20081797 Ver 1_Complete File_20081210

TIP Sco
ing to Regions
Sue Homewood (WSRO): Div 7, 9, 11
Polly Lespinasse (MRO): Div 8, 10, 12
TIP# J `1 D ? Counry: G?(c
Title of Project: s F LI 12
Date response due date: Zja(I tf/ zoo-s-
DENR Project review form and pre-application project
materials attached.
FIEF
ice, _-' .. v
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date Received: Dart Respoau Due (firm
dta line):
APR 19 2005
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: DENR-WATERQUAUTY
e.?n c rewMATER BRANCH
Regional OtTicc Regional Office Area Li-House Re%iew
? Asheville ? Air ? Soil &:. Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wildlife ? Water Resources

? Raleigh ? L4nd Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Pads & Recreation ? Other
Water Quality, Jul" ^- ?•
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
hfanagcr Sign-Of (Region: Date: L-- ou_s: R.sivA- r/Agency-
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
Kr, 1 u" t u:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office or Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Bridford Parkway Extension (SR 4126)
From Hornaday Road
To Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Greensboro, Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
WBS Element 35007.1.1
TIP Project Number U-4006
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
D
APR 19 2005
DENR - WATER.QUALiTY
WTIZAND sTORmWATER SRANCN
APPRROV D:
33 31 6S
at

Date ?!ohn F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Bridford Parkway Extension (SR 4126)
From Hornaday Road
To Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Greensboro, Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
WBS Element 35007.1.1
TIP Project Number U-4006
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
March 2005
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
Mario L. Sutton
Project Development Engineer
0
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Engineer, Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, PE
Project Development Assistant Manager
? _ _ _ __
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridford Parkway Extension (SR 4126)
From Hornaday Road
to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Greensboro, Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
WBS Element 35007.1.1
TIP Project Number U-4006
Geotechnical Unit, Right of Way Branch:
Prior to right of way acquisition, the Geotechnical Unit will conduct a thorough survey
for hazardous materials at the following sites: 305 Swing Road (former Community
Heating and Plumbing) and 307 Swing Road (former Associated Mechanical
Contractors) as described in the Hazardous Materials section. There is a danger of
contaminated soils at these sites. The sites will be purchased in permanent easement.
Roadway Design Unit, Program Development Branch:
Sidewalks will be provided on both sides for the entire project length of Bridford
Parkway Extension and along the southern side of the Big Tree Way realignment. The
City of Greensboro will be responsible for 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).
Wide outside lanes (fourteen-foot) have been included to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Roadway Design Unit/Right of Way Branch:
A concrete island will be installed on Guilford College Road from the intersection with
Bridford Parkway to just north of the Hywood Drive entrance at the end of the control of
access limits. The island could be extended past Hywood Drive making it a right-in,
right-out entrance onto Guilford College Road during the right of way plan development
pending future development of the Hyde Park Community and whether or not another
access is provided to Bridford Parkway.
Finding of No Significant Impact
March 2005 Page 1 of 2
Roadway Design Unit:
An exclusive left-turn lane will be installed on Burnt Poplar Road. The widening will be
done along the southern side of Burnt Poplar Road and will be kept within the existing
right of way if possible. Coordination with the City of Greensboro will be done for any
future widening plans for this segment of Burnt Poplar Road.
Traffic Engineering Branch:
The NCDOT's standard practice is to use metal poles with mast arms at new signalized
intersections and at existing intersections, which are to be upgraded. If the City of
Greensboro desires decorative types of pole and mast arms, the city will be required to
reimburse the department the cost difference between the standard assemblies and
decorative assemblies. The additional cost will be addressed in the municipal agreement.
Finding of No Significant Impact Page 2 of 2
March 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Type of Action ............................................................................ ............................1
H. Description of Proposed Action ...........................................................................................1
M. Actions Required by Other Agencies ..................................................................................1
IV. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project ....................................................................2
V. Summary of Anticipated Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................2
VI. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment .......................................................
VII. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment .....................................................3
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................................:......3
B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .........i ...............................................................4
C. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ..........................................................4
VIII. Alternative Selection ..........................................................................................................5
IX. Comments Received During and Subsequent to the Public Hearing ..................................5
X. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ............................. 6
A. Updated Traffic Forecast ...............................................................................................6
B. Revised Capacity Analysis ..................................
1. Mainline Analysis .....................................................................................................6
2. Intersection Analysis .................................................................................................6
C. Dual Northbound Left-Turn Lanes from Bridford Parkway to Hornaday Road ............ 7
D. Addition of Concrete Island on Guilford College Road ................................................7
E. Left-Turn on Burnt Poplar Road ....................................................................................7
F. Additional Sidewalk .......................................................................................................7
G. Traffic Signals ................................................................................................................8
H. Noise Analysis ...............................................................................................................8
1. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ..............................................$
a. Characteristics of Noise ......................................................................................8
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................:............................8
c. Ambient Noise Levels .........................................................................................8
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ....................................................9
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .........................................................9
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................................................10
g. Other Mitigation Measures Considered ............................................................11
h. Construction Noise ............................................................................................11
i. Noise Analysis Summary .......................................................................... ...12
XI. Basis for Find of No Significant Impact ...........................................................................12
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................. .....................................2
.....
Table 2 Levels of Service for 2030 Design Year ............................. ..........................7
...........
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3A&B
Exhibit 4A-C
Exhibit 5A & 5B
Exhibit 6
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
Project Location
Project Area Photograph
Cross Sections
Project Traffic Data
Recommended Intersection Geometry
Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
Noise Tables
Comments Received from Federal and State 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 extend
SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) from Hornaday Road to Burnt. Poplar Road at Swing Road
in Greensboro, Guilford County. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the project. The
proposed cross section is a four-lane curb and gutter section with a 17.5 feet (face-of-curb
to face-of-curb) raised grass median, 12-foot inside lanes, and 14-foot outside lanes.
Right of way width for the project is 100 feet with the exception of the 90 feet of right of
way south of I-40. The cross section provides two travel lanes in each direction and
exclusive turning lanes at various intersections along the proposed roadway. Exhibit 3
shows the proposed cross sections. Proposed improvements include the realignment of
Big Tree Way with Bridford Parkway and structures over I-40. The total project length is
approximately 1.1 miles.
This project is included in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Imprdvement
Program (TIP). The right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2006 and construction to begin in FFY 2008. The total estimated cost of the
project is $12,241,500, including $3,041,500 for right of way acquisition and $9,200,000
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 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 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 and wetlands. 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.
IV. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion, increase capacity, and improve
system linkage in the area. The Bridford Parkway extension will alleviate traffic
congestion along the alternate routes of Guilford College Road and Wendover Av9nue.
These routes currently are operating above or near capacity. The reduction of traffic on
these routes should, in turn, reduce traffic congestion in the project area and improve
access, mobility and connectivity. The Bridford Parkway extension will provide access
from a highly congested regional commercial center located at the southern terminus of
the project to the proposed access points of the Western Outer Loop and other major
thoroughfares in the area. The extension will also improve access to the Piedmont Triad
International Airport (PTIA) industrial area which is a regional employment hub. Traffic
operation improvements caused by this project are most significant along Guilford
College Road, between Homaday Road and Big Tree Way, which is above capacity. The
extension provides substantial relief to this section of Guilford College Road, allowing it
to maintain a satisfactory level of service. Although extending the Parkway increases
traffic on the existing portions of Bridford; volumes remain within the capacity of these
facilities.
V. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table 1 provides a summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the proposed
action.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Category Units
Proposed Action
Corridor Length miles 1.1
Residential Relocations Total 1
Minority I
Business Relocations Total 3
Minority 0
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0
Potential Hazardous Mat. Sites Each 2
Wetlands acres 0
Stream Impacts linear feet 400
Noise Impacted properties 2
Right of Way Cost Dollars $3,041,500
Construction Cost Dollars $9,200,000
Total Cost Dollars $12,241,500
2
VI. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Federal Highway
Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Planning and Environment in September 2003. The Environmental Assessment
identified two alternates under consideration for the project, with Alternate A being the
recommended action.
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal,
state, and local agencies for review and comment. An asterisk (*) indicates a written
response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence are included in the
Appendix of this document.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geologic Survey =
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Administration, N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
- 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
*City of Greensboro
Guilford County
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: The preferred alternative (Alternative A) is a four-lane facility, with a raised
grass median. The project site is in an urban area with minimal fish and wildlife habitat
available. There are no impacts to wetlands and only 400 feet of impact to one small,
low quality intermittent stream (unnamed tributary to South Buffalo Creek). The only
natural terrestrial community within the project area is a small upland oak/hickory
dominated wood lot. The EA states that up to 7.9 acres of this wood lot will be impacted.
This fragmented wood lot is completely surrounded by an urban environmental and likely
provides only minimal wildlife habitat.
Response: Comment Noted
Comment: The bald eagle (halieetus leucocephalus) is the only federally protected
species listed for Guilford County. Due to lack of habitat, the EA renders a "No Effect"
conclusion for this species. The Service concurs with this conclusion. 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.
Response: Comment Noted
Comment: 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. Overall, impacts to fish and wildlife
resources will likely be minimal.
Response: Comment Noted
B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: The EPA has no environmental concernsregarding the project's purpose and
need and the alternatives considered as outlined in the 1rA.
Response: Comment Noted
Comment: Affected Environment, Stream Impacts: It is noted in the EA (Page 23) that.
compensatory mitigation is not being required for the approximate 400 feet of stream
impacts to the unnamed tributary (UT) to South Buffalo Creek. However, EPA
recommends that DOT further address avoidance and minimization opportunities with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality during
the design and permitting phase of the project.
Response: The NCDO"T will consult with the appropriate agencies to avoid and
minimize impacts in the project area during the permitting process.
Comment: EPA has not identified any substantial environmental concerns regarding the
proposed project.
Response: Comment Noted
C. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: Due to the urban nature of this project site the environmental impacts are
minimal, with the majority occurring at the crossing of an unnamed tributary to South
Buffalo Creek. At this time, we concur with the EA for this project.
Response: Comment Noted
Copies of the comments received are located in Appendix 2.
4
VIII. ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Two alternates were developed as part of the Build Alternative. The process for
generating these alternates involved developing design criteria, roadway typical sections,
and refining the alignments to avoid or minimize social, economic, and environmental
impacts.
The two alternates considered for the Bridford Parkway Extension project were
Alternate A, a four-lane curb and gutter section with a raised median and dual bridges
over I-40, and Alternate B, a five-lane curb and gutter section with a single bridge over
I-40. The alignment for both alternates begins on new location at the intersection of
Bridford Parkway and Hornaday Road and extends north-northwest across I-40 on
proposed bridge(s), intersect with Big Tree Way and continue on existing alignment to
Guilford College Road. New location begins again at the intersection with Guilford
College Road and continues to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road. Big Tree Way will be
realigned to form a "T" intersection with the proposed Bridford Parkway Extension.
Federal and state agencies reviewed and evaluated the two alternates under
consideration and selected Alternate A as the recommended construction option for the
Environmental Assessment. After the Environmental Assessment was distributed for
comments, federal and state agencies confirmed Altemate'A for the proposed action. A
public hearing map was prepared for Alternate A and presented for comments at the
public hearing, described below.
IX. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an Informal Public
Hearing was held at the Guilford Middle School cafeteria in Greensboro on Tuesday,
May 11, 2004 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The public hearing map showed Alternate A, a four-
lane divided section. Approximately 16 people were in attendance. A meeting with the
Greensboro MPO/TCC/TAC was held on May 27, 2004 to present the Public Hearing
Map to the group. Comments during and subsequent to the hearing focused on the
following issues:
No opposition to the project has been voiced. No negative comments concerning the
project were made at the hearing nor were written comments received against the
project. Most of the comments at the public hearing concerned affects to individual
properties.
A request for advance acquisition was submitted for the property located at the
northeast comer of the proposed intersection between the extension of Bridford
Parkway and existing Guilford College Road.
¦ Access issues involving Hyde Park Community properties will be further investigated
during right of way plans development. Future development of these properties is
expected to take place; therefore, access should be reviewed whenever a site plan is
submitted.
A concern was expressed over traffic backing up on Guilford College Road blocking
the entrance to Hywood Drive and preventing left turns onto Guilford College Road.
The que of the northbound right turns from Guilford College Road onto Bridford
Parkway extended past Hywood Drive at peak hour during the design year. If
surrounding properties develop as expected and another access is provided to
Bridford Parkway, the concrete island along Guilford College Road could be
extended beyond Hywood Drive making it a right in, right-out entrance eliminating
the left turn.
X. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Updated Traffic Forecast
An updated traffic forecast which includes the proposed Hornaday Road Connector
and the Greensboro Western & Eastern Loop was completed in August 2004. The City
of Greensboro plans to build the Hornaday Road connector before the Western Loop is
constructed. The additional forecast was requested because the Hornaday Road
Connector was not on the Greensboro Area Thoroughfare Plan when the document for
the Bridford Parkway Extension project was being completed. This forecast also
considered analysis from all TIP projects in the vicinity,, i.e. Jamestown Bypass. See
Exhibit 4A and B for 2004 and 2030 estimated average`daily traffic volumes respectively
and Exhibit 4C for a No Build comparison.
The proposed extension will relieve traffic demand from West Wendover Avenue and
Guilford College Road. The Bridford Parkway extension will provide access,
connectivity and improve traffic flow in and around the highly congested regional
commercial center in the West Wendover Avenue area.
B. Revised Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis was performed based on the revised traffic volumes. Traffic counts
were also obtained from the City of Greensboro for the signalized intersection of existing
Bridford Parkway and the Target and Wal-Mart shopping centers. The following
recommendations should enhance the traffic safety and operation of this facility.
1. Mainline Analysis - The volume forecast for the 2030 Build scenario indicates
that the volumes along the proposed Bridford Parkway Extension will range from 19,000
vehicles per day (vpd) near Swing Road to 32,300 vpd south of Hornaday Road. Given
the short length of the proposed extension (1.1 miles) and the presence of four signalized
intersections, it is expected that the signals will control operations on the mainline.
2. Intersection Analysis -
Based on information from the updated traffic forecast, additional turn lanes were
added at each of the four intersections. Exhibits 5A and 5B detail recommended
geometry for each intersection.
The four intersections included in the Build analysis were analyzed as a coordinated
signal system. Bridford Parkway Extension's signal system should be tied into the
existing signals on Bridford Parkway (Wendover Avenue and access to the Target and
Wal-Mart shopping centers) as well as the existing signal systems on Wendover Avenue
and Guilford College Road.
Detailed results of the 2030 Build analysis can be found in Table 2.
Table 2: Levels of Service for 2030 Design Year
Intersection Peak Hour Level-of-Service
AM PM
Bridford Parkway Extension/Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road D D
Bridford Parkway Extension at Guilford College Road E E
Bridford Parkway Extension at Big Tree Way C B
Bridford Parkway Extension at Hornaday Road C B
C. Dual Northbound left-turn lanes from Bridford Parkway to Hornaday Road
The City of Greensboro accelerated the schedule to build an extension of Hornaday
Road across the Urban Loop to NC 68 and beyond to Chimney Rock Road. This road
project was not on the Greensboro Area Thoroughfare P?an when the U-4006
Environmental Assessment was prepared. The southern terminus of this project
(U-4006) was lengthened by about 450 feet to include double lefts on existing Bridford
Parkway approaching the Hornaday Road intersection.
D. Addition of Concrete Island on Guilford College Road
A concrete island is recommended on the southern leg of Guilford College
Road/Bridford Parkway Intersection. The island will extend from the Guilford College
Road/Bridford Parkway intersection to just north of the Hywood Drive entrance at the
end of the control of access limits. The island will end north of Hywood Drive to allow
driveway access to Hyde Park.
The island could be extended past Hywood Drive making it a right in, right-out
entrance onto Guilford College Road during right of way plan development. This would
depend on future development of the Hyde Park Community and whether or not another
access is provided to Bridford Parkway.
E. Left-turn Lane added on Burnt Poplar Road
An exclusive left-turn lane was added on Burnt Poplar Road to maximize the
efficiency of the signal. The left-turn lane will be added during the development of the
right of way plans. The widening with curb and gutter will be along the southern side of
Burnt Poplar Road and will be kept within the existing right of way if possible.
Coordination with the City of Greensboro will be done for any future widening plans for
this segment of Burnt Poplar Road.
F. Additional Sidewalk
The City of Greensboro requested additional sidewalk on the southern side of the Big
Tree Way realignment. The City of Greensboro will connect the new sidewalk with
existing sidewalk on Big Tree Way near Wendover Avenue. This sidewalk will be
provided in accordance with NCDOT's cost-share policy.
G. Traffic Signals
The City of Greensboro requested that all traffic signals associated with the project be
constructed of steel poles and mast arms.
H. Noise Analysis
The NCDOT Noise Analysis guidelines have been revised since completion of the
Environmental Assessment. The following is the updated Noise Analysis in accordance
with NCDOT's revised guidelines. Noise Tables are located in Appendix 1. There were
no additional impacts.
1. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the project.
This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a
field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if
traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic
noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating the
traffic noise impacts
a. Characteristics of Noise
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table NI.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
c. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide
a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in
8
the project area as measured at 50 foot from edge of pavement ranged from 57.0 to 76.8
dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where traffic noise was not
the predominant source.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the TNM 1, 1.
The TNM traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type,
barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report. The TNM computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the
design year 2025. A land use is considered impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain
a substantial noise increase. -
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with the.,proposed alignment for this
project are listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of listings'of
all receptors in close proximity to'Vie project, their ambient and predicted noise levels,
and the estimated noise level increase for each.
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category.
In accordance with NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures
for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area-of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of this FONSI.
For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are
responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed
facility.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5. These are noted in terms
of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, 2 residences are predicted to be impacted by either widening
option due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72-
9
dBA noise level contour is either <55 (five-lane option) or <59 feet (4-lane option) from
the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level
contour is 79.0 feet from the center of the proposed roadway with either option. Contour
information in Table N5 shows this contour information by alternative and section. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Table N6 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors by roadway section. There was only one substantial noise level impact
anticipated by this project with either option. The predicted noise level increases for this
project range up to +12 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
E Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating,the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors. There are two impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project
area. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the
proposed project.
Highway Alignment Selection
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement on this project.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to
their effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph
would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most
people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the speed
limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement
measure. This and other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition
of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of
providing a high-speed, limited-access facility.
10
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a
measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the
receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to
provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the
receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would
normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access
opening of 40' (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4
dBA. Hence, this type of control of access effectively eliminates the consideration of
berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
g. Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The
cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold
cost per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this
project, due to the amount of substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to make
vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should
be approximately 100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to
provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way would be
required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and plant sufficient vegetation is
estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited receptor. Noise
insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were
identified that would be impacted by this project.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
11
speech interference for passers-by. and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
L Noise Analysis Summary
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are not existing traffic noise sources. All traffic noise
impacts were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic
noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part
772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
XI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project, as 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 Irlpact is applicable for this project.
Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis
will be required.
12
SR 4126 - Bridford Parkway Extension
From SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue) at
Hornaday Road To Burnt Poplar Road at
Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-4126(1)
State Project No. 8.2496901
TIP Project No. U-4006
Exhibit 1
$ 1-0.
w
•' i d+
AO
Y
7
2 ?
O_ M
~ J Q
x x e? V f=0 f7
W q J W :Q
e H ? y ? W W X
N N f! Y W
. W ?? J W O; Z
Y=O
MI
?F??
C4? O W W K F C
x V O OZ lz W W J i-
?O
x ^ y K? = p m
ZOG K
n < W G O F
6 <
•'4 V O C C
u w = W d W
ems' i K <
VVV 6
L --A
x
x
r
1 0
J u
x W
1 °I . ? pfd
C
d
Z Z w
z W.
0 W
? Y
x V ? d
Q
-? W .o
N c o
J W v
o Q ? m`
V V
W d
d. w
LL O
x -• P W o
CL`
a
s
N
-1 F 14
x
.
f
x x e
1
Q
tit
r 7°
h
O X C
Z W O
H
r
K
W

