SR 1008 West Market St (2)

Widening of SR 1008 (West Market Street)
From SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68
Greensboro, Guilford County
WBS Element 34482 1 1
Federal Project Number STP-1008 (9)
State Project Number 8 2497401
T.I.P. Project Number R-2611
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
APPROVED:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
l0 9 07 G,- CAI _
ate Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. ., Environmental Management Director
F'O'Q Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Date
qVIt John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division
Federal Highway Administration
Widening of SR 1008 (West Market Street)
From SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68
Greensboro, Guilford County
WBS Element 34482 1 1
Federal Project Number STP-1008 (9)
State Project Number 8 2497401
T.I.P. Project Number R-2611
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
October 2007

Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by
i
Eug arascio
Project Development Engineer
Lmwood Stone
Project Engineer

`TYI?o / d /? 9?0 7 SEAL f` T
Eric Midkiff, P.E. = 19791
Central Project Development Engineer '. ?^ ?:

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Widening of SR 1008 (West Market Street)
From SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68
Greensboro, Guilford County
WBS Element 34482 1 1
Federal Project Number STP-1008 (9)
State Project Number 8 2497401
T.I.P. Project Number R-2611
Program Development Branch and Roadway Design Unit
• Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the project located within the corporate limits
of Greensboro at the time of construction and on the north side in areas outside of the
corporate limits The City of Greensboro will be responsible for the maintenance and
liability of the proposed sidewalks, as well as sharing the cost of construction according
to the NCDOT requirements for a municipality with a population above 100,000 (50%
NCDOT and 50% municipality)
• Requests were received from both the City of Greensboro and Guilford County during
preparation of the EA document that determined the location and extent of the
sidewalks mentioned above
• Wide outside lanes (fourteen-foot) have been included to accommodate bicycle traffic
Geotechnical Unit/GeoEnvironmental Section
• The GeoEnvironmental Section will provide soil and groundwater assessments on each of
the potential hazardous waste sites before right of way acquisition Discovery of
additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable
during the project reconnaissance may occur The GeoEnvironmental Section should be
notified immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s) may be
assessed
PDEA/Roadway Design Unit/Utilities Coordination Unit/Division 7
• Future plans include commuter services and a possible high-speed rail corridor for
Norfolk Southern Railroad's line located in the project area To accommodate the
expanded service, final designs must maintain the railroad's existing right of way parallel
to West Market Street One railroad crossing, McGuire Road, could be closed and traffic
detoured to the Bunker Hill road crossing if current and future traffic volumes are low
enough to make this feasible
• Based on the updated traffic forecast report, it is feasible to close the McGuire Road
railroad crossing It should be noted that this at-grade crossing is a private crossing
(state maintenance ends before the tracks) that was closed and barricaded by Norfolk
Southern Railroad working with NCDOT Division 7 on December 6, 2006 Due to
this closing, the crossing is no longer part of the proposed improvements Traffic
previously using the McGuire Road crossing now crosses at Bunker Hill Road This
portion of the commitment has been completed The rest of the commitment
concerning NCDOT's final designs maintaining the existing right of way owned by
the railroad still applies
Utilities Coordination Unit/Roadway Design Unit/Division 7
• Coordination is needed with Norfolk Southern Railroad regarding additional right of way
needed to widen the intersections of Bunker Hill Road, McGuire Road, Sandy Ridge
Road, and Thatcher Road Temporary detours or lane closures will be required to
perform the widening at these crossings
• The Utilities Coordination Railroad Section, will get a crossing agreement not right
of way for the grade crossings The Railroad will do the work to widen and improve
the surface of the grade crossings
• The railroad crossing at McGuire Road was closed and barricaded by Norfolk
Southern Railroad working with NCDOT Division 7 on December 6, 2006 With this
closing, there is no longer an intersection with West Market Street that will need to be
widened Therefore, the commitment for McGuire Road can be disregarded The
other locations will require further coordination
Roadway Design Unit/Right of Way Branch
• Coordination will be needed with the United States Postal Service regarding the
additional right of way needed to complete the proposed project A US Post Office is
located on the north side of SR 1008 (West Market Street) approximately 0 4 miles east
of Colfax Elementary School In this area, the right of way owned by Norfolk Southern
Railroad is very close to the south side of the existing road To keep impacts to the right
of way owned by the railroad to a minimum, some additional right of way along the north
side of West Market Street at the post office property will be required
Roadway Design Unit/Division 7
• Roadway Design will evaluate alignment shifts to minimize the project's impact to both
the pond and the trees in front of the Girl Scouts' Magnolia Manor property and to the
Endura Products' property A full movement crossover at Francis Daily Court will
provide full movement access to the main entrance for Endura Products NCDOT will
also evaluate methods to minimize impacts to Endura Products' parking area, provide
more storage as well as better sight distance in the Endura Products' driveway area In
addition, NCDOT will further coordinate with the Girl Scouts during the construction
phase of the project so they can better plan events at Magnolia Manor accordingly
Finding of No Significant Impact page 2 of 2
October 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. TYPE OF ACTION ...............................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................................1
III. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES .........................................................1
IV. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT .........................................................3
V. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................3
VI. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ............................................................................5
A Circulation of the Environmental Assessment 5
B Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment 5
1 US Fish and Wildlife Service 5
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency 6
3 NC Department of Cultural Resources 7
4 NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources 7
a Division of Water Quality 7
b NC Wildlife Resources Commission 9
C Comments Received During and Subsequent to the Public Hearing 9
D Project Coordination 10
1 NEPA 404 Coordination 10
2 Norfolk Southern Railroad Coordination 11
3 United States Postal Service Coordination 11
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................... 11
A Change To the Proposed Improvements 11
B Updated Traffic Forecasts 11
C Updated Capacity Analysis 12
1 Intersection Analysis 12
2 Additional Changes and Design Revisions 13
D Cultural Resources 13
1 Historic Architecture 13
E Environmental Effects 14
1 Jurisdictional Area Impacts 14
2 Randleman Riparian Buffer Rules 14
3 Federally Protected Species Impacts 15
4 Permits 16
5 Hazardous Materials 16
a Underground Storage Tank (UST ) Facilities 16
F Updated Air Quality Information 16
Page
1 PM 2 5 Hotspot Analysis 16
2 Mobile Source Air Toxics 17
G Updated Noise Information 17
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .........................................18
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Impacts 4
Table 2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams 14
Table 3 Randleman Riparian Buffer Impacts for Preferred Alternate 15
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3a
Figure 3b
APPENDIX
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Vicinity Map
Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 1 of 2)
Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 2 of 3)
Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 3 of 3)
Jurisdictional and Randleman Buffer Impacts
Jurisdictional and Randleman Buffer Impacts
Combined Public Hearing Notice & Handout
Memo Documenting Removal of Project from NEPA Merger Process
Traffic Forecast Report
Traffic Capacity Report
Historic Architecture Supplemental Report
Air Quality Report
Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) The FHWA has determined this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to
adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 1008
(West Market Street) to a four-lane median divided curb and gutter facility from SR 2007
(Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68 in Greensboro, Guilford County Figure 1 shows the
location of the project The proposed cross section is a four-lane curb and gutter section with a
21 5-foot raised grass median, 12-foot inside lanes, and 14-foot outside lanes The proposed
right of way width for the project is approximately 110 feet and may vary in some areas The
cross section provides two travel lanes in each direction and exclusive turning lanes at various
intersections along the proposed roadway The total length of the project is approximately 3 6
miles
This project is included in the 2007-2013 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) The right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008 and
construction to begin in FFY 2010 The total estimated cost of the project is $23,556,160, which
includes 9,656,160 for right of way (including utility relocation costs) and $13,900,000 for
construction
III. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
The proposed project will result in impacts to surface waters In accordance with Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C 1344), it is anticipated a General Nationwide Permit 14
according to CFR 330 5(A) will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers The
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented
during design and construction to avoid and minimize impacts to streams The proposed project
will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
According to 15A NCAC 03B 0250, the proposed project falls within the scope of the
Randleman Riparian Buffer Rules Therefore, a Randleman Buffer Permit will also be required
Other Proposed Highway and Rail Improvements in the Project Area
In the Environmental Assessment (EA), several other projects were located near the proposed
SR 1008 (West Market Street) widening project The following is an updated list of those
projects and their status (changes from the time the EA was completed are shown in italics)
NCDOT TIP projects:
I-2201 (I-40/US 421, Guilford County) This project is a 10 9-mile interstate widening from SR
1850 to west of SR 1398 This project has been completed
R-952 (I-40 Business/US 421, Guilford/Forsyth County) This project is an 8 5-mile pavement
and bridge rehabilitation project from west of US 158 in Forsyth County to west of SR 1850 in
Guilford County Construction is ongoing for some sections
R-2413 (US 220 - NC 68, Guilford/Rockingham County) This project is a multi-lane connector
on new location from US 220 to NC 68, and will widen US 220 to NC 68 Total project length is
12 4 miles Construction is underway
U-2815C (Bryan Boulevard, Guilford County) This project will relocate Bryan Boulevard from
Inman Road to NC 68 19 miles in length Construction is underway
U-4015 (SR 1556 Gallimore Dairy Road, Guilford County) This project consists of widening
16 miles of Gallimore Dairy Road to multiple lanes from NC 68 to SR 1008 (Market Street)
Construction is underway
U-4408 (Triad Center Drive, Guilford County) NC 68/SR 1958 (Triad Center Drive) relocation
and intersection modifications Project deleted from 2004-2010 NCDOT TIP per MPO's
request
U-3617 (SR 2045/1005/1008, Forsyth/Guilford County) This project will widen East Mountain
Street/Old US 421 to multiple lanes from NC 66 in Kernersville to SR 2001 in Guilford County
The project is 2 8 miles and construction is planned for after 2020
U-2800 (SR 2601, Forsyth County) This project is a 0 4-mile widening from Industrial Park
Drive to SR 1005 with part of the project on new location This project also includes converting
a grade separation at I-40 to an interchange Construction is slated for Fiscal Year 2011
Greensboro Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan (Adopted May 6, 2003, Last Amended
June 19,2007):
• I-40/ NC 68/ I-73 Connector - Freeway connection from I-40/Business I-40 to Bryan
Boulevard '
• Airport connector - Freeway connection from Forsyth County to the proposed I-40/NC 68/I-
73 Connector
• Sandy Ridge Road Extension - Freeway connection from West Market Street to the proposed
I-40/NC 68/I-73 Connector
Greensboro Urban Area 2030 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range
Transportation Plan (2004) projects and the Greensboro Urban Area MPO Final
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2007-FY 2013 (April 25, 2007):
• Gallimore Dairy Road - Proposed 0 4-mile widening of a collector from a two-lane
facility to a five-lane facility from International Drive to West Market Street
• NC 68 - Proposed 2 2-mile widening of a principal arterial from a four-lane facility to a
six-lane facility from West Market Street to Gallimore Dairy Road This project is no
longer shown in either of the Greensboro Transportation Plans
2
• Sandy Ridge Road - A major collector and connector from I-40 to Pleasant Ridge Road
that will consist of widening from the existing two lanes to five lanes
• Regional Road Extension - An 0 8-mile, three-lane partial relocation and extension from
north of Hickory Ridge to Gallimore Dairy Road
• Pegg to Thatcher Connection - 2 1-mile, five-lane connector road over I-40 on new
location
• Bryan Boulevard Extension (formerly Airport Parkway Extension) - A four-lane freeway
facility on new location from NC 68 to Pleasant Ridge Road Length of project is 0 8
miles
The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation is investigating alternative corridors for
commuter/intercity rail service in the area as part of a corridor that will stretch from Raleigh to
Asheville According to the Triad Intercity Rail Study, one of the studied corridors will use the
existing Norfolk Southern line parallel to West Market Street There are currently no station
locations proposed within the project limits However, according to Guilford County planners, a
station might be located in the Colfax area
The Federally designated high-speed rail corridor has also included Norfolk Southern's line
for possible usage as a high-speed rail connector route Additionally, a study for commuter rail
service between Greensboro and Winston-Salem is currently underway and could identify the
Norfolk Southern Line as the best route for this potential commuter service in the future
IV. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity on SR 1008 (West
Market Street) The need is based on the fact that future traffic volumes will exceed the current
facility's design capacity Improvements are also needed to accommodate the expected growth
in the area from the FedEx Hub and future commercial development The project is located in
the area between Kernersville and the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA), which
anticipates new development over the next 20 years even without the addition of the planned Fed
Ex Hub The greatest potential for commercial and/or industrial growth is currently within the
area that falls within Greensboro's water and sewer boundary along the project Local officials
expect these services to be extended in the future, thereby creating the opportunity for additional
industrial and commercial expansion Similarly, as the sewer and water services are extended,
there is also the potential for continuing residential development on tracts of land north of West
Market Street and west of Pleasant Ridge Road
V. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED BENEFICIAL AND
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table 1 provides a summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the proposed action
The impacts in the table are associated with Alternate 1, a four-lane, median divided curb and
gutter section which is the preferred alternate for this project
TABLE I
Summary of Impacts
Category Units Preferred Alternative
Corridor Length Miles 36
Residential Total 14
Relocations Minority 0
Business Total 5
Relocations Minority 0
Non-Profit Total 0
Relocations Minority 0
All Relocations Total 19
Potential Hazardous
Material Sites Each 6
Wetlands Acres 0
Stream Impacts Linear feet 2882
Impacts to Randleman
Buffers at Perennial Stream Linear feet 2888
Impacts to Randleman
Buffers at Ephemeral Stream Linear feet 2067
Total Randleman Buffer
Impacts Acres 0 43
Biotic Community Impacts Acres 428
Noise Impacted properties 14
Air Quality 1-Hour
2025 Carbon monoxide
(Ppm) 48
Right of Way Cost* Dollars $9,656,160
Construction Cost Dollars $13,900,000
Total Cost Dollars $23,556,160
ppm = parts per million
National Ambient Air Quality Standards 35 ppm (1-hour)
*The Right of Way Cost includes the Utility Relocation Costs
VI. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) was approved by the Federal Highway
Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways on
June 16, 2005 The EA identified five alternates under consideration for the project, with
Alternate 1 being the preferred action
The approved EA was circulated to the following federal, state, regional and local
governments and agencies for review and comment An asterisk (*) indicates a written response
was received Copies of the correspondence are included in Appendix 7 of this document
U S Army Corps of Engineers
* U S Fish and Wildlife Service
* U S Environmental Protection Agency
* NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
U S Department of Agriculture
U S Geologic Survey
N C Department of Public Instruction
* N C Department of Cultural Resources
* N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* Division of Water Quality
Division of Land Resources
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
* N C Wildlife Resources Commission
Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Greensboro
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to widen a 3 6 mile portion of SR 1008 from two lanes to four or five
lanes Five alternatives are being considered, with the NCDOT recommended
alternative being a four-lane median divided curb and gutter facility (Alternative
1) Impacts to natural environments are minimal for all alternatives - no wetland
impacts and only one stream crossing
Due to the suburban and previously developed nature of the project corridor, the
Service does not have any significant concerns with this project Impacts to fish
and wildlife resources appear to be minimal At this time, the Service does not
have a recommended alternative We have participated in the Combined
NEPA/404 Merger Process for this project and will continue to do so
There is only one federally listed species in Guilford County, the bald eagle
(Halweetus leucocephalus) NCDOT has determined that the proposed project
will have no effect on this species Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs
that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle We believe that the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now We
remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation 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 in this review, (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the existing fish and
wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential
impacts of this proposed project on these resources
Response: Comments noted As of August 8, 2007, the bald eagle has been delisted and is
not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required
However, the bald eagle remains protected by the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle
Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and subject to the USFWS
National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines Therefore, under the guidelines, a
protected radius up to 660 feet from the edge of the project boundary is imposed
for road construction activities As mentioned above, no suitable habitat for the
Bald Eagle was identified by project surveys in the EA or by the NC National
Heritage Program in the project area
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: EPA has no environmental objections or concerns It appears the noise abatement
analysis was performed using the older policy ($25,000 per benefited receptor)
and not the NCDOT 2004 policy We would ask that the updated cost-benefit
analysis for noise abatement be applied prior to issuance of the FONSI
Response: Comment noted The NCDOT 2004 Traffic Abatement Policy has since been
applied to the project and it is still not feasible to provide noise abatement
measures since the cost is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold cost per
benefited receptor
3. NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
Comment: No comment
4. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a. Division of Water Quality
Comment: This office has reviewed the referenced document The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U S , including wetlands
The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned
document It is our understanding that the alternatives, as presented in the EA,
will result in impacts to jurisdictional streams and riparian buffers The project
will have impacts to streams and riparian buffers associated with the Cape Fear
River Basin and Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
East Fork Deep River is listed on the §303(d) list of impaired waters In stream
habitat, degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources such as high turbidity
and sedimentation is a possible cause of stream impairment Design plans should
include ways to reduce turbidity both during and after construction
Response: Comments noted Design plans will include ways to reduce turbidity both during
and after construction as part of the Best Management practices such as grass
swales, discharging as far away from the stream as possible, using preformed
scour holes and sheet flow to the maximum extent practical Also, since the
