I-73 Connector, From NC 68 to West of Greensboro Western Loop Greensboro, Guilford County Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-0073(25) WBS No. 42345.1.1 TIP No. I-5110

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action Environmental Assessment.

2. CONTACTS

The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Proposal and Environmental Assessment:

Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Unit Head Division Administrator Project Development and Environmental Federal Highway Administration Analysis Unit 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 North Carolina Department of Transportation Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 1548 Mail Service Center Telephone: (919) 856-4346 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 707-6000

3. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED

Impacts to Section 404 jurisdictional areas will likely be authorized under nationwide permitting. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) that may apply include a NWP No. 3 for maintenance of currently serviceable structures, NWP No. 14 for linear transportation projects, NWP No. 18 for minor discharges, and NWP No. 33 for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The USACE holds final discretion as to what permits will be required to authorize project construction. If proposed impacts exceed Nationwide Permit limits, impacts will likely be authorized under an Individual Permit.

In addition to the Section 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ. Required 401 certifications may include GC 3687 for maintenance, GC 3704 for linear transportation projects, GC 3705 for minor discharges, and GC 3688 for temporary construction access and dewatering.

4. PROPOSED ACTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the I-73 Connector (I-5110) to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-1 future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. The proposed project will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region.

The project is included in the NCDOT 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as I-5110 and will be referred to as the “I-73 Connector” in this document from this point forward. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2014 and construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2016.

In the project area, existing I-73 runs concurrently with I-85 (from US 220 to I-85 Business/ US 70) and the Greensboro Western Loop to Bryan Boulevard (SR 2085). The Greensboro Western Loop is a portion of a partially completed loop around Greensboro. It currently travels between I-85 south of Greensboro to Bryan Boulevard and includes existing I-73 and Future I-840. The I-73 Connector and adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector (R-2413) will be part of the future I-73 corridor.1 When these two connector projects are completed, I-73 will extend northward into Rockingham County.

The I-73 Connector proposes to connect NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard, west of the Greensboro Western Loop (Future I-840/ I-73), with a new 1.6-mile, four-lane, median-divided freeway (see Figure 1). It will be a fully controlled access facility (meaning, residential and business driveways will not be allowed) with two, 12-foot lanes in both directions and a 70-foot wide median. This typical section is consistent with the configuration of existing Bryan Boulevard at the project’s eastern terminus and of the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. The eastern end will connect to Bryan Boulevard (future I-73) near the current interchange with Airport Parkway. The western end will connect to the planned US 220/ NC 68 Connector. The western part of Bryan Boulevard will not directly connect NC 68 with the airport. This means that drivers will no longer be able to reach the airport from the Bryan Boulevard interchange at NC 68. Access from NC 68 to the airport will be provided by an interchange with either the I-73 Connector or the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (depending on the preferred alternative).

5. BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Four options were developed in a May 2008 feasibility study for the I-73 Connector (FS-0507A). Two of the concepts included major upgrades to existing highways (US 220, NC 68, or I-40). These two concepts were not recommended because of the high cost and impacts to the human environment (e.g. residential and business relocations). Upgrading the existing roads to fully controlled access facilities would require more right of way and multiple interchanges to replace intersections. The other two concepts included a new highway between the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and Bryan Boulevard, west of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Future I-840/ I-73). The new highway concepts were considered feasible and were used as a starting point for developing preliminary alternatives for the I-73 Connector (see Figure 4).

From the feasibility study concepts, five preliminary alternatives were evaluated early in the study for the I-73 Connector. These are described below.



1 TIP Project R-2413 will be referred to as the “US 220/ NC 68 Connector” from this point forward. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-2  Alternative 1 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road (SR 2133). Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road will provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 5).  Alternative 2 extends from west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway interchange to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It is located just south of Alternative 1. It also includes ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road to provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 8.1).  Alternative 3 extends from west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway interchange to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector between Pleasant Ridge Road and Edgefield Road (SR 2011). It is located north of Alternative 1 (see Figure 8.2).  Alternative 4 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It does not include ramps south of Pleasant Ridge road for access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 6).  Alternative 5 follows the same alignment as Alternative 2, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It does not include ramps south of Pleasant Ridge road for access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 8.1).

Alternatives 1 and 4 are being studied in detail for this project because they have more desirable design features and impact fewer environmental resources, residences, and businesses. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 were eliminated from further consideration because of substantial impacts to both the human and natural environments.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 begins just west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway. From there, it goes west on a new alignment, travels just south of Caindale Drive (SR 2138), crosses over NC 68 near its intersection with Pleasant Ridge Road, and heads northward to connect to the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. It is approximately 1.6 miles long. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road will provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport. One ramp will carry NC 68 northbound traffic to the southbound lanes of the I-73 Connector. The other ramp uses a bridge (flyover) to carry northbound I-73 Connector traffic to southbound NC 68. Upon completion, pavement on Bryan Boulevard will be removed from the eastern terminus of the I-73 Connector to the proposed right of way limits. Bryan Boulevard will not connect to the I-73 Connector or Airport Parkway. These ramps will allow for direct access to and from the airport from points south on NC 68, replacing the access to the airport currently provided by Bryan Boulevard. Full access to NC 68 from future I-73 will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road that is included in the design of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector as shown on Figure 5.

Alternative 1 is planned as a freeway facility with four travel lanes (two in each direction) and a 70-foot wide median. The proposed design speed is 70 mph, the right of way width varies, and the new roadway will have full control of access.

Alternative 1 meets NCDOT’s design and safety requirements, maintains direct access to and from PTI Airport from points south on NC 68, has minimal impacts to water resources, and is favored by

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-3 local officials and airport representatives. They prefer Alternative 1 over Alternative 4 because it provides a more direct connection between NC 68 and the airport. Alternative 1 is consistent with the PTI Airport’s master plan.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 but does not include the ramps that provide direct access between the airport, NC 68, and points south. It requires drivers to travel a longer distance (approximately two miles more than Alternative 1) between the airport and NC 68. Access to NC 68 from the I-73 connector will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road as part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector design. If Alternative 4 is selected as the preferred alternative, the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange with NC 68 will have to be reconfigured. The reconfigured interchange will be necessary in order to serve the additional traffic generated by motorists traveling between the PTI Airport and points south along NC 68.

Alternative 4 is planned as a 1.6-mile long freeway facility with four travel lanes (two in each direction) and a 70-foot wide median. The proposed design speed is 70 mph, the right of way width varies, and the new roadway will have full control of access.

Alternative 4 meets NCDOT’s design and safety requirements and has minimal impacts to water resources. Alternative 4 is consistent with the PTI Airport’s master plan.

6. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

Improve Existing Roadways

The May 2008 I-73 Connector feasibility study considered two concepts for upgrading existing highways (US 220, NC 68, or I-40) to become the future route of I-73. Concept 2 proposed to route I-73 west on I-40, north on NC 68, along the US 220/ NC 68 Connector, and north on US 220. The feasibility study did not recommend Concept 2 to be carried forward for further study because of high costs and impacts to the human environment. This concept was eliminated from further consideration in the I-5110 project study.

The feasibility study also considered routing I-73 from I-40 north along Future I-840 and then north along existing US 220 (Concept 3). Concept 3 assumed Future I-840 would be constructed from Bryan Boulevard to US 220. This route was not considered feasible. It would have required reconstructing US 220 from a non-controlled access highway with many signalized intersections to a fully controlled access freeway with interchanges. This concept was also eliminated from further consideration in the I-5110 project study.

Early in the project’s development, an option was also considered for following existing Bryan Boulevard to NC 68, upgrading the existing interchange, and improving NC 68 to join with the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Near North Regional Road (SR 4156), Bryan Boulevard is designed for much lower speeds than the 70 mph interstate requirements. The ramps and loops within the Bryan Boulevard interchange with NC 68 are also designed for much lower speeds than an interstate would require. An alternative in this location would have impacted the business park and residential developments along North Regional Road. This option was eliminated from further consideration in the project study.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-4

No other improvements to existing roads were considered to be feasible and prudent alternatives for this project study.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. Alternative 2 follows an alignment similar to Alternative 1, but takes a more southerly route to avoid impacts to industrial/ commercial properties along Caindale Drive. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport. An interchange (included in the design of the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector, TIP Project R-2413) north of Edgefield Road provides full access to NC 68.

When compared to the Build Alternatives, Alternative 2 has higher impacts to the natural environment. By shifting the alignment further south of Caindale Drive, Alternative 2 has considerably more stream impacts than Alternative 1 or 4. Preliminary calculations indicated Alternative 2 would impact nearly three times the length of streams than Alternatives 1 and 4. For this reason, Alternative 2 has been eliminated from further consideration.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector east of NC 68 between Pleasant Ridge Road and Edgefield Road. Alternative 3 travels north on new alignment and connects with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector south and east of Fence Drive (SR 3840) (at the Friendship Farms neighborhood). From that location, future I-73 connects with NC 68 via a service road on new alignment traveling southwest. Interchanges are located at both ends of the new service road.

Due to projected future traffic conditions, substantial interchange and service road improvements are needed between I-73, NC 68, and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. This alternative results in considerable impacts to the human and natural environments. Stream impacts and residential relocations would be approximately four times higher than the impacts for Alternatives 1 and 4. This is primarily due to the extensive interchange improvements near the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and the Friendship Farms neighborhood. For these reasons, Alternative 3 is not considered to be reasonable or feasible and is not being carried forward for further study.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 follows the same alignment as Alternative 2 but does not include the ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road to provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport. Access to NC 68 from the I-73 connector will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road as part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector design. While the preliminary stream impacts associated with Alternative 5 were calculated to be less than Alternative 2, they are still higher than those for the Build Alternatives. Alternative 5 was eliminated from further consideration for the same reasons as Alternative 2.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-5 Transportation System Management Alternative

The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes those activities that maximize the efficiency of the existing system. This alternative includes such options as optimizing the existing traffic signal timing or improving the timing sequencing, widening intersections to add turn lanes, combining and eliminating driveway accesses, and other similar capacity improvements. Upon review of the project area, these options have very little or no application within the project's study limits. Without the I-73 Connector, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing system would not adequately meet the project purpose and need without major relocations and associated costs. For these reasons, the TSM Alternative was not considered to be reasonable or feasible and is not being carried forward for further study.

Mass Transit Alternative

The Mass Transit Alternative includes the option of providing bus or rail service to decrease congestion. A major advantage of mass transit is that it can provide high-capacity, energy-efficient movement in densely traveled corridors. It also serves high and medium density areas by offering a low-cost option for auto owners who do not wish to drive, and an essential service to those without access to an automobile, such as school children, senior citizens, single auto families, and others who may be economically or physically disadvantaged.

A limitation of mass transit lies in its inability to serve different trip purposes. For trip purposes such as shopping, social, and recreational trips, transit is not attractive because trip purposes are less frequent and less predictable to serve with scheduled bus service on fixed routes. Furthermore, most bus routes are designed primarily to capture work trips during peak periods in an effort to maximize revenue and reduce congestion.

The purpose of this project is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area; thereby, enhancing north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region. Mass transit alternatives would not meet this purpose since it would only serve local traffic and not through traffic. Therefore, for reasons discussed above, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-6 7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

A summary of the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives is presented in the following table.

Summary of Impacts Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Costs Right of Way $43,700,000 $39,400,000 Utility Relocation $3,200,000 $1,900,000 Construction $47,000,000 $24,000,000 Total $93,900,000 $65,300,000 Length (miles) 1.6 1.6 Relocations Residential 17 13 Business 3 3 Non Profit 0 0 Farms 0 0 Total 20 16 Prime/ Statewide Important 0 0 Farmland (acres) Water Resource Impacts Stream Crossings 1 1 Stream Impacts (feet) 470 360 Buffer Impacts (acres) 2.3 0.9 Open Water Impacts (acres) 0.3 0.0 Wetland Impacts (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 Floodplain Impacts (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 Endangered Species Small whorled pogonia No Effect No Effect Historic Property Impacts 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Section 4(f) Resources (Parks, Recreation 0 0 Areas, Wildlife Management Areas) Noise Impacts 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites (excluding 0 0 USTs)

If selected, Alternative 1 will not affect the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector design or environmental impacts. If Alternative 4 is chosen, the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange will be reconfigured, resulting in a larger footprint with higher water resource impacts than were previously evaluated in the US 220/ NC 68 Connector environmental document.

Cost and impacts from the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange area have been considered and added to the I-73 Connector costs and impacts to accurately compare the Build Alternatives. Since the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange design does not need to be altered, the impacts

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-7 previously accounted for in that project’s environmental document have been added to the I-73 Connector impacts associated with Alternative 1.

With Alternative 1, the combined impacts are as follows:

 the total cost would be approximately $144,300,000;  a total of 34 residences and businesses would be relocated;  3,320 feet of stream impacts;  0.3 acres of open water impacts;  0.5 acres of wetland impacts.

With Alternative 4, the combined impacts are as follows:

 the total cost would be approximately $123,700,000;  a total of 32 residences and businesses would be relocated;  stream impacts would be 4,090 feet;  impacts to open water would be 0.0 acres;  wetland impacts would be 0.6 acre.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ES-8 Project Commitments I-73 Connector, From NC 68 to West of Greensboro Western Loop Greensboro, Guilford County Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-0073(25) WBS No. 42345.1.1 TIP No. I-5110

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design

Division 7/ Roadway Design Unit

 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations under CFR, Part 77 and Advisory Circular (AC) 70/7460.2K require a sponsoring agency to notify FAA of any proposed construction or alteration of objects that may affect the navigable airspace. NCDOT will inform the construction contractor of FAA’s regulations governing obstructions to navigable airspace and ensure said contractor submits FAA Form 7460-1 within the time period specified in CFR, Part 77. NCDOT will also be certain the contractor has calculated the maximum height of construction equipment allowed in a particular location according to FAA’s policies and regulations.  The PTI Airport Master Plan Update includes the possible development of a third parallel runway located to the northwest of the two existing runways. A network of connecting taxiways would be needed, and one of these is envisioned to cross the I-73 Connector project area to support future air cargo and distribution facilities. NCDOT will coordinate with the PTI Airport Authority throughout the project’s development to ensure the roadway design is compatible with the future taxiway network proposed in the PTI Airport Master Plan.

Hydraulics Unit

 FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports provides guidance on land uses that attract wildlife on or near public airports. This guidance dictates airport operators, local planners, and developers refrain from considering proposed land uses that could attract or sustain wildlife populations. NCDOT will use Best Management Practices that do not attract waterfowl or other animals that are a danger to aircraft. Wet detention ponds and stormwater wetlands are not recommended for use with the I-73 Connector. FAA’s AC 150/5200-33B will be considered during final design.  The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 2 February 2012   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 .0609). The buffer rules do not allow stormwater runoff to enter a riparian buffer as a concentrated flow. The area south of Hollandsworth Drive will be investigated during the final hydraulic design phase of the project to determine the need for an appropriate stormwater control to redistribute stormwater prior to entering a downstream riparian buffer along the west side of Bryan Boulevard.

Division 7

 This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to Federal Emergency Management Agency regulated streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

Environmental Assessment Page 2 of 2 February 2012  Table of Contents  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 1 A.General Description ...... 1 B.Project Need and Purpose ...... 1 C.Project History ...... 2 D.Existing Conditions ...... 2 1.Roadway Network and Route Classification ...... 2 2.Airports ...... 3 3.Transit ...... 4 4.Traffic Volumes and Speed Limits ...... 4 5.Existing Roadway Characteristics ...... 5 6.Structures ...... 5 7.Utilities ...... 6 8.Bicycles and Pedestrians ...... 7 9.Crash Analysis ...... 7 10.School Bus Data ...... 8 11.Geodetic Survey Monument ...... 8

II. ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 A. No-Build Alternative...... 9 B. Build Alternatives ...... 9 1. Logical Termini/ Independent Utility ...... 10 2. Proposed Improvements ...... 11 a.Alternative 1 ...... 11 b.Alternative 4 ...... 12 3. Summary of Impacts ...... 13 a. I-73 Connector Impacts ...... 13 b. I-73 Connector and US 220/ NC 68 Connector Combined Impacts ...... 13 4. Design Criteria and Typical Section ...... 15 5. Right of Way and Access Control ...... 15 6. Structures and Drainage Recommendations ...... 16 7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions ...... 17 8. Traffic Capacity Analysis ...... 17 9. Estimated Costs ...... 19 C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study ...... 20 1. Improve Existing Roadways ...... 20 2. Alternative 2 ...... 21 3. Alternative 3 ...... 21 4. Alternative 5 ...... 21 5. Transportation System Management Alternative ...... 21 6. Mass Transit Alternative ...... 22

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment i III. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 23 A. Community Characteristics ...... 23 1. Regional and Community Context ...... 23 2. Community Resources ...... 23 3. Community Demographics ...... 24 B. Land Use and Economic Effects ...... 26 C. Social and Community Impacts ...... 26 1. Right of Way and Relocation Impacts ...... 26 2. Community/ Neighborhood Cohesion and Stability ...... 29 3. Environmental Justice ...... 29 4. Recurring Community/ Neighborhood Impacts ...... 29 5. Important Natural Features, Open Space, Parkland, and Farmland ...... 30 D. Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 30 1. Archaeological Resources ...... 31 2. Historic Architectural Resources ...... 31 3. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources ...... 31 E. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...... 31 1. Future Land Use Study Area ...... 32 2. Indirect Effects ...... 33 3. Cumulative Effects ...... 33 F. Natural Resources ...... 35 1. Physical Resources ...... 35 a. Soils ...... 35 b. Water Resources ...... 35 2. Biotic Resources ...... 36 a. Terrestrial Communities...... 36 b. Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 38 c. Aquatic Communities ...... 38 d. Invasive Species ...... 38 3. Jurisdictional Issues ...... 38 a. Waters of the United States ...... 38 b. Permits ...... 40 c. Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ...... 40 d. Construction Moratoria ...... 40 e. North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules ...... 40 f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ...... 41 g. Wetland and Stream Mitigation ...... 41 h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species ...... 41 i. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...... 42 j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ...... 42 k. Essential Fish Habitat ...... 42 G. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...... 43 H. Air Quality ...... 43 1. Carbon Monoxide ...... 44 2. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ...... 44 3. Air Quality Summary ...... 45 I. Traffic Noise Analysis ...... 45 1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ...... 46

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment ii 2. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...... 47 3. Noise Barriers ...... 47 4. Traffic Noise Analysis Summary ...... 47 J. Geodetic Markers ...... 48 K. Hazardous Materials ...... 48 L. Construction Impacts ...... 48 M. Federal Aviation Administration Requirements ...... 49 1. Objects That May Affect Navigable Airspace ...... 49 2. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants ...... 49

IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...... 51 A. Comments Received ...... 51 B. NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Process ...... 51 C. Public Involvement ...... 53 D. Responses to Public Comments ...... 53

V. CONCLUSION ...... 56

VI. REFERENCES ...... 58   Tables

Table 1: Existing (2011) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in Vehicles per Day (vpd) ...... 5 Table 2: Existing Structures ...... 6 Table 3: Crash Statistics...... 8 Table 4: Summary of Impacts – Build Alternatives ...... 13 Table 5: Summary of Combined Impacts – Build Alternatives ...... 14 Table 6: Design Criteria ...... 15 Table 7: Proposed Structures ...... 16 Table 8: 2035 Build Capacity Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Results ...... 19 Table 9: Estimated Cost Comparison ...... 20 Table 10: Demographic Overview ...... 25 Table 11: I-73 Connector Relocation Impacts * ...... 27 Table 12: Soils Within the Study Area ...... 35 Table 13: Water Resources in the Study Area – Build Alternatives ...... 36 Table 14: Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area – Build Alternatives ...... 36 Table 15: Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area – Build Alternatives ...... 37 Table 16: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Water Resources in Study Area – Build Alternatives .... 39 Table 17: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area- Build Alternatives ...... 40 Table 18: Federally Protected Species Listed for Guilford County ...... 41 Table 19: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts* ...... 46

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment iii Figures

Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: I-73 Corridor & Other TIP Projects Figure 3: 2011 No Build Traffic Volumes Figure 4: I-73 Connector Feasibility Study Concepts FS-0507A Figure 5: Alternative 1 Figure 6: Alternative 4 Figure 7.1: Typical Section Figure 7.2: 2035 Build Level of Service Figure 8.1: Alternatives Eliminated, Alternatives 2 & 5 Figure 8.2: Alternatives Eliminated, Alternative 3 Figure 9: Community Resources Figure 10: Notable Features Figure 11: Future Land Use Study Area Figures 12.1 – 12.2: Jurisdictional Features

Appendices

Appendix A: Relocation Reports Appendix B: Interagency Coordination Appendix C: Traffic Noise Analysis Appendix D: Public Involvement

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment iv I-73 Connector, From NC 68 to West of Greensboro Western Loop Greensboro, Guilford County Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-0073(25) WBS No. 42345.1.1 TIP No. I-5110

I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. General Description

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the I-73 Connector (I-5110) to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. The proposed project will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region.

The project is included in the NCDOT 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as I-5110 and will be referred to as the “I-73 Connector” in this document from this point forward. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2016.

In the project area, existing I-73 runs concurrently with I-85 (from US 220 to I-85 Business/ US 70) and the Greensboro Western Loop to Bryan Boulevard (SR 2085).2 The Greensboro Western Loop is a portion of a partially completed loop around Greensboro. It currently travels between I-85 south of Greensboro to Bryan Boulevard and includes existing I-73 and Future I-840. The I-73 Connector and adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector (TIP Project R-2413) will be part of the future I-73 corridor.3 When these two connector projects are completed, I-73 will extend northward into Rockingham County.

The I-73 Connector proposes to connect NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard, west of the Greensboro Western Loop (Future I-840/ I-73), with a new 1.6-mile, four-lane, median-divided freeway (see Figure 1). It will be a fully controlled access facility (meaning that, residential and business driveways will not be allowed) with two, 12-foot lanes in both directions. The southern end will connect to Bryan Boulevard (future I-73) near the current interchange with Airport Parkway. The northern end will connect to the planned US 220/ NC 68 Connector. The western part of Bryan Boulevard will not directly connect NC 68 with the airport. This means that drivers will no longer be able to reach the airport from the Bryan Boulevard interchange at NC 68. Access from NC 68 to the airport will be provided by an interchange with either the I-73 Connector or the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (depending on the selected alternative).

B. Project Need and Purpose

Interstate 73 is a National Highway System corridor that extends from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

2 According to the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Bryan Boulevard is SR 4464 west of its intersection with North Regional Road and SR 2085 east of the intersection. For purposes of this document, “Bryan Boulevard” will represent both SR numbers. 3 TIP Project R-2413 will be referred to as the “US 220/ NC 68 Connector” from this point forward. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 1 (ISTEA) of 1991, the US Congress established the I-73/74 North-South Corridor as “Congressional High Priority Corridor 5.” Roads identified on the National Highway System are recognized as being important to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. High priority corridors are designated to integrate regions, link major population centers of the country, provide opportunities for increased economic growth, and serve the travel and commerce needs of the nation. The North Carolina portion of I-73 generally follows US 220 and I-74. In the Triad area, I-73 runs concurrently with US 220 from south of Greensboro to I-85 and along the Greensboro Western Loop to Bryan Boulevard (see Figure 2). I-73 is proposed to follow the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (TIP Project R-2413) and join US 220 northwest of Greensboro. There is no freeway in place to link the existing and future portions of I-73 in this area.

The purpose of this project is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. This will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region.

C. Project History

NCDOT’s Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan (adopted in September 2004) proposed to extend the I-73 corridor around the northwest side of Greensboro, from Future I-840/ I-73 to US 220, following the planned route for the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. At that time, there was no programmed transportation project to complete the I-73 Corridor between NC 68 and Future I-840/ I-73 at Bryan Boulevard.

NCDOT completed a feasibility study in May 2008 (TIP Project FS-0507A) that considered conceptual alternatives for completing this freeway connection. The feasibility study provided a starting point for the I-73 Connector by recommending preliminary alternatives to join the US 220/ NC 68 Connector at NC 68 with Bryan Boulevard near Airport Parkway. See Section II.B, Build Alternatives and Section II.C.1, Improve Existing Roadways for more information on the FS-0507A feasibility study. The I-73 Connector was later added to the TIP as Project I-5110. It is also included in the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (GUAMPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (adopted January 28, 2009).

D. Existing Conditions

1. Roadway Network and Route Classification

NC 68 transitions from a four-lane, median divided facility south of the proposed I-73 Connector to a two-lane rural highway north of the proposed connector. It is classified as an “other principal arterial” according to the Statewide Classification System. It is a major thoroughfare on the GUAMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Bryan Boulevard is a multi-lane, median-divided highway located on the north and west sides of the PTI Airport. In the project area, Bryan Boulevard is classified as an existing urban freeway/ expressway from I-73/ Future I-840 to the interchange with Old Oak Ridge Road/ Airport Parkway and as an existing urban collector from Old Oak Ridge Road/ Airport Parkway interchange to NC 68.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 2 The proposed project location is in the middle of an area with major existing and proposed local and regional routes (see Figure 2):

 I-40 is an east/ west route that passes through Greensboro south of the project area.  Future I-840 is part of the future I-73 corridor and the Greensboro Urban Loop that will go around the north side of Greensboro from US 70 east of the City to Bryan Boulevard near the PTI Airport. In the project vicinity, part of Future I-840 (from I-40 to Bryan Boulevard) has been completed and is referred to as the Greensboro Western Loop.  Existing I-73 travels from US 220 south of Greensboro, around the western side of the City, to Bryan Boulevard. It is part of the Greensboro Western Loop and runs concurrently with portions of I-85 and Future I-840. When complete, the I-73 corridor will generally travel along US 220 and I-74 north and south through the State from the North Carolina/ South Carolina (SC) State line in Richmond County to the North Carolina/ Virginia (VA) State line in Rockingham County.  US 220 is a freeway/expressway from Rockingham County into Guilford County and is part of the proposed I-73 Corridor.  NC 68 is a north/ south route that passes through the project area and to the west of the PTI Airport.  Bryan Boulevard is an east/ west route linking NC 68 near the PTI Airport with Future I-840/ I-73 and downtown Greensboro.