U
:.?
co
os M
N

U
< ` 2

2 O
H O < m
d J L

X
"' Om
N
? W
= H f
< = W
W W
?
V1
N`
W ?yJ ?
LLZ <?-
Q
?
C Y z m
°
`
n. e
ZZtO
Z
O
(H
B dZ 0.J F
W
O =dmn

'l'
N H
O L O
J W W
<
Q O Z O 6 W O W N
C W O
H
,,,,, • ro, V OF O 2

y = V C
W 6 C
W
Y O O J

N

?
=
C
6 <

F
z ?

0-

N W
p
C
F- C.7
J ,o p

C?
o

a L
W
w > o
ao
N X
LU
a
Z
T
?/
Y
li
N

L
w cc

J ?
a?

N Q L
N
Q ? m
a
o W
a

W
LL m
W

N
N
o
.
Q
0
L-
a.

U

Swing Rd
Bumt 600
aular Rd
8,100
1700
11400
97;100
1-40
Homaday Rd
Extension. 8200.
Guilford
College Rd
Market Street
25300
300

C2900 ` 3500

3600
25900 ?
1? ?o
o

3300 15300 ( o
\y 13300 ' EL

4400 '
./ Acnn. 8500 ., .
10600
48000
9300
23800
Transportation Planning Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Forecast for U-4006
Bridford Parkway Extension
Estimated 2004 ADTVolumes (Build)
Exhibit 4 A
Guifford
College Rd
Market Street
Sinning Rd 21500. 37000
Burnt 800 8500 2200 j ?4800
ular'Rd ?,?
9 3700 -19000 • _
3200 r8o42000 440?
1620 38600 ` 7200
Big Tree Way
17900
10.700
9:700 f 200 25300 I a,
16200 19000 I a
5600
900.
98,600 69'00 2100 106,700
1- 40 FF
4000 6900
94200
3700\
I
r7200 10900 I
1:25300
47700
Homaday Rd 4900 13900 7200
14700
Exfensio
n ..21400
_
_
2600 1.1 14200'
Western, 32300
Loop 33400
735Q0.
14600
2900 65000
10,400 48400
33400 12000
14100 7100
8900 12700
14800 33900
jr 43800 65.00
w? Ave. j
,do 12900
29500 2400
7100
Transportation Planning Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I
Traffic Forecast for U-4006
Bridford Parkway Extension
Estimated 2030 ADTVolumes (Build)
Exhibit 4 B
Guilford
College Rd
Market Street
Swing Rd 23600
Bumt 1500 41100
ularRd
15800 7200
5300. Big Tree Way
l 5300 12500
39200
42f 200
36400 28000
14300
5900
100,000 1010 7900
1-40

5100 4400 7500
,; 00
?
11900
?
17700
Homaday.Rd 52
Extension 11400 26
Westem
73500
9300 1 13100
o?}°? .Aver 12900
d
29900 2400
28400
54500
00 1.7500
600 9100
$5500
10400
1410
15200
44200 6900
110;900
200
2200022000
22200
15600
2900 67700
q
7100 13300
24100
171100 '
Transportation Planning Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Forecast for U-4006
Bridford Parkway Extension
Estimated 2030 ADTVolumes (No Build)
Exhibit 4 C

Burnt Poplar
o?
r
Swing Road Swing Road
T
Bridford Parkway Extension
Recommended Geometry for Bridford Parkway Extension /.,Burnt Poplar Road and Swing Road
Revised - November 18, 2004
Bridford Parkway Extension
6
s
z

Recommended Geometry for Bridford Parkway Extension and Guilford College Road
Exhibit 5A
r
Guilford College Road
Bridford Parkway Extension
L
t
ttr
Big Tree Way
Recommended Geometry for Bridford Parkway Extension and Big Tree Way
Nosh
Bridford Parkway Extension
North
Hornaday Road
J®
Bridford Parkway
Recommended Geometry for Bridford Parkway and Hornaday Road
Exhibit 5B
s?- i ??? i i p? j"off 1` % '? ?songs
491,
s Piedmont-Triad - ?y
International Airport
JLJU !-
% W
two
Ar .r, r- I? ?- - rest
44
r - 1 r J ti t _
i ? -111 ? .t w .. ? K !? 3.. r+?. 4' ''? n -?__-?'`?Lr t f ? ?.?{y+- r-tiah ? ??? ? 5 'i •?`
22
Nrl
y r r' r >i? Western Loop, `'-
AT ? I
, N
TIP Project # U-0006
-'--'? ?M POP
CK RD-.
? y 68
F? -loa' ??- 6
VAM_ ¢, ??•
-"ri•r { ?' ?_ ?7 vZ i^, ,?"'.+?- c-?. y???? i t i . ,i?? ?i`i ? ? .-? ._?i _n.??;3-I ,?' ? ? }. `.
U-4006 Exhibit 6
Section of Greensboro
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
Bridford Parkway Extension (SR 4126)
From Hornaday Road To Burnt Poplar
Road at Swing Road
Greensboro, Guilford County
APPENDIX 1
Noise Tables
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
D
E
C
B
E
L
S
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------=-------------------
Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
70 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE 2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA-
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS dBA
Activity
Cate o Le Descri tion o'Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.

C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities pot included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Le Levels to Future Noise Levels
<= 50 >=15
51 >=14
52 >=13
53 >=12
54 >= 11
>= 55 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04).
a?
a

VI
0
v-
zW
a?
°z
U
w
0
C
Cd
a

? o
Oo
k ?
ww
cd E"'
4?
c?
a o
-o U
o U.
-b "o
'C3
0
03
O
O0
a
w
w
a
U
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
z z
D\ N M (? et C\ C% V1 C 00 i I'$
tf)

a
w
a
W
"O r N N 17, v1

A ?

U
_
A
N

i
ONO

i
tf)
M
r,
000 0
t-
ON
a ? h \0 . V' vii w) Ot_ h. 4

? x a a x x rx x x a a a a r? x r?
d C/I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •C o o g c) o
A o
O ?
M to o
N o
•--? o
-- 0
00 0
- o
C\ o
C\ Ri to
O to
O O
\O to
00 vi
O
N N N M N N --? M
O U

W y

0
a Z ?
o W

a
? ?
? b
?

O W 00 N N
"o I?
kn a0
to 4:
v, ?n
in eh
in C\
v, v1
l.')
to '-+
C t`
kn 00
U1 d'
in ?
Wn
z a 0
o 0
o
z
3 °' - - - - - - - _ U - - - -

C4 a
> v b - - - -

W 0
?Y. n t w
w
a c
O
3
3
C) w u m m m m m m m m m a m m m m m

Q (¢j v `o

O ? ? G) N N ? N N ? 4) C) ? N N ??- ??
? G 'CS 'CS b 'tf 'C:s 't7 :O
CG
O Q .
O . N N d N -5; ro O N G L2. 0,
E-? ..a a a1 ? a; rx rx ? ? ? ? c? a u: u: Q Q ¢

a, ? 00
¢
m

00
3
o .o
o
? O
o r?
w ?
rn ?
0
0
C? y
U y
X00
w
?o
C ?
o
U r
a?
o r1,
a.
Lt U
O o„
rn
a. 0
0
o,
0 0
D A
N
N
b?q
a
a
ce
a
o
O O
Q y
Z ,W > H
z a o
-u U
w (°
"a w
GQ ?
C4
O
G1.
0
a
w

z ? z
" ? " "
" a a a a te

a
w
? „"? Cn M

A '

U

c

o ?
? ?? x x a x x x x a a a rx x
?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
q O
- O O C '- vi O ? C ?
1 N t
M
2a
O U 3
t
w

O '
d o
a z
a
w

0

O ?n
?• ?n
? 4 4 4 v,
• ? O ? tn to
?
w ? er v rr v e ? tn v? v? tn
j
Z a
U

w a c n

w

O 3
oz w a m w m m m u U U U U U U

Q d
(
j 40?

O

m ?

?. D : D
I

z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ow ^ c 0 i '0 00
o _ ., a c c
O ¢
" GL A. a 0. C2 co r
_ A w N y
=
a a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢o a mA a wa Qa a m

U V 1 v 1 V 1 I ? i ce. r r I.- . 0 0 . -. N•
?
i
c ,o
w ?
c
O O
c
0
w, x
h
R
o
o
U y
,y
?. w
° o
o U
.? c
ocq
U t\
ar
? w
o U
h M
N
c.
U
'O U
O >3
o .?
O O
c .
? U
0 0
0 C.)
D D
J
a
a
c
of
.a
25
0
C ?r
C)
k ?
CW, $H
a O ? ?
z a o
U -? U
t--i W
y
0
a.
O
L.

? I '

s I
+ + + + + + + + + ?
a I *
O N 3 x 3 M l? t- C\ O\ In .--? cs r- z

W
a

C/2
~
O M
W
. M
? V1
M %C
N 0%
N It
C, 00
W) Vl
-
C% M
If) ?O et O r- M
wl M
In
A
W
W
E?
U
_
C%
W
N
N
000
0000
G1. In ?C W1 In In In V,
x a a rx x rx x x a a a a a? 1:4
Q o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 .;3 0 0 0 `• O O

3 ?-
A c
C tri
m vi o
I, c

~ o 6 0 o c
c, rx In
O vi
O c
\C wl,
00 vi
0
N N N •-+ M --? N N -- M
O U rn
x o

a?
.°
OR
a
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
=
a
•-?
_
_
_
_
a d °
O. Z
72 C
o W

r 0
W
? ? ?
00 N N
?o [?
In 00
In ?
In U1
in e!-
In cr,
In In
?o
b0 .-I
`: [-
v1 00
In c1'
In et
vt

0 0

>
_ _>
W 0 L a a ? C7
a

O ? 3
O W
u
0.1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
W x

a
m
!rl
m
Cq
0.1

I `
d U o o

A 7.

A
U
CJ
U
N
N
N
6J
U
N I.
U
U ?n
•?
A N

A y

D
rJ U C
N N C
N G
U C
U ?
U ?
N ?
N °
0
° O
CJ
•O ?
N
'L7 '? 90
y 00
VJ
?" ? ? V1 Vl fn V] V7 VI VJ VJ V] ? fA VJ ? a•'
a a cn ? rs' u: ? rx a: r? rx a w a a d d d
U ^
?
x, 00
00
3 ?
0
o ?
? o
O O
w X
o ?
o ?
a °
U y
a
"LY [
?w
c.
R N
U h
cl) L :J
?o w
U
y M
N
N i.a
CZ
d
CC'i
? Q.
N 24)
O O
C. :C
CA rin
C) 'U
0 0
v ?
C] A
N
to
a
V
zW
aU
z°
U
w
H
i
cat
W
? o
O
C42 Vt
k ?
W ?
cH
3 >;
a o
-rs U
0
0
a
w

oa r-
5 `U + + + + + + + +
? z
? tn ? ? 3 3 3 ? ?
tn a a a a
a ?
W
?

a
w
cn -+ Q\ M
Q

z
' \C C)
tf)
A '
w
W
E?
U

° ? n
p o

c

0
`v U rx x x x x x .a .a a x x '
.
¢ En Q o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o 0
3 a x ° ° ° '^ ? t ? °

O U c
0
A
w

a z ?

w

0
a a
to -n h
" t to
mr to W) to Wn
?r o
Vn \c \
to t O r
o W -
n

U

b
C7 ¢
z w o
x

d 3
W 0 ?
? c n
(Ir
a ?
3
o O
? a m m m m m' U U U U UU U

U
?

