION REPORT
TI E.I.S. [:]CORRIDOR [:]DESIGN
OCT
1 5 1998 z
u
+VU1hC'df0l1. 7 epartment of Transportation
„ 6,
\y-U '???z't?i!s AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
a w
PROJECT: ! 6.481009 ( COUNTY Caswell Alterna-ie 1 of 1 Alternates
I.D.,NO.: M-0329 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPT ION OF PROJECT: US29 Interchange in Ca swell County with Proposed Route 58 Bypass
Danville Bypass) in Pitt s Ivania County, Virginia.

. .. ...
. ..; .
:.........
ST1N)4TED D15AE.AGEES
.
...
INCOME LEVEL . . ,
. ............. .
Type of I t
Dis lacee Owner 1 Tenant Total Minority I
0-1,M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M ( 50 UP
Residential 1 0 j 0 0 0 01 0 i 0 i 0 1 0
Business 0 0 0 0 YALUE:OF DWELLING::. `DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farm 1 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit I 0 j 0 0 0 0-20M 0 I SO-150 I 0 0-20M I 0 $0-150 1 I o
ANSWER . ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M I 0 i 150-250 0 20-40M j . 150-250 I 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 ! 0 40-70M I 0 250-d00 I 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M I 0 1 400-600 0 70-100M I 0 ! 400-600 ' 0
I X
.....
... 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up j 0 ; 600 UP I 0 100 UP I 0 ; 600 up I 0
..
....................
displacement?
TOTAL ! 0 0 0
0
X ! 3. Will business services still be available after
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X
............................. 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, This is a negative report. There are no displacees on this
indicate size, type, estimated number of project.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? The plans show a house in the R/W but it did not appear
6. Source for available housing (list). Occupied at the time of this inspection. It may be considered
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? As a miscellaneous move.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
' X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
1 X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 1
.......
. 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
.
.................
...

housing available during relocation period?
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? NIA

Relocation AgWnT Date r = Approved b ? Date
rorm ia.4 nemsea utjaa at
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-1
TIP PROJECT NO. M-329
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF HIi:11 AYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available Prior to construction of state and federally-
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments and
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
price- of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to pL:r•chas-=
or rent property of higher cost or to 1•-'-e a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the ::2loc-`_on Rep'. acE.,!;E it Housing
Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to 522,500 to
owners .c i a--re and up. to S-5,250 to tenan-t-s -w1-c, are
eligible an?-: qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocatiuii Assistance Acc ;GS-i.i__)- t1.rcugh 133-13). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations
for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race,
color, religion, set, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its
work to allow ample time, prior to displa-E:ment. for neootistions and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purciiases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not oener llv less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of c;ie families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their Places
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced b?? messes, nun-profit organizations, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing,
either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). 'Elie relocation officer will also supply
B-1
information concerning other state and federal programs offering
assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services
as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in
adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payllent is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
it is a policy of the state that no person will displaced by the
XCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and
until comparatle replacement housin? has been offered or provided for
each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement.
No relocatio payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of
determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any ocher federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when' comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary for this project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
B-2
TIP PROJECT NO. M-329
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
?o-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 9, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
C ,E? /7p'bS
?q
a
?z Oct
? 2.199
/YJj3 /S/O'
This responds to your letter of September 3, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts ofa
portion of the proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville, Virginia Bypass), located in Caswell County,
North Carolina (TIP No. M-329). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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 ). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource
agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has begun studying the US 29
interchange with the proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville Bypass) south of Danville on the North
Carolina/Virginia border in Caswell County. NCDOT proposes to partially construct a portion of
the proposed Route 58 Bypass south of Danville. The proposed Route 58 Bypass will be
constructed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) from existing Route 58 west
of Danville in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to Route 265/Route 29 Bypass, south of Danville. A
small portion of the proposed project extends approximately 0.76 kilometer (0.47 mile) south
along US 29 into Caswell County from the state line. The work within the State of North
Carolina involves partial construction of the proposed Route 58 Bypass interchange with Business
Route 29 and Route 265/Route 29 Bypass. In addition, Route 1 141 (Sydenham Street) in
Virginia will be extended on new location and connected to SR 1354 (Green Tree Road) in North
Carolina.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
- enhancement .of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review ofthe project.
C-1
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along; or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to.the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of strearns and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and till areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Danville, VA, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
indicates that there maybe wetland resources within the North Carolina portion of the proposed
project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are usefiil for providing an overview of a given
area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental docurnentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
projects's independent utility,
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative,
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Emgineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the Corps;
C-2
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects,
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity. preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The endangered species map for Caswell County does not show the presence of any federally-
listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species. However., there are two species of vascular
plants known to occur in Caswell County that are Federal Species of Concern (FSC). These are
the Virginia quillwort (Isoel s viigiiucu) and Heller's,trefoil (Loots helleli).
Federal species of concern include those species for which the Service does not have enough
scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the
present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could become
candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating that they
are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection of the
ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your offlicial determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regardin- these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Olin M. Her er
Ecological Services Supervisor
C-3
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Cyndi Bell)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Karen Boshotf)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/8/98:919/550-4520 extension 32:\m-329.tip
C-4
q ?0
S?