According to the 2012-2018 TIP, there are other planned projects in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector including (see Figure 2):

 U-2524 (Greensboro Western Loop) is a proposed new location freeway that links I-85 with US 220. Construction is complete from I-85 to Bryan Boulevard. Right of way acquisition for the section from Bryan Boulevard to US 220 (U-2524C) is underway and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2013.  R-2413 (US 220/ NC 68 Connector) is a proposed four-lane divided roadway that joins US 220 northwest of Greensboro and NC 68 near the PTI Airport. The project will be built to interstate standards. Right of way acquisition for the northern portion (R-2413C) is complete, and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2012. Right of way acquisition for the remaining portions (R-2413A and R-2413B) is scheduled to begin in FY 2012, and construction is to begin in FY 2014.  R-2309AB proposes to widen existing US 220 to a multi-lane facility from north of Future I-840 (U-2524) to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector (R-2413). Right of way acquisition is in progress, and construction is expected to begin in FY 2012.  R-2611 proposes to widen West Market Street (SR 1008) to multi-lanes from the Town of Colfax west of the PTI Airport to NC 68. This project is currently under construction.

2. Airports

PTI Airport is within the project study area (see Figure 2). It is part of a 4,000-acre campus that is also home to more than 50 companies employing over 4,000 people. Numerous air carriers offer non-stop passenger flights to several major cities across the country. It is home to several freight carriers including FedEx, which operates a regional shipping hub at the airport. In 2009, more than 1.7 million passengers passed through PTI Airport.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 3 Parts of the I-73 Connector will be constructed on property currently owned by the PTI Airport. According to the Airport Master Plan Update and Strategic Long-Range Visioning Plan (September 2010), the proposed project will almost be entirely surrounded by PTI Airport-owned property by the year 2020. Within the next 10 years, PTI Airport officials expect there to be airport-related development on property they currently own, or are planning to acquire, to the northwest. This area is generally bounded by Old Oak Ridge Road (SR 4871), Pleasant Ridge Road (SR 2133), and North Regional Road (SR 4156) (see Figure 1). The master plan includes the possible development of a third parallel runway located to the northwest of the existing runways. A network of connecting taxiways would be needed, and one of these is envisioned to cross the I-73 Connector project area to support future air cargo and distribution facilities.

Any project that has the potential to affect airport operations is required to abide by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies and regulations. See Section III.M, Federal Aviation Administration Requirements for more information.

3. Transit

The Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA) was created in 1991 when the City assumed operations of the city public transportation services supplied by Duke Power Transit. The GTA currently offers 15 routes Monday – Saturday and seven routes on Sunday. The Career Express is a reservation service within the airport area. There are seven Higher Education Area Transit (HEAT) routes serving college campuses and other select locations. GTA and HEAT serve almost 4 million passengers annually. Specialized Community Area Transportation Service (SCAT) is the GTA shared-ride transportation service for eligible riders who have a disability preventing them from riding the fixed bus routes. The GTA does not currently operate within the project vicinity.

The Guilford County Transportation and Mobility Services (TAMS) are offered to residences without access to GTA in Greensboro or Hi Tran in High Point. Transportation is provided for medical appointments, employment, education, senior services, nutrition sites and adult day care.

The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) was created in 1997 and has been operating the regional bus service since 2002. The PART Express system provides regional bus service to ten counties in the Piedmont Triad region and connects with City bus systems in Greensboro, High Point and Winston-Salem. In the project area, PART operates shuttles serving PTI Airport and a bus route along NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard.

4. Traffic Volumes and Speed Limits

According to NCDOT’s Project Level Traffic Forecast Report for I-5110 (May 2011), existing (2011) annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for NC 68 range from 15,800 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Edgefield Road (SR 2011) to 22,700 vpd south of Pleasant Ridge Road (see Figure 3 for 2011 No-Build traffic volumes). The posted speed limit on NC 68 in this area is 55 miles per hour (mph). Bryan Boulevard’s 2011 AADT is approximately 18,600 between NC 68 and Future I-840/ I-73.4 The posted speed limit on Bryan Boulevard in this area is 55 mph. 

4 Existing AADT volumes for Bryan Boulevard were obtained from the May 2008 FS-0507A feasibility study. The AADT for 2011 was calculated using a linear interpolation between 2007 and 2035 No Build AADTs for Bryan Boulevard between NC 68 and Future I-840/ I-73. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 4 The existing traffic volume on Pleasant Ridge Road ranges from 5,600 vpd west of NC 68 to 8,900 vpd east of NC 68. The posted speed limit for Pleasant Ridge Road is 50 mph. On Edgefield Road, 2011 traffic volumes range from 1,300 vpd west of NC 68 to 3,900 vpd east of NC 68. The posted speed limit on Edgefield Road is 45 mph. Table 1 presents existing AADT volumes for roadways in the project area.

Table 1: Existing (2011) Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in Vehicles per Day (vpd) Posted Speed Road AADT (vpd) Limit (mph) NC 68 – South of Pleasant Ridge Road 22,700 55 NC 68 – North of Edgefield Road 15,800 55 Bryan Boulevard* 18,600 55 Pleasant Ridge Road – East of NC 68 8,900 50 Pleasant Ridge Road – West of NC 68 5,600 50 Edgefield Road – East of NC 68 3,900 45 Edgefield Road – West of NC 68 1,300 45 Source – NCDOT’s Project Level Traffic Forecast Report for I-5110 (May 20, 2011) * Existing AADT volumes for Bryan Boulevard were obtained from the May 2008 FS-0507A feasibility study. The AADT for 2011 was calculated using a linear interpolation between 2007 and 2035 No Build AADTs for Bryan Boulevard east of NC 68 and west of Future I-840/ I-73.

5. Existing Roadway Characteristics

Bryan Boulevard is a four-lane divided freeway with a median width that varies from 46 feet at North Regional Road to 70 feet at Airport Parkway, and the existing right of way width is generally 350 feet. Access is fully controlled from Future I-840/ I-73 to east of North Regional Road. From east of North Regional Road to NC 68, access is partially controlled. Interchanges are located at Future I-840/ I-73, Old Oak Ridge Road/ Airport Parkway, and NC 68. At grade intersections are located at North Regional Road and Airport Center Drive.

From the Bryan Boulevard interchange to south of Edgefield Road, NC 68 is a four-lane divided roadway with an approximate median with of 35 feet, and the existing right of way width is generally 300 feet. Access is partially controlled. South of Edgefield Road, NC 68 begins transitioning to a two-lane roadway with an approximate right of way width of 60 feet. There is no control of access on this section of NC 68.

6. Structures

Drainage Structures Bryan Boulevard crosses Brush Creek and two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Brush Creek between Airport Parkway and NC 68. Box culverts exist at these stream crossings. There are three large pipes beneath NC 68 that carry unnamed tributaries of Brush Creek (S73, S77, and S78). These are located between the Bryan Boulevard interchange and Edgefield Road.

Grade Separation Structures Two roadway bridges on Bryan Boulevard cross over NC 68. These structures were built in 1997.

Table 2 describes the existing structures within the project area.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 5

Table 2: Existing Structures Location Type Length (feet) Year Built Drainage Structures Bryan Boulevard over UT to Three boxes at Brush Creek, ~0.3 mile west Triple RCBC* 8’ wide by 6’ tall 2007 of Old Oak Ridge Road and 770’ long Bryan Boulevard over UT to Two boxes at Brush Creek, ~0.8 mile north Double RCBC 7’ wide by 6’ tall 2007 of North Regional Road and ~250’ long Bryan Boulevard over Brush One box at Date not Creek, intersection with North Single RCBC 8’ wide by 8’ tall available Regional Road and ~550’ long NC 68 over UT to Brush 66” diameter and Date not Creek (S73), ~0.5 mile south One RCP* 360’ long available of Pleasant Ridge Road NC 68 over UT to Brush 72” diameter and Date not Creek (S77), ~0.6 mile south One RCP* 238’ long available of Pleasant Ridge Road NC 68 over UT to Brush 72” diameter and Date not Creek (S78), ~0.7 mile south One CMP* 375’ long available of Pleasant Ridge Road Grade Separation Structures RC deck on pre-stressed Eastbound Bryan Boulevard Approximately 35’ concrete girders supported 1997 over NC 68 (Bridge No. 766) wide and 189’ long by a RC substructure RC deck on pre-stressed Westbound Bryan Boulevard Approximately 48’ concrete girders supported 1997 over NC 68 (Bridge No. 767) wide and 188’ long by a RC substructure RC = reinforced concrete; RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert; RCP = reinforced concrete pipe; CMP = corrugated metal pipe. * These structures are included as existing structures (Sites 1, 2, 3, and 5) in the Preliminary Hydraulics Study for Environmental Impact (January 6, 2012), which is available from NCDOT’s project file.

Proposed bridge and drainage structures are discussed in Section II.B.6, Structures and Drainage Recommendations.

7. Utilities

There are many utilities in the project area (particularly in the vicinity of the NC 68/ Pleasant Ridge Road intersection), and considerable impacts are expected. Existing utilities include:

 PTI Airport communication systems;  AT&T communication systems;  gas lines;  water lines, valves, and fire hydrants;  sewer lines; I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 6  a water tank;  an electrical substation and transmission lines;  a planned pump station to serve a future campus of Greensboro Technical Community College (GTCC) along NC 68.

Construction of the I-73 Connector will require some adjustment, relocation, or modification to existing public utilities. Any disruptions to utility service during construction will be minimized by phased adjustments to the utility lines. All modifications, adjustments, or relocations will be coordinated with the affected utility companies.

8. Bicycles and Pedestrians

There are no bicycle accommodations along NC 68 or Bryan Boulevard in the project study area. Portions of these two routes are controlled access freeways in the vicinity of the project and are not suited for bicycle and pedestrian use. The GUAMPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommends on-road improvements along Brigham Road, Pleasant Ridge Road, Edgefield Road, Old Oak Ridge Road, and NC 68. Besides the recommended on-road improvements, there are no additional State or local plans for bicycle facilities near the proposed project.

There are very few sidewalks and no pedestrian designated areas or greenways within or near the project study area. The small sections of sidewalks that are nearby were built as part of new commercial development. Sidewalks have been incorporated into the newly-developed multi-family residential neighborhood, Allerton Apartments, located along Pleasant Ridge Road just east of North Regional Road. The GUAMPO, in the September 1, 2007 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, recommends improvements for sidewalks along Pleasant Ridge Road.

9. Crash Analysis

Table 3 shows the accident rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (MVM) on NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard within the vicinity of the project. The total crash rate on NC 68 was 145.12 crashes per 100 MVM in the three year period (January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010). During the same period, the total crash rate on Bryan Boulevard from NC 68 to the Future I-840/ I-73 interchange was 49.31 per 100 MVM. Both of these rates are lower than the statewide averages of 197.53 for similar NC routes and 86.48 for similar secondary routes. There were no reported fatal accidents during this three year period. A total of 78 crashes were reported for NC 68, and 77 crashes were reported for Bryan Boulevard. Approximately 36 percent of the accidents along NC 68 occurred between Pleasant Ridge Road and Edgefield Road, and the primary crash patterns were rear end, frontal impact, and lane departure. Approximately 36 percent of the accidents along Bryan Boulevard occurred between North Regional Road and Burgess Road (SR 2084), and the primary crash patterns were lane departure, rear end, frontal impact and animal crashes.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 7 Table 3: Crash Statistics Crashes per 100 Million Statewide Critical Rate Crashes Vehicle Miles (MVM) Rate 1 Rate 2 NC 68 from Bryan Blvd. (SR 4464) to Leabourne Road (SR 2016) Total 78 145.12 197.53 230.00 Fatal 0 0 1.56 5.29 Non-Fatal 26 48.37 69.81 89.49 Night 27 50.23 57.10 74.99 Wet 17 31.63 33.72 47.68 Bryan Boulevard from NC 68 to the Future I-840/ I-73 Interchange Total 77 49.31 86.48 99.04 Fatal 0 0 0.45 1.65 Non-Fatal 23 14.73 28.06 35.35 Night 29 18.57 24.49 31.32 Wet 22 14.09 16.96 22.70 ¹ 2007-2009 statewide crash rates are for a classified North Carolina (NC) route and a 4-lane divided with partial control access, Secondary Route (SR). ² Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause.

The critical crash rate can be used as a tool to identify or screen for high accident locations. Locations with a crash rate higher than the critical rate may have safety and operational deficiencies. The crash rates within the project area are lower than the critical rates.

10. School Bus Data

According to a school official, the Guilford County School system operates 12 buses (24 trips) within and near the project study area on school days. According to school district GIS data obtained from Guilford County (September 30, 2011), the following schools serve the project area: Colfax Elementary, Oak Ridge Elementary, Northwest Middle, Kernodle Middle, and Northwest High.

11. Geodetic Survey Monument

Geodetic survey monuments are physical, geographic reference points, located at precise coordinates throughout the United States. They provide a base geographic framework for mapping and charting. Based on GIS data by the North Carolina Geodetic Survey, there are no geodetic survey monuments within the immediate project study area that could be disturbed by the proposed project.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 8 II. ALTERNATIVES

A. No-Build Alternative

As the name implies, the No-Build Alternative is an alternative for which no improvements to existing roadways or construction of a new facility are proposed. The No-Build Alternative typically includes short-term minor restoration activities designed to continue operation of the existing roadway. Examples of these activities include safety and maintenance improvements such as patching and resurfacing roads, re-grading shoulders, and maintaining ditches.

The advantages of the No-Build Alternative include: no additional right of way requiring acquisition of residential or commercial property, no disturbances of the natural environment such as wetlands and wildlife habitat, and no construction-related costs.

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose of the project or satisfy the projected transportation needs. Furthermore, it is not consistent with the goals of the ISTEA of 1991 which established the importance of the I-73 corridor and identified the future interstate as part of the National Highway System. The No-Build Alternative is also not consistent with NCDOT’s TIP. Without the I-73 Connector, there would be no freeway to freeway link between Future I-840/ Bryan Boulevard and the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. The link between these two freeway facilities (without the I-73 Connector) would be NC 68. The existing roadway network could not serve the purpose of this project – to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor. Existing NC 68 and parts of Bryan Boulevard are not designed as freeway facilities and would require extensive improvements to bring them up to freeway standards, including a redesign of the current NC 68/ Bryan Boulevard interchange.

B. Build Alternatives

Four options were developed in a May 2008 feasibility study for the I-73 Connector (FS-0507A). Two of the concepts included major upgrades to existing highways (US 220, NC 68, or I-40). The other two concepts included a new highway between the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and Bryan Boulevard, west of Future I-840/ I-73. These concepts are described as follows (see Figure 4):

 Concept 1 – From the north, Concept 1 follows the US 220/ NC 68 Connector to NC 68, utilizes a new connector from NC 68 to Bryan Boulevard, and continues on to Future I-840/ I-73.  Concept 2 – Concept 2 also follows the US 220/ NC 68 Connector to NC 68, continues south on NC 68 (requires NC 68 to be upgraded to a freeway facility) to I-40 where it heads east to Future I-840/ I-73.  Concept 3 – Concept 3 uses existing US 220 as the future I-73 route (which requires US 220 to be upgraded to freeway standards). Future I-73 would then follow Future I-840 south and west to existing I-73.  Concept 4 – Concept 4 is similar to Concept 1 except it uses a new connector that would connect the US 220/ NC 68 Connector north east of NC 68 to Bryan Boulevard at Airport Parkway. From there, future I-73 would continue to Future I-840/ I-73 along Bryan Boulevard.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 9 Concepts 1 and 4 were considered feasible and were used as a starting point for developing preliminary alternatives for the I-73 Connector. See Section II.C.1, Improve Existing Roadways for a discussion of why Concepts 2 and 3 were not considered feasible. The May 22, 2008 FS-0507A, Feasibility Study, Future I-73 Connector from I-40 to the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (R-2413) can be found in the NCDOT project file.

The five preliminary alternatives for the I-73 Connector are variations of the recommended concepts developed in the feasibility study (Concepts 1 and 4). Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 were derived from Concept 1, and Alternative 3 is based on Concept 4. The five preliminary alternatives evaluated as part of this assessment were developed to avoid considerable impacts to the human and natural environments. The five alternatives are described below and shown on Figures 5, 6, 8.1, and 8.2.

 Alternative 1 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road will provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 5).  Alternative 2 extends from west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway interchange to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It is located just south of Alternative 1. It also includes ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road to provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 8.1).  Alternative 3 extends from west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway interchange to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector between Pleasant Ridge Road and Edgefield Road. It is located north of Alternative 1 (see Figure 8.2).  Alternative 4 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It does not include ramps south of Pleasant Ridge Road for access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 6).  Alternative 5 follows the same alignment as Alternative 2, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It does not include ramps south of Pleasant Ridge Road for access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 8.1).

Alternatives 1 and 4 are being studied in detail for this project because they have more desirable design features and impact fewer environmental resources, residences, and businesses. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 were eliminated from further consideration because of substantial impacts to both the human and natural environments and/ or because of engineering factors (refer to Section II.C, Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study).

1. Logical Termini/ Independent Utility

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations at 23 CFR 771.111(f) require that federal highway projects must “connect logical termini,” “have independent utility,” and “not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.”

The proposed I-73 Connector has logical termini because it proposes a new roadway that connects two existing highways, NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard. The project will have independent utility because it will construct a new location, controlled access freeway between the existing portion of

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 10 Bryan Boulevard that has full control of access and NC 68. It will eliminate a connection with the part of Bryan Boulevard near NC 68 that has only partial control of access.

The study area boundaries are sufficient to allow consideration of a full range of alternatives. Of five preliminary alternatives considered for the project, three were eliminated because of their potential impacts to the human or natural environment and two are being carried forward for detailed study. This project has been coordinated with the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector, and both alternatives retained for detail study do not restrict development of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. A possible future airport connector is being considered to the west of the I-73 Connector, but this project is not considered reasonably foreseeable because of its relatively low priority within the Greensboro Urban Area MPO (GUAMPO) Long range transportation plan. However, the I-73 Connector project has included all possible planning to accommodate for this potential project in the future.

2. Proposed Improvements

Two Build Alternatives are being considered for the I-73 Connector. Both alternatives propose to connect NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard, west of Future I-840/ I-73, with a new location freeway. The eastern terminus will connect to Bryan Boulevard (future I-73) near the current interchange with Airport Parkway. The western terminus will connect to the planned US 220/ NC 68 Connector (future I-73). Upon completion, pavement on Bryan Boulevard will be removed from the eastern terminus of the I-73 Connector to the proposed right of way limits. Bryan Boulevard will not connect to the I-73 Connector or Airport Parkway. Access from NC 68 to the airport will be provided by an interchange with either the I-73 Connector or the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (depending on the preferred alternative). The roadway design is being developed so that it is compatible with the future taxiway network proposed in the PTI Airport Master Plan Update and Strategic Long-Range Visioning Plan (see Section I.D.2, Airports). NCDOT will continue to coordinate with PTI Airport officials during the planning and design phases of this project.

a. Alternative 1

Alternative 1 begins just west of the Bryan Boulevard/ Airport Parkway interchange (see Figure 5). From there, it goes west on a new alignment, travels just south of Caindale Drive (SR 2138), crosses over NC 68 near its intersection with Pleasant Ridge Road, and heads northward to connect to the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road will provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport. One ramp will carry NC 68 northbound traffic to the southbound lanes of the I-73 Connector. The other ramp uses a bridge (flyover) to carry northbound I-73 Connector traffic to southbound NC 68. These ramps will allow for direct access to and from the airport from points south on NC 68, replacing the access currently provided by Bryan Boulevard. Full access to NC 68 from future I-73 will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road that is included in the design of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector as shown on Figure 5.

Alternative 1 is planned as a 1.6-mile long freeway facility with four travel lanes (two in each direction) and a 70-foot wide median. The proposed design speed is 70 mph, the right of way width varies, and the new roadway will have full control of access. See Section II.B.4, Design Criteria and Typical Section for more details.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 11 This alternative is estimated to cost $93,900,000 (see Table 4). This includes $43,700,000 for right of way, $3,200,000 for utility relocation, and $47,000,000 for construction. It will relocate 17 residences and three businesses. It crosses one stream and impacts approximately 470 feet of stream channel. A retaining wall is proposed along the east side of the flyover ramp to minimize impacts to Brush Creek. Approximately 2.3 acres of stream buffer impacts, subject to the Jordan Lake riparian buffer rules, are expected. Wetland and floodplain impacts are expected to be less than a tenth of an acre. Noise level impacts are expected at five residences. Impacts to farmlands, endangered species, cultural resources, Section 4(f) resources, or hazardous materials sites associated with Alternative 1 are not anticipated.

Alternative 1 meets NCDOT’s design and safety requirements, maintains direct access to and from PTI Airport from points south on NC 68, has minimal impacts to water resources, and is favored by local officials and airport representatives. They prefer Alternative 1 over Alternative 4 because it provides a more direct connection between NC 68 and the airport. Alternative 1 is consistent with the PTI Airport’s master plan. Written concurrence from airport officials indicating their preference for Alternative 1 and that both alternatives are consistent with the master plan may be found in Appendix B. Alternative 1 requires the removal of a water tower and construction of a new one.5

b. Alternative 4

Alternative 4 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 but does not include the ramps that provide direct access between the airport, NC 68, and points south (see Figure 6). It requires drivers to travel a longer distance (approximately two miles more than Alternative 1) between the airport and NC 68. Access to NC 68 from the I-73 connector will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road as part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector design. This interchange is currently designed as shown on Figure 5. If Alternative 4 is selected as the preferred alternative, the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange with NC 68 will have to be reconfigured as shown on Figure 6. The reconfigured interchange will be necessary in order to serve the additional traffic generated by motorists traveling between the PTI Airport and points south along NC 68.

Alternative 4 is planned as a 1.6-mile long freeway facility with four travel lanes (two in each direction) and a 70-foot wide median. The proposed design speed is 70 mph, the right of way width varies, and the new roadway will have full control of access. See Section II.B.4, Design Criteria and Typical Section for more details.

This alternative is estimated to cost $65,300,000 (see Table 4). This includes $39,400,000 for right of way, $1,900,000 for utility relocation, and $24,000,000 for construction. It will relocate 13 residences and three businesses. It crosses one stream and impacts approximately 360 feet of stream channel. About one acre of stream buffer impacts is expected, while wetland and floodplain impacts are expected to be less than a tenth of an acre. Noise level impacts are expected at five residences. Impacts to farmlands, endangered species, cultural resources, Section 4(f) resources, or hazardous materials sites associated with Alternative 4 are not anticipated.

Alternative 4 meets NCDOT’s design and safety requirements and has minimal impacts to water resources. Alternative 4 is consistent with the PTI Airport’s master plan.



5 The cost for demolition and construction of a new water tower has been factored into the total cost of Alternative 1. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 12 3. Summary of Impacts

a. I-73 Connector Impacts

Table 4 summarizes the impacts for both I-73 Connector Build Alternatives.

Table 4: Summary of Impacts – Build Alternatives Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Costs Right of Way $43,700,000 $39,400,000 Utility Relocation $3,200,000 $1,900,000 Construction $47,000,000 $24,000,000 Total $93,900,000 $65,300,000 Length (miles) 1.6 1.6 Relocations Residential 17 13 Business 3 3 Non Profit 0 0 Farms 0 0 Total 20 16 Prime/ Statewide Important 0 0 Farmland (acres) Water Resource Impacts Stream Crossings 1 1 Stream Impacts (feet) 470 360 Buffer Impacts (acres) 2.3 0.9 Open Water Impacts (acres) 0.3 0.0 Wetland Impacts (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 Floodplain Impacts (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 Endangered Species Small whorled pogonia No Effect No Effect Historic Property Impacts 0 0 Archaeological Sites 0 0 Section 4(f) Resources (Parks, Recreation 0 0 Areas, Wildlife Management Areas) Noise Impacts 5 5 Hazardous Material Sites (excluding 0 0 USTs)

b. I-73 Connector and US 220/ NC 68 Connector Combined Impacts

If selected, Alternative 1 will not affect the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector design or environmental impacts. If Alternative 4 is chosen, the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange will be reconfigured, resulting in a larger footprint with higher water resource impacts than were

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 13 previously evaluated in the US 220/ NC 68 Connector environmental document (see Section II.B.2.b, Alternative 4 for more information).

Cost and impacts from the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange area have been considered and have been added to the I-73 Connector costs and impacts to accurately compare the Build Alternatives. Table 5 summarizes the combined impacts.

