19950884 Ver 1_Complete File_19950822

??o Gn
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
August 11, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
r t ? i ?3
U
Subject: Guilford County - US 29 from 16th Street in Greensboro to the
Rockingham County Line; State Project No. 8.1493101; T.I.P.
No. R-0984
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 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.
I'm
G)
-
-
--?
'r
., , 1995-
+ Page Z
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincerely,
4nP klin ick, P. E., Manager
and Environmental Branch
h
HFV/tp
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
Byron Brady, P. E., Planning & Environmental

Im

US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-29(7)
State Project No. 8.1493101
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
E
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
S
at H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
6-30-IS 4z. "'Z'? 9'j,
Date cholas L. Graf, P.E.
ivision Administrator, FHWA
,qqqwo-,*-
US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-29(7)
State Project No. 8.1493101
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Byr E. Brady, P.E. Project Manager
Consulting Engineering Unit
. A. Bisse Jr., 'VE. Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
r..14'?.t;AROtiNq
???ESSIQ/Ve?.
?'?''•?P40
i??•.A' FUGEN? ..?`?
US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-29(7)
State Project No. 8.1493101
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is an Categorical Exclusion.
2. Description of Action
The N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to rehabilitate US 29 from 16th Street in Greensboro to the
Rockingham County Line. US 29 has been designated as a high priority
corridor. This rehabilitation will include a crack and seat treatment of
the existing concrete pavement. The southbound bridge over Reedy Fork
Creek and the Benaja Road bridge will be replaced. The northbound bridge
over the Reedy Fork Creek and the northbound and southbound bridges, over
NC 150 will be rehabilitated and widened to accommodate the 38-foot
proposed pavement section for US 29. The project is to be constructed
mostly within the existing right-of-way with the exception of construction
easements which may be required for the bridge replacement construction.
The R-984 project is 10.9 miles in length. The location of the
proposed projects are shown in Figures 1 and 3.
The total estimated cost of the project is,$ 12,706,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
A. "Do-Nothing" alternative
B. Alternate modes of transportation
C. Postponement of proposed action
D. Alternate types of highway improvement
4. Environmental Impacts
Although the proposed improvements will require several possible
construction easements at the two bridge replacements to contain
construction, any adverse impact is expected to be minimal. There are no
structures in the project area that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. There will be an increase in the noise level due to the
rehabilitation of the highway but this increase will not exceed acceptable
levels. Approximately 1.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be
impacted by this project construction.
The primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the
improvement in highway transportation. Another major benefit will be
safety and traffic operational improvements realized due to the widening,
replacement, and rehabilitation of several bridges along the project.
will also provide for a more efficient roadway.
5. Actions Required by other Federal Agencies
A nationwide permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
required for this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Special Environmental Commitments
The design for the replacement of the Southbound Reedy Fork Creek
bridge should consider allowing for a pedestrian movement under the bridge
to accomodate the planned greenway along Reedy Fork Creek.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . 1
B. Historical Background and Status(T.I.P.) . . . . . . 1
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended
Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. General Location and Description of Action . . . 1
2. Length of Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Truck Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated
Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Cross Section Description. . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Access Control . . 3
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
11. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . 3
12. Special Permits Required of Division
of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. Staging 4
14. Changes in the State Highway System 4
15. Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. PUR POSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility . . . . . . 5
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . 5
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . 5
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . 5
d. Degree of Roadside Interference . . . . . . 5
. e. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . 5
f. Vertical Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
g. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
h. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
i. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Accident Investigation . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. . . . . . . . 8
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Land Use 8
2. Neighborhood Analysis 9
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses . . . . . 9
4. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ,
5. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
a. Historical - Architectural Resources . . . 10
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Natural Ecological and Scenic Resources . . . . it
2. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . 12
3. Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Noise and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. Postponement of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements . . . . . . . 18
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIGURES