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
t:1 V E
4"
5 1995
Otis ?
ti ;GN`h ' o-
Subject: Scoping - Proposed US 29 Interchange with the Proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville
Bypass), Caswell County; TIP #M-329
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 99-E-4220-0172. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 10/10/1998 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant
C-5
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 10, 1998
u4=0
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
October 12, 1998
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
?a` Katie G. Ult ecretary
G
00'. 0
Re: SCH File # 99-E-4220-0172; Scoping Proposed US 29 Interchange with the Proposed Route 58
Bypass (Danville Bypass), Caswell County; TIP #M-329
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region G
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
C-6
1\vi\i la \..l.L\v1111i1 ?71i31 J:.1 \„rL1iLY\ii\VLIVVJL'
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 99-E-4220-0172
DATE RECEIVED: 09/10/1998
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/05/1998
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/10/1998
Clearinghouse Coordinator, Region G
Piedmont Triad COG
2216 W Meadowview Rd
Greensboro NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Crime Cont./ Public Safety
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Dept. of Environment & Natural Res
Piedmont Triad COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposed US 29 Interchange with the Proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville Bypass),
Caswell County; TIP #M-329
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE:

OCT 4- i"'ft
n 1998
N,C. STA i E OLEARINGHOUS,
F02
C-7

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
,n
'A,!
UN g 1998
MEMORANDUM N.C. STATE CLEARI-NG! ;?USE
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeV
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 99-0172 Scoping US 29 Interchange Danville Bypass,
Caswell County
DATE: October 9, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.Us/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
C-8

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 16, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
From: Ed Buchner, DWQ SEPA Coordinator 0
Subject: Comments on EA Scoping #99-0172, DWQ #12228; US 29 Interchange
With The Proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville Bypass) Caswell County.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in the
EA/EIS document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G . Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
C-9
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H . Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts that may be caused by
construction, development or any significant change made to the environment. For
example, a project may cause or increase stormwater runoff or induce further development
of an area. The EA/EIS should give particular attention to secondary and cumulative
impacts.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31
(with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
efb:\#99-0172, Scoping US 29 Interchange With Danville Bypass.
C-10
Qi%_Jic VI rvvi II r `1 ur vi it I"A
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
E??II\vr
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor i'Y
Jonathan B. Howes, Secreta 71998
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist

r
Fin
ID EHNR
Project Number: 2 I -0/72- County: CA,(4 C L-
Project Name: US 2Q 1'1/Tr__RCHgiV6c- W f PR0Fb6,fD PO,,177_? 53 ?y/?fiSS
KC Office of State Planning - Geodetic Survey
L/ This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction cf a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey office
n(at 919/733-3836.
//7 S??ye.n I? o_V7-mar? q 19 8
Reviewer Date
'Erosion and Sedimentation Control' -
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
i? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
s
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
Geolo ical Surve Sec ?or1 ewer Date'
9 y Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
C-11

