19950448 Ver 1_Complete File_19950503

a+ , '
N. C. DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

C
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: . REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME` ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS -. ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS !.? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER _ ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ?SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

D Y? j

MAY 1 71994
W '!

401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Angela H. Smith
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for U-2581A, US 70 in Greensboro from
SR 2851 (Penry Road) to the Proposed Eastern Loop
Interchange, Guilford County, State Project No.
8.1492901, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-70(22)
The following were in attendance at the April 19, 1994 scoping meeting:
Bill Wilson
Eddie Hales
Sandra Stepney
Phil Williamson
Joann Giglio
Don Sellers
Patrick Riddle
David Modlin
Felix Davila
Mike Bruff
Danny Rogers
Sid Autry
Robin Stancil
Richard Davis
Linwood Stone
Angela Smith
Program Development
Geotechnical Unit
Roadway Design
Photogrammetry
Traffic Control
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Program Development
FHWA
Statewide Planning
Program Development
Location and Surveys
DCR/SHPO
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The length of the project is 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles). The project was
originally scheduled in the TIP to extend for 11.1 kilometers (6.9 miles).
This section of the project was accelerated due to the anticipated
construction of U-2525 (the Greensboro Eastern Loop) which is scheduled to be
let to right of way in October 1994.
The project calls for widening the existing 2-lane, 7.3 meter (24 foot)
section to a 5-lane, 19.5 meter (64 foot) curb and gutter section. The
design speed is recommended to be 80 kilometers/hour (50 mph).

M

May 10, 1994
Page 2
It is anticipated that additional right of way will be required to
contain the proposed cross section. We have approximately 18 meters (60
feet) but will require a total of at least 30 meters (100 feet).
The Location and Surveys Branch has completed an underground utility
survey and recommends holding the curb line to the north and accomplishing
all widening to the south. A major Duke power line (double arm, 3-phase)
runs on the north side of US 70 just 4.6 meters (15 feet) off the edge of
pavement and would be expensive to move. A 12" water line also runs along
the north side. A gas line is located along the south side, but will be
impacted regardless of how widening is accomplished.
A new K-Mart distribution center is under construction close to Penry
Road. This will generate a lot of truck traffic.
The Division indicated that they do not anticipate any major problems
with the proposed project.
Four facilities were identified with the possibility for underground
storage tanks (USTs) along the project. It is strongly recommended by the
Geotechnical Unit that the following sites be avoided:
* Jim's K & W Curb Market is located approximately 300 meters (1000
feet) west of the US 70 and SR 2827 intersection in the southwest
quadrant. Four large USTs are located approximately 21 meters (70
feet) from the US 70 centerline. This property is not listed with
Department of Environmental Management (DEM), therefore, further
field investigation is recommended if this property is to be
acquired for right of way.
* Texaco Food Mart is located approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile)
west of the US 70 and SR 2827, in the southwest quadrant. One
diesel tank, one kerosene tank, and three gasoline tanks are
located on this property. The closest point of the UST system to
the centerline of US 70 is approximately 26 meters (85 feet). This
site is registered with DEM.
* Shoprite Market is located in the northwest quadrant of the US 70
and SR 2874 intersection. One diesel tank, one kerosene tank, and
three gasoline tanks are located on this property. The closest
point of the UST system to the centerline of US 70 is 18 meters (60
feet). This property is not listed with DEM.
* Wendover Mobile Mart is located in the northwest quadrant of the
US 70 and SR 3025 intersection.
Three gasoline tanks are located on this property and are registered
with DEM. The closest point of the UST system to the centerline of US 70 is
27 meters (90 feet).
The West Gift Shop, located between SR 2874 (Scottyville Road) and
SR 2850 (Elselee Road) on the south side of US 70, was identified as having
the potential for contaminated soil. It is recommended that DEM records be
consulted before any right of way from this parcel is acquired.

May 10, 1994
Page 3
Existing average daily traffic volumes along US 70 is approximately
16,800 vehicles per day (vpd) and 2015 volumes is approximately 29,000 vpd.
Traffic must be maintained during construction.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) had no concerns
since the project will not impact any streams.
No historic or state study properties were identified along the project
and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is not anticipated to
request a survey to check for potentially eligible properties. Widening to
the south side of US 70 may require that we complete a phase I survey. No
archaeological surveys are anticipated to be required.
The preliminary construction cost estimate includes: $ 1,550,000 for
construction and $ 2,284,000 for right of way for a total of $ 3,834,000.
Construction and right of way estimates are currently being revised to
reflect widening to the south of US 70.
The accelerated schedule for part U-2581A shows right of way acquisition
in December, 1994 and construction in August, 1996. Roadway Design indicated
they will prepare a design and cost estimates in May. We anticipate having
the Categorical Exclusion completed by December 1994.
The FHWA anticipates that a federal Categorical Exclusion document can
be completed under the condition that all impacts are quantified. All
impacts will be identified and quantified and included in the CE.
One project located in the project area is I-303. This project consists
of widening I-40/85 from the existing 4 lanes to 8 lanes, from US 421 to
NC 54. This project is currently under construction. Another project in the
area is U-2525, the Greensboro Eastern Loop. The Eastern Loop is a 4-lane
freeway on new location and extends from Lawndale Drive to I-40/85.
Construction is scheduled to begin in 1996.
AS/plr
N. C. DEPARTMIgNT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
2
TO: >
6R?c REF. NO. OR. ROOM, BLDG.
FROM.

I ?? ?/ . ?Y. • I J
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
7 fj
ACTION..
? NOTE AND FILE _ ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN To Me ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAII:s ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY+SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
I
p
L

WA 71TYStUl-ION

d1.
Wnr+v?Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 29, 1994
401 ISSUED
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 70, From SR 2851 (Penry Road) to the Proposed
Greensboro Eastern Loop Interchange, Greensboro, Guilford
County, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-70(22), State Project
No. 8.1492901, TIP Project U-2581A
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 70 in Greensboro. The project
is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1998 and
construction in fiscal year 2000. Section A has been accelerated due to the
anticipated construction of U-2525 (the Greensboro Eastern Loop).
The proposed project is located east of the Greensboro city limits on
US 70. It is proposed to widen the existing 2-lane section of US 70 to a
5-lane curb and gutter section. The proposed section will extend the
existing 5-lane section in Greensboro to the proposed Greensboro Eastern
Loop.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by April 29, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Angela H. Smith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment

t 1 IOsce
li dF? D 1 I

2no
S2
.1 PROJECT
_I LIMITS
\ b 2829
?? 65 •Y
'If
2 y d2 y, r
-'y -
I -i
%?? I PROJECT

• 2928 L1M1 15
°\
. -.1
I
28st r .•'i if, I
1 m° ?1 .66 3432. .7
2834 3412
a
I K 8 7
'?
.16
2874
.14 awl 1 ° L

? ?? "'