APPENDIX
US 2.9
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-29(7)
State Project No. 8.1493101
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
I. Description of the Project
• A. General Description
This project consists of the rehabilitation of US 29 from 16th Street
in Greensboro to the Rockingham County line.
The location of the proposed project is shown in Figures 1 and 3.
US 29 is classified as a principal arterial on the North Carolina
Functional Classification System, is 'on the National Highway System and
has been designated as a high priority corridor.
B. Historical Background and Status T.I.P.
This section of US 29 was completed to existing widths in 1962 on a
right-of-way of 250 feet in width.
The proposed rehabilitation of US 29 is included in the "1995-2001
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program" (TIP). Construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997. The TIP includes a total funding
of $12,700,000 for construction of the project. The current estimated
cost for the 10.9 mile project is $ 12,7069000.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. General Location and Description of Action:
The location of the project is on US 29 from 16th Street in
Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line. It is recommended that the
studied portion of US 29 be rehabilitated including the replacement
of the Benaja Road bridge and the southbound Reedy Fork Creek bridge.
The northbound bridge over the Reedy Fork Creek and the
northbound bridge over NC 150 will be rehabilitated and widened to
accommodate a 38'-0" proposed pavement section for US 29. The
southbound bridge over NC 150 will be rehabilitated and widened to
accommodate a 46'-0" pavement section for US 29 including a lane for
an existing ramp.
During the rehabilitation, the existing concrete pavement will
be rehabilitated using a crack and seat treatment. The new pavement
will include a 10-foot paved right shoulders (2-foot to be full
depth). The median shoulders shall include a 4-foot paved section.
2
Additional improvements include in installation of four Hidro
Cell Attenuators, thermo pavement markings and snow plowable pavement
markers, removal and replacement of 3 miles of selective security
fencing, upgrade all quardrail to current standards within the
project limits, and the addition of acceleration and deceleration
lanes for the US 29/01d Reidsville Road intersection.
2. Length of Proposed Project:
The length of the proposed project is 10.9 miles.
3. Traffic Volumes:
1991: Traffic volumes along the proposed route range from
12,990 vehicles per day (vpd) to 22,250 vpd.
1994: Traffic volumes along the proposed route to range from
14,500 vpd to 24,000 vpd.
2014: Traffic volumes along the proposed route are estimated
to range from 27,700 vpd to 29,150 vpd. These figures
incorporate the proposed Greensboro Eastern/Northern Loop
which intersects the proposed project and will influence
the traffic patterns of US 29.
The 1991 and estimated 1994 and 2014 traffic volumes and major
turning movements are shown in Figures 2A through 21.
4. Truck Data:
Truck traffic along the proposed route is 12% (5% duals,
A. TTST).
5. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated Speed Limit:
The design speed for the proposed project is 60 mph. The
anticipated posted speed limit for the studied route is 55 mph.
6. Cross Section Description:
The proposed section of US 29 will have a travelway width of 24
feet. In addition, a 10-foot paved right shoulder (2-foot to be full
depth) and a 4-foot paved inside shoulder will be constructed.
7. Right-of-Way:
Sufficient easements will be acquired to contain construction.
8. Bikeways:
t
A need for bikeways along the project was not identified in the
planning process.
3
9. Access Control:
US 29 is a freeway with access control from the south end of the
project to just north of the East Cone Boulevard interchange. From
this point north to the Rockingham County line, there are a number of
median breaks to allow u-turns and direct access to property adjacent
to US 29.
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control:
At grade intersections exist at the following locations along
the project area which also are stop sign controlled: Whiterock
Road/Assembly Road (SR 2568), Esterwood Road/April Lane, Anita Lane
(SR 2788), and Old Reidsville Road (SR 2514).
Interchanges exist at the following locations: 16th Street,
East Cone Boulevard, Hicone Road (SR 2565), Eckerson Road
(SR 2790)/Summit Avenue (SR 2526), NC 150, and Benaja Road (SR 2510).
11. Bridge Work Required:
Reedy Fork Creek (northbound lanes): Bridge No. 361 carries
US 29 over the Reedy Fork Creek and will be rehabilitated including:
widen to 38'-0" clear roadway width by replacing the existing deck,
clean and paint bearings, repair substructure, and widen approach
slabs. This bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-0".
Reedy Fork Creek (southbound lanes : Bridge No. 362 carries
US 29 over the Reedy Fork Creek and will be replaced with a new
structure with a clear roadway width of 38'-0". The bridge has an
existing roadway width of 28'-0". The existing bridge was built in
1936 and has a sufficiency rating of 29.8 and has an estimated
remaining life of 5 years. The loading for the bridge is currently
designed at H-15 which is below current standards. NCDOT's Bridge
Maintenance has recommended this bridge to be replaced.
NC 150 (southbound lanes i Bridge No. 368 carries US 29 over
NC 150 and will be rehabilitated including: widen (on one side) to
46'-0" clear roadway width, rehabilitate deck, retrofit railing,
replace approach slabs, and repair erosion damage. The bridge has an
existing roadway width of 40'-0" includes an existing lane for a
ramp, and has an existing vertical clearance of 16'-0".
NC 150 (northbound lanes : Bridge No. 365 carries US 29 over
NC 150 and will be rehabilitated including: widen (on one side) to
38'-0" clear roadway width, rehabilitate deck, retrofit railing,
replace approach slabs, repair erosion damage, and jack
superstructure to obtain an adequate vertical clearance over NC 150
of 16'-6". The bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-0" and an
existing vertical clearance of 14'-5".
4
Benaja Road: Bridge No. 371 carries Benaja Road (SR 2510) over
US 29 and has a posted vertical clearance elevation of 13'- 11". Due
to the remaining life of 5 years for this structure and it's low
vertical clearance, NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance recommends that this
bridge be replaced with a new structure with an minimum vertical
clearance of 16'-6". Additional construction easements may be
required.
12. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways:
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act,(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of
Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Reedy
Fork Creek.
Based upon site location and estimated acreage involved, it is
anticipated that most stream crossings will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14).
13. Staging:
The project is funded to be constructed in two separate
projects. R-984A which is from 16th Street in Greensboro to 0.9
miles south of SR 2790 is scheduled for construction in May 1997.
R-984B which is from 0.9 miles south of SR 2790 to the Rockingham
County line is scheduled for construction in October 1997.
14. Changes in the State Highway System:
No changes to the existing primary highway system will result
from the proposed project.
15. Estimate of Cost:
Roadway
Structures
Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
Temporary Construction Easements
$ 795619250.00
1,569,750.00
1,845,000.00
1,724,000.00
6.000.00
TOTAL - $1297069000.00
5
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. General Description:
The proposed project consists of rehabilitating existing US 29
and adding a 10-foot paved right shoulder and a 4-foot paved median
shoulder. This rehabilitation of US 29 is needed due to the
deterioration of the existing pavement and the inadequate vertical
• and horizontal clearance of several bridges. The existing paved
shoulders are also inadequate and in some cases, non-existent.
• 2. Existing Roadway Inventory:
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied:
The length of the studied project, from 16th Street in
Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line is 10.9 miles.
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders:
The section of US 29 within the project limits has two
12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a grass median
which varies in width from 30 feet to 40 feet.
Shoulder width of the entire section is 12 feet for the
outside shoulder and 8 feet for the median shoulder.
C. Right of Way:
The existing right-of-way is 250 feet for the entire
length of the studied project.
d. Degree of Roadside Interference:
Interference from roadside development is light to medium
along the section of the project which does not have control of
access.
e. Type of Roadside Development:
Several businesses are located along the non-control of
access sections such as highway retail, motels, a trailer park,
a cemetery, an industrial and residential development, a
restaurant, and other related businesses.
f. Vertical Curvature:
The existing roadway has vertical grades which range from
(-)3.2 percent to (+)4.2 percent.
g. Structures:
There are nine structures along the proposed project with
descriptions as follows.
6
16th Street: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 347) carries
16th Street over US 29 and was built in 1976. The
structure has a vertical clearance of 16'-6", a sufficiency
rating of 76.7, and an estimated remaining life of 34
years.
East Cone Boulevard: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 350)
carries East Cone Boulevard over US 29 and was built in
1976. The structure has a vertical clearance of 16'-9", a
sufficiency rating of 74.4, and an estimated remaining life
of 36 years.
Hicone Road (SR 2565: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 354)
carries SR 2565 over US 29 and was built in 1961. The
structure has a vertical clearance of 15'-8", a sufficiency
rating of 77.0, and an estimated remaining life of 21
years.
Eckerson Road (SR 2790: This concrete structure (Bridge No.
360) carries SR 2790 over US 29 and was built in 1961. The
structure has a vertical clearance of 15'-0", a sufficiency
rating of 57.7, and an estimated remaining life of 16
years.
Reedy Fork Creek: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 361)
carries northbound US 29 over Reedy Fork Creek and was
built in 1961. The structure has a sufficiency rating of
74.9 and an estimated remaining life of 19 years.
Reedy Fork Creek: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 362)
carries southbound US 29 over Reedy Fork Creek and was
built in 1936. The structure has a sufficiency rating of
29.8 and an estimated remaining life of 5 years.
NC 150: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 368) carries
southbound US 29 over NC 150 and was built in 1961. The
structure has a sufficiency rating of 81.8, an estimated
remaining life of 18 years and a vertical clearance of
16'- 0".
NC 150: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 365) carries
northbound US 29 over NC 150 and was built in 1961. The
structure has a sufficiency rating of 72.8 and an estimated
remaining life of 18 years.
Benaja Road: This concrete structure (Bridge No. 371) carries
Benaja Road over US 29 and was built in 1947. The
structure has a vertical clearance of 14'-1", a sufficiency
rating of 22.0, and an estimated remaining life of 5 years.
h. Speed Zones:
The existing posted speed limit in the project area is 55 mph.
7
i. School Bus Data:
Portions of the studied section of US 29 are used by portions of
several Guilford County School bus routes. At the present time, 19
school buses carry students to and from school on this section of
US 29.
B. Transportation Plan:
US 29 is listed in the Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan dated
August 11, 1989. This plan lists US 29 as a major freeway.
This plan also lists the new Greensboro Urban Loop as a proposed
major freeway which will intersect US 29 South of the Hicone Road
intersection.
One separate T.I.P. project associated with the Greensboro Outer Loop
intersect US 29. U-2525 is the Greensboro Northern Loop and intersects
US 29.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity:
Volumes:
1991 Average Daily Traffic:
109150 - 22,250 vpd
1994 Average Daily Traffic:
11,325 - 24,000 vpd
2014 Average Daily Traffic:
212500 - 29,150 vpd
The estimated 1991, 1994 and 2014 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 2. These figures incorporate the future
traffic of the Greensboro Outer Loop in the 2014 data.
Capacity:
The existing Level Of Service (LOS) was computed for the four-lane
section of the studied project. For 1991, the LOS was B using average
daily traffic (ADT) and the LOS was E using the AM Peak Hour traffic data.
The 1994 LOS was computed at B using ADT and at LOS E using AM Peak Hour.
The 2014 LOS was computed at C using ADT and at LOS F using AM peak hour.
The 2014 calculations used the future traffic projections resulting from
the construction of the Greensboro outer loop project which intersects
US 29.
8
D. Accident Investigation:
Accident histories along the studied sections of US 29 indicate
accident rates that are somewhat equal or lower than the current statewide
averages. The proposed improvements to this facility, such as the
rehabilitation of the existing concrete pavement, the widening of the
Reedy Creek bridges, the widening of the paved shoulder, the replacement
of the Benaja Road Bridge, and the addition of acceleration and
deceleration lanes for Reidsville Road should decrease the number of
accidents which will result in a potentially safer roadway.
Table 1 gives a comparison between the accident rates for US 29 and
the statewide accident rate for all urban United States routes.
TABLE 1
Accident Rates
Total Accident Rate
(accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Fatal Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Non-Fatal Injury Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Night Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Statewide Average for
US 29 (Urban U. S. Routes - 1991)
103.82 137.1
1.39 0.7
46.18 59.4
34.03 31.0
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community:
The benefits to the state, region, and community will be primarily a
safer facility connecting the City of Greensboro with Northwestern
Guilford County and Rockingham County.
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects:
1. Land Use:
The proposed improvements occur in the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of both the City of Greensboro and Guilford County. The
County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1986 which includes the City
of Greensboro, and is currently developing a series of small area
plans for the entire county.
9
The City of Greensboro has not adopted a separate land.use plan,
and utilizes its zoning ordinance as its primary land use management
tool.
Land use in the project area changes from generally suburban to
rural from 16th Street North to the Rockingham County line. The
Carolina Circle Mall and other retail uses, as well as apartment
complexes and medium density residential are located around 16th
Street and the southern portion of the project limits. A large
cemetery is located on the east side of US 29 near the Greensboro
City limits.
Land uses immediately adjacent to the roadway include
multi-family and single family residential developments, commercial
uses, and some light industrial uses in the Southern portion of the
project. As the character of the area becomes rural, predominant
land uses include farms and woodlands, small businesses, and some
linear residential development.
According to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, most of the project
area is expected to contain residential development, except the area
north of NC 150, which will remain agricultural. County planning
officials indicate that the northeastern portion of Guilford County
is expected to experience significant industrial development than in
other parts of Guilford County as a result of water supply watershed
restrictions.
According to the new industrial development plan, mixed use and
industrial development will be directed to the Scott Road/Summit
Avenue area, the McKnight Mill Road area, and in the 16th Street
area. The recently developed Rock Creek Corporate Center is expected
to spur additional industrial development in northeast Guilford
County. The proposed Painter Boulevard improvements will also
improve access to land in the US 29 North area.
Interchanges on US 29 which will be affected by known new
development are at Penny Road, Eckerson Road, and Summit Road. The
1986 Comprehensive Plan also includes a greenway system for the
entire County. A greenway is planned along Reedy Fork Creek which
will connect the existing trials around Lake Townsend at Bryan Park
with a planned regional park approximately five miles west of US 29
North. Therefore, the design of replacement bridges over Reedy Fork
Creek should allow for pedestrian movement under the bridge.
However, neither the city of Greensboro nor Guilford County have
purchased any land associated with this greenway in the vicinity of
the project.
2. Neighborhood Analysis:
The neighborhood characteristics along the proposed project site
consist of commercial, institutional, and some residential at various
intervals. Development is set back out of the path of the proposed
action. The project will not disrupt any established neighborhoods.
10
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses:
The proposed action is not anticipated to displace any families
or businesses.
4. Public Facilities:
There are several public facilities at various intervals along
the proposed project site. On the east side of the proposed project
are Lakeview Memorial Park (a large cemetery) and United Holy Church.
Near the northern end of the proposed project on a secondary
road are Bryan Park and Central School for the Deaf. In addition,
along the proposed project on the west side is the headquarters for
the Pentecostal Holiness Church of the Western Conference District.
5. Cultural Resources:
a. Historical-Architectural Resources:
A survey was conducted in order to identify historic
architectural resources located within the study area as part of
the environmental studies conducted by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and documented by an
Environmental Assessment (EA). Prior to the field survey, all
files relative to the project vicinity were reviewed at the
State Historic Preservation Office. All publications relating
to the architectural heritage of the county were examined at the
North Carolina State Library, the School of Design Library at
North Carolina State University and the vertical files located
at the Guilford County Public Library.
One property located within the Area of Potential Effect,
the Reedy Fork Acres Ranch, appears to be eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. On April 27, 1995,
representatives of the SHPO met with the project architectural
historian to discuss the effects the improvements to US 29 may
have on the Reedy Fork Acres Ranch. The SHPO concurred with
NCDOT that the improvements will have no effect on the National
Register eligible property. The Concurrence Form is attached
hereinafter.
b. Archaeological Resources:
This project was coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with the procedures for
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; as well as the North Carolina Historic
Commission Act (GS 121.12). There are no sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places within the project
vicinity. A review of the files at the Office of State
Archaeology indicates that there are no archaeological sites
recorded in the project area. The likelihood of the project
encountering any significant archaeological sites is low, given
the limited scope of the project and the extensive modern
11
development in the
no archaeological
dated October 11,
B. Economic Effects:
project area. The SHPO therefore recommended
investigations for the project (see letter
1994).
The improvements to US 29 will result in
which will increase the economic development in
After the completion of the project, the overall
increase in the local tax base.
C. Environmental Effects:
a safer highway facility
the area to some degree.
result will be an overall
1. Natural, Ecological and Scenic Resources:
The following sections describe the natural and disturbed,
natural land parcels, which occupy the impact zones of the proposed
project.
a. Man-Dominated Systems:
Man-dominated lands are areas where man's structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession. Most construction
activity will take place within the roadside shoulder. These
areas are highly maintained by regularly mowing, thus
suppressing natural plant succession. Maintained shoulders and
slopes support turf (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative
component.
b. Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
Small acreages of alluvial forest are associated with
narrow stream crossings in the project area. Plant composition
is fairly uniform from site to site. Floodplains are seasonally
or intermittently flooded. Flood tolerant species such as river
birch (Betula nniigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata) an ox a der Acer ne undo) are
common canopy trees. Black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
blackberry (Rubus sp.), are common shrubs. A diverse herb layer
supports Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'Japonica), chickweed
(Stellaria media), wild geranium Geranium maculatum), henbit
(Lamium purpureum), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), sedge
(Cyperus sp.), glecoma (Glecoma hederacea), and foxtail grass
(Setaria sp.).
C. Plant Communities:
This project will result in direct loss of plant species
from grubbing/grading operations and paving.
Acreage impacts to each community are summarized in Table 2
below. Calculations are based on construction limits of 30
feet.
12
Table 2
ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Plant Community Estimated Impacts
Man-dominated areas 80.0 AC
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 1.6 AC
2. Threatened and Endangered Species:
Federally-Protected Species: Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended.
As of March 28, 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists
the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as a federally Endangered
species for Guilford County. This classification denotes that a
species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A brief description of the bald eagle's
habitat and characteristics follows.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to
chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to large water
bodies (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish
are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources
include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or
carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No large water bodies occur within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the
project study area. Townsend Lake, a large water body suitable for
supporting a eagle nest, lies 2.0 km (1.25 mi) west of the project
study area. No impact to the bald eagle will result from
construction of the proposed project.
The following Candidate species may occur in the area:
Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus cats ius) and nestronia
(Nestronia umbellula). These are species which are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. These species are
mentioned here for the purpose of information, as they may be listed
under a protected status at a later date.
13
State-Protected Species: Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C.
Department of Agriculture.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program files were consulted
to determine if any protected flora or fauna exists in the project
area. Though no records of state protected species occur in the
area; [the state Candidate species Nestronia, has been documented
approximately one quarter mile west of the Reedy Fork creek bridge
crossing.]
3. Wildlife Habitat:
Urbanized areas and adjacent forested areas support a myriad of
bird life. Carolina wren (Thryothorus Ludovicianus), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo M- maicensis) are birds
sighted in the study area. Other common inhabitants are the mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), cardinal
(Cardinal cardinalis) and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). These
urbanized areas also provide shelter for opportunT istianimal
species, such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Wetland and alluvial forested communities are valuable habitat
for reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians in particular, are highly
water dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle.
Some species are totally aquatic. Spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. Palustris), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), Northern dusky salamander
(Desmo nathus fuscus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
yel ow elly slider (Chrysemys scripta), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are but a few of the
reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the project area.
Fish species that are common to the study area, are bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi),
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), blueheacubub-(Nocomis
le toce halus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), redbreast
sunfish (Le omis auritus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides).
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected in the
creation of new habitat and in the alteration and elimination of
previously existing habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving
organism will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced.
14
Aquatic species will be particularly affected. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and land
clearing are construction activities, resulting in the direct loss of
benthic organisms and an increase in silt load in aquatic and wetland
environments. Mobile benthic macroinvertebrates are better able to
avoid impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively immobile.
The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply
for vertebrate and other aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant and algal
growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting
them off from a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate and fish habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for
fish.
4. Wetlands:
Approximately 1.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will receive
impacts from project construction. These wetlands are categorized as
palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous communities (PF01) as
defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were
identified in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma
values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology or
hydrological indicators.
5. Farmland:
The proposed improvements will generally occur within the
existing right-of-way, though some temporary construction easements
may be required. Because no land will be permanently converted to
non-agricultural uses, the requirements of the Farmland Protection
Act do not apply.
6. Water ualit :
Thirteen stream crossings are located within the US 29 project
area. These crossings fall within the confines of the Cape Fear
River Basin, specifically within the Haw River drainage area. The
drainage pattern is dendritic, highly dissecting the landscape. Most
of the streams encountered have very narrow channel widths varying
from two to ten feet with little or no associated wetlands.
Flow-rate was usually sluggish and most stream substrates are highly
silted. The exception to this is Reedy Creek. Reedy Creek has a
channel width of approximately 20 to 25 feet in the project area.
"Best usage" classification are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). A summary
of "best usage" water classification for each water resource
component likely to receive impacts are listed in Table 3 below. A
brief summary of the "best usage" for which the waters in each class
must be protected, follows. In addition, "any stream which is not
15
named" in the schedule of stream. classification carries the same
classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is
a tributary (15 NCAC 2B .0301 i (1).
TABLE 3
"Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Benaja Creek WS-111-NSW
Four unnamed tributaries
Reedy Fork
Five unnamed tributaries "
North Buffalo Creek C NSW
Jordan Branch
White Oak Lake Creek "
WS-111 indicates a water supply segment with no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or discharges and is suitable
for all Class C uses.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture.
NSW is a supplemental classification denoting Nutrient Sensitive
Waters which indicates waters needing additional nutrient management
(particularly fertilizer runoff) due to their being subject to
excessive growth of microscope or macroscopic vegetation.
Thirteen streams are crossed by the subject project of which
Reedy Fork Creek is the largest. Construction activity will be
confined to roadside shoulders and impacts to streams crossed on
culverts are anticipated to be minimal with the implementation and
conscientious maintenance of sedimentation control management and
"Best Management Practices" (BMPs) during project construction.
Consideration will be given to the use of sediment control devices
such as vegetated berms, or filter basins to ameliorate the impacts
from non-point discharge.
Potential impacts associated with the bridge replacement over
Reedy Fork Creek are increased sedimentation from construction and/or
erosion; changes in ambient water temperature and light incidence due
to the removal of vegetative cover.
No waters classified as Public Mountain Trout Waters, High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters designated as
WS-1 or WS-11 will be impacted by the proposed project.
16
7. Noise and Air Qualit
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03)
as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were
redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on November 7, 1993. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures Guilford County. The Greensboro
Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval
date for the TIP is October 25, 1994. The USDOT approval date of the
TIP is Januray 24, 1995. The current conformity determination is
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51.
There has been no significant changes in the project's design concept
of scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
The project consists of the rehabilitation of the existing
concrete pavement, replacing the Reedy Fork Creek bridges,
rehabilitation of several selective bridges, and miscellaneous safety
improvements. The project will not substantially increase traffic
volumes, and no additional through travel lanes are planned.
Therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be
insignificant.
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 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) with no additional reports are required.
8. Hazardous Waste:
A field survey and records search was performed to identify
areas of potential environmental concern such as underground storage
tanks, hazardous waste dumps or similar sites. However, after
reviewing all of the available information, there is no evidence to
suggest that hazardous materials involvement should be a concern.
9. Construction Impacts:
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase.
a. 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
17
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. Water and gas lines may be located in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule which minimizes possible damage to or rupture of
these lines and interruption of these services. The
contractor will consult appropriate officials in preparing
this schedule.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists and area residents.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used
as needed.
18
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
The "do-nothing" alternative would deprive the City of Greensboro
with an improved link to Northwestern Guilford County and Rockingham
County. These improvements are needed for a more efficient transportation
system. The current condition of the pavement is poor and unless
rehabilitated, will continue to deteriorate. This "do nothing"
alternative would not serve the travel desires of the state or local area.
Furthermore, the "do nothing" alternative would decrease the chances of
expanded economic growth for this area of Guilford County.
In summary, the "no-build" option is not considered feasible due to
the importance of these improvements for the future of Guilford County.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode in this area and
the project is an improvement of the existing highway network. A shift in
travel to other modes of transportation would not alleviate the need to
rehabilitate the pavement and bridges on US 29.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
Because the proposed improvements to the project will make US 29 a
safer and more efficient facility connecting Greensboro with Northeastern
Guilford County and Rockingham County, postponing the implementation of
the subject project is not considered a prudent course of action.
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements
There were no other alternate types of highway improvements studied
for the subject project.
19
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville and Raleigh
*U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*State Clearinghouse
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
*Chairman, Guilford County Commissioners
*Mayor, City of Greensboro
B. Public Involvement
There was no Public Information Workshop held on the subject project
due to the nature of the road improvements.
BB/plr
1 150 Osu
rfi d Browns Sum Mon ello
Summit IU
td, ,F% e- 2?9 O DS