O En w O A a O
(yy ' O A A A A A w w 4 '
' rn W E n
i,_, O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. y N '
0 0 N 0
-
04
a a a Q ¢ ¢ d ¢a a m m m wm m
W , n Q m u A ^ Q r 0 0 d
rn

0
C ) . ? v 1 ? l
n v ? i (
n ` ^ o o N
1
1
1
1•:
00
=? o
aF"i p
00
0
G y
0
0 cc
.? 3
? o
a CA
w
U ?
o ID
cn
? o
?. w
?o
o =?
,Y•'., N
U
> a
a
.CA
w
U
? M
N
•Lf U
O p
y
O
rs ?
O O
AA
z
W
O
O
a
H
O
U
-d
40.
il
a?
Cd
3
Cd
a
401
b
?.1
I?
O p W ° ° I ° °
U F U
7
< QC
?

0
Ua
p_
WU o 0 o wU U o o f o.
HcnU 'n u
Q O? ¢ P4 M
M !
a W f? N O N X W G] N O N

9:4 u
I

Q Q
I

Q

O
o

¢

[? I
O
o v c n
z ?

¢0 a ¢
U)
A
-0 a o
o o CE ¢
as o o
o
CN v v V v
i

cn

C=
o i
M
00
.n
to
M
•n

cn

o
M

to
to

v,
W N W1 N
? , ?

O
j
N I
Q
CD
W i
I
_cn ! ?_ h
i
' p ? i o v
z
z

ON I

i o
b
j
I
I
Z' o aUi
o tx ! -,

0 c a?i I

'

p y ? I.

y (D ;? G
X

p
y N
y a? i ?
O I
!:
?; a
X

a O.
X O,
>, U W
a X
o'
U I
-
W o l
W
?
c

U o C'3
3 as c
W
3
.
0 ;
8 _

U
j ,
o
v? 3
'o
+
j
W
3 0

LCD, 0
--
y ? 4
c
.
= ca .
-o
D 10:
ca G
G (?; J 'L C7? G
7O
N O. L- N
4
v
0 'tj- O I L N I
O
- U. "
4
.a d 'L 0
v •-U
O
,
m o im U.
ij
?p o f

Cn U
-v G 'O -O

N O p w -a G I
4-. ;
0; 'fl ^C3
L
w i
O O 7 O O
o O'
a`. ? G C7
I c`. ? G V '
.-=
N N
3
? o
N
N
N O
> 0.
O
L
N Q.
Cw
o
0 U
O N
o
C ?
U O
b
w ?
L
Cl)
0 cn
E 0
.o
L ?
c
cn :Q
U L
O
C
-p O
U
°o p
N p
Ca ?
O
o
Cra
O r1l
kf) 1`
N
0
C>
54 ?5
Q :it
a
H
? U
zz
W W
W ?
H W
°zC;3
U „x
w ?
a
b
H F''

N W -
u lm
a
U
!
a U
C
. I p
a w w a w W
W¢ W
z z
¢_
!
a?oz cooz
Cz cz
C/I

C/]

N

O

1 O

O
C/I
cn
t
N

O
I
- O

O
W n taj h
U
Z
N U

z
'
N O O O
W ?
N O O O
w I
w
I
w
c o o o w
(n A

^ o 0 0
O 0
z z

o CD N M 2 O' -- .-+ N
I
H ?

p-
w
v
i a
w
?

o
N
O
N c
V i
!
N
?10

? i U i 'Q ! U i
L
? a
a
U U

z 1-1
>, 42 0

a
cn v 0
E=
v? V
? $ c c o a?
•O 0
o U
U
va W ?a b
4-
() 4-
Q
r
V
CIO V
E E E o

L
U.
Li
^ N -- N
N
z
w
F
4•.
a
0
0
N
v N
N
p W
L MM
•? W
r F
c ?
N .?
L
41
C
of U
>, s
O -0
'fl 'C7
C
N N
.fl 'O
N
APPENDIX 2

Comments Recei*ved-
from Federal and
State Agencies
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-?? ci?i y
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 u: z¢
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
October 14, 2003
_r. L.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 1, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
extension of Bridford Parkway from Homady Road to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road in
Guilford County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-4006). 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).
Two build alternatives are described in the EA. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) is a
four-lane facility with a raised grass median. The project site is in an urban area with minimal
fish and wildlife habitat available. There are no impacts to wetlands and only 400 feet of impact
to one small, low quality intermittent stream (unnamed tributary to South Buffalo Creek). The
only natural terrestrial community within the project area is a small upland oak/hickory
dominated wood lot. The EA states that up to 7.9 acres of this wood lot will be impacted. This
fragmented wood lot is completely surrounded by an urban environment and likely provides only
minimal wildlife habitat.
The bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) is the only federally protected species listed for
Guilford County. Due to lack of habitat, the EA renders a "No Effect! 'conclusion for this
species. The Service concurs with this conclusion. 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. Overall, impacts to fish and wildlife resources will likely be minimal. 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.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Cynthia Van der Wiele, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
tEO $Xq%
YV
`or
r+114 PA01
October 21, 2003
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager Director, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

caJfi ri1G{'1`1'N•{l
rAL a?
X:
`> R
SUBJ: EPA Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment for the Bridford
Parkway Extension from Hornaday Road to Burnt Poplar Road,
Greensboro, in Guilford County; Federal Aid Project No. STP-4126(1), State
Project No. 8.249690 1, T.I.P. Project No.',., U-4006
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County. The EA
addresses the No-build alternative and two construction alternatives (Alternative A: 4-lane with
raised median, curb and gutter and Alternative B: 5-lane with curb and gutter). The proposed
project will include two `fly-overs' and connect to existing multi-lane facilities at project termini.
The length of the proposed extension is approximately 1 mile. The 4-lane with raised median and
curb and gutter section alternative is NCDOT's recommended alternative. This project is a non-
Merger Team project.
EPA offers the following comments on the EA.
EPA has no environmental concerns- regarding the project's purpose and need and the
alternatives considered as outlined in the EA.
? AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
* Stream Impacts: It is noted in the EA (Page 23) that compensatory mitigation is not being
required for the approximate 400 feet of stream impacts to the unnamed tributary (UT) to South
Buffalo Creek. However, EPA recommends that NCDOT further address avoidance and
minimization opportunities with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality during the design and permitting phase of the project.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4V
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
??r
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Interne! Address (URL) • http:r./,nww.apa.gov
Recycle,., e . r! 4. F
? SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
EPA has not identified any substantial environmental concerns regarding the proposed
project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA. Should you have questions
regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-
856-4206. Also, please note effective 10/20/03 per a Region 4 reorganization, the Office of
Environmental Assessment is now called the NEPA Program Office and is now part of the Office
of Policy and Management (OPM). The personnel and functional responsibility of the Office
remain the same.
Sincerely,
u Di Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management

No' h Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P
C;hirlcs R. Fullwond, Execu tivc Director e?16111919
MEMORANDUM o s RFdY2- -?
ooq f4c
TO: Melba McGee o
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR co'L
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 30, 2003
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NICDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Bnidford Parkway extension from Hornaday Road to
Burnt Poplar Road at Swing road in Guilford County, North Carolina. T..TP No.
U-4006, SCH Project No. 04-0089.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are .familiar with liabitat 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 (42 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 extend Bridford Parkway (SR 4126) from Hornaday Road to Burnt
Poplar Road at Swing Road. The preferred alternative consist of a four-lane curb and gutter
facility with a sixteen foot raised grass median The total project length is approximately 1.1
m Des. The project will impact 400 linear feet of an intermittent unnamed tributary to South
Buffalo Creek. There are no wetland impacts associated with this project.
We have reviewed the data in the EA. Due to the urban natwe ofthi.s project site the environmental
impacts are minimal, with the majority of impactqoccurring at the crossing of an unnamed tributary to
Soutb Buffalo Creek.
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
Mailing Address: Division of Wand risheries • 1721 Mail Service Cc.r) ter • Ralei. h. NC 27699-1721
Telephone. [phone] esc. 2,31 • Fax [phone]
Memo Z October 30, 2043
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DW Q, Raleigh
John Thomas, U.S. Army Carps of Engineers, Raleigh

fA
W A:TF?,
4G
1
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator 4(3
SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Assessment for Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford
County, F.A. Project No. STP-4126(1), State Project No. 8.2496901, TIP Project U-
4006. State Clearinghouse Project No. 04-0089.
This document indicates that South Buffalo Creek (Index No. 16-11-14-2, Hydrological Unit 030602)
lies within the project area. These waters are classified as C NSW. The Division of Water Quality
offers these comments:
1. NC Division of Water Quality has no preference between four-lane curb and gutter with raised
median or five-lane curb and gutter section. The project alternatives as presented would have
curb and gutter. DWQ is concerned about the potential increases in untreated, concentrated storm
water that might enter South Buffalo Creek.
2. South Buffalo Creek is listed on the §303(d) list of impaired waters and according to the Cape
Fear River Water Quality Plan, has some of the worst water problems in North Carolina.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of
impairment. Below McConnel Road, South Buffalo Creek is not supporting (NS) because of an
impaired biological community and NH3 from the wastewater treatment plant. Based on benthos
monitoring, this portion has the worst water quality in the Cape Fear River basin. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and high flows from the discharge
may be a cause of impairment in the lower segment. Design plans should include ways to
improve this resource's water quality or at least avoid or minimize further impairment.
3. The Indirect and Cumulative Impacts discussion Section IV, C, 6 states that the extension of .
Bridford Parkway will likely accelerate the rate of commercial development along the entire
corridor. This discussion of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts needs to be more fully developed in
light of the 303(d) listed waters within the project area.
4. Within the Cape Fear Basin, sedimentation and urban stormwater runoff are major concerns. In
order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged. Stormwater should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather
than routed directly into streams. DWQ prefers that stormwater runoff be designed to drain into a
properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Melba McGee, U-4006
Page 2
November 3, 2003
5. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within this basin, NCDOT is encouraged to retain
vegetation as much as possible. Do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is
absolutely necessary. Especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large,
undercut trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
6. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required
prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
7. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream
impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the. NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150
linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Beth Haines Barnes at [phone].
pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
O
N
z 3?

f
i
k
O
O
G]
p Z ?G) Iv ?pH?o D h-I 0
CD 07
O p n
3 D Ol r Ic tj -n I(D * I-n 7 Ci Q fD
f 73 rt.
to I? p (D (D V1 ;_ O ?n 0 D7 n0 -
cn -a la CD O 'J 07 Z II? I y t? ??. ?l G. O N 3
tr.
3 N ro? {cD 1? ;rt
cn I° 0 3 CL n v
O uk ` !ty CD i0 O :fin I? CD 'O
? CD I? .y ? CD K = 'C v' ?'
C ?
3LO
(D
? rt
Q
Z
(D
a)
71
O
(D
O ^
O_ lJ J
6
?r
v?
?O
3?
? C
1
1^
v -
1Q
1
N
O
N
A
A
'l7
OF W A TF9
I'll X02 QG
0;qll:? -,;?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
April 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba Mee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR O>lce of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Ian Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator - Wd w
SUBJECT: Review of Sloping Sheets for Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County, F.A.
Project No. SEP-4126(1), State Project No. 8.2496901, TIP Project U-4006. State
Clearinghoust Project No. 02E-0392.
In reply to your correspondeme dated February 6, 2002 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminaily analysis of the project indicates that South Buffalo Creek (Index No.
16-11-14-2, Hydrological Uri 030602) lies within the project area. These waters are classified as C
NSW. The Division of WaterQuality offers these comments:
1. NC Division of Water Qmlity has no preference between four-lane curb and gutter with raised
median or five-lane curb wd gutter section.
South Buffalo Creek is Billed on the §303(d) list of impaired waters and according to the Cape
Fear River Water Qualit3Plan, has some of the worst water problems in North Carolina.
Instream habitat degradafion associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of
impairment. Below McC,annel Road, South Buffalo Creek is not supporting (NS) because of an
impaired biological cornmunity and NH3 from the wastewater treatment plant. Based on benthos
monitoring, this portion bas the worst water quality in the Cape Fear-River basin. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and high flows from the discharge
may be a cause of impairment in the lower segment. Design plans should include ways to
improve this resource's ureter quality or at least avoid or minimize further impairment.
Within the Cape Fear Basin, sedimentation and urban stormwater runoff are major concerns. In
order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged. Stormwatershauld be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather
than routed directly into streams. DWQ prefers that stormwater runoff be designed to drain into a
properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
4. While vegetated buffers ale not a requirement within this basin, NCDOT is encouraged to retain
vegetation as much as possible. Do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is
absolutely necessary. Espoally avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large,
undercut trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in
place to minimize damageto stream banks.
5. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion onmitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
?P.efa 1P tn=r--t a rQ=F!nnl (if Tint fiinnli7erl) mitigation plan uAth the e11wurnnmantn1
North Carolina Mvision of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree ord., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (;Bone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
documentation. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required
prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
6. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if, wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
7. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream
impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
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 becomes required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Jean Manuele, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 6, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County, State Project
#8.2496901, Federal Aid #STP-4126(1), TIP #U-4006
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed Bridford Parkway Extension. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2005 and
construction in fiscal year 2007.
The 2002-2008 TIP calls for extending Bridford Parkway as a multi-lane facility on new
location from Hornaday Road to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road. The project is
approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 km). Several alternatives will be studied including a four-lane curb
and gutter with raised median section and five-lane curb and gutter section.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 29, 2002 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Daniel Keel, P. E.,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 217. Please include the
TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
WDG/plr
Attachment RECEIVED
FEE 0 200?
>. ST,AFE CLEARINGHOU"S
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Y
.. ? ...............
._....__._._._.........
Oa
..` .. .:
....... a
xo?
.:_.._....._ .................... ..._......._............ ...... ..,
.20
iv3r
y^/ \ _.
T`
t ,
.
/ .38 .12
i?3 t19 c m
i
46
ca 72
i
°, °••° NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
t OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF H O WAYS
PROJECT DEV9APM04T AND
-- - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U-4006 Guilford County
Bridford Parkway Extension
I - .
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
a,.+ SrATfo
M
ti
?Q? ww wd?
February 6, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
William D. Gilmore; P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County, State Project
#8.2496901, Federal Aid #STP-4126(1), TIP #U-4006
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed Bridford Parkway Extension. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2005 and
construction in fiscal year 2007.
The 2002-2008 TIP calls for extending Bridford Parkway as a multi-lane facility on new
location from Homaday Road to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road. The project is
approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 km). Several alternatives will be studied including a four-lane curb
and gutter with raised median section and five-lane curb and gutter section.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 29, 2002 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any- questions concerning the project, please contact Daniel Keel, P. E.,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 217. Please include the
TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
?} k 1,-? f o ?de ac <?,
WDG/plr Jt? /r1-Fo
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONNIE` ITAL ANALYSIS
1$48 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
?302
/? 5 Lv
L
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE.- WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

?Qfs?

z
MD,
L20

{

2813
............ / 20

/ .38 ?
? 12 .
.. I
- ... o3
2
00
0
1A
+i-

' i? st d, I o
;

- vw?fMVWYVGTMItii\••t OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION Of HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
''' , .....•°' ENWRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U-4006 Guilford County
Bridford Parkway Extension

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
?}yd„a SfAiF o
?? Cunrn ??
February 6, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County, State Project
#8.2496901, Federal Aid #STP-4126(1), TIP #U-4006
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed Bridford Parkway Extension. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2005 and
construction in fiscal year 2007.
The 2002-2008 TIP calls for extending Bridford Parkway as a multi-lane facility on new
location from Hornaday Road to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road. The project is
approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 km). Several alternatives will be studied including a four-lane curb
and gutter with raised median section and five-lane curb and gutter section.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 29, 2002 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Daniel Keel, P. E.,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 217. Please include the
TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments. Q
Okla Cve-4
WDG/plr ?r1? ?o
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
D3D?02
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
.J •+'

........
.
..
..
O
D
CL
,
20

7

.
20
0
h^...
3 !? BEGIN PROJECT

_2 L
.3
..?
1
?[I,r r .03 L
_.........