03 Flu .25 \
1 'UmEeN
a°
60
•i
xlal
6
JA 5
2155
:
1 .03 31;3 7J 3026 50 7010 `
]02/
• ° OQ
3161
3023
0 ?

3136 3167 .17 .67
'(41 3i61

xo ?NS7pN\
I 3119 \ ]026 ?
0 /eo

?•
]Oll
3008
3ooq ?`? ? 1g? 3600 °
Carden ° -
NI
ulian
2898
2626
I Mc LEANSVILL
(UNINC.)
POP. 1,176
' 2871 y2819 2826
_.!6 n
,se .1Q nNH?............ 11111 AO.
10 6Q
?4?6 g
'3177
... p 011
7173
.3.
3191.
.21
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 70
FROM SR 2851 (PENRY ROAD) TO PROPOSED
GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP INTERCHANGE
GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
U-2581A
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1

q5qq€
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
April 21, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
401 ISSUED
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Guilford County - US 70 from East of SR 2851 to the Proposed
Greensboro Eastern Loop; State Project No. 8.1492901; T.I.P.
No. U-2581A
Attached for your informat' is a copy o the project planning report
for the subject project. The r ject is bein processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a " a egorical Exc1 lion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not an icipate guesting an Individual Permit but
propose to proceed under a Nat' de 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 Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
0
-April 21, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone]
extension 306.
1 ,
Sincer.
H. ranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
cc: John Thomas, COE, Raleigh Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Angela Smith, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
US 70
From east of SR 2851 (Penry Road)
to the Proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop
Greensboro, Guilford County
F. A. Project No. STP-70(22)
State Project No. 8.1492901
TIP Project U-2581A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
WZ S
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
I I (
Da ich s Graf P. E.
/F° ivi ion Administrator, FHWA
US 70
From east of SR 2851 (Penry Road)
to the Proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop
Greensboro, Guilford County
F. A. Project No. STP-70(22)
State Project No. 8.1492901
TIP Project U-2581A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
()r
'.'?
?aaljj'
H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Held

