The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200065 Ver 1_18-0241 Guilford R-4707 SEA_FONSI_with Appendices 3-8-18_20180323US 2S & SR 4771 (REEDY FORK PARKWAY) INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE ROADWAY, REPLACE INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE NO. 360 ON NEW LOCATION GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION :�tate Environmental AssessmenUFinding of No Significant Impact ,n,�,,o�:aroved Zp j8 Dal WBS NO. 36599.1.5 STIP NO. R-4707 North Carolina Department of Transportation In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act February 2018 DErrick Weaver, PE, Team Lead Project Management Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation US 29 & SR 4771 (REEDY FORK PARKWAY) INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE ROADWAY, REPLACE INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE NO. 360 ON NEW LOCATION GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTI I C�ROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE FlCTION State Environmental AssessmentlFindiny of No Significant Impact wes No. s��sa i.e STIP NO. R-4707 Document Prepared By: �� i �-... _ . (' � l z io '"1, a �'G � . ' " _ i. �-,�- `� _. _ . -�— Date Mich�L.Belvin Senior Environmenlal Planner CDM Smith 2�20I'�1$ Date Dacumenl Prepared For ��2�l� Date David Z. Keiser, PE Project Manager CDM Smith � �,,��•,11111lI//�� \\��O`i(tl UFj,1'p�i�/ \ e�•' FF�S'/' �'P' i � �n 02, 9 � `� S�FIL 9. ' _ 3 o Z,n �7�,�--�i8 , ,,� � � , � �� IiiK��s�\\� F�hmad AI-Sharawneh, Projer,t Manager Project Manayement Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation PROJECT COMMITMENTS US 29 & SR 4771 (REEDY FORK PARKWAY) INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE ROADWAY, REPLACE INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE NO. 360 ON NEW LOCATION GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WBS NO. 36599.1.5 STIP NO. R-4707 All commitments developed during the project development and design phase have been incorporated into the design. Current status, changes, or additions to the project commitments, included in the Environmental Document for this project, are listed below: NCDOT — Geotechnical Unit • NCDOT-GeoEnvironmental will re-evaluate potential hazardous waste sites near the proposed project prior to right of way acquisition. NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit • The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Dated August 12, 2016), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). • This project is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed and is subject to the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0267). The buffer rules will be met. NCDOT — Division 7 • This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, NCDOT Division 7 shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of the project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown on the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. • The Division will coordinate with the Guilford County School System, Guilford County Emergency Services, and Greensboro Fire Department prior to construction. • NCDOT Division 7 will coordinate with local media during the construction of the project to alert the public of traffic restrictions and construction related activities. NCDOT — Special Design Section • Mast lighting will be evaluated during the final design if required. NCDOT — Project Management • The project is located in the vicinity of the stream mitigation site at Reedy Fork. Final design of the proposed improvements will ensure this site will not be impacted. • NCDOT — Project Management will coordinate with the City of Greensboro in the development of a municipal agreement regarding cost sharing for pedestrian accommodation during the design development process. US 29 & SR 4771 (REEDY FORK PARKWAY) INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE ROADWAY, REPLACE INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE NO. 360 ON NEW LOCATION GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WBS NO. 36599.1.5 STIP NO. R-4707 SUMMARY 1. Type of Action This document is a State Environmental Assessment (SEA) / Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The proposed project is funded in the current 2018-2027 State Transportation Improvement Plan (ST►P). 2. Description of Action The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace on new location the existing deficient Bridge No. 360 that connects Reedy Fork Parkway (SR 4771) to SR 2526 (Summit Avenue), west of US 29 and construct a new interchange for Reedy Fork Parkway over US 29 on new location to the south of the existing interchange. The improvements would also include upgrades to Summit Avenue from 0.2 miles south of Bryan Park Road to the proposed interchange, and enhancements to Reedy Fork Parkway from SR 2790 (Eckerson Road) to Summit Avenue. The proposed improvements are scheduled for right-of-way in December 2018 and construction in June 2020. In anticipation of the proposed future project (STIP No. U-2525) to upgrade US 29 to interstate standards for its re-designation as future Interstate 785 (I-785), the US 29/ Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange would also be constructed to meet interstate standards and future widening of US 29 (See Figure S-1). Page S-3 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 uu�o� ' � aa y�n � �<-�� EB-5714 C U-25258 I�� U-5$51 FY 2022 i ! ..,ii �.; -:: �.,- : �.:., l��l ��f',i-: �•,�''�'..�fai C�:, —R,�f��PuRT�+TION DI'u'ISION O� HICHWFYS P�09ECT DEIC � Ph.nG�,T.Ah1L'� iF _ i Er.r:i� ��,�.i�u�n:t __ - �\ � u-sas8 FY 2�2fl -- US29?Reedy Fr�rk PktNy � {8ridge No. 360j � F2-47 D7 Study Area VGCIIVITY MAF' US 29 ! R�EDY FORK PAF?��'•JUA7' INTERCHAIVG� IMPF20VEIVIE�VTS Fr.: I, I i _ . _:'.. � ��' � �"_�' ( � ' l'�'_.Ii ) �-5344 � Coun�E}' GUILFORD piv 7 R-4107 b"+BS #�. 36599.1.5 4 �.: M��A,RC H 201 d . . Figure S-1 Page S-4 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 3. Summary of Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the structurally deficient bridge over US 29, improve the interchange to meet interstate standards and accommodate future traffic volumes from the Reedy Fork Ranch Mixed Use Development. The needs that the proposed project would address are summarized below: • Replacement of the structurally deficient bridge (No. 360) over US 29; • Modification of the existing US 29/ Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange to meet interstate standards to accommodate for the future re-designation of US 29 to I-785; • Accommodation of the future traffic volumes from the Reedy Fork Ranch development and other anticipated future developments in the study area. 4. Alternatives Considered Preliminary alternatives considered included the No Build Alternative, Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Alternative, Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Alternative, Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative, Tight Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative, Traditional Diamond Interchange and alternatives that considered alternate modes of transportation. The NCDOT selected the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) Alternative, Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative (DDI), Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative for detailed study for the proposed project. As discussed in Section III, all other preliminary study alternatives were eliminated from further consideration because they do not effectively meet the transportation needs in the Study Area or adequately serve the purpose for the project. 5. Summary of Environmental Effects Table S-1 shows a summary of the potential impacts, to both cost and environmental resources, for the three Build Alternatives. S-1: Comparison of Build Alternative Potential Impacts Natural Resources Impacts Federally-Listed Species within Study Area 100-Year Floodplain and Floodway impacts (acres) Delineated Stream Impacts (linear feet) Stream Buffer Impacts* (linear feet) Stream Crossings (#) No Effect 8.8 1,529 :�� :� 249 � 5 No Effect 8.4 1,558 222 5 No Effect 7.3 2,278 505 6 Page S-5 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Delineated Wetland Impacts —(no. 4/ 0.52 4/ 0.45 5/ 0.63 crossings/acres) Wetland Buffer Impacts** (acres) 0.10 0.09 0.07 Delineated Other Surface Water 0 0 0 Impacts (acres) Forest Impacts (acres) _� 0 �i 0� 0 Human Environmental Impacts Residential � 0 � 0 � 0 Relocations - Business 0 0 0 Schools Impacted 0 0 0 Recreational Areas/Parks/Greenway I 0� 0� 0� Crossings Churches/Cemeteries Impacted 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Impacts No No No Low Income/Minority Populations (Y/N) No � No � No Limited English Proficiency No No No Populations (Y/N) Railroad Crossings No � No � No Cultural Resources Impacts Potential or Recorded Archaeological 0 0 0 Sites Historic Property Impacts 0 0 0 Physical Environmental Impacts Hazardous Materials Sites 1 � 1 � 1 � Number of Exceedances of CO 0 0 0 NAAQS Traffic Noise Impacts (Receptors) 0 0 0 Additional Right of Way Needed — 31 35 33 Acres Cost Estimate Construction Costs � $34,600,000 $34,200,000 $32,200,000 Utility Relocation Costs � $642,000 $590,000 $409,000 Right-of-Way Costs � $18,128,000 $18,488,000 $15,800,000 Project Total Estimate $53,370,000 $53,278,000 $48,409,000 �Stream impacts were calculated based on slope stakes plus 25 feet. �'Wetland impacts were calculated based on slope stakes plus 25 feet. Page S-6 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 6. Permits/Certifications Required The proposed action will require permits pursuant to Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the NC Division of Water Resources will be needed for fill activity in adjacent streams, wetlands, and surface waters (ponds). A Section 404 permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be required to discharge and place fill materials into Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE. NCDOT will coordinate with the regulatory agencies after completion of the final design to obtain the necessary permits. An Authorization Certificate is required for any non-exempt activity within the set 50-foot riparian buffers in accordance with NCDWR (15A NCAC 02B .0267), along all applicable perennial and intermittent streams in the watershed of Jordan Lake. 7. Other Highway & Non-Highway Actions The current NCDOT STIP (February 2018) lists the following highway projects in the vicinity of ST1P No. R-4707. Table S-2: Other Highway Projects in the Area �` � •. . I-785/Future I-840/Greensboro Eastern Loop (U- See status below of U-2525 2525) is 12.6 miles of freeway on new location each phase State running from US 70 to Lawndale Drive (SR 2303) U-2525A Greensboro Eastern Loop, South of SR 3041 Complete N/A (Clapp Farms Road) to US 70 Relocation U-2525B Greensboro Eastern Loop, US 70 Relocation to Under construction State US 29 North of Greensboro U-2525C Construct 6-lane freeway Eastern Urban Loop Right of way in progress State from Lawndale Drive to US 29 for 5.8 miles [Construction 2018] U-2525D Interchange at proposed Cone Boulevard Future Years State Extension Improve the exit ramps at US 29 and NC 150, and Planning/Design in U-5898 convert from a partial clover interchange to a Progress [ROW 2018, State diamond interchange Construction 2019] 8. Coordination • October 11, 2004: Project scoping letter announcing the start of project development, environmental and engineering studies sent to federal, state, and local agencies (Appendix B). • September 14, 2006: Stakeholder Meeting was held to discuss project purpose and need, alternatives and next steps. • September 21, 2006: Concurrence Point 1(CP1), Purpose and Need and Study Area Defined reached and Concurrence Point 2(CP2), Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward reached (Appendix B). Page S-7 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 • November 13, 2006: Stakeholder Meeting was held to discuss project purpose, alternatives, and next steps (Appendix E). • November 13, 2006: Stakeholder Meeting was held to discuss project purpose and need, alternatives, and next steps (Appendix E). • April 21, 2016: Local Officials Informational Meeting and an Open House Public Meeting (Appendix E). • May 18, 2016: Revisit Concurrence Point 2A, Re-initiation of the proposed project and Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward concurrence reached (Appendix B). • November 8, 2017: Merger Team Meeting on Concurrence Points 2A, 3, and 4A (Appendix B). • November 8, 2017: The Merger Team identified the Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative (DDI) as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative [LEDPA] (Appendix B). • Spring 2018: Public Hearing will be held following the approval of the SEA/FONSI. 9. Contact Information The following individual may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Derrick Weaver, P.E., Team Lead Project Management Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 (919) 707-6253 Page S-8 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table of Contents I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................ II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ........................... A. Purpose of Project .......................................................... B. Need for Project ............................................................. 1. Bridge Structure ......................................................... 2. Functional Classifications and Level of Service ........ 3. Transportation and Land Use Plans .......................... 4. Comprehensive/Land Use Plans ............................... 5. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Needs ............. 6. Accident Data ............................................................ C. Benefits of the Project .................................................... III. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ....................................... 1. Alternative Modes of Transportation .......................... 2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)............ 3. Improve Existing Facility ............................................ 4. New Location Alternatives ......................................... 5. "No-Build" Alternative ................................................. B. Detailed Study Alternatives ............................................ C. Recommended Alternative ............................................. IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................ A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment ......................... B. Right of Way and Access Control .................................. C. Speed Limit .................................................................... D. Design Speed ................................................................. E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ...................................... F. I ntersections/I nterchanges ............................................. G. Railroad Crossings ......................................................... H. Structures and Bridges ................................................... I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways ................ J. Utilities ............................................................................ K. Landscaping ................................................................... L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasing .. V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ..............1 .............. 1 ..............1 .............. 2 .............. 2 .............. 3 .............. 6 .............. 6 .............. 8 ............10 ............11 ............ 12 ............12 ............12 ............12 ............12 ............13 ............13 ............13 ............14 ............14 ............ 14 ............14 ............14 ............15 ............15 ............15 ............16 ............16 ............16 ............17 ............17 ............17 ............17 STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 A. Natural Resources .........................................................................................................................17 1. Biotic Resources ........................................................................................................................ 18 2. Waters of the United States .......................................................................................................18 3. Rare and Protected Species ......................................................................................................23 4. Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 24 B. Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................................25 1. Historic Architectural Resources ...............................................................................................25 2. Archaeological Resources .........................................................................................................26 C. Section 6(f) Resources ...................................................................................................................27 D. Farmland ........................................................................................................................................ 27 E. Social Effects ................................................................................................................................. 27 1. Neighborhoods/Communities .................................................................................................... 27 2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ...............................................................................27 3. Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................27 4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................... 33 5. Recreational Facilities ................................................................................................................33 6. Other Public Facilities and Services (e.g., schools worship centers, hospitals, etc.) ................33 F. Economic Effects ........................................................................................................................... 34 G. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................34 1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ...................................................................................................34 2. Future Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 34 3. Project compatibility with local plans ......................................................................................... 34 H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................... 34 I. Flood Hazard Evaluation ................................................................................................................35 J. Traffic Noise Analysis .....................................................................................................................36 1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ................................................................................37 2. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ........................................................................................... 37 3. Noise Barriers ............................................................................................................................ 37 4. Summary ....................................................................................................................................38 K. Air Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 38 1. Attainment Status ......................................................................................................................38 2. PM 2.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................39 3. Qualitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis ........................................................... 39 4. Construction Air Quality Effects .................................................................................................41 L. Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................................41 ii STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 vi COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................................................42 Citizens Informational Workshop ...................................................................................................42 PublicMeeting Open House ..........................................................................................................43 StakeholderMeeting ......................................................................................................................43 PublicHearing ................................................................................................................................43 NEPA/404 Merger Process ............................................................................................................44 OtherAgency Coordination ............................................................................................................45 BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT / FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................................................................................................................... 45 List of Tables Table II-1: Level of Service ........................................................................ Table II-2: 2015 BiPed Plan Update Recommended Bicycle Facilities ..... Table II-3: County Employment Data ......................................................... Table II-4: Accident Data Summary ........................................................... Table V-1: Stream Characteristics ............................................................. Table V-2: Pond Characteristics ................................................................ Table V-3: Wetland Characteristics ........................................................... Table V-4: Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States ................. Table V-5: Federally Protected Species Listed for Guilford County .......... Table V-6: Study Area Soils ....................................................................... Table V-7: Low-Income Populations .......................................................... Table V-8: Minority Population Analysis .................................................... Table V-9: Statistics of Adults Who Speak English Less than "Very Well" Table V-10: Floodplain/Floodway Impacts ................................................. Table V-11: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative* ..................... Table V-12: Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results ........................ Table V-13: Hazardous Material Findings .................................................. List of Appendices Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: NEPA 404 Merger Forms Appendix C: 2016 Bridge Inspection Report Summary Appendix D: Air Quality & Noise Analysis Appendix E: Public Involvement Information Appendix F: Agency Comments .. 4 .. 7 .. 9 11 19 20 21 21 23 25 29 31 32 36 37 38 42 �� STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Appendix G: Traffic Forecasts Appendix H: Relocation Report Appendix I: GeoEnvironmental Figures Appendix J: Cultural Resources STIP No. R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes a bridge replacement on new location for the existing interchange on US 29 at SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parkway) in Guilford County. The proposed project would also include the realignment, part on new location, and upgrade of the existing SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parkway) and SR 2526 (Summit Avenue). The proposed action is included in the current 2018-2027 NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) (February 2018) as project number R-4707. The project is located in northern Guilford County, approximately eight miles northeast of downtown Greensboro (Appendix A— Figure 1). US 29 is a four-lane, median-divided facility that links I-40 in Greensboro with US 58 in Danville, Virginia. The Study Area extends approximately 5,000 feet north and 3,000 feet south of the existing interchange along US 29. The western boundary of the Study Area is 0.2 miles south of the Bryan Park Road/ SR 2525 (Summit Avenue) intersection and extends eastward along Reedy Fork Parkway to SR 2790 (Eckerson Road). Three build alternatives were carried forward for detail study: the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI), Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), Partial Cloverleaf Interchange, collectively referred to as the Detailed Study Alternatives. The Detailed Study Alternatives would also include upgrades to Summit Avenue as well as other enhancements to Reedy Fork Parkway from Eckerson Road to Summit Avenue. The interchange will be constructed to accommodate future I-785 project (STIP No. U-2525 and FS1707A). US 29 is planned to be upgraded and re- designated as future I-785. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT The Merger Team agreed on the purpose and need, logical termini, and independent utility of the proposed project at a meeting in 2006. The Study Area for the project extends approximately 5,000 feet north of the existing interchange along US 29 and approximately 3,000 feet south along US 29, Bryan Park Road and SR 2525 (Summit Avenue). The Study Area also extends approximately 3,000 feet south along SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway). A. Purpose of Proiect The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the structurally deficient bridge over US 29, improve the interchange to meet interstate standards and accommodate future traffic volumes from the Reedy Fork Ranch Mixed Use Development. Structural Deficiencies of Bridqe The existing Reedy Fork Parkway Bridge (Bridge No. 360) over US 29 has shown deterioration over the years that has worsened the integrity of the bridge in critical areas since the 2010 inspection. The 2016 bridge inspection report recommended extensive maintenance. Due to the deteriorating condition of the existing bridge, the project will replace the existing bridge with a new bridge and interchange on a new location. The 2016 bridge inspection report is included in Appendix C. Page 1 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 The abilitv to meet Interstate Standards as Part of the Proposed Future I-785 Corridor In anticipation of the future conversion of US 29 to I-785 (STIP No. U-2525), the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange will be constructed so additional lanes can be added to US 29. Vertical clearance and ramps will also be improved to meet interstate standards. Accommodate potential future traffic increases and poor level of service (LOS) The proposed project will accommodate future traffic volumes from the Reedy Fork Ranch Development and other anticipated future developments in the Study Area. According to the 2016 Traffic Forecast provided by NCDOT, existing 2016 traffic volumes or the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange show that approximately 34,900 vehicles per day (vpd) utilized US 29 south of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange and approximately 29,700 vpd utilized US 29 north of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. Future traffic volumes for the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange are projected to be approximately 49,000 vpd on US 29 south of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange and 39,800 vpd on US 29 north of the interchange in 2040. If no improvements are made, westbound movements at US 29 southbound ramps and Summit Avenue, and Summit Avenue and Reedy Fork Parkway, and eastbound movements at Reedy Fork Parkway and US 29 northbound ramps all operate at failing levels of service (LOS F) during the peak hour(s) in the future year 2040. The proposed interchange improvements will also provide more effective linkage between US 29 and the surrounding roads of SR 2526 (Summit Avenue) and SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parkway) by moving it slightly south to new location. B. Need for Proiect The need to improve the Existing US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange is demonstrated by the following summary of existing and projected conditions. 1. Bridge Structure The existing Reedy Fork Parkway Bridge (Bridge No. 360 in Guilford County) carries SR 4771 over US 29. The bridge was constructed in 1961. The superstructure is a reinforced concrete deck on rolled steel beams with cover plates. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete bent caps on reinforced concrete columns (foundation unknown) and reinforced concrete end bents on piles. The 2016 bridge inspection report indicates a condition rating of "Poor" for the deck, superstructure, and substructure. Extensive maintenance was recommended. Due to the extensive deterioration of essential superstructure and substructure components and the associated condition ratings, this bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete according to FHWA standards. The 2016 conditional appraisals are as follows: the deck is 6 out of 9; the superstructure is 5 out of 9; and the substructure is 4 out of 9. The 2014 Sufficiency Rating was 27.5 and the Structural Evaluation was 3, indicating that the structural Page 2 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 condition of the bridge is basically intolerable, requiring high priority of replacement (per the FHWA Coding Guide). 2. Functional Classifications and Level of Service Functional classification is the process of grouping roadways into classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. These are defined by FHWA as arterial, collectors, or local. Based on NCDOT's Functional Classification System, the roadways to be improved as part of the proposed project have the following classifications: • US 29 — Principle arterial freeway; • Summit Avenue — Minor arterial; and • Reedy Fork Parkway — Local road. US 29 is a four-lane, median-divided freeway that connects I-40 in Greensboro with US 58 in Danville, Virginia. US 29 has partial control of access with periodic median breaks and driveway cuts. The existing right-of-way is 250 feet wide along US 29. The SR 2565 (Hicone Road) Interchange is approximately 2 miles south of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. To the north approximately 3 miles is the NC 150 Interchange. The current posted speed on US 29 is 55 miles per hour (MPH). Summit Avenue is a minor arterial roadway that generally runs parallel to US 29 in the project vicinity. The facility runs from downtown Greensboro in the south to NC 150 in the north. Summit Avenue is a two-lane road with unpaved shoulders south of Bryan Park Road and has three lanes with shoulders from Bryan Park Road north to Reedy Fork Parkway. North of Reedy Fork Parkway it returns to a two-lane highway with unpaved shoulders. The existing right-of-way is 100 feet wide until just before Morrisette Paper and Packaging Company where it narrows to 60 feet as it continues north. The US 29 southbound ramps currently intersect with Summit Avenue. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Reedy Fork Parkway is primarily a two-lane, median-divided local facility with curb-and-gutter through the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. It begins at its intersection with Summit Avenue to the west of US 29, then crosses over US 29, intersects with Eckerson Road, and continues to Turner Smith Road. The existing right-of-way along Reedy Fork Parkway is 68 feet wide. There are sidewalks along the south side of the roadway east from Eckerson Road to Reedy Fork Elementary School. The speed limit is 35 MPH. There are no railroad crossings within the Study Area. A rail line owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation, utilized for freight, is located approximately 1-mile west of the project. It crosses Bryan Park Road between Corporate Park Drive and Townsend Road. Within the Study Area there are no accommodations specifically for bicycles. The only sidewalks are along Reedy Fork Parkway, west of US 29, beginning at Eckerson Road. Reedy Fork Elementary School is located at the intersection of Reedy Fork Parkway and Turner Smith Road approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. Page 3 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 According to the Guilford County Schools, 12 buses traverse the interchange making a total of 24 trips per day. Depending on the method and timing of construction, school bus usage may be affected by this project. Minor delays for buses which utilize this interchange are likely to occur during construction activities. A revised Traffic Capacity Report was completed in 2017 based on traffic forecasts prepared for the project by NCDOT in 2016 (Appendix G). All major at grade intersections, the interchange ramp intersections, and the ramp-to-ramp weaving areas between the interchanges were analyzed using the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010) and Synchro Version 9.0 Software. The results are discussed below in Section B.2.d below. Level of service (LOS) is a term used to represent different traffic conditions, and is defined as a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorist or passengers". Level of Service varies from Level A, representing free flow, to Level F, where traffic breakdown conditions are evident (Table II-1). Table II-1: Level of Service fd�•��r�t=��r�ls 9o�Ei-��u+��. I¢t�li1 E��uad Risz:rs ar'e +� i��tt��:�llti� 4 uii�ilti;l d lrti� 414k Frrti•cn�� +9 �t9i�e.a�s in dl7c=u.il�i�i strr-.�nt. �+ f 1"�1�0111 In 5�:�ti:�.[ ��4'�'I(C�� l l�5 8111� t�-s 1118f1CU� CC NUi��lllt 1J�� tralti:; �ir�;�rn �s r.[rc•,�tc•It iii,tli `�'�'ithin 1he r:rn; c;�t :inf,L� Ilr>xs. I,ui Ila� E��r.,rrtc� n1�,�th�r, in dic ir;cf'lic strcam hL�_�iii; t;� I,t 1191IIv�l�IiIC I rrc�i�,m la� �� ;rl�.t clrsirttl :;p�cd is r��:ititi�.l�, iui.�il`r:t�d. I,u7 th�rc �s ;ii��iti �lrclin� n; ih� t'r�cc.��:+m tn i7t:s�iio�tr+�,uliiai [hr ti�it]'i� �.[ l"C:91 i I . 11 ilPiin tlie tarr�r �.�I slai�l� 91u,c. l,isl L` �.� t_' ui.ii 1.�. �hc• � ht.��irniin� t,f �3ic i �u c:�f Ilu+�. i�i +� lii�h ,�,.:r,stiuRi t�l iiiJitii+�uil ussrsk� c�EnUs i�ni9i�:��i�[t il�lc.lt�:ifsti ia�tl�atii`liunti u�ilPi ,,t�i�.rs ii� �h� 1r.�9[i6 sCr4=,rin �_[1:ti 1:7 r�-g7eti>c��t, hi��la-�I�.ntiitw�. hut st�h9,lu i1nw+��. ti�e�c! a�id � fi-�rdt�intnman�tinrr�irc �crcl3 i� Incic�l'.:a�idilicdn�rr •xpcnrn��ti ,u �_cn i.ill� Z,cn.r Iri rl �,f -nuit'irrl �ind ti171115'.1 i I C91iCi . f t' J5 1��: re��rr,�nt'� ti��rsci�n�� 4��,n�litr �nw ,it s�r n�.�r .:u��a�iC}� li�+K�l., Fi�;iliim 6'i� imattC�uti cr �+. i[Itiit fl'�e t�'[If1ic: .[t��;ir�'� t5 F- e�.iaernc[�, �irl`Gicuilr f ��m1i,r� :ind crm� enirnec I�+,els >irc icirem�l�' ��ii-r�r. ana! �irirer ti�i,rcni�.i7 ir; ��en�i�allc l;i<_+.li L4 tti l- as u�cd �i, Jcli�tc l'en'v�� cn In�r,ikclttii� n tlx��+a _�l�lsi- � .a.�u�iiai�,n csist; �ri��n tJr�ti �imni3i71 n1 �T ttl�a .o-E�F.c�.�:itl;ni�_ .i t,:nne E-titce�3� tlEc �iii�iuurt ,+Irich �au u,��.i�s: lh�: ��+eGiy� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Source: AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition. 2004 a) Existing Traffic Volumes In 2016, 34,900 vehicles per day (vpd) utilized US 29 south of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange and 29,700 vpd north of the Reedy Fork Park Interchange according to the 2016 Traffic Forecast. Approximately 3,800 vpd used Reedy Fork Parkway east of the interchange. To the west of the interchange, approximately 7,000 vpd used Summit Avenue. Page 4 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 b) Existing Levels of Service According to the Traffic Capacity Report (Appendix G), all approaches to each of the intersections in the Study Area operate at level of service B to E during the 2016 existing condition scenario. The results of the existing conditions merge /diverge capacity analyses show that all ramp merge and diverge areas are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in all 2020 and 2040 No-Build and Build Conditions. c) Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volumes forecast for US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange show approximately 49,000 vpd are expected to utilize US 29 south of the Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange in 2040, and approximately 39,800 vpd are expected to utilize US 29 north of the interchange. Approximately 9,000 vpd are estimated to use Reedy Fork Parkway east of the interchange. From west of the interchange, 9,400 vpd are expected to use Summit Avenue. No changes to traffic volumes are anticipated under either the no build or the build condition. d) Future Levels of Service 2040 No Build According to the Traffic Capacity Report, the Future No-Build scenario assumes that no changes will be made to the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange alignment. In this scenario, all ramp terminals remain on the south side of the interchange and connect with the planned roadways on the north side of Reedy Fork Parkway. The results of this analysis reveal three out of five intersections within the Study Area are expected to operate at LOS F by 2040. Sinqle Point Urban Interchanqe Alternative — SPUI The SPUT Alternative is the construction of a Single Point Urban Interchange at the intersection of Reedy Fork Parkway and US 29. For this alternative, three intersections will be signalized on Reedy Fork Parkway between Summit Avenue and Eckerson Road. Overall, there will be three intersections within 1200 feet. For this scenario, levels of service very from C to D. Diverginp Diamond Interchanqe Alternative — DDI The DDI Alternative assumes that a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) will be constructed at the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. The DDI Alternative involves the signalization of three intersections on Reedy Fork Parkway between Summit Avenue and Eckerson Road. The DDI has a smaller bridge compared to the SPUI and fits within the footprint established for the SPUT Alternative. Overall, there will be three intersections within 1200 feet. For this scenario, the levels of service at all signalized intersections vary from A to C. Among the unsignalized intersections, all levels of service vary between A and B. Partial C/overleaf Interchanqe Alternafive The Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative is the construction of a Partial Cloverleaf at the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. For this alternative, three intersections will be signalized on Reedy Fork Parkway between Summit Avenue and Eckerson Road. For this scenario, the levels of service at all signalized intersections vary from C to D. Page 5 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 All three Build alternatives improve quality of travel: average speed, vehicle hours of delay (VHD), PM congested miles of travel, PM peak travel times, and off-peak travel times. Network delays would decrease between the 2040 Build and 2040 No Build scenarios for AM and PM peak hours. Lastly, the proposed project would offer LOS D or better operations at the proposed ramp intersections with Reedy Fork Parkway. The proposed new interchange and connecting roadway would improve the system linkage by providing an improved interchange with US 29. Bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity is improved by dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks throughout the project. The proposed new interchange would likewise serve to better connect the surrounding community to the future I-785 interstate system. 