1 2
;
,_? x?, ? ? x+99
? o co

co
NOM CAROUNA DWARTME T
"t OF TRANSFWATM
DMSION OF WWWAYS
PROW DWROFMENT AND
• ??• __ °'•? OW RONMENUL ANALYSIS BRANCH
U-4006 Guilford County
Bradford Parkway Extension
? WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
O 19 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> Division of Water Quality
p .? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality

November 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Assessment for Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford
County, F.A. Project No. STP-4126(1), State Project No. 8.2496901, TIP Project U-
4006. State Clearinghouse Project No. 04-0089.
This document indicates that South Buffalo Creek (Index No. 16-11-14-2, Hydrological Unit 030602)
lies within the project area. These waters are classified as C NSW. The Division of Water Quality
offers these comments:
1. NC Division of Water Quality has no preference between four-lane curb and gutter with raised
median or five-lane curb and gutter section. The project alternatives as presented would have
curb and gutter. DWQ is concerned about the potential increases in untreated, concentrated storm
water that might enter South Buffalo Creek.
2. South Buffalo Creek is listed on the §303(d) list of impaired waters and according to the Cape
Fear River Water Quality Plan, has some of the worst water problems in North Carolina.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of
impairment. Below McConnel Road, South Buffalo Creek is not supporting (NS) because of an
impaired biological community and NH3 from the wastewater treatment plant. Based on benthos
monitoring, this portion has the worst water quality in the Cape Fear River basin. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and high flows from the discharge
may be a cause of impairment in the lower segment. Design plans should include ways to
improve this resource's water quality or at least avoid or minimize further impairment.
3. The Indirect and Cumulative Impacts discussion Section IV, C, 6 states that the extension of
Bridford Parkway will likely accelerate the rate of commercial development along the entire
corridor. This discussion of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts needs to be more fully developed in
light of the 303(d) listed waters within the project area.
4. Within the Cape Fear Basin, sedimentation and urban stormwater runoff are major concerns. In
order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged. Stormwater should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather
than routed directly into streams. DWQ prefers that stormwater runoff be designed to drain into a
properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Melba McGee, U-4006
Page 2
November 3, 2003
5. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within this basin, NCDOT is encouraged to retain
vegetation as much as possible. Do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is
absolutely necessary. Especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large,
undercut trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
6. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required
prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
7. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
8. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream
impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150
linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Beth Haines Barnes at [phone].
pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
Department of Env?'rz41 , and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number.
000 Counter
U I
fled Date Received:
r I Date Response Due (firm deadline):
i /"/03

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville Air 16 soil & Water 11 Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville Groundwater tl ife ? Water Resources
4W

? Raleigh
?Land Quality Engineer icy eP- r
1? Environmental Health

? Washington o Recreational Consultant Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wihhington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
4Winston-Salem arks & Recreation ? Other

? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sigi-0011egion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
W"wosi401 Baia
OCT Z 0 2003
WATER QuALT"c7RECE
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Offee, of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
OCT 14 2003
Water Quality Planning Branch
Local Qovenmw# Assistance Unit

Greensboro
Bridford Parkway Extension
From Hornaday Road
to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
TIP Project Number U-4006
WBS Element 35007.1.1
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
United States Department of Transportation .
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Planning & Environment
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
9 ?2 ;
Date egory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
9 29 03
Date ,JkJohn F. Sulli , III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Greensboro
_ Bridford Parkway Extension
From Hornaday Road
to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP-4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
TIP Project Number U-4006
WBS Element 35007.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
October 2003
i

Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
Marie L. Sutton
Project Development Engineer

