20030469 Ver 1_Complete File_20030415

FILE COPY s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
March 3, 2003
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
030469
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
OR SUBJECT: Nationwide Permits 25 and 33 Applications for the Proposed
Realignment of South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street in
Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, NC. TIP No. U-2926, State Project No.
9.8091857.
Dear Sir:
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to realign the
intersection of South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street, the intersection of
Waughtown Street and Alder Street, and to construct a traffic roundabout at the
intersection of South Main Street and Salem Avenue. The project length is 0.5 km (0.3
mi), and the existing right-of-way (ROW) is 18 m (60 ft). Although variable throughout
the project, the proposed ROW is approximately 30 m (100 ft). The project's
construction -let date is January 21, 2003.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) DOCUMENT STATUS
In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NCDOT
completed and submitted an approved State Environmental Assessment (EA) and State
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The State EA was approved on February 24,
1999, while the State FONSI was approved on October 23, 2000.
Tim Bassette
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.NCDOT.ORG/
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The above NEPA documents describe the need to correct a complex system of
one-way roads and confusing intersections that occur within the project's current design
in order to provide a road system more easily understood and navigated by motorists.
The proposed project will ultimately improve safety in the project area while providing a
more efficient movement of traffic. The EA and FONSI also describe existing and
projected.conditions in the study area, including waters of the United States and federally
protected species. Finally, the documents evaluate alignments with respect to costs,
social and economic impacts, and environmental consequences. The NCDOT provided
copies of the EA and FONSI to regulatory review agencies involved in the approval
process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of May 31, 2002, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three
federally protected species (i.e., red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii), and small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera)) for
Forsyth County. The project's EA rendered a Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for
red-cockaded woodpecker. The EA also states that impacts to the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii) will not occur from project construction due to a lack of suitable habitat at
the project study area. Since it is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance, the
bog turtle is not subject to the provisions of ESA §7. The project's State FONSI states
that "the project will not impact (small-anthered bittercress)", but did not provide a
specific Biological Conclusion. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect was, however,
provided in the project's June 12, 2001 Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR).
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers
included in the list of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended).
AVOIDANCE / MINIMIZATION
According to the Clean Water Act (C WA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must
avoid, minimize, and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The
following is a list of the project's jurisdictional wetland and stream
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Minimization: The side slopes of the temporary causeway are at a 1.5:1 ratio.
Minimization: With only one bridge bent placed into the waters of Salem Creek (at
Station No. 13+52.379), NCDOT minimized, to the maximum extent possible, the
number of bridge bents placed into jurisdictional waters of the US.
Tim Bassette Page 2 March 3, 2002
Minimization: Two 900 mm corrugated metal pipes (CMPs) will be installed in the
temporary causeway across Salem Creek. The CMPs will be situated on the surface of
the natural stream bottom instead of trenching the stream bottom. (Installing the invert of
the pipes below the surface of the stream bottom would have required trenching the
streambed.) The pipes will be placed on grade so that they follow the natural thalweg of
the stream. When the causeway is removed the pre-project stream profile and cross-
sections will be restored. These minimization efforts ensure aquatic life passage during
low flows and minimize impacts to the stream bottom.
Minimization: The project will not have any adverse effect on the existing 100-year
floodplain and associated flood hazard. The removal of Bridge No. 314 and replacement
of Bridge No. 8 will provide equivalent or improved conveyance of 100-year floodwaters
compared to that of the existing bridges. Therefore, with the exception of one proposed
bridge bent, there will be no discharge of permanent fill material into the 100-year
floodplain. The project's State EA depicts a flood hazard evaluation on page 34 and
Figure 5 of the aforementioned document.
Minimization: In order to minimize temporary bridge demolition fill into associated with
Bridge No. 314, the construction contractor will be able to limit the amount of bridge
deck area (superstructure) dropped into Salem Creek. By removing the bridges'
superstructures through non-shattering (e.g., lifting) or sawing methods, the contractor
can prevent approximately 60% of the bridges' superstructure from temporarily filling
Salem Creek. Consequently, at least 38 m3 (50 yd3) of demolished superstructure
associated with Bridge No. 314 will not end up as temporary fill in Salem Creek.
Minimization: The construction contractor will be able to minimize temporary bridge
demolition fill associated with Bridge No. 8. Using minimization efforts detailed later in
this permit application, the construction contractor will be able to keep 94 percent [180
m3 (235 yd3) of 191 m3 (250 yd3)], of the bridge's superstructure and substructure from
falling into Salem Creek as temporary fill. This fulfills a November 21, 2002 request by
the environmental agencies to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, temporary fill
associated with the bridge's demolition.
Minimization: Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be strictly enforced for
sedimentation and erosion control for the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
Minimization: BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be strictly enforced for the
removal of the two existing bridges.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable
alternative to the proposed construction in jurisdictional waters of the US and that the
proposed action includes all practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional
wetland and stream impacts that may result from such use.
Tim Bassette Page 3 March 3, 2002
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Wetland delineations were conducted using the field delineation method outlined
in Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environment Laboratory, 1987).
Jurisdictional streams were identified according to guidelines set forth in NC Division of
Water Quality's (NCDWQ) Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding: Revision
Number Six, Working Draft (Environmental Sciences Lab, February 10, 1997). No
jurisdictional wetlands and one jurisdictional stream, Salem Creek, are present in the
project study area. Salem Creek is a perennial stream.
Construction of the proposed project will necessitate impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters. The demolition of the substructure and/or superstructure of the existing
bridges may temporarily impact surface waters of Salem Creek. Fill from a temporary
causeway will also temporarily impact waters of Salem Creek. With the exception of one
proposed bridge bent, no permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The
following describes the project's jurisdictional impacts.
Bridge Demolition Information:
Bridge No. 314 is located on Waughtown Street over Salem Creek in Winston-
Salem, Forsyth County. The structure has two spans totaling 33.7 in (110.5 ft) in length.
The superstructure consists of reinforced concrete deck girders with concrete railings.
The end bents in the substructure are composed of full height reinforced concrete. The
interior bent is a reinforced concrete post and web pier. There is a potential for
components of the bridge deck to be dropped into waters of the United States, as defined
under 33 CFR §328.3(a), during removal operations. In utilizing minimization efforts
during bridge demolition, the contractor will not allow more than 26 m3 (33 yd 3) of
temporary fill associated with the concrete deck (superstructure) to fall into Salem Creek.
Neither the pier nor the abutments are located in or adjacent to water; therefore, it is not
anticipated that any components of the substructure will result in temporary fill during the