3. Transportation and Land Use Plans The current federally approved NCDOT 2018-2027 STIP includes funding schedules (planning, right-of-way acquisition, and construction) for two roadway projects in the general vicinity of the Study Area. The first project is the proposed future I-785/I-840/Greensboro Urban Loop (U-2525), which is 12.6 miles of freeway on new location running from US 70 to SR 2303 (Lawndale Drive). This project is broken into four sections: U-2525A is the completion of the loop from south of SR 3041 (Clapp Farms Road) to US 70; U-2525B is the completion of the loop from US 70 to US 29 North of Greensboro; U-2525C is the completion of the loop from US 29 North of Greensboro to SR 2303 (Lawndale Drive); and U-2525 D is the completion of the interchange at Cone Boulevard. The U-2525A portion of this project from I-40/I-85 to US 70 was completed in 2002. Construction started on U-2525B in August 2014 and is scheduled to be complete in December 2018. Right- of-way acquisition is underway for U-2525C and construction is scheduled for 2018. At this time U-2525D is unfunded and no schedule for completion has been prepared. The second project is north of the Study Area and identified as STIP No. U-5898, as an interchange improvement project at US 29 and NC 150. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year 2018 with construction in Fiscal Year 2019. Those projects identified in the STIP are also identified in the 2016-2025 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MT1P). The MTIP is considered a subset of the STIP. According to the 2018-2027 STIP, funding for Right-of-Way for R-4707 is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2019 and construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2020. The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) manages the transportation planning process required by federal law. The MPO plans the area's surface transportation needs, including highways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) was adopted on September 23, 2015. The MTP roadway investment recommendations are identified with years: 2021, 2030, 2040, and beyond 2040. 4. Comprehensive/Land Use Plans There are numerous Corridor Plans, Community and Neighborhood Plans, Redevelopment Plans, and Economic Development Plans that have been adopted within the City of Greensboro and Guilford County. However, only those that could affect the Study Area are discussed below. Augmented by the recent annexation of Reedy Fork Ranch in Northeast Greensboro, the City's land area has spread to just over 114 square miles. Page 6 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 a) The Greensboro Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan (2025 Comp Plan) The 2025 Comp Plan, which is the city's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in May 2003. The 2025 Comp Plan identifies the Study Area as being located in a Fringe Growth Area. Fringe Growth Areas are identified as areas beyond the City's currently developed edges where new development is already occurring or new growth is expected to occur. The primary contributing factor to the growth in this area is the continuing expansion of the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. At the time of this analysis, the City of Greensboro had no plans to annex any county lands adjacent to the Study Area. Within the Study Area the land uses are agricultural, woods, heavy industrial, right-of-way, and water. The Generalized Future Land Use Map, adopted May 2003 (last amended June 2013), shows Mixed Use Plan Community in all four quadrants of the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange; Industrial/Corporate Park along Summit Avenue and south beginning in the area of the Wysong Parts and Service (4820 US 29); a small node of Mixed-Use Commercial south of Anita Lane; and Low and Moderate Residential beginning in the area of April Lane south to Hicone Road, which is the southern border of the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) defined in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Report. The proposed project is not expected to induce land use changes in the area as it is replacing an existing facility. b) The Guildford County Comprehensive Plan (GC Comp Plan) The Northern Lakes Area of Guilford County encompasses the Study Area. The Northern Lakes Area Plan (NLAP) vision statement describes the Northern Lakes as, "an area that continues to grow responsibly, by seeking a balance between new residential and commercial growth, while at the same time embracing its agricultural and natural heritage." The US 29 interchange and the future I-785 corridor are mentioned specifically as needing to be incorporated into future land use decisions. Additionally, the NLAP map recommends an extensive trail that crosses through the Study Area, which would follow Reedy Fork Creek and its tributaries. c) Greensboro Urban Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan (BiPed) The 2015 Greensboro Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan (BiPed) Update emphasizes providing on-road bicycle facilities and recommends a network of bicycle facilities to be developed over the next 20 years in order to provide bicycle access to key destinations in the Greensboro area. The roads in the immediate project vicinity (Bryan Park Road, Summit Avenue, Reedy Fork Parkway, and Eckerson Road) are all recommended for long-term bicycle facility phasing. Table II-2 provides the recommended facility types along each road. Table II-2: 2015 BiPed Plan Update Recommended Bicycle Facilities , r _ a= ,_ � ..a �� f-'o �e. 6 r, ,•W.: Bryan Park Road Paved Shoulders Summit Avenue Bicycle Lanes Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange Bicycle Lanes Eckerson Road Paved Shoulders Note: Reedy Fork Parkway is not illustrated east of Eckerson Road Page 7 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 The Alternatives include sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Pedestrian recommendations in the BiPed Plan focus on improving the conditions for facilities both parallel and perpendicular to roadways. These recommendations include sidewalks, curb ramps, pedestrian countdown signals, and median islands. Currently the only sidewalks in the Study Area are along the south side of Reedy Fork Parkway east of Eckerson Road. However, sidewalks are recommended along Summit Avenue and Reedy Fork Parkway, which will connect with the Reedy Fork Ranch Development, which does have sidewalks throughout the development. The 2015 BiPed Plan Update does not include any specific sidewalk projects along the project corridor. The 2015 BiPed Plan Update notes that a Tier 4 greenway is proposed along Bryan Park, north along Summit Avenue, across the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange and north along a section of Reedy Fork Parkway. From the end of that greenway traveling east along Reedy Fork Parkway and Turner Smith Road would be a Tier 4 Trail. The trail planned along Eckerson Road would be a Tier 3. Tier 1 is considered short-term, while Tier 4 is considered long-term. In the Study Area the plan identifies the Reedy Fork Greenway as an ongoing effort with a recommended trail head on the east side of US 29 in the vicinity of the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. Currently, the Reedy Fork Ranch Development site plan indicates a series of trails that stretch throughout the development. As of March 2017, one-mile of this system has been constructed and is constructed of concrete. 5. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Needs Existing Road Network — US 29 is a four-lane, median-divided facility that links I-40 in Greensboro with US 58 in Danville, Virginia. The Study Area is located approximately 9 miles northeast of business I-40. The NCDOT functional classification system identifies US 29 as a principle arterial freeway and expressway and it is the future alignment of I-785 North from the Greensboro Urban Loop. Reedy Fork Parkway is classified as an urban minor arterial. The Interstate, regional, and local system connectivity is summarized in the following paragraphs. Interstate System — I-85 Business / I-40 lies south of the Study Area and connects Greensboro to Raleigh, the I-95 corridor, and Wilmington to the east; and west to Winston-Salem, the I-77 corridor, Hickory, Asheville, and points that continue to Barstow, California. I-85 through Greensboro shares the I-40 corridor to the east and connects Greensboro to Durham and points in Virginia to the northeast; as well as Charlotte points in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama to the southwest. As previously noted, STIP No. U-2525 is a proposed project to upgrade US 29 to the future I-785, which would then become part of the Interstate system. Regional System — US 29 connects to I-85 Business/I-40 as well as US 70 (E. Wendover Avenue) and travels to US 220 and to High Point to the west and Durham to the east. Other important regional links include connections to Market Street for regional travel to NC 68 and the Piedmont Triad International Airport. Loca/ System — Reedy Fork Parkway is a two-lane, east/west facility connecting new development, (primarily residential, east of US 29 in the Reedy Fork Ranch Development area), with Eckerson Road and Summit Avenue west of US 29. Eckerson Road originates at Hicone Page 8 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Road approximately 2.0 miles south of the proposed project. Summit Avenue originates in downtown Greensboro, continues north, parallel to US 29, through the project area and into Guilford County, continuing north to NC 150. a) Commuting Patterns US 29 which travels from downtown Greensboro is an important route for transporting goods between Guilford County, Rockingham County, and the State of Virginia. The US Census Bureau contains tabulations of commuting patterns including workers by place of residence, place of work, and flows between home and work. Based on census data, approximately 50 percent of the County population live and work in Guilford County. The live-work distribution for Guilford County is shown in Table II-3. Table II-3: County Employment Data Source: US Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table B08007, website visited 3.17.17 b) Modallnterrelationships The Study Area is located in a suburban area in the northeast Greensboro corporate limits, with accommodation to several integrated modes of transportation. These modes are summarized in the following paragraphs. • Park and Ride — A Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) park and ride facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. This park and ride lot with 53 spaces was constructed to serve the commuters in the northeast Greensboro/Guilford County area as a transit access designation. In order to continue looking forward for transit options, PART coordinated with nine other transit systems, transportation planners, and city and county officials to develop a Regional Transit Development Plan (Forsyth and Guilford Counties Transit Vision 2025, approved November 2010). This plan recognizes US 29 as a"Transit Emphasis Corridor;" however, this extends only to 16th Street in Greensboro, which is south of the Study Area. Future local routes are planned from 16t" Street traveling west. Within the Study Area, there are existing routes along Summit Avenue that travel north from the City then west along Bryan Park Road. • Bus — The Study Area is not serviced by the Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA). However, GTA does partner with PART to provide transportation access throughout the Triad. • Taxi — Ten taxicab and shuttle companies provide transportation in and around the Greensboro area. Page 9 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 • Air— Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTI) is located 14 miles southwest of the Study Area and is an approximate 19-mile drive. PTI is the primary airport for the cities of Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem. • Rail — Greensboro has two trains that provide local passenger services through Greensboro, the Piedmont and Carolinian, which depart and arrive at the J. Douglas Galyon Depot in downtown Greensboro. The local trains travel east-to-west along the North Carolina Railroad Company Line (which is operated by Norfolk Southern). A rail line owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation is located approximately 1.0-mile west of the project. This line, which is a freight line, runs northeast to southwest paralleling US 29 and Old US 29 north into Virginia. • Pedestrian — Very little pedestrian travel has been observed in the Study Area. Currently the only sidewalks in the Study Area are along the south side of Reedy Fork Parkway east of Eckerson Road, which is the entrance to Reedy Fork Ranch Development. However, sidewalks are proposed along both sides of Reedy Fork Parkway between the intersection with Relocated Summit Avenue and the intersection with Eckerson Road, which will connect with the Reedy Fork Ranch Development, which does have sidewalks throughout the development. NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Greensboro in the development of a municipal agreement regarding cost sharing for pedestrian accommodation during the design development process. • Greenways — Reedy Fork Ranch Development has plans to utilize approximately 570 acres of open space as part of the Development's master plan. This acreage is floodplain that was dedicated to the City of Greensboro several years ago. As of April 22, 2008 one mile of concrete-surfaced greenway has been constructed with plans to construct additional greenway as tenants move into the development. • Bicycle Accommodations — Presently there are no dedicated bicycle or multi-use lanes associated with Summit Avenue, Reedy Fork Parkway, or US 29; however, 5' bike lanes to accommodate bicycles will be included as part of the Reedy Fork Parkway typical sections for the proposed project. The typical sections are included as Figures 5, 6, and 7 in Appendix A. • Motor Freight Service — There are no freight distribution facilities in the project area. US 29 is a designated truck route. 6. Accident Data A strip analysis report was generated by the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System for the period from December 1, 2011 — November 30, 2016. Table II-4 includes the information for Intersections and Roadways segments, including the accident types. Page 10 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table II-4: Accident Data Summary . �. �� ,;� Intersections Summit @ Bryan Park 4 0 1 3 Summit @ Reedy Fork 7 0 2 5 Reedy Fork @ Eckerson 5 0 2 3 Summit @ US 29 SB Ramps 10 0 4 6 Reedy Fork @ US 29 NB Ramps 3 0 0 3 Sections Summit from Brown Summit to Bryan Park 39 0 15 24 Reedy Fork from Summit to Eckerson 10 0 4 6 Eckerson from White Oak to Reedy Fork 5 0 3 2 US 29 from Esterwood to 1 mi north of g1 1� 37 43 Reedy Fork " I he tatal crash occurred on U5 Ly at Hnita Lane, where a vehicle traveling southbound on U5 'Ly attempted to complete a lett turn onto Anita Lane, crossing the path of a northbound vehicle on US 29. C. Benefits of the Prolect The proposed project will replace the existing structurally deficient bridge which has been identified as a need for several years. In addition to the new bridge, the existing interchange which is not capable of handling increased traffic in the future will be upgraded to meet interstate standards as NCDOT plans to upgrade US 29 to I-785. Access to Summit Avenue and the Reedy Fork Ranch Development will also be improved as a result of the new interchange. Additionally, the project will accommodate the projected future traffic volumes as part of future development to help reduce congestion and improve traffic flow in the Study Area which will have a positive effect on travel patterns, travel times, and air quality. Intersection levels of service are expected to be C or better at the upgraded interchange. Pedestrian and bicycle access within the Study Area will be improved by the proposed action and no relocations will be required to either businesses or residences. Improved bicycle/pedestrian traffic is expected to travel between Bryan Park Golf Course on Bryan Park Road west of the proposed project, and the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. Currently, Reedy Fork Parkway includes only sidewalk on the south/east from Eckerson Road to its terminus at Turner Smith Road. The proposed design of Reedy Fork Parkway includes sidewalks for safer walking facilities. A 5-foot bike lane to accommodate bicycles is proposed in the upgrades to Reedy Fork Parkway. Area citizens who attended the public meeting and participated in the comment period indicated a desire to be able to walk and/or bike to Bryan Park from the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. Increasing the pedestrian and bicycle access may encourage an increased utilization of Bryan Page 11 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Park by pedestrians and bicyclists as well as aid air quality benefit if it results in less vehicle miles traveled (VMT). An overall improvement in safety for the travelling public that utilizes this intersection will be realized by providing wider outside lanes for bicyclists and sidewalks for pedestrians along Reedy Fork Parkway. The overall timely efficiency of the proposed interchange will allow the vehicles to travel with less delay through signalized and controlled intersections. III. ALTERNATIVES A. Preliminarv Studv Alternatives 1. Alternative Modes of Transportafion Introducing alternative modes of transportation (such as mass transit) is one improvement alternative considered to address the transportation needs in the Study Area. The Study Area is not currently served by mass transit. This is due to the lack of demand, dispersed residential areas, diffused employment centers, and diversity of trip origins and destinations. The area has scattered residential communities and only one regional destination. The low density of development in this area makes transit an infeasible improvement alternative; therefore, it was not evaluated further in this analysis. Travel Demand Management (TDM) involves programs to encourage travelers to use alternatives to driving alone, and, in some cases, to encourage travelers not to travel at all. A major purpose of TDM is to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road during peak travel periods when roads are most congested. These programs can include van/car pools, flexible work schedules, telecommuting programs, and park & ride lots. The proposed project does not include any TDM measures. TDM improvements alone would not increase capacity or improve levels of service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future design year 2040, nor would it improve system connectivity. The TDM Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and was eliminated from further consideration. 2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing the existing facility. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements. Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and signal timing changes are examples of TSM operational improvements. These types of improvements were considered and some elements (such as turn lanes, signal coordination, and access control) were incorporated into the recommendations. However, TSM improvements alone do not meet the project purpose and do not bring the interchange up to interstate standards. 3. Improve Existing Facility Due to the structural deficiency of the existing bridge, improving the existing bridge is not a feasible alternative. The US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange is not currently constructed to interstate standards in regard to horizontal and vertical clearances or on/off ramp radii. In addition, the existing geometric design of the interchange does not allow for expansion to accommodate Page 12 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 future traffic projections. Therefore, it was determined that improving the existing interchange does not satisfy the project purpose; this alternative was not carried forward for further consideration. 4. New Location Alternatives A total of three (3) preliminary build alternatives, Single Point Urban Interchange, Diverging Diamond Interchange and the Partial Cloverleaf Interchange on new alignment south of the existing interchange were developed for the proposed project. All of the build alternatives included the construction of a new interchange approximately 1,000 feet south of the existing US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. Also, all the build alternatives provided that Reedy Fork Parkway would connect to US 29 with the following improvements: • Removal of the existing structurally deficient bridge over US 29 • Improvements to the existing Summit Avenue • Improved traffic flow, safety, and truck movements • Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities on Reedy Fork Parkway 5. "No-Build" Alternative The No-Build Alternative includes the proposed project to not be built. No-Build would retain existing conditions, although other projects, such as the transformation of US 29 upgrading to an interstate facility, would be constructed. B. Detailed Studv Alternatives The Merger Team concurred on May 18, 2016 after taking into consideration cost, impacts, and traffic operations, on three (3) Detailed Study Alternatives. Single Point Urban Interchange Alternative — SPUI. The SPUT Alternative involves the signalization of three intersections on Reedy Fork Parkway between Summit Avenue and Eckerson Road (See Appendix A, Figure 2). Summit Avenue will be realigned to tie into the realigned and extended Reedy Fork Parkway forming a signalized four-leg intersection. Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative — DDI. A Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) is a type of diamond interchange in which the two directions of traffic on Reedy Fork Parkway cross to the opposite side on both sides of the bridge at the interchange (See Appendix A, Figure 3). The DDI Alternative involves the signalization of three intersections on Reedy Fork Parkway between Summit Avenue and Eckerson Road. The DDI has a smaller bridge compared to the SPUI and fits within the footprint established for the SPUT Alternative. Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative. The Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative includes a loop and a ramp in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the proposed Reedy Fork Road Interchange (See Appendix A, Figure 4). The ramp terminals connect with planned roadways on the north side of Reedy Fork Parkway. Page 13 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 C. Recommended Alternative On November 8, 2017 the Merger Team selected the DDI as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). The DDI was chosen due to the lower impacts to wetland, while improving traffic operations and providing a safer facility for traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. l�� :Z�] 1�1�'i_� �71►�i1 �:Z��/=1►�i1=1 � �%'� The configuration and geometry for all alternatives were developed in cooperation with the NCDOT Roadway Design Unit and NCDOT Division 7 Office using design criteria in the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual and the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The typical sections for US 29 are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7 in Appendix A. A. Roadway Cross-section and Aliqnment The proposed typical section for the improvements along US 29 in all alternatives retains the existing 4-lane median divided facility with a 30-foot depressed grass median. The proposed Reedy Fork Parkway bridge is long enough in all alternatives to allow US 29 to be widened to a 6-lane median divided facility with a 46-foot depressed grass median in its future conversion to I- 785. The proposed typical section for the realignment of Reedy Fork Parkway in the detailed study alternatives provides a 4-lane divided facility with a 32-foot raised grass median, 5-foot bike lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Proposed ramp alignments in the detailed study alternatives have been positioned to accommodate the future conversion to I-785 with minimal rework in the future. The proposed profile for US 29 has been designed to satisfy a 60 mph design speed as part of this project. Unless a design exception is acquired, the sag vertical curve in the US 29 profile near the proposed Reedy Fork Parkway crossing will need to be raised approximately 2 feet when it is converted to I-785 to satisfy a 70 mph design speed. The proposed grade of Reedy Fork Parkway was established with this in mind to provide the necessary vertical clearances over the future I- 785 with a 70 mph design speed. B. Riqht of Wav and Access Control The existing right-of-way along US 29 is 250 feet. Along US 29, the proposed right-of-way width varies between 250 feet and 350 feet with full control of access at the ramps and loops. Since no improvements are proposed on US 29 beyond the ramps and loops, no further changes to control of access on existing US 29 are anticipated. At that time, the future I-785 project would address control of access by converting to a full control of access facility and construction service/access roadways to maintain access to properties adjacent to the future I-785. Along Reedy Fork Parkway, the proposed right-of-way width is 120 feet with full access control at the interchange. C. Speed Limit The posted speed limit on US 29 is 55 mph. The realigned and improved Reedy Fork Parkway would have a 35 mph posted speed limit, and the connections to Eckerson Road, existing Reedy Fork Parkway, and Summit Avenue would maintain existing posted speed limits, which vary from 35 mph to 45 mph. Page 14 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 D. Desiqn Speed Design speeds for the proposed project will vary due to existing US 29 and accommodating future I-785 interstate standards. For all Detailed Study Alternatives, US 29 will have an ultimate 70 mph design speed with a 60 mph interim design speed until US 29 is converted to I-785. The proposed Reedy Fork Parkway realignment would have a 40 mph design speed. Sections of Summit Avenue tying into Reedy Fork Parkway will have a design speed of 40 mph. All proposed ramps will have a 60 mph design speed and loops a 30 mph design speed. E. Anticipated Desiqn Exceptions Design exceptions are not anticipated for any of the detailed study alternatives at this time. In the future, a design exception may be needed if the existing sag curve is maintained for the I-785 design speed of 70 mph. F. Intersections/Interchanqes All three Detailed Study Alternative include realigning Summit Avenue to intersect with Reedy Fork Parkway. This configuration was chosen since the primary movements for the existing Summit Avenue / Reedy Fork Parkway intersection are the right turns from Summit Avenue to Reedy Fork Parkway and the left turns from Reedy Fork Parkway to Summit Avenue. Due to these being the primary movements, this intersection will be realigned to make the primary movements the free-flow maneuver and the northern section of Summit Avenue will intersect Reedy Fork Parkway near the Morrisette Paper Company. In order for the interchange, intersections and ramps to operate at LOS D or better in the 2040 design year, the following minimum roadway laneage and intersection controls are recommended for each Detailed Study Alternative: Single Point Urban Interchange Alternative — SPUI • 4-lane median divided facility east and west of the US 29 interchange. • 6-lanes on the bridge over US 29 with two through lanes in each direction, dual eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, and a single westbound right-turn and eastbound right-turn lane at the ramp intersections. • Three traffic signals: o At Reedy Fork Parkway and the US 29 ramp intersection. o At Reedy Fork Parkway and Summit Avenue. o At Reedy Fork Parkway and Eckerson Road. Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative — DDI • 7-lanes on the bridge over US 29 with two through lanes in each direction and an exclusive single left-turn lane to the northbound US 29 on-ramp and dual left-turn lanes to the southbound US 29 on-ramp • Four traffic signals: o At Reedy Fork Parkway and the two crossover intersections. Page 15 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 o At Reedy Fork Parkway and Summit Avenue. o At Reedy Fork Parkway and Eckerson Road. Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative • 6-lanes on the bridge over US 29 with two through lanes in each direction and westbound Reedy Fork Parkway dual left-turn lanes to the southbound US 29 on-ramp and a right-turn lane to northbound Summit Avenue • Three traffic signals: o At Reedy Fork Parkway and the two ramp intersections. o At Reedy Fork Parkway and Eckerson Road. G. Railroad Crossinqs There are no railroad crossings in the vicinity of the project. H. Structures and Bridqes In each alternative, the existing Bridge No. 360 will be removed after the new bridge is constructed on new location and the interchange is constructed. The typical sections showing the proposed total bridge width, lane widths/configurations, medians, and bicycle/pedestrian accommodations can be found in Figures 5, 6, and 7 of Appendix A. Maior Drainaqe Structures An existing triple barrel 7-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert is located within the new interchange area and will need to be extended to accommodate the three proposed interchange configurations. The three alternatives also require this culvert to be extended on both ends and a separate triple barrel 7-foot by 11-foot reinforced concrete box culvert to be located just downstream beneath the relocated Reedy Fork Parkway. Additional structures (2) that are less than 72 inches will be further evaluated during the final design phase. Retainina Walls Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls are anticipated at the bridge abutments for each alternative, but are subject to change during final design. MSE walls are also anticipated for the SPUI and DDI alternatives to limit impacts to Greensboro Fire Station 59 and the Park and Ride lot near existing Bridge No. 360. In the partial cloverleaf alternative, an MSE wall is anticipated along Ramp C to prevent impacts to the existing earth dam around the pond in quadrant C. I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways All Design Alternatives include sidewalks and 5-foot bike lanes along the future connection of Reedy Fork Parkway and Summit Ave. Currently the area is not equipped with dedicated bicycle lanes or sidewalks along existing roadways. Comments were received during the open comment Page 16 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 period from area citizens expressing excitement for dedicated bike and pedestrian facilities for the area and how it would serve multi-modal users to travel to Bryan Park. J. Utilities Utilities may be relocated as part of the proposed project. Final decisions on utility relocations will occur during final design, in coordination with NCDOT. K. Landscapinq No special landscaping is proposed as a part of this project. Disturbed areas along the project will be reseeded with grass. L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasinq The traffic control and construction phasing are similar in all three alternatives in that they all provide for the construction of relocated Reedy Fork Parkway, replacement for Bridge No. 360, and all or a substantial portion of the new interchange and the associated ramps and/or loops in the first phase of construction. This is possible since Reedy Fork Parkway is on new alignment and traffic can be maintained on the existing interchange ramps during the first phase of construction. This allows for the existing traffic to be shifted onto relocated Reedy Fork Parkway and ramps and/or loops in the two southern quadrants B and C while construction continues in the two northern quadrants A and D during the second phase, while the existing Bridge No. 360 and existing interchange ramps and loops are removed. The Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Alternative is the simplest in the second phase since there are no proposed ramps in these quadrants. The SPUT Alternative is slightly more involved and will require coordination of construction under traffic of the ramps in the northern quadrants A and D since the proposed ramps cross the existing northbound and southbound ramps. The DDI Alternative is the most involved and will require an additional phase for the construction of temporary pavement to facilitate construction of the proposed ramps due to the substantial grade differences between the existing and proposed ramps. V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION This chapter provides an overview of the natural and human environmental features within the Study Area. The proposed project's effects to natural, cultural, social, and physical resources are discussed. A. Natural Resources Field investigations were conducted by qualified biologists in August 2004; May — August 2010; and April — May 2016 to assess the existing natural environment within the Study Area. The 2010 Addendum was prepared to supplement the original Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), January 2005, and covered an expanded Study Area. The 2016 NRTR Update was an update to the natural resources documented in the two previous reports. Details of the methodology and investigations supporting the information in this section are available in the NRTR January 2005, NRTR Addendum — October 2010, and October 2016 NRTR Update. Page 17 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 1. Biotic Resources The improvements to the US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange will primarily impact maintained/disturbed habitat and vegetated transition areas adjacent to existing road shoulders and will result in a loss of areas of limited value to area-sensitive wildlife. Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional habitat. Increased traffic and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway. Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal species that use terrestrial areas is anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Habitat reduction can occur when project construction affects undisturbed areas surrounding an existing man-dominated environment. When this occurs, competitive forces in the adapted communities will result in a redefinition of population equilibrium. Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the construction of the interchange project. However, no long-term or permanent impacts to aquatic communities are expected to result from the proposed project. Any species that may be temporarily displaced would be expected to re- colonize the area quickly once construction is complete. Measures to maximize sediment and erosion control during construction will be implemented to protect water quality for aquatic organisms. No impacts are anticipated to anadromous fish runs or to fish spawning habitat. All three of the build alternatives would impact streams within the Study Area and some of the streams would be required to be relocated. Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has been on going through out the merger process. The Recommended Alternative (Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative) was chosen as the LEDPA by the Merger Team. A review of the projects final design plans would be completed to ensure that the project is in accordance with mandates expressed in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [72 Stat. 563, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq. (1976)]. All of the proposed interchange improvements are expected to have an overall minimal impact on wildlife populations compared to existing conditions. Impacts to biotic communities cannot be quantified at this time; however, they will be limited to the actual project construction limits, which will be considerably less than the Study Area. Impervious road surface and buildings are not included in the vegetation communities within the Study Area. During the construction stages of the proposed project, appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage of construction materials and control runoff. Such measures will include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for disposal and handling of waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMP-PSW) and sedimentation control guidelines will be enforced during the construction stages of the proposed project. Long-term impacts to water resources may include permanent changes to the stream banks and temperature increases caused by the removal of stream-side vegetation. 2. Waters of fhe United States Water resources in the Study Area are part of the Cape Fear River basin [US Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002]. There are 20 jurisdictional streams (Table V-1), 6 Page 18 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional other surface waters (ponds) (Table V-2), and 12 jurisdictional wetlands (Table V-3) within the Study Area. All of the jurisdictional streams identified within the project area have been assigned a primary water resources class classification of "WS V; NSW." a) Streams A total of 20 jurisdictional streams, including 7 perennial streams, and 13 intermittent streams were delineated in the Study Area. Table V-1 summarizes the physical characteristics of Study Area streams and shows the stream ID names used in each NRTR. Table V-1: Stream Characteristics �`. . . • . ;� �,�: � � � �, Unnamed Tributary (UT) to SA UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 4,118 SB UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 82 SC UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 373 SD UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 5,688 SE UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 525 SF UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent S bject 254 SG UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent S bject 52� SH UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 254 SI UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 1,313 SJ UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 695 SK UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 54 SM UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 986 SN UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent S bject 59 SO UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 456 SP UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent S bject 183 SQ UT to Reedy Fork (Hardy's 16-11-(9) WS V; NSW Intermittent Not 1,067 Mill Pond) Subject SR UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Intermittent S bject 571 SS UT to UT at Camp Herman 16-11-10-(2) WS V; NSW Perennial S bject 2�9 ST UT to Reedy Fork (Hardy's 16-11-(9) WS V; NSW Intermittent Subject 113 Mill Pond Reedy Reedy Fork (Hardy's Mill 16-11-(9) WS V; NSW Perennial Subject 504 Fork Pond) Total Intermittent 5,577 Total Perennial 12,464 Tota I 18, 041 Page 19 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 There are no designated anadromous fish waters, Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), or trout waters present in the Study Area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-I I) within 1.0-mile downstream of the Study Area. No streams located within a 1.0-mile radius of the Study Area were found on the North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. No waters within the Study Area have been identified by the NCWRC as trout waters; therefore, no moratoria are anticipated for the proposed project. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not identified any streams within the Study Area as an Essential Fish Habitat. There are no streams within the Study Area determined by the USACE as Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. No fish surveys have been conducted within a 1.0-mile radius of the Study Area. No benthic sample sites are located within a 1.0-mile radius of the Study Area. b) Other Surface Waters (Ponds) Six jurisdictional other surface waters (ponds) were identified within the Study Area. The pond characteristics are included in Table V-2. Table V-2: Pond Characteristics .. r- . ., . � - PA Y Associated with SA Subject 4.11 (within Study Area) PB Y Associated with SG Subject 0.07 PC N 29 rmwater Retention Pond adjacent to US Not Subject 0.06 PD N Stormwater Retention Pond adjacent to, but Not Subject 0.11 not connected to SD PE Y Associated with SO Subject 3.49 PF Y Hardy's Mill Pond, associated with Reedy Subject 1.04 Fork. Total 8.88 c) Buffers Streamside riparian zones within the Study Area are protected under provisions of the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR. Table V-1 and V-2 indicate which streams and ponds are subject to buffer rule protection. Potential impacts to protected stream and pond buffers will be determined once a final alignment and design have been determined. Since Jordan Lake Buffer Rules apply to streams and ponds in the Study Area, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be employed. d) Wetlands Twelve jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the Study Area. All wetlands in the Study Area are within the Cape Fear River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). Table V-3 summarizes the physical characteristics of Study Area wetlands. Page 20 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table V-3: Wetland Characteristics s �� ,f��n � � � - _ WA Riparian Non-Tidal Freshwater 0.01 Marsh (NTFM) WB Riparian NTFM 0.02 WC Riparian Headwater Forest 0.01 WD Riparian Headwater Forest 0.01 WE Riparian NTFM 0.03 WF Riparian Headwater Forest 0.02 WG Riparian Headwater Forest 0.01 WH Riparian NTFM 0.24 WI Riparian NTFM 0.03 WJ Riparian Headwater Forest 0.50 WK Riparian NTFM 4.61 WL Riparian Bottomland Hardwood 0.68 Forest Total 6.17 e) Summary of Potential Water of the United States Impacts Anticipated impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds as shown in Table V-4, are based upon preliminary design and could change during final design. The Partial Cloverleaf Interchange had the highest impacts to the Waters of the U.S. The SPUI had lower stream impacts (1,529 LF) than the DDI (1,558 LF); however, the DDI had lower wetland impacts (0.45 acres) then the SPUI (0.52 acres). The construction activities associated with the project will strictly follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities (BMP-CMA) and Protection of Surface Waters (BMP-PSW). Sedimentation control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project. Primary sources of water quality degradation in urban and developed areas are non-point sources of discharge, which include surface water runoff and runoff from construction activities. Short- term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased sedimentation and turbidity in nearby water resources. Long-term impacts include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside vegetation. Table V-4: Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States Page 21 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 `s •. ' • •. � �J •�- � � . �- f-1�iJL4'_ b.�� SO (Intermittent) 71 / 41 32 / 63 288 / 170 SI (Intermittent) 68 / 50 68 / 50 65 / 48 SR (Intermittent) --- --- 177 / 26 SA (Perennial) 16 / 45 14 / 47 16 / 45 Stream Subtotal 1,280 / 249 1,336 / 222 1,774 / 504 Stream Total 1,529 1,558 2,278 Wetlands (direct / buffer2) (acres) _ WJ (Headwater Forest) 0.41 / 0.06 0.33 / 0.07 0.54 / 0.02 WI (NTFM) 0.00 / 0.02 0.02 / 0.00 0.01 / 0.01 WF (Headwater Forest) 0.01 / 0.02 0.01 / 0.02 0.00 / 0.02 WL (Bottomland Hardwood Forest) --- --- 0.01 / 0.02 WA (NTFM) 0.00 / 0.00 0.00 / 0.00 0.00 / 0.00 Wetlands Subtotal 0.42 / 0.10 0.36 / 0.09 0.56 / 0.07 Wetlands Total 0.52 0.45 0.63 �Stream butter impacis were calcu�ated basea on siope stakes pius Zb teet. �wetiand butter impacis were calculatea 6ased on slope stakes plus 25 feet. � Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Section 404 Avoidance and Minimization All Detailed Study Alternatives were designed to minimize impacts to resources. All alternatives studied involved shifting the modified interchange to the south of existing to avoid impacts to Hardy's Mill Pond. However, it is not feasible for the proposed project to completely avoid impacts to the Waters of the US and still meet the purpose and need of the project. NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during final design. Final decisions regarding stream mitigation requirements would be made by USACE and NCDWR. On-site mitigation would be used as much as possible. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) (formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program [EEP]) would be used for remaining mitigation requirements beyond what can be satisfied by on-site mitigation. Other Avoidance and Minimization Measures • Proposed improvements along existing Reedy Fork Parkway avoided impacts to the stream mitigation site at Reedy Creek. • The proposed bridge was shifted to the south to avoid an adverse effect to businesses. • The widening portion of the proposed alignment varies between symmetrical widening and widening north or south of the existing roadway, as needed, to minimize impacts to land use and important environmental features. Anticipated Permit Requirements In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit would be required from USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States. Page 22 of 45 STIP No R-4707 - SEA/FONSI February 2018 Due to anticipated project impacts on jurisdictional streams, an USACE Individual Permit (IP) would be required. USACE holds the final discretion on the required permit to authorize project construction. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will also be required. Also, the stream crossings are located within the Jordan Watershed of the Cape Fear River Basin. They would be subject to the NCDENR-DWQ riparian buffer rule. Any impact Impacts to buffers at the project will require permitting from the NCDENR-DWQ. 3. Rare and Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as amended. As of March 25, 2015, the USFWS lists one federally protected species for Guilford County, the Small whorled pogonia (Table V-5). A brief description of the species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the Study Area. Habitat requirements for the species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS. Table V-5: Federally Protected Species Listed for Guilford County {�� ;�� J_ a; l � r= I 3'sa'ot ��i�`�'h' - . . ,:_ m ��i� "� r• ,... _ .. -� �Y Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T* Yes No Effect `T=Threatened A pedestrian survey within the Study Area was performed on May 22, 2016. Habitat was present within the Study Area, with the best habitat occurring in the relatively open mixed pine/hardwood upland community. This community type was present throughout the Study Area at higher elevations, along hillslopes and hilltops, and had relatively open understory and sun-dappled areas. However, many areas where habitat was present had thick herbaceous cover and a thick layer of leaf litter. No individuals of small whorled pogonia were observed during the survey. In addition to the survey, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0-mile of the project. Based on the survey results and the lack of known occurrences within 1.0-mile of the project, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for this species. Endangered Species Act Proposed or Candidate Species As of March 25, 2015, the USFWS does not list any officially Proposed or Candidate species for Guilford County. Northern long-eared bat The US Fish and Wildlife Service developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction with FHWA, USACE, and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) in eastern Page 23 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT program is "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect." The PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Guilford County, where the proposed project is located. This level of incidental take is authorized from the effective date of a final listing determination through April 30, 2020. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Habitat for the American bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0-mile of open water. A desktop geographic information system (GIS) assessment of the Study Area revealed water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential sources of foraging. The water bodies were Lake Townsend, Lake Herman, and Hardy's Mill Pond. A survey of the Study Area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted on April 13 and April 14, 2016. No eagles or eagle nests were observed during the survey. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0-mile of the Study Area. Due to the lack of nesting and known occurrences, it has been determined that the proposed project will not affect this species. Essential Fish Habitat No designated essential fish habitat is present within the Study Area. 4. Soi/s The Study Area lies in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Soils development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors which include past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. General soils associations incorporate areas with distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and drainage (See Table V-6). Overall, soils within the Study Area have been significantly disturbed by agricultural, residential, or commercial development. Impervious cover in urban areas results in higher surface runoff than areas that have not been disturbed. Increased runoff and its associated elevated water velocities contribute to higher erosion potential. The general soils association within the Study Area is the Enon-Mecklenburg association. The Enon-Mecklenburg association is characterized by gently sloping and sloping, well drained soils that have a sandy clay loam, clay, and clay loam subsoil (USDA 1977). Each general soil association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. Soil mapping units are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soils. Twelve non-hydric and one hydric soil mapping unit occur within the Study Area and are listed below. Page 24 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table V-6: Study Area Soils �a,: _ �' _ i1..:,= Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes CcB Well Drained I Non-hydric Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes CcC Well Drained Non-hydric Cecil sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes CcD Well Drained Non-hydric Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes CeB2 Well Drained Non-hydric Cecil sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes CeC2 Well Drained Non-hydric Congaree loam CoA Moderately Well Hydric* Drained Coronaca clay loam CrB Well Drained Non-hydric Coronaca clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes CrC Well Drained Non-hydric Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes EnB Well Drained Hydric* Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent EnC Well Drained Non-hydric slopes Madison sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent MaD Well Drained Non-hydric slopes Madison sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes MaE Well Drained Non-hydric Madison clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes McC2 Well Drained Non-hydric Madison clay loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes McD2 Well Drained Non-hydric Madison clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes McE2 Well Drained Non-hydric "Soils are predominantly non-hydric with hydric inclusions. B. Cultural Resources 1. Historic Architectural Resources The proposed project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations' Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account of their undertakings (federally- funded, licenses, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comments on such undertakings. An Area of Potential Effects (APE) is used to determine impacts. An APE is defined as, "The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking." [36 CFR 800.16(d)]." A regulatory coordination with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was initiated through a letter dated 10 August 2004. This coordination was initiated pursuant to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA. In a response letter dated 31 August 2004, the SHPO identified Hardy's Mill and recommended an archaeological evaluation to determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion D. The letter also mentioned that two structures of historical or architectural importance are located within the general area of the proposed project: Reedy Fork Acres (GF 1666) and Hardy's Mill Pond and Page 25 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Store Millpond (GF 2056). A field study was completed in 2006 by an NCDOT architectural historian of the two structures noted in the 2004 letter. Photographs and evaluations of the properties were reviewed in a SHPO staff meeting held February 2, 2007 where it was determined that neither site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A photograph review session/consultation was held with NCDOT, FHWA, and SHPO staff on October 12, 2010 where it was determined that no properties within the subject project are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The evaluations are included in Appendix J. a) Potential Project Effects A review of the APE by NCDOT found that no National Register-listed or National Register-eligible properties are within the APE for this project, therefore no effect is anticipated on historic properties by implementation of any of the three alternatives. 2. Archaeological Resources An archaeological survey was conducted of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) on April 28, 2017 by NCDOT archaeologists Brian Overton and Shane Petersen. The archaeologists visually inspected the project area, including a pedestrian survey of two large portions of the APE including the area adjacent to Hardy's Mill Pond and north of Reedy Fork Parkway. The remaining portions of the APE are considered low probability for containing intact, significant archaeological resources based on development, disturbances, and eroded or wet soils. The inspection near Hardy's Mill Pond confirmed conclusions reported in the Archaeological Survey Required Form that were derived from historic maps and aerial photography. Aside from the dam and gate at the water, other structures associated with the mill and manufacturing facility have been removed as seen in the 2002 aerial. Likely outside of the APE, though adjacent to it, this area has been cleared during the demolition and removal of buildings, leaving a disturbed archaeological context. Subsurface testing here was not warranted. Inspection of proposed new right of way north of Reedy Fork Parkway confirmed that the wooded area is somewhat level and not heavily modified or already severely eroded. Subsurface testing was warranted at this location in order to identify any archaeological resources that might be present. A transect of six shovel test pits were excavated and screened, covering proposed impacts to the landform. This testing did not reveal any archaeological cultural materials, horizons or subsurface features. No archaeological sites were identified as a result of this investigation and archaeological survey. No further archaeological effort is recommended for this project as it is currently proposed. a) Potential Project Effects An archaeological survey was conducted by NCDOT of the APE in April 2017. This evaluation is included in Appendix J. A review of the APE found that no National Register listed or eligible Archaeological sites are present within the APE for this project, therefore no effect is anticipated on archaeological resources by implementation of this project. Page 26 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 C. Section 6(fl Resources Section 6(f) of the Land Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) prohibits the conversion of property acquired with funds from a LWCFA grant to a non-recreational purpose without the written approval of the National Park Service (NPS). Section 6(f) requires that any lands converted to a non-recreational use be replaced with lands of equal value, location, and usefulness. There are no Section 6(f) resources located within or adjacent to the Study Area. D. Farmland The project is not federally funded; therefore, the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act do not apply. Guilford County adopted a Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Ordinance in 2000, Amended August 2011. There are no Voluntary Agricultural District properties in the Study Area. Nor does the Study Area have any active or inactive farms in the area. The Rudd Farm, located at 4021 Hicone Road within the FLUSA, is approximately 3.0 miles from the project corridor. E. Social Effects 1. Neighborhoods/Communities The Study Area is primarily commercial and industrial with small residential communities primarily in the south such as Lacy Allred Farm Subdivision, which includes Anita Lane, and Carla Lane and the North Hills Subdivision, which includes April Lane, Harvest Hill Road, and Shenandoah Road. There are also four residences just south of the intersection of Summit Avenue and Bryan Park Road that are within the limits of the Study Area. Several medium and low density residential neighborhoods are located outside the Study Area, but within the FLUSA, along Reedy Fork Parkway and south of the proposed interchange on US 29. The project will reduce congestion and improve traffic flow in the Study Area, which will have a positive effect on travel patterns and travel times. Refer to Section 11.B.2. for traffic analysis discussion. As there are no expected changes to land use, the residential neighborhoods and communities should have minimal impacts such as potential traffic delays during construction. 2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses A review of all three of the alternatives did not identify any relocations of residences or businesses associated with the proposed improvements. The final NCDOT relocation report is included in Appendix H. 3. Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects individuals from discrimination on the grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," directs that, "...each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health Page 27 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations." Special populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low-income areas, Native Americans, and other minority groups. Important discussion terms are defined below: • Low-income person(s) - Those whose median income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. • Low-income population(s) - Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal program, policy or activity. • Minority - A person who is Black/African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, and/or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. • Minority Population(s) - Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed federal program, policy or activity. • Adverse Effects - The totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of human-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities. Disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations are defined as adverse effects that are: - Predominantly borne by a minority population and/or low-income population; or - Will be suffered by a minority population and/or low-income population and are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. • Census tracts (CT) - Small, relatively permanent geographic entities within counties (or the statistical equivalent of counties), which generally have 2,500 - 8,000 residents (4,000 is optimal). Their boundaries follow visible features. They should be as contiguous as possible with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. • Block groups (BG) - are statistical divisions of census tracts. They are the smallest geographic units used to provide public information on population. Page 28 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Executive Order 12898 further requires that Environmental Justice principles be incorporated into all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three environmental principles are: 1. to ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; 2. to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low- income populations; and 3. to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities, upon low-income and minority populations. To assess social aspects associated with the proposed project, a field review along with a review of demographic information, available through the US Census Bureau 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates was conducted. The Study Area the study area is located within four block groups: CT 151, BG 2; CT 154.01, BG 1; CT 155, BG 2; and CT 156, BG 3. The area encompassed by the CTs represents nearly 33 miles of land cover in the area, whereas the Study Area represents only 3 miles of area land cover. Tables V-8 and V-9 compares the demographic data of the area block groups to that of North Carolina, Guilford County, and the City of Greensboro. The block groups in comparison to the size of the Study Area are largely disproportionate. a) Low-Income Population The Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines have shown that the average family size is 2.54 persons. The average poverty level income for a family of this size in the 2011- 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $19,050. The State, County, and City have comparable percentages of low-income populations, each at approximately 16 percent (See Table V-7). Within the Study Area there are two BGs with higher percentages of low-income communities, CT 155, BG 2 and CT 156, BG 3. Approximately half of the Study Area falls within CT 155, BG 2; however, there is very minimal residential development currently near or adjacent to the project corridor. Only a small portion of the Study Area falls within CT 156, BG 3, where again there is very minimal residential development. Based on these findings, no disproportionately high or adverse effects are expected to be experienced by low-income populations under the No-build or Build Alternatives. Table V-7: Low-Income Populations ,. - � . � ,� �, , . � .� :. ; ; - . � -, Total 3,775,581 199,540 291,630 974 1,516 442 233 Households Income in 2015 below 602,058 31,412 46,683 64 29 119 46 poverty level Page 29 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 .. �; �y � � -. , . � • - . . .: °/o of Total Household incomes 15.9% 15.7% 16.0% 6.6% 1.9% 26.9% 19.7% below the poverty level in 2015 source: u5 c;ensus t�ureau, Hc:s zU� �-zulb b-Year tstimates, I abie �t� iu� i b) Minority Populations According to the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates, the State, County, City, and Study Area are all predominantly White with the percentages ranging from 34.2 percent in CT 155 to 86.2 percent in CT 156. The largest minority population in all areas studied is Black/African American, ranging from 6.8 percent in CT 156 to 57 percent in CT 155. Table V-8 provides all of the Minority raw data from the US Census Bureau that was used for this analysis. Based on these findings, no disproportionately high or adverse effects are expected to be experienced by minority populations under the No-build or Build Alternatives. Page 30 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table V-8: Minority Population Analysis � .a<. • . w- � � . , . ��:�_ _ i a� � a� a� a� � � L � � � L ZI� L � L � C� ai i� ai m ai ia ai ia Q% m ai c� ai ia E a�i E a�i E a�i E a�i E a�i E a�i E a�i � U 7 U 7 U � U 7 U 7 U � U z � z � z Q7 z � Z � z � Z � � � d � d � � Total 9,845,333 100.0% 506,763 100.0% 741,433 100.0% 4,310 100.0% 5,492 100.0% 6,674 100.0% 10,053 100.0% White alone 6,839,831 69.5% 287,617 56.8% 481,845 65.0% 3,329 77.2% 3,311 60.3% 2,280 34.2% 8,666 86.2% BlackorAfrican 2,115,338 21.5% 169,138 33.4% 194,660 26.3% 653 15.2°/o 1,983 36.1% 3,805 57.0% 684 6.8% American alone American Indian and Alaska 116,143 1.2% 2,328 0.5% 3,542 0.5% 33 0.8% 0 0.0% 12 0.2°/o 38 0.4% Native alone Asian alone 244,076 2.5% 22,445 4.4% 24,330 3.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 67 1.0% 176 1.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 6,244 0.1 % 281 0.1 % 372 0.1 % 0 0.0% 30 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Islander alone Some other race 292,310 3.0% 13,986 2.8% 21,193 2.9% 248 5.8°/o 91 1.7% 240 3.6°/o 400 4.0% alone Two or more 231,391 2.4% 10,968 2.2% 15,491 2.1% 47 1.1% 77 1.4% 270 4.0°/a 89 0.9% races Hispanic or g69,908 8.8% 38,207 7.5% 59,165 8.0% 323 7.5% 197 3.6% 455 6.8% 665 6.6% Latino Source: US Census Bureau 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Tables B02001 and B01001 Page 31 of 45 STIP No R-4707 - SEA/FONSI February 2018 c) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Executive Order 13166 "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency" requires all recipients of federal funds to provide meaningful access to persons who are limited in their English proficiency (LEP). The US Department of Justice defines LEP individuals as those "who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English" (67 FR 41459). Data about LEP populations was analyzed from the 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table V-9 provides the percentages of adults (18 years of age or older) who speak English less than "Very Well" (this includes "Well," "Not Well," and "Not at all") by language category. Within the Census Tracts, there are only a total of 132 people that fall into this category. Therefore, based on the demographic assessment, the Study Area does not indicate the presence of LEP language groups that exceed the Department of Justice's Safe Harbor threshold. However, NCDOT will include notice of Right of Language Access for future meetings for this project and may include other measures deemed necessary to ensure meaningful participation. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13166 appear to be satisfied. Table V-9: Statistics of Adults Who Speak English Less than "Very Well" . . .- I I I� I � I I� I � .i, Ca olina �,561,498 283,534 3.7% 35,799 0.47% 55,129 0.73% 8,863 �0�02 383,325 5.1% Guilford 390,845 12,344 3.2% 3,877 1.0% 5,938 1.5% 1,694 0.4% 23,853 6.1 % County Greensboro- High Point, 572,108 18,522 3.2% 4,304 0.75% 6,504 1.1% 1,761 0.3°/a 31,091 5.4% NC Metro Area CT 151, BG 1,936 10 0.52% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.52% 2 CT 154.01, 3,086 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% BG 1 CT 155, BG g17 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 CT 156, BG 530 122 23% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 122 23% 3 Source: US Census Bureau 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B16004 A community could be considered a potential EJ area of concern if the percentage of low-income or minority populations of a Block Group within 0.5-mile of the project corridor is at least 20 percent greater than those of the County. Based on the demographic analysis, there are no areas that would be considered an EJ area of concern within the Study Area. Page 32 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian and bicycle access in the Study Area will be improved by the proposed action. Improved bicycle/pedestrian traffic is expected to and from Bryan Park and the Reedy Fork Ranch Development. Currently, Reedy Fork Parkway is not equipped with dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The proposed design of Reedy Fork Parkway as well as Summit Ave and the bridge over US 29 include sidewalks for safer walking practices. Detailed Study Alternatives include dedicated 5-foot bike lanes on Reedy Fork Parkway. An overall improvement in safety for the travelling public that utilizes this intersection will be realized. 5. Recreational Facilities Bryan Park is the closest park and it is located outside of the Study Area. There is an existing one-mile greenway that is part of the Reedy Fork Ranch Development and a 570-acre open space also associated with the development that is owned by the City of Greensboro. Minimal temporary impacts to travel time during construction are expected in association with these resources since they are outside of the Study Area. 6. Other Public Facilities and Services (e.g., schoo/s worship centers, hospita/s, etc.) Schools There are no schools within the Study Area; however, Reedy Fork Elementary School (4571 Reedy Fork Parkway) is located northeast of the project corridor. Temporary indirect impacts are expected for school bus services during construction. Churches There are no churches within the Study Area Avenue) is located just north of the Study Area. its distance from the project corridor. Medical Facilities Brown Summit Baptist Church (6000 Summit No impacts are anticipated for this facility due to There are no medical facilities within the Study Area. Communitv Centers The Ready Fork Ranch Development has a Community Center; however, it is not open to the public, only residents of the development. Due to its location on Reedy Fork Parkway, there may be temporary delays to and from this facility during construction. Fire Departments Law Enforcement/ Emerqency Services Greensboro Fire Station 59 (3808 Reedy Fork Parkway) is within the limits of the Study Area, adjacent to the Park and Ride lot on the east side of Bridge 360. Access to this fire station will need to be remain open during the entire time of project construction. The construction phasing shall maintain traffic on existing roadways to the fire station until the new location roadways are complete and open to traffic. Once traffic is shifted to the new location roadways and the existing Bridge No. 360 is removed, the new interchange configuration may impact the response time of the fire station. There are no police departments or ambulance services located within the Study Area. Page 33 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 F. Economic Effects Transportation projects are unique in their potential to induce growth because of the benefits they create, such as reduction in travel times and enhanced land accessibility. These tend to make the surrounding land more attractive for development and thus the conversion of more vacant and natural landscapes to more intensive land uses is a common result from transportation projects. Induced growth effects result from land development directly associated with the proposed action, complimentary land development which is encouraged by the proposed action and regional development trends that may be reinforced by the proposed action. G. Land Use 1. Existing Land Use and Zoning Current Land Use information was derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping obtained from Guilford County and the City of Greensboro. The majority of the Study Area is comprised of open space, woods, and agricultural cropland. A small portion of the Study Area falls outside of the Greensboro city limits and lies within an unincorporated area of Guilford County. 