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
September 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ?n
FROM: David Harrison ?C
SUBJECT: Proposed US 29 Interchange with Proposed Route 58 Bypass
(Danville, VA). Project No. 99-0172.
The proposed interchange will involve construction on a new location.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount
and location of Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives
that reduce impacts to Prime or Important Farmland soils are preferred. A listing
of these soils in North Carolina is available through the MLRA Team Leader,
North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA,
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
The Prime Farmland designation is not limited to land currently being
cultivated. It is intended to identify the best soils that can be used as farmland
without regard to the present vegetative cover. Only areas that are already built-
up or within city limits are exempted from consideration.
DH/tl
Soak
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] CONSERVATION
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER Ez=
C-12

04
e
49
1 Wildlife Res(
c, Raleigh, North Catmint
des R. Fullwood, Executi•
0 North Carolb
512 N. Salisbury st
C
irces Commission ?
7604-11813, 919-733-3391
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Mc e
Office of I ; Jslative and Intergoverr ental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Co: : iighway Project Co or _ l
Habitat C- is ervation Program
DATE: October 5 1)98
SUBJECT: Request R - nformation from the N. Department oi'Transportation
(NCDOT) x garding fish and wildlif :oneerns for the US 29 Interchange
with the p. ); nosed Route 58 Danville -ypass, Caswell County, North
Carolina, ''I I No. M-329, SCH P% :t No: 99-4172.
This memorandui t : •esponds to a request fre
NCDO'r for our concern.- r, :garding impacts on fist:
the subject project. Biol( ; sts on the staff of the N
(NCWRQ have reviewe, t ie proposed improveme
accordance with provisio ts of the North Carolina F
1 et seq., as amended; 1 1 IVAC 25).
Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
nd wildlife resources resulting from
'. Wildlife Resources Commission
a, and our comments are provided in
,ironmenW Policy Act (G.S. I I3A-
At this time the'` WRC has no specific re, mmendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. Hove ;per, to help facilitate doc .lent preparation and the review
process, our general info n- ational needs are outlin, below:
1. Description - f fishery and wildlife rest •ces within the project area,
including t isting of federally or sh designated threatened, endangered,
or special zoncern species. Potentis )orrow areas to be used for project
construct, )r.. should be included in t inventories. A listing of designated
plant spec ie ; can be developed throe h consultation with:
The Natural Heritage
N. C. Division of Pa
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 2761
[phone]
and,
rogram
; and Recreation
C-13
Memo 2 Oct-Ober 5, 1998
NCDA Plant Cons( nation Program
P. Q. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 276 1
[phone]
2. Description of shy streams of wetlant s affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portiom of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should. include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of dit:hing, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Tf the COE
is not consulted, the person delineffIng wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural'resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
ii
Abp
C-14
October 1, 1998
Ms. Ann Wood
Piedmont Triad Council Of Governments
2216 West Meadowview Road
Greensboro, NC 27407-3480
Dear Ms. Wood,
Thank you for forwarding the information regarding the proposed Danville
Bypass project for Route 58 and US 29 (State Project No. 6.481009, TIP
Project No. M-329).
Our greatest concern regarding this project involves re-routing of water and
sewer lines running from Danville to the North Carolina Visitor Center on US
29 in Pelham, NC. Due to the construction of this intersection, a large
portion of the sewer line and a much shorter section of the water line will
have to be moved. Typically, the Virginia Department of Transportation
would cover this cost as roads are built in Virginia. We want to make certain
that VDOT and NCDOT work together to re-route these lines, cover the cost
for construction and that service to the Visitor Center and other customers is
not interrupted during the construction phase.
We are also concerned that our access to the water pumping station west of
US Business 29 not be impeded by construction or by an oversight in the
design of service roads. Currently, we access this facility via Green Tree
Road. According to diagrams we have seen of the proposed intersection, the
only access to Green Tree Road will be approximately two miles north of the
intersection via Sydenham Street in Danville. The access point at Sydenham
Street is more than four miles north of the pumping station. This presents an
extreme inconvenience which will cost the County in vehicle mileage and
employee time every time we monitor the pumping station.
C-15

(A. Wood
page 2)
We request that the North Carolina Department of Transportation look after
the interest of our citizens by insuring that Caswell County will not have to
pay for any of the cost of re-routing water and sewer lines. We also request
that every consideration be given to providing an access road from Business
Route 29 to Green Tree Road south of the proposed point on Sydenham
Street.
Please contact me at [phone] or Eric DeMoura, County Manager at
[phone] if you have any further questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
2e /'?' O/d
Jeff Rudd
Economic Developer
cc: Eric DeMoura