I
2503 END
PROJECT
"M
2322
BUFFALO
LAKE BEGIN
:REENSBORO PROJECT
POP. 155,642• .,,__,,,, n

3503 s

2308 G
Y 2514 - 12728
j 9

1.0
2304

'?P1t0f0 '

2310
2700

PA5
3 50 4

y _ ?

FIq
'J x314 ', 2ZH

_
y 2511 2179
2517 23
.9 x509 2623 =3 2766 .4
- .6
ei

01
2520
1 2623 2318 x
o
.8
ro
B C' _4 ,? •4 p m'+
i
Y S Monticello

2
2661 ^ ?
Summd
.1 '3
h (Mf 2ST 2T 513.

,
2521 }
' 1644 ?
x
?• 2630 1
?
1
`
616
1472
]?_ I506
3unlmnp
49 c O
zei
x323 1421 2M

' 251
?
2613
s
`
?F 1.0
xs 4 2
/
2614 ` P
V 2733
x81
2516.1

.?„ 2523 ?O

,1 5F' 9 2T
2526
G
Reedy
2626
232 V ?p 2524
1 ?'' Y 2523 26A1
J?, B Hines
1732aP !

x527
? -I
790 2?es
5
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 29
FROM 16 TH STREET IN GREENSBORO
TO THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY LINE
PROJECT NO. 8.1493101
T. i. P. NO. R-984
APRIL 1991 FIGURE 1
r aI
1.5 c.;. -2n fi.,
N.v: fadlas ?eaw1 W?7?i1 JC11 .
oM., wrv
C!1
0
as
nM
0
PE'
N
CO r•
fi
0.

W
8? t?
s
m
J

o- W
o

E?

102

2i7
J 25 x- 115
3 -A

3
40 L
J
1
2
13
P
0
! IN
N

J Q- 690
235 .4 - 180 ? 430 7o-
J - 130 .4-280
430 -? 261D

0 4D ?T 380 -

° vo
550
170---,,
P

?b 1
184
4
o--
J b
14 198
o--
1? if
0
.-0
?tP
9 o s

?b t
39
9 UI N V
J b
L

-; 40

v-

o
?
?tP
5
2
A fY V 14

cnb
10
1N
1 i ru 19
4 a-- 0 ;21

0 --A
1 1 ° ?u m 35
to

J ?- 516
166 ?- 49 154
C3 J a- 103

- 24 *--105
o--
?
517 -t> 4
?
C.
529 12 q?
N
1 8
A
V
sl 1?
Match Line
S
et
Z
N
N
C+
n
O
N
W
Q
ry
O ?
? N

n
O
3
S
a+
?o
O
n
X-
T
n
0
O
P
Q
Match Line
24 5?0 ?D p

2
P D
--?
66 0 -d
41? I 1
?.4" ?
1
u

ru t =
!p
r3 w
Ao
.
J ?- 223 J b
53? 33

o S` Vl
3 X
01 ? N

m VVV I N
< O?

a 9
V1 -

o

?- 38
a- 47 85

-

b
14 13 290-? 4
p 51 36 306
261
I
CA
L" 19
v ? 0
47 J +j t?
t
14
v
66 i o 0 60 w- o 1 126
42
20 97
38 Q z
0
7 --? IS -s' 1 t P o
28 2 2 -? 2 25 11 6
k- 263
22 P

J

10 m 1 C- g 4- 17
N
a- 9 ?- 9

0 N
C)
16 16 --? 6 -Z1 ro •- 19
?- 15
P
w
It tl:
9 N o
°- J b
3-4
15 D 12
ti
4 N
ffl
.P
I ~
? A
o°
z
a
0
n
0
•
cp
b
CD
P
r
17,
x
0
O
N
D
i
JmvN?dq&A
.op
EPvwbiuj6v- Am
33newm0a( wwKuw% JEN
C
0?
O ,.
1D
O5
Q? r
1•r
0
O?

130

440 J

°

h-110

a-250
330
a
o--150 -80
20- 4 300-0 °? r

73 0 350
330
300
r
A

l O
1
N
Q--430
725
O
o--575
k-250
o- 5
a(ddrl lf- 295 a-783
590 - D
110- (° 200 -p r
70 w ?
o
° 780 870
I
d
405 r
CA
,ul f?
10 o A o k--25 45
°-
J b L

?20
0 C. V
0 0- 0
0 120
?l 19

W k--20
20
°- 0
. 0
?b?
?o 35

S? ?
15 A 20
lul 1
5 N f?l 0 6 0
? ?b? 0
(r- 5
0--o .
10 _--,
0 35
?l t

g
?- 210
680 0 0 15 180.
13 Q-170
35 0-165 a-
t?
175-n
25 (g5
r
2 0 170 -o
A. N --0
195
60 --? r
u
of ?o
Match Line
ON
h
S
0
O
N
W
Q
ry
Q?
N
ge (a
n
O
I

S
s+
O
n
2
n
O
N
A
O
n
Q
Match Line

o-5 L3
to o u k- 0
5
10
5

20-?
r h
p
85 60 i.{ a 35
l 1N
ul IER
(WJ
?n u
lJl o
x-125 b

60 --?
r
15 __4 ?}
t
15 ? 1 V1
3 ?
(A `F Ul
• I D N
60
°- S (A

L

?-? 100

°- c N

b N
4 10 ?

0 85
-?
04 0
275 -1 I

ou

-4! 1?

b 200 ry
of ??

1
0
0
265 8 u a 45 o u 0 105
°- ?1bL ?15 ?lbL ?93
15 -? 50 -? N
°
100 83 -P
0-4 93 --? Cl -
125
?- 15
r
CR
gl
N
N

0 -
20 u c
o--15 to
-5 15
d 1

° -A
25 _a
°} I r N
o
10-0. -?, N ° _p
25
?- 10
r
Cn

25
.p
15
00
Jb
5 --A I I
10-? Na,
u
N
U
0
0
V
(D
W
O
:v
n
N
m
jVafpOW6AV%jjAW JDI
CD
rAgoomw 6wft norm jot
JDI
ij
1
Sb? 1 ?io
al??l'1

8'
d?
o S \
e° O
o?

L $1,b .
91
r?
i
? o'er
i
ti
1
SYA
w r;;
?\ Y
1
1
1
?i mDZZ \
O w z D
=
m
y r-

?-{N
r?=
0
<
z-miDO :r

.
'l ? mDnC?
Z2
.
., M
M
00 r \
Z
m
W
? a
?dy q'L? d? bZ
AN
?G
PQ
9101t?
lba?)c
Q01
°tiz °? vr' naj
v tr k `tiq 1
q
6d4 ?,o dA . d L y \ orb : nl.
D t z oa tl
49
oti ? D ? 3?g ?
mw-0 !)-I2m-; D> -0m
zrm-<0m02?paD<2 =m
O r m
mom gom2oxmm N-i
jm?0mFD Dmr= 70?
00--10-0M CCO?D m
r- OCDDmCz<am?m zm
r->mIm 7o?mM> 0 -Z-I?
-, ^mmm0p ? 0 mD
Z p
rD DO CCD m D
Zp 2T. p m
p z m m m
G) cn -
1 xaaa?