H. craw in v1cK, N. L.; Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Nt
X
h44' LM,\1
Flb Ctl6crf ,0
39)95
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
A. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be
contacted prior to construction to determine if the candidate
species, Nestronia and Greensboro burrowing crayfish, (see
section III.D.2.a.) have been upgraded to threatened or
endangered.
B. Precaution will be taken to avoid the groundwater incident site
(#6364) at the West Gift Shop, located between SR 2874
(Scottyville Road) and SR 2850.(Elsielle Road) on the south side
of US 70. Precaution will be taken to avoid all underground
storage tank (UST) sites (see section IV.D.3.b.). Further field
investigation is recommended at Jim's K & W Curb Market and at
Shoprite Market if the project alignment shifts onto these
properties.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description ................................... 1
B. Summary of proposed Improvements ...................... 1
1. Project Termini .................................. 1
2. Project Length ................................... 2
3. Cross Section ................................ 2
4. Right of Way Width ............................ 2
5. Access Control ................................... 2
6. Drainage Structures ............................ 2
7. Design Speed and Speed Zones ... .. ....... 2
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ....... 2
9. Railroads ........................................ 2
10. Parking .................................. 2
11. Bicycle Provisions ............................... 3
12. Sidewalks ........................................ 3
13. Utilities .. ...... .......................... 3
14. Special Permits Required ......................... 3
15. Cost Estimate .................................... 3
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ 3
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ............................ 3
1. Cross Section .................................... 3
2. Right of Way . ... ..................... 4
3. Types of roadside Development .................... 4
4. Access Control ................................... 4
5. Structures ....................................... 4
6. Speed Zones .... .... . ... . ... ............ 4
7. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ........... 4
8. Railroads ........................................ 4
9. Sidewalks ........................................ 4
10. Utilities ........................................ 4
11. Geodetic Markers ................................. 4
12. School Buses ..................................... 5
B. Functional Classification ............................. 5
C. Thoroughfare Plan . ... ............................ 5
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .......................... 5
E. Accident History ...................................... 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....... 7
A. Recommended Improvements .. ......................... 7
B. Other Alternatives Considered ......................... 7
IV. Environmental Impacts ...................................... 7
A. Social Environment .................................... 7
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ..................... 7
2. Public Facilities ................................ 7
3. Cultural Resources ............................... 7
a. Architectural Resources ..................... 7
b. Archaeological Resources .................... 8
4. Relocation Impacts ............................... 8
B. Economic Environment .................................. 10
C. Land Use .............................................. 10
1. Scope and Status of Planning ..................... 10
2. Existing Zoning .................................. 10
3. Existing Land Use ................................ 10
4. Future Land Use .................................. 10
5. Farmland ......................................... 11
D. Natural Environment ................................... 11
1. Ecological Resources ............................. 11
a. Plant Communities .......................... 11
b. Wildlife Communities ........................ 12
2. Protected Species .............................. 13
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 13
b. State Protected Species ..................... 13
3. Physical Resources ............................... 14
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils .............. 14
b. Contaminated Properties ..................... 14
C. Water Resources ............................. 15
d. Floodplain Involvement ...................... 16
e. Wetlands .................................... 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ................... 16
5. Construction Impacts ............................ 11
6. Permits ......................................... 19
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .. .............................. 19
A. Government Response .................................. 19
B. Public Response ...................................... 19
VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................. 20
APPENDIX
FIGURES
CORRESPONDENCE
US 70
From east of SR 2851 (Penry Road)
to the Proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop
Greensboro, Guilford County
F. A. Project No. STP-70(22)
State Project No. 8.1492901
TIP Project U-2581A
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes improvements to a 1.7 kilometer {km} (1.1 mile) section
of US 70 from east of SR 2851 (Penry Road) to the proposed Greensboro
Eastern Loop. The project will follow existing US 70 for approximately
1.2 km (0.8 mile) and then follow SR 2827 (Four Mile Loop Road) for 0.5 km
(0.3 mile) to approximately 90 meters {m} (300 feet) east of SR 2828
(Willowlake Road) in Greensboro, Guilford County (see Figures 1 & 2 for
project location). The recommended improvements include widening the
existing section (three lanes on US 70 and two lanes on Four Mile Loop
Road) to a 5-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot) curb and gutter section (see Figure 3
for a sketch of the proposed typical cross section). This section will
consist of two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center left
turn lane. The proposed cross section will tie into the existing 6-lane
section to the west of the project, which eventually tapers to a 4-lane,
median divided section.
The proposed widening will be generally symmetrical about the
centerline of US 70 with some asymmetrical widening to minimize impacts.
The entire project extends from east of SR 2851 (Penry Road) to
SR 3056 (north of I-85) for 11.1 km (6.9 miles). However, due to the
anticipated construction of the Greensboro Eastern Loop (U-2525),
scheduled for right of way acquisition in May 1995, this 1.7 km (1.1 mile)
section of U-2581 was broken out and accelerated for construction
concurrently with U-2525. The subject project (U-2581A) is scheduled for
right of way acquisition to begin in FY 1995 and construction in FY 1996.
Project U-2581 is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with the total cost estimated at $3,850,000.
This estimate includes $2,300,000 for right of way and $1,550,000 for
construction. This cost reflects only the U-2581A part of the orignial
project. The project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way acquisition
in Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and construction in FY 1998.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Project Termini
The western terminus is east- of SR 2851 (Penry Road) and the
eastern terminus is approximately 90 m (300 feet) east of the
intersection of SR 2828 (Willowlake Road) and SR 2827 (Four Mile Loop
Road).
2
2. Project Length
The project's proposed improvements total 1.7 km (1.1 miles).
The project follows US 70 for approximately 1.2 km (0.8 mile) and
then will follow SR 2827 (Four Mile Road) for 0.5 km (0.3 mile).
3. Cross Section
The proposed cross section is a 5-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot) curb
and gutter section containing two travel lanes in each direction and
a continuous center left turn lane. A 2.4 m (8-foot) berm will be
constructed behind the curb on each side of the project to provide
enough width to accommodate the numerous utilities within the
construction limits (see Figure 3 for the typical section). The
widening will be generally symmetrical about the centerline of the
existing road with some asymmetrical widening to minimize impacts.
4. Right of Way Width
A right of way width of 30 m (100 feet) is needed to contain the
proposed 5-lane curb and gutter section. Temporary construction
easements may be needed in certain areas.
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
6. Drainage Structures
There are no stream crossings within the project area;
therefore, no major drainage structures are required for the project.
7. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed roadway section is recommended to have a design
speed of 80 km per hour {km/h} (50 miles per hour mph). The posted
speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) is expected to be retained after
completion of the project.
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All roadway intersections will be at-grade and stop-sign
controlled with the exception of SR 2851 (Penry Road) which will
retain signalization.
9. Railroads
This project is not involved with a railroad or railroad
corridor.
10. Parking
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for
or permitted along the project.
3
11. Bicycle Provisions
No special accommodations for bicycles are recommended. This
section of US 70 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is
it a designated bicycle route.
12. Sidewalks
Sidewalks have not been requested by the City of Greensboro as
part of this project. A 2.4 m (8-foot) berm will be provided behind
the curb which will accommodate any future sidewalk construction.
13. Utilities
Overhead electric, telephone, and cable lines exist along the
proposed project. Gas, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines
exist underground along the project. A major Duke Power line (double
arm, 3-phase) runs on the north side of US 70 just 4.6 m (15 feet)
off the edge of pavement. A 300 millimeter {mm} (12-inch) water line
also exists within the existing NCDOT right of way on the north side.
Utilities will be permitted within NCDOT right of way under certain
limitations.
14. Special Permits Required
No special permits are anticipated to be required for the
proposed project.
15. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Construction $ 1,550,000
Right of Way $ 2,300,000
Total Cost $ 3,850,000
Construction cost estimate includes 15% for engineering and
contingencies. The right of way cost estimate includes the cost of
acquisition, utilities, and relocation.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross Section
The studied section of US 70 consists of a 3-lane, 10.8 m
(36-foot) curb and gutter section. The Four Mile Loop section of the
project consists of a 2-lane, 6 m (20-foot) section.
4
2. Right of W ay
Existing right of way is approximately 18 m (60 feet).
3. Types of Roadside Development
Roadside development is mainly commercial, light commercial, and
residential.
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
5. Structures
There are no bridges or major drainage structures within the
project limits.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph) throughout the
project length.
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
All streets intersect US 70 at-grade and are stop sign
controlled, except at SR 2851 (Penry Road) which is signalized.
8. Railroads
This project is not involved with a railroad or railroad
corridor. An existing railroad overpass is located on US 70 in the
vicinity of the project. It will not be impacted by the project
since the proposed 5-lane section will be routed on Four Mile Loop
Road.
9. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks throughout the project length.
