20210553 Ver 1_U-5896 CE_20211011

U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 1 of 16
Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.U-5896
WBS Element 44674.1.2
Federal Project No.N/A
A. Project Description:
The proposed project involves the reconstruction of the U.S. 29-70/ I-85 Business and
S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) interchange in High Point, Guilford County (Appendix A,
Figure 1).
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
The primary purposes of the proposed project include the following:
· Improve mobility in the U.S. 29-70/ I-85 and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street)
interchange by limiting driveway access along and in proximity to the interchange
· Alleviate existing congestion at several of the existing unsignalized ramp terminals
· Upgrade interchange design to meet current design standards
The primary needs of the proposed project include the following:
· Numerous driveways along and in proximity to the existing interchange ramps reduce
mobility in the interchange, indicating a need to reduce the number of conflict points
· Traffic congestion at several of the existing unsignalized ramp terminals indicates a
need for improving operations at the ramp terminals
· The ramps do not meet current AASHTO and NCDOT standards for the length of
acceleration and deceleration lanes, nor safety standards for control of access at
interchanges.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III
D. Proposed Improvements:
Two alternatives to reconstruct the U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main
Street) interchange were studied:
· Alternative 1 would construct a diamond interchange at the existing U.S. 29-70/
I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) interchange
· Alternative 2 would construct a partial cloverleaf interchange at the existing
U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) interchange
STIP Project B-5353 involves replacement of Bridge No. 147 carrying U.S. 29-70 and I-85
Business over S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) in High Point. The bridge will be replaced on
the existing alignment with an onsite detour to the south. A Type I B Categorical Exclusion
for STIP Project B-5353 was approved by NCDOT and FHWA in August 2017.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 2 of 16
E. Special Project Information:
Alternatives Discussion:
The No-Build Alternative was considered but was eliminated because it offers no
improvements to the traffic operations at the interchange. This alternative will not improve
traffic flow nor reduce traffic congestion at the U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009
(South Main Street) interchange. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Two build alternatives to reconstruct the U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South
Main Street) interchange were studied. Alternative 1 proposed to construct a diamond
interchange at the existing U.S. 29-70/ I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street)
interchange, while Alternative 2 proposed to construct a partial cloverleaf interchange at
this location. The proposed typical section for Alternative 1 along U.S. 29-70 and I-85
Business through the interchange includes two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction and
a 10-foot median (Appendix A,Figure 2A). The proposed typical section for Alternative
2 along U.S. 29-70 and I-85 Business through the interchange includes three 12-foot
travel lanes in each direction and a 10-foot median (Appendix A,Figure 2B). Under both
alternatives, the proposed four-lane divided curb and gutter typical section along
S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) includes two travel lanes in each direction, a 4-foot bicycle
lane along the outside travel lanes, and a 23-foot raised median (Appendix A,
Figure 2C). The proposed typical section along S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) would
accommodate a sidewalk along the outside travel lane. However, the pedestrian
accommodations are subject to change pending coordination with the City of High Point.
Both alternatives would require restricting Greenview Terrace to right-in, right-out access
and realigning Model Farm Road to the south. Alternatives 1 and 2 both provide adequate
traffic capacity and operations along S.R. 1009 (South Main Street).
Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative after considering the public
comments received at and following the public meeting. Under Alternative 1, SW
Cloverleaf Place is anticipated to remain open as a service road to the Salvation Army
Boys & Girls Club and the William Booth Apartments (Appendix A,Figure 3). Alternative
1 is also the preferred alternative from a hydraulic design perspective as it would have
the least impact at the Richland Creek crossing. The diamond interchange would impact
the Richland Creek Tributary crossing, located immediately west of the existing ramp
terminals, which is undersized and is recommended to be resized.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 3 of 16
Estimated Cost:
Alternative 1 (Preferred)
Construction Cost $ 6,700,000
Right-of-Way Cost $ 13,813,700
Utility Cost $ 1,755,400
Total Project Cost $22,269,100
Note: Based on 2018 prices
Estimated Traffic:
Location 2018
(vpd)
2040
(vpd)
Dual, TTST
(%)
U.S. 29-70 / I-85 Business
North of South Main Street 37,600 42,700 5,4
South of South Main Street 33,800 38,000 5,4
S.R. 1009 (South Main Street)
Kendall Avenue to Greenview Terrace 28,900 31,600 4,2
Greenview Terrace to U.S. 29-70/I-85 Bus.29,000 31,700 4,2
U.S. 29-70/I-85 Bus. To Model Farm Road 26,600 28,400 3,2
Model Farm Road to Moore Avenue 26,400 28,200 3,2
Note: vpd - denotes vehicles per day
Source: Traffic Forecast, HNTB (March 2018)
Accidents:NCDOT Traffic Engineering evaluated a recent five-year period (2013-2018) and
found a total of 337 accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. No fatal crashes occurred
in the project area. Crashes are often the visible result of deficiencies in the capacity and
safety characteristics of a transportation facility. Furthermore, they contribute to delays,
congestion, and driver frustration, including more crashes.
The most common crash patterns within the project study area included rear-end slow or
stopped collisions and lane departure collisions. Rear-end collisions accounted for 24% (36)
of the total crashes along S.R. 1009 (South Main Street); 17% (16) along I-85 Business/ U.S.
29-70; and 42% (37) along the interchange ramps. This pattern is typical of congested
conditions on roadways with little or no control of access and is common in stop-and-go
conditions. Lane departure collisions accounted for 56% of the total crashes along I-85
Business/ U.S. 29-70 and 32% along the southwest interchange ramp. This pattern is typical
of tight merges and diverges, particularly on interchange ramps. Reported crashes in the
project study area are listed below.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 4 of 16
Accident Type
S.R. 1009
(S Main Street)
I-85 Business /
U.S. 29-70 Interchange Ramps
Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total
Turning Movements 58 38%1 1%11 12%
Rear-End 36 24%16 17%37 42%
Run Off Road &
Fixed Object 14 9%51 54%27 30%
Angle 16 10%0 0%1 1%
Sideswipe 22 14%16 17%10 11%
Other 7 5%11 11%3 4%
Total 153 100%95 100%89 100%
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering, April 2018
A substantial number of the total accidents occurred near the ramp terminals with S.R. 1009
(South Main Street) and I-85 Business/ U.S. 29-70. These locations are listed below. The
most accidents (63) occurred at the northwest and southwest ramp terminals with I-85
Business and U.S. 29-70.
Location Number of Accidents
NW & SW Ramps & I-85 Business 63
NW Ramp & S.R. 1009 44
SE Ramp & S.R. 1009 30
NE Ramp & S.R. 1009 22
Nathan Hunt Drive & S.R. 1009 18
Springfield Road & S.R. 1009 17
NE & SE Ramps & I-85 Business 16
Moore Avenue & S.R. 1009 10
SW Ramp & S.R. 1009 8
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering, April 2018
Cultural Resources:
Historic Architecture- A review of the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) data and
relevant background reports was undertaken by NCDOT on March 28, 2018. Based on
this review, several properties greater than 50 years of age were identified in the Area of
Potential Effects (APE), including the First Pentecostal Holiness Church of High Point and
Fellowship Hall. A copy of the correspondence is included in Appendix B. In June 2018,
Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an evaluation to determine the