/,Lg4
1
10
1
L s ti??
t l 'I'l ?r? is
5 1a
t'? q Z ?w t
q° b 1' = \t 1'51
F ??' 5
q
56L1 oo? b 1
a. ?'' 9 8 O
?.
gb?ti i `Ob a .\1 b Zm 14
W.00

1. .. %? > .
6151
q ?c
,oy ` q i ,t
Z? 1 0 ?
,, ° s• ?b1 I.$?j,1 Iv b?1 . p ° qq1 t /i 0
q 9 1 ? l ? a ..•.
N 6/ 0??1 1 5gC 8 N N n fn Z 2 Z ! 1 5 Nq`q ti t
O °? Air O q L ?' b` 1 5?L?` can OC m m 2 ?' ti" gggl iu OE5mo
r -? -? D cn
Z1 a o v ?O ? q%L51 22Z co 0 t t! 1. ooom %v
bL jaaas Q "` go51 ZZm-Dj0 q o ? l
- `J
/?11 '1??? \ 8 1 J .D p 55 ?ZR=1Z? °k,? 9?q 1ti1
'x'• b ?LL f' 1 (n \ q9
< E5
?? 3. C7 N p`
0
O
V. z 3l /04,ti'
11 t 1 1 1 b D \ 4, SJ' a l' ?r I-?51 ?,'d?' v
Se D 9! L• E p .
31.10 5 A. D b 1 \ o. ?• Z . O a SW 8.
/ti. 7 C p S \ ?1 60
?A aad
sad ,
of
1t s 5 S
J y 6 ?? •
ag
/1 1 ? C v?b'l bo51 a
m -no>o?i
z
-ICli- co
13 >0
a, 5. 0
Z
f n
mil- /z ? ` o ti l -Axt qy
i 61g1
/L
q ! ?l q
41
*\O ` i a??
.w SfATF o
i '
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
C' I
ki - .,o. rchives and History
James G. Martin, Governor,
Patric Dorsey, Secretary Wi a'm Price, Jr., Director
August 12, 1992 .? AUG 1 3 jooa
MEMORANDUM 'd r7a. Lint/yam
J t{
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpprtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State 4?torlc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Rehabilitate US 29 from 16th Street to Rockingham
County line, R-984, Guilford County, GS 92-0038
We have consulted with Bryon Brady of your staff concerning this project and its
potential effects to archaeological resources. Based on information concerning the
construction easements for the bridge replacements, we believe this project will
not affect archaeological resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
:slw
cc: Bryon Brady
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
STATE o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highwrs
Department of Transp nation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 29 from 16th Street in Greensboro to Rockingham
County Line, Guilford County, R-984, ER 95-7575
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1994, concerning the above project.
The change in project funding from state to federal as noted in your memorandum
does not alter our assessment of the project's potential effects to National
Register-eligible archaeological resources. As noted in our memorandum of
August 12, 1992, we do not recommend any archaeological investigations in
connection with this project. We appreciate your notification of the change as it
assists us in our record keeping.
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: N. Graf, Federal Highway Administration
bc: File
Clagge H )II
Count
RF
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507
TIp # ?• Je4 Federal Aid # t4kr- - -m -7 County Gumr-opo
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSIYIENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
?e?ut a?ta? us 2M puM 1loTm Srpm- 1t.3 GiZE,EkIsae%to T-a
paGl?tnk.F}l•N couNrY LiNer
On AmL? 27 1°Ic1y , representatives of the
_ V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential *effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
,there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
S isned : --?`
? z7 f-?f
Re:, sentative, NCDOT Date
' FHw , or the ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Cate
'DPLtA Z , L*n'A,5 _ 4-1-111 CI
Rearesentative, SHPO /? l Date
Z Z ,.

ric Preservation
(over)
TIP # t--Ie 4
Federal Aid # 4141. -,vi County GuiLFOM
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).

3
R
r
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is a - ffect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.
-.r

.,
Initialed: NCDOT / "? FHwAj?? SHPO
? f
I .-swra
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor December 31, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
?
Through: John Dornl i1
Monica Swi_hart
From: Eric Galamb "
Subject: EA/FONSI US 29 from 16th Street in Greensboro to Rockingham County
Guilford County
State Project DOT No. 6.491035, TIP #R-984
EHNR # 93-0360, DEM WQ # 7671
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA/FONSI prepared
for this project which will impact 1.6 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
2. Nine of the 13 stream crossings will occur at water supply (WS) classified
streams. DEM recommends that DOT install hazardous spill catch basins at
the WS crossings.
3. Endorsement of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc29guil.fon
cc: Eric Galamb
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
II¦I?
Department of -Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment El Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Forth
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water
?'
? Marine Fishe
i

? Fayetteville ?j
Air
?Coastal Management r
es
Water Planning

El Mooresville Water

N ?
Water Resources
Environmental Health

? Raleigh Groundwater
Land Q
lit
E Wildlife Solid Waste Management
ua
y
ngineer Forest Resources
? Radiation Protection
El Washington ? Recreational Consultant and Resources ? David Foster
?Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
_: 13 Others Environmental Management
Winston-Salem
? Y
1 ?
?JL "PIS
• 9 199
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:

WATER -QUALI T Y In-House Reviewer/Agency:
SECTION
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
?Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
C1 Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
? Other (specify and attach comments)
ETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and ASSessmant by nna nary ch-
US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
State Project No. 6.491035
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
01
I
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
i
late L. J. Ward, P.E.
G' Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
State Project No. 6.491035
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
November 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Byro E. Brady
Proje t Planning Engineer
,tpStt(7?tll?tp6f t)?t
? ` ••...,,+ SAY, e
ESSIG?' V s
• : 4? 9l a
• SE AL
ichard B. Davis, P. 6944
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head -P
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is an Administrative Action, State Environmental Assessment/
Finding of No Significant Impact.
2. Description of Action
The N. C. Division of Highways proposes to rehabilitate US 29 from
16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line. This
rehabilitation will include a crack and seat treatment of the existing
concrete pavement. The Southbound bridge over Reedy Fork Creek and the
Benaja Road bridge will be replaced. The Northbound bridge over the Reedy
Fork Creek and the Northbound and Southbound bridges over NC 150 will be
rehabilitated and widened to accommodate a 38'-0" proposed pavement
section for US 29. The project is to be constructed mostly within the
existing right-of-way with the exception of construction easements which
may be required for the bridge replacement construction.
The R-984 project is 10.9 miles long. The location of the proposed
projects are shown in Figures 1 and 3.
The total estimated cost of the project is $ 8,970,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
A. "Do-Nothing" alternative
B. Alternate modes of transportation
C. Postponement of proposed action
D. Alternate types of highway improvement
4. Environmental Impacts
Although the proposed improvements will require several possible
construction easements at the two bridge replacements to contain
construction, any adverse impact is expected to be minimal. There are no
structures in the project area that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. There will be an increase in the noise level due to the
rehabilitation of the highway but this increase will not exceed acceptable
levels. Approximately 1.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will receive
impacts from this project construction.
The primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the
improvement in highway transportation. Another major benefit will be
safety and traffic operational improvements realized due to the widening,
replacement, and rehabilitation of several bridges along the project which
will also provide for a more efficient roadway.
5. Actions Required by other Federal Agencies
A nationwide permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
required for this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
6.
7.
Federal, State and Local Agencies which will be asked to comment on
the State Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville and Raleigh
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Environmental Health
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Chairman, Guilford County Commissioners
Mayor, City of Greensboro
Special Environmental Commitments
and Natural Resources
The design for the replacement of the Reedy Fork Creek bridges should
allow for pedestrian movement under the bridges to accommodate the planned
greenway along Reedy Fork Creek.
8. Basis for State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
On the basis of the planning and environmental studies, it was
determined that this project will not have significant detrimental effects
upon the quality of the human environment. The project has been reviewed
by appropriate state and local agencies and no objections have been
raised. As a result, it is concluded that an Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . .
- 1
B. j
Historical Background and Status (T.I.P 1
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended
Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. General Location and Description of Action . . . 1
2. Length of Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Truck Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated
Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Cross Section Description. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Access Control . . . . . . . . 2
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control . . . 3
11. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . 3
12. Special Permits Required of Division
of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. Staging . . . . . . 4
14. Changes in the State Highway System . . . . . . 4
15. Estimate of Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. PUR POSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility . . . . . . 5
1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Existing Roadway Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied . . . . . 5
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . 5
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . 5
d. Degree of Roadside Interference . . . . . . 5
e. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . 5
f. Vertical Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
g. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
' h. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
i. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
' B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Accident Investigation . . . . . . . . . . 8
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . 10
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Land Use 10
2. Neighborhood Analysis . . . . . . . . 11
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses . . . . . 11 .
4. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . 11
a. Historical - Architectural Resources . . . . 11
b. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Natural Ecological and Scenic Resources . . . . 12
2. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . 13
3. Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Noise and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. . Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 19
C. Postponement of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . 19
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvement . . . . . . . 19
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
FIGURES
APPENDIX
US 29
From 16th Street in Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line
Guilford County
State Project No. 6.491035
T.I.P. Project No. R-984
I. Description of the Project
A. General Description
This project consists of the rehabilitation of US 29 from 16th Street
in Greensboro to the Rockingham County line, approximately 10.9 miles in
length.
The locations.of the proposed projects are shown in Figures 1 and 3.
US 29 is classified as a principal arterial on the North Carolina
Functional Classification System and as a Federal Aid Primary on the
Federal Aid System.
B. Historical Background and Status T.I.P.
This section of US 29 was completed to existing widths in 1962 on a
right-of-way of 250 feet in width.
The proposed rehabilitation of US 29 is included in the "1993-1999
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program" (TIP). Construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994. The TIP includes a total funding
of $9,300,000 for the project for construction. The current estimated
cost for the 10.9 mile project is $ 8,976,000.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. General Location and Description of Action:
The location of the project is on US 29 from 16th Street in
Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line. It is recommended that the
studied portion of US 29 be rehabilitated including the replacement
of the Benaja Road bridge and the Southbound Reedy Fork Creek bridge.
The Northbound bridge over the Reedy Fork Creek and the
Northbound bridge over NC 150 will be rehabilitated and widened to
accommodate a 38'-0" proposed pavement section for US 29. The
Southbound bridge over NC 150 will be rehabilitated and widened to
accommodate a-46'-0" pavement section for US 29 including a lane for
an existing ramp.
During the rehabilitation, the existing concrete pavement will
be rehabilitated using a crack and seat treatment. The new pavement
will include a 10-foot paved right shoulders (2-foot to be full
depth). The median shoulders shall include a 4-foot paved section.
Additional improvements include installation of four Hidro Cell
Attenuators, thermo pavement markings and snow plowable pavement
markers, removal and replacement of 3 miles of selective security
2
fencing, removal and replacement of selective guardrail, and the
addition of acceleration and deceleration lanes for the US 29/01d
Reidsville Road intersection.
2. Length of Proposed Project:
The length of the proposed project is 10.9 miles.
3. Traffic Volumes:
1991: Traffic volumes along the proposed route range from
12,990 vehicles per day (vpd) to 22,250 vpd. .
1994: Traffic volumes along the proposed route are estimated to
range from 14,500 vpd to 24,000 vpd.
2014: Traffic volumes along the proposed route are estimated to
range from 27,700 vpd to 29,150 vpd. These figures incorporate the
proposed Greensboro Eastern/ Northern Loop which intersects the
proposed project and will influence the traffic patterns of US 29.
The estimated 1991, 1994 and 2014 traffic volumes and major
turning movements are shown in Figure 2A through 21.
4. Truck Data:
Truck traffic along the proposed route is 12% (5% duals, 72.,
TTST).
5. Design Speed Proposed and Anticipated Speed Limit:
The design speed for the proposed project is 60 mph. The
anticipated ppsted speed limit for the studied route is 55 mph.
6. Cross Section Description:
The proposed section of US 29 will have a travelway width of 24
feet. In addition, a 10-foot paved right shoulder (2-foot to be full
depth) and a 4-foot median shoulder will be constructed.
7. Right-of-Way:
Sufficient easements will be acquired to contain construction.
8. Bikeways:
A need for bikeways along the project was not identified in the
planning process.
9. Access Control:
US 29 is a freeway with access control from the South end of the
project to just north of the East Cone Boulevard interchange.
3
From this point North to the Rockingham County line, there are a
number of median breaks to allow u-turns and direct access to
property adjacent to US 29.
10. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control:
At grade intersections exist at the following locations along
the project area which also are stop sign controlled: Whiterock
Road/Assembly Road (SR 2568), Esterwood Road/April Lane, Anita Lane
(SR 2788), and Old Reidsville Road (SR 2514).
Interchanges exist at the following locations: 16th Street,
East Cone Boulevard, Hicone Road (SR 2565), Eckerson Road (SR 2790)/
Summit Avenue (SR 2526), NC 150, and Benaja Road (SR 2510).
11. Bridge Work Required:
Reedy Fork Creek (Northbound lanes): Bridge No. 361 carries US
29 over the Reedy Fork Creek and will be rehabilitated including:
widen to 38'-0" clear roadway width by replacing the existing deck,
clean and paint bearings, repair substructure, and widen approach
slabs. This bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-0".
Reedy Fork Creek (Southbound lanes : Bridge No. 362 carries US
29 over the Reedy Fork Creek and will be replaced with a new
structure with a clear roadway width of 38'-0". The bridge has an
existing roadway width of 28'-0". The existing bridge was built in
1936 and has a sufficiency rating of 29.8. It is more feasible to
replace this bridge than to rehabilitate and widen it. The design of
the new bridge should include access for pedestrian movement under
the bridge for a planned greenway along Reedy Fork Creek. During
construction, traffic will be diverted onto the adjacent service
road.
NC 150 (Southbound lanes : Bridge No. 368 carries US 29 over NC
150 and will be rehabilitated including: widen (on one side) to
46'-0" clear roadway width, rehabilitate deck, retrofit railing,
replace approach slabs, and repair erosion damage. The bridge has an
existing roadway width of 40'-0" and includes an existing lane for a
ramp. At least one lane will be left open for traffic during
construction.
NC 150 (Northbound lanes : Bridge No. 365 carries US 29 over NC
150 and will be rehabilitated including: widen (on one side) to
38'-0" clear roadway width, rehabilitate deck, retrofit railing,
replace approach slabs, repair erosion damage, and jack
superstructure to obtain adequate vertical clearance over NC 150. The
bridge has an existing roadway width of 28'-0". At least one lane
will be left open for traffic during construction.
Benaja Road: Bridge No. 371 carries Benaja Road (SR 2510) over
US 29 and has a posted vertical clearance elevation of 13'- 11".
This bridge will be replaced with a new structure with an minimum
vertical clearance of 16'-6". This section of Benaja Road will be
closed during construction of the new bridge.
4
12. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways:
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of
Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Reedy
Fork Creek.
Based upon site location and estimated acreage involved, it is
anticipated that most stream crossings will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14).
13. Staging:
The entire project is funded to be constructed initially.
14. Changes in the State Highway System:
No changes to the existing primary highway system will result
from the proposed project.
15. Estimate of Cost:
Roadway
Temporary Construction Easements
Structures
Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
TOTAL
- $ 4,776,141.00
6,000.00
1,731,688.00
- 1,292,171.00
1.170.000.00
$ 8,976,000.00