10. Utilities
Overhead electric, telephone, and cable lines exist along the
proposed project. Gas, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines
exist underground along the project. A major Duke Power line (double
arm, 3-phase) runs on the north side of US 70 just 4.6 m (15 feet)
off the edge of pavement. A 300 mm (12-inch) water line exists
within the existing NCDOT right of way on the north side of US 70.
Utility conflicts are expected to be high along the project
length.
11. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic markers will be impacted by the proposed
improvements.
5
12. School Buses
This section of US 70 is used by 25 to 30 school buses daily.
B. Functional Classification
US 70 is designated as an urban principal arterial in the Guilford
County Functional Classification Plan and is classified as an urban minor
arterial in the statewide classification system. The route is a part of
the Federal-Aid System [STP-70(22)].
C. Thoroughfare Plan
US 70 is designated a major east-west thoroughfare on the Greensboro
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. It provides important radial access to
Greensboro from the outlying eastern portion of Guilford County. The
eastern end of US 70 will eventually be connected with the proposed
Greensboro Eastern Loop (U-2525). Widening of the subject facility to a
multi-lane width is warranted on the basis of inadequate capacity and need
for increased safety (see Sections II.D. and II.E. for.'details). The
recommended alignment for the Greensboro Eastern Loop is anticipated to
interchange with SR 2827 (Four Mile Loop Road) approximately 90 m (300
feet) east of SR 2828 (Willowlake Road). The thoroughfare plan has not
yet been updated to show the preferred location for the proposed urban
loop interchange with US 70. See Figure 4 for an excerpt of the existing
Greensboro Thoroughfare Plan.
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The existing average daily traffic volume on US 70 is approximately
16,800 vehicles per day (vpd). Estimated year 2020 traffic volume is
30,000 vpd. These estimates of the average daily traffic include 1.5%
truck-tractor semi-trailers and 3% dual tired vehicles. See Figure 5A and
5B for traffic projections.
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of
service (LOS) which range from A through F. Level of service A, the
highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most
vehicles do no stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns
are freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is stable but
more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of
service C is characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally
having to wait through more than one red indication. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching
vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level
of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and
represent the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F
represents the over saturated or jammed conditions which are considered
unacceptable to most drivers.
6
A capacity analysis was performed on the Penry Road intersection
under project U-2700 and the Greensboro Eastern Loop interchange was
evaluated under project U-2525. No modifications to these intersections
are recommended as a part of this project.
Wagoner Bend Road (SR 3040) is anticipated to carry 500 vehicles per
day in 2020, and is expected to carry 1% dual trucks. The turning traffic
from SR 3040 has been incorporated into the traffic estimate shown in
Figure 5B. SR 3040 traffic will be routed on Willowlake Road (SR 2828),
since the connector shown on Figure 2 of the EA (immediately west of
SR 3040) will not be constructed.
A capacity analysis was completed on the studied portion of US 70
using the 2020 estimated average daily, traffic. All unsignalized
intersections are anticipated to operate at level of service D or above,
except for the following: Buchanan Church Road (SR 3026), Flemingfield
Road (SR 2848), and Willow Lake Road (SR 2828).
Signalization should be considered
intersections if the design year (2020)
Engineering Branch and the Area Traffic
recommendations.
at a future date for these three
volumes materialize. The Traffic
Engineer concurred with these
E. Accident History
A total of 86 reported accidents with 1 fatality occurred on the
studied portion of US 70 between June 6 , 1991 and May 31, 1994. The
primary types of accidents were rear-end collisions (31.4%), accidents
involving run-off-road collisions (30.2%), and accidents involving turning
movements (17.4%). These three types of accidents account for 79% of all
accidents (see Figure 6). The accidents were scattered throughout the
length of the project.
The total accident rate for the studied section of US 70 is 138.2
accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers {mvk} (222.44 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles {mvm}) compared to the state average for similar
routes of 154.1 mvk (248.1 mvm). The accident rate for the subject
project is just under the statewide average. This rate will likely
increase due to the projected traffic volumes, which will be greatly
affected by the proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop, unless provisions are
made to accommodate the future traffic volumes. SR 2827 (Four Mile Loop
Road) had 9 reported accidents with no fatalities within the June 1991
through May 1994 time frame. The types of accidents that occurred were
comparable with the types occurring along US 70.
The proposed widening will reduce the potential for the types of
accidents occurring along the project. The continuous center lane will
act as a storage lane for left turning vehicles, allowing less
interference with through traffic. The additional through lane in each
direction will allow right turning vehicles to slow down with less
impedance to through traffic.
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended alternative consists of widening the existing
facility to a 5-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot), face to face curb and gutter
section (see Figure 3 for a sketch of the recommended typical section).
The 5-lane section will consist of two travel lanes in each direction and
a continuous center left turn lane. Each of the five lanes will be 3.6 m
(12 feet) wide throughout the entire length of the project. The proposed
roadway widening will be generally symmetrical about the centerline of the
existing roadway with some asymmetrical widening. The proposed
construction will primarily be contained within the proposed 30 m (100
feet) of right of way. In addition to this right of way, temporary
construction easements may be necessary at some locations.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the project scope calling for widening an existing segment of
roadway, no alternative corridors were considered. Asymmetric widening to
the south was considered to avoid heavy utilities on the north side of the
existing roadway. A major Duke power line (double arm, 3-phase) runs on
the north side of US 70 just 4.6 m (15 feet) off the edge of pavement and
would be expensive to move. This alternative was rejected due to the
greater degree of impacts to businesses, residences and the location of
Underground Storage Tanks (UST's). Also, the recommended symmetrical
widening with asymmetrical widening at selected locations best utilizes
the existing right of way (see Figure 2 for alignment and right of way
needs).
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
The neighborhood consists of mixed commercial and residential
along both sides of existing US 70. The proposed action will not
disrupt neighborhood cohesion nor will it interfere with area
facilities and services.
2. Public Facilities
No public facilities are located within the project area.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with 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.
8
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
dated May 4, 1994 (included in the Appendix), recommended that
NCDOT survey and evaluate any properties over fifty years of age
in the area of potential effect, since the latest historic
architectural survey of Guilford County was conducted in 1978.
The Joseph A. McLean House, mentioned in the May 4, 1994
letter, is outside the project area.
A Phase II survey was conducted on August 23, 1994.
Fifteen properties were surveyed within the area of potential
effect (APE) and it was determined that no properties were
considered potentially eligible for the National Register or
listed on the state study list within the proposed project area.
The SHPO concurred with the FHWA that there are no
significant historic architectural properties within the APE in
a letter dated November 30, 1994 (in appendix).
b. Archaeological Resources
The majority of the proposed project is developed and
disturbed and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources
which may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter
dated May 27, 1994 (included in.the Appendix), recommended that
two areas should be surveyed to determine if there are
significant archaeological resources in the area of potential
effect. The SHPO recommended that the undeveloped areas at the
western terminus in the vicinity of Penry Road (SR 2851) and the
eastern end connecting to the proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop
be examined by a NCDOT staff archaeologists.
The NCDOT archaeological study dated July 18, 1994 did not
show any significant archaeological resources that would be
disturbed by the proposed project. Therefore no further
archaeological work was recommended.
In a letter dated September 15, 1994 (in appendix), the
SHPO requested that a more thorough revised archaeological
survey be conducted. The revised archaeological survey was
completed and sent to the SHPO asking for their concurrence.
SHPO concurrence was received in a letter dated December 6, 1994
(in appendix).
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary designs, the recommended improvements may
require the displacement of one residence (a copy of the relocation
report is located in the Appendix). Several additional residences
and businesses may be relocated due to high proximity damages as the
design is further developed. The Division of Highways offers a
Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects of
displacement.
9
The relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act GS-133-17. The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in occupying a
new place to live or in which to do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will, at the time right of way is
authorized, determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
business concerns, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services, moving cost, replacement
housing payments, mortgage differential and incidental cost without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
officer will contact the displacee,, within ample time prior to
displacement, to allow negotiations for, and possession of
replacement housing which meets decent, safe and sanitary standards
and is adequate to accommodate the relocatee. Relocation of displaced
persons will be made in areas not generally less desirable in regard
to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices
of replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of
the families and individuals displaced. Replacement properties will
be made available to displaced families and individuals in the same
general area from which they are being displaced and reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will
also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations in locating and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner occupant displacees will receive an
explanation regarding options available to them, such as (1) purchase
of comparable replacement housing, (2) rental of comparable
replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) relocating
