19950303 Ver 1_Complete File_19950320

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Water Quality
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., G ED E H N 1?
Jonathan B. Howes, Sec Secreta etary
A. Preston Fbward, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick,
July 3, 1996
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Reidsville Southern Loop
Project #95303, COE #199500284 _
Rockingham County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3074 issued to N.C. Department of
Transportation dated 3 July 1996.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
95303.wgc
Sin rely,
4 ton How , Jr. P. E.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section.0500 to N.C. Department of Transportation
resulting in 2.85 acres of wetland impact in Rockingham County pursuant to an application filed
on the 15th day of March of 1995 to construct the Reidsville Southern Loop (TIP No. U-2418).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of Little Troublesome Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application
or as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may
be required to submit a revised application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction related discharge (50
NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by DWQ; 25 NTUs in
all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs in trout waters).
2. Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers. WQ shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and method of
debit (restoration, enhancement, creation and presentation).
3. Borrow and waste locations shall not be in wetlands.
. Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of
the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be
in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 3rd day of July, 1996
TI'Y
DPon WA QUAL
Howard, , r. P.E.
WQC -#3074
oa SiATFv
JAMES B. HUNT
GOVERN
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
April 22, 1996
Engineers
Carolina, 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
MAY 0 8 1996:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES '
,?.rN
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
MAY 8 X996
WETLANDS GP OUP
VIA.' ER OJ`?iTY S'
SUBJECT: Rockingham County - Reidsville Southern Loop from US 29 Business to
NC 87; T.I.P. No. U-2418; State Project No. 9.8071834; DOA Project
No. 199500284; DEM Project #95303
Reference the application submitted on March 15, 1995 for a 404 Permit
and 401 Water Quality Certification for the Reidsville Southern Loop. This
project will involve fill in 2.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. As we
explained in correspondence of April 7, 1995 mitigation opportunities within
the project vicinity are limited to preservation. The OA Raley Regulatory
Field Office then recommended that we investigate rPServation of
directly adjacent to the project corridor. We hereby propose to acquire and
preserve portions of the Sands and Montgomery properties adjacent to the main
project impact area.
The Reidsville Southern Loop will have two wetland fill areas of 2.35
acres at Little Troublesome Creek and 0.5 acre at one of its tributaries.
The larger impact site falls within the project mainline just west of the
US 29 interchange, while the smaller site will be within the northbound US 29
on-ramp. The main impact site occurs in an area vulnerable to future
development. Little Troublesome Creek travels roughly from the northwest to
the southeast, and will be bridged by the Reidsville Southern Loop. To the
southeast of the impact area, the creek is then crossed by two existing
bridges at a railroad and US 29. Little Troublesome Creek is bordered by
wetlands of varying widths as it travels through the area. The property
encompassing the creek and its associated tributaries and wetlands, and the
project impact area, is owned by Ms. Kathryn Sands and Mr. Hugh Reid
Montgomery. These owners have informed us that they are willing to sell
wetland portions of their property along with some adjacent uplands. The
attached illustration shows the configuration of these properties in relation
to the Little Troublesome Creek wetlands and the Reidsville Southern Loop.
0)
April 22, 1996
Page 2
The Little Troublesome Creek wetlands were flagged by NCDOT biologists
in accordance with the 1987 Manual. This delineation has been verified by
the Corps of Engineers. Copies of the wetland and upland data sheets
prepared during the delineation are attached. These data sheets include
descriptions of the community types and general condition of the area. The
wetlands are broadest to the north of the impact area, where several braided
tributaries flow into Little Troublesome Creek. On the northern and southern
ends of this system, the wetlands taper to narrow wetland fringes bordering a
tributary and Little Troublesome Creek, respectively. The properties also
include upland areas surrounding the wetlands. NCDOT proposes to purchase
all of the property included in the wetland delineation (22.51 acres), plus
the upland buffers (approximately 15 acres - this number will be known upon
completion of a boundary survey) within the property boundaries.
This mitigation proposal will result in a wetland preservation ratio of
7 to 1. Although this falls below the preferred ratio of 10 to 1 for
preservation, we believe that the upland buffer should be considered in this
case. The upland areas which will be preserved are vulnerable to future
development, as they will be directly adjacent to the US 29/Reidsville
Southern Loop interchange. Any development inr these areas (i.e. gas
stations, fast food franchises) would affect the adjacent wetlands.
Furthermore, the adjacent properties to the south and west have already been
logged. The uplands on - the Sands property have helped to reduce the impacts
of this deforestation on the wetlands. Following construction of the
Reidsville Southern Loop, the proposed preservation area would also border
both sides of the road and help to filter surface runoff.
NCDOT hereby proposes acquisition of wetlands adjacent to Little
Troublesome Creek, along with associated uplands, to mitigate the impacts of
the Reidsville Southern Loop. In the following months, we will be completing
boundary surveys, property appraisals, and right-of-way negotiations toward
this end. We request issuance of the 404 Permit contingent upon closing on
these properties prior to construction in wetlands. NCDOT plans to keep this
property within NCDOT ownership.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact Cyndi Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
S' e
H. anklin Vick, P.E., Manager,
Planning & Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Eric Galamb, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. John Thomas, DOA, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Archie Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design -
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
a.

by i ? R ,r '4\` \\. \ 6Ai •i•. ?/
t ?_ \ a ^•••?ar \ ? ji
?i?'? .b S ?` ?•'• /• \ ,;211 • ?.°
•, • i 7777
?°?"\? ? ? 3" ? ;?; ; j ?,r <... \......•.' `.: .?,? ...._ M i ? tea,.
a `' t\\ =i <s-• ?,-n f •? ?C ? t -rivoiair ?r•rva?... .mot •,+..«
.
I'-\% ., \ as ° ' ?? s 'r
'? ? \\ * 1 \ ldh••
1 fie. ? °.." psi ?a'`\? ? b•• \ a ' ,?`
":i :leY .?>?t '`a \.; r .fir ?" ? O •••w
.
: w. i° .. \\ I y?:? sac v'+ar y,.,w
\
341
It.
tt. A.
1
b
? ? ? tl. Q q'•0. IS .A•.. as •!
Al %
a 9 •? ? ' \ 9 ? It ?b. 1
`ar? q 1L??!i?i\`?l?.? q?q"? /:"®?'t'". ?1 ,`1, q?flp' ?1y 11 t tt?l]i• ',' °?:
a.?
`".''. aa?4am
a.n au..
. t mnrorr.
1

V'
;,
1 •
n „' SrnTe o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 19, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Doug Lewis
fl
RE: 91-0637 Reidsville Loop;
US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham County
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed
Reidsville Loop, US 29 to NC 87. As a result of this review, we
find that the Environmental Assessment (EA) does not adequately
consider the feasible alternatives nor are the potential impacts
of Alternative 1 sufficiently addressed.
One of EHNR's primary concern is that the Department of
Transportation (DOT) did not evaluate the environmental impacts
of all ' of the feasible alternatives in the EA. Comments from
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission in June 1990 recommended
that DOT consider using the SR 2600 right-of-way as an option.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission reiterates and the Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) agrees that because this route
already exists, it should be evaluated. Using an existing right-
of-way should minimize the impacts our divisions have identified
with the preferred alternative in the attached comments.
DEM also recommends a reexamination of the use of curb and
gutter on this project. Grassed swales and shoulders will enhance
filtration of stormwater runoff.
The EA states that Alternative 1 and 2, identical in many
respects, would both impact 5.24 acres of wetlands. Wetland
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Chrys Baggett
Page Two
April 19, 1991
conversion will eliminate habitat for a diverse population of
wildlife. It can also increase sedimentation and impact water
quality of Little Troublesome Creek. Because of these impacts,
DOT should make every effort to develop an acceptable mitigation
plan and offer other precautionary measures that would avoid,
minimize, or mitigate detrimental environmental impacts from this
project.
In conclusion, this department recommends that DOT not
proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact until the
deficiencies identified. in the attached comments have been
addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: dm.
cc: ?John Dorney
David Foster
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton PC 6L" ?d"'YK A
Assistant Director
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment Document Review: State Project #
91-0637, Proposed Reidsville Loop; US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham
County.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NC)VRC) have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) document
for the proposed Reidsville loop, US 29 to NC 87, and we are familiar with habitat
values associated with the proposed project area. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) and
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25).
The area of concern is primarily wetland and bottomland hardwoods with
some upland hardwoods, mixed woodlands and associated drainages. It contains an
abundance of wildlife species such as deer, quail, rabbit and squirrel. Wild turkey
have also been reported in this area. Furbearer species, wading birds, songbirds and
raptors were also observed within the project area. Very little development is
located in this large area. The proposed project would bisect and seriously impact
this quality habitat. Wetland losses would exceed those stated in the DEA since
adjacent lands and drainages would be affected by the machinery and siltation from
construction activities.
We recommend denial of this project since this type of loss cannot be
mitigated. Continued loss of this type of habitat has seriously affected both fisheries
and wildlife in the Piedmont portion of the state. Habitat losses could be
substantially reduced by using the existing right-of-way of a near-by road for the
Memo (2) March 25, 1991
proposed loop.This alternative was suggested in the preliminary review but was not
considered or addressed in the DEA. Since DOT failed to address this suggestion,
the project should be denied because all alternatives were not addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc: The Honorable E. Richard Jarrett
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shan Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
M ST^h o?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 4, 1991 Director
MEMORAND
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and ssessment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Plann' Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM) Water
Quality Section has reviewed the subject environmental assessment
and has a number of questions and concerns regarding wetlands
impacts, mitigation and nonpoint source pollution resulting from
construction and use of this highway project.
Page 3. Action Required By Other Agencies - A 401 Water
Quality Certification, issued by the NC DEM, is required prior to
the Corps of Engineers issuance of a 404 permit.
Page 4. General Description - The cost estimates do not
appear to include mitigation costs. How will mitigation be
funded?
Page 7., Cross-Section Description - It is noted that a portion
of the project will have curb and gutter. Is there any
possibility of replacing this with shoulders and grassed swales
for enhanced filtration of stormwater runoff from the road?
Paae 18. Alternatives - The alternatives section does not
address either use of SR2600 as a viable option nor bridging of
the wetlands. Why were these not considered? DEM requests that
these alternatives be addressed in the EA. What would it cost to
bridge the wetlands area?
It is noted that the preferred alternative crosses Little
Troublesome Creek at the confluence of an unnamed tributary on
the east side and is close to the confluence with another unnamed
tributary on the west side. Shifting the project slightly south
could avoid the eastside tributary and minimize the potential for
impacts at the confluence with the west side unnamed tributary.
Pollu&m Pm"mdon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Also, is it possible to shift the western end of the proposed
road segment to the south to avoid the ponds? What would be the
problems with such an alignment change?
Page 42. Wetlands - Has the Corps of Engineers verified the
wetlands boundaries at the project site? DEM requests that
COE-certified wetlands boundaries be included in the final EA.
Page 44. Table 11, bottom paragraphs - The EA states that
"methods of access in wetland areas will be determined at design
and construction phases". Not including this information in the
EA makes it impossible to assess these impacts and does not
address the type of remedial actions that will be necessary to
mitigate these impacts after construction. If these cannot be
addressed at this stage, DEM will review these impacts and
appropriate mitigation during its 401 Certification review of the
project as appropriate.
Page 45. Wetland Mitigation - This section states that "A
mitigation plan will be developed and submitted at the time of
permit application." Without having this information in the EA,
there is no way to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of
the mitigation. Therefore, DEM will have to reserve judgement on
the acceptability of the mitigation until after we have had an
opportunity to review the plans.
Page 45. Permits - The EA indicates that this project will
probably be covered by a COE nationwide permit and general 401
certification although this has not been confirmed by the Corps.
This matter should be resolved prior to final approval of the EA
by Clearinghouse.
Page 50. last paragraph - This paragraph states erosion and
sedimentation will occur and controls will be implemented to
minimize these impacts. However, sediment control measures are
about 70 percent effective, at best, meaning that sediment will
leave the site. DEM accepts this and believes DOT will make
every effort to minimize loss of sediment from the site.
However, the EA fails to mention the shortcoming of sediment
control,measures and does not assess the impacts of offsite
sedimentation in the creek and nearby wetlands. As a minimum the
EA should at least acknowledge that some sediment will leave the
construction site, and preferably, it should include a discussion
of the effectiveness of these measures and the potential for
downstream impact from unforeseen failure (ie. heavy rains in the
middle of construction).
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0637.mem/SEPA3
STA7t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: Reidsville So hern Loop, 91-0637
John N. Morris
Director
We have reviewed this proposed highway project and have the
following comments:
1) On page 21, under Community Cohesion, the population of
Reidsville is given as 12,492 in 1985. Actually, that is the
population in 1980. The 1990 population declined to 12,183.
2) Considering the stable or declining population of the area,
and the fact that the population for the entire county grew only
3.2 percent from 1980 to 1990, what is the basis behind the
doubling of traffic volumes from 1992 to 2012 shown in Table 3 on
page 17?
3) Based on comment number 2 above, I do not see the need for a
five-lane facility, except at intersections with major highways,
at this time.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
I -0e. ti 31aaLs
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
._Que_ tions,rggarding.these percai.ts,should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. T:__
C
C
C
C
C
C
E.
C
C

C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES -.permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
• time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)

Well Construction Permit
N/A 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
redge and fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources N/A (90 days)
open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in comcliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demoli ion or renovations of structures containing
as ?Wgtos material must be in compliance with 60 days
CAC 2D.0525 wnich requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 ga
s)
y
Compl Source Permit requires under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
• AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 out less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Earning permit On-site inspection oy N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction, is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
s 105
Continued on reverse
Normal Process
Time

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon 10 days
(N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
O Geophysical Exploration Permit ?pplicatipn filed with. EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 days
(NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is chargec. .lust include
i
d 15-20 days
escr
ptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership
of riparian property. (N/A)

401 Water Quality Certification
N/A 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

? ...
CAMA Permit for MINOR ddVelopment _
$10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
f
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other Comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

V '4_9 01,

dov- -cA?G ?rLic

reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Of`!ce
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
r • r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles H. Gardner
WWiam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Date: March 12, 1991
To:. Melba McGee
From: Gary Thompson A?N,
Subject: 91-0637, Rockingham County, Reidsville Southern
Loop, US 29 Bus. to NC 87, TIP No. U-2418
State Project No. 9.8071834
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 3 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
-, U, .I .
to

P.O. Sox 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
March 25, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Bill Flournoy
SUBJECT: Reidsville Southern Loop
Rockingham County
SCH # 91-0637
The Environmental Assessment does not conform to the requirements
of 1 NCAC 25.0503 with respect to document length. Given the
scope of information that must be presented in support of
analysis, of the proposed activity, an Environmental Impact
Statement may have been appropriate for this review process.

TOP
?}' a yam '3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 4, 1991 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and ssessment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Plann' Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM) Water
Quality Section has reviewed the subject environmental assessment
and has a number of questions and concerns regarding wetlands
impacts, mitigation and nonpoint source pollution resulting from
construction and use of this highway project.
Page 3 Action Required By Other Agencies - A 401 Water
Quality Certification, issued by the NC DEM, is required prior to
the Corps of Engineers issuance of a 404 permit.
Page 4. General Description - The cost estimates do not
appear to include mitigation costs. How will mitigation be
funded?
Page 7. Cross-Section Description - It is noted that a portion
of the project will have curb and gutter. Is there any
possibility of replacing this with shoulders and grassed swales
for enhanced filtration of stormwater runoff from the road?
Page 18. Alternatives - The alternatives section does not
address either use of SR2600 as a viable option nor bridging of
the wetlands. Why were these not considered? DEM requests that
these alternatives be addressed in the EA. What would it cost to
bridge the wetlands area?
It is noted that the preferred alternative crosses Little
Troublesome Creek at the confluence of an unnamed tributary on
the east side and is close to the confluence with another unnamed
tributary on the west side. Shifting the project slightly south
could avoid the eastside tributary and minimize the potential for
impacts at the confluence with the west side unnamed tributary.
rotlu&m rremAlon rays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

Also, is it possible to shift the western end of the proposed
road segment to the south to avoid the ponds? What would be the
problems with such an alignment change?
Page 42. Wetlands - Has the Corps of Engineers verified the
wetlands boundaries at the project site? DEM requests that
COE-certified wetlands boundaries be included in the final EA.
Page 44. Table 11, bottom paragraphs - The EA states that
"methods of access in wetland areas will be determined at design
and construction phases". Not including this information in the
EA makes it impossible to assess these impacts and does not
address the type of remedial actions that will be necessary to
mitigate these impacts after construction. If these cannot be
addressed at this stage, DEM will review these impacts and
appropriate mitigation during its 401 Certification review of the
project as appropriate.
Page 45. Wetland Mitigation - This section states that "A
mitigation plan will be developed and submitted at the time of
permit application." Without having this information in the EA,
there is no way to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of
the mitigation. Therefore, DEM will have to reserve judgement on
the acceptability of the mitigation until after we have had an
opportunity to review the plans.
Page 45. Permits - The EA indicates that this project will
probably be covered by a COE nationwide permit and general 401
certification although this has not been confirmed by the Corps.
This matter should be resolved prior to final approval of the EA
by Clearinghouse.
Page 50, last paragraph - This paragraph states erosion and
sedimentation will occur and controls will be implemented to
minimize these impacts. However, sediment control measures are
about 70 percent effective, at best, meaning that sediment will
leave the site. DEM accepts this and believes DOT will make
every effort to minimize loss of sediment from the site.
However, the EA fails to mention the shortcoming of sediment
control measures and does not assess the impacts of offsite
sedimentation in the creek and nearby wetlands. As a minimum the
EA should at least acknowledge that some sediment will leave the
construction site, and preferably, it should include a discussion
of the effectiveness of these measures and the potential for
downstream impact from unforeseen failure (ie. heavy rains in the
middle of construction).
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0637.mem/SEPA3

e„ SUiE
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
July 8, 1991
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and A essment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Sectio
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management has reviewed the information provided by DOT in
response to our comments on the environmental assessment for the
subject document. Although most of our concerns have been
sufficiently addressed the potential water quality and wetland
impacts associated with the road crossing of Little Troublesome
Creek need to be further examined.
The explanation of why the by-pass cannot be moved to the
south to avoid the confluence of Little Troublesome Creek and the
unnamed tributary is based on the location of the southbound
ramps. It is unclear where the southbound ramps associated with
the intersection of the by-pass and US 29 will be located and if
there will be any wetland impacts associated with these ramps.
DEM appreciates the difficulty of addressing all of the
environmental concerns associated with a road project at this
stage of planning and will not object to the EA at this time.
However, due to the lack of information concerning final design,
DEM reserves the option to deny Water Quality Certification for
this project unless DOT demonstrates that all alternatives have
been sufficiently investigated and appropriate measures have been
taken to minimize and mitigate water quality and wetland impacts.
Questions regarding the water quality certification should be
referred to Mr. Ron Ferrell of DEM's Water Quality Planning
Branch.
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State,of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
December 7, 1995
Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Dr. Wright:
?? 14 1995
U/ITt
In keeping with your request, this office has circulated to interested state review agencies
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Action ID No. 199500284 dated April 27, 1994,
which described a project proposal by the N. C. Dept. of Transportation, Division of Highways
of Raleigh. The project, involving highway improvements in Rockingham County, is known
as the Reidsville Southern Loop. It would reportedly impact some 3.47 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands.
During the months following issuance of the Notice, there was negotiation on mitigation
and alignment. Then, the DOT, according to Division of Environmental Management
correspondence, placed the proposal in abeyance while they prepared a mitigation plan.
During the course of this protracted review, all of the cooperating agencies returned
comment sheets with no objection. However, only one agency, the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, submitted written comments. As your staff is aware, the Commission did not
object to the project but recommended that formal Debit Transaction for Company Swamp be
executed (see attached).
This interim response is the state viewpoint position, subject, of course, to application
reactivation by the DOT.
Very sincerely,
4JoR. Parker, Jr.
Inland '404 Coordinator
JRP: jr/aw
cc: Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh L,
AlFsPrA
40*
E:) IF= F1
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A4tow
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor C) E H N 11
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P,E., Director
October 4, 1995
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201 !p
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
DEM Project #95303, COE Project #199500284
TIP # U-2418, State Project No. 9.8071834
Rockingham County
On 27 April 1994, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division,
of Environmental Management for your project (Reidsville Southern Loop) located near
Reidsville in Rockingham County. We understand that you have withdrawn your application
to the US Army Corps of Engineers until a mitigation plan is ready. Unless we receive a
response from you by 15 October 1995, we will consider that you have withdrawn this
application and are not interested in pursuing the project at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter.
Sincerely, A;;?
R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
95303.clr
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
John Parker
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ecial opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
F/ 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
V7_Wy?EHNR
May 8, 1995
'F3
1 9 199
MEMORANDUM Y_ -_
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice, for Action No. 199500284 dated April
27, 1995 describing a proposed project by NC DOT, Rockingham Co. is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by May 27, 1995 If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
me at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. .
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No commeikt.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
f
Signed 1
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

August **, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199500294
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, p.H., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
On April 27, 1995, we annQ=ced by public notice your application for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit to discharge fill material into Little
Troublesome creek and unnamed tributaries to Little Troublesome creek to
effect the construction of the Reidsville Southern Loop from U.S. 29 Business
to N.C. 87, in Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina (T.I.P. No. U-
2418, State Project No. 9.8071834).
As discussed during our monthly meeting on August 24, 1995, possible
alternative locations and ramp designs for the Little Troublesome Creek
crossing have now been addressed by your agency. Based upon information
obtained during that meeting, it is our understanding that your efforts to
acquire potential mitigation properties to offset wetland impacts associated
with the proposed work is underway, but will not be completed for same time in
the future.
As agreed during the above meeting, we are hereby adminiatxatively
4; retiring your file pending your development and submittal of a completed,
final mitigation plan. Upon receipt of that plan, your DA permit application
will be reactivated and processed to a conclusion.
'thank you for your time and cooperation. Should you have questions,
pleaea contact Mr. a0hn Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at telephone
[phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Z0'd Z£:9T 966i'6Z'60 (%S0IUIn938 H9I31Hb W0NJ

Gvpies Furnished:
Mr. aohn Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27697
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
M$. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and wildlife service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33725
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fimheriee Service
Divers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Sectipu - Region Iv
Wetlands, Oceans and. Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 36365
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P00t Office Sox 27607
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7697
£0'd Z£:ST 966T'6Z'60 i%80IUTA938 H0I31U8 W0SA
eA d),,
0 giv.\ C, ? ?-Jo C?
( ? ej f,? 1, 1-% s k )
-1--*** 4, ? ? ?

IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

w.. a oq
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
Memorandum To: Mr. Frank Vick, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Attention: Cyndi Bell
From: Tom Shearin, PE OT Q--aw,
Date: August 22, 1995
Subject: Project 9.8071834 (U-2418) Rockingham County
Proposed Reidsville Southern Loop
As requested, additional information is being provided for
an alternative interchange design at US 29 and the proposed
project. We were asked to investigate deleting the ramp in
the southwest quadrant and adding a loop in the northwest
quadrant to minimize impacts to wetlands.
Due to the proximity of Southern Railway, we cannot add a
loop in the northwest quadrant, along the current alignment,
without impacting the railroad. In order to delete the ramp
and add the loop, US 29 will need to be relocated. The
relocation of US 29 would cost an additional $3,700,000.
Attached is a sketch of the alternative design without
relocating US 29.
We recommend to proceed with the project as currently
designed. If we need to discuss this further, let me know.
GTS/sas
Attachment
cc: Sandra Stepney, PE
9
ct:_:., 4
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199500284
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 12, 1995
(TIP U-2418, Project No. 9.8071834)
Mr.'H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Please reference your letter of March 15, 1995, regarding the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (DOT) alternative alignment review for
the proposed Reidsville Southern Loop, U.S. 29 Business to N.C. 87,
Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina. Your letter was in response to
my written inquiry of October 27, 1994, requesting your further review of
alternative alignments, in lieu of the presently preferred creek crossing. In
addition, it was requested that you give additional consideration to bridging
all jurisdictional wetland areas as well as considering an alternative ramp
design which would further reduce adverse impacts to the wetland area.
Your letter indicated that the reduction in adverse wetland impacts
associated with extending the bridge length and shifting the alignment to the
south would not justify the related increase in construction costs. You state
that bridging all jurisdictional waters and wetlands associated with the
Little Troublesome Creek proposal would increase project costs by
approximately $2,200,000, while shifting the alignment to the south would.
require the relocation of a portion of U.S. 29, in order to accommodate the
ramps for the interchange, would increase those costs by $5,100,000. And
?finally, you indicate that an alternative alignment located north of the
.present preferred alternative would impact a larger area of,jurisdictional
'waters and wetlands than presently proposed and, accordingly, is not
considered a viable alternative. Your response does not address an
alternative ramp design which would minimize adverse wetland impacts and
possible avoid the necessity of relocating the portion of U.S. 29 altogether.
According to the information contained in your subsequent letter of
April 7, 1995, DOT proposes to utilize the Company Swamp Mitigation Bank to
offset unavoidable adverse wetland impacts. Until all alternatives for
avoidance and minimization have been reviewed, we cannot provide final
concurrence for any mitigation proposal, including the Company Swamp proposal.
The Department of Transportation does not anticipate a'need for
compensatory mitigation for transportation projects located in Rockingham
County, and therefore you have determined not to develop a wetland mitigation
bank in this county. You are cautioned that compliance with t2ie Clean Water,
Act Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines and the Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency required that
all practical mitigation alternatives must be considered which would offset
the wetland functions to be lost due to the proposed work.
For your information, a site inspection, conducted on May 17, 1995, by
members of my regulatory staff, revealed that the wetlands associated with the
proposed project is a highly productive, functioning, riverine wetland system
located on the main downstream drainage of Reidsville. Although we concur
Printed on 9 Recycled Paper
s- .
-2-
with DOT's conclusion that "Rockingham County does not contain extensive
wetlands," we must disagree with your assertion that the wetland impacts
associated with the proposed project are "small scale." Major functions of
the existing wetlands include: the hydrologic functions of dynamic surface
water storage, on a long term basis, and storm water energy dissipation; the
biogeochemical functions of retention of particulates and organic carbon
export; and the fact that the wetlands serve as both vertebrate and
invertebrate habit makes the jurisdictional area a highly significant regional
aquatic resource. In light of our conclusions, we recommend that you
concentrate your mitigation review to these identified wetland functions.
Any questions or comments regarding this correspondence may be directed
to Mr. John Thomas, our Regulatory Specialist responsible for Rockingham
County, at the Raleigh regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone],
Extension 25.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief \,Mr. . John Dorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Management
Agency - Region IV North Carolina Department of
Wetlands Regulatory Unit Environment, Health and
345 Courtland Street, N.E. Natural Resources
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management Mr. Robert Lee
North Carolina Department of District Engineer
Environment, Health and Federal Highway Administration
Natural Resources 310 New Bern Avenue
Post Office Box 27687 Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Mr. Larry Hardy Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pivers Island Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Gowmm P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 7, 1995
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
APR 2 01!!5
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
ODA Vny
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Rockingham County - Reidsville Southern Loop from US 29 Business to
NC 87; T.I.P. No. U-2418; State Project No. 9.8071834
Reference the application submitted on
and 401 Water Quality Certification for the
the application form and cover letter errors
would be a 5-lane curb and gutter facility.
constructed as a 5-lane shoulder facility.
on the wetland crossing.
March 15, 1995 for a 404 Permit
referenced project. Please note
2ously indicated the new roadway
This roadway will instead be
This design detail has no bearing
This project will involve fill in 2.85 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
NCDOT has investigated the possibility of creating or restoring wetlands
within the project vicinity. Mitigation opportunities are limited due to
several factors. Rockingham County does not contain extensive wetlands, as
the terrain is hilly with deeply incised banks and relatively narrow
floodplains. Creation of wetlands on this type of landscape would be
unrealistic, since achievement of wetland hydrology would be improbable.
Given the sparsely populated, rural nature of the county, filling of wetlands
for farming and development has not been considerable. Thus, prospects for
restoration are very limited. Only two prior converted croplands were
located between Eden and Reidsville. Both of these sites are under active
cultivation by their owners.
NCDOT has few projects planned for Rockingham County in the
Transportation Improvement Program. We anticipate that most of the projects
in this area will have only minimal wetland impacts. Historically, projects
in the area have usually been covered under Nationwide Permit No. 26 for
Projects Above Headwaters or Nationwide Permit No. 14 for Minor Road
Crossings. Thus, NCDOT has no plans to develop a wetland mitigation bank in
Rockingham County.

; '4--
April 7, 1995
Page 2
Given these factors, and the small scale of wetland impacts associated
with the project, NCDOT proposes to utilize our Company Swamp Mitigation
Bank. This project involves fill in 2.85 acres of bottomland hardwoods. We
propose debiting of 9 acres from the Company Swamp Bank, which would exceed a
3 to 1 ratio for preservation.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact Cyndi Bell at [phone].
S' ce 1 ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/cb
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Eric Galamb, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. John Thomas, DOA, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Archie Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
NG'WRC , HCP , FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Jun 01'95 8:58 No.003 P.02
® North Cyo _Wilcflife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 77604,1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., Inland "404" Coordinator
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co 4nator
Habitat Conservation Program ` "9`
?'
DATE: June 1, 1995
SUBJECT; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action ID No.
199500284, review of application for North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to fill approximately 3.47 acres of waters and
wetlands to construct the Reidsville Southern Loop, from 1000 feet west
of US 29 Business to NC 87 In Reidsville, Rockingham County, North
Carolina.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NiCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our comments
are provided in accordance with certain provisions of tho Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 at seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves construction of a new five-lane roadway on new
location from US 29 Business to NC 87 in Reidsville. Impacts to wetlands and waters
include the filling of 0.85 acres of surface waters in two farm ponds and the filling of
2.40 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek.
Mitigation proposed by NCDOT for these impacts involves debiting the Company
Swamp Mitigation Bank on a 3 to i basis.
We are concerned about the use of Company Swamp to mitigate for impacts in a
different watershed. This project will impact wetlands in the Cape Fear drainage. The
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank is in the Roanoke drainage. Generally, we request
wetland mitigation be provided in the drainage basin to which the impacts occur.
However, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Company Swamp
Mitigation Bank does not require that debiting be limited to specific drainage basins.
Therefore, we will not oppose the use of the Company Swamp Bank provided that
debiting procedures as agreed upon in the MOU are followed,
We request that, prior to the issuance of the "404" permit, NCDOT proceed with a
formal request to use Company Swamp Mitigation Bank. NCDOT should:
,-,Nf,WtX, HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL :[phone] Jun 01 ' 95 8:59 No.003 P.03
Memorandum 2 611195
1) Complete a Debit Transaction Form (or a form that contains similar
information) as found on page 10-4 of the Final Report on the Company
Swamp Mitigation Bank.
2) Contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill requirements under item 9
in the MOU.
3) Circulate documentation for concurrence from all Company Swamp MOU
signatories.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application.
If we can be of any further assistance please call David Cox, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
John Dorney, Water Quality Section, DEM. DEHNR
,N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE TE (,e5
TO-
REF. NJ. OR , BLDG.
' FROM: REF.'. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.'
ACTION
? NOTE AND. FILE - - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH.MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND-SEE,ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR. YOUR. INFORMATION.
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
COMMENTS:
RECEIVED
MAR-21 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
altaMrp
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 19, 1995
MEMO
To: Frank Vick
NC DOT
Through: John Donn)
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Proposed Reidsville Southern Loop
TIP # U-2418
Rockingham County
EDO EE [*NJ F=?L
On October 14, 1994, DEM wrote a memorandum to you outlining several concerns
that we had about this project. As a result of the memo, DOT developed two wetland
avoidance alternatives. The wetland and cost analysis for the alternatives were included in a
February 16, 1995 memo from Mr. G. T. Shearin to you.
DEM requested that DOT study the feasibility of upgrading SR 2600. Since there are
no plans to complete an eastern section of the loop, DEM's concern that the alignment "locks
in" further wetland impacts is not supportable. Based on the alternatives analyses and the
lack of an eastern section of the loop, DEM concurs with DOT's preferred alternative.
Minimization efforts, such as 2:1 side slopes in wetlands, and a mitigation plan should be
developed by DOT and submitted to the resource agencies as soon as possible.
Please be aware that the 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions should be directed to Eric
Galamb in DEM'S Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
u2418.mem
cc: Raleigh Corps of Engineers
Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
Stephanie Briggs
Cyndi Bell
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4- C. DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION
onrEf?
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO:
P' REF. N OR R OM, BLDG.

ROM: F
j
REF. NO. O
R
OOM. BLD
J?/
??/
Jj
(/
ACTION
.? NOTE AND FILE - PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO MEN ?v? PER. YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT "THIS ,? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER .?. FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE? SIGNATURES
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION n "INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
SEP 01994
WETLAIUS GROUP
WATER 0 LITY SECTION

e t-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 15, 1995
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
D E m 4 q5-503
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Rockingham County - Reidsville Southern Loop from US 29 Business to
NC 87; T.I.P. No. U-2418; State Project No. 9.8071834
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a
new 5-lane curb and gutter facility from US 29 Business to NC 87 in
Reidsville. The proposed 2.6 mile highway is part of the Reidsville
Thoroughfare Plan and will provide part of the circumferential route planned
for the city. A State Environmental Assessment was approved for this project
on February 1, 1991.
A field review of-the project corridor was conducted for the
environmental review agencies on October 7, 1994. In attendance were
representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, N.C. Division of Environmental Management, and N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. During this site visit, the two bottomland hardwood
impact sites were visited and delineations were verified. At that time, the
agencies requested an opportunity to review alternatives which would avoid or
minimize impacts to the wetlands in the project area. Two alternative
alignments and an extended bridge on the preferred alignment were studied..
NCDOT's preferred corridor will require fill in 2.85 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands (1987 Manual) associated with Little Troublesome
Creek and an unnamed tributary. Little Troublesome Creek is to be bridged,
but fill in bottomland hardwoods associated with the stream will be required
within the footprint of the bridge approaches. The total construction cost
for this preferred alignment is estimated at $10,400,000.
An alternative alignment shifted approximately 200 feet north of and
parallel to the preferred corridor was studied. This alternative would
require fill in a total of 3.05 acres of wetlands at a total project cost of
$11,150,000. A southern alternative alignment, shifted 750 feet from the
6 A .
40)
' March 15, 1995
Page 2
preferred corridor, would impact a total of 1.21 acres of wetlands.
Construction of the southern alternative would require the relocation of
US 29 to accommodate the ramps for the interchange. The total construction
cost for this alternative is estimated at $15,150,000.
The bridge on the preferred alignment is designed to provide the
necessary hydraulic opening on Little Troublesome Creek. This bridge would
provide 250 feet of horizontal clearance. Extension of this bridge to avoid
fill in wetlands would require an additional 500 feet of horizontal
clearance. Construction of this lengthened bridge would cost an additional
$2,200,000.
In the opinion of NCDOT, the minimization or avoidance of wetland
impacts associated with the southern alignment or the extended bridge,
respectively, does not justify the related increase in construction costs.
NCDOT maintains that the preferred alignment represents the most prudent and
feasible alternative. NCDOT is investigating possibilities of mitigating the
wetland impacts involved in this project. In the meantime, we request that
you place this project on public notice. Details of the wetland mitigation
plan will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.
The attached permit application package includes drawings of both
wetland impact sites. Application is hereby made for a Department of the
Army permit as required for such activities. By copy of this letter, we are
also requesting 401 Water Quality Certification by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/cb
Attachments
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
.Mr. Eric Gaiamb, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. John Thomas, DOA, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Archie Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.'E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design

DEM ID:
ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Bo7.29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATM: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning and Environmental Bran(
2. Owners Address: P 0 Box 25201z-Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H Franklin Vick P E
Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Rockingham
Nearest Town or City: Reidsville
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Construction of the Reidsville Southern
Loop from 1000 feet wetst of US 29 Business to NC 87
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Troublesome Creek
7. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [) NO [X9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO JXI
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
2.85 acres -
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 2.85 acres
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 2.85 acres
- r
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Construction of a
5-1ane curb and gutter facility from US 29 Business to NC 87,
13. Purpose of proposed work: Public Transportation
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. See cover letter
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES ( ] NO [X ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ ] NO (X ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams; and lakes on the property. See permit drawings
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project. See permit drawings
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line. See permit drawings
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Rural/agricultural
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N.4 e
Owner's Signature Date
LOCATION MAP

" ? 24?
1221 ??
> >
1114. 4. Q ]1rs ? v y ° 1.1. ,
d
.`?..
I2 uu d?U} 2424 117E 12414 1431 I .d .1.7
et
? Ha"oar y I9eo LLSi.3 S! ti
d
G
2431
v
., I Mu owoo
a lzsl Sa«.y
.a
] 2 1 1414 121.4 1232
a -r
'
12L( +?j 211! f {, 2OZ 14!•4
]t)e ` ? 1 cS_S Swf .
7 •? r1 _ ,?S 1 171E X
?
.J 4a ~ 2421 1 f 747E Q LLU - uu 0
734! f
21]) 212E .a 2742 LIS4 lZ ?u ? Sr}* ti
v ? _ ?_ ; •
1124 A L° 111! 1222. 1 ,
v S
S`r 79
V rw
I. ,I ? ? 1724
2124' - 7
.. .72114 Z 2142 .) IM] A
,
1y S. Sodl.r y ?
2122 1 J t• 1r97 Cawp l? 7131 ? 7361.
v

Wt34t\vr7rrt]I ds vo IF

4 js.

M1 law,onril.
2341
.
?? y
]144 714E
?
- 7341 a7
( `?0 ?Y
•9 ]S?] 2121
?a f }NI ? ?,tr ...
•
utt may.
is l7?
15

1741 9 1001 aor.

.• ,
7!s1
? 63
y 2.1
97
•'
d 23z1
`
?
?St
•
?
REIDSYILLE
t
A

2st+
72Ei 27: 11g •?' an
?
e 214E
+l ? H STATE 21Zi
END
N
PROJECT ti 73u
7 ?
-
.
17!]'. 7ss1 1742 ='12st 7ssz 41hxm -- e.
SITE 2 SITE 3 ;• > '? ' •s. '• Za
u21 ]
'? ;;; ? r SITE 1 ':1
.2 IAN
T
f}
7 y
•
:?44!
l]!L
alit J ?, v I.tL1
" '
144, 1?2 ,,? 2l41 ,
SITE 4

rer ,.
I: a ° . BEGIN STATE

,
Fwd..• 24:i 2,Q3
73> ],°,
2
„1
'.°'' PROJECT sf21 >?
"A 7}11
:
*
]a]
t
'? tFA7 ]U ?d I) ? :. 7
r
Nr ?4
?
7.( +'
•7! 1
. y
7134
0 10 20 30
1"=10 MILES
VICINITY MAP

7 7 • , 62 t
e", 'll
.: PROJECT LOCATION
_
_
Price 7 1 1 stew anch S
y 12011 f sy iald Pelham PTovi enc 62 5
7 29
61er
9
12
l
rn
a, S 29ill* Q•' 2 4 14 Stace
r'?R
7
c A W L 9
NORTH CAROLINA
, 5
K N M I caaV;HeY; Cep„ ' Le DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
_ ,
' SITE lwen +h12 158'1p'c1IstHil 3 X62 .1
li DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
? rt
e Hightower
Miles9ille
Ub ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
s
ro
Filch
65 29 ' 1 , Is
PROJECT #
9.8071834
t t 21 ' 15s Is S +' sb° Mat ins 2 Pro ^
U-2418
Iu
4 N Br?,1?,r 1Q rr 1 REIDSVILLE
SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
68
erti d Browns 5 Res. Union
SlrTwni Monticello ,a Ridge 1
S° L
h ,
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
e 1 Itama
e
a 10
0 0.5 1 1.5
1"=0.5 SHEET 1 OF 9 JUNE 1993
MILE Re,rISE 6-z?-9 azsH
METHOD 11 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY-3' BASE
W/ CLASS "B" STONE
WETLAND PONDS (TYP.)
TO BE DRAINED \
3ASE DITCH LINED
CLASS "B" STONE
EXISTING OUTLET
)KRIS G. & RUTH
RICHARDSON
DB 820-PG 317
36" RCPN
P.
Os
ti
/HEADWALL

HUGH REID MONTGOMERY
DB 689-PG 984

2' BASE DITCH LINED
W/CLASS "B" STONE
DENOTES FILL I-N
SURFACE WATERS

"-5' BASE DITCH
KATHRYN J. SANDS
S? DB 735-PG 792
100 0 100 200
1"-100'
j CLASS I RIPRAP
O
V-DITCH LINED
\ W/CLASS B STONE
u'a \
^E
n
l:
ti
"ST C U ?a
:R 01
_? S"dS-
T ACEI IE:J'l,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 2 OF 9 JUNE 1993
o 0 0 52 ?

? \ ?I
f U tJj
l O w o

W \ Q N
O
O 1
? . i
'n a 2:1

m ,

o ? W W

IRS,

N- ) SITE 1
ON??1M CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION A-A

/ NORTH CAROLINA
/ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
/ REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
r ?I SHEET 3 OF 9 -JUNE 1993
r
METHOD II CLEARING AND GRUBBING
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTR CTION /
LIMITS) /
J
I ?
KATHRYN J. SANDS
DB 735-PG 792

TROUBLESOME CREEK
WETLAND LIMITS
(TYP. )

ABUTMENT
... .

Qv/
6' BASE DITCH Q
W/CLASS I RIPRAP .
'BASE DITCH

Q.

x,35 A?
l SITE 2
72" RCP
W/HEADWALL •...
i •i
J ISTING
/ll,
TRIBUTARY
100 0 100 200
mml?
1"=100'
V DENOTES FILL
IN WETLANDS
PROPOSED FILL IN WETLANDS
ADJACENT TO TROUBLESOME CREEK
FOR ROADWAY AND BRIDGE
PLACEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 4 OF 9 JUNE 1993
' "rEMPar
Co?nKUGT toN ?oNC
Rofft
Z&ao" CSP q/i x Yz"
C eRRU CxA"t't o tV ?
PIER STRUCTURES
L- LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK
CLASS it RIPRAP (TYP.)
Q?
BRIDGE ABUTMENT
? i
i
/
v?

H S
C7NG'71-?/'1 ?
0
!
m
w
Q?
Q

I?

It-
Imo-
?-
IK4-
-r
I
b b
N ,R
N
o mo ? ?
F=
8 ?

O

F

',C14,
I
I

1
I
I
t
I

0 ? O

v

O
oI
r
Qj'l
H
SITE 2
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION B-B
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 5 OF 9 JUNE 1993
m
m
a

o 000
t- .
N
t
JAMES L. FISH
A DB 716-PG 127
? ? RoA
f \ \\ \ \ WETLAND Vn
cf? \ wo\ \ LIMITS ? -\
2 \ \\G a\ \vTYP.
\ \ SITE 4
\ \ HAROLD D. & MARGO OVERBY\
m < N \ n \ \\ D13 714-PG470
7i\
OSCAR LEE HOOPER \ \
DB 528-PG 479
DB 529-PG 126
EXIST. T, 1. T?,
WETLAN S CVO/? \ \ JL.;0?'..S _LL
POND , / \ \ : fi_'I?? E
\ \ '\\
SITE 3 Xv
\ \ DENOTES FILL
\
\ ?? \\ IN WETLANDS
OAS c..
js SITES 3 &4
6'x6' RC BOX CULVERT
US 29 BYPASS
C'\? ' NORTH CAROLINA
±72 TONS '?F DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CLASS 1 PRAP\ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
? 9'?gOyF9 PROJECT # 9.8071834
/o . U-2418
EXISTING \ REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
3-72" CONC. US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
100 0 100 200
1"-100' SHEET 6 OF 9 JUNE 1993

?' $
O BI
?I
4
?
O O

w ?.

Q- I
Q dNV7-Z-FM

O_
O
V
V'

e
O
N
O 0)O
H
i4
T N
fl
iz

V
0
w
Q, °
\ ? N
o'?- ? ua
SITE 3
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION C-C
NORTH CAROLINA
/ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
?- PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
( p O
SHEET 7 OF 9 JUNE 1993
ESTIMATED WETLAND IMPACTS
State Project ## 9.8071834
Dredge or Located above
Dredge or Fill in the
Site No. Stationing Structure(s) Fill in Wetlands Surface Waters' Headwaters
1 28+85 to 30+70 36" RCP 0.0 Acre 0.85 YES
2 77+45 to 85+25 72" RCP & Bridge 2.35 Acres 0.05 Acre NO
3 297+75 to 298+65 1-6'x6' RCBC 0:0 Acre 0.46 Acre YES
4 298+20 to 301+15 1-6'x6' RCBC 0.50 Acre 0.01 Acre YES
Total-1: 2.85 Acres 1.'37Acre
• Below Ordinary High Water
+ Sites 2, 3 & 4 located in Troublesome Creek drainage basin (3.47 Acre); Site I located in drainage basin of unnamed tributary (0.85 Acre).
ESTIMATED WETLANDS IMPACTS
SUMMARY.TABLE
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 9 OF 9 JUNE 1993

N

I

N
1 .°
1 cC
1 ?

N b
o
r b
b cv
i
? a
d
o

0
O? NI
SITE 4
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION D-D
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 8 OF 9 JUNE 1993
04
r
0 0)0
8
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUBJECTT-.;2, ,,_ O$6' ? PROJECT Lk- Z4-12)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS yruma sits. 2 ReGki kA ??1 COUNTY
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY DATE STATION
P. O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKED BY DATE STR NO SHEET_ OF_
S O-O t
NCDOT
REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP
U-2418
PROPERTY OWNERS
MORRIS G & RUTH RICHARDSON
10803 Reisterstown Road
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
KATHRYN J. SANDS
PO Box 270
Reidsville, NC 27320
HUGH REID MONTGOMERY
744 Crescent Drive
Reidsville, NC 27320
JAMES L. FISH
PO Box 851
Louisburg, NC 27549
HAROLD D. & MARGO OVERBY
447 Carmel Road
Reidsville, NC 27320
OSCAR LEE HOOPER
209 NC 150
Brown Summit, NC 27214
a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N Schecter, Director
May 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
WTI 7; AWA
ED EHNR
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199500284 dated April
27, 1995 describing a proposed project by NC DOT, Rockingham Co. is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by May 27, 1995 If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
me at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ACTION ID: 199500284 April 27, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH, POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611, HAS APPLIED FOR
A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) PERMIT TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN THE WATERS AND
CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS OF LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF THE REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP FROM 1000 FEET WEST OF U.S. 29 BUSINESS TO
N.C. 87, REIDSVILLE, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (T.I.P. NO. U-2418,
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8071834).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during onsite visits by representatives
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project is basically a new five (5)
lane roadway from U.S. 29 Business to N.C. 87 in Reidsville, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) preferred corridor will
require fill impacts to approximately 3.47 acres of jurisdictional waters and
contiguous wetlands adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek and unnamed
tributaries to Little Troublesome Creek. NCDOT's plans shows cumulative
jurisdictional impacts in four sites of the referenced linear project. Site
1, located between Station Nos. 28+85 and 30+70, involves the filling of
approximately 0.85 acre of surface waters of two existing ponds. These ponds
are the result of the impoundment of an unnamed / above headwaters tributary
of Little Troublesome Creek. Site 2, located between Station Nos. 77+45 and
85+25, involves the bridging of Little Troublesome Creek and the placement of
fill into approximately 2.40 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (bottomland
hardwoods) adjacent to this tributary for the construction of bridge
approaches. Sites 3 & 4, located between Station Nos. 297+75 and 298+65, and
298+20 and 301+15, respectively, involve the filling of approximately 0.46
acres of surface waters of an existing pond (impoundment) on an unnamed .
tributary of Little Troublesome Creek and the filling of approximately 0.51
acres of jurisdictional wetlands (bottomland hardwoods) adjacent to this same
tributary. The proposed worksites are located in a narrow, agricultural
valley basin adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek, typical of this area of the
piedmont. A history of farming, grazing, and logging of the valley basin has
limited, for the most part, the area to an herbaceous, vegetative ground
cover. Forested areas in the project vicinity, when they occur, are confined
primarily to streamside buffers and adjacent flood plain terraces. These
forested areas are vegetated primarily by red maple, sycamore, sweetgum, green
ash, yellow poplar, river birch and black willow. The open valley is
comprised of either agricultural pastures or recently-logged high ground. The
stream bottom habitat proposed to be impacted by this project is dominated by
an unstable, sandy substrate.
The stated project purpose is "to allow traffic operating in the souther-
part of Reidsville to avoid restrictions such as lower speed limits,
signalization, and congestion along the existing streets. This will partially
relieve the in-town congestion, while opening up additional land for
development ...... The Reidsville Southern Loop will allow trips between N.C.
65-87, U.S. 29 Bypass and N.C. 87 East to bypass the central business
district."
41
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a
Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
A cultural resources review of the proposed linear project area has been
conducted. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources recommended by
letter dated May 30, 1990, that no archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with the referenced project due to the lack of known
archaeological sites in the project area and the unlikely possibility that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register will be affected by the project construction.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes, and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
2
•a
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are
also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh,
North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act Certification on or after
June 13, 1995.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before May 19, 1995, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. John Thomas, until 4:15 p.m., May
26, 1995, or telephone [phone] (extension 25).
3
KGV bY:Wiimington District 4-21-95 ; 15:25 515 876 5523 USAGE-Keg. brancr,,;; 4
x
LOCATION MAP
` 1 ' ?y:lht ?? ? ? •..-_..?'-;"may > •. J'? „

1!
?
W; 4 2111 ?i! i
f ?,. , f!]1 r l2J.R L ?' ?
•
?
:W ,? 1? .?

vI
• V
^ J
241! ]ilt I ? .t
?
f iMY 171d
}la.riwn i>:}l?
1
' •? ?•
? ? 1 w ?
?' t :.711
•

?. _
.?
,? 241E ?_
y ..
.
.A?
i2l1 Rpg ?? ?
7
ltisj = wr 1

7 ULL

ti
1401 r
Ss2z 'Q'om' ?
ud ltl: ? 7ib :ut t?
.c
11a~ SILL ? >? • + ttt? I wa ?>

slat 1121
? e
ztl!
Istl
; "
? ?d"d r :, ?