a
5
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. General Description:
The proposed project consists of rehabilitating existing US 29
and adding a 10-foot paved right shoulder and a 4-foot paved median
shoulder. This rehabilitation of US 29 is needed due to the
deterioration of the existing pavement and the inadequate vertical
and horizontal clearance of several bridges. The existing paved
shoulders are also inadequate and in some cases, non-existent.
2. Existing Roadway Inventory:
a. Lenoth of Roadwav Section Studied:
The length of the studied project, from 16th Street in
Greensboro to the Rockingham County Line is 10.9 miles.
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders:
The section of US 29 within the project limits has two
12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a grass median
which varies in width from 30 feet to 40 feet.
Shoulder width of the entire section is 12 feet for the
outside shoulder and 8 feet for the median shoulder.
C. Right of Way:
The existing right-of-way is 250 feet for the entire length
of the studied project.
d. Degree of Roadside Interference:
Interference from roadside development is light to medium
along the section of the project which does not have control of
access.
e. Type of Roadside Development:
Several businesses are located along the non-control of
access sections such as highway retail, motels, a trailer park,
a cemetery, an industrial and residential development, a
restaurant, and other related businesses.
f. Vertical Curvature:
The existing roadway has vertical grades which range from
(-)3.2 percent to (+)4.2 percent.