existing owner-occupant housing. The relocation officer will also
supply information concerning other State or Federal Programs
offering assistance to displaced persons. Provision will be made for
other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. Last resort
housing will be provided, if necessary, in accordance with North
Carolina law.
The Moving and Replacement Housing Payments Program is designed
to (a) compensate the relocatee for the costs of moving from homes,
businesses, and farm operations acquired for a highway project,
(b) provide incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings
such as attorneys' fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs, and (c) make payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement for replacement payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not
exceed $22,500 combined total, unless last resort housing becomes
necessary. Tenants may receive a rental assistance payment not to
exceed $5,250 unless last resort housing becomes necessary.
Last Resort llousirr? is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal .limitation. The purpose of the
10
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided.
B. Economic Environment
The economic benefits of
through increased comfort and
accessibility to the offices
C. Land Use
the proposed improvements will be generated
safety. The project will provide improved
and businesses along the existing facility.
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdiction of
Guilford county. The county has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, which
was developed jointly with the cities of Greensboro and High Point
and the towns of Jamestown and Gibsonville. The county also enforces
a joint Unified Development Ordinance, which includes design
standards, zoning and subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Zoning
Existing zoning is designated as mixed and supports residential,
light industrial, and commercial.
3. Existing Land Use
Development along US 70 includes a wide range of land uses
typical of formerly rural areas on the outskirts of cities. The
roadway provides access to light industrial uses, such as the K-Mart
Distribution Center off Penry Road, Greensboro Auto Parts, auto
salvage yards, and other automotive related businesses. Commercial
uses in the area include the relatively small Calvin Bryant Plaza
shopping center, gas stations, and services such as pest control and
home improvement businesses. Single family residences are scattered
along the roadway throughout the project. Some undeveloped wooded
and agricultural land remains, particularly behind the urban uses
fronting the roadway.
If land is acquired from properties with the potential for soil
contamination such as salvage yards or pest control businesses,
investigations for the presence of hazardous materials will be
carried out prior to right of way acquisition.
4. Future Land Use
The use of land adjacent to the roadway is not expected to
change, according to the Comprehensive Plan's future land use. The
US 70 strip is designated as a mixed use area on the map. However,
the land both north and south of US 70 is expected to support
increased residential development. The zoning districts in the area
reflect the existing and anticipated land uses throughout the area.
11
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies and their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important Farmland
and soils. These soils are designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation
Service, based on crop yield, moisture content, and various other
factors. Soils which have been developed or committed to urban use
by the local planning authority are exempt from consideration under
the Act. As the area effected by the proposed improvements meets
both of these conditions, no further consideration of farmland
impacts is required.
D. Natural Environment
1. Ecological Resources
The project lies in an urbanized setting outside of Greensboro
in Guilford County. Located within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province, the project area is characterized by level terrain.
An ecological survey was conducted August 19, 1994 to identify
vegetative communities and wildlife species contained within the
project area. Vegetative communities and wildlife were inventoried
and mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands were identified using
methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field visit.
The Guilford County Soil Survey, USGS McLeansville quadrangle map and
the hydric soils for Guilford County were studied to identify
potential wetland sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for
Guilford County was used to determine if any sensitive resources are
present in the project area. N. C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) files were reviewed to determine
if any protected or rare flora or fauna occurs in the project area.
Distribution and composition of biotic resources throughout the
project area reflect topographic positioning, hydrologic influences,
and past and present land use practices. Urban areas comprise the
majority of the project. Common names are provided for each species
listed. The scientific name is available in the Natural Systems
Technical Report on file in the Planning and Environmental Branch of
NCDOT.
a. Plant Communities
Two plant communities were identified in the project area:
maintained Community and Hardwood Forest. Commercial and
residential development, pasture and roadside habitat constitute
maintained communities in the project area. In this community,
human structures or activities preclude natural plant
succession. Lawns support fescue as the dominant vegetative
component, complemented with landscape ornamentals. Dogwood,
red cedar, and various oak trees are common.
12
Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy
species occur within the pasture and roadside areas. Common
plants include fescue, tall golden-rod, dog-fennel, cranesbill,
black nightshade, and foxtail grass.
High ground sites are typically dominated by an oak-hickory
canopy consisting of white oak, southern red oak, and mockernut
hickory. Shortleaf pine, scrub pine, and red cedar often occur
as subcanopy components. Understory composition is an
amalgamation of trees and shrubs such as sourwood, dogwood,
privet, beauty berry, and sapling growth of canopy species. The
herbaceous layer of sparse or totally lacking, but groundcovers
such as Virginia creeper, poison ivy, and muscadine, are
typical.
More mesic conditions support a canopy of tulip tree, and
sweet gum, while the understory consists of red maple, water
oak, iron wood, and American holly. Christmas fern is the
prevalent herbaceous plant present.
The Biotic community's loss due to proposed project
construction is anticipated to total 5.8 hectares (14.4 acres),
which includes 4.6 hectares of maintained community and 1.2
hectares of hardwood forest.
b. Wildlife Communities
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide
shelter for opportunistic animal species, such as the Norway
rat, house mouse, hispid cotton rat, and eastern cottontail.
These are primarily animals of disturbed environments, brushy
edges, and other habitats characterized by mixtures of
herbaceous vegetation and shrubby plants. Gray squirrels were
frequently observed in the project area, as were bird species
such as the rock dove, northern cardinal, blue jay, and European
starling.
Most commonly seen in the canopy of forested habitats are
the downy woodpecker, brown creeper, northern cardinal, and the
Carolina wren.
The eastern box turtle, slimy salamander, worm snake, and _
black racer are reptiles and amphibians that may be found in the
project area. These species utilize fallen logs and the litter
layer for cover. _
Amphibians which may inhabit ditches and streams in the
project area include the northern dusky salamander, three-lined
salamander, northern cricket frog, spring peeper, and upland
chorus frog.
Fish diversity is expected to be law in -water without
continual flow. Shiners, creek chub, and bluegill may utilize
these intermittent tributaries for spawning during periods of
flow.
13
A site visit by North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) personnel on April 18, 1994 revealed that
wildlife habitat in the project area has been degraded by
residential and commercial development along existing US 70.
2. Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
The comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 .(16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The USFWS reported, at the present time, no endangered or
threatened species are known to occur in the county. Therefore,
a survey for listed species along the proposed corridor will not
be required. However, the USFWS recommended that NCDOT survey
for the two "Candidate" (Cl and C2) species: .
CANDIDATE SPECIES
Guilford County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula C2
Greensboro burrowing Cambarus catagius C2
crayfish
C2 - Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support
listing as Endangered or Threatened at this time.
These candidates are not legally protected under the Act,
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or
endangered. This species may be listed in the future, at which
time they will be protected under the Act. No surveys for these
candidate species will be conducted at the present time.
b. State Protected Species
Records in the N.C. Natural Heritage Program files do not
reveal any plant or animal species with a N.C. Status of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) in or
near the project corridor. Plants or animals with these state
designations are granted protection by the State Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to 113 to 113-337) and the State of
14
N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (G.S. 196:
106-202.12 to 106-202.19), administered and enforced by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C. Department of
Agriculture, respectively.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology, Topography, and Soils
The study area is located within the felsic crystalline
soil system located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The geologic region is depicted as Charlotte and Milton Belt,
consisting of intrusive metamorphosed granitic rock. The
topography is gently rolling and over bedrock or granite. Soils
within the study area comprise the Enon-Mecklenburg association.
This association consists of gently sloping to sloping, well
drained soils on uplands, that have a sandy clay loam, clay, and
clay loam subsoil.
b. Contaminated Properties
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along US 70
corridor. A file search of all appropriate federal and state
agencies was conducted to determine if any environmental hazards
were present in the proposed project corridor. The survey
identified four (4) facilities with the possibility for
underground storage tanks (UST's) along US 70.
Jim's K & W Curb Market, located south of US 70, is
approximately 300 m (1000 feet) west of the US 70 and SR 2827
intersection. Little is known about this site since it is not
listed in the DEM registry. A brief site survey revealed at
least four UST's approximately 21 m (70 feet) from the
centerline of US 70. Further field investigation of this site
is recommended, prior to right of way acquisition.
Texaco Food Mart, located south of US 70, is approximately
0.8 km (0.5 mile) west of the US 70 and SR 2827 intersection.
This site contains one (1) diesel (22,000 liter (6,000
gallon)), one (1) kerosene (7,000 liters (2000 gallon)), and
three (3) gasoline (all 37,000 liters (10,000 gallons)), UST's
registered with the DEM. All of the UST's are of steel double
walled construction, have cathodic protection and have been in
place since February 28, 1988. The closest point of the UST
system to the centerline of US 70 is approximately 25.5 m (85
feet).