C-16
. Al
x
t
April 1999 Agency Coordination Meeting
US 29, Proposed Danville Bypass, US 29NA Route 581US 265 Interchange
Caswell County, State Project No. 6.481009
TIP Project No. M-329
General Project Description
The NCDOT proposes to reimburse the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB), an agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia, for the partial construction of a
portion of the proposed US 58 Danville Bypass (also referred to as Route 58 Danville
Bypass) at the existing US 29NA 265 interchange south of Danville (see Figure 1 project
vicinity). The proposed Bypass will be constructed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) from existing US 58 west of Danville in Pittsylvania County,
Virginia, to US 29NA 265 south of Danville (see Figure 2). A portion of the proposed
project extends approximately 0.76 kilometers (0.47 miles) south along US 29 into
Caswell County from the North Carolina/Virginia state line. The work within the State
of North Carolina involves partial construction of the interchange that will connect the
proposed Bypass with US 29NA 265. Sydenham Street (VA Route 1141) in Virginia
will be extended on new location and connected to Green Tree Road (SR 1354) west of
existing US 29NA 265 interchange (see Figure 3).
Project History
The Virginia General Assembly initiated the proposed US 58 Danville Bypass
project as part of the US 58 Corridor Development Program established in 1989. The
Corridor Development Program was established to create and enhance a safe and efficient
highway system connecting the communities, businesses, and residents of the
southwestern portion of Virginia with the communities, businesses, and residents in the
southeastern portion of Virginia. The southern terminus of the proposed Bypass project
is located on the Virginia/North Carolina border.
Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed Bypass is to enhance the flow of traffic along the
east-west corridor through the City of Danville and Pittsylvania County in Virginia. The
new route will also provide an additional crossing of the Dan River and complete the
final segment for a Southern Bypass around the City of Danville.
The southeastern terminus of the proposed Bypass project is the existing
interchange south of Danville on the Virginia/North Carolina border. This interchange
connects US 29 Business with US 29 Bypass/VA 265 and will be modified to allow for
the proposed Bypass connection. TIP Project No. M-329 is the portion of the proposed
interchange located in Caswell County, North Carolina.
t
Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
The location of the proposed project in North Carolina is dependent upon the
location of the southern terminus of the proposed US 58 Bypass around Danville. The
logical terminus for the proposed Bypass is at the existing US 29 Business interchange
with US 29 Bypass/VA 265. Therefore, impacts in North Carolina associated with the
proposed project cannot be avoided due to the restricted terminus location of the
proposed Bypass.
The proposed alignment for the service road (SR 1354 - Green Tree Road) west
of US 29 was initially located approximately 18 meters (59 feet) east of the current
alignment shown in Figure 4. The initial alignment impacted a water pumping station
that supplies water to a newly constructed North Carolina Visitor Center located
approximately 300 meters (984 feet) south of the North Carolina/Virginia state line.
Caswell County officials requested avoiding the water pumping station due to the high
relocation cost associated with the station and water lines connected to the station.
Shifting the alignment to avoid the water pumping station roughly doubled the impacts to
nearby wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C on Figure 4).
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Unnamed tributaries to the Dan River will be impacted due to the construction of
part of the proposed interchange in North Carolina. Approximately 961 meters
(3,154 feet) of streams (perennial and intermittent) will be impacted. Refer to Table 1 for
anticipated stream impacts. An estimated 0.26 hectares (0.64 acres) of wetlands will also
be impacted (refer to Table 2). Approximately 11.8 hectares (29.2 acres) of natural
habitat will be impacted due to project construction (refer to Table 3). Refer to Figure 4
for impacted streams and wetland locations.
An additional 6.5 hectares (16.2 acres) of right of way will be required for the
proposed project in North Carolina. One abandoned home will be impacted.
Table 1: Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Stream Width Depth Substrate Flow Estimated
Impacts
Intermittent stream #1 0.61-1.22 m 5.08-15.2 cm Silt, slow 209 m (686 ft)
(IS#1) (2.0-4.0 ft) (2.0-6.0 in) cobble,
boulder
Intermittent stream #2 0.46-1.07 in 5.08-15.2 cm silt, cobble slow 67 m (220 ft)
(IS#2) (1.5-3.5 ft) (2.0-6.0 in)
Perennial stream #1 1.22-1.83 m 12.7-17.8 cm silt, cobble slow 518 m (1700 ft)
(PS# 1) (4.0-6.0 ft) (5.0-7.0 in)
Perennial stream #2 0.61-1.22 m 7.62-15.2 cm Silt slow 45 m (148 ft)
(PS#2) (2.0-4.0 ft) (3.0-6.0 in)
Perennial stream #3 0.91-1.52 m 5.08-15.2 cm silt, cobble slow 122 m (400 ft)
(PS#3) (3.0-5.0 ft) (2.0-6.0 in)
Table 2: Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetland Estimated impacts
W-A 0.033 ha (0.08 ac)
W-B 0.074 ha (0.184 ac)
W-C 0.093 ha (0.23 ac)
W-D 0.056 ha (0.138 ac)
W-E 0.002 ha (0.005 ac)
Total 0.258 ha (0.637 ac)
Table 3: Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community type Estimated impacts
Dry Oak-Hickory 4.12 ha (10.22 ac)
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 5.30 ha (13.14ac)
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory 2.36 ha (5.84 ac)
Subtotal 11.78 ha (29.2 ac)
Maintained roadside 5.02 ha (12.34 ac)
Total 16.80 ha (41.54 ac)
NOTE: Quantities shown are rough estimations - impacted streams and wetland
areas have not been delineated.