2. Future Land Use Expected future land use is expected to follow the existing land use patterns of the area. Industrial/corporate park, mixed use, low density and interim residential uses are occurring in the expanded Study Area at present and are expected to occur in the future. Since the expected future land use in the expanded Study Area is the same as the existing land use and because the project is replacing an existing interchange, and thus is not creating any new access, the project is not expected to result in any induced growth, nor is it expected to result in any alteration to the existing conditions that would not otherwise be altered. The largest development project in the expanded Study Area is the Reedy Fork Ranch development which is expected to continue developing as planned regardless of the proposed action. The proposed action is not likely to have an indirect effect on the future land use. 3. Project compatibility with local plans Based on the Greensboro Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan and the Guilford County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project is consistent with current and future land uses. The proposed project is not expected to induce land use changes in the area as it is replacing an existing facility. H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects An Indirect and Cumulafive Effects Screening Report was prepared for the proposed project in July 2009 and updated in 2017 to account for any changes in land use and transportation planning that have occurred over the last seven years. With project implementation, overall travel patterns will not be substantially altered; however, the project may provide minor improvements in travel time for travelers wishing to cross or access US 29. The proposed project is not expected to have an effect on, or be affected by future land Page 34 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 use patterns, and population and employment are expected to continue to grow at a moderate rate. This project is not expected to induce future growth or development which could result in future impacts to wetlands or surface waters in or adjacent to the Study Area and, therefore, will not indirectly affect wetlands or surface waters. The Indirect Effects Screening Tool generated a score of 3 points out of 32, which indicates that a Land Use Scenario Assessment (LUSA) is not warranted for the proposed project. Qualitative analyses of the probable development patterns in the future land use study area (FLUSA), based on the information and data available, suggest that future development resulting from the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the watershed. The results of the analysis indicate that no further indirect and cumulative analysis is recommended. It is anticipated that the proposed project will not notably contribute to cumulative impacts to environmental resources in the FLUSA. The potential for the degradation of water quality also exists through erosion and stream sedimentation. Any direct natural environmental impacts by NCDOT projects would be addressed by avoidance and minimization consistent with programmatic agreements with the natural resource agencies during the Merger and Permitting processes. Through analysis it does not seem likely that development patterns would change whether or not the proposed project is constructed, although additional capacity on the Reedy Fork Parkway bridge may better serve future industrial and commercial development due to improved conditions for associated trucks. Water and sewer service is existing or available for much of the Study Area; the remaining area without existing service is in a Growth Tier 1 area targeted for growth in City services, and it is likely that water and sewer will be available throughout the entire Study Area by the horizon year. There is little development pressure on the undeveloped land within Guilford County's jurisdiction; in general, development within the Study Area is expected to continue at a low to moderate pace. Based on the information analyzed, there is a lower level of concern for indirect and cumulative effects potential due to proposed project implementation. Therefore, further examination of indirect and cumulative effects is not likely to be warranted. I. Flood Hazard Evaluation Guilford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to the Effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) obtained from North Carolina Floodplain Mapping (NCFMP), Reedy Fork Tributary 9(UT at Camp Herman) is located within a Limited Detailed Study Area. Based on FEMA data, 359.69 acres of land within the FLUSA are located within the AE flood zone, and 156.90 acres within the flood zone are classified as being within the floodway. Both the Greensboro Land Development Ordinance and Guilford County Land Development Ordinance include specific rules and regulations to manage development within the special flood hazard zones. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the proposed project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated August 12, 2016), or approval of a Conditional Page 35 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams. Therefore, NCDOT Division 7 shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. Further detailed analysis will be required during final design to adequately address all of the impacts associated with the floodplain at each site. Table V-10 shows the anticipated floodplain impacts with the Detailed Study Alternatives. The flood hazard area is also depicted in Figure 8 in Appendix A. There are no properties that have been acquired with FEMA funds in the Study Area. Table V-10: Floodplain/Floodway Impacts 'a • - � i - r' '..�:,��. . __ . -��.��al0�m�` =_`f�. 100-Year Floodplain $$ g 4 7.3 Impacts (acres) J. Traffic Noise Analvsis In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Policy, each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. In general, Type I projects are proposed State or Federal highway projects for construction of a highway or interchange on new location, improvements of an existing highway which substantially changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity, or projects that involve new construction or substantial alteration of transportation facilities such as weigh stations, rest stops, ride-share lots or toll plazas. Traffic noise impacts are determined through implementing the current Traffic Noise Model (TNM) approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and following procedures detailed in Title 23 CFR 772, the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, and the NCDOT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Manual. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. Construction noise impacts may occur if noise-sensitive receptors are in close proximity to project construction activities. All reasonable efforts should be made to minimize exposure of noise-sensitive areas to construction noise impacts. The source of this traffic noise information is the Traffic Noise Report — US 29 / SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) Interchange lmprovements, Including Upgrading SR 2526 (Summit Avenue) and SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) in Greensboro, dated January 2018. Page 36 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table V-11 below. Table V-11 includes those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The maximum extents of the 71- and 66-dB(A) hourly-equivalent sound level contours measured from the center of the proposed US 29 roadway are 157 feet and 248 feet, respectively. The maximum extents of the 71- and 66-dB(A) hourly-equivalent sound level contours measured from the center of the proposed US 29 / SR 2790 interchange ramps are 42 feet and 127 feet, respectively. Table V-11: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative* Build 3 0 I 0 3 �Per TNM2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772. 2. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, establishment of buffer zones, noise barriers and noise insulation (NAC D only). For each of these measures, benefits versus costs (reasonableness), engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability and other factors were included in the noise abatement considerations. Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT base dollar value of $22,500 per benefited receptor plus an incremental increase as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Manual, causing this abatement measure to be unreasonable. 3. Noise Barriers Noise barriers include two basic types: earthen berms and noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this project, earthen berms are not found to be a viable abatement measure because the additional right of way, materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT maximum allowable base quantity of 4,200 cubic yards per benefited receptor plus an incremental increase as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy. A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) software developed by the FHWA. The following table summarizes the results of the evaluation. The potential barrier location evaluated for the US 29 / SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) Page 37 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 project (TIP#: R-4707) with TNM is adjacent to US 29 southbound, north of Esterwood Road in Noise Study Area (NSA) 1. Based upon criteria defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, this barrier is not justified and is not recommended for construction. Table V-12: Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results Build Alternative L= 872' A/B = 11,015 ftz Noise Wall 1 H= 25' 22,030 ft2 2 Allow = 1,500 ft2 No (NW1) 'Barrier is not reasonable due to the quantity per benefited receptor exceeding the allowable quantity per benefited receptor. 2 Barrier is not feasible due to an inability to achieve at least 5 dB(A) of noise level reduction (NLR) for at least two impacted receptors. 4. Summary Based on this preliminary study, 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. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a substantial change in the project's design concept or scope. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. K. Air Quality Analysis 1. Attainment Status The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point nonattainment area for fine particles PM 2.5 as defined by the EPA. This area was designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) on April 5, 2005. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was re-designated as maintenance for the PM 2.5 standard on December 19, 2011. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Guilford County. The Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the High Point MPO 2040 MTP, the Burlington Graham MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, and the 2018-2027 NC State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) conform to the intent of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. Page 38 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. 2. PM 2.5 Summary A qualitative PM 2.5 hot-spot analysis is not required for this project since it is not an air quality concern. The Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements were met without a hot-spot analysis, since this project has been found not to be of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). This project meets the statutory transportation conformity requirements without a hotspot analysis. The interagency coordination correspondence is included in Appendix D. 3. Qualitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSA Ts) Analysis Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA assessed this expansive list in its rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are part of EPA's Integrated_Risk Information System (IRIS).' In addition, EPA identified nine compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and non-cancer hazard contributors from the 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).z These are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES): According to EPA, MOVES2014 is a major revision to MOVES2010 and improves upon it in many respects. MOVES2014 includes new data, new emissions standards, and new functional improvements and features. It incorporates substantial new data for emissions, fleet, and activity developed since the release of MOVES2010. These new emissions data are for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, exhaust and evaporative emissions, and fuel effects. MOVES2014 also adds updated vehicle sales, population, age distribution, and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) data. MOVES2014 incorporates the effects of three new Federal emissions standard rules not included in MOVES2010. These new standards are all expected to impact MSAT emissions and include Tier 3 emissions and fuel standards starting in 2017 (79 FR 60344), heavy-duty greenhouse gas regulations that phase in during model years 2014-2018 (79 FR 60344), and the second phase of light duty greenhouse gas regulations that phase in during model years 2017-2025 (79 FR 60344). Since the release of MOVES2014, EPA has released MOVES2014a. In the November 2015 MOVES2014a Questions and Answers Guide,3 EPA states that for on-road emissions, MOVES2014a adds new options requested by users for the input of local VMT, includes minor 1 https:/lwww.epa.qov/iris 2 https://www.epa.qov/national-air-toxics-assessment 3 https://www.epa.pov/moves/moves2014a-latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves Page 39 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 updates to the default fuel tables, and corrects an error in MOVES2014 brake wear emissions. The change in brake wear emissions results in small decreases in PM emissions, while emissions for other criteria pollutants remain essentially the same as MOVES2014. Using EPA's MOVES2014a model, as shown in the Figure below, FHWA estimates that even if VMT increases by 45 percent from 2010 to 2050 as forecast, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period. Diesel PM is the dominant component of MSAT emissions, making up 50 to 70 percent of all priority MSAT pollutants by mass, depending on calendar year. Users of MOVES2014a will notice some differences in emissions compared with MOVES2010b. MOVES2014a is based on updated data on some emissions and pollutant processes compared to MOVES2010b, and also reflects the latest Federal emissions standards in place at the time of its release. In addition, MOVES2014a emissions forecasts are based on lower VMT projections than MOVES2010b, consistent with recent trends suggesting reduced nationwide VMT growth compared to historical trends. MSAT Research: Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how potential public health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of NEPA. Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to arise on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, the public and other agencies expect FHWA to address MSAT impacts in its environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this field. For each alternative in this document, the amount of mobile source air toxics (MSAT) emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Because the VMT estimated for the No Build Alternative is higher than for any of the Build Alternatives, higher levels of MSAT are not expected from any of the Build Alternatives compared to the No Build. In addition, because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 90 percent from 2010 to 2050 (Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, Federal Highway Administration, October 12, 2016). Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. Page 40 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternative will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under the alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under the Build Alternative than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the expanded roadway sections of US 29, Summit Avenue from Reedy Fork Parkway to the interchange and Reedy Fork Parkway from Eckerson Road to Summit Avenue. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases, compared to the No-Build alternative, cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. In sum, under all Build Alternatives in the design year it is expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No Build Alternative, due to the reduced VMT associated with more direct routing, and due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs. 4. Construction Air Quality Effects During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to ensure 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. L. Hazardous Materials A desktop GIS assessment was conducted to identify known sites of concern in relation to the project corridor. The initial GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation was completed in July 2005. Geotechnical Engineering Unit personnel conducted a second field reconnaissance along the expanded corridor on June 8, 2010. This report replaces the July 2005 report. A search of appropriate environmental agencies' databases was perFormed to assist in evaluating sites identified during this study (See Appendix I— GeoEnvironmental Figures). Table V-13 provides information about the identified sites. The Geotechnical Engineering Unit will provide assessments on each of the above properties after identification of the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur. The Geotechnical Engineering Unit should be notified immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s) may be assessed. Page 41 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 Table V-13: Hazardous Material Findings �--_ s�:'._� �• �• �- . � ,- . r�� :h � Jenkins 5949 Summit Metal fabrication 1 waste oil AST and Low Com an Road 1 diesel fuel AST Morrisette Paper and 5925 Summit Multiple monitoring 2 Packaging Avenue Manufacturing wells Low Com an * Gateway 5900 Summit 6 heating oil USTs 3 Research Avenue Research Campus permanently closed in Low Park** 1993 CGR Industrial 1 heating oil UST — 4 Products 4655 Hwy 29N Manufacturin currentl use Low Heritage 1 heating oil UST — 5 Environment 4643 Hwy 29 Recycling facility currently in use and Low al warehouse 1 heating oil UST — closed in lace in 1993 4 USTs currently in 6 Sheetz 4736 Hwy 29 Gas station use; several monitoring Low wells 1 4000-gallon hydraulic Wysong & oil UST was removed in 7 Miles 4820 Hwy 29N RCRA site for 1991; several Intermediate Company Trichloroethane monitoring wells associated with a trichloroethane leak "The monitoring wells are associated with the former business, the Allen Bradley Company. ""Formerly the North Carolina Central School of the Deaf VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION This project was coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and the public. This chapter describes the public involvement and agency coordination that has taken place for the proposed project. Planned future public involvement activities and agency coordination are also discussed. A. Citizens Informational Workshop One Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW) was held on November 13, 2006 at Reedy Fork Ranch Community Center, 4302 Reedy Fork Parkway, from 4:30pm till 7:30pm. 55 attendees were present at the meeting. Participants were able to view the alternative exhibits that depicted environmental constraints, proposed study area, business access, and typical sections. Some concerns raised by the public regarding the project included truck access to local businesses, existing delays at study areas intersections, and increased truck traffic within the study area. Employees from local businesses directly impacted by the proposed project expressed the need for a traffic light at the intersection of Eckerson Road and Reedy Fork Parkway. Concerns were also raised concerning the existing roadway design not supporting wide turns for large trucks and the need for future designs to support the large truck volume that is anticipated to the local Page 42 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 industrial facilities in the study area. Citizens also praised the inclusion of future bicycle facilities included in the project design. A meeting notification postcard was mailed in October 2006 notifying residents of the workshop. A mailing list was compiled by selecting the addresses within 1.2 miles of the interchange and sending the notification postcards to those selected addresses. A newsletter was available at the CIW to offer information about the project and to identify contact information for additional questions or information. Informational handouts offered at the workshop as well as a copy of the mailing are included in Appendix E. B. Pubiic Meeting Open House An Open House Public Meeting was held Thursday, April 21, 2016 at the Bryan Park Golf and Conference Center in Browns Summit, N.C. The purpose of the meeting was to inform local citizens about the project and receive comments, concerns and alternative preferences. A total of 77 citizens signed in at the meeting, with 6 citizens providing written comments by the end of the advertised 15-day comment period, May 1, 2016. The meeting was advertised through the local newspapers and Greensboro media. Project Postcards were sent to property owners and residents in the project area. The Project Newsletter and Open House Public Meeting Materials (i.e., handout and comments forms) are included in Appendix E. Aerial maps of the Study Area with the functional designs of three Build Alternatives were presented at the open house. A meeting with Local officials was held prior to the start of the Public Meeting. In attendance were representatives from NCDOT, the NCDOT Board, and the City of Greensboro. C. Stakeholder Meeting A Stakeholder meeting was held on September 14, 2006 at the Reedy Fork Community Center. The focus of this meeting was for local businesses and officials to understand the project and provide insight to the project design and address any comments and concerns regarding the project. This meeting was conducted by the Greensboro Urban Metropolitan Planning Organization. Eleven attendees were present and including leaders from NCDOT, City of Greensboro, Proctor and Gamble facility and Wysong facility. In response to the Stakeholder meeting, the City of Greensboro, in cooperation with the Greensboro MPO, formulated a letter (July 2009) to NCDOT disclosing the City's preferred alternative and reasoning for the decision. An additional letter was sent in May 2010 from both the City and the Greensboro MPO requesting sidewalk additions into the designs of R-4707. These letters have been included in Appendix F. Seven public comments were received. The meeting materials and a comment summary are included in Appendix E. D. Public Hearin The Public Hearing is anticipated in the Spring of 2018 after preparation of the State Environmental Assessment (SEA/FONSI). A Public Meeting Map of the LEDPA will be presented to the public and public input will be solicited. Public comments will be taken into consideration as the LEDPA is carried through final design and construction. Page 43 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 E. NEPA/404 Merqer Process The NEPA/Section 404 Merger process is an interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act into the NEPA decision-making process. Federal, State, and regional agencies participated in the R-4707 NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process to streamline the project development process. An initial Merger meeting was held on September 21, 2006 where all members of the Merger team signed a"Section 404/NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Agreement" that had two Concurrence Points, 1) Purpose & Need and Study Area; and 2) Design Options for Detailed Study at this meeting. Copies of the signed concurrence forms for CP 1(Purpose and Need) and CP 2(Alternatives to Carry Forward) are located in Appendix B. A second Merger meeting was held on May 18, 2016 to revisit Concurrence Point 2. The Merger Team recommended Alternative 3— Traditional Diamond be eliminated from further study. The Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) is not an alternative usually studied due to constructability and cost when other viable interchange alternatives are available. Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI) are typically studied as a replacement to SPUIs as they perform better with increased traffic demand and overall offer lower construction costs. Safety is also improved for all modes with the DDI alternative. However, the Merger Team reasoned that there was not enough information at this point to eliminate the SPUI design as an alternative since it has the lowest wetland and stream impacts and was retained as a Detailed Study Alternative. Copies of the signed concurrence forms for CP 2 Revisited (Alternatives to Carry Forward) are located in Appendix B. The Merger meeting also discussed the current poor condition of existing Bridge No. 360, which required the project team to study an interim design, requiring phased construction of the interchange. However, in June 2017, the NCDOT decided to eliminate the interim design and to construct the full interchange at one time. The Merger Team meeting for Concurrence Points 2A (Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review), 3(Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative), and 4A (Avoidance and Minimization) meeting was held November 8, 2017. The Merger Team reviewed the bridging and alignments of the three Detailed Study Alternatives to carry forward into Concurrence Point 3. The Merger Team then discussed the LEDPA and concurred that the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for R-4707. The Merger Team concluded the meeting with Concurrence Point 4A by concurring to use the following avoidance and minimization measures, which were included in the design: • Alternatives involved shifting the modified interchange to the south of existing to avoid impacts to Hardy's Mill Pond. • Alternatives considered a tight ramp alignment to avoid impacts to the earthen dam in the southeast quadrant. • Alternatives considered minimizing stream impacts by daylighting a short segment of the stream in the southeast quadrant. Page 44 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 • Proposed improvements along existing Reedy Fork Parkway avoided impacts to the stream mitigation site at Reedy Creek. • Avoidance and minimization measures were incorporated to avoid an adverse effect to businesses. • The widening portion of the proposed alignment varies between symmetrical widening and widening north or south of the existing roadway, as needed, to minimize impacts to land use and important environmental features. F. Other Aqency Coordination On October 11, 2004, a scoping letter was sent to state and local agencies to solicit comments on the proposed project. Apart from departments within the City of Greensboro and NCDOT, comments were received from the following agencies: • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office; • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission • North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality; and • United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Copies of the agency correspondence letters are included in Appendix F. VII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT / FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project R-4707 as documented in this State Environmental Assessment, as well as comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the NCDOT that the Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternative (DDI) has been recommended as the Preferred Alternative. The DDI will not result in significant impacts to the human and natural environments. The project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts to natural, social, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt any communities. The project has been extensively coordinated with state and local agencies. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required. Page 45 of 45 STIP No R-4707 — SEA/FONSI February 2018 References A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (the "Green Book"), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (TRB), December 2000. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Prepared by Environmental Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987 City of Greensboro, NC. (April 24, 2007). Revised County and Water Sewer Line Agreement. North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2001). Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina. Vol. I& ll. Raleigh, NC: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2012). 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Transportation. "Traffic Noise Abatement Policy", July 2011. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance Manual. August 2011. Room to Roam: Reedy Fork Ranch website. http://www.reedvfork.com, website visited 4.24.08 and 3.27.17. "Procedures forAbatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise'; FHWA Regulation 23 CFR 772. Available URL - http://edocket.access.qpo.gov/2010/2010- 15848.htm Current Federally Approved 2016-2025 NCDOT STIP https://connect.ncdot.qov/projects/planninq/STIPDocuments1/LIVE STIP.pdf, website visited 1.16.17 US Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B08007 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/paqes/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS 15 5YR B08007&prodType=table, website visited 3.17.17 Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) Park and Ride Locations and Regional Transportation Development Plan http://www.partnc.orq/park-ride-locations/ and http://www.partnc.org/rtd�/, websites visited 3.18.17 NC by Train, Piedmont and Carolinian trail schedules http://www.ncbytrain.orq/schedules/default.html, website visited 3.18.17 North Carolina Railroad Company Rail maps, http://www.ncrr.com/nc-rail-map/, website visited 3.18.17 North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management https://www.osbm.nc.qov/demoq/county-projections, website visited 3.18.17 Dun & Bradstreet www.dandb.com, website visited 3.18.17 CGR Products http://www.cqrproducts.com/, website visited 3.20.17 National Park Service — Land and Water Conservation Fund — Section 6(f) property listing http://waso-Iwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm, website visited 3.22.17 NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - VAD http://www.ncadfp.org/Guilford.htm, website visited 3.30.17 The Department of Health and Human Services https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-povert�guidelines-and-federal-register-references, website visited 3.27.17 Citv of Greensboro websites: Greensboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Thoroughfare Plan http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/index.aspx?page=2171 and http://www.greensboro- nc.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5405, websites visited 1.16.17 Greensboro Urban Area BiPed Plan Update, 2015 http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/index.aspx?page=3009 and http://www.qreensboro- nc.aov/modules/showdocument.asax?documentid=31032. websites visited 3.16.17 Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization http://www.qreensboro-nc.qov/index.aspx?page=2144, website visited 3.16.17 Greensboro Watershed Trails Guide, undated http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3194, website visited 3.17.17 City of Greensboro Area Trails and Greenways mapping program http://qreensboro.maps.arcqis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=488027b6723c4515b517 4c818ddd4839, website visited 3.17.17 Greensboro Transit Authority System Map http://www.qreensboro-nc.gov/index.aspx?paqe=2185, website visited 3.17.17 North Carolina Railroad Company Shared Corridor Commuter Rail Capacity Study (2008) http://www.qreensboro-nc.qov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5257, website visited 3.18.17 Guilford Countv websites: Northern Lakes Area Plan, adopted March 2008 http://uploads.myquilford.com/docs/planning/NORTHERN LAKES AREA PLAN MAP.pdf, website visited 3.17.17 Northern Lakes Area Plan Land Use Map, adopted September 2, 2016 http://www.myguilford.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Northern-Lakes-2016a-1.pdf, website visited 3.17.17 Guilford County Comprehensive Plan, adopted September 21, 2006 (Effective October 1, 2006) http://www.myquilford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FinalAdoptedPlan.pdf, website visited 3.17.17 Guilford County Schools http://www.qcsnc.com/pages/qcsnc/Departments/Transportation Services, website visited 3.20.17 Email Communications Black, George. Dixie Sales Company. (personal communication, December 4, 2008). Burris, Mike. CGR Products. (Email communication, March 20, 2017). Haywood, Bob. Martin Marrietta Greensboro District Office. (personal communication, April 24, 2008). Jenkins & Co. (personal communication, April 24, 2008). Holmes, Doug. Gardner Group-Dixie Services. (Email communication, March 20, 2017). Mclntyre, Lydia M.. Greensboro Department of Transportation / Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. (personal communication, March 24, April 21 2008 and March 17, 2017). Merrill, John. Gateway University Research Park. (Email communication, March 20, 2017). Morrisette, Morgan. Morrisette Paper and Packaging Company. (Email communications, April 22, 2008 and March 20, 2017). Pope, Lindy. Reedy Fork Ranch Homeowners Association. (Email communication, March 17, 2017). Pegram, Kevin. KyLinD Services, Inc. (Reedy Fork Ranch Development Company). Email communications March 20, and March 27, 2017). Thomas, Keith. Wysong & Miles. (personal communication, April 21, 2008) Append ix A Figures � �`� �b'�S�> . � �i � '� . f+e . U , : `� <� %gc+ ',' - ��,� � � 'g.' � '�7cY°"�_.� . {___sy '` . � ` � 1 �r �' J Yry , . � �._. : q k �'�' ``� '�'�y�� ..4 � °�Y� � C . * t '�' �A"�4 4. �44 , :'7 .. . K J � � ; Y .' � . � �� : �Y .M1�.,. _ �l� i . . , * p� �g � ��I -:'t ; J �� v' L.f �� ,� � k �s� � , A„ h�4 ` C� . �, • . :�o` �,`�� ',�' z � ��, r � �_ �'�,u f ''"- �'' '-A�-I �` ` , �, y'lb�,'�. �: �%.� i� � ; � � �� i � , '� � : � � v � ; M V ! �j ( . H:C �� . �� t � � � y �� . ' _:' 1 " ,y ',� � Pr � . � . , _ t� � • � i. �.... s �� +`� ` �1 ' �� «�- 4 � , � �, 4<,. , i ' � :. , �' Yy � : 4 { . _ . ; . .,� � � ; �� }�'.t • , �i '. '� ' ' . -+ . � . '�:0 , , , / Y` bF'� I�'f�.� �� - . ^I `�� J F�x�f � T K � . S rF;� � � � ; I Ilri � ; ` , _ M.. �� I fi ��,, . . N/ . . �(� 1��=�� •.1 f ro . . f ` r � r � �r Y�+r.�' �R} � , `_ -. ' � + F .Jr�� ' � � - �Reidsville � � ��a - �� . }., �^� � �� , ;� :�.,�� , � A��yY f� � ��V , �� ... }:_,T . � �.r� � � .., ..� . �, + �. �t��""'"'M�;tr � �•,f �� , 2�� `'�� j � r� Mrt �� .iM t } X �y • � / b sf. �r ,y.��. �L '?rij� �t . 3 ;� I ,r '�a¢,�' �.f�'w�' : r �n � � �5 � , " ��r A:' �;/�� f: f ,ij�' '� _ :.,, d,�, s� � '��> F ��"`��lr ��,� � ,� ,Future ' C � � ' * ` � ♦ q � q ��' �a��A' ,�"r � � �, � Y-, r ; 3 ,��,,: ; Reedy Fork Ranch �f�- d �c��`,� �d,� � �� t � � I� ! _ ^ �_ � � . .� • / Mixed Use Development �`-'` •<c' � !r;� � _�';+�:: � �s d( ' �� ,��`�� f:,y '�i�"j Procter& � �` � r�f�: �&� �� '� i?� � .' � ; � �'v Gamble i ,. r ` ;�, '�3 f , � '� � � Bridge No. 360 �� '�: � , ' , ..;..�. , , ` � -; �_ � L � �� __ � r � �* � �; �� _ ��' r' � � _ _`,'� � � _, I'� -�� ,�� +� �,r�"r d , , � . � � ,�✓ ' i �, ,. �� "� � y ; ,� - � , ; *�,,"� � � ,. ,. �,, s � J�.- ��; , ! � S �.5:z :.i� f A�-r � ( ,`,. �� R� ' �'`. . !.£!�� .�r.. � ��',G,, .ea ,�.:�f ��C�., _ ��``i`',�"L, fi�`,'� ` yi ',�I� � , p ` '� h - � r'' , ti } ' .a�' � s „�-� ? ' y^, � f`.; ��,'�a� �,y�. �� r,5 .. .� �, l-i � . ...,. . .-.• � � ��. r, y • � ^h l�{h� ::i�, � ',� e ' . r+. � �.. .: .. �� `. � . a ' "._ e . �,:, . `� � . " ` ` , �� 7 .� '�° # �, ^ " - . i j I �� a, Reedy Fork h -� q .� .. ' • r . [ .. . ' ai _ � � ,0��. ` -' �l d _ �+�u �• t s n L - 3�� 9 � d� �`, �,�ex. . � 4 ..�d�i� P..�.: ,. � �', r�' � f � � � Ranch ��v� / w ,�. M ,� ,c 3 ' j �� . n �_ / �. , � :, <,� ,; �_:s{F .F . /y�( r . 5 �°"� F'_ "' . ."^6 <� �.fL - � � , . + � � . . �� .� r. � �`�� y �� r ��r`Y ��F e 'tii.-� �.�� P�i�� .'''� i � �, � a i2f ��,�� 1G� `- r '�- ' �• �:�'s ,. , � . �� '°" � �,,i _ "s. y� i'�'��, ., ,d� � �r� ,��,STT`* �1� wiL �� .:TyI.'�� A� .� ��,�� ,i� ,�, �( �:. �h'�i'� �t { . �;,#1s $�' AtR "'k. F ,'�,�Fo ti9�a' � '�4" j .l4 F �:�1V�^t� i.a . `�M � �,�?� �Y 'h' r �..1 � �'a'�_M t'"f ,��1 "x - �� . � i h � � . ��. �.;�� e�j✓'� � ��.� �GY �Q� ,?''� "�c .�+� �. Nb.. �� je�.u7r��s�'�„H = � � r �� YE� ,y!'�',��r � w ^�"'"�,� �.f:�'� iR „� e a�� _�.s. v �', e �� - ``�v hIf _ � :& '4, ."-• `sc44,F �fi „.� S�.VY�'i,F�� . t� g . " , � i; _ ,�^,;y�*id '?hs'nh ;� �d-e � � p � � i �R , �� y` 'i' �.x + f�/ +.'}-'r �� i' �� !1 BOf�I C4�A.�.� �,^�n -1 �.� iy_ . � � ., �� M ~� i�.� ��{. �' �:.i-ird' J ;� ,.. � �4�`.C' � . �'.,p � . _ _ �g.1� V_.. a p �y�qw i . . t .�f- y . � � '� w ��. �'� � r � �' �r� t<tt �i `' ' rt�,� � .� — -- �� $� o -= ti '� �. 7 �.t - i -: �o tl L s('.',ik . � TE�. h ._ � �. . >:.F ---• •. .. �� j 5� x�''-� -7 �r�� r � �� { , � �1 --'",`�t?^ ,�� v . n' `ei '.,a �t_.r5� �,� i Gatewa Universit �sr fp�F, �� °a+ 't�R h ,y ,.tt�p � y��, F�a .:-� � � � ni�Ud S�Lri@}� i '�` ° ,' ,' �i +ef ; r � s Y Y .�, � .i +�. � �: ' �� ,�� r »� �,, y „„u�� t t r, �°; F'" , , , ,:' � S� , f. �� {r� f �P. r "'` �� 1� 4t i i � V.. �' ` �� Research Park ,, •� , , ,�' a'� �, ,,, , ��'' , r�u �• x,� .x;' . � � � � � � .,+ � '�(��'. S 1� i t�� '4;�y r' • �'i . � y � *� � ' ��? ��} � �, c. r ' r''- ^ R �''r'X . '�..� ,,s '�, .� -: �e,''1 �' .,.•v ;: .�� < a �r � ., c r �5 � . �" r � .': .k� : ' �,yi�, ir� � f�,f��J'� i � _ Z�:• . �-� °62 g '.% . ' � �� !�� t". , s. -� < � .�l`� ; i y �;q�` ��:x� .�� i: 7 .� ':' f. _y - � � � �� r � ��" .�"��, , �y � �'�� ¢ �� ' ' r.� �� x . P E ill r• S!' {� r f G ��+tk . � ' �k,'F .i�� I � `� � { ,i`fi�'y, �•, e �r +.:- � ..fs. �i ! � ^ � ' tl �k' � � '' ; ' 1$`�� y " �, � � Downtown . � .rrr � . ' . I *� �,� . T.� .yi, t•� . � �� `�� yF ,' ��r _,.�.. � �� r� a fY . ►� � � � . s� � h r ��i. ti '� ,� ' . �r,:-. . J.�F'-1,+ Y .�-�`�'- , �. Greensboro � � �'��; � j�; �� J �sf -�1E , ,� �u�� e � ,e . . "� .n:-. u : :y � ' x �� ' � �9y.�. D _ ,�,, � t. 4� ��!��, �,'i.�r� y^ r '� ' iP' e �y�7�� - d�a,;� _.. . � ` k r ��' '��' � �� w�� w ,{j�"} i'� .r� - � i.�r.�� c i � � � t �e' S "� �. `-.�, ��. �'� tali . I �� j �� +P+...; J"� -; %'� 7: \ ('�... �s-. �� '1- r ' ,�� .�;' y�; � }�5'�' � �9�'' , ,�, ��u�• � �,�� '� f �+m�, � f�0 ,a i � � ' �� '� .�� :�,�� r !, a V�.'✓� ��.t , �.: .. .. y '., � � 1 Y. +� . � q.� � � ��Y'�� , :�y� �, ' Y ��. �,y �, : `t � � � � �.i,. t � �, _ �, .g...rt�_ . p R i . � b'`° . � � ,� � ' �� a' : a,y °r � �Q * . • �1a� ��,G ,? s :,�y s S -.+fV• , '�W'I n A +��4 � -, ��4 �y�� 't{.,• . Ti;�' %s cv `-.', r�tQ�id�C� �5 . ��,�L� � .,Y� � , ; a��pi:-t'��. • t ['Ta � - (tl� - t , �# "� :. � "4 �1e..: s�, v �,�'DS� I�C�u �.� Ci �. ��cs�FVELD Dr�, ` ��'�'�y , '' �, '"' `r ,{�F r+a0-� ` +C"�,. �R(`r4o,�r,� m `0� GU a� � y , �• Af 4�T�/: - � ,� � � Y 3!�s � . �� _ �'� + � '� �, (, � �t'Y TF2EE 2�' Oi � Y i-i �Ja-' �` . � ' '�E ,�E. r J�� [_ ' t�'sAr�',,�'s�y"} �� ,a;,,i"�R��. � � �h��.ytti�'� - �bg� _ 4 _� f ��e� '.';7.,� .. . 2+^i.° �N 4 �, - , t,1'�1r-. � e.g'� ,�j". t�, . - - . . r^,., � i "1� , _ .. . s ��i. �. t N '�a . .�'�'+ ..�s�. NOR i V i Cti�:JLINA DEPARTMENT OF - RANSPORTATION D�VISION OF i�GHWAYS PROJECT 1��VELOPMENT AND -PdVIRONMFNTAL Ai�!Al'SIS �RANC�I �'��'��"�'� � �'�'��'�'�i�i��, US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Feet � 500 1,000 �,OOt� 3,000 �OCKINGHAM CASWEL .