project is within a protected watershed, the NCDOT Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds will be used in the planning and design stages
Comment: After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will
need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to streams and
riparian buffers to the maximum extent practicable
Response: Impacts to streams have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable Further minimization will occur during the project's final design
Comment: In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A
NCAC 2H 0506 (b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than
150 linear feet to any single perennial stream In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0506 (h)(3)), the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
7
Response: Comments noted
Comment: Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of
culverts However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use
of culverts Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms Moreover, in areas
where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the
creek, to the maximum extent preferable When applicable, DOT should not
install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extend practicable
Response: There are no existing or proposed bridges within the limits of the proposed action
There is one existing culvert within the project This existing culvert will be
extended on both sides as part of the proposed action for the project
Comment: NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations These
impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also
need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
Response: There are no wetlands within the proposed project A complete description of
impacts to streams and buffers has been updated and is included in this document
(see pages 13-15, Tables 2 and 3, Figures 3a and 3b) The stream and buffer
impact quantities presented are preliminary and the final permit drawings will
present final temporary and permanent impacts
Comment: Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands
Response: There are no wetlands within the limits of the proposed action
Comment: Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory
mitigation
Response: There are no wetlands within the limits of the proposed action
Comment: The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address
the proposed methods for stormwater management More specifically, stormwater
should not be permitted to discharge directly into streams and surface waters but
it should instead be routed as sheet flow through buffer areas
Response: Comments noted The stormwater issue will be addressed in the final design
plans
b. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comments: Staff biologist with the N C Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
subject EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area The purpose
of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources Our
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act 142 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act {48 Stat 401, as amended, 16 U S C 661-667d)
NCDOT proposes to widen West Market Street from Bunker Hill Road at Colfax
to NC 68 in Greensboro The total project length is approximately 3 6 miles
Impacts to streams vary with alternatives, and are expected to total approximately
100 - 185 linear feet of stream impact There are no impacts to wetlands
We have reviewed the data contained in the EA NCDOT has selected alternative
1 as their preferred alternative Alternative 1 is a four-lane median divided curb
and gutter section At this time the NCWRC does not have a preferred alternative
Due to the urban nature of this project we do not have any specific concerns at
this time At this time, we concur with the EA for this project Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this EA
Response: Comments noted
C. Comments Received During and Subsequent to the Public Hearing
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Combined Public Hearing
was held on May 22, 2006 at the Colfax Elementary School located on West Market Street in
Greensboro (see Appendix 1 for the notice and handout from the hearing) Approximately 80
people attended A four-lane, median divided curb and gutter facility was presented as the
typical section for the entire project Approximately nine people spoke at the public hearing and
over 1,100 written comments were received Six of the speakers questioned the need for the
proposed median with the main concerns being emergency response times, access to properties
and the perceived safety issue of having to make U-turns Other issues raised by speakers
included right of way impacts to properties, the need for a median crossover at Marshall Smith
Road and the location of proposed traffic signals
Although it was not a topic raised by the speakers at the hearing, many of the written
comments received after the meeting (approximately 800) concerned impacts to the pond and
trees in front of the Girl Scout's Magnolia Manor There were also concerns raised about the
two breeding swans that live at the pond The Magnolia Manor serves as the Girl Scout
Council's Service Center and is the administrative headquarters for a Tnad-area program that
works with over 22,000 people a year This facility is also available for weddings and other
special fund-raising events that provide additional revenue and contribute significantly to help
reduce their operating expenses Other written comments expressed concerns regarding the
proposed median and the inconvenience of having to make U-turns and not needing sidewalks
along the north side of the road
Endura Products, Inc also submitted written comments after the hearing that expressed
concerns about the proposed median section The company manufactures door components and
is on the south side of West Market Street across from Magnolia Manor In addition, Endura
Products also expressed concerns with access for their 380 employees, the effect of the project
on their truck traffic (25-30 trucks a day), and the potential impact that any significant shift
toward their facility would have on their business
Based on the hearing comments, an alignment shift of approximately 25 feet to the south
was made that minimized construction impacts to the pond on the Girl Scouts' property This
alignment shift was presented to the Girl Scout representatives in a follow-up meeting While
representatives from the Girl Scouts were receptive to the proposed shift, they still felt it did not
address their concerns regarding a full movement crossover at Francis Daily Court or the impacts
to the trees in front of the pond near West Market Street When this alignment shift was
presented to Endura Products representatives in a separate meeting, they were not receptive to
this shift since they felt it had a detrimental affect on both their main parking area and the main
entrance It was decided that other alternatives would be pursued and a second follow-up
meeting would be held with both parties
Further design modifications were made and presented at the second follow-up meeting
with representatives from NCDOT, the Girl Scouts and Endura Products These modifications
included an alignment shift that minimized the project's impact to the pond, the trees in front of
the pond and to the Endura Products' property In addition, a full movement crossover at Francis
Daily Court was added This crossover also provides full movement access to the main entrance
for Endura Products NCDOT also agreed to coordinate with the Girl Scouts during the
construction phase so they could plan events at Magnolia Manor accordingly and try to limit
visual impacts to the facility NCDOT agreed to evaluate methods to minimize impacts to
Endura Products parking area, provide more storage as well as better sight distance in the
driveway area All parties agreed to move forward with the proposed alternative More details
of these design modifications and others are discussed under Section VII C 1 and 2
D. Project Coordination
1. NEPA 404 Merger Coordination
By the time the EA was completed, both Concurrence Points 1 and 2 had been approved
and signed Since the environmental impacts associated with each alternative were minimal, the
merger team agreed to proceed with the recommended alternate (Alternate 1) and sign the
Concurrence Point 2A (Bridging Decisions and Final Alternatives to Carry Forward) form at the
Concurrence Point 3 (Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative) meeting
However, based on the minimal level of impacts associated with the project, it was decided that
it was no longer necessary to keep this project in the merger process In June 2006, all merger
team members agreed via e-mail to not hold the 2A/3 Concurrence Meeting and to remove the
project from the merger process (see Appendix 2 for July 3, 2006 letter to the Corps of Engineers
and supporting documents)
10
2. Norfolk Southern Railroad Coordination
Coordination will be needed with Norfolk Southern Railroad regarding construction
and maintenance limits needed for the proposed project According to the NCDOT Utilities
Coordination Railroad Section, issues within the right of way owned by the railroad can be
addressed providing NCDOT holds the existing edge of pavement and limits its needs to
temporary construction easements within the right of way owned by the railroad Also, the
construction easements should not be within twenty-five (25) feet of the center of the tracks or
cross the Railroad's tracks Based on their review of the current roadway plans, the proposed
improvements comply with these criteria The Utilities Coordination Railroad Section also
recommends that roadway plans not show any existing or new NCDOT right of way beyond the
existing edge of payment within the right of way owned by the railroad This project will need
further coordination with Norfolk Southern Railroad during plan preparation
3. United States Postal Service Coordination
Coordination will be needed with the United States Postal Service regarding the
additional right of way needed to complete the proposed project There is a US Post Office
located on the north side of SR 1008 (West Market Street) approximately 0 4 miles east of
Colfax Elementary School In this area, the right of way owned by the Norfolk Southern
Railroad is very close to the south side of the existing road To keep impacts to the right of way
owned by the railroad to a minimum, some additional right of way along the north side of West
Market Street at the post office property will be required
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Change to the Proposed Improvements
In the EA, proposed improvements included closing one railroad crossing at SR 1864
(McGuire Road) It should be noted that this at-grade crossing is a private crossing (state
maintenance ends before the tracks) that was closed and barricaded by Norfolk Southern
Railroad working with NCDOT Division 7 on December 6, 2006 Due to this closing the
crossing is no longer part of the proposed improvements Traffic previously using McGuire
Road now crosses at Bunker Hill Road
B. Updated Traffic Forecasts
The volumes have been updated (base year 2005, Design Year 2030) to include the data at
the McGuire Road crossing The revised traffic forecast includes volumes that reflect the
opening of the Greensboro Urban Loop (U-2524), along with information on both keeping
McGuire Road open and closing it The 2005 traffic was compared with the actual annual
average daily traffic and the 2002 traffic from the original forecast The Piedmont Triad
Regional Model provided the 2025 projections in the previous forecast and assumptions were
used to project the 2030 traffic See Appendix 3 for the 2005 and 2030 estimated annual average
daily traffic volumes
11
C. Updated Capacity Analysis
The capacity analysis was updated for SR 1008 (West Market Street) from SR 1843
(Marshall Smith Road) to SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road To determine the Level-of-Service
(LOS), analyses were performed using the updated traffic forecast projections, current
preliminary roadway plans and Trip Generation by Microtrans (Version 5) A copy of the entire
July 2007 Capacity Analysis Report is located in Appendix 4
1. Intersection Analysis
Several design changes were made based on information from the updated traffic
forecast, public comments and additional coordination meetings with the Girl Scouts and Endura
Products These changes are shown in italics
• West Market Street at SR 1843 (Marshall Smith Road)
The eastbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design
year The southbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2030 design
year, which is acceptable for a side street operating under stop control The southbound right-
turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in the 2030 design year At the public
hearing, there were several requests to provide a median crossover at this road rather than SR
1887 (Little Santee Road) The design was revised to include a full movement crossover at this
intersection
If there are zoning changes in this area from what was assumed in the forecast by
Transportation Planning, this intersection will potentially need additional improvements
Impacts from potential new developments will need to be determined by the Access Review
Group based upon submitted development specific Traffic Impact Assessments
0 West Market Street at Little Santee Road
The westbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design
year The northbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design
year The proposed full movement crossover at Little Santee Road (SR 1877) has been revised
to provide only a westbound left-over movement This change was made for two main reasons
a greater need for a full movement crossover at Marshall Smith Road (see LOS information
above) and several requests at the public hearing to provide a median crossover at Marshall
Smith Road rather than Little Santee Road The westbound left-over movement was still needed
at Little Santee Road to accommodate employee traffic into Endura Products, and more
importantly, to provide truck access to the facility that is critical to the operation of the business
(all truck traffic enters the facility at Little Santee Road)
• West Market Street at Francis Daily Court
The eastbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in the 2030 design
year The southbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in
the 2030 design year
The Congestion Management Section previously recommended that this intersection
remain with right-in and right-out access This recommendation was based on the extensive
eastbound queue from the West Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) intersection
12
and the distance between SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) and Francis Daly Court (approximately
825 feet) This distance does not comply with the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines
Additional meetings held with both the Girl Scouts and Endura Products after the public hearing
discussed alternatives to reduce impacts to these two properties Based on these meetings, the
design at this intersection has been changed to a full movement crossover at Francis Daily Court
that also provides full movement access to the main entrance drive for Endura Products
• West Market Street at SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road)
The intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the 2030 design year It is
anticipated that the eastbound queue at the West Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge
Road) intersection will block the Francis Daily Court intersection Also, the westbound
approach is expected to experience extensive queuing, especially the westbound nght-turn
movement, due to the increased green time dedicated to the eastbound left-turn movement
The Congestion Management Section recommends that the eastbound approach provide
dual left-turn lanes with the maximum amount of storage allowable inside the project constraints
to accommodate the heavy vehicular traffic and increased heavy vehicle percentages Traffic
models indicate that the eastbound queue at the West Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge
Road) intersection may block the Francis Daly Court intersection for a short period of time in the
peak hour Also, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to experience extensive
queuing due to the increased green time dedicated to the eastbound left-turn movement
2. Additional Changes and Design Revisions
• West Market Street at the Post Office
A few comments were expressed at the public hearing about gaining access to the post
office when traveling eastbound on West Market Street with a divided median Based on these
comments a left-over was added at the post office to allow eastbound traffic to turn left from
West Market Street into the post office
• West Market Street between Landmark Road and NC 68
A directional crossover will be added between SR 1923 (Landmark Road) and NC 68 to
accommodate U-turn traffic from SR 2012 (Brigham Road) This will allow traffic travelling
eastward from Brigham Road to gain access to NC 68 without having to travel back to SR 1923
(Landmark Road) to perform a U-turn
• New Signalized Intersection
Since completion of the EA, a signal has been added at the intersection of SR 1008 (West
Market Street) and SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) Also as part of this signalization work, a
westbound left-turn movement from West Market Street to Bunker Hill Road was added
D. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architecture
A supplemental survey for historic architectural resources was conducted within a
broader Area of Potential Effects than the earlier study area The new survey identified seventy-
six properties, none of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
13
or locally designated The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has concurred with these
findings and the summary documentation is included in Appendix 5
E. Environmental Effects
1. Jurisdictional Area Impacts
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328 3 The
proposed project area is located within the Cape Fear River Basin The preferred alternate,
Alternate 1, impacts one jurisdictional perennial stream (see Figure 3b), one non-lunsdictional
ephemeral stream (see Figure 3a) and no wetlands The perennial stream is an unnamed tributary
(UT) that flows into the East Fork Deep River, which in turn flows south and east into High Point
Lake approximately 5 5 miles south of the project It crosses the project approximately 95 feet
west of SR 2012 (Bnngham Road) The ephemeral stream is an UT of the West Fork Deep
River and serves to convey stormwater overflow from a sediment pond on the north side of West
Market Street from the Colfax Elementary School to the west
The impacts to the perennial stream have increased from 1 10 linear feet stated in the EA to
approximately 187 linear feet The main reason for the difference is that the calculations in the
EA were based on functional designs, while the current calculations are based on preliminary
designs The current calculation is the linear feet of stream located within the proposed slope
stake line There are still less than 300 linear feet of impacts to the perennial stream by the
proposed action, which should allow for a Nationwide Permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers
Impacts to ephemeral streams are approximately 101 linear feet A re-venfication of the
jurisdictional delineation associated with this project will be requested by NCDOT and a
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination will be obtained from USACE prior to obtaining the
final permit The stream impact quantities presented here are preliminary and the final permit
drawings will determine final impacts Impacts to both streams are shown in Table 2 below
Table 2
Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams
Stream Name Stream Type NCDQW
Rating Impacts From Preferred Alternate
ear feet
UT to East Fork De River Perennial 405 1869
UT to West Fork De River Ephemeral 18 101 3
Total Stream Impacts -- -- 2882
2. Randleman Riparian Buffer Rules
The proposed project falls within the scope of the Randleman Lake Watershed/Ripanan
Buffer Rules The EA mentioned that impacts to the Randleman Riparian Buffers would occur,
but did not give quantitative data The anticipated impacts are discussed below
14
The Randleman Lake Watershed/Ripanan Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0250) were
adopted in April 1, 1999 The rules protect a 50-foot wide vegetated buffer directly around
surface waters subject to the buffer rules in the Randleman Lake watershed The rules apply to
surface waters (intermittent streams, ephemeralstreams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and
estuaries but not wetlands) identified on either the most recent local county soil survey map or
the most recent United States Geological Survey 7 5 minute quadrangle map The 50-foot buffer
is divided into two zones Zone 1 extends 30 feet landward from the top of the bank and this
buffer is to remain essentially undisturbed Zone 2 of the buffer begins at the end of Zone 1 and
extends 20 additional feet landward Zone 2 is to be vegetated, but certain limited uses are
allowed within Zone 2
Some of the requirements in the buffer rules include, but are not limited to the inability to
disperse concentrated runoff into sheet flow prior to entering the buffer, placement of temporary
sediment and erosion control devices within Zone 1, the relocation of existing ditches
discharging directly through the buffer, including when additional runoff is directed through
them from new impervious surface If the project design is approved by DWQ through a
determination of no practical alternatives as not meeting the conditions required within the
Randleman Buffer Rules, the NCDOT must apply for a "General Mayor" Variance from the
Randleman Rules for Public Road Construction, Improvement, and Maintenance Activities
Under this variance, impacts to the buffers greater than 150 linear feet (measured parallel to the
stream) and/or 0 33 acres of buffer require buffer mitigation
The preferred Alternate I impacts Randleman Buffers Zones 1 and 2 along both the perennial
and ephemeral stream (see Figure 3a and 3b) Table 3 below shows the specific impacts to the
buffers The impacts to the buffers for both the perennial and ephemeral stream exceed 150 linear
feet, so buffer mitigation will be required for both of these streams In addition, since the project is
within a protected watershed, the NCDOT Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be used in
the planning and design stage
Table 3
Randleman Riparian Buffer Impacts for Preferred Alternative