removal of this bridge. Bridge demolition is classified as a Case 3, for which there are no
special restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and
BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Bridge No. 8 carries southbound traffic on Main Street over Salem Creek in
Winston-Salem, Forsyth County. The bridge has two spans totaling 33.8 in (111 ft) in
length. The deck is composed of reinforced concrete deck girders with concrete railings.
The substructure is composed of rock masonry abutments with reinforced concrete caps
and one solid reinforced concrete pier. There is a potential for components of the bridge
to be dropped into waters of the United States during construction. Only 9.4 in (31 ft of
the length of the bridge is over water. Bridge demolition is classified as a Case 3, for
which there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal. In utilizing minimization
efforts during bridge demolition, the contractor will not allow more than 11 m3 (15 yd 3)
of temporary fill associated with this bridge to fall into Salem Creek. Specific demolition
VA
Tim Bassette Page 4 March 3, 2002
methods for Bridge No. 8 are detailed below to illustrate how temporary fill was
minimized on this bridge.
• The contractor will not allow more than 4 m3 (5 yd3) of temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck (superstructure) to fall into Salem Creek. The concrete deck will be
removed in pieces through non-shattering (e.g., lifting) or sawing methods. Due to
the deteriorating conditions of Bridge No. 8, the proposed temporary fill associated
with the concrete deck allows small pieces of the bridge to accidentally crumble and
fall into the stream as the deck is demolished.
• The concrete pier (substructure) on the south side of the bridge is located next to
water.. The entire pier will be removed through non-shattering (e.g., lifting) or sawing
methods, thereby limiting the amount of debris that will fall from the bridge. The
proposed temporary causeway will be constructed before the pier is demolished.
Once the causeway is in place, it will encompass the majority of the existing interior
bent. Consequently, most of the small amount of demolition material that does fall
from the bridge will be retained on the causeway instead of falling into the stream. A
nominal amount of the concrete pier is, however, not situated around the temporary
causeway. It is anticipated that 4 m3 (5 yd3) of temporary fill material associated with
this section of the pier will land in Salem Creek (rather than the causeway) as
temporary fill.
The rock masonry abutment (substructure) on the south side of the bridge is also
located next to water. In utilizing minimization efforts during bridge demolition, the
contractor will not allow more than 4 m3 (5 yd3) of temporary fill associated with this
abutment to fall into Salem Creek. According to the project's structure plan, the
construction contractor must salvage the materials comprising the abutment. During
salvaging operations, the contractor will drill two large holes into the abutment, then
lift and remove it from the stream. Due to the deteriorating conditions of Bridge No.
8, the proposed temporary fill associated with the rock masonry abutment allows
small pieces of the bridge to accidentally crumble and fall into the stream as the
abutment is demolished.
Temporary Causeway:
Bridge No. 8 will also include the construction of a proposed temporary rock
causeway at Station No. 13+40 -L- to 13+60 -L- (permit drawing 3 of 5). The causeway,
comprised of class II riprap at 1.5:1 slopes, will facilitate the construction of the bridge's
center bent via drilled shaft construction. The causeway will cross the entire creek and
will have two 900 mm CMPs sized to allow the passage of stream flow. The causeway
will temporarily fill 0.029 ha (0.072 ac) of jurisdictional surface waters in Salem Creek
(permit drawing 5 of 5). This area represents the footprint of the causeway.
Tim Bassette Page 5 March 3, 2002
Permanent Brid eg Bent:
At Station No. 13+52.379, one permanent bridge bent on Bridge No. 8 will be placed into
the waters of Salem Creek. Five drilled piers will be placed on this ,bridge bent, and
constructed through the temporary causeway. The drilled piers will be cast in place with
a permanent steel casing. This will be accomplished by drilling the steel casing, which is
a steel tube, into the stream bottom, then filling the tube up with concrete.. The steel
casing extends about a foot above the normal water elevation. Once the concrete is set,
construction will continue on subsequent layers until the bent is high enough to place the
cross member on it.
RESTORATION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL PLAN
In accordance with CWA §404 NWP No. 33 (67 FR 2020, 2085; January 15,
2002), the "Notification" General Condition must include a restoration plan of reasonable
measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources. The following is
the proposed project's restoration, removal, and disposal plan for Bridge No. 8:
• Restoration Plan: The temporary fill will consist of Class II riprap. No permanent fill
will result from the subject activity. Following construction of the causeway, the
construction of the interior bent will be completed. After the bent is completed all
material used in the construction of the temporary causeway, including the two 900
mm CMPs, will be removed. Reference elevations are available for the area of
proposed construction of the temporary causeways. In addition, profiles and cross
sections of the streambed have been measured with the data including measurements
of the stream thalweg. The NCDOT will restore the stream to its pre-project contours
and elevations. The temporary impact area associated with the causeway is expected
to recover naturally, since the natural streambed and plant material will not be
removed. The NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in this area. The fill
will be placed and removed with earth moving equipment.
• Schedule: The project schedule calls for a production letting of May 20, 2003 with a
projected date of availability of July 1, 2003. It is expected that the contractor will
choose to start construction of the causeway for the bridge on the date of availability.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation
plan for the removal of and disposal of all materials off-site at an upland location.
The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the riprap used for the
temporary causeways. Heavy-duty trucks, bulldozers, cranes and various other pieces
of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and bridges will be
used on site. All material placed in the river will be removed from the river at that
time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the riprap that the
engineer deems suitable in the construction of the causeway for the bridge. After the
temporary causeway is no longer needed, all temporary causeway material will
become the property of the contractor.
Tim Bassette Page 6 March 3, 2002
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
There are no permanent jurisdictional impacts on this project. Consequently, no
compensatory stream or wetland mitigation is required to offset such impacts.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Enclosed you will find a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) form, permit
drawings, and half size plan sheets. Application is hereby made for two US Army Corps
of Engineers' (USACE) CWA §404 NWP No. 33s (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) and one NWP No. 25 (Structural Discharges). The first NWP No. 33
applies to the temporary construction demolition and temporary causeway associated with
Bridge No. 8. The second NWP No. 33 applies to the temporary construction demolition
associated with Bridge No. 314. This information is also being provided to NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), for their review. It is anticipated that two CWA §401 General
Certification (GC) No. 3366s (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) and
one GC No. 3376 (Structural Discharge) will also apply to this project. The first GC No.
3366 applies to the temporary construction demolition and temporary causeway
associated with Bridge No. 8. The second GC No. 3366 applies to the temporary
construction demolition associated with Bridge No. 314.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Tim
Bassette, Environmental Specialist, at 919-715-1341.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA Branch
GJT/tb
enclosures
cc w/encl.: Mr. David Franklin, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Ms. Marella Buncick, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Mr. Omar Sultan, NCDOT Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., NCDOT Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, P.E., NCDOT Division 9 Environmental Officer
Ms. Karen Taylor, P.E., NCDOT, PDEA Branch
Tim Bassette Page 7 March 3, 2002
NOT TO SCALE
No Cozo 00 To
VICINITY DFOES ov `?YS
PROPOSSM ZWZ CZWF. 7f
MAIDS MGHo2
®m &CZFM CREEK
"M bmw STI.
SZ' 1 w 5
ivv i v JI.HLC
B ?3 0 (oozo ?o c,
-DIVISLOW ®-T fHGHWA YS
VICINITY F®m C®U
PROM= RMACHMENT
MG NO. 8
MAID ®m
ALONG 14w ST
SrAW PR® .w,ff7 (te)
SB= 2 CW S

