19950160 Ver 1_Complete File_19950210

..v _
?,7y' asWE??
H e ?a,A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
February 1, 1995
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
District Engineer
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch

R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Greensboro, Guilford County, Widening of Airport Parkway (SR 2080,
from SR 1695 to SR 2137, TIP No. U-2815, State Project No.
8.2492901, Federal Aid No. STPNTHF-208 5(1).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
En-vuonmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact ;V1r. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201

ca
r
Sincerely,
B. J. Quinn, PE
Assistant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC
Attachments
CC: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. J. W. Watkins, Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. James McInnis, Project Planning Engineer
Greensboro, Guilford County
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway)
from SR 1695 to SR 2137
Federal-Aid Project STPNHF-2085(1)
State Project 8.2492901
TIP Project U-2815
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date ,4;,H. Franklin Vick,. P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nic o as L. GM 7 P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Greensboro, Guilford County
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway)
from SR 1695 to SR 2137
Federal-Aid Project STPNHF-2085(1)
State Project 8.2492901
TIP Project U-2815
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
St 1. ..
'?104Z CAR( , dal.
too
EESS104
Qaiw
Ja s A. McInnis, Jr. •e? ?'
? Sf AL }
Project Planning Engineer We.
17292
?•'•.FNG E??r'Z ?.s
,, p? ?ti i N ••.. Sp ?..
''•••? ?? P BHP `?
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................. i
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 1
A. Roadway ............................................... 1
B. Functional Classification ............................. 2
C. Intersections ......................................... 2
D. Structures ............................................ 2
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ................. 3
F. Accident Record ....................................... 3
G. School Bus Data ....................................... 3
H. Other Highway Projects in the Area .................... 3
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 4
A. Roadway ............................................... 4
B. Intersections ......................................... 5
C. Structures ............................................ 5
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions ......................... 5
E. Utility Conflicts ..................................... 5
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS ........................................... 6
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 6
A. Delay of Recommended Alternative ...................... 6
B. "No-Build" Alternative ................................ 6
VI. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .......... 7
A. Natural Resources ..................................... 7
1. Biotic Resources ................................. 7
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 7
b. Aquatic Communities ......................... 10
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects .............. 10
2. Water Resources .................................. 12
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ............... 12
b. Water Quality ............................... 12
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects .............. 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
3. Jurisdictional Issues ............................ 13
a.
b.
C.
d.
4. Ra
a.
b.
Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ............... 13
Summary of Anticipated Effects .............. 13
Anticipated Permit Requirements ............. 14
Wetland Mitigation .......................... 14
re and Protected Species ....................... 14
Federally-Protected Species .... . ..... 14
Federal Candidate, State-Protected Species ... 14
B. Cultural Resources .................................... 15
1. Historic Architectural Resources ................. 15
2. Archaeological Resources ......................... 16
C. Section 4(f) Evaluation ............................... 16
D. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ............... 16
E. Land Use and Planning ................................. 16
F. Prime and Important Farmland .......................... 16
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ............................... 16
H. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................... 16
I. Hazardous Materials Involvement ....................... 17
VII. PERMITS AND APPROVALS ...................................... 18
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 18
A. Piedmont Triad International Airport .................. 18
B. Agency Coordination ................................... 18
C. Public Involvement ..................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS BY COMMUNITY ................. 11
TABLE 2 - ANTICIPATED WETLAND EFFECTS ...................... 13
TABLE 3 - FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED
SPECIES FOR GUILFORD COUNTY ...................... 15
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Geographic Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 5A - Capacity Analysis - Mainline Analysis
Figure 5B - Intersection Capacity Analysis
Figure 6 - Proposed Typical Section for SR 2085
Figure 7 - Greensboro Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 8 - 100-Year Floodplain/Wetland Sites
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all
practical measures to minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human
environment.
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will
be followed during the construction of this project to prevent siltation
of nearby streams.
It is anticipated wetland crossings will require a Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 26. NCDOT will coordinate with all appropriate agencies
regarding project permit requirements.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Special care will be taken to avoid impacts to water lines in the
project vicinity and the communication lines connecting the airport's
radar site to the control tower, which cross under SR 2085 east of North
Triad Boulevard.
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction.
Lane closures may be necessary during construction, but will not be
permitted during periods of peak traffic volumes. All traffic control
devices used on this project shall conform to the latest edition of the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Greensboro, Guilford County
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway)
from SR 1695 to SR 2137
Federal-Aid Project STPNHF-2085(1)
State Project 8.2492901
TIP Project U-2815
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject project involves the widening of existing SR 2085
(Airport Parkway) to four lanes with a 14 meter (46-foot) grassed median
from approximately 160 meters (525 feet) east of SR 1695 (Regional Road)
to SR 2137 (Old Oak Ridge Road), a distance of approximately 3.0
kilometers (1.9 mile). This project has been classified as a federal
categorical exclusion. See figures 1 and 2 for project location.
The subject project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right
of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 1996 and construction is
scheduled for fiscal year 1997.
The estimated costs for project U-2815 are as follows:
Construction Cost $2,1009000
Right of Way Cost $ 100,000
Total Cost 2,800,000
The total estimated cost included in the 1995-2001 TIP for the
subject project is $3,500,000. This includes $100,000 for right of way
acquisition and $3,400,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadway
SR 2085 extends from NC 68 to SR 2137, passing through the Piedmont
Triad International Airport. The roadway was constructed as part of an
expansion of the airport. SR 2085 was completed and accepted onto the
state highway system in 1982-83.
SR 2085 from NC 68 to SR 1695 (west of the project limits) has four
3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes separated by a 13.4 meter (44-foot) grassed
median. Inside and outside grassed (1.3 meters (4 feet paved)) shoulders
are 3.6 meters (12 feet) wide.
SR 2085 from approximately 160 meters (525 feet) east of SR 1695 to
SR 2137 has two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and 3.6 meter (12-foot) grassed
(1.3 meters (4 feet) paved) shoulders. In many areas along the subject
section of SR 2085, rough grading for an additional two lanes with a
median was performed when the roadway was originally constructed (see
Figure 3).
2
Existing right of way along SR 2085 within the project limits is 98
meters (320 feet) wide. The existing roadway is offset within the right
of way in order to accommodate an additional two lanes and a median to the
north of the existing roadway. Partial control of access exists along the
subject section of SR 2085. Access is limited to designated locations
only.
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment of SR 2085 meets a 100
km/h (60 MPH) design speed. No alignment deficiencies have been noted
along the subject section of roadway. The existing speed limit along
SR 2085 is 55 MPH.
No bike lanes or signed bike routes are located along the subject
section of SR 2085. No sidewalks exist along the subject section of
SR 2085.
B. Functional Classification
SR 2085 is classified as an Urban Freeway/Expressway.
C. Intersections
Four intersections and one partial interchange are located along
SR 2085 within the project limits (see Figure 2).
The intersection of SR 1695 with SR 2085 is signalized. A partial
interchange is located at South Triad Boulevard. All movements, except for
turns from westbound SR 2085 into the airport, are served by ramps.
Westbound movements into the airport are required to make a left turn from
the westbound through lane of SR 2085. No turn lane is provided.
The intersections of Marriot Drive
stop-sign controlled. No turn lanes are
these intersections. Presently, SR 2085
SR 2137. Bryan Boulevard (TIP Project
Figure 2), now under construction, will
SR 2137.
and North Triad Boulevard are
provided on SR 2085 at either of
ends at a "tee" intersection with
U-608, see Section II-H and
connect with SR 2085 west of
D. Structures
One bridge structure and one culvert are located within the project
limits. Bridge number 595, constructed in 1983 by the Airport Authority,
carries one of the ramps for South Triad Boulevard over SR 2085. The
bridge has an estimated remaining life of 50 years (no sufficiency rating
given). The bridge is 79 meters (259 feet) long and has a clear roadway
width of 9.8 meters (32 feet). Horizontal clearance beneath the bridge is
21.4 meters (70.3 feet) between the piers.
A two barrel, 2.4 meter by 2.4 meter (8 feet by 8 feet) reinforced
concrete box culvert, 46 meters (150 feet) long, is located 244 meters
(800 feet) west of SR 2137.
3
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
Traffic volumes along the subject section of SR 2085 in the
construction year (1997) are expected to range between 12,100 vehicles per
day (vpd) and 20,200 vpd. Traffic volumes in the design year (2017) are
expected to range between 23,400 vpd and 39,200 vpd. Figure 4 depicts
projected traffic volumes within the project limits.
Capacity analyses were performed for the years 1997 and 2017 both