W
t
S
f Linear Buffer
Impacts
Zone 1 Impacts
Zone 2 Impacts
Total Impacts
a
er
ur
ace (linear r feet) square feet (acre) square feet (acre) square feet (acre)
Perennial Stream 2888 9,163(021) 4,363(010) 13,526 (0 31)
Ephemeral Stream 2067 4,125(010) 1,246(003) 5,371 (012)

Total 13,288 (0.31) 5,609 (0.13) 18,897 (0.43)
3. Federally Protected Species
In the EA, the bald eagle was the only federally protected species identified within the
protect area A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached because of no suitable habitat
15
for the bald eagle within or near the project area It was also noted that the bald eagle was
proposed for delisting As of August 8, 2007, the bald eagle has been delisted and is not subject
to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required However, the bald eagle
remains protected by the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and subject to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines Therefore,
under the guidelines, a protected radius up to 660 feet from the edge of the project boundary is
imposed for road construction activities As mentioned above, no suitable habitat for the Bald
Eagle was identified by project surveys in the EA or by the NC National Heritage Program in the
project area
4. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources The impacts are
below the threshold of 300 feet per a given stream for an Individual Permit (IP) from the US
Army Corps of Engineers Therefore, a Nationwide Permit may apply If these thresholds are
exceeded, then NCDOT will apply for IP 404 and IP 401
5. Hazardous Materials
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST ) Facilities
In the EA, the Colfax Service Station (Site Al) is incorrectly located on Figure 2 The
proper location is shown on Figure 2, Sheet 1 of this document The text information on this site
was correct in the EA document
F. Updated Air Quality Information
The Air Quality Analysis report was updated in April of 2007 to reflect new information
on local air quality impacts in Particulate Matter (PM) 2 5 non-attainment and Mobile Source Air
Toxics These two items are the main changes from the EA and are discussed below The
complete Air Quality Analysis Report is attached in Appendix 6
1. PM 2.5 Hotspot Analysis
The final rule under the Clean Air Act that establishes the transportation conformity
criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local
air quality impacts in Particulate Matter (PM) 2 5 non-attainment and maintenance areas was
published on March 10, 2006 Project R-2611 is located in Guilford County, which is designated
as a non-attainment area for PM 2 5
Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM 2 S and PM
10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, circulated on March 29, 2006, outlines how to
conduct qualitative PM 2 5 hot-spot analyses for "projects of air quality concern", as defined in
the final rule by 40 CFR 93 123(b)(1) Projects of air quality concern are highway and transit
projects that involve significant levels of diesel traffic, or any project that is identified as a
localized air quality concern by the PM 2 5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) The guidance also
notes that a qualitative PM 2 5 hot-spot analysis is not required for projects that are not an air
16
quality concern, but states that the project-level conformity determination should document
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93 116 requirements were met without a hot-spot analysis, since the
project has been found to not be of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93 123(b)(1) The
guidance also provides examples of projects that would and would not be considered projects of
air quality concern
Comparing TIP Project R-2611 with examples of projects considered "projects of air
quality concern" (that would be covered by 40 CFR 93 123(b)(1) and would require a qualitative
PM 2 5 hot-spot analysis) shows that R-2611 is not a "project of air quality concern" The
construction of TIP Project R-2611 does not result in a significant increase in the number of
diesel engines in the area
A qualitative PM 2.5 hot-spot analysis is not required for this project since it is not an
air quality concern. The Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements were met
without a hot-spot analysis, since this project has been found not to be of air quality
concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1).
2. Mobile Source Air Toxics
Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are more frequent on transportation projects
during the NEPA process Transportation agencies are increasingly expected by the public
and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental documents as the
science emerges Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a continuing area of
research where, while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics,
many questions remain unanswered In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing
project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited These limitations impede FHWA's
ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks should factor into project-level decision-
making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Also, EPA has not
established regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate
for use in the project development process FHWA has several research projects underway
to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation
projects While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to
qualitatively address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a
tiered approach The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this
emerging field A qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in
Appendix 6
G. Updated Noise Information
The noise abatement analysis included in the EA was performed using the older NCDOT
Noise Abatement Policy ($25,000 per benefited receptor) The NCDOT 2004 policy was
applied to the project and it is still not feasible to provide noise abatement measures since the
cost is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold cost per benefited receptor
17
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental Assessment
and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the public, it is the
finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human or
natural environment The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint No
significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected The
proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt any communities In view
of the above evaluation, it has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is
applicable for this project Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further
environmental analysis will be required
18
FIGURES-
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 1 of 3)
Figure 2 - Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 2 of 3)
Figure 2 - Preferred Alternate & Constraints Map (Sheet 3 of 3)
Figure 3a - Jurisdictional and Randleman Buffer Impacts
Figure 3b - Jurisdictional and Randleman Buffer Impacts
N
W?E
S
ea
0
J? U)
Cl)
O p
W <
a' ale
4 Kidd Rd
d o
? .t, S m? ?/ aye
1 cP
S MM
Project Limits
"? N
McGuire Rd
\'61O
a
<a
0
a?
m
a
a
c
m
a
0
m
ea
?o
e?Gr,-
a
?r Project Limits
S?
Norfol?
°dd
40
Greensboro
00
'ds
Boylsto1>
-00
a
cq?,

I 1 , ., 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
iiiii Miles
I ? ? \I
.I
?I
I /
L
VICINITY MAP
a"T"?+ SR 1008 (WEST MARKET STREET) County: GUILFORD
? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT F@
b OF TRANSPORTATION WIDENING Div: 7 ITIP#R-261111 IgUI'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GREENSBORO
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 34482.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH GUILFORD COUNTY
FhroF`a?"9 TIP PROJECT R-2611 Date: OCTOBER 2007
Z
FIGURE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATE & CONSTRAINTS MAP
(SHEET 1 OF 3)

O
N
cn
O
m
O
O
17-
(UP)?
O
O
O
CJi
O
CD O
CD
.-r
FIGURE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATE & CONSTRAINTS MAP
(SHEET 2 OF 3)
FIGURE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATE & CONSTRAINTS MAP
(SHEET 3 OF 3)
Of NORTH C,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4 Q PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRA
NTOFTR RV• G T.I-in
JURISDICTIONAL AND
RANDLEMAN BUFFER IMPACTS
GREENSBORO - SR 1008 (WEST MARKET ST.)
FROM SR 2007 (BUNKER HILL RD.) AT COLFAX
TO NC 68
GUILFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2611
County: GUILFORD
Div: 7 TIP# R-2611
WBS: 34482.1.1
Date: OCTOBER 2007
Figure
3a
I __j