r
a I

10

Q
or

Qf W,
N=

Q W
_t
U

I ?, ;
b

Q3:
0: i
(DL
LJQ W?LL-
I- D
W(/)
F-Z
O_
Z
W
C! V)
x °
0
I
\ \ a
U

m I
1
ti Y
M co

1 ?+ I \
I

I 0 NI
- o_

9 W

AD 8
N
3

z
? o z o
, ? M
C
_ W
° ~
A ® ® d
O Z
x F
m z A m

/ Y
W
W

' Ltl
J

U
/
OO
? J
J

IPJ W
n-

i
Iz -.:

?m
1 CVQ-
N? z
?
i
Q+W >
r >0
7 Q
Ww?
X
w
1:2 r

?F-OQ
0?3 N

w
'a
lz o
II F
w
>>O z
o<

II i Iwo
/
o I' 1
E

r I ?CL

1
o

J
I

I
cl,
,

,

N

N
m I Q
CO I ?
? CO
} 11
I I ? `
1 MNW ?.
T QwN I I t
1- I

c6 N I i
I
Eco
LO
I co
I,
Q'
?N M IN z

0 40:
a

I , Ln
(n

N

©

+ ou
E
I
I' cn cal
1
I l l-
LOO

-N
'
I,

_ - f-'
oui
LL, IL

61 I }afO
&1 I U
aLn
a0 1
I 5-? 1
I
E O w.
D N
oC1
a
0 I i a C-4J C
iN?-
N
1 \ CL L z N Jw
T 11 10
z Z U
= Z 0-
N zz /
LLI
N

O
+ 0 / a ~
? w
C.?
O I U
m o
r
Z Q
a
am / w CO
z Q 1 t?
W
wz ,
N
M F-0 j
co co O

awl
a l CD
z O
w
L o-
1 ?' X laJ
N
CC ? w c?
z
z
a
H
E.;
A

v
z
x
IT.
O
;

°
e
x
g
?
?
u
®
9
124
4
w

d
9
a
?
x

z

?

J
_J
WW
} I--
Q
Q ?r
C)
CLW
ILU
Q
:2
?
W?
?z
Wcn
oz
z
w
b o
U
O
O
Ln

0
y C
O
U L
c
U
W
,0 0
m m
C
o m E
N L
?U
0
c c v
N fQ ,-
LL
V uwU

Q

? rn
W E C L
04
O
0)
O
Q H O O
W Cl
Q
CO ta
c
m
t
a
U) U.
0
co
ccL
M Z
p
N
- O
?
L 4 t L
mU?

m o

LL > L
m y
Q F .
C 7
GG
C
L Q O' O
d - c
>c

O m m L
X
W c
_ N o
3 LL c
°ms
CD

0
N
C ?
? L
-
m

W

m

U N

N

A

N

?
w
?

Q
2co r t m
w W
0: m

? o d Ut 4
c
g p

U. o
v
coo
M M
N
m
? J
a
lA Z F -

F -
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Two NWP No. 33s, one NWP
No. 25.
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is
not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: 0
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name:North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: gthomegdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached
if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: n/a
Company Affiliation: n/a
Mailing Address: n/a
Telephone Number: n/a Fax Number: n/a
E-mail Address: n/a
Page 1 of 10
111. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project: Proposed Realignment of South Main Street (SR 2456) and Wau htown
Street
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): U-2926
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): n/a
4. Location
County: Forsyth Nearest Town: Winston-Salem
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh, NC: Take I-40
west to Winston-Salem. Take I-40 Exit 193 onto US52/NC8 heading north Take 1st exit
off US52/NC8 onto East Sprague Street Take a left onto East Sprague Street heading west
Take a right onto South Main Street (SR 2456 heading north To get to Bridge No 8
continue heading north on South Main Street Bridge No 8 crosses over Salem Creek and is
located on South Main Street just north of both Doune Street (on your left) and the point at
which the railroad tracks cross South Main Street To get to Bridge No 314, from Bridge
No. 8, continue heading north on South Main Street Take a right on Waughtown Street
The bridge crosses Salem Creek on Waughtown Street
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): See attached permit application and permit
drawings.
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Developed urban tract connecting educational/institutional residential retail recreational
and service land uses. Sites sit within the city limits of Winston-Salem
Page 2 of 10
7. Property size (acres): Linear road project 0.38 mi in length.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Salem Creek.
9. River Basin: Yadkin/Pee-Dee.
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Describe the purpose of the proposed work: 1.) Realign intersections of South Main Street
(SR 2456), Wauehtown Street, Alder Street, and Salem Avenue 2) Construct a roundabout
at South Main Street (SR 2456)/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Road intersection 3) Remove
Bridge No. 314 (on Waughtown Street) over Salem Creek 4.) Replace Bridge No 8 (on
South Main Street - SR 2456) over Salem Creek.
10. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Equipment includes, but is not
limited to, bulldozers, backhoes cranes graders and dump trucks
11. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Developed urban tract connecting
educational/institutional, residential, retail, recreational and service land uses Sites sit
within the city limits of Winston-Salem.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
None.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: None.
Page 3 of 10
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number Area of Located within Distance to
(indicate on Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
map) (acres) Floodplain** (yes/no) (linear feet)
none none 0 ac n/a n/a n/a
s r ?. o t. . _ I: A_
..o.. o.......F L SCYata«,y a„u ,ucuury tcrnpvrary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httn://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0 ac.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 ac.
Page 4 of 10
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
Type of
a f Length of Average
Width of
Perennial or
indicate on
( Impact* Impact Stream Name**
Stream Before Intermittent?

map)
- linear feet
(linear feet)
Impact (Please specify)