Robert P. Hanson, PE
Assistant Manager
It 03
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Engineer, Unit Head
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Greensboro
Bridford Parkway Extension
From Hornaday Road
to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number STP4126(1)
State Project Number 8.2496901
TIP Project Number U4006
WBS Element 35007.1.1
Geotechnical Unit, Right of Way Branch:
Prior to right of way acquisition, the Geotechnical Unit will conduct a thorough survey
for hazardous materials at the following sites: 305 Swing Road (former Community
Heating and Plumbing) and 307 Swing Road (former Associated Mechanical Contractors)
as described in the Hazardous Materials section. There is a danger of contaminated soils
at these sites. The sites will be purchased in permanent easement.
Roadway Design Unit, Program Development Branch:
Sidewalks will be provided on both sides for the entire project length. The City of
Greensboro will be responsible for maintenance and liability of the proposed sidewalks,
as well as sharing the cost of construction according to the NCDOT requirements for a
municipality with apopulation above 100,000 (50% NCDOT and 50%o municipality).
Wide outside lanes (fourteen-foot) have been included to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Environmental Assessment Page I of, l
October 2003
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the Division of Planning & Environment
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend SR 4126
(Bridford Parkway) from Homaday Road to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road 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 16-foot (4.8 meter) raised grass median, 12-foot (3.6
meter) inside lanes, and 14-foot (4.2 meter) outside lanes. Right of way width for the project is
100 feet (30 meters) with the exception of the 90 feet (27.4 meters) of right of way south of I-40.
The cross section provides two travel lanes in each direction and exclusive turning lanes at
various intersections along the proposed roadway. Figure 3 shows the proposed cross sections.
Proposed improvements include the realignment of Big Tree Way with Bridford Parkway and
structures over I-40. The total project length is approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers).
This project is included in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 and
construction to begin in FFY 2007. The estimated project cost in the 2004-2010 TIP is
$9,130,000. The current total estimated cost of the project is $12,241,500.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
There were two build alternatives analyzed during the environmental study. Table 1
provides a summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with each alternate. Alternate A and
Alternate B have one residential relocation and three commercial relocations. Both alternatives
impact 400 linear feet (122 meters) of streams and no wetlands. There are two noise-impacted
properties associated with each alternative.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Category Units Alternate A
(Recommended) Alternate B
Corridor Length miles (kilometers) 1.1 (1.8) 1.1 (1.8)
Residential Relocations Total 1 1
Minority 1 1
Business Relocations Total 3 3
Minority 0 0
Non-Profit Relocations Total 0 0
Potential Hazardous Mat. Sites Each 2 2
Wetlands acres (hectares) 0 0
Stream Impacts linear feet (meters) 400 (122) 400 (122)
Noise Impacted properties 2 2
Air Quality 1-Hour carbon monoxide (ppm) 8.9 8.9
Right of Way Cost Dollars $3,041,500 $3,041,500
Construction Cost Dollars $9,200,000 $9,100,000
Total Cost Dollars $12,241,500 $12,141,500
ppm = parts per million
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 35 ppm (1-hour)
4. Alternatives Considered
Several alternatives were considered for the proposed action including the Mass Transit
Alternative, Transportation System Management Alternative, No-Build Alternative, and Build
Alternative. The Mass Transit Alternative and the Transportation System Management
Alternative were eliminated from further consideration because they failed to meet the purpose
and need of the project.
The No-Build Alternative avoids potential adverse environmental impacts anticipated to
result from the project. However, the No-Build Alternative would not increase capacity or
improve the levels of service along SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) or improve system linkage in
the area. This alternative was retained as a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternatives.
The Build Alternative includes Alternate A, a four-lane curb and gutter section with a raised
median, and Alternate B, a five-lane curb and gutter section. The four-lane median divided
section is preferred by the City of Greensboro because it addresses capacity improvement and
system linkage, as well as, allowing the city to control the growth in the area through it's land
use policy. The four-lane facility addresses vehicular and pedestrian safety, provides
landscaping opportunities and will accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The five-lane
section addresses the capacity needs; however, it provides limited opportunities for growth
control in the area.
ii
5. Recommended Alternative
Alternate A is the recommended alternative because it best meets the need for additional
traffic carrying capacity and system linkage in the area. However, a final decision with regard to
a preferred alternative will not be made until all public hearing comments are evaluated. Figure
2 shows an aerial view of the project area showing the location of Alternate A.
6. Coordination
The following Federal, State, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this environmental assessment:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
N. C. Department of Administration, N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Wildlife Resources Commission
Council of Governments
City of Greensboro
7. 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 33
CFR 330.5 (A) 14 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 and wetlands. 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.
The NCDOT will consult with appropriate agencies in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401) to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife in the project area.
iii
8. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information:
John F. Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... i
I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................1
A. Description and Purpose of the Project ....................................................1
B. Characteristics of the Existing Facilities ................................................... I
1. Length of Study Area ........................................................ .......1
2. Existing Facilities in the Study Area ................................................ 2
a. SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway)
b. Big Tree Way .................................................................... 2
C. SR 1546 (Guilford College Road) ...........................................2
d. Hornaday Road ....................................................................... 2
e. Swing Road ......................................................................2
3. Speed Limits ............................................................................. 2
4. Utilities ................................................................................... 2
C. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 2
D. Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................................. 2
E. Safety ................................................................................................... 3
H. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. 3
A. Alignment ...............................................................................................3
B. Cross Section Description .................................................................... 3
C. Length of Proposed Project ..................................................................4
D. Right of Way ....................................................................................4
E. Capacity ...........................................................................................4
1. Build Analysis-Mainline .............................................................. 4
2. Build Analysis-Intersecting Streets .................................................. 4
a. Bridford Parkway Extension/Burnt Poplar Road @ Swing Road ...... 4
b. Bridford Parkway Extension/Guilford College Road ....................4
C. Bridford Parkway Extension/Big Tree Way ............................... 4
d. Bridford Parkway Extension/Hornaday Road ............................. 5
F. Access Control ................................................................................. 5
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .............................................. 5
H. Design Speed ...................................................................................5
I. Noise Barriers .................................................................................. 5
J. Sidewalks ........................................................................................ 5
w
K. Structures ........................................................................................ 5
L. Bicycles .......................................................................................... 5
M. Cost Estimate ................................................................................... 6
III. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................... 6
A. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ................................................... 6
1. Mass Transit Alternative .............................................................. 6
Page
2. Transportation System Management Alternative ................................. 6
B. Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study ...............................................7
1. No-Build Alternative ................................................................... 7
2. Build Alternative .................................:......................................7
3. Recommended Alternative ................................................................. 7
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................ 8
A. Land Use ......... 8
...............................................................................
1. Existing Land Use Plans .............................................................. 8
2. Future Land Use Changes ............................................................ 8
B. Farmland ............................................................................................... 8
C. Social Effects ................................................................................... 9
1. Community/Neighborhood Characteristics ........................................ 9
2. Public and Private Facilities .......................................................... 9
3. Demographics ........................................................................... 9
4. Relocation Impacts ..................................................................... .9
5. Environmental Justice ................................................................. 11
6. Indirect & Cumulative Impacts .......................................................... 12
7. Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 12
- a. Architectural Resources ........................................................ 12
b. Archaeological Resources ..................................................... 13
C. Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................. 13
D. Economic Effects .............................................................................. 13
1. Incomes ............................................................................... 13
2. Development Potential ................................................................. 14-
E. Environmental Effects ......................................................................... 14
1. Methodology ............................................................................ 14
2. Physical Resources ..................................................................... 15
a. Geological Resources ........................................................... 15
b. Water Resources ................................................................ 15
1) Waters Impacted and Characteristics ................................ 16
2) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams ........................... 16
3) Best Usage Classification .............................................. 17
4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............ 17
3. Biotic Resources ........................................................................ 18
a. Terrestrial Communities ....................................................... 18
1) Oak Hickory Forest ..................................................... 19
2) Maintained/Disturbed Land ............................................ 19
b. Wildlife ........................................................................... 19
C. Aquatic Community ............................................................ 20
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................ 20
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................... 21
a. Waters of the United States ................................................... 21
1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................... 21
Page
2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................... 21
3) Permits ....................................................................22
4) Mitigation ................................................................. 22
a) Avoidance .........................................................22
b) Minimization ...................................................... 22
c) Compensatory Mitigation .......................................23
b. Rare and Protected Species ....................................................23
1) Federally-Protected Species ...........................................23
2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............. 24
5. Hazardous Materials ....................................................................24
1. Methodology ........................................................................ 25
a. Underground Storage Tanks .............................................. 25
b. Landfills and other Potentially Contaminated Properties ............ 26
c. RCRA/CERCLA ............................................................27
6. Noise ..............................................................................27
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................27
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ...................................................... 28
C. Ambient Noise Levels ..........................................................28
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ............................29
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .................................29
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures .......................................... 30
g. No-Build Alternative ........................................................... 31
h. Construction Noise ............................................................. 31
i. Noise Analysis Summary ...................................................... 31
7. Air Quality Impacts .................................................................... 32
a. CO Analysis ............................................................................... 32
b. Other Pollutants ...........................................................................33
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................................ 34
A. Interagency Coordination .....................................................................35
B NEPA/404 Merger Process ........................................................................ 35
C. Citizens Informational Workshop ...........................................................35
D. Public Hearing ..................................................................................36
TABLES
Table 1 Comparative Summary ........................................................................ ii
Table 2 Accident Rate Data .................................................................... 3
Table 3 Alternate Cost Comparison ............................................................ 7
Table 4 Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts ............................................ 21
FIGURES
Figure 1 .......Project Location
Figure 2 .......Project Aerial Photograph
Figures 3A&B .... Cross Sections
Figures 4A-D .....Project Traffic Data
Figure 5 .......Hazardous Material Sites
Figure 6 & 7....... Proposed Intersection Geometry
Figure 8 ........Thoroughfare Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 NCDOT Relocation Reports
Appendix 2 Noise Tables
Appendix 3 Comments Received from Federal and State Agencies
Greensboro
Bridford Parkway Extension
From Hornaday Road
to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project Number ST?-4126(l)
State Project Number 8.2496901
TIP Project Number U4006
WBS Element 35007.1.1
I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Description and Purpose of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend SR 4126 (Bridford
Parkway), a four-lane, median divided curb and gutter facility, from Hornaday Road to
Swing Road. The proposed project includes the realignment of Big Tree Way, improvements
to the current intersections with Guilford College Road and Swing Road, and bridges over
Interstate 40. Bridford Parkway is classified as a Urban Collector on the Statewide
Classification System.
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion, increase capacity, and improve
system linkage in the area. The Bridford Parkway extension will alleviate traffic congestion
along the alternative routes of Guilford College Road and Wendover Avenue. These routes
currently are operating above or near capacity. The reduction of traffic on these routes
should, in turn, reduce traffic congestion in the project area and improve access, mobility and
connectivity. The Bridford Parkway extension will provide access from a highly congested
regional commercial center located at the southern terminus of the project to the proposed
access points of the Western Outer Loop and other major thoroughfares in the area. The
extension will also improve access to the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA)
industrial area which is a regional employment hub. Traffic operation improvements caused
by this project are most significant along Guilford College Road, between Hornaday Road
and Big Tree Way, which is above capacity. The extension provides substantial relief to this
section of Guilford College Road, maintaining very satisfactorylevels of service. Although
extending the Parkway increases traffic on the existing portions of Bridford, volumes remain
within the capacity of these facilities.
B. Characteristics of the Existing Facilities
1. Length of Study Area
The length of the proposed project study area, from Hornaday Road to Swing Road
is approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers).
2. Existing Facilities in the Study Area
a. SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway)
The existing cross section of SR 4126 varies from four to five lanes with a
roadway width ranging from 60 feet (18.3 meters) to 64 feet (19.5 meters) within a right of
way width of 90 feet (27.4 meters).
b. Big Tree Way
The existing cross section of Big Tree Way is a three-lane, 33-foot (10.1-meter)
curb and gutter section on a 60-foot (18.3-meter) right of way.
c. SR 1546 (Guilford College Road)
The existing cross section of SR 1546 is a five-lane, 54-foot (16.5-meter) curb and
gutter section with a right of way width of 80 feet (24.4 meters).
d. Hornaday Road
The existing Homaday Road is a four-lane, divided median 67-foot (20.4-
meter) face to face curb and gutter section with a right of way width of 80 feet (24.4 meters)..
e. Swing Road
The existing cross section of Swing Road is a four-lane 48-foot (14.6-meter)
curb and gutter section with a right of way width of 60 feet (18.3 meter).
3. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit along SR 4126 is 35 miles per hour (56 kilometers per hour).
4. Utilities
Utility conflicts along this project are considered to be "medium" in severity.
Overhead utility lines and multiple sewer lines are located in the project area.
C. Traffic Volumes
Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume along SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) is
16,000 vehicles per day. Truck traffic is six percent of the total daily traffic.
Design year 2025 volume is projected to be 24,200 vehicles per day. Truck traffic is six
percent of the design year total daily traffic volumes.
See Figures 4A - 4D for detailed traffic volumes in the area.
D. Thoroughfare Plan
The project was requested by the City of Greensboro, and is addressed in the Greensboro
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) is classified as minor
thoroughfare on the Greensboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The primary function of the
improvement under the minor thoroughfare classification is to convey traffic from
neighborhoods and collector streets to major thoroughfares. The Bridford Parkway extension
will provide access from a highly congested regional commercial center located at the
southern terminus of the project to the proposed access points of the Western Outer Loop and
other major thoroughfares in the area. The extension will also improve access to the
2
Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA) industrial area which is a regional employment
hub. See Figure 8 for the relation of the Western Outer Loop and Airport with this project.
E. Safety
Existing SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) has a greater accident rate compared to the
statewide average for urban secondary routes. The only category in which SR 4126 falls
below the statewide accident rates is for fatal accidents. Table 2 provides a summary of the
number of accidents in the project area and the corresponding statewide averages for similar
roads.
Thirty-two percent of the accidents were attributed to left turn movements, and twenty
percent were rear-end accidents.
The number of accidents is expected to increase as project area roads become more
congested. Left-turns are a safety concern because slow moving or stopped vehicles are
vulnerable to rear-end collisions. Left-turn and rear-end accidents are the most common type
of accident in the project area.
Table 2
Comparison of Accident Rates with Statewide Averages
(Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles)
Accident Category SR 4126 (Bridford
Parkway) Statewide Averages for
Urban Secondary Routes
Total Accident Rate 1894.57 358.95
Fatal Accident Rate 0 0.84
Non-fatal Injury Accident Rate 735.21 132.75
Night Accident Rate 443.01 74.25
Wet Accident Rate 320.47 64.62
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Alignment
The Bridford Parkway Extension will begin on new location at the intersection of
Bridford Parkway and Hornaday Road and extend north-northwest across I-40 on proposed
dual bridges, intersect with Big Tree Way and continue on existing alignment to Guilford
College Road. New location begins again at the intersection with Guilford College Road and
continues to Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road. The alignment was shifted easterly to
minimize impacts to the Hyde Park community and Big Tree Way will be realigned to form a
"T" intersection with the proposed Bridford Parkway Extension.
B. Cross Section Description
The recommended cross section is a four-lane median divided roadway with 12-foot
(3.6-meter) inside travel lanes, 14-foot outside travel lanes and 16-foot (4.8-meter) raised
grass median. Figures 3A&B show the cross sections for the proposed roadway.
3
C. Length of the Proposed Project
The total project length is approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers).
-D. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width for the project is 100 feet (30 meters) with the
exception of the 90 feet (27.4 meters) of right of way that has been donated by the developer
south of I-40. Temporary construction easements will be required to contain the construction
at various locations along the proposed project.
E. Capacity
Levels of service (LOS) describe the traffic carrying ability of a roadway, which range
from LOS A to LOS F. Level of Service represents unrestricted maneuverability and
operating speeds. Level of Service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal
operating speeds. Level of Service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds
close to the speed limit. Level of Service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and
unstable, low operating speeds. This condition is considered acceptable in densely developed
urban areas. Level of Service E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level.
Breakdown conditions, commonly referred to as stop and go traffic, indicate a Level of
Service F.
A traffic capacity analysis of the proposed improvements yielded the following results:
1. Build Analysis-Mainline
Estimated mainline volumes along the proposed Bridford Parkway Extension
range from 5,800 to 16,500 vehicles per day in 2025. Given the short length of the proposed
extension and the presence of four signalized intersections, it is expected that the signals will
control operations on the mainline. Therefore, because the intersections are forecast to
operate at LOS C or better, Bridford Parkway Extension itself should operate at LOS C or
better depending on time of day. See Figures 4A-D for detailed traffic volumes in the area.
2. Build Analysis-Intersecting Streets
a. Bridford Parkway Extension/Burnt Poplar Road at Swing Road
This signalized intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C for 2025 conditions
in both the AM and PM peak hours.
b. Bridford Parkway Extension/Guilford College Road
This intersection will be signalized. This intersection is forecast to operate at
LOS C for 2025 conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours.
c. Bridford Parkway Extension/Big Tree Way
This intersection will be signalized, and is forecast to operate at LOS B in the
AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour for 2025 conditions.
4
d. Bridford Parkway Eztension/Hornaday Road
This intersection will be signalized and is forecast to operate at LOS C in the
AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour for 2025 conditions.
F. Access Control
There will be partial control of access, one access per parcel, and a right of way fence
along the Bridford Parkway extension except where full control already exists along the I-40
interstate corridor.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
At grade intersections will be used throughout the proposed project except at the
crossing of I-40. The intersections of Hornaday Road, Big Tree Way, Guilford College Road,
and Swing Road will be signalized. The western end of Big Tree Way will be realigned to
create a "T" intersection with the extension of Bridford Parkway. See Figures 6 & 7 for
proposed intersection geometry.
H. Design Speed,
The proposed project has a design speed of 40 miles per hour (mph)
[64 kilometers per hour (kph)] along SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway). Design speed is a
correlation of the physical features of a highway, which influence vehicle operation and
reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. The anticipated posted
speed limit is 35 mph (56 kph); however, the Division Traffic Engineer upon completion of
the project will make final determination of the posted speed limit.
1. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of this project.
J. Sidewalks
The project includes sidewalks on both sides of SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) for the
entire length of the project. The City of Greensboro will be responsible for maintenance and
liability of the proposed sidewalks, as well as, sharing the cost of construction according to
NCDOT requirements for a municipality with a population above 100,000 (50% NCDOT and
50% municipality). The City of Greensboro's estimated cost of sidewalks is $96,800.
K. Structures
There will be dual structures over I-40 associated with this project. The bridges will be
approximately 240 feet (73.2 meters) in length.
L. Bicycles
The proposed road will not be designated as a North Carolina bicycling highway, but due
to the high number of local requests, bicycle accommodations are included in this project.
Wide outside lanes [14 feet (4.2 meters)] and bicycle safety grates will provide facilities for
bicycles along the roadway.
5
M. Cost Estimate
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of $12,241,500 including
$3,041,500 for right of way acquisition and $9,200,000 for construction.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives were considered for the proposed project: the Mass Transit Alternative,
the Transportation System Management Alternative, the No-Build Alternative, and the Build
Alternative. The Build Alternative consists of extending the existing roadway to a four-lane
median divided or a five-lane curb and gutter facility from Hornaday Road to Swing Road.
A. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
Two of the four alternatives were considered but eliminated because they do not serve
the purpose of and need for the project. Alternatives eliminated from further consideration
include the Mass Transit Alternative and the Transportation System Management
Alternative.
1. Mass Transit Alternative
The Mass Transit Alternative involves options such as bus or rail service to decrease
congestion. The City of Greensboro operates a bus system in the project area. However, the
limitation of mass transit is its inability to serve different trip purposes and types.
Incorporating the entire project area into the bus system is likely in the future. Based on type
of trips generated along Bridford Parkway the current bus system has not substantially
reduced the single occupancy vehicle rate in the project area. Trips generated for an
expanded bus service would not differ from the trips currently being generated and would not
substantially reduce the single occupancy vehicle rate in the project area. The purpose of
the proposed project is to alleviate traffic congestion along the alternate route of Guilford
College Road. The extension will provide access from a highly congested regional
commercial center located at the southern terminus of the project to the proposed access
points of the Western Outer Loop and other major thoroughfares in the area. The extension
will also improve access to the Piedmont Triad International Airport industrial area, which is
a regional employment hub. The Mass Transit Alternative does not meet the purpose and
need. Therefore, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from further consideration for
the project.
2. Transportation System Management Alternative
The Transportation System Management Alternative includes optimizing traffic
signal phases and coordinating signal operations. Projected traffic volumes for this area
exceed the capacity of existing roadways. Generally, if traffic volumes exceed the capacity
of the roadways, minor improvements to signal phases or optimization of signal timings will
not substantially improve the level of service. Although TSM measures will improve traffic
safety and operations and will be included in the project, they will not eliminate the need for
additional capacity on the roadway network, nor provide access to other major thoroughfares
6
in the area. Therefore, TSM techniques were eliminated from further consideration as an
alternative to new roadway construction
B. Alternatives Considered For Detailed Study
Of the four alternatives considered for this project, two were retained for further study
and evaluation. These include the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative.
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative consists of not implementing the proposed project. No
major improvements to the existing routes, except those currently planned or programmed in
the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), would be included under this
alternative. Continued roadway maintenance and minor improvements would be part of this
concept. The No-Build Alternative is the baseline for comparison because it avoids the
adverse environmental impacts anticipated to result from the project.
2. Build Alternative
Two build alternates were studied for the extension of SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway).
Alternate A consists of constructing a four-lane median divided facility from Hornaday Road
to Swing Road. Alternate B follows the same alignment, but it consists of building a five-
lane roadway.
3. Recommended Alternative
Alternate A is the NCDOT Recommended A ternate because the four-lane divided
cross section will accommodate the projected volumes more efficiently while reducing the
conflicts associated with unrestricted left-turn movements. Also, this alternate provides for
improved aesthetics along the corridor and allows the city to better implement its land use
policy in the development of the area. The four-lane divided median facility separates
opposing traffic and significantly reduces a wide range of common accidents, including year-
end, right angle, head-on and left-turn. The median also reduces property damage, injuries
and fatalities related to these accidents. When left-turns are opposed by high volumes,
movement is safer at concentrated/well defined points as provided by median divided
sections. A median also reduces driver confusion by concentrating maneuvers to an
intersection where they are more expected and more effectively controlled via traffic control
devices.
TABLE 3
ALTERNATE COST COMPARISON
Cost Item Alternate A Alternate B
Construction Cost $9,200,000 $9,100,000
Right of Way Cost $3,041,500 $3,041,500
Total Cost $12,241,500 $12,141,500
7
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use Plans
The project area is a mix of residential, commercial, and vacant properties. There is
one single-family residential community in the project area. The Hyde Park community is
located between I40 and Big Tree Way east of Guilford College Road. There are two
apartment complexes located in the project area also. Westview Valley Apartments are
located along the western side of Guilford College road north of the proposed Bridford
Parkway/Guilford College intersection. Ashley Oaks Apartments are on the eastern side of
Guilford College road north of the Bridford Parkway/Guilford College Road intersection.
There are several major commercial developments at the southern end of the project
including a Saturn auto dealer, Target and Wal-Mart. At the northern end of the project,
there is an industrial are that includes Briggs Equipment Rental, USA Staffing, Secure
Designs, Precision Walls, Handi Clean, RSC, Proctor & Gamble, Syngenta, CASE, AJR
Import Service, Salem Leasing, and Swing Road Office Park. The project is consistent with .
the City of Greensboro Comprehensive and Land Use Draft plans as well as Greensboro's
Thoroughfare Plan.
2. Future Land Use Changes
The City of Greensboro Planning Department anticipates that future development
within the project area will consist of commercial and industrial development. The Planning
Department has incorporated the proposed Bridford Parkway Extension in current and future
land use plans. The city is actively expanding and marketing the surrounding area north and
south of the project. This area is identified as a development center and is anticipated to
increase in industrial and commercial development The Planning Department does not
anticipate any future residential development in the project area.
B. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U. S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils are determined by the SCS based on criteria such
as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. Soils in the project area are found to
be gently sloping to diep/moderately steep well drained loamy soils with a clay subsoil.
Visual inspection of the project area failed to reveal any existing farms. Since land
use in the project area is zoned for development, it is unlikely that construction of any of the
alternates would significantly impact agricultural operations in the future. Therefore, Form
AD 1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) was not processed through the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (MRCS).
8
C. Social Effects
1. Community/Neighborhood Characteristics
The homes in this community are primarily single-family and range in size from 700
to 1,500 square feet. Many of the residences are vacant and have warning notices posted
from the City of Greensboro regarding trash and debris violations. Many of the homes are in
need of repair. A number of the homes have been purchased by a single entity. The City's
Connection 2025 Comprehensive Plan (adopted May 6, 2003) recommends higher density
non-residential uses for the area.
2. Public and Private Facilities
A mix of commercial businesses on the southern and northern ends borders the
proposed SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) extension. There are no churches, schools, fire
stations or police stations in the project area. The Emergency Management Service base is
located approximately 4 miles southeast of the project.
3. Demographics
According to the 2000 Census, the population of Guilford County is 421,048.
Approximately 64.5 percent of the county's 2000 population is white, 29.3 percent is black,
and 3.8 percent is Hispanic. The percentage of the minority population in the county (37.1
percent) is larger than that of the project area. (32.4 percent), and larger than that of the state
(29.8 percent). The median household income for Guilford County is 108.8 percent of that of
the state. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the project area is 10.0
percent; this is lower than both the 10.6 percent for the county and the 12.3 percent for the
state.
4. Relocation Impacts
There are 7 relocations along Alternate A and B. These include three residential and
four commercial relocations. Relocation reports for Alternates A and B are located in
Appendix 1.
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize
the effects of displacement on families. The occupants of the affected residences may qualify
for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. It is the policy of the NCDOT
to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
9
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving
expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases
of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program
will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-
5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory
services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are
given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for
Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest
payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total),
except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
10
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on
the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the
extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program
is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe; and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program will be
necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation within
the area.
5. Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides that "each federal
agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to
American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the equitable
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.
While the majority of the demographic study does not meet the overall threshold
requirement of Environmental Justice, Hyde Park occupied homes are primarily minority-
owned. None of the block groups in the study area meet the thresholds for racial or poverty
analysis. The affected block groups percentages are lower than the state and county averages
for minority and impoverished persons percentages. In this case, the proposed construction
of the project would not disproportionately impact minority or low-income communities
protected under the environmental justice order.
11
6. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
The completion of this project, as well as TIP projects U-3612 (Hilltop Road
widening), U-2524 (Western Outer Loop), and I-2201 (widening of I-40) may have positive
impacts on local economic development. The project will provide new access and will likely
attract more development to the regional commercial center and the surrounding area.
The project will improve and create direct access to several minor and major
thoroughfares. This may improve the attractiveness of commercial and industrial sites along
Bridford Parkway and the surrounding primary access routes of Guilford College Road and
Wendover Avenue and the airport industrial area. This area is already experiencing
accelerated growth due to the planned regional Federal Express distribution.
The Bridford Parkway extension will alleviate traffic congestion along the alternate
route of Guilford College Road between Hornaday Road and Big Tree Way and will provide
minor improvements to Wendover Avenue. These routes are operating above or near
capacity. The reduction of traffic on these routes should, in turn, reduce traffic congestion on
secondary streets in the project area and improve access, mobility and connectivity. Many .
homes along the proposed Bridford Parkway extension could increase in property values that
would make them more appealing for commercial activity, consistent with zoning and local
long-range land use plans. The industries being recruited by local officials place a high value
on well-developed road networks and easy access to interstate highways. The change in land
use during the past few years from single family residential to high density residential and
commercial land uses has impacted community stability and neighborhood cohesion, and
may have hanned the viability of the Hyde Park neighborhood. The extension of Bridford
Parkway will likely accelerate the rate of commercial development along the entire corridor.
South Buffalo Creek flows through the project. Any induced development within
the study area could contribute to additional storm water runoff into this body of water.
However, this creek is identified as impaired, and should only be minimally affected, if at all,
by future development built along the selected alignment. Therefore, the proposed action is
likely to have slight secondary and cumulative impacts on water quality.
7. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on
a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. This project is also
subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as
amended.
12
The area of potential effect (APE) for this project was determined and reviewed
by NCDOT staff. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was
consulted as part of the process for identifying historic architectural resources located in the
APE.
There are no properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the project area. A copy of the letter stating this project is
in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CRF
Park 800 is located in Appendix 3.
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Since the proposed project will not affect any sites eligible for the National
Register, further investigation is not warranted. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurs with the archaeological review of the project. A copy of SHPO's letter is located in
Appendix 3.
a. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303)
protects the use and function of publicly owned parks, recreation area, wildlife/waterfowl
refuges, and historic properties. A transportation project can only use land from a Section
4(f) resource when there are no other feasible or prudent alternatives and when the project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
There are no Section 4(f) resources in the project area; therefore, Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) as amended does not apply.
D. Economic Effects
1. Incomes
The SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway) extension is located in the City of Greensboro in
Guilford County. Guilford County's economy is healthier than the statewide average and is
characterized by a diverse economic base of service and industry. The state's median income
is $39,184 compared to the Guilford County's median income of $42,618 and the project
area's median income of $38,087.
The largest employment sectors include light and heavy manufacturing, retail trade
and service businesses. The business and commercial activity in the project area is dense and
varied. This is particularly true in the southern portion of the project area; it is considered a
regional commercial center for business and commercial development. With more than
300,000 square feet of retail and office space, this are is dominated by "big box" retail
development, but also includes many other small retail stores.
13
2. Development Potential
Demographic trends indicate there is potential for development in the vicinity of the
project. Between the years 1990 and 2000, the population of Guilford County and the City of
Greensboro grew by 21 percent. The population is expected to continue to grow. It is likely
that such growth levels will spur substantial demand for new housing and retail development
over the next several years. The project area is mostly mixed industrial, commercial and
residential, and future development is anticipated to include more business development.
The project will create an overall benefit to the community by making travel more efficient,
increasing traffic carrying capacity, and improving system linkage. The improved access
through the area, savings in operating costs, reduced accident potential and general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community as well
as the state.
E. Environmental Effects
1. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological survey (USGS) quadrangle
map (Guilford, NC, 1977), Natural Resource Conservation Service soils information for
Guilford County (USDA 1977), and NCDOT aerial photography (1:100) of the project area.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-
DWQ 2000a) and from the NC Center for Geographic Systems database (July 2001).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
federal species of concern, as well as from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats (Amoroso 2002, LeGrand and Hall 2001).
A study corridor of 100 feet (30 meters) equal to the proposed right of way was chosen
for the natural resources investigation. General field surveys were conducted along the
proposed study corridor by NCDOT biologists. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of
the following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, nests, and
burrows). Impacts to biotic communities, wetland, and stream are based on this 100-foot (30-
meter) right of way limit.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using delineation criteria
described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987) and rated using the "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management 1995). Jurisdictional surface water
determinations were performed using guidance provided by the N.C. Division of Water
14
Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)],
"Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (NCDENR-DWQ 1997) and DWQ
Stream Classification Form (NCDENR-DWQ 1999a).
Terminology
Definitions for aerial descriptions contained in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by the proposed right of way limits along the full
length of the project alignment; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8
kilometers) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area
represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central
position.
2. Physical Resources
a. Geological Resources
Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies within the piedmont physiographic region of north central
North Carolina. Topography within Guilford County is generally rolling with moderately
steep slopes along the drainageways. Dominant soils include mostly sandy clay loams. The
proposed project is approximately 850 to 930 feet (259 to 284 meters) above mean sea level.
Tributaries of the Haw River drain the county to the east and the Deep River to the south.
The study area within the proposed right of way is partially developed; industrial, as well as
residential, with several large forested areas. The physical resources located within the
project area directly influence the composition and distribution of a biotic community's flora
and fauna.
Soils
The central portion of Guilford County is underlain primarily with soils in the Enon-
Mecklenburg Association. This association is comprised of well-drained, sandy clay loam,
clay loam, and loamy soils that have clayey subsoil. There are four soil types located in the
project area:
Cecil sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes (CeC2)
• Madison sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes (MaE)
• Enon fine sandy loam (EnD)
• Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (CeB2
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted within the project study area. Water resources information encompasses physical
aspects of the resource; its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and
15
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize these impacts.
1.) Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-02, Hydrologic Unit
03030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin, the largest river basin in the state of North Carolina.
` This river basin covers 9,149 square miles (23,694 square kilometers) and 27 counties
(NCDENR-DWQ 2000a). One perennial stream, South Buffalo Creek, and one intermittent
stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to South Buffalo Creek, are located in the project area.
South Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that begins towards the western end of the
project area near Burnt Poplar Road, flowing southeastward. It is likely that South Buffalo
Creek originally formed northwest of its current beginnings; however, development has
resulted in piping the origins of the stream underneath buildings and parking lots. The
visible source of the stream is drainage from two 36-inch (0.9-meter) metal pipes, which are
perched approximately three feet (0.9 meter) above the water surface. These pipes convey
drainage from development on the eastern side of Swing Road in the vicinity of Burnt Poplar
Road. Immediately below the pipes is a pool resulting from the erosive properties of the
water outflow from the pipes. Downstream of the pool, the substrate of South Buffalo Creek
consists of sand and gravel. Water clarity is fair, water depth is 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.6 cm),
and flow is moderate. There is a well-defined and continuous bed and bank. Bottom channel
width is 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters). The channel is deeply entrenched to a depth of 6 feet
(1.8 meters) below ground level. The channel is slightly sinuous, most likely having been
straightened in the past to accommodate construction of the adjacent industrial development,
as well as the apartment complex north of the stream just west of Guilford College Road.
The intermittent UT to South Buffalo Creek crosses the proposed project in a power
line just north of I-40 and is in fact a UT to a UT to South Buffalo Creek. At the time of the
site visit, there was no water in the one-foot (0.3-meter) wide channel. The bed and bank are
discontinuous, presumably from vehicular traffic within the power line easement. The
substrate is red clay, identical to the surrounding terrain. Sinuosity is low and channel depth
is 0 to 3 inches (0 to 7.6 cm).
2.) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies
according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as
the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all
impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality
standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and anti-degradation
requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual
pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The source of
impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition.
Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is
strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b)
16
guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially
Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list.
Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list,
according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to
adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has developed a
priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits.
those waterbodies provide to the State.
South Buffalo Creek, from its source to McConnell Road in Guilford County, is listed
as biologically impaired water in Part 5 of the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. Part 5 contains
biologically unpaired waterbodies with no iTentified-cause of impairment. Roughly half of
the waters on the list appear on Part 5. Identification of the cause(s) of impairment will
precede movement of these waters to Part I (impaired by a pollutant as defined by EPA) and
Part 2 (impaired by pollution as defined by EPA). EPA recognized that in specific situations
the data is not available to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and that these
specific waters might be better placed on a separate part of the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list
(64 FR, 46025, August 23, 1999). Data collection and analysis will be performed in an
attempt to determine a cause of impairment. According to DWQ, the listing is historical for
"sediment" based on biological impairment. Potential Sources are urban runoff and storm
sewers. The priority for value and benefits of this stretch of South Buffalo Creek is low.
3.) Best Usage Classifications
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ, which reflects
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive.the same
classification as the streams to which they flow. South Buffalo Creek is classified as C
NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW waters are nutrient sensitive waters and
receive this supplemental classification because they are in need of additional nutrient
management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general,
management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution control require there be no
increase in nutrients over background levels. No waters classified as Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW) or Water Supplies (WS-I, undeveloped
watersheds, or WS-II, predominantly undeveloped watersheds) occur within one mile (1.6
kilometer) of the project study area.
4.) Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and
pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities:
17
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources located in the project area include terrestrial and aquatic
communities. This section describes the communities encountered and the relationships
between fauna and flora found within these communities. The composition and distribution
of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic
influences, and the project area's past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow those
presented by Schafale and Weakly (1990) where possible. The dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided for
each described animal and plant species. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Lee et al (1982), Martof et al (1980), Potter et al (1980),
and Webster et al (1985). All subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna that is observed during the site visit is denoted with an asterisk
(*). Scat evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range
distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within
the project area.