National Register eligibility of the property. The report recommended that the First
Pentecostal Holiness Church of High Point and Fellowship Hall is not eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In a letter dated January 28, 2019, HPO
concurred with the recommendation. A copy of this correspondence is included in
Appendix B.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 5 of 16
Archaeology- A map review and site file search were conducted by NCDOT at the Office
of State Archaeology on March 9, 2018. A comprehensive archaeological survey has
never been conducted around this interchange location and no archaeological sites have
been recorded within one mile of the proposed project. Based on the poor soil conditions
and developed nature within the Study Area and the results of previously reviewed/
surveyed projects in the vicinity, there is a low probability for significant prehistoric and/or
historic archaeological materials to be present. Therefore, it is believed that the current
Study Area is unlikely to contain intact and significant archaeological resources. No
archaeological survey is required for this project. A copy of this correspondence is
included in Appendix B.
Environmental Considerations:Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape
Fear River basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Unit 03030003). Streamside
riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules; therefore, regulatory riparian buffer rules will apply
to this project. The North Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies
Richland Creek within the study area as an impaired water due to Fish Community (Fair).
Richland Creek and its tributaries carry a best usage classification of ‘WS-IV’ (Drinking,
Culinary, Food Processing) by the N.C. Division of Water Resources. All potential
jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water streams for
the purposes of stream mitigation.
Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the most current
information available from the N.C. Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), Richland Creek
and Richland Creek Tributary 14 (SA) are in a designated flood hazard zone. This project
involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams.
Relocations:Potential business relocations for Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented below
and included in Appendix C. These estimates are based upon preliminary engineering
designs and are subject to change as the project progresses through the design phases.
Residential
Relocations
Business
Relocations
Non-Profit
Relocations
Alternative 1 0 15 1
Alternative 2 2 13 1
Hazardous Materials: A field investigation to identify geoenvironmental sites of concern
(underground storage tank sites [USTs], dry cleaning facilities, hazardous waste sites,
regulated landfills, unregulated dumpsites) within the project study area was conducted by
NCDOT on April 27, 2018. Sixteen sites of concern were identified within the project study
area. The sites are listed below and shown in Appendix A,Figure 4.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 6 of 16
Facility ID Property Name Property Address Anticipated
Risk
-----Custom Drum Services Inc.2000 2010 2020 Jarrell
Street Low
10624 Sunshine Tree and Fence Inc.145 Kenilworth Drive Low
-----Henry James BBQ 2201 S. Main Street Low
17524 Highland Automotive 2122 S. Main Street Low
-----Southside Mission 2113 S. Main Street Low
10470 Furniture City Gulf/Best Auto Used
Tires/MGM Auto Sales, Inc.2107-2111 S. Main Street Low
-----Former Flea Market 2100 2106 S. Main Street Low
-----O’Reilly Auto Parts 2020 S. Main Street Low
21680 Sun Mart Co.2010 S. Main Street Low
-----Christos Global Cathedral/
Happy Rentz 125 NW Cloverleaf Place Low
35680 Fast Fuels #6741 1921 South Main Street Low
-----Woods Produce II 1908 S. Main Street Low
-----High Point Nissan 1810 S. Main Street Low
38966 Sheetz 1813 S. Main Street Low
10757 Blair Park Mtnce 1901 Nathan Hunt Drive Low
6763 NC DMV 1300 Blue Ridge Road Low
Source: NCDOT GeoEnvironmental Planning Report (May 2018)
Design Information:A 60 mile per hour (mph) design speed is proposed for US 29-70/I-85
Business. A 40-mph design speed is proposed for S.R. 1009 (South Main Street). There are
no design exceptions anticipated for this project.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Greenway Accommodations:
Pedestrian
Sidewalks do not exist on the existing bridge; however, there are existing sidewalks on the
northeast side of S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) under the bridge. The City of High Point
requested that the bridge span be wide enough to accommodate sidewalks along both sides
of South Main Street in the future. The City of High Point Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
(2017) indicates this segment of Main Street is a “highest priority” corridor for sidewalk on
both sides of South Main Street.
Bicycle
This section of U.S. 29-70 and I-85 Business is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is
it shown as needing bicycle improvements in the High Point Metropolitan Planning
Organization (HPMPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). The City of High Point
requested that the bridge span be wide enough to accommodate potential bike lanes on
South Main Street in the future. Although current plans do not show South Main Street as a
bicycle facility, the City of High Point anticipates it will be included in the bicycle master plan,
currently in development.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 7 of 16
Greenway
The High Point Bikeway, Greenway, and Trails Master Plan proposes a multi-use greenway
path within the project study area, west of the existing interchange, along Richland Creek.
The Piedmont Triad Regional Council developed a Southwest High Point Greenway
Feasibility Study, which also identifies a proposed greenway along Richland Creek.
Agency Coordination: NCDOT held a project scoping meeting on March 28, 2018 with
resource agencies to begin the planning process for this project. NCDOT has coordinated
with appropriate local, state, and federal agencies throughout this project study. Appropriate
coordination will continue throughout the design and construction phases of the project.
Comments from the agencies invited to the scoping meeting, listed below, were recorded as
part of the scoping meeting and are included in the scoping meeting summary (Appendix D).
Specific project-related comments or concerns were addressed within this environmental
document.
· U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
· U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
· Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
· N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
· N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
· N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
· High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO)
Public Involvement:A landowner notification letter was sent to all property owners located
within the project study area. No comments were received.
A public meeting was held on July 31, 2018 at the High Point Theatre in High-Point, North
Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the public the opportunity to review
project maps, ask questions, provide comments, informally discuss the project with the
project team, and involve the public in the project planning process. Participants at this
meeting could view maps that depicted the proposed project, including the proposed use of
land from the Blair Park Golf Course. A postcard announcing the public meeting was mailed
to approximately 2,500 residents and business owners within the project study area prior to
the public meeting.
Prior to the public meeting, a meeting was held with local officials on the same day and at
the same location as the public meeting. The meeting was held to provide information about
the proposed project to the local officials and obtain input from them regarding the proposed
project.
Approximately 27 people attended the public meeting, including local officials. A total of
seven comments were received at the public meeting or during the comment period following
the meeting. Most of the comments expressed by citizens included a preference for
Alternative 1 to provide the best traffic flow on Model Farm Road and Baltimore Street and
to avoid impacts to the Blair Park Golf Course. Another property owner is concerned about
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 8 of 16
access to their property off Model Farm Road, as well as the acquisition of a portion of their