Table 5: Summary of Combined Impacts – Build Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 4 US 220/ US 220/ Impacts I-73 I-73 NC 68 Total NC 68 Total Conn. Conn. Conn. Conn. Costs Right of $43,700,000 $10,600,000 $54,300,000 $39,400,000 $12,600,000 $52,000,000 Way Utility $3,200,000 $800,000 $4,000,000 $1,900,000 $800,000 $2,700,000 Relocation Construction $47,000,000 $39,000,000 $86,000,000 $24,000,000 $45,000,000 $69,000,000 Total $93,900,000 $50,400,000 $144,300,000 $65,300,000 $58,400,000 $123,700,000 Relocations* Residential 17 7 24 13 9 22 Business 3 7 10 3 7 10 Non Profit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Farms 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 20 14 34 16 16 32 Water Resource Impacts** Stream Impacts 470 2,850 3,320 360 3,730 4,090 (feet) Open Water Impacts 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 (acres) Wetland Impacts < 0.1 0.5 0.5 < 0.1 0.6 0.6 (acres) * See Appendix A for the I-73 Connector and US 220/ NC 68 Connector Relocation Reports. ** The final design of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector was used to calculated water resource impacts associated with that project.

With Alternative 1, the combined impacts are as follows:

 the total cost would be approximately $144,300,000;  a total of 34 residences and businesses would be relocated;  3,320 feet of stream impacts;  0.3 acres of open water impacts;  0.5 acres of wetland impacts.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 14 With Alternative 4, the combined impacts are as follows:

 the total cost would be approximately $123,700,000;  a total of 32 residences and businesses would be relocated;  stream impacts would be 4,090 feet;  impacts to open water would be 0.0 acres;  wetland impacts would be 0.6 acre.

4. Design Criteria and Typical Section

Table 6 presents the design criteria for the proposed I-73 Connector.

Table 6: Design Criteria Criteria New Location Freeway Type of Facility Freeway Number of Lanes Four-Lane Divided Design Speed 70 mph 24 ft. each direction Pavement Width (12 ft. standard lane width) Median Width 70 ft. Shoulder Widths: Outside 17 ft. with guardrail; 14 ft. without Median 6 ft. Paved Shoulder Widths: Outside 12 ft. Inside 4 ft. Right of Way: Width Varies Control of Access Full

The I-73 Connector will be built to interstate standards. The typical section for both Build Alternatives consists of four 12-foot lanes (two in both directions), four-foot paved median shoulders, 12-foot paved outside shoulders, and a 70-foot median (see Figure 7.1). This typical section is consistent with the configuration of existing Bryan Boulevard and of the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. The design speed is proposed to be 70 mph.

5. Right of Way and Access Control

Based on the functional designs, the approximate right of way width will generally be 450 feet. Both expand out to as much as 1,000 feet at the northern terminus.

The I-73 Connector will be a fully controlled access facility.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 15 6. Structures and Drainage Recommendations

Since both Build Alternatives follow a similar alignment, they each have the same structure and drainage requirements along the main freeway (see Table 7 and Figures 5 and 6).

Drainage Structures According to the January 6, 2012 Preliminary Hydraulics Study for Environmental Impact (available from NCDOT’s project file), one new culvert is required.

Grade Separation Structures Dual bridges are proposed over NC 68 for both Build Alternatives. Alternative 1 requires an additional bridge for the proposed flyover ramp to extend to southbound NC 68.

Table 7: Proposed Structures Build Structure No. Crossing Proposed Structure Alternative(s) Drainage Structures Alternatives I-73 Connector over Single 54” diameter RCP 1* 1 and 4 UT to Brush Creek (SC) approximately 280’ long Retain existing RCP and NC 68 over UT to Brush Creek Alternatives supplement with a 66” 6 (S73), ~0.5 mile south of Pleasant 1 and 4 diameter, 360’ long Ridge Road WSP NC 68 over UT to Brush Creek Alternatives 7 (S77), ~0.6 mile south of Pleasant Retain existing RCP 1 and 4 Ridge Road NC 68 over UT to Brush Creek Alternatives 8 (S78), ~0.7 mile south of Pleasant Retain existing CMP 1 and 4 Ridge Road Alternatives I-73 Connector over 9 Retain existing RCBC 1 and 4 UT to Brush Creek Grade Separation Structures Flyover bridge over North Regional Road, the I-73 Connector, NC 68, Approximately 38’ wide 2 Alternative 1 and a proposed US 220/ NC 68 by 1,070’ long Connector southbound ramp to southbound NC 68 Alternatives Northbound I-73 Connector bridge Approximately 48’ wide 3 1 and 4 over NC 68 by 540’ long Alternatives Southbound I-73 Connector bridge Approximately 48’ wide 4 1 and 4 over NC 68 by 650’ long Retaining Wall Retaining wall 5 Alternative 1 n/a approximately 700’ long (height to be determined) RCP = reinforced concrete pipe; WSP = welded steel pipe; CMP = corrugated metal pipe; RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert. * This structure is included as a proposed structure (Site 4) in the Preliminary Hydraulics Study for Environmental Impact (January 6, 2012), which is available from NCDOT’s project file.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 16

In addition to the proposed structures above, Alternative 1 will require an approximate 700-foot long retaining wall along the east side of the proposed flyover ramp north of where it ties into NC 68. The retaining wall is needed to minimize impacts to Brush Creek.

7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions

The I-73 Connector will function as an interstate facility; therefore, accommodations for bicyclists or pedestrians will not be included in the final design.

8. Traffic Capacity Analysis

The level of service (LOS) is a “qualitative measure that characterizes operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. The descriptions of individual levels of service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.” These levels of service are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition, 2000, Transportation Research Board. These are described as follows:

 LOS A describes completely free-flow conditions. The operation of vehicles is virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles, and operations are constrained only by the geometric features of the highway and driver preferences. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is high. Minor disruptions to flow are easily absorbed at this level without causing significant delays or queuing.  LOS B is also indicative of free flow, although the presence of other vehicles begins to be noticeable. Average travel speeds are somewhat diminished from LOS A. Minor disruptions are still easily absorbed at this level, although local deterioration in LOS will be more obvious.  LOS C represents a range in which the influence of traffic density on operations becomes marked. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream, and to select an operating speed, is now clearly affected by the presence of other vehicles. Minor disruptions may be expected to cause serious local deterioration in service, and queues may form behind any significant traffic disruption. Severe or long-term disruptions may cause the facility to operate at LOS F.  LOS D borders on unstable flow. Speeds and ability to maneuver are severely restricted because of traffic congestion. Only the most minor of disruptions can be absorbed without the formation of extensive queues and the deterioration of service to LOS F.  LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, and is quite unstable. Disruptions cannot be damped or dissipated, and any disruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to LOS F.  LOS F represents forced or breakdown flow. It occurs at a point where vehicles arrive either at a rate greater than that at which they are discharged or at a point on a planned facility where forecasted demand exceeds the computed capacity. While operations at such points (and on immediate down-stream sections) will appear to be at capacity or better, queues will form behind these breakdowns. Operations within queues are highly unstable, with vehicles experiencing short spurts of movement followed by stoppages.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 17

NCDOT performed a mainline, ramp junction, weaving, and intersection analysis for the US 220/ NC 68 Connector based on 2035 design year traffic projections. The analysis assumed that the I-73 Connector would be constructed by 2035 and considered the future traffic operations for Alternatives 1 and 4 (see Figure 5). The results indicate the proposed four-lane freeway and the US 220/ NC 68 interchange ramp junctions will operate at a LOS D or better in 2035 except for one location with Alternative 4. The northbound off ramp to southbound NC 68 will reach LOS E in 2035. The weaving areas on the I-73 Connector with Alternative 1 will operate at a LOS C (see Table 8 and Figure 7.2).

In the vicinity of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange, traffic operations on NC 68 were evaluated at the proposed ramp intersections, Pleasant Ridge Road, and Edgefield Road based on a traffic forecast provided in October 2008 for the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (see Figure 7.2). With Alternative 1, traffic signals at NC 68 and the ramps will reach LOS E or LOS F by the design year (see Table 8). The NC 68 intersections with Leabourne Road and Pleasant Ridge Road will reach LOS F, while the intersection at Edgefield Road will operate better at LOS B in the design year 2035. With Alternative 4, the NC 68 intersections at the ramps and Edgefield Road will operate at LOS C. The NC 68 intersections at Leabourne Road and Pleasant Ridge Road will operate at LOS F with Alternative 4. Traffic is expected to back up on NC 68 and not the ramps at these intersections. Future projects to widen NC 68 in this area are included in GUAMPO’s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (2009), the Greensboro Airport Area Modeling Study (2009), and the Greensboro Urban Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2010). Widening NC 68 under separate projects should improve the LOS at these intersections.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 18 Table 8: 2035 Build Capacity Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Results Analysis ID Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Location Type No. LOS LOS NC 68 Intersections Leabourne Road Intersection 1 F * F * US 220/ NC 68 Connector SB Intersection 2 F C * US 220/ NC 68 Connector NB Intersection 3 E C Edgefield Road Intersection 4 B C * Pleasant Ridge Road Intersection 5 F F Ramp Junctions – Interchange at US 220/ NC 68 Connector and NC 68 SB Off Ramp to NC 68 Diverge 6 C D SB On Ramp to I-73 Connector Merge 7 C B NB Off Ramp to NC 68 ** Diverge 8 B C NB On Ramp to US 220/ NC 68 Connector Merge 9 C C NB Off Ramp to SB NC 68 Diverge 10 N/A E Ramp Junctions – Interchange at I-73 Connector and NC 68 SB I-73 Connector Off Ramp to NC 68 Diverge 11 C N/A SB I-73 Connector On Ramp to NC 68 Merge 12 D N/A NB NC 68 On Ramp to I-73 Connector Diverge 13 C N/A NB I-73 Connector Flyover to SB NC 68 Merge 14 B N/A Interchange at I-73 Connector and Old Oak Ridge Road/ Airport Parkway SB I-73 Connector Weave 15 C N/A NB I-73 Connector Weave 16 C N/A US 220/ NC 68 Connector Basic Freeway Segment Freeway US 220/ NC 68 Connector Mainline 17 D D Segment * Intersection LOS represents AM peak hour conditions. All other intersection LOS represent the PM peak hour. ** NB Off Ramp to NB NC 68 for Alternative 4. NB = northbound; SB = southbound; N/A = Not Applicable

The detailed analysis results are summarized in January 9, 2009, June 1, 2009, February 17, 2012, and February 23, 2012 memorandums from NCDOT’s Congestion Management Group and can be found in NCDOT’s project files.

9. Estimated Costs

The total project cost for Alternative 1 is estimated to be $93,900,000. When combined with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange, the total cost for Alternative 1 would be approximately $144,300,000 (see Table 9 and Section II.3.b, I-73 Connector and US 220/ NC 68 Connector Combined Impacts for further information). The total cost for Alternative 4 is estimated to be $65,300,000. When combined with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange, the total cost for Alternative 4 would be approximately $123,700,000.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 19 Table 9: Estimated Cost Comparison Alternative 1 Alternative 4 US 220/ US 220/ Costs I-73 I-73 NC 68 Total NC 68 Total Conn. Conn. Conn. Conn. Right of $43,700,000 $10,600,000 $54,300,000 $39,400,000 $12,600,000 $52,000,000 Way Utility $3,200,000 $800,000 $4,000,000 $1,900,000 $800,000 $2,700,000 Relocation Construction $47,000,000 $39,000,000 $86,000,000 $24,000,000 $45,000,000 $69,000,000 Total $93,900,000 $50,400,000 $144,300,000 $65,300,000 $58,400,000 $123,700,000

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study

1. Improve Existing Roadways

The May 2008 I-73 Connector feasibility study considered two concepts for upgrading existing highways (US 220, NC 68, or I-40) to become the future route of I-73. Concept 2 proposed to extend future I-73 west on I-40, north on NC 68, along the US 220/ NC 68 Connector, and north on US 220 (see Figure 4). The feasibility study did not recommend Concept 2 to be carried forward for further study because of high costs and impacts to the human environment. It would have required NC 68 to be upgraded to a fully controlled access freeway and would have required a freeway to freeway interchange at I-40. These upgrades would have affected large commercial developments, particularly at the NC 68/ I-40 interchange. This concept was eliminated from further consideration in the I-5110 project study.

The feasibility study also considered routing I-73 from I-40 north along Future I-840 and then north along existing US 220 (Concept 3 – see Figure 4). Concept 3 assumed Future I-840 would be constructed from Bryan Boulevard to US 220. This route was not considered feasible. It would have required reconstructing US 220 from a non-controlled access highway with many signalized intersections to a fully controlled access freeway with interchanges. This concept was also eliminated from further consideration in the I-5110 project study.

Early in the project’s development, an option was also considered for following existing Bryan Boulevard to NC 68, upgrading the existing interchange, and improving NC 68 to join with the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Near North Regional Road, Bryan Boulevard is designed for much lower speeds than the 70 mph interstate requirements. The ramps and loops within the Bryan Boulevard interchange with NC 68 are also designed for much lower speeds than an interstate would require. An alternative in this location would have impacted the business park and residential developments along North Regional Road. This option was eliminated from further consideration in the project study.

No other improvements to existing roads were considered to be feasible and prudent alternatives for this project study.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 20 2. Alternative 2

Alternative 2 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road (see Figure 8.1). Alternative 2 follows an alignment similar to Alternative 1, but takes a more southerly route to avoid impacts to industrial/ commercial properties along Caindale Drive. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport. An interchange (included in the design of the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector) north of Edgefield Road provides full access to NC 68.

When compared to the Build Alternatives, Alternative 2 has higher impacts to the natural environment. By shifting the alignment further south of Caindale Drive, Alternative 2 has considerably more stream impacts than Alternative 1 or 4. Preliminary calculations indicated Alternative 2 would impact nearly three times the length of streams than Alternatives 1 and 4. For this reason, Alternative 2 has been eliminated from further consideration.

3. Alternative 3

Alternative 3 connects Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Airport Parkway to the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector east of NC 68 between Pleasant Ridge Road and Edgefield Road (see Figure 8.2). Alternative 3 travels north on new alignment and connects with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector south and east of Fence Drive (SR 3840) (at the Friendship Farms neighborhood to the west). A proposed new service road connects future I-73 with NC 68. The new service road also extends northward to join Edgefield Road.

Due to projected future traffic conditions, substantial interchange and service road improvements are needed between I-73, NC 68, and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. This alternative results in considerable impacts to the human and natural environments. Stream impacts and residential relocations would be approximately four times higher than the impacts for Alternatives 1 and 4. This is primarily due to the extensive interchange improvements near the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and the Friendship Farms neighborhood. For these reasons, Alternative 3 is not considered to be reasonable or feasible and is not being carried forward for further study.

4. Alternative 5

Alternative 5 follows the same alignment as Alternative 2 but does not include the ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road to provide access between NC 68 and the PTI Airport (see Figure 8.1). Access to NC 68 from the I-73 connector will be provided by an interchange north of Edgefield Road as part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector design. While the preliminary stream impacts associated with Alternative 5 were calculated to be less than Alternative 2, they are still higher than those for the Build Alternatives. Alternative 5 was eliminated from further consideration for the same reasons as Alternative 2.

5. Transportation System Management Alternative

The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes those activities that maximize the efficiency of the existing system. This alternative includes such options as optimizing the existing traffic signal timing or improving the timing sequencing, widening intersections to add turn

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 21 lanes, combining and eliminating driveway accesses, and other similar capacity improvements. Upon review of the project area, these options have very little or no application within the project's study limits. Without the I-73 Connector, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing system would not adequately meet the project purpose and need without major relocations and associated costs. For these reasons, the TSM Alternative was not considered to be reasonable or feasible and is not being carried forward for further study.

6. Mass Transit Alternative

The Mass Transit Alternative includes the option of providing bus or rail service to decrease congestion. A major advantage of mass transit is that it can provide high-capacity, energy-efficient movement in densely traveled corridors. It also serves high and medium density areas by offering a low-cost option for auto owners who do not wish to drive, and an essential service to those without access to an automobile, such as school children, senior citizens, single auto families, and others who may be economically or physically disadvantaged.

A limitation of mass transit lies in its inability to serve different trip purposes. For trip purposes such as shopping, social, and recreational trips, transit is not attractive because trip purposes are less frequent and less predictable to serve with scheduled bus service on fixed routes. Furthermore, most bus routes are designed primarily to capture work trips during peak periods in an effort to maximize revenue and reduce congestion.

The purpose of this project is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area; thereby, enhancing north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region. Mass transit alternatives would not meet this purpose since it would only serve local traffic and not through traffic. Therefore, for reasons discussed above, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 22 III. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A. Community Characteristics

A more detailed description of the community and assessment of potential social and economic impacts associated with this project is given in the Community Impact Assessment for this project and is available from the NCDOT project file.

1. Regional and Community Context

The project is located in Guilford County in an area referred to as the Piedmont Triad Region of North Carolina. This 12-county region is centrally located within the state of North Carolina. The transportation infrastructure gives the Piedmont Triad an economic advantage for industries. Five interstates traverse the region: I-40, I-73, I-74, I-77, and I-85. I-40 is within three miles of the project location. According to the GUAMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, the Piedmont Triad Region has become increasingly focused on the freight and goods moving industry as the number of jobs in textiles and manufacturing have declined considerably.

Greensboro’s history is centered on transportation. Lacking the natural advantage of a river, the City gradually grew into a major rail and highway hub. Other early transportation-related influences on the area included the establishment of the community as a stop on the North Carolina Railroad. The City’s history was also influenced by textile manufacturing, which until recently, was a mainstay in the local economy.

According to information gathered from local officials and observations made during a site visit, there do not appear to be many, if any, neighborhoods in the project vicinity that function as organized, cohesive communities. The majority of the residential areas within or near the project area that could be affected by the proposed I-73 Connector are located north of Pleasant Ridge Road (see Figure 9). The airport overlay ordinance prevents dense residential development. Development in the neighborhoods is not as dense as in other parts of Guilford County and Greensboro. Houses generally tend to be on larger lots and some have woods in between. Neighborhoods with these features are not usually conducive for social interaction between the residents.

2. Community Resources

The following is a description of the community resources and notable features within and in close proximity to the project study area (see Figure 9).

 ECPI College is located along Airport Center Drive.  A City water storage tank is located at the intersection of North Regional Road and Caindale Drive.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 23  There are two golf facilities located along Pleasant Ridge Road: Rick Murphy Golf Academy (offers golf instructions, shop and driving range) and the 18-hole Pleasant Ridge Golf Course.6  Edgefield Baptist Church is located along Edgefield Road.  Northwest Baptist Church and child daycare facility is located along Edgefield Road.  A 100-acre tract of land owned by Guilford Technical Community College for a future campus is located along NC 68.  Various residential developments are located throughout the project area and are mostly single-family homes built in the past 30 years on large lots (an acre or more).  PTI Airport-owned property reserved for future expansion is located south of Pleasant Ridge Road and east of North Regional Road.  Industrial/ Commercial/ Employment centers including Concourse Center and Airport Center Business Park are located in the project area.  Four Seasons Daycare is located along Edgefield Road west of NC 68.

Other community resources further removed from the project area include (see Figure 9):   Fire Station # 17 is located along Old Oak Ridge Road.  Piedmont Triad International Airport and FedEx Shipping Hub.  Various public schools that serve areas within the project area are nearby.  Lowes Foods grocery store is located along Old Oak Ridge Road.  Various industrial/ commercial/ employment centers.

3. Community Demographics

Table 10 presents demographic data gathered from the 2000 and 2010 US Census for the Demographic Study Area (DSA), Guilford County, and North Carolina (refer to the Community Impact Assessment for this project available from NCDOT’s project file for the definition of the DSA). An examination of the data in Table 10 indicates the DSA grew considerably more than the County between 2000 and 2010. The DSA had a lower percentage of minorities compared to Guilford County for the 2010 Census.



6 Pleasant Ridge Golf Course is on property owned by Piedmont Triad International airport. It is leased by PTI to the operators of the public golf course with the understanding PTI could develop the property for airport operations if and when it becomes necessary. It does not fit the criteria for a Section 4(f) use in a historical or recreational context. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 24 Table 10: Demographic Overview Population Growth, 2000 - 2010 Demographic North Guilford County Study Area Carolina 2000 Population 11,158 421,048 8,049,313 2010 Population 13,771 488,406 9,535,483 Difference 2,613 67,358 1,486,170 % Change 23.4% 16.0% 18.5% Population By Race, 2010 Demographic North Guilford County Race Study Area Carolina Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % White 11,669 84.7% 278,525 57.0% 6,528,950 68.5% African American 975 7.1% 158,899 32.5% 2,048,628 21.5% Asian 638 4.6% 19,176 3.9% 208,962 2.2% American Indian 44 0.3% 2,594 0.5% 122,110 1.3% & Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian 10 0.1% 235 < 0.1% 6,604 0.1% & Pacific Islander Other 148 1.1% 17,675 3.6% 414,030 4.3% Two or More 287 2.1% 11,302 2.3% 206,199 2.2% Races Total Non-White 2,102 15.3% 209,881 43.0% 3,006,533 31.5% Hispanic or 632 4.6% 34,826 7.1% 800,120 8.4% Latino* Total 13,771 100.0% 488,406 100.0% 9,535,483 100.0% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 census. * Note: Hispanic/ Latino is an ethnic category and can include persons of any race; therefore, the Hispanic/ Latino population data is not included in the total.

Demographic data suggests the racial makeup of the population in the project area is predominantly white with a total percentage of minorities well below the averages for Guilford County.

Based on information from local officials, site visit observations, local plans, and economic data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, there do not appear to be any low-income areas in the project area. When compared with similar economic data from Guilford County, the area surrounding the proposed project has a higher median household income ($83,607 versus $45,676) and lower percentages of families (3.6% versus 11.3%) and people (4.3% versus 15.9%) below the poverty level.7

According to historical and projected population data from the US Census Bureau and the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, there are no Limited English Proficiency groups in the study area that exceed the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor threshold. 

7 Economic data was obtained from the US Census’ 2006-2010 American Community Survey five-year estimates for Guilford County and the following census tracts: 160.03, 160.08, and 162.01. This data was not available at the block group level. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 25 This threshold is reached when more than five percent of the adult population or 1,000 people do not speak English proficiently.

B. Land Use and Economic Effects

Land uses within and adjacent to the project area are a mixture of residential, industrial/ warehouse, and office. According to the future land use map in Guilford County’s Airport Area Plan (May 15, 2008), land uses are expected to remain generally the same. Its proximity to PTI Airport has influenced the recent growth in the amount of industrial/ warehouse and office space within and near the project area. The area experienced growth in these two areas leading up to and during the construction of the airport expansion to accommodate the FedEx Hub (opened in the summer of 2009).

This project should not have any considerable effect on local land use, character, or development plans. The industrial/ commercial areas near the proposed project rely heavily on the proximity to major transportation thoroughfares. Residential development has not been attracted to the area by any specific characteristics or development plans, but rather by its location with respect to the metropolitan areas of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point. As with any growing area, residential development tends to radiate out from urban areas as those areas become fully developed and/ or home prices increase. Area residents are already accustomed to being close to key transportation corridors; therefore, this project should not considerably alter the visual characteristics. No resources that are considered major economic attractions will be affected by the proposed project. Economic and business resources could gain an advantage as a result of this project. When completed, the proposed I-73 Connector, the Greensboro Urban Loop, and the proposed US 220 / NC 68 Connector will enhance the area’s transportation network and strengthen the Piedmont Triad Region as a major transportation hub in North Carolina.

Direct impacts to businesses within the proposed right of way are anticipated. The proposed alternatives have been developed to minimize business and economic impacts, but some are unavoidable. Two industrial buildings along Caindale Drive and the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course are within the proposed construction limits. According to the relocation reports for this project, there is one tenant in each of the two buildings (see Appendix A). These are not considered major employment centers. One employs 40 people, and the other has seven employees. The golf course was purchased by PTI Airport for future airport development. However, the I-73 Connector is consistent with the airport’s master plan. PTI Airport officials feel this project will have a positive effect on their development goals.

C. Social and Community Impacts

1. Right of Way and Relocation Impacts

The number of residential and business displacements for the Build Alternatives was determined by reviewing current tax maps, aerial maps and by conducting site visits. A summary of relocation impacts associated with the I-73 Connector is presented in Table 11. Detailed information is provided in the Relocation Reports included in Appendix A.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 26 Table 11: I-73 Connector Relocation Impacts * Type of Relocation Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Residential 17 13 Business 3 3 Farm 0 0 Non-Profit 0 0 Total 20 16 Minority-Owned Displacements Residential 0 0 Business 0 0 Total 0 0 * The relocation impacts shown in this table represent only those associated with the I-73 Connector and not the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. See Table 5 for the combined relocation impacts. Source: I-73 Connector Relocation Reports (September 1, 2011) included in Appendix A.

It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing is available for those relocated, prior to construction of state and/or federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the NCDOT has three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation including relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement.

Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 impact 17 and 13 residences, respectively. Each alternative impacts three businesses. The total number of displacements for Alternative 1 is 20, while the total for Alternative 4 is 16. There are no minority-owned or rented residential units and no minority-owned business units that will be relocated. No farms, non-profit organizations, churches, or schools will be relocated.