JURISDICTIONAL AND County: GUILFORD
N?TN cq9 RANDLEMAN BUFFER IMPACTS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Figure - WEST MARKET ST. (SR 1008)
OF TRANSPORTATION Div: 7 TIP# R-2611 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FROM SR 2007 (BUNKER HILL RD.) AT COLFAX 3 b
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND TO NC 68 WBS: 34482.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Nr OF Tft BY: E. Tarascio GUILFORD COUNTY Date: OCTOBER 2007
TIP PROJECT R-2611
APPENDIX 1
Combined Public Hearing Notice and
Handout
NOTICE OF A PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSE AND
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST MARKET STREET (SR 1008)
FROM SR 2007 (BUNKER HILL ROAD) AT COLFAX TO NC 68
Project 34482 1 1 R-2611 Guilford County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold a Pre-Heanng Open
House on Monday, May 22, 2006 between the hours of 4 30 p m and 7 00 p m
followed by a Formal Public Hearing at 7 00 p m in the Multi-Purpose Room, Colfax
Elementary School, 9112 W Market Street, Colfax, 27235
NC Department of Transportation representatives will be available in an informal
setting to answer questions and receive comments regarding location and design of the
proposed transportation improvements The opportunity to submit written comments or
questions will also be provided Interested citizens may attend the Pre-Heanng Open
House at any time during the above mentioned hours
The formal presentation will begin at 7 00 p m The presentation will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design and right of way and relocation
requirements/procedures The hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions and/or comments A transcription of the presentation and comments will be
taken
This project proposes to widen West Market Street (SR 1008) to a four-lane median
divided roadway with curb & gutter from Bunker Hill Road (SR 2007) at Colfax to NC 68 in
Greensboro The project is about 3 6 miles long Improvements are needed to have
capacity for expected traffic growth in the area Additional right of way and the relocation
of homes and businesses will be required for construction
A map setting forth the transportation improvements and a copy of the
environmental document- Environmental Assessment - are available for public review at
the Melvin Municipal Building (City Hall), Greensboro Department of Transportation - 3rd
Floor located at 300 W Washington Street, Greensboro 27402, and at the NCDOT
Division Office located at 1584 Yanceyville Street, Greensboro, 27415
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Kimberly D Hinton, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1595, fax [phone], or email khintoncd-)dot state nc us Additional material
may be submitted for a period of 30 business days from the date of the hearing
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this hearing Anyone
requiring special services should contact Ms Hinton as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
West Market Street (SR 1008) Widening from
Bunker Hill Road (SR 2007) at Colfax to NC 68
WBS Number 34482.1.1
TIP PROJECT R-2611
Federal Aid No. STP-1008(9)
Guilford County
Combined Public Hearing
Multipurpose Room
Colfax Elementary School
9112 West Market Street
Greensboro
Open House 4:30 p.m. - 7 00 p.m
Presentation 7:00 p.m.
May 22, 2006
Widening of SR 1008 (West Market Street)
TIP R-2611
Guilford County
Packet Contents:
• Project Overview
• Public Involvement Process
• Project Funding
• Public Hearing Format
• Right of way Procedures
• Project Contact Information
• Project Map
Comment Sheet
VA.11 0 1 • ?Ii CtI11fi 1Z-iIeIah \t.27699-1 Wk
Widening of SR 1008 TIP R-2611
Project Overview
This project is located between the Town of Kemersville and the Piedmont Triad
International Airport (PTIA) in the City of Greensboro The proposed project will widen
3 6 miles of SR 1008 (West Market Street) to a 4-lane median divided roadway with curb and
gutter from SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68 The purpose of the project is
to improve traffic flow along SR 1008 The project need is based on more traffic using the
roadway than its current design can effectively handle Over the next 20 years this area is
expected to have new developments of industrial and commercial growth With the
proposed FedEx Hub at PTIA, this project has a greater need
The project will have one 12' wide inside lane in each direction and one 14' wide outside lane
to accommodate bicyclists in each direction with a 215' raised median A 5' wide sidewalk
on the north side from Bunker Hill Road (SR 2007) to Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) A 5'
wide sidewalk in both directions will be from Sandy Ridge Road (SR 1850) to NC68
Project Funding
SR 1008 (West Market Street), a Federal-Aid Highway Project, will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program Financing of this project is 80% federal funds and
20% state funds The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and
scheduling of the project location, design and maintenance cost of the project once
construction is completed
In order to ensure that each Federal Aid Highway Project meets federal standards and
guidelines, the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of
the location and design of the project Preliminary cost estimates for widening SR 1008 is
Right of Way Acquisition $ 2,900,000 Schedule May 2008
Construction S 12,700,000 May 2010
Total Cost $ 15,600,000
Public Involvement Process
NCDOT's Public Involvement Program provides interested citizens the opportunity to gain
information about the project and to participate in the planning process Tonight's open
house and public hearing is an important step in the department's transportation
development process
By participating in this process, you will have the opportunity to provide input regarding the
SR 1008 widening project Everyone is encouraged to participate by expressing his or her
individual opinion Please note that the project team considers all opinions equally
Public Hearing 3 MP
May 22 2006
Widening of SR 1008
Public Hearing Format
TIP R-21-611
Tonight's meeting is a continuation of the department's efforts to gather information
regarding the widening of SR 1008 This is an occasion for the project team to meet you and
answer your questions It is also an opportunity for you to meet the team members and
obtain additional information about the project
MAP REVIEW
°v4 Maps of the SR 1008 project are available and will help guide you regarding the
project boundaries, sections of the road that will be improved and properties that
will be impacted by right of way acquisition
When looking at the maps you will note there is a legend in the bottom left corner Below
are some of the items on the map to which you may want to pay
particular attention
• Brown = existing buildings, i e residents and businesses - LEGEND:
• Dark een = existing right of way BUILDINGS
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
• Light acen = proposed right of way PROPOSED RIGHT DF WAY
OEM ALL EASEMENTS
• Steel gray - existing roadway EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT
® RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
• r n = existing roadway that will be resurfaced O EXISTING ROADWAY
® UISTI+IG ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
• Yellow - proposed roadway ® EXIST NC ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
L? PROPOSED ROADWAY
• Red = proposed structures, i e a bridge CRB°AND CUUI EPURES ISLAND SIDEWALK
OPEN HOUSE
The open house is from 4 30 - 7 p m and is an occasion for you to meet one on
one with project team member,
PUBLIC HEARING
A presentation regarding the project and design public hearing begins at 7 p m.
You will have the opportunity to provide verbal comments All proceedings of the
public hearing are recorded.
COMMENTS
Please take a moment to complete the comment sheet, which is page 7 of
this information packet. Both written and verbal comments are considered
equally by the project team and will be accepted until June 30, 2006 You may
give your comment sheet to a project team member, drop it in the comment box,
located at the sign in table, or mail it to the Senior Public Hearing Officer, Kimberly Hinton
Once the comment period closes the project team will meet again with NCDOT and federal
agency staff who play a role in the project development In addition to public comment, the
project team will also considers safety, cost, traffic service, and social impacts when making
decisions regarding the next phase of the project
Public Hearing 4
May 22 2006 _!I?
Widening of SR 1008
TIP R-2611
If an issue merits further consideration, additional assessments and studies may be
conducted Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of Transportation may
be consulted, if necessary If you wish to receive a copy of the post hearing meeting
minutes, please mdncate so on the comment sheet.
Right of Way Procedures
There are rune (9) homes and five (5) businesses that will be relocated as a result of
tlus project. Existing right of way for the SR 1008 project vanes from 100 feet Temporary
construction easement will be purchased by NCDOT in areas needed for grading and
drainage The easement will revert back to the property owners at the end of construction
Right of way agents are available to discuss temporary right of way concerns
NCDOT's standard right of way procedures are outlined below If your property is effected
the right of way agent will contact you The agent will gather additional information, answer
questions concerning the right of way acquisition procedure and inform you of your legal
rights
As part of the right of way acgwsition process NCDOT must
• Treat all property owners and tenants impartially without regard to race, color,
religion, sex or national origin,
• Fully explain an owner's legal rights,
• Pay dust compensation in exchange for property rights,
• Furnish relocation advisory assistance, in accordance with federal and state
regulations, and
• Imtiate legal action should a settlement not be reached
Right of way agents are trained to explain plans and advise you how a proposed highway
project will affect your property On the initial visit the right of way agent must get
important information to make certain the property has been properly evaluated for fair
market value The agent will also collect information regarding the property history,
accuracy of the property lines and buildings as shown on the plans and property areas
For your convenience, a right of way pamphlet is available tonight It outlines this process
in more detail
Public Hearing S
May 22 2006
Widening of Sit 1008 1 ?P R-261
Project Contact Information
If you have any question or would like to send comments regarding SR 1008, please contact
Kimberly D Hinton
Senior Pubhc Hearing Officer
N C Department of Transportation
Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail khinton ,dot state nc us
Project Map
Public Hearing 6 ??
May 22 2006
Widening of SR 1008
Comment Sheet
Submit by June 30, 2006
Name:
Address:
TIP R-2611
Public Hearing 7
May 22 2006
FUmberiy D. Hinton
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
-M?
R-2611 Public Hearing May 22, 2006
APPENDIX 2
Memo Documenting Removal of
Project from NEPA Merger Process
n r STATE a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
ACOE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mr Todd Tugwell
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Mr Tugwell,
Subject Removal of R-2611 from Section 404/NEPA Merger Process
NCDOT TIP Project R-2611 calls for the widening of SR 1008 (West Market Street)
from SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68 in Guilford County A Merger
Team was established due to the unknown environmental impacts associated with this
project The Merger Team met on August 15, 2002 and agreed to the Purpose and Need
(Concurrence Point 1) and Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document
(Concurrence Point 2)
Field studies for the five alternatives selected were conducted and it was determined that
there are no wetland impacts associated with any of the alternatives and stream impacts
ranged from 110 to 185 linear feet Due to the minimal stream and wetland impacts
associated with the alternatives, the Merger Team agreed to sign the Concurrence Point
2a (Bridging Decisions and Final Alternatives to Carry Forward) form at the Concurrence
3 (Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative) meeting and to proceed with
the project The alternative selected to carry forward is the four-lane median divided with
curb and gutter This is the preferred alternative by the City of Greensboro, The
Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division Office An e-mail was sent to the Merger Team
on November 18, 2004 confirming the verbal agreement
The Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and the Public Hearing was
held on May 22, 2006 Based on the impacts, it was not necessary to continue this project
through the Merger Process An e-mail was sent to all Merger Team Members on June 6,
2006 and all responded in agreement to drop this project from the Section 404/NEPA
July 3, 2006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Merger Process
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 1583
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
LOCATION
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD - SUITE 167
RALEIGH NC 27604
I am transmitting for your files the signed Concurrence Point 1 form, the signed
Concurrence Point 2 form, the November 18, 2004 e-mail, the June 6, 2006 e-mail and
the written confirmation from all merger team members to drop this project from the
Section 404/NEPA Merger Process This package concludes the Section 404/Merger
Process for this project effective on the date of this letter
Sincerely,
Ma ie L Sutton
Project Planning Engineer
mis
attachments
cc w/o attachments
Felix Davila, FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Chris Mihtscher, EPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Sue Homewood, DENR DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Craig McKinney, City of Greensboro
Deborah Barbour, P E, Preconstruction
Mike Mills, P E, Division Engineer
Greg Brew, P E , Roadway Design
Jerry Snead, P E , Hydraulics
Roy Shelton, PDEA
Eric Midkiff, P E, PDEA
Linwood Stone, PDEA
project file

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No 1 Purpose and Need
Project Name/Description SR 1008 (W Market Street) Proposed Widening from SR
2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68, Guilford County, TIP Project R-2611,
Federal Aid Project STP-1008 (9), State Project No 8 2497401
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project
The purpose of this protect is to increase the traffic carrying capacity on SR 1008 The
need is based on traffic volume being over the current facility's design
The Project Team has concurred on this date of August 15, 2002 with the purpose and
U
U
N
NCDCR
Greensboro MPO
?
NCDOT ?Y
USFWS J ? A44
NCDWQ C -41Ofm
FHWA 0 a--,
need for the proposed project as stated above
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No 2 Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document
Project Name/Description SR 1008 (W Market Street), Proposed widening from SR
2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68, Guilford County, TIP Project R-2611,
Federal Aid Project STP-1008(9), State Project No 82497401
Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document
1 No-build/routine maintenance continues
2 4-lane, median divided, shoulder section best fit widening
3 4-lane, median divided, curb & gutter best fit widening
4 5-lane shoulder section best fit widening
5 5-lane curb & gutter best fit widening
6 Hybrid section, consisting of a combination of 2 or more of the above alternatives
The Project Team has concurred on this date of August 15, 2002 with the "alternatives to
be studied in detail in the NEPA document" as stated above
USEP6?-X ?- - `
NCWRC?
NCDC
Greensboro MPO ?.
NCDOT
USFWS /4-i:?,-t,L ? ,? 4, Z&L4
NCDWQ
FHWA-- c e;/ ?L?
-2611, W Market Street Widenmg
Subject: R-2611, W. Market Street Widening
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15 10 35 -0500
From: Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Felix Davila@fhwa dot gov, john t thomas jr@saw02 usace army mil,
garyJordan@fws gov, militscher christopher@epa gov,
wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us, beth bames@ncmail net,
Sarah Mcbride@ncmail net, craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov
CC: Roy Shelton <rshelton@dot state nc us>, Rob Hanson <rhanson@dot state nc us>,
Linwood Stone <lstone@dot state nc us>,
"Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us>,
Mike Mills <mmills@dot state nc us>,
"Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
Merger Team Members
This is to follow up with the conversations we had in regards to
combining the Concurrence Point #2a meeting with the Concurrence
Point #3 meeting There is one stream crossing on this project
with an existing two-barrel 6 x 8 box culvert which will be
retained and extended Approximately 80 feet of stream will be
impacted There are no wetlands and no historic properties
affected. Based on the minimal impacts, it was agreed by all
members to sign the 2a concurrence form at the Concurrence Point
#3 meeting and proceed with the project
Five alternatives are being studied
1) 4-lane median divided curb and gutter,
2) 5-lane curb and gutter,
3) 5-lane shoulder,
4) 4-lane median divided shoulder, and
5)a hybrid section consisting of 4-lane median divided curb and
gutter and 5-lane curb and gutter
The City of Greensboro, Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and
the DOT Division Office have selected the 4-lane median with curb
and gutter as their preferred alternative Therefore, I will
proceed with the 4-lane median with curb and gutter as the
preferred alternative in the document
Thank you for your assistance in expediting the merger process on
this project Please contact me at [phone] ext 262 if you
have any questions or need additional information
Marie Sutton
1 of 1 11/18/2004 3 13 PM
611 ivlerger Process
Subject: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09 09 11 -0400
From: Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Todd J Tugwell@us army mil, Felix Davila <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>,
Gary-jordan@fws gov, Chris Mllitscher <cmilitscher@dot state nc us>,
Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov, Sarah McBridge@ncmail net,
Sue Homewood@ncmail net, wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
CC: Eric Midkiff <emidkiff@dot state nc us>, Roy Shelton <rshelton@dot state nc us>,
Linwood Stone <lstone@dot state nc us>,
"Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us>, Mike Mills <mmills@dot state nc us>,
"Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was
placed in the
Merger Process because the impacts from the project
were unknown at the time the project began Concurrence Points
1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for
study Based on
field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with any
of the
alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear
feet Since
the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed to
sign the 2a
concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and proceed
with the
project
The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median
divided with
curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of
Greensboro,
Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division office
An e-mail
was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004
confirming this
after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
The
Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public
Hearing was
held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required from
the US Army
Corps of Engineers
Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this
project through
the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement
by all
Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please
respond as
to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence meeting
or drop this
project from the Merger Process It would be preferred to have
to your response in writing
If you have questions or need additional information, I can be
reached at
[phone]
2611 Merger Process
Thank you for your assistance,
Marie Sutton
Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
)f 2 6/6/2006 9 10 AM
R-2611 Merger Process
Subject: RE: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07 51 44 -0400
From: "Tugwell, Todd J SAW" <Todd J Tugwell @ saw02 usace army mil>
To: "Marie Sutton" <misutton@dot state nc us>, "Felix Davila" <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>,
<Gary-jordan@fws gov>, "Chris Militscher" <cmilitscher@dot state nc us>,
<Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov>, <Sarah McBridge@ncmail net>,
<Sue Homewood@ncmail net>, <wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us>
CC: "Eric Midkiff" <emidkiff@dot state nc us>, "smtp-Shelton, Roy" <rshelton@dot state nc us>,
"Linwood Stone" <lstone @ dot state nc us>, "Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew @ dot state nc us>,
"Mike Mills" <mmills@dot state nc us>, "Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
I concur that the project should be removed from the Merger Process With
the stated impacts, I don't believe it is necessary to hold the 2a/3
concurrence meeting
Todd J Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U S Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
work 919-876-8441 ext 26
fax [phone]
www saw usace army mil/WETLANDS/index html
-----Original Message-----
From Marie Sutton [mailto misutton@dot state nc us]
Sent Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8 09 AM
To Tugwell, Todd J SAW, Felix Davila, Gary_3ordan@fws gov, Chris Militscher,
Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov, Sarah McBrldge@ncmail net,
Sue Homewood@ncmail net, wllsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
Cc Eric Midkiff, smtp-Shelton, Roy, Linwood Stone, Gregory E Brew PE, Mike
Mills, Jerry M Snead, P E
Subject R-2611 Merger Process
Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was placed in the
Merger Process because the impacts from the project
were unknown at the time the project began Concurrence Points
1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for study Based on
field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with any of the
alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear feet Since
the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed to sign the 2a
concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and proceed with the
project
The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median divided with
curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of Greensboro,
Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division Office
An e-mail
was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004 confirming this
after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
The
Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public Hearing was
held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required from the US Army
Corps of Engineers
Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this project through
the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement by all
R-2611 Merger Process
Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please respond as
to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence meeting or drop this
project from the Merger Process It would be preferred to have to your
response in writing
If you have questions or need additional information, I can be reached at
[phone]
Thank you for your assistance,
Marie Sutton