with and without the proposed project. In 1997, SR 2085 will operate at
level of service (LOS) D to LOS E without the proposed project. With the
proposed project, SR 2085 will operate at LOS A. In the year 2017,
SR 2085 will operate at LOS F without the proposed project and LOS B to C
with the project. Figures 5A and 5B present the complete results of these
analyses, including anticipated levels of service for the intersections
located along the project.
F. Accident Record
An accident study was performed for SR 2085 between NC 68 and SR 2137
for the time period from July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1993. During this
period, there were 62 accidents. Of these, one was fatal.
Rearend-type accidents due to vehicles slowing or stopping (21),
accidents involving left turning vehicles (21) and accidents involving
vehicles striking animals (6) were the most common types of accidents.
The total accident rate for SR 2085 for the studied time period was
424.08 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM) and the fatal
accident rate was 6.84 ACC/100MVM. The statewide total and fatal accident
rates for similar facilities for 1993 was 311.0 ACC/100MVM and 1.0 .
ACC/100MVM.
G. School Bus Data
One school bus uses SR 2085 between SR 1695 and SR 2137 twice daily.
H. Other Highway Projects in the Area
Three other highway projects are located adjacent to the subject
project.
TIP project U-2012C involves the construction of an interchange for
SR 2085 with NC 68. Presently,,two ramps exist at the junction of the two
roadways. The terminals of these ramps on NC 68 are signal-controlled.
Additional ramps and structures will be constructed in order to complete a
full interchange. Project U-2012C is scheduled for construction in fiscal
year 1997.
TIP project U-608 involves the construction on new location of Bryan
Boulevard, a fully-controlled access freeway. Bryan Boulevard will tie
into SR 2085 at SR 2137 and extend to SR 2179 (New Garden Road), a
4
distance of approximately 2.6 miles. SR 2137 will be realigned to the
west and a grade separation constructed. No access between SR 2137 and
SR 2085/Bryan Boulevard will be provided. Project U-608 is currently under
construction and scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1998.
The Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority proposes to
construct interchanges with SR 2085 at South Triad Boulevard and North
Triad Boulevard. The Airport Authority has expressed the desire to
construct these interchanges concurrently with the widening of SR 2085,
however, no definite schedule has been set for the construction of these
interchanges at this time.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway
The proposed project will involve widening existing SR 2085 from
approximately 160 meters (525 feet) east of SR 1695 to SR 2137. Two 3.6
meter (12-foot) lanes and a 14 meter (46-foot) grassed median will be
constructed north of the existing lanes. Inside shoulders will be 3.0
meters (10 feet) wide. Outside shoulders will be 3.6 meters (12 feet)
wide. Paved shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide on the inside and 3.0
meters (10 feet) on the outside will be provided, as well (see Figure 6).
It is anticipated the proposed improvements will be contained mostly
within the existing right of way. A small amount of additional right of
way will be required in order to tie the ramp for South Triad Boulevard
into the proposed new lanes. Additional right of way will be required
along SR 1695 south of SR 2085 in order to construct turn lanes.
It is anticipated no major changes in the horizontal or vertical
alignment of the subject section of SR 2085 will be required. The
existing roadway meets a 100 Km/h (60 MPH) design speed.
A 55 MPH speed limit is proposed along the subject section of
SR 2085.
A design speed of 100 Km/h (60 MPH) is proposed for the project.
This is consistent with the proposed 55 MPH speed limit.
No special provisions for bicycle or pedestrian use of SR 2085 is
proposed. SR 2085 is a partially-controlled access expressway which will
connect with a fully controlled access freeway following completion of
Bryan Boulevard (see Section II4). Bicycle and pedestrian use of such
facilities is discouraged, due to the high speed traffic and the potential
for conflicts at ramp terminals.
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction.
Lane closures may be necessary during construction, but will not be
permitted during periods of peak traffic volumes. All traffic control
devices used on this project shall conform to the latest edition of the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
5
B. Intersections
The Airport's Masterplan shows an existing runway being extended
across SR 1695 and the road being closed south of SR 2085. Closing
SR 1695 south of SR 2085 will make the existing intersection of SR 1695
with SR 2085 a "tee" intersection. No schedule has been established for
this work. Due to the uncertainty regarding when SR 1695 will be closed,
turn lanes are proposed to be constructed on northbound SR 1695 at SR 2085
as part of this project.
As stated previously (see Section II-H), the Airport Authority
proposes to construct full interchanges at South Triad Boulevard and North
Triad Boulevard. Should construction of these interchanges be delayed,
temporary median openings will be required at these intersections. Left
and right turn lanes will be provided should temporary median openings be
required.
Due to high speed traffic using SR 2085, and the fact that SR 2085 is
classified as a freeway/expressway, a right turn lane is recommended along
SR 2085 at the Marriot Drive entrance. However, no turning traffic
volumes are available for this intersection. Traffic volumes will be
obtained and a final decision regarding a turn lane will be made during
final design of the project. In order to eliminate conflicts due to left
turning vehicles, no median crossover is proposed at Marriot Drive.
Marriot Drive serves one business, a hotel. An additional entrance to the
hotel is provided from an airport access road (see Figure 2). Appropriate
signing will be provided to direct westbound traffic to the hotel using
either of the airport entrances.
C. Structures
It is anticipated no structure work will be required as part of the
subject project. Bridge number 595, carrying South Triad Boulevard over
SR 2085, provides sufficient horizontal clearance for the proposed
widening. The concrete box culvert located approximately 244 meters (800
feet) west of SR 2137 is long enough to accommodate the proposed widening
without being extended. Several drainage pipes crossing under SR 2085 may
require extension in order to accommodate the proposed widening.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for the
subject project.
E. Utility Conflicts
It is anticipated the project will have a low degree of utility
conflict. Underground gas lines, water lines, power and telephone lines
are located along the project. The majority of these are south of the
existing roadway and will not be affected by proposed construction. Any
utilities which will be impacted by the proposed project will be relocated
prior to construction. Special care will be taken to avoid impacts to
water lines in the project vicinity and the communication lines connecting
the airport's radar site to the control tower, which cross under SR 2085
east of North Triad Boulevard..,
6
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
The proposed project will improve the safety and efficiency of the
subject section of SR 2085. Existing SR 2085 has an accident rate higher
than the statewide average for similar facilities (see Section II-F). It
is anticipated the proposed project will reduce the number of accidents,
particularly rear-end collisions and accidents due to turning vehicles
stopping in the travel lane.
As stated previously (see Section II-E), SR 2085 will operate at
level of service F in 2017 without the proposed improvements. With the
proposed improvements, SR 2085 will operate at level of service B to C in
2017.
The improved safety and capacity of the proposed facility will reduce
travel time and costs for the roadway user.
SR 2085 is classified as a minor thoroughfare on the Greensboro
Thoroughfare Plan (approved August, 1993). The thoroughfare plan shows
SR 2085 connecting with Bryan Boulevard. The proposed project is
consistent with the mutually adopted Greensboro Thoroughfare Plan.
Both the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority and the City
of Greensboro (see letter from city in the Appendix) support the proposed
project. SR 2085 is the primary access to the airport. The proposed
improvements to SR 2085 will reduce travel time to the airport, which will
be beneficial to the economy of the project area.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Only one "Build" alternative, widening of the existing roadway to
four lanes with a 46-foot median, was considered for the proposed project.
A multi-lane undivided cross-section was not considered because SR 2085 is
classified as an urban freeway/expressway. The minimum preferred median
width for such a facility is 14 meters (46 feet).
A. Delay of Recommended Alternative
Delay of the proposed project is not recommended. SR 2085 will
operate at level of service E in 1997 (see Section II-E). As presently
scheduled, the proposed widening of SR 2085 will be completed at the same
time as Bryan Boulevard. Were the subject project to be delayed, SR 2085
in the project area would be a, "bottleneck" to capacity along Bryan
Boulevard/SR 2085. For this reason, delay of the recommended alternative
is not recommended.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
Although the "no-build" alternative is the least expensive from a
construction cost standpoint and avoids the negative effects of the
proposed project, the 'no-build" alternative does not provide the
anticipated benefits of the project. Because of the safety and level of
service benefits of the proposed project, the "no-build" alternative is
rejected.
VI. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
The project area was investigated on July 25, 1994. Field
methodology involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation of the resources
present. Only common names of some of the dominant species found in the
various communities are given in this report. Scientific names and a
complete listing of species expected to occur in the project area are
included in the natural systems technical report for the project, which is
on file in the Planning and Environmental Branch of NCDOT.
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Well-developed or mature examples of natural primary
communities exist only as remnants in the project area. The
area has been altered through logging, clearing, and past
agricultural activity. Large expanses of secondary communities
now exist. Occasional large hardwood trees occur in upland
hardwood forests and border areas.
Community descriptions are based on observations of the
general vegetation in and near the existing right of way of
SR 2085. The following communities are within the construction
limits for the project: upland hardwood forest, alluvial
forest, mixed pine and hardwood forest, pine forest, upland
woody successional community, alluvial scrubland, pine scrub
thicket, rip-rapped stream, hardwood sapling thicket, and
maintained roadside.
Upland Hardwood Forest
This community e
the effects of past s
displayed. Remains of
The higher uplands a,
densities and thicker
and more open. Dense
an extremely variable