R I
it
'
)fN
IL
?? •
V
1.•'14
S m1 330
}?R
1Ltt .'
4
y 11 SO?M 1
?
'
?1 it C?'Y ?
1111
7?k1
•
u
! tvCellt u Slon
v r lUi
"a 7y 2)4R J
?
i
? 1 R.
w 14? 3
Q
jbz r

•
2441
? i
?? 1?r?
A
litl
( , S!?S
r 24tt 6y u
nit
r
.s
Silt
' • s? ! I •?
->1
.
.1
Ztll ?
lai ±? / 2lli 1
.o't. ?
I 7 i Q
,„?

r
ell

7Li 7.1
REIDSVIUE E ND STATE

2141
;2UUML ;, JAL UAL
I P
ROJECT ,

lt'I , r

'? ' lla z?.c
L
1
SITE 2
1 , r.
New
SITE 3 `
s
> `' ' ?•
!1 . r1rR ? ? .? I
SITE i ... I s
w ?

9 1421 }y uu •? w • V ZZti ,'
1:1 Al 131 Am ? L4R1? SITE 4
?- tp BEGIN STATE
SStI ,? 1571 ?. „ a
, - 1'?' t? 71}L
PROJECT , ,
,
31V4 b
0 10 20 30
1"a 10 MILES
VICINITY MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
I
R4=ytield Itihmm Pt vi x 62 S
ti Zs0?
PSI
?
V
Ilvlfin 7
T s ?'"_:? • ,1 4: to s2« 2
C A W L
NORTH CAROLINA

Inc 11
r D EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
+
lan IT 7"R1 2 If I =IHiI . ° I`?
U DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS- .
w+rntera ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
l:resvi11e
r Filch
PROJECT # 9
8071834
i
2 ? 11
: rlo .
U-24 1 8
_
I :a++l eNrrn,l ic,7' R EIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
" Oil. «??<«? 1? ' "° a ' `` US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
= t r , ts+n=A= ?6
0 0.5 1 1•
"=U•?a SHEET I OF 9 _JUNE 1993
MILT: R?r?se-art-? ?sH

m6v tsr;wi;,mington ?_)istrlct 4-21-85 ; 15:26 919 876 5823-• U6ACE-Reg. t3rancn;a 5

METHOD 4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY--3' BASE
W/ CLASS "B" STONE
WETLAND PONDS (TYP.)
TO BE DRAINED
BASE DITCH LINED
CLASS "B" STONE
tz

36" RCP\W(HEADWALL,
.a
1E) ISTING OUTLET
ORRIS G. & RUTH
RICHARDSON
D8 820-PG 317
I'll

`-S' BASE DITCH
KATHRYN J. SANDS
?G DS 735-PO 792
S I RIPRAP
p
HUGH R=ID MONTGOMERY
Dfi 689-PG 984
2' BASE DITCH LINED
W/CLASS "B" STONE
DEr3CTE3 FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS
100 0 100 200
SHEET 2 OF 9 JUNE 1993
?-V-DITCH LINED
W/CLASS "B" STONE
ITE 1
-:
^_ 'r
9 BUSINESS
,¢. t4,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87 '
._ _ .._ ...._..?__.. ., .. .., ?.. .. .. ., I I. u I V pp4J ---ay. ui
0
R?-
k

s
IN
1?

Q o
a
o--
1.
o,
I
I
I
0
i
Q
g 22
v ?2
II
W1\1
SITE 1
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION A-A
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 3 OF 9 -JUNE 1993
0
.acv rsr;wiimingtor uistrict ; 4-21-9lt ; 15;28 919 876 5623-• JSACE-Reg. Branch;;; 7

METHOD 11 CLEARING AND GRUBBING / [-
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTR CTION / ?Ql
LIMITS) / ??
BRIDGE
ABUTMENT
/ (o.o I4ys?
KATHRYN J SANDS
b8 735-PG 792 ..................
? leNCiSoStiN%;.
2(?Go" ?Sp OlZ %w
Cep,?tua.+4-rtet?g
/ PIER STRUCTURES
TROUBLESOME CREEK ?... /
S?
WETLAND LIMITS I
(''Yp) LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK
: \-CLASS II RIPRAP (TYP.)
6' BASE DITCH
WICLASS I RIPRAP
O' BRIDGE AB
UTMi=NT
4 BASE DITCH
j : ; j „g r?:: U DENOTES FILL
f• ;+?Z: , IN WETLANDS
:f4 x,35 At
SITE 2
• prL: .? PROPOSED FILL IN WETLANDS
ADJACENT TO TROUBLESOME CREEK
FOR ROADWAY AND BRIDGE
PLACEMENT
72" RCP
W/HEADWA.L NORTH CAROLINA
1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?l %XISTiNG / DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRIBUTARY i ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
100 o 100 no
_ SHEET 4 OF 9 JUNE 1993
1`=100'
f\VV UI •I?11 111 lly VUlf V1J V11VV f " ? _ ? r Iv ?v + v?v vrv ?--- --??-- ---r - --
-
R
llt'6'-
W
im

1%7
1
o
o ?o
H
v
N

1 l
n ? ?f
I
Q
h
}
I
I

4
0
O
O
o ?o
ZD N
i
m
m
o

)N 0
SITE 2
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION B-B
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 5 OF 9 JUNE 1993
G
r
al . ! ;)l :
c,r•wiiminguon L? .sLricc 4-Zi-a0 i 15:29 919 876 5823-a USACE-Reg. Brancr);# 9

\ a JAMES L. FISH
DB 716-PG 127
? `•,` 90,00
\ in ?\
WETLAND \
LIMITS
\\G \`?TYP.
\\ \\ \ a
\ ?? \ \ SITE 4
HAROLD D. & MARCO OVERSY
DB 714-PG470
? S
OSCAR LEE HOOPER l
1 DS 528-PG 479 \ \
'DB 5219-PG 126
1 \
EXIST. ,
WFTLANEkS
POND--I, a SITE 3

?o
oc
r_TLL
7/ \\\ \ . -IR 11.E wr%.M- :Z-S
`\ \ DENOTES FILL
\ \? \\ IN WETLANDS
Ae-
1 \ S
S
3 &4
6'x6' RC BOX CULVERT
US 29 BYPASS
y ±72 TANS
CLASS 1 PA AP
.MISTING
3-72" CONC.
100 0 700 200
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-24 1 8
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC. 87
SHEET 6 OF 9 JUNE 1393
?1VV UI•IY11.I1111lJ bVll U1J1•. 1VV • 4-L ?/•= • IV •JV ? VIV VIV VUGV vvr?vV roc y. Vr uri•,. rirR rv
o R

w
o o

II

J

0 '
CJN b7.L?N
J

?j

o
?

a- ? j
r ?
-? LVY
tA-
i
S-
t
IT {
i
? p 0
N
? ?Q
v
0
TV

I
i

0
?
N
?
Q
O ? o
o av?s o o.
r ?
r?
i
z
V
V
O
SITE 3
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION C-C
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87.
SHEET 7 OF 9 JUNE 1993

muv dr:wlimington uistricL µ-L 0.3[ ; 71d 010 oozo- tUJHvt-rt@g, or anGfi 1,41J
51+ c,=' ?r tYVr? R 4riRVl.l1Yi? SUBJECT (f•*LJ2-- rf,&a Ctlv6i&0 PROJECT U" G41?
qPARYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION' CP HIGHWAYS 5l±G # 2 C-?i ?esl ?%1 COUNTY
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPAR€O BY BATE STATION
P. a. BOX 25201
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKE0 BY DATE STR NO SHB-r- OF__,.r
- I - -- ' - ; ..-'-2t9 (a0• .L'SP12?? t ??f. I e ?e •. ??>? ? L?.o rrU of t.'{' is n
_i 40
.-_ _ _ i. .._..?.. .. t r.l..j. -.. ! ....fem.! •?
-Ta
` ? `? vi.e:rC?-tl?l.. uss"".t 1, ?'? n e (.03?`'£' ..?- • . -•?•- .; . • _.i?. _ ` _? .. : _..!.. . ?:. .
aoo ???.• ` ; I
17, ell- b
71
_T

BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN
MARSH SMITH
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
[phone]
May 5, 1995
Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. John Thomas
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
i/Mr. John Dorney
NCDEN
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO. [phone]
? ? Fo
Fs
Re: Action IN 199500284
NCDOT Proposal to Impact 3.47 Acres of Jurisdictional Waters
and Contiguous Wetlands for the Reidsville Southern Loop
Dear Mr. Thomas and Mr. Dorney:
The NCDOT's stated purpose for the above mentioned project is "to
allow traffic operating in the southern part of Reidsville to avoid
restrictions such as lower speed limits, signalization, and
congestion along the existing streets. This will partially relieve
the in town congestion, while opening up additional land for
development..." I can think of no more ridiculous purposes for
destroying or otherwise degrading the waters and wetlands of our
state than those enumerated in the application. I wish DOT would
cease catering to the whiners in our society who have rewritten
Patrick Henry's cry for freedom into a whine for convenience --
"Give me convenience or give me death".
More and more states have realized that road building should be the
last transportation alternative after all others (such as car
pools, bicycles, and public transit) have failed. The state of
Maine is the most notable among these. For this project that
should mean that alternatives exist that do not require the
destruction of wetlands and the degradation of water quality.
Additionally, the stated purpose of "opening up additional land for
development" often has deleterious consequences on the finances of
the county or municipality -- development often costs a county or
municipality more in services that must be provided than the tax
revenue generated by development. This phenomena usually arises
when the development is the automobile dependent development that
this ill begotten project will probably foster.

Please do the right thing and deny the NCDOT's permit application
and their Clean Water Act certification.
Sincerely,
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH
?Al? ?/ ,,L
Marsh Smith
MS/ka

,ECEveo
MA`i 0 41995?ES
E?VIEtON?o tA,?.?01E
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ACTION ID: 199500284
April 27, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH, POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611, HAS APPLIED FOR
A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) PERMIT TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN THE WATERS AND
CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS OF LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF THE REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP FROM 1000 FEET WEST OF U.S. 29 BUSINESS TO
N.C. 87, REIDSVILLE, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (T.I.P. NO. U-2418,
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8071834).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during onsite visits by representatives
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project is basically a new five (5)
lane roadway from U.S. 29 Business to N.C. 87 in Reidsville, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) preferred corridor will
require fill impacts to approximately 3.47 acres of jurisdictional waters and
contiguous wetlands adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek and unnamed
tributaries to Little Troublesome Creek. NCDOT's plans shows cumulative
jurisdictional impacts in four sites of the referenced linear project. Site
l,.located between Station Nos. 28+85 and 30+70, involves the filling of
approximately 0.85 acre of surface waters of two existing ponds. These ponds
are the result of the impoundment of an unnamed / above headwaters tributary
of Little Troublesome Creek. Site 2, located between Station Nos. 77+45 and
85+25, involves the bridging of Little Troublesome Creek and the placement of
fill into approximately 2.40 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (bottomland
hardwoods) adjacent to this tributary for the construction of bridge
approaches. Sites 3 & 4, located between Station Nos. 297+75 and 298+65, and
298+20 and 301+15, respectively, involve the filling of approximately 0.46
acres of surface waters of an existing pond (impoundment) on an unnamed
tributary of Little Troublesome Creek and the filling of approximately 0.51
acres of jurisdictional wetlands (bottomland hardwoods) adjacent to this same
tributary. The proposed worksites are located in a narrow, agricultural
valley basin adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek, typical of this area of the
piedmont. A history of farming, grazing, and logging of the valley basin has
limited, for the most part, the area to an herbaceous, vegetative ground
cover. Forested areas in the project vicinity, when they occur, are confined
primarily to streamside buffers and adjacent flood plain terraces. These
forested areas are vegetated primarily by red maple, sycamore, sweetgum, green
ash, yellow poplar, river birch and black willow. The open valley is
comprised of either agricultural pastures or recently-logged high ground. The
stream bottom habitat proposed to be impacted by this project is dominated by
an unstable, sandy substrate.
The stated project purpose is "to allow traffic operating in the southern
part of Reidsville to avoid restrictions such as lower speed limits,
signalization, and congestion along the existing streets. This will partially
relieve the in-town congestion, while opening up additional land for
development ...... The Reidsville Southern Loop will allow trips between N.C.
65-87, U.S. 29 Bypass and N.C. 87 East to bypass the.central business
district."
44
to
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to.determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated state
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a
Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
A cultural resources review of the proposed linear project area has been
conducted. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources recommended by
letter dated May 30, 1990, that no archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with the referenced project due to the lack of known
archaeological sites in the project area and the unlikely possibility that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register will be affected by the project construction.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters.of
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes, and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
2
k.
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are
also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh,
North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act Certification on or after
June 13, 1995.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before May 19, 1995, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. John Thomas, until 4:15 p.m., May
26, 1995, or telephone [phone] (extension 25).
3
RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 : 15:25 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;#

2111
"4 a 23A •-- ., _
1L? 1 * ?i
.? na
M
x1 1
'r a7u
am
c •
LOCATION MAP
?1 iu3 nu
psnc? !.? ?? 1ta ? r-?lss '
tlil v ? ?
241, ]Oil 1.4.1 •F 3412 m2 ?Geww/a?"?' . 7?
i Ft42
j nQ ,ate
{Y1 3S3 ?
mu > nm_
a u2: 1.
3n7
1734 a - --
T t?
137.:
J '
Lati
S++• 2EL
a ,
v ` r 3YL ?? ?? 1l+s . s+u
,a i .;, Ja . ' 3W;y
k ? E REIDSVl1LE t teY ' r
. . END STATE
\
PROJECT
1 ? taaN: 3. -
SITE 2 SITE :3
r > ' '•

Ul ""`'} « ' SITE 4
.A
BEGIN STATE `Y ?'l,i?si7 r? li4!
" `PROJECT
T
*
2t9o. .?
0 10 20 30
1*=10 MILES
VICINITY MAP

.:, . .11 ;' 6z 1
' , PROJECT LOCATION
.
.
-
r
, 7 ati? a?th
s ? Eta! ? ?
iL M nae '? ? a,tide r.,n,et rtes ane S
l
?l
29
?r it
!
1 llytrtn
ro stse C A L
? W
a
NORTH CAROLINA

,rt t j ?•
K' N M I Y; n
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
r 1

, 1
$ITE rw•" +A7: i 'tjeeu"my . ` 1 62
nu

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Ml.hte...t
fi
tta ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
'!" ' '
f"'`h PROJECT # 9.8071834
_ U-24 1 8
. * - ;el.t Q,,rr„n 1c 7
' ? REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
?" d? ?• ° '?` ?"' ! 't US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
? l ? t tatn:aha 10
0 0.5 t 1'5
"-0.5 SHEET i OF 9 JUNE 1993
MILE Rfnse
RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 ; 15:26 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;# 5

r
METHOD 4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS)
S
?\y? e
36" RCP`W EADWALL,
l
HUGH R Z-10 MONTGOMERY
DH 689-PG 984
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY-3' BASE
W/ CLASS "B"STONE
WETLAND PONDS (TYP.)
TO BE DRAINED \
BASE DITCH LINED
CLASS "S" STONE
2' BASE DITCH LINED
W; CLASS "B" STONE
DENOTES FILL I.N
SURFACE WATERS

100 0 100 200
00'

EXISTING OUTLET
ORRIS G. & RUTH
RICHARDSON
D9 820 PG 317
J
5' BASE DITCH
KATHRYN J. SANDS
?G DS 735-PG 792
1 RIPRAP
ITE
?--V-DITCH LINED
WICLASS "B" STONE
7,-?
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87'
SHEET 2 OF 9 JUNE 1993
RCV BY:Wilmington District ; 4-21-95 ; 15:27 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;# 6

1 R--
k
v tIZ:S -
s
I W
1 ?---

Q ??
t
?
V

l

o 0) o

Or t
'l
o
1 ?

I

i
f
0

1
I
O V3 O

I
?i
ii
SITE 1
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION A-A
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 3 OF 9 -JUNE 1993
,a
.io
RCV BY:Wilmington District ; 4-21-95 ; 15:28 919 876 5823- USACE-Reg. Branch;# 7
METHOD 11 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
(CLEARING ONLY TO CONSTR GTION /
LIMITS) /
KATHRYN J. SANDS
D8 735-PG 792

TROUB:..ESOME CREEK
WETLAND LIMITS
('TYP,)

/2 .
l?
!v

a°f
fi' BASE DITCH 4
WICLASS I FIIPRAPI.
' EASE DITCH

?... =p;
..
..
i
v
i
1
I
,--'BRIDGE
ABUTMENT
r-- f 5u+c?ru.4J?sis.??
T?rlPbiu,stY'
/2Q6o'CS4' ?yL x Yz'
Capgu 6re?-c'tet.t g
PIER STRUCTURES
LITTLE TROUBLESOME CREEK
`- CE ASS II RIPRAP (TYP.)
BRIDGE ABUTMENT
Cs, DENOTES FILL
(? ... IN WETLANDS
a,35 Ac.
f SITE 2
1
PROPOSED FILL IN WETLANDS
ADJACENT TO TROUBLESOME CREEK
FOR ROADWAY AND BRIDGE
. PLACEMENT
72" RCP 1 • ; • ,?? ' '
WIHEADWQ-.L i
??XISTING
TRIBUTARY
100 0 100 200
1'=100'
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 4 OF 9 JUNE 1993
RCV BY:Wilmington District ; 4-21-95 ; 15:28 919 876 5823- USACE-Reg. Branch;# 8
N w

l ? N o
t
?O

I ?-
I %-
lm-
I h
*-
? Z1
? w I
1
I
I
I
I
i
1
l
t
N
h
v
N
N
r

\i
0
m
O
cV?
V
IN?
SITE 2
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION B-B
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U•2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 5 OF 9 JUNE 1993
?C ?.
RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 ; 15:29 ; 919 876 5823- USACE-Reg. Branch;# 9
,

\ A JAMES L. FISH
\ q0A DB 716-PG 127
\Kill o
\ WETLAND \
?\ LIMITS
\\G \ITYP.
l ?' 1 \ \\??, \ c\
?' ? \\ ? of \\ \ \ 'N\
SITE 4
\ \ \ / HAROLD D. & MARGO OVERBY
DB 714-PG470
- I ..\
OSCAR LEE HOOPER
G DE 528-PG 479 \ \
l DB 529-PG 126
1 \
EXIST. \
WFTLAN S
POND--\
SITE 3 4
o2c)
\\ \
? (,BOO///
?\?\ \ • .. DENOTES PILL
?\\ \ IN WITLANGS
` SITES 3 &4
6'xV RC 90X CULVERT
\ t ` US 29 BYPASS
•?' ??'?? NORTH CAROLINA
of y t72 TONS ?tiF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?,rS+ CLASS 1 PRAP \ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
`?` ?C,9vyfiq \ PROJECT # 9.8071834
\ \.
9oti \ U-2418
=XISTING REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
3-72" CONC. US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
100 0 100 200
SHEET 6 OF 9 JUNE 1993
??
11=100'
RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 15:30 919876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;#10
o

w
Q

l_
J
/I
i
w
R
v ?
o ?o
b ?d `JC7j
?i
o ?
44Z- \
S- r
l
?r-- s
i
to 0

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87.
SHEET 7 OF 9 JUNE 1993
0
?Q
tv

t

Q
R $

O ?p

r CV
(1
z

i

V
V
O
SITE 3
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION C-C

RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 ; 15:31 ; 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;till
O ?O
W
1
fl /
Q /

.?O 757?&

i

i
t
f
ti
0
?I
SHEET 8 OF 9 JUNE 9993

O 0? O ?
H
b to
I
1
i
w
r
SITE 4
CENTERLINE PROFILE &
SECTION D-D
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-24 1 8
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
V BY:Wilmington District ; 4-21-95 ; 15:31 ; 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Brench;#1
a
ESTIMATED WETLAND IMPACTS
State Project # 9.8471834
Dredge or IAetted above
Dredge or Fill in the
;tc N tat' ' Structure Fill in Wetlands Sartace Walen' a t
1 28+85 to 30+70 36' RCP 0.0 Acre 0.85 YES
2 77+4S to 85+25 72" RCP & Bridge 2.35 Acres 0.05 Acre NO
3 297+75 to 298+65 2.610' RCBC 0,0 Acre 0.46 Acre YES
4 298+20 to 301+25 1-6'x6' RCSC 0,50 Acre 0.01 Acre
YES
Uict; 2.9$ Acres 1.5'lAcm
Below Ordinary High Water
+ Sites ::. 3 & 4 located in Troublesome Creek drainage basin (3.47 Acrc); Site t located in drainage buin of unnamed tributary (0.6 Acre).
ESTIMATED WETLANDS IMPACTS
SUMMARY TABLE
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR'T'ATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT # 9.8071834
U-2418
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
SHEET 9 OF_2_JUNE 1993
RCV BY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 ; 15:32 919 876 5823-+ USACE-Reg. Branch;3113
IHI>: Vr IYVKIr? ?.t1RVL.tt?lA Sus;ECT IPE-y, }Ermea Cr`?.Si?.??_ PROJECT
? Lx- G41a • -
E?ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Q }}
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS .i iBf??.i? J1'? t*. # Gki w4 t?0.yf?? COUNTY
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY DATE STATION
P. C. BOX 25201
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKED BY DATE STR NO SHEET: OF-_
r_d??t.'tions. ` .
..-...._-
10
_
l?
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 27, 1994
Regulatory Branch RECEIVED
Action ID. 199500284
APR 2 81995
Mr. John Dorney ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Water Quality Section DOA"'^u
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for Department of the Army authorization and a State Water
Quality Certification to place fill material into the waters and contiguous
wetlands of Little Troublesome Creek for the proposed construction of the
Reidsville Southern Loop from 1000 feet west of U.S. 29 Business to N.C. 87,
Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter
verifies you acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance
with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same
law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by June 27, 1995, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field
office, telephone [phone], Extension 25.
Sincerely,
r ? .,4VWU/
e Wri
hie Regula ry Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
r RCV BY:Wilmington District
DEM ID:
ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WII.IZNGTON DISTRICT ENt31NEE,R
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilminston, NC 28442.1890
ATrN: CFSAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Bor. 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626.0535
ATTN: MR. 1OHN DORNE'Y"
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE. SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN" 7) COPIES SHOULD BB SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PPJNT.
1. Owners Name: -North Carolina Department of Transoortation : Planning and Environmental, Bran
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box_25201 • Raleigh, NC 27811 - -- --
3. Owners Phone Number (Horne):
-(Work); (91.9) 7n-3 141
4. If Appl-Scable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H_ Franklin
Manager
5. Locat en of work (MUST ATTA(:.H MAP). County: ,_ Rockingham
Nearest :"own or City: Reidsville
'Specific Locad6n (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Construction of the Reidsville Southern
Loop from 1000 feet wetst; of _HS 29 Business to NC 87
5. Name of Closest StreatuMver:..., Troublesome Creek -
7. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS 117 YES j) NO 5(]
9, Have any Section 4044 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES I 3 NO FX}
If yea, wxplain. --
10. Estitr ated total number of acres of waters of the U3., including wetlands, located on project site:
2 c
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project,
Filled: 2.8 -acres
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated
2.85 acres
Total Impacted,
; 4-21-95 ; 15:23 ; 919 876 5823- USAGE-Reg. Branch;# 2
RCV EY:Wilmington District 4-21-95 ; 15:24 ; 919 876 5823- USACE-Reg. Branch;# 3
f'
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings ordy); , Sans ruct1 nn of-A
5-lane curb and utter facili from US 29 Business to NC 87
13. Punxse of proposed work: P i T r do
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be canied out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to rrir imize wetland impacts. a t~SaY letter,
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species'or critical
habitat in the permit area that may bi affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES I ] NO C( I
RESPONSES FROM THE USFW S AND/OR NNITrS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CODS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SBPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties ir. the permit area which maybe affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? 'YES[ I NO iX J
RFSPON,SIEa FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Ad6donall information required by DEM:
A. 'Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, str=w, and lakes on the property. See permit drawings
B. If avOable, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project. See permit drawings
C. If delineation was perfdnned by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delhieadon line. See permit drawings
D. `;f a storrnwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. 'g at is land use of surround ng property? Rural/agricultural
F If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? ?. Ni A -

Owner's Signature Date

ZJ M STVt o
F
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 18, 1991 George T Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
Regional Offices
TO: Melba McGee
Asheville
704/251-6208
Through: Alan Clark
Fayetteville
919/486-1541
FROM:
Ron Ferrell#
Mooresville Water Quality Section
704/663-1699
Raleigh SUBJECT: FONSI for proposed Reidsville Southern Loop
919/733-2314 Project No. 9.8071834, TIP # U-2418
W Rockingham County
Washington
919/946-6481
The Water Quality Section of the Division of
Wilmington Environmental Management has reviewed the FONSI for the
919/395-39W subject project. The response provided to our July
Winston-Salem8, 1991 comments concerning the location of the road and
919/896-7007 access ramps in relation to Little Troublesome Creek does not
provide sufficient information for DEM to conclude that the
wetland impacts are unavoidable. DEM does not object to the
FONSI at this time but will address these impacts and the
alternatives during the 401 water quality certification
process.
Please contact me at 733-5083 if you have questions
regarding this matter.

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pay.
An Equal Oplxtrtunity Alfinnative Action Empl-r

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
Septe.{:bey- 16, 1`_={94
JT LuELm. v? i,.ii Gllaim C it i :t1 - -?_'as ie s . hari1
N . 9 . OC f 1J3 4 ? . r . N. LT G i 1: T _.:?1
r r
r.....,aSe p ! aI_ 'C: .,.ecL Co hv3I7..__??e
GJ LlS?._Es o aI:
'r' 14, c V J_ .i - _ V tJ 3 . r . 1S. a -;D .. L t a l.. 1.
More ii_ ?.. pu- z "f0: ou--se _. D? Where 'sd._i ;
ar_- SeDa?at a:e a 4: 1- U S S 7-0 151 ..., y_. Ni._ z?_OD aDiV
w l.L. be. v.`I t._C
lttit' y _?'J 1 --ose..D17
.
is-_ a 1: e .a,. _u? _
,..+J ...? _7.1
_ _?..-
Vl 1.? ?'.J l: •?., ?U ..ate :Ili 'J _ ?1.1i J7.. {t r. 1 _'_l? iD}i?.
T h :.?:..S 0
? all c e ?1 :ti -an C{i.>t?., ..c ,
., 70 11 ?io:ri a
Ron Li 1v 7 Le. DEM
Dav d Dell _ S
1-avi??:? ? WRC
D
Ank
LOCATION MAP

.a v 1121 f 211 ••` /'? Q1°Q"° 29
- - -
-
•
,•' J ?? J
aoa 2412
lfla
a
• ,
J ^ 1
1114. 711] 4 '`? •. o
q
u ==• 2111 ?? ?
! ? 974!1 141!. ? .6 .f , 1lontsor
1212 j' ?u ? ?
M1• •
??
t-e
+trt
c) 1924 I11Z v Y 241E »fl Garoo.4
.1 Stoc.y e
LLtl 1224
SLIL .4 ? ? llli ./
M
2121 ? •- ? ? ? ? _. 29!1 ? •/ ? {? ? 227Z fy'L
1
11
- 1111
Zi11 f
!
?
3 lltl
e {? 14i! ! 2WZ
1L2 1112 ??
:IV I11L v 7141 J} ti
1111. y ]!]]. tD nu 12L1' ! s
Si• r tw
l .t MR
1114.•.. J2124 fry J211! 7741 A 14 Sad4r ? .'
4 l? 1242 ..s
2121 d .$' -JY lit}
2.0 D- 2MR
7
-
.
7 45 21*1
2)ti 1
e 2111. % ,,?Or ? fV .f M .1211 ,
. ? ! 2132 T ?y u

74

.
S J
-
1. ?12l1?
S•.
11
`a ?
? 1
7
•'^
im .
.
7?u .f 1? ' .I 1M'• y ifi Y ].I
2
p4 -,
s'rr
Cl- REIDSVILLE
O , END STATE -19-4
?'
/ 114 1
I•r N
,2
,,,
2912 =111 21? y ? :'1` ' ^` p PROJECT
;z I i 1 ,raNa ,- a
1
},>., 711 u,
.
?
-
. :
211'
= _ SITE 2 SITE 3 ?
2113
r 2i,:

,??
.a
21li 13091
,, ?; ` H SITE 1 ;:... ,
-2 "a 149Z
`
7324 1.1 ? s,:. •1 .j ?\ '
'J 1Ws
9 f - 1!i3 + v ?.
1144 2M
"
'
1441 214} 2t4! , . 2tu " ,
...
SITE 4 I
k BEGIN STATE y7M„
a
I?H .7
IM 2A.U
;
Uzan PROJECT
,,=
1
)01
1
11%-
V11 I ?
2437
,-
0
, 111
,
2144
0 10 20 30
1"=10 MILES
VICINITY MAP

'14 -171
1
21

PROJECT LOCATION
_ _
1 Pricidol' , stew arch S
y 1148 If 1 ayfield Pelham Provi enc S
l
! 29
(
-
r
ey 11
1
in
Ruf
f
)
, S rill v 4
, to Since c A w L
e 1
7
NORTH CAROLINA
I
;l, 1
e
K
N M ce:eillily DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ceri
,
'
SITE Well + n1 iea 1
st Hit , , c
t
1 .

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1
TIII
. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
A Milesville Fi
„ .I
s 29 2 , is PROJECT # 9.8071834
1 t
lu alt!
TSB is
MaWas 11 z NO

-2418
. q
-- - ?_ t - _ _
' 7 ? f 5-1i I Tc rr 3
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP FROM
Summi mi Eeelb to "" it B s Res uNO1
Ridge )
y, US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
1
e , IUmaha
to
0 0.5 1 1.5
"=0.5 SHEET 1 OF 9 JUNE 1993
MILE

°I
I
i 7b '113;
2-13
] t
.S/ 241
I !
.1 f
21!55 ./0 0 N9
-,k ° R
.17 ? .09 d
2151 18 H 2414
2
12450 t,
H
tl 2462
R6 p ('.
n v.
415 I t]
2453
Fi
t li:
r:.
21s
Ijy
4.:
26160 1.:.
i3 r
g5 .il k::
3417 I 7 : r
.OB .20 243 w
.O6'
'08
21M20
rvr.
I L,4Y1
Horrif St. 65
87
.67
2686
2516
k 2512
2438
2544
St.
2470

REIDSVILLE AND VICINITY
X38
07
537
.Ob 2s]s
2638
268/
2641

P+°' 2687 ..:_ ?
45
i
1 '
25?
1.-N
'"/,r??\sX t ; a . l4 ?j Lys ?r r
STAI E OF NORTH' CAROLINA -
DEPARTMENT OF TPAIISPORTATIOII
JA??nia B. HUNT, JP, R. 5AN,uEL Ht1t,4T I It
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. H. F. Vick, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
ATTENTION: Cyndi Bell
FROM :
/?-011z, G. T. Shearin, PE
DATE: February 16, 1995
ti
SUBJECT: Project 9.8071834 (U-2418) Rockingham County
Proposed Reidsville Southern Loop
In response to comments received by various agencies
reviewing the permit application, we reviewed our current
design and investigated two alternatives to reduce the
wetland impacts associated with this project.
As originally designed, this project impacts 1.85 acres of
wetlands primarily associated with Troublesome Creek. The
bridge proposed over Troublesome Creek has been designed for
the necessary hydraulic opening. The construction cost is
estimated at $10,400,000.
The northern alternative, a shift of approximately 200' from
the original design, impacts 3.05 acres of wetlands at an
additional cost of $750,000. The southern alternative, a
shift of 750' from the original design, impacts 1.21 acres
of wetlands at an additional cost of $4,750,000. This
alternative requires the relocation of US 29 to accommodate
the ramps for the interchange.
Under the current design, we were also asked to consider
extending the bridge over Troublesome Creek 500' to span the
wetlands. Extending the bridge.to span 1.53 acres of
wetlands is estimated to cost $2,200,000.
We recommend to proceed with the permit application using
the plans as currently designed. The wetland impacts
associated with this design involves 1.85 acres of wetlands.
AIN
d.?..:..
iin,
MAR 6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovEmoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
14 February 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Stephanie Briggs„ Permit Supervisor
v?-
FROM: Lane Saul s, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Delineation Report: Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, US 29 Business to NC 87,
Rockingham County; State Project No.
9.8071834; TIP No. U-2418.
ATTENTION: -Cyndi;Be.11 Environmental Specialist
The subject project (U-2418) proposes to create a
southern loop around the city of Reidsville. This loop will
begin at US 29 Bypass and proceed eastward to NC 87. The
project is approximately 4.2 km (2.6 mi) in length with a
proposed cross section of 5-lanes.
Jurisdictional wetlands associated with Project U-2418
were delineated by NCDOT biologist Lane Sauls on 19 and 20
December 1994. Two particular areas were evaluated. One
area accounting for 9.7 ha (24.0 ac) is associated with
Little Troublesome Creek and its immediate floodplain. The
second, a small site accounting for 0.1 ha (0.3 ac) is
located along the floodplain of a tributary of Little
Troublesome Creek. Details describing these sites are shown
on the corresponding data forms. Each wetland is also rated
in accordance with the Division of Environmental Management's
Wetland Rating System: Version 3.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
David Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Environmental Unit
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Unit
Sandra Stepney, P.E., Roadway Design
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulics Unit

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol x_ Aquic Moisture Regime
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer
Sulfidic Odor in Sandy Soils
_x_ Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Concretions _x_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_x_ Listed on Hydric Soils List
_x_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water: -1-in
Depth to Water in Pit: '
Depth to Saturated Soil:_1 in
Primary Indicators:
_x_ Inundated _x_ Drift Lines
_x Saturated in Upper 12 inches _x_ Sediment Deposits
x Water Marks _ x_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
_ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_x_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
x Water-Stained Leaves _x_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _x_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _x_ No
Is this Sampling Point Within a
Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Area is a wetland based on the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland-
(1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual No. _2_
Project/Site: U-2418 Date:-20 December 1994
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County:-Rockingham
Location:-Reidsville
Wetland Area (ac): 0.1 ha (0.3 ac)
Flagging:-Pink - Numbers GC-1 thru GC-6
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x_ No _
Is-the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes _ No x_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes _ No x_
Cowardin Classification (USFWS): PF01A
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Status
1. _Liriodendron tulipifera canopy FAC
2. _Fraxinus pennsylvanica canopy FACW
3. Acer rubrum _understory_ FAC
4. _Betula nigra _understory_ FAC
5. _Carpinus caroliniana _understory_ FAC
6. Sambucus canadensis shrub FACW
7. _Lonicera japonica vine FAC-
8. _Vitis spp. vine FAC
9. _Toxicodendron radicans vine FACW
10. -Smilax spp. vine FAC
11. _Boehmeria spp. herb FACW
12. _Phytolacca americana herb FAC
13. _Microstigeum virmineum herb FAC
14.
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 95%
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):_
Chewacla Series
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
_,Fluvaquentic Dystrochrept
Drainage Class:_Somewhat poorly_
drained
Do Field Observations Confirm
Map Type? Yes _x_ No
Profile Description:
Depth (in.) 12 Matrix. Colors
Horizon B (Munsell Moist): 10 YR 4/2
Description Mottle Colors
(Texture, etc.)_clayey (Munsell Moist): none
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Project Name: U-2418 Nearest Road: _US 29 Bypass
County: _Rockingham Wetland Area (ac): - 0.1 ha (0.3 ac)_
Name of Evaluator: Lane Sauls Date: ,20 December 1994
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
.within interstream divide
other
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
_x_ natural vegetation _30_ %
_x_ agriculture 30_ %
_x urbanized _40_ %
Adjacent special natural areas:
_x Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series: _Chewacla Series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
_x_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Liriodendron tulipifera
(2) _Fraxinus pennsylvanica
(3) _Acer rubrum
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
_x_ seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
x Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4^
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _4_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED _4_
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _2_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _4_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _0_
ECONOMIC VALUE
12 x 4.00 = 48.00
4 x 1.50 = 6.00
x 1.50 = _12.00_
2 x 0.25 = 0.50
WETLAND SCORE = 66.50
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland
(1987 COE Wetland Delineation Manual No. _1'
Project/Site:-U-2418 Date:-19 December 1994
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County:-Rockingham
Location:-Reidsville
Wetland Area (ac): 9.7 ha (24.0 ac)
Flagging:_Pink - GA-1 thru GA-7 and GB-1 thru GB-27
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes x_ No _
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes _ No x_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes _ No x_
Cowardin Classification (USFWS): PF01E
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Status
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica -canopy FACW
2. Betula nigra -canopy FACW
3. Salix nigra -canopy OBL
4. Liquidambar styraciflua -canopy FAC
5. Carpinus carolinana -sub-canopy- FAC
6. Acer rubrum -sub-canopy- FAC
7. Ligustrum sinense shrub FAC
8. Sambucus canadensis -
-shrub FACW
9. Lonicera japonica -vine FAC-
10. Toxicodendron radicans -vine FAC
11. Vitis spp. vine FAC
12. Microstigeum virmineum -herb FAC
13. Boehmeria spp. -herb FACW
14. Polygonum spp. -herb FACW
15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 95%
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):_ Drainage Class:_Poorly-drained-
Chewacla Series
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_Fluvaquentic_ Do Field Observations Confirm
Dystrochrept Map Type? Yes _x_ No
Profile Description:
Depth (in.) 12 Matrix Colors
Horizon B (Munsell Moist): 10 YR 4/2 - 5/2
Description Mottle Colors
(Texture, etc.):_clayey (Munsell Moist): 10 YR 4/4
Hvdric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _x_ Aquic Moisture Regime
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer
Sulfidic Odor in Sandy Soils
_x_ Reducing Conditions Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_x Concretions _x . Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
_x_ Listed on Hydric Soils List
_x_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_x_ Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:_2 in
Drift Lines
_x_ Sediment Deposits
,x_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
x_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
^x Water-Stained Leaves _x_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _x_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _x_ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _x_ No
Is this Sampling Point Within a
Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Area is a wetland based on the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation.Manual.
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Project Name: _U-2418 Nearest Road: _US 29 Bypass
County: Rockingham Wetland Area (ac): _9.7 ha (24.0 ac)_
Name of Evaluator(s): Lane Sauls Date: 19 December 1994
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
.within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected Hydrologically isolated
Soils . ..Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series _Chewacla (1) _Fraxinus pennsylvanica
predominantly organic (2) _Acer rubrum
(humus, muck or peat) (3) _Microstigeum virmineum
_x_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and Wetness
_x_ semipermanently to
Hydraulic Factors permanently flooded or
x freshwater brackish inundated
steep topography regularly flooded or
x ditched or channelized conveys stormwater during
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1. and after storms
- _ seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (sele.ct one) inundated
x Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
_x_ natural vegetation 80_ %
_x_ agriculture _15_ %
_x urbanized _5` %
Adjacent special natural areas:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _4_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL -3_ _11_ x 4.00 = _44.00_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
_4_
_0_ _4- x 1.50 = _6.00_
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES i4_
WILDLIFE HABITAT `3_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _5_ _12_ x 1.50 = _18.00_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _0_
ECONOMIC VALUE _3_ _,3_ x 0.25 = -0.75-
WETLAND SCORE = _68.75_
ADJACENT UPLAND DATA FORM
* This upland data form is associated with Wetland No. -1-
Project/Site:-U-2418 Rockingham Co. Date: 19 December 1994
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes _x_ No
Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes No _x_
VEGETATION
Biotic Communities adjacent to wetland: (1)_Mixed Pine/Hardwood_(MPH)_
(2) (3)
(4) (5)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Biotic Community
1. Liriodendron tulipifera -canopy MPH
2. Pinus echinata -canopy MPH
3. Carya spp. _canopy MPH
4. Fagus grandifolia -canopy MPH
5. Pinus virginiana -sub-canopy_ MPH
6. Acer rubrum -sub-canopy_ MPH
7. Vaccinium spp. -shrub MPH
S. Lonicera japonica -vine MPH
9. Toxicodendron radicans -vine MPH
10. Polystichum acrostichoides _ -herb MPH
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):_
Pacoiet Sandy Loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_Typic
Kanhapludult
Drainage Class:-well-drained
Do Field Observations Confirm
Map Type? Yes_x_ No
Profile Description:
Depth (in.) 12 Matrix Colors
Horizon B (Munsell Moist): 10 YR 4/4
Description Mottle Colors
(Texture, etc.)_sandy (Munsell Moist): none
Remarks:
ADJACENT UPLAND DATA FORM
* This upland data form is associated with Wetland No. _2_
Project/Site:_U-2418 Rockingham Co. Date:-20 December 1994
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes _x_ No
Is the site significantly disturbed? Yes No _x_
VEGETATION
Biotic Communities adjacent to wetland: (1)_Mixed Pine/Hardwood (MPH)_
(2) (3)
(4) (5)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Biotic Communitv
1. _Pinus virginana canopy MPH
2. _Liriodendron tulipifera canopy MPH
3. _Liquidambar styraciflua canopy MPH
4. _Carya spp. canopy MPH
5. _Acer rubrum _understory_ MPH
6. _Juniperus virginiana _understory_ MPH
7. _Vaccinium spp. shrub MPH
8. _Lonicera japonica vine MPH
9. _Toxicodendron radicans vine MPH
10. Smilax spp. vine MPH
11. _Asplenium spp. herb MPH
12. _Polystichum acrostichoides herb MPH
13
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase):`
Cecil sandy clay loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Typic kanhapludult
Profile Description:
Depth (in.)
Horizon
Description
(Texture, etc.)
Remarks:
Drainage Class:-well-drained
Do Field Observations Confirm
Map Type? Yes _x_ No
12 Matrix Colors
B (Munsell Moist): 10 YR 4/4
Mottle Colors
loamy (Munsell Moist): none

REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8071834
T.I.P. NO. U-2418
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
For Further Information, contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
APPROVED:
B .Z ( Av .
DA L.. Ward, P.E.
W Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared for the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
L Type of Action
The NCDOT has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human or
natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the Environmental
Assessment which has been independently evaluated and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. Copies of the Environmental
Assessment are on file in the Planning and Environmental Branch of NCDOT. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content
of the Environmental Assessment.
IL Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to construct the
Reidsville Southern Loop in Rockingham County. The project starts 1000 feet west of the
intersection of US 29 Business and Scales Street. The project ends 100 feet east of NC 87 and SR
2594. The total length of the project is 2.6 miles.
The recommended alternative is a 5-lane curb and gutter facility except for a 5-lane shoulder section
through the interchange area at US 29 Bypass. The total estimated cost for the recommended
alternative is $10,320,000 including right of way and construction cost. The 1991-1997 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) estimated the total cost at $13,250,000.
M. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative proceeds easterly from the intersection of US 29 Business and Scales
Street crossing Little Troublesome Creek, Southern Railway, and the US 29 Bypass then curves
northeast to SR 2597 and follows the existing southern right of way line of SR 2597 to the
intersection with SR 2598, then follows SR 2598 to NC 87, and ends 100 feet east of NC 87 on SR
2594. The Recommended Alternate will require acquisition of right of way from 25 parcels. No
residential or business relocatees are required. Two typical sections are utilized along the proposed
alignment. Typical Section 1 consists of four twelve-foot lanes (two in each direction), a center
twelve-foot bi-directional turn lane, and two-foot-six-inch concrete curb and gutter along the outside
edges. The section will measure 64 feet from face to face of curb. This section will be used in two
sections of the project: from the US 29 Bus/Scales Street intersection to a point 500 feet west of the
railway bridge and again starting 2300 feet east of that point and ending at NC 87 intersection.
(1)
Typical Section 2 will be the same 5-lane section without the curb and gutter and the shoulder will
be two feet of paved shoulder and eight feet of earth shoulder for a total of ten feet. This section
will be used in the controlled access zone between a point 500 feet west of the railway bridge and
2,300 feet east of that point.
The existing 24-foot section will start to taper about 1000 feet west of the US 29 Bus/Scales Street
intersection to the proposed 64-foot section (5-lane curb and gutter). The taper will be completed
west of the intersection. Intersection improvement will also carry the project 100 feet to the east of
NC 87.
IV. Wetlands Finding
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has a policy to avoid, to the extent possible,
adverse impacts on wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. The Little Troublesome Creek
crossing was carefully chosen. If the proposed route is shifted to the south, the southbound on-ramp
encroaches into Little Troublesome Creek. A shift to the north would impact substantially more
wetland acreage adjacent to the creek. To preserve two man-made ponds at the western end of the
project, a shift of the preferred alignment to the south would require the relocation of two
residences. .
An evaluation of wetlands within the project corridor included 1) a review of the Soil Conservation
Service's Soil Survey of Rockingham County and topographic maps, of the area; 2) contact with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Wilmington; and 3) an on-site reconaissance to evaluate the extent
of wetlands occurring within the project area. Wetlands were delineated according to the Federal
Manual for Identi n and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. A total of 5.24 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands was determined to be impacted by the project.
The analysis of the alternatives considered the following: selection of the alternative that avoids
wetlands to the maximum extent possible; maintenance of historic hydrologic flows; construction
methods to minimize impacts; and the most cost effective design for minimal impact. These criteria
were carefully evaluated in establishing the creek crossing for the studied alternatives. A mitigation
plan will be developed at the permitting phase and is expected to be accomplished by on-site
mitigation methods. If on-site conditions are not suitable for mitigation, off-site opportunities will
be expanded in accordance with the 1989 MOA between USEPA and US Army Corp of Engineers.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed new construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures
to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
V. Coordination and Comments
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways on February 1, 1991. The
Environmental Assessment was circulated by the State Clearinghouse to State, regional and local
agencies for review and comment. Copies were also distributed to appropriate Federal agencies for
their review and comments. All comments received are attached in the Appendix.
(2)
The April 29, 1991 Department of Administration letter (Appendix "A") stated that the Finding of
No Significant Impact should be delayed until concerns of the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources were discussed in further detail. A June 11, 1991 letter (Appendix "B") from
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E. to Mr. James S. Lofton, Secretary of the Department of Administration
addressed those concerns. In a letter (Appendix "B") dated July 19, 1991, Mr. Lofton indicated that
a determination had been made to proceed with the FONSI based upon a review of supplemental
information submitted by NCDOT to the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from a number of agencies. The
substantive comments and responses are listed below.
B.1. North Carolina Department of Administration
Comments:
"Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources in the course of this review. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been
determined that you should not proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact until the issues
raised have been further discussed."
Response:
Please refer to the letter in Appendix "B" dated June 11, 1991 from Mr.L.J. Ward, P.E. to
Mr. James S. Lofton in response to the agency comments relative to the SR 2600 alternative
suggested by NC Wildlife Resources Commission in June 1990.
B.2. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Comments:
B.2.1. "One of EHNR's primary concerns is that the Department of Transportation (DOT) did not
evaluate the environmental impacts of all of the feasible alternatives in the EA. Comments from the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission in June 1990 recommended that DOT Consider using the SR
2600 right-of-way as an option."
B.2.2. "DEM also recommends a reexamination of the use of curb and gutter on this project.
Grassed swales and shoulders will enhance filtration of stormwater runoff."
B.2.3. "Wetland conversion will eliminate habitat for a diverse population of wildlife. It can also
increase sedimentation and impact water quality of Little Troublesome Creek. Because of these
impacts, DOT should make every effort to develop an acceptable mitigation plan and offer other
precautionary measures that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate detrimental environmental impacts
from this project."
(3)
Response:
B.2.1. Please refer to B.1. response.
B.2.2. The swale section suggested will require additional right-of-way resulting in larger impacts to
a wildlife habitat area. Curb and gutter sections are normally built in urban settings. As a result, this
type section was selected because of the proposed land usage along the project.
B.2.3. Please refer to the section entitled IV. Wetland Findings included earlier in the FONSI which
addresses wetland impacts and proposed mitigation.
B.3. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comments:
"The proposed project would bisect and seriously impact this quality habitat. Wetland losses
would exceed those stated in the DEA since adjacent lands and drainage will be affected by the
machinery and siltation from construction activities."
Response:
Please refer to responses B.1. and B.2.3.
B.4. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section
Comments:
B.4.1. "Page 3. Action Required By Other Agencies - A 401 Water Quality Certification, issued by
the NC DEM, is required prior to the Corps of Engineers issuance of a 404 permit."
B.4.2. "Page 4. General Description - The cost estimates do not appear to include mitigation costs.
How will mitigation be funded?"
B.4.3. "Page 7. Cross-Section Description - It is noted that a portion of the project will have curb
and gutter. Is there any possibility of replacing this with shoulders and grassed swales for enhanced
filtration of stormwater runoff from the road?"
B.4.4. "Page 18. Alternatives - The alternatives section does not address either use of SR 2600 as
a viable option nor bridging of the wetlands. Why were these not considered? DEM requests that
these alternatives be addressed in the EA. What would it cost to bridge the wetlands area?"
B.4.5. "Page 42. Wetlands - Has the Corps of Engineers verified the wetlands boundaries at the
project site? DEM requests that COE-certified wetlands boundaries be included in the final EA."
B.4.6. "Page 44. Table 11, bottom paragraphs - The EA states that 'methods of access in wetland
areas will be determined at design and construction phases'."
(4)
B.4.7. "Page 45. Wetland Miti ag tion - This section states that 'A mitigation plan will be developed
and submitted at the time of permit application."
B.4.8. "Page 45. Permits - The EA indicates that this project will probably be covered by a COE
nationwide permit and general 401 certification although this has not been confirmed by the Corps."
B.4.9. "Page 50. last paragraQh - This paragraph states erosion and sedimentation will occur and
controls will be implemented to minimize these impacts."
Response:
B.4.1. A 401 Water Quality Permit will be obtained based on final design documents.
B.4.2. The final design and permitting documents must be complete to estimate mitigation costs.
The project is state funded and mitigation costs will be included in the construction budget.
B.4.3. Please refer to response B.2.2.
B.4.4. The SR 2600 alternative is discussed extensively in the letter referenced in response B.1.
Regarding bridging the wetlands, the cost differential would be in the $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 range
depending upon the length of the bridge. This additional 10% - 20% increase in project cost was not
considered cost effective.
B.4.5. The COE wetland boundaries will be certified when final surveys are completed for final
design.
B.4.6.-B.4.8. The final design and permitting process will address all of the wetland mitigation
concerns. Please refer to Section IV Wetland Finding for additional comments.
B.4.9. The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article 107-13 of
the Standard Specifications which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N.C.
Division of Highways has also developed and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which as
been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of rigorous
requirements contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures" to minimize erosion
and sedimentation.
Also refer to Section VIII, items 3., 4., 5. and 6.
B.S. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Comments:
"1) On page 21, under Community Cohesion, the population of Reidsville is given as 12,492
in 1985. Actually, that is the population in 1980. The 1990 population declined to 12,183.
2) Considering the stable or declining population of the area, and the fact that the
population for the entire county grew only 3.2 percent from 1980 to 1990, what is the basis behind
the doubling of traffic volumes from 1992 to 2012 shown in Table 3 on page 17?
(5)
3) Based on comment number 2 above, I do not see the need for a five-lane facility, except
at intersections with major highways, at this time."
Response:
Many factors in addition to population growth are considered when traffic projections are
generated. This route will act as a bypass around the City for NC 87. NC 87 is in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP # R-2560) as a four-lane divided highway from Burlington to Reidsville.
The Planning and Environmental process is scheduled to start in 1992 for TIP # R-2560. The
Reidsville Southern Loop will act as a circumferential route for Reidsville. And finally, with future
land use projections showing this route as an Industrial/Commercial corridor, several major traffic
generators are included in the traffic projections.
B.6. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Comments:
"We have reviewed the above referenced project and find that 3 geodetic survey markers will
be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, (919)
733-3836 prior to construction. Intentional Destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C.
General Statute 102-4."
Response:
Please refer to Section VIII, item 15.
B.7. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Comments:
"The Service has reviewed the subject document and finds it to provide a good assessment
of fish and wildlife resources and wetland habitat to be impacted by the project. The Service does
not object to a finding of no significant impact for the proposed action, provided all unavoidable
wetland impacts will be mitigated fully in accordance with the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal
Register 46 (15): 7644-7663), January 23, 1981). Pending field confirmation, the forested wetlands
that would be impacted are classified as Resource Category 2 habitat. The Service's mitigation goal
for Category 2 is no net loss of in-kind habitat value."
Response:
NCDOT will provide mitigation for wetland impacts as required by federal and state agencies.
(6)
C. Comments Received on the June 11, 1991 letter from Mr.LJ. Ward, P.E. to Mr. James S. Lofton
C.I. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Comments:
"EHNR recommends that DOT adopt the procedure of preparing an EIS when a
"circumferential route" is proposed for a city. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
proposed route can be analyzed in an EIS. Then individual segments of the route can be evaluated
in an Environmental Assessment within the context of an encompassing EIS. Tiering of
environmental documents will assist both project sponsors and reviewing/permitting agencies to
effectively prepare and analyze environmental information.
Response:
NCDOT is presently developing a pilot study for three projects in North Carolina that will
address the potential impacts of major routes, such as circumferentials, during the thoroughfare
planning stage. This study could ultimately lead to a tiering of environmental documents as part of
the thoroughfare planning process. NCDOT will work with the reviewing/permitting agencies on
these projects.
C.2. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division
of Environmental Mana eg ment
Comments:
C.2.1. "The explanation of why the by-pass cannot be moved to the south to avoid the confluence
of Little Troublesome Creek and the unnamed tributary is based on the location of the southbound
ramps. It is unclear where the southbound ramps associated with the intersection of the by-pass and
US 29 will be located and if there will be any wetland impacts associated with these ramps."
C.2.2. "DEM appreciates the difficulty of addressing all of the environmental concerns associated
with a road project at this stage of planning and will not object to the EA at this time. However, due
to the lack of information concerning final design, DEM reserves the option to deny Water Quality
Certification for this project unless DOT demonstrates that all alternatives have been sufficiently
investigated and appropriate measures have been taken to minimize and mitigate water quality and
wetland impacts."
Response:
C.2.1. Sheet 4 of the Preliminary Design Plans shows the Southbound On-ramp between US 29
Bypass and Southern Railway just south of the Reidsville Southern Loop. The Preliminary Design
Plans shows very minor wetland impacts. Moving the intersection to the south would significantly
increase the wetland impacts, possibly encroaching into the main channel of the creek.
C.2.2. NCDOT will work to minimize all water quality and wetland impacts including those discussed
in C.1.1.
(7)
C.3. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comments:
"Continued loss of these habitat types has seriously affected both fisheries and wildlife in the
Piedmont portion of the state. The existing roadway, SR 2600, would not have as much impact since
it would follow existing rights-of-way. This alternative was suggested in the preliminary review and
was apparently given some consideration in the NCDOT response. However, we do not believe that
a statement such as "A 1.5 mile longer drive is too far for a town the size of Reidsville." constitutes
sufficient consideration. The original document states that the road is needed so the area can be
developed which will result in further habitat destruction. Because we consider impacts on wildlife
resources to be highly significant, we do not concur with the Environmental Assessment and we do
not believe that the environmental review record should be concluded with a Finding of No
Significant Impact. It is our opinion that an EIS should be required for this project and the current
survey and staking of the ROW should be halted until all impacts are adequately addressed."
Response:
The recommended alternative was selected because it best served the socio-economic
conditions and minimized wetland and water quality impacts within the study corridor. It was
determined that an EIS was not necessary, and that the Environmental Assessment adequately
addresses impacts associated with this project. The Department of Administration and the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources both have concurred on this decision.
D. Public Involvement Following the Environmental Assessment
Following agency and department circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was
held on Tuesday, April 2, 1991 in the Reidsville City Council Chambers. Approximately 30 people
attended the hearing including North Carolina Department of Transportation Representatives.
About 8 to 10 people spoke during the hearing. Two written comments were received, one for the
project and one against the project. Most of the speakers had questions about the effects on their
property or had general questions on the timing and specific configuration of the improvements.
There were a few speakers who used this public hearing as a forum to voice their concerns about the
Wentworth Bypass and NC 87.
Citizen questions were satisfactorily answered during the hearing. The key substantive comments and
questions received from the public during the public hearing and following the hearing are addressed
below.
A citizen whose property is being divided by the project was concerned about limiting access to his
property. He was told that as a minimum he would have one access on each side of the road.
A property owner impacted by the project spoke against the proposed road, suggesting the money
be spent elsewhere.
A multiple property owner asked questions about each access. The Hearing Officer answered all of
his questions.
(8)
The limits of improvements to NC 87 were questioned. The audience was informed that intersection
improvements will be limited to turn lanes at the Reidsville Southern Loop. It was mentioned that
NC 87 is in the Transportation Improvement Plan to be four-laned to Burlington.
A property owner along the portion of Camel Road shown as unpaved wanted it paved. In the Post
Hearing Meeting it was agreed that it should be paved.
The above discussion covers the comments received at the public hearing and in writing following the
public hearing.
VL Revisions to the Project Since Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Preliminary Design Plans were revised to show all of Camel Road (SR 2597) being paved.
(See Appendix C)
VIL Basis For Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the Environmental Assessment, and
upon comments received from Federal, State and local agencies, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not have a significant impact upon the
human or natural environment. The project is consistent with plans and goals that have been
adopted by the appropriate local governments and the State of North Carolina. Therefore, a state
environmental impact statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
In particular, the following have been determined:
The project is not controversial on environmental grounds.
No adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources of national,
state or local importance are expected.
No businesses or residences will be relocated.
No significant detrimental impact on air or water quality for adjoining areas is
expected. There will be some increases in noise levels for some areas adjacent to the
project. The use of noise abatement measures is not judged feasible or reasonable
for this project.
The project is consistent with local plans and will not divide or disrupt a community
or neighborhood. The project is locally supported.
Temporary increases in sedimentation will occur during construction.
In view of the above, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable
for this project.
(9)
VIII. List of Environmental Commitments
1. Measures will be taken to control dust during construction when necessary for the protection
and comfort of area motorists and residents.
2. If noise problems due to construction activities are identified, limit the hours of construction
activities to daytime hours or construct noise shields (temporary barriers) as necessary.
3. Make special provisions during construction to prevent erosion, sedimentation and
construction damage to vegetation outside the right-of-way boundary and construction limits.
4. Utilize "best management practices" during construction to minimize damages to vegetation
and wildlife, including attention to sedimentation and erosion control measures.
5. Have the contractor develop an erosion control schedule prior to the start of work and
adhere to the applicable state and federal regulations.
6. Use temporary erosion control measures (berms, dikes, silt basins, etc.) as needed during
construction.
7. Have the contractor adhere to local ordinances governing pollution control.
8. Embankment side slopes will be designed for the maximum grade to avoid fill in the wetlands.
Culverts will be sized and located to maintain or enhance the existing surface water conditions
of the wetland adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek.
9. Construction activities will be managed to minimize temporary impacts to existing wetlands.
All attempts will be made to protect the integrity of existing wetland vegetation where
possible. The boundaries of the existing wetlands will be flagged in the field prior to
construction. Construction staging areas, equipment or material storage will not be allowed
near existing wetlands where accidents or spill could destroy wetland vegetation or pollute
wetland water resources.
10. A mitigation plan will be developed at the permitting phase and is expected to be
accomplished by on-site methods. If on-site conditions are not suitable for mitigation, off-site
opportunities will be expanded in accordance with the 1989 MOA between USEPA and US
Army Corp of Engineers.
11. The Division of Highways will hold a pre-construction conference between representatives
of the NCDOT, the contractor, representatives of the involved utility companies, and
pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility adjustments and to minimize damage
of rupture of existing service will be discussed at this conference.
12. Waste or debris shall be disposed of in areas that are 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 responsible engineer.
(10)
13. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances, along with
regulations of the North Carolina Plan for Implementing National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Burning will only be done on the right-of-way, under constant supervision, with
good atmospheric conditions, as remote from existing dwellings as possible.
14. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block drainage ditches. An extensive
rodent control program will be established where structures are to be removed or demolished
to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
15. Coordination will be initiated with the N.C. Geodetic Survey to ensure that geodetic markers
located along the project corridor will be protected.
(11)
APPENDIX A
Comments on the Environmental Assessment by Reviewing Agencies
t
•.,,. S?Alf.
•.
.:c
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin,. Governor
April 29, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett
t
N.C,. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Leggett:
'RGGR;I4 DEtrL_ONYlENT UNIT
James S. Lofton, Secretary
01,99/
RE: SCH File #91-E-4220-0637; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Construction of the Reidsville Southern Loop - US
29 Business to NC 87 (TIP U-2418)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmenal Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources in the course of this
review. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been
determined that you should not proceed with a Finding of No
Significant Impact until the issues raised have been further
discussed.
Best regards.
S' c ely,
w
Jam S. Lkot n
JSL:jt
Attachment
cc: Region G
Melba McGee
David Foster
'C11 f l i L'.
i
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone] /
State Courier 51-01-00 /
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

92
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Planning and Assessment
M E M O R A N D U M
April 19, 1991
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM:
Doug Lewis
RE: 91-0637 Reidsville Loop;
US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham County
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed
Reidsville Loop, US 29 to NC 87. As a result of this review, we
find that the Environmental Assessment (EA) does not adequately
consider the feasible alternatives nor are the potential impacts
of Alternative 1 sufficiently addressed.
One of EHNR's primary concern is that the Department of
Transportation (DOT) did not evaluate the environmental impacts
of all of the feasible alternatives in the EA. Comments from
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission in June 1990 recommended
that DOT consider using the SR 2600, right-of-way as an option.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission reiterates and the Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) agrees that because this route
already exists, it should be evaluated. Using an existing right-
of-way should minimize the impacts our divisions have identified
with the preferred alternative in the attached comments.
DEM also recommends a reexamination of the.use of curb and
gutter on this project. Grassed swales and shoulders will enhance
filtration of stormwater runoff.
The EA states that Alternative 1 and 2, identical in many
respects, would both impact 5.24 acres of wetlands. Wetland
PQ Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carulina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
Douglas G. Lewis
Director

Chrys Baggett
Page Two
April 19, 1991
conversion will eliminate habitat for a diverse population of
wildlife. It can also increase sedimentation and impact water
quality of Little Troublesome Creek. Because of these impacts,
DOT should make every effort to develop an acceptable mitigation
plan and offer other precautionary measures that would avoid,
minimize, or mitigate detrimental environmental impacts from this
project.
In conclusion, this department recommends that DOT not
proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact until the
deficiencies identified in the attached comments have been
addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: dm
cc: John Dorney
David Foster

. .
i99
`rJ
\l?Vv
E0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ig
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton r2 ??
Assistant Director !J
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment Document Review: State Project #
91-0637, Proposed Reidsville Loop; US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham
County.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NC'A RC) have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) document
for the proposed Reidsville loop, US 29 to NC 87, and we are familiar with habitat
values associated with the proposed project area. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) and
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25).
The area of concern is primarily wetland and bottomland hardwoods with
some upland hardwoods, mixed woodlands and associated drainages. It contains an
abundance of wildlife species such as deer, quail, rabbit and squirrel. Wild turkey
have also been reported in this area. Furbearer species, wading birds, songbirds and
raptors were also observed within the project area. Very little development is
located in this large area. The proposed project would bisect and seriously impact
this quality habitat. Wetland losses would exceed those stated in the DEA since
adjacent lands and drainages would be affected by the machinery and siltation from
construction activities.
We recommend denial of this project since this type of loss cannot be
mitigated. Continued loss of this type of habitat has seriously affected both fisheries
and wildlife in the Piedmont portion of the state. Habitat losses could be
substantially reduced by using the existing right-of-way of a near-by road for the

Memo
(2)
March 25, 1991
proposed loop.This alternative was suggested in the preliminary review but was not
considered or addressed in the DEA. Since DOT failed to address this suggestion,
the project should be denied because all alternatives were not addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc: The Honorable E. Richard Jarrett
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shan Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
.0.
-;991
N
State of North Carolina C
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources''`
Division of Environmental management
512 North Salisbury
Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 227611. y'
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph D.
WIliarn W CYO Jr., ry April 4, 1991 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and ssessment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Plann' Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM) Water
Quality Section has reviewed the subject environmental assessment
and has a number of questions and concerns regarding wetlands
impacts, mitigation and nonpoint source pollution resulting from
construction and use of this highway project.
Paae 3. Action Required By Other Agencies - A 401 Water
Quality Certification, issued by the NC DEM, is required prior to
the Corps of Engineers issuance of a 404 permit.
Paae 4. General Description - The cost estimates do not
appear to include mitigation costs. How will mitigation be
funded?
Page 7.,__ Cross-Section Description - It is noted that a portion
of the project will have curb and gutter. Is there any
possibility of replacing this with shoulders and grassed swales
for enhanced filtration of stormwater•runoff from the road?
Page 18. Alternatives - The alternatives section does not
address either use of SR2600 as a viable option nor bridging of
the wetlands. Why were these not considered? DEM requests that,
these alternatives be addressed in the EA. What would it cost to
bridge the wetlands area?
It is noted that the preferred alternative crosses Little
Troublesome Creek at the confluence of an unnamed tributary on
the east side and is close to the confluence with another unnamed
tributary on the west side. Shifting the project slightly south
could avoid the eastside tributary and minimize the potential for
impacts at the confluence with the west side unnamed tributary.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

Also, is it possible to shift the western end of the proposed
road segment to the south to avoid the ponds? What would be the
problems with such an alignment change?
Page 42. Wetlands - Has the Corps of Engineers verified the
wetlands boundaries at the project site? DEM requests that
COE-certified wetlands boundaries be included in the final EA.
Page 44. Table 11, bottom paragraphs - The EA states that
"methods of access in wetland areas will be determined at design
and construction phases". Not including this information in the
EA makes it impossible to assess these impacts and does not
address the type of remedial actions that will be necessary to
mitigate these impacts after construction. If these cannot be
addressed at this stage, DEM will review these impacts and
appropriate mitigation during its 401 Certification review of the
project as appropriate.
Page 45. Wetland Mitigation - This section states that "A
mitigation plan will be developed and submitted at the time of
permit application." Without having this information in the EA,
there is no way to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of
the mitigation. Therefore, DEM will have to reserve judgement on
the acceptability of the mitigation until after we have had an
opportunity to review the plans.
Page 45. Permits - The EA indicates that this project will
probably be covered by.a COE nationwide permit and general 401
certification although this has not been confirmed by the Corps.
This matter should be resolved prior to final approval of the EA
by Clearinghouse.
Page 50. last para raph - This paragraph states erosion and
sedimentation will occur and controls will be implemented to
minimize these impacts. However, sediment control measures are
about 70 percent effective, at best, meaning that sediment will
leave the site. DEM accepts this and believes DOT will make
every effort to minimize loss of sediment from the site.
However, the EA fails to mention the shortcoming of sediment
control,measures and does not assess the impacts of offsite•
sedimentation in the creek and nearby wetlands. As a minimum the
EA should at least acknowledge that some sediment will leave the
construction site, and preferably, ft 'should include a discussion
of the effectiveness of these measures and the potential for
downstream impact from unforeseen failure (ie. heavy rains in the
middle of construction).
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0637.mem/SEPA3
STArt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
R : 7991
_
y.+ r
John N. Morris
Director
Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlae/hern SUBJ ECT: Reidsville So Loop, 91-0637
We have reviewed this proposed highway project and have the
following comments:
1) On page 21, under Community Cohesion, the population of
Reidsville is given as 12,492 in 1985. Actually, that is the
population in 1980. The 1990 population declined to 12,183.
2) Considering the stable or declining population of the area,
and the fact that the population for the entire county grew only
3.2 percent from 1980 to 1990, what is the basis behind the
doubling of traffic volumes from 1992 to 2012 shown in Table 3 on
page 17?
3) Based on comment number 2 above, I do not see the need for a
five-lane facility, except at intersections with major highways,
at this time.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emolover

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources I Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
Q) - 3 a
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions..regzrding ipese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Fir

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS ocess
Tirn
(statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate :•:astewaier treatment
C facilities, sewer system extensions
& sever Application 90 days before begin co: struc6on or award of
30 csys
,
systems not discharging into state surface wate cons:rutttor. contracts On-site inspection. Post-application ?
rs. lechnical conference usual
(9G cars)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor
permit to o
era
d App5ca:ion 180 days before begin ac:i•;ity. On-site inspection. 90.120 dlays
p
:e an
construct wastewater facilities
C discharging into state surface waters Pre•a;--cation conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
. construct wastev:a:er treatment facilit.;•granted after NPDES. Reply (NI:A
time. 30 days after receipt of. plans or issue of NPDES
permit•:;hichever is later.
f- Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N•'A)
r- yrell Construction Permit
t 7 cat's
- N/A
(15 cat' s)

fed and Fill =--rmit Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 ceys
On-site inspection.. ?re•apptica!ion conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 cars)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
C
facilities and/or Emission Sources 60 tays
NIA ? (90 Ca}•s)
open burning associated with subject proposal
C
I must be in comViance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demoliticr, or renovations of structures containing
as tos
:
maleca
r
must be in compliance with

L_ CAC 2D.0525 ;: ;ich requires -atiiication and removal
NIA 60 c=;s
prior to demolition.

1 ConlpI-x Source =ermit requires under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
Lt i9o s)
he Sedimentation Pollution Ccnirol Act of 1973 must be properly adwt!essed for any land disturbing activi!y. An erosion & sedimentatio
L will be required ;r n control c.an
one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan file
Y d with proper Regional Office (Land Qu-tity Sect.) at least 30 days before begin act..:i:y.
r
Th
S
I

-
e
edimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect -,o the referrenced Local Ordinance:
'
On•sile ir•,spection ?.suai. Surety bone `;fed with EHNR as shoe;n:
Any area mined gltaler•than one ac-e must be permited.
(-
(.tiring Permit
AF=cCTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND
30 ^a;s
Less than 5 acres
5 2,500
5 cat less Thar: 10 acres 5,000
10 out less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 ca; s)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Eurning permit
G On•site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds a days (MAI
Special Ground Clearance Burntrc Permit - 22
L co
ti
i On•site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources re
i
d "if

un
es
n coastal N.C. with organic soils qu
re
more
than live acres of ;round clearing activities are involved
Inspections 1 day
WA
.
shoule ce requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned." (
,
Oil Refining Fac ! ties 90•120 rays
N/A (NrA)
If pear.; required. application 60 days before begin construction

C Dam Safety Permit .
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans,
30 days
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
PS. ,05

Normal Process -
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of S5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator mall, upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rule; and regulations. 10 days
(NIA)
Q Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior :v issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form. 10 days
(NIA)
S
C
tate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charc:c. .ust include
descriptions b drawings of structure 8 proof of o:.-.=rship
of riparian property. ',5.20 days
(NrA)
?- 401 water Quality Certification 60rdays
NIA (130 days)
n CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 55 days
$10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
r II CAMA Permit for MINOR development 22 days
--i 510.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
OI Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destr:;ad, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleign, N.C. 27611
L. Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
# Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
Jam- ` 3 1s-Ar?
pzw

reviewer signature
r _
9 cy dale
..I?
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
C Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]

? Fayetteville Regional Cff.ce
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
-1 [phone]
1
u Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(91P)7A1.919;1
Vdiimington Regional O":ce
7225 Wrightsville Aven:;e
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
• ???a?516171g?9
rU ..,° <
4AA
X991
°...?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -r
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles H. Gardner
Wiillam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 12, 1991
To: Melba McGee
From: Gary Thompson
Subject: 91-0637, Rockingham County, Reidsville Southern
Loop, US 29 Bus. to NC 87, TIP No. U-2418
State Project No. 9.8071834
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 3 geodetic survey markers will be impacted:.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
..: ,ham ?>

P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 0 Telephony [phone]
- r
March 25, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Bill Flournoy
SUBJECT: Reidsville Southern Loop
Rockingham County
SCH # 91-0637 ,
The Environmental Assessment does not conform to the requirements
of 1 NCAC 25.0503 with respect to document length. Given the
scope of information that must be presented in support of
analysis, of the proposed activity, an Environmental Impact
Statement may have been appropriate for this review process.

EN7 OF United States Department of the
ti
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ti A
b Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 13, 1991
Mr. L.J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
nbb
Interior
=37W ?
=s ?
0/
O Alo _ ? /Y

SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment for Reidsville Southern Loop, US
29 Business to NC 87, Rockingham County, TIP #U-2418, State
Project 9.8071834
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your February 18, 1991 letter soliciting comments on the
subject document. This is the report of the Department of the Interior and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and is submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service has reviewed the subject document and finds it to provide a good
assessment of fish and wildlife resources and wetland habitat to be impacted
by the project. The Service does not object to a finding of no significant
impact for the proposed action, provided all unavoidable wetland impacts
will be mitigated fully in accordance with the Service's Mitigation Policy
(Federal Register 46(15): 7644-7663), January 23, 1981). Pending field
confirmation, the forested wetlands that would be impacted are classified as
Resource Category 2 habitat. The Service's mitigation goal for Category 2
is no net loss of in-kind habitat value.
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed or proposed endangered
or threatened plant or animal species in the project impact area.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please continue to
advise us of the progress of this project.
Sincerely yours,
Ur- Ka?e_C,?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
w '.
APPENDIX B
June 11, 1991 letters from Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
to Mr. James S. Lofton and follow up comments.
Ob
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
44
•? Nw. viUP?..
i
P
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
June 11, 1991
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. James S. Lofton, Secretary
Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003
SUBJECT: SCH File #91-E-4220-0637; Environmental Assessment
for the Reidsville Southern Loop,
From US 29 Business to NC 87, Rockingham County,
State Project No. 9.8071834 (TIP No. U-2418)
Dear Mr. Lofton:
In regard to your letter dated April 29, 1991, the comments from
the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources have
been reviewed and the following information is offered in response
to their primary concerns.
The suggestion received during the initial scoping process of the
Environmental Assessment to study an alternate along SR 2600 was
considered a logical question and was considered. The feasibility
of this route was studied and there were several reasons why it
was not considered a viable alternative and therefore not
evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. The referenced project
was conceived approximately twenty-five years ago to complete the
western loop around Reidsville thereby improving traffic flow
around the city. The approximate location of the Reidsville
Southern Loop has been in the approved Thoroughfare Plan for many
years. The recommended alignment follows the thoroughfare plan
very closely.
Traffic studies show that the usage of circumferential routes
decline proportionally to increased distances from the population
base and traffic generators. The SR 2600 route is approximately 2
miles further out from the City of Reidsville than the Recommended
Alternative. This distance is significant when the size of
Reidsville is considered. Therefore, the SR 2600 route would not
serve the intended purpose of the proposed project. Service to
the potential users and relief of traffic congestion on the city
streets would not be realized.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
a
Mr. James S. Lofton
Page Two
June 11, 1991
As another benefit, the Recommended Alternative will open up a
much needed industrial/commercial development corridor which will
help boost the local economy. The local residents and public
officials support this type of development. The Recommended
Alignment is on the fringes of an existing industrial area of
Reidsville and will allow the expansion of this land use. The SR
2600 route traverses a rural/residential area which is
incompatible with industrial/commercial land uses. Therefore, the
suggested alternate would not be as socially or economically
beneficial to the citizens of the Reidsville area as the studied
alternatives.
The suggested improvements to SR 2600 would have similiar impacts
on wetlands and wildlife habitat because Little Troublesome Creek
and the adjacent wetlands would still be crossed with a major
highway rather than the existing two-lane roadway. In addition,
urban areas typically develop out to the circumferential routes,
therefore, the SR 2600 route would encourage growth 2 miles
further out from Reidsville than the Recommended Alternative. The
net result would be more impacts to wildlife habitat.
Construction activities would be similar to those discussed for
the Recommended Alternative.
Regarding the Recommended Alternative wetland crossings, the
Little Troublesome Creek crossing was carefully chosen. If the
proposed route is shifted to the south, the southbound on-ramp
encroaches into Little Troublesome Creek. A shift to the north
would impact substantially more wetland acreage adjacent to the
creek. At the western end of the project, a shift of the
preferred alignment to the south would require the relocation of
two residences to preserve two man-made ponds.
An evaluation of wetlands within the project corridor included: 1)
a review.of Soil Conservation Services Soil Survey of Rockingham
County and Topographic maps of the area; 2) contact with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers in Wilmington; and 3) an on-site
reconnaissance to evaluate the extent of wetlands occurring within
the project area. Wetlands were delineated according to the
Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. A total of 5.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands was
determined to be impacted by the project.
The analysis of the alternatives considered the following:
selection of the alternative that avoids wetlands to the maximum
extent possible; maintenance of historic hydrologic flow;
construction methods to minimize impacts; and the most cost
effective design for minimal impact. These criteria were
carefully evaluated in establishing the creek crossing for the
studied alternatives. A mitigation plan will be developed at the
permitting phase and is expected to be accomplished by on-site

Mr. James S. Lofton
Page Three
June 11, 1991
methods. If on-site conditions are not suitable for mitigation,
off-site opportunities will be expanded in accordance with the
1989 MOA between USEPA and US Army Corp of Engineers.
The swale section suggested will require additional right-of-way
resulting in larger impacts to a wildlife habitat area. Curb and
gutter sections are normally built in urban settings. As a
result, this type section was selected because of the proposed
land usage along the project.
During construction, in accordance with standard NCDOT
construction procedures there will be strict adherence to an
erosion control plan which shall include limiting areas and
duration of exposed earth and_the stabilization of exposed areas
by temporary grassing or other measures as quickly as possible.
This plan shall also include additional temporary erosion control
devices such as silt fences, rock check dams, silt basins and
stream flows during construction of water crossings. Careful
attention to erosion control, with emphasis on inspection and
maintenance of erosion control devices, will be concentrated at
the stream crossing (Little Troublemsome Creek). Permanent
erosion control measures shall include the provision of stable
grassed or otherwise protected slopes and the installation of
permanent velocity dissipator and erosion control devices.
Other agency comments on the EA will be addressed in the Finding
Of No Significant Impact. I trust the above information will be
sufficient to allow the project to proceed with a Finding of No
Significant Impact. Your concurrence with this finding is
requested. We appreciate the interest in this project and hope
that your primary concerns have been adequately addressed. If you
have any further concerns or questions please contact me at
733-7842. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
g.. WAL
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
LJW/RE/lbc
s.

_ i-
North Carolina JU 2 41991
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor
i7vL y
-du-ne 19, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Leggett:
James S. Lofton, Secretary
Re: SCH File #91-E-4220-0637; Environmental Assessment
(Supplemental Comments) for the Proposed Construction of
the Reidsville Southern Loop - US 29 Business to NC 87
(TIP U-2418) The above referenced additional environmental information has
been reviewed.
Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. As a result of the
review of the supplemental information, it has been determined
that you should proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Best regards.
JSL:jt
Attachment
cc: Region G
Melba McGee
David Foster
Since ely,
James Lofton
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
AS 10
Srnq.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin; Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
A111- !go,
July 16, 1991
Mr. James S. Lofton, Secretary
Department of Administration ?r
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003
SUBJECT: 91-0637 Environmental Assessment for Reidsville
Southern Loop, US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Lofton:
Staff from the Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (EHNR) have reviewed the supplemental
information prepared by the Department of Transportation (DOT)
concerning the proposed Reidsville Southern Loop. While some
differences remain, especially relating to the significance of
impacts on wildlife habitat, EHNR concurs with DOT that
sufficient information has been presented to proceed with a
FONSI.
EHNR recommends that DOT adopt the procedure of preparing an
EIS when a "circumferential route" is proposed for a city.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed route
can be analyzed in an EIS. Then individual segments of the route
can be evaluated in an Environmental Assessment within the
context of an encompassing EIS. Tiering of environmental
documents will assist both project sponsors and
reviewing/permitting agencies to effectively prepare and analyze
environmental information.
The appropriate stage for this initial interaction on an EIS
is probably thoroughfare planning when the location of the road
is flexible. End points of the segments to be built are not yet
given. Environmental concerns can be acknowledged at this time
without jeopardizing other objectives relating to transportation
P.O. Box 27687, P11163:h, North C-11,11i-i ?7.1,11-7..a-
James S. Lofton
Page Two
July 16, 1991
efficiency, economic development,
Minimum environmental degradation
objectives can be best achieved by
planning process as possible.
and socio-economic goals.
in concert with development
cooperation as early in the
Comments from the Division of Environmental Management and
the Wildlife Resources Commission are attached. Specific
information relating to water quality will be evaluated when a
401 Water Quality Certification is requested from DEM.
recommendation is that DOT continue to. evaluate measures (that
address the problem of the fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
Sincerely,
DouglasoG. Lewis
i •
?+ 1s s
J?
V 4 •?,j?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Reso
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor July 8, 1991
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and A essment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Sectio
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management has reviewed the information provided by DOT in
response to our comments on the environmental assessment for the
subject document. Although most of our concerns have been
sufficiently addressed the potential water quality and wetland
impacts associated with the road crossing of Little Troublesome
Creek need to be further examined.
The explanation of why the by-pass cannot be moved to the
south to avoid the confluence of Little Troublesome Creek and the
unnamed tributary is based on the location of the southbound
ramps. It is unclear where the southbound ramps associated with
the intersection of the by-pass and US 29 will be located and if
there will be any wetland impacts associated with these ramps.
DEM appreciates the difficulty of addressing all of the
environmental concerns associated with a road project at this
stage of planning and will not object to the EA at this time.
However, due to the lack of information concerning final design,
DEM reserves the option to deny Water Quality Certification for
this project unless DOT demonstrates that all alternatives have
been sufficiently investigated and appropriate measures have been
taken to minimize and mitigate water quality and wetland impacts.
Questions regarding.the water quality certification should be
referred to Mr. Ron Ferrell of DEM's Water Quality Planning
Branch.
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395.3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
N
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission "F
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
DATE: July 11, 1991
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 91-0637: Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop; US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham County
Biologists on the Wildlife Resources Commission staff have reviewed the
subject document and we are are familiar with habitat values of the project area.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The area of concern is primarily impacts on wetlands and bottomland
hardwood with some upland hardwoods, mixed woodlands and associated drainages
involved.. The area contains an abundance of wildlife species such as deer, quail,
rabbit and squirrel. Wild turkey have also been reported in this area. Furbearer
species, wading birds, songbirds and raptors were also observed within the project
area. Very little development is located in this large area. The proposed project
would bisect and seriously impact this high quality habitat. Wetland and other
habitat losses would exceed those stated in the EA since adjacent lands and
drainages would be impacted by the machinery and siltation from construction
activities as well as secondary development.
Continued loss of these habitat types has seriously affected both fisheries and
wildlife in the Piedmont portion of the state. The existing roadway, SR 2600, would
not have as much impact since it would follow existing rights-of-way. This
alternative was suggested in the preliminary review and was apparently given some
consideration in the NCDOT response. However, we do not believe that a
statement such as "A 1.5 mile longer drive is too far for a town the size of
Reidsville." constitutes sufficient consideration. The original document states that
'the road is needed so the area can be developed' which will result in further habitat
destruction. Because we consider impacts on wildlife resources to be highly
significant, we do not concur with the Environmental Assessment and we do not

Memo
(2)
July 11, 1991
believe that the environmental review record should be concluded with a Finding of
No Significant Impact. It is our opinion that an EIS should be required for this
project and the current survey and staking of the ROW should be halted until all
impacts are adequately addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc:* The Honorable Ovide E. de St. Aubin
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
An
a
N
0\
J
m
m
b
°
i A A N = f
2 0 o n T p
s o o L K
z
o ° s < ?
m < < °v N s
K m AN A O
K K N
l
r
MATCH YANU 2
m
0 0
0
O©0(B (M agma-w?
z s ; ? i z 5 5 0 4 ?; o o ? rn e.
? p D IZn O O O s v
z C a i rri H
K ? N ?I !I
a y ? ! ,
µN p°" ?'? a? tS
C A
M M' k M''•Ik???m?? ?0• /
V
I` µ k µ µ µ µ µ ONO >? ff 9 ?1? / •q
µ 0 o o
\\?? a µµ µµ µ F µ1kµ Ikµ ?' m O
µµ k µ1k ? / ? ?-?
µµµ µµ ? /dam' °
tp_
O ? `/??qq ? ?q p ?0
?V /
a

i•
i
(9) q n. /
b
N
b
m
b
N
9
zr-/oD-
OWObp
?O m W 0 ? i
O O O N
• a ?
• m
v
pr
mNO N
O a N 0 0
O` N O' W m
NI
O 1
N
W
a
O
W
O
O
In
O
m
1
? O
IN
O
7 m
n
D e
a
Ti
Ti
n o
N
'r
m
c
m
0
A
D
VI
? ? ? ? ??
?, 1 0
Iy 1 ?4 ?

L ? Val"
+Y N O "+1 N

O ? 0oti
Z
o n
mg Z NRao C`71 `m
?
mI?T1 D
t- ? ?z o ?S ?
?_ ? x° ? m no
GZ

0 ZZ
n Z c° v ? ?'?I ? .•.I •?

o
D
?

D
m 0

°KN A a
`

?_? ZRo
?
c
R
r _
1 m
cl, :
ryry
9
i 2 a1 Fa
I -1 f1 .
t
SS C o C
¦ Zin
(\
O
z pyp
cc
Y C z C m
m .•9
u
7 N
K m
m
o NG7
0
V'
q
1n
. , LI ?
Wetland area acres
Nearest road
? Hydrologically isolated

Wetland type (select one) ? Other '
' ? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
a Bottomland hardwood forest ? Stream channel '
• ? Carolina bay l! Salt marsh
? Pocosin ? Brackish marsh •
Q1 Pine savannah ? Freshwater marsh
' J Wet flat LJ Bog/Fen
o 3 Perched ? Vernal pool '
G 9 O o v 0 d 0? o e• o g a•••• s•• •_• • w• c o• o• q?
rum • e e g a r• q q r o•?• r q•?•••• •?
Water storage •
Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 '
Pollutant removal _ ?>< <««>» •

Sensitive watershed •

Travel corridor X I.?O - •
Wetland score•
S `
pecial ecological attributes
>
Wildlife habitat

?

l.j ip e
Aquatic value x X.S
0

w

"iN
Recreation/Education

Economic value 3

0.?5 w

'
e
x 0 0 0 0 0 a.0 0 0 10 6 a•• a a 0 a 0 0 ••• • 0 • 0 • • a a•• • 0 • a 0 • 0 • A a• a0 • • 0 a a 0
a• a a
("t, T. 1-"5 L& F

Wetland width 60 feet
A
_+
C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR June 11, 1991
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Mr. James S. Lofton, Secretary
Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003
c
,q
J/
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
6&"Al
SUBJECT: SCH File #91-E-4220-0637; Environmental Assessment
for the Reidsville Southern Loop, .
From US 29 Business to NC 87, Rockingham County,
State Project No. 9.8071834 (TIP No. U-2418)
Dear Mr. Lofton:
In regard to your letter dated April 29, 1991, the comments from
the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources have
been reviewed and the following information is offered in response
to their primary concerns.
The suggestion received during the initial scoping process of the
Environmental Assessment to study an alternate along SR 2600 was
considered a logical question and was considered. The feasibility
of this route was studied and there were several reasons why it
was not considered a viable alternative and therefore not
evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. The referenced project
was conceived approximately twenty-five years ago to complete the
western loop around Reidsville thereby improving traffic flow
around the city. The approximate location of the Reidsville
Southern Loop has been in the approved Thoroughfare Plan for many
years. The recommended alignment follows the thoroughfare plan
very closely.
Traffic studies show that the usage of circumferential routes
decline proportionally to increased distances from the population
base and traffic generators. The SR 2600 route is approximately 2
miles further out from the City of Reidsville than the Recommended
Alternative. This distance is significant when the size of
Reidsville is considered. Therefore, the SR 2600 route would not
serve the intended purpose of the proposed project. Service to
the potential users and relief of traffic congestion on the city
streets would not be realized.
f .?
Mr. James S. Lofton
Page Two
June 11, 1991
As another benefit, the Recommended Alternative will open up a
much needed industrial/commercial development corridor which will
help boost the local economy. The local residents and public
officials support this type of development. The Recommended
Alignment is on the fringes of an existing industrial area of
Reidsville and will allow the expansion of this land use. The SR
2600 route traverses a rural/residential area which is
incompatible with industrial/commercial land uses. Therefore, the
suggested alternate would not be as socially or economically
beneficial to the citizens of the Reidsville area as the studied
alternatives.
The suggested improvements to SR 2600 would have similiar impacts
on wetlands and wildlife habitat because Little Troublesome Creek
and the adjacent wetlands would still be crossed with a major
highway rather than the existing two-lane roadway. In addition,
urban areas typically develop out to the circumferential routes,
therefore, the SR 2600 route would encourage growth 2 miles
further out from Reidsville than the Recommended Alternative. The
net result would be more impacts to wildlife habitat.
Construction activities would be similar to those discussed for
the Recommended Alternative.
Regarding the Recommended Alternative wetland crossings, the
Little Troublesome Creek crossing was carefully chosen. If the
proposed route is shifted to the south, the southbound on-ramp
encroaches into Little Troublesome Creek. A shift to the north
would impact substantially more wetland acreage adjacent to the
creek. At the western end of the project, a shift of the
preferred alignment to the south would require the relocation of
two residences to preserve two man-made ponds.
An evaluation of wetlands within the project corridor included: 1)
a review of Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Rockingham
County and Topographic maps of the area; 2) contact with the U. S.
Army Corps of. Engineers in Wilmington; and 3) an on-site
reconnaissance to evaluate the extent of wetlands occurring within
the project area.fWetlands were delineated according to the
Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. A total of 5.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands was
determined to be impacted by the project.
The analysis of the alternatives considered the following:
selection of the alternative that avoids wetlands to the maximum
extent possible; maintenance of historic hydrologic flow;
construction methods to minimize impacts; and the most cost
effective design for minimal impact. These criteria were
carefully evaluated in establishing the creek crossing for the
studied alternatives. A mitigation plan will be developed at the
permitting phase and is expected to be accomplished by on-site
Mr. James S. Lofton
Page Three
June 11, 1991
methods. If on-site conditions are not suitable for mitigation,
off-site opportunities will be expanded in accordance with the
1989 MOA between USEPA and US Army Corp of Engineers.
The swale section suggested will require additional right-of-way
resulting in larger impacts to a wildlife habitat area. Curb and
gutter sections are normally built in urban settings. As a
result, this type section was selected because of the proposed
land usage along the project.
During construction, in accordance with standard NCDOT
construction procedures there will be strict adherence to an
erosion control plan which shall include limiting areas and
duration of exposed earth and the stabilization of exposed areas
by temporary grassing or other measures as quickly as possible.
This plan shall also include additional temporary erosion control
devices such as silt fences, rock check dams, silt basins and
stream flows during construction of water crossings. Careful
attention to erosion control, with emphasis on inspection and
maintenance of erosion control devices, will be concentrated at
the stream crossing (Little Troublemsome Creek). Permanent
erosion control measures shall include the provision of stable
grassed or otherwise protected slopes and the installation of
permanent velocity dissipator and erosion control devices.
Other agency comments on the EA will be addressed in the Finding
Of No Significant Impact. I trust the above information will be
sufficient to allow the project to proceed with a Finding of No
Significant Impact. Your concurrence with this finding is
requested. We appreciate the interest in this project and hope
that your primary concerns have been adequately addressed. If you
have any further concerns or questions please contact me at
733-7842. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
'eq. WAJ?
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
LJW/RE/lbc

James G. Martin, Governor
North Carolina
Department of Administration
April 29, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
'i
i
Dear Mr. Leggett:
t
I- M
IV-U
James S. Lofton, Secretary
??• ? ^k

?t
RE: SCH File #91-E-4220-0637; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Construction of the Reidsville Southern Loop - US
29 Business to NC 87 (TIP U-2418)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmenal Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources in the course of this
review. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been
determined that you should not proceed with a Finding of No
Significant Impact until the issues raised have been further
discussed.
Best regards.
JSL:jt
Attachment
cc: Region G
Melba McGee
David Foster
S' c ely,
Jam s S. Lo ton
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-0 1 -00
An Emial Onrcurunin / Affirmorn.. Arri - Fnvilnvrr
fo M SEAT, ? '(
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 19, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Doug Lewis c?
RE: 91-0637 Reidsville Loop;
US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham County
J\
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed
Reidsville Loop, US 29 to NC 87. As a result of this review, we
find that the Environmental Assessment (EA) does not adequately
consider the feasible alternatives nor are the potential impacts
of Alternative 1 sufficiently addressed.
One of EHNR's primary concern is that the Department of
Transportation (DOT) did not evaluate the environmental impacts
of all of the feasible alternatives in the EA. Comments from
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission in June 1990 recommended
that DOT consider using the SR 2600, right-of-way as an option.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission reiterates and the Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) agrees that because this route
already exists, it should be evaluated. Using an existing right-
of-way should minimize the impacts our divisions have identified
with the preferred alternative in the attached comments.
DEM also recommends a reexamination of the use of curb and
gutter on this project. Grassed swales and shoulders will enhance
filtration of stormwater runoff.
The EA states that Alternative 1 and 2, identical in many
respects, would both impact 5.24 acres of wetlands. Wetland
P0. kox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-76£7 Telephone [phone]
Chrys Baggett
Page Two
April 19, 1991
conversion will eliminate habitat for a diverse population of
wildlife. It can also increase sedimentation and impact water
quality of Little Troublesome Creek. Because of these impacts,
DOT should make every effort to develop an acceptable mitigation
plan and offer other precautionary measures that would avoid,
minimize, or mitigate detrimental environmental impacts from this
project.
In conclusion, this department recommends that DOT not
proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact until the
deficiencies identified in the attached comments have been
addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: dm
cc: John Dorney
David Foster

Q?
'J
• f v?
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ;
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton Pt
Assistant Director 1J
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment Document Review: State Project #
91-0637, Proposed Reidsville Loop; US 29 to NC 87, Rockingham
County.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) document
for the proposed Reidsville loop, US 29 to NC 87, and we are familiar with habitat
values associated with the proposed project area. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) and
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25).
The area of concern is primarily wetland and bottomland hardwoods with
some upland hardwoods, mixed woodlands and associated drainages. It contains an
abundance of wildlife species such as deer, quail, rabbit and squirrel. Wild turkey
have also been reported in this area. Furbearer species, wading birds, songbirds and
raptors were also observed within the project area. Very little development is
located in this large area. The proposed project would bisect and seriously impact
this quality habitat. Wetland losses would exceed those stated in the DEA since
adjacent lands and drainages would be affected by the machinery and siltation from
construction activities.
We recommend denial of this project since this type of loss cannot be
mitigated. Continued loss of this type of habitat has seriously affected both fisheries
and wildlife in the Piedmont portion of the state. Habitat losses could be
substantially reduced by using the existing right-of-way of a near-by road for the
Memo (2) March 25, 1991
proposed loop.This alternative was suggested in the preliminary review but was not
considered or addressed in the DEA. Since DOT failed to address this suggestion,
the project should be denied because all alternatives were not addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc: The Honorable E. Richard Jarrett
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shan Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
SAjZ
ra
l
State of North Carolina tr-=-
Department of Environment, Health, and Natur4Aesourees W
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27.611 y=?
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
v+riilam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 4, 1991 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning and ssessment
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Plann' Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0637; NCDOT EA for Proposed Reidsville
Southern Loop, Rockingham County
The Division of Environmental Management's (DEM) Water
Quality Section has reviewed the subject environmental assessment
and has a number of questions and concerns regarding wetlands
impacts, mitigation and nonpoint source pollution resulting from
construction and use of this highway project.
Page 3. Action Required By Other Agencies - A 401 Water
Quality Certification, issued by the NC DEM, is required prior to
the Corps of Engineers issuance of a 404 permit.
Page 4. General Description - The cost estimates do not
appear to include mitigation costs. How will mitigation be
funded?
Page 7., Cross-Section Description - It is noted that a portion
of the project will have curb and gutter. Is there any
possibility of replacing this with shoulders and grassed swales
for enhanced filtration of stormwater'runoff from the road?
Page 18. Alternatives - The alternatives section does not
address either use of SR2600 as a viable option nor bridging of
the wetlands. Why were these not considered? DEM requests that
these alternatives be addressed in the EA. What would it cost to
bridge the wetlands area?
It is noted that the preferred alternative crosses Little
Troublesome Creek at the confluence of an unnamed tributary on
the east side and is close to the confluence with another unnamed
tributary on the west side. Shifting the project slightly south
could avoid the eastside tributary and minimize the potential for
impacts at the confluence with the west side unnamed tributary.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O_ Ploy 77ER7. RAIPiah Nnrth r^ rnlin 77r,11_7F.S27 TPIPnhnnP 910_734-7015
Also, is it possible to shift the western end of the proposed
road segment to the south to avoid the ponds? What would be the
problems with such an alignment change?
Page 42. Wetlands - Has the Corps of Engineers verified the
wetlands boundaries at the project site? DEM requests that
COE-certified wetlands boundaries be included in the final EA.
Page 44. Table 11, bottom paraaraphs - The EA states that
"methods of access in wetland areas will be determined at design
and construction phases". Not including this information in the
EA makes it impossible to assess these impacts and does not
address the type of remedial actions that will be necessary to
mitigate these impacts after construction. If these cannot be
addressed at this stage, DEM will review these impacts and
appropriate mitigation during its 401 Certification review of the
project as appropriate.
Page 45. Wetland Mitigation - This section states that "A
mitigation plan will be developed and submitted at the time of
permit application." Without having this information in the EA,
there is no way to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of
the mitigation. Therefore, DEM will have to reserve judgement on
the acceptability of the mitigation until after we have had an
opportunity to review the plans.
Page 45. Permits - The EA indicates that this project will
probably be covered by.a COE nationwide permit and general 401
certification although this has not been confirmed by the Corps.
This matter should be resolved prior to final approval of the EA
by Clearinghouse.
Page 50 last paragraph - This paragraph states erosion and
sedimentation will occur and controls will be implemented to
minimize these impacts. However, sediment control measures are
about 70 percent effective, at best, meaning that sediment will
leave the site. DEM accepts this and believes DOT will make
every effort to minimize loss of sediment from the site.
However, the EA fails to mention the shortcoming of sediment
control,measures and does not assess the impacts of offsite
sedimentation in the creek and nearby wetlands. As a minimum the
EA should at least acknowledge that some sediment will leave the
construction site, and preferably, it should include a discussion
of the effectiveness of these measures and the potential for
downstream impact from unforeseen failure (ie. heavy rains in the
middle of construction).
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
91-0637.mem/SEPA3
}M $TATZ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
%o N
991
- N
» 1'i o ?
?l
1'_?J?'' S 1? `\4 ?J
John N. Morris
Director
Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlae1hern SUBJECT: Reidsville So Loop, 91-0637
We have reviewed this proposed highway project and have the
following comments:
1) On page 21, under Community Cohesion, the population of
Reidsville is given as 12,492 in 1985. Actually, that is the
population in 1980. The 1990 population declined to 12,183.
2) Considering the stable or declining population of the area,
and the fact that the population for the entire county grew only
3.2 percent from 1980 to 1990, what is the basis behind the
doubling of traffic volumes from 1992 to 2012 shown in Table 3 on
page 17?
3) Based on comment number 2 above, I do not see the need for a
five-lane facility, except at intersections with major highways,
at this time.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276117687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal OPpornunicv Afhrrnarivr Arrinn Fmnlnvrr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources I Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
1?1 - 3 3 1
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
_,-,Questions.r.egarding.tDese permits-should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Norr pro

PERMITS

SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS _.. cess
Tirr,9
(statutory time
li
i

Permit to
- m
t)

f consi
,:ct & operate ::astewater treatment
facilities, sever system extensions, & sewer
systems not dis..narginc into state surface waters. Ap;)lica: on 90 days before begin construction or award of

I cons;r_r!ion contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual
.,. ,, : s
J
)
(QJ C. a' S

- nPDES - permit ulstnarge into surface water and;or
I permit too xa ; and construe; wastewater facilities
I discharging into state surface :eaters. Ap ,!ca: on -18191 ^ ?` ys before begin =certify. On-site inspection.
P!e-a=y- .catiun conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to

construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES 90-120 ays

t;•;;c-
permit-:':nichever is later.

r Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary I 30 days
_ (;•,,iA)

r- Well Construction Permit
NIA 7 days
(15 gays)

EJ
/_-Ir.dge and Fil! Permit
I Applicat on copy must be served or. each riparian property owner.
On-sit= inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may recu;re Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. 55 Says
(gG ca,;s)
- Permit t

I-' o construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sour
60 days
ces NIA ? (90 days)
y open burning
i

C assoc
ated v:!th subject proposal
must be in come lance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.

r.I
t
L_
' I Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asb tos mater:; must be in cc:.rmpliance with

,CAC 2D.0525 v.^,ich requires notification and removal
prior to demolifio ;.