f 9 Fii 6nnnr, an A rn
6 R-2611 Merger Process
Subject: RE: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07 41 50 -0400
From: "Davila, Felix" <Felix Davila@fhwa dot gov>
To: "Marie Sutton" <misutton@dot state nc us>, <Todd J Tugwell@us army mil>,
<Gary-jordan@fws gov>, "Chris Militscher" <cmilitscher@dot state nc us>,
<Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov>, <Sarah McBridge@ncmail net>,
<Sue Homewood@ncmail net>, <wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us>
CC: "Eric Midkiff" <emidkiff @ dot state nc us>, "Roy Shelton" <rshelton @ dot state nc us>,
"Linwood Stone" <lstone@dot state nc us>, "Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us>,
"Mike Mills" <mmills@dot state nc us>, "Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
Marie Good Morning,
Based on relative low impacts to water resources and on other team
members wiliness to drop the project from the merger process, I concur
with dropping the project from merger too'
-----Original Message-----
From Marie Sutton [mailto misutton@dot state
Sent Tuesday, June 061 2006 9 09 AM
To Todd J Tugwell@us army mil, Davila, Felix,
Chris Militscher, Craig mcklnney@greensboro-nc
Sarah McBri.dge@ncmall net, Sue Homewood@ncmall
wllsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
Cc Eric Midkiff, Roy Shelton, Linwood Stone,
Mills, Jerry M Snead, P E
Subject R-2611 Merger Process
Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
nc us]
Gary_3ordan@fws gov,
gov,
net,
Gregory E Brew PE, Mike
R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was placed in
the Merger Process because the impacts from the project
were unknown at the time the pro3ect began Concurrence Points
1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for study
Based on field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with
any of the alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear
feet Since the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed
to sign the 2a concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and
proceed with the project
The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median divided
with curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of
Greensboro, Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division,
Office
An e-mail
was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004 confirming
this after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
The
Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public
Hearing was held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required
from the US Army Corps of Engineers
Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this project
through the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement
by all Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please
respond as to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence
meeting or drop this project from the Merger Process It would be
preferred to have to your response in writing
If you have questions or need additional information, I can be reached
at
R-2611 Merger Process
Subject: Re: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14 38 24 -0400
From: Gary_Jordan@fws gov
To: Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
CC: Chris Militscher <cnulitscher@dot state nc us>, Craig mckmney@greensboro-nc gov,
Eric Midkiff <enudkiff @ dot state nc us>, Felix Davila <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>,
"Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us>,
"Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>, Linwood Stone <lstone@dot state nc us>,
Mike Mills <mmills@dot state nc us>, Roy Shelton <rshelton@dot state nc us>,
Sarah McBridge@ncmail net, Sue Homewood@ncmail net, Todd J Tugwell@us army mil,
wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
Marie,
I am okay with dropping the project from the Merger Process
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext 32
Fax [phone]
gary_]ordan@fws gov
Marie Sutton
<misutton@dot sta
to nc us>
06/06/2006 09 09
AM
To
Todd J Tugwell@us army mil, Felix
Davila <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>,
Gary_3ordan@fws gov, Chris
Militscher
<cmilitscher@dot state nc us>,
Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov
Sarah McBridge@ncmail net,
Sue Homewood@ncmail net,
wilsontw mail wildlife state nc us
cc
Eric Midkiff
<emidkiff@dot state nc us>, Roy
Shelton <rshelton@dot state nc us>,
Linwood Stone
<lstone@dot state nc us>, "Gregory
E Brew PE"
<gbrew@dot state nc us>, Mike Mills
<mmills@dot state nc us>, "Jerry M
Snead, P E "
<3snead@dot state nc us>
Subject
R-2611 Merger Process
q
R-2611 Merger Process
Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was
placed in the
Merger Process because the impacts from the project
were unknown at the time the project began Concurrence Points
1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for
study Based on
field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with any
of the
alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear
feet Since
the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed to
sign the 2a
concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and proceed
with the
project
The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median
divided with
curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of
Greensboro,
Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division Office
An e-mail
was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004
confirming this
after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
The
Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public
Hearing was
held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required from
the US Army
Corps of Engineers
Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this
project through
the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement
by all
Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please
respond as
to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence meeting
or drop this
project from the Merger Process It would be preferred to have
to your response in writing
If you have questions or need additional information, I can be
reached at
[phone]
Thank you for your assistance,
Marie Sutton
(See attached file misutton vcf)
Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
if 3 ;/1 F1Jnn4 '7 'to AT,r
R-2611 Merger Process
Subject: Re: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13 23 35 -0400
From: "Chris Militscher" <cmilitscher@dot state nc us>
To: "Marie Sutton" <misutton@dot state nc us>, Todd J Tugwell@us army mil,
Felix Davila <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>, Gary-jordan@fws gov,
Chris Militscher <cmilitscher@dot state nc us> , Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov,
Sarah McBridge@ncmail net, Sue Homewood@ncmail net, wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
CC: Eric Midkiff <enudkiff@dot state nc us> , Roy Shelton <rshelton 4 dot state nc us> ,
Linwood Stone <lstone4dot state nc us> , "Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us> ,
Mike Mills <mmills@dot state nc us>, "Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
Marie EPA agreed to drop this project from the Merger process Thanks
Christopher A Mi.litscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
)f 1 (,/1 (,/'7nnA 7 Z4 A T,f
R-2611 TAC Meeting
Subject: RE. R-2611 TAC Meeting
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09 12 48 -0400
From: "McKinney, Craig" <Craig McKinney@greensboro-nc gov>
To: "Marie Sutton" <misutton@dot state nc us>
Thanks Marie
By the way, I'm glad to see that some if not all (I have not been
counting) of the permitting agencies are agreeable to dropping R-2611
from the merger process Also, a comment letter from our department/MPO
will be sent in on R-2611 regarding bike accommodations and median
breaks
I'm going to be away on a trip to Russia from June 16th to July 7th,
please contact Lydia McIntyre at Lydia mcintyre@greensboro-nc gov or
336-3117 should you need anything while I'm away
Craig McKinney
Transportation Planner
Greensboro DOT/MPO
-----Original Message-----
From Marie Sutton (mailto misutton@dot
Sent Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7 54 AM
To McKinney, Craig
Sub3ect R-2611 TAC Meeting
Craig,
state nc us]
I attended the TAC meeting on April 23, 2003 Let me know if
you need any other information
Marie
Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject
to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties
R-2611 Merger Process
Subject: Re: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Fn, 09 Jun 2006 15 46 07 -0400
From: Sue Homewood <Sue Homewood@ncmail net>
Organization: NC DENR - Winston-Salem Regional Office
To: Marie Sutton <misutton@dot state nc us>
CC: Todd J Tugwell@us army mil, Felix Davila <felix davila@fhwa dot gov>,
Gary-jordan@fws gov, Chris Militscher <cmilitscherCa)dot state nc us>,
Craig mckinney @green sboro-nc gov, Sarah McBridge@ncmail net,
wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us, Eric Midkiff <emidkiff@dot state nc us>,
Roy Shelton <rshelton@dot state nc us>, Linwood Stone <lstone@dot state nc us>,
"Gregory E Brew PE" <gbrew@dot state nc us>, Mike Mills <mmills@dot state nc us>,
"Jerry M Snead, P E " <jsnead@dot state nc us>
DWQ is ok with dropping the project from the merger process
On 6/6/2006 9 09 AM, Marie Sutton wrote
>Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
>R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was
>placed in the
>Merger Process because the impacts from the project
>were unknown at the time the project began Concurrence Points
>1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for
>study Based on
>field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with any
>of the
>alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear
>feet Since
>the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed to
>sign the 2a
>concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and proceed
>wi th the
>pro3ect
>The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median
>divided with
>curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of
>Greensboro,
>Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division Office
>An e-mail
>was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004
>confirming this
>after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
>The
>Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public
>Hearing was
>held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required from
>the US Army
>Corps of Engineers
>Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this
>pro3ect through
>the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement
>by all
>Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please
>respond as
>to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence meeting
>or drop this
of 2 6116nnn6 7 an AM
2-2611 Merger Process
>pr03ect from the Merger Process It would be preferred to have
>to your response in writing
>If you have questions or need additional information, I can be
>reached at
> [phone]
>Thank you for your assistance,
>Marie Sutton
Sue Homewood <Sue Homewood@NCmail net>
NC DENR
WSRO
R-2611 Merger Process
Subject. RE: R-2611 Merger Process
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 16 23 16 -0400
From: "Wilson, Travis W " <travis wilson@ncwildlife org>
To: "'Marie Sutton"' <misutton@dot state nc us>
Marie, WRC agrees to drop this project from the Merger process Please let
me know if an Email is not sufficient notification for DOT's records
Travis W Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resource Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Travis Wilson@ncwildlife org
-----Original Message-----
From Marie Sutton [mailto misutton@dot state nc us]
Sent Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9 09 AM
To Todd J Tugwell@us army mil, Felix Davila, Gary_jordan@fws gov, Chris
Mi.litscher, Craig mckinney@greensboro-nc gov, Sarah McBridge@ncmail net,
Sue Homewood@ncmail net, wilsontw@mail wildlife state nc us
Cc Eric Midkiff, Roy Shelton, Linwood Stone, Gregory E Brew PE, Mike
Mills, Jerry M Snead, P E
Subject R-2611 Merger Process
Merger Team Members and DOT contacts
R-2611, West Market Street Widening in Guilford County, was
placed in the
Merger Process because the impacts from the project
were unknown at the time the project began Concurrence Points
1 and 2 were signed and five alternatives were selected for
study Based on
field studies, there were no wetland impacts associated with any
of the
alternatives and stream impacts ranged from 110 to 185 linear
feet Since
the wetland and stream impacts were minimal, it was agreed to
sign the 2a
concurrence form at the concurrence point 3 meeting and proceed
with the
project
The alternate selected to carry forward was the four-lane median
divided with
curb and gutter This alternate was preferred by the City of
Greensboro,
Guilford County, the Greensboro MPO and the DOT Division Office
An e-mail
was sent out to all Merger Team Members on November 18, 2004
confirming this
after verbal agreement was reached from each Merger Team Member
The
Environmental Assessment was signed on June 16, 2005 and a Public
Hearing was
held on May 22, 2006 A Nationwide Permit will be required from
the US Army
Corps of Engineers
f2 6/16/2006 7 39 AM
R-2611 Merger Process
Based on the impacts, it is not necessary to continue this
project through
the Merger 01 Process However, it will need to be an agreement
by all
Merger Team Members on how to proceed with this project Please
respond as
to whether you would like to hold the 2a / 3 concurrence meeting
or drop this
project from the Merger Process It would be preferred to have
to your response in writing
If you have questions or need additional information, I can be
reached at
[phone]
Thank you for your assistance,
Marie Sutton
5
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
MEMORANDUM
TO Marie Sutton, NC Department of Transportation
FROM Sarah McBride, ER Specialist, NC DOT Projects
Division of Historical Resources
David L S Brook, Director
RE R-2611, Merger Process, West Market Street Widening, Guilford County
Date June 21, 2006
Thank you for your e-mail of June 6, 2006, concerning the above project As a member of the
Merger Team, the State Historic Preservation Office would like the above project dropped from
the Merger Process
www.huo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount St, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515N Blount St Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 4617 [phone] •715-4801
APPENDIX 3
Traffic Forecast Report
&SIAIr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Mane Sutton
LYNDO TIPPErr
SECRETARY
Project Development Engineer
Project Development Bridge Group
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Chris McKoy C k
Transportation Engineer
Traffic Forecasting Unit
Transportation Planning Branch
Traffic Forecast for TIP R-2611, Project #34482 1 1
Widen SRI 008-West Market St from NC68 to SR2007-
Bunker Hill Road in Colfax, Guilford County
Please find attached the 2005/2030 traffic forecast update for the aforementioned project
Also included are the truck, DHV and directional percentages for the project
The original forecast was sent out in August 2002 The current forecast includes updated
estimates and projections for the R-2611 TIP project The project limits includes
SR1008-West Market Street from NC68 to SR2007-Bunker Hill Road in Colfax
SR1008 is functionally classified as a mayor collector in the functional classification
system The total length of the project is approximately 3 6 miles The purpose of the
project is to increase traffic capacity and safety on SRI 008 The project description is to
widen existing Market Street to multi-lanes There is no control of access for SRI 008
The current forecast now includes the addition of SRI 864-McGuire Road, which was
previously unavailable Turning movement requests were taken for the McGuire Road
and Market Street intersection as requested by the NCDOT Rail Division The 2005
traffic was compared with the actual AADT's and the 2002 traffic from the forecast The
Piedmont Triad Regional Model provided the 2025 projections in the previous forecast
and assumptions were carved forth for projecting the 2030 traffic for the project Once
the Greensboro Urban Loop(U-2524) is completed, it is expected that some of the future
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW DOT STATE NC US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1554
Market Street traffic will now take the loop Therefore, modest growth of traffic volumes
is expected in future years for this corridor The existing land use along Market Street
currently consists of a mix of light and heavy industrial uses along with sprinkles of some
wooded and single family land use Future land use expectations is that the land
surrounding Market Street along the project corridor will continue to be industrialized,
but with some mixed use corporate park areas to the northwest of the project
To determine any intermediate years, please use straight-line interpolation For years
prior to 2005 and after 2030, straight-line extrapolation could be used If I can be of
further assistance, please don't hesitate to call Chris McKoy at 715-5482 extension 386 or
email cmckoy(a?dot state nc us
CDM
cc with attachments
Debi Hutchings, PE
Wayne Davis, PE
Nathan Phillips, PE
Jay Bennett, PE
Hardee Cox
File (R-2611, Guilford County)
a c x k 4t :tt -it
a

Cm ?0G t..rr
'a o -
vi 0
fz <
o
8 d x
O O d

<n,
l?l Y
_
yA>
6"tl
M M
tt?nl
y r 2! "T
r t" O Cr
C?7
c o °d
" z
<
? NO

o ?t ^ bo a rn
ty < n at .d

a

y
C?J
y?ydd3O Sla, 1
?
F
?
~
?, N
?
? O

clf
T I
C
?1ON

H
C
? O
r
col

C
O
r
Cr/
F?
w
V
9 D
G
_
C

a?
.+
cn co
cn

rM
;U 12
-
? 55
?
1
?
O

Q. Cn CTl
O
OD
rn
x
0
O n
Q. C x
CD U"
X O
Q. C
N
(D
VJ
.-.
C
a ? ? ? o z? r
? [ ho 0
z? ?
V) z m
o a
0 00
m O t? ? „ O

O a ° ^
n?
w
o x^

O 00
N

Z
Co ;tJ ? N
CL x C:)
(D O
1 --4
2 '
v
CD

U)
C N 12 (-M55
/
C
X :3
Q X O -A
N O

O

0 (1) 10 ? Pm- 60 -iAT

D ( N N
N
Q CT1
O
CJ1
cn
v
Cl)
q -PM- 60

? 00
O
?
cD ° O

Q 00
i
CL
N
Z
W C/)
C ?
CL 7r
CD O
v
2'
Cl)

=
9019 CL Co
3 w
0

cn N
Z7 N
O

O CY)

?j CD
N N

?N :0 N
90 yI? 19 (o a ._? -?
O W
00 W O
(D
r U;
v
3 ?
W CD (4
X N) 0)
9 65
? N N
CL
co
A
C
(n ?N
O
j
,rT
CD
O
W
X
N
O_
? N
SS 9 000-
cc
W
3
N
O
N W E- CO
S1 x.08 ?,? y .G N
a
CD W
co O?
?J
CTt z
A
4
Z n(11 f)-oz
W
0
N (p
O w ?CJ7
) .G)
T?
00
A
N

N

O
N

? O
d.
r ?
P- O
ti

N? O
N
D
r
00 C
Y

d
M
O
00

r Pe?
70-qq (311)1! U
Z r
Cl)
00 00
00

U
Z O ?0) o
M
O c-?
T- r N
F- N

?'. N ? M 80--*7?11) ls
LO c le)
r

ca
t
O
m -? r 6 Y?SS
N_ w
O
N
U)
.0
(s r) O M Y
d 6 0) (6
(fl
M
N
M
7
M 4-
U)
r _
N
-
Y-T-c>
U)
ti
N
N
NT °v

? E
U
c
)
O
O m
J
N
?
' 7

M
0)
04 O
CIO ti
6I?-?06

(U)
cu
O
??
N O

CO (n
N
ti
M
N

' E
M 00
-
r

1 I-
?

N Q
?
00 p;V
N
C

M
M
N -?
O Lo O O
LC) 'CT

„ 00 (s 4)
09 ?a
6 ?
U-) U
C
cu
U)
CY)
CY)
4
M M 000
?
) U
09'
yda 01 U)
G
?
0)

O N O N?? ~ L
O
2
O Y
) N -,
-0
?
U) M Cl%) ss ?yva zt U) Co

Z Cl)
U)
0
ca
75
O N
N C
X 7
U) M
Z
O
LO
> N

O

U o
.a U
X -
C?
O
I-
0)

C)

04 ?•

N

O =

/?
sszi O
Y
?
J/
M
N ?
co
++
U) U)