;ists as mostly older second-growth, with
rlective cutting and cattle foraging being
fences and old logging roads are evident.
-e generally younger, with higher tree
understories. The slopes are often older
shade characterizes many areas. This is
community and difficult to typify.
In the drier phases, white oak, southern red oak, tulip
tree, sourwood, and mockernut hickory are the most abundant
canopy species. On lower slopes above larger streams, swamp
chestnut oak, willow oak, and sweetgum are frequent components.
The most abundant. understory trees are dogwood and black
gum. Other common understory trees include shadbush, red maple,
sweetgum, tulip tree, white oak, and red oak. Common shrubs and
vines are arrowwood, black haw, strawberry bush, silverberry,
blueberries, and glaucous greenbrier.
8
Over most of the community, herbs are sparse, with taxa
occurring such as pipsissewa, witchgrass, elephant-foot,
goldenrod, grape fern, and Christmas fern. In more mesic areas,
herbs are diverse and abundant, including Indian cucumber root,
fairywand, wild iris, bellwort, crane-fly orchid, and wild yam.
Alluvial Forest
The canopy of this
sweetgum, red map
common in spots.
around culverts.
streams. Common
rose, blackberry,
honeysuckle. The
flats, the most
arrow-arum, and m
le, and
Black
Tulip
shrubs
wetland community is dominated by
green ash, but swamp chestnut oak is
willow is present in disturbed areas
tree and elm occur along some small
and vines are winterberry, multiflora
anna grass.
swamp rose, elderberry, and Japanese
herb stratum is often lush on larger alluvial
important species including jewelweed,
Most of this community type in the construction limits of
the project exists as small fragments or streamside patches.
Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest
This community combines elements of the Upland Hardwood
Forest and the Pine Forest community. It is the intermediate
phase of succession leading to the hardwood phase. Very little
of this community is present in the project area.
Pine Forest
Virginia pine is dominant in this community that has
developed over old fields. Typical woody transgressives from
the drier upland hardwood forest are present. Common species
found here but not noted or uncommon in the hardwood forest are
scarlet oak, post oak, and rattlesnake root.
Upland Woody Successional Community
This is a widespread community type in the central part of
the study area. Some areas are highly eroded, and old field
roads exist. Vegetation is more dense in lower areas. Common
species are Virginia pine, red cedar, sweetgum, tulip tree, red
maple, ash, persimmon, sassafras, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Some large open areas are dominated by trumpet creeper,
broomsedge, and goldenrods.
Alluvial Scrubland
These communities are formerly disturbed Alluvial Forest.
Black willow, red maple, and tag alder are the dominant species.
Otherwise, species from the alluvial forest community are
typically present.
9
Pine Scrub Thicket
This is a roadside community in one small area dominated by
Virginia pine and sericea, with some fescue present.
Rip-rapped Stream
This community has very few species present. It is mapped
as hydric soil and is a wetland community. The only species now
growing through the crevices in the rip-rap are foxtail grass,
sericea, ragweed, American burn, and some sedges.
Hardwood Sapling Thicket
This distinct community consists mostly of dense
sapling-size sweetgum, tulip tree, and red maple. Multiflora
rose is common. This community is a successional phase on a
roadbank created by previous construction.
Maintained Roadside
This is the largest community in the project area. It is
maintained in a low state of succession by regular mowing. The
community is grass-dominated, with forbs mixed in throughout.
Fescue and bluestem are the most abundant grasses. Bushclovers
and yarrow are common forbs. Some areas have rushes and
flatsedge interspersed with the other plants.
Terrestrial Fauna
A partial listing of the expected fauna of the project area
is given below. Those species actually observed in the field or
for which direct evidence was seen are noted with an asterisk
(*) in the text.
Amphibians which are expected to occur throughout the
project area include American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus
frog, and spring peeper. The slimy salamander and eastern newt
are expected in moister forest habitats.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here
probably include the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer,
rough green snake, earth snake, and copperhead. The eastern
hognosed snake is expected in open areas. In intermediate
habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence lizard,
eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles
of the forested habitats are eastern box turtle, ringneck snake,
and worm snake.
The avifauna of open areas include *mourning dove, *field
sparrow, *common grackle, *robin, starling, eastern meadowlark,
grasshopper sparrow, and eastern bluebird. Birds in
intermediate areas include brown thrasher, *goldfinch, indigo
bunting, and bobwhite. Forest species include various wood
10
warblers, *wood thrush, American redstart, and blue-gray
gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats include
red-tailed hawk, screech owl, common crow, *cardinal, *Carolina
wren, *rufous-sided towhee, and Carolina chickadee.
Wood duck, green-backed heron, and belted kingfisher are
expected around the larger streams in alluvial forests and
around the lake in the project vicinity. Other duck species may
use the lake in the winter. Several *red-winged blackbirds were
observed around the lake and some were seen in nearby upland
woody successional habitats.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include
southeastern shrew, least shrew, long-tailed weasel, meadow
vole, hispid cotton rat, and groundhog. Those ranging into
forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are northern
short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, *striped skunk, gray fox, red
fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern cottontail. Several
species found in intermediate and forested areas include
opossum, pine vole, golden mouse, and southern flying squirrel.
Exclusively forest species include *raccoons, gray squirrel, and
evening bat. Muskrat and mink should be common in the alluvial
areas around the streams. *White-tailed deer, a typically
mid-successional species, use the area.
b. Aquatic Communities
Except for a few minnows, no other fish were evident in the
project area. Small fish often expected in small perennial
streams are rosyside dace and creek chub. Some of the small
streams should also be appropriate habitat for darters and
sculpins. The lake in the project vicinity is likely stocked
with various sunfishes and largemouth bass.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the small streams
could support northern dusky salamander, two-lined salamander,
three-lined salamander, possibly marbled salamander and spotted
salamander, and pickerel frog. *Green frogs were observed at
one small stream.
Snapping turtles, painted turtles, and yellowbelly sliders
might be expected in the lake. Northern water snake and queen
snake are likely water snakes of the area. No evidence of
crayfish was noted. A fair number of adult *dragonflies were
observed around some of the small stream wetlands.
C. Summarv of Anticiaated Effects
Approximate direct impacts due to project construction are
given in Table 1. The actual impacts to biotic communities
should be less than those indicated. With the exception of the
roadside community, only the edges of other communities will be
affected, thus only reducing in small part the total natural
habitat in the project area.
11
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS BY COMMUNITY
hectares acres
Maintained roadside 7.4 18.4
Pine forest 1.1 2.8
Upland woody successional community 0.8 1.9
Upland hardwood forest 0.7 1.7
Alluvial scrubland 0.2 0.4
Mixed pine and hardwood forest 0.1 0.4
Alluvial forest 0.1 0.4
Pine scrub thicket <0.1 <0.1
Rip-rapped stream <0.1 <0.1
Hardwood sapling thicket <0.1 <0.1
TOTAL <10.7 <26.3
There will be some net loss of habitat for small animal
species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas
such as roadsides. There will be a small reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest and
intermediate habitats. Mortality rates for all species due to
road kills might increase overall because of the additional
lanes that will have to be negotiated by animals, although the.
proposed median will provide a refuge area. The existing
roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so road
widening will not introduce a significantly new factor.
Impacts on fishes should be minimal. Removal of streamside
vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance and
cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects
will negatively alter the stream characteristics for some
aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have negative
effects on sessile benthic organisms.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction
activity and runoff pollution after construction can reduce
water quality. Given the nature of the soils in this area,
there is great risk of heavy erosion. Aquatic organisms are
generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
12
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface
waters will be followed during the construction of this project
to prevent siltation of nearby streams.
2. Water Resources
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
SR 2085 within the project limits crosses six unnamed
tributaries of Brush Creek, which vary from 0.9 to 3.0 meters (3
to 10 feet) in width. Water depths in all streams averaged
about 8 centimeters (3 inches), but there were only small holes
of water in the intermittent streams.
The Brush Creek floodplain includes a large forested
wetland system and a nearly two hectare (five acre) lake (at the
Marriot) on the south side of SR 2085. All of the tributaries
to Brush Creek are presently piped under the existing road.
Pipe extensions may be required at some crossings.
b. Water Quality
Brush Creek, from its source to a point 0.8 kilometers (0.5
miles) downstream of SR 2190, is classified "WS-III NSW". These
are "waters protected as water supplies which are in generally
low to moderately developed watersheds". This classification
requires local programs to control pollution from nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharges. These are nutrient sensitive
waters requiring limitations on nutrient inputs. These waters
are also suitable for all Class "C" uses (the lowest freshwater
classification). All tributaries carry the same classification
as the streams to which they are tributary.
There are no biological classifications available for Brush
Creek. The recent biological classifications for Reedy Fork,
which receives Brush Creek to the northeast is Good-Fair, with a
Support Threatened (ST) overall rating. The chemical rating for
Reedy Creek is also Support Threatened.
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The project will not impact any waters classified as ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I
(water supplies in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies
in predominantly undeveloped watersheds); nor does the project
lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of such resources.
Pollutants and sediment loads from proposed construction
could affect water quality from a biological and chemical