IA

60 ;s
L?l
ComolFx Source a Fermi; require under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
- he Sedimentaticn Pollution Ccnfrol Act of 1973 must be properly adc-ssed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedi !
will be required ° one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with ? y' mentat on contr Ian
proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin ac f:vity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Ccntrol Act of 1973 must be addressed v:i;h respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:

On-site ;-.speciior usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as sho:vn:
Any area mined greater•lhan one =acre must be permited

Mininc Permit .
AF=_CTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND

Less than 5 acres S 2,500
', apes
i

- t 5 _; less than 10 acres 5,000
10 out less than 25 acres 12,500
25 or more acres 5,000
(60 days)
L-? North Carolina E
rni

u u
ng permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit

exceeds 4 days 1 day

(NIA)
S
ecial G

L_ p
round Ciearance Burr!^e Permit - 22
counties in coas:a: N.C.::ith cr_anic soils On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than frv9 acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
shoule to requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned." 1 day
(N-A)
?
r
I _ Oil Refining Facr' ies
N/A 90.120 days

(N%A)

r
L

Dam Safety Per.-,!- If perrmc •egWrec applicaiicn 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must n:-e N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans,
inspect construe! on. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plan.; May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a
404 percutfrcrm Corps of Engineers.
30 days

(NIA)

P S ,05

Normal Process
Time
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or ;.EQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

?

ermit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
? P File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to c:-'e of N.C.

conditional that any well opened by drill operator 5- H. upon 10 davs

(N q)
L abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rul?_ and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with. EHNR at least 10 days prier :: issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application for:- 10 days
(N/A)

? Slate Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is c!:a:,:s: '.'.ust include
descriptions 8 drawings of structure d proof of arship
t5-20 days
(N/A)
of riparian property.
?
_
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
? 60 days
(130 days)
! CAMA Permit for MAJOR development `-
$10.00 fee must accompany application.. 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
? I Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687. Raleign, N.C. 2761, i
i
- -
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

Ilk

44f'?
C1J
G G -G2G

:
/ ?
X le
?[?/?? (s/? (?/"//+' J ? ? Yom" ?in?!??/ [/ a.r9 /(?9?'? I r Kam' %?`? Ai '4"^ ? ' `?At/' / ? /'V J I ???
----
-
reviewer signature
'
---'--'"'---'"- -
agency date
? Asheville Regional Offi
ce
59 Woodfin Place - -+ ...
?'
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] ^\w V
A<

? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115 n
[phone]

? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
`
Washington, NC 27889 ' -
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Fayetteville Regional C!':ce
?.- Suite 714 Wachovia Bu+ :iing
Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? kNilmington Regional 0 --
7225 VJrightsville Avenc=
bVi!mington. NC 23403
[phone]

A a
Yr .? •, ??iF tl
`i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 12, 1991
To: Melba McGee
?t,?;161718
19
7
t
Charies H. Gardner
Director
From: Gary Thompson
Subject: 91-0637, Rockingham County, Reidsville Southern
Loop, US 29 Bus. to NC 871 TIP No. U-2418
State Project No. 9.8071834
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 3 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/aj s
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
^'y i d
J?
c.
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
r
Ig V
March 25, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Bill Flournoy
SUBJECT: Reidsville Southern Loop
Rockingham County
SCH # 91-0637
The Environmental Assessment does not conform to the requirements
of 1 NCAC 25.0503 with respect to document length. Given the
scope of information that must be presented in support of
analysis, of the proposed activity, an Environmental Impact
Statement may have been appropriate for this review process.

u

REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT 9.8071834
T.I.P. # U-2418
ADMINISTRATION ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
In Compliance With the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:

n

Fil
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Phone [phone]
211 9/
ATE F APPROVAL
L.. rd, P.E.
MANAGER, PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH,
NCDOT
14
*1
1

REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT 9.8071834
T.I.P. # U-2418
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
January, 1991
Documentation Prepared by Connelly and Wicker, Incorporated
in Association with RS&H Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc.

Richard C. Welch, P.E.
Project Manager
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY 1
1. Purpose of And Need For Action 4
1.1. General Description 4
1.2. Summary of Proposed Improvements 4
1.2.1. General Location 4
1.2.2. Project Terminals & Proposed Length 7
1.2.3. Cross Section Description 7
1.2.4. Right of Way 7
1.2.5. Access Control 7
1.2.6. Intersection Treatment and Type 7
of Control
1.2.6.1. US 29 Bus/Scales Street 10
1.2.6.2. US 29 SB & NB Ramps 10
1.2.6.3. SR 2597 10
1.2.6.4. SR 2598 10
1.2.6.5. SR 2596 11
1.2.6.6. NC 87 11
1.2.7. Interchange 11
1.2.8. Structures Required 11
1.2.8.1. Interchange Overpass 11
1.2.8.2. Railroad Overpass 12
1.2.8.3. Other Structures Required 12
1.2.9. Traffic Volumes 12
1.2.10. Truck Data 12
1.2.11. Utilities 12
1.2.12. Proposed Design Speed 14
1.2.13. Estimate of Costs 14
1.2.14. Geodetic Markers 14
1.3. Existing Roadway Conditions 14
1.4. Existing Traffic Conditions 16
1.5. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis 16
1.6. Accident Study 17
1.7. Reidsville Thoroughfare Plan 18
2. ALTERNATIVES
2.1. New Location Alternatives 18
2.1.1. Alternative 1 19
2.1.2. Alternative 2 19
2.2. "No-Build" Alternative 19
2.3. Postponement of The Proposed Action 20
1
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 21
3.1. Social Environment 21
3.1.1. Land Use 21
3.1.2. Community Cohesion 21
3.1.3. Economic Environment 25
3.1.4. Farmland 25
3.2. Relocation of Individuals & Families 26
3.3. Consideration of Pedestrians & Bicyclists 27
3.4.. Air Quality Analysis 27
3.5. Noise Analysis 28
3.5.1. Site Conditions 29
3.5.2. Methodology 29
3.5.3. Results & Impacts 31
3.5.4. Construction Noise 35
3.5.5. Summary of Results 35
3.6. Water Quality Analysis 36
3.7. Vegetation & Wildlife Impacts 36
3.7.1. Upland Hardwood Forest 36
3.7.2. Upland Mixed Forest 38
3.7.3. Upland Pine Forest 38
3.7.4. Wetland Alluvial Forest 39
3.7.5. Open Water (Streams & Ponds) 40
3.7.6. Agricultural Lands 40
3.7.7. Man-Dominated 41
3.7.8. Vegetation & Wildlife Conclusion 42
3.8. Wetlands 42
3.8.1. Wetland Community Definition 42
3.8.2. Wetland Quality 43
3.8.3. Wetland Conclusion 43
3.8.4. Wetland Mitigation 45
3.9 Permits 45
3.10. Threatened & Endangered Species 45
3.10.1. Pertinent Species & Conclusions 45
3.10.1.1 Federally-Listed Species 45
3.10.1.2 State-Listed Species 46
3.11. Floodplain Impacts 47
3.12. Historic & Archeological Preservation 47
3.12.1 Architectural and Historical 47
3.12.2. Archaeological 47
3.13. Hazardous Waste Sites 49
3.14. Energy 49
3.15. Construction Impacts 49
51
i
i
i
i
4. COMMENTS & COORDINATION
4.1. Agency & Public Comments 51
5. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Preliminary Design Plans
APPENDIX B - Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Public Meetings, & Correspondence
APPENDIX C - Farmland Impact, Relocation Reports, Turning Movements and Caline3,
Biological and Wetland Community Maps, Plant and Animal Species of
Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, and Candidate Status
APPENDIX D - Traffic Data for Noise Analysis, Field Data Sheets, and Noise Contours

1 MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

1

PAGE
Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map 5
Figure 1.2 Location Map 6
Figure 2 Reidsville Thoroughfare Plan 8
Figure 3 Typical Sections 9
Figure 4 Traffic Volumes 13
Figure 5 Existing Utilities 15
Figure 6 Existing Land Use 22
Figure 7 Future Land Use 23
Figure 8 Receptor Sites 32
Figure 9 100 Year Floodplain 48
TABLES
Table 1 Projected 1992 Percentage of Trucks
Table 2 Existing Right of Way
Table 3 Level of Service Summary
Table 4 Accident Summary
Table 5 Comparative Factors for Alternatives
Table 6 FHWA Design Noise Level/Activity
Relationships
Table 7 Noise Model Verification
Table 8 Noise Impacts
Table 9 Noise Level Predictions
Table 10 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetative
Communities
Table 11 Summary of WET Evaluation Results
APPENDIX FIGURES & TABLES
Figure Al-A10 Preliminary Design Plans
Figure Cl Design Hour Traffic Volumes
Table Cl & C2 Caline3 Model
' Table C3 Plant and Animal Species of Endangered, Threatened,
Special Concern, and Candidate Status
Figures C2.1-5 Biological Community Maps
' Figures C3.1-5 Wetland Community Maps
Table D1 & D2 Traffic Assumptions
Figure D1 Estimated ADT's
' Figure D2-D5 Noise Monitoring
Figure D6 & D7 Noise Control

12
16
17
18
20
30
31
33
34
37
44

f'.
fl

SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to construct the
Reidsville Southern Loop in Rockingham County. The project starts 1000 feet west of the
intersection of US 29 Business and Scales Street. The project ends 100 feet east of NC 87 on SR
2594. The. total length of the project is 2.6 miles.
The recommended alternative is a 5-lane curb and gutter facility except for a 5-lane shoulder section
through the interchange area at US 29 Bypass. The total estimated cost for the recommended
alternative is $10,320,000 including right of way and construction costs. The 1991-1997
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) estimated the total cost at $13,250,000.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed route is an important element of the Reidsville Thoroughfare Plan. The positive
impacts of the project will enhance Reidsville's economic growth, concentrated along the roadway
corridor. Traffic congestion in the overall area will be reduced by providing a circumferential route.
The recommended alternative does not require the relocation of any residences or businesses.
' Farmland impacts were minimal based on the SCS rating system. The air quality analysis determined
that no standards will be violated. One residence is projected to experience noise levels which will
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, abatement measures were evaluated and
deemed impractical. The animal and plant life impacts are minimal and there are no recreational or
historical sites in the area. Construction impacts will be short term and minimized during construction
' where possible.
Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives were considered in the development of the project. Both of the routes started at
the same point, 1000 feet west of the US 29 Business/Scales Street intersection and proceed easterly
over Little Troublesome Creek, Southern Railway, and US 29 Bypass.
Alternative 1 curves to the north, east of US 29 Bypass, to intersect NC 87 at an existing intersection
with SR 2598. This Alternative is recommended due to lower construction and right of way costs,
no relocations, and utilization of an existing intersection at NC 87.
Alternative 2 curves to the south to intersect NC 87 seven-hundred-fifty feet south of alternate 1.
The farmland impacts are greater, an additional intersection is created on NC 87 and 2 residential
relocations would be required with this route.

r??

Coordination
The federal, state, and local agencies listed were consulted during the preparation of this
' Environmental Assessment(an asterisk denotes the agencies that submitted comments):
'
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Chief
* Army Corps of Engineers, District Engineer
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Director
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Fish & Wildlife Service:
' * Endangered Species Field Station, Field Supervisor
* Fish & Wildlife Enhancement, Field Supervisor
' Geological Survey, District Chief
STATE AGENCIES
*
* Dept. of Administration, State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives & History
Dept. of Human Resources, Division of Health Services
* Dept. of Public Instruction, Division of School Planning
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources:
* Division of Water Resources
*
* Division of Environmental Management
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
* Division of Forest Resources
* Division of Land Resources
Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
' LOCAL AGENCIES
Peidmont Triad Council of Governments, Executive Director
Mayor of Reidsville
Mayor Pro-Tem of Reidsville
* Reidsville City Manager
Reidsville City Engineer
Reidsville City Planning & Code Director
Reidsville City Councilmen
Reidsville Council on Aging
*
* Rockingham County Commissioner, Chairman
Rockingham County Manager
* Rockingham County, Planning Director

' * Rockingham County Schools
N
C
Gas
O
ti
e
M
.
.
,
p
ra
ons
anager

2

1

Actions Required By Other Agencies
It is anticipated that the impacts to the wetlands adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek will require
a nationwide system permit (404) along with a general 401 permit from U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). NCDOT will work closely with the Regulatory Branch of the COE to review final
plans prior to construction.
Basis for Environmental Assessment
Based on an analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, it has been
determined that no significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment will result
from the construction of the proposed project.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting the
following person:
L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Phone [phone]
3

C

C

11
REIDSVILLE, SOUTHERN LOOP
US 29 BUSINESS TO NC 87
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
STATE PROJECT 9.8071834
T.I.P. # U-2418
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed Southern Loop extends from a point 1000 feet west of the US 29 Business and Scales
Street intersection (south of Reidsville) eastwardly to a point 100 feet east of NC 87 (southeast of
Reidsville). This segment includes an interchange with US 29 Bypass and a grade separation with
the Southern Railway tracks. The project is approximately 2.6 miles in length and the studied cross
section is 5-lanes. The general vicinity of the project is shown on Figure 1.1.
' This project is included in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for right of way
acquisition from 1992 to 1994 and construction from 1994 to 1996. The project is to be funded with
state funds. The estimated cost for the recommended alternative is $10,320,000 ($9,400,000 for
' construction and $920,000 for right of way). The cost estimated in the 1991-1997 TIP is $13,250,000
($11,300,000 for construction and $1,950,000 for right of way) based on a 5-lane section.
By providing a portion of the Reidsville circumferential route, this project will allow traffic operating
in the southern part of Reidsville to avoid restrictions such as lower speed limits, signalization, and
congestion along the existing streets. This will partially relieve the in-town congestion, while opening
up additional land for development. The proposed roadway will provide better access to NC 87 and
' US 29 Bypass from residential and business areas along the existing US 29 Business corridor. The
Reidsville Southern Loop will allow trips between NC 65-87, US 158, US 29 Bypass and NC 87 East
to bypass the central business district.
' The connector is an important segment of the thoroughfare plan because it creates both better
highway access for the entire county and also opens several tracts of land that are prime for industrial
' development. Reidsville will have a competitive edge in recruiting new industry by having sites
available with both highway and railway access.
1.2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
1.2.1. General Location

L
Based on consideration of overall existing development in the area, route directness, and
relationship to the ultimate thoroughfare system, the recommended location for the Southern
Loop is shown on Figure 1.2. The location generally follows the preliminary alignment shown
on the Reidsville Thoroughfare Plan as seen in Figure 2. The route shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan was located with minimal impact to existing facilities, interchange spacing,
and existing topography.
4

15
REIDSVILLE
L_ 29
WARF
AIRPORT
158 /
BEGIN PROJECT
14>
J29i
END PROJECT
NC 87
87
LEGEND
EXIST. BST OR CONC. PAV'T.
EXIST. ROADWAYS
PROPOSED ROADWAY
=,-;--T- RAILROAD TRACKS
STREAM OR OUTLINE OF WATER BODY
EXIST. BRIDGE
STATE PROJECT, 9.8071834 IIh U-2418
XON, SOUTHERN LOOP. US 2S BUS. TO NC 87
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
FIGURE 1.2
VICINITY MAP
5
= = m = = = = = = r w m = = = m = m

k
k 11
II
? II
II
11
0 CA
m X X D X X
m
? -4
3. v s o
z
n r

o

z

i
z
i
v
A
m
m
N
m
p
g ,F
,n
m C
-4 ;K

A z
m
1 n

A
m ?

0

T o
?
I-

m

a
K
k k
K ? k k K
k ,F K
µ k'Kk
M k M, K
K M, k

r -
M
0
m
z
v
r?

P m

C
D V

'C'
r
F
=
90 m

NM

z
r
0
O
u
N
t?^ S/
I I Q
II
it Q
it II
'0 IIt_ II
I ? `, 1 I
1j I 11
?
6ti
.?0
D W
r m
•
?, ZI
r
L
m
l1 ? N
It
::SR 2504
It
(A
D
r
m
z o
m
m
-i g
y' r, I-,

8
1 O 0
z Z 0Z
Z
...?
n
- CA
1m"
n
O
Z W
A* • _° z R'

N • m G
a o 2n
c Z m
M
ai
cn 2
A
r
N
m
z
..v
i ;
Nm
..M
I
I
It
11
1
II
II
II
II
1 .,
ll~I `•
It
11
1I
1
l1
V,
11
I,
tI
t
t, rF>
tI
F, N
IA
1? r
• m
z
..v
1 A
I I,
m
1 11 (")
11
y 11
II
t „
V !1 ,
o„
II
4 'b
f.? 4
1015b
d®
l
z
O
--I
m
y
CL
0
?m
ao
?o z
o rn
3 j
3
c?
a

1.2.2. Project Terminals and Proposed Length
The recommended Alternative, beginning 1000 feet west US 29 Bus/Scales Street and ending
100 feet east of NC 87, is approximately 2.6 miles long.
1.2.3. Cross Section Description
Based on projected traffic volumes, a 5-lane section is required to provide a desirable Level
of Service for both the initial traffic volume in 1992 and for the design year of 2012. There
are two different typical sections shown in Figure 3 and listed below:
* Typical Section 1 consists of four twelve-foot lanes (two in each direction), a center
twelve-foot bi-directional turn lane, and two-foot-six-inch concrete curb and gutter
along the outside edges. The section will measure 64 feet from face to face of curb.
This section will be used in two sections of the project: from the US 29 Bus/Scales
' Street intersection to a point 500 feet west of the railway bridge and again starting
2300 feet east of that point and ending at NC 87 intersection.

n

1

Typical Section 2 will be the same 5-lane section without the curb and gutter and the
shoulder will be two feet of paved shoulder and eight feet of earth shoulder for a
total of ten feet. This section will be used in the controlled access zone between a
point 500 feet west of the railway bridge and 2,300 feet east of that point.
The existing 24-foot section will start to taper about 1000 feet west of the US 29 Bus/Scales
Street intersection to the proposed 64-foot section (5-lane curb and gutter) at a 45:1
(length:width) ratio. The taper will be completed west of the intersection. Intersection
improvements will also carry the project 100 feet to the east of NC 87.
1.2.4. Right of Way
Right of way shall be acquired for the 5-lane section including the cut/fill slope. Right of way
will be a minimum of 110 feet and will vary depending on the cut and fill requirements.
1.2.5. Access Control
The 5-lane section will require partial control of access (one access per property frontage as
recommended by the City of Reidsville) along the western portion of the project. There will
be an area of full control of access 2,300 feet long centered on the US 29 Bypass interchange,
and the eastern portion will be driveway and approach regulated. Full control of access will
also be required on the interchange ramps.
1.2.6. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Redesign of intersections to accommodate the proposed Southern Loop includes traffic
signalization, changed traffic patterns, and additional lanes on the existing roads. A traffic
study was performed to determine modifications required for the 5-lane design including
required widening of all approaches.
7

t
N r i a
i DRUM RD. co
co 1 m
i? ass, Ali v
Q
41
41
Cl)
4ft?
Cl)
Z a
` `may ;1110 • : 't
- S
O 3 -Ti
i• ?' C,) R
t n
ado bo:?wv? m 1 0:
cn .
ca: ML coll
lu In rn 0:
ao O ro "u v 0. > rJ . r -D u
0 Us,
• .:..v cn r,. in
w M.
z OD 2.° - a z
? ? ? ? ? ? m m m m = m m = = M i M
C> M
?X
C?
z .?
al
'D
? O
z
0 0 C9
D Zs C-3 o
Z t=n z c Z
r n= ZZ
rn
no Oo C 1"'
o n
to s
z ~
< y W Z Z
OA'
n a?
133
Z Cl)
o °
zm
z N rnM
(D y
n
a
r
m
0
z
N
D
m
N
\ co
N
.b,

co
n
m
0
M -0
'!Em
?O
C?-D
D•
n
7D
m
N
?l
O
i
N
O
z
C
a
m
N
C"
O
i
N
O
-v
?o
n
a
r
m
n
0
z
c) rn
;0 X_
C N
z?
v?
0)
` N
1
D
m
N
61
O
N
O
-i - ice, r rm
i
?I-
n
m
N
m x
M m O
N
C
l
Ovy z?
z

v
a
m
N
10
i
N
O
?M
row
r
' All three of the intersections west of SR 2597 (US 29 Bus/Scales Street, US 29 Bypass
Southbound (SB) ramp, and US 29 Northbound (NB) ramp) have the same intersection
treatment and controls for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The other four intersections east
of the proposed US 29 Bypass interchange (SR 2597, SR 2598, SR 2596, and NC 87) have
different treatment and controls for the two Alternatives.
' 1.2.6.1. US 29 Bus/Scales Street
The intersection will require substantial approach improvements with significant traffic
' signal modifications:
* The southern approach shall be widened to the east to allow for the left
' turning movement from the new eastern approach and an improved southern
approach including a left turn lane, a through lane, and a large radius right
turn.
* The new eastern approach includes a left turn lane, a through lane, and a
right turn lane.

C

* The northern approach will be improved to provide a left turn lane with 200
feet of storage to accommodate an anticipated heavy turning movement, and
a through/right lane.
* The western approach will be improved to match the new roadway cross
section including a left turn lane and two through lanes. The 64 foot cross
section tapers back to the existing 24 foot width at a 45:1 (length:width) ratio.
The large radius right turn remains.
1.2.6.2. US 29 Bypass SB & NB Ramps
The proposed diamond interchange with US 29 Bypass requires signalization at both
the southbound and the northbound ramps.
1.2.6.3. SR 2597
Alternative 1 forms an intersection with SR 2597 and is located at station 110+00.
SR 2597 is stop sign controlled at the approach to the Southern Loop.
1.2.6.4. SR 2598
In Alternative 1, SR 2598 is realigned to meet SR 2596 and form a 4-legged
intersection with the Southern Loop. The pavement width is 30 feet wide at the
tangent point of the return radii which meets NCDOT standard of 34 feet face to
face on curb and gutter projects.
10

1 1.2.6.5. SR 2596
' Alternative 1 intersects SR 2596. The intersection is stop sign controlled on SR 2596
and SR 2598
.
' 1.2.6.6. NC 87
For Alternative 1 the proposed intersection warrants a traffic signal by meeting parts
2 and 3 of warrant 10 (Peak Hour Delay) and all of warrant 11 (Peak Hour Volume)
' in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Both of these warrants are
intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day
minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street.
*
The southern approach will have a left turn lane and a through lane. The
existing right turn lane shall remain with minor alignment adjustments.
* Th
e eastern approach (SR 2594) will be improved with a left/through lane and
a through/right lane aligned with the new Reidsville Southern Loop
' westbound lanes.
* The northern approach will have a left turn lane and a through/right lane.
The western approach requires a left turn lane, a through lane, and right turn
lane.
' 1.2.7. Interchange
The intersection at US 29 Bypass will take the form of a diamond interchange similar to the
one at NC 87 and US 29 Bypass one mile to the north. Vertical sight distance at the
intersection of the ramps with the new Southern Loop was a concern, as was positioning the
ramps between US 29 Bypass and the Southern Railway tracks. Another major concern was
having adequate space to accommodate the interchange. Design of the US 29 Bypass
interchange was performed taking all of these factors into consideration.
' 1.2.8. Structures Required
1.2.8.1. Interchange Overpass
The structure will consist of four twelve-foot through lanes (two in each direction),
a twelve-foot center lane to be used as left turn lanes for the ramps, and 10 foot
' shoulders. The total horizontal clearance from face to face of concrete barrier is 80
feet and the proposed length is 252 feet.

H
11

' 1.2.8.2. Railroad Overpass
' Topography and traffic safety will require a bridge at the proposed crossing of the
Southern Railway. The structure will consist of four twelve-foot through lanes (two
in each direction), a twelve-foot bi-directional turn lane, and 10 foot shoulders. The
total horizontal clearance from face to face of concrete barrier is 80 feet and the
' proposed length is 145 feet. The 1992 exposure index is 351,000 (ADT x Trains/Day),
the 2012 index increases to 696,000.
' 1.2.8.3. Other Structures Required
There is one significant stream crossing on the proposed Southern Loop and it is over
' Little Troublesome Creek. A triple box culvert is required at the crossing to meet the
100 year design storm.
' 1.2.9. Traffic Volumes
The estimated traffic demand for the Southern Loop, in 1992, is 9,100 ADT (average daily
' traffic) at the west end, 11,700 ADT between US 29 Bus/Scales Street and US 29 Bypass, and
8,500 ADT at the east end. These volumes are anticipated to increase to 18,600, 23,200, and
16,800 ADT, respectively, by the year 2012 (see Figure 4).
' 1.2.10. Truck Data

1
1

It is anticipated that industrial development will be encouraged along the proposed route.
Preliminary design for this project considered the heavy truck traffic, not only in terms of
loading of the pavement structure, but also in the required turning movements and the impact
of truck traffic on the roadway level of service. The percentage of trucks along the proposed
route is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 - Projected 1992 Percentage of Trucks
Truck Tractor Semi-
Section Trailer (TTST)
Dual Tired Vehicles
(Dual)
Scales Street
(SR 2670) 2%
Southern Loop
(West End) 5%
US 29 Bypass 13%
Southern Loop
(East End) 2%
NC 87 2%
3%
6%
4%
4%
4%
1.2.11. Utilities
Utility lines will be shown on the final construction plans. Utility company representatives
and/or other officials responsible for these utilities will be contacted in order to implement
12
11

O O
k II
1 1
Olo ,?, k
kk II
II

N N M

r;il x

?
M
x
N
N
r

z )< x

N

g?

?

a q

Z

a
o
° ;q

s I

?

Z
O
r G7
m
a
o N
F o
A A
y r p

rZ'
A m

?
m
-4
=
T
N
O
w
N
A
Z
n
i C
ym

-4 in p n

1-

p
0 rn a
m °a
O
o z
Om m
r Q
C2
z
m
r
a
;n
n
m
ODCA LA
(nIO NIA
5;IOO .KIco
_ z
N m
v
Z
ti r
• o
NI-_
N -4

0
0
r
C
J
W
WIN FoIO
OI_
O O
Qo
A
r
IIQ
m it 11
II
Q 1? ^ II
m
p i; ? II
Z 1? r I
yn,
p rat

p N
C? D
rc
71F
-r
Q, m

DO

kk
k
k;IFkk
N k k
k IF k
k
k k K, k
kk k
- NId)
00
t'
-SR 2504
? 11 +
i
II
if
1
11
11
II
I
II
11
1 1 ?'
I+I
I+
t+
++
N - +
i +
1 0
O - 1
II
I+
rE? It
I+
_ t+
wIN CIO r
Ln10 Nl_
co ++ ro
Cnlco ZICO
+ D
I? r
r ?
Co Ln
I
G1
C?
a
y? 1
1
t? I
1
I
0 0 n R 2S L, '
C-) 0
_? = ZZ Di
r ;a (N/1 CO)
m r
C7 ° 00 - C r- fr1 W
00 ? O
co o (A z ?go m
IM e
,vci T * -rri
4 o b d
o Z n °
0 ? Z M U a Q
A. M XJ
M
CA n
rq:
rr
II
ii •
II
It?
II
II
11
11
it
fl
Ir
e
++
I
\?1
o? -
a7'1I W (3'? I W
NIM
.rte •A
NOD LnN
N -
W
N
?;Ico
Co Ln
co W MW
W co O lo
col -4
pplt.0 WIN
0Iw
L

relocation procedures. All adjustments and relocations will be complete, insofar as possible,
prior to commencement of project construction. This procedure will minimize or eliminate
potential disruption in utilities service. Electric, telephone, cable television, and natural gas
lines are known to exist along the recommended alternative alignment.
The approximate location of the currently known existing utilities are shown on Figure 5.
1.2.12. Proposed Design Speed
The new alignment has a minimum 50 mph design speed. The design speed reflects the
geometric design of the roadway and provides for a margin of safety for safe vehicle
operation. It should not be confused with the posted speed limit or vehicle running speed.
The proposed Southern Loop will have a 45 mph posted speed limit.
1.2.13. Estimate of Costs
The estimated cost for the recommended alternative (Alt. 1) is estimated to be $10,320,000,
including $9,400,000 for construction and $920,000 for right-of-way. Included in this estimate
are costs for the US 29 Bypass interchange (diamond type) and a grade separation with the
Southern Railway.
1.2.14. Geodetic Markers
Potentially three geodetic survey markers will be impacted by the proposed project. The N.C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
1.3. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
The Southern Loop is proposed to be constructed primarily on new location southeast of Reidsville
in Rockingham County. Approximately 0.3 miles of Alternative 1 will follow a portion of the existing,
dead-end, gravel surfaced SR 2597 and the rest of Alternative 1 and all of Alternative 2 is on new
location.
' This project is a continuation of the existing circumferential route around the north and west sides
of Reidsville. The existing 24 foot section will start to taper about 1000 feet west of the US 29
Bus/Scales Street intersection and the taper will be completed west of the intersection. The existing
intersection of US 29 Bus/Scales Street is signalized and has three approaches: US 29 Business, Scales
Street, and US 29 Alternate. The existing lane configuration at the intersection is two lanes entering
and one lane leaving for each leg.

The east end of the project will tie into an existing intersection with NC 87. The current intersection
of NC 87 and SR 2594 is not signalized and SR 2598 has stop sign control. The intersection is four-
legged and improvements will carry 100' to the east of NC 87 tapering into the existing roadway
geometry. The existing lane configuration at the intersection is 2 lanes with one lane in each direction
for each leg, and northbound NC 87 has a right turn lane that peels off south of the intersection into
SR 2594
14

I

H
Pm I
Inr I ??
Im

m
I I
? I I I
z
.4

1
r n
m
m

rrn
m
N

z -?
r

zz
m
In

m ?
rn

A
n
A m
m

?p
n

m
C
m
7/

? rrn

cAi Irri
T
rssi
v
N °
0
D
r
m
z °o
rn
m
? 9
m
X
N m r
x
z1 A z
<
r_
r
m
N
i
r
m
r
r
m
z r
v <

r X. f it
I I
II
1
k? j I I
I t,
S
s x
? ?

N
x
o A
> m
r

o m o
i ¢ r
n
A

m ?
i ?

o

i
i ,.
? r
nn
x
cn _ Q
--? o O
Z ZZ
.22
b I z
z
r
00 ?D

0 o
y 177

---1 a
ro
rD w
a z Z go
? ?
WC

N
?
m
?

0
0 _

Y
S2

m z
0
CD Cj
ro Z T
rn
?
co gj Z
tit cn
O
v
O
O
N
D
0
r -
m
G7
m
z
v
-All

f?'f
l?

SR 2504
Jfl ??
ft 11

m
r
I°
II
1
q1
1

f!
tf

Cf.Q+ f
?y
,r-
1 +" iCf
, -
>
D 03
r m
- z
R? -0
D M
r O
-4 L
. m
o ? O
1.4
o rn
r s
A r-
z
m N
O
r ME
p z
rrnn p
Am
z z
m >
z v
p
< 0
2?
a
mm
1

h

There are six roads which will be affected by the proposed alternatives and their existing right.of way
as shown on the County and City tax maps are listed in Table 2. The section of the proposed
Southern Loop that is on new alignment is in an area of no current access control and the section
of SR 2597 that is overlapped by Alternative 1 has no access control. Land use in the path of the
proposed project is primarily agricultural and woodland with scattered private residences along SR
2597 and the Burton Memorial Missionary Baptist Church in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of SR 2597 and SR 2598.
Table 2 - Existing Right of Way
Location Right Of Way
US 29 Business 120'
US 29 Alternate 150'
US 29 Bypass 300'
NC 2597 60'
NC 2598 60'
NC 87 100'
Currently known existing utilities within the existing or proposed right of way of the Reidsville
Southern Loop are discussed in Section 1.2.11. and shown on Figure 5. The need for relocation and
adjustment of these utilities will be resolved during the design phase of the project. During
construction, interruption of utility services will be minimized.
No existing major drainage structures will be affected by the proposed section of road.
1.4. ' EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The Southern Loop is a new section of roadway; therefore, numerous routes are currently carrying
the traffic that will be handled in part by this new section. The construction of this project will
provide an alternate route that will relieve traffic throughout the Reidsville city street system.
The Superintendent of Rockingham County Schools endorsed the project to reduce congestion in
the mornings within Reidsville City proper. She also added that slow moving buses often add to the
congestion problems.
1.5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The estimated traffic demand for the Southern Loop, in 1992, is 9100 ADT at the west end, 11,700
ADT between US 29 Bus/Scales Street and US 29 Bypass, and 8500 ADT at the east end. These
volumes are anticipated to increase to 18,600, 23,200, and 16,800 ADT, respectively, by the year 2012.
The original concept of the Southern Loop was to provide for a 2-lane section of roadway with right
of way for a future 5-lane roadway. However, the computed levels of service (LOS) for the projected
' 1992 traffic volumes required a 5-lane section to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. (see
Table 3).

16

' The LOS is a qualitative measure of roadway adequacy and is expressed as a letter value from A to
F. LOS A represents a high level of service, indicative of free-flow traffic
while LOS F represents
,
the worst congested conditions. The LOS for an intersection is based on stop delay per vehicle and
for a road segment on avera
e travel s
eed of the vehicle
g
p
.
Table 3 - Level of Service Summary
1992 1992 2012 2012
Location Traffic Volumes LOS Traffic Volumes LOS
(ADT) (vph) (ADT) (vph)
Multilane Highways
Southern Loop (west end) 11,700 1170 B 23,200 2320 D
Southern Loop (east end) 8,500 850 B 16,800 1680 C
Signalized Intersections
Southern Loop with:
' US 29 Bus./Scales St. 11,700 1170 B 23,200 2300 B
SB US 29 Off/On Ramp 1,800 180 A 3,200 320 B
NB US 29 Off/On Ramp 3,000 300 A 5,800 580 B
' NC 87 8,500 850 A 16,800 1680 D
Exit Ramps
NB Ramp 3,000 300 *B 5,800 580 *D
SB Ramp 1,800 180 *B 3,200 320 *D
' Entrance Ramps
NB Ramp 1,800 180 *B 3,200 320 *C
SB Ramp 3,000 300 *B 5,800 580 *D
* The LOS shown is for the Freeway.
' The proposed traffic volumes require: an upgraded traffic signal at the western end of the project
(intersection with US 29 Bus/Scales Street); new traffic signals at both of the interchange ramps; and
a new signal at the east end of the project (NC 87). Projects currently in the Transportation
' Improvement Program (T.I.P.) such as 4-Laning NC 87, will improve the LOS of the intersections
shown in Table 3.
' 1.6. ACCIDENT STUDY
An accident study of routes connecting with the project was conducted by the Traffic Studies Section
of the Traffic Engineering Branch of the NCDOT for the period from January, 1987 through April,
1990. Summarized statistics are as follows in Table 4.
I I

17

Table 4 - Accident Summary
NC 87 from US 29 Bus from 1989 Statewide
US 29 Bypass US 29 Bypass Average for Similar
to NC 150 to NC 65/87 NC Routes US Routes
Total Accidents 76 135 N/A N/A
Fatal Accidents 3 1 N/A N/A
Non-Fatal Injury
Accidents 32 57 N/A N/A
Total Accident Rate* 204.1 180.6 204.2 160.4
Fatal Accident Rate* 9.5 1.3 2.6 2.1
Non-Fatal Injury
Accident Rate* 101.1 76.2 96.0 74.0
' *
Accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
The accident analysis shows that the studied segments have accident rates close to the statewide
averages for similar 2-lane rural state highways, except for the fatal accident rate on NC 87. Two of
the three fatal accidents involved excessively high rates of speed and none of the three occurred
' within 3 miles of the proposed Southern Loop. The addition of the Southern Loop will alleviate
traffic congestion on local roadways and also provide improved safety benefits as traffic volumes
increase and additional development occurs.
' 1.7. REIDSVILLE THOROUGHFARE PLAN
' The Southern Loop is designated as a major proposed thoroughfare as part of the Reidsville
Thoroughfare Plan, adopted by the City and State in 1985, and shown in Figure 2. The Southern
Loop will serve changing land uses and enhance Reidsville's existing thoroughfare system. It functions
as part of a circumferential route on the south side of the city, connecting US 29 Bus/Scales Street
with US 29 Bypass and NC 87.
2. ALTERNATIVES
The traffic projections for 1992 and 2012 require a 5-lane section to maintain a desirable level of
' service. There are five twelve-foot lanes proposed, one being a continuous center turn lane (except
in the interchange area where it will act as left turn bays for the ramps) and two through lanes in
each direction. Curb and gutter will be used on the project except at the interchange with US 29
' Bypass which will be constructed with 10 foot useable shoulders on each side. Right of way is a
minimum of 110 feet to accommodate cut/fill requirements.
1 2.1. NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
In order to determine the best alignment of the Reidsville Southern Loop facility, preliminary studies
' were conducted in the project area to investigate the impacts of several alternatives. The studies
reviewed the utility, capacity, safety, and cost-effectiveness of various alternatives in relation to the
disruption on the local community, the relocation of families and businesses, and the effects on the
18

1

natural environment.
Two alternatives as shown in Figure 1 were selected for detailed study. Some of the factors used in
comparison of the two alternatives are listed in Table 5. A discussion of these alternatives follows:
2.1.1. Alternative 1 - RECOMMENDED
Both alternatives begin 1000 feet west of the intersection of US 29 Bus/Scales Street and
proceed easterly crossing Little Troublesome Creek, Southern Railway, and the US 29 Bypass.
Alternative 1 then curves northeast to SR 2597 and follows the existing southern right of way
line of SR 2597 to the intersection with SR 2598, then follows SR 2598 to NC 87, and ends
100 feet east of NC 87 on SR 2594. This Alternate will require acquisition of right of way
from 25 parcels.
Alternative 1 requires no residential or business relocatees. The Right-of-Way Branch
' purchased the property required from parcel 47 through the early acquisition program. This
action prevented future relocation of a residence that commenced construction in September,
1990. The total length is 2.6 miles and has an estimated cost of $10,320,000.
i 2.1.2. Alternative 2
' This alternative is identical to Alternative 1 to an area east of the proposed diamond
interchange. After the interchange with US 29 Bypass, Alternative 2 curves to the southeast
through existing farmlands/woodlands, causing two relocations, and then intersects with NC
' 87, seven-hundred-fifty (750) feet south of the intersection proposed in Alternative 1. This
Alternate will require acquisition of right of way from 8 parcels.
Alternative 2 requires two residential relocatees and no business relocatees. The total length
is 2.6 miles and has an estimated cost of $10,994,000.

2.2. "NO-BUILD" ALTERNATIVE
The "do-nothing" concept is not a viable alternative in transportation planning for Reidsville. The
proposed project will allow traffic now entering Reidsville from the southeast to avoid restrictions
such as lower speed limits, signalization, and congestion in Reidsville by providing access to a
circumferential route. This will also partially relieve the in-town congestion, while opening up
additional land for development.
The "no-build" alternative will avoid some negative impacts of the proposed project such as use of
additional land for highway purposes including some loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat,
erosion and siltation, and noise/air pollution. The positive benefits of the project such as reduction
in congestion, travel delays, operating costs, and fuel consumption would also be eliminated. The
long term benefits of the new facility will more than compensate for the unavoidable adverse impacts.
Consequently, a "no-build" decision is not considered prudent and is not recommended.
19

Table 5 - Comparative Factors for Alternatives
Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Design Speed 50 MPH 50 MPH
Level of Service B B
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Open Water 1.38 1.38
Alluvial Forest 3.86 3.86
Biological Communities Impacts (acres) 72.38 71.81
Length of New Construction
-L- Line (miles) 2.58 2.62
Interchange Ramps (miles) 1.11 1.11
Area of New Bridges (so 33,348 33,348
Number of Relocations
Residences 0 2
Businesses 0 0
TOTAL 0 2
Right of Way Requirements (Acres)
Existing 3.03 0.00
New 43.26 49.41
TOTAL 46.29 49.41
Costs (Thousands of Dollars)
Construction 9,400 9,800
Right of Way 920 1,194
TOTAL 10,320 10,994
2.3. POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Postponement of the proposed improvement is not considered a prudent course of action.
Postponement of the recommended project will result in deterioration of the level of service on local
roads within the area of the proposed project, including the city of Reidsville. The proposed project
has been planned and discussed for many years and the City's immed iate future is in part dependent
upon the project.
The possibilities will be more restrictive at future date due to potentially higher acquisition and
construction costs. Also, funding is available in the 1991-1997 T.I.P. Postponement is not
recommended.
20

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
For purposes of this section, portions of the Reidsville 1990 comprehensive planning document,
Reidsville Reflections, were utilized. Information contained within this planning document pertaining
to existing and projected social/economic issues of the area, is summarized in the following sections.
Analyses of potential social and economic impacts are also included.
Census Tract 415 comprises a portion of Reidsville as well as the adjacent southern unincorporated
area in which the project is located. Hence, discussions of Reidsville, particularly C.T. 415,
throughout this section include the project study area.
3.1.1. Land Use
Existing land use within the project area is predominantly agriculture and woodland. Figure
6 depicts these existing land uses. This area of Rockingham County is rural in nature with
sporadic single-family dwellings located along the project's boundaries, US 29 Business to the
west, SR 2597 (Cook Florist Road) and NC 87 to the east.
Commercial land uses are located along US 29 Business at the project's western boundary.
The Burton Memorial Missionary Baptist Church is located along SR 2597 and is the sole
institutional land use within the project limits.
' The project is within an area defined in Reflections as a rural growth area located adjacent
to an existing urban area. Figure 7 illustrates the area's future land use plan. Development
objectives associated with this growth include encouraging commercial and industrial growth
within the area as well as high density residential development. Since the project is
designated as a major proposed roadway on the Reidsville Thoroughfare Plan, adopted in
1985, it is therefore consistent with local plans.

The Southern Loop will open up the existing agriculture and wooded areas for development
by providing improved roadway access. This opportunity for future development will in turn,
promote changes in land use and will potentially direct community development and growth
patterns.
Secondary impacts associated with the project include increased property values and an
increase in tax revenues from developing properties. Furthermore, the future land use plans
call for commercial and industrial development within the project corridor. This development
will increase future employment opportunities throughout the region as discussed in further
detail in Section 3.1.3.: Economic Environment.
3.1.2. Community Cohesion

n

The population of Reidsville has grown modestly since 1985 from 12,492 persons to an
estimated 12,925 persons in 1990. (Source: Reflections). This increase is significantly lower
than that of Rockingham County but is actually an improvement over the last 20 years.
Reidsville suffered a severe decline in population during the 1960-1980 period. The decline
is due primarily to residents migrating from the city into the outlying rural areas. This trend
21

K ? 11
I
m ??pp m
x XN1 A X X
N N m r fA
s ; ; v z
m C 3. (A
x O a r A
C
vt n C N A ct
n
A m N n l
o
on
ri y
A
-4
= m v
O A
N
m o
m ?
r
0
c,
m
.a
n
? ? Ao
H
,/a
?- II
m
?
0 ?I
M Ii
?? ^ II
I? `1!
sot, ,
rR
V\j r
D
Z
Z N N
vvw v v C
Z z N
a
r
a m
A
C
r m
z
g v
r
X
m
D (A
r?
m
N
rc
N) m
z
'
i
L`

''Q?!-d?'•?.SR 2504

- 1
I {
II
I
11
I
I
II
1
11
II
r!

V%

r-
0
O
v
k k
k k K
k K. k
k k k M'
lkk kKk
k k k K
k K K
k
K .kK, k
k k Rk K
K k .?
D
r
¦
x
z
G7
D
Z
V)
w M
N
b H
r?

z 0

0 (A

c
Lq -4 0

C') C
Z
z z cm

.?
Z
-
1, z

0 O to I
A
y T
c
H
4 (A
i N 03
W
Z Z M
Y+
Q,
V1 0 -_1
?
7
•T
O M
C:
rl) m
m?
a
OD pa
N C-)
a
G)
A
c
(A
C7
D
r
m o
Z ?
'Ti
rri
U00
•_ e I
S,p ?S
98
1551
r
I?
I`
{1
I1
I1
II
41
14
i{

41 rF)

1 { SO D
I4
/!
11
11
11
I1
II
II
,r
it
11
r
c:i +
{{
1
Q,
m m m m = m = = = m = = r m = m

• ? II

1

mr y
X X ! l X
14
"n :
4

j o g v
z > v s `
^
_ Gl z w -1 c -+
m ;
u
m = c > r z

!A N A
0 Z

Q
0 r v
4
70

m o
A
C
?

to
r
v

m

0
Qo
y
7 l
r "
m ,+ I
v
t
? I
5P, 1? !
L
-lee 6
N/l
U, D D 0 r
z
Z M v
v
7N0 ?^ m m C
4 z (n
m
I> > > > r
m
m
r m
C z
A v
tIF)
x
m
, v
D cn
r- c
?P
_. r
?m
DO
rC
N m
>z
r
> O
O
r_
N
0
"r 3 1L1)
m
D N??N
z ??\y
V A IF ? K. IF R ?,
I• R ? R
?K
• k R IF IF 1+ 1 ;
R •'
Z f7 3. '?1 z µ IF t r K tN0 N
m oycp F.R
v c --I
m r r i
o ;tj w rn ••
?n?r ++i
m r xz 's
I
v 0c +i
? I
v+ D + f
-1 ? 1 +
?o om r I+
? ???JJJ
1
o n
O V1 N ++
ZE < ? D +'
+
D m Z ' ++ re
r
z ??
m m 1cis
_ = Z i -i
m ZN _
0
m
+
1 ?
? r ? 11
fl
?3?7 ? S 1 1
CIA! + I!
C ? , 11
11
? I 1? 11
I 11
C A N Q Cl) SR I '' 1 + I
0 C-)
A -4
+
T rn -1
_ Z D
r7l
D K? Z Z Z °
Z y ; a LAI
2! C) QO _ C
0 m
2 --1 n o
4
C z c zm
rt,
m 4 a M
00 w
W
W C-3 L0 ??
J
' is typical of many urban areas during that period. As a result, a decline in the number of pre-
school and school-aged (5-18 years of age) also declined. Like other areas of North Carolina,
' Reidsville's population is aging.
Reidsville Township (includes the project area) is however, experiencing a greater increase
in population than the city of Reidsville. This increase is indicative of stabilization within
' the area and indicates that people continue to migrate to the city's outlying areas. Population
forecasts for the area predict the city's share of total county population to be the same in the
Year 2000 as it is in 1990. An overall two percent increase in population is expected over
this ten year period, increasing the population to approximately 13,187 persons.
The school-aged population is expected to continue declining through Year 2000. Because
the Reidsville population aged 18 and younger continues to decrease, no new schools are
proposed for construction. Conversely, people aged 19 years or more are predicted to
increase in number. Census Tract 415 is projected to maintain the highest median age (40.1
' years) within the area. Because the population is aging, demand for geriatric health care will
be increased. Reidsville residents will have improved access to major health facilities located
in Greensboro and Winston-Salem via the proposed Southern Loop.
The proposed alignment of the roadway minimizes impacts to existing residents and
relocations. Relocations are not required for Alternative 1, the recommended alternative.
Because the homes are scattered throughout the project area, no significant impacts in
neighborhood or community cohesion will be realized because of the proposed roadway.
Furthermore, there will be no adverse impacts to elderly, handicapped, or minority/ethnic
groups. The proposed roadway alignments were chosen for three reasons: to minimize
impacts to the wetlands associated with Troublesome Creek, the alignments are relatively
straight, and residential impacts are minimized. The project has therefore, been developed
' in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
The project will have no significant impact on existing communities in that there will be no
' splitting of neighborhoods as a result of the Southern Loop project. Neither alternative will
present a barrier to the existing patterns of social linkage.
' Short-term social and economic impacts associated with construction activities for the
alternatives can be expected. Temporary closing of some local streets and access driveways
may be necessary for public safety. Maintenance of traffic plans will be developed to
minimize delays to motorists and provide access to residents and to the Burton Memorial
Baptist Church. Besides this temporary impact to the church, no other impacts to community
services/facilities will be caused by the project. Therefore, mitigation for potential social and
I community impacts is not warranted.

24

3.1.3. Economic Environment
' Reidsville serves as the retail center for a large area extending south towards Greensboro.
The current unemployment rate is 6.3 percent. The rate of growth in per capita income, for
Census Tract 415, is projected to increase from approximately 13,000 in 1980 to 15,000 in
' 1992 (Source: Reflections). The project will assist in opening the area for future business
ventures which, in turn, increase job opportunities, raise property values, and increase the tax
base.
As mentioned in the Land Use discussion, the project corridor is slated for commercial and
light industrial development. The Southern Loop project is critical for this development. The
Southern Loop also provides accessibility to the Reidsville local roadway network. Moreover,
the Southern Railway is located within the project corridor; access to rail facilities is thereby
possible.