a.) Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities are located in the project study area: oak hickory forest
and maintained/disturbed land. Land use defines community boundaries within the study
area.
18
Table 4 Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts
Community Impacts
(acres)
Oak Hickory forest 7.9
Maintained/Disturbed Land 1.1
Totals 9.0
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analyses pertinent to two
important issues, Waters of the United States and Rare and Protected Species.
a.) Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" (Waters of the U.S.), as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or
flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Waters of the U.S. were verified on October 25, 2002 by John Thomas, USACE and on
November 26, 2002 by Cynthia van der Wiele, DWQ. One perennial stream and one
intermittent stream are located in the project study area: South Buffalo Creek and an UT to
South Buffalo Creek, respectively.
1.) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated following the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology must all be present for an area. to be considered
a wetland. There are no wetlands in the project area.
Near the beginning of the project, the UT to South Buffalo Creek underneath the
powerline is a low quality intermittent stream, which will not require mitigation. Near the
end of the project, South Buffalo Creek becomes a perennial stream at the downstream edge
of the existing metal pipes.
2.) Summary of Anticipated Jurisdictional Impacts
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
jurisdictional surface waters that are located within the 100-foot (30 meter) proposed right of
• way. The proposed road will cross the Buffalo Creek UT on a tangent near the beginning of
the proposed project, impacting approximately 400 feet (120 meters) of stream. Towards the
end of the proposed project, South Buffalo Creek flows roughly parallel with the northern
half of the proposed project. Under the current preliminary design, the right of way does not
encroach on the stream; coming within 75 feet (23 meters) of the closer streambank.
21
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to South Buffalo Creek. Physical aspects of surface
waters are described in Section 2.3.1.
3.) Permits
Factors that determine Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWT)
applicability include hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource, whether the impacts
occur as part of the widening of an existing facility, or as the result of new location
construction. Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall,
cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may require authorization under an
Individual Permit (IP). Under current USACE regulations, a project that has jurisdictional
stream impacts of less than 300 feet (90 meters) at each site and one half of an acre of
wetland impacts will qualify for a NWP 14. Otherwise, an IP will be required. A DWQ
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required prior to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
It is anticipated that a NWP 14 and the corresponding WQC 3375 will be required for
the proposed project.
4.) Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
a.) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to Waters of the U.S. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Under the current design, the proposed
alignment parallels South Buffalo Creek, but does not encroach upon it; successfully
avoiding direct impacts to the stream.
b.) Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
the adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, right of
way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical minimization
22
mechanisms include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project, reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity, reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of runoff velocity,
re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage,
minimization of "in-stream" activity, and litter/debris control.
c.) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extend possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and
enhancement of Waters of the U.S. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site. According to the aforementioned site visits by
representatives of the permitting agencies, compensatory mitigation will not be required for
impacts to the South Buffalo Creek UT.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
due to either natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any
action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to
review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
1.) Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the USFWS lists
one federally protected species for Guilford County. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) is listed as Threatened, but is proposed for delisting. Below is a brief
description of the eagle's characteristics and habitat.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)Threatened, proposed for delisting
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Chatham, Chowan,
Craven, Dare, Durham, Granville, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond, Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a
clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an
open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to
abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
23
No suitable habitat for the bald eagle is within or near the project area.
The only nearby waterbody is the South Buffalo Creek, which does not provide
suitable foraging or nesting habitat for the bald eagle. Additionally, a
November 13, 2002 review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program's database
revealed no known populations within one mile of the project area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the bald eagle.
2.) Federal Species of Concern
There is one Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Guilford
County. Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However,
the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration.
An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which there is
insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act.
and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended.
The Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis lepidinion) is the only FSC afforded state protection.
This fish is listed as a State species of Special Concern (SC), i.e. one which requires
monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under the
provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). There is suitable habitat in the area, in the form of.
a, drainage in the Cape Fear River Basin. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the protection status of these species may be upgraded in the future. A
November 13, 2002 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no occurrence of FSC species within one mile the project study area.
Conclusions
Within the study area for this project, there are no wetlands and two jurisdictional
streams. The UT to South Buffalo Creek is a low quality intermittent stream crossing near
the beginning of the proposed project. Impacts to the UT may be as high as 400 feet (122
meters), but will not require mitigation. South Buffalo Creek near the end of the project is a
perennial stream. However, no impacts are anticipated. South Buffalo Creek is listed as a
303(d) stream. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the one species
listed as federally protected in Guilford County.
5. Hazardous Materials
A "GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation" of the project area was conducted to
determine if any hazards such as underground storage tanks (UST's), hazardous waste sites,
regulated landfills, and unregulated dump sites may impact construction of the project, cause
24
delays, or create liabilities. There are two sites with potential hazardous materials that will
be impacted by the Bridford Parkway Extension. Both sites will be purchased in permanent
easement. Figure 5 shows the location of the hazardous material sites located within the
project.
1. Methodology
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to
the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to
identify any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. The identified sites
are discussed below.
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
A field reconnaissance survey located two UST sites within the project area.
Former Associated Property Owner: HP Triad Property, Inc.
Mechanical Contractors (Mr. Jerry Pell)
Fischbach, LLC
307 South Swing Road UST Owner: 333 W. Hampden Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27409 Englewood CO 27330
Facility I.D. ##: 0-009943
This property is located on the east side of Swing Road just south of Burnt Poplar Road. The
five structures on the property were originally built in 1965 to house a construction company.
The building closest to Swing Road was the office, the one behind that, a vehicle
maintenance shop. The quonset but and two other metal buildings behind the shop were part
of the maintenance yard and used for storage. The construction company used two (2) USTs:
a fuel oil tank and used oil tank. In 1975 Associated Mechanical Contractors (AMC)
purchased the property. This business fabricated heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems operated at the site from 1975 through the late 1980's. AMC installed
three (3) USTs (one diesel and two gasoline) on the property to fuel their vehicles and
serviced their vehicles at the maintenance shop. In 1987, AMC was purchased by Fischbach,
LLC, which continued to operate the HVAC business at the site until it closed in 1993. The
property remained vacant until 1998 at which time it was purchased by Triad Properties
Incorporated. Triad has leased the property to three different businesses. The former office
building is now occupied byAJR Import Service, an auto repair shop. An amateur race shop
occupies the quonset but building, while the last two structures are used for storage.
Although all of the USTs have been removed and most of the contaminated soil removed, the
UST Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
` (NCDENR) is still monitoring the site. There were also three different drum storage areas
where contaminated soil was removed. Chlorinated solvent contamination from one of the
drum areas is still present on the site and is being monitored by the Groundwater Section of
NCDENR. Most of the remaining contamination is around the quonset hut.
25
Former Community
Heating & Plumbing
305 Swing Road
Greensboro, NC 27409
Facility I.D. #: 0-034385
Property Owner: Levy Bertram Trustee
UST Owner: Community Heating & Plumbing
Same address
This former heating and plumbing business is located directly across from where Burnt
Poplar Road intersects with South Swing Road. The business operated at the site form
about 1965 to 2000. Prior to 1965 the land was undeveloped. The building is currently
vacant and for sale. Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Trigon) removed a 10,000-
gallon (37,850-liter) gasoline UST from about 75 feet (23 meters) behind the building in
October of 1995. Contamination was encountered during this work and both contaminated
soil and groundwater were removed and disposed of by subcontractors of Trigon. Several.
monitoring wells were installed by Trigon in 1996 to evaluate the extent to which the
release had impacted groundwater. Contamination from the gasoline tank was mainly
localized to the immediate vicinity of the former UST area. A chlorinated solvent was also
detected in some of the wells, with the greatest concentration in the most upgradient well
near the northern property line. It is believed that the chlorinated solvent could be related
to an off-site source north of the property. Trigon also identified other potential sources of
contamination on the property. These included: 1) approximately twelve 55-gallon (208
liter) drums at a drum storage area located on the southwestern portion of the property
adjacent to the building; 2) two areas of stained soil and stressed vegetation located on the
eastern portion of the site; 3) four 55-gallon (208 liter) potassium hydroxide drums and
several 5-gallon (19 liter) cutting oil buckets in another area; 4) numerous empty
overturned 55-gallon (208 liter) drums distributed across the site. It appears that these
drums and buckets have been removed from the property, since they were not present
during the site reconnaissance. It is not known, however, if the containers had leaked
before they were removed and if any material that leaked (some of which would probably
be considered hazardous) was properly cleaned up. The site is still being monitored by the
regulatory agency at this time. This property is within the alignment of the project, so these
contaminated areas will most likely be affected.
b. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project corridor. The
research shows that no apparent regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within
the project limits.
26
c. RCRA/CERCLA
Based on the GIS search and the field reconnaissance, no potential RCRA or CERCLA
site was identified within the project limits.
6. Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the immediate
project area as the result of the proposed improvements to SR 4126 (Bridford Parkway). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can
be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from
the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts
are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the
range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places more emphasis on the frequency range to which the human
ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel
scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed
in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N 1
(Appendix 2).
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are
exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities.
The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
27
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others and
some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example,
noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more offensive than the
same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background noise).
The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA
would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with'activities of
individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible while sleep
might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted- .
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are
expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have
been made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible
with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
c. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a
base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in the
project area as measured at 50 feet (15 meters) from the nearest roadway range from 57.0 to
76.8 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was determined for the project to be used in
areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
28
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The-procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the TNM
1.1. The TNM traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
Only the preliminary roadway alignment was available for use in this noise
analysis. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-
grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise
predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and
the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those .
indicated in this report. The TNM computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the year
2025. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise
increase.
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value, or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location
of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI, ROD, or the Design
Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public
knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible
designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted
to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3. These are noted in terms of
those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title
23 CFR Part 772, 2 residences are predicted to be impacted by either alternate due to
29
highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise
level contours are 59 feet (18.0 meters) and 79 feet (24.1 meters) from the center of the
proposed roadway, respectively. This information should assist local authorities in
exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped land adjacent to the roadway
within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise levels increase for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. There is only one substantial noise level impact
anticipated by this project. The predicted noise level increases for the project range from +3
to +12 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
L Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. Along
each alternative, traffic noise impacts were anticipated.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. The highway alignment has been selected to minimize
impacts and cost.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a
measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain partial control of access, meaning commercial establishments
and residents will have one direct access connection to the proposed roadway, and all
30
intersection will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise
reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for
a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to
restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a
barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet (15 meters) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 400 feet (120 meters) long. An access opening of 40 feet (12 meters)(10 percent of
the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Hence, this type of control
of access effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation
measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
g. No-Build Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the No-Build Alternative were also considered. If
the traffic currently using the network of roads in the project area should double, the future
traffic noise levels would only increase approximately 2 to 3 dBA. This small increase to
present noise levels would barely noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth
removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as
temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
i. Noise Analysis Summary
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are no existing traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts
were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise
abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and
unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this
proj ect.
31
7. Air Quality Impacts
The air quality analysis was performed in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy
Guide. The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro/Winston-
Salem/High Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated this area as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was 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 Greensboro Urban Area 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
2002-2008 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) have been determined to
conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP
was October 1, 2001 and the USDOT air quality approval for the MTIP was October 1, 2001.
The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40
CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept
or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions due to industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact created by highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the
ambient air quality. Highway traffic is the center of 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 to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason,
most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide
levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
a. CO Analysis
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 328 feet or 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) 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."
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. Once the two concentration components were resolved, 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).
32
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 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 year of 2005, and the Design Year of 2025 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer
model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
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 Big Tree Way and Guilford College Road. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010 and 2025 are 7.8, 7.8 and 8.9
ppm, 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 is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard.
b. Other Pollutants
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 and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC
and NO 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 may be 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 16 to 32 miles (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 together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of
sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical
33
oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. 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
proposed project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to
be exceeded.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of
leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. For this reason, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and 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.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Interagency Coordination
For this planning study, comments were requested from the following federal, state, and
local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix 3.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
*N. C. Department of Administration, N. C. State Clearinghouse
34
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*Division of Water Quality
*Legislative & Intergovernmenial Affairs
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Forest Service
Public Schools of North Carolina
Council of Governments
Guilford County Manager
*City of Greensboro
B. NEPA/404 Merger Process
No waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters or Water
Supplies occur within one mile of the project study area. There are no wetlands and 400
linear feet (122 meters) of stream impacted. Based on the wetland and stream impacts
associated with this project, a Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is likely required. Therefore, this project was not placed in the merger
process.
C. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on July 25, 2001 at the Guilford Middle
School Media Center to inform citizens about the project and to receive comments and
suggestions. Approximately sixteen people attended the informal gathering in addition to
representatives from NCDOT. Exhibits were available for public viewing, discussion, and
comments. Project handout and comment sheets were available to all attending the
workshop. While many of the comments received at the workshop concerned potential
impacts of the project on individual properties, some comments were received on the
following general issues:
There was concern expressed about the disruption to the Hyde Park neighborhood.
There was concern about access to current properties.
Due to the concerns about the Hyde Park neighborhood, a small group meeting was
conducted on March 26, 2002 to discuss issues that neighborhood residents expressed at the
citizens' informational workshop. Approximately twenty people attended the meeting, and
expressed mixed views about the project. The residents felt they had not received fair
treatment by the City when the area was annexed. Water and sewer hookups were not
received in a timely manner and many residents considered the fees for these services too
high. The concerns were mostly with the City, not the road project itself. NCDOT revised
the alignment from the initial public meeting, shifting the corridor east to minimize impacts
to the neighborhood.
35
D. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. The hearing
will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The
public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed
project. A final decision on the selection of a preferred alternative will not be made until all
the public hearing comments are evaluated.
36
qw
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3A & B
Figures 4 A-D
Figure 5
Fiture 6 & 7
Figure 8
Project Location
Project Aerial Photograph
Cross Section
Project Traffic Data
Hazardous Material Sites
Proposed Intersection Geometry
Thoroughfare Plan