standpoint. NCDOT Best Management Practices will be employed to
protect water quality.
13
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the
vegetative cover that protects the streams. Increased light
levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in species
composition will modify affected stream reaches.
3. Jurisdictional Issues
a. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Wetlands and surface waters receive protection under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged
or fill materials into these waters and wetlands.
Alluvial forested and scrub wetlands are the only kind of
wetland naturally present along the project. These wetlands are
all classified as type PF01 (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved
Deciduous), except #5, which is classified as PSS1A (Palustrine,
Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous). Wetland areas along the
project are depicted on Figure 8.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The proposed project will impact several small wetland
sites. Table 2 presents a summary of anticipated wetland
effects.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED WETLAND EFFECTS
SITE
CLASSIFICATION
HECTARES/ACRES
#1 PFO1 (Palustrine, Forested, <0.1/<0.1
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
#2 PF01 (Palustrine, Forested, <0.1/<O.1
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
#3 PF01 (Palustrine, Forested, <0.1/<O.1
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
#4 PF01 (Palustrine,, Forested, <0.1/<O.1
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
#5 PSS1A (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, 0.2/0.4
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
#6 PF01 (Palustrine, Forested, <0.1/<O.1
Broad-leaved Deciduous)
TOTAL 0.7/0.9
14
Most of the wetland acreage that will be impacted is
contiguous with an upstream wetland system outside the
construction limits of the project. One site (#2) is an
isolated wet spot. Site #1 is a large alluvial wetland area
surrounding a perennial stream, but it is likely that very
little of the site will be impacted by this project.
c. Anticipated Permit Requirements
A Section 404 permit will be required from the Corps of
Engineers for the placement of fill materials into wetlands
along the project. Because of the project's location above
stream headwaters and the small size of the streams, impacts to
wetlands will likely be authorized by a Nationwide Permit [33
CFR 330.5 (a) (26)].
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be
required for fill activity in wetlands and surface waters where
a federal permit is required.
d. Wetland Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Corps of Engineers. However, the Corps of Engineers has final
discretionary authority regarding mitigation.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federallv-Protected Species
As of September 15, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service lists no federally protected species for Guilford
County. Therefore, the project will not impact any
federally-protected endangered or threatened species.
b. Federal Candidate, State-Protected Species
Candidate 2 species (C2) are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions until formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered,
Threatened, Special Concern (SC), and Significantly Rare (SR)
species in the state under the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979 and the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
Federal candidate and state protected species for Guilford
County are listed in Table 3 below.
15
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
FEDERAL STATE HABITAT
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY PRESENT
Greensboro Cambarus cataoius C2 T ?
burrowing
crayfish
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula C2 SR YES
T = threatened, likely to become endangered in N.C. within foreseeable
future throughout all or portion of range.
SR = very rare in N.C., generally with 1-20 populations.
? = habitat for the Greensboro burrowing crayfish is very poorly
known. However, its presence in the project area cannot be ruled
out.
The Natural Heritage Program database lists occurrences for six other
rare species in Guilford County. These include the mole salamander, the
Carolina darter, Appalachian golden-banner, Piedmont horsebalm, purple
fringeless orchid, and carrion-flower. The possibility of the occurrence
of any of these in the project area cannot be ruled out.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
A comprehensive survey of Guilford County was conducted in 1978.
No known historic properties are located in the vicinity of the
project.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the project is the
existing right of way and an area approximately 150 meters (500 feet)
on either side of the existing right of way. The Piedmont Triad
International Airport owns all the land outside of the existing right
of way in the APE. A reconnaissance survey of the APE was performed
and no structures over fifty years old were found. Therefore, no
further compliance with Section 106 or Section 4(f) is required. The
State Historic Preservation Officer is being notified by means of
this document that there are no properties over 50 years of age
within the APE.
16
2. Archaeolooical Resources
There are no known archaeological resources in the vicinity of
the proposed project. Due to the disturbed nature of the project's
APE, it is unlikely any archaeological resources are present. The
project is not expected to affect any archaeological resources
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding in a letter
dated March 11, 1994 (see Appendix).
C. Section 4(f) Evaluation
The proposed project will not require the use of any property
protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966,
as amended.
D. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will not require the relocation of any
residences or businesses.
E. Land Use and Plannin
As stated previously, the existing right of way of SR 2085 is
surrounded by property owned by the Piedmont Triad International Airport.
Much of this property is presently forest or fields. The airport's master
plan shows much of this land being used for an additional runway and other
aviation facilities. The proposed project will not conflict with the
airport's plans for the development of adjacent land.
SR 2085 was originally constructed by the airport authority. The
roadway is shown on the airport's master plan as a four-lane facility.
The proposed project is consistent with the airport's master plan.
F. Prime and Important Farmland
The proposed project will be constructed mostly within the existing
right of way, therefore, no impacts to prime or important farmland will
result from the project.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
A portion of existing SR 2085 was constructed within the Brush Creek
floodplain (see Figure 8). Sufficient fill was placed for four lanes with
a median. The existing drainage structure in this area, a two barrel, 2.4
meter by 2.4 meter (8 feet by 8 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert, was
constructed long enough to accommodate the proposed widening. It is
anticipated no additional earthwork will be required within the Brush
Creek floodplain. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will
have no effect on the floodplain.
H. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Winston-Salem regional office of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
17
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments designated Guilford County as a.
moderate nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (0 ).
However, due to improved monitoring data, the county was redesignate as a
maintenance area for ozone on November 8, 1993, and for carbon monoxide on
November 7, 1994.
The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures (TCM) for Guilford County. The Greensboro
2010 Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and the 1994 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in conformity to the
intent of the SIP. The TP and the TIP were approved by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) on October 8, 1991 and September 13, 1993,
respectively. The TP and the TIP were approved by USDOT on November 15,
1991 and December 15, 1993, respectively. There have been no significant
changes in the project's design concept and scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
There are no traffic noise receptors in the immediate area of the
project. The closest receptor is the Marriott Hotel, which is approxi-
mately 136 meters (445 feet) from the roadway. The maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 33 meters (108 feet) and 55 meters
(180 feet) from the centerline of the proposed facility, respectively.
Based on the sparse development surrounding the project and the fact that
the airport owns most of the land adjacent to SR 2085, the project's
impact on noise and air quality in the immediate area will be
insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction, but any such
increases will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all
burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
1. Hazardous Materials Involvement
The proposed project will be constructed mostly within the existing
right of way. It is anticipated the project will not affect any
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste facilities.
VII. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
A Section 404 permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers.
Impacts to wetlands will likely be authorized by a Nationwide Permit [33
CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. In addition to the Corps permit, a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources will likely be required (see Section VI-A-3-c).
18
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Piedmont Triad International Airport
NCDOT staff have coordinated with the airport throughout the planning
study for this project and will continue to do so as the project
progresses.
B. Agency Coordination
Comments on the proposed project were requested from the agencies
listed below. An asterisk (*) indicates a response was received (copies
of responses are included in the Appendix).
*U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
U. S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
.U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
*N. C. Department of Administration - State.Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Region G Planning Commission)
Chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners
*Mayor of Greensboro
C. Public Involvement
Because the subject project is contained entirely within the
boundaries of the Piedmont Triad International Airport and because
sufficient right of way already exists for the project, no citizens
informational workshop was held for this project.
Notice of an opportunity for a public hearing will be published in
local papers prior to the start of the final design phase for the project.
A public hearing will be held if a request is received from local
residents or government officials.
JM/plr
?-i
• _ a?aa•
aaa..aaaaaa••.??•
a - - •aa?aa••••
a••aa
•a?a
aid
•?J
IJ
?J
J?
JJ
JJ
t?
J?-
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2815
SR 2085 (AIRPORT PARKWAY)
FROM SR 1695 TO SR 2137
GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
FIG. 1
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2815
GREENSBORO,
GUILFORD COUNTY
0