+�. _ _ — — GUILFORD ALAMANC County: GUILFORD Div:7 R-4707 -- WBS #: 36599.1.5 ��3 <, MARCH 2O17 �Ar`",�F �xr.,.,.,"�' Figure #1 �i Rd � EB-5714 U-5851 FY 2022 !- NOR I H CAF�OLONA DEPARTMENT OF ' I�ANSPORTATION i>iVISION OF �-iIGHWAYS PROJECT �;�VELOPMENT AND �.I�iVIRONMENTAL AN�\YSIS l3RA�YCf�I a s�°``� ,,y-.� , Ei :vn� S�iinriiYt -:��"�� 9� � � U-5898 � FY 2020 I C�uroe r v, t ;rl i�' US29/Reedy Fork Pkwy �ui�FORo ��' (Bridge No. 360) , �� : ' R-4707 Study Area B-4758 �� US 29 / REEDY FORK PARV�UV�Y INTERCHANGEIMPROVEMENTS - Feet � %,�� J,��,�� G�,�Q'� _n.. B-5344 � I �,9 � County: GUILFORD Div:7 R-4707 WBS #: 36599.1.5 MARCH 2O17 Figure #1A fi ,.., ..��,t . S ? ,�t..- ,�t+.,�,.�f� >.�. . "`AT.,iI �I -� �: � d� � � � � �-" � �,. ; 3, � _ r �, , ^ �� '?' � � �� Le � �� i�-�� , f < �;: � � �t � :�`,�� ` �. r 8� s{ �� 4��k� � � . �i � y+4 �� , FY � a �� f : =t� iv � � fri � � �'� �Impacted Streams �` ,s�e� �� ; � �`;: f�: � ' , f �. , ;�� - m , s � _ �•� � ` ��' �, � Wetlands � i�= � � �, � � o /,3 '. F � '� _ � r . �;'� � :.� y ,, Streams and Ponds rx � �� t �� ,-- �._ �� • F,�" �� r,,�` ` � ' . $ 1 �, � z � �,�,. � � � .�v �r� t ,- �. �. � - New WET File 10-24-17 y � }` �' A$ '` M; �` '" — — — '� � ' �,�� , �*� � '�`�-�' � ;;�� _ , _ `yl . - � �i'."� �Y �, � . Y2, ' � ��. ''=� S . .:� " . Y . . . _ ^ � l 4 ' ^ �� .:�,_,yy ; : xl C'Pi, f y ��Kr �_r _ I' . ,. .. .. -`' �� I �� °�'� ,��'S,}'��`\ `�``yi�'��:�+.� .X' #; -. �Zy.,r� .,�'1� '4� I � ' � ` - - h ' - ` ' t' '� � `-i- df; l�k � .�� `� ' C . e y t .: } t r� r ��'t �;w,..,� �- e,�.* j ./�1� �" � ;r� "s�� I I �. 1!f')a a$ �� o - �i.� �� .s '°A: � a'� f r?a a� n�a . �' � �� ,��—I �� "..� �j,� � � � f ' . %��# . T . � . y�' . j � �) � � � \,`�r.,, !r-�\�.�?' . � °,� F� , ,� °� �y,t7 . �>:� - ,.� ..f ,1 �, /t { � :Ti. '3e ., . � ,( c $ . . � � �' p..:� �('�,1 n - i � � � � ! �• µ, � 1 �, y,� y� F , �'; ,' i . � °'�,�,� :, ��* �., � � , '' SITE 2 '�C��i'�P �, s,tey,'�' �,�,� , , . ,� � � �;�;�� , � �; ,�r;A .;,; �; , ee �io � $.. � � ,� � � � � �..� �' � � � �� ,��J�' S�� :,'��.,� � � ��(\` r a � � � � ' i' ` ' f . �.,� �S „ � - _ SITE 1 ' �� r ';� � � . � tt,, -. �� q�� S'' � � �f N, �� P ._. sa�� . 1A6 �' �" . y�� ..;+.. '�eb �,..tQ k,. •,r *� ' H �.� � � � �f��;9 ,, F � �:�:. h- � � � -4� � r�r � �� f ,; � � , r �� I. 4 ��4 . �4.; � ��f�VD ��. . t.� { �'� �� t� ��p D�� 'j�'►M�,,�7� p 99'�"�.�.# ,� - � ��i,F_ t-��fi .a, s ''�` . �,.,' , �f+'il �h� � u' �� , �s�. �LJ '�Y�& 9,��'. 'l - r ; F, 't . �n� ��. � '��1� J� 1 E J J '_.,. 7 �y �`.�_"�( , �� _ �: �/ %� � '1� � �-3��5 � � '� '� , f . � �. � �" � i. � ' .� �� ` � , �"* s�. t � •� ��"�yi, i F �� j�°7f f�� x�' d q�� . Ar � 4. ��qy�i "a �� , f� � ,r �,:i �x.l � �.� ��. g�, s, � r T$O��St��;�s� � " � k� r '� �;�• `�i �='°�-�1'� , F � �A ; 3= } 1 f � �.�L� 7 ,� J b � .t: �s . � . • SA`I'R h- 'X y r� tw °'x; i p , 1,� lI/' ., ..� �\ n��(�� ` � � �r � . l`f i � 'V ., k . �q3�H . �� . �� y . FB��.. '� �� ; �� i � a T , � . 1 aa ' � �_ ,_ / � - ��; � � �� 51TE 1A/1B/1C +� * f ��Y K;. i _ . , . . _. , . j.: � r, �{,��'4`�,r,�` �g, r�� i� f� ,� 1' ��„ � ��',� �� ' ,, �r . �::.SC (��i'�e�: �+ '�r 9 s.�__ , �� .. � % ._ �� ` ,�,r � ,-� (� la !� {�, ��y�ib y . !� ` �'�`�(i�A"1� V' ` � t �.�,`f� . I i� � �� `'Jf � r l � f�4�' 'S i'-r � 1�.. ) � f �� ° �� "�V \ � ��6 t'�� '.� ! � V�� ,�, "�°� i � � �. r.� � � w ! �.�' ; � .. � �7�,, / . � q 'f�� , ��y . . ,t I ,3r , �� . �'Cz .. :. ,� f_ �' � � . �� ;�.:. � '' R'a9 F �P 'x� 8F r+` ' � � ,Y � ygg a s,/ „ r"� . �d'�tl�1 WY _.� a '�� i., ,�/^'�+ '�,: �p �{ d .f t,S� '+�R �,�; l dy. F � �✓�%1 }�r _�; � � � �� . t•�� ,Y % jj"� • .4 Y .�� "Nr.{t , '�". x il �r �� [r� �-r ..,/{5 � ri 8: y �+/� ` . I ' �'. . � � � ��.,: pif� � �'J, `PyA �� YI � � r ��f p ��,�k�. � �' , x _ �f� a P J/Y . ��i .i � ; �. Y, ,k7 �+��y�y[ ._ f , ` � � .:,�47,�!` ,u,�A'%"f � � A` � _`.,t - � � .-` 1� � - . � �i' . � �� _ 7 �� 1�.29� �•� I , y ��'Ri , 't�} f�,/.`� ��Y�S..` .x � :v�. (f � �'. CI . ' *d�, + a � 1 i `L D ryi. _" C "�''�, , . !,�',h ��}- � / d� P�.� � � 4 �t : ' y� 4 �i� � ' k$ ,- k �.-4 �e p" � pd�'x"'1 ` " Tl �'�, s5N � a d . A,P� �1Ya" ^�� F��«" , ;, � � . T:}. -� � i` � ' � � �i � . (�: s'� �� r'za, �'��*�. ��*'r� f�t � ^ �' F 1 � � / ' S �f Y _ 7 � �_ .+� f � ..' � � r � � � f .S. .. � � � � JI� t f � _ r rl � y �-`5� / � �e �`r� K �.�fL . �i �� '' a`.«r� � � A. r - � . t� - � � ti t: .; � s ; r . �, C�`� "', 1 r' � r � , r f. �2'`'.. S - 1 � / ,� x � : " w i 8 I � �;,,Y � . , P "� �. �;�*'",, . , � � r i' � �S/4 � � ;`,.,� ` � ' ; d � � � � ,q,-.. � xo � .� k � i - �' { � ,sf, �� , ��`�� P�4 '`� �SE ""�`'' �-.� � � � � � t�f.`'�` y'' = .T .'� /r'x � x' �� ir � :��a i� - `',�' =� ,- y"' " n ,'7�',e ., r+„ `i. , „ � r . ��, , � c � .75...?+a F ,{. t" f � 7.r �4V` g� �� i: i J ' SG �' �� ,,"�d � ic��e- % ��i��.�-ry'i x � � dF �J'� �' .,� k i:.. X � �C }.- .. . R, q r-: - 1 . : ',�� . .. --� . *d .� . .. / ".f el�i�'4L• iti;�;i�. � �:- _L�'�sif:,,-, �EI�ARTMENT 01= i @ANSPORTATION DiVISION OF f iP�GHWAYS PROJECT ��VELOPMENTAND �f��\IIp�ONMFNTAL Af�,dfsr5lS �h�A�JCI�� z .�g+ k �.�. . T: �' _ . : . ' � .' - ":� {1, . . . . ��:.. '3C'V��I✓�V�■ YV��Wd'i� ��SOURCES MA� US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKI/V�:�f INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Feet � S�JC� 1, 000 "N � County: GUILFORD Div:7 R-4707 , ,;a„�� ,� WBS #: 36598.1.5 �-� September 2017 �. ��FN�_ Figure #1 B �rNPti�� ' ;, � . _� �i; i �, �� , � n � + � � � I � il u � H' h: e � O l � _��' (�li'. �7 � ; � >> ' � � �1 � '., ;�r , � r'._.. ._ �i.�i�', � `. •r ...� '� <nJ� a�. r�� +f Ry; + r� ✓ ` ; � �4��r" . � 4 �. � r�� , ' , ' , '� ' !� � ',, �'� ' ' „ � � , .. / ... � � % d �' �` � d Q . �%' '—� . � �5 u-:,;_ �: m SHO _ A :��RNER'SMlrj�RO RTHORN WP� ,. � �� __ ��: . � .. � �w�,e. ,� �:� �� I � �. �, � . � � - SY . n. . . . � � J � ;� . C �` %�� y�i / ��e M`��9a`\o� oCµ E�eea� � IE (�• o . �^:�� _, _ �"' � � ' `•� � '�1" r -1tl �.�... . Gl gUTTEREIECuy _ " . .� 0 .�! �`' .CH RRY§; m2 �� _ DR ' z � -r � �� , �.�TREE DR,A+ y v v : ��. - PQQ ,� .. � , ' r P� �. ' � m APpGETONRp. .J . �w. '1 _ •`� � O, , � � .,Y�. " Q µ- �R tL � . ^C . .� D n.q ar"" .,�,1 i� .S.t..,� ' 4❑ i•. � -�� - l��•'LANDERWO� -''�'8�'� ('�,,'S'�r?, . r"�� a ., �. , „ � ,�„ . ..� . I '� �e�' - rr-� '1� � ^ �i_ r ��"r�, ti ,: � � '' �'�' r �� 1"�%M � �"I�' ,�, �7;,,;,,•� ' 1 i , '��4 �E � r - �., -� � rt'� , _I .. �.Q . � . 1_ � � � _ i �;��r i � � �;,�Ro�oN� DEPARTMENT OF T��ANSPORTATION DIVISION OF I�YIGHWAYS PROJECT I��VELOPMENTAND ENVIB�ONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCf-i O . p �. P 'O�. �iNG rn i , •e0 -��. � . .,' L) iia�� '�' , iz� . . ... � r i� . - �,�<pFR :, y ,�' aa �� ,� ��L � .:� ' ,- _� , _' . � . ,,, w . • , , _ , Gsy , oRK pK�� , �'r u. � �,� F � ,,,. (� ; ��' � � �,�a . SL) `; � . �� / � . `.��,�,+ /� �.T `�.� i . . � d �!' �t�� I �ri� . �- A�n � �. t � �ii� �� SD (E�st) � � � ..r'� 4-': �� " . !., �il!�L r , l e ._ sr . -.�� : +�cfya. �`.� �.., �� . ♦ ,�.. A:' 1 �` � _ y � i �� ,�`�,�f ., :. SR' � � ' � �t'+�� A�T;/�jWl'� �-.'�� 'Y I � t { a 4 �,� ' N�1'! SA M 4,'��y �h' ��I � � i i ��'�b f 'i�.. . � ' ,�£� p ' 6 G � � ��y� ("� , �' �p �S� ��25f� '1��; ,� / � ^ � .y� , F� ) �� I.`_, ,. � . .. +�! � - .� / ;-�'� . , .. . � . � ' ..5� �: � �C� '. � � , • . .- � L � � x � .S:i . . . r%i �. 'ki " Y�. � w . . , - � , . � + � ,�f r �a'' �'' i i �P r . , �i � i .. I . . i ,PEr" �i.��. ' �'��t �,��/Y�,i '� �� , J ��,' 'C a : 'o � . , � �F � �4 �� i 9� .r �� •;. SK� � x�' � �a�� r ,� r� � , h . r t - , y ; � � � , .� ,1��. .,� � � ��, ,� � ��;1� S8, ; �' . � � � ,��`� i , � . . �s .�+1ti � ,} yfi �E ' � - a �!' d y� 4� �� ; �,;.� � � 5F �'� � � ��f' , (�'i � �. � r' � � � • � � '�l} ' SA ' . f'�.�� 7 r� , �'� SN-,- . . �� ..� _,`1 SI . ,1�. a . � � . . ��" � � r'q.'-'� 'i� . ! � r- tF _ . �« 1'�� ,� .� , .�c�� '` k � ,�' �� SF' � .� �SE Impacted Streams �'�'�Y1�F �~`} 4 � . .. x �. �' _ +�, '� .. � Wetlands �� s�, ,y a ' :' a#�,. - i � _ �'h� 'r — sioue scake 7 f ' '�� . ,d -, '� j�� A Alternetive �i' �`�II � � � :. 1 !£�i {. � r � ��;�7c � ° a�PA �` 5i� — t�eamsandPonds �� i . i a+,� � :�y '�'-'� , nt . . '[ '�^� r .r:; a. ...� q� � sn � �� ' ,� r.-^�w. 6 �a��4�'Y'�I��L �Ld��iV W ��c��`�►�'�f Y�'� W �i'�'�.sY-1��di= ��=''�W�' County:GUILFORD ALTERNATIVE 1 0;� , R-47o, US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKWAY WBS#: 36599.1.5 � INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS °`��F ``" . OCTOBER 2017 Feet � 0 5001,000 2;000 3,000 ,.�,, Fig��e#z . � I � �45�•, 'Ip=,'�1 . . . , � �� I wr / Alternative .� N ��;�,, ,,, . „� Streams and Wetlands � ! � .- "' c� •..+u , , , �y �; >�,.3� Study Area �j � °��, � � -, r, '� x _ ( �. � � ' " �A%. l-YI�* � . . -. - ^�� F �� p� �':ti�� :` � . �� k�r�, .ui,A,p� k — — „� n! t ' l �� . _ � Reedy Fork Mitigation •� .�,f , f � , . . . . . . . `' � � . C'. - � .. \,�"�� r,' *, , - I _ �. , �� i; .. �.-.'1, C 'i.�.�„ �' �c.�rd� , �'� ' f : � � " Y ,, , n �ys-�! r1•+a``� F ± ,� ` L � '� /� . / �� p� �� ` .. �`. ��... . L _ 1 . � � (, ��'' i �.� � S'�,. � �.-r_ � � '� : , . -' I e . / ,� , %� � � �a.��`,�- C�, ^., � � . !r . �. . i� Jr � � �/, f .�tie � i p `,�� 7'-:� t , ,� ;';, . � I � � , ' � .o-', ��i� ,� ot� S 1� ' • "0�..�/NG . m �r � aA1 i I p �� .. i �r .. }�a� r �` a<� eo, � �• ., �� k' �: � �. �- � i � !�►� � _n�t,\�J , .,,�-�.t � � �, yl_T ^,i . , �-��ii- . �� . . , � .v'_s,'y�'s.+ �- , � o� � �t- � p �'. CL �EP 1,, '"� -' a a r'" .� �1's,, � � P�1 1''a t� p i.- r - r�� "'.'+�� cJ�MM�1 � ;t `' � �BG j, , i'W `� � ',,„ r "' ��' ' �, ' _� � ' ��,�\ s,y n �OR�,P�``�N r,"�� s �s� � _� �, + , , ��d �. �(.. x = 1 ' f �` 4 �r i R M �`t� �-CL�� 5.�! �'�' � ��•• Y �G-` v�° ": .. O _ < r pQ- cy/j `YY ir: �' � F':�,"."°+`+.�t � � - ,;,)`�� . . A`iA � � _ I . . � � �.. � «� � ' � �/ � �' ��1� T{ / � . . � � ry� ..� � 'y' / / � r. •' �.�, ! I J .' , Sd .�� ,� ,�,/ .�. �� _� , �;;� � L �r � �'� ° �J -�1h1�� ,� n.. �� ., . - � +� � � � .�a,� � � ` . � -`' � ..ro. ,,d ,��'�� ., , �_ �t�`ai � f � t �,, �� SD (East) \ \ "�� \ , , , z� �r -� f [ F ' i � n � ,�. 'ka SR7� f� p i . y :_da � ' �� J ty, s'�' �+`- � � SA ! �'. � .y � a A^� 3' ,yr� � ,, W4.� -„ --� ..� � � � ,. . � . � �: _ � � � _ �° GSD:(Wes) (� �jr ° / Inllppi�;�e�['� �� . ��. e, r � y�,�� ,� '�1 Y, '� de" 5 f J 1 J ' ��'i�� i b�WF1f�l�'�^r'yat'y��rg j� ��U6J ��' 7 � ��Y �� '` i+'p i'r 1, K�SO '� �J+ `�Y�'� x � SA '�w� : •�i�dll'� .,�,�l� W] ��.: } T e a� ..h � `' � ��/it�� ..�: �7 > til � � ° �� '�'fo rx;� '`..4� f�� i� f..� �e . r. . • -�. 1 � h.r r J Y + i Y:-' j �� i�` �/ r� r i ;[', . ,,a �.�F^ 1Z � �'� pe�a a,w9++ "�._ r , � w � �` . M� � . J � � � � � � �7 J ° ,�f . '��, y - �, l >a- �,-_ G� � BUTTERFIEL'D:, F�� y ' � � '+ , Y'�;._ _ ��r.� � s'� � �+�"t` ': SP .. ��I;r� �t•�', f .rI f � � ��-.'i; . � m�. S�i � � pR. � � �. �k -'hr �x !. '� N � . ,� . . , . , � � � i • a„ z / R ,.�, Z- ` � ,"` �� :�> • PEi ;� % � i ,CHERRY ; tn � �"" J � � ? � x i ' � � i �,� }� , r ,� • ��' ,ry;�?.��,"TREE�R��.�"� a� �v; S� ��'''' r � " , ti � �4PBt �, � � 1 '� ��, a�, �'l�, �"�i �;, ..,�. � , -o �,. � ^e± ,., QQ��t �t �' � ,� .r � ' d r„ � � .. � , '� P �. . � �, ` . `, rf d � ;. -:.h� � �. "�� :,.,�w u �:�� . m t,� "CRP� ; ��• 3.:�:�. SK � � ,� � d�b � +1�. d ,i� � . � �' �. L +c � "� j, APPLETO/V R ' �� r�c '�f �I� '}..� � r 'F � • Z.`�af- •f,,..�-'�r;.f,,.. �._ D" nll. � .� -�# e �(�- •., "SB . . Q - �a ' . � �il��'�i7",� `Z, � J ' � �� '�L (n � ��. : � i� �1t � ��i� � • . . ^ . .. R . � .�,� }'� � i� . - a..�y ¢ T-li y��„ -� ^�, `• �� ;�- .sY=! � �4 ��''I�vr_€.(r� ;�� ' �, ! ,��ti,. f � '�t g �o rY" . c� S+ . ,f o. �� SA `;�� .rf�� ..i ��l..LANDERW�� f ' �?= R'gL ry��, ' � ti,��j, �1,� �r' ' f� � r�y ��yJI �` « � � �, t l� � �� `� K ��`' ��q .,a. � •� ��y � - � Sl �� i ' '�'F� ' SN,,, ,. . _ � <'� �r '?..- � �•�L. _ 1 �� : . i Y-�""'.r�• i� J`. � � .. � � ;,11 ,� ^� � �� ' T ;. R � �e;�s , . i Aj0 ' ��. #��f � r�0�� 1 `` •, f_ � ' . / ' "\ s�%. � SE - Slope Stalce . �i+ 1��+ l�'^ �r� �, �� ,.�� , � � 1 ,%.ei. �� f C' S� "'� `� � Alternative ..d.Q�, �,�. �,•- � .� "?v'�: � �~ � � . ��`� Q�� /t/C� J� �`� � � . fi `� W'f- � Yr� � . Impacted Streams r�� -'�� ,�4 � �, ` . -.�g� � g�., ' �,� �� a e,: . s.(y n/, 7,� t� �.' S d' PQ ��•., - Streams and Ponds 7) !` �; 1i «P,�C*w�+!�(A '%. Zi'�b,� _ �� ,�'.' . � d.. .S� ' ''� " � .�� A �� v' � a'�"' � Wetlands ., . �'�. ��: �, � ��'� :/ StudyAre . � �� i ' ,.. . � . . � . .�� . '�� ..�;Z:YfsaVVf��;�� . ' . . �f.� �1oi ; i i-; c�,�-;��i�a DEPARTMENT OF TE�ANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND �NVSRONMENTAL A�lAYS1S BRANCH � ��W�v� uuV�r��iu4�+Vl� W��Y`i`I�i�C;:HANGE (uI�W� I County GUILFORD ALTERNATIVE 1 REVISED o��: � R-4�o� US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKWAY ,,,�o.,,. wBs #: sssss.�.s INTERCHANGEIMPROVEMENTS OCTOBER 2017 Q Feet °� f 0 500 1.�J�; 2 L�(10 3 J00 4.000 � Figure #3 � ��C�� Streams and Wetlands `'� � ��'� -'�.� � �� a � A Slope Stake ' y� � � � �'� f•'�! . , ,� � t� , � . : ' �'r' ` „�� Alternative � �y � �, ��' r �„� �� ` +' ' � �F � Reedy Fork Mitigation � . , i�'f � t; � , N� + vRi =�' SIVi/' � � � • � �n y}•. F, ,-. ' � ��,� �. �� `�� H � • ..'`'� : Study Area ,�:.. ,,, '� � �. �; r"s ` � , ��T , 6,, t� �;,' r �;��;�'�hy:��,}10� ;:� �`_'. � µ ' �, a_ ,, , �"� � �,, , r � , ,. . � � i , ,: r -- � � I a �• � ,��,- �• • • '�.' 'S ri s, fi i` � p' f 1_y� � 1 ' 6 r e r .�a . ' �y�� yC9� �, ,��: � - . .� . E , �y �_ , �,�t� �\C 'd ,Y)O_' ..._ GJO �. ��:,, �r . :'d +'w"�; � ,i l� � ��,� � a'��t` �;�.� � . Lq� �/NG � ,�ryu. �1y ty��''. . ..� i � rr � � � ; � ; "^' „ •�ti�0 � 6 � . r , ,�t.:> ' ` 0 _�p ` � � � r:. :. � � � - ` ,. . - : � \ � � S � � �� Cr � _ i�4 �ct `rF�� ! ,,., � - � i� • � , . ,j ~ •� �O p �O� ;-� C`, FR �' 'g'� .,,' aN � r".V . _Y. , , /��P ed .r ,p�� , � ^'� � - r .�, �� - ��jy T , y Ft,e � (G `"� ��N'( c� _", s. � j... �. ' � h `� , �'•y-'t' FpR`( P . r x'T`ef �,", ��i� � . � � � +. '�1��p4..»' .�. � : • ' C _ '- - :� � �, , r �', �J ` � � � � �� "� I ,� � '�� ' - •� ��l+� f �:' °w � ,,i' SD- � �� / � � ., � - �, , X r � r�� .. ai` � I .w b�°!'� J .0 �• � ' � - � '� �11 � � `% �� '(��i � __- .. . �j e ti �-1 ` - (� . . � J, � ��^" � �t .:� SD (East) `�� • �� ,�/r} �, - 's ` � � � A f : `. , / �—� r * � � - , " "I r�_/�%''� �1 " '� " �y`�' '�^ ��, . i, SR \ ;� �";��(!' � .� . ;� ` y ' i SA . . . .1 _ I .•I' . F. _- - __"' . . s '� . . . . f� - n,. F, . ,. ._,� � - . . . . � ��,,� _ S.. - a` . � � � _ .. � �-� . , :�.,� `��: �� I- . ":�� - � ✓ - _ O , . �'' , ",1Cnifsp (Vyest) %' ° �� rt , - --� a�, '�' _;�_ �+' ��P�Ad�t' �•ah��,� r";a / � � '� �' , . � y� r �s�s �� dV0 � SO � �,r s�. Ir• � � pp _ ' R! } i� >� � � � ' ; �'� �� n � SA �� •'� :''� t �'.C, ��1- a�_3 � � 3 • �I�.�a4 . � � �' Y �t i1�� . tH., ��(av, . '^' .bY'3r��1�.� f r � � r.', , . �� ..,. . ��.. � l � T " y YA1�Ssa Y,� �•.. F � a (k Yr pi .�� . ..f � '� � � I ,�,J � _ i � y ..°,� a�- - i� i �a� 51 i� � � 1 ' n.e �, SP rsl ' t ,_ A UT�7ERFIELO; �i',. I. d' a �_ ( 2 a ��S ,z,�, y_,,, - a7 .. '� � � � ,. 5 , C.),61I,+ B �. �t� � u n � � � � a z "� _�." .� �r �'. � e..�i� ,F % �s. � ��;�arp�, � !� F� ��DR �`Z- . �r �`�.: j�� N� } pE � q� ��r�� - �� .�j;,, CHERRYt � t {�¢ �-�`�` �d'! �;,'��,h,�� i t ` �51,�.,� : '� Y a`��,_'�"��TREE�DRp��Zi� ��oA�^' vf:��, S° . "' " 'Li � , � �.�T. � .�?� .. , � ., r5 �� .A�-'r,� '7�r � ' ,ti' ' Q �. . a � ` , a u� . ��e - ° r �� _ 'l�'� F � O YiiM " : i'`:i;e�}:?e � 'r0 l� C� Pi�a " SK � jhi ��.�/�11 '��i�. . F �:` � r rri :�� . � . ,..:� .-,.. � 's.c � r m YAPPL`ETON . �T� �'.Pr � y � ' m. � .i,� , '� � ' f� ��i�¢<� r: d„ti , RD �~ n+ �, -, i. l . ,�y o. �f SB �, r O �` � � � �+ �a S � 'v :. � ��' � �f � ! �: , '� �y�. � .. ' � �'J n � Q -_f �, �_ � ti�� ,.�-? .+�N.D:I ..� � t,�� ,��. y� I no � �., . i, r,Ae- � �' ?y,� 1 �'.d,r,y , < ^ =°❑ ''� y '�<c r'!#`� `, +dl `:'1' �` � Y,. �, ?�« = ?!� � .y�"�� ' •," � ,� �] LANDERWO� "�• s}r �i'e '� e y� �' �'i�! �. SA_ . �� !w, �' , a � ,� , ' � � j w. � .V,j �11. ,� � . � ' + , . _ g,y• . .-: . . � . '� �,�.y " �� ` + !'� � �� fr !°' 'F ,�" ' ': ��K: , SPV,_r � �Y'�%y�'�`".�-'i ,.aT Qq� •� ��.,.` l, rr S/�, �; 'i. f = � . �, . �� .. . � .\ �}�.k-=a ' r" �i., _;a 7 � y«+, #. t . � . _ . 4�� 7 1 �t/�� :. '��_' �v :.'C II�r �� /,7 "�..�,e�,e-� �:�� F , ,"':, �. �� "� � !� Q - . � ♦ � �� p; �y� � � � �� E. ImpacTed Streams uzi 9 � _,�y . . � , SF � ,0 .` J� � a . —T�' . ry1.. Y . � � . �-,,,,� .Y%.�, e� °: — Streams and Ponds G� _�J) �, '� � t � �I � � . �' �.'..��; � � . � i�,�„ � '� �� : �� p� �—wenaods �' A� 4 �'� ,c.. 1►� � 7� Z,�Z�� :�• ��3 �� •� . .�� :w � �x� f�.� —SlopeStake �� _,. z �„ '� � , a,PA :��Rf�,; aicemacive a`� . �T�Q �'�� y ;`S. �� Study A ea a I A i' r'^1 r,x'� o ��_� i � i C,�r:��iv,�, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND � ENVIRONMENTAL AfVAYSIS BRANCH ��r� W u��L �L�V`tll��a� ALTERNATIVE 2 US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Feet 0 5001, 000 2, 000 3, 000 County: GUILFORD I Div:7 R-4707 ti oE p�OaTN q o WB S#: 36599.1.5 ., N� �9• � OCTOBER 2017 _ .r ; — � Figure #4 � G/7 VARIABLf SLOPE � RESURFACE I RESURFACE Ex�E� 30.0� aELvav Ex�E� � n,a wrrH GuaRORaL /41i 2D' r2A' �5D' I �5A' i2A' i2A' i2D' i5A' 6A' roD' , '� --!-- � I I� --f -- } FOPS OR16/NAL TYPICAL SECTION l U —L — � 1 rh'IGAL StGI lUN "L �— K KWAY —Y— y � h h T T 72 A2 D2 02 02 � A2 GRADE � CONCRETE - �u2n.vt.n TYPICAL SECTlON 3 REEDY FORK PARKWAY IBRIDGE TYPICAL SECTlON1 —Y— uc IRIGINAI. �ROUND Oli GR RESf/RF E EX�E� 2D'�'� /2t � I W �,�,,�� SLOPE TYPICAL SECTION l U —L — RESURF E EX�IST�� 2A' _� /21J � I � • l7�' WITH G(/ARORAIL 1 rF'IGAL SECI lON Z 1��Y— %i MEOIAIJ i II8A0' 51Y �2fY 121Y _ �2A' _.5.0'.. 6.1Y � 6.1Y 5A' l2A' �2.0' I2.0' �2LY 6.L -- 4!K � � 4/K � � � � PEDESTRIAN J, � � � �ALKWAY , `_ � .02 A2 D2 02��I � p2 D2 D2 A2 A2 TYPICAL SECTION 3 REEDY FORK PARKWAY (BRlDGE TYPICAL SECTIONI —Y— uc �/GINAL ;Rp/ND OR GR �,�,�� SLOPf � RESURFACE I RESURFACE EXISTING 30A' AIEDIAN EXISTING , n.o� wrrr+ cuaRaRat [ANES I- i I LANES ien + I__±__ I�', I ��I __T_ I r TYPICAL SECTION l_ U -L - 1 rh'lG'AL St C: l/UN "L �� K KWAY -Y- � � 4 4 T T A_2 A? '�2 �2 $2 A2 6RAOE CONCRETE I AU( TYPICAL SECTION 3 REEDY FORK PARKWAY fBRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONJ -Y- �L �R/GINAL ROUND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF - RANSPORTATION D�VISION OF i�GHWAYS PROJECT 1��VELOPMENT AND -PdVIRONMFNTAL Ai�!Al'SIS �RANC�I ��C�� i�►��►�� ►�� US 29 / REEDY FORK PARKWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Feet � �� 1,000 2,00� 3,000 -: County: GUILFORD Div:7 R-4707 WBS #: 36599.1.5 MARCH 2O17 Figure #8 Append ix B N EPA 404 Merger Forms R-4707: Environmental Assessment of SR 2970 (Reedy Fork Parkway)/US 29 Interchange Reconstruction Section 404/NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Agreement Concurrence Point 1: Purpose & Need and Study Area TIP Project No. R-4707 WBS No. 3.6599.7.1 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), through the City of Greensboro's Department of Transportation (GDOT), proposes to reconstruct and improve the SR 2970(Reedy Fork Parkway)/US 29 interchange with improvements to SR 2526 (Summit Avenue) from SR 2641 (Bryan Park Road) to the interchange. Purpose & Need and Study Area: The Merger Process Team met on September 21, 2006 to discuss the Purpose & Need and Study Area for the proposed project. Based on the project information presented, the Team concurs with the Purpose & Need and Study Area of the project as follows: The Study Area extends approximately 5,000 feet north of the existing interchange along US 29 and approximately 3,000 feei south along US 29, SR 2641 (Bryan Park Road) and SR 2525 (Summit Avenue). The Study Area also extends approximately 3,000 feet south east along SF 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway). The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the structurally deficient bridge over US 29, improve the interchange to meet interstate standards and accommodate future traffic volumes generated from the Reedy Fork Ranch Mixed Use Development. USACE NCDOT �� USE�� ` USFWS FHWA �� ✓� NCDWQ NCW RC� �/�" NCDCR r �I MPO ,��✓ "'/ � �:,� , � ' ' R-4707: Environmental Assessment of SR 2970 (Reedy Fork Parkway)/US 29 Interchange Reconstruction Section 404/NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Agreement Concurrence Point 2: Design Options for Detailed Study TIP Project No. R-4707 WBS No. 3.6599.1.1 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), through the City of Greensboro's Department of Transportation (GDOT), proposes to reconstruct and improve the SR 2970(Reedy Fork Parkway)/US 29 interchange with improvements to SR 2526 (Summit Avenue) from SR 2641 (Bryan Park Road) to the interchange. Design Options for Detailed Study: The Merger Process Team met on September 21, 2006 to discuss the Design Options for Detailed Study for the proposed project. Based on the project information presented, the Team concurs with the following Design Options for Detailed Study. • "No-Build": No improvements are made. • Altemative 1(SPUII: All left tums are handled at one signalized intersection and all right movements are free-flow. • Alternative 2(Partial Cloverleafl: All ramp movements are located on the southside of the interchange. • Alternative 3(Traditional Diamond): Includes two distinct intersections with free flow right turning movements on to ramps. USACE US i�:u�ia �-.� j' NCDOT '�� L�I.�ni[.y NCDWQ NCWRC � ��" NCDCR L' / MPO � v ��-� l �, /,uC'�"- ,.��, Section 4D41NEPA �nterag�ncy iV�erge�' Prac�ss Agreement Concurrenee Point Nur�ber 2 Revisiked �esign bptions for IDetaileci Study WBS Na.: 36599.1.3 S71P Project: R-4707 Co�inty: Guiffarei F'rajeet iVame/Descri�atioi7: N-n707; SR 447fl {Reedy Fork i'arkway}/US 29 Interchai��e In�pravements The Project Tear� has concurred an tt�is date of May 18, 201�fi that all checked alternati�es wi�f be carried forwarci ta be studied in detai� for 5T1� Project R-a7Di. (� No BuifdAlt�ernative–�fo irliproverY�enks are ma�e, �} �crrld Alternc�[ive 1 Single Por.�t Urbn�a lr�tercftairge (SF'UIJ – The SPUI interebtange ��as left turns at o' �a si�nalized interseetion an� right rnoven�ents �re #ree flow {Fi�ure Zj. � E�uild Afternative t Revrs�ci; DlvPrging Dramond lntereharrye (fJDlJ – The divergirig diarn�nd iruterch�nge where two directions of traffPc from US 29 cross to �he o�posite side on both sides of tMe �aricfge at the interchange. (Figur� 3j. `�p Build Alterr�ative 2: nartia! Claverlea,f !n[erchanc�e – The partial daverleaf incfudes a ramp in the �o soutf�east and southwest quadrants tFigure �lj. (} 8uildAlterrrative 3: TraditionalL�ramondJntercf�ange–The traditionaldiamon�i incluc�es a ramp ir� �II faurquadrants with futuce loops at two quadrant (Figure 5). us�c��'��%�� IV��O USFW <, � • iVCC3WR !�" �` /_ i'�r— --- DocuSigne� � �,r,.�, �e�.�,-�.�,e�.��, SFiPO �as��s�sAz�a�� : �--� �'� �J GUAMP() /' � , � � -__� � __- � f - USEPA � � � L� i� ��✓�C FHWA 6 .e_L � ��.-�� -'� DocuSigned by: T�a.��'s W�Csuti NCINRC �,�s€,r�se�aaEnas Me�g�r Con�trrrence Pai��d 2 Revrsitec! STIPProjectR-47�7 J'�ge �a �,}�y �,�_ �di� Sec�ion 404fNEPA Intecager�cy NVe�rger Process Agiree�nen� Concurrence �oin� �lumber 2A Bridging Decisions and Alignment R�view U11�S �lo.: 3�6599.1.5 STIP �'rQj€ct: R-4707 Go�mty: Guilford Project Name/Qescriptian: R-47fl7: SR 4471 {Reedy Fork Parkway}/US 29 Interchange Ir7��rover��ents The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and a6ignr�ents of the thr�e �etaifed Stuciy Alternatives and ��reed to carry forward into Concurr�nce Paint 3. �he table below shows the begi�nning and end stations and assac4ated roadway/�ydraulic structure lengths associated w�th each alternative. PRELIMI�VARY HYDRAULVC RECQMMENDATIaiVS FQR MAJOR CROSSOi�GS Nexv A�INIMCIMI i tength af EXISTING � Cwlvert or Structurej ECOMMENDE� ��E ALT ID R�UTE S7ATIQN �TREAM Extensicsn 5T�iUCTUR� ��ULiURE ' Exlension Notes �ur��a� �an�n� f« r�lumber, Size, f+fumber, Size, ' Structure 7ype Stwucture Type � - - - F .�y� Fn•� . �� atr-nr! ��SrtnP 1 I_� 1'I i��)+-- � , �. 3�RfCic: 3-2. �' �t'_'�i � � ir�b.'�� _' "'" . _. . c �i �r.��.;.�. I. ::�len ir::d�,vall f+ 'ci•, f:. F, r,i��i:, �. i[i ,� iing 1 ,. I_�S 19 � _.. L .. LxGcr:lt�ui sl�:�f ��...' f�_13C 31u�.. .,,' RCLYC �7:!.3 . rF�l�rr,. r;� b •�h�.:�hraall � US-;�1 -r��,2��1.- H` ;�,rFcrF F:rr�r:u��ii ��i R'frG.f -5t_'�� ,:�.'RCRI � -.,-,V N t--nart i-�lix.t�r� % Y j : � .1Luit�;ltl b�= "hi�.iilv1�111 R:�.. �.� Fri-k ]a 1 tiR2�2f-, ��.1,57 �a �� , P&r��U l��l'• 3,�>��=y R�GC I spi L�.�ry�cuEvcrr P3r::��:��_dHr�advra'I ]�' � -�'1.`._'_� .�,Ii-Dp.y R�r. ,'„� fV�i�u f._;�.�. .i(�>I�.:.i hC� � ?.'�'1 l•.��rVrtula�!. t.F�.��.��.r�lHi.}u,;:il Nr��d+r 1 �� a�; , I lt: SFEV' ,., . a4rqil-'r- P,:.,. ,,jP� .:�RCRC I �a�.:' _-�•�rulvar.F��v�1=dH�.adtx�all� T'io. 3 Re�;fy Io-k K.�4aic�,;nd;l�;�n i�.�l �axislin�, Z 1, ;(�E'J, 2 SR4;71 2fi+93 -1"2- � ExGensinn ,��v7'�8 RC[�C 3i:ti�i'xS'R�:�1C p !riL'. - iuiv��r[ U7to Ree:�y Retain id-�el ex;enil �wistir; : 1.1HEV.1 Sli+llll �7'6��-Y' Ln:ci,=i�n ��i�ti�'x8'HCk!'C di'��xK'12CFS4 1`J F�,�� rulvvrt �b'�S�L NGDOT USFWS � ��//% � �/ ��,� ,•'..�'f'� v-' i`��a�' �r"�I �} � � , ��` NCDWR �� 1_�y ., �� l�(_ Y_: ='�� DocuSigned by: �f��o R�, �e�.�.��,-e,u,�,�`� �� ,� / G�JAM�'O USEPA FHWA �lot Re ui��ci DocuSigned by: NCWRC �� o-ss� Merc�er Conecrrrence �oir�t 2A, 3, & 4A S7�IP Projecf �-4707 f�ag� 23 Novernber� 8, 2017 Sectian 4041N�PA Interagency Merger i�rocess Agreement Concurrence Point Number 3 LEDPA WBS No.: 36599.1.5 S7lP Praject: R-4707 Couniy: Guilford �'roject Name/Descriptioi�: R-n707: SR 4471 (Reecly Fork Rarkway)JU5 29 Interc��ange lmprovemei�ts �i�l7e Merger Team i�as concurred an this date of Navember 8, 2017 that the circled alterr�ative is the Least Enviranmentally Damaging Practi�able AI#ernative for STlP Project R-47�7: • Alternative 1 Sin le Poin[ Urban Interchan e SPUI �Alkemative 1 Revised Diver in Dian7ond Interthar� e DDI • Afternative 2 Parkial Go�erleaf NCDC}T USFWS �-�oc�Sic�ned by: `t� � j 1 �$ � �� .' . ., � �: " . .. _ tF . -�-�'�(SYg11etl by: .��, {�e�,.�, NCDW�OnwSigned 6y. ` 't" "-` �rrl,�V .._�,�, :�.,�,-:�,�..�<,�, DocuSigned by: sr�� . GUAMPO �� -�-4Ay--. �..:x �_ FHWA Nof Reauired UocuSiyned Ly: �� Jfi �ILSOA NCWRC . .t,-.,�.......; :.s�.�.0 Merger Concurrence Poi��t 2A, 3, & 4A STlP project R-4707 Page 24 Noverr�ber 8, 2017 Secti�i� 4041N�PA Intcragericy Merc�er Proc�ss Agreemeilt Cortcurrence �oisit Numk�er 4�1 Avoidance ar�c� Mi��irnization Measures 1NE3S f�o.: 3�59�.1.5 5711' Projeci: R-�+707 Go�rnty� Guiltord I'rojeci Nar��e/Uescription: �t-47�7: SR �1�1"l:l {fteec�y Fork I'arkw�ay)/US 7_9 Inlerch�n�� I�r��ravem�nts The Projeck Tearn ��s concurred on khis ciate t� �ase ti�e fall�wing ia�easures to minir>>ize or avoitl iri�pacts. Tl�e ty��ical section v�r-ies alon� the �ar�ject curridor, �r�d was sel�cted so that the ��roject 4vould meet the purF3os� anci neecl oF the pr�ojecf wi[f7 tl�e minir��al fo�,t{�ri�7t feasible. Ir�� addition, tl7e fc�ll�rwir�g avc�id��r�ee ar�d minimizatic�n r��e��sur�s were �r7cl��ied in the design: • I�Pterr�atives inv�fvecl st�ifting the rl�odified interct�in�e to the s�utf3 of exostin� to avnid imF�acts ko Fi�rdy's Mill Po�7d. • Alternatives cor�sidcred � ti�ht r�m� aliga�rt�en� ka avoicl im��ac�s tc� ihe earthen tlam is� the southE��st quadrant. • Altemativ�es considered €�in[mizir�g stream impacts k�y day�ig}�ting a short segi�ent of the strea�T� in tlie souifieast q��drint. • Proposed iriipraveri�erits along existin� Reecf}r Fo��k Parktivay avoid�d irnF�acts to the strear7� r7iiti�ation site at Reedy Cre� k, • Avaidance ar�d rninan�iz��tion �aieasures were incor��orated to av�ici �n adverse efFect io �usinesses. * The wici�nin� portioma �f che prnE�osed adignment varies b�ttiveen syir�r7�etrical wiciening ancl �v�cleni�� nortl� or s�outh of the �exi�stir�g roadw�y, �as r7eed��1, to n�inirY�ite irnpac�s to iand us� ancf irnpc�rtank enviror�rt�ental features. i.]pr,uSi[l��cU kiY. / .- �1SAC� ' " ;� i ni n u n� u ��':,�`.��. N�f�OT i si - u,,,.� s� � �..,,; ;,�. : i'� ��,,��, � r.�.a,n , USFW � �__�---�--,:—>---,_ i,�,,.,,.;�,��,:,i i,r NCDWR� ' "l�"""' ��' � -.�. �-,-�, , _ USEPA , � �� r� ��.��,,�� :.- - - -'" - ��'' ° '� �y- ' �'J�-�-�� ..>_ �� . �. Not Re�uired --U��cuti¢pned Uy: ��.� �i � �nii LSaS NCWRC� -��...N��;�:: ,�.,, DocuSigned by: P� .�P�.d�„�.Q,Q,-�u.�,P�,��' .� ...�- -- .� -- - �� , Mer�er C�r7c�rr�eiace Poi��f 2A, 3, &�SA - STlP f'rojecf fi 4707 �'ayc �5 N�avcai�7bet� Fi, 2017 Append ix C Bridge Inspection Report Summary oF NOHiH � NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTENTION: PRIORITY MAINT; SPANS REVISED; DATA AND A y°'�� 9�9 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SKETCHES REVISED o = STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT UNIT m o 99� QhQ ��yr OF jRpNS�o Structure Safety Report Routine Element Inspection - Contract COUNTY: GUILFORD STRUCTURE NUMBER: 400360 FREQUENCY: 24 MONTHS FACILITY CARRIED: SR4771 MILE POST: LOCATION: 0.1 MI. S. JCT. SR 2526 FEATUREINTERSECTED: US29 LATITUDE: 36° 10' 33.28" LONGITUDE: 79° 42' 42.39" SUPERSTRUCTURE: REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK ON I-BEAMS SUBSTRUCTURE: END BENTS:RC CAP ON PPC PILES,INT.BENTS:RC POST & BEAM 1�a 42'-3" NONCOMP, 2@62'-3" COMPOSITE,1 @45'-3" NONCOMPOSITE SPANS: 1@45'3 NONCOMP,2@62'6 COMPOSITE,1@42'3 NONCOMPOSITE ❑FRACTURE CRITICAL ❑TEMPORARY SHORING ❑SCOUR CRITICAL ❑SCOUR PLAN OF ACTION PRESENT CONDITION: Poor POSTED SV: Not Posted Not Posted OTHER SIGNS PRESENT: (4) DELINEATORS INSPECTION DATE: 09/08/2016 POSTED TTST: Not Posted � �'� ie r�e� Rs p . . ��:t. "r ,.y,. � Y . rl. ' �� .,� �' � ' � . . -. a s . '�'1v.. . , _ � s� ;. : � z., ya �.� - �' arss' �; s : � � 1 ' '; �� •�. . �,G � � � � . � i � �;, . -'� � L � * �`. . . .� �' 9 . . i. � " �'�.I�. QQ�� k op y,�� "{ ` I� ��,y��y t� �s'�_J .� "tY _ '� ' � F � { �, . �� i� ` '^ ._ ��:� .��,SJs '. '' .. Y . �� . . . ��s � � .. ' . .�� r .',F � ' � � .: w �. r : , +l, 1 . - ` �� %k r- - � r � � `� . w �� - ��..:�r y y,�,i�.� �� _ --,�. ;� at,r QY, ..- it Y¢ .�. � � , �� '� � t; � .. + S + � � ry. y,� �� i'ijL,-'=: _ - � _ - � , �-� - . � , ��- � , _ - � 1 .. '��, �� - = _ • _ �, ,i :�' _-, - = ' i �� , ,� , - � �' •- � ti.��:.� -� - � -. SOUTH APPROACH Sign noticed issued for Not Posted Number Required WEIGHT LIMIT 0 NO DELINEATORS 0 NO NARROW BRIDGE 0 NO ONE LANE BRIDGE 0 NO LOW CLEARANCE 0 DIRECTION OF S-N INSPECTION DIRECTION MATCHES PLANS INSPECTED BY SIGNATURE , L_� ASSISTED BY KEITH PROCTOR ERIC A. PATTERSON '- ` Structure Element Scoring Structure Number: 400360 Inspection Date 9�g�2016 Element Parent Total Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4 Number Number Element Name Location Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity 12 0 Reinforced Concrete Deck Deck 6308 4908 1400 0 0 107 0 Steel Open Girder/Beam Beam 844 810 28 6 0 515 107 Steel Protective Coating Beam 7336 3696 0 3640 0 205 0 Reinforced Concrete Column Piles and Columns 6 1 0 5 0 215 0 Reinforced Concrete Abutment Abutments 68 68 0 0 0 226 0 Prestressed Concrete Pile Piles and Columns 10 10 0 0 0 234 0 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Caps 153 63 24 66 0 301 0 Pourable Joint Seal Expansion Joints 84 0 0 84 0 313 0 Fixed Bearing Bearing Device 16 4 0 12 0 515 313 Steel Protective Coating Bearing Device 16 5 0 0 11 316 0 Other Bearings Bearing Device 16 0 0 16 0 515 316 Steel Protective Coating Bearing Device 16 2 0 0 14 331 0 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing Bridge Rail 430 430 0 0 0 510 0 Wearing Surface Wearing Surfaces 5936 4896 330 710 0 Summary of Maintenance Needs Maintenance By Defect Structure Number: 400360 Inspection Date: 09/08/2016 MMS Recommended Quantity Code Element Name Defect Name 3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Cracking (RC and Other) 1100 Square Feet 3314 Steel Open Girder/Beam Corrosion 6 Feet 3348 Reinforced Concrete Column Delamination/Spall 7 Each 3348 Reinforced Concrete Column Cracking (RC and Other) 102 Each 3348 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Cracking (RC and Other) 44 Feet 3348 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Delamination/Spall 101 Feet 3334 Fixed Bearing Corrosion 11 Each 3334 Other Bearings Corrosion 15 Each 2816 Wearing Surface Patched Area/Pothole (Wearing Surface) 200 Square Feet 2816 Wearing Surface Crack (Wearing Surface) 510 Square Feet 3342 Steel Protective Coating Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 3485 Square Feet Element Structure Maintenance Quantities Structure Number: 400360 Inspection Date 09/08/2016 MMS Maint Total Severe Poor Fair Good Location Code Description Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity butments 3350 Maintenance of Concrete Wings and Wall 0 68 0 0 0 68 Beam 3314 Maintenance Steel Superstructure Components 6 844 0 6 28 810 Beam 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 3460 7336 0 3640 0 3696 Bearing Device 3334 Bridge Bearing 28 32 0 28 0 4 Bearing Device 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 25 32 25 0 0 7 Bridge Rail 3318 Maintenance of Concrete Bridge Rail 0 430 0 0 0 430 Caps 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 145 153 0 66 24 63 Deck 3326 Maintenance of Concrete Deck 1100 6308 0 0 1400 4908 Expansion Joints 3310 Maintenance of Standard Bridge Expansion Joints 84 84 0 84 0 0 Piles and Columns 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 109 16 0 5 0 11 Wearing Surfaces 2816 Asphalt Surtace Repair 710 5936 0 710 330 4896 Append ix D Air & Noise - Interagency Coord i nation Correspondence Based on the PM 2.5 determination report, the interagency consultation (IC) partners (FHWA, EPA, FTA and NCDENR-DAQ) have determined that the project is not an air quality concern for PM2.5. The following statement addressing the PM2.5 hotspot requirement will be included in the environmental document: "A qualitative PM2.5 hotspot analysis is not required for this project since it is not an air quality concern. The Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements were met without a hotspot analysis, since this project has been found not to be of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)." The concurrence correspondence from different agencies is included below: Agency Response U.S. We have completed our review and agree that this project does NOT appear to be a Environmental "Project of Concern" per the Transportation Conformity Rule, and thus meets the Protection statutory and regulatory requirements for PM 2.5 hotspots without a qualitative Agency, Region 4 analysis. FHWA The interagency consultation (IC) partners (FHWA, EPA, FTA and NCDENR-DAQ) have reviewed the rationale (on why this project is not an air quality concern for PM2.5) and agree with the NCDOT finding. Make sure to include the following statement (addressing the PM2.5 hotspot requirement) in the environmental document. The environmental document including statement below needs to go out for public review: "A qualitative PM2.5 hotspot analysis is not required for this project since it is not an air quality concern. The Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements were met without a hotspot analysis, since this project has been found not to be of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)." FTA FTA concurs; the ref. project is not an AQ concern. NCDENR Thank you for providing the project characterization for the PM 2.5 hot spot of the Reedy Fork Parl<way interchange improvements. I agree that this project does not appear to be an air quality concern. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TR�NSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDIJE GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM TO: August 12, 2011 Ahmad Al-Sharawneh Project Development Engineer FROM: Joseph A. Ra� .c-�;r: �i/� 1 • l � �l�t/1..�'` � Traffic Noise Engineer ELIGENE A. CONTI, 1R. SECRETARY SUBJECT: Memorandum of Revised Traffic Noise Analysis US 29 — SR 2790 Interchange Guilford County TIP # R-4707 Per the requirements of the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy effective July 13, 2011, the tJS 29 — SR 2790 Interchange Project Traffic Noise Analysis was re-evaluated. The results of the US 29 — SR 2790 Interchange Project Traffic Noise Analysis dated October 26, 2010 were that Design Year 2030 build-condition loudest-hour equivalent traffic noise levels were predicted to impact 16 noise-sensitive receptors, and that additional detailed study of potential mitigation measures was not warranted because no such measures would meet feasibility and reasonableness criteria. • In accordance with the FHWA revisions to 23 CFR 772, the most recent update to the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy redefined several types of noise- sensitive land uses. As a result, the number of predicted Design Year 2030 build- condition loudest hour equivalent traffic noise level impacts is reduced from 16 to 10 noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the US 29 — SR 2790 Interchange Project. • Additional detailed study of potential mitigation measures remains unwarranted for the US 29 — SR 2790 Interchange Project because no such measures would meet the feasibility and reasonableness criteria of the effective NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. If you require any additional information in this matter, please contact me at your convenience at (919) 707-6084. MAILING ADDRESS: Te�eaHONe: 919-212-5757 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR7ATION FAX: 919-212-5785 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT Bui��iNe B 1595 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: ti1MM�.NCOOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 2�61 O RALE�GH NC 27 6 99-1 598 Append ix E Public Involvement Information ��-4i-_.�.• "I'll' �'r�u,j��.t 11`d+�. F�=�"�'�9"� ,, : s f_ � �! � � } I I�+�� I��r��. �"�rl:�� a�T �..'4 it ?' � 7'�l � "i7-a��%�hn+.n=_�h - ,�„�s„�. ..� l�tft�r�::h��;e Re��n�ti uctit�n , ;4t�1�el�K��ci�i- 1�'I�eetin�; f}1't%�f"fit ��[^;��"% tP 1`[l�: TBt+�. ��r�4,t�4k��,r'�:o l_�rk}t�[� ;�r4:.i ��lerlt ��3��iit._n l'I��i;i��^, C�r�.