property included in the proposed roadway right of way.
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type III Actions Yes No
If the proposed improvement is identified as a Type III Class of Action answer all questions.
· The Categorical Exclusion will require FHWA approval.
· If any questions are marked “yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
1 Does the project involve potential effects on species listed with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)?☐☒
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)?☐☒
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement?☐☒
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
low-income and/or minority populations?☐☒
5 Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements
or right of way acquisition?☒☐
6 Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)?☒☐
7 Is a project-level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required
based on the NCDOT community studies screening tool?☐☒
8 Is a project level air quality Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis
required?☐☒
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?☐☒
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas,
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
☒☐
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout streams?☐☒
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit?☒☐
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?☐☒
14
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) effects determination other than a no effect, including archaeological
remains? Are there project commitments identified?☐☒
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills?☒☐
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
☒☐
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 9 of 16
Type III Actions Yes No
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?☐☒
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?☐☒
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?☐☒
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?☐☒
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. USFS, USFWS, etc.) or Tribal
Lands?☐☒
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control?☒☐
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?☐☒
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?☐☒
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
applicable)?☐☒
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were
acquired in fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions
or covenants on the property?
☐☒
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?☐☒
28 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?☐☒
29 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?☐☒
30 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
effected the project decision?☐☒
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 10 of 16
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Response to Question 5:Based on the preliminary engineering designs, the proposed
interchange reconstruction would involve 15 business and one non-profit displacements.
Potential commercial relocation impacts are included in Appendix C. These estimates are
based on preliminary engineering designs and are subject to change as the project
progresses through the final design phase.
Response to Question 6:
Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact Background:In 2005, Congress amended Section 4(f)
in its passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), specifically in Section 6009(a). An important change
was the introduction of the de minimis procedures for processing minor impacts to Section
4(f) resources. Subsequent to the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA amended the
Section 4(f) regulations and issued guidance for determining de minimis findings.
Based on these regulations and guidance documents, the use of land from a publicly-
owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge may be determined to be de
minimis if:
1. The transportation use of the park, together with any impact avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures do not adversely affect the
activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under
Section 4(f).
2. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA’s intent to
make the de minimis impact finding, based on their written concurrence that the
project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify
the property for protection under Section 4(f).
3. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects
of the project on the proposed activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f)
resource.
According to the provisions set forth in Section 6009(a) of SAFETEA-LU, once the U.S.
Department of Transportation determines that a transportation use of property from a
Section 4(f) resource constitutes a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives
is not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete.
Area of Concern - Blair Park Golf Course: Blair Park Golf Course, the oldest of High
Point’s two municipally owned courses, was a gift to the City from descendants of
Solomon Blair. Today’s modern 18-hole facility was originally constructed as a nine-hole
course in 1931, with a second nine added in the mid-1940s. The proposed project will lie
to the southeast of the golf course, which is located at 1901 S. Main Street in High Point
adjacent to Greenview Terrace.
Impacts to Blair Park Golf Course: The preferred alternative will require the use of
approximately 0.16 acre of land from the extreme southern corner of the golf course
(Appendix A,Figure 3). The land impacted is undeveloped and wooded, including
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 11 of 16
approximately 0.11 acre which is within a Duke Energy Easement containing large
transmission towers. Access to the golf course will be maintained at its current location.
The proposed project would not impact the recreation activities of the golf course,
including the greens or driving areas.
After coordination with officials from the City of High Point Parks and Recreation
Department and the NCDOT and review of the project’s impacts, the FHWA finds that the
Proposed Reconstruction of the U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main
Street) Interchange will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that
qualify the golf course for protection under Section 4(f). This de minimis finding includes
the Section 4(f) requirement that all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource
have been achieved.
The City of High Point was informed of FHWA’s determination that no adverse effects to
the golf course will result from the project and of the agency’s expectation that the impact
will constitute a de minimis use of land from a Section 4(f) resource. The City concurs
that the Proposed Interchange Reconstruction will have no adverse effect on the Blair
Park Golf Course (see letter dated September 24, 2018 in Appendix D).
Response to Question 8:The purpose of this project is to improve mobility in the
U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) interchange, alleviate existing
congestion at several of the existing unsignalized ramp terminals, and upgrade the
interchange design to meet current design standards by reconstructing the interchange and
limiting driveway access along and in proximity to the interchange. This project has been
determined to generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and
has not been linked with any special mobile source air toxic (MSAT) concerns. As such, this
project will not result in changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any
other factor that would cause a meaningful increase in MSAT impacts of the project from
that of the no-build alternative.
Response to Question 10: The North Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters
identifies Richland Creek within the study area as an impaired water due to Fish Community
(Fair). Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules administered by N.C. Division of
Water Resources.
Response to Question 12:Five potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the
study area (Appendix A,Figure 5). Wetland classification, quality rating data, and
estimated impacts are presented below. All wetlands in the study area are within the Cape
Fear River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030003). Additional information regarding the
wetlands can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 12 of 16
Map ID NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCWAM
Rating
Impact*
(acres)
WA Floodplain Pool Riparian High 0.00
WB Bottomland Hardwood
Forest Riparian Low 0.00
WC Floodplain Pool Riparian High 0.04
WD Headwater Forest Riparian Medium 0.00
WE Bottomland Hardwood
Forest Riparian Low 0.03
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT:0.07
Note: * Impacts based on anticipated construction limits plus an additional 25-feet
Ten potential jurisdictional streams were identified within the study area (Appendix A,
Figure 5). Stream classification, buffer applicability, and estimated impacts are presented
below. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Map ID Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Req’d
River Basin
Buffer
Impact*
(linear feet)
Richland
Creek Perennial Yes Subject NW Ramp: 304
SR 1009 Crossing: 128
SA (UT 14)Perennial Yes Subject 54
SB-I Intermittent Undetermined Subject 0
SB-P Perennial Yes Subject 0
SC Perennial Yes Subject 5
SD Perennial Yes Subject 0
SE-I Intermittent Undetermined Subject 0
SE-P Perennial Yes Subject 0
SF Intermittent Undetermined Subject 33
SG Intermittent Undetermined Subject 0
Note: * Impacts based on anticipated construction limits plus an additional 25-feet
In the vicinity of the northwest ramp terminal, 304 linear feet of parallel impacts to Richland
Creek are anticipated. During final design, if the construction limits along U.S. 29-70/I-85
Business south of the interchange encroach upon Richland Creek, construction of a
retaining wall along U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business in that area would be studied.
With mitigation of the parallel impacts to Richland Creek near the northwest ramp terminal,
the proposed project is estimated to impact 0.07 acres of wetlands and 220 linear feet of
streams. Under the current Section 404 permitting requirements, it is anticipated the project
would not require an Individual Permit (IP). In general, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
issues an IP for projects that result in more than 0.5 acres of fill to Waters of the U.S. or
more than 300 linear feet of stream impacts or if the project is considered by the agency to
be a major action. Exact impacts, including required extent of fill placement, will be
determined during final design. The amount of impacts to water resources and wetlands
within the study area, described above, likely represents the maximum extent of potential fill
in Waters of the United States. The selection of Alternative 1 avoided several hundred feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 13 of 16
of impacts to Richland Creek incurred under Alternative 2 and minimized 4(f) impacts to the
Blair Park Golf Course. The current design will be refined and NCDOT may further minimize
the impacts as final design is completed.
As indicated in the Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Report, the elevation of S.R. 1009 (South
Main Street) cannot be raised above the existing elevation near the Richland Creek crossing
at S.R. 1009 (South Main Street). This includes not just the centerline elevation, but the
shoulder point, top of curb, or any proposed raised island elevations along S.R. 1009 (South
Main Street) that must be at or below the maximum existing elevation along the roadway.
South Main Street currently overtops during flood events and any roadway elevation
increases will worsen the flooding issues upstream. As stated above, if the construction
limits along U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business south of the interchange encroach upon Richland
Creek, construction of a retaining wall along U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business in that area would be
studied in final design.
Response to Question 15:Sixteen possible UST facilities (all low-risk) were identified
within the project study area. The current construction limits for Alternative 1 may impact
several of these UST sites. If further design confirms an impact to UST’s, preliminary site
assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior to right-of-way
acquisition.
Response to Question 16:Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on
the N.C. Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), Richland Creek and Richland Creek Tributary
14 (SA) are in a designated flood hazard zone. This project involves construction activities
on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams.
Response to Question 22: The existing interchange includes driveway connections along
the interchange ramps, which does not meet current safety standards for control of access
at interchanges. The proposed interchange reconstruction will provide full control of access
along S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) on either side of the proposed interchange
(approximately Greenview Terrace to SW Cloverleaf Place), eliminating driveway access
along the proposed ramps. Access to businesses would be relocated to surrounding roads
or existing ramps that will be converted to access roads.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 14 of 16
H. Project Commitments
Guilford County
Proposed Reconstruction of the U.S. 29-70/ I-85 Business and
S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) Interchange in High Point
WBS No. 44674.1.2
STIP No. U-5896
Division 7 Construction, Resident Engineer’s Office / Right-of-Way Unit / Project
Management Unit - Local Coordination
NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation and Work Zone Safety will be
contacted prior to construction to evaluate the necessary level of pedestrian access
accommodation during construction.
Hi Point Transit System officials will be contacted prior to construction to evaluate the necessary
level of bus rider access accommodation during construction.
Guilford County Emergency Services and the City of High Point Fire Chief will be contacted prior
to construction regarding potential construction-related delays so that the necessary temporary
reassignments to primary response units can be made.
NCDOT Community Studies will be contacted regarding a suitable level of coordination that
should be undertaken as part of relocation assistance with the Southside Mission that serves
the nearby homeless population.
Project Management Unit - Roadway Design / Hydraulics Unit
During final design, impacts to Richland Creek will be minimized. As indicated in the Preliminary
Hydraulic Technical Report, the elevation of S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) cannot be raised
above the existing elevation near the Richland Creek crossing at S.R. 1009 (South Main Street).
This includes not just the centerline elevation, but the shoulder point, top of curb, or any
proposed raised island elevations along S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) that must be at or below
the maximum existing elevation along the roadway. South Main Street currently overtops during
flood events and any roadway elevation increases will worsen the flooding issues upstream.
During final design, if the construction limits along U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business south of the
interchange encroach upon Richland Creek, construction of a retaining wall along U.S. 29-70/I-
85 Business in that area would be studied.
Hydraulic Unit - FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP)
to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’s Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map revision (LOMR).
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 15 of 16
Hydraulics Unit / Division 7 Construction - FEMA - As-Built Construction Plans
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
GeoEnvironmental Section - Impacts to Underground Storage Tanks (UST’s)
If further design indicates potential impact to UST’s, preliminary site assessments for soil and
groundwater contamination will be performed prior to right of way purchase.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Categorical Exclusion
January 2019 16 of 16
I.Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No.U-5896
WBS Element 44674.1.2
Federal Project No.N/A
Prepared By:
Date Aileen S. Mayhew, P.E. - Senior Project Manager
Mott MacDonald
Prepared For:
Reviewed By:
Date Bryan C. Key, P.E. - Senior Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDOT certifies that the proposed action qualifies as a Type III Categorical
Exclusion.
Date Laura Sutton, P.E. - Project Management Team Lead
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approval:
Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. - Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
1/31/2019
2/4/2019
2/5/2019
2/6/2019