City of
Greensboro
Swing Rd Addison Point
Ciilce Park U]I Apartments
urnt Fop__ lar R s m V
dusrial
Westview
Apartments
Pa
Macalhrv?_
Hyde V
T
ay
Depertmem ?nln ldy
?Ofe Auto
/ Dealer
\fl Sam's Club
wamur,
i f1
5-
/
P
° dog PJe
City of. o-b .Ns
High Point
N
A T.LP. Project No. U-4006
Project Location Map
2000 0 2000 Feet corridor
Roads
SR 4126 - Bridford Parkway Extension
From SR 1541 (Wendover Avenue) at
Hornaday Road To Burnt Poplar Road at
Swing Road
Guilford County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-4126(1)
State Project No. 8.2496901
TIP Project No. U-4006
Figure 1
o
i°z
0
C C
`
A0
F
Y
6 J
7
2 ?
ow
f } ?
z s el U ?= C
O < p0 0
Zt _, O
W y t W ILL
Q m
F y Z, = HX
C d }?-. f i }
QZ3W Op;z
om -Z
O v
O° F U0 LU
LLd
(NQ? d = U.
FF J t
0 Q O IL
O
s Wic <pm
O =Jo
ZOQdw o> UJ U,
F
° < O 6 <
O O K K
e W IL W
O
O J
Z C <
6
t
C
2
O
6
W
D
O Ol;
J
2 w
p
°I , O Q m
z Z x
w
Z w N
0 W
F- Y
V J a
_• N D o
J W v
V ? v
d
LL r ?? ya LL pn
W o
CL
IL
T
r
z o
I
r
0
_ _
?z
°
2 W O
f
W
X
W
in
N
N
N
Q
H
J Y
U
LLJ
O
O
LC!
v
OD
N
cli

O
O
F
Z
O
a
W
N p
Q
N
ti
?o
Zn
W
`I l
N
N
N
O
O
v
N
IC1
z2
00)
m
u < p C
H p <

W z

pm W
r z I- IL
~ N ? N < = W
J
11Z ?
HIE

g f? <
?? 6
CYje
K
<
?
L
J
?
H=?< V
W 2
iWd
LL.
O?
tl K C
f
O
Oq
yOp? 6=LL'L.4
J F
V
ZUZ W
s
o?°
L.
0 O
0
y
oC <
m
= J
ZOpdLu o>aWO W

y.•w,.? W
V O
2
= C1
C

o
W 6
0 IL
W
W
~
O
a
?.
z
6
<
O
L
W >
> O
X
w
z M
W a
F-
J 2
Q O
W °c°
O
W
L m
w
U)
CL O
a
O
L
^
CL
BURNT POP
SWING RD.
BIRDFORD PKWY
LEGEND
XXX VPD -VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM AM PEAK PERIOD
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(X,)O DUALS, T7-ST (%)
NOTE: DHV-OID
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK

WAY
?Vh NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
2001 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
WITHOUT BRIDFORD PARKWAY EXTENSION
(ASSUMES GREENSBORO URBAN LOOP OPEN)
GUILFORD COUNTY
U - 4006
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4A
GRAPHICBY: CHARLES STURDIVANT SHEETNO.: 1 OF 4 DATE: 8/28/03
BURNT POP
LEGEND
)00( VPD - VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM AM PEAK PERIOD
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
()()<) DUALS, TTST (6)
NOTE: DHV-?D
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK.
SWING RD.

BIRDFORD PKWY
/7\ NORTN CARD . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
2001 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
BRIDFORD PARKWAY EXTENSION
(ASSUMES GREENSBORO URBAN LOOP OPEN)
GUILFORD COUNTY
U - 4006
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4B
GRAPHICSY: CNARLESSTURDIVANT SHEETNO.: 2 OF4 DATE:8/25/03

BURNT POP
LEGEND
)00( VPD -VEHICLES PER DAY
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM AM PEAK PERIOD
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
()(,)0 DUALS, TTST (%)
NOTE: DHV-?D
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
SWING RD.
LuJI
BIRDFORD PKWY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
® PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
2025 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
BRIDFORD PARKWAY EXTENSION
(ASSUMES GREENSBORO URBAN LOOP OPEN)
GUILFORD COUNTY
U - 4006
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 4D
GRAPHICBY: CHARLESSTURDIVANT SHEETNO.: 4 OF 1 DATE:8125103

N m N
C ? LL ? m
9 ?
- v m
fi, m 's a a
k JILL
70
^.
o Uj cz
a

'-'

CIJ o
n - ry
m O >

>
C)
4? -4t C) CU
C co
cc
L5 o e °;
co
0 01.0
t?

= 0 L)
3 C:
1 i co
3. /tea
LO
m
LL
x

U-4006
Hornaday
Road
MOO
Extension
II
HN I.
Bridtord Parkway Extension
Recommended Intersection Geometry for
Bridford Parkway Extension at Hornaday Road.
NOT TO SCALE
Swing
Road
U-4006
O
•
•

Swing
Road
I
(
Bridford Parkway Extension
Recommended Intersection Geometry for
Bridford Parkway Extension at Swing Road.
NOT TO SCALE
Burnt Poplar Road
Bridford Parkway
i
Figure 6
4

k

Bridford Parkway Extension
i

Guilford O Guilford
College O College
Road O Road
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
III
I II
I
Bridford Parkway Extension
Recommended Intersection Geometry for
Bridford Pkwy Extension at Guilford College Road.
U-4006 NOT TO SCALE
Bridford Parkway Extension
i
i 00
O
Bridford
I
I
I
I
Parkway Extension
Big Tree
Way
Recommended Intersection Geometry for
Bridford Parkway Extension at Big Tree Way.
U-4006 NOT TO SCALE
Figure 7

n

L
? O 0 A
< ? Q
V a

n d
N m
cl)
m
(0
Eli
G 4) U L
O L
O
p? o
W Vr C LL 04 $ V
V a

$
Cj
i
u
.
l
O
V W
o
N?
o

J M
cr)
° o U.
° O
C) T cv
(a 4)
°'
c 4)
U) m m 00

=
N t
V 3
° L
O L
O N
r ai m °
W4 W c ti

- AYCOCK ST

M
O
co
it
d
N
O
N
?A
g°
O ?
O ?
4-
? .r
O
i-?
?ii

APPENDIX 1
NCDOT Relocation Reports
RELOCATION
REPORT
EKI E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2496901 COUNTY GUILFORD Altemate 1 of 2 Altemate
I. D. NO.: 0-4006 A. PROJECT STP-4126 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridford Parkway Extension from SR 1541 (W
d
A
en
over
ve.) at Homaday Rd to Burnt
Poplar Rd at Swing Rd.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

Businesses
0
3
3
0
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELUNG AVAILABLE 0
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 7 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 85 250.400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 204 400-600 2
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up 519 600 up 15
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 815 15
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 3. There are similar businesses to remain.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Vacant Office Building- 4500 to 18184 sq. ft space
employees, minorities, etc. Lane Supply, Inc - 4 employees -retail
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Envirosource Landscape Services -10 employees- retail
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 11. Public housing is available Greensboro Housing Authority
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. There are several home available in the area.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Greensboro News & Record Newspaper, Internet, and MILS
I x 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?

i x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list m 9+V ?OO.T
source). ?DO,f a
15. Number months estimated to complete P V
¢
RELOCATION? 18 N
S
1