�nitat.i�,r� r��rr'�.1}, iit c��i�+��rato��n +kitl� i�r�Cg4��, Lia+itc:� v+�'�� Qo a ��:ir,�l;r�]:dcr r�n�cctint. r_�n tla�. f��.i�iia�E L'� 'uti r" I#e-ei11' �'��?t�k T'�r}: w�.�a�� f�::�rc.ltrtn�*c �rti�:,n:�0.ruE.;i�.ut. I"r�;�.c,�,:,:[ ii��7t'n�=.:jt�ent� inrlt�tic �iP�r..itlin�� thi. :n1�rcEi�ntc..ar�cL r.ri•.a'�.iri� �•t�4a�lt�:�� ', nb��et�vtn7�iit+� tK, �c�rlic,nti ;,f 5tu�it��it :"�•ti��nuz an�9 R�s�.s�ti� l-urh. P,�t']��+�a��, 1�4'1��]Tb��; 6^'�fil'l��:l�t: �'�1�'� Sl�f'L �a.�ill p�es�t�t i:if��3�iiv,atic�s� ��¢i ��h� pr�-�jert'w pu.rp�,�r-. st��tia� t,t tk�� ;�pr�.�i-�.-,�nlenl�l �.tucl}�. Jc�+�it�n ull��rnali��s, <<ail �ieat 4te�a�, '4�`�'I�� t�moa.fi '�'��I'►�� i. .3��i��a��I�E-i L��.��n, iC�a�', li�.,,u :�.:lf'} ��u :i.��C��r��o ��e�.�� Ii-'r,r[ti C'c�rr,muni[y` �ernl�r � �[�' ]��v �c7r� Park�.ti�t�u �"�lllkr��:C �11��. F�1k�a3,;� cs7nt�ict �.�rdi.:� ��1Ei�k�r� u[ f:? i�.} �73-_�l a" [+r �:i��ir '4�I4 p�iir�t�yr at i;:;:�fi;i 3?;-�]!?� °I4�r n7c7�r. inl:t,rrrictrn,rTi .�..- � � _..., . ... - ^ � , �zv�- ..,., �•;A..". � - _ = e �: �� _. ,.. .. � .,; e�cQ� F�cN Camanunll�r E�rt��r R-4707: �nvironmental Assessu�ent of SR 2970 (Reedy Porl< Parkway)/US 29 Interchange Reconstruction Stnirehnider Meetis�g Ree�iy Fork Connnxnit� Ceuter SeptentGer 1�, 2006 3:30/.nt 1. Introductions 2. Project Development Process Overview: The project is cumently at Ihe step in the process where ihe environmental document and project plans are prepared. Onty fundi�y for preparing the document has been obtained and funding for constructed the improveme�[s still need to be secured. 3. Project Study Area: Please refer to the attached Project Vicinity Map. The study area extends approximately 5,000 feet north of Ihe exisiing interchange along US 29 and approximately 3,000 feet south alony US 29, SR 2641 (Bryan Park Road) and SR 2526 (Summit Avenue). The Study Area 21so extends approximately 3,OOo feet south east along SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway). 4. Project Purpose & Need: The purpose ot the proposed project is to replace an existing deficit bridye, improve the interchange to meet interstale standards, and accommodate future traffic volumes. 5. Design Options Recommended for Detailed Study: . "No-Bulld": No improvements are made. • Alternative 1(SPUII: All left tums are handled at one signalized iniersection and all right movements are free-flow. � Alternative 2(Parlial Cloverleafl: All ramp movemsnts are located on the soirthside of the interchange. • hnpacts Table 6. Design Options Not Recoinmended for Detailed Study: . Alternative 3(Traditional Diamond): Eliminated from furtner study due to wetland impacts and ramp to ramp spacing with fulure 6rown Summit interchange lo the north. . Fllternative 4(Tiqht Partial Cloverleat)� Eliminated from further study due io stre2m impacts and because undesirable geometrics did not meet interstate standards. 7. Next Steps 8. �uestions A; �a,irr uf die I�'orrli C;uolina Db�C's 200G-2Q]2 l�ransportarion Improvcment Progn�m (�[�� '), nc� US 29/IZee�ir l�od: Yarkwa�� Inrer�hange lias been propose�l for imprnvcmcu[s th�at will ulrimatcly assisr tra$ic flo�v an�l man�a�c congcstiou. tllthou�h, currcnrlv unfiindcd lor cou>truct'iou, the stud�� is uuderwav iu �.urticipatiou o( si�nifia�nt Future necds and to prepare the projert tix ion- strucrion ouce fiiuds bccomc'availablc Acarbv re�idcnts, other �area �uotorists, and governmcut le�aders :u'e invited to assisr in answcrin�+ t�vo qucstions: "R'hid� oformoptions Lest srrit tbe ronnxiu�it��, tbe enviroroneri(, n�id �ddress ofber issues stu'roruedinbr tbe Ji+'ojeet?"1?�+d "Hozu inaliortmrt are tbe inzprovements to the Lrrsiness ronrmnnity?" Citizen's Workshop: Purpose and Needs Stay inforrned, get involved, be heard 11�is is where we nced your l�elp. L\s �au area resident, busincss uwncr, or onc�r conccrncd citizen, vou havc a .r�l<c in this ��ruject an�l in outcom�<—'.md we �n�unrvour iu�,iit on selectiu�; t6e most prncticil �altern�,itivc, auid ou �hc im�x�rhdncc of Chc projc�-t to )vu—��'hilc wc are still in tlic �,lanning ancl snidy ph��sc. ' _ � Citizens' Informational Workshops are designed to present the facts about the project and allow your comments to be heard. Tliis Citizen's Tnformatiumil VVorl:shop i+ desi�ncd tu providc inorc dct:tils about thc �uojcct, �aud n furum ti�r vour coum�enrs to he l�eard, Blif� QRli �leeisions ure uiade. Yovr i�rvolve»tent is inzrw'tnnt to tbe etttire develoJ�uient m�d decisiorf rrotess. Project background 'Tlic Crcensboro Urb�an Arct Iti�ctru��olfean Plunnin� Or�rauization (I�'I PO), un bclialf uf thu Citc of GrecnSLoro, in cooperution witli NCD01�, proposes im�xuveiucnts ro the US 29/Reedt' Purk P'arlava�' (SR 27`)0) in�erih�ange and ��ortiun� of Summit f�venuc (SR 2526) :md Rccdv l�ork Y.ak�i�ay.�llie sife is located iu noithe.�st Creensburo in Guilfurd Count�'.�Ihc c�istin� brldgc uvcr US 29 ie sh'uctur,dly �lcficicnt �,tnil in nccd ofbcing rc��l.tced.�flre '1'rausporYation lm��act Stud�' completeil Li�r the Reedy Foriz Ranch I)cvclu��mcnt indlcatcd that u ne�n'severi l:wc bridgc Is ncnic�l to acc.nnmod�,itc tnrurc rrathc �nd the liit�ure 1-7R5. 1-7R5 will lollrnv Uti 29 Lrom the No�tl� C�arolina/Vi��,�,inin line southwurd eo thc proposcd L:astern scgmcnt ot tlie Grucnshoro Urban Loop, nvo milcc south ol the US 29 Reedv Pork Yad:wny lnterchungc US 29 ��ill bc ti�idcned from a fuur-lanc, mcdian-dividcd �nvti�,�l conrrol acces� }acllity, to �,i su-ei�ht l�,�ne, dlvide�l lull control �.tccess iuterstate. L\s a residt of tliis lirtwe intcrstatc dcsignatiun, nn�� ncw bridgc ovcr US 29 mus[ ntccr intcrct;ttc dcsign scwdanls. Project need /�s ;i re,uk ol t6c srrucrural �1c5clency of die exi�ring US 29 brid�;e, mainren;uue is a constant issue. NCDCYl� Eilans included repl�arin�; the bridyc when ti�nd, bec�.�mc a�-�ailablc. bV6eu [1S 29 is u��t;nuled to Intersrarc 7K5, ull at giade ;iccess ��oluCc uorth ol US 29 will be elimlu'ate�l except at interch�angcs nureh of du �xoposcd Grccnshorn [',�,istcrn Lou��. �Il�e .ubject iuterchau;;c will be t6c mujor �acces's puinl lor Sum�uit lAveuue; tl�us, trallic �.it tl�e intcrchan<�e is cxpertcd to incrr,tse signitirandr. Project need mnfinued... In addition,'ll�e Reedy l�ork Ranrh 1\�liced Used Develo�r mcnt will evcnCually includc ubout 3,600 residcnCial homes, one elenicntarv sc600l, ol�ice/couunercial s��ace, retail/s6o�,�,ing� s��ace, tv,�o ]�btels, m�d 4 nvllinu squw�e fcct uf indus[ri:il s�iacc.'Il�is �ro��th will �cncr,i[e hi�h traflic �,olumes. "l�raliic volumcs;irc projcctcd to inircase on Reedv Fu�i: Parkw.iv fruin .in avera��e of 3,350 ve6ides ��cr day in 200G i�o 28,200 vehides per d:iy iu 2030. Summit Avenads ancra��c dailt� cratlir volumc is projcctcd to inaeuse ti�om i,(,Sp ,it prcsenr, to 22,GOQ in 20 i0. Tl�e US 29 interchnngc, Summit Avenue, und Rcedy I�ork I'ark�va�+ �,n�e uot cupablc of handling these traflic voluu�cs �virhout es��eriencing substantial delays an�l increascd ,ircidcni ��ot�ntial. Secondary needs for the project: • Srifcry :uid uccess issucs. ' i\lecring thc goals of thc Creens�oro Connettions2025 ContprellenslvePlat7. Acconling [o tlic Coinprehensivc Plau, fhe city would like to Fnomote wise, balanced, und equit�ablc �;�rowtli whilc �irotcctin� rural lands frum prcmaturc develo�nncnt an�{ inefticient sEiru�vl. "Ihe �irojcct shid�� area is loruted in an urca that is identifled in ti�c Coro��rehcnsivc Pl.in as an „L';meiging 1�ringe C�rowth !\re;i.,� �lhis �ro��rth is :�Iread�, evidcnr through thc Rccdy �ork Ranch Dcvclopmcnt. Planning process "Ib sr.u�t thc �n�ojat ��I,mning ��roccss, infi�nnatiun wan cullecre<I ou the existing]iumxn aucl iiatur.il e�n�iroiunents and futurc lund devclopments.7l�is inl'in�m;ition w;is used ro idcutify prcliniin;vv ;Jtern;itivc, tor nc� pro�iosc�l reF�lacemci�t ol t�lie briclg�c. Currendy, t6ree Leasible build alternatives h;�ve becn idenriticd. "Ilie iUIPO, on bel�ulf of tl�c Cir�� of Cn�censboro, h�,is retaincd d�e services of \Nilhur Smitli Associates, a n'.�nsp�xtation cn�incerin� firm lorated in Greensboro, to develop rhe l?nviruniueuril l�s,�essment docunicnr.�ll�c expected uutcome 1i�om tlie document ic di� se�ection oL thc i.e;ist l;nvirouincnt;ill�� I�:imu�ino� Vracticiblc Altcrnativc (LI:DPA).�Ihc stml}� is bcing dou� to comply with die National L,nvironmeutal Yolic�� Act (iV' G;YiA). �Il�c C]rccnsboro Urb:in Are�.i AIPO, in roordination evith NCDOT, is prep;u�ing an l?nvironmcural i1s�c„incnt Q?A) document� .md the Citizen� lnlbrmariun Workshop Is pnrt of tlie \ GPA und prpjcc[ dccclopmcni proccss. 7be NIPO is reqnesti�i��ie�hli� iirprrf anAzuill cnrefrdly m�isider n!l7uea[ions mrrl ronrrnents. Alternatives under consideration Orcr thc ��ust �six )'carti, ,cvcnil studics h;n,c bccn ��crh�rmcd th�ai an�dl�'wd und ma�lc rerummcn�l�.ition. l��r Im��ru��euieuts.'lliese ��mvious rc�,�orts iuclude: 7�ninsport;�tion Ln��act Stud�' ti�r Recd�' I url: R�anch, US 29 �`� L';ckcrson Ro�.i�l, prep�,ired iu �auuan' 2000. Pr.i>ibilitv Studv & Ilmcrional Dc.i�n, ti>r L;d;crson f�oad/lIS 21 Intcrchanae ��Iiulilicafiou � Brown Summit Avcnuc F,xtcn,lon/US 29 Intereliangc, �,rc�vared in �une 2002. Fin�,il Capa�ict' Summarr Reporttor US 29/ Reedy I�orl: P.ni:�vuy, �,repare�l in Junuarv 200G. /�±�t@I'f1QfIVeS m�rinued... • Altern:itive 1(SPlll):'16is is asiugle point urb;w Scvcral :ilicrna(i��e dcsi�ns have bccn deueloped tlurough inrerch,�nge w6erc ull left turnc tu'r handled at one thesu previoush• perti�rmcd studic,. �A total of five dcsi�n signalircd interncction xnd all rig6t movenmi�ts src alternatives have been evalu�ated lor tliis project, including Li�ee ffow. a"no-build" xlternative. One altcrnarive was- thrpwn out becwse it tailed tu a�lc��uutely �.iddress tlic �nir�iose ,tnd ucud '!AItcrnati��e 2(P.u�tial Clovcr�raf): All r:un�� movcnients lor the ��roject �.u'e locatecl ou the south ,ide u(the interduin�;c. fltpresent,thefollowi�rgrlesignoptiansnrebei�iK�anide''ed. •Alrcrnative3(I'ruditionalDi.unund):Indudest�vo ' No-Build Alrernxtive: 1\�lal;e no iu�provements disriuct inreisectiuns with I�ree Ilo�r ri��ht turuing movcmcnts onto ramps. r .� :, t� �' �b �`..� � -7. 4 _, � '� � •�-� V� ' O f KS '� ,� �� REEOVFORKRPNCH �� FUTURE DEVELOPMENT) r I} �� "�'J�._ : � �, f '�' .-. k �� a� t r� }�"' ' � ' 'cr ~ ��q i y�+ �{> ��i x � r �. I r v�t i �� i �, q pr � � �r�,�Lv � �� .!�( PlwY t I � 6 �l k. R -` � � ' � � � �j5.�1��k. � �r 11�7..�� _ � 1s�:fr � �`.. � �{+.tl�� PAORRISETTEPNPER �� &PACKAGING 1 PROCTER & GAM9LE I i i �i�...� ,, r f }r�-z. _ 'rir:�� -��Liv„�li'_.�?y..�� $#Ji'/ �' � . i r' � !i';;-�iaC�"h �u'�`." '��''1�l''\`.. A � ,� �oixit sa�es � ,hs"'r4�%� CofdPANV � .. . 1 }.'" ,' �E . �"..'.'. .�� I � '•� ��' k' �i NGA&TandUNCG �ij Sslell fe Can pi _ Q 'E.y'Ak S' .� .. .�^ fj .9 ''!!, ' i �r j � . ..^ .' � � � �r �' _/��, ��y�� fi /��'�� A . � � PP4 � �� va�r x ni r, y`�` K �� ' �`' "``�1 , ��1�jz� {�` Ii� R A75L AJ� �+°..'�9 °�h / c n� l .�w Y�� I �;, � "l b , a��Lr �� : / � �lt� � ..� l.Y ��' . � af { �; { '� �, %� ".{�' � ''YI� 4 * i � � : 1 Y�:. .'�,�.... ��i � ��,� �.-� ��\ � A Y�t� � y � � '4il'N�i.� F ° rvi l3i` ',7�Cs � y�, � �� fr � F�)� 8 't.v [YY4�� a < a�Z ' _� � �<f � y+ � �,+ �1�� ``�.� : � R ?� ,� � .} �� M'� n �"�F4"e tMJ 1 �^. � . * 1 f * ��( k L j ;t Ei C{��p�a� xj� '� 2 �`a �,•,��, . 4 .� �, '�'� i \t F i��.i } t�':�:'i ., ti� i .....:` �� a } ' z h�; � : -�t" �'� y f i. � :��t�� t" F �,� . .. �-� w < � -�� 4 :n i� r � ?M . '. iC�+k ' e1� NEEDYFORKftNNCh (FUTURE�EVE�OPMENT� � .. • ".�,� , . ,;:� �. '^' ' y w" 4 , ti 6!�'a. w t.. � �1 � � REEDYFORK RANCH j '. �� / 9%, � ',t \ ��' x� . i i�i� � i1 (' .: a .:_� y �. Y�� q i 1.'� �'. �?�Y'. 6 1�a4 s . �t , i�j^ � �: . . .� r�°�� J j�` .^ �Y�4 +�A��.� Y p 1`}�fFy�`+i�^�3� �Fy,�. ��3� ` �. �v :� � �;�h �� ": .. "� ♦ �, • 0 � 0.5 � Miles D�e red line i��dicntes tl�e project aren. Project goals • Replace the existing deficient bridge. •Improvetheinterchangeto meetinterstatestandards. • Increase treffic capacity to meet future demands. What is an MPO? �Ihe Crocnsboro Urban i\irn iAIcrrupulir.in Phinnin� Organizarion (iA1P0) m init,c+ dic ti uia�iurr.iriun plannmg process �equiied undu Peilu,il law.�l6e \{PO provic'Ic5 plans fui uc� suif�a�e [iansprnra[ion nccds, including high�va} � u�ansir, bicydc„�n�l ��edestri�an lacilitie,. Priorities of the MPO include: • Promotiug the s:ile aud eIlicient �uanagem�nt�, o��er.itioii, and dcvclupmcnt of [rnnsportation svstems; • Serviug the mobilitv ueed. ol people aud ll�eiglit; • l�o,tcring cconomic gro��rth :in�l <lc��dopmcnt; :lnd • iblinimizing the neg,�tive cll�ects ul trans��ortatiou, inrluding air ��ollution. Send questions and comments regarding the project to: SunTemple Helgren Wilbur Smith Associates 7015-H Albert Pick Road Greensboro NC, 27409-9654 (336)217-9404 shelgren@WilburSmith.com Local mn tact: Lydia M. Mclntyre Greensboro Urban Area MPO (336)373-3117 Iydia.mcintyreCagreensboro-ncgov ' , � t 2 i �� f�� a 1 i e` �zcu'P �[ s�° �� r � A .� °1 �4 �„1 � , � �'n l M1 % i 5 � � , ' p s. � °� ,�t :� �, � . � � : r ., Y��:ui�dne�� ` � `,i4r`�<s �'� . .� aSs1�='�1��r+� ,..,_� . !._ : _ �;1_ ,?,� Nortbern view o/ tbe e.risti�iSrReedy t�ork P�rrkwuy Grrrl�e. What is the difference between full and partial control of access? • Full control of access means access to the roadway is limited to interchanges only. • Partial control of access means that access is limited to intersections and driveways. Date Commenter Address Email Telephone it Fa�c M Commenls Proposed Response The "3 al�ema�ive plans" do not have a workable aoczss for employees abd trucks. 'I.) Altamative 3- 1.) @II driveway eccess Issues will be addressed during Ihe Diamond Intercahnga thls plan shpws no truci<entrance (and� no empinyee entrance. 2) Altemative 2 altemative prelim�inary englneering phase whlch Is cuirently Partlal Cloverleaf this plan shows nn employee enhance. 3.) Alternafive 1 Single Polnt Urban underway. 2.) Driveway access for Vucks and employees will be Interchange ih�is plan shows no enhance tn employee. Bottlom Line: Mnrrissette PaPer does not have z designeA for all three aliernatives (ihe potential exists For two Arives workable plan" for truck enttance and Ihe employee enirance from the 3 alternative proposals. The left om6ined tlrive-furihermore. the drives may be full side of huilding Pafking lot Is where everyone parks ??? to �he entrznce location and we have several o�vemen� or riqht [um In & out). Every viable option will be handlc2p einplo'ees. So lhe "sugyesled use of Ihe parkiny lot on Ihe ri�ht s'ide of 6ullding does nlo consitleted fo providelhe best aCcess possible balanciny your 120606 Darrow Morriset�e Stockdale darr�w21�)triad.«.com 336-668-4258 Work. Several reasons_ 1_) Proc�or and Gantble renLs SPace. 2.) employee hand�icap conCems and 5afe�y/capaCity/enqlneerinq eriterla_ Dear Sirs. I suppoh the eflorts to improve Infrastructure and In�erchange Improvements zt US29 a� State Raad 2570. Altema[ive 1 seems to oRer the least environmental impaCt and best altemative to �improved ,I atss �o existing businesses such as Morrissette Paper. My bigyest concern Ihrouc�h fhls process Is same level of ServiCe that We Curt2nfly have to Summi� Avenue be maintained. I will be interested in 5952 Summi[ Avenues. knowing specifics as soon as possible of wFat if any impac: eo our access the acWal plans and pinfiles 20G07 Dzrro�n� M. Stockdale Greensboro, NC 27410 cel! 336-601-27v1 will necessitate. See above An additionzl W B Reedy F�rk to 50 US 29 loop ramp for All 2 was not cArried forwartl For further con5ideration In the preliminary ngineen na phase due ;o the two sideci weaving lane requirements on US 2�J SB for tha exl4ing and entenng UaHic and the sUpenpf 8 ElJerbush Ct.. Greensbaro, Consiaer a loop ramp on Option 2 for trafflc fran Reedy Fork Parkway onto SB US 29. This left-turn c�eometry antl traftic capacity of Ihe propose� dual left on to the 2130G Bill Jud e NC 27405 volume will Ilkely caintinue to be siqn�iflcan[ as mosl Irips exitlnq Reedy Fork are destined to Greesnboro. proposed 58 diamontl tVVe ramp. Nt 2- Loop ramp raclii are inherently sharp and rypically have a ange of 150'R to 250'R. Alt 'I- The s�ignificantly grea[er structural cost of a SPUI In�ercnange Is offset by Its tight footprint advantage regarding minimizing required R/W antl environmancal �impar.ts_ Alt l�ii #3 �esl�n FI2w. heading south on Summitl�ve Ilmlted acness fa c�et 62nk to Reedy Fork. AI( #2 "s- Summ�il Ave will be connecled to Reedy Fork with a proposecl Concem about acee�s coming out of Reedy Fork and heading nnrth on 28- Don't Ilke the small loop Tee �ntersection located 350'-1000' west of the F�ror,nose�f 21306 James 011ver 5501 Boxelder Cnve ound. Alte #7 Llke Ihis desl n besi. Would like to see a mmbo of #1 and #2 for Ihe Interchan e. interchange ram- �. ral inlerser.lion. We endorse Nternative 3 �.)simple/easler plan for enterinc� and existic�n hwy 29. 2.) We really Ilke the 2130E Chester & Nand�i Daniels 622t 8lack Willow. NC 27405 336375-8836 Indusion of bicycle lanes. 1_ J Traff'icvolumes. accident hlstory. sight distancelsafeTy and �.�edestrian traKic at the proposed Eckerson / Reedy Fork int2rsection will he evzluated during che trafflc study phase of the project reyardin3 whether a ne.w Iraffic sign2l is warranted. 2.� Immediate tfaffic slgnal constYUC�ion i5 no� wlthln the scope of this proJeci as the potenlial conshuctlon project of the recommended altemetive is currently unfundad and without a constructlon W e �hought Uie bes� allernatrve at �hls would be to put In Iraflic li�hts as haftk tumin� from Eckerson Rd scl�edule. GOOT should respond to the "intmetlia[ely' Gortion of onfo Reedy Fork has poor or no vi5lbllity. I called �in my request on Sept. 74 as d�id several other thi5 respon5e SinGe final traffic signal tlesign anA plans far this employees here and to nty knnwledge no one h2s reoievetl a respc�ns2. My full I�ellef is (hat [hls wlll si;)n21 (if warranletl) Is outsitle Ihe scope of this EA. 3.) 4. Trur.k become a nlghtmare starting ne%t week with Ihe School (raffc-, p�rents choosing Exkerson oH HiCone to traffiG wlll be accommodaCed In Ihe recommended altemA�ive yet their kids to school across 2J insteatl at using 29 itsell. I feel Chese changes neetl ta be implemen[ed intersection Impravemenls which will include 2ppropnale luming 110706 BIII Carter Cflrtbilit(cilcs-coi» �immedlatNy now cons'iderinq tha s[flrt up uf sr,hool next week. rad�il and siqht d'isiances. It ever �ass DOT regulation5. The current intersection at Eckersun Rd. and Ree Jy Fork Parkway �is heau[iful but not made for the Vaffic that uses it. Vl�e have a great deal of large � 8 wheelers coming into aUr Faciliry for delivenes or pick up. af fhet Intereection thay �an not make the tunr if eomeone IE In �h? en[er wrn Isr.e. W e're sure tlils creates a horrible situabori for the lrucks heading ta Marnn Marietta stone �uarry also. These ExiSUng highways do not seem to be designed for the bUsinesses in this area bul more so fur the residenlial appeal. W ilh ell �he landscaping tlane on Reetly Furk Pkwy 2nd al Ihls Mr_ Carter. Thenk you for your commenl.s on fhe US 2S/Reedy section it is almost imposslhle to get a yood Ilne of vision either way. o e of our employees has Fork Patkwey Interchange_ Your commenfs locus on safe[y and already pulled out in froni of someone beceuse of poor PLANNING and poor visibllity. Our big concern fhe abi6fy /or frur,ks to be able }o meneuver more easily and sa7ely_ with [he reopening of the School of the Deaf far use by Eastern Gullfortl this could have traglc 1'our convnents wi11 Ge shared wrYh NCDOT and r,onsidereAin e.ulls. I have expressed my conr,erns to lhe Clty of Greensboro tlepartmen! lhat hantllea lraffic IifgMs dc+t�rmininythe r'e�cons7r'uclion o/ fhe mtarclvange. (Lomment bu� never even had a reNm call. If you have any Intluence In �his afea. this need5 addressing Response written by Lydia Mclntyre, GUAMPO Tranportation 110706 Billy Carter VP- Wysonc� and Miles Co. Cartbill1,ar.=_.com medlatery and needs �o fur�hennore definetlY be adJressed in any planninp ot future Intenc�han4es. Planning Engineer, emailed to commenter on 110706) i. ) I are glad ihat you are Inc�uding bicyde lanes In your propnsal. We dlcycle [o Bryan Park and your 1.) Currently. a hlke lane is propnsed nn the W 8 siAe of proposed proposzls will silll allow us to do ihat in ihe future. 2.) Keep In mind that a Iractor trailer trafflc will Reedy Fork Rd (or sll 3 altematives. 2.) Tfuck trelilc will be counted crease since re 2djacent [o an industrlal area. I work at a growinf dlstrlhUtlon center (not In the and projeGted to �he desian year as ��art oi the trefflC study phase Reedy Fork aiea) where huck traffic has Increased from 20 to 50 trucks per day In a Iwo-year period. of ihls Vrojecl. The pro�ected huck lraffic volumes will 6e a deslgn Your plan must take into considefation since a Similar businP.ss might loCate In teh area In lhe fu�ure. 3.) wnsiAeration for lhe propo5ed improvements for all 3 altematives. I am glad you re lookiny al allernaliVes lhat m�inlm�i[e lraf(ic li�hts ancl improve lraFlic �lovr. We spend 3.) TraffiC signals for all 3 altematives will only be recommended 111706 Don Ebin e debin<erRttrizd.rr.cont foo mUch time s�itling al Iraffic lights. where wNrranied due [0 traffir, Signal construction CoSt. US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange STIP No. R-4707, Greensboro, Guilford County Public Meeting Bryan Park Golf and Conference Center April 21, 2016 4:OOPM — 7:OOPM MEETING SUMMARY A public meeting was held on April 21, 2016 for the US 29/Reedy Forl< Parkway Interchange proposed project. The purpose of the meeting was to present the study alternatives and provide an update on the progress of the project. Attendees were asked to provide input on the project alternatives. A total of 91 people attended the public meeting. Six written comment forms were submitted and one resident submitted comments via email. A majority of the comments received favored the Alternative 1— Diverging Diamond. The meeting handout and comments received are attached. ATTACH M ENTS Meeting Handouts Written Comment Forms Emailed Comments Table � ►1._I_��E�� ►l CI �1.7�] Thursday, APRIL 21, 2016 4:00 pm-7:00 pm BRYAN PARK GOLF AND CONFERENCE CENTER 6275 BRYAN PARK RD, BROWNS SUMMIT, NC 27214 �a;�, � : ;_ �� `�� at`� + � y fi� .i%�i�';ex'- J�.'!.� � j � M} � r .�`'� �c=� !� �� a;, t. � � A a I. ,.� . 1 �� l 'I ��vc. �`� .. ,�'";'�� F ' � ?' � i��. ." x � � :, .�" • ��*� r ..,. `r+< � '{'t..�.T �.,ti„� Itii�""9� ,� � .�� .n�7 � -.� -. � 41�1 �Ry� ► � '�yC'•fi 4 I �'�� C��✓' ��lyJ� - �.� ^'r d� F�g P_ .'��. ��'. �,�".. I� p"`�T r � � ' �' � � F � �� ,, 0.,-�.• � . F• '�.«. R . �, � • � � ;i• - — - �iQ � iV � � x � a �1�. �. e �...t.��'� �A�•��Y. c' ' �G t�� Public Meeting Notice US 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange STIP No. R-4707, Greensboro, Gt�ilford County Your Input is Important The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) encourages citizen involvement on transportation projects. As an area resident, business owner or concerned citizen, your input is important to the planning process. As part of the plai�ning pi�ocess NCDOT consid- ers NCDOT safety, costs, traffic service, social impacts and public comments in making deci- sions. The U.S. 29/Reedy Fork Parkway interchange has been proposed for improvements in NCDOT's 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The improve- ments proposed are to replace the existing bridge order to acconunodate future traffic ca- pacity and improve traffic flow. A study was started in the early 2000s but was delayed until 2016 due to lack of funding, NCDOT needs youi� help in selecting the �nost practical alternative for this interchange. The Public Meeting is intended to provide additional details about the project, answer your ques- tions and to provicle an opportuniry for p�iblic input. �� R-4707: U.S. 29 / Reedy Fork Parkway Improvements PLEASE We would like to hear from you! � ATTN: Diane Wilson PLACE If you have any questions about this projecL N.C. DepartmenT of TransporTation STAMP you may e-mail or call one of the followink people: 1598 Mail Service Center HERE Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Ahmad AI-Sharawn�h NCDOT Project Developn�cnt & Environmental Analysis Unit 919-707-6010 aalsharawneh(@ncdot.�ov CDM Smith (NCDOT's Consultant) Rajit Ramkumar, PE 5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27612 (919) 325-3606 ramkumarr@cdmsmith.com Need Special Services or Assisfance for Ihe Pu61ic Hearing? Aquellas personas que ha6lan espanal y no hoblan inyles, o lienen limituciones parn leeq habbr o entender ingles, podncm recibir �i<ios de inrerpreta<ion si los wlicitan antes de la reumdnsllamondo al I -800-481-6494. hi a<mrdance with ihe Amerimns with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide auxiliary uids and services for disabled persons who wish to participate in ihe open house or hearing. Anyone requiring special services, please contacf Dione Wilson at �919) 707-6073 as eorly as possible so that an�angemenis can be made. Mailing Address H W � W � 0 � Z V � m � a ��;�-�lu �'I�"��l��I��'��°!I�'�� II,��'�� The proposed project will involve federal funds and must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, an agency must study the adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of ` alternatives that meet a project's purpose and need. This planning process can be divided into the steps shown below. This project is currently in Step 5 of the process. 1. Identify Purpose of and Need for Project 2. Collect Data on Project Study Area 3. Analyze Preliminary Alternatives 4. Select Detailed Study Alternatives 5. Evaluate Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives b. Publish Environmental Assessment (EA) Document and Conduct Public Hearing 7. Select Preferred Alternative 8. Publish Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Document The proposed R-4707 Improvement project is included in the latest State Transportation Im- provement Program (STIP) as two separate projects, R-4707A for the bridge replacement and R-4707B for the interchange improvements. This plan, which is incorporated into the state's "From Policy to Projects" initiative, prioritizes projects and presents their timeline and funding schedules. The table below summarizes the STIP cost estimates and schedule for this project. Project Right of Way R-4707 A Interim Design (Bridge Replacement) 2017 R-4707 B (Interchange Improvements) 2020 Construction 2018 2024 The R-4707 Environmental Assessment Document is scheduled for completion in December 2016 with a Public Hearing for the project is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2017 and publishing the Finding of No Significant Impaet (FOI�YSI) in Summer 2017. *- Project Schedule is subject fo change based on funding NCDOT CDM Smith (NCDOT's Consul�a�rvfl;i Ahmad AI-Sharawneh 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 (919) 707-6010 aalsharawneh (1 ncdot.gov Rajit Ramkumar, R'� 5400 Glenwood �.-: �.�� .�� Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 2761 ` (919) 325-3606 ramkumarr@cdmsmith.com I. I^ �, P. �` �. �GE��I�DiKl�J�i��.Af�Mi�wT�l 1��IPJ� "��:'� I� 1�1 �� Y��.9 '_,�t�;i� f i �c �;; , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1IY � �� i�� to the Public Meeting for the proposed U.S. 29 � Reedy Fork Parkway Improvements project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation appreciates your attendance here this evening! Please sign in at the registration table and visit the project meeting maps where project team members are ready to answer any questions or receive any comments you may have. �� tonight is to update you on the proposed project, and to help you better understand the phasing of the improvements and the process we are going through. This meeting is one of many opportuni- ties you will have to interact and work with the project team. Project team members are present and pleased to speak with you, answer any questions you may have as well as receive your comments and input. �� `i r��t is important to us. Your input helps guide our planners and engineers to develop trans- portation solutions that complement the community's goals and visions. A comment form is included with this handout. You may leave the comment form here with us tonight or e-mail or mail it to us later. PROJECT INFORMATION �ROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Greensboro and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are proposing to replace the existing structurally deficient bridge and improve the existing U.S. 29�Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange. The improvements would include upgrades to Summit Avenue from Bryan Park Road to the interchange as well as enhancements to Reedy Fork Parkway from Eckerson Road to Summit Avenue. The study was started in the early 2000s but was delayed due to lack of funding until 201 b. The project is now funded for construction in phases. PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED The purpose of this project is to provide a set of alternatives that will address the transportation needs in the study area. The purpose of this project is to: • Replace a structurally deficient bridge over U.S. 29 • Improve the existing U.S. 29/Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange to meet interstate standards that will accommodate future traffic volumes. Several alternative designs have been developed through previously performed studies. These were presented at a public meeting held in 2006. A total of three build alternatives were considered for the interchange improvement. Since the project is constructed in phases, an "Interim design" was developed for the bridge replacement prior to the construction of the full interchange. The phased construction is programed in the funding cycle of NCDOT STIP as R-4707A which includes the bridge replacement and R-4707B, the full interchange improvement. R-4707A: � An Interim Design for replacement of the existing bridge to a new location of the final interchange south of the existing bridge. The new bridge is located within the footprint of the R-4707B full interchange alternatives. R-4707B: � Alternative 1 Revised (DDI): This is a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) A DDI moves high volumes of traffic through an intersection without increasing the number of lanes and traffic signals. � Alternative 2(Partial Cloverleaf): In this option, all ramp movements are located on the south side of the interchange. � Alternative 3(Traditional Diamond): Includes two distinct intersections with free flow right turning movements onto the ramps and provision for future loops. r . . pt�.f.'�'i "�4 � e _- x �� - i .�+ E '� ,�,� �R �2�� r�# • � � ,,��.�,•" v;� ' / � _ — � � �� .. � ��. -... -.� ,�--=,t '�` ' �. i r� � r` '�r � �- 1 �; 1 � -. \/-`_] � •�..rr ^I ��' / ` � _�,.:. xi .. �J � 48' Interim Bridge Width � � � � 6' 12' 12' 12' 4' 2' � ~ ~ LANE ~ LANE ~ Shoulder Shoulder FuTure Auxiliary Lane The R-4707A, Interim Design for replacement of the existing bridge is located to the south of the existing bridge. This bridge is located within the footprint the R-4707B full interchange al- ternatives and is wider than two lanes to accommodate the future project. �4�,�• _. R-4707B INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES � � ��" � � •�� r �� K s �4. � - l Y � a;� � ��.- � � =� a -: � .: ' �, \+ � `t� '� � �� >',. '�` • , �. /�� '� d � .. ` � �� . . " '� . �� ,''r;� � ��. .s� � r ' 1 � �� b��j,r � �� a �,� �{e r -*-. ��, .��. .,�o �y .. �� .�.+^-h . � /, �" �� Mi� {' „��n i �i '� v, y - ��, 1 rt,t� s, � �,� i�.. � rt � •aui�oaa� y�aoN �o �C�i�a�in pua ,(uaouo�a ay� a�uayua o� ,(�ini+isuas �a�uawuoainua pup �C�i�iqp�uno��y 'sn�o� aawo�sn� y�irn ,C��uai�i}�a pua ,(�a�os sa�a�d pua 's��npoad 'a�doad f ui��auuo� 8�S1-669LZ �N'4�!a�a� aa}ua� a�inaaS I!pW 8�S L uo�.�a}aodsuaal �o .�uaua�aadao •�•N ., � �{au,v�aaayS-Ib� Pp�4b' �N11`d ''` �� ,. " s�uauaanoadua� �(ann�aad �ao� �(paa� � 6Z 'S'n �LOLt�-2! NCDOT needs your input! Please send your questions or comments The North Carolina Department of Transportation thanks you for your attendance tonight. NCDOT is on the Web! ��v�";��,�,,-.,�c�:ie,�n�.c vv Public involvement is an important part of the planning process. The NCDOT encourages citizen involvement on transportation pro- jects, and will consider your suggestions and address your concerns. If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer Service Cenier toll-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU, or visit the NCDOT website at www.ncdot.gov. Comment Sheet NCDOT Public Meeting April 21, 2016 Name: Address: I ��'iF11 F Comments and / or Questions: TITLE VI PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FORM Completing this form is completely voluntary. You are not required to provide the information requested in order to participate in this meeting. Meeting 7'ype: Public Meeting Date: April 21, 2016 Location: Biy�n Parlc Golf and Conference Center, 6275 Bryan Parlc Road, Browns S�unmit, NC 27214 TIP No.: R-4707 Project Description: US 29 and Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange Improvements in Guilford County In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related authorities, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) assures that no person(s) shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any of the Department's programs, policies, or activities, based on their race, color, national origin, disability, age, income, or gender. Completing this form helps meet our data collection and public involvement obligations under Title VI and NEPA, and will improve how we serve the public. Please place the completed form in the designated box on the sign-in table, hand it to an NCDOT official or mail it to the PDEA-Human Environment Section, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598. All forms will remain on file at the NCDOT as part of the pub�ic record. Zip Code: Gender: ❑ Male ❑ Female Street Name: Age: (i.e. Main Street) ❑ Lcss than L 8 ❑ 45-64 Total Household Income: ❑ 18-29 ❑ 65 a��d olde�� ❑ Lcss than $12,000 ❑ $47,000 — $69,999 ❑ 30-44 ❑ $12,000 — $ I 9,999 ❑ $70,000 — �93,999 ❑ $20,000 — $30,999 ❑ $94,000 — $1 17,999 Have a Disability: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ $31,000 — $46,999 ❑ $118,000 or gre�ter Race/Ethnicity: National Origin: (if bo�7� outsidc thc U.S.) ❑ Whitc ❑ Mcxican ❑ Black/Afi�ican American ❑ Central American: ❑ Asian ❑ South Amcrican: ❑ American Indi�n/Alaskan Native ❑ Puerto Rican ❑ Nativc Hawaiian/Pacific Islandcr ❑ Chincsc ❑ Hispanic/Latino ❑ Vietnamese ❑ Other (please specify): ❑ Korean ❑ Otl�cr (plcasc spccify): How did you hear about this meeting? (newspaper advertisement, flyer, and/or mailing) For more information regarding Title VI or this request, please contact the NCDOT Title VI Section at (919) 508-1808 or toll free at 1-800-522-0453, or by email at slipscomb(�a.ncdot.qov. Thank you for your participation! STIP Project No. R-4707 — State Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment for Public Review � Comments and Responses STIP Project No. R-4707: State Environmental Assessment, Comments and Responses � January 3, 2018 . .. .• �. . .. -. 1 A. Perdue 11-9-17 I am concerned about the diverging According to FHWA's Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) diamond for the reasons listed below: No Informational Guide published August 2014, the DDI design has stop lights: we have a high school in the proven to be safer by reducing the number of conflict points nearby area with new drivers who need over other interchange forms. The crossover and reverse curve that reinforcement of a light in that type geometry reduces vehicle travel speeds through the of traffic situation. interchange. Two proposed traffic signals will be provided at both crossover locations to control traffic movement at these intersections. Signing and pavement markings will be used to direct drivers accordingly. 2 A. Perdue 11-9-17 Large capacity trucks that will be using the The design of the DDI provides 15-foot wide lanes approaching bridge - Proctor and Gamble is just across and through the crossovers to allow large trucks to safely the bridge and other large manufacturing navigate the curves at the crossover locations. As part of the plants travel that bridge. Do you want to roadway design, the tracking for large capacity trucks is meet up with them on a diverging evaluated and the curves or lane widths adjusted accordingly. diamond? Appropriate signing will also be provided to inform and direct all drivers to their lanes. Numerous DDI's have been constructed or are under construction in North Carolina, so NCDOT will provide information to local residents and businesses on the DDI. NCDOT will provide this information by mail and/or website in advance of the next public meeting, scheduled for Spring 2018. 3 A. Perdue 11-9-17 We do not have street lights medians are High-mast lighting will be provided in the area of the DDI. not easily seen in our area at night. 