Shoprite Market is located in the northwest quadrant of the
US 70 and SR 2874 intersection. This site has one (1) kerosene
(7000 liters (2000 gallon)), one (1) diesel (3000 liters (1000
gallon)), and three (3) gasoline (three 15,000 and seven 30,000
liters (4000 and 8000 gallons)) UST's. None are listed on the
DEM registry. The closest point of the UST system to the
centerline is approximately 18 m (60 feet). Further field
investigations are recommended.
15
Wendover Mobile Mart is located in the northwest quadrant
of the US 70 and SR 3025 intersection. This site has three (3)
22,000 liters (6000 gallon) gasoline UST's registered with the
DEM. The UST's are constructed of fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP), have no cathodic protection, and have been in place since
March 5, 1990. The closest point of the UST system to the
centerline of US 70 is 27 m (90 feet).
The files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid
Waste Management were consulted and no landfills were located in
the project area.
The Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Section of the Division
of Solid Waste Management were consulted to ascertain whether
any unregulated dump sites or other potentially contaminated
properties exist within the proposed project limits. Based on
those records and the EPA's Superfund list, there are no
potential environmental problems sites that are anticipated to
affect this corridor.
The West Gift Shop, located between SR 2874 (Scottyville
Road) and SR 2849 (Elsielle Road) on the south side of US 70, is
the site of a ground water incident (#6364). It is recommended
that this property be avoided.
C. Water Resources
No major crossings are located along US 70 in the project
area. However, the project does intercept one intermittent,
unnamed tributary to South Buffalo Creek, located within the
Cape Fear River basin. The point of stream crossing is above
headwaters (less than 5 cubic feet per second {cfs} annual flow)
and passes through the project area by way of a pipe. Channel
width is approximately 1 m (3 feet) with a silt substrate. No
water was present at time of field visit.
Instream activities scheduled during low flow periods
(summer and fall) will have little to no impact upon water
resources. The pipe will be extended, reducing the linear feet
of natural stream channel. It is recommended that instream
activities be scheduled during low flow periods (summer and
fall), and Best Management Practices be strictly adhered to.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of
North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). South Buffalo Creek carries a "best usage"
classification of C NWS. The unnamed tributary which is not
named in the schedule of stream classifications carries the same
classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which
it is tributary.
16
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The supplemental classification "NWS" indicates waters
needing additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer
run-off) due to their being subject to eutrophication.
Neither High Quality Water, Outstanding Resources waters,
nor waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area, or within 1.6 km (1 mile) downstream. No National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination system permits have been issued
for the project.
d. Floodplain Involvement
No floodplain involvement is anticipated to be encountered
in this project.
e. Wetlands
Surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. Jurisdictional
areas impacted by the proposed alignment are confined to defined
channel boundaries of headwater tributaries and fall under the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). No
jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area.
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Winston-Salem Regional Office of the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments designated Guilford County as a moderate nonattainment
area for Ozone (03). However, due to recent improved ozone monitor-
ing data, this county has now been redesignated as a maintenance
area. 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 1994
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be
in conformity to the intent of the SIP. The approval date of the TP
and the TIP by the MPO was October 25, 1994. The approval date of
the TP and the TIP by USDOT was January 24, 1995. There have been no
significant changes in the project's design concept and scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. MOBILE 5A and CAL3QHC were used to determine the
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the
years of 1995 and 2015. Comparison of the predicted CO
concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging
period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no
violation of these standards.
17
Generally, the project area is residential with scattered
commercial. No noise sensitive sites were identified such as
churches or schools. Existing noise levels ranged from 68 to 69 dBA
along US 70 and a background noise level of 45 dBA along SR 2827
(Four Mile Loop Road). Thirty-five residences and 7 businesses are
expected to become impacted by highway noise in the design year of
2015. Exterior noise levels are anticipated to range from +3 to +25
dBA where the more noticeable noise increases for the receptors
located in the vicinity of SR 2827. When real-life noises are heard,
it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5
dBA change is readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most
people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of sound.
The project will maintain partial control of access with access
allowed for driveways and all intersections. For a noise barrier to
provide sufficient noise reduction it, must be high enough and long
enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise
reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. In
addition, businesses and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise
abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and thus, would
not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. Based on the
above factors, physical abatement measures are not recommended for
this project. The maximum extent from the proposed centerline of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours is 25 m (83 feet) and 45 m (150
feet), respectively. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Noise levels could increase in the area during construction but
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.
5. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways. These are generally of short term
duration and measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor.
18
Any burning done will be in accordance with the applicable laws,
ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be done under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to ally the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are
covered in Article 107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures, which is entitled 'Conte rol of Erosion, Siltation, and
Pollution"! The N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by
the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of
the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation
contained in the Standard Specifications together with the polices of
the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion
on work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be-disposed of in areas outside of the
right of way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise
required by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within
the right of way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste and
debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted
without prior approval and will not be permitted when, in the opinion
of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitos. In addition, care will be taken not to
block existing drainage ditches.
Prior to construction, a determination wi.ll be made regarding
the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project
area. . A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utilities owner
will be responsible will be made at that time. In all cases, the
contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility in advance
as to when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is
responsible for any damages that may occur during the construction
process. This procedure will insure that utilities are relocated
with a minimum of disruption of service to the community.
Traffic services in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure the transportation needs of the public are met both
during and after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passer-by and those individuals living or working
near the project can be expected, particularly from paving operations
19
and from earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be significant. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby structures will moderate the effects
of intrusive construction noise.
6. Permits
No special permits are anticipated to be required for the
proposed project.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
Comments on the proposed improvements to US 70 were requested from
the following federal, state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates
that a written response was received. Responses are in the Appendix.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U. S. Department of Transportation - FHWA
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, And Natural Resources
*City of Greensboro
*Guilford County
*Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
NCDOT Traffic Engineering made several recommendations to improve
traffic flow which include the addition of turn lanes at Buchanan Church
Road (SR 3026) and at Willowlake Road (SR 2828). These design details
will be further evaluated by Roadway Design and Traffic Engineering as the
project plans progress.
A multi-lane divided section was not considered for this project due
to the right of way constraints.
In addition to the above comments, the subject project was further
coordinated with local government and NCDOT officials.
B. Public Response
In addition to the written request for input from appropriate
agencies and governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was
held on July 19, 1994 at the Gateway Education Center to discuss the
subject road improvement. The meeting was advertised by the major local
20
media prior to its being held. Approximately 60 persons attended the
informal gathering including representatives of the NCDOT and the city of
Greensboro.
The residents were generally interested in how their individual
properties would be affected by the proposed improvements. Most comments
received thus far in the planning process have acknowledged the need for a
wider roadway to improve the safety and accommodate current and projected
traffic volumes, especially with the future construction of the Greensboro
Eastern Loop. Several comments from residents currently living on SR 2827'
(Four Mile Loop Road) expressed concern that this road will become a major
thoroughfare interchanging with the proposed Eastern Loop.
A public hearing is anticipated to be held in early 1995.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The construction of the proposed project is anticipated to improve
safety and increase capacity along US 70 in the Greensboro area. The
project will improve an important link to the proposed Greensboro Eastern
Loop and is consistent with state and local plans for the area. The
project is anticipated to have an overall positive effect on the
surrounding area.
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not
anticipated this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the
human environment. Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical
Exclusion is applicable.
AHS/wp
APPENDIX'