Bridge No. 8: temporary rock 118 linear ft
temporary
13+40 -L- to causeway,
includin
two impact (0.072 Salem Creek 60 ft perennial
13+60 -L- g
temporary CMPs ac of
temporary fill)
Bridge No. 8 one permanent approximately
13+52.379 -L- bridge bent 0 linear ft Salem Creek 60 ft perennial
(approx. 0 ac)
bridge Potential 3or
Bridge No. 8: demolition up
to 15 yd of Salem Creek 60 ft perennial
temporary fill temporary
bridge fill
bridge Potential for

Bridge No. 314:
demolition up to 33 yd of
Salem Creek
60 ft
perennial
temporary fill temporary
bridge fill
-aL ? a?,t iiuNau Ncpalalcly ahu ,uenuiy temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.,eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 118 linear ft (0.072 ac) of
temporary stream impact + potential for 48 yd3 of tempor bridge fill
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water
Impact

* Area of
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
none none 0 ac n/a n/a
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 5 of 10

4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands ? stream R wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): n/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): n/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
See "Avoidance/Minimization" section of the permit application cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
Page 6 of 10
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmride.htnil.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No permanent jurisdictional wetland or stream impacts Therefore no compensatory
wetland or stream mitigation is proposed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at littp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wi-p/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0 linear ft.
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0 ft2.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0 ac.
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0 ac.
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0 ac.
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No 0
Page 7 of 10
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No R
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify n/a )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 Oft, 3 0ft2
2 0 ft2 1.5 0 ft2
Total 0 ft2 0 ft,
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Buffer mitigation is not required.
Page 8 of 10
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Approximately 50%-75% of existing and proposed land uses consist of or will consist of impervious
surfaces. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be strictly enforced for sedimentation and erosion
control for the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
Pages 10-11 of the project's State FONSI document depict NCDWO's comment on stormwater
management along Bridge No. 8. The agency's comment specifically states that "stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek ... (and) should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus."
The NCDOT assessed the feasibility of a stormwater detention facility/apparatus during design stages of
Bridge No. 8, but was unable to incorporate such a system in the final design. Stormwater was
discharged away from the stream to the extent practicable. The proposed bridge will directly discharge
stormwater into Salem Creek and the proposed reenway under Bridge No. 8 via deck drainage/scupper
system (15.24 cm (6 in) PVC pipe paced on 3.658 m (12 ft) centers). The NCDOT did not incorporate
a stormwater management system into proposed Bridge No. 8's final design for the following four
reasons:
• The bridge will consist of apre-stressed cored slab situated on a crest vertical curve with a proposed
grade elevation of +1.2583% and -1.5556%, and a road width of 20.4 m (66.93 ft) not including the
bridge's sidewalks. In order to safely clear stormwater off the cored slab bridge's deck thereby
reducing potential hydroplaning incidents, the proposed bridge would require a higher grade
elevation and shorter width to eliminate deck drain placement directly over the water. Existing
topography, road elevation, and road width dictate the bridge's currently proposed elevation grade
and width.
• In order to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway regulations the
proposed grade is held as close as possible to the existing grade. Raising the grade or changing the
superstructure depth affects the overtopping of the structure and raises the upstream water surface
elevation above FEMA requirements.
• Several local citizens requested that the proposed bridge be aesthetically pleasing. A stormwater
gutter/trough placed along the outside of the bridge will not appease to the citizens' aesthetic
concerns.
The NCDWO characterizes the portion of Salem Creek from the project to the stream's source as
Class C waters. Class C water is suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. This reach of Salem Creek also occurs in a heavily urbanized
portion of Winston-Salem. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQWs), Water
Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) are located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project study area.
Page 9 of 10

XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes E] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes [:] No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

6/2410A
:PROJECT: 9.8091881 U-2926
E :-q
O O 3v'
2! m
v
p '° o cy 0?
;nI
N O O
OF
Go MMCI
-go
? g g b Z°
y0
p c ,o ? m
-4 MID
! n n n n n x 0?
v a 6/ o o Zn
m
c c o 0
2R =O
mm
v(?
r m Zg
O Z Z c_
F = n
m y
Z
N
C g
n w
z
?' b O
m
70 ? m
70
00 m-V
?v
m O y
of--m
.o?
Do a-0
n
n n
0
O O b"
J t Q
m?
?o
3. m
r b
o G1 Co
~
o c 1~
?? 8
r
W
x
a a
y

xx
? ? ?
b
?MM
y

y

I
a?

I
i
M-q
m

I
L
O
Z /

Sr
u O

gswa INI

Z

O

N

W1p5

-1v 090

k

0
6
i I

i y

I
0.
T
U
V'
V
Co
m
z
v
N
D
m
7v
O
m
n
00
O
V
M_
MW
W
b O
y
z
a O
y-J
b co)
y
n O
47 y
V
O y x
y ?
a y O
x ? b
C N
y A C03
Q
[a
a
rr?-
?J
a
n
3
00
c 3?
z
y O ?
p? v

0
T y Z N
s ? 2
O

.o ?o q ? p
y
$ ?
m m ?
pp
? N
V

N n

N
Ol

? o
0
T

z
I? y
3

A
N T T
'? Q N
S N

c N p T .N.
o_ o_

0 0
1
3
1 o o ?. n
v o
1
,
0
7 'o 3
O O
CL 3 C O °
a 3- w
S O

0 n C7 0_ o O

::E
O T VJ

I

` Igl 6 I ? I y

- T ? T T n- 7 9' 9' O
9 1 1 1
0 T V °-Z
7
® 3 3 on LO 3 LO o m n o
o a 0
- 0 R7 w m n
0 0.
7 .
p• O a 3 n n 7 `? `<
n m 2°^^ r r r o o +n
e p ? ? ? m ? 3 > > `? .-3a
m m 0 a e e 3, y
r
3 e ° ? n ? '? O
e ? a I ? S O S° O
3 -3i. 3 0 O
r r ? 1
® 03 a a ?i
j C. C. `C
0
D
I I ?

'o
C
O
? O
O O -0
O
O -0

C
O A m

?
°"

O a

C C)

C
n
g

?