1 _ C+atewaod gla^ch 57 1,9
• Pelham ,rprov?dence 62 5 i
9 urley I,
86
• Itjre C A 9
T?W L L? L
p' leasoi
• '? asnIle yanceyvill + J + N
6 62 6 1
ust Hi 4
? 150 Frog
? Hightowers
Mdeswlle Fitch 96 Ridgy
` II 115 I ..
•_ .
• _?
Matkini Prospec +
• I '
• ? _ - ? ?dl
\`= Gol Course
??? J• e ?? 1\\ ? 1 ,?\.. lam. - ... ..,.• • ?l ? ???? y•: \ -1 1. .
•,-r- ( .f OJ ?? •I• /? ?J "J. ti: Y??.• I/ %?.? • _ • \-CJ` \\ \ \\? YJ %/ •S.l'?J Y 1(// \ --`J ?' 1
ect
6207, *e_
Ali ._ r , ??__ •: - N _ C? ,? rC i v i I / _ J °, '
Whitfield .bar ... R/;! \ / j / ' •/1.
30-11
US ?58 i-\? . 7 r Ag s7
?((i ti? y ,•
B u 1 n• .Ce US 29 BypassNA 26 X1S? 1 1
??- yPa (prop ?
5 e °or:
osed) L
7 7 J , _ ?? 1
`7
I ? 1.,?'i .1 q?lI I ^\ / ? ? •i r ? . hlte•
f
r'
` ,J 0
,
aJ?Coa?I I • S?68Qi /1^ l" 'VIRGINIA
. gY 1
- / 6
LL C r I ?' ?_ =? o I I' 66_ _•_ ter- ,--? °
j" NORTH CAROLINA
?? r l ?yb J'il ` ???? -56ov' -'?'?=- ?,. ?s ? /. •\1 v•,(j' ? n"?? ,a \?_'
?Q / p?? ll l ', \j^'l? I I? \ ? - l ? i `r Y ; - tl ? ???? ••>). _???_ ? `
'00 hitetown ?-
--v- 707
/ .\ ??$ \??`11l ?? o' t V - ?y / ij?Y ?? -t r• 56 ' .7 • \o. ?_?_ J I 1 i
{ f I J^ I I Orivein r rT'? n t r i' ??. \?
? ? ",',};•?r Shea t/(/? ?\ \?? ?I
( ? 7r? MJ ii Ii (1^?' ?lTh r? r\l`
I 664 ?i t1
n ! 11 t \ I ???? C?
L\ Project Area If .? ??, • • w •''\\ J i ?? :j? ° 660.
\C 0 I ?? t ?? I \\ 6\
S /
(? 1353 J)N` 1356 .
i• n• I "1679 t` ? ? j / • ? ? / -- ?'