h aY
LOOKING EAST
ALONG SR 2085
T SR 1695 (REGIONAL ROAD)
LOOKING EAST
ALONG SR 2085
NEAR MARMOT DRIVE
LOOKING EAST
ALONG SR 2085
WEST OF SR 2137
(OLD OAK RIDGE ROAD)

[FIGURE 3

N Z
??
my
"
- -PI'-A 10
(3.11
O
F-

U 2
c
,
)
T- O m
N -0 0)

s
U cc o¢
cr-
O 0
cr- L
Cl.
i- 0

0
Z

T
N
tr
Z U)
O

lL In
U.
T

Vl

O

LL

OD
N

W
V U) ? T
DIC,

r lr 6010
(3'2)
W ^ry
1
N
r
r d a 1 v
NI ?
-IN
t.:
d10)
vid
Mlm
TIN
.e: in
to
1
r?N
ltfl.t ?y lt1? (0IT
,ry
oiNrn Q
NAP) N
OR
m?d
y ??!T
?Id
JVd
N ?
"T to Nth T
OD co Y
N «.
v I n (= O
-?N a
Q
N
70 - 12
(3.1)
oc ft
r)$9 co
JVd
Vo CO
T o
z
r -I
1 fl ml
I BI
I? =I
q1t
w
0

'D
co
~ D i
C- O
tti Q
Q ? Q
0-
co ke
?T

Fn

? O
ss
1a CO
rn,? (2,1)
2 il)
0)
r ?N o
CO)
it
z

LL
LL
Q
cl:
F"

:E F- W
W
a Q
CL Q =
Q N
N
D v m

C/)
J
Q
L
UJ
Q
• z
UW
Qz
J
Q Z
U¢
LO
CC)
O
C\l

w U w v

cc. o CC o
CL Cr IL m
o 0

0) o o
T T N N

<C m 0 0 w LL
TIP PROJECT U-2815
GUILFORD COUNTY
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
---------------
YEAR ' LOS
1997 C 40 3
! !MOVEMENT NO.
2017
* \ 3R 20 I i YEAR 1 2 r3 4
85 I 1k:
----------------------
!
'!l
' sa 20855 0 1097 c B c c
I NOTE ARROWS DEPICT ?{ F F? F ? F
I DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. V 201 7
NOT NUMBER OF LANES . I 4 I
I
Z i I?t 1997iB C BiBl
4- 2017!D! D!C?
SR 2085 ! i
IT BLVD
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - -
+1 Tr ;
SR 1695 '
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"_- ------------- r sR2as5_ !
SR 2085
SR 1695 I
N., TRIAD BLVD. SR 2137
S. TRIAD BLVD.
------------------
NOTE:
SR 2085
* - SR 1695 SOUTH OF SR 2085 TO BE CLOSED IN -
FUTURE DUE TO RUNWAY EXTENSION.
@ - RAMP TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THIS -1 ; +11* 1 NOTE ARROWS DEPICT ,
I DIRECTION of TRAFFIC. ,
! NOT NUMBER OF LANES
' MOVEMENT IN FUTURE. N. TRIAD BLVC.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
j MOVEMENT
YEAR , NB WB ; EB
UNSIGNALIZED I L R i L i i T R
WITHOUT PROJECT 1l 9g7 ? FlC E i E' E! E'
12017!F I
F FIFiFIF'
SIGNALIZED I YEAR I Los j
WITH PROJECT ^1997 ' B
! 2017 C
FIGURE 513

T
N Z ?
(
p cm
O m ...
V E 0
V
W
1.) cc ri

am. o w
d
O . N Z
H w C
• z
J m
OD o
Z

. D
AL
N

0
CC m
F- E -- F-
z w
O
H

U .-.
N
W E -- r '"
10 Cn c y

00
? Z

Q
o
5 CM
( w o
. .?
>- cl)

00 '- E =-
LU U-
co
N
'D CD
C
..i N
O
r.,v
CL
O w
CL Q
cn (o cm
W c,?j J
d c O
J O

N
Z

cc:
a: O
~ E
(O
N
~
c? v w

E --
O O
CO E-
(p N
M
w
J
U
O
F-
O
z
w
C)
LL
w
O
F- Z T
Z W Cf)
w 2 o
2 w w
w
Q a
W W
CO) CO
F- a a0.
S2 O O
w a IOL
r 1\ _ 1II.' \ r
4 r
memo....
? `" ,•? ? ?? ? ice' " ? ® ?' _ ®?"4- G:.,. .
.. _1
?, I?, ?kv ?? ? te`-s. ?x," ? III !• ?9 ' ``¦-? O - ?
yr ?1 II
I ¦? s r t r.... ,
411
1. I
,J,i ? • a
g I r ! _
8 l I ? I ? -p I _ ? I - 1 /
i
1,77
- . ,? ' ; -. '? 4??-1? ;? e ':5 .f• \?. 1. ._.11?.??j _1 mil' C , ? \ \??
1? C,
. s f / ? ' ? 4' ?? ?p?{.4?, ????? : r'r-`_.. ?{ 1 . 1 , ! I y ? • i I s ? ? s ,??? ?? r I ' ' T -..: ? T`-
p ?-
•
Ctt
--- • Q Z

i z9
g
z
O
/V
m0
f> 0= O rri
?p
t O $
1 c m
rr,
a.
z
Do= _ ; D Q c) >
Z z
_
3> cl. 1 ;o T D
U)
rn _ mz Z M m
0
z5 EN D
z ,)
m CU

Z Y N

' y
. O
0
Z
O Z

T s I
E
z
o

M
Irl
A
y= O T y
m
T y O
O O y O
_
s

m
p
y

S
.0
gg
=g ? s a

???
??s$
y m }}
??.??*°'. ... ?. •1!j?ir4
?i `•?? ????? ll11
II fl???'ll ? I?O<J????
?
• '
it i
111 all
fm
E?
r
n aY.
'? I 9f .v iv
?i ?''
a
• ? 7 ?
f
ivt
e
?
1
?
?
z
° ? y F 7
1 E i a f 8
? ?
y Y ¢? c
= E S [?
'?! y{4 0 E I'
!
ig ipv d%?