N

N

O
?.
O N ?
1 ? O
° a' ° <
O ? O ? O

c

o

°-
A
? o o_

?r

-
e
t
Q , 7f-

O

o 7r

a 7r

a
3
X

b

I.
r I
I I
I ?
0 11
M! e c oq n o a 0 0 0 0 0_ o? m o o r " o .= c b ° Q' T o p R" m 3
Z
4. O' ? O a m e T rt m 0 O O a- D• b ?^. 00 ,-ar O a ?r O o-
r 0 N N :;1 O m ° ?• r 3 0 3 0 n • -3? O O t9 O 0 O O_ p m O_ C Q° 70
O E aC 7 e N ° O m O S o e ° j m O C A p O -3« rt ° -e a D ° e O m
n
a m $ N o ° u 3 3 -1 0 c O0 p L ?- m a G p 0 :r s g O.
c r ?o O°°° o 0 o O° mom_ a°>> o o o
c M
` A c S ° S m S c < rw O y T e O N- .m a
o n o ° 3 0 0 e c `" O O y o
9t 0
C 0 0 o T
°
0 0
-..3 x 3 a - O e
0 O
o f g e
v E ° >K
O O
7 O (/)
I Y if \
t I ? I!
®O O Q O® m 0® O I is e Q Q ® CS a p 0-
I?
rt rt v T v 7o n -4 n ?? m ^ p 70 0 7o G p w p ?o p 7o N p M p 70 CA p 70
o O O 3 CS e O e e O O O O O O
v° O '7 C O 4' L °a ?i ° N M a
0 o S. s1 s1 _ o 01 3° 3 h 0' n oo ° m° m° m' ° to o m
n O O r Z ?• r O ° `° p? o O O O o O m o 0 0 0 o aO. q o Oa_
m m Q ` 7 c 7 r r O e r o tv 3' p 3 C. O °. O d " O_ a O d O d a °. N o C.
7 7 G ° t O A -a 3 r e 3 O = p °.. T o_ Q °- CL N O_
O
0- 06 O O O C 3 3 3 3 ° ° r: O3 O O T g O e C m m '7D .? N 7 O ` rt
O m ° ' 0 3 m 03 A A- --I m S M r 7 C ' O
CA .
O 3.
CL o_ ov c m > 3 C s °p o S m m e-R s s
o 3 ?- to
'S ?' n n o S o e N o e
3 3 0_ ° t2i c A o o 3 0 A ° o• y C O H
° a O rc o Q' e O A O' O C T p C
a a 4' o a n 3 W m .? O a m
Co :
O O
7 G7 CA O Q y n O
0 3 o Vi G a c G e 3
0 C S
b m c
I ?( 1 y lilt I Ilil?l? I
l '
v n { ? I O w `c'? e0 ? I I I ? I ? e l l I I I ? ? I 1 ? I I
g x
I I I I I O O ~ ~ I ! Cu N U >4
I I I
I I I :I + I I I ? I I I I I I I I I I I
N m N
f jO o
n Vf 3
S m 0
7
C)
v m
0 °
V
e
O O
o ° 0-
' r
0
C05
;
I? a
Iii p
0
L 1 a
= N N r; -1 T A T w ao ? n 7o n
c n
3- =
R -
00
1' m m w ?' w < .? m
° w a' ° °- a
e
O A =
O T
O 3
CL :L C o . s,
n to N N
2 °s o e
:L °

°

o
s o
c
c a
7 cr N
c
m
O
a
0

x

t I J- l i I
N
3c
0
o
O
O
n
0
z
m
z
O
Z
D
r
N
W
0
r
N
v,
m IO p n
0 0 -0 N n
o S O
O O
o -+ w
C C
° ? ° $ 3 Q
g a
°- S c p o Q!
? ti
o s o a

0

3

r
fo No 1
>? L I
L
N
G
m
II
N
C
w
N
G
29
A
m
r
m
z
0
Z
m
m
M

I?
?®
0
®®
t?
I?
?T
A
Lr4. \\I
c2?-0 ?• ??? X77/
4 O I 1 'I ' S6 560 6 1 C / //
KrK.
a 1 I.3`
s I _ 11 '? ??
I ' gg
I T
. fl
' i c r ` 0 1 tl
a 0.
con p
B e?
as ?I p ol
M 3 n N Z z $F °, - 3 9 ,
S n TO FACE \ I I~ " / i
?b (A
4.2
X A2
/ ?.
Lo m
m 3: _----
mO
Z
r \a
_ i r i \1
D 1
ItO 4M I-ZA71kn A1/ 7 p r? \ 1 \ \ \\
< l +? `Q T \\\ y \ ??1`I???
m i O N _ \ \ ca \ ?. ,Inuno
3 I- ar a \ ?? n
z ?.
SEE PLAN SHEET 5

C T
^T
J`y `
I
I ?
1 •
0
L
a5

2 \

`
v)
? O
1

?QO C, 2 -4. L
f
? s
-
4•--
--L

A
r ?
? 7R
I
1 \ \ \ \ r
1 }I ? ? ; I I \II s? ?
s
r l ? ? / ee ?1 ?/ ?T1[
?? .I ?? % o s® = n n5rn?
4 i / I' ? v cNn???w ?
r 1 I ?,? .-
1 02
nb + I 1 ,?
I; T ! y l
1; ? i I I
1 1
1070
! ? I I O j'7 GT _? o?
O
Air
' ? m0 T
3Y ' ? Z
? I ? o 0
13+50 SEE SHEET 5
i

?'Dv vl>D-D? ti\ MATCHUNE
'ilnIf no "ppnny ?I SP
v /
If I (A 1 4 If "(A
It If
,N \ m
?I 1 m \ } T r a
ITm
??\ \
-0
uny ?pnnN s,
oa' W°
, s
SEE SHEET 4 J
1 ? +
II ,K„ I +
01
.I, O sts
It
I r ? * , ? f ? ? ? .t•
+
f 1 I /
o
I d? 1 1100
r } " r . 1 cn I
a; N I C73
1 + N
r,l b
If 1
u
1
I R
?i
1
\?? ?' _ 1 \
m s
CON
A a
1 \ ?Y
Z4 i?,
1 1 I - 31 \ i .-'
IMP
+00
16
140 Rl
v?/ n
I
%?:i o ? `? 1 ? ? ? tom, I ? II \ 1 1 \\ \
' / ? I a I D / I p 11 / ma \ 1 ' '°' e
J ?/ / ? * N n V t0 ?I ? II 1 , 1 ? -
SEE PLAN SHEET 4 ' 4, 111 \ w
g,; A
~ 1 ? ?? o 0 0? o
m ° I I Ih ® ° 20 I o In i
10 10.09
v ssss9p J IR R ° t? 1` ,1 1 v A o
r) 671k, aj AIL is A
rOn=
°i>fA ° I j I° 1 E 1` C I I C N
14
70 N I I I ° ° a. 1+ 1
rn= ®I I f? 9 i?` ?1 '
O ° I - 11 `fin it o• N
O ° ° ° I I I I ».- -
ZZ
-A Ln
- ---r I
D ----- I I 6 2F 1 \ \ \ E ? t0 to 1,
x m
r3T1 I I y v ` \??0 zam z
1 I I r Z
\ 000 b
Zr
m
Iko
.
w200¢.°A_p7_?sr.
w? rls?ae?e
11 N II Nln N n I, „N
y ?
?o?IrD? `IrD
n11nNN N„en
,,,?cNao ?p v o
ZO I
laU 'N ? LYV
m? I b, 1
y ?
unnN? nNNn
?Ul
g1pj'L71 ?V
?N yo I
f
xsx
I
\I
K I
n
n
n
J v I
? I
,II? \ \1 b , U
1

1- a w
1 IA a

'
K
?`?`\ ??` A AA } ; Cn N
---- - ---------- --------
N 3' 4r
N
N ,
Z ?IJ
? T
T
r?
o? IO
S

f
x
s?