1

J

1

The implementation of the Southern Loop improvements will result in increased employment
and revenues for construction companies, supply and equipment businesses. Once developed,
the area adjacent to the proposed Southern Loop will have positive economic impacts to both
the local Reidsville economy and to the Piedmont region. The potential for growth in the
project corridor is also influenced by the corridor's proximity to Reidsville and its location
within the Piedmont Triad. Since the project will have no detrimental economic impacts to
the surrounding areas, no mitigation is required.
3.1.4. Farmland
The proposed project is state-funded. In accordance with the Governor of North Carolina's
Executive Order 96 which states that state construction projects should consider farmland
impacts, the project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) under the
provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The SCS identified the majority of the
Southern Loop corridor as meeting the soil criteria for prime and important farmlands.
A quantitative analysis was conducted to assess the effects to areas with soils that met the
criteria for prime farmlands and for state important farmlands. This agricultural land or land
that could potentially be used in the future for agricultural purposes is located in an area that
will be zoned industrial for the growth and future development for Reidsville. This future
development will be more of a positive impact on the economy for Reidsville and the
surrounding area than retaining the area for agricultural purposes.
The project area is currently not within the Reidsville city limits. Potentially, after completion
of the project, Reidsville will incorporate sections of the proposed corridor.
As part of the evaluation, the Farmland Conservation Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) was
completed for the project. A copy of this form is included in Appendix C. Both sites scored
less than the 160 threshold per SCS criteria, therefore receive minimal levels of consideration.
Alternative 1 had a slightly lower score of 113.6 compared to Alternative 2 with 116.5.
Approximately 49 acres of prime farmland and 6 acres of state important farmlands will be
affected by the recommended alternative (Alternate 1).
25

0
3.2. RELOCATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
The Alternative 1 improvements will not result in any relocations. Alternative 2 will result in the
relocation of 2 families near the proposed intersection with NC-87. No business or other relocations
are anticipated. Please refer to the relocation report included in Appendix C.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing would be available
prior to construction of state projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist
' displaces with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Programs, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where
displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing. arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing
Program or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS 133-5 through 133-18). The program
is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to
live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The NCDOT will so schedule its work to allow ample
time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
' decent, safe and sanitary standards. The displaces are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of
' replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of the families and individuals
displaced, and be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also
assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation
regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if
possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
I programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed
in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.

26
f.

The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of
moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations
acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
' participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's
fees, survey costs, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner/occupants for
' replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may
not exceed $22,500 combined total. The maximum fixed payment for moving expenses for a business,
farm or non-profit organization is $20,000.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement
dwelling or room, or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a
' replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's State funded or Federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
or adequate replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable
period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income
for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility
or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
Federal Law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available or
when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds
the federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
' methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary since it is used, as the name implies,
only as a "last resort" and there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
However, it will be available if necessary.
3.3. CONSIDERATION OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
' No sidewalks exist within the proposed project area and anticipated pedestrian traffic does not
warrant construction of sidewalks. The Southern Loop does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request,
nor is it part of the NCDOT Bicycle Highway system.
3.4. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
An air analysis was conducted to determine future carbon monoxide (CO) levels associated with the
proposed construction of the 2.6 mile Reidsville Southern Loop.
The proposed facility is located just outside the Reidsville city limits in unincorporated Rockingham
County. Figure 1.2 depicts the study area and the location of the proposed roadway. The project
' has been coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR) and NCDOT.
' The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide (CO). In order to determine
the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near the proposed highway, two concentration
components must be used: local and background. The local component is due to CO emissions from
27

11
P

L

L

1

r

`J
cars operating on the highways in the near vicinity of the receptor location. The background
component is due to CO emissions from cars operating on streets farther from the receptor location.
In this section, the local component was determined by NCDOT using line source computer modeling
and the background component was determined by NCDEHNR. These two concentration
components were determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations resulting from
the proposed Southern Loop. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air
Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project's worst link, the miniature golf course located adjacent
to the intersection of the Southern Loop and US 29 Bus/Scales Street.
Inputs into the model to estimate hourly concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal
conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and meteorological parameters.
The traffic volumes are representative of the worst leg of the US 29 Bus/Scales Street and Southern
Loop intersection for years 1992 and 2012, documentation of which is provided in Appendix C. The
modeling analysis was performed for a "worst-case" condition using winds blowing parallel to the
roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated by NCDOT for the years 1992
and 2012 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated to be 1.9 parts per million
(ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management
NCDEHNR indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most rural areas,
including unincorporated Reidsville.
The closest receptor affected by "worst-case" air quality conditions resulting from building the
proposed 5-lane section is R1, a miniature golf course located west of US 29 Bus and south of the
proposed Southern Loop. Predicted 1992 and 2012 one-hour average CO concentrations and the
maximum 8-hour concentrations for the proposed project are 2.2 and 2.1, respectively, for both years.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum 1-hour = 35 ppm; 8-
hour average = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
This project is in the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region and in Rockingham County.
The State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures for this
area. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project. The project
is in conformance with the SIP because it will not cause violations of air quality standards and will
not interfere with any transportation control measures.
Measures will be taken to allay dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary
for the protection and comfort of motorists and area residents.
3.5. NOISE ANALYSIS
A noise analysis was conducted to measure existing noise conditions and to predict future noise levels.
Figure 1.2 depicts the study area and the location of the proposed roadway.
28

' The purpose of this section is to address potential impacts on noise-sensitive sites resulting from the
proposed Southern Loop. This section will determine qualitatively how implementation of the project
' will result in changes in traffic and typical sections as compared to a "no-build" alternative. The noise
study was made consistent with procedures and guidelines set forth within Title 23 C.F.R., Part 772.
The design year used in the analysis is Year 2012, the existing year being 1990. All forecast
' assumptions represent probable traffic conditions for Year 2012. Receptors for the study were
selected based on proximity to existing roadways, the future facility, and the type of surrounding land
uses.
' 3.5.1. Site Conditions
' The existing land uses within the project corridor are predominantly agriculture and woodland
with some low-density single family residential dwellings and commercial establishments
located at either end of the project study area. These existing land uses are classified into
three separate Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) categories for noise sensitivity.
According to FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), single family homes are classified as
Activity Category B and should not receive exterior noise levels of more than 67 dBA Leq.
' Single family residences are predominantly located on SR 2597 (Cook Florist Road) and on
NC 87. Some dwellings are scattered adjacent to the proposed alignment and are associated
with the adjacent agricultural areas.
' The commercial businesses located along US 29 Business are less sensitive and should not
receive exterior noise levels of more than 72 dBA Leq as stipulated for Activity Category C.
The Burton Memorial Missionary Baptist Church, located near the project's eastern boundary,
is considered to be a very sensitive land use requiring quiet interior noise levels on a daily
basis. As an Activity Category E land use, the church should not experience interior noise
' levels of more than 52 dBA Leq. Refer to Table 6 for a complete description of the FHWA
NAC as they pertain to this project.
' The project corridor is of rolling terrain with elevations ranging from 693 feet to 825 feet
above sea level. The proposed roadway grades range from ±035 percent to ±5.00 percent.
The proposed typical section consists of five 12-foot lanes.
The proposed right-of-way ranges from 110 feet to 240 feet depending upon width of the
outside return slope. Refer to the typical section illustrated in Figure 3.
' 3.5.2. Methodology
' As shown in both Table 7 and Figure 8, existing exterior ambient noise measurements were
taken at several locations along the project corridor. Existing noise levels were measured on
June 14, 1990 at four (4) sites within the project study boundaries. Site #1 was measured for
model validation purposes only and is not representative of a noise-sensitive land use. The
three (3) remaining sites (Sites #2, #3, and #5) represent the residential and institutional
areas within the project area, and were selected to typify the noise-sensitive land uses.
' Existing field-monitored noise levels represent all exterior noise sources recorded at the site
including natural and mechanical sources and human activities, whereas computer-calculated
1 29

L

0

noise levels represent traffic-generated noise only. The existing noise levels were calculated
with the approved FHWA noise prediction model, Stamina 2.0 (revised March 1983), and
were used as the computer-generated "base" upon which calculated future build and no-build
conditions are compared. The model was verified by comparing field-measured noise levels
to levels predicted by the model for the same traffic and conditions. The field monitoring
took place during the hours of 10:25 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to reflect a Level of Service (LOS)
C on the local roadway network. To validate the model, traffic counts collected during the
respective 10 minute counts, were multiplied by six to represent hourly volumes.
Table 6 - FHWA Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships
Activity Design Noise Levels - dBA'
Cat?g? Le,, 1 Hr Ll 1 Hr Description of Activity Category
A 57 60 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are
(Exterior) (Exterior) of extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended
purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of
parks, open space, or historic districts which
are dedicated or recognized by appropriate
local officials for activities requiring special
qualities of serenity and quiet.
B2 67 70 Picnic area, recreation areas, playgrounds,
(Exterior) (Exterior) active sports areas, and parks which are not
included in Category A and residences, motels,
hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 75 Developed lands, properties or activities
(Exterior) (Exterior) not included in Categories A or B above.
D --- --- Undeveloped lands; no standards apply unless
development planned, designed, and
programmed and likely to be built, then the
applicable A,B,C or D regulation applies.
E 52 55 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(Interior) (Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,
and auditoriums.
'Either L10 or Leq (but not both) design noise levels may be used on a project.
Source: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772.
30
F

The measured ambient noise levels were below abatement criteria in all locations and were
within three (3) decibels of the computer calculations, therefore validating the model. All
' traffic data assumptions and field data sheets used to calculate the existing conditions are
included in Appendix D for further reference. Table 7 depicts results of the
modeling/computer validation process.
Table 7 - Noise Model Verification
Exterior Monitor Computer
Monitoring Reading Distance To Calculated FHWA NAC
Site dB(A)Leg. Noise Source dB(A)Leg. dB(A)Leg.
#1 NC 87 54 45' (NC 87) 57 0
#2 Burton Memorial 35 55' (Camel) 38 67 (exterior)
Missionary Baptist 52 (interior)
church
' #3 Residence on 38 30'(Cook 41 67 (exterior)
Florist)
' #5 Residence on 49 90'(US 29 Bus.) 50 67 (exterior)
Site #1 was modeled for validation purposes only. No further analysis on this site is warranted.
Source: RS&H, Inc. 1990
' Traffic characteristics yielding "worst case" hourly traffic noise impacts on a regular basis were
used to predict the future noise levels. Traffic volumes and vehicle mix were derived from
actual field counts and the projected Design Year 2012 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Traffic
data used in the noise modeling exhibited a K-factor of 10 percent and a peak hour
' directional distribution of 60 percent. The percentage of medium and heavy trucks is shown
in Table 1 listed in section 1.2.10. for the local network.
' Roadway design data was used as input for STAMINA 2.0 to compute noise levels expressed
in terms of the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). By definition, the Equivalent Sound Level
is the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a specified period of time (one hour for
' this analysis), contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the
same period. Noise levels were recorded using a Larson/Davis 870 Precision Environmental
Noise and Vibration monitor.
' 3.5.3. Results and Impacts
' Predictions were made of existing and future noise levels at 12 noise receptor sites along the
project corridor. To simplify the analysis, the study corridor was divided into five (5) sectors.
Each sector contains several receptor sites as indicated in Figure 8. The methods for
' determining noise impacts included a comparison of the predicted noise levels with the
abatement criteria. Any predicted noise level approaching the FHWA NAC within one (1)
decibel or exceeding this level, as indicated in Table 8, is considered an impact.
' 31

k II

N
m ? x + x St

0 rn

? K a o v+
`" -+ o , A <

m it
:0
+'1 A p S 0 D r
C
m
N n
m _ i
rn (A
4 n
r 0
,? r v
<

m
o A
c ou

? K
r
D

A
r -
m
0
m
z
v
• D Q O
N A V
r r
++77
Q i+Q i
I
„ II
II
Q I1? 11
I1
CO)
1, 11
C")
6Z
O
.l
W
e

f
f

::SR 2504

r, fIti •
It ` Of

m

v "
D LA ii
r < I I
_
r II
rI
r
77 CO)
m ++ m

D O I \?\ O

Nm N

z
r
O
O
u
k ?. 1
k \
k k ,t k p ! 7
k k kkk ?" ..07
KK'k K. k k ? ?
IF
k k
µkkk NC
k kkk k i•VI
IF K. N' k k
G.-- ' ' y
T

I'
yi
I,
W
1 V +1
+1
--i I ;
I,N r
I,N •

4

m Q
n
x
A
T
1 ' '
?? A C
Z ..., o

C-) o
0
F-I A

I" z " Z
2
22
O r! n
00 p
0

K N
N W
? Z z
QO
x
z
o ? 1 z C'7
m
n
A
rn
043 "' M
70

co rn_
M z
N y C-)
I, y
17 rn
/••?
II \ /
II
co G C
77
SR ? ? ? 71 `?
11
G ?S? II
m
1
Z °o ® if
m IV
mi °oo a d rn
? a o 0

' Table 8 - Noise Impacts
Existing Noise Level Increase In dBA From Existing
' In Lea(h) To Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
' Either of these situations makes the receptor eligible for noise abatement considerations.
The "No-build" scenario for Year 2012 was modeled first. For modeling purposes, traffic
under this scenario is indicative of Year 2012 local network traffic, excluding the Southern
Loop project, and represents the normal increase in traffic volumes. As shown in Table 9,
Receptor 11 approaches the FHWA NAC of 67 in the year 2012 under the no-build scenario.
' Under the "With-project" scenario, noise levels include the normal increase in traffic volumes
including the proposed Southern Loop. Both alternatives were modeled for receptor sites
' located in Sectors 3, 4, and 5. Predicted noise levels, as depicted in Table 9, are under the
FHWA thresholds with one exception. Receptor #3, a residence adjacent to the proposed
Southern Loop alignment, is approaching FHWA NAC under the with-project scenario under
' both alternatives.
Since one of the 12 noise receptor sites will experience noise levels approaching or exceeding
the abatement criteria under both alternatives, the following noise abatement measures were
considered:
* Alteration of vertical or horizontal geometry,
* Landscaping and earth berms,
* Traffic management techniques such as:
- time use restrictions
- modified speed limits
- exclusive lane designation
- traffic control devices
' - vehicle prohibition, and
* Construction of permanent noise barriers.
By virtue of the following reasons, these noise abatement measures are considered impractical:
* Changes in the topography within the project corridor to adjust the vertical alignment
' is not feasible due to the rolling terrain. The horizontal geometry was developed to
minimize right-of-way impacts and relocations. Hence, these measures are not
feasible for this project.
For landscaping, a five dBA reduction could be achieved for each 100 feet of depth
(ten dBA maximum) only if trees are 15 feet high and the visual path between the
observer and roadway is completely obstructed. Thus, any type of landscaping
provided for the purpose of reducing noise would have to be very dense in nature and
deep (i.e. a forest). An earth berm could provide some abatement; however, it
33

requires a significant amount of additional right-of-way. This measure is not feasible
due to the mandated NCDOT cost per receptor, when abatement is studied for
mitigating a traffic noise impact, being set at a $25,000 maximum. Acquisition of
property alone may surpass this ceiling cost.
Table 9 - Noise Level Predictions
Distance
Land From 1990 2012 2012 FHWA
Receptor Use Mainline Monitored No-Build Build NAC
1 Res. 590' NM 63 63 67
2 Comm. 280' NM 61 67 72
3 Res. 140' 49 53 67 67
4 Res. 500' 49 61 63 67
5 Res. 160' 38* 38* 55 67
6 Res. 440' 38* 38* 44 67
7 Res. 470'(470') 38* 61 63(63) 67
8 Res. 410'(430') 38* 56 61(59) 67
9 Church 100'(690') 35 35 41 (32)** 52
10 Res. 770'(2') 38 49 53 (N/A) 67
11 Res. 170'(1000') 38* 66 69(66) 67
12 Res. 300'(450') 38* 65 65(65) 67
* = Ambient noise levels similar to Receptor Site 10.
* * = Interior noise level only. Exterior readings can be converted to interior readings for
comparison to FHWA NAC by reducing the noise readings by 25 dBA for brick structures
(i.e. Church).
xxx (xxx) = Alternative 1 (Alternative 2)
Source: RS&H, 1990
34

'J

i
I
u

L

Traffic management techniques applied for the purpose of reducing noise should be
aimed primarily at truck traffic since it generally controls the peaking characteristics
of the Leq level. The utilization of any traffic control devices that may lend
themselves toward modified speed limits would not be favored since it would reduce
the total throughput of passengers and vehicles along the corridor. Any speed
restriction would severely retard the operational characteristics of the facility and
subsequently reduce the capacity of the corridor. Time use restrictions, along with
exclusive lane designations, would be nearly impossible to implement.
Construction of a permanent noise barrier within, or adjacent to the highway right-of-
way is again not feasible. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections
of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically infeasible to construct a
barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight (8) times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet
from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening
of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately
4 dBA (FUNDAMENTALS AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, Chapter 5, Section 3.2,
Page 5-27). Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass
attenuating measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are feasible and none are
recommended for this project.
3.5.4. Construction Noise
In the current planning/design process, no abnormal construction noise impacts can be
identified. The major construction tasks associated with this project are expected to be earth
moving and removal, hauling, construction pile driving grading and paving. General
construction noise impacts to those individuals living adjacent to the proposed alignment, can
be anticipated during certain phases of construction.
Should noise problems arise due to construction activities, the most effective means of
abatement is to limit the hours of construction to daytime hours (7 am to 5 pm).
3.5.5. Summary of Results
Since the project is located in a rural area, few noise impacts to the adjacent community will
be realized. Of twelve (12) receptor sites, one warranted abatement considerations. The site
is a residence located directly adjacent to the proposed alignment, near the intersection of
US 29 Bus/Scales Street. Currently, this home is in a fairly quiet area with only a dirt/gravel
road serving as an ingress and egress from the property. The project will increase noise levels
35
',
L

' at this residence by 14 dBA. Since none of the abatement measures were found feasible at
this site, the noise impact would be an unavoidable consequence of the proposed project.
' 3.6. WATER RESOURCES
Little Troublesome Creek is the only stream in the study corridor. It is designated from its source
to the Haw River as a Class C NSW stream (15A NCAC 2B.0311). The best usage for which the
waters in Class C must be protected is fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture,
and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The supplemental classification of NSW denotes
' nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Prior to roadbed construction, the contractor will be required to erect silt fencing along those
' portions of the stream which are adjacent to the new facility. These fences will be maintained and/or
replaced until a solid vegetation cover is established. Other control measures such as berms, dikes,
and/or siltation dams will be used as needed. Construction activities will be limited to the minimum
area needed to accomplish the work in and around the banks of the stream. Where possible, forested
areas will be left intact to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation and to maintain desirable
hydrologic characteristics of the soil (high filtration rates, permeability, and porosity).
The streams in the project's vicinity presently receive highway run-off pollutants from existing roads
in the study area. The increase in roadway surface area will act as an additional non-point source
' of pollutants. There will be some increase in leachate from the roadway materials, impacts of these
leachates are expected to be minimal.
' Detrimental water quality impacts associated with accidental spills from transportation vehicles is
possible. However, it is generally agreed that the frequency of accidental spills can be significantly
reduced by upgrading highway systems to increase transportation safety levels.
' 3.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS
' The 2.6-mile study corridor was surveyed July 3-5, 1990, to identify vegetative communities and
wildlife species contained therein. Vegetative communities were inventoried and mapped during
cruise surveys, and characterized by ground truthing at specified sample points within each
community. Plant species were identified on-site or collected and subsequently identified.
A total of six vegetative communities, plus an open water category, were identified in the study area.
Upland vegetative communities include upland hardwood forest (UHF), upland mixed forest (UMF),
upland pine forest (PF), agricultural lands (AG), and man-dominated sites (MD). One wetland
vegetative community, wetland alluvial forest (AF), was identified in the survey. The open water
category (OW), which may or may not contain a vegetative component, includes ponds, creeks, and
' borrow pits. These communities are depicted in Figures C2.1 to C2.5 in Appendix C. The following
discussion characterizes each community. Acreage for each category are provided in Table 10.
3.7.1. Upland Hardwood Forest
Hardwood forests are common within the project area. Occasionally, scattered individuals of
' Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and Loblolly pine (P. taeda) occur within these hardwood
forests as a result of past disturbances. Well-drained ridge and hilltop soils support canopy
trees such as post oak (Quercus stellata), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), blackjack oak (Q.
' 36

11

F

11

marilandica), and southern red oak (Q. falcata). White oak (Quercus alba), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), and red maple (Acerrubrum) become more common on somewhat
moister slopes. On north-facing slopes with less exposure to direct sunlight, the transition to
a white oak-mockernut hickory-red maple canopy occurs closer to summits and ridge crests
than on slopes with southerly aspects which receive more direct sunlight.
Typical subcanopy species are flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), and devil's walking stick (Aralia spinosa). American holly (Ilex opaca) and red
cedar (Juniperus vh niana) often function as subcanopy species.
Table 10 - Quantitative analysis of vegetative communities within proposed alternative alignment
corridors for the Reidsville Southern Loop project.
Acres
Community Map Abbreviation Alt. 1 Alt 2.
Upland hardwood forest UHF 15.79 19.36
Upland mixed forest UMF 13.27 13.77
Wetland Alluvial forest AF 3.86 3.86
Upland Pine forest PF 4.80 4.80
Agricultural land AG 15.57 13.64
Man-dominated MD 17.71 15.00
Open water OW 1.38 1.38
TOTAL 72.38 71.81
Vines common in upland hardwoods are yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), poison
ivy (Rhus radicans), muscadine (Vctis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), and coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens). Woody vines do not form dense
tangles in upland forests, as they frequently do in pine and alluvial forests.
' Shrub and herb species are highly variable in occurrence. Blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium),
blue haw (V. rufidulum), and other viburnums (V. rafinesquianum, V. acerifolium), are among
the most frequently encountered shrubs in both low and high slope hardwood stands. Fringe-
tree (Chionanthus virginicus), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), squaw-huckleberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica), and a variety of blueberries
(Vaccinium spp.) and huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.) are characteristic of drier upland
' hardwoods in the area. Ferns found in this area include southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides), broad beech-fern (Thelypteris hexagonoptera), and New York fern (T.
noveboracensis).
' 37

Upper slope and ridge phases of hardwood forests have a great number of late spring or
summer herb species. Among these are goldenrods (Solidago spp.), asters (Aster spp.),
elephant's-foot (Elephantopus tomentosus), and panic grasses (Panicum spp.).
Amphibians occurring in this habitat include northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), striped
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum).
Common reptiles in hardwood communities include common box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
racer (Coluber constrictor), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix).
Some common and important birds occurring in upland hardwood forests are the red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
' Some of the more characteristic mammals of the upland hardwood forest are Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), silver-haired
bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray
fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
3.7.2. Upland Mixed Forest
The upland mixed forest community, common in the area of the Reidsville Southern Loop,
' is very similar to the upland hardwood forest community and can be considered an earlier
successional stage. Virginia pine and loblolly pine are present in various amounts, and share
canopy dominance with such hardwood species as tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
sweet gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua). Understory species are the same as those occurring in
upland hardwood forests. Shrub and herb species vary little from those mentioned for upland
hardwood forest with the exception of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and bracken fern
(Pteridium aquilinum). Species composition is similar to upland hardwood forest although the
' relative abundance of each species differs.
' The wildlife found in this area is usually a combination of what occurs in the pine forest and
hardwood communities. Birds extending into this area from the pine forest community are
the pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus); and from the
hardwood forest community are the red-bellied woodpecker ( Melanerpes carolinus), downy
' woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus). Some
species such as the rat snake, slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), and white-footed
mouse occur in all three forested communities; however, the eastern hognose snake
' (Heterodon platyrhinos), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) and American toad (Bufo
americanus) exhibit a preference for pine forest or upland mixed forest.
' 3.7.3. Upland Pine Forest
The canopy of the upland pine forest is dominated by even-aged trees of a single species,
either Virginia pine or loblolly pine. This forest type appears to occur more commonly in
previously cleared areas as a result of timbering, clearing for development, or agricultural
practices. The understory is dominated by hardwood species such as sweet gum, red mulberry
38

1

(Morus rubra), white oak, tulip tree, and red maple.
The complement of herb species is more stereotyped. Pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata),
elephant's-foot, and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) occur predictably throughout
this community. The vine population is high, including Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy, trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), and yellow jessamine.
None of the mammals occurring in the Reidsville Southern Loop area occur exclusively in
pine forests, but many of the terrestrial forms occur regularly in mixtures of pines and other
community types and at the edges of pine stands and thickets. Many reptiles and amphibians
are common in pine and mixed pine habitats, but none are restricted to the upland pine forest
community. Birds commonly found in pine forests include pine warbler, Carolina chickadee,
tufted titmouse, and Carolina wren.
3.7.4. Wetland Alluvial Forest
Alluvial forest has developed in sediments deposited along lowlands parallel to Little
Troublesome Creek. Recurrent flooding in areas adjacent to main stream bodies over long
periods of time has resulted in deposition of sediments, typically clays, sands, and silts. This
transported material contributes to the formation of alluvial soils of the Wehadkee and
Chewacla Series in the Reidsville Southern Loop area.
The species composition of alluvial forests is variable due to both natural physical features
(drainage in particular) and to past use of the sites by man. Many alluvial sites in the
Piedmont area have been farmed because of their rich soil and level topography. Most of the
alluvial forest in the project area have not experienced extensive impact from man-dominated
activities.
Many species are present in the alluvial forest of the project area. The canopy includes tulip
tree, red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus
americana), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Subcanopy trees and shrubs of the alluvial forest are abundant and diverse. Common ones
include red maple, sweet gum, ironwood, tag alder (Alnus senulata) and swamp dogwood
(Corpus stricta). Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, and catbrier (Smilax spp.) form dense
mats in some areas.
Typical herbs of the alluvial forest include spring-beauty (Claytonia virginica), Jack-in-the-
pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), buttercups (Ranunculus spp.), and violets (Viola spp.). By
summer and fall the dominant herbs include jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), false nettle
' (Boehmeria cylindrica), wood-nettle (Laportea canadensis), and chain-fern (Woodwardia
areolata).

Species diversity and populations of wildlife are often high in these communities. Common
and distinctive reptiles and amphibians are common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), common box turtle,
marbled salamander, and many species of frogs (Acris sp., Hyla spp., and Rana spp.).
The alluvial forests are by far the richest in summer bird life of all the biotic community types.
39

' Avian species documented in this habitat type include cardinal, red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), and Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens).
' In some Piedmont areas the screech owl (Otus asio), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe),
yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), American
redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), and whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) have restricted their
' nesting to this habitat (LeGrand 1972).
Mammals found in the area are usually not restricted to the alluvial forest community.
Beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) may be somewhat limited to this
habitat; whereas, raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-footed mouse, and southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris) may utilize the area as part of their home range.
3.7.5. Open Water (Streams and Ponds
Little Troublesome Creek is the only stream in the study corridor. Most of the lentic waters
' in the Reidsville Southern Loop area are man-made and consist of small farm ponds. The
quality of open water communities on site is generally moderate, based on visual observations
of physical and biological parameters.
' Various green and blue-green algae and an aquatic moss (Fontinalis sp.) constitute the
primary plant life in the streams. Where sediments have been deposited along banks of
ponds, such plants as cattail (Typha latifolia), willows (Sahr spp.), spike rush (Eleocharis
obtusa), panic grasses (Panicum agrostoides, P. hemitomon, and others), sedges (S. cyperinus
and Cyperus spp.), and button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) occur.
Aquatic organisms, including both invertebrates and fishes, inhabit the creeks and ponds in
or near the project area. Insect larvae are the dominant invertebrates and include stoneflies
(Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonata), damselflies (Odonata), caddis
flies (Trichoptera), and crane flies (Diptera). Various snails (Gastropoda), segmented worms
(Oligochaeta), and crayfishes (Decapoda) also inhabit the aquatic environment. Typical fish
' species include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), crescent shiner (Natropis cerasinus),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Farm ponds are usually stocked with
game fish, such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus
' salmoides).
Salamanders, frogs, and toads especially are dependent on the waters of streams, ponds, pools,
' and puddles, since all are amphibious and either live permanently in water or must return to
the aquatic environment to breed. Turtles, with the exception of the eastern box turtle, also
rely very heavily upon the water for food and shelter. The most common snake in this
' community is the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Many other animals utilize this open water habitat. They include great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), wood duck (Aix
sponsa), southeastern shrew, and raccoon.
1 3.7.6. Agricultural Lands
Agricultural lands scattered throughout the predominantly rural portions of the Reidsville
40
1

' Southern Loop area produce corn, grain sorghums, spring small grains, tobacco, and forage
crops. Portions of some agricultural lands are also used for pastures. Crop rotational
practices have created new cultivated areas and allowed others to lie fallow. A trend that will
undoubtedly intensify in the future is the conversion of agricultural areas to maintained
communities (residential, industrial, and commercial uses).
Recently abandoned fields are included in this community type. Immediately following
abandonment a well-documented successional complex of "weedy" species evolves.
Characteristic species include broom-straw (Andropogon virginicus), horseweed (Erigeron
' canadensis), frost aster (Aster pilosus), crabgrasses (Digitaria spp.), and goldenrods.
The occurrence of wildlife in croplands is limited due to a number of factors including lack
of suitable protective cover, intermittent presence of man, disruption of soil habitat by
cultivation, and seasonal cover changes. The vertebrate wildlife of a farm or farming area can
be rich and abundant, but this situation would require many patches of all community types
' and their ecotones. Fields intensively farmed for corn, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, tobacco,
or forage, will not contain many birds, mammals, reptiles, or amphibians as permanent
residents but may be important feeding areas for transient and migrant birds and for wildlife
residing in more stable adjoining natural communities. Wide-ranging animals, such as
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), white-tailed deer, red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), various hawks and owls, and fossorial mammals, such as the pine vole
' (Microtus pinetorum) and southern short-tailed shrew, are major faunal components of this
community.
' 3.7.7. Man-Dominated
Man-dominated communities (excluding agricultural lands) are areas with a suppressed level
' of vegetative growth due to mowing, spraying, clearing, or other man-initiated activities.
Examples of man-dominated communities in the Reidsville Southern Loop study area are
private residences (including small garden plots and expansive lawns), churches, commercial
areas, and remnant forests used as buffers or landscaping in residential areas. Evidence of
activities which have resulted in construction or clearing for utility corridors, railroad tracks,
roads, and highways also are incorporated into the man-dominated community type.
' Maintained areas provide "edges" or breaks along forested communities in which species
diversity may be enhanced. Availability of contiguous habitat types provides foraging, cover,
and breeding or nesting habitats for animal species in close proximity to these open areas.
For game species such as white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and
bobwhite, "edge" is considered optimum habitat.
' Maintained areas are surprisingly rich in animal species. Species preferring open, herbaceous
habitats or those that are tied to man's activities are particularly numerous in this biotic
community. Characteristic avian species include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), rock dove
(Columba livia), mourning dove, chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), common flicker (Colaptes
auratus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).
The eastern cottontail, meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanieus), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and various bats are mammals typically found in

41
1

these settings. Representative reptiles include American toad, racer, rat snake, common
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), ground skink (Scinella lateralis), and common box turtle.
3.7.8. Vegetation and Wildlife Conclusion
Construction of the proposed project will remove the existing vegetation and displace wildlife
from within the project construction limits. Portions of the project area may be covered with
roadways, bridges, and other man-made structures, thus precluding revegetation; other
portions of the project area may be grassed, landscaped with shrub or tree species, or allowed
to revegetate naturally. Overall, the natural communities occupying the project area will be
destroyed and replaced with developed land or vacant land communities in which both
vegetation and wildlife diversity and numbers will be greatly reduced.
The approximate acreage of vegetative communities that would be affected by the studied
alternatives is shown in Table 10. Acreage was calculated, based on the 1" = 500' aerial
photographs.
Forested communities retaining their natural vegetative constituents such as UHF, UMF, AF,
and PF are generally more important in terms of wildlife, value, and secondary productivity
than highly altered or maintained communities such as AG and MD. The alternative
alignment that will affect the most acres of forested upland is Alternative 2, which impacts
' 42.38 acres. The alignment least impacting forested upland is Alternative 1, which impacts
38.36 acres.

3.8. WETLANDS
An evaluation of wetlands within the project corridor included 1) a review of the Soil Conservation
Service's Soil Survey of Rockingham County and topographic maps of the area; 2) contact with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Wilmington; and 3) an on-site reconnaissance to evaluate the extent
of wetlands occurring within the project area.
The following wetland categories were identified within the alignment corridors: wetland alluvial
forest (AF), natural ponds of the open water (OW) category, and creeks (see sections 3.7.4. and 3.7.5.
for community type definitions). Wetlands within the wetland alluvial forest were delineated July 3-5,
1990, according to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989). See Figures C3.1 to C3.5, in
appendix C, for the location of wetland categories found within the project corridor. Wetland alluvial
forest (3.86 acre) and open water (1.38 acre) comprise 5.24 acres for both Alternative 1 and 2 (Table
10). The majority of Little Troublesome Creek water courses are located within the wetland alluvial
forest community of the project corridor.
3.8.1. Wetland Communityy Definition
Wetlands are defined as possessing three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation,
(2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. These characteristics and the technical criteria
for identification purposes are described in the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation
1989).
42

3.8.2. Wetland Quality
' The quality of the wetlands within the project corridor can be approximated by examining
their functions and values. Wetland functions are those physical, chemical, and biological
processes that occur within wetlands, while wetland values are those attributes that are
beneficial in some way to wildlife, flora, and/or society. Generally, alterations to wetland
systems disrupt wetland functions and in turn affect the values of the systems to the recipient.
This may result in a lowering of wetland quality.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) II which is designed primarily for conducting an initial,
rapid assessment of wetland functions and values was used on the alluvial forest community
adjacent to Little Troublesome Creek, west of U.S. 29. This area is the largest vegetated
wetland site in the project study limits. WET II evaluates functions and values in terms of
social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity. Social significance assesses the value of a
wetland to society due to its special designations, potential economic value, and strategic
' location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a wetland to perform a function due to its
physical, chemical or biological characteristics. Opportunity assesses the opportunity of a
wetland to perform a function to its level of capability (Adamus et al. 1987). WET II
evaluation results for the Little Troublesome Creek floodplain area west of U.S. 29 are shown
in Table 11. Ranks of low to high were obtained for the various evaluation parameters.
3.8.3. Wetland Conclusion
As discussed in Section 3.7, wetland categories identified on site are: wetland alluvial forest
(AF), ponds (OW), and Little Troublesome Creek. The majority of Little Troublesome Creek
within the proposed project alternatives are contained within the alluvial forest community.
' Alternative 1 would have a total impact of 5.24 acres on AF and OW. Alternative 2 would
impact the same number of acres of AF and OW; however, additional impact to water courses
of Little Troublesome Creek located in UHF areas could result.
Long-term impact resulting from construction of a 5-lane curb and gutter roadway would
involve at least partial clearing of wetland at crossings associated with water course drainage
and alluvial forest. Wetland habitats would be eliminated within the construction corridor
where stream drainage are crossed on fill rather than on bridges, thereby eliminating habitat
and displacing wildlife. Box culverts would allow normal surface water flows. Pools,
frequently created at openings of cross culverts, may become important sediment traps during
' periods of high water. Wetland flood control capacity will be reduced proportionately by the
amount of fill utilized in wetlands.
Should wetland crossings be constructed on bridge structures, impact would be minimized to
natural wetland systems. Some clearing still would be necessary, and minor amounts of
habitat for photosynthetic organisms would become subject to shaded light and decreased
productivity. The severity of impact is greatly reduced in wetlands which are crossed by
bridge structures and where cross culverts are placed in fill areas.
Impact to the water quality of wetland habitats would consist primarily of short-term increases
in turbidity and sedimentation. Best management practices will be used during construction
to ensure erosion control and minimize adverse impact to water quality.
' 43
n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 11 - Summary of WET evaluation results for the Little Troublesome Creek floodplain within
the Reidsville Southern Loop study limits.
Social
Function Significance Effectiveness Opportunity
Ground Water Recharge L U
Ground Water Discharge L L
Floodflow Alteration L M M
Sediment Stabilization M L
Sediment/Toxicant Retention L H H
Nutrient Removal/Transformation L H H
Production Export * M
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance M
Wildlife D/A Breeding * L
Wildlife D/A Migration * L
Wildlife D/A Wintering * L
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance M M
Uniqueness/Heritage M
Recreation L
Nutrient Removal/Transformation L H H
Note: "H" = High, "M" = Moderate, "L" = Low, "U" = Uncertain, and "*"'s identify conditions
where functions and values are not evaluated.
Temporary impact to wetland resources will occur as a result of construction access in
wetland. Methods of access in the wetland areas will be determined at design and
construction phases. Best management practices for standard road, bridge, and box culvert
construction will be used to minimize impact to wetlands within the construction corridor.
Through selective location of the project alternatives, proposed construction within wetland
areas has been minimized. Aside from the wetland directly affected, the alternatives should
not severely impact the stability or quality of the wetland resources in the project area.
44

3.8.4 Wetland Mitigation
The preliminary design considered the following: selection of the alternative that avoids
wetlands to the maximum extent possible; maintenance of historic hydrologic flows;
construction methods to minimize impacts; and the most cost effective design for minimal
impact. NCDOT will provide appropriate mitigation for permanent wetland losses either by
restoration, creation or compensation of similar wetland habitat. A mitigation plan will be
developed and submitted at the time of permit application.
There appears to be no feasible alternate to alternatives with wetland impact. All practicable
measures will be taken to minimize harm.
3.9. PERMITS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will be required to apply for a permit pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. This permit is anticipated at Little Troublesome
Creek and is required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States
or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including disposal of
construction debris. A nationwide system permit (404), along with a general 401 permit should
adequately address permitting requirements. Application for permits will follow the final design and
mitigation plan for this project.
3.10. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
State-listed species which potentially could occur in the project study corridor were ascertained from
official lists prepared by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (15A NCAC 10I) and the N.C.
Plant Conservation Program (Sutter 1990). For groups of plants and animals that have not been
considered at this time by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, state designations for potential
species were taken from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program July 1989 plant and animal lists.
Federally-listed endangered and threatened species which may occur in the project area were also
identified from the official list compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989).
After reviewing the list and habitat preferences, potential areas within the corridor were explored.
These explorations during 3-5 July revealed no endangered or threatened species. The status of listed
plant and animal species known to occur in the general region of the Reidsville Southern Loop area
and criteria for placing organisms in endangered, threatened, and special concern categories are given
in Appendix C. Species discussed in the following section have been included for consideration based
on their distribution in the piedmont region of North Carolina and/or the availability of suitable
habitat.
3.10.1 Pertinent Species and Conclusions
3.10.1.1 Federally-listed Species
Federally-listed endangered and threatened species which may occur in the region of
the Reidsville Southern Loop project area are false poison sumac (Rhus michauxii),
southeastern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and arctic peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus tundrius).
45
:l
1
The endangered false poison sumac occurs in sandy or rocky, open woods usually
associated with basic soils found in the inner coastal plain and piedmont of North
Carolina (Sutter et al. 1987). Suitable habitat potentially occurs within the area of
' the project but no individuals were observed during limited ground truthing. There
are no previous county records for this species (N.C. Natural Heritage Program
database); however, prior to construction further review should be performed by a
qualified botanist.
The endangered southeastern bald eagle is a rare transient at lakes throughout the
' inland portions of the Carolinas (Potter et al. 1980). Within the project area there
are no sizable bodies of water that would provide suitable habitat for the southeastern
bald eagle. Previous county records for this species do not exist (N.C. Natural
' Heritage Program database) and no individuals were observed within the project area.
An occurrence of this species would be rare; therefore, potential impact would be
minimal or nonexistent.
' h
T
e threatened arctic peregrine falcon winters in modest numbers, mostly in coastal
areas of North Carolina. Migrant individuals can be expected anywhere, but major
routes seem confined to barrier beaches and Outer Banks (Potter et al. 1980). No
individuals were observed within the project area and previous county records do not
exist (N.C. Natural Heritage Program database). The probability of an occurrence of
the arctic peregrine falcon in the project area is remote; therefore, there would be
' little or no potential for impacts to this species.
' 3.10.1.2. State-listed Species
Additional species listed by the state but not federally-listed are discussed below.
' Four plant species in the region are listed as endangered or threatened by the state.
Goldenseal (Hydrostis canadensis), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii),
and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) are classified as endangered. The bog
' asphodel (Nestronia umbellula) is classified as threatened. All four species have
habitat requirements (Appendix C) that potentially occur within the project area.
Only goldenseal has previous records for Rockingham County (N.C. Natural Heritage
' Program database). No individuals were observed during limited ground truthing. It
is recommended that prior to construction, the selected alignment should be surveyed
within the impact corridor for these species by a qualified botanist.
T
i
f
wo spec
es of
ish that occur in the region are proposed for special concern (15A
NCAC 10I). They are bigeye jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum) and riverweed darter
(Etheostoma podostemone). Both have previous records for Rockingham County
(N.C. Natural Heritage Program database). Suitable habitat may be present in the
project area. To determine potential impacts to these species, it is recommended that
prior to construction, the impact corridor of the selected alignment should be
surveyed by a qualified ichthyologist.
t Seven birds from the list in Appendix C are proposed for special concern by the N.C.
Wildlife Resource Commission (15A NCAC 10I). Of these, only one, the loggerhead
shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), is a fairly common resident. The others occur as
1 46

1

1

r.
C
1

seasonal residents or transients. Because bird species listed are primarily seasonal
residents or transients, excluding the loggerhead shrike, and no listed species' breeding
habitats have been observed to occur within the project area, there would be little or
no potential for impacts to these species.
No endangered or threatened mammals are known to exist within the region. This
includes both federal and state listings (FWS 1989, 15A NCAC 10I).
The status of invertebrate fauna has not been researched as intensively as for
vertebrate animals. No invertebrate species included on the state and federal lists of
endangered and threatened species are known to occur in the area of the Reidsville
Southern Loop (15A NCAC 10I, N.C. Natural Heritage Program animal list, FWS
1989).
In summary, there are no known locations for endangered and threatened species
within project limits of the proposed Reidsville Southern Loop (Appendix C). This
includes both federal and state listings. In conclusion, proposed Alternative 1 would
impact the least amount of forested upland (Table 10) and therefore, be considered
the best environmentally sound alternative.
3.11. FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in cooperation with State and Local
governments has developed flood boundary and flood insurance mapping. The most recent mapping
is dated June 16, 1978 for Rockingham County Unincorporated Areas. Little Troublesome Creek
is the only designated flood zone encountered by the proposed route. The base flood elevation at
the proposed crossing is shown as 702 NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). The proposed
project will not significantly impact the base flood elevation provided proper NCDOT hydraulic
procedures are followed at the design phase (see Figure 9).
3.12. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
' 3.12.1 Architectural and Historical
' Since the Reidsville Southern Loop project is state-funded, it is necessary to comply with GS
121-12(a). This statute requires that if a state action will adversely affect a property listed
in the National Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be
given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect of this project was identified and searched for properties listed
in the National Register of Historic Places, pursuant to GS 121-12(a). Since no such property
was found, no further compliance with the statute was required.
' 3.12.2 Archaeological
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
' responded to a request for information regarding possible archaeological sites within the study
1 47

II ? M Q Q
N, ` I t r t!
? ..? ? I1 ffQ
?' I I ? f t
p m X x f X X r f, I I
-.4 m y 1 m m 1 in m 11 1 1
Y -'D V ; - p .n 11? 11
A y r` o tQ1n nl
Z 7?0 -1 < -' Z I ? ? I
c x o D r- ;ll O Z y?
9 ^' m n
-4 7C O n ?0 6
N -1 f_ N A y ,
z a m O
0 n -
m °
D D
-1 v
Q m
o A
C Im
N p
C13 <
m ZC
v
c?
m
cp > (A
m Qt?-%--SR 2504
D O i'
-I -I 1
< = 1
N m II
Z
II
r
II
O It
O It
II
1 ,.

1
r?
°o0
0
rM
D D
Z
4
co
I?
I
I,
'f
'I
11
II
I,
1 I1
Ij
Vj ? I
IS
A `I
r 1;
'' rfl
N IS
S1N
11: D
IIN r
II
[9 ? ' If
Q SR ,? f' ?+
0 g ' Cli
Cl) (A
r r c0 vaNi y M r Q® Lei
n p Co
C r"' m
O o -4 r" r t>t 0 IR,
00
w _ go -n
rr, C30
c m b
o Z n °
1 Z in
Cy 4
QD N) rn
'N
.Et 03 N z vs
e4
4
c0

' corridor. They concluded that there are no archaeological sites listed in the national register
that will be impacted by this project (see letter in Appendix B).
3.13. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
' An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted on the corridors studied for the portion of the
Reidsville Southern Loop between the intersection of US 29 Bus/Scales Street and the intersection
of NC-87 and SR-2594 (Holiday Loop).
' A review of the North Carolina National Priorities List, the Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Priority
List and the Wasteland Preremedial Report 20 supplied by the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Solid Waste Management Division, did not indicate any NPL or spill sites
' in these corridors.
Interviews with local officials from Health, Fire, Emergency Management and Public Works also did
' not uncover any sites of spills or landfills in these corridors.
A visual survey of the corridors did not reveal any hazardous material conditions that potentially
' could cause subsurface contamination within the proposed right-of-way. However, during project
construction, should suspect conditions be encountered, testing will be performed to determine the
presence and level of concentration of any hazardous materials so that the appropriate remediation
' procedures can be developed and initiated.
Underground tanks are present in . the southwest quadrant of the US 29 Bus/Scales Street
' intersection, but acquisition of additional right-of-way is not anticipated in this area.
The land use of these proposed corridors has historically been primarily rural farming. The
' determination of any past spills of pesticides or organic compounds due to farming not visually
apparent is beyond the scope of an ISA.
Based upon the results of the ISA procedure, including records check, visual survey and local officials
' interviews, no hazardous waste involvement is anticipated in the acquisition of right-of-way for this
project.
' 3.14. ENERGY
The construction energy requirements of the two alternatives are similar and are generally greater
' than the energy requirements of the "no-build" alternative. In using either of the build alternatives
a savings in operational energy requirements would more than offset construction energy
requirements and thus, in the long term, result in a net savings in energy usage.
3.15. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
' There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally associated with the construction
of highways that will be experienced with the construction of this project. Measures will be taken
to mitigate these effects to the extent possible.
' All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will not be
compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites along the project
49

and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Traffic services in the immediate area may be subjected to brief periods of disruption during
construction of the project. Every endeavor will be made to insure that the transportation needs of
the public will be met both during and after construction.
' Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety and general welfare of
the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of any public or private
properties.
An extensive rodent control program will be established where structures are to be removed or
demolished in order to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas. The local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section can be contacted for information.
Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances, along with
regulations of North Carolina Plan for Implementing National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Burning will be done only on the right of way, under constant surveillance, with good atmospheric
conditions, as remote from the dwellings as possible.
' Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division of Highways "Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures". The contractor shall be required to observe and comply
with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid
waste will not be placed into any existing land disposal site which is in violation of state rules and
regulations.
' Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are 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.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the work and until the
completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner
which will effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from other demolition, construction, and land clearing materials will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local
' officials, and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will
minimize damage or rupture to the water lines and interruption of water service. Due to a possible
' rupture during construction, the contractor should coordinate a work schedule with appropriate water
system officials.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this project. For this reason an
erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor before work is started. The schedule will
show the time relationship between phases of 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 specification which pertain to erosion and siltation.
50

n

Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc., will be
used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article 107-13 of the
Standard Specifications which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N.C.
Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has
been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the
rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the "Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures".
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care should be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
4.1. AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

7

i
The federal, state, and local agencies listed in Appendix B were consulted during the preparation of
this Environmental Assessment.
The first public meeting was held on June 7, 1990 just outside of Reidsville at the Burton Memorial
Baptist Church to present the proposed project. One meeting was held from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm for
local public officials and another from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm for the general public. Both meetings
were informal and allowed for both individual and group question and answer interaction. The
meeting was attended by approximately ten local officials and 75 individuals.
The second public meeting was held on September 28, 1990 just outside of Reidsville at the Baptist
Church to present the recommended alternatives. The meeting was attended by approximately 60
citizens and local representatives. The majority of attendees were supportive of Alternative 1.
51

1

APPENDIX A

n

J

i
Preliminary Design Plans

P RO J ECT o. 808071 834 U- 24 18
.? r
a -

• 80
z
zz
Igor"

?
o

? g NO
T
R I m-
y Z
e9
-
L'
,Fit
O
EaS? ?? .d yf S 9c ?
Z o
0? Ilym O

C?
r4 L
a ?

11
1 O
1
' ? ` 1
_

0
b0<
00

0

D a
r r

m m fFTl
z

0 z
D D
m

K
Z m
N
b8zhov?v
??Mn? v
b ??
m a ?. P L• °a n $. n T a

m m m
m mi i I i
'• i '• a°
z; o
r r

< W W i I! i i i i i z

D In

it C7
Ul
D A°
II
u

11 u
u ? ?
D i +
II
II

-L- 1+90-
O Q O Q Q O Q O MATCH EXIST. ?I
? m m ; m Z
m
a s s ? m
m m R ? ?
? m

?
?
o z z
? n '^ 5 ? ?
s ?80p
m •? ?
°a
?^ a m
a
O O
m o o a° O ?? ;-: W O ZZN
'
•
_ z n z z
?, s ? ? ? a .. - ZS btl
•? ? N•
c?2
- ? _ ... s
.,
; d 0
ue •
?
?: ' /
?` /s
$< / /
N I b
` O
O O O O O O O O 7

N
z ?
L ? ) • '?C
A
?
i
'
s
.. ?. ;: a
?
®OO9 N a N
O m
N? +

? ? m / a 1 K
a z z zY / a
` N
H
2 ? =
ti yy
ZZ
N
z Z Z N O\ O
+
D a
N {T a '
tl i+? , o A
V
ar-MoD:-?

M
LM C

N ? PSFO
n I
'
N p ? m T I ?

N

-
N

y

' I
\
f
ym
Y I
l

Oa '

a W

N > I ar-aoD t rL
m ?' m

1 ?? ? m yWm w•m
0
= c

m
m ?w
I $?N°
•
O
N
? O
1 ?
H ti
N r ?l'
m ? z
m

O

.
?r

W m q?
a
O
N N A
.
6

N ?
W
W N
W
W
+
O J
/ $ g
N d

0
01

N m

/
C
m ?• ?
? N .Z1

.E C

RD

r?' .
W ?? 8? > a
? r r ?
? ? 1>

a x
o
a? ?
' ti ?
z
Z M O ?
? m
Z ao° ?,,
° •
N S
I
i Gt m ZZ N

?? y
y
71 °.= q C
E
O
rO
OF
® °

> In "" 7C MATOI YANI t
> = e m
r
m
? ro o° ?
o
0
r m = m m
a
m
a
ao
?o
s o
a
z N
2 Cf
s
z y
N p
O
2
O b m ? O
o °m p ? o
z z a ?-
O
m m N
? m N <
1 \/

I
MATCH YAM11
7,?