J

FIGURES
}

Ott w
I
i Md?
n
I Mc LEANSVILL
(UNINC.)
POP. 1,176
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONNENTAL
BRANCH
US 70
FROM SR 2551 (PENRY ROAD) TO PROPOSED
GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP INTERCHANGE
GREENSBORO, GUILFORD COUNTY
- U - 2581 A
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
z
O
U
W
cc:
W
. F-
F--
0
D
z
Q
m
U
W
Q
J
LO

0
x
L
E
M
III
V--
U.
N.
W
m

r
i.
W
m
0
E
E
/0
E
co
E
M
E
co
CY)
E
cq
cr).
G
W
C6
V
0
E
E
0
ti
FIGURE 3

J
_?%s f 1,
,1.

00
14 i
Oil
•r? .M. '•1 ?! ter. ? !!? ?_?.
t I _ If i ? i
?? T 'T? *T R I N r A ? i
?m -Till f ` ?? f
l ? ? LIMIT ?? ?r ? ? /
1,j f s• ?,
Urban L
l - oop OMEN
_+ m
M N?? "e¦ moms
E
OM
IM WW-
_ o ,
?.` = mom.. Q r j# s 1
ou CD
0c0 .??
1 .o
m _n
.p.(D mou ,
00 a a _t
co
a a
..• Z m , '-
4011 rz
c
v
0
c0
C
;a
N
p Z Z
e v 14

W O
z i

X
°

box (I.C G) 1r Go
lox ° J N
L° aox!' r Q O' ' lOx N T
p Z
N
co
U w1 ?N N
w ? p
C N O O 0
O
zO
C
) ??
.
co
O

A 60% qa? tm NJ
O

? 0
? 7
v
U o o
°
?O
w
to
O
m
n
o

p box

n a of

a tox

N Z

O, o 00
°
o

v v
• w
°

q lo. N
n
p O

rO
O
O N
V r
A M
I ? o
W
_
' 0 3

p.
N
? In O
P
C
L 60% 11 10%? CA
N
C0
O O f
f'
10

P
U

F O
i r

0 60% C- 10% Z

r N T
°m
o o 000 p
p
0

Y?
Y?
1

?o m
? C

N
3 0
c^^? 0

D 0 O
Q
m rn

z
Q3

(D m
z
z
Z
W V
0
0 C

0 N
n C 0
00
o rn i
c
r -
0
cn , 0
-v

o

IT
U

p
m
0
N
10
?o
A
-n ..a
C
010
> 41

Z
O
• •
o v v
< o
o
N

Z

0
cn
m

p

Q

N II

v
O II

v
3 II

.°
N o o fl o m
p
I- O
O
.°

a
? N

O

°

p
o

N O? `TG

C
O

:J:
5. OR

10%
11'0•% O
°J O
l.° 60%•'C- 10%
11,0.01 N O
7u ,.
O N1 rN w co [-
N D
O O ° p co
m

p

O
1 ?
1
° A
s5% -d
10%
1 0 .p
C SSX E C 10% m c
1
0.31 0
J L 110,51 , sl p z
N
o .p l r-? to O O cty
m
"° O o o O0 °
o

A
A
°
9 O

r
0
c
r
V
0
P
cy
A
N Z
O• 0 - f
wZ
K
A
v
w
60%-
10% O J
co 14
'0

O O•

O y
O

A 60% ? ? IOX N
-n n 0 o J

O 1
U O O

v ?
O
c

n N
=
A Z box °-? lolc
0001 O
J

N Z
N
1
'
a n Oo wo
Y
J
J
10
V
o sox
F
lox -?

A Z
I
°
'
~ N
co
A
N O• A
A O ?
O
Ln ` ..
D•
D
O

w
A
00
O
A
v GJ
A
• A
O
N N
n
w
p 60% n
? IOX 0
? 0

(•VI N
N co r.,
O O A
O Fn

CA

0
3 A
N
0
P
N
- `u 60% 1E- U0? 10%,- F
N
r= 00
O p r 10
W

w
0
?TTr11
?
h
N f
'
4 S
N
L° 60%x- 10% Z
P•0,01 G1
N T
o M
O O co 0
>o
v
4 .-

w
1
1
i
m
N
o Z
0 L
r
^
V ,
N
3 O
Q
o
CL
D

n
m m
z
(C)

CD

Z
7
?
W
V I
a p
o c

o N
? C V't
0
< m i
D

r
E
0
5
w
?I3 I W
A
N
O
QP
X

T
N
v
N
10
A
? N
?o
CT N
m
(„ a
OU --I
O Q C
N II I

z

O

0

cn

Tt

"•'
Q
co

D

0

(D

-1
-0
O

(A
o
<

g°

0

0

=
-0
3

'

0

o

D

-1

v

D
0
:1

D

0

OR I

C)

3

0

c

<

C
3 II

<

°-

m

Z
o CD

60,16 7-5-1 _ lox C. dox (E I o ) 10%
N

N Awl (? A
V-j
0
0

C
O N
O w
O O OD 7C

m

4 A
v
W
u
03 N
0

! O
!
P
? 0 0
Ssx E 0.31 10x O o 55%
? 10% m m S
J ?O 1
1

w r CA
0m
~c
wo co '4 ?
7D
0
O ° O O

N
c p

? r
V
O
U-2581A ACCIDENT RATES
US 70
35
30
25
20.
,S
15
10
5
0
REAR END RAN-OFF-ROAD LT/RT TURN OTHER
Averages from 06/01/91 thru 05/31/94
FIGURE 6
Percent Accidents
CORRESPONDENCE