APPENDIX A
Figures

DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
K endall A vE K e ar n s Av
Au
s
ti
n
St
ColtraneAvSchirra PlDane St
C o p e la n d A vOgden St
Fraley Rd
E Springfield Rd
E Moore AvKenilworthDr
BellemeadeStPark St
King St
PlazaLnSCent
enni
al
StKettering Rd ValleyRidgeDrElva PlBranch St
Vista CirF i n c h A v
F rid d le D rRo
bbi
nsSt
P la y e r D rJay Pl
F
ult
o
n
P
l
Model Farm RdJarr
el
l
StNathanHuntDr
GreenviewTerFrancis StBrevard Rd610
SR-4053
SurrettDrSR -1961WMarketCenterDrS
R-3668
E
ConnectorSR-1961EMarketCenterDrSR-1962SCollegeDrSR-1232Service Rd I-85SR-1009
S
MainSt
SR-1009
S
MainSt
Figure 1
GUILFORD
RAN DOLPH
DAVIDSO N
Kern ersville
HighPoint
Wins ton -Sa le m Greensboro
Lexing ton
Thomas ville
Study Area
North Ca rolina Departm ent of TransportationProject Devel opm ent & Environmental An alysis Unit
U-5896US 29-70/I-85 Bu sinessReconstruct Inte rcha nge at SR 10 09 (S outh Main S tree t)High Poin t, Guilford County Pro ject Location Ma p
BUS85
BUS85
2970
2970
0 850 1,700425Feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
Figure 2
North Ca rolina Departm ent of TransportationProject Devel opm ent & Environmental An alysis Unit
U-5896US 29-70/I-85 Bu sinessReconstruct Inte rcha nge at SR 10 09 (S outh Main S tree t)High Poin t, Guilford County Typical Sections
FIGURE 2C
S.R. 1009 (South Main Street) Roadway Typical Cross Section4-Lane Divided with 23' median
Alternatives 1 & 2
FIGURE 2B
U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business Roadway Typical Cross Section6 Lane Divided with 10' median
Alternative 2
FIGURE 2A
U.S. 29-70/I-85 Business Roadway Typical Cross Section4 Lane Divided with 10' median
Alternative 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
12'18'10'6'6:130'4'4:1 MAX4'FDPS4'FDPSFOR CUTSHINGE POINT0.08GRADEPOINTFOR FILLSHINGE POINT(15' W/GR)12'6:14:1VAR.2:1 MAX(15' W/GR)12'RAMPS0.020.04CL0.020.02BARRIER18'-0"12'-0"12'-0"10'-0"94'-0" CLEAR ROADWAY12'-0"12'-0"18'-0"POINTGRADECL -L-PS4'2'PS4'11'-6"2:1 TO 4:1VAR.2:1 TO 4:12'GRADEPOINT11'-6"2'2:1 TO 4:12:1 TO 4:1VAR.10'4'12'12'12'12'4'10'CL0.020.020.020.02(14' W/ GR)(14' W/ GR)103'-Y- (S MAIN STREET)BIKEBIKEWALKSIDE5'6"WALKSIDE5'6"-Y- STA. 7+25.00 TO 27+30.00TO CHANGE PENDING COORDINATION WITH LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.******PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECTVAR.VAR.0.020.02FOR CUTSHINGE POINT0.040.04?(15' W/ GR)12'FDPS10'15'6'10'12'12'10'12'12"(15' W/ GR)12'FDPS10'2'FDPS4'FDPS4'30'FOR FILLSHINGE POINT0.040.046"2:16:1BARRIER2:14:16:16:16"CL -L- (I 85 BUSINESS)GRADE TO THIS LINEPOINTGRADEAlternative 1Figure 3DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
kj
kj
kjkj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj kj
1000 feet from B-5353 Study AreaS
urrett
Dr K endall A vPlayer DrSElmStColtrane AvValleyRidge DrDane StOgden St
F raley Rd
C
lo
v
e
r
d
a
l
e