Of
01
N
T
W
01
O+
N
m
O+

i 41\%kk '?

N
a
I

x g 4? b tye ,? ?? ? ?
N °
8 N i; Z Z ?• a
0 R C
z o:6 w
?H
rym? =m?
y C o m a MATCH YANU 4
a rd
b ?n a m
[ m?
N a rn C,
0
n
N
I ?
o+ ar-?op L?
a
I ® n n n n n ?1
w m a- w m ?
m G N W i 31
?' ?• ? 00? pNO? m?
O O ? ? G
1 r y

??y9 b
.00
m
-011
O \
MATCH 4AM1 J

E
g
m
O n ? ?I? I ... ...
T • ®
CH YANU 2
MA MATCH MANU 2
_

MATCH 4AMI A q
I•

?y A

?? - Az ae+mxlw.

a
O 'O
a d} CS
a
riQ
?•

?y
/
a.L s I
N E _
O
-ri ?
m 1
a ?
C
N
A°
m
m O

?? ` m r i5
o°

N P
z i s
..L ? m $p f• 1- ? O tOn
K

m A
2 i'
??
fA

w _? ? m Q m
0
iii B 33$
m
r ?
9
P?
m
gf
N
_ m p.
N
?
N N
O
m p
a z
0
c?
N
m fT1
?r

i4l 0
w oz
m ?-
-
N
061
?• 1
m
y
A• C
n
w Z

fNM N]L'M 6 fWyN N]L'4N
q

a

r x B ?°
; qnq

a R o

, ro ?
?

?
IR
z 0

c
c -I o s
a e? o
T1
i
N z o ?
• o

a
_ ?
an y

` oo ?
Z

?
N ?+ ? a 3 67
90
$ w
, ? C
c
'•^ ?
C
? Zee
N

n N
a ?7t
Z .
CA
0
Q
it == m= r m r== r= m= r= m
000000
o s a iOiN ? a
p o o ;? <
z
a o o
Nn
m m °
v ?
0 ? A U
r
W TpI YA W 2
zr-+°D t•9- r
?G ? :V O N ON < a
o m mZZ Z?Z < 5 O ?: O N -N
C O
m m m
D C
? O
>J s
p H Ay 9 .11
< S ? 2 m n >
?
? ?.
m ? ? m m m
K
= U p N
?
A
A
Z
•
• .
U
?
®
#? l
w m
r
O 0

O # N
/
r
i n n A
G
µ
•
.
µ µ NOm t:
µ N- µ µyµ O O
µ D
m? ?
? V /
?
/
?•'
`
µ µ ONO.
k,µ
' >? ?' 9 ?/
µ
µ
?
µ
r
?JJJ D F
µ
µ
µ
µ ?gp
µ µ µ a
N
Nr Nt
`
µ µ • 4 a s ?
ffiffi I

7
N n?
• ?% ?
f?J
• +p a9
$
@ G AY 1
/
n
• Q ? • ? •0
? A
Ol G
/
/ pNN?
_
-
N
O
T ?

?? I li u m w l ?l III III
11 1? 11 1
l N N u
O
s

No WHO\
o ° + v v

N3 N
?? ? 'b
a
NJN N v N n
`o a? atO ?
9
q
o
O
a.
N O
w
i O • ' O'O D

M il l H
w

NO # .

u .
ffi
1 1 m
-o
s
n
u

b a r ? ° D z

J u n u
11 n n
m ? ? t M ? W
1

so O V O :' p O ON
O N O
a
f?

? ?
O
r
ti
A
C
p
No
No
ar-#°Dz
s
s
a?
\
I
w u) a? -?
m N pp w N
tpaOON +O

Q 1

? Z
N

1 /; O

r
O

.
9N .0-
I N
N
I
1
wm
r
• ? • O
Nn
N
O / ®
O
O ?

'
N N n \
01i O ?.N
?-
w N ? N
H W

Z
'? N
O c f 1/

>> 9 f1Nm N]1'M
I
N
I
N r O
00
Z
Fri ? d

l Z
o a
m? 2 Nn o
Q
o z M o
o H ?
a

1

5

-

T o
f

?

? ?
(A m
M
-

D

yy g o

x

$

A C7

N C! O
1 11 ill 1 1 1 r ITI ? ; yrn

p y
S N r r
Z
o D Z
D

a y
qC c °
uc o
9
$
H --S
m W F ` 7C a e G7
rn
C Z
i F
`? n N t?1
O ¦ G7
P
` O
Z C
? ? m
''A
w ? ? n w
.
}
?
0
^N
m
N n
0
r r? r r ?r r ¦r r. ?r ?¦¦i r? r? r? r r r? r
:III
O
N
N
N
y
r5a
N
W
a
N
m
m
0
N
N
I
1
r
Z
m
-o
x
O
r
m
W

W ?O

N
a O
N
N
41 N
? N

W
N N
W
a
N
m
N

---

--

-- J
N
IL
t? a e
x gq
8 ? a
? ro y ,?
l
n
J ?
3
i
a .
?
? _
o O b
o
`?
'
?Z t
?
o
o
H TL O ,
5?
?
y n ?
• C7 Q D
° y x i H E Z Z - w
n i g N T
E
i g m

N
d n
z
N
W I
S
3
Z Z
R G
9 F- N
9 m ? ? rm -
° H o S M
w
Q e
r

r .v
Z
m
:L7
O
m
r-
m

o
?f
?- V
© y ?
800
m ?' $ m

off'
0

O
b
V
Alf
I O ? W
r +
j I is am o
I 20 i?
K
CI
m
T ? fJ O O •p
• N m W N
t0
?' po
h
t
\ o,
m '? zr-iODL r.
1r Om1NiOw? A
` aN .?l •n pQZ! t?
pi. ?j \ O N O N W
J d c
W` / /.__ S9 I r N D
D
j Y
m LP A
_ O
5 ?
' c
m m
9 m : ?
J o O Ar-rOD K D?
_ u •• n n ?• n z
D W NOD a O N p D
j w pO O R_t O a , .'LCI
O"p
ap Ol ON O. "O m C
LO N r p a
a O
z
'a- t:p?
m Q 0. tJl d W N O O (2) (5 T (2) a (5 a
sA^ r$ r r r r r r r r F r
m r r r
> a s ? n s s s s s a s Zs s s
a i Z Z Z ?^ i Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
` 9 9 1 ; O ZZ 1 9 L 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Z x x ? .p _ m x x x _ _ x ? F _ n
O N N IZ/1 O 1I• iN N YZi 1I• N N N N NN
x °
N a yw n9i O pO S m ? ? S ? 41 ?
O p? 'CG
a yN y? i0 N C 'Z N < O m A 2 N .LN pA C y
r N
ir K 9 m r O N A ys 2
Z m n 9 :? m m i x r O nK i N
o
i o ; z
H c x p `- x m m ° ° x x E x
N
n 2 z
9

'O
r-IOD ?
® 11
m?0 p ?
O
t O o N
.. N ? Z"
r
H
V
?` 0 11 •? • 11
Y? '• ? 1Q W 0? b
?OO N OO
N N N N
a N N
a
' `-sr -I O D v
? W b N N N
y mN=p+
m m m = r mm r m r m m

N C
??1 Zti

?O f0
Y < N

N O

N ?

m
?
: a
m w

-
N

o O a
- 0m
m N

n ?
L
- r a - o N
y y ?? r 0 O w

•a m s a
y
O
m
?
?? m
° F
° o ° z
0 ? O r
y z __ N n 0 o _ _ -
m m a
O N O
c Z
.. x
A ?
z y n C D r O

O - 'W^ o W - m N

°
r o
°°
SI•
Z
O
o O
mD
v
-4
z z
s
<
70 -i

D a
m = ?o r z
-j 0
(A ::4 co
2 o
_
° a
z M
za

_ Q o v o D
m v m
< < ri
m
^ O

CID
N ?

s?
c z
D
V O
D X ? X W
C N C N _

a _

sa
as N
r
V? r N ?V
mD ? d? N W
NN y
Cy CN DD ? ? ss m

Z. Z.
O O
i d
tG ip
NtV ? NN
NtT J
N a
t4 t?
00
?
Wu
u
j ?i y
N
r • s

LA A
N ?
Y .T
N
m 0
0 s
- m
O
Z - y
m ® D
O
0
F m Z r
y, r

D y
P
? c I Hi
m
ll

z o

p

m
m m

°
N v
Z m
m v
f ; z m
C D k N O N 1
D 3ti a
N V ?7
r i N
o
m -
-4 a
M v w my
r
N z
> O
N

m N
mx LA
m N 0
G
C ~
O C
=
N
m
z
co
oN
Z
' N Z
:
O r Z
-40 O N

W
mm
> N
Z
z a
N
m-0
T w
a N
r
z N
O N
Z7
?

S
co N
Qp

O N
C
z
N

01 t0

O
I?
W

C O '0
x ee c ?

? ? W
w
c ? D
Z
?p H T IM w
_
8
c O
~ Z
D

W
94
1 m
m c

o en
Z X
C Ts
a 9 Z

m N ?

` u°r o s
z o o i a
s o 0
a o o ? z
c <
? < < V N A
K A A 2
? OKO A N
1
r
u Ara vd vu x

G P!
O N T
Z F F i <

:,:
a
am'.

4°: o o,+
0
z c z m i 5 5
°
o
c
?
o z m o 0 y
< m ? s
z r = r r s ? ?? ?

? ,/ l
m z > z ? a m m
Z N
N
T
Z
K
ma
w~ ?
m
r
m
l x
O
u
_
°
•
N-ui
p
aA
?A ?
4
• ?
µ µ • µ o?w
IF N- µ µ µ µ O N 00 m?
' 0
Y A 1
/
?
? r1
\
1 µ µ µ k µ µ µ O O O
I -ice /
? .)
?` + ,?-^
t
a
µµµ ItE N"µ1(- 5. (`?
µ µ µ ? If ?•

v
i
/ O ii

H Q
C n?" ?
"/ j1B 6y5 '?'?
•? ..., YE QYffR 1 ? • rr C
m 9 d
?N {LV?

o .& u
N Nv t
t
? N
? O
0
-
•
0 9? Y ? s v ? ? ?? ? )IO
rD Q?
t 'O Y
?
p
?O yn m D(,
O
71? "

O r ?•
Ar -I
D ;- '
u n u n u u
r0 .O :n O Ur t -' r
O b a ° N
Q m I -'BOO t°!
-2 IN" V?
C
t0 At~O +
>
N .i S S' NCO
? I m
I I o m
ti
m I
n
n
y I / N
y ? ? I
•
O ?
x0 / _

? I!
o
s f f
?

W

O ? I O
I

\
N
OI _?
?? U1 9 ?µyxl II?1tlM
N
O
`T
m
O
o ?
? ? ? > a
M
r
rn x 44 ? `
z a o z M o
O m ? ? yr O n •{ 4
O ?

Inr
mm
r
°
>?ti
z
i C

i
C7O
zz2
•n m
wg
;

;o

N m

= Z
A
Z
D

s 1d
m 2x

f?
w
c
y
K 00
0
-r-i?
14i fTl
W 7? a e G?
N A
c i C4 •

f

Z 7
y R
`
'? ': ?y
.Y
c
?"?
M m

w L
w n N
a m
37 Z
o N a.
y n
0
Q

zx ax
pU cy O
Z' 1 O'
O

n0
a• t0
?

<
p
<
D

N HI M ,

_

N s
22
N
A

1
N
A

0 _
r

-

° '
-
$
r
= o
a
1 ?

n ?

N r
1 to
m N N
s a W

m
n
-1

$ m

0 (A

m

I
On
°o p o o y 1 v m r

x

s O y y n 1
z a s C D ^1 O
0 0 r N N

m Z
D D
m m
v
-4 m z z
D
n 1
-
<
N ° -'1

fn*1 <
yA m
:A
a
1 A 1
D
N N W n
N O O O m m J

o
O1 0
n
z
z D
Q l v O y
m m

s
> ??
N ?:
g A -_ 1 1 HI M 1 1, l
n O
C 10
S
co

iA
AA N a
_
nv ?9 Z O

C y C y -
g• o•
a - M ?? t h K
I 11 II

as
-mr M H ?11 1

si
cc
N

mD y
d?
N
W
t?ew N
IA >
n
I
T
U -?
gpCN 0y DD

OI

OI
DD
m
2:I
O O• _
NUI
+ _
WW .p
i
N
v
S
I
N N <r : 1

-C :
o o W
.1
•?
1
- N A

wa Ial J_

n N
r s 1 % s
(A
m n W

n n
D _

of
_I r m
O Im (A r
o n o
J
(2 z
m - o ' r

f^
r
D F

ZA z
o m

Z
O _0

m
N

m _
>
_
r o

N

v z m
m w
< o
1O
X
G)
C ti <
z ? x
? in p
m N
N --1
1
N O
vz < m -4 >
D
A
w 1T
v
x o z
5. C3 N

Ax m a ro O
?
y D 1 C
Z
Z
O m S N
z co
p m -i O

C
y
S D
N Z
o
• r z
rnn v w
mm
;o A N
Dz D m
my a

N c y
Z N
o
3
S N
co
C

Z
v
N
m
s
0
I?
?

yV
?
Y

m
W
A Q? V
CE ?O ? w
p
O i
s g
iv
O i w i r r
.L
Z

C 1A N
W ?
Y• Ro
z N '? a ? I'Tl
K? C ?m?

z R m

a m _
y

m ? N - - -
t I I U l f 1 1

APPENDIX B
Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Public Meetings
I Correspondence

1

The federal, state, and local agencies listed were consulted during the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment (an asterisk denotes the agencies that submitted comments):
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Chief
* Army Corps of Engineers, District Engineer
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Director
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Fish & Wildlife Service:
* Endangered Species Field Station, Field Supervisor
* Fish & Wildlife Enhancement, Field Supervisor
Geological Survey, District Chief
STATE AGENCIES
* Dept. of Administration, State Clearinghouse
* Dept. of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives & History
Dept. of Human Resources, Division of Health Services
* Dept. of Public Instruction, Division of School Planning
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources:
* Division of Water Resources
* Division of Environmental Management
* Division of Soil & Water Conservation
* Division of Forest Resources
* Division of Land Resources
* Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
LOCAL AGENCIES
Peidmont Triad Council of Governments, Executive Director
Mayor of Reidsville
Mayor Pro-Tem of Reidsville
* Reidsville City Manager
Reidsville City Engineer
* Reidsville City Planning & Code Director
Reidsville City Councilmen
Reidsville Council on Aging
* Rockingham County Commissioner, Chairman
* Rockingham County Manager
* Rockingham County, Planning Director
* Rockingham County Schools
N.C. Gas, Operations Manager

C ro Y C
O N
'
al .G N 's
0C C
N al ro L
O
4- 4-
N ^
L C
O r 0C N
L
ro

n

ra O
roro
Y t
Y? }1
U.-
T
CL
0p
4J 0v1
C r 41
c l4'a •3N
tT
O O a/
O 01r r C 41 t
C
0 ro'> N •? c p d 4J 'O
1 ro u N
•
- N
3 4J
Y O C r
N O •.- r O

di L N
E N

V a
+? D U
z
4J 4
.N O
ro
L •c
v e
€ 2 >,
v E
'
) S-

ro s

N

G
u3C a,
41
i

O
0

O
NO

o
U

T
0-
s"a/

C
41C
4
0J

l

m
' O
1 ro
4 .G
c L
ro N
to '° EE ro O
a^ ^ N N
•.-
v E o
In
U
a/ 4
bL - L
d,
6 y e-1 to
y1
'0 N O
U'u1 J
O vl ••N- O
1 0
41
b
C H
O 'D
O ^
L C U ;^ T V F.. N N C N^
r • ro
• c 4J
p N 4 roO d

4J?
ro
?> O
ro O
0 X
u
iro
°
E
' 1?
?bco0 E
Lo +1
c

U 4LJ v
41 b y 3
7 0c
4-1 a1
L vL
64-11
U OD
r N
'
j i v
41 L
C a t
+
4- d
10 •+_
I
d ,
V1 L U
^ O/
? z
L a
i
E
>
h
i r^
^, L
•> r
a U
r N 1 ro
'-'
p 1
ro O/
µ'
O O
V a b
N i ?+
i•1
O t y
L
C
p >
1 >
p 0
>
O i
y
N O C
N C i
•C N E
0 t0 L
# L' ro 0- c
r
'O N O N L
O N d
ro C •
6 d
> N
O
V 0
_
a) ? U
O •
i U
d
6 T Z 1n O/ O O
y'GVI •i N r
N •r- lS N
a!'O 4- C
O O t
V U Y
00 ro O W
U
N
t 4J d
ce N C O .
-
L• V
6 ' O'0 Ol c N 'U V 3 L c v
L 4- C C O J JJ •- c
al •.?- Of L
c
L
ro "' 4-1 al C 4-1 6 ro Y
• y U ro
a c r 41 4- 01 N
• d C ro
'

a J al r
-:2
"
• '
vl
° al 0 1 3 N

' •c >

3 E
'O
L

^ O
4-
40' ? U'O
L
N W
C
L
.-
?
a

Y
L •? E "
N E O L
j al
•
roro 3
i roJ O O

++ 41-1
a s
6.,..
C
d
i•1 G
l0
r N G

a) d
y
V1 ro
N
>
N
N

'O p

d 3
C r ^
E N aJ
G r G
N N
A O C
C ro
o
•?
ro
•; t
r
Y ;? a) i
i L y t
°/
' 4J N
•O f•'
'N E
w
zw y ^

v•uc
al ro

"
o v c vl

1^ rocL
d ro
o
y_•o.

r•0

c E

w ?

?4LJL

afro to H

is
}1 a O
3
0 (0
ro N 4J E
ro
0 v
ro
L N
1
E N C
ro ro O Y a/
ro N O C
i L
O L V
V O
C 4-1 C 4J
C 6
O
N C
7 VL- L F
-. ro V O
i V
V t
7 L
d y1
a ys d ro
V O
0 (D 4
i O
01 N
C '? >1
L r
L
N E Ql
o :q
ro O
N ,? U q-1
L 01 O
,N V- a1 ?.., y
ro ro 4J L
O .'. C N
y a1
to J r
^ N
r ro_ V
C N •.-
V1
L .? aJ
4-+ V- 3 to O
V1 ro aJ V
•-.' O d? 4J •.G.- iJ > #
+? O V
N i a
0
i N
# ? w y 01
a c ro O ro V- a1
O L
ro N V
ro 0
V r u ?
.
L' O r C
J> .O - C° 0- N
a
1
.- L O =
tT , N
W 0 a Y
U
L c
3
3 ro ro N
v
C G
i
'O t
d
0
C
'1.1
= 6

N q i
N
ro

.N
C O

E
,F y
4J

O p
O 4J

L 2,4f .O
ro,

y c
N 4-1
L N
m N L
L
yro
L
O I'1'1

'^ E C

L O?
N C

to
O n U N

Z N
z
7 41 ro

cr

a1 C

O

.
'
aJ
1 O r U c C ^
J
d y1
L LL' W 4.1 yJ
}a W to
^ a/
ro W .•
'.
0-'0 ++ O X
O a+
4J 01
0i ro ao •^ ^
L 4J E 4-1
L °
V
V N al 4J
ro 41 ro N V
ro Of i t X O
3 y ro
d
V
d N j y O O
C
?
0, ,
Y
0044- O 7
a $ 4-1 L Z
•N
U c
ro O
ro
E 3 0 4'

6
4-
-J L
O
L E

W 20,
Of

.-1 4-
al

s
(U 4-
L O '1''
0
ro
0 .0
c '•")
r

C

0 L
C d
4a i
>
> C 0141

7 r b N O Y

r u O 0 0 N

L yO r Y 11

C O
++ N
u c
i.+ .1.. >1 i
u t? ro y1
d
N ro
?
.-
u
• C O
N O U 1
U V
W-o ^ i
W L C bL di31O Cr
• •
O O N O N E Y i 40
>+z cu ° 4J N r 4.a .C .0 'O N 6 N c
w° r
3
r U
to .?
c C4- S- N
a) L• L W to •.-
041 u i N 4- U
L U

O
•L 4! ro
d a1 r L 4J
O~ m
d a/ C O#
O? t
0
•S .Y-I
01 V-

.
41
c 4-1
w N 4-1 r
ro
0 4-
Z

m
01

.••I
41 ro N I

N
V1 L> C
V) W 4J
K ro J 4-1

D
b

D 70'M

0
N X L.

v041
O

41
to 9 c 4-

'N •-o
C

w
Q. 0

y
41
C
0

N E a/

X
'O t 'O r Q.

F- 0'
ro O w
L •r v
!- (
c
t ro co L W
F- ro 4J N

' .
t >> a! C '0

' a/
L L al E
Ol ? N
1:
% G L >

0
>
b
U
S- ; N L L U w^ m u
? 1•- ro to CL
L d
w !- ro r
•
F- i ro 41 O F-
.1 O Oi
O!

01 >1 i>>
6 0 1 ro OC 4J al

L 41 Y Z 4-1 OD C 7 V d Y
C r C ro y u
r
x

.
N
?x N4 0 c ro (D
Q. p N O
01: N 0 0 oU
N 4.1 N Z OZ
U N o u
L ro INOL
Y U E
to L 0 6
4'+ O r E >
W E
ro
N
O
r
1? w
3 F
aU)

x U
L
U w<
L
.
0 }
W Q
z
p
¢x
U7 Ow

Q
Z O
J ?
OF

' ...w
?..•m CA "'?•.
r ?'t
''= t Q O O
U Ow O N
N

N tD
F- ¢Z o
H
^
LL

IL Z a.
F C
W
W
w
U) O

z z
U)
cc Q
¢ O
gz ¢ }
¢
¢F
W Sw
'Ir
' W W
O
2
F-
C
m
r
U
al
N
tU
K
m
. 01
W C
c
6 C
L
ro
3 i
v
o ?m
O c
In ro
J F
E b
o C
4-
o-
tj 00
5
J
C 4 N
vow
•C Z
p ?Z
N 4J
d 7 ?;
r p
r U1"'
>E~
N
O L 401
' rnro
? r N
Y
L U
4 tY.,
M
41
C 00
NOpO
w Z01
v
N O
N 41
Z0
Q
N
N 41
Y C d
c m nL.
0
1? a
• NY
C N ?
W ? N
O
F-
F
Z F-
C U
O S co
W ix co
aL N
L d
4.1 L O N ro
i^> U
N 01 ro
1 7 t0
J ' OL
4J 4-1 H
4- r 41
O 4- , O

6
" 4
O N al
N A
a .-

3
0 T
GII S-
K 0/
41
c p Io 4J C ct 1,Ey ^
• O .c In M r
J r w y
'r
C
•V1 41 •r 41

C
O N G U 4
y1 V- •^•
C Ol O 3 TA

Q O
.'.r O y
i U >1
1 0/ N
Y•r >1N
ro to ro .O u 6
•
u
E
O NV O E 4-
L4J 4,a 4J dm; O w %-
1
wQL L C E O
?° Q01 0
^ 04

1"'- C L E 4
•? p t/1 41
1
1-
41
C N

Z"'
UO L d t
C
41'0 01L 41 C
roY
U
2 d. 6 L
61••, 7 ro N
i 4J W U
3 a/ ro
`? C o o v rn ro a o rna ++ 0 4J
L
N L01
C
7r
° L. A 0 lUi1 ~ C 4°•1 0 41 u0 1 ^ A
d N i

c
Y 6
A +1 L

C
-
ro N

41
L N N •r U

N
r
41 4 0
y vd CD ^
'0 a) rn N
0401 > N a! U X
C?0N'1?
mrro
3 L= rn c 041 S-
•
3 o 0? ro U 10 a1 t d N C
4 S-

b^ Ot? ^ U

C ?4LJ C 4, 41

C i G y
.
.
N i
m G a/
{'
H ry ,
1 L ta.

ro 4-1 ^ '0 r
d s
ro +0+
4+ w r

rn E 4J
4
C C
4 N V _
Q t '^ 4- N a1 0
- C
00- - V
oa/ f 10 N c 4130 =u1 to
U ^ N
N
4" OO t C >1 C
+1 ro •.• NE V1 4J ^?
E ++ ro• N d
1
r
N
W 0 y y '? Of 3 C
N C C 1 VO 0!G OI
; •En 0= 4
L. ~
E

C a
43

?

{L

64^ r% ro I N
p L L L .G - > N
.
V O N O N
C ;
o Ndi c zF.., ro 01 CO c
'" 6N v? air
?' -
y L E 4-1 top[41
41 N E ro4.1-0
c X >Y
u0 +
?v( ?
n^v ?
ovNi 6?L
.
C •i U .
0 0 E .-. L N d 4LJ O d D
•ro C C I' W
d Z >O d V1 d H Q? ° J 4 H
U L. W W V L 4,1 C O y
6
L. 0- CL L
'•6+
d }a
ro
L
J
4-1 y1 U ro
r.n ?'•? L
N
a/ L N m
L N L
J
L ro a/ 41 C
O C^ N
O F- N b E r N L 4-
4.1 N d
,
r 4
ro 01
O d
Z
i al v- N L 3 a
L;_>
• 0= ro
N
'• 10 41 N O 01N to 04"1 a/
i L 3 7 p
W N C
t >1 i tU d
Q ro 7 M. 0 tT
4J m O L O1 4- 41 O
t w ro C
ro O C
L H ro
F- 10
i E
M
L N L d ..4
6 F- C a c r O
L y L
O o
CC 1-^
n m
S 6 41 L
N ^ CO N
Ofo21 al O
N L. 4-
2 N C ro
to L N N 4J V V ro g
ro C r U d O
t U N
C 06 7 F- E >- C •r Q ?r 4- F- z
n
W
0
O
a`

' i
W 4J
V N •^ W 41

dam'
N W LN 4- C
OO L
OOf L
•^ NO' 01
7 h
L W AL U O•'•
?-f W U r
V 4- C +j L W=
U j 1-f J
1••• A N W W W Ofd
C C N

t L O t
T oN~ 4?

W N
U
W N
o A
a..
•
L
C
W 4?
4
1.f Lr W L i
d0 ?•O •V
N C

A C A 01 A
s-
E Q. u

'^ E 4-

O1
a'o
H A O
N
C
C W o
W
O.^ A i W
L 01 C C O'^ >•• V O
u f..1 c ro 1
_O
4J
p
d V 7 C
U

O N
?p O ,p
EC A
• N
G'C4- y
p?
dro W N N N W L U >1U -1 W
U V W' n W W
^ N 'd C r 4
!f ?j
0 d
C4-

4 W W
O
-
o A 79 A T 4-
C C C q V
I O A '
W d +f
U
d
o C O
U
8 - 4J 4) L
1
d?
•^ 4
41
W L W U
db Wd ? .Q ro
y 4
G'
^ ro C i Off
dL W L
d
W
L N
N
41 C W O N

r ro
a+ '~ 1

V ^

?! O"y
E V 1•f O
N
i
4- V L A
c W
-
d U A
;
Z E d ?.'
C E
o o
.
Y V +' o 41_
y Y L
N A yrf •C O
V ?
u W p) pfd C mo'd'
~W+

W C

4f
O 1•f w
N

T

oV

O ..
C u

Y^^ 7
'O +! .f
1 C 7

GD
C T
• j
i
W . .
L
-
V A'1 •^ 414- W W rt
r W C U /h
A U .f.f

L N A d•C A;2 N

! O •; m r W

C ?+ W C L O C

f y o
?-
O 01
U
ti
W
d 4W.f N y
W W? C •^ W N r .
a-f V 1-
? U L d N?
!.; C 41 O
U
t
L W L O C'n N
d L
i o
E N

•
-•
f A C
Y
H
W 41 W

?-f ++

W Y d C

T N d 0 W
O
:;
N t
.
1• r r W L C d N •N ^ E i A W
C
A y,f W 4f A '^ L W i 4f L
+ N A
y Q d
r
? Of N AM r•O pf
Of C W C L W y
7 y N ey Na
•C •^ j d
300y
? d
C
W^ N O p A 3 ro O N N 7 t O N
Lo- A W
L N U 4
W €, U C! y L W y t Y .C N o W '^
W
i p A V O }a
W
Q.
a•f W 41
eeO 44-
+
a
i
A U W C
i L
O
•^ U O L

U
•

N

C y^
N
W 9 +? '

t 0
LY A U dpd? o C C c vWi W i 411r
yam.. p o
.? W }
W y Y .- W
Y V N C
O of O O
^ •^ .^ A A 'p
W N o
O N O A
W N L !f O

1'7 •'
tL V V _
W '^ N A •.- aW-.
2 ro A
W
d d C "
C O' i-f O M 4-
O
i
oo m d o r 3 A ?-' Z V W W V U 1J

q 4-
o L. 0. w
c o
o f
c
C
o EE L.
A 4- L C.
m
d E
N N 4-
lo Q. O .

A 41

2 .C
O
?+ V N E 7 i

r e- o'O
O
V U

J

l l
COPY - NCOOT
r
O
7
LL
a
O
0
?4 cT
0 b x
4J
0 ,^J M
F4 O y
V
d ? a
O
Fr ja D
P4 b o
W W
401

1

fl

J
.1 C
d o
J J d
U 0 d U
ro H d C 4
L0. .0 A >
v v O A N
C c J TH
ro 0 o y C
J W U ro F H
ro v ro .. J J
cH. laa R?oa e
O y?a d t4?O..
4 j .-1 d C C
4 P F ro H
rovroJH
4) 0. c
C ro 0 14 a H
1
N d C E
1 +? J a d ri H
co O
U O a .0
d N N .1-O1
N O w U 0.0
•^1p LHH H
> c u ro O
J?y H ro 4 H 6
C N 4
C. 0 O 0
H O v R O
d vQ1 W C W T
H c r ro L J
ro H c d a
EIHJ O 0
H J ro TJ
ro O N H
U J W L N J
U G R L d0 0
ro d a 0. 0 cf
C4 800. La'
T
pqp .,
0
.? dp °
o C c. eO
C C H ro R G
0 o J ...
7 w g:3 C CO
J C O OO ro
a d 4. 0-010
4) " 41
C JNH V It N
?
10, vH?+ai OR
d L d d
O J i. d co J
c N > 7 H
L MyJ 41 JN O
41
W A r. C T ro
w L F .1
c ro . H L v
O d ro X d
'd J {N? .1-01 L U
-4 4? roN1??4.wro
H U L J x W d
co m o m
Id 0 ax 0v
d N ./ L c >
C c1YFJ ro?
ro H J 0.0 d
C U O J J •,It
f7 F l%. C W
W H 0. ro d"Oc L01
w x o0 C .H.r 0 1CO
O.C{H
4dH
10 ro Nrogg 0 y y
.. F+ L tH0 21,

\
U 0 6,
?- OZS cr
cv
? ?

\7\ _
j ? C9
P?.ANN???
N
w $i
Y Z o
Q w ?
W O Z
?a q$ rn
LL ? m < O?
O v % °
Z u N x
W ¢ O ¢ O
N a Z N
O Z C
cc
Q = FO 7
IL ° V
W 3
a ?
3
0
w 0
LL ?+
N
H

a "1
A
Q ?
z C
C
c
ro
0
N
L ?
o U N
C L N
C
W 8 G
J .- H
W >
L N
0 N C O
L ro R N L
p Nd D, A N U
L=-H L 0 a v
? C 4." d O b
0 0 0 N U z 3
h 60 C N b W
C o u L W
C aHI ,C E. O
ro> L. O N H ro
1:?-Hz0 1).0a; cc 4)
C 4
ro O
0 d J
ro J
H to
W
06
O v C p1
4 H ro C
R J F
to
adi
rl ro B J
cw W .
v°
Y W U
+? d v L
d W C W
> O H c
F H L. E
v
N (a N d
r. L ppN
T rL 14 O
L d N 4
WN
.. Ov
6 d C o7
TH R ro J
L C W oU?y
0%1 8 d C 4
W ro 9
V N C a+i
11 0 C W V W N
N d d ° d
J W F to 0 H a
H .-1 0 1a1yO? d
U O O N
A v ?4Hi 9
O
vro°J' o
d H ro 4.
L L U O d
7
W C
aO
gi
'.aiom
L 0. H 0
ro ? ro
d
.. ro rl d
H L a .v. 0
? q J
H N W. 0 N N
JpO E{O O a L
'.'1 r+ 9 d N N
JI H d J ro d
6 9 C N e
0
.. d O 4. HOy
L
O W ? G.H.-1
J O N d d U
0 gaFLV ro
R+1 O L O 0.
va adi 1JU 4" ° /au
ro L N d L
S v 4 ego W N
N W.O1 H'OH
4.. a . O
a
O P 1O. J
O X 0.
o.'a
C O a
W
L
>> U N O F
0 7 6 R L pR
H 0 O J0 a
?ro>.sro
a
40 .
o00.. xy
21 c N J I d
.. 4°A U b
W 41
41 0.- 0St
10
L 'G C M 41 W d
• N O H 41 1 0
rn 4 9 F O d N
00 J.Q1 sroi ,p? 0
T N x h R Z C
2vaio aai6
W a m o d d
o dVi _2
4 4 +NI
L 600 o W d.. .0i
8
??zo.gdg H J ° 10, a s Y
d O O
O C. 93 J OO O q>
T +L-I C W M -6.,a o
W C H O O o 0 W
W C cw0 6L. H. 0 4H. Ww
14, 0
> L N d W .-1 00
cd 4) d ON J tW 4? 00)
d C.^Jh '1O cv
ac??Hk.
4C° O ?s.. v O L. a .0
+..4 U N S.. W
y a 4. o
4 0 O N ~ J
v W ro W C> w U +%
Z ( a,, 0. fg.' O w O F
.W x aF+ Ova W. C
C L 0 O d .i F
w v,.OyT-1O +OI 10A.F.+ - v°
o ro C L H N N J 0 4)
ro
O' N H 4. C d
L d L J U aWi O gd 6
J O d C o7 g
4- 0
Hg x C .Ti 1 d d E 0
Rro CI 0110
TN
T d J O O d ro aD J
?1 L d R L L A.7 H d
o R I Jg. 0 0 C
4 o 00 01-1
N J W O 0. N
4. d d d ro- O N
O'O p N d>.O. d ro
?
J d
G V O 0-0
gdg d H d ro
J O U 6,H.1 f' W C ? L
N 0. L N> J N V
W .. 997 v 10 o 0.0 4°1 4.
?Wnn00y000J 0?y.
04.0s?(? Vat
.. ro d d 4+ C
0 4-1 PC)444$ 0'0 E
C . O.
co
t%yy H W o OO o d .1 4
q U vNj °N . V0 O c L. O W 14 ?
H 4. d o •. d J V W F O U 0 y0
.. 4.. J F[ J c c J N H d
a .ro. arn> ?H VCH yva
U W 0 ro ro d «4 d
° 'O 0 H y o W Yqw d N H Y pp0p
bo cc
ro..1 3 0.a y°O1 10 4d,-', JH d
O X H T L 00 L W N G ? Cy N ti v
N 'O y d L. O H ro 7 d J .-1
v o N 4 c d 0 d 0 H c a
d x d N J F d O< 0.0 d
F W d F c H NN J 7 A WF
d
J d dJ rov+?HA d v d
J L d N Z F d v 0 J
.4 W 0OOA'O d 0 C.;, y Ny W 4 vc.
O f] J d J H H ro G 00
to -01 d?gdSJ 4.D U d OHi T? >
T C A [, o v d v C vN v. d 7
MO O 1y-1 ?Id..1 li O O d A C 0 W
LFLI 7 o C V 0 OH.C.N
O d L C N H 7 d v .y
Y ?.+ v o o L W L. L. H L d T
0 0 H H L W J L O v,
v r-1 L J y d v W d L •«. H
d W U P. 0 A J C a >c O d L
9) L. r 0 m to 4)
O d H en .-1 Os .. E. U tHtQQ c>
0.J .. J c a 0
O ro W N O H a 04..'o'
c(yy ..
0 4) HJ O[H °
0.x
H "J .H
dv LJ .-1 O U W :1,
1d7 F SS ro o 4'1.0 ro d ro PL. L N C It ?
O F
F N A aY7 O y
.p. M? N W OLI r1 C
C ro L 0 g dg "1yO q .W. J,31 r 'D 0
O d d"
H .'tJ 4 N 8HV J 0 1 $t0
C
? O
\ M
V W
N H
L >
Q? bA
\Jl °y c
T Y r1C
-+ d a
d U
L c
u 6d. o
C S H
d
L N
y4?? N d O C
d 0.?i?.J 00
.Fa o N C d N ro
gy N .dgy U Icy
W'O ?U O BJ
C W H N
B L C F DO d
14 w L F .i V d
ro d >< > J
v ro 4,
o N O T O °
J
00 J 6 W O
T 0 O d
Cy d y41
41 to L b d i°. W
Qd C 0.> H W N
F O W d H d
J H C U d v L
.UF C•.O{ > 7
rn d W 7 O O
c0 J H c U L L.
rn O.. O RF
L A H ^ J
a ro J .
.. m m?Om o
ro o".00, C
J J v '- ro
d O ? N W
w 051.1 o a T
O M J.-..°. W(p q
z> a d J 7 ro
C d Y U L
C W e d d P W
O d .1 Vj d L
d w d
N etb C O c N
p ro co 4 O X
Iv
?t
P
v

'J
I?5

L,
0
?i
r-?
wa
W
a
191
ftf s
Ry r
A z
w y
w
b
b
N
M
i
b
b t7
b
• M NM
O x ??
dAo O y
L V N
•d O e
a
a 4 Z
L
m
a

° °
y ? ` as
41
*' a+ N N ,? 7 W O ? C ;..i ? EE ••N•? .'CCII
oyo S? ?wK v? v °? v
10,
-444 a v? o14 'w o g' a v yw o
.? p y
N a) W N 4J O 7 N U •.C1 C •.Na
•" C C i? pp ?7j t? EO •.? y U f.i 4J
Tygd K. gab ,-U v? o~ ? 0) 4) 0
N ?, F ? O 3•m ?j aW N "3.??yaj ww +o7 't3?j? bti O V 4
14
.41
41
o
av
a a?
3 ro a
vw f?fffyyyy ° G ` ?i t?w Qa? ss p a(y??w ??
N N W .C CNE U 3 C W 6 p• p 'V+ O
p P•,,Uy N N Oj •.Ui N 4+ 4V C f4;
g?+ > ti ,C 0 N O ••i W > A ." FyN? iayp? N .GGI 0
W 41
EEl 3 F' 'cNO? ° ,C y7 C poN +' ' Y
-A 4J 2 14
s U NU C N N ?1 r/ h ^? +? 6 P. ° O 0 4. P.
W O ?y y N
N ? 'a f? 'a°"i pp roPp, w 3 ?yy n•? ???f,- 1 N C N aC? uoUi ,GC! R •" 0. '49
41 ? N N k C k O pdyp •?.yCy1 a? 4r O p, 7 O N O +y? W
C fa C 00 . V°i +x? yp ,CP. Cl CPC. •yS d (? •rC7? iCT GUi t?"0 2g7T? ° utl6N71 a +? O N
41
'0° b W Q W •?c0 a? 6 W fi G] ."] Q ?tl 0 •FC 3 c. a N m
•p@ W N pfayp p
•.i W F°i •+ N M V' In t0 t? O ia•
8.9

12`x'
t?
f??S 19?p ?
O N
C pp
a7 0. N
f+ N
m a
t, C
1.-, w °
•? N s ° U
f.bx FAN H
acazaH
S O r N z
C
0 (1)
7 N q .1
a
N
wI
a
a c`?
o
pza
E
41
opv
W U
M
00
a?mo
O -?
?00z
?z
O
4 O
N F?
N a
U1
0. .1
N
A
to
O v (n
N
41
pUp pp
R o- O ? O .ti
N
U
00 U (n
N y
w
p
{i
41 •d N
N ?
y U M
y 41
V)
o P. C to O
N "oP-N ? 6
ti p O N a>

cd

L? +yy? Li C ppNpp N N pp l6
U>. NMN.-41 -1 C P
° U a A w O w " Vi
C
0 P. 41
"? N O p ?m • p rah C t0
U
N 8 8 440
N O? W 3 U N
14 N x
N N Xj A ..i f. N .O i.
"' p y 0 C v '°p O ,p W
pi ao°?a° V 8 o
y .C N
m N°ao rc?
dw33E, ?41}4?QroP
? ? ? i. U ? L ^ o•.?i S??
3 ??Cd?+g •rCi??G
41
N???x i? l0 ••?pa?.? y?1 ?
u3
w O O W N O N> W
N .•1 .-1 N .-.? 41 N O
o-,
0 41 H ?6 a12 a?6 +?xUENbS
° 1.. O WN
10, pp x 1 x N o
4,? (V 41
p ? NE o
N >, > U
w
ww 11 ' ? 1 ° Q?
p o p CO .S 'U
0 43
8 v 'C 0
P p
p. p,-"•? O 8
a -.0 Mr
-H C 4J
U •O .0 -P
W° q C O yy CE
Z oC] •? 14 NC O
,aCN - N ~ C W y? W G.
y
41 o oti w >vcc8{EC?O>
t0 1 y C o! C O
4Jq(? v •'?- 'i w E
'!7 Q N N lb ENE G
C y ..Ei O N •.? A v E
E
N C ' C .C N 'O
wri- N ? '? v CCS? ? () g ro ?j
N U O N `• J w O a
y O0 N O
4J 41
to cd co
O
o 41 O •.I 3 Ny -c P
N O fP7• rn tai 'OCC C]. tom. O•
N aNN U W,D PP.
4? 41 -- 41
°4 NO810 C
$4 4W4
N
. b N
a N W w E°°
C y N p f.
yE? U'vd" M
U'? N
7 S sQ C P
41 t0
boo
M 'M
v
G P U A
?N 41 O
N N
w
E '? G•
0
i1
„U+ y t? N C?
v °m oaj
ppy N
'o 0
•L O N cn N 3
N
A W ? N ? ? P
N
4, S4 4J
N
41 N -,o U
> O
N C O u
41 4) bO ;44)
n S N (?
+ A r-
1 o0
E ri N N N ..Nj
OU OW d ?•d?
14
3 4 N ^
r?w?z•°i:i=

_?
V
R

O
.9
vi
9
. O
•I? x O
y.+
tr 4..I
O
z y?,J
i••1
w?
W
Q
01
cn
E
O N
U v
G ?
9
,?,` \I C
G
u I
.? O
7 rn
C,
N
O
-.O n
V n a`
d N
O v
cti U m
m e
H .C O
w oo .q .e
M O.
?/1 d d d
O .i .-1 C
?a4F •yi
C.i
0 0
d N
33 v
13
O
C •
?a<
.1 L
41
V; 4J
.0 4J
41 N N 4-
co
41 3
41 a) 0 h > O o O (>u
0 41
41
t!

N

D_

0
0
J
0
r
T

_
L
N 0
4- Q
O ?

C
O N

ro ?
i _
•
0 ? > S- O
0.
N O
t N
?
}

m
c

v

s N

?
v o
4-. d
+Oi 3
C:
O

Y ? C C N d
ani 10 E E i U >

? U++ o, c c .a
Z ++ M m o o ++
01 O S. ++ U N
m v
41
y roc
' , 10 E
A
3 O1
c +?
v^
a% v) O

L

?
N ro

s p
u Cl
w u o 0
?Q
w
c 41
o
J
U
N
L c
ro ?
o v ro

vu x
o ?
? s ¢
o

41
E
m
c
O
N
W
0.
41
N
EN
E
O
u
w
N
v
L
rn
C
'O
i
ro
v
41 a?
001 +4 U
41
4? CO 41
O
? G
O\
N C)
M
Cl M
01 F
T? n 10

i Y
I ?
I L
f y
GosSg
i
w p L m d w d +1 D+ M
0 W -0 44 $4 -l 4)
V y IO O q d V V w yp+ Y
u u Yrpl H H qb N Y a M 9
o' o
p SU 3 m
?

d
a
0? m
O N
Y
?
.
'?'3 O %
O?\G
P d N p Y
A
o u ? ro ? o w w
W {A N d ? Q O• y
O p H M
N d w Y

a
H O O w 6
y

l
+
d ro N

w .+ H

A. v)

d
J
a
•
a.
m ?
"i
M
q .C q N w O w .
-I
/ .

d ?. O ••1 d +1 H u +Y?1 p
6 0 N d N .-1 U •.01
M >. ?t H N p Y H M d Y

U N U w N
? H O
b y ? Z g
N H H r-1
O •r
l
m .q
Y i!1
M W
?•.OI Og . yW d q d d r4 p

N O W U u o +a
V ll ,,,
[[[
H
d p. t] O H
y H Y
d d
d O
p N
H w ???lll
,
x \
P4 tp0 d
- d
H O Nf? Y ? O r1
OM O ?
N fA
N •C) tl1 .dL'
v+Y
b F. N y W N
p .n 6
w Y U
d d
d d
H d
d
ro b Y
m d
q
d w t c? -
o •-+ z v
.
w d ,c
w Y H
d ro d
H d o
H H •.?
q •,I
x
+ d m
eo
p Y .o Y o ao p b
o•o d
14 .•I v
.4 p d row o
•.a a
o
-w a-+? a Y.. adv vd o d •o Y Y d Y ac
? qq dON d I?
p p N g a7 O ••
b Nb •r/
d o p O
N tll H.
g d
N UM
d d t0
q
N t0 al a0
'.3 •-1 N N U O d • H
N H V O
H
.+ rl H
.-1 td O
•-1 •n d
O> O H
'7 d P4
M oI •2 M p rn
p. % rl M 3 p H P.
.i o .+
6 6 W
1 O
V N H O
W (9
T ? d
p b
•rl e

?
N q IO •C p y 0 H N O O C 00 q p ul H d U N ?? e
d 00 W W Z
.7 00 M ? H V p. d
d p
ty O t0
p N ++
C b H
d d
A d q £<
d U 0 d H IA d Y H H 6 Y r+ V ,O Y p
N b ?
F U' O o
f Il
+a O p O u u?_

H
d
,a, ,? ¢ W aG L?
d)
q
t
0 ,C
H .C u
d
,
p
H W w
M 3 +
•.
v?
w N
V
V
L

,o
O?

N

LL
O
W
O O O O
P 0` P P Q
u
O 03 t-
O
.
+
.•' O O .ti O

tf%
0 a 0

0
0 0 0
0
0
o w
o
w NN ou
= CO -

0
0 W Q
LL
N Z
N W £ r W O
?
z » N N
W O W ,. O co
.•.
w 1 a a Tx
V) Ln
O
ml"-
Dz P W EN
0 0 a W .-i w 1-
2`+y O N O N " NV
01-14 a w >• Z W Q? 61l z4
Z< "'" W M U V N W r(. O H
W z CL 1^
0- Z
a t- W S w W N J 0 0 N O
4 N a u t 7 W U 0.a w U
w- w < a o Y. a
J Z J a 3: 0
-+ }-
U <

o
W

a
W J

a u w 0.
0•
j
0

w
a
ow
w
Z > - LL
0
F-<W F- < F O W OJ ?? TW
Q Z N O N J a z
I-LL Z F. a -F F-
NO W N
Z <I- E-
a r-> O M=) - m
z z 0 .r x0co Ow
N£
w
C R za
F- F- Z C4 N F
aaz o wLU
?z
uo .. a NI- Vu
Z 20 w
20 . )>
< wNO. Ow
\ a ? 4 a
0 'l CD -
l N a
Z
z Z
N O z
LL O. •
u W W
m J
0.4
O W O O J -? E w Z
a U 4 O
/- a QLL Q s .-. uM
7: HZw }- LL> <F
0 h- 0 a a 0. N 1- w F- «+
J N O 1 W 000 V F- O
O Z QO
H ua NNZ NW
u w <
az W. i
ccJZ4y z u oo LL
O 0:)Xawz • OUOO LL F-H
4Uw 1-u< Z ONFF- w
S J F a 2
W LL LL LL LL LL 1 u 1 W
00000 W w
W 7J 4V

a 0.0.0.0.0.< aatl. W w a0
Wwwwwl-• a<uc u

W

N w o
O
r 07 •':V ¢ N O O
x i ' l ?y ,?y o= L6 m
r
w F

cm
cl: P
a 2 -+
CK) -j
? u
V
W L N N NN .? W W
~ a
°
Q"a0 Z aa1•- W a -4

~
O
Q W z
W
4 LL
V
i
Vf £ UFF- E•r V x LL
< U £ UN WN F O
4 N
? x
LL Uj
Z U G oww O H U. N
'
+OZF. a °
0
°
o cl: xaz
W P o x
1
0 U.
J w
>
V W 0 U x N ' J
FlJ t? a ~
04
z
x N= "n a V V
W
-4
F J
a M < 0. a O F Q o: O W

Z O -r a 4 N
W 0. W 4 a V W
Z
IL O M- • 2 F- 4
cc: OJ J
W x N N .X
o uw I.- in w H

0 O d F- N 0
.. a L ? O
W w x 14 L O m S z 0. t w ?•
F u U •r .y 4 W O E H
z

1 a:
oc
m

U
t4
r F <LL za
1 0 w ? W
oC oC U. ow
1 O - O u m
Of
1 CI.
?
=
Z 0 uj
o
? 0 0
o
4
,?
x
q
4 a 1- .+ w N 0. O p. J .,
la- W •zi O W I--. ... W
N : O. . O 7 z >
U
O O a CD u J N a E O 2
P O N a J S 0. Z W
\ • of J W O H w a F
O h-O fD O LL> O W w F O
N H 0.a U' NP P > > •r T
\ W Qz T 1+ 0co O O E
UN ° 0:2 o

O ;
w 2 z
W
-W; U
z
Q
w
O
°
ti
< Ix z .- N
u.
O O 0 .. W 1
- . O

.CO < • J•r a U00 4 x z N x
O £ z J 0. 2 0. N 1- F- N F- - N
N
IW
r
r`
1-
7
N
M

0
z

J
O
LL
w
S
r

o
a
w
u
Q
w
a f.

N Z
FS- G W

cLL7 u
0 x
0 ^
b0,
?'