%T T I > o
if
r •<6-j ?'? 1,/ % r_ 'USGS Quad Map: Danville, N.C.
'Co
= t r ? ? - o(Jo. • NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
;00
TRANSPORTATION
Ij °b'o'•• ?__.''? ! DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r / '•? °( (°, . °F PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
;; 7zo" • ' j j ,a+ BRANCH
i' °v ?'. '•1 'a US 29 INTERCHANGE WITH THE
PROPOSED US 58 BYPASS
\ fie ! /l/ 9r n la
(ROUTE 58 DANVILLE BYPASS)
LEGEND: CASWELL COUNTY
- • Proposed Route 58 Bypass TIP PROJECT NO. M•329
(Danville Bypass) 0 METERS 610
FIG. 1
0 rEET 2,000
PROPOSED ROUTE 58
DANVILLE BYPASS
Pineview Road
Duncan Drive -'
Berry Hill Road
SCALE
BEGIN PROJECT 7
STA. 195+00 ?' . PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Drive ` -
1
7
58
Road Vandola Church/ DANVILLE

Oak Ridge Forms Road

0 120 24bO MUMS
1 ^
Road
> I
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
29
i
I -- DANVILLE
1 ?
t Princeton Road END PROJECT
STA. 314+10
#14 -FIR
----NORTH NORTH CAROLINA
Green Tree Road
CASWELL COUNTY
FIGURE 2

r
PROPOSED US 58/US 29 INTERCHANGE
0
? ?y 0J
J
?O
TO 4ARTINSyLCE
Q? ?IPPSS? uP265
SZ9B
US 58 BYPASS _ v
VIRGINIA STATE LINE V>FtC4mA STATE L!E
NORTH CAROLINA STATE LINE NORTH CAROLINA STATE L!E
SR 1354 (GREEN TREE RD.)
N O
J?
?O
I FIGURE 3
? CD
IdCD
a ?
?CD
c?
D cn
1-Y
W
A)
El

N

1 ?
1 1

1 c
1

l
\
1 f
1
1•1
Itl ?

\
? 1 1
1

\ 1
.1
\

j (i)
,

9 -

b mnoiz
MO
M-
c z-
-
C?, Cn <o<D?7
° b Q ?mcnczn=
1
Q1 on--?
Cn z-loon

C CD 1 mOZ?m
C
j CD zmoDO
O -i < -n -1 r
C'
r- a: z
O
O O
ZD
r DC7
N r p z 3 2 O
0
o
D
£
Q Q ?
D D

U')

TI Z) U N p m
CD z
m -?
A z O
n T?
I
\\\\ 1 "
\? \ IiPi \l
\\ j 1.
F'4
N

\\N,
s_
z
a ?
r' i
2
k
x
W
d
i
t
® 1
?. I
1 `.
b
I
I

N V\ 1 1
J
!
O
1
1
dl
1 I ?nV;+d A.
/ 1 nkt
11
1 1 II
11
11 _ _
11
i
\
c
`A
??• i
1
\
\
\ 1

STATt
a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH.
GOVERNOR
Z
March 1, 1999
Mr. Jimmy Mills - -15r 3:
State Location and Design Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Mills:

E. NoRRts TOLSON
SECRETARY

The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has completed an environmental
analysis for the portion of the Route 58 Danville Bypass project to be constructed in
Caswell County, North Carolina (TIP Project No. M-329). Construction of the proposed
project will result in impacts to both jurisdictional surface waters and jurisdictional
wetlands in North Carolina. The project will require an individual permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to the amount of linear stream impacts and
potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification
will be required by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) prior to the issuance of the
Individual Permit.
Substantial impacts to unnamed tributaries to the Dan River are anticipated as a
result of this project. Approximately 2,250 linear feet of perennial streams will be
impacted. An estimated 0.5 acres of wetlands will also be impacted. Compensatory
mitigation is required by the NCDENR-DWQ for any projects in North Carolina that
result in the fill or alteration of more than one (1) acre of wetlands and/or more than 150
linear feet of streams. Compensatory mitigation for impacted streams and wetlands is
normally not considered until anticipated impacts have been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent possible. Compensatory actions include restoration, creation, and
enhancement of Waters of the United States and should be undertaken in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site when possible. For many projects, we have used
our State's Wetland Restoration Program to provide stream mitigation. This program is
administered by the NCDENR-DWQ, and consists of stream restoration funding by our
Department. The cost for stream mitigation is approximately $ 125 per impacted linear
foot. Assuming a 1:1 ratio for restoration, the cost for stream mitigation associated with
this project is approximately $ 281,250.