i

??EKi oa ry TAKE?s s
_ United States Department of the Interior AMERICA
- N O
7 S
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ?4t
• y?RCH Ecological Services ?? '?.
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 t
April 20, 1994 z QPR 2 b 1994 1
Z? D't?lSlCAI OF 2V
/1 H W.4
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994 requesting
information on evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposal by the North Carolina Department of. Transportation
(NCDOT) to widen US 70 from State Road 2851 to the proposed
Greensboro Eastern Loop Interchange near Greensboro, Guilford
County, North Carolina (TIP Project U-2581A). The comments of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by NCDOT calls for the widening of US 70 along
its present path from the existing 2-lanes to a 5-lane curb and
gutter facility. We estimate that the total length of the project
is approximately 2.0 miles.
The Service has examined the proposed corridor on the topographic
map (McLeansville quadrangle) and other published information.
Based on this review, the project area,does -not appear to have-
extensive wetlands in the direct project path. There appear'to be
some minor streams and/or drainage ditches near the corridor. We
would like to emphasize that it is the responsibility of NCDOT to
determine the amount,.of wetlands to be impacted by this project and
to obtain any necessary permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. If this project results in wetland,impacts, we will
recommend avoidance and minimization. Should: unavoidable impacts
remain after.the above actions, a compensatory mitigation plan will
be.required.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed species which
occur in Guilford Cot ntv. At the present time no endangered or
threatened species are known to occur in the county. Therefore, a
survey for listed species along the proposed corridor will not be
3. During and after construction, maintain existing
elevations and natural flow regimes in both flowing and
standing water areas;
4. If construction of the existing roadway reduced or
completely blocked natural water flow patterns in
nearby wetlands, restore these patterns during the_
present construction; and,
5. Follow all applicable best management practices to
avoid increased sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and
waterways. -
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress of this project,
including your official determination of the impacts of all
project-related construction. If our office can supply any
additional- information or clarification, please contact Howard.
Hall, the biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520.
Sincerely your ,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Enclosure
-- t
r
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
A206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLIN3
~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT r'
MAILED TO: FROM: Z? D(VlSlON OF
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANS
FRANK VICK ADMINISTRA
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH STATE CLEARIN
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PRQJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 70, FROM SR 2851 (PENRY RD.)
TO THE PROPOSED GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP INTERCHANGE
TI Q-•#U-2581A
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 94E42200743. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS-OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 05/04/94.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
_ t'
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission "
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator 4/'
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 19, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for US 70, from SR 2851 (Penry
Road) to the proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop
Interchange, Guilford County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2581A, SCH Project No. 94-0743..
y
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 x(48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes widening a section of US 70 from
just East of the Greensboro city limits to the proposed
Greensboro Eastern Loop (U-2525). The project involves
widening US 70 from a 2-lane.section to a 5-lane curb and
gutter facility.
A site visit by NCWRC personnel on April 18, 1994
revealed that wildlife habitat in the project area has been
degraded by residential and commercial development along
existing US 70. Also there are no stream or wetland
crossings anticipated with this project.
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations
or concerns regarding this project. However, to help
Memo Page 3 April 19, 1994
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included. _
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project,to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Projects Coordinator, at (919) 528-9$87.1
CC: Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U.<<S. Fishrand Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Nicholas L. Graf
May 4, 1994, Page 2
There are no recorded archaeological sites located along the existing road. The
USGS topographic map for the project dates to 1968 and does not depict ail J ,F#. **ft. .
development in the project area for the past twenty-five years, we request that
you forward recent aerial photographs to us for our evaluation of potential effects
to significant archaeological resources. We will be happy to return them after we
have completed our review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

i

t

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
' Betty Ray McCain. S=twy
May 27, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
I c
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hi t ric Preservation Officer
AGE/ V?
i
JUNG 1 WA
T err 1
DIVISION OF ;
SUBJECT: US 70 Penry Road to proposed Greensboro Eastern
Loop, U-2581 A, Guilford County, ER 94-8564
We have examined the aerial photographs forwarded by your staff for the above
project and offer the following comments.
The majority of the proposed project is developed and disturbed. Two areas,
however, should be surveyed to determine if there are significant archaeological
resources in the area of potential effect. We recommend that the undeveloped
areas at the western terminus in the vicinity of Penry Road (SR 2851) and the
eastern end connecting to the proposed Greensboro Eastern Loop be examined by
your staff archaeologists prior to project implementation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified'.at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions---
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
log Fist Jones saw • Rakigh. NoRh Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf '
September 15, 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.
Sincerely,
AW 1.ro
Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: t/H. F. Vick
T. Padgett

?- i

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
April 25, 1994

MEMORANDUM
00Wft%%ft 000=0%%
?"tee
ID F= F1
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0743; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 70 in Greensboro
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 wetlan-d 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.
F.O. Box 29535. Rdeigh, Norih 0ao5na 27626-0635 Te;ephone 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer . W%recycied/ 10% post-consumer paper
• State of North Carolina -
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John G. Humphrey, Director
LTI.9;WA
A&14 1* *
C) EHNR
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee N
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0743 Scoping Greensboro Eastern Loop Interchange,
Guilford County
DATE: April.27, 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.
f
-•
attachments
16
> f'.Ph 2

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
PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Intergovernmental Review Process
2216 W. Meadowview Road
Greensboro, NC 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM _
r The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe need to be
informed.
If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The- name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification of Intent".
If you wish to comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it to the
PTCOG office by April 29th, 1994.
We will send your comments to the State Clearinghouse to be included in a
recommendation to the proposed funding agency.-
State Application Identifier #94-E-4220-0743 Improvements, US 70
Commenter's Name & Title Hector Rivera, County Manager
Representing Guilford County Phone # [phone]
Mailing Address P.O. Box 3427, Greensboro, NC 27402
Date Sigped
?-? (signature) ?, ?
COMMENTS: (You may attach additional sheets.)
(See-
T
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
r •
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW C0241ENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: ? J -!>'' J 3 County:
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name: C7 7 ?/3
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. H.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 (919).733-3836. 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
Date
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.

r
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.
•- r
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division cif Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared-.by the Dept`artment 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].
-A'a'. ?-_ ?/a,_"/ F/5 L,-/
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer -
Norntst fara"as
Tom.

F. r
L'
.. rLI
L?
i
a
1
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES De REOUIREMENTS aufrnory tit*e
fiYrrit)
F* suety bow of $5 C00 wffh ENNR ruvenine to &we of Nt. 10 Gays
ftrWA to doff oapwoory ON or ow wed ow4itiog41 that any well opaned by Obit operator 9"1. wpm. 4N1AI
•boncionfMnt. be plugger according to ENNA rwWs and twputatiarts.
Geophysical Eiplorslten (r ennlt Application flied wkh ENNR of bast 1o fstys prior b fsaue of P~ So days
Appl4w on by total. No standars applit:atron form. puN
state I,skea ciawfucion f mal Application tee based on structure we is =rtarpea Must indude 16-20 ays
descriptions a Ofaoinps of structurt A proof of DerrafsMp P+rA)
of riparian pop- jr.
60 says
401 water Ousiny Conifcaten 811A 030 Gays)
$5 days
Cahta ft~ for MAJOR develop ntanf ti2S0.00 let enrst accompany apj>freation (150 cyst
22 days
CA*A ftrmft tot MINOR devejopnrnt $50.00 fat tftuat accompany application RS Gays)
Several j?ewelrc inonumants are locates in or nea• the project area ff any thonurnents need to be nw•ed or Destroyed. Please notify:
N.C Geodetic survey, dos 2`7687. Raleigh, M.L. 27611
Abandanrntnt of any wens. H requires:, must be in accordance with Title 1sk Subchapter =CD100.
Notification of the proper regional off$" Is requested It -orphan- enderground sloMpe tanks & STSI are discovered during, any ascavsuon operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 (Ce+stW Stormwatar Rusts) is required. 45 trays
(NIA)
Other comments (attach asaitronar popes as necessary, being certain to else coenment awthorrty):

P

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be•addressed to the Regional Office marited below.
? Asheville Re tonal Office
- ? Fayetteville Regional Office
it
i
ildin
S
h
714 W
B
59 Woodfin Place g
ov
u
e
ac
a
u
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301.
170A, 251-6243 (9`791 48b•1541 -
? I.fooresville Regionai Office D Raleigh Regional office
101
3&50 E
i
it
S
919 North Main Street. P.O. 8o: 950 arrett Dr
e
ve,
u
Mooresville, NC 28115 Ra'ei h, NC 27609
(7041 663-1629 [phone]
ht--
0V.ashington Regional Office ?1•.SiminVon Repionaf Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Ca-d.nal Olive Calension
W.ishington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 26405
• (919) 9s6 b481 [phone]