H z ? 1 I
w m
N
w
y
a
I
a w

4
U' W
F-
N
< N O
0
z
O
V
w
a
u
v
0
t•7
a
0
W
w
U
W

i
I u

W'
c O

O
~ w.. 1. •
N
r .?•1 O
Z Lv

O G T
4+ A
41 W.

O
y
_
CD
y V
c
u
N y ?
N
G

N ?? p U
'O y C) Gr. O
C y U Cl
O w ? ?L VY-E G
C L A 41
0 "j
?
•
U _.' Z N N
G L

?...'
4•I G A
o +, 7 '^
y y .X
u u
O.
Nd Jy \w0:
O VI
NMd tp
Z aN
O'
M rL A
°• L r G
v N '^ L
d
U
C
S O
>
S

4? J 4

= 0%0

_
L)
C7 .
H N aAi O A a G V
d H r y N (,D N O
Z
C v
V

Ol

= 0 -W
0. 0
W .o

O
lnZ •LA'

^ 4J

rA
g a•+
?, aOv r,
L41

ti
~ 0

L
a

O 71 .o
O

9
A? c
L O ;- Z
O. N N
L
K
a+
z ?1'? !!
O ?
U ?' ¢ oe
c
L
n
H ¢ C a
+
v
• .
.

a
w L O
O +• •'•• E
d G v- r +? O
G
Z

E d

N

i • L 4• N

u U OC G
U .C
Z --0 O M .
G O.
a.I 0 0 ..1
a
O
L
w'

N
o ? A c ?.. wy p E? 9z
1-
? d N N
VI 'O N X N V Y.LN
?•I 1 E A w
C A C
O y
C
" EC uC WN"o :
w ?
C .+
A A \ Lr . C7 yEj O=
S ¢? L? G N
x' Of# W.0
OI 7G.
C S
V W tl
d
N
1- ?4-
AO? E
E

.a
1 ..
.
GS m yY• • p
^
p
L'•G• 6CO v
• M
GIN O
u In
p
O

C

= W C C Otn

dm
?
LI
6 4J A
10
y=
O

C
_
9 3
d
y' n•
A Z
y

O C= u C) V

U

' tl
w
G
'O V-. 0 • E G
m0 S a+ ate
O
O
L N IJ C

O o .
Oy
C
oC C)

E d
.- O O ••.?
•
t

V
N
y
W
H _ ,
C
1
V1
S L •••• ?1 N A O
V
?^ E N M
•
0 C N O
W z OIL
G
A C

I
CL 6
• OI•.y- A d ?+
3 N CJ
N O O Cl
+
U
L
CD
d ..
.
d C A
O
O f ' c0 OI
A N pi

"
y.
O
NZ

4+ E C! a+
1••?

z
`n p
= ?
• A U t N L7
,
J'? Z S U¢ ZN X 0. . NOD
W NF- W W C1 A O V
yy.=y G
W E
L u
N
a
aC d c r=
L

? '••1I.

'
N C)

cr

W N
M
^ _

u
N

. y

_U E i- 4
.

d
O L
tx E
?+
¢
1 i z

---- - ------ - -
zo '

=O Y
tl b C ?.
41 > r4)
4
V L N 1
{p{p?1
0
> 0 >
W W
Q (A A
•n .? G • O +t
N l7 4
v 0 w J4
1 M
a IO >~
{V.. .1
•- qq
to 43
O q tl
O y
p1 +
.1••71 tl•.01
?
N
V '
O
0 Vo
A I
b
I A
C $ +al A O 0 tl
L ..
?
:3 9 O
OC w N
r-
N W .4 w° bil O
tl I" G n
` ?f
0
7 X C
1; 0 A
M
C
v p
DUa O
H
Q y
O£t-

U
.9 e:
(1 0
u
z
u El
tl W M N .. QO 0+1y0

tlGO SCI A Au U 4,

14
M A 1 V„

L
0 tl
IN, +
4 iI W W M N d•
••1
4
1
0
U .:? Y N 10
3
- 41 i? P
•O t•
y 1 ro
4
.
V
a• w A
1 O •
i o 0

1 CC
0
940 N W
14 0 Qp 001 •f
•
.41 0 >I f OI
C' OI
z
R 3. T O N." N
>
a V CI
g p
U .C
OD
tl a 4
W 0 tl
o Id
^
M»

a „
W a tl
y y
CI t {y? 0) W
Q
,1
pI M a
V WqC 0 0 p wHp O A.
M
?.
00
•
j
C N
o k
3 M •.O/
? N
N 3 -1 O
$4 O CI
0 O
40 0 C
O 4
1
h •
O/ A p
p
pp
bii $ 6
U Nu01
0
0
x (

O

O

U .
b> w W
a-1 Nro O O 7 a N8
M W
O F ,
0
a N Y C
W 8
O;?
O
0 O• C
C
O
t }
ros.ai$ ?>

O
> O
•4
1
?
G p
41
T W
C • O
1-
1 X
• O , m W f
019-1 T O U
Q
$ 44
0 v '4
y
V y a 7 a"?o
0
0a a
a
Gi
7 z
th G

c

f+ 0 •'1 7
4; t
b g
.
l
-
TG
>1 o C
0 ?

$4 u 4
1
o 3
E
e
d o a
w
(D
10 u 'E
E
? ..

1

L

N O O 04) C v i x
0 n .X

Id
M C v V H

O r•I V
C M E 0) b V E :3
b W N 0 0
a ro C N > >1 c b
v r to 0.-1 0 i, .C N
j
10 . >1

4)
rn u1
4) to 0 2: 4
.0 41 41 0 4)
V L) E-4 41 x -a -.4 H t4 cd
Qb
[JJKO .G •11 0) E C 0) >t
1J CC ?A 71 0) b 7. N'•I 01 01 v 3 W 0
N
- C

F1 +J 3 V r1
-O ro'tC C 44A
0 000 U A •11 0 0 10 0 01

NNiJN
NU(a
0u ONN•OC
to 0 1 Olt Evri 0)
P.V•rI,Jat ..1o M.-Ito w 3
Orow 01v M
c

.
0 ? N
UC
O) 'O^ M to 0) N 7 kb 1 0V0
H •'I 1.1 C V' M aro N M H ri
v
.

Uriuu Ji 0 0 v

M NOOC AAA44 a 11 0)V . 1, OM 1J 11
N
E-4 kto U N11
C1400 N

0

) ro lT v
44
0 O (0 Id

•.t v •.t 4 N W N .
0) E O O F 0 •H 41
>J

.C 1J 77 z CO •n N E
C 0
0 4)

,C

)
-,f W
ro7r,y V>)V 1 0O.aOAa .
.
w
0
V
?1
EM L

11UC
N•
•O
4a 0 1, 00 g9 E
Z
C •.C
.0
E
~ O

L

`+''1I •'?
4
U
N to c a•11 M $4
9"00 v
. OTJ OMLUII
01 NU N
oQ
7
u
a
'nOO

41
i(d
,
w0
,
ro a m 4 1
1 ,J
Z U >t N.0 11 •r1
1 .0
?J•.
1.CPJ0
?N
. C a yJ n 0 A Ot O C 0)
0 0
. 4 r 41 0) C •H 0) N V 0 14 U C
41 ro N
a U
NME"N 41 wUa7UO'Cdv NOZ.Ca
>rWCCNNro H

'U 0
roN E P.
z?+410)U0)T1
c N N J, V W ,11 1.1 to x ,J
044 0 0) N MCro>00u0•0 O
41 L

$
C•.t O'
vr-I 4-4 C0
v 0 H Hri 0) to ro,J
N +JE4JCOI,EEAtO
N 1,
O Id F O V
u+t u
41

F •? (d

y 1J •.1 x N N ,

4 O V 11 N U W W >.

Y
s
i

••Ni N H
0) O> JJ >, O N
N N ,J V N
v k U N
0)N
'
V H W W 1 X 3 bt jJ b ro

" U O v 0 U O MIA $4 N E
M

C •.I

q

•.

.
?'
0 ro

E ro
00.9VC0
N 0 ,J b •.I ,J V C ro A
N 00)x0 •
,J C N C-4 >111.. ,C W 7 N N W E E 01 o 0 o O -I >
V
V
C

c
H .-1
N
CIA N v W 11
•
a ?
C C •14 N ,.1 r-t ,.I N ri
N O K C v V,
1•J O

..

uN

Q En ,

cOi>+OtC
>
c ro b •
t N
•O 'p •.1 0
,-t y vv 0) .ero•.t

10 0
' H t), ro 0 11

Eu NaN0NOC 4400

r? '7 O t O O M 10
J p
a aJ

b

U ?
0 c
0 a ro w m C ,J 3 N .C
,J m ,
0!
00 10 U M aJ 1 1, ,.1 qq 1-t p u

"
>
w
U
U

CCh .rN301 NbtMN
tUNr•./ 41H C
44
ro•U7U3
1+ W U
?'1`J
000 WEbV
O
0
a
U 1.

ac w .1
. ro O

x c
°
tf) 44 fd 41
J
o
°
°
o ••1
3b
V
A
w ' m
z
O
U A

aJ
N

C

:
N
n
,
>,
tT"? uA 4
?
?uc
1 ,
ro `
t
CJ
C
Otm>Ibt?
. 1

G ?.

C 41 N
10 0
E C •-t N 4!

41 rn 01 M N 01 N O N

•.t E •
c ?CMC
N

•U
coo 11 C M a 0) W •r C 1 •. U 1 3 0 ••C 1 OM .-1

k
H
> U :.
147Nro n
N U v W
0
u V to 0) W.4 • ,J ,C C ,J .C 3 aJ W F

Q
Q ro•,
o >.

SrouN
v C1
,pH070a•
0X
wwzaEAu•H0 .uUab O~ aN,.V 34 , •00 o" Q,0

~

L .-t
m 0 IAZI+3ac
33EU.CNpJN O L
V) a,
X
1
1 0
_
X G 3
rv
N
N ro O n •
0 1 trv N

u 4J
roN
+?
E

. N O
...., w >, w
N U
O) yC
U M
h
N N H ^
0 n
n
a a a ro
a
0
N
a
P
f?
N
? J N
c
J
U
c
... o
z
? $ r
C
., o
~ X c
t.A lJ 3
~J O
?J a
z
w
> _
R , <
W n
W -) y i
c
t
C,
O
m
O
7
h
C
v
(U U) v A o
0
v
•> a u
4) w
7 N d L
vN>+ C,10
N a0i N rH 1 0) U
v ro •.t ri •?y
3 u t O C E
y •N N 0) d
,J yq.
xX F
,a cc
Nro aMM
Ulao roau
Jt Mw H 0 0
ro N H tA, LL
ua
0
H Ga,
M N L F
au
>4 -1 0 ro NU aza
Otro d+JF
.11
A v N 010 N U v
v (4.,4(4 IOAU,roJ
Ft >1 U a N
CA E O 0)
00 Wao 11ote
,JM Cz >M o
to v 0 r-
O,1 UWM NaOOD
-1 V
3 o z 41 u t0 z •1[1 H a. m
.0 u to E G 4to) 11nv 440° 0
a+ M Mrr4 vz
xx >IV 0 -10,4 az„
. O -4 :1 0 0 41 r u. E L ri
.H X Orty, UUto N N•O
>.-,d Oz 0 N 11
> a > °c ° 006 N •s•r[t v
O C M C
aJ M °i
Ot N v 04.) r I? a
CN 0Ati 0110 , ro 0
•0 u V ri ••? •-1 C r m
NU C>O 0C4 r,
U0) Ot>C 0
N4 rov
ro 0 M CM NMa N CN
aW •?•twy c01v $4O.M•1
OG ,J M E O
1, ro v V ro > 0 11
w 3uH w•.0i14 wwui
W". . ,
a MU01 ra N
W
W
W
a a0
14
IA 1JNu ro 0
00 to H (j ?
%D k E H V N >..C .c W ID
M O a v `,c C aJ rr yJ
UZ 444D N to 4100:1?C NUtC
broom u NC3 E0 to ro
0) CrvL N•O I NUM-t Hxr
N ONN d W •H E4 u woo
0.14 X: 0
O N >r 0 •rH? O Ot • u -H 9A
a >i
kr. ?J Ot $4 PbCvCNro
a$o0 .rCj wOrvC•.+.,ErnC
v4J O C Qn a•N u>.v >.Ol
r A UEE H .-1 .110 tE r, ,J ..t
wO?td u Uo o•Mrtaccjx
OrodrAM O ZrZU0 00044
Mb Ot 1-1 u .U aux4U O
1J NM Cv
0E13•r1N N 4tai Za cNJww p E C
O) x0
At I C MOMNOOF E,J•UUa o
N c c 0 M • 4 41 - E'1 .QO 41 JJ w C u 41
to E0roaO ro .a 1N CNO•.t 0)
N•Ub Cz > Lriv c 0W.19
iJ U I,
a"00 N nN.1 0 9.N1 y a G
4-1%014 O pJy , `^ 3 -u 1 NJv aJ
4)441 H `[ wcK om.,jNUu
N 14YH 3 O.H O NKN 4J v 7 roL
11 , O 0 z 44 .,q " 0 ro
v 44A0 r1 O fA O q 14 aJ
M U O 1J O H M N 41 > 0) H to O N 0) u t, >t.-4 .-1 >• N
C9: 00% W CC 0011001, 11
W c,J r. 'r 01 M•n,,qq v 000)ro
O H 0) L N O E ,J C r_ "
vU OVto •C 7
41
C
roO M 41 WMNcNW NN.-1
urv000 v 1
fAN aJ az >
,.J 4J
N U U
0) v
0 0
a a
1
1
1
1
1

E
(JQ
A

N O m
Q co
C
u
L C
0 CL
N
v
LL

N
rv
y ?
-Q

?2C,2I 11 ?q N
a
Z `?
?AZ r
? C r ti m° o`

Z •r ?t

o
. h
00

rd S rr
0
i ? •-a tiu ur
U
a r 1-. y CL e COb O 4J
0 4-)
a

o
C N
b O
a0
i C
O N O a
(n 0 U
C cn
L
U O

4J 0)
0) +
:3
0
C
O
O N 3?•t N
> fq rn

r1
Z
N ! B bw
mU ?a 1 rn
: .u
w o
g NW
>i •41 ro
A •n rn
o
o

?
V 43
U V1 Phi rn h
A

rf
W O F
i. i
ro? ? E°1 w a a
o E
E
A
A
(U to
sV.. c
O o
6 -
n

r 2.?
C 'O L
m o

u .ya
p1ti t _
i
v
o E?
C
O
y
N ">
C V1
LU
S
O o
Z
C
,
V V y
G
ELL
o
v
? o
U x
e -S
fV

l7 E

I o a w a 1Ud0U) V 0 o1 U to 0 rd 4) 4
1.1
d)
41
W
U
44
44
0
N
.4
.11
0
41
ro
dl
ro
>
O
a
)-I
d1
3
N
C. O
m ••1
11
0a
ro v
v •r1
U N
41 CO
N-
d) d1
H4J
N
v
r~
41
a
d)
x
U
ro
41
41
N

w 4)

ro
)•1 4J 0 1d old d) 0

-A CO
U (d 0
M 4 a s V `4 $44 1.1
N ." U G (d V 7 d)
910 E (d
N N 1•13
p V 44 - U 0
a 11C01 EN0 4V4J aro
o m U .u •r1 a •-1 0 •-1 w v
o Id N 0,1
3 Er= o
0
V 'd J
?
A
U
?ro
V4.) A
W(Vr.
d ro Vro
0
v ro
.1
S z
41 )
a 0 n
>.x
. N
w w • 1d 41 u a 3 U •r1 a
a wam;1 E Id •14 NE N()
41 H d) U O P. rr •r? 014
• d 100 N1) O N Nrd a O a
' O .C k •n 10 Q N V •.? •11
V) 11 00 r. 4J 0) a0E +)t)
ri dl ?+ b a d) l1 0V N U
d) roUaa E
4JU• Nw
/ r-I dl •rl •rl 10 0
41 U 11 ro E a1 O 7 •n
ri xV N 4) (d NON trr0
•rl O rd •r1 3 •n V U Ord H
N > , a d) a rd N >1 44-1 >. P.
O N .11 '0V VN•Cr1 Aw0 a
V b a m 4) 1d V ri a d) > (d d)
(d H 0 a 044 d d) •t
A N x
.ai a a a O E
44
;1 1d :1 , 4 O (A
d 00 N N -0 0 N O$ 0 V d N
dl 11 1 $4 U •r1 11 0 W N V b > U (d
N O •A N U N V •r1 a d) a N
7 o LT >r > a m •r1 N N 0 dl •r1 N
O U 0 V aro O a a r•1roro dlx ro C
A •r1 a w 0.14 ? tiro (d d) x N O
b1 3 a s N 41 •r1 o a U O N (d V 0.14
41a d) 00 a 4401d U1tl•r1adE V(n
V •r1 •r1 U v m o a fi A v 11 v o d)
1
• .11
N 34 d) >
0 to m O a
4
C •ri - •ra
)4 4
d A
H ro >
?
0110) C4
C 1 "4
5 0)3 U
w?r+ b
1d r-4 U .a - a, a 1.1 014 m
mu 2 4J o
r ?Ar' 44 ro ` a
o
0 ?
u 0
. 14 ° 1
••
3
.1o d)
0) 0 (d d) ON •r1 )•1 4J 44 •r1 N N a a A O
>, 41 -I o O -4 0
r, HH
0) b r
-1 O 1 U 4 a ro
q .111
p b
> a) r-1 .C
.C 11 d) 1.1 C) O ? 0 0 a d) r1 N 41 ro A .C ri V N
Urn £P1 0) h 0
Qd ro -,1 (d
•
r1 b 33 c

1a1b
d) N
)aaH >a aro
N
4> P. 1 7 O d) d) d) 0 x
H
d O 3
a
-1$4Z C En 000) 0 A U
w rid) 4lba0roN90 3 A m

4M0)Ed0)$4 0 11
H W 1% A 4'0 a 4) ro H P .a E d) V Q
F'
:J
G
r
?v
v
1

11
N0
- `
1 + N A

Q ? tl q }
3 u 1 1E`,
a ?' Q
C $ L

u
Y tl
+
t
+++ I N Il
M
° O O tl ^ F + O-
U A
u
y U L O tl n - q 0 0 0
A ° o
; } U
L +
E O u + q _ L O? L
O
V L t A ^ tl O- O u
n
`

13 v

A
n -°

o
° ° °'

G

o C

+G

o o L e

r o c

Y o o

-
= _
o? + E V Y 4 D C O T 6 F i- + l+
OO a p tl a N O

d t
O tl
` O O
<
E q
H V
c
'o +
Y

a
° t „
9 n
+
E C
L
+
o o u o M
0 {
j
-
v o u e
+
N L 4.
u i Y+
t 7 U T
-
n

E O .. oD

p `? Y„ C OI

L O
o
+ U u
O'
4 . U O T
D A l M O U b A
C • C .
O Y

+
- tl v O
+ v
A E u°1
o n u
o f
? M 1?
U Y V u - O
+ Y O O
E G

U+„
C
U
pC M
b

°
v o tl
0 O L OI l o o
U
0
pE
Y p} G„ X1
- Y A p 0 + \ V

o N° O u Y + 9 N l a
U O
m -8 C ° N
J J o ^ lo o Q
° 6
E EyyQ O
0 G
+
- E O p
OI
6 E 0
x x K ° V
N ° O o a ?.
N c O
e+ }
4
i O .- E q
t16
uOOU I
u< O i -`
°
c T- .o

J
1" <
} 1'•
tl
V

° a

° `

L U o
¢
E ` -

V J

IT, 1. -z V r O

U= O

o `` L C

4+ EE yL
O ./+
U
N
• M
L
--
-
- C
C
` T +
N
+ C n
o
-

N
Z
Y
U
tl
p
O
}
D
r
9
O
8
0=
Y N 0
. O.
O W Z
¢ l p-< + C
o p pc t
} UL 1?N D C o
p "
d M o O C Z b .C } G+ - E o` e o a^ O O O u c °+ O
J
Z 6 S L e U O v ?• l+ U A N + O a x N + O + E N q
Q
W w z o ?! 1\ O A c- 1 C O 4 A
t C l C O ._
t
7 W L ll o T
D
O C
O
O 0 0
t E
E
Q a .
- N
O t a G
9 L 9+ L O
C
°
E O
+
Z O > 4 L
n
> a i
O L O Y O U o 2 EE
O L `
0 0 .• C U T+
O E f ``
o 1
° 4 a a O p q U
1, v < W L O. Nu
a-
°
u
+
A
°
u m n c
O+
o
h
ut
a a 4
v? « `a ° m o
Y rno N c
Y +-
° yy N N r u'
A? .°-
°= ?-
,uY? ^° o o c
N L
o o °
` 4= } _
u c a- +G- tl

0
2
_
N
0
C
o u
o
i N+ 'o
u
p ?. -
L u Y W
O tl = C
E > N D aT D N u }
p
• p 0 „ rn
E N
0 0 N L U - N N c N
+' C 6 E
- N
C L U .. 2
D L T d
} c
N o u
u}+ O O
c
U tl
D- - tl
D O L- Y N
+ O 1
-
p
N } O 0 + N a U A? 9 U
L a
l 4 ,
L t 0^
+ `N + O C S

D N a

i
o
a+
N G O

C C a -

C
°
p D N N
o C
}
tl U O

+ E O O

t o - U
r
-

N
L O

O +
.±

t ,UO u tl _
O
A u}
J D -n O O T - C D + L h t
N r O a N`^+ G
A » tl U} - ;
°
} `
'
u
a
L + A
Y
e° o i N u q a
v Y
L o .f a
+- Y e
G e° Y
+ N N A
e
o o ,o - x
o- tl+ p- u- Y
A
U o+ A
U A
U U
V
t C 4
N 4 -
i
+ U) N _ p
p tl _ A° O n o L 9+ N
p p 6 N U E O n
?
6 D A A O E l v .- p Y U N 9 9 N L± N%++ h e d 1
^ _
tl O G l
+
N
Y y
tl L N+ tl ° tl+ tl L p U
°
N a O t L Y' u tl.
O N t 0}
H ?- E c Y uo p h F- N< f0
.
- 1- o U - i i- /- O r A h W K
p
z
U

? o
J 'o
° L E
0
o
:l o t
v
z 1 O
3 -
u
0
°n
°
Z
c c
- c
c c
U L
O =
O Y
Y c
?o
N y
0
c
E
n
0
c
G
c
z 5
S a
c
v a
L O
a
O
V N
O N
3 E
_ J Q
?U o
p
=t
Z0
o o
= Y
Y 7
c
a o
_ n -
E Y
au°O

E
i o
- m o z > > >. m>, n '• n_
-
8 o' o'i °i Ri z
.N 0
Vo
cg m
»
E A
as
w n
m E .. ° c w E

w
a: o¢

o
3
8a v'
o o
-
- ¢o
° .z o
76 c.

a.2
m z W
c
2`
nLL
»
Uyi 251525
Z
?o
° 22
mo
°
a » c m ` E
w o 'Z u _
u u
c a

Fi
c
° o
o w? oao o
q
O m qa ° ? .; g0 N 2i?o
l

o c
Z; o
cE

c .1 0
N o o
a
`
-'
1° lo
W

E
U o
„
g=
u A
»
_
z
e-o'
_vc$
»a
3
a
3
-
^`o
c
_¢ u:
-.a Norv
wo
ci
Z
oo=
i;_
a
_O
n J
CL N E
m-
_
Al u-
m a
E Y o c A o
O• z
v a
.6.. ou •?o
c a Oo y! ;
$ _ G O- O- G O O O h C? O_ O O N ? C O? U
J
a m e o» C
m;q° O U Y W O
mq
o
' Y¢

S

m c N n V
»m
°- E
x _ i.

g -» O _ w= m o
-
d E f

n
?o3
m
'v E
='
'o u
`P =
r E w
- °O = =
-
'

a w
a
--
n ^
_"
E
°
u m
c
Au_v
.E
v._ o

°, 5
3
o
mwu u?oN
y m a -
mo -
m> c
E
E?Zcu
n u o E ,,
a?Ea
?;
Oa
Ou n c = _

2i `

`
E _=
` E A E R E 3 E
c ?

• _
m S m U
??^
w
_
V _o
; m ;-° SR
O c
; v
z °
„

O
a
m m
t
4y E
m 3
_-
C
5
o _
m
i 4
O O
_
w
O D
a o
C
a
Z;
E N
o
e rn _
» »
»; d e
a U
N a
) -_ - 3

o
c"
_
<
: Z
;N -2
3
s
s c
o
_ o

?o
g? ;i .0
80 2c oE
_ o c q a E o2 'of
- E
Z
c °
c-
c. Q
m e

a 21
u a a

°
m
_
o »;a E m e
` m E
a c c E m.c;
Y N o° Y m ur, =
4 E
_
O u m 0 ' Y V O Y O
O
` ; C
E C
E C C V
°
A
' a
o
. n oq e- o_ po
'
`
- m c
10 w
a¢ E .= '
-» E
a
imao__ °
3 c
3 o E
_
E o
•
u
azo
tg o
"s In
.. c
z
° . °
no
¢ 1n°
n e
t

u

n

r,
'
` W >? W W V H
,
"
l ro 3 Wo.Nr1 ro W A4J 10x0) 0)14 V NV

• 12. fa P -P 4J V

`;. N
0
41 J V l W0 WIC
m 4Ja14°' W 0a ro 14 N
4,4 4) 0 Wa4J V W0) aro N N
H ro•?•arov 4J C
,gym
a m V•rI 10
ro 0 E4N 041 •110 NU0 H:J.0aaV 4
o N ? H 3 H V A 10 "I N H 0) W 09 7 rn 4J M r i W a It

` ?5 (. !•'? H
a >, 41
U C W v•.+
V 4) v V a a E N a4J
V o •'1 +) •,1 N o V 4) -,q in (o Ic: v
W E 4J N^ a N> 4J V o
V (d •rlroU(a o Uaa0 H Uo0 Id 141-1W :1 4)
HC a 33H344 H •r1 •.4roroHa •rINWN -- •4'd'04J +~£
0.7 E --a oW HEEV r. a) roW1n 140)3 HaW•,1
N 44 0 •r1 a O 0) 4J H ? 10 4J tT a -i W A A 10 10 V n e,
z r-) H (n N J". N V N 0) 0) r-4 11 0 H A 10 W ` 0 a O C U
W N r-1 44 3 W V H ri V A ri • •r1 •rl 7 a .•i 0) V a N a 0 Ri
£ V E ro U (1.' 0? 4 oN44a E044 •111•1010710 U oV
w a10 •ri aN 0)V N p,H0aH W H•11 b,•r1 c•11 o a 0) Uc
O 0) C V Oto m0ro0) 70) 10 0)1010 A 10
H
3
A 0
2 O,

R C U a•ri3H OCTUNV a) -1 U
4 0
roW
N0. .-
z c 4) 10•1E Ha 0, idV3 z0)0) a4.) OvVroa ro
0 •r1 V 44 4) 10 •r1 V a a 0 o ro 3 m r•I H 44 0 U H C W 11 .r1 W
t. u9 O O•,iaa ro V0NH vv >!V•,1O•14Q (It 4J 370 >N
U a 44 ro•r1NU O4J 0 0)(d AV7 V a Oro 010
i-7 O)O N-4VEN ro 0010 HU!Nrd H(a 0) 44 C H0
.2 O C a. N H U) N 10 V a) - >14 ••-1 W H ro v a U v 4., O N W ?-
•,I N 0) N V 01-4 ro u to 0 U>> 0) H H •14 V N N U lL r:
z m a W V ro:3 V U A C W 3 ..,1 •,4 0) V O, 0 44 Id •r1 W^ V a 0 co
W .-+ 0 a p id ri O V '0 H C A 0 01 H •r1 a 0) U •r1 3 a to It W V O
£ u o ro 3 U-- 0) W W a CT3 U 0 0 >•14A V -,I - 'O .Ln
U) 0 10 > 10 N H N •rf W •r1 V ow >. H a >.11 W •,4 >. 0) 1
O a ro W0)3•'IVW (d ,a 44
00 HN14 E 0) 10 H0)a•O D) VNr)
Ix •? U N W H •r1 .
W 0) H •H 44 a 0 .-4 H U 0 10 ro >. V> 'O •ri 10 ri
H W O a N 10 0 0 V a H A E A 0) O !d H -H Q r 4 N V U 'a a C C l-
> G O H V 444 N W 0 V V V JJ >. >r U 3 W U N >4 0 fd
7 a--
z a \ Oi W a H V H > V a 14 •r1 V a s w W.C W r•I W •n ro -1 V
w h oA
I V W 0 0r•iW0
N N r4 A ro03o E•rlro
U H m W 10 10aaaV 0U HC 00V
r1 0 C W M V H ro 0) HO'
0:
[:. 0 0 Id -- •11 a •14 V 10 4 E W •14 W W V a W art 3 a•,i N
O m0 O r•I NV OH N00)av O roV.C 0 1144 V aCC
H UI U id9HN V V 0 V a O 000V '0 4-4 U0NWQ) 0c0
z 0) 0)
O •rl0 W V 0 U 0 W 0 VV V U Q) W-14 •113 44 10.1,
O 8) ro W £ U U V '0 U-0 • CO •r1 W H V U •11 >. U 3 V a A V 0) 1i V
Fd 0 10 zr4 w N V W N 101-4 W a ld 0,V UA 0,0 10 U ro 44 A 0, 0 • -1 0 '0 U F a 0)
V) U W H Q ro •11 a 3 0 A (a N E a 0 H •r4 O a 0) a•1I m 1-1 C U •rl C (o
V W
F1 £ H +, •,1 C r-1 N N 00 a •r1 0) N a•r1 •''? E V ro 7 1.4 0 0 V >. 10 P, 0
> u> of 10 10 W >,A H x E N U V N O •11 H W N 0 •,4 c 0. A E W c CT
10 0) 0) N a rd 0 O •r/ V CO a W V a `4 10 10 10 10 H W H N 44 V N •r1 r-1 •r1 L V
A > •nro •,4 V 0, H •11 0) a Oro 44 a H 0, W U •r1 •rl 10 H ro 0 10 >.
ri 0) O •r1 3 0) 10 14 F4 W H 10 •H W U) O ro a) ro A 7 N 01 Q U W H H •-1 0+ a
1) 4J H W 0 3 H 0,0 ro O .a C1 V N V a (a W >, V O ro •.•1 w N 4J 4J 0 u 0, •J
U) PL P.' r-i W H a 0 f.0, V a U U v W •rl o 44' 4 4J W V .a 1J W U a w c •r1
1-1 10 V 10:j Oi U, W O :j ro 10 N U N H •rI 10 •11 &4 •,4 W 10 (a 0 :4 H U
o 0, ro O z 44 E •11 H 0) a 7 10 a k E ,-1 W F E c a U a 0, 7 >
O 4410 3 0)A4 OOV V HE 44 044 A (d NVO V roE 0 aro'G
t? H a) , N U N •H -H M H U 4 N N 0, •,i •r4 la V •-1 V ••i N

Z
.
H
0) >.
W
W V •.i H N d) :J
r. :J 0, 0 V
'Cy
W 'O a, N U ro W C 4J 1
V
.
2 U A V U A U E W V ,4 H O O! W -H N !T a A a v •r1 z C ro ro 0 0) 10 )
O h F-4 44 Nn0)d
ro? Uu
$4
b
C -I AEU+
H
V
W 3u
£ i CO
) $
4
-0.111 I
.- roj
HWE
V
£ O m 10 H 0330,00, X010 >O V VV H0) (d '0 Ul0>.•UV O
w O a a a ? HOIOEH0 00>0.,1 ri 0) 0)'d0)HXa WHN0)-4 i4
N w U) 0+ (n ax M•.1 E-1 U V N0H00 3 33 aa4J (0 H GENE 0.•,1
:

7MU? r,

Y V
7
O
N
n
N
01
z
fa
c"= ?r
p ro o
r U,a?
O =
Z o
O E oN
v a .?
+t°- - 0 n
V) '>
w V)
C
o 0
v '
1=
a
6J
U E
u
v 0,3
•E o
0 U
C
< V

•Z
V
0 H (D a)
F > O O A E
? W V
4)
to 0
to V
V
a
N a
U
a o ro E

ta rd
E
a 0 4) -4 4J V
b N
o
C H Id N N o N
•rl H O r-i N •.i 7
A W E
A 0 )
4 PI in -4 411 'd
A co 41 x
ro
a N
G W b b
•,
1 W E
r? ro W 3 H b1
0, L E
)
-1 N •,
4 p' w H -H N
'
) C
4J O U 4J in A V
:1 0 :j 0) 41 (o
En am
? M
n a
N V C
, N I
d Oi f
d
-4 4j V 10 ?: a)
to (d p 9: 93
N C: 41
ri N V 0) N m (v •,{ r-1
0-14
M
0 w
a) H 'n (d

N .
O
W v A to In
a V 3 ? m d O
Q) 1
0 b U b! a
11 N rt N 44 A 44 0)
0) S
4 O A O 4 4
10 0 0
W a -1 •ri a. O a a •r1
C7 .C: V E N O N N 10 0, V
U V . 0)•r1 N -f 10 N 0) m ro
£ 7 0 r 3 0, O V 0) O N V r4 U
U) 0 >1 0 •r1 14 9V H .-4 U a O N
10 ai 4J a E • V 10 W 11 r•I a
A
i a
C o 0, a V 'v 0) 0) 4) E R) H

O~ r

W ,

0 I

0 0

C (d 0 a

1 A O, r•I J~ C W U a 0)

N
E

£
4
W
V
O (V
V
V>
0 0 0

4 h ON U E ?E
W
v > •r4
V
v rd
0) a r1 a
0) 0
V- i

?i

d 0 r•1 U
W.0 (a
V •r1 O N
•11
E 0) a
V 0)
.1110 V
(a
0 N
•14 N
E 7 W 14 U
> A
r4 •ri 14
O
c
N N H
•r4
> •14
•,t
•11 O
O x 10

q V
Q N U

V O C a

4 O N

H 0) V

f 0, H

f O > W U

4 O
a

3 Q a 0) ,
F.. PI H r I
£ a -
H 44 11
0
Ol
N
Q >
c ?
? w o
a
O
w a)
V V
U
W
H
a
>
ro
0)
V
a
a
0)
U
0
rr_4 w
v
r1 N M V' u7 10
1
VN\
V
i
c
1-
z _
3
J

11

C
1

f]

u

11
11

[7
?` rs ° "o
o
.?L rn
' t: v
>`
•?
•o 0 T H
2
°
°
m •O T
p d

ma
d
Y
LL: 1
. m •.
•1 3 a
w o .ii 3 c u
.

L
a. ta w 4 1M+ o w •
LI
0 8 0 u
G
14
11
I ,-1 u 0
• ,
3 n1 •rpi

C
T ++
a o u w
°
a O y I
u
p C
++
v
W

C o
0 00

p d •?i •.i u O
F

U '•i •
?i
d?
p
d
C $4 A
60 P .

0J p W 3 "? d W 'C N M u
? U M f to
u y
A
T
t
nY
N
.d•1
10
d
DO •
p d
° _

C N H rl d p :3
A
C

•

1n >
F b y
W d d
p A M
H
0 'D d
S
u
=
2
.?4
E H N 0.
yb..l p N y 7 U Y H H d N W
Io
v d

u
a o r+ 3 w
p u a
A •° d
ro

-
ro

2U ?Z p 6 ow .co v3 n m"p -

p' (O

C
V T H F H U N - u

60 N
w m F
O
? N H N p

b W rl m~

N
ro •q°
S
1
e y b .
•1
o0
C B m N
.-
I u •O
h . q .L ` ry u

v
L? d O F

a 1" .tG H O O U N

04 H ca
H .'rp
O W
3
u
O
O
y

u >
o
O O
H O U 3
O p 7 N
N 05 _
Z 7 O v W
z
°
? p N d p p
m
> v
; N
0
d H
- ..
n.V1„•» Q U
O O p
.
.
L H
u „7
u p O
T1 ~ Y 101
G y u >
w 3 O v
N
aJ • •I <j O t•1
•. p
w ?C
00 Y N
° w d 7 v 01 1 ,H N N
_
R >; M~ N N 00
(
:
S -1
N O A
° H V 0, d G O
N ? T
C7N U °°°CCC q y
•Z. U
e N 4
p' s
N O ? d
rl C H
q °FppF .O .-I
y N
41 _
•O
Z C
? N H
d P. N d N .d u W d
G N j M Tl X H w
° 3° ?? ..
0
Z e
d p
p
W O 0
w m
W q B°$0 ° P. H
A d w
F d u 0
° d
-
d p
C u
V U g
g
F p oo
O
K. ? M p• 0. A M
? O T
F
u Y1 ° N d O .,>,1 C w -.
v O

v
C

o W
; Rl O ° M d B
u

o L0 N

O u L

'+ 0. U 6 H
E u l
> m H
.> W
M W
1? O T Y1
1 W u a s
oN roF c a 'o w

y

O-

U

d p

•' W 0
O
++

A rn o
u H d
O F 0
6 N rn I d d H
W '. q. ?O
W
d u N H
F 7 w?
d d 0
,C F H
d d

F H
0- >: C A
H 0. H a N 0. H u 0. F ro

v H
d p 0
Q U U N F 4 G 0 . .
A
n W
p
E w o 4w °
a
o
b E. w 1n
H A.
u o.

\?\ "
\h
O 0
Ln
) 10 b
ro .v
79 N z x
o to 0
•V V'00 aka
W 4J
14 .9 Id

?'
h
E n Ix O w >I

C: •„ I V N O 14 L w •e.1 11
0
>1
00 ca0 .I W 1o 0V4J00
w u1 •a .i 0 •r1 H >, o E ), 14
3 U 0 H 0 .10 ., 4
v
10 O
oU ?ro0 30V 00WW
Oz uow b1 ,%1'dHCA.i
? '
*
?
•• A .Z. ,J O IA V 1.1
r.
4 041 W C O
y c 4014 ro n.ro>m0w
N>? 7

?
c 41 0.00 U O E 4.,1..1 ?
1 .u al
0 M r
s, ,1 ,) W
?

' O
A0 _
Oro x
Nab•., M,6 0 W N>11

..

_ V r
0
W 0 0 In 0 w w b 0 .-1 H

^' to S U

U a) E
fro .11 E ro 0 •.•1 0 U O .Q

w •a
00. ), a) aw 041U ro
r
0 r1 C
-H to 0 H H 0 a 41AA O
o arty

5
> a W HAHO
O. 00 0 0 0
d? 1 0 •?
h N •.i
r H U w +1 b 0 .-1 10 JJ 41 •,I
e
'
' A
z C o44
•'I U 00 0 C 4q •aIdV
. H al ro b+ ro ro ¢J N 0 3
h1, r v
00 la
HI V •n G w> O E
o f 0 t: a x m. 0 ••. ......
xm7H14r=04 Co
m
woo -H 0 E W t p oll q
3 0 0 0 V 11 01 " W r1 A -I •.i

C •a- 0.0 'UCO 0a.1 •'1•.,C1C3•A0w y
W ? 1O
z P O
:
L v ,
a0 r-
NWV 9
I .1ro0EV 0:3 r, t)
U' C '-1 3, q W a W 0 rt•

C
'

°
U •,i
(n • W n u
14 0 •.i'0 b 1-1 ,.1 0.,'•1 0 0 0 44 V
-
`
'
'^ ?
• v) H W o
W 0a 0 0 E 0 0 ro W.E V P .Q .•i w
CCHroro
'

v
`p y
ro >.
A H
17 0)
In •
, 0 •.1
0-H00. H4
C •,, a) .-1 ri 4.1 3 .-1 a) O .-,
1

b V)
y
r-i H .
M W 1 0 01 4.
E b G C J.1 a)
U C a) H O a) •'1 W C •,i H W
U? N M
£ a 1 0o
awrn W'0 ro 0+1 10 -4J 3 bb
w 1 44 30H4)0 wa
Q 0w0 0. o.-414 = . 4J rd
O
A V L •N 41 .0 U (a a) 01-1
• E o
V

H E 0 G b
W U a-+ to A ,-+ fa r=
„

W
u
W H0>I0 Z•.1 W4 W aMA 41H
•144J'0 0 LWV W Ec10C0
4
0
10 W "1 :% H r1 0) O. 1 •.i 1-1 0 44
4 11 o E H ro
0. 1-1

v EE
o
o
w a)
?t •,1 U
a)uw04wa) > w0rd 'o IJ
w
a 7 L'H EroC:00W•Co>0z In
E £ H w In Ha(dH44 VACM4JZ040 a

1
1
1
1
W
O
N
7?
L
Id
Z
Z ?
v.. ? O
0EO
O N
cn •S
O
C
o°
0
vo
t9 n
V
Z CAN
ww
v o? ro
zww
vo
c ?
v
S
V
Qu
V>?
V
E
0

w
a
O
O
..l
c 0
c
a
N
a

-
't• N a
.
.

`
o
.i :'
til c
o > co
'? r-•>
vnn
N

`?o
6
ro
m
9
& ?9Sb4?? `? z
rn
N
0
+
.+ O
c z
:1 0
6 c
0 +J
O

a u a
W 11
C) 41 E ro m O
E U a C
3
00
CQ P.
(V F C CO
fV
D 'a T SN NJ
> r c $, u to CV

E

o •.
Z u

?
O a E 7 ;
41
[A ro O F. L 7
? '.] F Cti F Vt

w go
w v
v
c .J UJi
.. Cq
41 ro O N O
U v a N
.,.o Naoa
0 d)
4) 4j
N r0M U:I
a0 Nm N
Al cM m m
v o. 0 1 V
a E U M w M
U •+ M O
c an
O iro.
Al •-? 7 O• V a
•3 0`•' 7 t7
a m -4
> N N V
O T .+ a
D N 0)0vz
rox >n
S. Cl - w
a ro m 0
+) E U 0 C
T O
v a z ++ •..
a > 4J C V
v yraJ
+ N 0 w r O
> a .. ?,
a U V.-ai >
v N Ua c m
> b 0 N
m 0 z
.c a n
00 a CO U u
a z %o 7 c
3 M H n ll
C: E
u 0 7
m 0 c C c
41 M U E

N w .? u G O •T .+
p o .-1 rg1
N o u H
u
d w
W
OD
?? 1,
a 3 y
o a 7 .?
o ?
o O o
W
o
u
'
o
u
w a

u
.n
w p
L
1. 'G G T
u G O
y
d e
0 oo
u
o
M
v yV
6 p .
F F
u
H ?
u 00
a ?
c"u 7 ?
ooY? .?
H
F '.
u p, u .-1 o v o N
u 3
u s. c u w V
v
O
4
u H
m ok
d o G
at w u

u
u W
U N
•p
d U
H w
C O W
q N
w G o y N d
F E .-? •roi
m O N
w
o w u
G u w 3 N b
y o u
m
.
c V
y ?, u
G
•
'? u
u u
x
u
w
••• y w "
N o
.o u u wy o
U 'i o N
.O G
w
b
y V
'4 ?p b N
4,
V u w v
o ,
..? w
o
>+ •1
v
G . H o 0
u
m
. 0 o m o u G u u 7
3
u w u
~
w
w
H O a

y y G
u .G M 00u
G
u to o '4 •r{ y to
u
7 W
ff
o o u

w p u I G M

? o
14
m
"
b'1 'oo u
G F
uu
u
w r d
m u
G fa N
o o O G
w o

•G w w
G w u
G N .4
m 01
?
G w d o o U •r
. o V
.
j N •r
o+w4 7
ovv Gri u
o.a u M o"? 4j
> o m w y C
caw

> a w
w N u 8
o
V o o
u
.c ,+ •.. u a
m H u F m v
t u N
wa > m m
ox G w
v ro N•o a
o ff u
3 6'O M
° c au w ow
o 'a
u
3
u
N
i
.
N
.
vi o d
3 u '
m w w
u 1-4
x
e
M u
p u
H
O
0
U
z
t
V
Q?
a
V
U; a
•r
M
n
n
o
u a
10 <
r
Z
M 4
'v o
O
c:
1
1
r'

1

0 0

0 0 co 4J
-11 34 V i ?N xw
C c0 N ro " 3 0 r.
a
+ib
'
ON u
i3k
N
(a
O C to M ? C
0
0
144 U A N10 0 O 1
0 >1 1
.1
1 rC r .,1 O
N 9 b >.••-? 0 v •ri r•4 4J N 0) U 3 A H 0 4J •r1 14
C O C 0 .C 14 C•. 0 A a) .9 C V V 4J 9 4J a
7 4J (0 9 U a) (11 a) N 0.0 N •r1 ro N '0
h 4J ri V 14 1-1.014 4J N 0 N al 34 W 0 9%D a L
0 41 .V •-1 a 0 C •-1 0 4J N N 34 01 ro g (
0 N
A N 111 '0 C 0 V •-i 3 r-1 0) A 0+'13 M - ri U
0 •-4
3: C 0 ro • ,C 10 4J 04 4J •r1 ON 0%
'0 •V w •,1 0) 10 W MH 910 11 U '0 JJ ro 0 11 N >. a) a) 0
C 0 4J 11 0) O •r1 0 O a) r-1 a) • 7 $4 A A ri b 3 H
ro• N U V N 9 0 •r1 A (o •n 0) r4 N to r. •r1 0
L (a V N N N C 43 to O> 0 V 0110 d) 0 > 44
•r1
b U d H 11 0) a) N N 'U.,1 14 34 •H C U 9 ri U 0 H Ca
C 01 11 04-) $4 34 t71 (o 4-) U 0 AV •r1 a) •-4 :3 C ? CO 11
(0 •n Ia N N 010 1 04 4a r, O W to c 10 0 •r1 N •'4 a N
140 4)C b 041 a) a)(n bC 0)C(a3NE W
4) PH 11 0 C 0 14 41 N 'O 0) 34 A O $4 to 0) 0 4j N •r1
N 04H U O U N •r1 to O N 0 U 01 N N 0) 4J 4J U O r-1
3 O to -H a) to b to - (o JJ o 4J '0 P 44J A 11 0 a) 10
a) '0 4J A C N 14 N N a•-1 r-1 >1 O 0 N 41 O >.•n C r4
M4 0) N 0) ro tP 0 3 a) W 4) -r1 O ro V'0 ro 0 N 11 4J 0 0 •rl
to
0 41 7ro N
N a
>1 b r-4 0 4
0
O • 3

-"1
0 .11 -H
$4 >i 4J . V .
4"
) .
A 14 N r
-0.H
M O A H
N :t
H ro
9 N
A •
"
•? ?
U N O ro O
O O
) a) ?
r-I
A> 10 •- N N
c c 01 11 C .C (0 W a) •r1 •11 4 A a) ro 01 01 W 0 E 11 •11 U W
N ro •ri c a r, 'O N N A b 4J JJ a) C O.C U
N ro (0'•4 JJ a) (0 a) H N 0 r•. M Ev a) m 4j a) •r1
N 4J C a) C 0 Nro •4 44 aAA 0b H U P. N 11
MOH UA U O a4J 4JN 4J • 04J 4J 14 p: >, 0 ro O t71ro 4J
ro ro 7 4J 4 to •11 U W C C •r1 14 • 0 ri () C a) N
9 a 0 r4 '0 N E A 0 k 010 O d) 3 '14 0) C C C 3 a 4J a) --1 H H
E A ro 34 a) ro •n 0 C •r1 0 4J 10 0 0 N J~ C Q. a
a) •14 N U O N N a) 4 O W W ro 4J C 10 ro a -11 N C >r V C
a If W O a) a 34 C: ro 0 a) C C N b 4J ro •ri N ro
>, N N VT a-H >I a) a10 a) N 4J •ri W 0 34 •r1 H U 34 H 0)
,!C
4J N N 0 0 04.) 4J W (1) A 43 C W (0 •11 a) '$' C O b >1 >r O A U U
C, tP ri C 11 •'4 •r1 () '0 X C 0) ro •rl 4J 4J v 0 11 0) '0 ro W C •r1
11 CO (C O•-1 a> 14 r4 C0 NroE O+UU r4 34JUN3 44 10 r-1
0) N a) 14 14 --4 0 10 41 14 11 b+ •r1 0 a) 0 o N O N r-1 b1 O o 4J 14
> 7.1 34 '0 ri >, 41 > '-4 U 41 4-1 id 4J N H 0 b C V 11 •11 0 • N Al
U
CW ? U
A w U
Z( %o r- 0 0) r-4
ro ?
•
100 N. ro •'A
3 Ha 0
) iH
QN
N UNro 1 0))
to
X tP N
a ro ro
(0 4J P
}4
4 v ; "N
, W w H a •4
>,c r4

4) W S U.

C
/

:.. v - a) al al

t

•<
? C
i N

w C A H A
4J
"
W
? N
A
N b
?•1 V ?I !+
0 TS 1
4
J b N 4
J
U H to-1 0 11 b1 N alb

\, .
?L~
J» E a)
a) d
w o a) 1.1 O 0 G
a) C H
34
0 10
?
'•'``
' ii `j4?
?
I 0 4J ro 4J
10 C N A 0 P U O •,1
?
3 ro •14 4J 7
O 01 H
:
" ?
I
al
N )
O 014
N C N E p• •r
l
34 al 7 N tT J~
. awl '•01 06
M
L>:
N N
.1 W 11 O
•
1 0 1 4J a) 9 a) $4 H
a)
' C C N 4J 'O •'4
1
'
:,. r,r--.+++
y4 I
'
01
01 X -
4
14 4J a 0 U) O >
tJ O U
N A a) •11 •11 a) E 0 N •rt
•,4 N N N 7 k
•r1 r4 11
.