?
r Y
fC

..
.>
?
A? CO •?
}. L9
,w ?
W
?-1
O
A
0
M
N
A
W
N
W
A
A
W
O

r
APPENDIX 4
Traffic Capacity Report
.?°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GovERNOR
LYNDO THWIT
SECRETARY
July 5, 2007
TIP Project R-2611
County: Guilford
Description SR 1008 (West Market Street) from SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Drive) to NC 68
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jay A Bennett, P E , State Roadway Design Engineer ??1?tt 1 i
Roadway Design Unit CAROB ,
Attention. Gregory E Brew, P E, Project Engineer moo. OFESS16 y?
cif S E. ?.
FROM: Erin M Hendee, P.E, Plan Review Project Design Engineer 31
Congestion Management Section • • F ?.'
GIN'
SUBJECT: Secondary Review of R-2611 (Revised) 1i? M HE
1111
7-?-07
The following memorandum is being reissued in its entirety due a typographical error in the
January 19, 2007 memorandum Our comments and recommendations have not changed since
the previous memorandum
The Plan Review Group of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch has completed an
additional review of this project This letter supercedes our recommendations issued to your
office on February 4, 2005 for the intersections mentioned below As requested, we performed
intersection analyses using the following sources to determine the levels-of-service (LOS) for
this project
• R-2611 traffic forecast for years 2005 and 2030 design year traffic projections provided by
the Transportation Planning Branch memorandum, dated February 6, 2006,
• R-2611 Preliminary Roadway Plans on November 8, 2006, and
• Trip Generation by Microtrans (Version 5)
Based on our review, we offer the following comments and recommendations that should
enhance traffic safety and operations in this area
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The proposed median breaks analyzed in this memorandum are in accordance with NCDOT's
Median Crossover Guidelines, dated December 10, 2003 Any additional median breaks and/or
MAILING ADDRESS IVIMHONE 919-773-2800 LOCATION-
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BRANCH FAX [phone] TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BuiLDING
1561 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 750 N GREENFIETD PARKWAY
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2 76 99-1 592 WEBsrm WWW NCDOT ORG GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA 27529
G J Thorpe, PhD
7/5/07
Page 2
changes to median breaks that do not meet the NCDOT's Median Crossover Guidelines must be
submitted for Design Exception approval
Roadway has requested that the Plan Review Group reexamine the capacity analysis from SR
1843 (Marshall Smith Road) to SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) The revisions to the R-2611
roadway plans include the following
• SR 1843 (Marshall Smith Road) will be changed from nght-m, right-out to full movement,
• Little Santee Road (-Y7-) will be changed from full movement to westbound leftover,
• Francis Daly Court (-Y8-) will be changed from right-in, right-out to full movement, and
• SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) will maintain full movement access as previously designed
Due to heavy traffic volumes at the W Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road)
intersection, an alternate intersection configuration may be required The Plan Review Group is
currently coordinating with other departments to determine the feasibility of various alternate
intersection configurations.
W. Market Street at SR 1843 (Marshall Smith Road)
Based on the currently designed roadway plans, the eastbound left-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design year The southbound left-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS F in the 2030 design year, which is acceptable for a side street operating under
stop control The southbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in the 2030
design year.
It should be noted that if the zoning in this area changes (i.e new developments) from what was
assumed in the forecast by Transportation Planning, this intersection will potentially need
additional improvements Point impacts from potential new developments will need to be
determined by the Access Review Group based upon submitted development specific Traffic
Impact Assessments
W. Market Street at Little Santee Road
Based on the currently designed roadway plans, the westbound left-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design year The northbound right-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS B in the 2030 design year
W. Market Street at Francis Daly Court
This intersection was not included in the traffic forecast memorandum, dated February 6, 2006.
In order to account for traffic in the peak hours, the Guilford County GIS website
(http-//glsweb02 co guilford nc us/guilford/default htm) and the Trip Generation by Microtrans
program were used to calculate the peak hour traffic into and out of Francis Daly Court. Traffic
volumes at this intersection were balanced from the upstream and downstream intersections in
order to be conservative
Based on the currently designed roadway plans, the eastbound left-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS C in the 2030 design year The southbound shared left-turn, right-turn
movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2030 design year
G J Thorpe, PhD
7/5/07
Page 3
We recommend that this intersection remain with nght-in, nght-out access due to the extensive
eastbound queue from the W Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) intersection and
the distance between SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) and Francis Daly Court (approximately
825 feet), which does not comply with the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines
W. Market Street at SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road)
Based on the currently designed roadway plans, the intersection is expected to operate at an
overall LOS F in the 2030 design year
Based on the associated SimTraffic simulations of the currently designed roadway plans, the
eastbound queue at the W Market Street and SR 2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) intersection will
block the Francis Daly Court intersection for most of the peak hour Also, the westbound
approach is expected to experience extensive queuing, especially the westbound right-turn
movement, due to the increased green time dedicated to the eastbound left-tum movement
We recommend that the eastbound approach provide dual left-turn lanes with the maximum
amount of storage allowable inside the project constraints to accommodate the heavy vehicular
traffic and increased heavy vehicle percentages Based on the associated SimTraffic simulations
of the recommended lane improvements, the eastbound queue at the W Market Street and SR
2133 (Pleasant Ridge Road) intersection may block the Francis Daly Court intersection for a
short period of tune in the peak hour Also, the westbound nght-turn movement is expected to
experience extensive queuing due to the increased green time dedicated to the eastbound left-turn
movement
If you have any questions, please contact Bao Long Le, Plan Review Design Engineer, or me at
[phone]
a
EMH
cc J M Mills, P E (Attention P Wilson, P E)
R D Allen, PE
G J Thorpe, Ph.D (Attention E Midkiff, P E., L Stone, G Tarascio)
J K Lacy, P E, CPM
T. M. Hopkins, P.E. (Attention: A. D Wyatt, P.E , PTOE, B K Mayhew, P E )
V. L. Embry
T J Williams, P E.
C L Evans (Attention- E E Honeycutt)
J H Dunlop, P E
R W King, P.E
J S Bourne, P E
T K Marshall, P E
APPENDIX 5
Historic Architecture Supplemental
Report
Memo
To Marie Sutton
From Vanessa E Patrick
Date May 17, 2006
Re R-2611, Guilford County - Historic Architectural Resources
I have completed the supplemental survey of the R-2611 project area for historic
architectural resources Since the onginal survey in 2002, it has become our practice
to establish reasonably broad areas of potential effects (APEs) As you will see on
the attached map, the new APE is larger than the earlier area studied and, of course,
includes the more recent extension of the project to the west
The new survey yielded seventy-six properties None are already listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the State Study List, or otherwise designated
At a meeting yesterday morning with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO), I obtained HPO's concurrence that none of the seventy-six properties
are eligible for the National Register A copy of the signed form documenting the
agreement is attached Office staff of the Shady Grove Wesleyan Church on Bunker
Hill Road informed me that the Freedom's Hill Church, a mid-nineteenth-century
building recommended for the Study List, was moved to South Carolina from its site
dust north of the former about five years ago
In summary, the R-2611 APE contains no historic architectural properties of concern,
and the project is in compliance with both Section 106 and GS 121-12(a)
Many thanks again for providing materials and information about the revision of the
project Should questions arise or if I can help in any way, please let me know
X
V E P
Attachments
R-2611, Guilford County
Historic Architectural Resources
Survey Update, April 2006
Property Numbers 1-76 determined not NR-eligible (NE)
on May 16, 2006 by HPO and NCDOT.
Agreement supercedes that of August 20, 2002.
PROPERTY NO NAME ADDRESS PREVIOUS PREVIOUS
ELIGIBILITY PROPERTY NO
1 House 7815 Canoe
Road
2 House West Market
Street ( 2 mi
Eof SIR 2133
3 Barn West Market
Street
4 House 8818 West
(Magnolia Market Street
Manor)
5 House West Market
Street
6 House 8828 West
Market Street
7 House 8832 West
Market Street
8 Barn and West Market
Shed Street
9 Agricultural Standard
outside APE Complex Drive
10 House West Market
Street
11 House West Market
Street
12 House 9010 West
Market Street
13 House 9016 West
Market Street
14 House 9032 West
Market Street
15 House 9038 West NE 8-20-02 12
Market Street
16 House 9200 West NE 8-20-02 10
Market Street

17 House West Market
Street
18 House 9220 West NE 8-20-02 6
Market Street
19 House 9226 West NE 8-20-02 4
Market Street
20 House 123 Kidd
Road
21 House and 115 Kidd
Barn Road
22 Store West Market NE 8-20-02 2
Street
23 House Sandy Ridge
Road
24 House Sandy Ridge
Road
25 House 3315 Sandy
Ridge Road
26 House Sandy Ridge
Road
27 House Sandy Ridge
Road
28 Store Sandy Ridge
Road
29 House 8515 Cider
Road
30 House 8513 Cider
Road
31 House 8503 Cider
Road
32 House 3400 Sandy
Ridge Road
33 House 3402 Sandy
Ridge Road
34 House 3404 Sandy
Ridge Road
35 House Sandy Ridge
Road
36 House 3408 Sandy
Ridge Road
37 House 3410 Sandy
Ride Road
38 Commercial Bunker Hill
Building Road
39 House 8704 Sheffield
Road
40 House 8712 Sheffield
Road
41 House Sheffield
Road
42 House Sheffield
Road
43 House 8723 Sheffield NE 8-20-02 1
Road
44 House 200 Bunker
Hill Road
45 House 212 Bunker
Hill Road
46 House 203 Bunker
Hill Road
47 House 201 Bunker
Hill Road
48 House West Market
Street
49 House 9225 West NE 8-20-02 3
Market Street
50 House 9219 West NE 8-20-02 5
Market Street
51 House 9217 West NE 8-20-02 7
Market Street
52 House 9215 West NE 8-20-02 8
Market Street
53 House 9213 West NE 8-20-02 9
Market Street
54 House 9205 West
Market Street
55 House 9039 West
Market Street
56 House 102 Bunker
Hill Road
57 House 104 Bunker
Hill Road
58 House 106 Bunker
Hill Road
59 House 108 Bunker
Hill Road
60 House 112 Bunker
Hill Road
61 House 114 Bunker
Hill Road

I - It wH
62 Shady Grove Bunker Hill
Wesleyan Road
Church
63 House 9402 West
Market Street
64 House West Market
Street
65 Commercial West Market
Buildings Street
66 Gas Station 9422 West
Market Street
67 House West Market
Street
68 House 706 Ira Drive
69 House 708 Ira Drive
70 House 709 Ira Drive
71 House 707 Ira Drive
72 House 9502 West
Market Street
73 House 9508 West
Market Street
74 Colfax Baptist West Market
Church Street
75 House SE cor
Crosscreek
Road and El
Matador Drive
76 House 803
Crosscreek
Road
Federal Aid # STP-1008(9) TIP # R-2611 County Guilford
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description Widen West Market Street (SR 1008) from west of Bunker Hill Road (SR 2007) to NC 68
On May 16, 2006 representatives of the
x North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
x Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed This agreement supercedes that of August 20, 2002
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects
x There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary ?* ? -- =
X There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects
NB GF 570 (SL) Freedom's Hill Church (123 N Bunker Hill Rd) moved to South Carolina, ca 2000
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project
? There are no historic properties affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
a.4
tate Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepar&_, Tfiinal copy of this form and the attached list will be included
X 2
('D N
.7 ?
CL 0
n
O ,-p
Q
V N
CJ1 ?
/C n
cn fI!
VI Co
.Q C
CD
a?
? C
3 -0
cQ a
'?
V'
N
01
X
G
C
?S
CO
19
c?
V c
Q a
V/ n
C
O 1 1 / I ?? ,r + 1 'il h ??? : ?:? \ ? ..,?r-' :' efj- ? (I d • I?Im'i?- ~'?``
CA
;?, ? `tl ` a /r??r 'V\\\ +/fir ' ? 111 •, r +L' ? ? l.i p I
14
?\\` ' ?_ + J?'.?+'?• ?" r 11711 ?^,f? •, ?G? \`? ? CAW , LrJI '?F'" ??T?u
i;.;,, ? ` ?,.'? Q ` - a ' ',? f' 11x1 ?,? ? ? ; •? .-- -
I n
114
"t, k 211
?\ ii It
I ` t \ lttyrr' !a i• I ?''' 1?1 i ?ti •1 l /r
', r ? .? -.d ? I r r it (1 ! ? Q? ., 1 • -rl IB 1 ? ? __ f _ t 'r
1 ,?`????'?•?I???? ` y? `+; ,.- `I`, ? ., ?` ,. x,,,15
01
? `' ?G I A • e ? ? r ? ? f j? ?o?? y I
v 1?
? ? S- v ?• S'"- r ..?? r
rD

_? •• ; ..
? .-- ?? e ' :: it ? • A

sir'
r o
• e/f?
APPENDIX 6
Air Quality Report
STA7( °
`N J ° A
G4w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 19, 2007
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Gene Tarascio
Project Development Engineer
Bobby Dunn
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group
SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis for R-2611 SR 1008 (W Market Street) from
SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Rd) to NC 68, Guilford County, State
Project # 8 2497401, F A Project # STP-1008(9)
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (Revised)
Air pollution originates from various sources Emissions from industry and internal combustion
engines are the most prevalent sources The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality Changing
traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or
the improvement of an existing highway facility Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate) Automobiles are considered the mayor source of CO
in the project area For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with
determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow
Carbon Monoxide
in order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components must be used local and background The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (I e , distances
within 400 feet) of the receptor location The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a
pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity, that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources "
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
2
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality
Staff using line source computer modeling and the background component was obtained from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) Once
the two concentration components were ascertained, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Ozone & Nitrogen Dioxide
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides Hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight
to form ozone (03) and nitrogen dioxide (N02) Automotive emissions of HC and NOx are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution
control devices on new cars However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological
improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of
the area
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to occur
For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the
source of hydrocarbon emissions Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways The emissions of all sources in an urban area
mix in the atmosphere, and, in the presence of sunlight, this mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California
Particulate Matter & Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide
(S02) Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e g , industrial,
commercial, and agricultural) Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS
Lead
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline The burning of regular
gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline The
overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0 53 gram per liter By 1989,
this composite average had dropped to 0 003 gram per liter The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995 Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed 3
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded
CO Microscale Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations resulting
from the proposed highway improvements "CAL3QHC -A Modeling Methodology For
Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration near sensitive receptors
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a
level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
and worst-case meteorological parameters The traffic volumes are based on the annual average
daily traffic projections Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years
2010, 2015, and 2030 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the
MOBILE6 mobile source emissions computer model
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1 8 parts per million
(ppm) Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated
that an ambient CO concentration of 1 8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the intersection of SR
2133 (Pleasant Ridge Rd ) and SR 1008 (W Market St ) The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 4 10, 4 30, and 4 80
pm, respectively Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm, 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no
violation of these standards Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build
scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard See Tables Al through A3 for input data and output
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point
nonattamment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattamment area for 03 However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as maintenance for 03 on November 8, 1993 Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of
the state air quality implementation plan (SIP) The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Guilford County The GreensboroMetropolrtan Planning Organization (MPO)
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2030 LRTP, the Burlington
Graham MPO 2030 LRTP, and the 2007-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs
(MTIPs) conform to the intent of the SIP The USDOT made a conformity determination on the
Greensboro MPO LRTP on 10/01/04, the High Point MPO LRTP on 10/01/04, the Burlington MPO
LRTP on 10/01/04, the Greensboro MPO MTIP on 6/29/2007, the High Point MPO MTIP on 6/29/07
and the Burlington Graham MPO MTIP on 6/29/07 The current conformity determinations are
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 There are no significant
changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High 4
Point nonattamment area for fine particles PM 2 5 as defined by the EPA This area was
designated nonattainment for the PM2 5 standard in accordance with the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) on January 5, 2005, with an effective date of April 5, 2005 Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the
intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP) The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Guilford County The Greensboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2030
LRTP, the Burlington Graham MPO 2030 LRTP, and the 2007-2013 Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the intent of the SIP (or base year
emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate) The USDOT made a
conformity determination on the Greensboro MPO LRTP on 4/05/06, the High Point MPO LRTP
on 4/05/06, the Burlington MPO LRTP on 4/05/06, the Greensboro MPO MTIP on 6/29/07, the
High Point MPO MTIP on 6/29/07 and the Burlington Graham MPO MTIP on 6/29/07 The
current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 93 There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses
Attainment Status
Guilford County was designated as a moderate nonattamment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard
on April 15, 2004 Effective on November 22, 2004, EPA reclassified Guilford County from a moderate
nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area Guilford County is under an Early Action
Compact and the effective date of the nonattamment designation has been deferred until April 15,2008,
2008 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable until April 15, 2009 (one year after the nonattainment
designation becomes effective)
Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e g, airplanes), area
sources (e g , dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e g , factories or refineries)
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or
passes through the engine unburned Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion
of fuels or as secondary combustion products Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or
from impurities in oil or gasoline
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001) This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control

programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle 5
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-
highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VMT
(trillions/year)
6
Emissions
(tons/year)
DPWDEDG 07-41
3
FOmatletyd? ??x
°rx ti[?' i hle ?-: %
I3 6ftadlebe t6C
sr[?NI? ia?A
0
2000
200,000
100.000
Notes For on-road mobile sources Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6 2 MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50% Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content
are held constant VMT Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual
growth rate of 2 5% "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6 2-generated factors for elemental
carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at
10 0 microns
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards
were necessary to further control MSATs The agency is preparing another rule under authority
of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the primary
6 MSATs
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project
However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts
of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA Due to these limitations, the
following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502 22(b))
regarding incomplete or unavailable information
2005 2010 2015 2020

Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental and 6
health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key
elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate
ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in
order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final
determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure Each of these steps is
encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more
complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects While MOBILE 6 2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has
limited applicability at the project level MOBILE 6 2 is a trip-based model--emission
factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7 5 miles, and on average speeds for this
typical trip This means that MOBILE 6 2 does not have the ability to predict emission
factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time
Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6 2 can only approximate the operating speeds and
levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot
adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects For particulate matter, the
model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission
rates do change with changes in trip speed Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE
6 2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older-technology vehicles Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity
rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6 2 as an obstacle to quantitative
analysis
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6 2 to estimate MSAT
emissions MOBILE6 2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and
performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not
sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to
predict emissions near specific roadside locations
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited The EPA's
current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated
more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon
monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS The performance of dispersion
models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some
time at some location within a geographic area This limitation makes it difficult to
predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations
across an urban area to assess potential health risk The NCHRP is conducting research
on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of
MSATs This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting
and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a
lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT
background concentrations
Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and 7
concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current
techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching
meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts Exposure assessments are
difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs
near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to
those concentrations at a specific location These difficulties are magnified for 70-year
cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be
made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects
emissions rates) over a 70-year period There are also considerable uncertainties
associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of
factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to
the general population Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in
health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with calculating the impacts Consequently, the results of such assessments
would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information
against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the
Impacts of MSATs: Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing For
different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are
statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies
(frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals
demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts Most notably, the
agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate
modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level While not intended
for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the
NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national
or State level
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human
health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the
environment The IRIS database is located at http //www epa gov/ins The following
toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database
Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries
This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's
most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or
mixtures
Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen 8
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data
are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans,
and sufficient evidence in animals
1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure
Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the
combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases
Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer
hazard from MSATs Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could
produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis Exposure
relationships have not been developed from these studies
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to
roadways The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA,
FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a mayor series of studies to research near-roadway
MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants,
and other topics The final summary of the series is not expected for several years
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems' Much of this research is not specific to
MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants The
FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not
provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and
enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to
this project
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably
Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of
impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted
in the scientific community: Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative
assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made
at the project level While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative
emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT
emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures
created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be
useful in estimating health impacts (As noted above, the current emissions model is not
capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects )
Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have
"significant adverse impacts on the human environment "
In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to 9
the various alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that
(some, all, or identify by alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to
MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are
uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be
estimated
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain
science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT
emissions and effects of this project However, even though reliable methods do not exist to
accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to
qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project Although a
qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis
for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the
various alternatives The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study
conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Aar Toxic
Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at
www fhwa dot gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions htm
For each alternative in the EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network This increase
in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes The
emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds,
according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except
for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases The extent to which these speed-related
emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due
to the inherent deficiencies of technical models
Because the estimated VMT under each of the-Alternatives presented in the EA are nearly the
same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among
the various alternatives Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower
than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020 Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT
growth rates, and local control measures However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected
reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study
area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of
moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses, therefore, under each
alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher
under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative The localized increases in
MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along SR 1008 (W Market Street) from
SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Rd) to NC 68 However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the 10
duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately
quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models In sum, when a highway is
widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for
the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset
due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions) Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover
will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide
MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of
by the Contractor Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D 0520 Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to
the public Burning will be performed under constant surveillance Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary
' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure
Study-II (2000), Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24
Studies on the relationship between health and air quality), NEPA's Uncertainty in
the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles,
Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited
therein
Table Al
CAL3QHC LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2 0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB R-2611, Guilford County, Year 2005 RUN R-2611, Guilford County, Year 2005
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
- ------------- --------- --
VS = 0 CM/S VD = 0 CM/S ZO = 108 CM
U = 1 0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60 MINUTES MIXH = 1000 M AMB = 1 8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--- ----------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-------*-- ------ - ----------------------------*---------------- ---- -- - ------- --------
----- -------- -
1 SB RT App * -6 0 1000 0 -6 0 0 * 1000 180 340 13 3 0 32 0
2 SB RT Que * 6 0 36 0 -6 0 81 3 * 45 360 556 100 0 0 12 0 71 7 6
3 SB RT Dept * -6 0 0 -6 0 1000 0 * 1000 360 340 13 3 0 32 0
4 SB LT App * -6 0 1000 0 6 0 0 * 1000 179 114 13 3 0 32 0
5 SB LT Que * 0 36 0 0 62 4 * 26 360 736 100 0 0 12 0 86 4 4
6 SB LT Dept -6 0 0 6 0 1000 0* 1000 1 114 13 3 0 32 0
7 NB Dept * -6 0 0 -6 0 1000 0 * 1000 360 454 13 3 0 32 0
8 EB App * -1000 0 -18 0 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 1103 13 3 0 44 0
9 EB LT Que * -36 0 0 -81 3 0 * 45 270 556 100 0 0 12 0 71 7 6
10 EB Thru * -36 0 -18 0 -70 3 -18 0 * 34 270 750 100 0 0 24 0 46 5 7
11 EB Dept * 0 -18 0 1000 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 877 13 3 0 44 0
12 WB App * 1000 0 18 0 0 18 0 * 1000 270 877 13 3 0 44 0
13 WB Thru/RT * 36 0 18 0 313 2 18 0 * 277 90 375 100 0 0 12 0 1 06 46 2
U WB Dept * 0 18 0 -1000 0 18 0 * 1000 270 1103 13 3 0 44 0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
- - --- ---- -----------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
---- --------- ---------*------------------------------------- ----- ------------ --- ------ --- ---- ---
2 SB RT Que * 120 80 2 0 340 1600 310 70 1 3
5 SB LT Que 120 106 2 0 114 1600 310 70 1 3
9 EB LT Que * 120 80 2 0 340 1600 310 70 1 3
10 EB Thru 120 54 2 0 763 1600 310 70 1 3
13 WB Thru/RT 120 54 2 0 877 1600 310 70 1 3
Table A-1 cont Page 2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
- --- - ---------
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR *
* X Y Z
*
--
1 ----------------------
NNE1 ---
* ------------
50 0 ---------------
100 0 -------
1 8
2 NE * 75 0 50 0 1 8
3 ENE1 * 100 0 50 0 1 8
4 ENE2 * 150 0 50 0 1 8
5 ESE2 * 150 0 -50 0 1 8
6 ESE1 115 0 -50 0 1 8
7 SE * 75 0 -50 0 1 8
8 SSE1 50 0 -125 0 1 8
9 SSE2 * 50 0 -175 0 1 8
10 SSW2 -50 0 -175 0 1 8
11 SSW1 * -50 0 -115 0 1 8
12 SW -85 0 -85 0 1 8
13 WSW1 * -115 0 -50 0 1 8
14 WSW2 * -150 0 -50 0 1 8
15 WNW2 * -150 0 50 0 1 8
16 WNW1 * -100 0 50 0 1 8
17 NW * -75 0 50 0 1 8
18 NNW1 * -50 0 100 0 1 8
19 NNW2 * -50 0 150 0 1 8
MODEL RESULTS
- -----------
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum
WIND ANGLE RANGE 0 -360
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19
* - ----- ----------- ---- - --------------- - - - - ----- - ------------- --
MAX * 3 8 3 5 3 3 3 4 3 0 3 0 3 2 2 7 2 6 2 9 3 2 3 7 3 9 3 b 3 2 3 t 4 1 3 7 3 1
DEGR * 225 257 257 249 291 280 287 344 351 0 1 21 50 66 95 95 97 130 148
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4 10 PPM AT 97 DEGREES FROM REC17
Table A-2
CAL3QHC LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2 0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB R 2611, Guilford County, Year 2010 RUN R-2611, Guilford County, Year 2010
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------- ----------------- ---
VS = 0 CM/S VD = 0 CM/S ZO = 108 CM
U = 1 0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60 MINUTES MIXH = 1000 M AMB = 1 8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
* - ------ -- ------------ ----------- --- ---- - - ---- ----------- - -------- --
1 SB RT App * -6 0 1000 0 6 0 0 * 1000 180 390 13 6 0 32 0
2 SB RT Que * -6 0 36 0 -6 0 85 4 * 49 360 507 100 0 0 12 0 73 8 2
3 SB RT Dept * -6 0 0 -6 0 1000 0 * 1000 360 390 13 6 0 32 0
4 SB LT App * 6 0 1000 0 6 0 0* 1000 179 138 13 6 0 32 0
5 SB LT Que * 0 36 0 0 72 5 * 36 360 700 100 0 0 12 0 95 6 1
6 SB LT Dept * -6 0 0 6 0 1000 0* 1000 1 138 13 6 0 32 0
7 NB Dept * -6 0 0 -6 0 1000 0 * 1000 360 528 13 6 0 32 0
8 EB App * -1000 0 -18 0 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 1141 13 6 0 44 0
9 EB LT Due * -36 0 0 -85 4 0 * 49 270 507 100 0 0 12 0 73 8 2
10 EB Thru * -36 0 -18 0 -72 9 -18 0 * 37 270 787 100 0 0 24 0 49 6 1
11 EB Dept * 0 -18 0 1000 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 889 13 6 0 44 0
12 WB App 1000 0 18 0 0 18 0 * 1000 270 889 13 6 0 44 0
13 WB Thru/RT * 36 0 18 0 561 3 18 0 * 525 90 394 100 0 0 12 0 1 17 87 5
14 WB Dept * 0 18 0 -1000 0 18 0 * 1000 270 1141 13 6 0 44 0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
---- ----- --- ------- -- - -
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
- --- -- - - ---------* - ------- - -- ----------------------------------------- - ----- --- ---- --
2 SB RT Que * 120 76 2 0 390 1600 298 40 1 3
5 SB LT Que * 120 105 2 0 138 1600 298 40 1 3
9 EB LT Que * 120 76 2 0 390 1600 298 40 1 3
10 EB Thru * 120 59 2 0 751 1600 298 40 1 3
13 WB Thru/RT * 120 59 2 0 889 1600 298 40 1 3
Table A-2 cont Page 2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR *
* X
------- Y
-----------
----- 2
----------
*
---
1 ----------------------
NNE1 --- -
50 0 100 0 1 8
2 NE 75 0 50 0 1 8
3 ENE1 100 0 50 0 1 8
4 ENE2 * 150 0 50 0 1 8
5 ESE2 * 150 0 -50 0 1 8
6 ESE1 * 115 0 -50 0 1 8
7 SE 75 0 -50 0 1 8
8 SSE1 * 50 0 -125 0 1 8
9 SSE2 * 50 0 -175 0 1 8
10 SSW2 * -50 0 -175 0 1 8
11 SSW1 * -50 0 -115 0 1 8
12 SW * -85 0 -85 0 1 8
13 WSW1 * -115 0 -50 0 1 8
14 WSW2 150 0 50 0 1 8
15 WNW2 * -150 0 50 0 1 8
16 WNW1 * -100 0 50 0 1 8
17 NW * -75 0 50 0 1 8
18 NNW1 * -50 0 100 0 1 8
19 NNW2 * -50 0 150 0 1 8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum
WIND ANGLE RANGE 0 -360
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19
------ * --------------- -------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------
MAX * 4 0 3 7 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 7 2 6 3 0 3 2 3 8 4 2 3 7 3 4 3 7 4 3 4 0 3 2
DEGR * 225 257 254 247 308 280 281 339 342 1 6 21 55 66 95 92 94 124 147
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4 30 PPM AT 94 DEGREES FROM REC17
Table A-3
CAL3QHC LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2 0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB R-2611, Guilford County, Year 2025 RUN R-2611, Guilford County, Year 2025
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------- ----- ----
VS = 0 CM/S VD = 0 CM/S ZO = 108 CM
U = 1 0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60 MINUTES MIXH = 1000 M AMB = 1 8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
1 SB RT App
2 SB RT Due
3 SB RT Dept
4 SB LT App
5 SB LT Due
6 SB LT Dept
7 NB Dept
8 EB App
9 EB LT Due
10 EB Thru
11 EB Dept
12 WB App
13 WB Thru/RT
14 WB Dept
* LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
*
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 *
* (M) (DEG)
---------
------ (G/MI)
- ------ (M) (M)
----------- -- (VEH)
--- ---
------- -
-6 0 --- -- -
1000 0 ----------
-6 0 -- ------
0 * ---- --- -
1000 -
180 540 13 9 0 32 0
* -6 0 36 0 -6 0 160 1 * 124 360 498 100 0 0 12 0 1 01 20 7
* -6 0 0 -6 0 1000 0 * 1000 360 540 13 9 0 32 0
* -6 0 1000 0 6 0 0* 1000 179 210 13 9 0 32 0
* 0 36 0 0 290 6 * 255 360 689 100 0 0 12 0 1 44 42 4
* -6 0 0 6 0 1000 0* 1000 1 210 13 9 0 32 0
* -6 0 0 6 0 1000 0* 1000 360 750 13 9 0 32 0
* -1000 0 -18 0 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 1255 13 9 0 44 0
* -36 0 0 -160 1 0 * 124 270 498 100 0 0 12 0 1 01 20 7
* -36 0 -18 0 -71 1 -18 0 * 35 270 774 100 0 0 24 0 47 5 9
* 0 18 0 1000 0 -18 0 * 1000 90 925 13 9 0 44 0
* 1000 0 18 0 0 18 0 * 1000 270 925 13 9 0 44 0
* 36 0 18 0 674 8 18 0 * 639 90 387 100 0 0 12 0 1 22 106 5
* 0 18 0 -1000 0 18 0 * 1000 270 1255 13 9 0 44 0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED
* LENGTH TIME
*
* (SEC) (SEC)
--
2 -----
SB --------------
RT Que --
* ---- -----
120 ------
76
5 SB LT Due * 120 105
9 EB LT Que * 120 76
10 EB Thru * 120 59
13 WB Thru/RT 120 59
CLEARANCE APPROACH
LOST TIME VOL
(SEC) (VPH)
------------ ------
2 0 540
2 0 210
2 0 540
2 0 715
2 0 925
SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(VPH) (gm/hr)
--------------- --------- ------- --
1600 293 40 1 3
1600 293 40 1 3
1600 293 40 1 3
1600 293 40 1 3
1600 293 40 1 3
r
Table A-3 cont Page 2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------- ---- --
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR *
* X Y Z
------
-
1 ---- -----------------
NNE1 * --------------
50 0 ---------------
100 0 -
1 8
2 NE * 75 0 50 0 1 8
3 ENE1 * 100 0 50 0 1 8
4 ENE2 * 150 0 50 0 1 8
5 ESE2 * 150 0 -50 0 1 8
6 ESE1 * 115 0 -50 0 1 8
7 SE * 75 0 50 0 1 8
8 SSE1 * 50 0 -125 0 1 8
9 SSE2 * 50 0 -175 0 1 8
10 SSW2 * -50 0 -175 0 1 8
11 SSW1 * 50 0 -115 0 1 8
12 SW * -85 0 -85 0 1 8
13 WSW1 * -115 0 -50 0 1 8
14 WSW2 * -150 0 -50 0 1 8
15 WNW2 * -150 0 50 0 1 8
16 WNW1 -100 0 50 0 1 8
17 NW * -75 0 50 0 1 8
18 NNW1 * -50 0 100 0 1 8
19 NNW2 * -50 0 150 0 1 8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum
WIND ANGLE RANGE 0 -360
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19
-- --*------ --------------------- ---- ------ -------------------------- --------- --- ---------- --- -----
MAX * 44 40 39 37 38 39 40 37 34 37 44 48 44 41 38 40 43 45 43
DEGR * 230 259 257 263 316 323 334 348 351 8 5 21 36 39 95 94 93 104 131
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4 80 PPM AT 21 DEGREES FROM REC12
APPENDIX 7
Comments Received from Federal,
State, and Local Agencies
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
g?"f 1
Post Office Box 33726 4
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 10 C-1
Mz
n z
July 12, 2005
fi
Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr Thorpe
This letter is in response to your June 29, 2005 letter which requested comments from the U S
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the widening of
SR 1008 (West Market Street) from SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68, Guilford
County, North Carolina (TIP No R-2611) These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U S C 661-667d) and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543)
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen a 3 6 mile portion of SR 1008 from two lanes to four or five lanes Five alternatives are
being considered, with the NCDOT recommended alternative being a four-lane median divided
curb and gutter facility (Alternative 1) Impacts to natural environments are minimal for all
alternatives - no wetland impacts and only one stream crossing
Due to the suburban and previously developed nature of the project corridor, the Service does not
have any significant concerns with this project Impacts to fish and wildlife resources appear to
be minimal At this time the Service does not have a recommended alternative We have
participated in the Combined NEPA/404 Merger Process for this project and will continue to do
so
There is only one federally listed species in Guilford County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on this
species Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs that the project will have no effect on the
bald eagle We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied
for now We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation 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 in this review, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action