The Virginia Department of Transportation will be responsible for coordinating
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the NCDENR-DWQ in obtaining the
necessary permits and fulfilling the compensatory mitigation requirements. The NCDOT
will not reimburse the Commonwealth of Virginia for the cost of compensatory
mitigation. The NCDOT will need copies of the issued permits before reimbursement for
construction will begin.
Attached is a list of contact persons and addresses for the resource agencies in
North Carolina. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Donald R. Morton, P. E.
Deputy Highway Administrator - Preconstruction
Attachment
cc: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
David Franklin, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Dorney, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ron Ferrell, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
??
7

Department of the Interior
!:,ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
'Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 9, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of September 3, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of a
portion of the proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville, Virginia Bypass), located in Caswell County,
North Carolina (TIP No. M-329). This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource
agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has begun studying the US 29
interchange with the proposed Route 58 Bypass (Danville Bypass) south of Danville on the North
Carolina/Virginia border in Caswell County. NCDOT proposes to partially construct a portion of
the proposed Route 58 Bypass south of Danville. The proposed Route 58 Bypass will be
constructed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) from existing Route 58 west
of Danville in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to Route 265/Route 29 Bypass, south of Danville. A
small portion of the proposed project extends approximately 0.76 kilometer (0.47 mile) south
along US 29 into Caswell County frorn the state line. The work within the State of North
Carolina involves partial construction of the proposed Route 58 Bypass interchange with Business
Route 29 and Route 265/Route 29 Bypass. In addition, Route 1 141 (Sydenham Street) in
Virginia will be extended on new location and connected to SR 1354 (Green Tree Road) in North
Carolina.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time.
However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and
to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
W
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Danville, VA, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
indicates that there maybe wetland resources within the North Carolina portion of the proposed
project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given
area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the
project, or recommend denial, Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur
early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays
in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected,
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the Corps;

The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The endangered species map for Caswell County does not show the presence of any federally-
listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species. However, there are two species of vascular
plants known to occur in Caswell County that are Federal Species of Concern (FSC). These are
the Virginia quillwort (Isoetes Wrgiiiica) and Heller's trefoil (l olus helleri).
Federal species of concern include those species for which the Service does not have enough
scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the
present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could become
candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating that they
are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species Linder the full protection of the
ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore, it
would be prudent for the NCDOT to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Yoo M. H e f er
Ecological Services Supervisor
J ,
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (Cyndi Bell)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Karen Boshof )
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/8/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\i-329.tip
State of North Carolina /'4x
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality A
=A1
A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
March 31, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: John Henness
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for the US 29, Proposed Danville Bypass US29NA
Route 581US 265 Interchange, Caswell County
State Project # 6.481009, TIP # M-329
DENR # 99-0172, DWQ # 12228
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the
state including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment will
require the discharge of fill material into approximately 0.637 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 3154
linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams. The 3154 linear feet of stream impacts is distributed
among 3 perennial and 2 intermittent streams. Two of the perennial streams will have impacts greater than
150 feet. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams were calculated using the entire Right
of Way. While the methodology is excellent for determining the maximum potential impact, 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 prior to approval
of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Based on the impacts described in the EA, wetland
mitigation will not be required for this project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
actually exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules
{ 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 1.
B) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Based on the
information presented in the EA, impacts to 2 of the 3 perennial streams will be above 150 linear
feet and thus subject to the mitigation requirement. The mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules
{ 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
C) As stated in previous correspondence submitted September 19,1998 by the NCDWQ, please
ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee Memo
04/06/99
Page 2
D) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
E) As discussed in the EA, the magnitude of impacts will require the issuance of an individual permit
by the Corps of Engineers; therefore, a 401 General Certification will not be available for this
project. 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 and inclusion of appropriate mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Ron Linville, NCDWQ Caswell Regional Office
C:\ncdot\T1P M-329\ M-329 FONSI Comments.doc