6
g. Structures:
There are nine structures along the proposed project with
descriptions as follows.
16th Street: This structure (Bridge No. 347) carries 16th
Street over US 29 and was built in 1976.
The structure has a vertical clearance of
161-611, a sufficiency rating of 76.7, and an
estimated remaining life of 34 years.
East Cone Boulevard: This structure (Bridge No. 350)
carries East Cone Boulevard over US 29 and
was built in 1976.
The structure has a vertical clearance of
16'-9", a sufficiency rating of 74.4, and an
estimated remaining life of 36 years.
Hicone Road (SR 2565: This structure (Bridge No. 354)
carries SR 2565 over US 29 and was built in
1961. The structure has a vertical
clearance of 15'-8", a sufficiency rating of
77.0, and an estimated remaining life of 21
years.
Eckerson Road (SR 2790: This structure (Bridge No. 360)
carries SR 2790 over US 29 and was built in
1961. The structure has a vertical
clearance of 15'-0", a sufficiency rating of
57.7, and an estimated remaining life of 16
years.
Reedy Fork Creek: This structure (Bridge No. 361) carries
Northbound US 29 over Reedy Fork Creek and
was built in 1961. The structure has a
sufficiency rating of 74.9 and an estimated
remaining life of 19 years.
Reedy Fork Creek: This structure (Bridge No. 362) carries
Southbound US 29 over Reedy Fork Creek and
was built in 1936. The structure has a
sufficiency rating of 29.8 and an estimated
remaining life of 7 years.
NC 150: This structure (Bridge No. 368) carries Southbound
US 29 over NC 150 and was built in 1961.
The structure has a sufficiency rating of
81.8 and an estimated remaining life of 18
years.
7
NC 150: This structure (Bridge No. 365) carries Northbound
US 29 over NC 150 and was built in 1961.
The structure has a sufficiency rating of
72.8 and an estimated remaining life of 18
years.
Benaja Road: This structure (Bridge No. 371) carries
Benaja Road over US 29 and was built in
1947. The structure has a vertical
clearance of 14'-1", a sufficiency rating of
22.0, and an' estimated remaining life of 5
years.
h. Speed Zones:
The existing posted speed limit in the project area is 55
mph.
i. School Bus Data:
Portions of the studied section of US 29 are used by
portions of several Guilford County School bus routes. At the
present time, 19 school buses carry students to and from school
on this section of US 29.
B. Transportation Plan:
US 29 is listed in the Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan dated
August 11, 1989. This plan lists US 29 as a major freeway.
This plan also lists the new Greensboro Urban Loop as a proposed
major freeway which will intersect US 29 South of the Hicone Road
intersection.
Two separate T.I.P. projects associated with the Greensboro outer
loop intersect US 29. U-2526 is the Greensboro Northern Loop and
intersects US 29 from the west. U-2525 is the Greensboro Eastern Loop and
intersects US 29 from the east.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity:
Volumes:
` 1991 Average Daily Traffic:
10,150 - 22,250 vpd
1994 Average Daily Traffic:
11,325 - 24,000 vpd
2014 Average Daily Traffic:
21,500 - 29,150 vpd
8
The estimated 1991, 1994 and 2014 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 2. These figures incorporate the future
traffic of the Greensboro outer loop in the 2014 data.
Capacity:
The existing Level Of Service (LOS) was computed for the four-
lane section of the studied project. For 1991, the LOS was B using
average daily traffic (ADT) and the LOS was E using the AM Peak Hour
traffic data. The 1994 LOS was computed at B using ADT and at LOS E
using AM Peak Hour. The 2014 LOS was computed at C using ADT and at
LOS F using AM peak hour. The 2014 calculations used the future
traffic projections resulting from the construction of the Greensboro
outer loop project which intersects US 29.
D. Accident Investigation:
Accident histories along the studied sections of US 29 indicate
accident rates that are somewhat equal or lower than the current statewide
averages. The proposed improvements to this facility, such as the
rehabilitation of the existing concrete pavement, the widening of the
Reedy Creek bridges, the widening of the paved shoulder, the replacement
of the Benaja Road Bridge, and the addition of deceleration and
deceleration lanes for Reidsville Road should decrease the number of
accidents which will result in a potentially safer roadway.
Table 1 gives a comparison between the accident rates for US 29 and
the statewide accident rate for all
TABLE 1
Accident Rates
Total Accident Rate
(accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Fatal Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100
million vehicle miles)
Non-Fatal Injury Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Night Accident Rate
(Accidents per 100 mvm)
Statewide Average for
US 29 (Urban U. S. Routes - 1991)
103.82 137.1
1.39 0.7
46.18 59.4
34.03 31.0
9
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community:
The benefits to the state, region, and community will be primarily a
safer facility connecting the City of Greensboro with Northwestern
Guilford County and Rockingham County.
10
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects:
1. Land Use:
The proposed improvements occur in the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of both the City of Greensboro and Guilford County. The
County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1986 which includes the City
of Greensboro, and is currently developing a series of small area
plans for the entire county.
The City of Greensboro has not adopted a separate land use plan,
and utilizes its zoning ordinance as its primary land use management
tool.
Land use in the project area changes from generally suburban to
rural from 16th Street North to the Rockingham County line. The
Carolina Circle Mall and other retail uses, as well as apartment
complexes and medium density residential are located around 16th
Street and the southern portion of the project limits. A large
cemetery is located on the east side of US 29 near the Greensboro
City limits.
Land uses immediately adjacent to the roadway include multi-
family and single family residential developments, commercial uses,
and some light industrial uses in the Southern portion of the
project. As the character of the area becomes rural, predominant
land uses include farms and woodlands, small businesses, and some
linear residential development.
According to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, most of the project
area is expected to contain residential development, excepting the
area north of NC 150, which will remain agricultural. County
planning officials indicate that the northeastern portion of Guilford
County is expected to experience significant industrial development
in other parts of Guilford County as a result of water supply
watershed restrictions.
According to the new industrial development plan, mixed use and
industrial development will be directed to the Scott Road/Summit
Avenue area, the McKnight Mill Road area, and in the 16th Street
area. The recently developed Rock Creek Corporate Center is expected
to spur additional industrial development in northeast Guilford
County. The proposed Painter Boulevard improvements will also
improve access to land in the US 29 North area.
Interchanges on US 29 which will be affected by known new
development are at Penny Road, Eckerson Road, and Summit Road. The
1986 Comprehensive Plan also includes a greenway system for the
entire County. A greenway is planned along Reedy Fork Creek which
will connect the existing trials around Lake Townsend at Bryan Park
with a planned regional park approximately five miles west of US 29
11
North. Therefore, the design of replacement bridges over Reedy Fork
Creek should allow for pedestrian movement under the bridge.
2. Neighborhood Analysis:
The neighborhood characteristics along the proposed project site
consist of commercial, institutional, and some residential at various
intervals. Development is set back out of the path of the proposed
action. The project will not disrupt any established neighborhoods.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses:
The proposed action is not anticipated to displace any families
or businesses.
4. Public Facilities:
There are several public facilities at various intervals along
the proposed project site. On the east side of the proposed project
are Lakeview Memorial Park (a large cemetery), and United Holy
Church. Near the northern end of the proposed project on a secondary
road are Bryan Park and Central School for the Deaf. In addition,
along the proposed project on the west side is the headquarters for
the Pentecostal Holiness Church of the Western Conference District.
5. Historic and Cultural Resources:
a. Historical-Architectural Resources:
b. Archaeological Resources:
This project was coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with the procedures
compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (GS
113) and the North Carolina Historic Commission (GS 121.12). A
review of the files at the Office of State Archaeology indicates
that there are no archaeological sites recorded in the project
area. The likelihood of the project encountering any
significant archaeological sites is low, given the limited scope
of the project and the extensive modern development in the
project area. There are no sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places within the project vicinity.
B. Economic Effects:
The improvements to US 29 will result in a safer highway facility
which will increase the economic development in the area to some degree.
After the completion of the project, the overall result will be an overall
increase in the local tax base.
12
C. Environmental Effects:
1. Natural, Ecological and.Scenic Resources:
The following sections describe the natural and disturbed,
natural land parcels, which occupy the impact zones of the proposed
project.
a. Man-Dominated Systems:
Man-dominated lands are areas where man's structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession. Most construction
activity will take place within the roadside shoulder. These
areas are highly maintained by regularly mowing, thus
suppressing natural plant succession. Maintained shoulders and
slopes support turf (Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative
component.
b. Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
Small acreages of alluvial forest are associated with
narrow stream crossings in the project area. Plant composition
is fairly uniform from site to site. Floodplains are seasonally
or intermittently flooded. Flood tolerant species such as river
birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata) and box elder (Acer negundo) are
common canopy trees. Black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
blackberry (Rubus sp.), are common shrubs. A diverse herb layer
supports Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), chickweed
(Stellaria media), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), henbit
(Lamium purpureum), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), sedge
(Cyperus sp.), glecoma (Glecoma hederacea), and foxtail grass
(Setaria sp.).
C. Plant Communities:
This project will result in direct loss of plant species
from grubbing/grading operations and paving.
Acreage impacts to each community are summarized in Table
below. Calculations are based on construction limits of 30
feet.
Table 2
ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Plant Community Estimated Impacts
Man-dominated areas 80.0
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 1.6
13
2. Threatened and Endangered Species:
Federally-Protected Species: Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended.
On a January 30, 1992 list provided by the USFWS, no federally
protected species are known to occur in Guilford County. However, the
following Candidate species may occur in the area: Greensboro
burrowing crayfish (Cambarus cats ius) and nestronia (Nestronia
umbellula). These are species which are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. These species are mentioned here
for the purpose of information, as they may be listed under a
protected status at a later date.
State-Protected Species: Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the NC Plant 'Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C.
Department of Agriculture.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program files were consulted
to determine if any protected flora or fauna exists in the project
area. Though no records of state protected species occur in the
area; the state Candidate species Nestronia, has been documented
approximately one quarter mile west of the Reedy Fork creek bridge
crossing.
3. Wildlife Habitat:
Urbanized areas and adjacent forested areas support a myiad of
bird life. Carolina wren (Thryothorus Ludovicianus), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) are birds
sighted in the study area. Other common inhabitants are the mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), cardinal
(Cardinal cardinalis) and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). These
urbanized areas also provide shelter for opportunistic animal
species, such as the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Wetland and alluvial forested communities are valuable habitat
for reptiles and amphibians. Amphibans in particular, are highly
water dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle.
Some species are totally aquatic. Spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. Palustris), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), Northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
14
yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scri ta), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) are but a few of the
reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the project area.
Fish species that are common to the study area, are bl uegi l l
(Lepomis macrochirus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi),
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides).
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected in the
creation of new habitat and in the alteration and elimination of
previously existing habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving
organism will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced.
Aquatic species will be particularly affected. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and land
clearing are construction activities, resulting in the direct loss of
benthic organisms and an increase in silt load in aquatic and wetland
environments. Motile benthic macroinvertebrates are better able to
avoid impacts, and will have a faster recovery rate from siltation,
than those species that are filter feeders and relatively immobile.
The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply
for vertebrate and other aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos:
decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibiting plant and algal
growth; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting
them off from a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate and fish habitat; and spoils downstream spawning beds for
fish.
4. Wetlands:
Approximately 1.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will receive
impacts from project construction. These wetlands are categorized as
palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous communities (PF01) as
defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were
identified in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma
values, hydropytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology or
hydrological indicators. The wetlands mentioned above are associated
with the construction of the Reedy Fork Creek bridges. The actual
total acres may be less pending the final bridge design.
5. Farmland:
The proposed improvements will generally occur within the
existing right-of-way, though some temporary construction easements
may be required. Because no land will be permanently converted to
non-agricultural uses, the requirements of the Farmland Protection
Act do not apply.
15
6. Water ualit :
Thirteen stream crossings are located within the US 29 project
area. These crossings fall within the confines of the Cape Fear
River Basins, specifically within the Haw River drainage area. The
drainage pattern is dendritic, highly dissecting the landscape. Most
of the steams encountered have very narrow channel widths varying
from two to ten feet with little or no associated wetlands.
Flow-rate was usually sluggish and most stream substrates are highly
silted. The exception to this is Reedy Creek. Reedy Creek has a
channel width of approximately 20 to 25 feet in the project area.
"Best usage" classification are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). A summary
of "best usage" water classification for each water resource
component likely to receive impacts are listed in Table 3 below. A
brief summary of the "best usage" for which the waters in each class
must be protected, follows. In addition, "any stream which is not
named in the schedule of stream classification carries the same
classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is
a tributary (15 NCAC 2B .0301 i (1).
TABLE 3
"Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE
Benaja Creek
Four unnamed tributaries
Reedy Fork
Five unnamed tributaries
North Buffalo Creek
Jordan Branch
White Oak Lake Creek
CLASSIFICATION
( -Ms
WS-111 NSW
C NSW
11
WS-111 indicates a water supply segment with no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or discharges and is suitable
for all Class C uses.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
agriculture.
NSW is a supplemental classification denoting Nutrient Sensitive
Waters which indicates waters needing additional nutrient management
(particularly fertilizer runoff) due to their being subject to
excessive growth of microscope or macroscopic vegetation.
16
Thirteen streams are crossed by subject of which Reedy Fork
Creek is the largest. Construction activity will be confined to
roadside shoulders and impacts to streams crossed on culverts are
anticipated to be minimal with the implementation and conscientious
maintenance of sedimentation control management and "Best Management
Practices" (BMPs) during project construction. Consideration should
be given to the use of sediment control devices such as vegetated
berms, or filter basins to ameliorate the impacts from non-point
discharge.
Potential impacts associated with bridge the replacement over
Reedy Fork Creek are increased sedimentation from construction and/or
erosion; changes in ambient water temperature and light incidence due
to the removal of vegetative cover.
No waters classified as Public Mountain Trout Waters, High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters designated as
WS-1 or WS-11'will be impacted by the proposed project.
7. Noise and Air ualit :
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes and
no additional through travel lanes are planned. Therefore, the
project impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction, but the
increase 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 State Implementation Plan for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 (highway traffic
noise) and 23 CFR (air quality) and no additional reports are
required.
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. Guilford County is classified as attainment for
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
particulate matter. During 1988, there were eight recorded instances
where the ozone standard was exceeded within Guilford County; as a
result, this county has been designated nonattainment for this
pollutant. On November 15, 1990, the President signed into law the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the provisions of these
amendments must be followed on highway projects. Although Guilford
County has been determined to be in nonattainment for ozone, this
project has been determined to be "neutral" project since it only
involves pavement rehabilitation, bridge reconstruction and safety
improvements. Therefore, no further project level analysis is
necessary.
8. Hazardous Waste:
A field survey and records search was performed to identify
areas of potential environmental concern such as underground storage
tanks, hazardous waste dumps or similar sites. However, after
f 17

reviewing all of the available information, there is no evidence to
suggest that hazardous materials involvement should be a concern.
9. Construction Impacts:
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase.
a. 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 by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. Water and gas lines may be located in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule which minimizes possible damage to or rupture of
these lines and interruption of these services. The
contractor will consult appropriate officials in preparing
this schedule.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
res6lting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists and area residents.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
18
measures which will be used to mi imize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used
as needed.
19
f
It ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
The "do-nothing" alternative would deprive the City of Greensboro
with an improved link to Northwestern Guilford County and Rockingham
County. These improvements are needed for a more efficient transportation
system. The current condition of the pavement is poor and unless
rehabilitated, will continue to deteriorate. This "do nothing"
alternative would not serve the travel desires of the state or local area.
Furthermore, the "do nothing" alternative would decrease the chances of
expanded economic growth for this area of Guilford County.
In summary, the "no-build" option is not considered feasible due to
the importance of these improvements for the future of Guilford County.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode in this area and
the project is an improvement of the existing highway network. A shift in
travel to other modes of transportation would not alleviate the need to
rehabilitate the pavement and bridges on US 29.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
Because the proposed improvements to the project will make US 29 a
safer and more efficient facility connecting Greensboro with Northeastern
Guilford County and Rockingham County, postponing the implementation of
the subject project is not considered a prudent course of action.
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements
There were no other alternate types of highway improvements studied
for the subject project.
14
20
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville and Raleigh
*U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*State Clearinghouse
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
*Chairman, Guilford County Commissioners
*Mayor, City of Greensboro
B. Public Involvement
I-
There was no Public Information Workshop held on the subject project
due to the nature of the road improvements.
-- - - -7' - - +-1
150 ?' Osceo?F2 I,
!rfi d Browns yf
c.....-...- Mon :ello in
5
J _ END .°
`2 ,
2 - -
602 jrj5 1 2300 250 ' PROJECT -
270, 2726
f.3
2308 2 09 .t 214
23 32508 ; q
2504 Benaj°
\.0 p
7 2326 I ? . _ FIS _ / h

4 9
3-Z
232 7

v

4

3317 F
2879 -
?11 'f 251(
2309
?3 N6?

2326

7
6 \\
2623
.4
.b

.9 . •? Fh+`
•
.
252 3
25 26
30
y F m T
.8
Browln ? .2 3 montll°
? .?,r 3424
2229 r 3 Summit .2.3 2619
(Mt 231 4. 3 2721
2 ]5
,
= 2330 ?' 2321 f
2616'1 264 .2
2443
\• 2630 1
2019
2306 O
??37 g ,7422 343 29 v

\I 1001 2523 N 1679 2730
]315 O
.9

\ 1 -
23 9 8 2613
2522
..1l?
2506 9 '2
1
263,
3n\\ •S 61 •
. ea
.O
2526 2819 - 27 7 2;
,_...` 76 ... I \ 2327
343 -
LAXE ? ?
2819
.f ,
e
3L
BUFFALO
LAKE BEGIN
iREENSBORO 0°`?? rf PROJECT r:e
POP. 155,642'
70 t'J ;?a: iiY _ ys
2

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 29
FROM 16 TH STREET IN GREENSBORO
TO THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY LINE
PROJECT NO. 6.491035
T. I. P. NO. R-984
APRIL 1991 FIGURE 1
mv. prows 119"0 uil VA JL"
81
s 1
OD
I
O ,.d
as
l 1
O
p ?
elf,
r+.
I ?
?.
T
r?'
O
b
CD
?A?r)
EMI
W
O
w
N
m
A
V
CI 1
Match Line
0%
S
N
cF
Z
N
h
0
O
N
td
SZ
r- y
G ;O
? N
f w
C)
O
1
s
S
k
10
O
n
X-
S
n
O
N
A
O
O
f2
24
Q
Match Line
v
o9o
J
?- 0
a-0
0
0
C3 D
2 D
-0
66 0 --?
41 I I I
a m '?
v -?
f
u

N b I
VVVV +
m
n? 0 ID
4-- 223 c? b
Or 53
-b 33
0
?1
0 s` v1
3 ;u
?b 1 ^ Ln
D fU
N
Q,
69
1/1
-
A
0
Q- 38
-47 4
I

13 --4 280--4
0 61 36 0
-
306
26-?
Nb 1?
Ln 1
V A
0 V
b o- ,7
i
t
14
66
°- + o 0
b 4_ 60

.4 42
20 w .- o

b 1 126

87
- 38 ° -

0
- ;r
7-4 15-4 o
284 275---o-
2 -? 95 -?
22s -? 0 116
? a
1L 263
-?
w
(??/ I
O A
r I p
D
1 ?1
40 o--8 0? N
w
a-
9 0---9
0 -? 18 -o I o
16 16 -? 6 -ZI I
1u ?- 19
?
- 15
p
I
w
?b 1
8 N0
j b
3
15D 12 -?
N i
Cl)
m
Q N
41
I ~
? A
°o
0
0
O
a

mo
-C363
te--
?- BO
4--25
a--- f02 217
115

3 -A 95 --D
43? 40 -0 15 w J 172
Q- 130

m
0

N
?- 690
235 o-. 180 Q-- 430 7o-1?
d-- 130 .4-280
430 -? m 260 --A

470 40 c
c ? _-0
380 w
o c 550
170
0
?l 1

00
4 o f?. J
184 198
°- 14 `-

-p 0
0 0 --? +' m 85

of 1?
99
9 N n) v 40

3
0 -?