S
t
E Moore Av
Tyson StW S p r in g f i e ld R d
Kenilworth Dr
E Springfield Rd
B
a
lti
mo
r
eSt
BellemeadeStW M o o r e A v
King St
ElvaPlPorter StBranch St
Vista CirFixture Pl
W K earns A vArdale DrD a v id s o n A v
Martha Pl
F
u
lt
o
n

P
lGreer AvOsborne PlSurrett CtRobbi
ns
St
Finch Av
Jay Pl
Spring Brook CirModel Farm RdJarrel
l
StGreenview TerBrevard RdFrancis StFrancis StBrentwood StTimber StNathan Hunt DrRichlandCreekRichland Creek
SR
-4
053Su
rr
ett
Dr
S R -1 9 6 2
S C o lle g e D rSR-1962SCollegeDrSR-1961EMarketCenterDrSR-1231FinchAvSR-1961WMarketCenterDrSR-1009
S
MainSt
SR-1009
S
MainStSR-1232Service Rd I-85Custom DrumServices Inc.
Sunshin e Treeand Fence Inc.HenryJames BBQ
High land Automotive
Sou thside MissionFurniture City Gulf /Best Auto Used Tires/ MGM Au to Sales, Inc
FormerFleaMarket
O’ReillyAuto Parts
Sun Mart Co.
Christos GlobalCathedral
FastFuels#6741
WoodsProduce II
High P ointNissan
She etz
Bla ir ParkMaintenance
NC DMV
Nor th Carolina Department of TransportationProject Development & Environmental Analysis Unit
U-5896US 29-70/I-85 BusinessReconstruct Interchange at S R 1009 (South Main Street)High Point, Guilford County GeoEnvironmental Sites
§¨¦BUS85
§¨¦BUS85
£¤2970
£¤2970
0 530 1,060265Feet
±
kj Hazardou s Sites
Study Area
Figure 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
5FigureReconstruct US 29/ US 70/ I-85 Business Interchange at SR 1009 (South Main St) STIP U-5896
Jurisdictiona l Feature s Map
Guilford County, North Carolina
SC
SF
SG
SB
SE
SB
SA
RichlandCreek
RichlandCreek
SD
WC
WA
WB WB
WD
WE
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:0 400200 Feet
18-011
NMS NDH
June 2018
[
Potential Perennial Stream
Potential Interm ittent Stream
Culvert
Potential Wetland
U-5896 Project Study Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD

APPENDIX B
Cultural Resources
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD

HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
**SURVEY REQUIRED FORM**

This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-5896 County: Guilford
WBS No.: 44674.1.1 Document
Type:
CE
Fed. Aid No: NSP-0029(068) Funding: State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
Yes No Permit
Type(s):

Project Description:
Reconstruct interchange at US 29/US 70/Business 85 abd SR 1009 (S. Main St) in High Point

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
On March 28, 2018 a search of NC HPOWEB GIS Service map reveals several properties over
50 years of age in the Area of Potential Effect for this project. An architectural historian will
need to conduct a site visit to determine if there are any properties that warrant a full National
Register evaluation.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN

Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- **SURVEY REQUIRED**

Shelby Reap March 28, 2018

NCDOT Architectural Historian Date

Anticipated Fieldwork Completion Date: September 28, 2018

18-03-0003
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD

Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3
18-03-0003

NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: U-5896 County: Guilford
WBS No: 44674.1.1 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: NHP-0029(068) Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE (not specified)

Project Description: NCDOT’s Division 7 proposes to reconstruct the interchange at US 29/US
70/Business 85 with SR 1009 (South Main Street) in High Point, Guilford County. This project has been
combined with the replacement of Bridge No. 147 on US 29/US 70/Business 85 over SR 1009 (South
Main Street) (TIP# B-5353 [PA 15-09-0015]). The existing cross-section for Business 85 consists of a 4-
lane divided facility whereas the existing cross-section for South Main Street consists of a 5-lane facility.
Existing ROW along the interstate corridor is 150 feet whereas along South Main Street the existing
ROW is about 100 feet. Project length is listed as about 1.00 mile. Since Preliminary Design Plans have
not been developed yet, a Study Area for the project has been generated in order to facilitate
environmental planning purposes at this stage. The Study Area will be centered around the interchange
location and encompass about 151 acres, inclusive of the existing roadways and any modern
development.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW

Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

This project was accepted on Thursday, March 8, 2018. A map review and site file search was conducted
at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Friday, March 9, 2018. A comprehensive archaeological
survey has never been conducted around this particular interchange location, and no archaeological sites
have been recorded within one (1) mile of the proposed project. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (High
Point East and High Point West Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Tuesday, March 13, 2018. There are no known
historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to the Study Area for which intact
archaeological deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition,
topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs
were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or
prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural,
hydrological, and other erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the Study Area.

Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:

This is a Federally funded project for which a Federal permit may be necessary. Permanent/temporary
easements will not be necessary; however, the need for additional ROW was not conveyed as part of the
submittal. The size and shape of the Study Area have been drawn in a way to capture any possible
impacts beyond the NCDOT’s existing ROW along US 29/US 70/Business 85 and SR 1009 (South Main
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3
18-03-0003
Street). At this time, we are in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National
Register-listed) archaeological resources located within the project’s Study Area that would require our
attention. Based on the description of the proposed project, activities may take place beyond the
NCDOT’s existing ROW. From an environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a highly
developed interchange location along the interstate system in the Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina. The Study Area consists of several soil types, all of which have been heavily disturbed by
modern development or succumbed to erosion (Mecklenburg-Urban land complex, 2-10% slopes [MuB],
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded [MhB2], and Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6-10%
slopes, eroded [MhC2]). Based on the poor soil conditions and the level of development, the preservation
of intact archaeological resources would not be anticipated. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has
reviewed various projects within the vicinity of the Study Area for environmental compliance, including
residential development (ERs 94-0261, 99-8874, and 98-7811), transportation improvements (ERs 08-
2555, 95-7472, 12-2152, and 03-2905), commercial/industrial development (ERs 94-8091 and 06-1031),
a recreational project (CH 06-2618), utility upgrades (ER 09-0680), and a cell tower (CT 02-0319).
Stating a low probability for intact and significant archaeological sites to be present, OSA did not require
an archaeological survey for any of these projects. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT’s
Archaeology Group has reviewed at least nine (9) transportation-related projects for environmental
compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-
HPO), two of which are located within one (1) mile of the proposed project. In fact, a portion of the
current Study Area was reviewed and cleared as part of PA 15-09-0015. Only two (2) of these projects
required an archaeological survey (TIP# U-5864 [PA 17-04-0031] and TIP# U-5770 [PA 16-08-0014]),
based on the presence of intact pockets of undeveloped land and buffers adjacent to steams/rivers. As a
result of those surveys, no archaeological sites were documented. Given the poor soil conditions and
developed nature within the Study Area and the results of previously reviewed/ surveyed projects in the
vicinity, there is a low probability for significant prehistoric and/or historic archaeological materials to be
present. Therefore, it is believed that the current Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and
significant archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design
plans change or are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding
archaeology will be required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If
archaeological materials are uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with
according to the procedures set forth for “unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s
Archaeology Group.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED

March 13, 2018
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date

DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3
18-03-0003
Figure 1: High Point West, NC (USGS 1969 [PR87]) and High Point East, NC (USGS 1950 [PR82]).
Study Area
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
Springfield Friends 3rd & 4th Meeting Houses
Strickland Furniture Company - Sylvania Television Cabinet Plant
R ic h la n d C re e k
MuB
Ur Ch
MuB
MuB
MhC2
EuB
MhB2
EuB
MuB
EnC
McE2
EnB
MhC2
McE2
MhC2
MhB2
S MAIN ST
BUSINESS LOOP 85 SBUSINESS LOOP 85 NNATHAN HUNT DRKIN
G ST S COLLEGE DRMODEL FARM RD
JAY PL
FRANCIS STK E N D A L L A V
BRANCH ST
JARRELL STE SPRINGFIELD RD
KENIL
W
O
RTH D
R
E M O OR E AV
DANE STTYSON STS W C L O V E R L E A F P L ARDALE DRGREENVIEW TRW M O O R E A V
B
A
L
T
I
MOR
E

S
T
FIXTURE PL
NW CLOVERLEAF PLW MARKET CENTER DRBREVARD RDMAIN ST ACCESS RAMPW S P R I N G F I E L D R DMAIN ST ACCESS RAMPSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
TIP# U-5896 (PA 18-03-0003)Interchange Reco nstruction atUS 29/US 70/Business 85 withSR 1009 (South Main Street)Guilford County, NC
U-5896_Study_Area
2015-16 M aster PA
NCHPOpoints
Local_District_Boundaries
NCHPO_NR_SL_D OE_Boundaries
Nam ed_streams
HYARUT
mapfldhazar
GF Cem etery
Streets
Soils_All
Guilford_2014Parcels ¹
0 400 800 1,200 1,600200Feet
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD

APPENDIX C
Relocation Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD

APPENDIX D
Agency Coordination
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H.TROGDON,III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1582 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1582
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website:www.ncdot.gov
Location:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27610
April 13, 2018
Subject: Internal/External Scoping Meeting Summary
Proposed reconstruction of the US 29-70/ I-85 Business and S.R. 1009 (South Main Street)
interchange in High Point, Guilford County, WBS 44674.1.1, STIP U-5896
From:Verrol McLeary
Project Development Engineer
An Internal/External Scoping Meeting for the subject project was held on March 28, 2018 at
8:30 a.m. in the Structure Design Conference Room located in the Century Center. The following
people were in attendance:
Felix Davila FHWA [e-mail]
April Norton NCDWR [e-mail]
Verrol McLeary Project Management Unit [e-mail]
Beverly Robinson Project Management Unit [e-mail]
Laura Sutton Project Management Unit [e-mail]
Carla Dagnino Environmental Analysis Unit [e-mail]
Jeff Hemphill Environmental Analysis Unit [e-mail]
Harrison Marshall PI & Comm. Studies [e-mail]
Bernie Bumgarner Utilities [e-mail]
Nick Lineberger Congestion Management [e-mail]
Jamshid Hafshejani DMP [e-mail]
Tim Jordan Mott MacDonald [e-mail]
Jordan Woodard Mott MacDonald [e-mail]
Aileen Mayhew Mott MacDonald [e-mail]
Rebecca Jackson Mott MacDonald [e-mail]
Alexandria Sentilles Mott MacDonald [e-mail]
Via Skype Meeting:
David Bailey USACE [e-mail]
Greg Venable High Point Urban Area MPO [e-mail]
Patty Eason Highway-Division 7 [e-mail]
Mark Staley Roadside Environmental Unit [e-mail]
David Langston Location & Surveys [e-mail]
Rick Lakata STIP [e-mail]
Jeff Hess HNTB [e-mail]
Paige Hunter HNTB [e-mail]
The purpose of the meeting was to transfer pertinent information from NCDOT staff to the Project
Development Engineer, as well as begin early coordination efforts by discussing the project with
resource agencies and other stakeholders. The meeting began with introductions and a brief
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Internal/External Scoping Meeting Page | 2
April 13, 2018
description of the federally funded project. A slide presentation provided a review of the
information included in the project data sheet. The presentation included a brief description of each
of the potential alternative concepts, including:
·Alternative 1- Tight Diamond Interchange
·Alternative 2- Partial Cloverleaf Interchange
·Alternative 3- Partial Cloverleaf Interchange with Ramps and Loops in opposite (Northwest
and Southeast) Quadrants
During the presentation, HNTB discussed the results of the preliminary traffic capacity analysis:
·All three Alternatives exhibit acceptable traffic operations; Alternative 2 (Partial Cloverleaf
Interchange) operates best in the preliminary analysis
·Under Alternatives 1 and 3, recommends allowing left turns into Greenview Terrace but
restricting left turns out of Greenview Terrace
·Under Alternative 2, recommends limiting the turning movements on Greenview Terrace to
right-in and right-out only
·All Alternatives include traffic signals at the ramp terminals on South Main Street
The Meeting Agenda and Project Data Sheet (including maps) are attached. Information relayed to
the project team by each group is provided below:
USACE
·The existing wetland in the project area contains a stream within it, which runs towards
Richland Creek
·Alternative 3 (Partial Cloverleaf Interchange with Ramps and Loops in Opposite Quadrants)
may require a Section 404 Individual Permit and may have more stream impacts than the
other alternatives
FHWA
·Inquired about Section 4(f) resources in the project area
·Asked for additional information on the buildings being acquired during right of way
acquisition
·Joe Geigle will be the point of contact for FHWA for this project
NCDWR
·Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed buffer rules apply
·Project is located within a Critical Supply Watershed
·Richland Creek is classified as Class WS-IV
High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO)
·City of High Point Bicycle Master Plan is currently under development; there is no draft
available for review nor any funding allocated for the plan
·The proposed greenway located south of the US 29-70/I-85 Business Interchange is part of a
long-range greenway plan; currently there is no funding allocated for the greenway trail
·Stated a preference for Alternative 1 (Tight Diamond Interchange)
Division 7
·NCDOT is pursuing advanced ROW acquisition in interchange area
·Stated a preference for Alternative 1 (Tight Diamond Interchange)
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Internal/External Scoping Meeting Page | 3
April 13, 2018
Public Involvement & Community Studies
·Noted the presence of Environmental Justice (EJ) and Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
populations in the area
·Stated that impacts to populations during construction should be considered and minimized
·The High Point Furniture Market (April and November) will generate a lot of traffic on South
Main Street
·Consider avoiding construction during High Point Furniture Market timeframe to minimize
impacts
Natural Environment
·Stream located through the wetland in the northwest ramp quadrant is subject to the
Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
STIP
·Cost estimates for Right-of-Way have increased to $13.4 million due to new estimates for
acquisition of properties within the proposed interchange
Congestion Management
·No additional comments
Roadside Environmental
·No additional comments
Location and Surveys
·Surveys are being completed now and should be finished by the end of April 2018
Utilities
·Stated all three project alternatives would have high impacts on utilities
·Requested roadway plans with hydraulic design to better determine the utility conflicts
OPEN DISCUSSION
·Alternative 3 was removed from consideration due to the potential for high impacts to
Richland Creek and other environmental features in the northwest quadrant
·This project will not go through the merger process on the recommendation of the USACE
and NCDWR
·STIP Project Nos. B-5353 and U-5896 will be let for construction together
·Proposed project may impact culvert carrying Richland Creek under S.R. 1009 (South Main
Street)
·Design Considerations
o Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on South Main Street
·Project schedule is aggressive. The current schedule is below:
o Categorical Exclusion: July 2018
o Right-of-Way:February 2019
o Construction:August 2020
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
U-5896 Internal/External Scoping Meeting Page | 4
April 13, 2018
ACTION ITEMS/ NEXT STEPS
·PMU will forward Final Surveys to Mott MacDonald when transmitted
·A copy of the presentation was requested by Patty Eason, Division 7
o The presentation was uploaded to SharePoint under “Project Development:
Reference Info and Links” on 04/04/18
If any meeting participants have any comments, questions, or edits to this memorandum, please
contact Verrol McLeary at [e-mail] or 919.707.6044.
After the meeting, NCDOT’s Structures Management Unit expressed a preference for Alternative 1,
which would include a bridge with a smaller deck area than the other alternatives.
cc: Meeting Attendees
Attachments
Agenda; Project Data Sheet (including maps)
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD
DocuSign Envelope ID: D10EFD0C-D71A-456B-8B0C-FF7F08F5E6DD