H;: 7 6ei? v,S
OO l
1
1 ¦ Q
1 i

? o
o
n ?
Z m
o a
_? a ., e• o- rrr Y ?+o
f r? .
1 i
- -----------
m p D
CO) i
¦
x ?
n ao..,
?+ I x
e
s
w
m
Q
z
L:YJ ? O
7jj
I I J . ?-
1 ?j
.' i ? J ". I ( F 1
k ?t

m n? wrod?z
o si CA
?o nz0Ix
v
ME xzzo
0 ?
4)

0 a
z
c z
o ? 0 ro
NCV? Z? 7d

r o
s?,x m

C
mr ,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 5, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
r c sl
Fa
APR 0 6 1994
?I O?VtSI t
This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1994, requesting our
comments on the initiation of the study of "Greensboro, SR 2085 (Airport
Parkway), from SR 1695 to SR 2137, Guilford County, Federal-Aid Project
STPNHF-2085(1), State Project 8.2492901, TIP Project U-2815" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199401569).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects,
flood plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands.
The roadway does not cross any Corps of Engineers constructed flood control or
navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in Guilford County which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the November 1988 Guilford
County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway parallels and crosses Brush
Creek, a detailed study stream which has 100-year flood elevations determined
and a floodway defined. We suggest that you coordinate with the county for
compliance with their flood plain ordinance and possible revision to their
flood insurance map and report.
Our Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory Branch, indicates that the proposed
improvements could impact waters and/or wetlands of Brush Creek. It should. be
noted that these wetland areas have already been impacted by the relocation of
Old Oak Ridge Road and the new construction of Bryan Boulevard. Additional
impacts associated with the improvements to Airport-Parkway should be viewed
as cumulative to the impacts resulting from the recently authorized highway
improvements. Based on the presence of existing high ground along much of the
western edge of Airport Parkway, it is our recommendation that the proposed
highway improvements utilize this existing high ground as much as possible.
-2-
All work restricted to existing high ground areas will not require prior
Federal permit authorization. However, Department of the Army permit
authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as
amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
within the aforementioned crossing of the waters and wetlands. Specific
permit requirements will depend on design of the project, extent of fill
work within streams and wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.),
construction methods, and other factors. . .
At this point-in lime, construction plans. are not a?ajl??jln for review.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
development within waters and wetlands, your office should contact Mr. John
Thomas at the Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone], for a final
determination of Federal permit requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of
further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Lao,? C . Pa&-(?
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
FM206
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE c?
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATICN
116 NEST JONES STREET- -
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003 U
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO:
N-C- DEFT- OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANK VICK
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG-/INTER-OFFICE
FROM:
MS- JEANETTE FURNEY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
C, E I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING OF SR 2085 (AIRPORT RD-) FRC(
SR 1695 TO SR 2137 TIP #U-2835 (;n FEB 16 1994
kFFCR DIVISION OF TYPE SCOPING HIGHCA S THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PRCJECT NVIRON1VlE0
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 94E42200592- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFCRE 03/31/540
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone]-
-NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
04-04-94 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 2760 e3E
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS APR 0 6 1994 r
'L
MAILED T0: FROM: 2? DIVISICp
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGHjGH?NaYS?"
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANNING & ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOU
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING OF SR 2085 (AIRPORT RD.) FROM
SR 1695 TO SR 2137 TIP #U-2815
SAI NO 94E42200592 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].

C.G. REGION G
??I.o
??v?vi ? ems
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Saxztwy
March 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
aCE1L_
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook Z?C
Deputy State Hit ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening SR 2085 (Airport Road) from SR 1695 to
SR 2137, Guilford County, U-2815, 8.2492901,
STPNHF-2085(1), 94-E-4220-0592
16
MAR 14 1994
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAyc
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse. -
McKelden Smith conducted a survey of historic architectural resources in Guilford
County in 1978. We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
However, since the survey was conducted sixteen years ago, additional properties
which may be eligible for the National Register may be located in the area of
potential effect. We recommend that an architectural historian survey and
evaluate any properties over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect which
were not recorded during the 1978 survey. If there are no structures over fifty
years of age in the area of potential effect, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Streit • Raleigh, North Carolina 276012807
H. Franklin Vick
March 11, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
State of North Carolina -
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar4je
Office of Policy Development Ir
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 1 oft
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
H N F?
John G. Humphrey, Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee VA--"
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0592 - Scoping Widening SR 2085 to SR 2137, Guilford
County
DATE: March 24, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
JU WIR 2 5 1994
D
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
Uzi North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinat .C
Habitat. Conservation Program
DATE: March 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for widening SR 2085 (Airport
Parkway), from SR 1695 (Regional Road) to SR 2137
(Old Oak Ridge Road), Guilford County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2815, SCH Project No. 94-0592.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed improvements, and our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The subject project involves widening the existing 2-
lane section of SR 2805 to a 4-lane divided roadway with a
46 foot grassed median. Project limits extend from SR 1695
to SR 2137. The NCWRC recognizes that impacts to fish and
wildlife resources have been greatly reduced by widening the
existing facility and supports the NCDOT in this decision.
At this time NCWRC has no specific recommendations or
concerns regarding this project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
Memo
Page 2 March 10, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
Memo Page 3 March 10, 1994
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 David Cox, Highway
Projects Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
)VA
A T4fV
AMINNdilliftnomV
ID F= Fl'
.TO: Melba McGee,'.Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart'?
;Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0592; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Improvements to Airport Parkway, Greensboro
TIP No. U-2815
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual. used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
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
March 18, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site.in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques '
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation:
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
1054ler.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

0
• state of North Carolina
Department of Environment. Healtho and Natural Rescl mt es
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
)ect Number.
C/ - oS9a
W'5 4'D
Oue oat
3/,R 3
After review of this pfoiect it Ass teen determined that the EMNR pemssus) and/or
apptt> .afs indicated may need to be obtained in
order for tha project to comply with North Carolina Law,
Questions tlegarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of tbt form.
An appncat-rors, ipiortatron strip pumoenrtes relative to inese plans and permits are avaitable from the same
Regional Office. Normyt Process
T
irme
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES of REOUIREMENTS (statutory brae
twriif)

? Permit to construct a operate wastewater trowntant Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 2A says
facilities, sewer system extensions, it stover construction contracts On-site inspection. Post•apPlication
systems not discharging into state surface woom. Iochnicat conference trash 1!0 am)
NPOES • Permit to discharge into surface water VOW Application ISO days before begin activity On-site inspection. 60.120 a
ri
? permit to operate and construct wastewater faeiNtiss
i
f
I
t Pte-application conference miscasts Additionally. Obtain permit to
ng
e sur
discharg
nto sta
ace waters. construct wastewater treatment facilitygrenloo after NPO£S Reply 4IAI
time. 310 gays after receipt Of Part: or Issue of NPOES
prmtt-whicheirr is tator.
Neater slit Pairing Preipp'"ion Itctul" Conference usually necessary 3t0 days
(NIA)

...
Nett COrmitrYCimpn PefRilt
GOrnptttt isppljgfion Inv t be received av+Q penny fssw0 days
Prior to the installation of a well.
pays)
(15
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property SS Days
edge stud FAI permit owner On-site Inspection. Pro-application conference usual Filling
my require Easement to Fill from NZ Department of (a0 days)
Administration and Federal OreQpe and Filt Permit.
ermil to construct a opt-wt Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
ta:ilities ane10• Emission Sources 83 per 15A NCAC 21H NIA (90 gays)
An n burning asso:ra:ed with subject proposal
must be in tompr,anct with 1SA NCAC 2Db=.
Der Lion or renovalrons of structures containing
stns metria' must be in compliance with 1SA W days
NCAC 2D 052; which requires notification and removal WA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
919 733.0820 19C Days)
rnple¦ Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.D300.
The Sedimentatoon Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property oddlessto for any (arid disturbing activity. An erosion ff sedtmentatro
control plan will be required If one or mote acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Oustity Se:t.l at feast 30 20 days
Ca s berote bet.-nnrn a:twit A fee of S3C for the first a:re sad 52000 for ea:h old-loons' are or an mus! accom an the tan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinamm: (30 days)
On site Inspection usual Surety bond filet! with EMNR Bond amount
Mining Paredt varies with type mine and number 01 acres of affected tand Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropnate bond (W days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources It permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 'It more 1 day
A
Counties.in costae N.C. with organic soilti than five acres of ground Clearing sclivities are Involved Inspections (NI
)
should be requested at (east ten days before actual burn is planned'
- 90120 days
NIA
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (
)
If permit requited. a:)ptication W days before begin construction.