4 A. Perdue 11-9-17 The partial cover leaf is close to what we While the partial cloverleaf interchange is a more traditional now have at the Hicone bridge. We interchange configuration, it has greater environmental understand it. The high school kids travel (stream/wetland) and property impacts than the diverging and can successfully maneuver it. The diamond interchange. The diverging diamond provides the best larger trucks do not have a problem on it combination of safety, reduced impacts, and traffic operations. STIP Project No. R-4707 — State Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment for Public Review � Comments and Responses and even use the shoulders to sleep on in the early morning hours. Append ix F Agency Com ments � City of Greensboro , � North Carolina May 10, 2010 Ahmad AI-Sharawneh North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Teanspm'tation Depnrtment Subject: Request For Sidewalks - R-4707 (US 29 — Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange), State Project No. 365991 l, WBS 36599. Dear Mr. AI-Sharawneh: The City of Greensboro in cooperation with the Greensboro MPO requests 5 foot sidewalks are sitown on both sides of the road, including on the bridge across US 29. [t is also requested sidewalks be included on the service roads. Sidewalks sltould be shown on one side of the service roads behind the ditch west and east of US 29. The sidewalks shoidd be shown along the development side. An exception to diis would be on the service road east of US 29 and south of Reedy Fork Parkway. Sidewalks should be shown on both sides uutil the service road begins to run parallel to US 29, where sidewalk on one side should be shown. The City of Greensboro and the MPO have made mobility and access for pedestrians a regional priority. Statements in the Greensboro Comprehensive Plan, the adoption of the Greeusboro Walkability Policy, the Pedestrian Safety Program, and Nie Sidewalk Program are all evidence of the commitment the City has made for pedestrians. The goal of these policies is to improve safety and awareness of pedestrians through the provision of safe and accessible facilities throughout the City. In addition the MPO approved tlte BiPed Plan 2006 and is preparing to initiate an update to the plan this year. Please include tliis letter in the EA for future reference. Sincerely, �� `e �- /�-- Tyler Meyer, AIC� Planning Division Manager Cc: Mike Mills, P.E., NCDOT, Division 7, Divisian Engineer Terry M. Snow, P.E., Wilbur Smith Associates, Vice-President Adam Fischer, P.E., Ciry of Greensboro, GDOT Director eao p�0. Bos 3136 • Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 • www.g�ree�sboroam.gov •(336) 373-CITY (2�189) • TTY# 333-G930 ��. ;;.�,, ��\ � �� , Sf.��re Or Noiz��i-[ CnaoLi��n DLPAR'C�1FNT OP TRAVSPORTA'TION bt!cu,�ri. }l Ens�r.v Lraoo"CirvErr GGA'IFNn'OR SPCRITARY Pebmary 9, 2005 I IP I'r�iccl: R-47U7 Cowriy: Guiitord Description: Keeans�nmtion of [hc Sl'22970 (Itcedy Pork Parku�ay)/ US 2`J In!crdiangc n�cnioan�o�n� TO: GrzY.ciq• J. �fhrnpe, Ph.U., Lnvironmcntel \ianugzmenl Dimctor Project Darzlopmen� flnd Iarvironmenizl Amily,is L3rench ililcntionc Gail C�nmes_ P.F.., ConsulLm[ CuorJination Memaeer fROiA9: Nathan K. Phillips, P.E., P1an Revic�t' IIneinecr Longtstian bfnn�gement Scetion SUI3,IT.CT: 8nvirrnmiental:�ssessmi:nt for7�LN li--i707 �(i`�J_ ��lY�f_ 7 he Plan Raview Group uf Iha Tra(flc Engincering �nd Saifety Syslams Br;mth has completzJ a przliminury rericw of lhis projccl, zxcluJine capacity analysis. A� Ihis time, wc h3vc no commeuls. lf you h;ivo any quesiiunc, pleasc contact L4aiJelta Johnson, Plnn Kuview Scnior L'rn,ject [nginecr, ur mc �t (9 f 9) 250-h I� I. NliPrbii co; ]. A4. n1ills, P. E. (Altcn[ion: V, G, Burhum, Y.c.) J_ A. Bcnnctt, RG. (Attemion: 7. Speer. P.L.) T. Tt. Ilopkiiis, P.E-(Attcntion: A. D. AVya�t, P.E.. B. K. Mayhew, P.G.) V. L. f:mbry R. L \�]ullinaz. P.E. L. L. Covq P.L. (Al�entiun: J. FL Dunlop, P.G'J G L. Evarrs (.�altcnlion: J. W. Da;e, P.E.) .I. S. 13r�w nt, P.I?. Ii. W. Kiu�, Y.L. A�,\ILIRGADIlR15ti: TEtfvuO>--919-250J151 IACTf10X. I nnie[nn: il .e.v'I'�Sn�eii9cfcisllw+nal F�. Yi')-'_ipJl9i Cr�itxs!l�i i�o��u.�Fml.niaeJ 6BI•.fei�S[ucrteCFsiei Ip20liiecii R'�iu�! Uxn-[ I1AI20.iIr��GIpIIl.11WllS.A�](i94-159� ��£]IlL'�ISiuf001f00�'ST,L—cAYu5 Il>LCIGII,VCR111CARDLIsn9�Gl�1 S rnri: or Noir're Cn�:o�N.� D�PA],ZTi�II.N1' OP TRANSPO]ZTATION nticti:�e� P. L,�s�rv 1.}�00 �Iirr�s iT GOVP9SO3 5EE'd'.c\eT Pcbni�ry 17, 2CU5 n7L�-IORAh7JUA7'f0: GregoryiTho�pe,VhD_,➢irector Projze[ Developmznt and Hnvirmmienlnl /�+alysis• ilinnch rizo��: David P. 6cnder, AICP . �i�� 1'law�IngYr��ram Nlanagcr SUBJLC:f: Scoping Rerirw foe Reconstruclian of the SR 297U (Rcudy Fork Pzrkwey)/OS 99 L�itcrchangc reconstruction in Grezusl.ioro, StataProject h'u. 3.659911, TIP Prnjecl No. R- 4iU7, Guiltord Coun!y. Li rzsponse to your �nzmorxndum, }'ou requested our inpnt rcgarding iha pmposed impmcements to the su6ject projoct. 7'his sectlon oCroadway �,ioes uul correspond lo a cun'ent bicye-le'PII' caquest, �� is it � duieimEcCl biey'cle mute. AI �he present �ce have no indication thnt Ihere is [in unusual nwnbce oC6icyclisl+ us'=n� Ihis roaJ. However. we suppart complienec ��itn the NCllOT Pnved Shouldzr Policy that requires d-foot wide paved shouldzis aiong lfajor Colleetors (uvo !anc— l�co wa}'1 �cilh Di•s'i,n Yzar ADl' over 5000. \Ve eppn;ciale the opportuuity to cummrnt on this projecl. ]t liie.r is a need ior fur(ha� iufonnation, ylcase do not liesi[ate to c�ontact me aP 715-2340. cc: 'fom Nominn, Uircclor Gail Qriines, PDLA rann.n:cFooesss: *e.e:r:,,.c a��e.n:z�:o �ocanore iucow;,T�=�.o.r�.:s=an�,::ic� F.x�.9iaris::z2 Ta_ ' ":�-m:, o, �r�.o:, o� eicx�Ex FEa=s.ce:u Twi�se,:ar,;r��,� � somn�v.�;�s.�,�ousiF. : 135?xw�5ea-aceCnnea VIe:-fi;sr �mmrsrer_rr.us�r.�r/eiwav resy.CRf fio:simtllG2�F�P.-05>? _u_c_.�=� rs,-..re.r.c� fU!FlGnIVC P1/2N2B�6 ��:33 913....832��798 bIILEIJ� SMITH �.S"500. P�G- G2 ��G-�:I .r. � r„Le_�- � . � �'�y (Y,'iceolihe!dayur �- � �j�i J ClycfGr.,r:nsheto � �D�LUJ--��411� ��_. �� U � Ci�GS �:1:, Gfl[CIISIOPJ �,�� ... ��': ��.. IT�`��iCai]-EJ-i i�_:. Odober 26, 7004 Mr. Gre9oryJ.'fhoipe, Ph.D., Director Projeet Developrnent and Fmironmental Analy>is Dranch NC Uepartment of Transportafion 1548 P1ail Servica Center Raleiyn, NC 27f99-154II S1167EQ-: St�rC of Slucly CoordinaLion and Reques[ for lnput for the ReConstrucfion nf Yhz SR 7_970 (Reedy Fork Parkway)/US 29 l�terchanye remnstn:cClon in Greensboro, SCate Project Number 3.659911, T1.P. Project Nuin6zr R-9707, Guilfora County Dear Mr. Thorpe: Thank you for you letter dated Octob2r ll, 2004 regarGin9 the above subject. I have fnrv+arded your lel[er [o the appropriate stafP for their review and cornments. Sincerely, /�-��-�7 Keith A. Holliday Mayor IU�H/sb cc: Ed KiCclien, City Mane.ger P1ih�_h Johnson, Uepury City Manager 1im LM1lesrmoreland, Diredor, City of Greensboro Uepa�finenC of l�nnsportaiion Cnc Gova.rnmcNal Flau, f90. BOY 573G, G`Gcensto:o, NG 2�:0[3135 •(33o)'s]3•239"0 • Fex �33Gj 574-40W� ��, b•+N+'.oreen<bofo�nG9o'/ ' United States ]�epartment of the Interior PISH ;\ND \VILDI.IFF. SI?RVICE N.9cigh Fild OR« Pm� f:liir.e 1ex 33i3e R�cish. 8anh C�rolirn 2lGSG3 i46 W vcinbcr 23. ?Upd \�Is. G;�il �lrir�c., \u�th C:irolluu DcpuYlineut ol TranipoYClliur Pra�cci Daccicpmcnt�nd CncimnmcN:d Analysii I]i5 Vlail SUIciCCCenICr Ralei�h, Norih Cm'olin;i'_>7G99-U�IS Ue:rt iUs. (.irinics: 'fhi_a Icuer is in respon.ir iuyour reyucst �br rumnicnL� Iri>m Ihe U.S. Fish nnd 1Vildlilc Scn'im (Servia.,) on die pumrfi�l rncn'onrnCnWl iinpatls ol Ihe pri�posod imm�slmetiun of ihe SR'_'J7U Q:eedy foik I�d-vay) 1l'S -91nts�'cl��nyr in ruill��J Cou iry', Nu IIi C�w�iin ('iIP r�. 11-J7Ui) I h x a�nuncnis � cciiee�o�.in�.ntonnalionin.iccordanu.��'nh��n�-isi�u+olth�fishmJAVilJlil'uf �.�rl-n'tienAu(IG U3.0 (+GI-CC+7d) :icd .cciion 7 al thc Endmi_cr.d Sproies;Aci �hS:A) of 19;3,:�s:iwenJeJ (Ifi U.S.C'. 1�11-1543). IIcS.r-i J,�.nolhnc iny p:i�C�u�civanUSistim� Hov:cvecihc4�niaeicromnr.nd�lha loll�.«fn i�r'�I -nnsuc ilion m'�a5ur 'tn tcoiJ erminunvo enviroumcnml impacu lo iisl md wildliR rrsrnn: cn: I. AVctlon!I �n�d �cres! in'.pacls should 6: avoiilcJ and iniuiinved lu iiic inaxim:d rx.icnl practic�L Areas eshibiiirg high bioJicersfly ur ��colo,I::J vnluc iinpnrl��inl Lo Liia �cxtashed ur fe �ion cliauld Lc;n�aidcd- Propused high�viq� p;qetts �hould be ollgned ��lon� arndjattm lo exisling rondw:i}:S uliliry coirldars or olher pmvimul�� Jivtw bcJ arcax in ordcr Iu ininimi-r.e hnbiWt Wss anJ fi�aeincm.tlion. liichwa}�shuuldcr �nd nsdiun �vidlhs should 6e rcJuccJ Ihrough wcdc�nd men.; ).. l.n.:nfnesol.IramsanJasouateJ�crtlandsysttniseliouldir� .-i'tim.tnn m sonJloruwm un I.'ide,r.i�'�rtin�v'ieieicrlcavihle 13nd.:.hnuLil�.:lni�eneuahw:llo�l�rpufliciv`nt ��illhtil�r:�.i�� Inu vi��r�menrJ r'. AVh�r brid myi,<nolf��ciblc,cuh �is�rucWres�hm mami.un n uural � tl i Ilu�v anil h} �Iru li r<einr . ti� nhuul s uun i_ er im�n 1in� iish nnd �cildlili- pnasnve shnuld he emplo)'ed; 3. Rridgzs mid n�;pi'onehac sheuld bc dm'i�;ncd tu nvoid any lil! 19�,n vvlR resull in dainmingor eon9r!nion ol Ihe ch:u'�nel ur Ilood plaiu. '�o Ihc cst.nt pn�sible pitis;mJ hcnis should bz pl:iccJ uuuidc Iha bnnk-full c�idth ol the �ueam. li sp�.wnin, ihc Ilood plein i; nni Icasibl;. oulccrl> shoul:l bc In.inNcd in Ihc !lood plaiu ��oriinn ol Ihc uppmndi m maloa soinc ol ihc hcdrolo�cieal fnuniru.. uf �he Ilao�l plf�in anJ reduce high velocitiee oCllaod nntcr �ciihin the aficcleJ nre:e -1. 13ridge Jcsiens should include pi'ori.inns for ro��dbcJ nnd deck J�oin:i�e lo Ilnv: l6rou�,h a cegeuuod b'dfl:r prior Io reaching ihe ailecledstrtani. 'Rdi Gufl�r sho�dd bz Infp,o eningh lo :illee'iote ang putrnli;:l rl�ict> lioin �un-o�lof storm n ati r nnd pollulunis: i. OI I->ita delours:l!ould bc u9cJ nlhcr iltan co�utruciion oi icriq�m'nry, ou-sim bi idgct Pcr pn 1 r qairin� w ai il' J��li urin .cedands ai up�n ��nier. u h Uct wssh ul I b nlrvncd alnnr Ih : idtof th �ci�lin_ stiucL ir �cliich h: s ihe I+�I anJ�u Ic �: i yu'.ili�l' ol IiJi �ind �vildlife hubitul. Allhccuuiplcliuuofcun�slrucl;mt,16eJelournrcashouldbuenlirelynmo�'edamllhe impacled omas6epinnted viih xpp�'opi'iatc ce4eialion, induding irz: ifnec:,sary', C. I I unwroidable �ccilend or cir.im impncls ore proposeJ, a pitm (er rompens�,vory initi�ation lu olfsel unavofJubiu Inip;icis shoidd be provided endy iu tha planning prr ees'�. �ppnitiinlGae In preitci roiligWiou ercas in perptluiiY via cJnsercation caccmcnu, land lmxu orby �.nhrr mauns >hniJd 6e aplored rn Ihu oui:el: 7. R'htn:�rrapprepn�il4cnn>hncGon{nstusilieeartns�huuWnecuromsidcfishspmvningand inigmmry hird neeiing seasuns. In ��atti'a�uyz thnl may scrvt a: irnvol cen'iJnrs fa' f>h, In-�"��cr ��v�k shr,�dd 6e acoidcd during nioraiurium perioJi ussoeialed •.vith mignlien, spn�� r�ius and smuiliec piandull li�e smgo;; 3. Id�.t �tauag.:miN Praniccs (f3}9P) (or Prolcction of Sud:ica 1Vala's slinuld hc implcmaitc¢I; nnd 9. AcliciGc> �viihin di•sieu:itcd rip�rian huf fcrs should 6c nvoidcd onninimizcd. Sce�ion 7(,Q(2) oPlhc Gndangered Spsits Acl reyuirrs ihat .ill feJer;J nciion ngendes (or ihcirdasisn:�tvd non-@doral rcpreserlaiices). in consul��tion �ailh Ihe Serviee. insure Ihat any nciimi ledcrully aulhorizcd. iunded, or auricd out by sudi :igenciev ii not II4_ely to jenpnrdize thc eonlinueJ e,�istence ufany icder�lly-Iisied thrzatciied or midang.reJ y�ecie.;. .4 biologlcal euossnecl/eca.lu:+tion ina}' he prepared in (ulNl ihesrciiuu 7(a)f2) requircineN and •.cill espedite Ihc consultEUiun pmee:s. To assisl you, n tounty' by-couul5' Iis1 oY fedci�ally Pinieeied .-pecies I:uon�n �o occur in iJnnh Cnmiiir,i and i:ifnnnniion on �lieir If2 hisloric's and Lxbil'r.t. can be Yoi.nd '��r �ur�ecl png�. a� hit¢I/nc'i� I�� ccoi ni� G_.h�P_�I . Nthou'_;h ihe Konh Cnro;in:i N:iIm��J Hdrll�age Pro�mm (\�C'NI IP) dalnbasc docs um indiculcnuy knm��n o¢unenc�s uf IisltJ npzcic. ncar Ihe prujccl ci��inily, u5tofihc NCNIIP daw should not bc sub3tiluled ior.�clual field su��eys if suimbls h'�il,�iml o<aurs nenY Ihe projeci sfte. l lie A'CNIiP d�mbase only inJieales Ihe prescnra of kimwn o¢urrane�saf listvd >pe:i�� wid do.s mm �eca.nmlly rne�,m �hat such sprcies zrt nm pre�onl_ L may cimply mt;nt ILuI Iha aien hos not been sun�zyul, If=uiraLle habiiat octm's wilhin the p�oject vieinfly for nny li�led sptcles, sinvcy, slioidd be condut[ed to dclznninc presencc m' absenca of ihc spccies. Ifyeu Jelermine Ih:a fhe propn=ed :iclion ma� olkct (i c.. IIV:el7 to ativcraly afl�•st or noi Ii4:cly Io advcisal}� allicl) n IisteJ specir.. S'ou shoulJ imlify Il�ixoliicc �:�I�h iourdulenninaflon.Ih�r �e,uitsofyour u�-vs.: un- v niethndnli, .i �nd ar, milc u ul tl,c I��U' U ihe n�li n on livnd tip ci �, Induding c m.deeitio�i �I direcl, ��ldrt �i, and ctintul' ll��e e�l�cl , lu lurt �c �du I� i'❑, act�titi ihul mighl OIILct Ihe c��ceie>_ 1(you detcrmine Ih;4lhe propmeJ nulion will h�nre uo cliect (i.e., nU bene�icf�I or aJecne. direci m' nidfrccl el'@eQ m� fisted �pede.;. Ihrn ynu :uc nol rcquifeJ m caiu;icl aur o07ee lor mncurrence. VVe iesen'e Ihc ri�;lu iu revia�.e any �cderal parmits tlial �n'�ry� 6e rcquiraU (cr Ihii projecl, at ihe publi� noiice sinc��. Tharefoi�, iI is Impurmnl Ilcii iticource aeene.y coordiiinllon occurendy in Ihe plannin� piocu; in orJerlo reiolve, ny rnnlTcls tlmt nmy nri5e and minimize dcl¢ys in prol��'�'t implamm�lalimi. In addiii�n m tho �6ovt ouidm�ca, e'e i'eaommend Ihal Ihc eneironnieula� documeNciion 1'or iliis projcc� induJc thc �bllo«i:�g in suffititnt tli9ail to I;mflilnlca Ihomu�'h rceie�c o� Ihc �ciian: I. A cleurly Aelin<d and dctaflcJ puq+ese �.mJ necd (or ihc praposed project. suppnueJ hy. lu6�d;v Jala, If vvnili�blc, uud induding n discussion uf the pPujcti s iiidepcnJeut uliliry; 2. :\ d.scription of Ihe propeseJ actinn �.vilh nn :malysi; ol �II allenvaices beine considered, inclu�,iing Ihc upgi�ding of esislim„ ro�W.v- nnd n"no aclion'ldlernnli�'e; 3_ A descripGou nf �he �lsh und wildliCe rcsowccs. and iliair hubii�als, �vilhin Ihe pi'ujtci impual arca ihnl may hc Jiicctly or Indimcily flCtccted', d. 'Iha eztent mid utrea,'e ui �caitrs ol 1hn li'.5., ine�uding ��ellands, Ihm are to i.�� in�pacl�l Uy Gllfng.Jied�in�,dc;irine,ditchin�.ufd�'nininy. Aaa>�I'�ecllpndiinpa�tJrouldba dlCCerer.(inted by habilm D;pe b.i.se,1 on lhe �ccllanll cl:issif:utinn schrme o(the N:�lion�,il 15'c1lnnJs !m°enta'p l�:A1'1). 1Vetl.wd bounJnrits sl!ould be dciermincd by iuine thc US7 Com> ol Gi�!incr,i< AVcda ids Deline:aion �A4mmnl aud ��a'ificd by iP.c li.S. �A�nry (_nrps of Gigineca; 5. 1'hc amicipamd environnsnml impnas. boih [rmporFu'y and pennanenl, thm woWd be likaly m cccur �.; a diruci result oi thc prnposed prujal. The:»essma�l should also indcJa Ihe c�lent to v.hich the pfopmed proiect �voiJd resul[ in secmidary in'�pncls lo nawml resnua�cs, nud hmv ihls �mJ simil.ir prol�ctc conu'I6ulo to cmnulatico advcrse cl'fcas G. De.ign femuYcx aod con31mc1lon lCchniqurv whfdi �!�ould b� empin�'cd lo �void oc minlmize imuntls lo ��h aud �vilJli�c iaonnrcc,, holh Jirtct anA indirccl, nnd induding fraGmavviipn auJ dn�cct loss i�l hnLiml; 7. Dzei�n fcawres, conslructim� �tchniqucs, or any uth�r nftligaliun mrn<ur� which v'ould bc employul at �cetlo�id emssings xnd �Iremn ehnnnel relocaGon: Io:rvofJ m' mn�iini�e Impnets to w:ilcn; ol thc US: and, R. 11 unacoid:ihle +cel!�antl or siraam impacls nre pmpnsed, pinjecl planuin� choulJ iutlude a compn�snlorv mili�ation plan IuY oil=cllim� thc mm.,oidable imp,icL. 'I'iii Sen�iee apprrcinles tl�.c i�ppotlunitv w crnnmeni m� Ihis pm,li�L Plcnse cnNinue lo ad� ise usJi,inn� Il��.rogi -nuo(ihaplmmi �r� �.�.,irluGi�pnwol�iu�Ii:krmin�iiienol'ihclmp�elso(Lhis prqjaei. If Vou hnce au} qu iimi: r�pailin� our respnns� pl r: eon��et Mr. Ci:n'Y Jtnl i i ei (9U) S�ti� �1i30. c:.1.3.'.. ^ tiii 'cC Icl.S' / �/ " V Pclz I ��jainin fmlb�itnl Scnic¢s Suporviso� tt', John T'hom.�s, GSACE, Italcieh. NC Nicn!c 7 homsnn, �'CUVVQ, Rolei;;h, t�C 'I'ruris Wlq�u.I�CIYRC� Creedmoor,l�C Chi is ,\Lliud �n, L!S ISPA, R:ileigh. tiC r� �� +� � i��Lj��1� � U�. //e"{ % S"I�A'fC OF NOR'iFl CAROI,INA llE1�nx rNt�� r oF'1�usYo�rrnir�oN D7ICIIAEI.1�. PAAEi' cocr.a::o� Or,tohcr?9, 7_004 Memorandwn I..1T'UDTIPPL'IT +u�_ u n.ev To: Ms. Gail Grim�s, P.E., Assistant h4anayer Project Devclopmenl & Fnvironmenlal Analysis Branch From: James B. Harris, PE � Enginrering Manage NCDOT Rail �ivisio i State Project: 3.6G9911 (R-4i0 fIA Project NA County: Guilfard Description: Recnnstruction of the SR 2970 (Reedy Fork Parkway) / US ?J Intcrchanye Subiect• Start o( Sludv The NCDOT Raii Division is in receipt o( your scoping lefter on lhe abovc: subject project. After review of lhe project scoping lelter and localion of ihe project study area in relation to nearby railroad tracks, it has been determined ihat no rail interaclion is antir,ipatcd ior this projer,t. Should an offsite detour 6e reyuired, rail impacls should be avnided if possiblc. Preference should be given to delour routes that provide grade separation of the highway and the railroad tracks if possiole. If a grade-separation roule is not available, tnf(ic should be detoured over an altemate roule ihat provides a siynallzed crossin�. The existing roadv✓ay profile on any railroad crossings that may be located on an alternate roule musl also be considered in selectin� lhc detour route. �etour routes should bo chosen that otfer th� railroad crossin9 with ihe best proiile rather than a route lhal would require tratlic to usc a'humped' crossing. Flalbetl trailers or olher low ridin� vchides may get stuck un a'humped' crossing. rnaulrvc.nWREss: ra..n.•. a9.;tesehl . LaC,NIaH: Hiu Cld� S�.p-1 FTl 91c.]1 cEi�1 C� cilPl YpPc Gs.eem:., L Suerv 2rui .n E52 Cnnna9cu._ na�o issnr,sc uV�asrre: rvwrcbylraln.or� F�i�y.r:e v=o, IR�eisn V1: :Rog9�1£50 Please call me al /15-II744 if you havc any addilional questions. JBHNds Cc: file ;�� i�: )� Noreh Caroliva Dcparhnent of Adininistrarion 2:Iaha:l P. ErsleY. Govemor uqvem6er 3d. �OU4 �15. �_ CJ�1� �II Illlf.o VCllOT - l'rojcn Uevclopntcnt 154� Atail Servfcz C�nt<r Ralci uh. V C-7G9��- I�' S DcarJls Grimrs GwVnn'I_ S�.r'in_nn. 5ccmtnq, F:�: �CII Pila = 0�-6d220-017.1: Scopine, Propnscd project is remnzvuc�iun oi the SF297G (Recdy : oi': 19;'.:..-i. :.-'_ ::: I.:K'Cl::.:t�! lil Gfu::15„l�l"0. �r:.... .i,_ .., ,..: ,. ' ' � ...e �I..�._...:_...�.c; cr,�i:c:n:rental i:n„ar ir.frr:ncucn h�, 6emi submiucd tu C��e State Cl=an�.�•_.muse tlil�iCi Qll �Iqvb:aic qi 4�.n "ftlipill�l iI1Vi:Ulli'd2:��ill �'oI�ICV Ail /�:ip'1'��ulY. �p f i-C. I i;9� iP. AVIlCO il s i _ u� i: � �u :.� �.�r-na.-� an e�;oi« �nmcntal nnaimeut wt��t!' th� ro,: isin�a u �� i crzl I: o:. !lae aici; onn�ni��l do:�.:r�c�i ir�e�> tl:o I'mvTsions of Ihe Sw�e Enviruninenml Polic.�� AcL ?.tiaeic.l iu Ilus Ir,ter G�r vair -,m.ic�ia�ion arz iLe commems moda 6y a,�eneies Ir. ih�. cuunt oi this ravie�.�'- 1L,"V rdr,her=m;�un��,•en!;:I reviev: documona arz qitpnred Fur thi} prnjtci, thav cltould be Ibi":e.rdzi m ,.__ �iii�x fi,r .,. .._.,...�....,I iz.;�.,.v _.��oi.Jd rou ha--e sr�v qu��>liors. Vlcase. du nc,i hti:ta:c tn call. .Auadimtms �,.. R=,�ion G tlniliiq JdJrnr: Ii01 Aloll S::vlu Cenmr IL��Hyh �� ^ �u.. !Jlll Sincereh;, �Le..�pGi� �l� V-fs. Chi�> Btg�sctt I�-ncironmcntnl Policv Aet Caardin+wr 1:1.plew..: (919)YII.1�_i Fnz i>I'iliiaOp� =SDCLa9 , -.�.,:�1 Cdrn h�rt:.o-i.rvn,:cJ n:: ._iG.a�t.lU_r-n ,-� n�-n..,_._n_, . i.,�,,:n,,,� n,m„�.,: I IGIY.n t,n.;tirzn R.d.�.d� vunii Cam�im �q � IdCDEhJtt Piorlh C;:rolina Depadmenl of Gnvironn-�ent znd NzWrzl Resources ivlichzel F. Easley, Gevernor f ' ` �' �„ ��UV ?OQt �� R�� _.,__r.._.... ��, ��~F/�A c,%;-, �ro: . - ea,�. .,.a�ce Cl�s`. _'_i��:_a .-..,,i.. :elba : .. e 4�' o•ojv_-�Re':le'a Coorci::=[cs �Ndliam G. Koss Jc. Secrsia�y P.�: -9tG� `a<uD'. C^_ _cCo.^.Slivc__J_ J. ...: . �-'.k .__'. _ !-'� Gc:1___"c Coun[y _...n. lir:,en`.1-'s,•' ' , :�0_ ?n� ��.v.a-ar��r,n u� 3,.._�.-onm.=nc �,d tl�¢ural ..�_ _ '" ._ v c.�� nro;ro - nr�jy �'.e : ;vn„r,-. s .__ - _�i_ ` �tm ic,�,• :Im�c -ci."" "o:r.-.>„Ss �..ill ..- orovided dc::ing ".�c _..ir.-��r��rx�} __..e.. _ �ca fes cbe quportur.i:v [ —:nr.ci. C" d.,�.�5.^.o ck,e or�uara""c._ w c'oe'�e. _senme�ral ceccmenc. "...�.ir.u;el :nfo+'maCi�:. is ;e_de..:, _r uCClj[BP.L��= cLf.GGL]CB.^�. CO pOC_L!CC'1_ 1Co �'CCIVE i]_V£glpp5. �C�ac:^.meocs 1601 Pdall Service Cenfer. Ralaign, Nodh Carolira 27oP9-1G01 Phone: 91�-733�49841FAX: 919-715-3060AInlemel: ww�r�enrs!?tenruslENR dn EGual �_yAr.unily 1 Atiu.re:i:�e AG:on fmglo7e� -eCCS Rs_ri_Q A 1 G; Pnst Ccn;uroer F�pa II;1212Jec _�.�.: 91F3289859 PAf_ �3 !';' North C'�roliiaa \Vildli.fe Resc�ureus Cormliission �:�; —`J-6 Rio6xJB.tlucil�en.P�cwti�:�U�rc.tor \IE�l01L\�UL'\9 7"0: �lclla�(cG�c Offic oFLeeislativc an� Imm��ovemmcntal Aiieirs: ➢tNR FP.?\f�. 7'cacisR�il-pn,Hi�I,�;�apPmlec[Cnordivafor _ %�� %� :;��i;ac Ccracn�a;�:on Pmr�m �� — D:>"Ilc: \ovcruLerl.2,^�0� S��,Ir(:'[: IL>pensc to the start oi sa:d}° nouilcatioa fzom ihc N. �. DePartmcecot Trznc�orb.rirn [::�LOT):c�erdlne fish and ��ildiiR eu.iaerns fer 1he proqesed eeu^rs�iucP.ov oY ti;c S2 7_97Q ;P.�edy For4 narF,�; nyll l: � 7? in2rciirmga in f,�,�,n>L+c-o, G-�ilierd Clounty; �niih C�azolina.7lP �o- IL-�17ULSC$. Project'•:o- f1:-0121. This atarnor.mduci re�.onds t9 a rcigiest irom G1il G[unes nf �i?c NC1�07 for our conc�rn rz. .rning imn..cF, ��,�nh ai o tldu[ [cso ir ca i.+�ti�i',t mm d'�.e ii�bi [ pa 'cl. $ioloci�tr oetli� StafEel ihc N, C. 1':ilol,�� i esourczs �'cuu-�s�io �(i L��-RCi h `^:,oro`� Yli�e proc�aedurpro�eni�nl' (��reomm m� ir �.rrv�ded n-cavda�,<e vtnceiiainnro thc Nntlonel Envvnnmcmal Polic�+Ac_ (1�- U-) �. -�3�( )(�)) an7 1 i I anJ A�`ildliic Cou;di��ation;la (dS Stnt �101, u amcnded: !G LI.S.C. 541-b67d). \Jc ha��e no so:ci[ic ��oncems reeardine thie proSect L[o�.vevcr, to h��lF (zcilitate decumentpcepnranr,n ��nd fhc re��ew p,uass, ai�r ge�crxl infonuu7inimi needs az� oueiined uelnu,: ]. 1Jeccrip��ou of f slizry 2nd �a:ldfifz re.s��n[czs n'ithin thm projecl acca, ii:duding a listine oC fe�leially or 4ala dasi�nated [itrea:encd: aadeii°cred, �c sn�einl concem eptcics. Potenual bo�Tew zte�= lo be uscd FU�' projec! emisllvcrinn s6mild he inclnc!ed in tht in'+entones. :\ listiag oEd��igna�ed plant specics c2�t 6a deceloped tivouel� consultaYion wi[n: }lviling.Adtlrass: DivlsicootlnlamiFishzrie> • 177.1 �fad5erviccCcnt?� • Ralaiei:,KC 27f99-1721 Tclephonc (919)737 ;C•33 • b�r (Sl3)7U-7(»3 nir-izoon i>:s� ei35sa�aeas idamo nnci. 71:c `i.^.mral Hcdtaga Yeog!�� ti�. C. Di. ision ef Pxr}'s and Recrea�im� i 61 j\-faii. Scru ice Cenler Ralzigh,�::. C. 17699-161i (9 i9) 73i-779j N'Wl?�.ncsna_r':- rclin�� November 12, 2004 r�r-E au NCDp Planc Umisccvation Progroin P.O.13o� �7(id7 lialeivh.?:. C. 2�G11 (919)�733-Ju10 2. Descri�iion of any simaro. oC �:'ad.=nds zPtec:rd by the peojcct. The need fo[ cha�t�t�:'�i<ing, or reiocatinE! ponions of �i :;zms cm55�J �md L�.z esteut oi such i�etivitit.. i i• �,7a n. p. he ��,3 v� tlz-1 e�ca es n[ 2c[el b m pro�-c�. � Ul nn ..r �z� nu �� cludz Il t n ct :cl cd .. ��,alm >-n. n.o h� rJu-!c il'r�c� im'Jtoidl( lvt oh'rd iin� e�r;dlu Ini �rojec[�o�� ructian. 1�-��]9n� _jw ��.: it ca ir y 0_ �ccomph f ci 0 rouch e� ��unlion � mi h� 17.5. Arm}� Corp> ot Engiiieera fCOE). Ii ihz COIC is not mnsulted, �he p�Toon dc:i��,ea[ins,uctizad=suould hc �dcntin2d and aisena P.stcd. +4. Covcr }Te n�.a�s sho��,in� �cra:!ecs ol"u�lund wildf-.f hebitat i�rq�actzd by the nro�;osed orajea. Yole:niel bor>�i�::�es should'ee inci�aded. �. � he :xtant to e:liicL Cne prcl��[ «ill rzsuli. in losi: dc;ratlation, or fiagn:entation ol -,�rild;i:e habiLd (r;cilec�s or uptanA3j. 6. 1-iitiostion f�t avol�in�.��.��imiaine oc to�upzr.°ziin� for siceat and indlrect dz,radziinn in hani�ai yueli:y as �.cell a.e Guz�uiC::i�e loss��. 7. .1 enn�ml�ti�e finpaci assess;uent seetien �+hic6 analyz�s tYic en°;ieunmenl�al atCact� of hieii�cay conshvction r�nd Gun„if�es ihe cnmritiution oftliis indi�idual pmjem! w en.irountenlal dzec�detion. 5. tl ducuSsion nf L1��e pro6ahle incacr, on nztw�al reseiuces �.�.liich �cill resdil G4�r seeur.dzry decelnpment facilitzted by the impioved mad acecss. 9. fi ccnsmittien of:i�is `acflity is m b� cocrdinatcd �.i1'n oti+�-i� stace, rocr.icival, or E,riazcr dzvalop�nzn4 pre�wi<� o de;cription ot thest Proieasshould be ieduded in Hrce:n�iro�uncnCal ducanxnt, and all nrnjec: ;piinsors soo�i�d bv ideuliEed. Zhank ��oii for!he-epporttinity ts o�u�,�ide input ia the cady p!�+nnin? s4agee icn llus pmject. ff�,5'acxnfnel�zras=istyouroin"eqpleaseconlactme�[(919)57-3-9SS5. ��—f�—_��_� �l<�te oi North Carolina Fewe�:,��Qorn;e: s aCUEi�i� D�pertmen. o( 6wironment and N�tural ResoUrws G'�'��,,' Pmjex;t.umCec!/�l DueDate: i r INTERGOVFRNM[NTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COA4MENTS 1i;er revi=w ci �Fis pioicct I; nas besn A=�x�mined �he[ [he �FNP permh�sl znd/or apOrowls incicated may necdiu be oh:a=n=d in orderfar �his �mjxo wcemplywnn:l��nnCsmiin�.'+ts.�_U��esilm�s«garding�h^;ep�rmitz;hculdheaddm �t�oReH:gi�r�alUfGc:lntll:o;eden�h'src�erssof�n3fcrtn.- nA aFPllc..�ic,e, in,��m_;icn :nd geidelines rel�Yrve ;o these plans anC pe�mi�s are availsSle irom the same ReSionzl Gfi�c=. CEft:`dil5 Fc�minoroqurv[t E o0e�aawave.:dxnrea�mem ';y.^.2nea!Pn;i�n56;PxErS:n�tm5 001 tli! f1nf9 np in:c s�le fudK4 �v2:±4 . ..:0 5=_:hame Inm wifa[e r.atee anNv p - �ram�r��c. .00�.�s n...�n; ;.ng ir o s,_�e sun.cs rra:me ..,:xe Uve Vnm.� SFECIA�.4PPLICi�TICN PFO.`f�UflcS m F£pUINE6!21� i 5 hOVi:aucn op Zay; balcm be:ln <on. ru:fni m awa�tl ef:r..u�mnsn can�eaz. Ca-si�e in!p[nim Fcs[ =FF��'-�iamuhniczl cer.!¢renet o:u:l. Ra�' -� � ad - t t be: ...yo, "e' sa �� r.- fPl � .uzl.Aid" il).o6Wn0.r" on.ivn.Ese crne_mrn� f=dl',ry'9�a �etla�erNVllES.izply�.ir.e,SUtls�rnF.xrreci,�eip�anseilssva ci NFCEipnm� �r.l'�i[bn��i513:a- ��-+C�PRti.�[nvm aWn(ereRcu:ua::yn^(PSYr/ �. n�.nm�sncnr.�mu _ _ -_ �u....-aa..._ .�doun�hiommV�lvvo.n.- I s ali i1en e'x�.. � n� ... ,. . .. - .- ,..... , . _L�_"— __ __"_" — � .�!�.I!c!vni: FfV' . mfYrnuStC.�zrv^[1cn^.:L:r;lac..-..niCsixnF�e'eP�lCauq�. r�.nlcintp¢(ib:tR�YF11:31LROl'Vf:rf2f LS'Jdl. FIIFp� m1y1[[�Yi+cnlfmM: ' mfei::��i+co=�a�m.�roV,am��*:reimn.-wF,c_�i.,ie�o.A3za�ovaiv��,�,�i •`�I � . II I b-. • I I .` _o _.ia.r��b\:CC�r�: .'101 � l a ! C '�Il� `-�'�I � rpp._ :�.M1 �..I.r,n.)F�LJ � __ ._ .___ _____ -r;, iu � .. :�.o, .�._ �— �i . .,. ,. �, - s,�i1c, :S„iot.:�,�r�..ri,La�a-",�`:��:�:�::«, ...: � :'��n�+r,r;odrm�i��rn eonucc:.;[e�rez �n ore:��s�c-r�s.ocza ❑� cc�oi�sc�..rurnu,em�mvn,.e�isnR:nc �'_ -"__ '_-- � � i 5 II � C: 19I ! C d�.., '1 I . � .t . . , .. ,1- '�I ... : i e t . . c� e r i nn3 v �e�. .roi � c r u 5-..riz� _�:._. d i�-nt � or ��' ID em.n:ai Cluton<o,vc oltill�.,th=�J J'.rrt. �,nex.e.,apol lu..-a^�s 4 �� t ol I �J � ',I i� Wi � �p .P I n �uroJdL� c 4 -�Oie�f D+�V ^�-�- - �-p�, lu0u5acl.[., �t.mvryxre5artloVlz's. ..m�rgF+,.n�' ��'. ��_.� C�n- �.ol.SuxqboadL�x :qN�5;11 f:ondo� - aAth -^Tf9t;�m�m -�aun:�'mcs �V4<n'�-'-�4 mm�be� o: ava olaiiP.onlltoM1 hc/ Ym minCdg�ceu�i iFm uc be pmmi��ed Tm app�cprp¢ mntl m�t be r� :vetl b=(: __ t\e Oenn� aenbe ir<vxi. HnrnCair.Ivala:m�.nF'=:nh. � O:reLein:Geule�bY�:t.�'�':�scnoficmvfesu�uedpbrt:l;exmetli4da�s I C.Il�OultlC1.. (1 '.9 ! dNunliu p .. p 1 �ItCC " 1. f � l'lmeeNhzni'e .nm.0 �.�-hag�".;ali. y�"d e 3 ��'�� I dl� -.I�nifl:uldAare-�u;5.%u I a,ui. JayaFd �,mltum'sp. �r_G. C-Iqzpnl�FaN:�iES � !IN NmmalFmoas- ISm�wcn ilmo Cm �1 lUtlxp �r.OtlaY� �O.l:ncu): uYTI i0day. panl — I:ic ysl c! Ee'S) !ptl..s Elca : �q S;:t I — 1 ' )` 3 �./: � itl5ys 1"tJtilySi � day p'JTI 1 day I I 59.lIDCa�s 1�1/r1I V% �e�rtrs O�n 9`an Pr.m: ._.,.,.��.i...m�_ -;c,io:gazkxn G:aFnpvavl�:p'.c un:.�Fznni: :fute Liies Consxcv'¢m Pnmrt T-� <Jit:a.e; OcalicyCeni(¢;iien Gx�A'._.n.,w �.,dC?..x.r.Iccrtcn: �..�.i� r..mn.cr'.9[Ipi dhninpmen. -.£c:AL naaucanc'�n Fao.`.enuFS e, B:Vuu�:e�.eNrS — If pe:mu ee:mr^c.saFll(a:ba E:� tla>s beimehec . s:hlr..f.'CCa:liii¢den9�necne: -^tt,;nme:^. RLpl�..ca: ��mzr^ C:vo. ImFx: �:.n:V u::ian oe n`f �n cnis[:CmR�ng;cL�C�noSorx_FLR.MeJxlmc�.ureCm - i�CGO�iOlpiqri. a.. 2CfFFfi mG�p541E�� .L.•_.� ^ '. . °' t � 1 N er �� i S�LOCJ . .it C 1 ; - n � , , CzsrCor ' •' C : •'If�nr[.:nc e. — ercEara]�enneu�vipie .�.AICe�M�A¢demn,enpire , v.i�: -«�i[:,neorss.oco�,��}ce:.s,. -msia, ��r+ccc --_ ' ' � r.Ll:�oaa::naia�,y w2bnon�.e tr mal oe•.::or;nat �con ae3�aonm,�.�,ee piicnaC aac. e:r,o to OC':H:Wef an Ls?uL:ticct - =Ftll¢uon L'vtl �.ul;p Cct:H al'�v:19 ce)'f p:lor �o hNp p o� 4-f.e.......:ntlurtl 2[:L:�:19n i:rm. I.rcT.i., AOCi:a�IJn d VI f. C uc ry —� I. fN�=Fc . . . ..iu:P .,n ___ �_ elCrJi.q—�.. .;u _ _ A3GCJ'eer�:ntucmG�n: appli:a.icn SSSCOIr--.�::ac(cn:mny I�:p'.'a:� ' ncc:iCT . 3@.1 � � �� ' I"- If y - �M.;.o: J _____ %.0 .�.A:. � ' ....ee_ n :f�. It4l _tnr,or.n.u..> - __.. __ ._.nun�r.n'<.:o:czr[c��,ininl=tin5ut:nao�:r2O:.Cn. �,i l� �, ' he i „ untle: �g>' /� IJI c i..w'bi . G�¢ i a..r.. ,., •c;�s��m.� c:o�YLmal'�:ce: CCa)� "a oays: tot,ys Ibiq �u cay= 16/nj I5 ?]fa�f P:e ) cpys 11 .czlsl PO Czys 1"f._ba}sl ��o � Is:� � (�t� ' �� I a,r i - � .. _. ." _, ; . , _... rm . -„ ,.�'�£ iJ �:'. 1. , ` a �1 i � , � 0 m I ,�s� � j>/ � �:. Y� I ' ,��.'� � �� _ �� t r � �� ,. II i)1j, ii�; .>v� �,�:1�� I �., � <. �1.,1= �. u,,> ;.d ;,,_- <._.� , �� ,�,-:.. ;_9 'i 1 f �: i — �c��; � '�<��. � ) � �; )'r�rn, ��:!�=�, � ,�,,, �. , � C'roS:s,�a;.<}�I �,-.�r>,.... i i I I - — .-- _ _ — — —_-- —J RtGIONAL OFi�ICeS Qn=_s,Ions r=cardir,a [h=_s� permie; <_nould'oeadc�a<sed te Ihe Repionzl OFlce mzrked Felow. L Ashevflle peginnal O(iice 99';/oci�m c�zca ASF�viliz, PLC235o1 t&'G3i:51�62C6 ❑ Fayetteville Regional Otfice . 72i C-r=_=n Sv=_[. Sui[-; 7t C . =,;�„nle. ra_c. ze=oi L 1 Uj ic^b-15�-1 ❑ Momesville R��oional ofiice 91o;,)»rthl:;:� n5[rve� F.1oern5b711?, N.0 2E.115 GOqI GG;-15=0 ❑ Raleiy� Renlonal O({i�e 3 W � 9=_v=_r pnw. P.Q 9m.;ifiE7 R:Iegh,�i.CD"el l (4i915]i-;ir,p ❑ VJashingmn Renional Ofiice -� i b9a>niocsn >ou_r : fiall l'vazhv�.crn. `:.L>i F.8? f= i�; nCa e;El ❑ lYilming[on Reoional0liicr 127 Cz�oin-=_i Crivc Ezrcn4Cn V'VII: nii iumn, IJ.0 2Ee05 (/s,ol:.�s ;�oo � l'linsMn-5alem Reyional Office �Iz�.ichu;am Sp_et W In;[cn-$zl=_m, �.C. J I O] f=3E; ]? 1 <75Ca DCPARTMENT OF EiVVIRONMENT AND �iaTu�cn� r�Esou�c�s DIVISION OF E�VIRONNIEN I AL FIEALTH � �Pmjact Number � US-0127 i county I c��uro�a �plBf�{i(1BfiCY f fOJcG[ FinVIBW Fi65F0(15G PKOn4[naliuli of Ihf �R ]9i0 IRah�ly furk Pk�ca)/ SC Dp'I' US?9 Lverc6au,e Prejec-, N�ine _ Ty��e of Projec�sccmttwctionu� Greu�shoro ['� l'he appllcent .haulti hE �dvis'rn7 iha; pl�ans and soecillca:ions ior all vr �cr sys:am impmeements must U� appro��ed by fhr- Dmis�on ol Ernironmental hi221�.h P��r !o '�.t:e =•rrd of e convzc: ur Ihe iniiizli�n oi ronstructlon (as renuimd Uy 75A NCAC 79C .03COef. seq.). `or Iniorm�(iaa, conl�c iho I'ublic bVab-r SupPly Ser�i��ii, �919) 733-23?1. ❑ Tiiis oro�em ::tll he c!assiiir-_tl =� a eon�communify publiC w2!er euppiy znd mu=t compiy ;y7i;� =;a�e and `�>dvrel dnnking watcr monitonny reauiremen;�. 6er more in:arm2r,on �he spplican, ;neuid cor.!e.0 the F�tlic We:=r SuFPiy SenlWn. (5}9) 733��321. ❑ i� �I 5 fQ �� IS CGI l LC�� 10G Cl �9p III flCOfilm.�nd IOSU�P Oi _ P: � '�,is u hF h.rves� �r s�lfisi. for �nic�rm�: w r a.,�nu I -�� i � �^ Clrr,ar- rn IYa opliczrt shoulc cnntac tln S4ellAsh o4ndalicn Se i e(a�21 �- Tn� e.uJ aiscas.J z:ez(s) prcecsad ior �Y�15 proj<G n�� prudua� a mosoui'a hreaiii':g �«,hi=m_ Far Iricr:r:z:icn conc�rnnc 2ppmpna�e .T�esG'��o ccn:rol mez.sures, ;" eooiiczn` snoul�i cont, .i th. Pob��c Heai�i�. Pes� Manayy�mcp� Scotion ei Yg+o) 73&E�07'? [�� h5 aCClic2fli ailUUid b9 F.uvisdd Ih2F rrior Io �he rem�i cl ur deir�olillon CJ 611yoirJ'nIGU s;raacrss', z ez'r_nsrve mCcrC cenuol pvorsm may bs neczsszn,� ln oMar tu pr,aeni �he ti:ICr?IiU� oi IhR feden6 to aCjecenl 3rdas'. For Ini0rT25un f.Oncdnino 'I�GEN con'.rcl, voctaci Ihe !ocel hoeiin deo�cment or Ihe Publir, Nealih Pesf �vter'.aocmem SecGrn at �a',e) ;33 uS07_ � 71tC' acriiuen; s'i�oulil 62 acdii5e� t0 cor�t2r,t Ihe local nealin deucCfilenl reya��iriy IhE-f r�culre;tents �cr �>otic len4 Inslail.v:-ons (zs �equired i.ince 15A NCAC 18A. 12G0 e�. =_ap.), For infuc=iz;ion conCernln9 sectic lank ead clher en-sde'.resla dspGsa� i^.NJ��-'n=, „_ ��_.:: tne Gn-Site 1"; �sie�:'zter SucLer at (919) � 33-2895. [� 7'i',E ;:ppLczri should he zddis2d to contzc: th=_ Ice�J hazlili deoanment reoerdirn the s2nitary lacllf;les r4µuked for Ihi� proj<ct. � II rt-' inq :te r Im �iil b. rrb :e7 cturmg Ih ��nstru. ic� pl n iur -� '� �iee ., :C lii �t mus t �' nnil;c� la Ihe �ivigion a E�.vlrer'nenl I F'r::llh F� Lli W 5r S::p4'�ly Scc�lon, I er.hmcai Sernces Eran�:h, 163e ��yii Sari'iw Cante�, f?ale�qh, Nanh C2reline 2i€5o.103+�,(�i9)�i33-25Zt. � Fnr Feoipnzl znd �eNr�l Oi�!ce ccmn:eM�, see �he rev�rsa sroe of Ihi, forrn. ,7im �A1cRi�ht Iievlc\^c' PR'S S�ctionl8ronch 11-3.04 IJat=. SiPwslrngela N!\Cleaiinehou��;Review HesGonse Fgs 1 zrd 2 ior in�cLdee NOV 0 9 Z�0'' PU9liCY1.4TEB5UP2C(SEC1iG�1 � DCPAR-I MCN I- OF ENVIFiONMEN'T AND �-�ec� Num�cr� NAl URAL RESOURCES os�otai DIVISION OF ENVIfiONMENTA� HCAL.I H cou�,ty c��nr„��i Inter-A�ency Projcct Rc-vie�v Response Prc;act Name �C I]0�� _ Type o( Projecl Reconstruetion of t6c SB 2970 (Reedy i�ork Prw}9lUS 29 Commerits provid�d by: Inlerehmiqe recons�ruc(ion in [] Negional Pronr2m Person Grecnsboru. +�� Hcylanzl Supervisor lor Puhlic 4^!a!e: SupPly Section ❑ Cei�.lte1011iceprogramperson p Msn�.�: I.eeSpenccr-�V-SRO il/-;j 1 D-ete� , _, . Telephanu numuze _ ) > C. _�-'/ - `i{..^, CG_ __ .__ Proyrzin wltt;ln Di�iision �f EnNmnmental Heauh'. ❑ Public Wairr Supuly ❑ Ofl;er. fJr.rn,s ,i Progr;,mt -- — �es;wnse (cneck 21I epplicablc): �[ �] Dlo objecC�.or, la proJeci as pGposec �— Plocommcra ❑ li:sullicierd iniorm2tion ta complele rcviFw ❑ Commenls c��ar.itac ❑ S�,e cornmenls 6alow FL'�Ofll �O: Publlc WaLrSupply $�clion Fnvrtenn•.enlal qevlew C�ordlnzmr Iarlhe Oivi=ion ol Ewironmertal I�le�4h 11-3-0 { rescervec I RC.9aGL.�IEVft I N�� 5 ?��fl � �ov5,�,n�aira i+iz�iz��ea is:�s �i9�isJo�a �rzEi:F , '�1'� � N��EN�. �orth Carolina Dcpartmeirt of Enviromnent and Natural Resoiuces �ivision of tValr.r Quality Po1lchael'r.E�s!ey,(iccernor �� N,vernLer 17, _[?01 h7E6IDRANDIIId Ms. Mell�; �iqGLe. F.nvfrt�ilntPn.l�l Cnnrdirminr NGDEM'� UFt�cc nFi_egislstire &: In[crgovcrmncmzl Affairs Bcth }fafess Hamc. ir'Cf10T CO'.'rdinstor fj�R r•�e= a,ir;a Nliill�ia G. Fo�s, Jr., Szcrelary qlan W. I<Ilmek, P.E, Olreclor SL�6!'c'�.T. iazvieiv of acnpino Sheca tor R¢consr,ucdan oi SA 29'0 (Recdy FD/k Potk��'o;ljNS �'� ir,t-rcimngerecon�emmicn in G;ezns6um. Guitfar� Coonry. Ymjea NmnL�r OS � p i 21 Sm�z �rcjccc?:o. 3-U:7911 !�Ip Protact ly-:;Q7 vieisii,n: 07. ;c rcoly m yeur cur,:spondpmc dnlaJ Oolo6er 11. 2fY.W in which yeu �rs�ucsi:d u�nor oU Pof Iha nhove :cien;ncu3 r,wie�:. p[tlin�inary analy.is oi Ihe pmjcct indic.ic: ih-t Ready FornCre-�4::md iis unnamed sibuLdes lie c�it�in iht moi��t �r�s Thrs•- vmtrs arc dvsiBoJ as WS�III NS\V ze:l lie wiihin ihe Q'iGcal A�ra oi �7-,c -cmer supuly...vamish_,J. 1'Lr. Hardy ffill Pend kanae al<e lirs within �he perzject �..n. This k::o�rc is classifted.�s cliss C]�SN iv:ver_. The Diviaion ,FNa[er QuaLrr nf[ea tha��: coevncnis: Envimnmental DaCureemalion I. �\ny envimnmemal decurnent; pertainir.g to lni; p[Oje:t Shou!d o�ovidc a dclzilcd and i[?!Piz=e pr;.c�i;:-,'.iuu ef th= pranestd lmpzcu m�.ctdands anri strra!iss �.vi[h mrecsCimdin€: m�Fning.. Th:.;c 3�r,uld E� adi:cus;inn on rniti�stiGn �d'en5 fn unavoideLAc impacr�. 1(mitigaGpn is reqnired. il is p2f2rc�ol� Fo prasen[ a caucep[uol (i,' n6t I�nylizedJ mili¢mlan plan wi[h the e:n-imnman�l decun�,rnta!ion. Whil,,, chc NCDPiQ r�li::.p. �hzl inis iiuy na. olwn�s Ix F•rz�ctical. it ihould'uc:.^tcd tn�: �oY pro�ect5 rcqujri��g milieufio�i, ap9rupriam mitieation pl�no H-{II 6e reqmrzd prior to is5unncr. of a 4O1'�'-'�Icr Qualil� G.tlSGcaY.nn. _ lha uivironnn:ntal dxuicems shbuld pruvi<I� a Jctailcd an:l �tentizad pr<.�entatiun qfthe �IDE�:<Ad praJcc;'s impacts tn :•:ztl�nds ain! s[rcam,� wiih cortisponding m=_ppin, a5 wall ¢5 diC mm�dnfice arrd remudary hnyacr� anticiputr,d ,a a rewl[ nt iliis pioject in relnri�n tn l�� pl0005v'd i9uons¢uetion of the Re�dv For: P�;k�aay/CM1 2y Int6rthansa. 3. Iivardous spili ca:ch basins m�y Le required:sr sne�,m croa¢ing ��ithin �he cri[it�l ar:a Ct t9e wan:r :epplp .,vaiersheA. em rz��v«at:n %em5n; vn t �Fq'.Izi�:iqeG=msi.Hi�O.pS.N:dhCxn°ra Fif494[5� •' I Geb:. , Pu:'_��:J.54: EcA. Pn�=:�h. Noi�h Ca�.- M P�pc: FL:rc S�i�I'.ti>s]IFAR919.�.�9Lp"sr.�Lti'tyn�uo.-.r miencue=� ael� Jc No rt}aCarolin� '11lltlfl'fIi�1J :,�,,:��,,:�,�� .�,,,�r�,,.,Fm,��.�,_:.��..�,,,.._.:��,�m,._..... d L'J23/2004 15:�6 5197153u50 Mr6EH� ?d,E ]�/�� R S;p? Sc�ping Commznfs Ya�t 2 Novembar 17.211,'U :l. W��hin tte Caoc Fcar Gzsin, u�ban �[emxc-ie: miwlf'x a rwinr cancern. S�ormw,�p;; ��;oald b^ d.slgned ro fiow' inw buifer nrzas u� rzier.cun hnsins rather than muree] directly Inlo SUe�ms'. 5. Ronu�vir,-stc crcas should nel lx� Iocatcl i'i',ectlauds. II is li4zly �iiat mmpensa�oi}' i��iti¢zdon will L: rcn,u;a.l iCwetlards are imp�cm?