When combined with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange, Alternative 1 would impact 24 residences and 10 businesses for a total of 34 displacements. Alternative 4, when combined with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange, would impact 22 residences and 10 businesses for a total of 32 displacements (see Table 5 in Section II.B.3.b, I-73 Connector and US 220/ NC 68 Connector Combined Impacts for further information).

With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where a displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate owners and tenants who are eligible and qualify.

The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). This program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 27

The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities.

Rent and sale prices of replacement housing will be within the financial budget of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.

All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as: 1) purchases of replacement housing; 2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public; 3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if practicable). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.

The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displaced persons for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses, except under the Last Resort Housing Provision.

A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required, when the rent supplement exceeds a given threshold.

It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.

Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. The Last Resort Housing Program may be necessary if the opportunity for relocation within the area is inadequate.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 28

2. Community/ Neighborhood Cohesion and Stability

Impacts to community/ neighborhood cohesion or stability are expected to be minimal, if any at all. Considerable amounts of the project area are industrial and commercial with shipping and distribution facilities. These uses are not necessarily parts of the residential fabric of the community. The neighborhoods in the area are not cohesive as a whole or individually. Some people in the project area may work at one of the employment centers, but there are no retail centers (groceries, shopping, entertainment, etc.) directly affected by the project. The proposed I-73 Connector should not disrupt the day-to-day routines of people in the community.

With the exception of the construction time, there should not be any negative impacts to mobility and access for people within the community associated with this project. It will be a fully-controlled access facility with limited connections to the local street network. Through traffic on the proposed I-73 Connector should not notably contribute to traffic volumes on local minor thoroughfares and residential streets. There is no indication this project will create barriers within the community.

3. Environmental Justice

Based on a thorough review of demographic data, site visit observations, and information from a local planner, this project should not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low income populations.

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” provides 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 or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Special populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low-income areas, American Indians and other minority groups. Executive Order 12898 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; 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities, upon low-income and minority populations.

4. Recurring Community/ Neighborhood Impacts

This project should not affect communities/ neighborhoods that were previously impacted by transportation or other development projects. The relocation of Bryan Boulevard to accommodate the expansion of the PTI Airport was constructed largely on wooded, undeveloped land. Most impacts associated with that project are likely to have affected natural resources and not the human environment. The environmental document for the recent airport expansion found the preferred alternative would not result in significant division or disruption of established communities or

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 29 planned development. It also concluded there would be no environmental justice impacts. There has not been any other apparent recent development in the area.

5. Important Natural Features, Open Space, Parkland, and Farmland

There are no identified, designated, or deeded open spaces or parkland in or in close proximity to the project area; therefore, no impacts to these resources are expected.

This project is not expected to impact farmlands. Based on information provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the proposed I-73 Connector is partially within soils considered suitable for farmland (see Figure 10).8 However, all of the properties are either State-owned rights of way, PTI Airport property, or developed and not considered suitable for farmland per the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 568). Furthermore, none of the properties impacted by the project are shown as agricultural on Guilford County and Greensboro zoning maps.

The FPPA requires that for all highway projects involving federal action, the impact of land acquisition and construction activities must be considered regarding prime and statewide important farmland, as defined by the NRCS. Prime farmland is defined as "that land best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops". These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the country, have a favorable growing season, and receive the moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land that is already in or committed to urban development or water storage is not included. Farmland of state and local importance is defined as "soils important for agriculture as determined by the appropriate state or local government agency."

The North Carolina Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund’s Agricultural District Program encourages the preservation and protection of farmland from non-farm development. This is in recognition of the importance of agriculture to the economic and social well-being of North Carolina. In Chapter 106, Article 61 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized counties to undertake a series of programs to encourage the preservation of farmland. As a result, counties throughout the state of North Carolina have begun to adopt Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinances (VAD) and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinances (EVAD).

Guilford County has a VAD ordinance, but GIS data indicates there are no VADs in the project area. The county does not have an EVAD ordinance.

D. Historic and Cultural Resources

The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or 

8 Property currently owned or planned to be owned within the next 10 years by the PTI Airport Authority was not considered to be suitable for farmland since the PTI Airport Master Plan calls for airport related development in these areas. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 30 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 comment on such undertakings.

1. Archaeological Resources

During the February 9, 2011 Project Scoping Meeting, the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) representatives stated there are no archaeological resources in the project area. Therefore, they did not recommend any further archaeological investigations (see the minutes from the February 9, 2011 Project Scoping Meeting in Appendix B).

2. Historic Architectural Resources

During the February 9, 2011 Project Scoping Meeting, HPO representatives stated there are no historic properties in the project area. Therefore, they did not recommend any historic architectural surveys (see the meeting minutes in Appendix B).

3. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protects parkland, historic resources, publicly owned recreation areas and wildlife refuges. Such land can only be used for a highway project if there is "no other feasible and prudent alternative". Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ensures that parkland will be replaced for those areas that are converted to highway use.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amendment to the Section 4(f) requirements allows the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) to determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) land will have no adverse effect on the protected resource. When this is the case, and the responsible official(s) with jurisdiction over the resource agrees in writing, compliance with Section 4(f) is greatly simplified.

No Section 4(f) resources are anticipated to be impacted by the proposed I-73 Connector. The project will likely require land from the Pleasant Ridge Golf Course. The PTI Airport Authority owns the property and leases it for use as a golf course with the intent that the property may be needed for future airport purposes. Therefore, it is not considered a Section 4(f) resource.

There are no Section 6(f) impacts associated with this project.

E. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Indirect impacts are those impacts that, as a result of an event such as this proposed transportation project, occur over a longer period of time and can take place away from the immediate project area. A short-term example would be the development of a small subdivision along a new or widened roadway that would otherwise not have occurred. Closely related is the concept of cumulative impacts, which are the collective effects of multiple events and actions. These may be dependent or independent of the proposed action.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 31 A more detailed assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects associated with this project is given in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Report for this project, dated September 2011, available from the NCDOT project file.

1. Future Land Use Study Area

The Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) is the area surrounding a project that could be indirectly affected as a result of the proposed project and other actions. This study area encompasses all of the areas examined for potential increases in development pressure as a result of project construction. The area outlined in orange and black on Figure 11 is the FLUSA for the proposed I-73 Connector.

The FLUSA is generally bounded by: Bunch Road (SR 2128) to the north; Beaver Creek, Stafford Mill Road (SR 2132), Bunker Hill Road (SR 2007) in the west; I-40 to the south; and, PTI Airport property, Fleming Road (SR 2136), Pleasant Ridge Road, and Stanley Huff Road (SR 2128) to the east. The FLUSA includes five jurisdictions – Greensboro, PTI Airport Authority, Oak Ridge, Summerfield, and Guilford County – and one unincorporated community – Colfax.

The FLUSA has been defined based on the following reasons:

 The potential for land use changes with respect to the I-73 Connector is low. It is a short (1.6-mile), controlled access, freeway-to-freeway connection that will be built to interstate standards. Induced development from these types of projects is generally expected to occur at interchanges. This project includes an interchange that is being designed as part of the adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector (north of Pleasant Ridge Road at NC 68). The interchange was included in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) document for the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (see Section I.D.1, Roadway Network and Route Classification for further discussion of related projects). It is more likely there will be cumulative impacts associated with I-5110 than indirect land use impacts.  Other transportation projects proposed in the area include the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and U-2524 (Greensboro Western Loop, Interstate 840). The I-73 Connector will not influence future land uses to the degree the other projects will. Potential land use changes associated with other projects will be taken into account as cumulative impacts, but potential land use changes are much more likely to take place as a result of other projects.  More than half of the I-73 Connector project area falls within the PTI Airport’s future boundary as defined in the airport’s recent master plan. The planned airport expansion will drive development in the area more so than this project. According to airport authorities, future airport expansion is not driven by this project.  I-40 will act as a barrier for development to the south.  The area south and east of the existing airport property is already developed with little to no developable land for miles.  Fleming, Pleasant Ridge, Stanley Huff, and Bunch Roads were conservatively chosen as FLUSA boundaries because indirect development pressure from the proposed project is not expected to extend past, or even to these limits.  While there is some developable land east of Fleming Road, the area to the west (inside the FLUSA) is built-out with residential development. It is unlikely development resulting from the proposed project will cross over this residential area.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 32 2. Indirect Effects

No notable indirect effects are expected from the proposed I-73 Connector alone. The major factors contributing to this result are the limited scope of the project, the existing and planned interstate network in the area, and the influence of PTI Airport on development in much of the FLUSA.

The I-73 Connector will be designed as a short (1.6 mile), freeway to freeway connection with fully controlled access. It alone will not give new exposure to properties along its alignment. Properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed interchange with NC 68 may become more attractive for commercial development, but this project has been taken into account in local land use plans. Local officials expect this area to develop according to their future land use plans if the I-73 corridor is completed and the PTI Airport expands as expected.

The need for this project is to provide a connection between an existing freeway (Bryan Boulevard) and the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Once completed, I-73 will extend to northern Guilford County. The combination of these transportation projects may have some effect on the rate and type of development, but this project alone should not result in considerable indirect effects.

3. Cumulative Effects

Past Projects

Projects that have occurred in the past within or in close proximity to the FLUSA include:

 The construction of I-73/ Future I-840 from I-40 to Bryan Boulevard (U-2524);  PTI Airport’s expansion for the new FedEx regional shipping hub (including a new runway);  The Bryan Boulevard relocation to accommodate the PTI Airport’s expansion;  Transportation related industrial development (shipping and distribution).

Current Projects

Ongoing projects include:

 A new Greensboro Technical Community College (GTCC) campus at NC 68 and Leabourne Road (construction was delayed at the time of this document);  Water and sewer utility expansion to serve the new campus and surrounding areas.

Future Projects

Projects planned for the future include:

 The US 220/ NC 68 Connector (R-2413) which will be part of future I-73;  The remaining portion of Future I-840 (U-2524);  Widening US 220 (R-2309AB);  Widening Market Street (R-2611);  PTI Airport expansion and associated industrial/ commercial development.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 33 It is reasonable to assume past and present actions have had some cumulative effect on environmental resources. Future airport and GTCC development, infrastructure development, and planned transportation projects could continue to cumulatively affect environmental resources. However, this area is expected to develop with or without the I-73 Connector.

Impacts on Environmental Resources

The proposed I-73 Connector will not, by itself, notably contribute to the cumulative effects of the actions of all parties in the FLUSA. The 303(d) impaired waters, as shown on Figure 10, are in areas that are already developed and are unlikely to be affected by cumulative actions. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past and future actions, should not cause land use changes in these areas. Small undeveloped areas along the impaired section of Brush Creek south of the project are expected to develop with or without the I-73 Connector. Local officials and PTI Airport Authority representatives anticipate development in these areas will be influenced by the airport’s future plans for expansion. Direct environmental impacts from NCDOT projects are addressed by avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation during the project development and permitting processes. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures will be consistent with the policies of the natural resource agencies.

The potential cumulative effects of a transportation improvement project could increase when considered along with other public or private development-related activities. The I-73 Connector, combined with other transportation projects will improve mobility through Guilford County. This improved mobility will expand the commute shed for Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point which will in turn increase the amount of through traffic in the area. These factors could make the area more attractive for highway-oriented uses such as gas stations, restaurants, and hotels.

Local officials anticipate additional industrial development to occur in the future as a result of the construction of the new I-73 interstate corridor and the expansion of the PTI Airport. Likely locations for this development are along NC 68 between the airport and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and other proposed interchanges along the corridor.

There are approximately 1,300 acres of developable land in the FLUSA. This accounts for about eight percent of the total land area. As the PTI Airport expands and the interstate network (I-73 and Future I-840) is completed, this land is expected to be developed for industrial and commercial uses. Local officials predict the airport expansion will have the most influence on the rate of, type, and location of development in the FLUSA.

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Report for this project, cumulative effects resulting from the I-73 Connector and primarily from other actions such as the airport expansion will have the potential to moderately impact water quality in the FLUSA. State, local, and water supply watershed development regulations are in place to help protect sensitive environmental resources, which include: NPDES Phase I (Greensboro) and NPDES Phase II (Guilford County) regulations, the Guilford County Watershed Water Supply Protection Ordinance, Guilford County Stormwater Management Plans, the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Rules and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Riparian Buffer Rules.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 34 F. Natural Resources

1. Physical Resources

The natural resources study area (see Figures 12.1-12.4) lies within the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina.9 Topography within the project vicinity is generally comprised of low to high hills, ridges, and isolated monadnocks, and low- to moderate-gradient streams with mostly boulder and cobble substrates. Topography within the study area is generally level. Elevations within the study area range from 810 to 950 feet above sea level. The project vicinity is heavily developed, and land use in the vicinity consists primarily of residential, business, and industrial development within the City of Greensboro.

a. Soils

The Guilford County Soil Survey identifies six soil types within the study area (Table 12).

Table 12: Soils Within the Study Area Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status Clifford sandy loam Ck Well-drained Non-hydric Codorus loam Cn Somewhat poorly-drained *Hydric Nathalie sandy loam Na Well-drained Non-hydric Poplar Forest sandy loam Po Well-drained Non-hydric Poplar Forest clay loam Pp Well-drained Non-hydric Tomlin clay loam To Well-drained Non-hydric * Soils which are primarily non-hydric, but may contain hydric inclusions.

b. Water Resources

Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear River Basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002]. Within the study area, there are eight jurisdictional streams. A summary of these streams is presented in Table 13, and physical characteristics of the streams are presented in Table 14. In addition to streams, one open water pond is located within the study area. Open Water P6 is located within the Alternative 4 corridor, just west of NC 68 (see Figures 12.3 and 12.4). Jurisdictional areas which lie within the overlap area of the I-73 Connector project and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector project have been delineated and verified by agency personnel as a part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector project. All information regarding these jurisdictional areas are duplicated from the US 220/ NC 68 Connector Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR). Jurisdictional areas within the I-73 Connector study area were surveyed by a licensed land surveyor.



9 The study area defined in the I-73 Connector Natural Resources Technical Report includes the proposed alignment for Alternative 3. However, since Alternative 3 has been eliminated from consideration, the study area presented in this document has been modified to only include Alternatives 1 and 4. Therefore, the natural resources information in this document pertains only to those resources included in the modified study area. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 35 Table 13: Water Resources in the Study Area – Build Alternatives NCDWQ Best NCDWQ Stream Stream Name Map ID* Figure No. Usage Index Number Classification UT to Brush Creek SC 12.2 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek SD 12.2 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S73 12.3 and 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S74 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S75 12.3 and 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S77 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S78 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW UT to Brush Creek *S79 12.4 16-11-4-(1) WS-III; NSW *Map ID: Streams denoted with an asterisk (*) have been previously delineated and verified in association with the adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector project.

Table 14: Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area – Build Alternatives Bank Bankful Water Map ID Height Width Depth Channel Substrate Velocity Clarity (feet) (feet) (inches) Slightly SC 1-3 3-8 0-4 silt, sand, gravel None Turbid SD 3-6 3-5 0-2 sand, gravel Slow Clear S73 1-5 4-10 1-3 sand, gravel, cobble Moderate Clear S74 1-2 3-4 0-2 sand, gravel, cobble Slow Clear S75 0.5-3 2-3 0-1 sand, gravel Slow Clear S77 0.5-2 3-4 1-2 sand, gravel, cobble Slow Clear S78 3-5 3-5 1-2 sand, gravel, cobble Slow Clear S79 3-6 3-5 0-1 sand, gravel, cobble Slow Clear *Clarity: C=Clear, ST=Slightly Turbid, T=Turbid

There are no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within one mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2010 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies Brush Creek as impaired due to ecological/biological integrity. This impairment rating is based on the results of macrobenthos sampling performed in 2003 and fish community sampling performed in 2004. Each sampling set resulted in a rating of “Fair.” Brush Creek was added to the 303(d) list of impaired waters for both of these criteria in 1998.

2. Biotic Resources

a. Terrestrial Communities

Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/ disturbed land and mixed pine/ hardwood forest. A brief description of each community type follows. Scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B of the I-73 Connector Natural Resources Technical Report, which can be found in NDOT’s project file.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 36

Maintained/ Disturbed Land Maintained/ disturbed land generally consists of areas such as roadside shoulders, utility corridors, and maintained lawns associated with residential, industrial, and recreational development (golf course). Maintained lawns and roadside shoulders generally consist of low-growing grasses and weedy forbs such as fescue, white clover, geranium, dandelion, Carolina nightshade, and wild onion. These areas include scattered native and ornamental canopy trees and saplings such as white oak, northern red oak, Virginia pine, mimosa, tree of heaven, Bradford pear, and crepe myrtle. Utility corridors often contain similar grass and forb species, but are more commonly dominated by large weedy herbs and opportunistic species such as lespedeza, goldenrod, sunflowers, milkweed, ragweed, goldenrods, and Queen Anne’s lace, and occasionally dense shrubs of species such as sweetgum, red maple, eastern red cedar, blackberry, smooth sumac, and multiflora rose. Several areas are dominated by a dense growth of vines such as poison ivy, Virginia creeper, English ivy, and kudzu.

Mixed Pine/ Hardwood Forest Small fragmented areas of mixed pine/ hardwood forest occur generally along the margins of roadways and along stream corridors, and include forested communities of varying ages and levels of disturbance. Canopy trees include loblolly pine, Virginia pine, red maple, tulip poplar, sweetgum, white oak, southern red oak, northern red oak, mockernut hickory, and black cherry. Saplings present include canopy species as well as American beech, red mulberry, persimmon, American holly, eastern red cedar, flowering dogwood, and sassafras. In mesic areas near streams and wetlands, species adapted to wet conditions such as willow oak, American elm, green ash, redbud, river birch, black willow, tag alder, ironwood, and tulip poplar tend to dominate the canopy and sapling layers. Shrubs are thickest along woodland edges and in mesic areas near streams, wetlands and pond edges. These areas include Chinese privet, autumn olive, highbush blueberry, strawberry bush, spicebush, and sedges. Vines present include poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper, common greenbrier, and muscadine grape. Herbs within this community are sparse to frequent and include Christmas fern, rattlesnake fern, ebony splenwort, Japanese stilt- grass, large whorled pogonia, Indian cucumber-root, Solomon’s seal, wild ginger, ground cedar, and spotted wintergreen.

Terrestrial Community Impacts Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a result of grading and paving portions of the study area. At this time, decisions regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have been determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated. A summary of natural community impacts is presented Table 15.

Table 15: Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area – Build Alternatives Coverage (acres) Coverage (acres) Community Alternative 1 Alternative 4 Maintained/ disturbed land 161.3 93.8 Mixed pine/ hardwood forest 36.4 6.2 Total area within alternatives 197.7 100.0

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 37 b. Terrestrial Wildlife

Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised primarily of disturbed habitats that may support a limited diversity of wildlife species due to the urban nature of the study area (an asterisk indicates if a species or sign of a species was actually observed). Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the study area include gray squirrel, eastern cottontail*, raccoon*, white-tailed deer*, groundhog*, and Virginia opossum. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include American crow*, blue jay*, Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse*, Carolina wren*, downy woodpecker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, northern mockingbird*, sharp-shinned hawk, common yellow-throat, indigo bunting, eastern towhee*, northern cardinal*, red-bellied woodpecker, and white-eyed vireo. Birds that may use the open habitat within the study area include house finch*, barn swallow, American kestrel, American robin, European starling, mourning dove*, great crested flycatcher, eastern bluebird, field sparrow, eastern meadowlark, red-shouldered hawk*, and turkey vulture*. Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include marbled salamander, white-spotted slimy salamander, American toad, gray treefrog, spring peeper, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five-lined skink*, black racer, rat snake, eastern ribbon snake, and copperhead.

c. Aquatic Communities

Aquatic communities in the study area are supported by intermittent and perennial piedmont streams and several still-water ponds. Perennial streams may contain gizzard shad, golden shiner, rosyside dace, eastern silvery minnow, spottail shiner, tessellated darter, bluehead chub, creek chub, margined madtom, redbreast sunfish, and northern dusky salamander. Intermittent streams in the study area are relatively small in size and may support aquatic communities of spring peeper, crayfish, and various benthic macroinvertebrates. Open-water ponds may contain species such as common carp, grass carp, yellow bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, redfin pickerel, and eastern mosquitofish. Aquatic-dependent wildlife expected to utilize these communities include painted turtle, yellow-bellied slider, northern water snake*, beaver, great blue heron, green heron*, and belted kingfisher.

d. Invasive Species

Ten species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina were found to occur within the study area. Five level 1 (Threat) invasive species were identified: Chinese privet, multiflora rose, Japanese stilt grass, tree of heaven, and kudzu. Four level 2 (Moderate Threat) invasive species were identified: mimosa, autumn olive, English ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle. One level 3 (Watch List) invasive species was identified: Bradford pear. NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate.

3. Jurisdictional Issues

a. Waters of the United States

Eight jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (see Table 16). The locations of these streams are depicted on Figure 12.1. USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets and NCDWQ Stream Identification forms are included in Appendix C of the I-73 Connector Natural Resources Technical Report, which can be found in NDOT’s project file. The physical

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 38 characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional stream are detailed in Section III.F.1.b, Water Resources. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.

Table 16: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Water Resources in Study Area – Build Alternatives Anticipated Impacts 2 (feet) Compensatory River Basin Map ID 1 Classification Mitigation Alt. 1 Alt. 4 Buffer Required SC Intermittent 356 356 Yes Subject SD Intermittent -- -- Yes Subject S73* Perennial 13 -- Yes Subject S74* Perennial -- -- Yes Not Subject S76* Perennial -- -- Yes Subject S77* Perennial 99 -- Yes Subject S78* Perennial -- -- Yes Subject S79* Perennial -- -- Yes Subject Total -- 468 356 -- -- 1Map ID: Streams denoted with an asterisk (*) have been delineated and verified in association with the adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector project. 2Anticipated Impacts: Impacts to jurisdictional areas are considered to be all areas which fall within 25 feet of proposed slope-stake limits associated with the I-73 Connector project and are located entirely outside of the 25-foot buffer of all slope-stake limits associated with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector project.

One jurisdictional open water was identified in the study area and is depicted on Figures 12.1 and Figure 12.3. Alternative 1 is anticipated to impact approximately 0.25 acre of Open Water P6.

Seven jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (see Figure 12.1). Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 17. All wetlands within the study area are located within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS HU 03030002). USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms and NCDWQ Wetland Rating Forms for each wetland site are included in Appendix C of the I-73 Connector Natural Resources Technical Report. Descriptions of the natural communities at each wetland site are presented in Section III.F.1.b, Water Resources.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 39 Table 17: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area- Build Alternatives NC Wetland Anticipated Impacts 3 Assessment MAP Hydrologic NCDWQ Area Method ID 1 Classification Rating 2 (acres) Alt. 1 Alt. 4 (NCWAM) Classification WJ Headwater Forest Riparian 41 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 *W40 Headwater Forest Riparian *32 0.01 -- -- *W41 Headwater Forest Riparian *32 < 0.01 -- -- *W42 Headwater Forest Riparian *50 0.02 -- -- *W43 Headwater Forest Riparian *50 0.01 -- -- *W44 Headwater Forest Riparian *49 0.06 -- -- *W46 Headwater Forest Riparian *27 0.02 -- -- Total 0.13 < 0.01 < 0.01 1 Map ID: Wetlands denoted with an asterisk (*) have been previously delineated and verified in association with the adjacent US 220/ NC 68 Connector project. 2 NCDWQ Rating: Ratings noted with an asterisk (*) are excerpted from the US 220/ NC 68 Connector Environmental Assessment. 3 Anticipated Impacts: Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are considered to be all areas which fall within 25 feet of proposed slope-stake limits associated with the I-73 Connector project and are located entirely outside of the 25-foot buffer of all slope-stake limits associated with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector project.

b. Permits

It is expected that project impacts will likely be permitted under a Section 404 Individual Permit. In addition to the Section 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ.

c. Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern

No portion of Guilford County is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA); therefore, no CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) occur within the study area.

d. Construction Moratoria

No streams within the study area are listed as waters which require any construction moratoria.

e. North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules

Streams within the study area are located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed of the Cape Fear River Basin. While the Cape Fear River basin is not generally subject to any NCDWQ riparian buffer rules, the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed is subject to NCDWQ regulated riparian buffer rules. Streams subject to the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed rules are listed in Table 16. All open waters within the study area are subject to the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed rules. The buffer rules do not allow stormwater runoff to enter a riparian buffer as a concentrated flow. The area south of Hollandsworth Drive will be investigated during the final hydraulic design phase of the project to determine the need for an appropriate stormwater control to redistribute stormwater prior to entering a downstream riparian buffer along the west side of Bryan Boulevard (see Figure 12.5). Potential impacts to protected stream buffers will be determined once a final alignment and design have been determined.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 40

f. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

No streams within the study area are considered to be navigable and therefore are not subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

g. Wetland and Stream Mitigation

Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts The project area is located within the Jordan Lake watershed and streams are subject to the Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules. Therefore, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented during project construction.

NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams, open waters, and wetland areas to the greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design. At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or design of the preferred alternative. Alternatives 1 and 4 have been developed to avoid five of the eight streams and six of the seven wetlands in the immediate study area. Alternative 1 minimizes water resource impacts by using maximum fill slopes and a retaining wall along the southbound flyover ramp parallel to Brush Creek. Alternative 4 includes maximum fill slopes to minimize the impacts to one stream.

Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts NCDOT will investigate potential on-site mitigation opportunities once a final determination has been rendered on the location of the preferred alternative. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).

h. Endangered Species Act Protected Species

As of September 22, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally-protected species for Guilford County (Table 18). A brief description of this species’ habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for this species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and the USFWS.

Table 18: Federally Protected Species Listed for Guilford County Federal Habitat Biological Common Name Scientific Name Status Present Conclusion Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened Yes No Effect

Small whorled pogonia USFWS optimal survey window: mid-May – early July

Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third successional growth) mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/ coniferous forests. It does not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open, dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The species may also be found on dry, rocky,

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 41 wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. The understory structure and composition of occupied sites varies from dense rhododendron thickets, to open/sparse/moderate shrub and herbaceous cover in the orchid’s microhabitat, to dense stands of New York fern. Other common characteristics shared by small whorled pogonia sites include historic agricultural use of existing habitat; a proximity to logging roads, streams, or other features that create long persisting breaks in the forest canopy; and a prevalence of leaf litter and decaying vegetation.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia occurs within mature mixed pine/ hardwood forest throughout the study area, particularly adjacent to utility line corridors and roadways that serve as persistent breaks in the canopy. All areas of suitable habitat were surveyed by biologists on June 2 and 3, 2011. No individuals of small whorled pogonia were identified. A review of NCNHP records (updated June 8, 2011) indicates no occurrences of this species within one mile of the study area. The USFWS lists this species as a historic record in Guilford County, indicating that this species was last observed within Guilford County more than 50 years ago. However, correspondence with a USFWS representative indicates that an individual of small whorled pogonia was recently discovered near the Town of Gibsonville approximately 20 miles east of the study area.

i. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Habitat for bald eagle 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 one mile of open water.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (one mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on June 8, 2011 using 2008 color aerial photographs. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on June 8, 2011 revealed no known occurrences of this species within one mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.

j. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

No Endangered Species Act Candidate Species have been listed by the USFWS for Guilford County.

k. Essential Fish Habitat

No portion of the study area has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]).

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 42 G. Flood Hazard Evaluation

The proposed project area is not expected to have any considerable adverse impact on existing floodplains or on the associated flood hazard to adjacent properties or buildings.

Guilford County and most other local governments in the county participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Division of the US Department of Homeland Security. The NFIP requires that communities that participate in its Flood Insurance Program adopt and enforce a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for their community to mitigate future damages due to flooding. The County’s current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was last updated in March 2011.

There is one location where both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 cross the floodplain along Stream SC (see Figures 10 and 12.2). Less than 0.1 acre of this floodplain is expected to be affected by both alternatives.10 The floodplain along Stream 73 (Brush Creek) extends into the project study area approximately half a mile south of Pleasant Ridge Road (see Figures 10 and 12.4). However, it does not encroach to within 25 feet of the construction limits for either Build Alternative.

The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

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 that the drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

H. Air Quality

Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These were established in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare from known or anticipated effects of air pollutants. The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are unburned hydrocarbons, NOx, CO, and particulates. Hydrocarbons (HC) and Nitrogen oxides (NOx) can combine in a complex series of reactions catalyzed by sunlight to produce photochemical oxidants such as ozone and NO2. Because these reactions take place over a period 

10 Floodplain GIS data from Guilford County was used to calculate the impacts. Areas impacted were assumed to be within the proposed construction limits (i.e. slope stakes) plus 25 feet. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 43 of several hours, maximum concentrations of photochemical oxidants are often found far downwind of the precursor sources and, therefore are more regional than local.

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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This area was designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 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 GUAMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2035 LRTP, the Burlington Graham MPO 2035 LRTP, and the 2012-2018 TIPs conform to the intent of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The USDOT made a conformity determination on the Greensboro MPO LRTP on December 16, 2011 the High Point MPO LRTP on December 16, 2011, the Burlington MPO LRTP on February 26, 2010, the Greensboro MPO TIP on December 16, 2011, the High Point MPO TIP on December 16, 2011 and the Burlington Graham MPO TIP on December 16, 2011. The current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project’s design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.

1. Carbon Monoxide

Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." A microscale air quality analysis is performed to determine future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections" is used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.126, this project is an air quality neutral project. It is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.

2. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)

Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are more frequent on transportation projects during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Transportation agencies are increasingly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental documents as the science emerges. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a continuing area of research where, while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited. These limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks should factor into project-level decision-making under NEPA.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 44

Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in our 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 emerging field.

Also, EPA has not established regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project development process. FHWA has several research projects underway to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects. While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach.11 What we know about mobile source air toxics is still evolving. As the science progresses FHWA will continue to revise and update this guidance. To that end we expect that a number of significant improvements in model forecasting and air pollution analysis guidance are forthcoming in the EPA's release of the final MOVES model and the issuance of the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Modeling Guidance.

A qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in the project Air Quality Analysis, dated October 14, 2011. A copy of this report may be viewed in the Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit office, Century Center Building B, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.

3. Air Quality Summary

Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly.

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 hot spot analysis.

I. Traffic Noise Analysis

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 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise 

11 US DOT, Federal Highway Administration memorandum, “Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents”, September 30, 2009. I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 45 impacts. Generally, Type I projects are proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway or interchange on new location, improvements of an existing highway that significantly 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 by following procedures detailed in Title 23 CFR 772, the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement 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. Temporary and localized noise impacts will likely occur as a result of project construction activities. Construction noise control measures will be incorporated into the project plans and specifications.

A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled “Traffic Noise Analysis / I-73 Connector, New Construction from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Loop” can be viewed in the Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit, Century Center Building A, 1010 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610. See Appendix C for an abridged version.

1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours

The number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 19. The table includes those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. The five receivers expected to be impacted are all third-floor residences in the Allerton Place apartment community located adjacent to the NC 68/ Pleasant Ridge Road intersection (see Figure 9 and Appendix C).

Table 19: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts* Traffic Noise Impacts Alternative Residential Churches/Schools, etc. Businesses Total (NAC B) (NAC C & D) (NAC E) Build (Alt.1 5 0 0 5 and Alt. 4) No-Build 0 0 0 0 *Per TNM®2.5, NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, NCDOT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Manual, and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772.

The maximum extent of the 71- and 66-dB(A) noise level contours at ground elevations measured from the center of the proposed roadway is 157 feet and 247 feet, respectively. Per 23 CFR 772.9(c) and NCDOT Policy, noise contour lines shall not be used for determining highway traffic noise impacts; however, this information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands, so as to avoid development of incompatible activities adjacent to the roadways within local jurisdiction.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 46 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 allowable abatement measure quantity (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 dollar-equivalent of the NCDOT base quantity value of 2,640 square feet of noise wall per benefited receptor, 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 and noise walls are not found to be a viable abatement measure because neither would be able to achieve the minimum seven dB(A) reasonableness criteria design goal for at least one impacted receptor. As identified in the project Traffic Noise Analysis, no areas exist for which potential traffic noise abatement measures are feasible and reasonable, as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy.

4. Traffic Noise Analysis 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 significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or alignment. It is unlikely that feasibility and reasonableness determinations for traffic noise abatement measures will change due to any changes in project design after approval of this project’s Final Environmental Document. If substantial design changes do occur subsequent to this approval, as defined under the heading “Type I Project” found on page one of the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, a revised Traffic Noise Analysis will be completed to incorporate the design revisions.

In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement 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 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 47 J. Geodetic Markers

There are no geodetic control monuments in the project area. No geodetic survey monuments are expected to be affected by this project.

K. Hazardous Materials

No impacts to hazardous materials sites are expected. The three locations discussed below are outside the project limits of both Build Alternatives.

A hazardous materials inventory was performed to identify potential sources of toxic or hazardous materials and known sites involved with the usage, storage, transport or disposal of such materials. A field reconnaissance survey was completed on April 6, 2011, and a search of appropriate environmental agencies’ databases was performed in evaluating sites within the project study area. Two underground storage tank (UST) sites and one aboveground storage tank (AST) facility were identified. All three sites are anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project.

 Tony’s Food Mart is located on the northeast corner of Edgefield Road and Kenmont Road. The facility operates as a convenience store and gas station. Four USTs were removed in 1995, and three tanks are currently in use. Ground Water Incident #30244 was assigned to the facility in 2003. Monitoring wells are on-site and semi-annual ground water monitoring is being performed.  Pleasant Ridge Golf Course, formerly known as Bel-Aire Golf Course, is located on the south side of Pleasant Ridge Road. A maintenance shed south of the club house is used to store equipment, carts, oils, grease and batteries. A maintenance facility on the northern boundary primarily stores lawn equipment, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. There were three USTs removed in 1995. Ground Water Incident #30244 was assigned in 1995 and closed out in 1996.  Hilco Transport Inc. is located at the eastern terminus of Kenmont Road. The site houses numerous trucks and tankers used in transporting propane, petroleum and waste products. Four fuel dispenser islands are located in the center of the yard and are fed by two 12,000 gallon ASTs.

L. Construction Impacts

There are some environmental impacts normally associated with this type of construction. These are generally of short-term duration, and measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.

During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project or otherwise disposed of by the contractor.

Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.

The noise levels will increase during construction, but will only be temporary.

Sediment and erosion control standards will be implemented during construction.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 48

In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project study area, NCDOT’s Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project.

No serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area are expected.

Traffic service may be subjected to brief disruption, but every effort will be made to ensure the transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction.

NCDOT will implement its Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities during construction.

M. Federal Aviation Administration Requirements

1. Objects That May Affect Navigable Airspace

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations under CFR, Part 77 and Advisory Circular (AC) 70/7460.2K require a sponsoring agency to notify FAA of any proposed construction or alteration of objects that may affect the navigable airspace. This applies to construction of an object within 20,000 feet of an airport runway that is more than 3,200 feet in length and exceeds a height established by a 100:1 slope from the nearest point of the runway. PTI Airport’s nearest runway to the project area is Runway 5R/ 23L. Runway 5R/ 23L is approximately 10,000 feet long and is about 900 feet above sea level. The nearest point of Runway 5R/ 23L is approximately 1,800 feet from the proposed project. Therefore, FAA should be notified if any object constructed or used during construction is at an elevation of 918 feet or more above sea level.

Notification of the proposed construction activities are to be made on FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. FAA must be notified at least 30 days prior to the earliest of the following:

 The date of construction  The date the application for a construction permit will be filled.

Structures directly, or indirectly, involved with the I-73 Connector that may require FAA notification include (but are not limited to) roadways, bridges, the new water tower, and construction equipment such as cranes.

NCDOT will inform the construction contractor of FAA’s regulations governing obstructions to navigable airspace and ensure said contractor submits FAA Form 7460-1 within the time period specified in CFR, Part 77. NCDOT will also be certain the contractor has calculated the maximum height of construction equipment allowed in a particular location according to FAA’s policies and regulations.

2. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants

Wildlife, including rodents, larger mammals, and birds pose a threat to the safety of flight. Each year hundreds of wildlife strikes occur in the United States. Birds and deer account for the majority

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 49 of wildlife strikes. Most airports have large open areas that may attract wildlife to enter an airport’s approach or departure airspace or other areas of airport-related operations. Ponds, wetlands, disposal areas, stormwater storage areas, and food sources are some of the wildlife attractants on or near airport properties.

FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports provides guidance on land uses that attract wildlife on or near public airports. This guidance dictates airport operators, local planners, and developers refrain from considering proposed land uses that could attract or sustain wildlife populations. AC 150/5200-33B establishes three perimeter zones to be used as a planning tool to minimize bird collisions.

 Zone 1 recommends wildlife attractants should not be located any closer than 5,000 feet to a runway servicing piston-powered aircraft.  Zone 2 recommends no wildlife attractants are to be located within 10,000 feet of a runway used by turbine (jet) powered aircraft.  Zone 3 recommends against locating a hazardous wildlife attractant within a five-mile radius of any runway.

Projects not using FAA funding are not required to follow the policies outlined in the advisory circular. The I-73 Connector has no FAA funding. However, NCDOT (in conjunction with other agencies) has developed Best Management Practices (BMP) for public airports to provide guidance for stormwater drainage control and water quality treatment (see the publication, Stormwater BMP Toolbox for Public Airports in North Carolina, November 2010). These stormwater BMPs are designed to rid wildlife attractants by eliminating wet detention ponds and wetlands on or near airport property.

NCDOT will use BMPs that do not attract waterfowl or other animals that are a danger to aircraft. Wet detention ponds and stormwater wetlands are not recommended for use with the I-73 Connector. FAA’s AC 150/5200-33B will be considered during final design.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 50 IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

A. Comments Received

Letters and environmental input were sent to the following agencies to notify them of a project scoping meeting that was held February 9, 2011. Representatives from each of the listed agencies attended the meeting. Asterisks (*) indicate agencies that offered comments during the scoping meeting. The minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix B of this report.

* US Environmental Protection Agency * US Army Corps of Engineers * US Fish & Wildlife Service * NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources – NC Natural Heritage Program * NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources – Division of Water Quality * NC Department of Cultural Resources * Federal Highway Administration Piedmont Triad Airport Authority * Greensboro Department of Transportation/ Metropolitan Planning Organization

Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies: Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written comments were received. The comments are included in Appendix B and are addressed in this document.

NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources – NC Natural Heritage Program NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources * Federal Aviation Administration Geological Survey * NC State Clearinghouse Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Guilford County Commissioners City of Greensboro

B. NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Process

The NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Process is a method of integrating the project development and permitting processes. Partners include the USACE, NCDENR (DWQ, DCM), FHWA, NCDOT, other stakeholder agencies, and local units of government. The Merger Process provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to meet the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.

In this process, a series of steps or concurrence points have been established that will provide a uniform progression of the project and a better understanding of specific issues as they develop. Consensus on each step or concurrence point must be achieved by the Merger Team prior to proceeding to the next stage of the project. The Merger Team is established by NCDOT and FHWA in conjunction with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) at the beginning of the planning stage. The Merger Team meets to review, discuss, and reach consensus on each concurrence point of the project.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 51

Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose of and Need and Study Area Defined

The first step in this process is Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need and Study Area defined. A purpose and need for the project was presented to the Merger Team during the February 9, 2011 scoping meeting. Following the scoping meeting, NCDOT revised the purpose and need to address the national importance of the I-73 corridor, and written concurrence was obtained by the Merger Team members (see Appendix B for the Concurrence Point 1 form).

Concurrence Point 2 – Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward

Concurrence Point 2 is the development of detailed study alternatives (that meet the purpose and need of the project) to be carried forward for evaluation.

The five preliminary alternatives (Alternatives 1-5) and their potential effects were presented to the Merger Team during the February 9, 2011 scoping meeting. At this meeting, agency representatives agreed Alternatives 1 and 2 should be eliminated from further consideration because they would not satisfy FHWA’s interchange spacing requirements for an interstate facility and/ or they would have substantial stream impacts. Alternative 5 was eliminated because of its stream impacts. The Merger Team agreed Alternatives 3 and 4 should be studied in detail since they would have less impacts to natural systems.

After the scoping meeting, local officials and PTI Airport representatives requested NCDOT consider an alternative that would include direct access to the airport from the south. FHWA and NCDOT reconsidered Alternative 1 and determined its interchange connections with NC 68 and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector would not violate interchange spacing requirements for an interstate facility. NCDOT developed a functional design for Alternative 1. The proposed ramps and loops function as a single interchange rather than two separate interchanges. The potential impacts associated with Alternative 1 were determined to be similar to those of Alternative 4.

NCDOT reviewed the traffic operations and prepared a conceptual design for Alternative 3 after Merger Team members agreed it should be studied in detail at the scoping meeting. Two interchanges would be required to join the I-73 Connector with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and NC 68. These would result in a large footprint that would have a substantial impact to the human and natural environments.

Based on the new information about Alternatives 1 and 3, NCDOT decided to revisit Concurrence Point 2 with the Merger Team. A Merger Team meeting was held on July 20, 2011. During this meeting, NCDOT presented revised conceptual designs and expected impacts for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. NCDOT recommended Alternatives 1 and 4 for detailed study, and asked that Alternative 3 be eliminated from further consideration. Agency representatives agreed with NCDOT’s recommendations and provided written concurrence (see Appendix B for the Concurrence Point 2 form).

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 52 C. Public Involvement

September 2011

A project newsletter was mailed to members of the public during the first week of September 2011. It provided: a description of the project and its purpose and need; a description of the alternatives considered and those carried forward for further study; a project schedule; and, a notification of the upcoming Citizens Informational Workshop. A copy of the newsletter is in Appendix D.

September 19, 2011

A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on September 19, 2011 from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the 7800 Concourse Building in Board Room 101 at 7800 Airport Center Drive in Greensboro. The NCDOT project team presented the proposed improvements, answered questions, and received comments about the project. The format of the workshop was informal. Handouts were provided to the participants and aerial maps were on display. Before the workshop began, a meeting was held to brief local officials on the project. Approximately 96 people attended the workshop, and 18 people attended the local officials informational meeting.

The workshop participants were encouraged to provide written comments using the form included in their handout. The comment form allowed them to choose which alternative they preferred (Alternative 1, Alternative 4, or neither) and explain why. Copies of the handout and comment form are in Appendix D.

See Section IV.D, Responses to Public Comments for a summary of comments received before, during, and after the Citizens Informational Workshop and responses to those comments.

D. Responses to Public Comments

The following is a summary of comments received during the public involvement process for this project. Corresponding responses to the comments are also provided.

Comment: Several citizens believe Alternative 1 will provide the most efficient and direct access to the airport, especially for those traveling from the western portion of the state. It would also include fewer traffic signals. Response: Alternative 1 does provide the most direct access to the PTI Airport from points south along NC 68. Neither alternative requires traffic signals along the I-73 Connector. The number of traffic signals required along NC 68 will be the same regardless of which alternative is chosen as the preferred. However, if Alternative 4 is selected, motorists traveling to and/or from the airport will have to navigate through more NC 68 traffic signals than if Alternative 1 was chosen.

Comment: Some members of the public expressed concerns about the potential increase in noise levels, especially along Edgefield Road where it could affect the Friendship Farms subdivision. Some residents of this subdivision believe noise impacts will require a noise wall. Response: A Traffic Noise Analysis has been performed for the I-73 Connector. Noise walls, or abatement measures are not reasonable or feasible according to NCDOT’s Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (see Section III.I, Traffic Noise Analysis). Also, noise abatement measures in the vicinity of

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 53 Edgefield Road or the Friendship Farms subdivision are not reasonable or feasible as part of the US 220/ NC 68 Connector.

Comment: Some support Alternative 1 because it would reduce traffic on northbound NC 68 and near the future Guilford Technical Community College. Response: There could be less northbound NC 68 traffic near the future Guilford Technical Community College associated with Alternative 1 when compared to Alternative 4. The ramp and flyover proposed as part of Alternative 1 would accommodate northbound NC 68 traffic traveling to the PTI Airport via southbound I-73 Connector and traffic heading to southbound NC 68 from the airport. The ramp and flyover are not proposed as part of Alternative 4; therefore, motorists traveling between the airport and points south along NC 68 would have to use the US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange with NC 68 near the future GTCC campus.

Comment: Several citizens expressed concerns about the impact this project would have in conjunction with the High Point Connector project. They believe more coordination is needed between Greensboro, High Point and NCDOT. Response: Coordination between NCDOT and local government officials has taken place throughout the planning phase for the I-73 Connector, and coordination will continue during the final design phase. The final design of the I-73 Connector will not prevent alterations to it in the future to accommodate other roadway projects.

Comment: Several members of the public support Alternative 1 because it appears to have the least environmental impacts. Response: The environmental impacts associated with each alternative are comparable. See Section II.B.2, Proposed Improvements for more information.

Comment: One individual is concerned about impacts to a pond on his property located east of Gardner Court (near Edgefield Road) which is fed by a wetland area on the west side of NC 68. The individual who made this comment is concerned how the pond will be affected if the wetlands are impacted by the project. Response: the I-73 Connector project should not affect the referenced pond and wetland. The final hydraulic design for NCDOT projects follow criteria that minimize differences of flow between existing and proposed conditions. Therefore, there should be no considerable water level changes of the pond once the I-73 Connector is built.

Comment: Some believe Alternative 1 is better suited for development since it offers a quicker route to the airport and area businesses. Response: PTI Airport representatives and local officials support Alternative 1, in part, because it allows more direct travel between the airport, nearby businesses, and points along NC 68 to the south.

Comment: Alternative 4 was favored by some citizens because it appears to have the least impacts to the natural and human environments. Response: The environmental impacts associated with each alternative are comparable. See Section II.B.2, Proposed Improvements for more information.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 54 Comment: One individual noted Alternative 4 is the least expensive alternative, so the money saved could be used for other projects. Response: Alternative 4 is estimated to cost approximately $28,600,000 less than Alternative 1. See Section II.B.2, Proposed Improvements and Section II.B.9, Estimated Costs for more information.

Comment: One person believes the project is not needed and is opposed to spending money to build I-73. That person suggested the money should be used to widen US 220 instead. Response: US 220 north of Greensboro is planned for widening. The purpose of the I-73 Connector is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. Widening US 220 instead of building the I-73 Connector would not satisfy this purpose and need. See Section I.D.1, Roadway Network and Route Classification for more information.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 55 V. CONCLUSION

The I-73 Connector is a proposed new location freeway to connect NC 68 (near the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector) with Bryan Boulevard at the Piedmont Triad International Airport. The purpose of this project is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. This will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region.

Two Build Alternatives are being considered – Alternative 1 and Alternative 4.

Alternative 1 is estimated to cost $93,900,000 ($43,700,000 for right of way, $3,200,000 for utility relocation, and $47,000,000 for construction). Alternative 4 is estimated to cost $65,300,000 ($39,400,000 for right of way, $1,900,000 for utility relocation, and $24,000,000 for construction).

This project should not have any considerable effect on local land use, character, or development plans.

No resources that are considered major economic attractions will be affected by the proposed project. Economic and business resources could gain an advantage as a result of this project. When complete the proposed I-73 Connector, the Greensboro Urban Loop, and the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector will enhance the area’s transportation network and strengthen the Piedmont Triad Region as a major transportation hub in North Carolina.

Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 impact 17 and 13 residences, respectively. Each alternative impacts the same three businesses. The total number of displacements for Alternative 1 is 20, while the total for Alternative 4 is 16. There are no minority-owned or rented residential units and no minority- owned business units that will be relocated. No farms, non-profit organizations, churches, or schools will be relocated.

Impacts to community/ neighborhood cohesion or stability are expected to be minimal, if any at all, since the existing land uses in the project vicinity (industrial, commercial, etc.) are not necessarily parts of the residential fabric of the community. The neighborhoods in the area are not cohesive as a whole or individually, and there are no retail centers (groceries, shopping, entertainment, etc.). The proposed I-73 Connector will be a fully controlled access facility that should not disrupt the day-to-day routines of people in the community.

Based on a thorough review of demographic data, site visit observations, and information from a local planner, this project should not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low income populations.

There are no known archaeological sites or historic architecture properties, and no additional investigations are necessary.

No Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources are anticipated to be impacted.

The proposed I-73 Connector will not, by itself, notably contribute to the cumulative effects of the actions of all parties in the FLUSA. Any indirect and cumulative effects resulting from the I-73 Connector will have the potential to moderately impact water quality.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 56

Alternative 1 will cross one stream, impacting 470 feet. Less than 0.1 acre of wetlands and floodplains, 2.3 acres of riparian buffer, and 0.3 acre of open water are expected to be impacted. When combined with US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange impacts, stream impacts will total 3,320 feet. Total wetland impacts will be 0.5 acre, and the combined open water impacts will be 0.3 acre.

Alternative 4 will cross one stream, impacting 360 feet. Less than an acre of wetlands and floodplains and 0.9 acre of riparian buffer are expected to be impacted. Impacts to open waters are not anticipated. When combined with US 220/ NC 68 Connector interchange impacts, stream impacts will total 4,090 feet. Total wetland impacts will be 0.6 acre. There will be no combined open water impacts.

This project is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed of the Cape Fear River Basin and is subject to NCDWQ Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0609). Jurisdictional wetlands within 50 feet of a jurisdictional stream or open water are considered to be a part of the riparian buffer.

NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams, open waters, and wetland areas to the greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design.

The small-whorled pogonia is the only federally protected species listed for Guilford County according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A biological conclusion of “No Effect” has been determined for this species.

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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This area was designated maintenance for the PM 2.5 standard in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) on December 19, 2011. The current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project’s design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses. 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 hot spot analysis.

Traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed for the I-73 Connector.

No impacts to hazardous materials sites are expected.

To date, public involvement efforts have included one project newsletter, a Public Officials Informational Meeting, and a Citizens Informational Workshop. No public controversy is anticipated with this project.

A public hearing will be held to inform the public of the selected alternative once it has been determined.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 57

VI. REFERENCES

Buchanan, M.F. and J.T. Finnegan. 2010. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh. http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/publications.html

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.

LeGrand Jr., H.E., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2008. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh. http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/publications.html

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 264 pp.

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed: February 22, 2008).