Apprcant must Not N C. Quatrfred engineer to prepare plans.
' 30 days
Men Seety Perrdt inspect construc-
, et"i•• _onsituction Is according to CMNR aPprot•
•
• ed plans. May also ruquirt ptim;I under mosquito control program. And (60 dars)
' a tot permit from Corps of Engiaters An inspection of site is neces• -
sa•y to verily Hwaid Ctaastfication. A minimum Ice of 1:2;0 00 muss be*
company the applits!ion. An ad.1itiona? processing fee bused on a
?•rr •nta?e or the ic!af otoietl cost w;lt F, r. n..ir•A -run romotetion _
1
Nornui hocess

1PERMTTS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REQUIREMENTS tstalutory two
Ymit)

faatrnit to ow aspforaowy on or
n dank 1Fik suety bond of !5.000 with EMNR running to state of N.C.
Conditional that an
rator shoo
ill
en
d
ll
d b W says
o r
. op
y we
opene
ope
y 41411A).
- abandonment. Ot piugged according to ENNR rules and "Julations.
?t
J Geoptrysieal Eaptorslton Mmtt Application toed with EKNR ar least 10 do" prior 10 lasue of psift W says
Application by letter. No standard application form. Al
Suite (.sea Construaion pofwt Application fee based on structure site fa eharped Must Include
ti
f
i
i
f
i
i
a 15.20 days
p
escr
p
ons
ownersh
c
draw
ngs of structure a proo
o OVA)
Of n"risn PC" V.
eo days
AM Wider Quality Cotif"lon SUA (130 days)

7 55 days
CAUL Permit for MAJO1t devebprrlDnt SM.W fee musf sccompany application (150 says)
23 days
CAUA Permit for WINOR development 1160.00 fat must accompany appl"lon QS days)
Severs! geoOetK wanurrients are located in or new the project Diva K any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please nosily:
N.C Geodetic survey, doe 27697. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any welts. K required, must be in accordance with Title 16A, SuDenapter 2CD100.
Notihution of the proper regional office Is requested K orphan' wridarground storage tanks O STS: are discovered during any excavation operation.
3 eomphanc,e with 15A WCAC 2M 1000 (Coastal Stonnwater ltutes) Is required.
I
F 455 days
i
' Other comments (attach addstional pages as necessary, being deem to else comment authonty):
ANY C014STRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING, AND
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN THE DISTUREANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT
PRIOR TO BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES.--
2/:;z >111IZ41
REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be•addiessed to the Regional Office marked below.
1 J Asheville Regional Ofto ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(7041251-6208 [phone]
? Ltoomsvilte Regional Office
919 North Main Street. P.O. Sox 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
(7051663-1699
OWashington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
(9191946&181
?Ra'eiph Regional Office
3&')0 Earrett Drive, Suite 101
Ra'ei9h. NC 27609
(919) 7332314
?1'.*itmington Regional office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington. NC 28405
19191395-3900

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A 4•
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E) ? H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary David W. Sides, Director

February 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison A;4K-
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of SR-2085 in Guilford County from
SR 1695 to SR 2137. Project No. 94-0592
The proposed project involves widening SR-2085 (Airport Parkway)
to four lanes with a grassed median. If this project involves
acquiring additional right-of-way, then the Environmental
Assessment should identify any unique, prime, and important
farmland that would be impacted by the project. A wetlands
evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
xa
State of North Carolina f ?:: ??,, -.,,.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CiOMENTS Charies H. Gardner
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _ '7y 6 J'y Z County: _ Gc?rLPoIP?
Project Name: G S-77 2
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C_ Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box*27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
/ This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].'
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control/,`
No comment r"7
This project will requirZ
control plan prior to beg
than one (1) acre will be
..4
2- S
`Date'
rMl of an
rig an? land,
iurbed. v
osion and sedimentation
sturbing activity if more
if an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
V The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
J

f
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
D1PAR'11;t17-1N1 ' 0.1: I.:NVIRONMENI', HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Type of Project Do 01
?--? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
?--? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior mthe award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r-1 This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
?---? state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the •shellfiss sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
r--1 The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
?-J For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should-.
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised that prior to the :removal or demolition of dilapidated
?--? structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration. of the rodents to adjacent he Public. Pesos Management. .Section. rodent ? (919)
contact the local health department or t
733-6407.
r--? The applicant should be advised to contact the. local health department regarding their
1--J requirements for septic. tank installations (as required -under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at. [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?----? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Marys Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Reviewer
Section/Bran = 5?. Date
Policy G O. : a
C-3, VCJo,
DEHNR 3198 (Rcviscd 8/93)
Division of Environmental Hcalch
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
March 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
PIWA
To; ;**)WA
?EHNR
.
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Foresterob,6?e
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Improvements to Greensboro, SR 2085 from SR 1695 to
SR 2137 in Guilford County
PROJECT: #94-0592
DUE DATE: 3-23-94
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the proposed right-of-way
purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. -The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series, that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
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
-. Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #94-0592
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way
and construction limits. Trees outside the construction. limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and related resources in
that area.
DHR: gm
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File

v
CITY OF GREENSBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
March 21, 1994
` Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
NCDOT
Planning & Environmental Branch
` P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
P.O. BOX 3136
GREENSBORO, NC 27402-3136
1 -
p1v?s?GN OF 4t ,
?uvrRO?
Subject: Airport Parkway from SR. 1695 to SR. 2137
TIP No. U-2815
Thank you for allowing the City of Greensboro to comment on
this project. The City of Greensboro, Piedmont Triad
International Airport and the Piedmont Triad region support this
project. This project will provide safe vehicular traffic into
our airport area and enable us to fully utilize.Bryan Boulevard
as a new gateway to the airport. We are glad to see the
recognition of this project by NCDOT. Our citizens fully support
this project and expect the department to proceed expeditiously
to complete this project.
On behalf of our citizens I have identified several areas
that should be addressed by NCDOT. The safety of the motorist,
bicyclist, and pedestrian needs to be maintained; provision for
non-vehicular travel should be encouraged; and measures to ensure
the safety of Greensboro's water supply in this area are
critical. In addition, the identification and protection of any
cultural, historical, and environmental sensitive areas within
and along this project are necessary.
Our citizens, elected leaders and staff look forward to
working with your department in the implementation of this
project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn S. Allen
Mayor
cc: City Council
Secretary Hunt
City Manager
Director of Transportation
640
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
%n/2/ G}3
TO:
TZ l G G kvnB REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
DE-ti -JUG+tt P-
FROM: REF. N . OR ROOM. BLDG.
5?-`i'GSnr?>S ( L'
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
[I NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS y
E(IFOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? -TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

F
paw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ...... ..
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 20, 1993
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor //
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager /44 4 ?/?-?P,?
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for SR 2085 (Airport Parkway),
Improvements from SR 1695 to SR 2137, Guilford County,
Federal-Aid Project STPNHF-2085(1), State Project
8.2492801, TIP Project U-2815
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for January 20, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JM/pl r
I\r
Attachments uL
C?

nn nrid?e k-
, ?61

(b- <<
?CA(
Sv"