I
+? Ili

>za
A
N
91 II
I ?I
a
----------! a 1 $
1 91
P ,
a?a?s
^d'nd,bNi
i
:bn H
°
^°' N
In "" (n
"
r
rod
rt, 1
,
n1?1
In V1 N In
r", 41, A", r:111,
rr, r1n rr,

00 oo Oo aD
O O O O

tndaD /

I I /

I
00+1/ i
m

f
x
I?f

A
wxse• ' 1 ?a \, \
I
a
------------
ii 1W s nC 1 ?' / / \
Z" A'
x ' lo?
uv.
i a w/r I
I n , YNYy/'r ?' K I? 1 1? ` \ M X QO
r a r O? I' I' ??S {$} z o
I '' S ??yj?C o
Vg A•y T
ZC m
?' ;III I Y/t `ems ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Do
From: John Hennessy
/ C tf
NCDENR
Subject: Comments on EA Intersection Realignment for South Main Street (SR 2456) and
Waughtown Street Intersection, State Project # 8.8091857, TIP Project # U-2926
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.
including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment will require
the replacement of two existing bridges in conjunction with multiple traffic improvements. Preliminary
analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridges are located in Forsyth County and will span the
Salem Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The DWQ index number for the waterbody is 12-94-12-
(4) and the stream is classified as class C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout
Water) classifications.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee Memo
04/23/99
Page 2
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ if impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre, or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. Review of the document reveals that no impacts to wetlands are anticipated. Based on the impacts
described in the EA, no wetland mitigation is anticipated for the project. Should impacts be later
identified and should they exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 1.
H. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Based on the
information presented in the EA, the impacts to Salem Creek should not require mitigation.
However, in the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
J. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Ron Linville, NCDWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
C:\ncdot\TIP U-2926\U-2926 EA comments.doc
IJ
Department of Environitent fjnd Natural Res es
ourc
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
P:'ojee. Vutt:ber.
a Q county:
1 q E-- 05 U / F Dste Rec-ived
Due Rcsg? Duo
X- ?? . GgE-o4 ???
c.G
rais praiecris bein g reviewed as indicated below.
Regional Office
Regionai Offtc,; Am
:4sheviI,Ie ? ?, ..
r
c Fayetteville 6 Water
C Mooresville
? Groundwater
C Iue;
Igh .
Land Quality Engineer
c Wasai gton c Remrea
[tonal Consultant
C Wilmington
'1 W inst0n-Salem
I &Urag:-$;? Q =ion:
f
In-izouse R_view
C Soil & Water C Nfarine Fisheries
Q Coastal Management
?Wildlife
?TTe, iC Water Resources
C Environmeatal Health
C Forest Resources
C Solid waste M.7 t
Lurid Resources C Pz
diation Protection
C Pars & Recreation
C Other
Water Quality
C. Groundwater
C Air Quaiiry
Due:
ILn-Hons. Rorie ver',Lq-.
R=or'se (check- all applicable)
C No objection to project as proposed
Q No Continent
C rm"u iciest information to complete review
C Other (svecify or attach comments)
KC 1 U KA-4 TO: ------
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Offlce of Legislative & Intergovernmental Afrairs

Winston-Salem
Intersection Realignment for
South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street Intersection
Forsyth County
State Project 9.8091857
TIP Project U-2926
e?
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
APPROVED:
W .1A • !/ I Y X/ I
* "IN
D e William D. Gihn , P.E., Manager
ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
k1proJ.
z
Winston-Salem
Intersection Realignment for
South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street Intersection
Forsyth County
State Project 9.8091857
TIP Project U-2926

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
February, 1999
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Yv o la ft, EIT
Pro ect Planning Engineer
Project Planning Eng' r Unit Head
2¢
R. B. avis, P.E., CPM, Ass anager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
SSlii::'y9
6944
J
Winston-Salem
r
Intersection Realignment for
South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street Intersection
Forsyth County
State Project 9.8091857
TIP Project U-2926
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL COMMITMENTS
A. Suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress is present along the banks of Salem Creek
at the project study area. Surveys for this species will be conducted during the flowering season
in April-May 1999.
B. The NCDOT will coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency and local
authorities in final design to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
C. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project to
reduce sedimentation within off-project surface waters.
Winston-Salem
Intersection Realignment for
South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street Intersection
Forsyth County
State Project 9.8091857
TIP Project U-2926
SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is an Administrative Action, State Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to realign the intersection of South Main Street (SR 2456) and
Waughtown Street (see Figures IA and 1B for project location), a distance of 0.48
km (0.30 miles). The project will upgrade existing South Main Street from a one-
way, two-lane, curb and gutter cross-section to a five-lane facility from Salem
Avenue to the new intersection with Waughtown Street. Waughtown Street will
be upgraded from a one-way, three-lane curb and gutter cross-section to a two-
way, three-lane curb and gutter cross-section on new location. See Figure 4 for a
sketch of the typical cross-section.
The estimated cost in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP) includes $530,000 for right of way acquisition and $2,026,000 for
construction, totaling $2,556,000. NCDOT will coordinate with the City of
Winston-Salem for funding arrangements for sidewalks on the project, in
accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy.
3. Alternatives Considered
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
All construction alternatives consist of a combination of three and five-
lane curb and gutter cross-sections.
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended)- Widen existing South Main Street
and reconstruct Waughtown Street.
2. Alternative 2- Widen existing South Main Street, reconstruct
Waughtown Street, and realign the South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old
Salem Bypass intersection.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
C. Public Transportation Alternative
D. Transportation System Management Alternative and Other Alternatives to
Improve Traffic Capacity of Existing Roads
4. Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are listed in
Section IV of the Environmental Assessment. These impacts are similar between
Alternative 1 (recommended) and 2, varying only in the number of relocatees. A partial
listing of the environmental impacts caused by construction the proposed alignments
follows:
• Relocation of zero (0) residences and one (1) business with Alternative 1 and
zero (0) residences and two (2) businesses with Alternative 2
• No impacts anticipated to architecturally or archeologically significant sites
• One (1) existing crossing of Salem Creek will be removed and replaced while
eliminating one (1) crossing of Salem Creek
• Impacts to surface waters are anticipated due to project construction
• Alternative 1 (recommended) will result in approximately 2.1 ha (5.4 ac) of
biotic community impacts
• Alternative 2 will result in approximately 2.3 ha (5.7 ac) of biotic community
impacts
• No wetland areas have been located in the project study area
5. Coordination
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following federal,
state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
* N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
s
Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments
* Forsyth County Commissioners
* City of Winston-Salem
Mayor of Winston-Salem
* Salem Academy and College
* Old Salem Incorporated
* Moravian Church in America
* Winston-Salem State University
* N.C. School of the Arts
* Southeast Gateway Group
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
6. Permits Required
Constructing the recommended alternative will result in impacts to surface waters.
This will require a Section 404 Bridge General Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington
COE office. Additionally, a 401 Water Quality Certification will be required from the
Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance of the Bridge General Permit.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY

I
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................1
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ...............................................................1
B. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................1
1. Cross-Sections ....................................................................................1
2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit ..........................................2
3. Right of Way ......................................................................................2
4. Structures .................................................................................... .......2
5. Bicycle Provisions ...................................................................... .......2
6. Sidewalks .................................................................................... .......3
7. Access Control ............................................................................ .......3
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ............................... .......3
9. Special Permits Required ............................................................ .......4
10. Changes in the State Highway System ....................................... .......4
11. Cost Estimates ............................................................................. .......5
II
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................5
A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY ...............................................5
1. Existing Cross-Section .......................................................................5
2. Existing Right of Way .......................................................................6
3. Degree of Roadside Interference ........................................................6
4. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ............................................6
5. Speed Limit ........................................................................................6
6. Existing Structures .............................................................................6
7. Utilities ...............................................................................................7
8. Public Transportation .........................................................................7
9. School Bus Data .................................................................................7
B. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS .............................7
1. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis ....................................................9
a. Waughtown Street/Alder Street .............................................9
b. South Main Street/Waughtown Street/Marshall Street .......... 10
C. South Main Street/Marshall Street .........................................10
2. Signalized Intersection Analysis ........................................................1 l
a. South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass ...........11
b. South Main Street/Waughtown Street ...................................12
M
C. ACCIDENT RECORD .........................................................................................13
D. THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND ROUTE FUNCTION ...............................................13
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................14
A. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES .....................................................14
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended Alternative) ........................................14
2. Alternative 2 .......................................................................................15
B. "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................16
C. ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION .....................................................16
D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER
ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADS ........... 17
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................18
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS .............................................................................................18
1. Land Use ............................................................................................18
18
a. Existing Land Use ..................................................................
b. Existing Zoning ...................................................................... 18
C. Proposed Land Use ................................................................ 18
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use .......................... 19
2. Neighborhood Analysis .....................................................................19
3. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................19
4. Public and Private Facilities ...............................................................20
5. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................20
a. Architectural/Historical Resources ........................................20
b. Archaeological Resources ......................................................21
B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS ........................................................................................21
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................................................21
1. Physical Resources .............................................................................22
a. Soils .......................................................................................22
b. Water Resources ....................................................................23
G
i. Waters Impacted and Characteristics .........................23
ii. Best Usage Classification ..........................................23
iii. Water Quality 24
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..............................24
2. Biotic Resources ................................................................................26
a. Terrestrial Community ...........................................................27
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................................28
3. Waters of the United States ................................................................29
4. Permits ...............................................................................................30
5. Rare and Protected Species ................................................................30
a. Federally-Protected Species ...................................................30
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............ 33
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification ..........................33
7. Farmland ............................................................................................33
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis .......................34
9. Air Quality Analysis ..........................................................................34
10. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts ..................................35
11. Construction Impacts .........................................................................35
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ....................................................................36
A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ....................................................................................36
1. Government Response .......................................................................36
2. Public Response .................................................................................37
B. COORDINATION ...............................................................................................39
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ....................
TABLES
.............................................................41
TABLE 1 LOS: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES ..............................11
TABLE 2 LOS: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES ...................................13
TABLE 3 ALTERNATIVE COST AND RELOCATEE SUMMARY ...............................16
TABLE 4 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ...............................29
FIGURES
Figure IA Vicinity Map
Figure 1B Vicinity Map Inset
Figure 2 Thoroughfare Map
Figure 3 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 4A Proposed 5-Lane Typical Section
Figure 4B Proposed 2-Lane Typical Section
Figure 5 Flood Insurance Rate Map
Figure 6A Existing Intersection Configuration
Figure 6B Proposed Un-Signalized Intersection - Waughtown Street/Alder Street
Figure 6C Proposed Signalized Intersection - South Main Street/Waughtown Street
Figure 6D Proposed Un-Signalized Intersection - South Main Street/Marshall Street
Figure 6E Proposed Signalized Intersection - South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old
Salem Bypass - Alternative 1
Figure 6F Proposed Signalized Intersection - South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old
Salem Bypass - Alternative 2
Figure 7A Traffic Volumes -1997, No Build
Figure 7B Traffic Volumes - 2025, No Build
Figure 7C Traffic Volumes - 2025, Alternative 1
Figure 7D Traffic Volumes - 2025, Alternative 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Relocation Assistance Reports and Programs
Appendix B - Agency and Municipal Comments
Appendix C - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Tables
Winston-Salem
Intersection Realignment for
South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street Intersection
Forsyth County
State Project 9.8091857
TIP Project U-2926
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommends
realigning the intersection of South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street