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. 2011. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. United States Department of Commerce. http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx

N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management. 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. Report No. 96-01. EPA 904/B-94/001.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2011. Basinwide Information Management System: Water Body Reports. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2010. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 Impaired Waters List). http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2009. Basinwide Assessment Report. Cape Fear River Basin. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/reports

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 58 N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2003. Surfacewaters and Wetland Standards. 15 NCAC 02B. 0100 & .0200.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth version.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2007a. 2-foot Elevation Contours: Guilford County, NC. Prepared from Light Distance and Ranging (LiDAR) data from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. http://www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/ContourElevationData/default.html

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2008. Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina.

N.C. Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.

N.C. Natural Heritage Program Virtual Workroom. [06/08/11]. Raleigh, NC. http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/public/virtual_workroom.phtml

N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.

Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 222 pp.  Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/Environmental Laboratory TR-10-9. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (Accessed 05/04/11).

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 59 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Hydrologic Units- North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Board of Commissioners, Guilford County, North Carolina, and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. 2011. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspx

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2011. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Guilford County. Updated 22 September 2010. Reviewed May 4, 2011. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_survey.html (Accessed: February 18, 2008).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Small Whorled Pogonia in North Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/nc- es/plant/swpogonia.html (Accessed 05/04/11)

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Guilford, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). 1 sheet.  U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Guilford, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). 1 sheet.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Summerfield, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5- minute series). 1 sheet.  U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Summerfield, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5- minute series). 1 sheet.

Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.

I-5110, I-73 Connector Environmental Assessment 60 FIGURES STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 1

Project Location Map ToUS 220 Reedy Creek Future Fleming I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110)* Ridge 73 Haven Road US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413)

Major Roads Road Road

Old Roads Creek

Edgefield Oak Streams and Creeks

Road Waterbodies Ridge Ridge Proposed Structures Road Brush I-73 Connector Study Area Pleasant

Caindale Drive Piedmont Triad International Airport

worth

Cude Road Road * For simplicity, only the I-73 Connector Alternative 1 is shown on this map. Detailed Drive Future Hollands maps of both alternatives can be found on Figures 5 & 6. 73 Inman

North To Greensboro Brigham

Regional Guilford Forsyth County County Project Winston-Salem Location Greensboro Burlington Road

Road High Point Alamance County 73 Thomasville Lexington Randolph Chatham County Bryan Boulevard County Creek Davidson Asheboro Future County Airport Parkway PTI 840 68 Airport Horsepen

Winston-Salem Greensboro

Rale igh Asheville

Charlotte To I-40 Fayetteville

Map Sources: Wilmington Guilford County 00.51Miles North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 2 I-73 Corridor &

River Other TIP Projects

68 I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110)*

Haw 150 Other TIP Projects

Road 150 Major Roads Future TIP Project R-2309 Roads TIP Project R-2413 73 US 220/ NC 68 220 US 220 Widening

Forsyth County Oak Ridge Creek Streams and Creeks Guilford County Connector Reedy Brandt Lake Waterbodies

Proposed Structures Creek Future GTCC Expansion Moores Road Higgins Future Guilford Technical I-73 Connector Study Area Community College Expansion Ridge Lake Richland Lake Old Oak Piedmont Triad International Airport Ridge Road Future * For simplicity, only the I-73 Connector Alternative 1 is shown on this map. Detailed Creek

840 maps of both alternatives can be found on Road Figures 5 & 6. Pleasant Brush Hill Caindale Boulevard Drive Guilford Future Forsyth County County Project Location Bunker 73 Winston-Salem Greensboro Burlington

High Point 68 Bryan 220 Alamance County TIP Project U-2524 Thomasville West Lexington 73 Randolph Chatham Greensboro County Market County Western Loop Davidson Asheboro 40 County Future Street Greensboro TIP Project R-2611 Friendly 840 West PTI Avenue Winston-Salem West Market Street Greensboro

Airport Rale igh Widening Asheville

Charlotte Fayetteville

Map Sources: Wilmington Guilford County 012Miles North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 5 Alternative 1

Future I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110) 73 68 US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413)

Major Roads

Roads

Edgefield Road Jurisdictional Streams

Old Oak Ridge Road Jurisdictional Wetlands

Jurisdictional Open Water Guilford Technical Community College Bryan Boulevard Permanent Removal

Proposed Structures Pleasant Ridge Road Proposed Structure Number

3 worth Caindale 4 1 Drive

Proposed 2 9 Future Guilford Hollands Drive Forsyth County Retaining Wall County Project 73 Winston-Salem Lo ca tion Greensboro Burlington

North High Point Alamance

County Brigham 5 Thomasville Pleasant Ridge Road Lexington 6 Randolph Chatham Regional County Pavement Removal County 7 Davidson Asheboro Road Ends County Parkway

Road 8 Road

Winston-Salem 68 Airport Greensboro Raleigh PTI Asheville Bryan Boulevard Airport Charlotte Fayetteville

Map Sources: 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Wilmington Guilford County Feet North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 6 Alternative 4

Future 73 I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110) 68 US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413)

Major Roads

Roads Edgefield Road

Old Oak Ridge Road Jurisdictional Streams

Jurisdictional Wetlands Guilford Technical Community College Jurisdictional Open Water

Bryan Boulevard Permanent Removal

Pleasant Ridge Road Proposed Structures

Proposed Structure Number

3 worth 4 1 Caindale Drive

9 Future Guilford Hollands Drive Forsyth County County Project Winston-Salem Lo ca tion 73 Greensboro Burlington

High Point Alamance County Thomasville Pleasant Ridge RoadBrigham Lexington 6 Randolph N. Regional Road Chatham County Pavement Removal County 7 Davidson Asheboro Road Ends County Parkway

8 Road

Winston-Salem Greensboro 68 Airport PTI Raleigh Bryan Boulevard Asheville

Airport Charlotte Fayetteville 021,000 ,0004,000 Map Sources: Wilmington Guilford County Feet North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 8.1 US 220/NC 68 Road Alcorn Fleming Alternatives Eliminated Connector Alternatives 2 & 5

To US 220 Fence 68 Alternative 2 Future Drive Road Creek 73 Alternative 5

Old Road US 220/NC 68 Connector Moores Leabourne Edgefield Road Oak Friendship Farms Major Roads Road Ridge Neighborhood Ridge Roads

Pleasant Streams and Creeks Road

Creek Waterbodies Proposed Service Road

Caindale worth Drive Brush

Road Drive Hollands Future 73

Inman

Guilford Brigham Forsyth County County Project Location Alternative 5 Winston-Salem Greensboro Burlington N. Regional ELIMINATED FROM

High Point Brush CONSIDERATION Alamance County Thomasville

Road Lexington Randolph 73 Chatham County Creek County 68 Road Alternative 2 Davidson Asheboro County ELIMINATED FROM Boulevard Future CONSIDERATION 840 PTI To I-40 Winston-Salem Bryan Greensboro Airport Rale igh Asheville

Charlotte Fayetteville

Wilmington 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 North Carolina Counties Map Sources: Feet Guilford County Guilford County North Carolina Department of Transportation Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 8.2 Road Alcorn Fleming Alternatives Eliminated

Alternative 3 To USTo 220 68 US 220/NC 68 Alternative 3 Connector Fence Road Drive Creek Future US 220/NC 68 Connector Old 73 Road Major Roads Moores Leabourne Edgefield Road Oak Roads Road Ridge Ridge Streams and Creeks Alternative 3 Pleasant Waterbodies ELIMINATED FROM Road

Friendship Farms CONSIDERATION Creek Neighborhood Proposed Service Road

Caindale worth Drive Brush

Road Drive Hollands Future 73

Inman

Guilford Brigham Forsyth County County Project Location Winston-Salem Greensboro Burlington N. Regional

High Point Brush Alamance County Thomasville

Road Lexington Randolph 73 Chatham County Creek County 68 Road Davidson Asheboro County

Boulevard Future 840 PTI To I-40 Winston-Salem Bryan Greensboro Airport Rale igh Asheville

Charlotte Fayetteville

Wilmington 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 North Carolina Counties Map Sources: Feet Guilford County Guilford County North Carolina Department of Transportation Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 9 Northwest Middle School Community Resources and Northwest High School

I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110)* Northwest Baptist Church US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413) Future and Daycare Facility New Garden Friends School I-73 Connector Study Area Future Guilford Technical 73 and E.P. Pearce Elementary School PTI Airport Property Community College Expansion Residential Neighborhoods Edgefield Baptist Church Churches Road Old Public Schools Child Care Facilities

68 Oak Edgefield Lowes Grocery

Road Ridge Fire Station

Ridge City Water Tower

Road Golf Courses/Facilities Pleasant Lowes Foods Industrial/Commercial/Empl. Centers Four Seasons Fire Station #17 Daycare Facility Allerton Place Apartments Pleasant Ridge FedEx HUB Golf Course

Rick Murphy Guilford Bryan Forsyth County North Caindale County Project Golf Academy Drive Boulevard Winston-Salem Lo ca tion Greensboro Burlington

City Water Future Regional High Point Alamance Tank County 73 Thomasville

Lexington Randolph FedEx Hub Chatham County County Davidson Asheboro County Road Airport Center Business Park

Concourse Center/ ECPI Winston-Salem PTI Airport * For simplicity, only the I-73 Connector Greensboro Raleigh Alternative 1 is shown on this map. Detailed Asheville

Charlotte maps of both alternatives can be found on Fayetteville Airport Figures 5 & 6. Map Sources: Center Drive Wilmington Guilford County 0 0.5 1 Miles North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Future Figure 10 Notable Features 73 Alcorn I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110)*

US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413) 68 Creek Road Roads 303(d) Impaired Waters Reedy Creek Streams and Creeks

Road Waterbodies Old Road Guilford County Floodplain

Oak PTAA Boundary Edgefield

Leabourne Moores PTAA Expansion Phase 1 Ridge Prime Farmland Road Farmland of Statewide Importance Road Creek Ridge Proposed Structures

Caindale Floodplain I-73 Connector Study Area Drive PleasantImpact Area

Brush Guilford Forsyth County Cude Road Future County Project Winston-Salem Location 73 Greensboro Burlington North

High Point Alamance County Thomasville

Lexington Regional Randolph Chatham County County Davidson Asheboro Brush County PTI

Road Airport Creek Brigham Winston-Salem Road * For simplicity, only the I-73 Connector Greensboro Rale igh Boulevard Alternative 1 is shown on this map. Detailed Asheville

Charlotte maps of both alternatives can be found on Fayetteville Figures 5 & 6.

Map Sources: 68 Bryan Wilmington Guilford County 00.51Miles North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I-5110, I-73 Connector DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, Guilford County Environmental Assessment

Figure 11

Bunch Road Future Land Use Study Area 68 220 Stanley I-73 Connector (TIP I-5110)* Huff Road US 220/NC 68 Connector (TIP R-2413) 150 Moores Creek Beaver Creek US 220/ NC 68 Lake Major Roads Higgins Connector Roads

Streams & Creeks Road Fleming Reedy Fork Waterbodies

Stafford Mill Road Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA)

Ridge Road Leabourne Road Edgefield Road PTI Airport Property

Cude Pleasant Greensboro

Forsyth County Guilford County Road I-73 Connector Brush Creek Oak Ridge Hill Caindale Drive Summerfield Road Future 73 Bunker * For simplicity, only the I-73 Connector Airport Alternative 1 is shown on this map. Detailed North Regional Parkway maps of both alternatives can be found on Road Figures 5 & 6.

BUS. Bryan Boulevard Guilford Road Forsyth County PTI County Project Winston-Salem Location 40 Market Street Airport Greensboro Burlington Horsepen Creek

High Point Alamance East Fork Ballinger County Thomasville

Lexington Randolph 73 Chatham County County Davidson Asheboro Deep River County 40 Future 840

Winston-Salem Greensboro

Rale igh Asheville

Charlotte Fayetteville

Map Sources: Gallimore Wilmington Guilford County GIS 68 North Carolina Counties North Carolina Department of Transportation Dairy Road 012 Guilford County Florence & Hutcheson Miles

APPENDIX A Relocation Reports R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T I-5110, ALTERNATIVE 1

North Carolina Department of Transportation

X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN

PROJECT: 42345.1.1 COUNTY Guilford Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate I.D. NO.: I-5110 F.A. PROJECT NHF-0073(25) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I-73 Connector from NC 68 to west of the Greensboro Western Loop

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 8 9 17 0 0 0 1 4 12 Businesses 0 3 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 6 $ 0-150 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 33 150-250 0 Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 72 250-400 4 X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 1 70-100M 84 400-600 18 X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 8 600 UP 8 100 UP 815 600 UP 117 displacement? TOTAL 8 9 1010 139 X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number) project? 3. The services are available elsewhere. X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. A. Thrifty Car Rental – 1500 sf block building – 3 ft/2pt indicate size, type, estimated number of Employees. employees, minorities, etc. B. New Concepts – 226,000 sf brick building – 7 full time X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Employees. X 6. Source for available housing (list). C. MC4 – 330,000 sf metal building with warehouse – 30 X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? Full time employees, 10 part time employees X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 6. Greensboro News & Record, MLS, and Rent a Home of the X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Triad (excluding NCDOT properties for lease) families? 11. Greensboro Housing Authority X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Several homes available in area. X 11. Is public housing available? 14. Business sites for rent available in area. X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? 24

8-26-11 9/1/11

Division Right of Way Agent Date Approved by Date Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent 2 Copy Division Right of Way Office R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T I-5110, ALTERNATIVE 4

North Carolina Department of Transportation

X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN

PROJECT: 42345.1.1 COUNTY Guilford Alternate 4REV of 2 Alternate I.D. NO.: I-5110 F.A. PROJECT NHF-0073(25) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I-73 Connector from NC 68 to west of the Greensboro Western Loop

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 5 8 13 0 0 0 1 4 8 Businesses 0 3 3 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 6 $ 0-150 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 33 150-250 0 Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 72 250-400 4 X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 84 400-600 18 X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 5 600 UP 8 100 UP 815 600 UP 117 displacement? TOTAL 5 8 1010 139 X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number) project? 3. The services are available elsewhere. X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. A. Thrifty Car Rental – 1500 sf block building – 3 ft/2pt indicate size, type, estimated number of Employees. employees, minorities, etc. B. New Concepts – 226,000 sf brick building – 7 full time X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Employees. X 6. Source for available housing (list). C. MC4 – 330,000 sf metal building with warehouse – 30 X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? Full time employees, 10 part time employees X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 6. Greensboro News & Record, MLS, and Rent a Home of the X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Triad (excluding NCDOT properties for lease) families? 11. Greensboro Housing Authority X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Several homes available in area. X 11. Is public housing available? 14. Business sites for rent available in area. X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimated to complete RELOCATION? 24

8-26-11 9/1/11

Division Right of Way Agent Date Approved by Date Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent 2 Copy Division Right of Way Office R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T R-2413A, ALTERNATIVE 1 (I-5110)

North Carolina Department of Transportation

X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN

PROJECT: 42345.1.1 COUNTY Guilford Alternate 1 of Alternate I.D. NO.: R-2413A F.A. PROJECT NHF-0073(25) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I-73 Connector from NC 68 to west of the Greensboro Western Loop

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 4 3 7 0 1 0 0 2 4 Businesses 4 3 7 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 6 $ 0-150 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 33 150-250 0 Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 1 40-70M 72 250-400 4 X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 1 70-100M 84 400-600 18 X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 4 600 UP 1 100 UP 815 600 UP 117 displacement? TOTAL 4 3 1010 139 X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number) project? 3. The services are available elsewhere. X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. A. Simmons Mini Storage – Owner - 1 FT employee – 2 indicate size, type, estimated number of Metal Storage sites employees, minorities, etc. B. Simmons Well Drilling – Owner - 4 FT employees – 3500 X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Sf metal Building; shared with Friendship Labs, Inc. X 6. Source for available housing (list). C. Friendship Labs, Inc. – Tenant – 2 FT employees – share X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 3500 sf metal building with Simmons Well drilling X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? D. Kerner Cabinets – Owner – 2 FT employees – 2400 sf X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Brick building with detached garage/ workshop families? E. Rainbow Child Care – Tenant – 7 FT employees – 6000 sf X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Frame building X 11. Is public housing available? F. Pump, Pipe, Sales and Service – Owner – 6 FT X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Employees; 3200 sf metal building housing available during relocation period? G. Ellison Construction and Contracting – Owner – 4 FT X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Employees – 2300 sf metal business with brick dwelling used financial means? For business purposes. X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 6. Greensboro News and Record, Rent-A-Home of the Triad, MLS Listing. source). Services 15. Number months estimated to complete 8. There is at least one residential tenant that may require last resort housing RELOCATION? 24 11. Greensboro Housing Authority 12. Greensboro has many homes for sale in the area 14. There are available businesses sites for rent in the area

09-14-11 9/26/11

Division Right of Way Agent Date Approved by Date Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent 2 Copy Division Right of Way Office *** Note that Johnny Pitts (2 residential relocations) not included in totals. They are being relocated under advance acquisition. We have relocated Karl and Vicki Kidd (residential relocation) under advance acquisition. Note that Oak Ridge Shrubbery, Inc. may be a possible relocatee due to use of the remainder. There is also a billboard that will need to be relocated on Oak Ridge Shrubbery, Inc. (parcel owned by Cindy A. Jones) R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T R-2413A, ALTERNATIVE 4 (I-5110)

North Carolina Department of Transportation

X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN

PROJECT: 42345.1.1 COUNTY Guilford Alternate 4REV of Alternate I.D. NO.: R-2413A F.A. PROJECT NHF-0073(25) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I-73 Connector from NC 68 to west of the Greensboro Western Loop

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 5 4 9 0 1 0 0 3 5 Businesses 4 3 7 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 6 $ 0-150 0 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 33 150-250 0 Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 1 40-70M 72 250-400 4 X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 2 70-100M 84 400-600 18 X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 5 600 UP 1 100 UP 815 600 UP 117 displacement? TOTAL 5 4 1010 139 X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number) project? 3. The services are available elsewhere. X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. A. Simmons Mini Storage – Owner - 1 FT employee – 2 indicate size, type, estimated number of Metal Storage sites employees, minorities, etc. B. Simmons Well Drilling – Owner - 4 FT employees – 3500 X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Sf metal Building; shared with Friendship Labs, Inc. X 6. Source for available housing (list). C. Friendship Labs, Inc. – Tenant – 2 FT employees – share X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 3500 sf metal building with Simmons Well drilling X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? D. Kerner Cabinets – Owner – 2 FT employees – 2400 sf X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Brick building with detached garage/ workshop families? E. Rainbow Child Care – Tenant – 7 FT employees – 6000 sf X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Frame building X 11. Is public housing available? F. Pump, Pipe, Sales and Service – Owner – 6 FT X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Employees; 3200 sf metal building housing available during relocation period? G. Ellison Construction and Contracting – Owner – 4 FT X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Employees – 2300 sf metal business with brick dwelling used financial means? For business purposes. X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 6. Greensboro News and Record, Rent-A-Home of the Triad, MLS Listing. source). Services 15. Number months estimated to complete 8. There is at least one residential tenant that may require last resort housing RELOCATION? 24 11. Greensboro Housing Authority 12. Greensboro has many homes for sale in the area 14. There are available businesses sites for rent in the area

09-14-11 9/26/11

Division Right of Way Agent Date Approved by Date Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent 2 Copy Division Right of Way Office *** Note that Johnny Pitts (2 residential relocations) not included in totals. They are being relocated under advance acquisition. We have relocated Karl and Vicki Kidd (residential relocation) under advance acquisition. Note that Oak Ridge Shrubbery, Inc. may be a possible relocatee due to use of the remainder. There is also a billboard that will need to be relocated on Oak Ridge Shrubbery, Inc. (parcel owned by Cindy A. Jones) APPENDIX B Interagency Correspondence U.S. Department Atlanta Airports District Office of Transportation 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg. Federal Aviation Atlanta, GA 30337-2747 Administration P: (404) 305-7150 F: (404) 305-7155

May 10, 2011

Dr. Gregory Thorpe NC Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Dear Dr. Thorpe:

RE: Federal Aviation Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office (FAA ATL- ADO) Comments on Proposed TIP No. I-5110

We reviewed the information in your April 04, 2011 letter which requested information from our office to assist you in completing your National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis process for TIP No I-5110. You specifically requested that we identify any FAA permitting or approval requirements that must be met in association with your proposed action.

Your correspondence indicates that Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) is in close proximity to your proposed project. Accordingly, we are responding with two areas of FAA concern:

1) Hazardous wildlife attractants on and near airports are of great concern to the FAA. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, provides our guidance on this subject. We note that your project will likely require storm water management facilities and may require stream bank and/or wetland mitigation in association with permitting actions that may be necessary to support your proposed project. Your NEPA analysis should ensure that all elements of the project design and construction, including proposed mitigation, consider and incorporate the guidance found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B to ensure no hazards to aviation are created by you proposed project.

2) If your organization is planning to sponsor any construction or alterations which may affect navigable airspace, you must file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the FAA (See https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp). The requirements for filing with the FAA for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference 14 CFR Part 77.9. 1 Based on the preliminary information provided in your letter, we have made clear the areas that would cause our office to have concerns with regard to environmental impacts from your proposed action and alternatives. Our office would like to be added to your distribution list to remain informed so that if the proposed action or alternatives change in a way that would cause us additional concerns, we can notify you.

As always, please contact me if you wish to discuss our comments or if you have any questions, at [email protected] or (404) 305-7152.

Sincerely,

Dana L. Perkins Environmental Program Manager

Cc: Mr. Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, NC DOT Project development and Environmental Analysis, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Mr. Mickie Elmore, Director of Development, Piedmont Triad Airport Authority P.O. Box 35445, Greensboro, NC 27425 Rick Barkes/Jennifer Fuller, NCDOT Division of Aviation, 1560 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1560

2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI,JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY

February 28, 2011

MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants

FROM: Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, Project Planning Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes – Project Scoping Meeting (under the streamlining process) for I-73, from NC 68 to west of Greensboro Western Loop, Greensboro, Guilford County, FA No. NHF-0073(25), WBS No. 42345.1.1, TIP No. I-5110

A Project Scoping Meeting was held February 9, 2011 at NCDOT for the proposed I-73 Connector, from NC 68 to Bryan Boulevard, West of the Greensboro Western Loop in Guilford County, TIP No. I-5110. The following representatives attended the meeting.

Andrew Williams USACE Chris Militscher USEPA – Raleigh Gary Jordan USFWS Travis Wilson NCWRC Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO – NCDCR Amy Simes NCDENR Amy Euliss NCDWQ Kevin Baker Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Mickey Elmore Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Larry Allen Michael Baker Engineering Ahmad Al-Sharawneh NCDOT – PD&EA Derrick Weaver NCDOT – PD&EA Steve Cummings NCDOT – Utility Coordination Ed Reams NCDOT – Utility Coordination Michael Abuya NCDOT – Transportation Planning Branch Paul Schroeder NCDOT – Transportation Planning Branch Wayne Davis NCDOT – Transportation Planning Branch Mohammed Mulla NCDOT – Geotechnical Unit Patty Eason NCDOT – Division 7 Mike Mills NCDOT – Division 7 Clarence Coleman FHWA MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT/PE/ RALEIGH NC 27601 RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 TIP No. I-5110 Page 2

Joe Geigle FHWA Donna Dancausse FHWA Felix Davila FHWA Unwanna Dabney FHWA Mary Pope Furr NCDOT – HEU Drew Joyner NCDOT – HEU Lee Ann Billington NCDOT – HEU Herman Huang NCDOT – HEU Randy Henegar NCDOT – Hydraulics Roger Thomas NCDOT – Roadway Design Jason Talley NCDOT – Roadway Design Tony Houser NCDOT – Roadway Design Dan Holderman NCDOT – Bridge Management Unit Mark Staley NCDOT – Roadside Environmental Unit Trace Howell NCDOT – Roadside Environmental Unit John Shoemaker NCDOT – Right of Way Branch Craig McKinney Greensboro DOT/MPO Scott Davis Axiom Environmental Eric Midkiff NCDOT – PD&EA Steve Brown NCDOT – PD&EA Karen Capps NCDOT – PD&EA Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT – NEU Erica McLamb NCDOT – NEU Clarence Bunting NCDOT – Congestion Management Jessica Kuse NCDOT – Transportation Value Management John A. Nigro NCDOT – Utility Coordination Mark Reep Florence & Hutcheson Clay Oliver Florence & Hutcheson

The meeting began with an introduction on the purpose of the scoping meeting from Andrew Williams. Ahmad Al-Sharawneh stated to the meeting participants that the I-73 Connector is one of the pilot projects to discuss the streamlining process. Meeting attendees then introduced themselves.

The purpose of the proposed I-73 Connector is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. This will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region. The project needs includes the following:

 I-73 is a National Highway System corridor from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.  ISTEA of 1991 established the I-73/ 74 North-South Corridor as “Congressional High Priority Corridor 5.”  I-73 is proposed to follow the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (TIP Project R-2413) and join US 220 northwest of Greensboro. TIP No. I-5110 Page 3

 There is no freeway in place to link the existing and future portions of I-73 in this area.