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: 12-20-93
Revision Date:
TIP # U-2815
PROJECT # 8.2492901
F.A. PROJECT # STPNHF-2085(1)
DIVISION 07
COUNTY Guilford
Project Development Stage
Programming _
Planning X
Design _
ROUTE SR 2085 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Urban Freeway /Expressway
National Highway System
LENGTH 3.1 km (1.9 miles)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To increase capacity and safety along the subject
section of SR 2085 and improve access to the Piedmont Triad
International Airport.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR ELEMENTS OF WORK: Project involves
widening SR 2085 (Airport Parkway), from SR 1695 (Regional Road) to
SR 2137 (Oak Ridge Road), to a four-lane, median divided cross-section.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA Due: Nov. 94 FONSI Due: May 95
TYPE OF FUNDING:
( ) STATE (X) FEDERAL
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes No X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($) or ($)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
1
U-2815
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF FACILITY: Urban Expressway
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full Partial X None
TYPE OF ROADWAY: (existing) two-lane, two-way roadway
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 1 Grade Separations Stream Crossings 1
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY: Four-lane median divided (proposed)
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS:
Construction Year (1998) 14350 vpd Design Year (2018) 19350 vpd
% TTST % DUAL % DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE (AASHTO/3R): AASHTO
DESIGN SPEED: 80 km/h (50 MPH)
PRELIMINARY RESURFACING DESIGN:

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN:
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . $ 1,900,000
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100,000
(including rel., util., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,000,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,400,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,500,000
\ 4
U-2815
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH COULD
AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:

Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 567,000.00
Surface . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 337,723.75
Subsurface Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,400.00
X Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . .. . . . . . $ 140,700.00
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 84,500.00
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x . . . $
New Bridge x . . . $
Widen Bridge x . . . $
Remove Bridge x . . . $
New Culvert: Size Length, $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing:,W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,800.00
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 41,000.00
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals:
X New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40, 000.00
X Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20, 000.00
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $
3
U-2815
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Thermo . . . . . . . . . . $ 16,400.00
X Markers . . . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Other (clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc). . . . . $ 311,000.00
Contract Cost: $ 1,650,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 250,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 1,900,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 320-340 feet
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes X No
New Right of Way Needed: Width . . . . . . . $
Easements: Type Width . . . . . . . $
Utilities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
(TIP ESTIMATE) RIGHT"OF WAY Subtotal: $ 100,000
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 2,000,000
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN iIMD AND APPROVED BY:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Others
4
U-815
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING, NOTE YOUR
PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER COMENTS.
r
Prepared By: Date:
5

r r
•

'
r•
r•
?r
•rr
•
r
•
r
••r

Qta c/ ?Shee,?
areu--?5 bam? 1.lG

Kimel
Uit"A'N"'(?Hl Y vaaa?? +aa ...+
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
... BT. I. P. PROJECT U - 2815
SR 2085 (AIRPORT PARKWAY)
FROM SR 1695 TO SR 2137
GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
FIG. 1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 4
ID F= F1
March 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihar-t Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0592; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Improvements to Airport Parkway, Greensboro
TIP No. U-2815
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
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
44
Melba McGee
March 18, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications 'requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10541er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
02
TO:
Ldu. ? C?aQam b REF. NO. OR OOM, BLDG.
? c; M - ?
FROM• - REF. N O ROOM, BLDG.
ACT
ON
4
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME: ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR '.M Y. SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:-
I?I M

'FEB 1 0 ioD?,
WETLANDS GROIN
WATER UF?LITY SEC IL V ,,
d?,a STATgv
al ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 7, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly J. Grate Engineer Associate
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting minutes for TIP Project U-2815,
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway) from SR 1695 (Regional
Road) to west of SR 2137 (Old Oak Ridge Road),
Greensboro, Guilford County, Federal-Aid Project No.
STPNHF-2085(1), State Project No. 8.2492901
A scoping meeting was held on Thursday January 20, 1994 at 10:00 A.M. in
room 470 of the Highway Building. The purpose of the meeting was to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that is required for the
project.
The following persons were in attendance at the meeting:
Felix Davila - FHWA
Jenifer Phillips - Traffic Control
Ray McIntyre - Traffic Engineering
Derrick Lewis - Traffic Engineering
Mike Cowan - Division 7 Construction Engineer
Derek Bradner - Location & Surveys
Jack Matthews - Photogrammetry
Don Sellars - Right of Way
Brian Keaney - Geotechnical
Eileen Fuchs - Geotechnical
Sandra Stepney - Roadway Design
Cathy Metzler - Roadway Design
Danny Rogers - Program Development
Bill Watson - Program Development
Ray Moore - Structure Design
Rob Hanson - Planning and Environmental
Jay McInnis - Planning and Environmental
Beverly Grate - Planning and Environmental

February 7, 1994
Page 2
Project U-2815 involves widening the existing two-lane section of
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway) to four lanes with a 14 meter (46-foot) median from
SR 1695 (Regional Road) to west of SR 2137 (Old Oak Ridge Road). Project
U-2012C, on the west end of project U-2815, involves construction of an
interchange at SR 2085 and NC 68. Project U-608, on the east end of U-2815,
entails the construction of Bryan Boulevard Extension, on new location from
SR 2085 (Airport Parkway) at SR 2137) (Old Oak Ridge Road) to SR 2179 (New
Garden Road). U-608 will relocate SR 2137 approximately 150 feet westward
and construct a structure to carry SR 2137 over SR 2085. No access will be
provided between SR 2085 and SR 2137.
Division 7 would like project U-2815 to be completed concurrently with
Bryan Boulevard Extension (U-608). The current production schedule for
U-2815 shows the Environmental Assessment (EA) to be completed in November,
1994, with the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be completed in
May, 1995. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in October, 1995.
The project is currently scheduled to be let to construction in November,
1996.
Bryan Boulevard is presently under construction, with a completion date
of December, 1996. To coordinate the two projects, the letting date for
project U-2815 would have to be moved to January, 1996.
The schedule for U-2012C has right of way acquisition beginning in
August, 1995 and a letting date of October, 1996. No changes to this
project's schedule have been requested.
The project schedule will be revised to achieve right of way acquisition
in May, 1995 and letting January, 1996. The FONSI will be completed in
April, 1995.
It was noted the Piedmont Triad International airport's long range
construction plans include construction of an interchange at the airport's
eastern entrance. This proposed interchange will not be constructed as part
of project U-2815. The airport will be responsible for this interchange
including right of way and construction costs.
Mike Cowan explained the airport has committed to build the interchange
and is now awaiting funds from the Federal Aviation Administration. This
work will be accomplished at an undetermined future date.
The traffic signal at SR 1695 and SR'2085 will be revised as part of
project U-2815. A new signal will be placed at the at-grade intersection at
the eastern entrance to the airport.
Division 7 requested traffic signals at the two entrances to the
airport. The Area Traffic Engineer agreed with providing a signal at the
eastern entrance, but did not agree with providing a signal at the western
entrance. Traffic Engineering feels the two signals (at Regional Road and
proposed at eastern entrance) will provide gaps for left turning traffic at
the western entrance.
Division 7 has requested that a median crossover not be provided at
Marriott Drive. The traffic pattern created at Marriott Drive would be

J
February 7, 1994
Page 3
right-in and right-out movements, for east-bound traffic accessing the
Marriott. West-bound traffic would access the Marriott using either of the
airport access roads.
Existing structures along the project are adequate to handle the
proposed improvements and would not require any additional work (extensions,
replacements, etc.).
Photogrammetry indicated that plan sheets should be available by July,
1994. Don Sellers of Right of Way advised right of way acquisition could be
accomplished in approximately six months. He indicated that obtaining right
of way from the airport could be a lengthy process due to required Federal
approvals. If revisions to access can be handled as driveway permits rather
than right of way easements, less time will be required.
The planning document may possibly be processed 'as a Categorical
Exclusion. This is possible, because a minimum additional right of way will
be required and most grading and drainage work for the project has already
been accomplished. If the document is downgraded to a Categorical Exclusion,
planning time for the project will be reduced.
JM/sdt
cc: Scoping participants