Lois A. Bailey
June 4, 2003 Ar, S
?f 6-6 '03
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RREPORT
1E E.I.S. M CORRIDOR M DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2496901 COUNTY GUILFORD Alteirlate 2 of 2 Alternate
I. D. NO.: 0-4006 A. PROJECT FSTP-4126 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridford Parkway Extension from SR 1541 (Wendover Av
t H
d
R
e.) a
orna
ay
d to Burnt
Poplar Rd at Swing Rd.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Businesses 0 3 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN3 AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 ners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 -20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ o-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS -40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 7 150-250 0
Yes No Explain alt "YES" answers. -70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 85 250-400 0
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 00m 0
00-600 0 70-100M 204 aoo-6600
[ 2
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by L660000
0 up 0 UP 0 100 up 51 g 600 UP 15
displacement? TAL 1 0 815 15
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project? 33.
There are similar businesses to remain.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of . Vacant Office Building- 4500 to 18184 sq. ft space
employees, minorities, etc. Lane Supply, Inc - 4 employees -retail
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Envirosource Landscape Services -10 employees- retail
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 11. Public housing is available Greensboro Housing Authority
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. There are several home available in the area.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Greensboro News & Record Newspaper, Internet, and MLS
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
- RELOCATION? 18
Lois A. Baile - ?i June 4, 2003
-
Relo tibn A ent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
APPENDIX 2
Noise Tables
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --- ----------------
-----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- ------------ ----------------------------- -- ------ ---------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
--------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
0 THR ESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS dBA
Activity
Category Le h Descrilion of Activity CategM
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS dBA
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leg(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
N .-
N O
a°
m
J 0.
ac)
o a
? y
a co
y
N CD
m y
N _
co G.
Al -8
y o
c ?
CD
o ?
?o
0 O
-a
Co
o
-n
a° <
o?
y
a
0
II.
sm
N N
C)
0
^+? O O
? y
0 ,
0 O
? ? '
O y
y
a a b ?- .
o. ° -' n.
CZ tz o
M. fD
R- n Cb o CG
1:3. O
R-

-y
0? O
d C.
d .n+
(D `+f
?
?
O
. O
Gnb?
a c ?
o
rri I f
i . p
D -
a
?¢ nb?
a 'rJ
v
w C. W,

o X
o
y = °- << co
o
?
a
X
-? O c k
x n.
M F ?
~

y v?
0
y? ?i
0
G

ITI ?n

r r
N CD
- - O -
O
a
f n.cn
a to
N o ??
°° r ° ar
rri
N
C>
C> r
cn ?
I w o
o r
U)

N L4 00
to w
i
I

a
j
?
Lh LA
o o

y

°

°

I
tA LA
o! o

a
- - oy
z yz°?x
-- a, 0 ?
n.
Cd rfl
cn? V n
; a to
?4
oo
0 a `^ o
0 ?
a m
yy
a
0 o O a o 0 o a '-o

b
?
v
N O N tv N 7
??
.•.
Ln N C. N tz N Q 7
r
m
n C
n
y n
a
_
? Maces
C> ° o C? nC)
?o~j ° ° O n ?vn
?oo

O ° O ) n ° O O N n a
o
r
- r
n ot7l
v o
rrl
tz
O
?-t
Q
PIZ,
X
N
O
•'t
0
C
0
0
rn
CD
W
N ....
as
h y
CI. rL
0 (D
Mn 1-41
z z
G. a
o 0
=?
n w
to 5-
tTj w
zCD
N CD
C
N
N
O'
O
O
O
r
M
z
N
N N
ITI
Q O
0 O

4,
p O
? O
? M
Q
b
0 0
rn A b
C1 o !-~
m
cu o U
C 0 cn
C7
CAD g r ' ? o r
?C

cn
s
o a
o
z
w
M a
0
z

O
o
c ?? n"
O o
a b
CD
N vo
CD
LO
En CA C
D
V v
O? N A O N O N C

n
?p ?1 N i
.A rn
b ,_, J A i
A trl
b

da W r '? Vi ? «_' U >C
rri

o ° o
N. .... ... , z W N ?• , z
o ? o

0 0 0 "' C O O o `^ C
rri

O O O N O O O
a
a
cn

v v
O O O N
U O O O

i N
LA
...
O C
,nom m?
-3
r o Ytr- - o yy
?rnrz
r y~ m rri y
rr. rr

boa boa

O ^?
Y x C x
> C

r m
w
Q+
-Tj
OV O OTI
CrJ
x?y
CD
o' C17 ?
?z z
o ?
C Ci7
0
0
C1
APPENDIX 3
Comments Received from Federal and
State Agencies
4nq
North Carolina a =°z
Department of Administration (&'-ttoo" '? ??:Fir nFVS%-? y/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Gwynn T. Swinson;
March 27, 2002
Mr. William Gilmore .
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 02-E-4220-0392; Scoping Proposed Bridford Parkway Extension from Homaday
Road to Burnt Poplar Road in Guilford County; TIP #U-4006
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Attachments
cc: Region G
Sincerely,
C%?"-O"' "r ?O
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppornmity / Affirmative Action Employer
ACA
-
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
. FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE: 00-0392 Scoping for the Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford
County
DATE: March 19, 2002
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental review
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the environmental document, additional information is needed, the
applicant is encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
Attachments
RECEIVED
MAR 19 2002
N.C. STA rE CLEARINGHOUSE
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative .Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
ern
NCDENR
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
orth Carolina
FOREST N Division of Forest Resources
SERVICE
N C Stanford M. Adams, Director
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
March 5, 2002
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources ;
SUBJECT: Scoping for the Bridford Parkway Extension
PROJECT #: 02-0392 and TIP # U-4006
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document
and offer the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to
woodlands.
woodlands rna,y be impacted by the project. To evaluate the scope and significance of the
impacts to forest resources, a list of the acres of forestland, by timber type, removed or taken out
of forest production as a result of the project should be provided. Age of the stands, height,
diameters, and stocking levels would be helpful. Efforts should be made to align corridors to
minimize impacts to woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• -Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. To evaluate the permanent loss of potential productivity, a listing of the forest's site quality
index based on the soil series should be provided. This information is found in the Soil Survey
for Guilford County or can be calculated by on-site measurement.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a
tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped
fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
Typically disposal of wood products is left up to the contractor. We feel this policy results in
needless waste of a valuable natural resource, and that specific contract provision requiring
clearing contractors to utilize timber products should be applied.
1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27690-1601
Phnne 919 - 7 1-2162 \ FAX 919 - 733-01 IS \ Irrorner• www rifr state nc us
4. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of
open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Guilford County is a
non-high hazard county, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside
the right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy
equipment. Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding
layers of fill, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the document and look forward to future
correspondence. We encourage efforts that avoid or minimize impacts to forest resources during the
final planning of this project.
cc: Mike Thompson
6 North CarolinaVAdliMe Resources Commission
Charles R Fulbvood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo or
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 25, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCUOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed Bridford
Parkway Extension, Guilford County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-4006,
SCH Project No. 02-E-0392.
This mcnlorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish apd wildlife resources resulting from
the subjrct project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Envirotuncntal Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We have no specific concerns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general informational deeds are
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species.. Potential boauw areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with.
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
and,
Meiling Addrexs: Division o, In:and Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1 72 1
Telephone: !919. 733 3633 ext. 281 Fax: [phone]
Memo
February 25, 2002
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 4. Box 37647
Raloigh,X -C. 27611
(919) 733-31610
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channefting orrelocating portions of streams crossed and. the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic chan&e as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project eons. tmtion, Wetland identification maybe accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Pote borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative iMPAct assessment section which analyzes the enviroiunental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. It construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the envuonmotal document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: IJSFWS, Raleigh
C ?Q Michael F. Easley, Governor
?C C, - William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe,
O 'r Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COMMENTS
The Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) recommends that the applicant
coordinate a Pre-Application Meeting and Site Visit with the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine if a Section 404
Permit (USACE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ) will be required.
Even though a Section 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the EA/EIS
procedure is complete, proceeding with the pre-application and application process will
enable the applicant to address Water Quality concerns and Regulations early in the
project's development. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Avoidance and Minimization of surface water and riparian buffer impacts,
2. Stormwater Management requirements (as related to the 401 Program),
3. Compensatory Mitigation for streams, wetlands, and/or buffers (where
applicable),
4. Water Supply, Nutrient Sensitive, Trout, Outstanding Resource, and/or High
Quality Watershed concerns and requirements (where applicable),
5. Compliance with and protection of appropriate Water Quality Standards, on-
site as well as off-site, both during construction and after.
NPDES STORMWATER PERMITS COMMENTS
Any construction activity including clearing, grading, and excavation activities
resulting in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are required to obtain a.
NPDES Stormwater Permit, NCG 010000, prior to beginning these activities.
Any facility that is defined as having stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity is required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit (varies) prior to
beginning operation.
STATE STORMWATER PERMIT COMMENTS
State Stormwater Permits may be required for development activities draining to
Outstanding Resources Waters or activities within one mile and draining to High Quality
Waters. These must also be obtained prior to development activities.
WSRO 10/01
Y?w
Ni_DENR
Customer Service Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
1 800 858-0368 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: http://wq.ehnr.state.nc.us
, State of North Carolina Reviewing office: est'?
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: d? Due Date: r ?1`?r e Z
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 applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.

G
PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual 30 days
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -1I0 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
I Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
I Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and F11 Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.

On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days

3
to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(20.0100, 20.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject 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 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973-must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan riled with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of 540 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit 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 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
C3 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 On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required V more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned!
Oil Refining Facilities 90 -120 days
NIA (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. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum I (60 days)
fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application,. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion..
.3
C:3
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Ti-+e
(Statutory Time Limit)
C] Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of S5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any 1.0 da
Ys
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according (N/A)
to DENR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (WA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (WA)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
0 CAMA Permit for MINOR development S50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are footed in or nearthe project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Sox 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
Q Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if *orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
I Compliance with 154 NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
* e (additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite omment authority)
Othe
W 'G1? r?J- // ? 10a -721 c'r
r r
A,(. I b L) Z

NC9oT hr? a de.1e Jo

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]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
orb
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
1*
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
OR 2$ X07
0
aura
H/dw Op
t ANAIYSi
Re: SCH File # 02-E-4220-0392; Scoping Proposed Bndford Parkway Extension from Homaday
Road to Burnt Poplar Road in Guilford County; TIP #U-4006
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are additional comments received after the original response due
date. Please include these comments with those previously submitted by this office.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region G
Li
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
April 22, 2002
?EC?1?F
O
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
A. Equal Opportunity ! Affirmative Action Emplover
LT M- WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee IV
Project Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RE. 02-E-0392 Scoping Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County
DATE: April 17, 2002
The attached comments were received by this office after the response
due date. These comments should be forwarded to the applicant and made a
part of our previous comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Attachment
RECEIVED
PR 18 2002
A'- C. srgTE CLEAR NGNo
SSE
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
r y,n C --y, ?uvernor
?? ?p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
o Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> Acting Director
p Division of Water Quality
April 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Wdus
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridford Parkway Extension, Guilford County, F.A.
Project No. STP-4126(1), State Project No. 8.2496901, TIP Project U-4006. State
Clearinghouse Project No. 02E-0392.
In reply to your correspondence dated February 6, 2002 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that South Buffalo Creek (Index No.
16-11-14-2, Hydrological Unit 030602) lies within the project area. These waters are classified as C
NSW. The Division of Water Quality offers these comments:
1. NC Division of Water Quality has no preference between four-lane curb and gutter with raised
median or five-lane curb and gutter section.
South Buffalo Creek is listed on the §303(d) list of impaired waters and according to the Cape
Fear River Water Quality Plan, has some of the worst water problems in North Carolina.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources may be the cause of
impairment. Below McConnel Road, South Buffalo Creek is not supporting (NS) because of an
impaired biological community and NH3 from the wastewater treatment plant. Based on benthos
monitoring, this portion has the worst water quality in the Cape Fear River basin. Instream
habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and high flows from the discharge
may be a cause of impairment in the lower segment. Design plans should include ways to
improve this resource's water quality or at least avoid or minimize further impairment.
3. Within the Cape Fear Basin, sedimentation and urban stormwater runoff are major concerns. In
order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged. Stormwater should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather
than routed directly into streams. DWQ prefers that stormwater runoff be designed to drain into a
properly designed stormwater, detention facility/apparatus.
4. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within this basin. NCDOT is encouraged to retain
vegetation as much as possible. Do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is
absolutely necessary. Especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large,
undercut trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
5. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
?prPPPrnklP to nrPcant n rrinaptiml /;fnr%t fin-yl;,7Crl) m;tia2t;nn nl-i ith the PnyirnnrnPnt-J
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
documentation. For projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required
prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
6. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
7. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream
impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
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 becomes required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Jean Manuele, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marcella Buncick. USFWS
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
„a STAif
ti
•? Yrr'?s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
June 28, 2001
r
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook M2 r &CCk-
DePutY State Hist. Preservation Officer
Re: Bridford Parkway Extension, U-4006, Guilford County, ER 01-9175
Thank you for your memorandum of March 26, 2001, concerning the above project.
JUt 3 2001
DWIM
OFV 0Pv
.C ANA<l
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic,
or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no
comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc

Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location Mailing Address
507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?ECEI V O
Telephone/Fax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] •715-4801
City of Greensboro
North Carolina Department of Transportation
July 26, 2001
Mr. Daniel Keel, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1 548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Re: Bridford Parkway
Dear Daniel.
Attached in response to the gentleman's concern expressed at the July 25`x' workshop that
the project limits do not extend far enough to the south is a functional design for
improvements to Bridford Parkway at Wendover Avenue prepared by GDOT. I could
not remember the details of our plans last night thus I chose not speak of possible
improvements in any detail. Our functional plan has been given to the City's Engineering
and Inspections Department to design and construct what is contained in the attachment
as well as other improvements to Wendover Avenue from Big Tree Way to Bridford
Parkway. This project is expected to be under construction possibly by early 2003.
I wvill be sending you a copy of the proposed plan for development of the vacant tract on
Hornaday Road as soon as it lands in my office. In the mean time I am also enclosing a
copy of the Rezoning Notice, the Zoning Map with accepted conditions and effective
date. a portion of a plat drawing showing the area (Tract `K') to be dedicated as public
rivht-of-way, and traffic projections used in the Traffic Impact Study.
The City's desire for this roadway is for access to be limited to adjoining properties. The
four-lane divided section will accomplish this. As for the project section between
Guilford College Road and Swing Road. acquiring controlled access on the north side
should not pose a problem where the stream will be between the roadway and the existing
apartments.
The sidewalk shown on the section examples accomplishes the current City policy to
construct sidewalks on both sides of roadway projects. We do request that a change be
P.O. Box 3136 • Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
4139
made in the typical section with the sidewalk to be 3 feet from the curb rather than the 2
feet that is shown. This would place the sidewalk at the City's typical standard.
There is a concern here that we have not yet talked about. If you are considering a traffic
signal at Hornaday Road, we are concerned about its closeness to a signal approximately
725 feet to the south. This signal was paid for by a developer and approved by NCDOT
when this area was not in the limits of Greensboro. Please discuss any possible signals
with the Division 7's Traffic Engineer. Vance Barham, at [phone].
Thank you for what I saw as a successful workshop. Please contact me if there is any
other information you may need that I might be able to supply.
Sincerely.
J,?
44?- Craig W. McKinney
Transportation Systems Planner
Attachments
Cc: Tyler Mever. Transportation Planning Manager