Four options were developed in a 2008 feasibility study for the I-73 Connector (FS-0507A). These included using the following routes:

 Concept 1 – Follows Project R-2413 & Adds New Connector to Bryan Blvd to I-73/ I-840  Concept 2 – Follows Project R-2413, Upgrade NC 68 as Freeway to I-40 to I-73/ I-840  Concept 3 – Upgrade US 220 as Freeway to I-73/ I-840  Concept 4 – Follows Project R-2413 & Adds New Connector to Bryan Blvd to I-73/ I-840

Concept 2 was not recommended because of high costs and impacts to the human environment. It would require upgrading NC 68 to a fully controlled access freeway facility and a freeway to freeway interchange at I-40. These upgrades would affect commercial development, particularly at the NC 68/ I-40 interchange. Concept 3 was not considered feasible. It would require reconstructing US 220 from a non-controlled access highway with many signalized intersections to a fully controlled access freeway with interchanges. Concepts 1 & 4 were considered feasible and have been used as a starting point for the preliminary I-5110 project alternatives.

The following is a summary of the topics discussed during the meeting.

 Five preliminary alternatives (Alternatives 1-5) and their potential effects were presented for the project. Alternatives 1 and 2 are eliminated from further consideration because they do not satisfy FHWA’s interchange spacing requirements for an interstate facility and they have substantial stream impacts. Alternative 5 is also eliminated because of its stream impacts. Alternatives 3 and 4 have less impact to natural systems. Alternative 3 has the greatest impact to residences.  There was some discussion on whether this was a merger project. It was determined that we would follow the merger process, but that it may be a modified process.  Amy Euliss of the NCDWQ asked for the purpose and need to include more information describing the purpose of the I-73 corridor.  Agency representatives agreed to sign Concurrence Point 1 form once information on the need for the national I-73 corridor is added to the Purpose and Need for I-5110.  There were questions about whether system linkage should be the sole purpose of the project, but after further input from NCDOT and FHWA, the merger team had no additional concerns.  There were concerns that I-5110 may not be an ideal candidate for the Environmental Streamlining process since so much information is available relating to alternatives to carry forward, and possibly a preferred alternative. NCDOT has decided to keep this as a candidate project. TIP No. I-5110 Page 4

 Agency representatives commented that the alternatives documentation from the feasibility study should be summarized as background in the I-5110 environmental document.  Chris Militscher of EPA proposed Alternatives 3 and 4 to be the detailed study alternatives carried forward for this project. This would enable two alternatives to be presented in the USACOE public interest review. The agency representatives agreed.  Amy Euliss of the NCDWQ is concerned that Alternative 3 would not seem to be a fair comparison with Alternative 4 since Alternative 3 would require more substantial changes to the R-2413 design that would already be impacted with that construction. However, Chris Militscher noted that the R-2413 project has proceeded through the merger process and the environmental documents have been approved (Environmental Assessment in 1993, FONSI in 1995, and a reevaluation of both in 2009), so its impacts should be considered as if already in place.  The Historic Preservation Office commented that there is no information in their files to indicate the presence of historic architectural or archaeological resources. As a result, no additional historic or archaeological investigations are recommended.  Gary Jordan of USFWS noted that the alternative impact comparison table in the scoping package should be corrected to indicate that critical habitat or species under ESA are not within the study area.  The next meeting with the agency representatives will likely be to discuss avoidance and minimization at a field meeting, unless the impacts presented change.

Action Items:

 NCDOT will revise the concurrence forms as described above and email these to the merger team for review and concurrence.

CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS: This summary is the writer’s interpretation of the events, discussions, and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please inform me at [email protected] or Mark Reep at [email protected] within seven (7) days.

AAS/cdo CC: File

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI,JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY

August 11, 2011

MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants

FROM: Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, Project Planning Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes – Merger Team Meeting to revisit CP 2 (under the streamlining process) for I-73, from NC 68 to west of Greensboro Western Loop, Greensboro, Guilford County, FA No. NHF-0073(25), WBS No. 42345.1.1, TIP No. I-5110

A Merger Team Meeting was held July 20, 2011 at NCDOT for the proposed I-73 Connector, from NC 68 to Bryan Boulevard, West of the Greensboro Western Loop in Guilford County, TIP No. I-5110. The following representatives attended the meeting.

Andrew Williams USACE Chris Militscher USEPA – Raleigh Gary Jordan USFWS Travis Wilson NCWRC Amy Simes NCDENR Amy Euliss NCDWQ Kevin Baker Piedmont Triad Airport Authority Larry Allen Michael Baker Engineering Ahmad Al-Sharawneh NCDOT – PD&EA Nazia Sarder NCDOT – PD&EA Ed Reams NCDOT – Utility Coordination Michael Abuya NCDOT – Transportation Planning Branch Paul Schroeder NCDOT – Transportation Planning Branch John Frye NCDOT – Structure Design Unit Patty Eason NCDOT – Division 7 Mike Mills NCDOT – Division 7 Michael Fox NC Board of Transportation Felix Davila FHWA Jamille Robbins NCDOT – HEU Tris Ford NCDOT – HEU Randy Henegar NCDOT – Hydraulics

MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-707-6000 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-707-6052 CENTURY CENTER BUILDING A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT/PE/ RALEIGH NC 27610 RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 TIP No. I-5110 Page 2

Jason Talley NCDOT – Roadway Design Tony Houser NCDOT – Roadway Design Mark Staley NCDOT – Roadside Environmental Unit Hardee Cox NCDOT – Project Management Unit Craig McKinney Greensboro DOT/MPO Eric Midkiff NCDOT – PD&EA Greg Thorpe NCDOT – PD&EA Karen Capps NCDOT – PD&EA Phil Harris NCDOT – NEU Missy Pair NCDOT – PD&EA Doumit Ishak NCDOT – Congestion Management John A. Nigro NCDOT – Utility Coordination Mark Reep Florence & Hutcheson

The meeting began with an introduction from Andrew Williams. He noted that the purpose of the meeting was to review additional project information and revisit Concurrence Point (CP) 2 (alternatives to be carried forward). Ahmad Al-Sharawneh provided a brief history and asked the meeting attendees to introduce themselves.

The following is a summary of the topics discussed during the meeting.

• The Merger Team previously concurred with CP 1 (purpose and need) and CP 2 after the Project Scoping Meeting on February 9, 2011. Of five alternatives presented during that meeting, the merger team agreed to carry Alternatives 3 and 4 forward for detailed study. After the Scoping Meeting, local officials and airport representatives requested NCDOT consider an alternative that includes direct access to the airport from the south. FHWA and NCDOT reconsidered Alternative 1 and determined its interchange connections with NC 68 and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (Project R-2413) would not violate interchange spacing requirements for an interstate facility. NCDOT developed a functional design for Alternative 1. The proposed ramps and loops function as a single interchange rather than two separate interchanges. The potential impacts for I-5110 with Alternative 1 are similar to those of Alternative 4. NCDOT recommended Alternative 1 for further study, and the Merger Team concurred.

• NCDOT reviewed the traffic operations and prepared a conceptual design for Alternative 3. Two interchanges would be required to join I-5110 with Project R-2413 and NC 68. These would result in a large footprint that would have a substantial impact to the human and natural environments. NCDOT recommended eliminating Alternative 3 from further study, and the Merger Team concurred.

• NCDOT developed a functional design for Alternative 4. The interchange with NC 68 has been revised to better serve future traffic volumes. The diamond interchange has been revised to include loops that enable only right turn movements, eliminating traffic backups onto future I-73. Amy Euliss, of the Division of Water Quality and Andrew Williams of the Corps of Engineers asked if Alternative 4 was selected by the Merger Team as the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), would NCDOT construct Alternative 4. NCDOT responded that they would construct TIP No. I-5110 Page 3

Alternative 4 if it was selected as the LEDPA. It was noted that this alternative is not as desirable because it would require longer commutes to the airport, and it would require design modifications to Project R-2413. However, NCDOT recommends Alternative 4 as a viable alternative that should be carried forward for further study. The Merger Team concurred.

• Public input will be obtained during an upcoming Citizens Informational Workshop to be scheduled in the next few months.

Action Items:

• NCDOT will circulate the concurrence form to all the merger team members for review and concurrence.

CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS: This summary is the writer’s interpretation of the events, discussions, and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please inform me at [email protected] or Mark Reep at [email protected] within seven (7) days.

AAS/mlr CC: File APPENDIX C Traffic Noise Analysis TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS

I-73 Connector, New Construction from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Loop Guilford County

WBS Element No. 42345.1.1 TIP Project No. I-5110

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

Submitted By:

Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group

October 14, 2011 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS

I-73 Connector, New Construction from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Loop Guilford County

WBS Element No. 42345.1.1 TIP Project No. I-5110

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

Submitted By:

Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group

______Gregory A. Smith, PE Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor

______Joseph A. Rauseo Acoustic Engineer Executive Summary

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes constructing a connector from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Loop in Guilford County (refer to Figure 1). This project is included in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as TIP Project I-5110. The purpose of the I-73 Connector is to complete a missing link in the I- 73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of the I-73 in the Greensboro area. The existing speed limits within the project limits vary between 35 miles per hour on Pleasant Ridge Road to 55 miles per hour on NC 68.

Final project design is not complete at the time of this analysis. The preferred alternative of the I-73 Connector will be a full control of access highway facility.

Traffic noise impacts and temporary construction noise impacts can be a consequence of transportation projects. This Traffic Noise Analysis utilized computer models created with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict future noise levels and define impacted receptors along the proposed highway project. Existing traffic noise does not impact any receptors in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project. Design Year 2035 No- build traffic noise is not predicted to create any traffic noise impacts. Design Year 2035 Build Alternative traffic noise is predicted to create impacts to 5 third-floor apartment residences in the Allerton Place Apartment community. All Design Year 2035 traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur as a result of loudest-hour equivalent noise levels that will meet or exceed NCDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) thresholds.

Furthermore, construction noise impacts – some of them potentially extreme – may occur due to the close proximity of numerous noise-sensitive receptors to project construction activities. It is the recommendation of this traffic noise analysis that all reasonable efforts be made to minimize exposure of noise-sensitive areas to construction noise impacts.

Consideration for noise abatement measures was given to all impacted receptors. Noise abatement measures will not be reasonable for the benefit of the I-73 Connector project predicted traffic noise impacts due to the presence of two dominant traffic noise sources. Consequently, no traffic noise abatement measures are recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed for incorporation into the project plans.

i Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Project Location and Description 1 2.0 Procedure 1 3.0 Characteristics of Noise 1 4.0 Noise Abatement Criteria 4 4.1 Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR 772) 4 4.2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy 5 4.3 Noise Abatement Criteria 5 5.0 Ambient Noise Levels 7 6.0 Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 8 7.0 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours 9 8.0 Potential Traffic Noise Abatement Measures 10 8.1 Highway Alignment Selection 10 8.2 Traffic System Management Measures 11 8.3 Buffer Zones 11 8.4 Proper Use of Land Controls 11 8.5 Noise Barriers 11 9.0 Construction Noise 12 10.0 Conclusion 13 11.0 References 15

Figures Appendix A: Ambient Noise Level Monitoring Appendix B: Hourly Equivalent Traffic Noise Level Tables Appendix C: Traffic Noise Models Appendix D: Noise Barrier Analyses Appendix EF: Predicted Traffic Volumes Appendix F: North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy

ii List of Tables Table Title Page 1 Comparison: Flat vs. A-Weighted Frequency Scaling 2 2 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels 3 3 Noise Abatement Criteria 6 4 NCDOT “Substantial Increase” Noise Impact Criteria 7 5 Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Vehicle Classification Types 8 6 Traffic Noise Impact Summary 10 7 Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level Emissions 14

A-1 I-73 Connector Project Ambient Hourly-Equivalent Sound Levels, Leq(h) A.1 A-2 I-73 Connector Project Noise Monitoring Sessions Weather Data A.1 B-1 Noise Sensitive Receptors and Hourly Equivalent Noise Levels B.1 C-1 I-73 Connector Project TNM Validation Table C.2

List of Figures Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Traffic Noise Receptor Locations 3 Traffic Noise Receptor Locations 4 Traffic Noise Receptor Locations

iii Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County Traffic Noise Analysis

I-73 Connector from NC 68 To the Greensboro Western Loop

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes constructing a new connector from NC 68 to the Greensboro Western Loop in Guilford County (refer to Figure 1). This project is included in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as TIP Project I-5110. The proposed typical roadway section is a four lane divided freeway with a seventy-foot median, four-foot median paved shoulders and twelve-foot full-depth outside paved shoulders. The existing speed limits within the project limits vary between 35 miles per hour on Pleasant Ridge Road to 55 miles per hour on NC 68. The posted speed limit on the I- 73 Connector will be 70 miles per hour.

Final project design is not complete at the time of this analysis. The preferred alternative of the I-73 Connector will be a full control of access highway facility.

Based upon the presently available project description, mitigation measures, as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, are preliminarily considered feasible; however, not reasonable for the benefit of the predicted traffic noise impacts in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project. The recommendation of this Traffic Noise Analysis is that additional detailed study of potential mitigation measures during project final design is not necessary for the I-73 Connector project.

2.0 PROCEDURE

This Traffic Noise Analysis represents the preliminary analyses of the probable traffic noise impacts of the I-73 Connector project (TIP I-5110).

The Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model® (FHWA TNM v.2.5) was used to predict existing and Design Year 2035 hourly equivalent traffic noise levels, Leq(h), for the potential noise-sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project (refer to figures 1 through 5).

3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE

Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, commercial businesses, and highway vehicles. Highway or traffic noise is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire- roadway interaction.

1 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

The magnitude of noise is usually described by a ratio of its sound pressure to a reference sound pressure, which is usually twenty micro-Pascals (20µPa). Since the range of sound pressure ratios varies greatly – over many orders of magnitude, a base-10 logarithmic scale is used to express sound levels in dimensionless units of decibels (dB). The commonly accepted limits of detectable human hearing sound magnitudes is between the threshold of hearing at 0 decibels and the threshold of pain at 140 decibels.

Sound frequencies are represented units of Hertz (Hz), which correspond to the number of vibrations per second of a given tone. A cumulative ‘sound level’ is equivalent to ten times the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of the sum of the sound pressures of all frequencies to the reference sound pressure. To simplify the mathematical process of determining sound levels, sound frequencies are grouped into ranges, or ‘bands.’ Sound levels are then calculated by adding the cumulative sound pressure levels within each band – which are typically defined as one ‘octave’ or ‘1/3 octave’ of the sound frequency spectrum.

The commonly accepted limitation of human hearing to detect sound frequencies is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and human hearing is most sensitive to the frequencies between 1,000 Hz – 6,000 Hz. Although people are generally not as sensitive to lower-frequency sounds as they are to higher frequencies, most people lose the ability to hear high-frequency sounds as they age. To accommodate varying receptor sensitivities, frequency sound levels are commonly adjusted, or ‘filtered’, before being logarithmically added and reported as a single ‘sound level’ magnitude of that filtering scale. The A-weighted decibel filtering scale applies numerical adjustments to sound frequencies to emphasize the frequencies at which human hearing is sensitive, and to minimize the frequencies to which human hearing is not as sensitive (refer to Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison: Flat vs. A-Weighted Frequency Scaling Sample Frequency Octave-Band Center A-Weighted Sample Frequency Sound Levels Frequency (Hz) Adjustment1 Sound Levels (Flat) (A-Weighted) 31 -39.53 90.00 50.47 63 -26.22 80.00 53.78 125 -16.19 70.00 53.81 250 -8.68 65.00 56.32 500 -3.25 60.00 56.75 1000 0.00 60.00 60.00 2000 +1.20 60.00 61.20 4000 +0.96 55.00 55.96 8000 -1.14 50.00 48.86 16000 -6.7 45.00 38.30 Overall Sound Levels: 90.48 dB2 66.32 dB(A)2 1. Based on the ISO 226:2003 standard for normal equal-loudness contours, the A-weighted decibel network filtering scale is 2 4 2 2 2 defined for a frequency, f, by the equation: 20 x log10 (A(f) / A (1000)), where A(f) = [12,200 x f ] / [(f + 20.6 ) x (f + 12,2002) x (f2 + 107.72)0.5 x (f2 + 737.92)0.5]. 2. Although the energy in the flat sound source would create an actual sound level = 90.48 dB, it would be perceived as a sound level of 66.32 dB(A) by human hearing due to the decreased sensitivity of human hearing to lower sound frequencies.

2 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

The A-weighted scale is commonly used in highway traffic noise studies because the typical frequency spectrum of traffic noise is higher in magnitude at the frequencies at which human hearing is most sensitive (1,000 Hz to 6,000 Hz).

Several examples of noise levels expressed in dB(A) are listed in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis. In order to perceive sounds of greatly varying pressure levels, human hearing has a non-linear sensitivity to sound pressure exposure. For example, doubling the sound pressure results in a three decibel change in the noise level; however, variations of three decibels (3 dB(A)) or less are commonly considered “barely perceptible” to normal human hearing. A five decibel (5 dB(A)) change is more readily noticeable. By definition, a ten-fold increase in the sound pressure level correlates to a 10 decibel (10 dB(A)) noise level increase; however, it is judged by most people as only a doubling of the loudness – sounding “twice as loud”.

Table 2: Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels Noise Level Common Outdoor Noise Levels Common Indoor Noise Levels (dB(A)) 110 Rock Band

Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Inside Subway Train (NY)

Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet Diesel Truck at 50 feet 90 Food Blender at 3 feet Noisy Urban Daytime 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Gas Lawn Mower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet 60 Large Business Office

Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room

Small Theater, Large Conference Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall Quiet Rural Nighttime (Background) 20 Broadcast and Recording Studio 10

0 Threshold of Hearing Adapted from Guide on Evaluation and Attenuation of Traffic Noise, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1974 (revised 1993).

3 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

The degree of disturbance or annoyance from exposure to unwanted sound – noise – depends upon three factors:

1. The amount, nature, and duration of the intruding noise

2. The relationship between the intruding noise and the existing (ambient) sound environment; and

3. The situation in which the disturbing noise is heard

In considering the first of these factors, it is important to note that individuals have varying sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some people more than other people, and some individuals become increasingly upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into perception as to whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises that occur during nighttime (sleeping) hours are usually considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.

With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background noise). A car horn blowing at night when background noise levels are low would generally be more objectionable than one blowing in the afternoon when background noise levels are typically higher. The response to noise stimulus is analogous to the response to turning on an interior light. During the daytime an illuminated bulb simply adds to the ambient light, but when eyes are conditioned to the dark of night, a suddenly illuminated bulb can be temporarily blinding. The third factor – situational noise – is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals. In a 60 dB(A) environment such as is commonly found in a large business office, normal conversation would be possible, while sleep might be difficult. Loud noises may easily interrupt activities that require a quiet setting for greater mental concentration or rest; however, the same loud noises may not interrupt activities requiring less mental focus or tranquility.

Over time, individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives, e.g. regularly scheduled trains or subways in a city, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.

4.0 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

4.1 Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR 772)

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. The purpose of 23 CFR, Part 772 is:

“…to provide procedures for noise studies and noise abatement

4 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

measures to help protect the public health and welfare, to supply noise abatement criteria, and to establish requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in the planning and design of highways approved pursuant to Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.).”

The abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 CFR Part 772, which also states:

“…in determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be given to exterior areas. Abatement will usually be necessary only where frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit.”

A summary of the NAC for various land uses is presented in Table 3: Noise Abatement Criteria. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as a time-varying sound level during the same period. With regard to traffic noise, fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of Leq, the steady, or ‘equivalent’, noise level with the same energy.

4.2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy

The North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy effective July 13, 2011 establishes official policy on highway noise. This policy describes the NCDOT process that is used in determining traffic noise impacts and abatement measures and the equitable and cost-effective expenditure of public funds for traffic noise abatement. Where the FHWA has given highway agencies flexibility in implementing the 23 CFR 772 standards, this policy describes the NCDOT approach to implementation. This policy is included as Appendix G of this report.

4.3 Noise Abatement Criteria

The two categories of traffic noise impacts are defined as 1) those that “approach” or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), as shown in Table 3, and 2) those that represent a “substantial increase” over existing noise levels as defined by NCDOT. An impact that represents a “substantial increase” is based on a comparison of the existing noise level [Leq(h)] with the predicted increase with respect to a change to noise levels in the design year of between 10 and 15 dB(A) or more, as shown in Table 4.

5 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

Table 3: Noise Abatement Criteria

Hourly Equivalent A-Weighted Sound Level (decibels (dB(A))

Activity Activity Evaluation Criteria1 Activity Description Category 2 Location Leq(h) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where A 57 Exterior the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B 3 67 Exterior Residential

Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, daycare centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of C 3 67 Exterior worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings

Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public D 52 Interior or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios

Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other E 3 72 Exterior developed lands, properties or activities not included in A- D or F Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging maintenance facilities, manufacturing, F -- -- mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing

G -- -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted

1 The Leq(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. 2 The equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period, with Leq(h) being the hourly value of Leq. 3 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.

6 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

Table 4: NCDOT “Substantial Increase” Noise Impact Criteria

Hourly Equivalent A-Weighted Sound Level (decibels (dB(A))

Existing Noise Level1 Predicted Design Year Noise Level 2 (Leq(h)) Increase (Leq(h)) 50 or less 15 or more 51 14 or more 52 13 or more 53 12 or more 54 11 or more 55 or more 10 or more 1 Loudest hourly equivalent noise level from the combination of natural and mechanical sources and human activity usually present in a particular area. 2 Predicted hourly equivalent Design Year traffic noise level minus existing noise level.

5.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS

Ambient noise is that noise which is all around us caused by natural and manmade events. It includes our household gadgets, commercial operations, grass mowing, and natural events such as the sounds of wind and thunderstorms. It is noise that is considered to be typically present in a particular area.

Existing traffic noise exposure is relatively unvarying in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project. NC 68 traffic noise is the dominant noise source for receptors adjacent and in close proximity to the existing highway facility. At increased distances from the highway, the influence of NC 68 traffic noise decreases. Due to the prevalent volumes and speeds, NC 68 traffic is the dominant noise source for most receptors throughout the study area; however, both local traffic and non-traffic noise sources are audible.

Ambient noise monitoring data was collected at 2 receptor locations for this traffic noise analysis. Existing traffic noise levels were assessed at 36 modeled receptor locations to represent the Allerton Place apartment community residences with direct exposure to the I-73 Connector project. Second- and third-floor receptors were modeled at 15 and 25 feet above ground elevation, respectively. For this traffic noise analysis, and in accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, existing noise levels are assessed as the louder of either the TNM-predicted loudest-hour traffic noise levels, or the ambient noise levels obtained at representative locations in the field.1

1 Per 23 CFR 772.5, existing noise levels are defined by “the worst noise hour resulting from the combination of natural and mechanical sources and human activity usually present in a particular area.” If the TNM-predicted existing loudest-hour traffic noise levels are lower than the hourly-equivalent noise levels obtained in the field, then existing noise levels are assessed as the latter. 7 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

6.0 PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS

Traffic noise emission is composed of several variables, including the number, types, and travel speeds of the vehicles, as well as the geometry of the roadway(s) on which the vehicles travel. Additionally, variables such as weather and intervening topography affect the transmission of traffic noise from the vehicle(s) to noise sensitive receptors.

In accordance with industry standards and accepted best-practices, detailed computer models were created using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model® (FHWA TNM v.2.5). Predicted traffic noise levels were validated to within ±1.7 dB(A) at the two ambient noise monitoring receptor locations, and the validated TNM models were used to predict traffic noise levels at 36 modeled receptor locations in the vicinity of the two I-73 Connector project Build-Condition alternatives.

Traffic noise consists of three primary parts: tire noise, engine noise, and exhaust noise. Of these sources, tire noise is typically the most offensive at unimpeded travel speeds. Sporadic traffic noises such as horns, squealing brakes, screeching tires, etc. are considered aberrant and are not included within the predictive model algorithm. Traffic noise is not constant; it varies in time depending upon the number, speed, type, and frequency of vehicles that pass by a given receptor. Furthermore, since traffic noise emissions are different for various types of vehicles, the TNM algorithm distinguishes between the source emissions from the following vehicle types: automobiles, medium trucks, heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles, as shown in Table 5. The computer traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressions, elevations, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier segment top elevations.

Table 5: Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Vehicle Classification Types

TNM Vehicle Description Type

All vehicles with two axles and four tires, including passenger Autos cars and light trucks, weighing 10,000 pounds or less Medium All vehicles having two axles and six tires, weighing between Trucks 10,000 and 26,000 pounds All vehicles having three or more axles, weighing more than Heavy Trucks 26,000 pounds

Buses All vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers

All vehicles with two or three tires and an open-air driver / Motorcycles passenger compartment Sources: FHWA Measurement of Highway-Related Noise, § 5.1.3 Vehicle Types. FHWA Traffic Monitoring Guide, § 4.1 Classification Schemes

8 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

Preliminary project plans of the presently considered design alternative were used in this traffic noise analysis. Per FHWA guidance, the predictions documented in this report are based upon the potential project Design Year 2035 Build Alternative traffic conditions resulting in the loudest predicted hourly-equivalent traffic noise levels for each receptor. Refer to Appendix B for a comprehensive list of traffic noise level receptors, and existing and predicted Design Year 2035 hourly equivalent traffic noise levels.

7.0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE CONTOURS

Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dB(A) of the NAC values listed in Table 3 on page 6), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels (refer to Table 4, on page 7). FHWA and NCDOT require that feasible and reasonable measures be considered to abate traffic noise at all predicted traffic noise impacts. Measures considered include highway alignment selection, traffic systems management, vegetation, buffer zones, proper use of land controls, noise walls, and earth berms.