?C•'c`
x; 1--444 ^'? '-1

•ri
H
U w

o a)

34 4J .C. 4J a r.
•11

•r1 w

1 U o
?

..,. '1^ • ,

3 M

I ro

4J )4 11

a) ri O r1

•rl a co .-1 b al

r1 J; W E to
•r1 a)
> N ,-, 3 r-1 v >.
1-4 41
'CY •r/ •rt
C U
>
•'I
+r :y
'
} I
( a` C O .C
" > rl '3 o JJ 'O 0 0 ro 4J •r1 A C 4J N ,
'-1 N
r1:
• i r,. b r
I N ",
ro 1? 0 A ro ro a x 7 >
w 14 0 0 010 10 7
3 H . •c
(a N
J
A
,h. <
? i I
'
' N 2. •-1 00 CO
ai A b •r1
a)
~ .+ 34 O 1210) 11 a)
(d
J' N )`1 O 4
lr a)
,?•
?A /4,G'
'•?
?
< v'

j„•1 I ?=
•v
-
! r?1 L7 v y

N

}4
a U 01
Z ?
T1 3 41
N 0 •
1 4
0 A N 0.V
•-1 N •ri N 4J ro N
J
' W 0 34
•ri 14 a) •'1 P
'O U o
•
+
c
14
• ?
l
i
N .C
N x
34 r
4J •11 3 N 4
3-1 a)
O •.1
C 'O P •'i 'U N C N 11 0 O
'U 4J .0 a) a) w

W a

,
•' ((
.. .

O! _

? % 4J

,
H
OP
0 0 4J
U> 01
w C 0 34 C a) a N
H
w

"
1
?•. ?• ?.? 9p
•
(n ? ^
, -•
• r
'O ro fu C
C H w 4J U
W a w N N
ro 14 N N 4J 0 U w ro •.1 ro
0 A W N •r1 4J .-1

3 ro
C
' 4 ! ;j
.'' cal m 4J N •n

N O C •.-1 O

O Uri a N C N N •11 41 0

(0 O •r1 X> U
0 14
10 •.roi
w U 4J 0
IU N N 14
1
U 0
F'VVV
"
• FJ-1 `'J m a) a
0 O w w .
s4 a) •r1 w 01 •r1 m O 10 C 4J 4
0 0 c.0
?
r•
'
?
? '
F'
' to
J s F- 9 a'o 01 11 4J W 4J ari •n N C V 01 O •r1
1
•
+
i
• L C 4 rt N •r1 N >1 N C > (0 010 P U rZ 14 N '0 4J 0 0 C U 14

T
:= 4
L- •'•1 C
o
C 9 34 tT
K
0.4 N N a)
004J
0M ro co 10 34 N
3rowH
CW+J O a C U 10 -ri •ri
roP.0 3
ro c
J N w co O >
r+ ar V 0 P
Nvr10

.'? ?; ?.. •y,:._
2?
' P' ?•
•
`
r II
.•<
I
?
r u.
LJ7
- CL
10 a
r-1 O
W S4
14 4J
C4 (a
O
N 4J ••1
4 ON N v
N N
C •'-1 -H 0
0 E r-1 3
•rt •r1 4
CN
a) 10 N 0 0 0 U N
r.' '-i C W 0-1 0 C
14 4J 0-4 N 4J •n O 31 •rl
0 a
W •r1 W
C .C P A
c W H U
O U a)
TJ 04
. J? _.'
j I v ,n •rl
> CQ
P
O H 1
0 N t.) :3 4J H H N
10 a) •r1 (d 0 0 U 14 01 U 0.14
U 3 41 0) 4.1 0 V
> •.1 43 ro c a W
J
N
.?: c- f,;•. ?; ?, r 0 C
a) W a) w m V '•7 ON 14 3: C 0) r-1 A 1J a 10 C 3 •r1 C J
N
Id O

?
q 1?
f4j
~'
?'U
(7 90
ro
M 01
1-1 1.
4)9z0
z 1 a r4
-J ar•1 O 44 A ••1 7 4J 10
UO+)30NdtC r1 $4 •r1
1011 'O 'O W 4J
NO
>1
?7.?
?
? .v AO O - CH WAN3 N34O NH OIAd 010
4oJUUN
r
10JNNF
.
?
?;xir
c
h
' I •^
9-1
V'
O W >r
> 4J
•rl 01 4J N U 0
a) 1r '0 -

ro 4J a) W
\
i ?t y
,
,, I
! ro• O N M 4J W C A N A 34 'O H O•• r-1 0 >, 0 i+ M .-I U
yxo'-x,11 `'.. Z A .11
Q 0) •
O 1
•? 9 U

.'
U! a
a) a) >
•rl C
O O H
>
C0O 4
.
brow 10 O C> N A> W 4J
W-14 N1
r
ro E N O U
J
0 01 U }+ a) •r?

11
3; A
3 f]
h
W .] U
E
r-1 0) .
1
U U
'0 al 'O •O 4
C
U 34 -•4
a '? 4J N 10
Z p NV)0k z4)to 90)014
A W th to 4)4AJ b ro N UV •-roi C
H •rl N 4J x (0 4J 0) 0) >r U •r1
4 014) U
0 U 0) H 0 $4 r4 W 41 •r1 3
4J $
0
0 4
-
4 ri N

•`'y
::.
?
_.;i'
?I
O
W
h
H ro •n 4
.
4
1
44 o
0 a 7 to 'A 4) 14
.
.
: ?

oi
W
O O
a H
a W
s o 040
•-491 a) 0,0 •r1 9H
79 7344)A0)0
l E W A [q m •11 a 10 •r1 N E A ro A w
w
?J
1
N }{
J 44 t{C?
P
' U JJ C ' ? J7 ul ? •rl
v . H ro
? of a ?
?N4 C:
0': 0
o bu
?o ?aMr?
C: 41
? vii U A? ?? ?6 aG Wa
' Z ti o u u v'
W 1 o-O
? -8
JZWV 3O ?g-u w
NZOCL tn ? N c g A ? v 0 14
creuL
ccd
La W w A? c7 N ?i w N
R.
ARAB H ?
r-
' o w NN$1v :30
a a?Ui wa?i >+v
0In 0NNm ,"'
w CJ O C. Q'tl .i 0 11
v N
H v
w N c
H 131 0 0 •?i 0 O
0
W 01 R YI
O N
' LL w?rv?y8 x N ab a•°
u 0 yp „• a .a 0 v
t p ;7 6a1 !n N U.00 N N a
o Q
Z O
l1J ?d y +i Q p x .00
. v
.N , oy W 0 p ••O-I O C ?t
' v o a+
cc 44 4J A 41
V 44 4J u (a 0 0 v?,
°, • " x
00 w
1-4 ?aE0--o u
m 4.) 4.) Q) %O y U p
Z?400A%00 OP
O Gel N•H NVNN VW
3 C (0) wv mH >+0
ro o o N oi
?4 004
' NNU ro0 .VE
444 I) r- 00 0
X
W co 11 ri>0IJvNaU p.
_ s+a aNS+•. ?,bv o•5
c,? ° b"'robsvip'w vu
' U 34 Ln w a ro o ro V ,4"J+
U) ?4 AS I a vv ?? xxN~?e(a o?u to
N Q 'o w0 .,1 W W v r1
4414
x
_ b R' ON N •d >+0 v u ro 4-1 o 0 0 4.1 -1 0
f.V O 3
' O ro 'd •.i N Yi t14 N y N •Jf•.i 3.1 W
3 . r•+ N U ro a .? p a 3 v
O V•Aa+N4 m 'd 0 z 3 U 41 H H N dt'g X b' o Q o+ q
tie ?+x C"3vRN Cva ro ro
g h o+ro 0 v v? u•,I ?4 ro HX 1-1 ;Nc +
14 GUMx H 4 E: coN V C N iro A N
v N •11 0+ £ Ei u) -1 U N H V v ?4 ? 1£ N £
r a m r~ x •'1 N. 410 v N .-, E Q) Gr ro
v r- 4J 0 N w vU++-, r- 4) 7 U DG?
' o c Qro N 1-1 ro N SOU old C
(a a
.1 o rd v y O O O U A v •.+ ? ? x v
h ££wzarz Q fdz4J3:U(d w`4 fA qU Q v

M ?\
o
o
° rn o U
N O a
? «
] U

F
W 1? a E"
94 P4
<
a o o
i •.
i q E W z Ci
41 z
h
u N
N
H
z

W O
W
CO
a
T
S
. H
_
O ?• ry V
u co
>
u r•1 0 N ? ? v

v
N
Q
D V1
z o
.D Ix o
a w Z E.

?`
x w
O
a
2
?' p
a
a
o
Y ? a
° o
n
W M
n ??pp
? N
n
\ c
u n
S x
n
S m W ?
?W F 1
O O x
Q
O
W Q W 6
J LL
•? n
? ¢ 2
OJT ?Y - `~? `v W O O
U Q ?
_ S w
2 T•i?u a? o? f z .?
? ¢ v
0¢O h
3
z
LL_ ?
Q
u y
s
x 8
x
v z
k ?
E
W pwf,
z 14 U

• N
,YO ;?
c? o
? C'
?ticy 0

h
w?

r L
O
? O

4111
w .u
N 7
C-4
"71 C C
~

0 Y A
a D
w

I 44
O 0) 4
Er ma
G7 N
w 'Jr N

W O L U

U M 1 1
r
C) ao G4
? L)
Ln
GI
.u 1 O
ao u
O

LU.? pJ 14
O N m 7C7 •.W1 NCU
C
N z O
V C
N U
•
O
H N C
o DL
C
C
ro 0 O
v
W
Ort u t
.. >.
C
a C L .3C U W 'O O .?.?
..M C O? rl W O v y
ro x 1-0 0 m w
W b 0 N z y 4
1
4) EQ -4
h f
'LIO?
C E
?
.
.
d
rn V £ Nm
to
aro?>oro
n
$4

r
10 a,
i
.
4 .a
, & 0aoo
.o!
0
V
v
N C
N O
O rl
w
v ro
ro w
w a
f] N
v am
U w
O w H .1
o ro ,1
C Ow o
N N O l?
W a O N
C O N ro
ro C E C
ro ?.
w
o w o
r
u G a w
w °i a a v
O C .i
v ro roo.a
N W
41 b W•?ui w
W 3 W O N O
E o w x z
d n ro o
N w u m C
41 a 014 • ON
N roa?om
C w .,
w xzza,A
w
3
w
rn
ro
L
?i c a
? W
C?' w c
ttl O+Y
H
a
n

u

0
G

H

APPENDIX C
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006)
Relocation reports
Turning movements and Caline3 results for Air Analysis
Biological and Wetland Community Maps
Plant and animal species of endangered, threatened,
special concern, and candidate status which
occur in the Reidsville area

' ??• United States Soil
Department of Conservation
' Agriculture Service

' Mr. Richard C. Welch, P.E.
Vice President
Connelly & Wicker, Inc.
Oak Branch Drive, Suite 2D
Greensboro, NC 27407
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
September 18, 1990
Re: Environmental Assessment for Reidsville Southern Loop
from US-29 Business to NC-87 Rockingham Co., NC
State Project No. 9.8071834
State T.I.P. No. U-2418
Dear Mr. Welch:
Enclosed are three copies of a completed Form AD-1006 for State T.I.P. No.
U-2418. On part III of this form the total acres shown in Sections A and B
(acres to be converted) exceed Section C (total acres in site). These are
totals you provided us. In our calculations of relative value of farmland to
' be converted we used the totals of A and B and disregarded C.
If there are any questions, please contact Phil Tant at [phone].
Sincerely,
ye J. on s
C::L
State C ervati nis

0

O The Sod Conservation Service
is an ten of the
'
Department t of Agriculture
' 1007N - Ad00
Us. O.pars" : of A?iwr1a" :.
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
' PART I (Tow conepktad by Foovrw V"crj 0"'s 51 GZ . f. "ism^we
- 8/16/90
K'.0 of Irerr..e RE I DSV I LLE SOUTHERN LOOP FOOSM4 0.0 gf rr...r woo N . C. DOT
NEW 5-LANE ROADWAY A"a
ROCKINCHAM COUNTY, NC
AAA T it f T? ? co•atplrtt:4 ej% SG`S' . :::. .. ; ..:.. .. ?.v . :•::;•:::.;:.{::;
............. .:.:
1

tt+a a?ta eantaFti pe(rnt,'tiniq?,? ctrttawtdr vt local te"poetae?t fan:rttaed?: ;` «:Y? ;:;?lo M!>» ..7K"a !??rh• n;,
' (N ws, tA1 ftril dl?rii iiot !?{Ilr'r ID Aal lOrrep/af1 ;; =:; •+:c: =.::::• :.rr;:?:•:.:ti,: ,ti;::;•::::'.
addrtlona/ports of tt?ti leriit?:?:?:•:I?: ?•?': =•???Sr::r? ... ;:?.?..
?
:• 4. -•i}}:}; _.{: Xvr: M rwNr tJw/ 3A. ?/!?Mw?•:!: ti•.:.:.: r :.t*yA??i. yM ?.
:.
? ..:. ;
...• ?

:
? r
242 le 66 00
2 SC
also" LaV rrum %. Mw

PART tJt (To be cvnep+4ttid br , o,,4rw rlpncrj r. ;
A. Total Acaa To So Convartad Oinctf
35 35
/. Taal Acr= To tla Convwtad t wf
!
wsct
27 24
C. Total Acraa in sim
..
. '+f4 6z 45..
.
.
ART IY _ ._-....
ctawV+?ai'albr i?C'?'?tanef E?aleiisioq
ems
Y ' A. ' Tetaf Atrt+t >'tirat Md I.Int?rf Fsee"tatd 4:.V :F;? }u?*%vk 9Ai?ci .Ati . l ?. 47
:
:
•:
a<. "Tptq Acres statewide And Loot In"oortsnc Farrniand' r.4 ems:.: i =
r.}??}:,v?i;:
... (?; a:: ,:
> :.:
.
:....K:
•: /,.•:.:::::::ice •:. .:: ';::..
r;.::•:•.;-: •.
f
?. J tar
C. Ma}eO1 Far c piw"Oi Laos
r • Pre" 09001 tteiit Ta'Se Coev4r"d'? C: ;?
U ? . :::
.... .
D
hrerwte M 0t tfr.?l
ra M a .
.
,
.
..c +.?arer. Iwfa 66m" Or 1W r. Rowels vesk* F-
!t>!T V ITe bekat py?.der a.?a+d fvrlwt:at C.ri ::;; : ;; : _
fbbar. 66-i Of Firnatai+dTO84Coy+r+risdlScikWio --.: .;r.; :.:: ::•:::=
PART V1 (To beconepirtadbr feala+a/Armwj

W- Airwwwet /lharia f tlw afire! &V mW*A&m /b J CSR ilillw ?
?W?
1. Am `' Nw,.t n Um 15 8 8
L hrimew in Nonarban ur. 10 8 9
Z Pararnt Of Sts Fe v 20 6 8
4. Protaetwo Ptoetided By Strn And Lod Govertenrett 20 0 0
L Oiauance Ran urban sualm Aros omi t - -
0. Distance To Urban Support gsrvkm omi t
7. beta Of Prawm Fenn UMt Cor"oaeod To A 10 5 5
L Gatrticn Of Nan4resbla F--Wob 25 25 25
ti. Avoibbil Of !rare" Support So,, 5 3 3
10. On-Form tnvwt Twm 20 5 5
11. Effwm Of Conversion On Farr" Support Sa- v 25 1 1
12. Cang"bilifY With Evict kuhur* L%e 10 5 5
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Pow" tap 66 69
PART VII ?o becostpirtadbr fia4dMnWj
Rafotios Valwe Of Fornriand thaw Art h 100 X7.4 ¢7• s
airy tt ?aafarnetttafantfnt roar. ooew are 1w
66 f
69
TOTAL POINTS rrctal of ab0w 2!ln.tj 260 j l 3. L 11(v. f

Mt1 SetaQ
.?-- - - .
Date Of Sdectton g Z.D /.go wA Lo+l to A"suff-w" tAwr
Yea 0 No (ff
?.. •..?••••. QDT}! jr 1TLr"S SaOReo LP'SS 7'7/µA /66 t T1?r EFo?e' 7-#eY
IZex? t I/E' /» I A0 01"& . i-eve -,s OF e e,NS i 0 L•`* A77 ON . S / T'E'
a. #?,vv &-Owl f0som AO 1006 11"31

R I=LOCA7 1 ON R EP OR T
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT: 9.8071834 COUNTY. Rockir
I.D. NO.: U-2418 F.A. PROJECT:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Southern Reidsville
?Y rY? 1
No"4?th Caro I in
dew.
JA9? erns
tment of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
1 of 2 Alternate
----? ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Mi?inor-.
Displacee Owners Tenants Total
- ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Individuals 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0
- 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
0 0 0
?Farms 0
- Owners Tenants For Sale
+ For Rent
n-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0 150-250
0 20-40M r --
0
150-250W 0
. YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
µ- 40-70M 0 250-400
- 0 40-70M 0? 250-400 ?0
X 1 . W i l l special relocation 70-100 0
400-600 0 70-100 -0 400-600 0
- i
b
--
X serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
d b
d i
l
100 UP
0 600 UP
0 100 UP
0
600 UP 0
a
ecte
y
sp
acement --- ----
_
-•-•- -•-••- _•--•-- --
X 3. Will business services still
b
il
bl
f TOTAL 0 0 0
?
e ava
a
e a
ter project
- - - --- ---• --•-•- --
-
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size h
X type, estimated number of I ` 3. NO BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES INVOLVED.
l
i
i
i
emp
oyees, m
nor
t
es, etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a
h
h
i
ous
ng s
ortage I
X 6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
)
ng
st
X 7. Will additional housing
b
d
d
programs
e nee
e
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d
e cons
ere
x 9. Are there large, disabled,

- elderly, etc. families
a ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGNI
10. Will public housing be
I
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available )
d
i
l
i
i
d
ur
ng re
ocat
on per
o
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
14. Are suitable business sites
14.
Are
bl
il
(li
)
ava
a
st source
e

U 5. Number months estimated to
1
RELOCATION
7
J . F. Meade 09-10-90 -?%? ??S/e'F';
ReIocatip' nt Date pproved Datarm 15.4 Re Ps d 5/90 Original & 1 Copy State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

R ?=L_0CA-r I ON R EP OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 9.8071834 COUNTY: Rockingham Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2418 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Southern Reidsville Loop From US Business 29 to NC 87
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
ype of
Displacee Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M 25-35M
35-SOM 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0
usinesses 0
- Y 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
arms
0
.
? 0 0 0 Owners _ Tenants For Sale For Rent
on-Prof i t
i
0 0
ANSWER ALL QUEST w0? 0
IONS - 0-20-1
20-40M " 0 s 0-1501
0 150-250 0
0
- 0-20M
X20-40M 0
3 P $ 0-150 J
150-250 0
0
YES. NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M1 1 250-400 0 ? 40-70M 8 -? 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 1 400-600 y 0 70-100 10 400-600 0
i
b

?
X - serv
ces
e necessary ?
2. Will schools or churches be
affected b
dis
l
t -
100 UP

--- -i
0 600 UP -
0
100 UP
0
60E UP
0
y
p
acemen
3. Will business services still
b
il
bl
f
TOTAL ----- -
2 - ---
- 0 --- ---
21
0
e ava
e a
a
ter project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
x type, estimated number of 3. NO BUSINESSES INVOLVED.
-- I employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage 6. VISUAL SURVEY AND LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. NOTE - THIS IS
6. Source for available hous- ONLY A PARTIAL LISTING. NO PROBLEMS FORESEEN WITH
- -? ing (list) AVAILABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE PROPOSED TO BE DISPLACE
X 7. Will additional housing
programs be needed
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d
e cons
ere
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
ld
l
f
ili
y, etc.
e
er
am
es
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
-
I T 10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
d
i
l
ti
i
d
ur
ng re
oca
on per
o
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
D.
__C1'L D
1. F. Meade 09-10-90
Relocation A- n Date Approv ed Date
rm 15.4 Revised 5?0 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
t 2.Copy: Area Relocation File

C)
t? C)
?
,•
o G)
Z`
t
m K. .o

...: o

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
n
I"D

°•?s I, CHIEF tNGiNEER PRECONSIAUno"
RECOVED FILE
? 67Uh
.mow.. ?,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
'fake ApptoPda* Aot'
t? i~ fi? _ Pro. •: re Ropty Using
, ?,s Your S10??
R1 %q- ^ ^ prtpard Raply For
AUT My SioAUCUro
PVT p,-O, -,u& Rapty For
Rr"muu R"'Fty For
G":9 SW ature
D1VIS 6ef:uiGf'(mft
.- Su ;,,:urwo --^
October 15, 1990
OCT 1 7 1990
WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR.. P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Larry R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E.
Director of Programs, Policy and Budget
' FROM: A. D. Allison,
Manager, Right of A .ranch
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR EARLY ACQUISITION, PROPERTY
OF THOMAS N. LEWIS, PROJECT 9.8071834, REDISVILLE -
SOUTHERN LOOP FROM US-29 BUSINESS TO NC-87, I. D. NUMBER
U-2418, Parcel 47
Larry, this is a follow up on verbal approval Mr. Acker received
' from you on Friday, October 12, 1990.
Planning and Research brought to our attention that Mr. Lewis was
in the process of constructing a home that would fall within the right
of way of the above subject project. Upon investigation we found that
the foundation for the home is already in place.
Our people have contacted Mr. Lewis and hopefully he will hold
up on construction until we can reach a settlement.
4
' The estimate for acgpiring the property in it's completed state
would be approximately $75,000.00. If we can proceed with acquisition
< prior to completion the estimate is approximately $35,000.00.
Z
i g This is to request that funds be approved for proceeding with the
" early acquisition of this property prior to completion of the dwelling.
For your information we are attaching a copy of a letter received
from Mr. Robert H. Broome, Division Right of Way Agent, and a copy
from the plan sheet locating the property.
If additional information is desired please advise.

An Equal Opportunity/Allirma live Action Employer

US-29(M)
v ? It
.2A
**Ao 12
14
?- 252
272
US-29 (ALT)
408
124
t 176 -~"
108 -?
NO-BUILD: 500 WH
BUILD 1170 VPH
11
N OD CO
N <D
TTST - 5%
ca
DUAL - 6% o 04 ca
DHV -10% t-
SOUTHERN LOOP
N -?
278
SR-2670 (SCALES ST.)
362
TTST - 2X
DUAL - 3X
DHV -10X
1992 Hourly Volumes
US-2
O
rn (? M
528
US-29 (ALT)
792
224-
376
192 -??
NO-BUILD: 1000 VPH
BUILD : 2320 VPH

mr - 5X
cr
DUAL - 8x M
oHV -lox ^
SOON!
11
to M
00
CY
rn
RN LOOP
2012 Hourly Volumes
REIDSVILLE - SOUTHERN LOOP DESIGN HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AIR ANALYSIS REPORT
IGURE C1
KRA)
^
20
...? 64
?- 450
534
SR-2670 (SCALES ST.)
706
rrsr - 2x
DUAL - 3X
oHV -10X
e
TABLE Cl
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP RUN: 19 92 BUILD @ 45 MPH
*** SEARCH FOR WORST WIND ANGLE FOR EACH RECEPTOR

***
-
SITE PARAMETERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WIND MIX AVE DIST SETL DEP STAB SURF BKGND
SPD HT TIME UNITS RATE RATE CLAS RUFF (PPM)
1.0 400 60. 1-FT 0.0 0.0 0(E) 108. 1.9

***
-
LINK PARAMETERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LNK T HT. WIDTH VPH EF X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1 1 0.0 44.0 1170 14.1 -1450. 50. 1450. 0.
-
***
RECEPTOR PARAMETERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NUMBER COORDINATES DESCRIPTION
1 -70.0 -150.0 5.8 R1
-
*** - - - - - - -
RESULTS (PPM) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REC. 1-HOUR 8-HOUR WIND LINK COORDINATES
NO. MAX. MAX. ANGLE 1
1 2.2 2.0 73.0 0.3
t
TABLE C2
CALINE3: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1979 VERSION
JOB: REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP RUN: 2012 BUILD @ 45 MPH
*** SEARCH FOR WORST WIND ANGLE FOR EACH RECEPTOR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
** SITE PARAMETERS
WIND MIX AVE DIST SETL DEP STAB SURF BKGND
SPD HT TIME UNITS RATE RATE CLAS RUFF (PPM)
1.0 400 60. 1-FT 0.0 0.0 0(E) 108. 1.9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*** LINK PARAMETERS
LNK T HT. WIDTH VPH EF X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1 1 0.0 44.0 2320 8.8 -1450. 50. 1450. 0.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*** RECEPTOR PARAMETERS
NUMBER COORDINATES DESCRIPTION
1 -70.0 -150.0 5.8 R1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*** RESULTS (PPM)
REC. 1-HOUR 8-HOUR WIND LINK COORDINATES
NO. MAX. MAX. ANGLE 1
1 2.2 2.1 73.0 0.3

i
i,
o •,
`• rr
' rr
" n
II ° ,
Q'l l r r ? r
o r,
• ,,• I
0
0

z

w
2 ?
MF
N a
O
N F
W Q
J
J ? ,

.
_ ,
O H i M
W J /
Q. Q I
1 U.
w 1
1
o
Q
Ir ?. /
r,
Q
r' 1
,i % U.
1i..
•
1
1 ,
?
.
? 1) 1
• p 1
LL.
.
,
I U.
N •
,
1
, 1 r
1 ?
/
? , N 1 ? ?• r
• ;; ,ate, •--
1
r
o,
oC
r
1
s J`'
, r
1 4• `
1 O
c6 z
LLJ
'- 11
11
11
0 0 1,; ?
a
N
to
" E

N
ro w?
E..1
7

CL ,
n
?S

`'
Q
a
? ?
a U

a
c

W
02
o;
: C-i
U
z'
J
yVj Q €
j Y I.+ Lil
n
10
L
,??
r Q

a M >
?

<

0
a
N
0
C7 to
Z
W
W

h ?
rZ Z =
0 V
V
i
?
x
w
O
z
I-
W
W
N
N
W
a
W
z
1 w
1 ,t aJ
0 N O 1 C
p K W Z ? U ?
2 ? O ?' J W O W
O ? X W a ? U H
J I ? a H Z 1W- < W O N
a O O O < U_ Z W f
z a.
. _O 0 Q 0
J d a m < G W J
1
1
U.
.

?I3

'
.? ?
t

v
n.
JQ 4
W Q v
w
LL.
? O? o
OZ m
j O5
CO ?
o0.
" C
W
w O?
t3.
o°
lV V
z=
W m .? s
o
Sao a
r16o
a N
a
oU
c5 y
Z?
W
W Z
W =
Zy
o I
v
X
W
Z
w
w
N
N
pa WW
2 U Z
~ J
z I-
W
.9 'A
m Y
a
W O ? U O
K
1?. ? J O ? < H
W
0 _j o Tu S?
_X Z K a ? U y ?' J
6 Z J
S -C o? D U Z N K
Z = U O $ J O W
J
i 0 w (L g

2 IWYM HUM
a
W
a?
z ? F-
w 0Z
o?
u Eo- c2c
G
0
U
0
R c
_m w
Y
N
s
w ? Il
? ?
? Q C
1+• v

m ? a=

M
0 ?y
°
O ? u ai U .
U

? C,
W

y 6
?• !
o ?{
F
o

L.V h
Z
W
WZ
W
i
od z
.
W
low
y
Z
c '
c°
c?
L

x
w
0
z
LL,
<
< N O W J
J W m Y
W O ?' ~ ?' W 43
3 4 W W ~ V 4
1- S O O t ? ?
¢ LS ?
o °
2 N
< O J O V Z N R
O
i>> i s o m O w i O
a
i
U. LL
0
Z
W
0
W
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

i
0A
?aG

Z
W
U
W
J
a
w Q
w
2 [, I--
W OZ
vQVi O ?
m?
O
X
W
0
Z
H
W
W
2
N
wU
a Oa
s ?, p
N U.
U.?
U
p? e
it C °° N^
? o
o
o
Z?
W
W Z
W :
F
Zo
F
W=
Zy
Z
0 ci
?J
W
Q
W
Is 2
2 C/ z
f O W J
J W m Y -4
W O N r W
N fi.
L ?+ W W? O 1?
U
O ? O Z O
y ? W LL J ? Q f
K G W W J W U K (_! W
O K . K z ~ 1' J
O J Q U_ = W F
zd a z a
0
<O>>.42 o m i a a
U. U. U. U. t7 C +

,\ p 0 ?
u II
\\ II
u
\1\ I,
i
p\\
„ II
\1 c 11 (+^?
P
6.
0
O
J
Z
Ix
W

O N

t F
J Q
J ?

O M
1-
J

0:v I

fdl /
1

w
N
\ • it
3
/
1 . ;
i
1
1
I
4. r
I
II /i
II
o.
4t a
Q
1
I I
I ?1
I ?
1 Imo„
I ? _rl
1
I/

?o

1
U
P
1\
d
I?

OC
I I
OJg.
CI
I; ?' JS ti
'I \I
II
b ? ,\ 1
u
n
u
11 r
\\ a
O0 n J ?
N
J
Q °D
a tL' a
?

W P • J
U. N ?

U

N Q

? r

?

03
W
a 0 N
w 14 rr 11
3 o V
0
Z
w
0
WI
J
C) y
Z

? W
LLI
C., ?
W
?
Z
? g
wy
z
=
0 C7

L
x
W
0
Z
w
w
x
N
N
W
Z ° W
J O w
U 4
O
,
2 :1
a V 2
4 W p? N S' J
Sa i Z = N K
S 2 F- o
O i U. C
LL3 r
a o
i

s 3 Q m W=
u g ? N c [y
C fllflrl N71Yr1 2 S r MYn Ig1Yi1
o h fi V
•?' ~ Z
?r w a
cp'`' ,• u. ` W 2 In E
Q m S. N O=
,. _ 0 m C>
LL. 0
LLI
ON*- ILI
S JO??hp? i ?? ; ? r ? c ? ? a _ `
O ' ' a
r
LITTLE _
. `. ? W
W Z
r ? W
z _
W
,` Z Z z
C
i?
a
0
0
J
Z
m
w
=
x
N w

V' J Z
J Q
-J
V) w
el.- W
?4
N

a o
4
I lD

11
II
11
11
II
II
II
11
„
11
II
n h
n
u
II
11
11
11
11
11
11
I I
I
i
0
z
Iw
V
w
J
W
8 y?
W
Z
.9 =
3 W J
J
I.- O

CO a[
La t
s CC

t 0
r-
N S J
4 W
H
W

S $ =

o
N F
Q
J O
y
7
Q C r
?

1
,

a T
N o
7
V
H Q
z t3 Cl. 'a
LL m M 0C

a L ) z v°
U
N Q m

W
Z R °
I

3 r ?
r
? o
0
Z
w
0
W
J
w to
Z
W
W Z
U C7
Z $'
? to
LU
Z =
o V
w
L
X
W
O
Z
F-
LU
W
N
W

N
<
U W
W
W
J O
co Y t
3
>.
ox
v 4
r 2 7 O
o
Y. W ?
V ?
N u
K z
J
J ~
s
2 0
a
¢
J W w
s O O
a O
d

Q ? 1 I
t
z

a
a m
N
}
W .Z
LL S?
z ? A
O
m
W Q of
U
Cl
z
a ?
J
3 ?
FO b 1.f.
a, O
Z;
W
a1 0
d
'N
0
V
0 N
Z
W
W Z
6x7
Z
z?
to
N
Z =
o v
v
L
W

O
Z O H
Q
r
~ m w
?
3 N
?"
u 4
O
r i 3

N
Q
La
~
x

LL
N o
R 2
J
W V
J f" W O >
? Z Z N ?
z 3 °a a
j W
o
s p O O
A , a d
0
z
w
U
W
J
U. ?:
Q 0

%A
a
a b.,
w?
?
e (
j

w
5' C C
Z r

co N) `.
U.-

J L) s
K Al

Cl m
W

a/
a 0. >
0N
u
3 o
0
Z
w
LLI
J
C9 N
Z
W
wz
LU
N
Z =
Ov
w
i?
X
11J
0
Z
F-
W
W
in
W

< WW
VI U Z
2 Z W -?
4
J
m
W ;
? f 4
0
10 :1

w l-
_ 4
.
M W
`
?I
U. 0': 4
Q 0

1/4
TABLE C3
IIL J

1

I1
?J

PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED,
SPECIAL CONCERN, AND CANDIDATE STATUS WHICH
OCCUR IN THE REIDSVILLE AREA
The list of threatened and endangered plant and animal species is based primarily on the official
lists provided by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Endangered Species Act 15A
NCAC 101) and the Plant Conservation Program (Sutter 1990). The following classifications are used
and their definitions are given:
ENDANGERED (E): The most critically imperiled species, those that may become extinct or
disappear from a significant part of their range if they are not immediately protected.
THREATENED (T): The next most critical level of imperiled species, those that may become
endangered in or disappear from the state if they are not protected.
SPECIAL CONCERN (SC): Species that have been determined to require population
monitoring but may be collected and sold under specific regulations.
CANDIDATE (C): Species that are under review for listing as endangered or threatened
because of few populations, small populations, or occurrence in a rare and threatened habitat.
Species proposed for state listing are denoted as PE, PT or PSC. Proposed species currently
are not protected under the endangered species act (15A NCAC 10I).
Species indicated by an asterisk (*) are classified as endangered or threatened by the federal
government (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). A double asterisk
(**) indicates a state status designation given by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program.

1
1
1
9. /4
Taxonomic unit State Occurrence in area and/or habitat
status requirements
VASCULAR PLANTSa
Goldenseal E Rich, mesic upland woods; usually
Hydrastis canadensis over basic bedrock. Two records
for Rockingham County - one
from west-facing slopes along
Jacob's Creek by SR 2190 and the
other location is along Rock
House Creek just south of NC65.+
False poison sumac E* Sandy or rocky, open woods
Rhus michauxii perhaps associated with basic soils.
Schweinitz's sunflower E Clearings and borders of upland
Helianthus schweinitzii woods. Piedmont and coastal plain
of N.C. and S.C.
Smooth coneflower E Basic or circumneutral soils of
Echinacea laevigata meadows, woodlands, and borders.
Bog asphodel T Sandy, open woodlands and creek
Nestronia umbellula borders; usually parasitic on oak
and pine roots.
Ginseng SC** Basic or circumneutral soils of
Panax quinquefolium meadows, woodlands, and borders.
Two records for Rockingham
County - one from west-facing
slopes along Rock House Creek
and the other location on Mayo
River.+
Buttercup Phacelia C Alluvial soils of damp, shaded
Phacelia ranunculacea woods.
Lewis' heartleaf C Deciduous, dry, acid woods; pine
Hexastylis lewisii forests or low swampy woods.
Creeping frostweed C Dry, sandy soil in open woods.
Helianthemum propinguum
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1/d
Taxonomic unit State Occurrence in area and/or habitat
status requirements
VERTEBRATE ANIMALS
Fishb
Bigeye jumprock PSC Three records for Rockingham
Moxostoma ariommum County - Mayo River, Dan River
Riverweed darter
Estheostoma podostemone
Amphibians
Four-toed salamander
Hemidactylium scatatum
Birds'
Little blue heron
Florida caerulea
Snowy egret
Egretta thula
Tricolored heron
Hydranassa tricolor
Black vulture
Coragyps atratus
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperi
Southeastern bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Arctic peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Golden-crowned kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
and Fishing Creek.'
PSC Two records for Rockingham
County - Mayo River, Dan River,
and Fishing Creek.+
PSC Has been found in surrounding
counties.+
PSC Fairly common late summer visitor.
PSC Uncommon spring and late
summer visitor.
PSC Uncommon late summer visitor.
PSC Uncommon permanent resident.
PSC Uncommon winter resident; rare
summer resident.
E* Rare fall and spring transient.
T* Rare spring and fall transient.
PSC Common winter resident.
PSC Fairly common permanent
resident.
it
4/4
a Occurrence and habitat requirements for vascular plants follow Hardin (1977).
' b Occurrence for fish follows Menhinick (1975).
c Information from Parnell (1977) and Potter et al. (1980) as well as records (published and
unpublished) accumulated in recent years.
+ North Carolina Natural Heritage Program record (database).
C

L
1
11
L'
u
1

1
?
L

1

1
r

I

1

Traffic data for Noise Analysis
APPENDIX D
Noise Monitoring field sheets
Noise Contours

TABLE DI
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS - VALIDATION OF MODEL (1990)

F

FIELD COUNT ADJUSTED VOLUMES
ROADWAY AUTO5 M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS AUTOS M. TRUCKS H. TRUCKS
HOLLIDAY 11 2 0 66 12 1
N G 87 (EB) 23 1 0 138 6 1
(WB) 29 1 1 174 6 6
CARROT RD 2 0 0 12 1 0*
COOK FLORIST (NB) 3 0 0 18 1 0*
(SB) 6 0 0 36 1 0*
CAMEL RD 1 0 0 L 0* 0*
US 29 ACT. (EB) 61 5 1 366 30 6
(We) 37 5 1 222 30 6
*Road serves residential area only. Heavy trucks not present.
Source: RS&H,1990

7

11

7

L

0

n

TABLE D2
EST. 199212012 ADT IN HUNDREDS
REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP - FROM SR-2670 TO NG-87
1992 2012 0/0 0/0 % %
ROUTE EST. ADT TTST DUAL DHV DIR
IN HUNDREDS
HOLLIDAY RD
SR-2594 23 46 2 4 10 60
NG-87 76 156 2 4 10 60
IUS-29 BYPASS 170 316 13 4 10 60
I SCALES STREET
SR-2670 64 124 2 3 10 60
US-29 BUSINESS
SOUTH OF LOOP 68 132 2 4 10 60
GOOK FLORIST RD.
SR-2598 10 17 1 2 10 60
REIDSVILLE
SOUTHERN LOOP * 117 232 5 6 10 60
* 50 MPH DESIGN SPEED
45 MPH RUNNING, SPEED
Source: NGDOT,1990

r
FIGURE D1
ROCKINGHAM CO
JUNE 1990 U-2418
EST. 1994/9011 ADZ Iii HUNDREDS
US-29 BUS. CONN. FROM SCALES RD. TO US-29 BYP.
NC-87
9.1
186
al
56
1$
32
TTST - 5%
DUAL - 6% 232 22.
DHV - 10% 43

!$
aa /15
58 /

US-29 /
316
6a
132
58 \ 2.2_
\43
15
168
3$
83
76
$
156 18
TTST - 2%
DUAL - 4%
DHV - 10%
SR-2594
US-29 BUS.
5
la
75
L-0.
18
i
\ 1$
\ 32
TO REIDSVILLE
SR-2670
0.4.
24 TTST - 2%
DUAL - 3%
DHV - 10%
TTST - 13%
DUAL - 4% US-29
DHV - 10%
10 / 32 264
18/
/ 8
14
a TO REIDSVILLE
60 NC-87
2 67
3 118
23, TTST - 2%
46 DUAL - 4%
DHV - 10%
NOISE MONITORING FIGURE D2
' PROJECT REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP DATE 6/14/90
r SITE 1: SR 87 & ROLL I DAY •
s
FIELD OBSERVERS SUNNY. NO BREEZE.
r
SITE CHARACTERISTICS SITE 420'± FROM UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
i
1
DISTANCE (F ROM CENTER OF NEAR LANE) 45' FROM NC 87
i ROAD WIDTH (LANES & MEDIAN) NC 87 = 2 10' lanes; undivided; Holliday = 2 8' lanes und.
1 INTERVAL BEGIN 11:15
INTERVAL END 11:25
i
VOLUME A
1
HOLLIDAY 11 2
NC 87 EB 23 1
-- 4J6 I 29
I 1
isPEED HOLLIDAY = 35 MPH; NC 87 = 45 MPH
MT
IIT I TOTAL
0 1 13
0 1 24
1 1 32
LEQ. = 53.5

. NOISE MONITORING FIGURE D3
PROJECT REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP DATE 6/14/90
SITE 2: BURTON MEMORIAL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
(FRONT LAWN)
FIELD OBSERVERS SUNNY; SLIGHTLY BREEZY; LOTS OF TREES & BIRDS
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
CAMEL ROAD IS GRAVEL
I
L
DISTANCE (FROM CENTER OF NEAR LANE) 55' - CAMEL
ROAD WIDTH (LANES & MEDIAN) 15' UNDIVIDED; GRAVEL
t INTERVAL BEGIN 10:25
INTERVAL END 10:35
1
VOLUME A MT IIT
TOTAL
CARROT 2 0 2
' COOK F. NB 1 - -
1
SB 6
6
CAMEL 1 -
. - 1
,SPEED 30 MPH CARROT & CAMEL/35 MPH COOK FLORIST ROAD.

LEQ. 35.2
NOISE MONITORING FIGURE D4
A PROJECT RFTnCl!n i F SrniTHFRN , one DATE
' SITE 3: COOK FLORIST ROAD. (6TH HOUSE)
FIELD OBSERVERS SAME AS #2; SOME KIDS IN BACKGROUND
SITE CHARACTERISTICS _ 2-LAN R Rai Roan

DISTANCE (FROM CENTER OF NEAR LANE) 30'
ROAD WIDTH (LANES & MEDIAN) 2 - 9iANFS UNDIVIDED
'INTERVAL BEGIN 10:55
INTERVAL END 11:05
VOLUME A MT 11T TOTAL
NB 1 3
SB 1 2
- _1 3
1 2
`SPEED 35 MPH
LEQ. 38.3

t NOISE MONITORING FIGURE DS
' PROJECT REIDSVILLE SOUTHERN LOOP DATE 6/14/90
SITE 5: US 29 (BUS) RESIDENCE (FRONT LAWN)
FIELD OBSERVERS SUNNY; BREEZY
SITE CHARACTERISTICS TRFFS To NORTH WEST & EAST

DISTANCE (FROM CENTER OF NEAR LANE) 90'
' ROAD WIDTH (LANES & MEDIAN) 2 - 11' LANES UNDIVIDED
1 INTERVAL BEGIN 12 :20
INTERVAL END 12 :30
I VOLUME

• LEQ. 48.9

,SPEED _3n MPH
1
1
1
1
1
N
A
o?
a?
m m m
V r N
kO l0
(O -
V
n:
o0
b a
M
b
O?
M
N
Z
r?
N
X ox
wv

0.
F
a
MI
pap m<
p 9 C
O
N/ W
A C
Lo -
m
N
N
b= ? <
N
CL;
a?
a
V H
? ?
ao
? W
? N c
o

c n
?
3W ? F
?

z
W ?, 0 W
V) O

W $
6 `
O 1?
ZC i g
Y z

z
C,

J
O
N w
K
W G!

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b
n
b O
a
b
m o 0
v
W W
LO
.( tt
N 1- N
ti 10 ?O
N n
a
a
b
N
N
O
n
N 5
x w
W o

i
a
Q
.0 00
N m
Lo -,
A ? N
1G
b
v
a
a
? m

V N
7
Y
/1\
V/
Z o

'"' ?+?
O
r
s f
S
S
7
O
a LLJ
_co O

m 4
d 00
O

o° ? Z 0
7 109 1111 V
J
0
N
X K
W U'
N
W ES
A
,I?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1Y •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
ID E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
October 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Frank Vick
NC DOT
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galambf
Subject: Reidsville Southern Loop
Rockingham County
DOT TIP #U-2418
DOT, DEM and other resource agencies preformed a pre-application meeting for the
subject project on October 7, 1994. The FONSI was written in mid-1991. The FONSI
only studied two alternatives. The only wetland in the project vicinity is impacted by
both alternatives. The wetland is providing significant uses including water storage,
pollutant removal and bank stabilization. DOT should make every effort to avoid this
significant wetland.
DEM requests that DOT study the feasibility of upgrading SR 2600 since it parallels
and is in close proximity (1.5 miles) to the proposed route. This road would appears
to have minimal residential relocatees and not have wetland impacts. Should this
alternative not serve the purpose and need, DEM requests that DOT relocated the
road where the railroad crosses Little Troublesome Creek. There is a bluff adjacent to
this location that would help DOT cross over the railroad and also bridge the wetland.
This location would also be the narrowest crossing between the railroad tracks and US
29 Business saving on bridging costs.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied 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 at 733-1786.
reidslop.com
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
CSC
r;
FILLS LAYF T F L : 9V9 -5 ]S-g, 39 'Oct . 12'94 15:37 No .004 ^P . 0<

lKli North Carolina W ldlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

ml"MORANLUM
Tc?. H. Franklin YiC<, P.E., Manager
and 'Environmental Sra':ch, ti"'DOT
P-.;:n:ill j ?
FRnM . Davl',d Cox, Highway Proj ec4 coo* r_
Habitat Conservation Program
DAME: Oc:ohner 12, 1994
S RJL"-T! Reidsville Southern Loop, from. US 29 3usiness to
NC 87, Rockingham County, North Caralina; State
Project No. 9:8071834; TIP No. ',1-2418
On October 7, 1954, biologists on the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commissicxz (PICWRG) staff visited the site of the
proposed project. The purpose of this visit was to assess
project imparts to fish and wildlife resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the N. C. ronmenval Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; 1 NCAC 25)
The proposed project involves constructing a portion of
the Reidsville Outer Loop on new location from US 29
Eusiness to NC i?7. The typical section, as proposed,, is a
combination c;-F fivv-lane curb and gutter and five-lane
shoulder construction. Project length is approximately 2.8
miles. No control of access is proposed. '
The site visit revealed that the project as proposed
will impact a significant amount of wetlands along Little
Troublesome Creek. Alternatives which avoided these
wetlands were not discussed in the Environmental Assessment
(EA). The two alignments which were discussed shared a
.common segment at the crossing of Little Troublesome Creek'
and had similar wetland impacts.. The project will also Py
bisect a large contiguous tract of forestland -.hat provides }
valuable Wildlife habitat for many game and nongame species.

NCWRC,HCP,FALLS
Memo
LAKE TEL : [phone] Oct "12'1)4 15 : 38 No, ,0 Q 4 P . G3
Page 2 October 12, 199
In our preliminary review of this project we
recommended the upgrade of SP. 2600 as an alternative to the
proposed construction. Improving SR 260.0 would provide
motorists a similar route and would reduce wildlife habitat
fragmentation, lessen impacts from secondary development and
eliminate new stream or wetland crossings. NCDO^: rejected
this because it would, not open the area up to development
and it was considered unlikely that residents of Reidsville
would travel an additional 1.5 miles to uGe this route.
we maintain that an upgrade of SR 2500 is still a26C'0
viak)le alter ;ative and should be reconajdered.. X-
pr"Wes to ;?e 'Unacceptable, an alignment shift which avoids
impacts to Little T;°ouka?esome Creek and the «sszciated
,. 7,is could be acco plished,by
wetlands shculd rye stt,died,
?.+ M,ovina the alit nment so'.?th to an area where f loodplain
'iY^'-,Lbiesome Creek is narrr,wer. At this
along~lttle
1ccat.ion a sa-ngle L-r_dge could span both. the .ye; lands and
the rai-I rcad zra:7ks thus eliminating the need for dual,
struct :.res .
Be a wised t)-.at NCWRC will likely' oppcae the issuance
of ajpplicable 401 or 404 perm.it's i3 meaS,,?rrs are not taken
to clearly aVC" cr r,inimize wetland impacts.
Thank you ter the opportunity to comment on this
project. If we can be of any further assistance phase call
me at (9i.'' 528.9886.
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biolagst
J,arry War! -k, Distr- ct 5 Wildlife Biology st
Randy Wils-nn, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
c d°+ v
S?
STATE OF NOPM4 CAAOHNA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOKTATION
jAMES B. HUNT. jIt DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVErevoR Fa BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27E11-5701 SECRETARY
PLANNING & ENVIRONWNTA7j BRA14CH
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: Number You Are Calling.- _ :2 3 3
Please deliver the following pages to:
Name ;
Department and/or Firm:
Address or zoom Number:
This teleoopy is being sent by;
name :. --,-
Phone Number :
Remarks:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, LA ,1.D (919) 733-314-L A.f:7
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Number of Pages (Including Cover Sheet)
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH FAX NUMBER - [phone]
TOa ZLO# :OhJ X31 QI 1.5:2T I6J b6,-9T-33
R- _ -
'4auw+Yr'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkkNSFOR-TATION
JAmEs B' ' HUNT. JPL DIVISION OF HIGHWMS It. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.o, BOX 25201, RALEIGH., N.(. 27E 11-5201 SECRETARY
ii i-l -- em, z

' ?1 'i]' ? - - ? ? ? .? _.'r ... ?:?7 1_ - .. _ ? '7'. .•? J fir... ?: ?i «?r w? ?.'%_ I
.r .i,
a z. -a
-? _ ^ - a-? a Hsu .. .5 .r' y
%
IA)
37, a !"A
f
J.• / r 1, fs' '
COI: Ill JEi*f
D a v i Cl D 1?, yy w r?, 4' '`j '14) ? r
m
c2d zLug : ON -131 : Q I SS : 2T I dd 1'63 -9T-j3Q
_ ? lilt 1•fJL ? '
ML
??? } 1x11 X4 ?1h }• ]u?
> r. i
,4 4 r
:tt siu ,
'" flYf
+ M \•? Lvl !$4 R MIN JLU ` o lul a r
J•t10.' ?` ? try d? i
3= ytJ„1
Wry ors ?f f r
U& 'yJ { r I MGM- ? 1Lfi ? ? 1 ISIG r ! ii4l. 4
1L1i S'?t ll?y1 ( h F } f 1 i i 5ea75' (+{
20
I? sidw. ]Shc '77 1.?
'? ,?? U ? y 1? Iv rf )597 , fw ? 3 ?
r
Lim
/`? -?r tin y lTTt issi
IMAL
?9 ,p ? r`? ' SIIZ ? ?4
REI $YILLE l ; ( l1:9ts, ' ??'
Croy! S ; nor. 0,02
?.?
7d ?? \ •? r? jI :76„I?
29
AL in \} 1 Mt,I a
?? 3911 1 2?tf ? ' 2141 N'o
w)
ZVE LW
;XF " 29? .+ r7
"-
"AU
Aim IC,2
/ ap / v1 J9id N at r W i 2Y 2i au i
4 ? ? w I
MOWVM-
y / ! 4. M
- it - -
sa11
y , JAI
AIA
17
tyF tie tst? f31s b 3 1iiR 30"V ?
u71iz :ait r?- = r ti aa31 1LLi a W . e j
ALAMANC£
4V CCUN
t
C O U N T Y
a;
f
17
?. ?? .ter ?,?..?..? -,+?-•.-"°I
,;? )rte X94! /'
f/ 1 24
u?a- zax
'^l
1
QN -Idl "_ 391 : CI I SS : R T id-4 1766-13T-:)3a
;R -
e
R
Wil
tbod ELO# :Ofd 731