The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources,
the waters and wetlands of the United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project
on these resources The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project If you have
any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr Gary Jordan at [phone], ext 32
Si e ,
Pete B amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ, Winston-Salem, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
-2611, EA West Market Street, Guilford Co
Subject: R-2611, EA West Market Street, Guilford Co
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08 04 18 -0400
From: "Chns M111tscher" <cm1htscher@dot state nc us>
To: lstone@dot state nc us, misutton@dot state nc us
CC: thart@dot state nc us, mueller helm@epa gov, blsterfeld ted@epa gov,
john t thomas@saw02 usace army m11
Marie/Linwood I completed the review of the Federal EA for the above
referenced non-Merger project which includes widening Market Street for 3 6
miles Comments on the EA were requested by NCDOT by 8/15 EPA has no
environmental objections or concerns The summary impact table (Page ii)
for the Alternatives is very comprehensive and I appreciate the detailed
information for my review My only detailed comment is in regards to noise
abatement It appears the noise abatement analysis was performed using the
older policy ($25,000 per benefitted receptor)and not the NCDOT 2004
policy I would ask that the updated cost-benefit analysis for noise
abatement be applied prior to issuance of the FNSI Also, EPA would
appreciate receiving a copy of the FNSI for review when it becomes
available Thank you
Christopher A Militscher
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
of 1 0/10111AAC 0 1 4 A X A
sw SW(y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MNT OFT TATION
NWHAEL F EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N C 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
September 2, X005
MEMORANDUM
TO- Marie Sutton
PDEA
`4
FROM Mated Al-Ghandour, PE 014
Project Management Umt Head
Program Development Branch
LYNDO TIPPFTT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT SCH File# 06-E-4220-0019, SCOPING, Proposed widening of SR 1008
(W Market Street} from SR 2007 (Bunker Hill Road) at Colfax to NC 68
in Guilford County, TIP# R-2611
Attached are the comments from the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review Process
These comments have been entered into our records and the attached copy is for your personal
records
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mated A1-Ghandour at (919) 733-
3690 ext 313
MNAlsp
attachment

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F Easley, Governor Gwynn T Swinson, Secretary
August 26, 2005
Mr Omar Sultan
N C Dept of Transportation
Project Dev Branch
Transportation Bldg - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr Sultan
Re SCH File # 06-E-4220-0019, SCOPING, Proposed Widening of W Market St, (SR 1008) from
Bunker Hill Road at Colfax to NC 68 in Guilford County, TIP #R-2611
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely,
A A
Ms Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc Region G
Marling Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier 951-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-marl Chrys $aggett@ncmarl net
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
CDEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mlcnael F Easley, Governor
/o
MEMORANDUM
AAV
2oOa
TO Chrys Baggett ` c ?7 i
State Cleannghouse
FROM Melba McGee
Environmental Review Manager
William G Ross Jr, Secretary
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its review
Our regional office within the geographic area of the proposed project has identified
permits that may be required prior to project construction For more information, the
project applicant should notify the respective regional office marked on the back of the
attached permit form
Thank you for the opportunity to review
Attachment
1601 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www enr state nc us/ENR/
Ar =:uai Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
,lVaturallw
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLZARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF :ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNNILNTAL REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CL__-:kRINGHOUSE COORD
DE-=T OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617 t? 6 7 8 19
RALEIGH NC
A U G 2005
RE'IIEW DISTRIBUTION
CCSPS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DE:-:;T OF AGRICULTURE
DE=T OF CUL RESOURCES
DE-FT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIEDMONT TRIAD COG
RECENED
°AqvQAo?
-c'
PRCjECT INFORMATION
AP:-_ICANT N C Dept of Transportation
STATE NUMBER
DATE RECEIVED
AGENCY RESPONSE
REVIEW CLOSED
fl
lJ
?r
06-E-4220-0019 F02
07/21/2005
08/16/2005
08/21/2005 - -
r ,

D44
TYPS National Environmental Policy Act
ERE Scoping
DESC Proposed Widening of W Market St , (SR 1008 from Bunker Hill Road at Colfax to
NC 68 in Guilford County;} TIP #R-2611
CRCSS-REFERENCE NUMBER 02-E-4220-0676
The attached project has been submitted to the N C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review and submi= your response by the above
inc-cated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigr NC 27699-1301
If additional review time is needed, please contacr this office at [phone]
AS _ RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMIT'I=D
M NO COMMENT
COM NTS ATTACHED
SIG-TED BY
I EMEA
u?27Mcy

p?v `1Y0
G
Cl)
O ~
Y
NMMORANDUM
?a151?17
2005
Michael F Easley, Governor
North Carolina Department ofEnviroriment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P E Director
Division of Water Quality
August 12, 2005

To Melba McGee ?G; ??
From Sue Homewood"Q&
SLoj ect Comments on the Environmental Assessment for'West Market Street (SRI 008) Widening From SR 2007
(Bunker Hill Road at Colfax to NC 68, Greensboro Guilford County, Federal Aid Project STP-1008(9),
State Project No 82497401 TIP R-2611, DENR Project Number 06-0019
T_i-s office has reviewed the referenced document The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance
of he Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that imuact Waters of the U S , including wetlands It is our
uraerstanding that the alternatives, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to Jurisdictional streams and riparian
buffers The project will have impacts to streams and riparian buffers associated with the Cape Fear River Basin and
Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
Te DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document
A) East Fork Deep River is listed on the 3303(d) list of impaired waters Instream habitat degradation associated
with urban nonpoint sources such as high turbidity and sedimentation is a possible cause of stream impairment
Design plans should include ways to reduce turbidity both during and after construction
B) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the
NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts
to streams and riparian buffers to the maximum extent practical
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(b)(6)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream In the event
that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be desimed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506 (h)(3)},
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
D) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts However, we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk
to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms Moreover, in areas where high quality
wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable When applicable, DOT should not install the
bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable
E) NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and
clearing, to Jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact
calculations These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be
included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
No ` Carohna
North aroltna Division of Water ualt ,/ atunallf
Ir:met h2ivisi n of us Q ry 58-) Wauehtown Street 'hone [phone]
Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Customer Service FA-( [phone] 1-877-623--676748
3
An EOL- Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
F) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands
G) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory rn.Lgation
H) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
streams and surface waters but it should instead be routed as sheet flow through buffer areas
The `CDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions or
reause any additional information please contact Sue Homewood at [phone] extension 287
cc US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Gary Jordan USFWS
Travis Wilson NCWRC
NCDWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
NCDWQ Central Files
NCD WQ 401/Wetlands Transportation Unit File Copy
Ai;,A State of North Carolina Reviewing Office
?
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources ProjectNumber `"(P- 00/ Due Date -
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form
All aoplications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
s Time
Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts On-site inspection Post application technical conference usual
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters Application 180 days before begin activity On-site inspection preapplication
conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment s
facility-granted after NPDES Reply time 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later
7
0 1 Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
ddaa

0 Well Construction Permit Complete application must be receive d and permit issued prior to the
7 days
installation of a well (15 days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner
On site inspection Preapplication conference usual Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N C Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
55 days
(90 days)
Permit t
o construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q 0100 2Q 0300 2H 0600)
N/A

60 days
Any open burning associated w
h
b
it
su
ject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D 1900
--------
----
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D 1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
and removal prior to demolition Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733 0820 N/A 60 days
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
/200800
Th
S
d
e
e
imentation 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 Section) at least 30
days before beginning activity A fee of 540 for the first acre or any part of an acre
20 days
(30 days)
Th
S
d
e
e
imentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
30 days
M
P
ining
ermit On-site inspection usual Surety bond filed with DENR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued
30 days
(60 days)

North Carolina Burning permit On site inspection by N C Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
in coastal N C with organic soils On-site inspection by N C Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned '
1 day
(N/A)

C] Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90 120 days
(N/A)

Dam Safety Permit If permit required application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N C qualified engineer to prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans May also require permit under
mosquito control program and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A minimum
fee of 520000 must accompany the application An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion

0 days
(60 days)
PERMITS
i
`I Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
I
`1 Geopnysical Exploration Permit
`i State Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
I
i
?I
?I
I
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bona of $5 000 with DENR running to State of N C conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall upon abandonment be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application
by letter No standard application form
Application fees based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property
N/A
5250 00 fee must accompany application
$50 00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed please notiry
N C Geodetic Survey Box 27687 Raleigh N C 27611
Abandonment of any wells if required must be in accordance with rile 15A Subchapter 2C 0100
r Notification of the proper regional office is requested if oronan underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
y
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is reauired
* i Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary be ng certain to cite comment authority)
--------------
Normal Process lime
(Statutory Time Limit)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
15 20 days
(N/A)
_._
SS--days
030 days)
60 days
0 30 days)
22 days
(25 days)
45 days
(N/A)
L a? `??11a
Ur 2005
rv E:)
r
G> (ary's OfIV!
tom,
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N C 28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N C 28115
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N C 28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
225 Green Street,Suite 714 ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, PO Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N C 28301 Raleigh, N C 27611
[phone] Winston-Salem, N C 27107
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
9,13 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N C 27889
[phone]

1
I
?lL is -deV,tCCt?,t ?a??,161118 jo(p t
Olt AUG 2005
h C -?
y?
REEIVED I
c ?S
rR
-pIJM ov '? Affa?zs, L9
MEtitORAN ern et,?l ??` r Z i t? 5
?. ?Il.elba ?,krGegislatlve and ?tez? Coordinator
TO Office of w?v Qro?cct
? on, K'gb pt°gcam
Trav,s L ils or'ental cS
afion Envy (Bur'l`
FROM xabltat sety CDOT? SR2?? o>>na
Ppzta eet aeninS Ce' N°rth Cat
t $ 205 T zat'S
Au°us err °f Su Gu>>fpza
DA`1B CatolIra?e pz t eldestLAS:
tccti?sb vol tl?e 5ublect
C? e,nt ? fax to ?C 6$ N° ?6.?? ave reviewed tev4 was to ce
s?$3? Ass-essn' oad) at c SCYI PsoJect Cotntnrss'°n rose of this ed in accord a the
an
?o R_2611 e ResOUZces o 'Coe pu ate PToVid 32cn(c))
C w1lalif oleot area n1i?en 2 V S 664 66'1 a)
th the N t v aloes in tbe Ptu es puz coNct 4 1-
f?blolo?1sts withbablta?a?,r,ldlife teso tcEntal -? G?Ivy M,,a cd, 161? 5 C bg
toNC
°nm d Road o1 an,s vazy ?,th
end are faczi pacts to d1 I?aaona4g star 401> a a
m ct Kill ctso s e ?mPaa
LA jolect otis of p,ct mbuz>k jtnPa eam
assess P an lIt0visC ootdtratjon ct Street $oV 3 6 miles S feet of stt
with cent wtldltfc CcskMazk ?iiratel• -185 11nea the,z
Fish and ores to wjdec lergtl,'s aoxmatelY 10? altetriat?ve l a ?ttr?s
C?O? pt0 e total Ptol to t°t2l aPP bas selcctea Quttet sectlo tolect
shozo e expected ds NCDOT d curb ana azure o f this P
,r Gtee es, a»d at a to vJetlat+ - the EA divide a, .jib n
altetna ace aO ,znpact to Costa>ned v Ave mea eu due to the ° to
'Cl?ezec da 1 a f0 ',)X ggg6
pltez0'3t'4e tefcnea e jot the °Pp?9? 52 y
vc tcvic`NC is
We b alternative cs aotbave c es at this tam mark yo Calidie at C9
ptefe baNC?NRa d spectflc c°ti ?A foC tll' ePass stance please
we any f`s`,
t ecao notbaue cot,cut canoee of
P,t tots time A If we ,
??njert on t1„s E
co