?
5
2 N
A V 14
N

CA ?ru

W r"
1
,
k- 19
- a
%0 a- 0 21
2

1 1 ° ° 35

b 1T
s
a
516
l66 0.- 49 154
o-- a- 103
- 24 Q- 105 a--
?
517 -fl 467 /?
I
529 12 ^Z1 93 --0
T I -
?
R? U1 118
Nov. brWom Added 31/ 7/91 AM
orwn R.v. a..?,....
U)
y0y
as
n
0
p 0
?e+ r4
?.?(? r•
e+
0
a

Nl ? 1?
1CU
N .?
415 cVn
?L- 100
4- 230 3x09
l - 140 V- 75
20 --A
270 -fl
3 0 320 -? 205 o
21 295
4
- 280
p
1
1
w
U

A
0
J Q-- 420
675 4 - 535 Q- 230 952
v-270 a- 722
545 --c 190 --A

105- ^? W o
650 _p
715
- pp m 797
fJ N
c ?
375 -? f

O l
1
w
8 o N o
?- 25 40
°-
J b
L

5

0 --A °
0 0 -? m ru 105
0

14 vm n ?19 27
`-

JbL
1
°
-
?

6?
- (?
I 4 I I
12 s -? am o U16
U

5 AcNnm R-11 17
L °-6
-

1, °
(°
III
5
2
? 2
c
w
rl
Wb
??
A
?- 190
632 m o ?- 15 173
a- 4 156
- 33 o-- 158 13
r
165 -P
21 175
186 160 -fl
T -a
?2
185
58 --v r
CA
of as
Match Line
3
N
3
?o
N
0
O
N
tr!
Q
r- (,o)
P ;O
N
< ON
eo
'-'
? W
C)
O
I
s
7
3
N
Z
O
n
X-
2
n
O
7
N
X
O
fl
Q
Match Line
42 V00 : k--0 8
2
?--Q 6
1 _p I I -p
P
2
79 58 a a 32
0
4 1?
l 1-4
iI 1oW
d ?- 117 d b 4
59 --? 14 Z I to
0,4
m V (n 3 X
3
?l N
1
N
D N
<
56 Ic O+I 93 { N
47
;u -43 46 ?- b
J L2 -? 120
0 95 73 -0 377 257-
V e
C.,l
8
b d- t89? w v
t 11
m
e
246 m o`nn 43 m a- D LO1
.?b?_?5 jbL?9D o-- Z
15 --? 46
75 _p 84 -D
2D 107
04_? A"N
Q- 16
40 -? p
IV
N
U
0
17 Uo
a- ?- 0 a- 9 o t- ?
a- 12 ?- 2
N
0 j I o
7? 7 -? o 25
e
?l 1rA
24
?b ;u
N
3 •? I Y
14? 11 -? .la
A o
CA)
0
4
W
w
r•
h
N G
? C
? f
U?
O
as
CD
O
w
N
0
CO
Nl ? Tu
You--y
3500 0 °o k--825 a-1950 4 50
j ? x-1250 r-1300
125---4 425--?
3500 3375-? 2250 ru m
u c"? 3250
3550

IA
° t?

k-5150

7a 00 j o- 7250 3000 90 50
e'1 -1900 a--- 6250
6500 -a m 2150

-C?

7500
1000^-i
l
g
c o
8
7350
-?

8 _
p

9250
I ° o
16, 2900

te m..
W u??i g
a 25 °
00
a
- I -4
aC b 1? 17
55
5--A (
I I I
55 23? N 1500
u
l t CA
150 ? o o --200 3D0
a-- I
I
b -25
-75 a-
d v

-e 7s
25-a
I I
150 30--,q 64 a 300

C tU
A
75 '4 g k-250 350
°- 75 °_
V I-

--v 2s
25--t*
I I I
_p
75 25--m IY + N 350

?C3

g
J 3000

3950 N A
N -4
(
L
?-475

1o-00
Q- j
j
I I a-1425
- 300 a-1425
C
ld V
3650---i> 525
39 0505 30D -? T
1600 -?
8 8 -?
1900
600 r
g
r
O 1 O ? H
< 7
O VI
3 Z
7 O
Match Line \ ?..?
S
rn
cf
'S
?t
0
O
N
bd
Q
r(4
Q;a
? N
< O?
2' W
0
O
a
5
s
!F
m
I
O
n
X-
S
n
0
N
?T1
O
P
SZ
Match Line

NJ
0
q
0
U
7o-00 N o -a 225 ?
D
b v-50 7
223-4
G
77700 450--? ?
u ?

gl 1?
N e
88
Q-2575 I
a( b
650 T --A
300 1
00
g t/1
C vl
3 m
81 4 u1

N?
8 u
6,0

Q

1

.1b V
o 0 u
D N
< On
V1 o-
-
L
-500
x-600
o--
? b
? 150-? 1425--A
O B O5 700---t* 3325 1900- N
0

?1 1
100 CA
° o F-25,05
u
b 4-- 30 °
-1070)
o f Q o
t
A
u
N
1560 L4 ' -440 133
c 30
¢_ d d X 515
225 b h X890
-225 z
45--4 130- 0 Ul
CD
I
1560 1490
25-? 890 -d
-?
1000- a {vu 1130
° u
x-1240
260- p
8

25- 4
loo 75---o.
?l
0
150 ?b
50?
150 100
N
0
~1
V-100
N
o
N 0 150
1115
0
19
N
.Z1
Q tU
I
0 0
o?
0
u
O
0
O
i--L
to
f"a
CD
i
i?
n
n
N
C7
a+pw~ upwp*u fwvg JIM
C
I
o ,.d
y ?
a?
0
p ?
p? r•
M?r•
0
0
I"r
a
w
M?
W
0
G
w
r-
h
N
C7 v
v
V
.16

in
d
9s--?
a70 o u
90
E 0-110 2035
a- 30 r-125
5-A 100-0
50 45 -? 20--? u 185
x-143

.o
0

a
Q - 720
20 50 ° a- 190 Q- 460 o-
v-160 a- 32
0
460 -o
4 ? 2
260 --? ? r
I
500 01 ro N
+ 370 --0 u
o -a
555
u
20
lY
u
?l 1cl,
5 0 ?o o ?- 200 215
`- JbL 15
? °-
q
¢
0 0? Nvo
° 90
?l t?4

10 u o o ?- 40 45
°-

JbL
0
?
?-
-a
0 °
III
!0 5 'n u o
mo 20
(A 1
5
10 0
NN
J b
?-00
5
-
X25
?

-?
0.p Q (?
I I
_-0
10
5-? °rou
o 35
°'
l u
t
u
?- 555
V A
55

1
Q--- J o--115
--2s o-- Its 0
v
555 -? 500

565 10

i 100
-O
T ::l

u
-

O
130
35 ---? ur
ti
'0l 1o
Match Line
m
S
N
Z
N
N
m
O
N
w
Q
r v1
Q?
W,
r0 N
< d%
?o
f w
n
0
3
LT

S
N
O
n
X,
2
n
0
?o
iC7
O
O
Q
Match Line
30 000
a- Jb?
0
a- 0
0
0
a- D
7
3 Q
--0•
75 0 _p
45 I I I
u
0 _?
5
?l ?
1
ul t?
N C 0
I 235 d b
0' 55 35 --A

Lq
10?
,ru
'
4- ° u
c0
3 .N
?l t N
D N
75
V1 a--
0
J L
?- 40
a- 50
90
o--
lro A
d b
i0

V
o 15
40 -4 300-
30- 4
.i
330 1
ou

Q
of I?
gl To

50 ? of t?

t
V
N
75
fa 01
C
A CA

k-- 65

ut u o

? 5 140
`- JI L ?2o Jb? ?40 °- z
10 -4 20 -?
t (.n
--0
310 293 -?
5 100
-?
240 -? I -?
(A a 125
285
35 -?
0
Ol t
N

.0 N o
J ?- 3
e- 10 Q- 10 0-
- 10 (n
?

0 -?
25 _? rA N
o
-?
20 20 -o-
-ZI I -p
u cn 30
- 15
gy
p
0
Cl I t
10
20
N
Jb
5- A
15 -?
N
4 N
N U
u
t?
0
N
A
0
ftWAprI%M WWIl UWM .DI .
f 1
ci
sr
o ,b
a' c
10
Fr
N•
0
b
(D
W
r0
1-+
Fr•
n
Emil

?b + 1?
a
«U----
4o-40 ° -110
X150 o--250 a
80
?

01-
20? y
v
300-? 1 f
370 350-? 0-? o 0 330
?-30D

I 0
N

?- 430
U
725
575
Im
k-250
x-295 -783
590 -[
-v 110 - 200-

IID
700 o 780 --p m -o

N `$ 870
J
o

u

12
10 c c °o
4--25 45
-
20
0 -?
0 -D Q
? I I
--0
0
0
0 120
0
cn
20 0 0 0 k-20 35

5? 1 t r
-?
15
5 u w L^ 20
o

?o
5 u?o
?15 20
`- 5

5-4
0 -- C>
_a
10 5
-b o?u 35
o
Lq 1

?- 210
680 ?-15
1
B0
a - 170
-- 35
J L a
0--165
d

175-c
25---
195--9 p
r
I
1
2 0 170 -?
T --
?
c N 195

U
of 10
Match Line

S
N
cF
N
N
h
C7
O
N
bd
r, (4
Pju
? N
N ~
0
0

a-F
O
n
K

n
O
7
N
O
P
SZ
Match Line
n
45 N o ui
JIL
?- 0
a-5
?-5
10
D
20 P
85 60 chi a 35
?b 1N
(A iN
WW
C
? U
o
l
c? ?
-125 I
d b
60 -? I
? 15 _4 I
15 VI

CA 3
D N
60 c u
50 100 0
!0
v 10 ?
0 85 75 -4 400 275 -?
CA

o ? 1C3,
N

U
?- IS
b ?-200 cj 1?
t
0
265 8 cNii u 4-45 in o u 0 105
°- 15 J1L?90 `- C)

15 --4
- SD -A I (?
I f UI
o
? 83 -?
100 0 93 -?
5 --? N N u -p
125
4--15
40 --14 p
I
L

N
E
J
C
0
20 (n c
a--
?- 0
a-15
o-- IO
5
a 5 7N0
? N
0 - 25 -? CA
10 P 10 --? 5 u
o 2 p
?- ID

of r
u
1 0
` 25 0 0
- J b
--fl
15
5
10? N#
u
?b 1$
N
UI
-06
Z
O
K
ON
h
0
e
JDI
f-h I
o?
a?
0
N
CD r-
T r•
0
f I
$
o

1050

3900 90o
a-1500 Q- 2250
-1
400 336-0
V
150- 14
750-?
3900 3750-a 2400- N
0 0 3650
3800

O
VI

N
Q- 5600

8050
a-5700
-3250 9900
0-
d^ 205 a- 6650
6950--.c- 350-
8050 1100-? N o 7850--0 r oN
° O
c I o (oll
3150
I
?
N
b
10 1C3
N
°
1400
a uJq to
oI ?_ 25 1625
b ?n tf-- 200

---0 s
E5--b-

a
55 25---? N 0 1625

?l 1
N
0
0

4-200
o vi `n
JIL a-25
75 o-
?