� 6y v.ave urtvRuw c=. we)1 ss utility ralcTztlons 6- �CheDW(�1 stauc>IS Ihzl UQT adhr,rrJo Nnnh Cnrnlina agclations cN:tltd. "pesigu 7tanJneds in S2osi!ive �va[3r,k�.tds" ( Up pJCAC U46 ,0:2�) anJ u<_a I3rs� h; mmgeu;nnr Vi�r��ices (or rHe, Fra;err.on aJSarf-��ce lYn:¢r; (�-J:rch 1797) s�ci5Ca111 �siu:� tll apPlic�hlc pn:veo�I��e;utd can:ral mcasurestiming:hedesiy;n,mns�n:t[iat:wdwafulznar.ceUfthiSpfoiocL Thescn+.casufEs5h0uIcJL� implrm=.a�ed prior io �ny grewid-diEtv[6ine ac�ivilfes ro mipi,m�ze impac:s to dmt�lst;tam aqua!I: rc=ource;. i. Na:Iznddciln�:alionshouldbeFciic�nnedpr:nrtnpermi�::policalion. We�lsndantl�treamirnpacts .vl'mu'.d ba a'✓nide,�l ;o tho mnaimwn exicnt prxaical. If this is me p�vi6le. al�zmatives iLai nueiiu�.izz wetland irin.mis shnuld be diesen. ln ar. ordm¢e with chs iFCD\BQ Neil3nds Rnlea 1 I ii. \CAC 7E7 n�p�(p)(F� �, ��fitigalh;r, �.. iI I I�c rcynircd [er imoncls oi grcaccr th�n I50lincar fcec ro nny sinolc ueia:m�ai s:rea�P. L: tha :v�nl litnt r�itlCa[ict H'wroa rcauin.d, tnc miti Pttion oJao sheoid Lr ceci;nec m xeqlace';pplopcaie :es (uncliocs acd �; uh:tz. Onsi�c initi; a:iou is orefe;nbl, . howe:�cr. Ihz VC E�olo�iez! Ennaic�inem Prp�r'-�m Q��Ei'i is availaele for usc as Cmnpcnsvw�y uuligallon. Thnnk yoa for aquPs�inF our inp�i auhis iinie. The pf� G�s reRdnded tlmt issucrec uFa �1011VCIL� Qbality Ccn_ii�ation rq�iczs that aopmprlsm measuras tc insiim�ed �qe�gu,e I;:at ��aler qualtly standa�is a:c rm:t and desirna¢d u�es ar_ np[ acg;aded er lo;i. If ynuh:+:�e en� Gues�icn5 ot i�q�itC nddilional InCorm�Lion. plea9e contoe[ L4etb k:arnes a[ (9191 7_S.y39A. pc: Jehn s hnmos, US9CE ArJvgii FjelA OfF�.t2 G�r� 7ordan. USFwS Tm��i; �vilson, PiCP:R(. Chris Mi',i�uher. U$Gpq he;=im� IV, Ha;=_igh Fi=_Id Oifice Ceutial F�Ics Fi la Ca, �. Append ix G Traffic Forecasts P R � J E C T S T Q R T Bryan Park Drive � 54�`° a oi I n � i50 — 22 i 60�10 1� ' � (4,i1 . Greensboro I ♦n1 2 alV n Bryan Parl< Drive 29 � ��4. Summit Avenue 15� Summit Avenue � O A \ /, � J� � O 46 � 14 14 — 70 — 10 PM ►65 (a,$) 2016 US 29 � � a�� m 11 297 \ 6 2 15 `— � 38 26 US 29 Average Annual Daily Traffic Reedy Fork 38 Parkway 30 — SO PM �60 1`+' • b 10 PM �65 (z,ll (3,1) � 2�aIV I I � Eckerson Road P R O J E C T E N D No-Build Alternative (Scenario 1) L E G E N � TIP: R-4707 WBS: 36599.1.2 K P� D COUNTY: Guilford DIVISION: 7 (d, t) DATE: 10/14/2016 ### No. of Vehicles per Day PM PM Peak Hour (VPD) in 100s D Peak Hour Directional Split (%) — Existing Roadway —► Indicates Direction of D PREPARED BY: VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (d,t) Duals, TTSTs (°/o) K Design Hour Factor (%) LOCATION: US 29/SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) X Movement Prohibited 1- Less than 50 VPD PROJECT: US 29/ SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) Interchange Modifications P R � J E C T S T A R T Bryan Park Drive � 59�`° a oi I n � i54 — 41 i 60�10 1� ' `t (4,i1 . Greensboro I n 4 a�V n Bryan Parl< Drive 29 � ��4. Summit Avenue � O A \ /, � J� � O 84 Summit Avenue 94 — 10 PM ►65 (a,$) � 24 20 US 29 � � a�� m 18 398 \ 10 10 32 `— � 44 64 US 29 15, 2 04,o Average Annual Daily Traffic Reedy Fork 90 Parkway 81 — 10 (PZM) ►60 zl ' ' lz 10 (P3M) ►65 � 33 aIV I I � Eckerson Road P R O J E C T E N D No-Build Alternative (Scenario 5) L E G E N � TIP: R-4707 WBS: 36599.1.2 K P� D COUNTY: Guilford DIVISION: 7 (d, t) DATE: 10/14/2016 ### No. of Vehicles per Day PM PM Peak Hour (VPD) in 100s D Peak Hour Directional Split (%) — Existing Roadway —► Indicates Direction of D PREPARED BY: VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (d,t) Duals, TTSTs (°/o) K Design Hour Factor (%) LOCATION: US 29/SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) X Movement Prohibited 1- Less than 50 VPD PROJECT: US 29/ SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) Interchange Modifications P R � J E C T S T A R T Bryan Park Drive � 59�`° a oi I n � i54 — 41 i 60�10 1� ' `t (4,i1 . Greensboro I n 4 a�V n Bryan Parl< Drive 29 � ��4. Summit Avenue � O A \ /, � J� � O 84 Summit Avenue 94 — 10 PM ►65 (a,$) � 24 20 US 29 � � a�� m 18 398 \ 10 10 32 `— � 44 64 US 29 15, 2 04,o Average Annual Daily Traffic Reedy Fork 90 Parkway 81 — 10 (PZM) ►60 zl ' ' lz 10 (P3M) ►65 � 33 aIV I I � Eckerson Road P R O J E C T E N D Build Alternative (Scenario 6) L E G E N � TIP: R-4707 WBS: 36599.1.2 K P� D COUNTY: Guilford DIVISION: 7 (d, t) DATE: 10/14/2016 ### No. of Vehicles per Day PM PM Peak Hour (VPD) in 100s D Peak Hour Directional Split (%) — Existing Roadway —► Indicates Direction of D PREPARED BY: VHB Engineering NC, P.C. (d,t) Duals, TTSTs (°/o) K Design Hour Factor (%) LOCATION: US 29/SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) X Movement Prohibited 1- Less than 50 VPD PROJECT: US 29/ SR 2790 (Reedy Fork Parkway) Interchange Modifications Append ix H Relocation Report REQUEST FOR R/W COST ESTIMATE / RELOCATION EIS COST ESTIMATE REQUEST � RELOCATION EIS REPORT � NEW REQUEST: ❑ UPDATE REQUEST:� REVISION REQUEST:❑ Update to 201 t Esti�nare Revision to Estin,ate Revision No.: DATE RECEIVED: 05 03 17 DATE ASSIGNED: 05 04 17 # of Alternates Requested: 3 DATE DUE: 06/28/17 ext: 07/14/17 DESCRIPTION: US 29; SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parkway); SR 2526 (Summit Ave), North of SR TIP No.: R-4707 2641 (Bryan Park Rd) to US 29/SR 4771 (Reed Fork Parkway) Interchange in Greensboro. Improve roadwav, modify interchange, and replace brid�e # 360 WBS ELEMENT: 36599.1.z COUNTY: Guilford DIV: 7 APPRAISAL OFFICE: 3 REQUESTOR: Ahmad AI-Sharawneh DEPT: PDEA TYPE OF PLANS: HEARING MAPS❑� LOCATION MAP❑� AERIAL❑� VICINITY�� PRELIMINARY�� CONCEPTUAL❑ ** Based on past project historical data, the land and damage figures have been adjusted to include condemnation and administrative increases that occur during settlement of all parcels.** APPRAISER: Michael Albertson COMPLETED: 06 05 17 # of Alternates Completed: 3 Build Alt 1 Build Alt 1 Revised Build Alt 2 Single Point Urban Diverging Diamond Partial Cloverleaf Interchange Interchange Interchange NONE:❑ IMITED: ❑ NONE: ❑ LIMITED: ❑ NONE: ❑ LIMITED: ❑ TYPE OF ACCESS: PARTIAL:� ULL: ❑ PARTIAL:�FULL: ❑ PARTIAL: � FULL: ❑ ESTIMATED NO. OF PARCELS: 16 16 14 RESIDENTIAL RELOCATEES: - $ - - $ - - $ - BUSINESS RELOCATEES: - $ - - $ - - $ - GRAVES: - $ - - $ - - $ - CHURCH / NON — PROFIT: - $ - - $ - - $ - MISC: - $ - - $ - - $ - SIGNS: - $ - - $ - - $ - LAND, IMPROVEMENTS, & $ 18,000,000 $ 18,360,000 $ 15,660,000 DAMAGES: ACQUISTION: $ 128,000 $ 128,000 $ 112,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED R/W COST: $ 18,128,000 $ 18,488,000 $ 15,800,000 *� The estimated number of above relocatees includes those parcels where the proposed acquisition areas involve relocation of livable or business units only. '"` N�TE$: Alternate 1 and Alternate 1 Revised both have one business relocatee that is currently vacant and for sale but is under contract according to the realtor. Page 1 of 1 EIS RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM � E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN WBS ELEMENT: COUNTY Guilford Alternate 1 Rev of 3 Alternate T.I.P. No.: R-4707 �EscRiPTioN oF PRo�ECT: US 29 / Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange Modification: Alternative 1 Revised - Tight Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Residential Businesses Farms Non-Profit Yes X Q � � 0 0 Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent 0 0 0 0 0-20M � $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 � ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 � 20-40M � 150-250 0 Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70nn � 250-400 � 40-70nn 0 250-400 p 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100nn � 400-600 � 70-100nn p 400-600 p 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP p soo uP p 10o uP p soo uP p displacement? TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS �R@SpO1lCi bV NU111%@C) after project? X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 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? NIA t��- Alan Rothrock Riaht of Wav Aae FRM15-E Revised 7/7/14 01-23-17 Date There are no Businesses or Residental Displacees on this proposed alternate. The building in the Southwest quadrant was vacate and for sale at the time of study. 3. No businesses will be displaced. 6. N/A 11. Greensboro Housing Authority. 12. No displacees 14. No businesses will be displaced Relocation Coordinator 1 /26/18 Date EIS RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM � E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN WBS ELEMENT: COUNTY Guilford Alternate 1 of 3 Alternate T.I.P. No.: R-4707 �EscRiPTioN oF PRo�ECT: US 29 / Reedy Fork Parkway Interchande Modification: Alternative 1- Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Residential Businesses Farms Non-Profit Yes X Q � X � 0 0 Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent 0 0 0 0 0-20M � $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 � ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 � 20-40M � 150-250 0 Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70nn � 250-400 � 40-70nn 0 250-400 p 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100nn � 400-600 � 70-100nn p 400-600 p 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP p soo uP p 10o uP p soo uP p displacement? TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS �R@SpO1lCi bV NU111%@C) after project? X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 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? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? NIA [��J`�� - Alan Rothrock Ripht of Wav Apent FRM15-E Revised 7/7/14 01-23-17 Date There are no Businesses or Residental Displacees on this proposed alternate. The building in the Southwest quadrant was vacate and for sale at the time of study. 3. No businesses will be displaced. 6. NIA 11. Greensboro Housing Authority. 12. No displacees 14. No businesses will be displaced. Relocation Coordinator 1 /26/18 Date EIS RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM � E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN �/gS ELEMENT: COUNTY Guilford Alternate 2 Of 3 Alternate T.I.P. No.: R-4707 �EscRiPTioN oF PRo�ECT: US 29 / Reedy Fork Parkway Interchange Modification Alternative 2- Partial Cloverleaf Interchange. ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUSICIBSS@S O O O O VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2onn � $ 0-150 p o-2onn 0 $ 0-150 p ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 � 20-40M � 150-250 0 Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70nn � 250-400 � 40-70nn 0 250-400 p X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100nn � 400-600 � 70-100nn p 400-600 p X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP p soo uP p 10o uP p soo uP p displacement? TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS �R@SpO1lCi bV NU111%@C) X X after project? X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6. Source for available housing (list). X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families? X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? N/A 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? 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? NIA G�-��-�3�' -�'�- Alan Rothrock Riaht of Wav AqE FRM15-E Revised 7/7/14 01-23-17 Date There are no Businesses or Residental Displacees on this proposed alternate. 3. No businesses will be displaced. 6. NIA 11. Greensboro Housing Authority. 12. No displacees 14. No businesses will be displaced � r:: i t, r= "C;, � _� ._�_- ` Relocation Coordinator 1 /26/18 Date Append ix I GeoEnvironmental Figures Appendix A Lncaticrn of U�Ts, Landfifls, & Other Potentially Coititaminatecl Sites ; ' ,- :,: Le�gend r , � < � �,-� , l n ��. �' 'r � ir�; � H�.; .,'; _ , Envirani�iental Sites �� -� - � StudyArea � � �,` �"� � t� �� " � �� -�� l� �� , .. 1 � � ExpandedStudyArea ' ��' _ �' . V , r e� r s° � +Jl '�'1 i; ` `1� �� {� r - . . � �'� p :a ` Site 1 �.�� W rnT ..d; . .. � � ,hY , / i.� �.�:..4 _4 . ' . .. � _ / r ,,; �� i'� , . �+ y . kr ' �>... � d .. � � � � . YL� '`:.: af� �, L.� J I L'e � -. t. « ll .i / re .� �y it•'? �c. � �. . I � �•� � � 'Yy I�\/' � q � � f � �_ �4 i � �� . -�v / . ��. �1 � J�!'►' � .t'�_ . � !: � C�,Ir ' �� '�y 4, 1 '��h� � .� ! �_ , / ti� s�, , � � � � e� � ' - i � ��"�� " �"�� 'F /� �� E � � . • >i ti�� ' � �` � k �� / ��`� `� "+�� ,� ;� h � ' _ � ,�'° .-.-.--r � '� � :,:2``� Si,r�.rm,it f �� . , �'�. �pt't� , � ! .��"{� Sr �. .w":�`�. j� C, %% �, ��;;��`, �," �. . �. - . ��-� _. � - _ - �. n :�t!"r _ � � ' `�1 �'�'"�` �- x,*�,, : � `' � � R s `� �.r.� �.�r . � 4 II � .�. , ti . . � � • � �� i�.-,� x` �� r.p� ,b '� � G`� f �" . � - � Q�� ' � i f•' j� 11:@ � t � r _ _ �f� .,�, � 1 1 ` t �` �� q � � � ''�'R Site 7 � � �S i t� 4 � �� ----�_ ',,�a , � _ , � -� � ,; � r:' `s..: \ � SIIF ;i -� � � � 'i . r Site � d � •'�. Y - ",� �. Srho,�dr;Pl� % �� :c �r �; � �, � iF ;I iarcl��l1 � � '_` �,; c '�r 1 � r,F,�, ��.;= J � � � f �–�-,—_� � � �• _ - - � � �_�, �1 �� l `,. /` -- � � � �� --�. «,� �\ � ,-:i:� � �r�z-r� ,� Pr�je�t �a'��+� 1 � iTIF # R-�4'0� i N�; ' �t U5 ��and �R 2�r0 i;Eckerson Rd} f � `", �C; 1' '�-, Reacly F�rk �k�•a�y! �riterc;hang� Im�rc�v�rnents � �<_ ^, Guilf�rei ��ui7ty �� - � U�y, � 2,a�oa � ,�aa a �,aoa F��t , �.��> "�`'�.�.� _- , _ , ��;.� -- � NG D�partr��nt ofTranspo��tatian ;��;�� N' `-�, � �`� Ge�tEchnical Engineering Unit �' ��'� �z 1 u Ge�Ei�virnnrnental Section ' � � ��`�� ' �' � I! Appendix t3: Site Yhotographs 6/23/IU ��t °�_ �ti �� F. T -{��i'�1y+";~� v '.+i �Y � 4'�MfiY � `' .,T ! .,� y � � � � � . F. I � �`^%. ��3�Cr�. �'�p��t � *i,'r��'"� .�"Y �� } �-. ��,1. �P�'� ''�� _ _¢- _ • - _ _ — ..�i.. �t�_ .`r�'S � � ... r �`1 � ��;j ,I • ��,;.j Yr :.� - S � �' -uk ��. i ' �.�� ~. �� . . �_ � .. � � � '. � .._ � ... .._._ .,_ , a�f �.�'�"zr*�'' -,.� � —; ' �� , � � .� �� `x +,� ' yP; . .. � � ar �..: .��. �r +.�..� � �` , i� � � _ Q`� � � � . .��, � � - . Site #1: Jenkins. waste oil & diesel fi�el AST. Site # 1: Jenkins. Looki��g West at front ofbuilding Loolcing West /�F 1 i. _ � � � .."? � 1 ( ~��?� � � 'Y r �.'� ` - �'i• o� ° �r� s � ° , a a My :. � I �.M -1eq,��4 �� .. _ , � .. R .�� - h, � � � . - � . I ;: � - . . �� . . . . .� . . '�"4' 1� u � � � ' %f �,� � "� • •�r�¢°� �t, r ` � �. � 111�y4 ,�'( �R: .. r , _ . � � � � �� ' ' l. ` +1�:.�{ ( ; . i / � � !, � � � '� � � � , ' f' �' �. �� .. ' %'< �! 1 r � 1 � t � J, - .. ¢,. .'l =. ,II � - � ' 1 �1., ' ar '�`,,I ,� � � ; . r/71 �' t � � ' , � � ��:� � , � � � x ;�; `� e� , �� r� p�� - , �rr.. �!'( � . �: , � ��.7-� � � ��' �,� C - I� � J , I s�'� i-A. +.':' �' �� <' . ._ �R�... :� i� ,,f �� -.. .,^ � ui-��'a � a'�Y' f . / 'I . �/ � M� ��! � . - / � � � � � . ��';� ��r � _ ;� ,, • _ � �� " � �,. #,� � z � �; '° Ii: ,,,�;,�,� i. : � , �J%(��ti�� '<i• : �..r 'C� 4 . .. . : .. . � � . _—'1 n - . . " .. , _.d , � �. . . � / - , . J . i� . � . . �� // � �� . � ��{ - r � 4 . ' � '� 1�� 53,� ' ' �'•,x � k. , - ` �, L � %// u� � Site # 2: Morrisctte Paper. Photo tal<en from Guilford Sitc # 3: Gateway Rcsearch Parl<. Photo tal<en from Co GIS Guilfor-d Co GIS —�� ' '. , � �r- k }' SJ �Nr�it- � � l� fi-.�..-�` � .'. �, � .'.�qqfi� �. . , .. ' � r>. ;� � -tyr; a-' ` tS'�:�. -]niJl . ,<- ..ti , �� s�� r: ��' +.': �, � ,: �'ry�, .. '�`..' ' - y�� ' �"� ,. � �` � 2� ; , _ i +'�t f•; ,� �.a ��f A r l' . ��' � , . � .`. � . ^�. ��,'�I� . f' � . I 'Sp�. �_ _ �C .. �'+y ' -� ��,�.{ . I ,.. R, j ..s _ _ � '�'��., . .eJY-'°+" .4 c� �,, "-:"G�. r �• 'i ��: .y . n . (1 � �y �� p k-� ^� � � �� My � �t.� �� 7 /r� � ` R _ � �. - , . � �; � � `��` *' � . �-.. �� t ,� $ V � � ^ „� i t � . `y� ` �� '�' � � . .�,. :� �I � � �� j � • . �' g + w , J � �, .� � �� _7 �. . �� + � , �� :� ! $f �:� _ ° k ��;. � � �4�.: '��;' •' �� ,� `� � '� _ ,�' � � ..' % ,, r ,s: � r' /{ ,P ° i c F'�;V � / �.. Y? . � � 'C+�s � /f �� x ' . ., � . ./I � �' ��r I " � � � � - ! � µa y' �`.;,�y�, . I Ef ,. ��. �� .' � . . �� , r �, , �,� . ' �y¢ �', �` � ��I �� " �1\ �' . ,.ii �ti _ .! � � �Y3_� 4��.i,r� y � "��'. Site # 4: CGR Products. Fhoto talcc fi-oi�� Guilford Co SitE # 5: Heritage Environmental. Photo taken fi-om GIS Guilford Co GIS. � +., :: � ��' - '.R"'r,� .}'�Y �'h� � ��: . .b _ 1 7 � `:. �a. � �+-. -� r i� �>. � .,�':. �fi �� x =i�� k_ _ .. . i � � �"� ,� `r�- � �'�� - f � �yx,� t a r � ,f .' ' �. �. t,y# �Y . „��<I ti. 5M� �=3» . -, �'�y I`. - " �.K"�� - .y w -_�,�,� s y�,, � w,� ,- ��t��i�:e�',�.. -- - - I � '' �� ;��. '�' . � ;�, P - - � �` - — ` � � .�'�+ �� .` � �. r, �; �a �, _ ° � �. ��- �- , _ . - - -��-�` � -� �-� _ Site # 5: Heritage Environmental. View Looking west Site # 6: Hwy 29 BP View lool<ing soutl�east down driveway. n r:.� � r - , �, , ., , �- �� r 'r',�� ,� s�� 4..� . �,+ � � ` I,['Ir �y �, �'-. _ ,� t !, y �' 'y�y. ' �, �LL 4J �� ' • �'�A� 1t � } � � - �,._ °' . ��J'� � 'S m� r : �. � .�� `� w, �� " � .� ` f�''r µ'y, . ��, i � � ` I '�5t' �`�'4 tV // �6 �� _ I �� .. . l � ;`�.� ,.;�, } � F �,�J� �I�• � � fr f � ,� . f� .. �'� ''� �. ' .. � `'/� ,'� . PF,/r W_,� �7 � r k +'., ,. � ��'' n � f � �� d� �r� � � ��@�y.�e >'a�i^ :�� .'-- --- . i � r-I,r � � ; � " I 'i.y J/r� . �' � � � . � •� � 1 I �I� µ H r 1 1 � / � I� . _� �tS = �i.' � f ' f� . • �{ ��`_� � d �; � �Tf' f �r� .'� t��N �,� '� ' , .��s - . ��,� . � .--, `.� .I ,% � x, .+r � � � � �, t � � . j i ,: } ��.� ��r x � � �s��` r.� '� � . r�r•' . e'' �y . • � �, �9r , - „f ,� Site # 7: Wysong & Miles. Photo take fi-om the Sitc # 7: Wysong & Miles. View looking west ft-om Guilford Co GIS. back side of property. Append ix ] Cu Itu ra I Resou rces Reports �-._� . � � , - �,_ ;'7� f =i i � S • ',,',;6 � . � �� +"�-. � ,4 � ,5��t ��6i � 1`1` • : �� Lr North Ca�olina I9epa�tment of Cultural IZesources �tate Historic Preservatian Office Petec B. Sandbeck, Administretoc Michael F. L+;asley, Governor Lisbeth C. Li�rans, Secretary Jeffrey �. Cro�v, Depury Secretary February 3, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Directar Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: Peter Sandbeck p OFfice of Acchives and History Division of Historical Resources David Brook, Directox SUBJFCT: Reconstruction of the SR 2970 (Reedy Fork Parkway) /US 29 InteYchange in Greensboro, State Project No. 3.659911, TIP No. R-4707, Guilford Caunty, CH 05-E-4220-0121, CH 04-2906 Thank you for youx letter of Octobei 11, 2004, concerning the above project. We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of this project: ♦(GF1666) Reedy Fork Acres, E Side US 29, on the State Study List. ♦(GF2056) Hardy Millpond and Store Mill Pond and Store, W side SR 2526 on Reedy Fork Creek. We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us. As noted in our letter of August 31, 2004, to Scott Seibel of Environmental Services, Inc. concerning this project, Hardys Mill is located witliin the area of potenrial effect (APE) and has not been evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. We recommend that archaeological investigations sufficient to determitie its eligibility be conducted at Hardys Mill and that undisturbed areas within the APE be surveyed to locate and evaluate as yet unrecorded aichaeological sites. It is also our understanding that Reedy Fork Acres has been relocated to a new site. 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 Secrion 106 codified at 36 CrR Part 800. Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Stceet, Raleigh NC k617 Mail Service Gentec, Raleigh NC 27699-A617 (919)733-4763/733-8653 RESTORATION 575 N. I3lounr Stceet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Scrvice Center, IZaleigh NC 27699-4G17 (919)733-6547/715-4801 SURVEY & PI.ANNING 515 N. Blount Stceee, I2aleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Rateigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-6545/715-480] Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above canunent, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. cc: SCH Maty Pope Furr, NCDOT Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Fe�Ier�r! Aic� l+ MHS-2526(3) TlP �# R-4707 C'otrr�t�r Guilfo�-d CONCUFZRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Pr•oject Desc�r�iptiF�n; On October 12, 2010, representatives of the � North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO"r) � Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) � North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ❑ Other Reviewed the subject pi•oject at historic architectural resoui-ces photograpli review session/consultation and All parties present agreed ❑ There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). � There are no properties less than f7fty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the project's APE. �/ n Sibned: There are properties over ffty years old within the project's APE, but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identiiied as �--E'p are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessaiy. Photographs of these pi-operties are attached. There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's APE. All properties greater than 50 years of age (ocated in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project. More information is requested on properties �`\ 1 d . % rd � . .. ' .i� � �>.. '�8 F � :� t �.,ti : - � ..__ --� �. Representative, NC FHWA, for the Division Adtninistrator, or other Federal A�ency p � ! ?r ; �� ; � �.. , ?.�nj�r� Date Date Representative, HPO Date � �.` ' ` � _�' ,, �, , < <; ., � �: - _ �, i•, c`�: r C._�:. � � i:_.� , � - -w-<.-� - State Historic Preservation Officer �' Date If a survey report is prep�red, a final copy of this form zuid the attacl�ed list �vill be includeel. Projec! Trachin;; No.: 17-04-TBA �+ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM `��_. u�.�,�� i' This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project It is not I a'j �-,., ��.:. v�lid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the �� ,r i' Ws Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. ��;;� ,;�%� PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: WBS No F.A. No R-4707 36599.1.2 NHS-2526(3) F�der-al Pei�nail Regi�irecl? Cotuih� Doci�rr�ei�t Guilford EA/TONSI Funr�ir7g: ❑ State � Yes ❑ No Per-rnit Type: � Federal Project Dese�iptio��: NCDOT proposes roadway improvements and the US 29, SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parkway), SR 2526 (Summit Avenue) interchange in Guilford County. Bridge No. 360 will be replaced as part of thc project. This is a federally funded project (FHwA) with likely USACE permitting, Uoth qualifying the proposal as a federal undertalcing. As such, Section 106 of the National IIistoric Preservation Act (NT-IPA) applies. Desi�� for tl�e improvemeuts is still in progress, however, some preliminary mapping was provided in order to establish a reasonable Area of Potential �ffects (APE) far fl1e project that may include different alternatives. While width varies, the project lengtl� is considered to be approximately 1.60 miles. SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEYREQUIRED B��ief'description of aeview uctivities, �•eszrlts of �^eview, ruid co�Tclarsions: The spacious area covered within the APE is subject to cl�ange as alternatives have not been finalized. Tl�e APE u�ay need additional review and possiUle revision as the design is developed. In most cases, however, re,commendations would still be similar due to the physical cliaracteristics associated with the project area. USGS topograpl�ie mapping (see Figure I) aud inodei7l aerial photography (see Figure 2) was exainined. Portions of tl�e roadways were subjected to virt�ial drive-by using Google Maps ai�d Bing. Mucl� of the broader APE has hilly topography (see Figure 3) which rypically l�as fewer archaeological sites on side slopes. Along roadways to be improved, much of the APE parallels anci follows already upgraded infrastructure, such as ��lodern roadways and driveways, coinmercial and other buildings, aild likely i��cludes a combination of installed utilities (water, sewer, gas, power, telecom/cable). There are also some areas of undeveloped land which are presently either cleared and inay have been used for pasture in the past, or forested, as is the case along the low laying creek bed with tlle APE. At the northern end of the project, the project passes up to or over Reedy Forl< and alongside Hardy's Mill Pond. A visit to the Office of State Archaeology was conducted for bacicground research. No recorded archaeological sites are on record at OSA. The research revealed that there has been sevecal environmental reviews for arcl�aeolo�ry iu the nearby and immediate vicinity. A majority of these reviews received a clearance i-ecommendation for low probability to impact significant archaeological resources, lilce the Brownfield Property (ER 12-0695) which is adjace��t to and overlaps the cw-rent project APE at tl�e northeast qnadrant of the Reedy Fork Parkway and US 29 intc,rsection. Also nearby as a tangent to the nortl�erilmost APE and Hardy's Mill Pond, is a veiy large indushial site (ER 15-1045), about 400 acres, far whicl� HPO had no con�ment based on the presence of eroded soils and previously cleared archaeological reviews. ER O1-9087/O1-8429 is associated with Villages at Reedy Fork and received a no comment recommendation bascd on low probability for intact, signiticant sites. ..-1RCH,4F_OLOG/C'IL SURPFY'RF_O(.'/RED"farni (ord�rAnAendedAfi�ror 7huziportu(iou Projec(.s �o' Oucdilieef iu dae=0/i Yrugrcunrnutic,�lgreenrriu. I of I 5 Projec! Tracking Nu: 17-04-TBA Tl�e current project area was reviewed Uy OSA for arcl�aeological resources in 2004-2005 (ER 04-2218 / OS- E-4220-0121). This resulted in a reco�nmendation to survey Lindist��rbed areas of the APE and exa�r�ine Hardy's Mill Pond and Store (�IPO-Gf2056). We now know that the stntchires present had been removed a��d the location cleared by the time of the review (see below). After the scale of the project was expanded, HPO commented in 2010 (10/12/10) that there are no historic properties i�� thE st��dy area. A revisit to the project in 2016 to shldy a diverging dialnond intercl�ange or other alternatives resulted in a continuation of the review. It appears tl�at tl�e remainiilg mill pond and dam will not be affected by the cui7-eut projeci. Examination of historic maps and historic aerials often proves useful foc many archaeological reviews and this one is no exception. The 1920's Soil Map of Guilford Co►mty (MC.046.1920j, see Figure 4) shows and labels Hardy's Mill and shows structures present, though what would later become US 29 was, at fliat time, routed closer to the buildings before being straightenecl by the 1950s. The 1938 Guilford County Highway Map (MC.046.1938n, see Figure 5) sllows thc same bend south of Reedy Crcek at the Mill, and a "manufacturing plailt" at tl�at location. Tl�e Mid-centuiy USGS Mapping for Brown's Sunu7iit sl�ows the changcs to US 29 from a simpler roadway with two lane and dircct intcrsections in the 1950s (Browns Smnmit 1951, see Figure 6) to the multilane faciliry with multiple ramps and half cloverleaf seen in the 1960s (Browns Stunmit 1968, see Figure 7). No ce��teries are noted on llistoric or modei-n (USGS) i��apping. Examination of aerial photography and virtural driveby dicl not indicate ot- suggest the presence of ceineteries within the APE. The GIS-based inventoiy of cemeteries maintai��ed by NCDOT archaeologist Pau] J. Mohler lilcewise showed no cemeteries within or adjacent to the APE. The earliest aerials that were collected and examineci from NCDOT archives show shuctures still preseut at Hardy's Mill Pond in 1961 (M-102, 4542; see Figure 8). The next intersections along US 29 split off with ��o complexity using simple two lane roads. The i�eXt aerial of iinportance (M-286, 1628, see Figure 9) shows the inajor redesign into the half clover ramps that are present in the c�urent day. Massive earth inoving is clearly visible in that 1962 aerial, though tl�e structures by tl�e mill have been encroached by the expanded US 29 and associated spit towards Summit Avemie. Over the next several yeacs, aerials conti�lue t�o show the outbuildings through 1977 to 1984+ (M-1325, 2645; see Figure 10, ai�d M-1753, 6450; see Figure l l). Using Google Earth, it is possible to overlay a series of most recent aerials over the project area. Coverage yeat-s incllide early 1993 though late 2015, providing over two decades to examine changes and any modern disturbances (images not included with this fonn exce�t for year 2002, see below). Structures were present still beside the �nillpond in 1993 and 1999, though by 2002 (see Fig��re 12), they had been completely removed and that location closest to the APE was cic,ared, likely by bulldozer. At tl�e sam� time period as the clearing near the inill coinplex, Eckerson Road can be seen Lmder consn-�icrion for a realignment to meet with the new section of Reedy Fork Parl<way in the AP� (see Figure 12). The dishu-bance along the Reedy Fork Parl<way is of importance since it represent some of the more level and less eroded soils, therefore having so�ne pote��tial foi- arcllaeological preservation, witllin the APE (and will be focus of limited field investigations). The ilew road resulted in a major cut banlc, though it reinains to be seen if any original soils rcmain. Othcc modern construction present along the existing routcs includc new parking and infrastructure alo��g Reedy Fork Pai-lcway/Snmmit Avenue for industrial sites, and other comme�rcial and residential developments at various location, and even an apparent streanl restoration project near the current US 29 ramps and Reedy Forl< Parkway. As seeil in earlier archacological reviews in the area, the rype and condition of soils, and any associated disturbances, helps to predict the likelillood for tl�e presence of archaeological sites and their probably condition. Areas and archaeological sites wit�h more intact soils might better coilvey any signiiicai�ce ai�d tl�us eligibility foi- the Natioiial Register of Historic Places. The terrain in the APE is somewL�at hilly as opposed to level, containing areas of steep side slopes. Due to the topography, previous agricultural practices and disturbai�ces, the majority of soils prese��t at tl�is undertaking indicate poor probability for intact, "4RCH,4F_OLOG/C4L SUR I'El� RF_OGIRFD" Jbrni (or the.Anu�nded R-lianr 7'rcutspnr[u7ian Po�ojerLa us Oituli/ied in the =01 i Pr��rcuiarnulic ,-I��reemeret. ?of15 Projec! Trachin;; No.: 17-04-TBA significant arcllaeological resources. Those soils include differing slopes of Cecil sandy loam (CcB, CcC, CcD), Cecil sandy loam (CeB2, CeC2), Co��garee loam (CoA), Coroi�aca clay loam (CrB, CrC), Madison sandy loam (MaD, MaE) anci Madison clay loam (McC2, McD2). Of those, any soil symbol witl� the suffix "2" is considered eroded. The degree of slope also is greater as indicated by the second capitalized letter of the soil symbol, increasing with grc;ater value so "C," "D," and "E" reflect increasingly steeper hillsides. The Congaree loam (CoA, 0-2 percent slope) is present aLong the sinall channel throligh tl�e APE and is proue to wenless and flooding, which, being less favorable thau well draitied soils, are less lilcely to contain recognizable arclzaeological sites. Oi7e potentially proinising landfoi7n is well-clrained, relatively level and i�ot previously �r�arked as eroded soil, Coroi�aca clay loai�� (CrB). Only a small portioi� of this soil exists within the APE, and it appears to have been affected by recent consnuction and hillside c�it for Reedy Fork Parl<way. Additional testing is recommended to examine tllis soil type for archaeological remains which may be present. Other locations may be exami��ed further based on exaininaiion. ThE proposed fiEld work inay include a small ntunber of subsurface shovel test wlits. Tlle Area of Potc��tial Effects for this project is large and incorporates witllin that boundary several existing transportation feahu-es that have cl�anges over the past cenhiry. Modern development and infrasn-acture has further n�odified the landscape, disturbing the archaeological context at many areas. Structures associated with the Hardy's Mill Pond complex toward the north of the project were torn down and re�noved about Cifteen years ago, thougl� tlle dam reinains outside expected impacts. Little addiC�ional work near tlle iY�ill poud is expected beyond visual confirination. The topography and soils present within the APE do not, generally, greatly favor the presence of archaeologica] sites, especially those which might be intact. However, a s�nall portion of the APE nortll of Reedy Fork Parkway has soil and topography that warrants fiither investigation. Field worlc is proposed to be completed by the end of April 20l 7. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: � Map(s) ❑ Previous SLirvey Info � Photos ❑Correspondence ❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other: FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST — SURVEYREQUIRED NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST April �8, 2017 Proposed fieldwork completion date 4/26/2017 Date ..-1RCH,4F_OLOG/C'IL SURPFY'RF_O(.'/RED"farni (ord�r.4nAendedAfi�ror 7huziportu(iou Projec6.s �o' Ouctlilieef iu dae=0/i Yrugrcunrnutic,�Igreenrriu. 3of15 Projec! Trrtching No.: 17-04-TBA NO NATiONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES �' �;' ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ,•"��r�,� � ��r� �� PRESENT FORM �� oi �� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project It is not ��_�-=�� ia% � valid for Historic Architeeture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the �.�� ''' Historie Architecture and Landscapes Group. PROJECT INFORMATION P�-oject No WBS No: F.A. No R-4707 36599.1.2 NHS-2526(3) I'eder•al Perniit Rey��irecl? CO UT 11V: Doc°t�i7ie�it GUILFORD EA/FONSI Farndin�: ❑ State � Federal � Yes ❑ No Pernait Ti=pe: NW 3 OR ]�W 4 Project Descriptiorr: NCDOT proposes roadway improvemei�ts at the US 29, SR 4771 (Reedy Fork Parl<way), SR 2526 (Suminit Avenue) interchange in Guilford County, also referenced as TIP R-4707. Bridge No. 360 will Ue replaced as part of the project. This is a federally funded project (F�IwA) with likely USACE per�nitting, both qualifying the proposal as a federal undertaking. As such, Section 106 oftl�e National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) applies. Design for the improvements is still in �rogress, however, some preliminary ��apping was provided in ordei- to establish a reasonable Area of Potential Effects (APE) for tlle project that may include different alternatives. While width varies, the project length is considered to be approximately 1.60 miles. SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS An archacological survcy was conductcd of thc APE on April 28, 2017 by NCDOT archacologists Brian Overto» and Sl�ane Petersen. The archaeologists visually irlspected the project area, i��chlding a pedestrian survey of two large portions of the APE including the area adjacent to Hardy's Mill Pond and rlorth of Reedy Forl< Parl<way. The remaining portions of the APE are conside�red low probability for containi��g intact, signiticant archacological resources based on development, disturbances, and croded or wet soils. A stunmaiy of the fielciworlc is ineluded below. The inspection near Hardy's Mill Pond confirmed conclusions reported in the Archaeological Survey Required Form that were derived fi-om historic maps and aerial photography. Aside from the dam and gate at the water, other structures associated witl� the mill and �nanufacturing facility have been removed as seen in the 2002 aeriaL Likely outside of tl�e APE, thoagb adjacent to it, this area has been cleared during the demolition and removal of buildings, lcaving a disturbed archacological context. Subsurface testing here was not wan-anted. Tllis area was photographed (see Figure 3). New impacts may occtu� north of Reedy Fork Parl<way within the APE due to a shift in the alignment or expansion of the roadway. A portion is currently wooded, fairly level and not listed as having eroded soils, therefore subsurface testing was conducted in order to ide��tify any archaeological resources that might be present (see Figure 4). A h-ansect incluc�ed six excavated and screened shovel test pits spaced at 30 ineters (see Figure 5). The soil profiles were similar across the transect, with a clayey loam or loamy clay overlying clay. The soil trendcd towards morc deflated soils towards the east of the transect. No cultural materials were recove►-ed from the excavatio» and screening using 1/4 inch l�ardware clotli. No features or culhiral l�orizons were identified. "NO NATIONAI, �F.'GlSlh'R FI lGIBI,f,- OR l,IS7'h_'D.1RCH.A6'OLOG/C,IL SITF.S % Rf,'SF.NT" ('nrnt /i�r dxe _-Inzended bfinur Tr�iri.�pui7u[irni Projec'�s u.�' Oimli/ied rri llte 2007 Pru�rurnntalic Agreemeiil. 1 of � Projec! Trrtching No.: 17-04-TBA At t}1e far eastern liulits of t11e APE a twentieth cei�tury trasl� dump was identified and mapped. Pile�s of brick and probably hundreds of feet of fencing were observed along with refiise like bedsprings and oil cans. The character of the materials present resembled tlie dump resulting from clearing ratl�er tl�an a cl�imney fall or lo�1g te�i-m trash midden. Examination of both historic inaps and aerials did not sl�ow a structure located here. The twentieth century materials are morc lilce,ly the result of clearing associated witl� the constitiiction of the modern roadway, co�nmercial buildings and adjacent neighborhood. Modern aerial pl�otograplry shows a pro�ression of clearing and construction vety close to this location suggesting the piles are frotn the past two decades. No archaeological sites were identified as a result of this investigatio�� and archaeological survey. No further archaeological effort is recominended for this project as it is cuirently proposed. If altenlatives are developed at � later date that were not considered during this evaluation, please offer an opportunity for our conuY�ents. Should any cLilt�iral f�atures or a1-tifacts be discovered dtu�ing the construction, please inform oltr office for additional consultation. (See Archaeological Survey Required Form dated 4/26/2017 for additional background informatioil and figurEs.) The NoYth Cczirolirza Depart�neizt of'T►•a�zspo►^tation (NCDOT) Avchaeology Croup t�eviewecl the suhject project ar�d dete�•miizerl: � There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present within the project's area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed) ❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project. � Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources. ❑ S�ibsurface ii�vestigations did �1ot reveal tl�e prese��ce of a��y arcllaeological resources considered eligible for the National Rebister. ❑ All identified archaeo1ogical sites located within the APE l�ave been co��sidered and all compliance for arcl�aeological resouices with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has bee�� co�r�pleted for this project. Brief tlescription qf'Yeview activitr�es, resitlts of'review, a�T�rl conclusio�zs: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: � Map(s) Signed: ;� . - � .-, ❑ Previous Smvey Info � Photos ❑Correspondence _ 6/O 1/2017 NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date "NO NATIONAI, �F.'GlSlh'R FI lGIBI,f,- OR l,IS7'h_'D.1RCH.A6'OLOG/C,IL SITF.S % Rf,'SF.NT" ('nrnt /i�r dxe _-Inzended bfinur Tr�iri.�pui7u[irni Projec'Ls u.�' Oimli/ied rri llte 2007 Pru�rurnntalic Agreemeiil. 2 of � From: Reap, Shelby L Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 3:33 PM To: AI-Sharawneh, Ahmad A <aaisharawneh@n::clot.�ov> Subject: RE: R-4707 Screening Update Ahmad, There is nothing in the project area that has changed to alter the 2009 Historic Architecture finding of Nothing Eligible. No properties previously identified have gained significance in the intervening years. Please let me know if you have any other questions or if this memo to the file does not meet your needs. Shelby