Traffic noise impacts and temporary construction noise impacts can be a consequence of transportation projects. This Traffic Noise Analysis utilized computer models created with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict future noise levels and define impacted receptors along the proposed highway project. NC 68 is the dominant Existing- condition traffic noise source. Existing traffic noise does not impact any receptors in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project. Design Year 2035 No-build traffic noise is not predicted to create any traffic noise impacts. Other than the Allerton Place apartment community, all noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project will be acquired by right-of-way. Design Year 2035 Build Alternative traffic noise is predicted to create impacts to 5 apartment residences in the Allerton Place apartment community, all of which are third-floor residences, and all of which are predicted to occur as a result of loudest- hour equivalent noise levels that will meet or exceed NCDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) thresholds.

Predicted Build Alternative traffic noise level contours are not a definitive means by which to assess traffic noise level impacts; however, they can aid in future land use planning efforts in presently undeveloped areas. Correlating to the traffic noise impact thresholds for FHWA NAC “E” land uses, and to NAC “B” and “C” land uses, at ground-elevations, the proposed NC 68 highway will generate traffic noise levels equal to 71 dB(A) and 66 dB(A) at 157 feet and 247 feet, respectively, from the centerline of the proposed NC 68 alignment in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector. Per 23 CFR 772.9(c) and NCDOT Policy, noise contour lines shall not be used for determining highway traffic noise impacts. However, the 71 dB(A) and 66 dB(A) noise level contour information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands, so as to avoid development of incompatible activities adjacent to the roadways within local jurisdiction.

9 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

Table 6: Traffic Noise Impact Summary1

APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED SUBST’L IMPACTS TOTAL RECEPTORS APPROACHING NOISE DUE TO IMPACTS ALT. DESC. OR EXCEEDING FHWA NAC2 LEVEL BOTH PER 23 INCR.3 CRITERIA4 CFR 772 A B C D5 E F G

Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0

No-Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

1. This table presents the number of Build-Condition traffic noise impacts as predicted for the Build- Condition alternative and No-Build alternative presently under consideration. Refer to Appendix B for a detailed analysis of traffic noise impacts at each noise sensitive receptor location. 2. Predicted traffic noise level impact due to approaching or exceeding NAC (refer to Table 3, pg 6). 3. Predicted “substantial increase” traffic noise level impact (refer to Table 4, pg 7). 4. Predicted traffic noise level impact due to exceeding NAC and “substantial increase” in Build- Condition noise levels. 5. The total number of predicted impacts is not duplicated if receptors are predicted to be impacted by more than one criterion.

8.0 POTENTIAL TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES

FHWA and NCDOT require that feasible and reasonable measures be considered to mitigate noise impacts at the impacted receptors. Noise abatement measures must be considered for all receptors that are predicted to experience a noise impact. Measures considered include highway alignment selection, traffic systems management, vegetation, buffer zones, proper use of land controls, noise walls, and earth berms.

8.1 Highway Alignment Selection

Highway alignment selection for traffic noise abatement measures involves modifying the horizontal and vertical geometry of the proposed facility to minimize traffic noise to noise- sensitive receptors. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, highway alignment selection is primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient horizontal distance and vertical offset from noise sensitive receptors. Appreciable reductions in traffic noise transmissions to sensitive receptors can be made by adjusting the vertical highway alignment and/or section geometry. For example, lowering a roadway below existing grade creates a cut section which could act as an earth berm, depending upon the relative location(s) of noise-sensitive receptor(s). For the I-73 Connector project, alternative selection will not have an appreciable effect upon the number or magnitude of traffic noise impacts.

10 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

8.2 Traffic System Management Measures

Traffic management measures such as prohibition of truck traffic, lowering speed limits, limiting of traffic volumes, and/or limiting time of operation were considered as possible traffic noise impact abatement measures. The purpose of the I-73 Connector project is to join existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. Prohibition of truck traffic, reduction of the speed limit below the existing and proposed 70 miles per hour, or screening total traffic volumes would diminish the functional capacity of the highway facility and are not considered practicable.

8.3 Buffer Zones

Buffer zones are typically not practical and/or cost effective for noise mitigation due to the substantial amount of right-of-way required, and would not be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. Furthermore, if the acquisition of a suitable buffer zone had been feasible, the associated costs would exceed the NCDOT Policy reasonable abatement allowable abatement measure quantity threshold per benefited receptor.

8.4 Proper Use of Land Controls

One of the most effective means to prevent future traffic noise impacts is the proper use of land controls. As indicated in the July 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, local jurisdictions with zoning control should use the information contained in this report to develop policies and/or ordinances to encourage noise-compatible land uses in areas adjacent to the project; however, regulation of land use is not within the purview of FHWA or NCDOT.

8.5 Noise Barriers

Passive noise abatement measures are effective because they absorb sound energy, extend the source-to-receptor sound transmission path, or both. Sound absorption is a function of abatement medium (e.g. earth berms absorb more sound energy than comparably tall concrete sound barriers because earth berms are significantly more massive). The source-to-receptor path is extended by placement of an obstacle – such as a concrete wall – that blocks the transmission of sound waves except for those waves that travel from the source, over the obstacle, and to the receptor.

Highway sound barriers are primarily constructed as earth berms or solid-mass walls adjacent to limited-access freeways that are in close proximity to noise-sensitive land use(s). To be effective, a sound barrier must be long enough and tall enough to shield the impacted receptor(s). Generally, the noise wall length must be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, if a receptor is 200 feet from the roadway, an effective barrier would be approximately 1,600 feet long – with the receptor in the horizontal center. Due to the requisite lengths for effectiveness, sound barriers are typically not economical for isolated or most low-density areas. On facilities where access is allowed for driveways, openings will be needed in the walls. An access opening of 40 feet in a 400-foot wall will make the wall ineffective.

11 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

The proposed I-73 Connector and NC 68 traffic will both contribute appreciably to nearby Design Year 2035 Build Alternative noise levels. The optimal noise level reduction from a traffic sound barrier would occur by means of attenuating the I-73 Connector traffic noise; however, the maximum noise level reduction that would occur at any of the 5 predicted impacted receptors would be 5 decibels (5 dB(A)). Although a 5 dB(A) noise level reduction at one impacted receptor would satisfy NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy feasibility criteria, it would not meet the minimum 7 dB(A) noise level reduction design goal for at least one impacted receptor. Unless additional design alternatives are considered, further investigation of potential traffic noise mitigation measures is not warranted in conjunction with the I-73 Connector project.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE

The predominant construction activities associated with this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. Temporary and localized construction noise impacts will likely occur as a result of these activities (refer to table 7). During daytime hours, the predicted effects of these impacts will be temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project. During evening and nighttime hours, steady-state construction noise emissions such as from paving operations will be audible, and may cause impacts to activities such as sleep. Sporadic evening and nighttime construction equipment noise emissions such as from backup alarms, lift gate closures (“slamming” of dump truck gates), etc., will be perceived as distinctly louder than the steady-state acoustic environment, and will likely cause severe impacts to the general peace and usage of noise- sensitive areas – particularly residences, hospitals, and hotels.

Relatively loud construction noise activities such as usage of pile-drivers and impact-hammers (jack hammer, hoe-ram) will create sporadic, temporary, and significant construction noise impacts in the near vicinity of those activities (refer to table 7).

Generally, low-cost and easily implemented construction noise control measures should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications (e.g. work-hour limits, equipment exhaust muffler requirements, haul-road locations, elimination of “tail gate banging”, ambient-sensitive backup alarms, construction noise complaint mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community communication / rapport).

While discrete construction noise level prediction is difficult for a particular receiver or group of receivers, it can be assessed in a general capacity with respect to distance from known or likely project activities. For this project, pile-driving, earth removal, grading, hauling, and paving is anticipated to occur in the near vicinity of numerous noise-sensitive receptors. Although construction noise impact mitigation should not place an undue burden upon the financial cost of the project or the project construction schedule, pursuant to the requirements of 23 CFR 772.19, it is the recommendation of this traffic noise analysis that:

• Earth removal, grading, hauling, and paving activities in the vicinity of residences should be limited to weekday daytime hours.

12 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

• If meeting the project schedule requires that earth removal, grading, hauling and / or paving must occur during evening, nighttime and / or weekend hours in the vicinity of residences, the Contractor shall notify NCDOT as soon as possible. In such instance(s), all reasonable attempts shall be made to notify and to make appropriate arrangements for the mitigation of the predicted construction noise impacts upon the affected property owners and / or residents.

• If construction noise activities must occur during context-sensitive hours in the vicinity of noise-sensitive areas, discrete construction noise abatement measures including, but not limited to portable noise barriers and / or other equipment-quieting devices shall be considered.

10.0 CONCLUSION

Traffic noise and temporary construction noise impacts can be a consequence of transportation projects, especially in areas in close proximity to high-volume and high-speed existing steady-state traffic noise sources. This Traffic Noise Analysis utilized computer models created with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict future noise levels and define impacted receptors along the proposed project.

Existing traffic noise does not create impacts to noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project. All Design Year 2035 traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur as a result of loudest-hour equivalent noise levels that will meet or exceed NCDOT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) thresholds. There are zero (0) and five (5) predicted Design Year 2035 traffic noise impacts for the No-Build and Build Alternatives, respectively.

Consideration for noise abatement measures was given to all impacted receptors. While densely-spaced traffic noise impacts can increase the likelihood of providing noise abatement measures, such measures will not be feasible in the vicinity of the I-73 Connector project due to the existence of more than one significant traffic noise source. Furthermore, construction noise impacts may occur due to the close proximity of numerous noise-sensitive receptors to project construction activities.

Although they may meet NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy feasibility criteria, no traffic noise abatement measures will meet the applicable reasonableness criteria. Consequently, no traffic noise abatement measures are recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed for incorporation into the project plans. It is the recommendation of this traffic noise analysis that all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize exposure of noise-sensitive areas to construction noise impacts through project special provisions. This analysis completes the traffic noise requirements of the Title 23 CFR Part 772 and NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. Unless modifications to presently considered alignments occur, additional alignments are considered, or significant changes to Design Year 2035 traffic volumes are predicted, no additional noise reports are necessary for this project.

13 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

Table 7: Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level Emissions1 Noise Level Emissions (dB(A)) at 50 Feet From Equipment2 Equipment 70 80 90 100

Pile Driver

Jack Hammer

Tractor

Road Grader

Backhoe

Truck

Paver

Pneumatic Wrench

Crane

Concrete Mixer

Compressor

Front-End Loader

Generator

Saws

Roller (Compactor)

1. Adapted from Noise Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. 1971. 2. Cited noise level ranges are typical for the equipment cited. Noise energy dissipates as a function of distance between the source and the receptor. For example, if the noise level from a pile driver at a distance of 50 feet = 100 decibels (dB(A)), then at 400 feet, it might be 82 decibels (dB(A)) or less.

For additional information on construction noise, please refer to the FHWA Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA-HEP-06-015) and the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), available online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/cnstr_ns.htm.

14 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

11.0 REFERENCES

Anderson, Grant, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. A Very Difficult TNM Quiz. July 2006.

Bowlby, W.; Wayson, R.L. Advanced Traffic Noise Modeling [proceedings of TNM version 2.0 training workshop]. Bowlby & Associates, Inc., Franklin, TN. March 11-15, 2002.

Federal Highway Administration. Analysis of Highway Construction Noise. 1984.

Federal Highway Administration. CFR 23 Part 772 – Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. [47 FR 29654, July 8, 1982; 47 FR 33956, August 5, 1982; 62 FR 42903, August 11, 1997].

Federal Highway Administration. CFR 23 Part 772 – Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. [75 FR 39820-39838, July 13, 2010].

Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. 1995.

Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis: Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C. 1992.

Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise Barrier Construction Trends. Washington, D.C. April 2006.

Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Monitoring Guide. 2008.

Lee, Cynthia S.Y. and Fleming, Gregg G. Measurement of Highway-Related Noise. U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Acoustics Facility, DTS-75. Cambridge, MA. May 1996.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. September 2004.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. July 2011.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Manual. August 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C. 1971.

15 Traffic Noise Analysis I-5110 / I-73 Connector NCDOT – October 2011 Guilford County

FIGURES ¡

End Project

Figure 4

J o s e p h M . B ry P a E n l d e t g B e a s lv f d ie a . l n d t R R o i a d d g e R o a d Figure 3

North Regional Road

Begin Project North Carolina Department Figure 2 of Transportation Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group B ri gh am R New Construction; I-73 Connector oa d Guilford County, TIP #I-5110 Figure 1 Vicinity Map Not to Scale September, 2011 Match to Figure 3 !E ¡ S R 2 01 1 - Ed g !E !E efi eld !E Ro ad !E !E !E

!E !E

!E

!E !E !E

!E

!E

Begin Project !E

!E

!E S R 2 1 3 3 -

P l e a s a

n

t !E

R

i

d

g

e

R

o

a d

North Carolina Department of Transportation Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group

B New Construction; I-73 Connector ri gh LEGEND am Guilford County, TIP #I-5110 R 0 300 600 900 oa Parcel Boundaries d Figure 2 Parcel Acquired as Right-of-way E! Feet Traffic Noise Receptor Locations Scale: 1" = 300' September, 2011 LEGEND Parcel Boundaries Match to Figure 4 ¡ Traffic Noise Receptor !( !E !E !E Impacted Traffic Noise Receptor !(

Parcel Acquired as Right-of-way !E !E

3rd Floor !( !E 2nd Floor !( 1st Floor !(

!E !E

P l !E e a s a n t

R i d g

e !E

R o a d

!E e v i r D

!E e l

a !E !E d n i a C

!E

!E

S R

2 e 1 cl 3 ir 3 C - n !E to P 0 300 600 900 r l !E e e l a l s A a Feet n t

R i d !E g R-025 - R-027 R-022 - R-024 !E e

R o 3 - R-015 !E R-01 M-1.2 a M-1.1 d R-028 - R-030 R-007 - R-009 !( !( !( North Carolina Department

!( !( !(

!( of Transportation !( !( !( !( R-031 - R-033 !( !( !( !( !E !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Human Environment Unit !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 004 - R-006 R-034 - R-036 !( R- Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group !(

R-001 - R-003 New Construction; I-73 Connector R-010 - R-012 Guilford County, TIP #I-5110 R-019 - R-021 R-016 - R-018 Match to Figure 2 ad SR 4156 - North Regional Ro Figure 3 Traffic Noise Receptor Locations Scale: 1" = 300' September, 2011 LEGEND Parcel Boundaries ¡ Parcel Acquired as Right-of-way !E

End Project

!E

t r u o !E C

h t r o

w s !E d n a l !E l o H H o ll an ds !E w o rth D !E r !E i ve

!E

!E

!E

!E

!E

!E

!E J e o v s i e r p D h

e M North Carolina Department l . !E a B of Transportation d ry n a i n Human Environment Unit a t C B lv Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group d .

!E New Construction; I-73 Connector !E Guilford County, TIP #I-5110 0 300 600 900 Figure 4 Match to Figure 3 Feet !E Traffic Noise Receptor Locations !E Scale: 1" = 300' September, 2011 APPENDIX D Public Involvement NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR THE PROPOSED I-73 CONNECTOR FROM N.C. 68 TO BRYAN BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP

TIP Project No. I-5110 Guilford County

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a citizens’ informational workshop for the above project on Monday, September 19, 2011 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. in the 7800 Concourse Building – Board Room 101, located at 7800 Airport Center Drive in Greensboro.

NCDOT proposes the construction of the I-73 Connector, a proposed new location freeway that will connect N.C. 68 (near the proposed U.S. 220/ N.C. 68 Connector – TIP Project R-2413) with Bryan Boulevard west of the Greensboro Western Loop (I-73/ I-840). The purpose of this project is to complete a missing link in the I-73 corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area.

This will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region. The 1.5-mile project will require additional right-of-way acquisition and the relocation of homes and businesses.

Citizens are invited to speak individually with NCDOT officials and to review the project area map. Aerial mapping denoting the project area will be displayed at the workshop. The opportunity to submit written comments or questions will also be provided. Comments and suggestions received will be considered during the design phase. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above mentioned hours. There will not be a formal presentation.

Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ahmad Al-Sharawneh of the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, by phone at (919) 707-6010 or via email at [email protected]. Citizens can also contact project manager Mark Reep with Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. at 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27607, via phone at (919) 851-6066 ext. 138 or via email at [email protected].

NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled persons who want to participate in this workshop. Anyone requiring special services should contact Al-Sharawneh as early as possible so that arrangements can be made. Issue 1 Guilford County September 2011 I-73 Connector Transportation Improvement Program Project No. I-5110

THIS ISSUE Why is this Project Needed? p. 1 Project Information p. 1 We Need Your Input p. 1 Alternatives Considered p. 2 Alternatives Carried Forward p. 2 Schedule p. 2 Contact Us p. 3

Boulevard will not directly connect NC Why is this 68 with the airport. This means that drivers will no longer be able to reach Project Needed? the airport from the Bryan NCDOT is on Boulevard interchange at NC 68. the Web! Access from NC 68 to the airport will The North Carolina Department of be provided further north where the Public involve- Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to I-73 Connector joins the construct the Î73 Connector to US 220/ NC 68 Connector. ment is an complete a missing link in the important part of I-73 corridor by joining the existing the planning and future portions of I-73 in the process. Greensboro area. The I-73 Connector We Need Your Input will enhance north-south mobility and The NCDOT interstate connectivity through North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad Interested citizens are invited to encourages citizen region. involvement on attend the upcoming Citizens transportation Informational Workshop for the projects, and will Project Information I-73 Connector. The purpose of consider your this workshop is to provide an suggestions and The North Carolina portion of I-73 opportunity for citizens to become generally follows US 220 and I-74. In address your familiar with the project, ask concerns. If you the Triad area, I-73 runs concurrently with US 220 from south of Greensboro questions and voice their opinions. have transportation to I-85 and along I-840 (Greensboro questions on other Western Loop) to Bryan Boulevard. Details for the workshop are as projects, call our From there, future I-73 is proposed to follows:  Customer Service follow Bryan Boulevard, the I-73 Connector, the future US 220/ NC 68 DATE: Monday, September 19th Center toll-free at Connector (NCDOT Project R-2413), 1-877-DOT- and join US 220 northwest of TIME: 4:00 to 7:00 pm 4YOU, or visit the Greensboro (see maps on pages 2 NCDOT website at and 3). LOCATION: www.ncdot.org. The I-73 Connector is a proposed 7800 Concourse Building 1.5-mile new four-lane freeway that Board Room 101 joins the future US 220/ NC 68 Connector with Bryan Boulevard at the 7800 Airport Center Drive Piedmont Triad International Airport Greensboro (PTI). The western part of Bryan

Connecting people and places in North Carolina — safely and efficiently, with accountability and environmental sensitivity. Page 1 I-73 Connector Project Newsletter

Alternatives Considered

In a 2008 feasibility study, NCDOT evaluated four concepts for the I-73 Connector. Two of the concepts included major upgrades to existing highways (US 220, NC 68, or I-40) and were not considered feasible. The other two concepts included a new highway between the US 220/ NC 68 Connector and Bryan Boulevard, west of I-73/ I-840. These were considered feasible and were used as starting point for the I-73 Connector. Five preliminary alternatives were evaluated early in the study (see the inset map for locations). Three of these (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) were eliminated from further consideration because of substantial impacts to both the human and natural environments and/ or because of engineering factors. Alternatives 1 and 4 are being studied in detail for this project because they have more desirable design features and impact fewer environmental features, residences, and businesses. Alternatives Carried Forward Alternatives 1 and 4 are being carried forward in the environmental and engineering studies for this project. Alternative 1 begins at the proposed US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It joins Bryan Boulevard west of the interchange with Old Oak Ridge Road. Ramps along the I-73 Connector south of Pleasant Ridge Road provide direct access between NC 68 and the airport. Alternative 1

I-73 Connector Schedule

Final Begin Right Environmental Public Public Begin Environmental of Way Assessment Hearing Hearing Construction Document Acquisition Winter Spring Summer Fall 2014* 2016* 2011/2012 2012 2012 2012

* Schedules are subject to funding.

Page 2 September 2011 disturbs fewer residences, businesses, streams, and wetlands than the alternatives that were eliminated. An added benefit is that it provides direct access between the airport, NC 68, and locations to the south. Alternative 4 also extends from the US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road to Bryan Boulevard west of Old Oak Ridge Road. It follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It requires drivers to travel a longer distance between the airport, NC 68, and locations to the south. Alternative 4 also disturbs fewer residences, businesses, streams, and wetlands than the alternatives that were eliminated.

Contact Us - NCDOT Would Like to Hear From You If you have questions about this project, you may write, call, or e-mail one of the following people:

Ahmad Al-Sharawneh NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Branch 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Phone: 919-707-6010 Email: [email protected]

Or

Mark Reep, P.E. Florence & Hutcheson 5121 Kingdom Way Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Phone: 919-851-6066, ext. 138 Email: [email protected]

NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this meeting. Anyone requiring special services should contact Ahmad Al-Sharawneh at (919) 707-6010 as early as possible so that arrangements can be made

Page 3 I-73 Connector North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Attn: Ahmad Al-Sharawneh 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Please Join Us for a Workshop on the I-73 Connector

Citizens Informational Workshop Monday, September 19, 2011 4:00 to 7:00 pm

7800 Concourse Building Board Room 101 7800 Airport Center Drive Greensboro I-73 Connector Citizens Informational Workshop September 19, 2011 Transportation Improvement Program Project No. I-5110

PLEASE DON’T FORGET TO SIGN IN & FILL OUT A COMMENT FORM. WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK!

Welcome! Workshop Format

Welcome to the Citizens Informational  The format for this workshop is informal. Workshop for the proposed I-73 Connector in Greensboro, Guilford County. The NCDOT  Maps of the alternatives being evaluated are appreciates your attendance this evening. on display.

 Please sign in at the registration table to add Project Description your name to the mailing list. F NCDOT proposes to construct the I 73  Fill out a comment form and return it tonight Connector to complete a missing link in the I-73 or send it to the address shown on the form. corridor by joining the existing and future portions of I-73 in the Greensboro area. The  Let us know what you think. I-73 Connector will enhance north-south mobility and interstate connectivity through  Thank you for attending tonight. North Carolina and the Piedmont Triad region. Your comments are important to us.

The I-73 Connector proposes to connect NC 68 and Bryan Boulevard, west of I-840, with a new Purpose of the Workshop 1.5-mile, four-lane, median-divided freeway. It will be a fully controlled access facility The purpose of this workshop is to update (meaning, residential and business driveways citizens on the proposed I-73 Connector and to will not be allowed) with two, 12-foot lanes in present the proposed project alternatives. You both directions. The southern end will connect will have an opportunity to review project maps to Bryan Boulevard (future I-73) near the current on display, talk with project team members, and interchange with Airport Parkway. The northern offer your comments. end will connect to the planned US 220/ NC 68 Connector (TIP Project R-2413, future I-73). Public Involvement is an integral part of The western part of Bryan Boulevard will not NCDOT’s project development process. directly connect NC 68 with the airport. This NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a means that drivers will no longer be able to reach proposed project want to be informed of the the airport from the Bryan Boulevard possible effects of the project on their homes and interchange at NC 68. Access from NC 68 to the businesses. However, the maps on display here airport will be provided further north where the tonight are preliminary and subject to change. I-73 Connector joins the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Alternatives Considered

Five preliminary alternatives were evaluated early in the study (see the inset map for locations). Three of these (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) were eliminated from further consideration because of substantial impacts to both the human and natural environments and/ or because of engineering factors. Alternatives 1 and 4 are being studied in detail for this project because they have more desirable design features and impact fewer environmental resources, residences, and businesses.

Project Schedule

Environmental Assessment Winter 2011/ 2012

Public Hearing Spring 2012

Final Environmental Document Summer 2012

Public Hearing Fall 2012

Begin Right of Way Acquisition 2014*

Begin Construction 2016*

* Schedules are subject to funding.

Contact Information

If you have questions about this project, please write, call, or e-mail one of the following:

Ahmad Al-Sharawneh Mark L. Reep, P.E. NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Florence & Hutcheson Analysis Branch 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 Raleigh, NC 27607 Phone: 919-707-6010 Phone: 919-851-6066, ext. 138 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] ALTERNATIVE 1

Alternative 1 begins west of the Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange. From there, it goes west, travels south of Caindale Drive, crosses over NC 68 near its intersection with Pleasant Ridge Road, and heads northward to connect to the US 220/ NC 68 Connector. Ramps south of Pleasant Ridge Road provide direct access to and from PTI Airport from points south on NC 68. One ramp will carry NC 68 northbound traffic to the southbound lanes of the I-73 Connector. The other ramp uses a bridge to carry northbound I-73 Connector traffic to southbound NC 68.

TYPICAL SECTION FOR BOTH ALTERNATIVES (Not to Scale)

 Two, 12-foot lanes in both directions.  12-foot outside paved shoulders  Four-foot inside paved shoulders  70-foot median

ALTERNATIVE 4

Alternative 4 also extends from west of the Bryan Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange and connecting to the US 220/ NC 68 Connector north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but the interchange with the US 220/ NC 68 Connector is concentrated north of Pleasant Ridge Road. It requires drivers to travel a longer distance between the airport, NC 68, and locations to the south. Alternative 4 also disturbs fewer residences, businesses, streams, and wetlands than the alternatives that were eliminated.

Tell us which alternative you prefer: Alternative 1, Alternative 4, or neither.