-D 7s
I
150 50? o g u o3 0

75 N
uNi o u
-275

375
a--- fl
b o- 25
--75 a -
b r
25
q
75 25? LA ,o N
.o 375

RI 421

CA
C
j k--3250
k.-
550
4250
J I o--1200
-30D a-1500 2050
`n V
3900 -? 700
4 520 350 -? T1750----D.

8
-P
2050
S
N
(0
4
Match Line
?l 1u
700
g?
b v-50
4+
C
CD
ti
C?
i?
h'y
n
N G
TI ?
t
a'
C-)
O
bd
Q
tr (4
Q?
?N
?p r
>E w
C)
O
3
s
3c
O
n
77,
n
O
N
O
P
0-
-
650
Nl tNo ? H
r0 Q'
O U1
3 Z
N Q
Match Line
225-
1 t P
D
7 0 25----C?
450-
to g uo
0
0 0
125
gl 18
l I
Oi
N
•O
o ?.

?
V
f
e(
X2700 t
ll
I
d b
675 r 325--A
A

16
N

-?

0 N

3 X

N N
825 °
V

? 525

U50 mm
V O D N
< ON
J
?
dl
a- 625 ? b
4 150 1500 -A
0 925 730-? 3 0D
-?
2000

V
N g
81 IN
21 1 12
30
I d--1170 Q
01
o
I
t
N
Lnn
1
700
o to ( 495 o N U 1
o-
I
d b `o x_3
60
X250

0 970

4--250
4-
n
50- 4 140- 4 C
9 1615 -?
1700 35 ? 990--
1100 -?
'Dc 5
N C3 -?
1235
X1340
300 p

Rl 1R

50 -?
150 (Ao

J L

X100
4-100
100
aoO
X

25-4
223-? N
o
150 125 -? 50? ru N 00
1Z -150

Ln 1
s
200 Ig Ig
d-- d b
50 -?
20--0 150---1
Nl
N
r
N J
0 0
1u
4+
h
Oy
n
e

Match Line

Vl
/?
LI. ? °b to
o
Q 120-?
a C o- U o o I?-110 a-130 o- S
Q 0-40 -150 N
Q 10 120 -4
N
r
M'' Q 60-
70 25
o c
-?
220 N

Q- 173

1"r'1 ? o

C?
?P r 14
880

r•
a90 ° 14 a-120 ?- 530 8o-00 0
?
x-200 0-270 r
0
600-? 350-? w
<
50-----1
650 I
°o
Wo W
o ? 550--4 0 ?
o 8Q0 Q

230
I
°o
(n

u
0
IW

?
1-3 ?b
b tit
133-? I 60-4

m
°
-?
N W
o= N

3 A

ob
1? 3
cF ((A
Y D fU
165 to o-_ u? ?I
? 4- 100
4-110 4 o o
Jb

N
4 35?
450----4
0 125 90--4 605 155- ryt
?s
ub 1
N
0
N
O
W
Q
G
w
Em!

q
91 In
m
o

?90
b C) 1 CD
t
W
0
170 coc k-100 Noon Q-10 310
5° ?2oo °- C)

0

?
3o-f
0-f
r
o
-300 Ll >
-? 700-4 .
2330-4 I -?
740
10-
500

a
°

310
N 14
Z
N
0 o
1600

-1100
-400

- 200
a-- 900 O 7
Z V1
1100
0- C+ S
rrD O

--600

500-?
100-?
/?
I O

(-
60-?
p
f
800 300- -? 800 --0 -4
?
1400 0 o
8 g 0
r0
Ql 1
700
r
N
0
I!
C
65 -

a
50
0- ° o

Q-35

4--70

o-m
0-40 -150
N
+ 10 -? 50-4 (? •-

s

18 --0

40 30-4

20? I

N N CO
75
Q- 170

°
? --830

275 o c
8 p Nb 1J
260 n
J L 4_175
-40 - l
d
825 -? 750--A
o
;G
48 0 15 145-D
N -4
190 Q
ss?

Cn
Match Line

- - i
JIM
C
sl I ° Match Line
?
C
I
0 It 2001
520 ° ° 1L-150 280 410
S
CD a-180-130
p N
ror 50---A 360-0 r `}
?r 4 0 420-a 270 14 0 ?0
e+
?- 400
"'(D
o
18
0
A.
Q - 550
o
?• 980 1350 O 100 -210
o-- *-600 300
360 a -1030 N N V1
o c? C N
710--0 (? 250- 4 3
--0 140 I v 930 - D -p Q m l 4 e+ N
850 o oI 1060 ?^ I D N
a( I # ON
too -4 M
-80 CA o
500 d L 4-? 160
d 7
I ?
l
LA 20-? 190--? 1 A
I
1D0-d -
0 340
120 5 0303
of 1N
clot Io
g l I o N t?l
o 40 e
v ?-520? °l
t
yy?? °
7a °-° "doo ?iio Ico !o X250 43---
c j t L d- -50 a? b L 45 n
40--A 35-4 Ul
?- 450 225-0 240 -4 1 1 1 -p o
275 320
z 10 120 -? 8-4
N N 7
0 0 7 VI
94- - 750 Q-- 400 1300 ? S
d -500 a- 900 r50 0 165
D O 60-? p
. 550-? 50-- I'll f
1
1150 6001 700-a r Q
1050 0 I
° ° v m
uoD ?1 p ?
a
d
70?
190 ro
c3 o o k-30 a--60 40 W
a-180 v-30
N
150-0 Ul
40--A
gl 1? 1W 60 30? o r 270 0
6o
1
V
O
lV
O
C
-300
k-50 = w
820 l
o-
200 p
(? ° ° a-21o o--o- n
J L ?- 40
200 -c. 250--A O
?.?.1 23 30 -? 450-D 500 C
? .
G 70-1 1
e
0
w o
Match Line
N G1
2
m
ftvt l Wmp Ad"- ]-'JHl JE W
0
Y ' r : ???pf Q?? <
: ?:Ne
,r
Q110",
SVA
o? bbd 9j'` C y d Z atl
v ? ? :•: d b
? ? ?• •"? oti` ?? ? q .?
d?
nvi G ..~:
?;:• ?.
Uo? y T - nd? ? ?d4 -,o d y \
OL o, ?
/ it v a, d
D ?ioz, IN,
. ?.. b ?/'
g
oti
33
oq y
7 > ?.
y ,
p`'% C7 7
yC f' ? r
,J
a
?.t•`\t`?' ? ?tia? o Obi •
Z --I C t':::{
co N L \ i
z -miDO r% 1% IS mm Z m m ....... =
•Dv `•' z *p , C 4
w F;ti (n
nls 1 ` j ti Oa?O

?A .?
. 4tib? 0 II S /ti `o ?7 /
q b 1 0 Z ". g 1' s \?
sbt,
i s r,b co? b ?' w 9 g O
b tiY ; b t`b q v\?q..
?, 1 t• ;? S O
£• pb ? ?b . D bl. ? r
i V ?yt A D
01,q C,
w ?. P
`q1
l OS.
?.'. 5 t
b qz ?cell S'6
b?1
l V 9 t. iv1' m cb
45 q5 8 N N n ` (Az*mz t 1 X15 ?; ?'?.
a) m
Hil
cn 3 --1 --? m D al J q
% (n q) q H: = z CO °
A E' ti o O 03 00 W F co i l, Z Z•t
z 000
ON, <\k.sa aa 9°Sti z C: C: z 2 q o ti . '??
D ?
tol, ov?mm /qti tiff ti9q V
;c
C7 55 OoD2D(/) Oq v q x,51' b O
1, \ m z m z k ;,?i q l 6
Z m q
r, 1 a p? D G,\ < E5 p p 9
1. G)
m 60,
C13 q -CU
q t o
b Z Sur q d?
41
b 95 ?? z Z \ 6 5?
-C b n. M M it 49. CC)
a aad
c^. 0 ?g1, \? D y oti /St,
4 ?, 5 S' 1
m
Cti o dop
O -Di o?v?ag boSti ao '
?jti? 70 T C D (? ` Z q1, ?,, c
>Mooz
j ,c
r, r 6 ti
Cl) C 7m0 m ?1 t o o? b CID
w Sda? N
(TI m?>0 ;w
cp. q £ !
M m v
cn q1'
?q - o q ?' vat q L
C;01 %
OWL 9
puM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
October 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 29 from 16th Street in Greensboro to the
Rockingham County line, Guilford County,
R-984, 6.491035, CH 92-E-4220-0262
We have received notification from the State clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National
Register-listed structures located within the planning area. However,
we have located the following structures of historic or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Reedy Fork Acres. East side of US 29, 0.7 mile north of the
junction with SR 2790 (Eckerson Road), Browns Summit vicinity.
Reedy Fork Acres was included in our state study list on November
17, 1977, as appearing potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Issac Thacker House. East side of SR 2506, 0.1 mile north of the
t junction with SR 2513, Browns Summit vicinity. The Issac Thacker
House was included in our state study list on March 17, 1976.
The following two historic properties have not been evaluated for National
Register-eligibility:
Hardy Mill Dam and Related Store. West side of SR 2526 (Summit
Avenue) on Reedy Fork Creek, Browns summit vicinity.
Summers Mill. Down a closed road, 0.2 mile west of Buffalo Creek
on the south side of NC 61, Gibsonville vicinity.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
October 30, 1991, Page Two
In terms of archaeological resources, the project as proposed should
have no effect on such resources. However, we request that aerial
photographs of the project area in the vicinity of Hardys Mill and
Summers Mill be forwarded to this office for our review.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB : slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
4
a+ST^T?a
?d y,aM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 10, 1992
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: V. Charles Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpo tion
FROM: David Brook I?( ,
Deputy State H?Storic-Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 29 from 16th Street, Greensboro, to
Rockingham County Line, Guilford County, R-984,
6.491035, GS 92-0119
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1992, concerning the above project.
In our memorandum of October 30, 1991, to L. J. Ward, we requested that aerial
photographs in the vicinities of Hardys and Summers Mills be forwarded for our
review to ensure that these mills would not be affected by the proposed project.
To date, we have not received these photographs. Please forward them as soon
as possible so we can complete our review.
We have reviewed the above project and concur that no National Register-listed
properties are located within the area of potential effect. However, as stated in
our October 30, 1991, memorandum we are aware of potentially historic
properties located in the area of the project. Though no new right-of-way appears
to be necessary, two of the potentially historic properties are located at Reedy
Creek Bridge where construction easements may be needed.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
bc: Hi?hway
L-Southern/Stancil
Claggett/Shattuck/Hall
County
RF
?? srn?4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 12, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ?/istorlc Preservation
o
4pE1Vi??
A- O
AUG 13 1992
7, DIVISION OF
RESEA'??,
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Officer
SUBJECT: Rehabilitate US 29 from 16th Street to Rockingham
County line, R-984, Guilford County, GS 92-0038
We have consulted with Bryon Brady of your staff concerning this project and its
potential effects to archaeological resources. Based on information concerning the
construction easements for the bridge replacements, we believe this project will
not affect archaeological resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Bryon Brady
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807