creating a signalized `T' intersection (see Figure 1 A and 1 B for project area). The bridge
on South Main Street (#8) will be removed and replaced. Existing Waughtown Street
will be removed between Alder Street and South Main Street along with the Waughtown
Street bridge (#314). Minor improvements to the intersection of South Main
Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass are also part of this project. The length of the
proposed project is 0.48 kilometers (0.30 miles).
Project U-2926 is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year (FY) 2000
and construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2002. The TIP lists a total project cost of
$2,556,000, which includes $530,000 for right of way and $2,026,000 for construction.
The total estimated project cost is $3,950,000 including $1,000,000 for right of way and
$2,950,000 for construction.
B. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
1. Cross-Sections
The proposed project will include widening South Main Street to a two-
way, five-lane curb and gutter facility and reconstructing Waughtown Street as a
two-lane curb and gutter facility. For South Main Street the anticipated face-to-
face of curbs width is 20.4 m (68 ft) including: two 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel
lanes, two 3.6-m (12-ft) inside travel lanes, one 3.6-m (12-ft) center turning lane,
and two 0.6-m (2-ft) curbs. On Waughtown Street the anticipated face to face of
curbs width is 9.6 m (32 ft) including: two 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel lanes and
two 0.6-m (2-ft) curbs (see Figure 4A and 4B for a sketch of both proposed cross-
sections). The 4.2-m (14-ft) outside lanes provide width for bicycle traffic to
"share the road" with automobiles, buses, and trucks.
2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit
The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 65 kph
(40 mph). The anticipated posted speed limit is 60 kph (35 mph).
3. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width is 30 m (100 ft). This includes
Waughtown Street and South Main Street. The 2-lane section requires a 30 in
(100 ft) right of way to tie the proposed improvements to the natural ground.
Temporary construction easements and permanent drainage easements may be
required in some areas along the project.
4. Structures
The proposed project crosses one major stream, Salem Creek, and involves
one bridge on South Main Street and one bridge on Waughtown Street. The first
structure (Bridge #8) carries South Main Street over Salem Creek approximately
200 in (660 ft) south of Salem Avenue. Based on a recent field review and
preliminary hydraulic analysis, it is recommended that the existing bridge be
replaced with a 46-m (150-ft) bridge. Bridge #8 widening is recommended to the
east to avoid impacting a tributary channel that parallels South Main Street for
approximately 120 m (400 ft).
The second structure (Bridge # 314) carries Waughtown Street over Salem
Creek. The subject project proposes to remove existing Waughtown Street from
Alder Street to Salem Avenue, including Bridge #314. Waughtown Street will be
relocated to intersect South Main Street 275 m (900 ft) south of Salem Avenue.
Bridge #314 will not be reconstructed.
These two creek crossings are in a designated flood hazard zone and in a
detailed flood study, having an established floodway with corresponding
regulatory water surface elevations (see Figure 5 for Flood Insurance Rate Map).
It is anticipated that the removal of Bridge #314 and the proposed replacement
structure for Bridge #8 will provide equivalent or improved conveyance compared
to that of the existing bridges.
5. Bicycle Provisions
This section of South Main Street accesses the Washington Park/Salem
Creek Greenway and the Downtown Strollway. It also provides a connection
between the downtown area and the North Carolina School of the Arts. Wide
outside lanes [4.2-m (14-ft)] are proposed to provide adequate width for bicycles
to share the road with automobiles and trucks.
2
6. Sidewalks
A 1.5-m (5-ft) sidewalk is proposed for both sides of the facility for the
entire project length. There are approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) of sidewalks on
the existing alignment. The new alignment will require approximately 0.8 km
(0.6 mi) of replacement sidewalks resulting in facilities on both sides of the road.
In accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, NCDOT will replace all
existing pedestrian facilities removed during project construction.
7. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the proposed project will remain at grade. The
proposed `T' intersection of South Main Street/Waughtown Street will be
signalized. The intersection of South Main Street/Marshall Street will remain
unsignalized and be signed and striped for right-in/right-out access. The
intersection of South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass will remain
signalized with minor lane configuration changes. The recommended lane
treatment for each intersection follows:
Waughtown Street/Alder Street
Some realignment is proposed at this intersection resulting in a skewed `T'
configuration. Waughtown Street will function as the through move and Alder
Street will be stop-sign controlled. The northwest-bound approach (Waughtown
Street) will include one (1) combined through-right turn lane. The westbound
approach (Alder Street) includes one (1) left turn lane and one (1) right turn lane.
The southeast-bound approach (Waughtown Street) includes one lane for all
traffic. At this intersection, the through move (Waughtown Street) skews to the
west, while the secondary move (Alder Street) skews to the east. See Figure 6B
for a sketch of the recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
South Main Street/Waughtown Street
This signalized `T' intersection is being proposed to improve safety and
simplify traffic movement in the area. The recommended northbound intersection
approach includes one (1) through lane and one (1) combined through-right turn
lane. The westbound approach on Waughtown Street will include one (1) left turn
lane and one (1) right turn lanes. The southbound approach will include two (2)
through lanes and one (1) left turn lanes. See Figure 6C for a sketch of the
recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
3
South Main Street/Marshall Street
This unsignalized intersection is proposed as a `right-in-right-out' facility
due to capacity and safety restrictions. Vehicles attempting to make a left into or
out of Marshall Street currently face high traffic volumes and high accident
probability while crossing traffic; this problem will increase in the future. The
northbound approach will include two (2) through lanes. The southbound
approach will include one (1) through lane and one (1) combined through-right
turn lane. The eastbound approach will have one (1) right turn lane. The
eastbound movement will be stop sign controlled. See Figure 6D for a sketch of
the recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass
This intersection will remain signalized as part of the proposed project.
Minimal changes. will be implemented due to limitations on the scope of the
project. The northbound approach will include one (1) left turn lane, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) right turn lane. The westbound lane will include one
(1) left turn lane and one (1) combined through-right turn lane. The southbound
approach will include one (1) combined through-left turn lane and one (1)
combined through-right turn lane. The eastbound approach will include one (1)
combined left-through-right turn lane. See Figure 6E for a sketch of the
recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
9. Special Permits Required
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will
be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into `Waters of
the United States.' Due to surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 23
Permit will likely be necessary for this project.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to `Waters of the United States.' The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. Final decision
concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
10. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are currently anticipated.
4
11. Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost for the preferred intersection improvement is
$3,950,000, with $1,000,000 for right of way and $2,950,000 for construction.
All sidewalks on this project qualify as replacement sidewalks.
According to the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, NCDOT is responsible for
the total cost of replacing existing sidewalks that are removed during
construction.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project will correct a complex system of one-way roads which currently
make up the intersection of South Main Street and Waughtown Street. The resulting `T'
intersection will eliminate the one-way roads, while providing a road system and intersection
easily understood and navigated by motorists using the facility. The simplification will improve
safety in the project area while providing more efficient movement of traffic.
A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY
1. Existing Cross-Section
The existing cross-section of South Main Street south of the project is a
two-way, two-lane facility with allowance for roadside parking. The cross-section
of South Main Street from the southern project terminal to Marshall Street is a
one-way, two-lane facility with lane widths of approximately 6.0 m (19.5 ft).
From Marshall Street to Salem Avenue, South Main Street merges with
Waughtown Street to form a two-way, four-lane facility with lane widths of
approximately 3.6 m (12 ft).
The existing cross-section of Waughtown Street south of Alder Street is a
two-way, two-lane facility with 6.0-m (19.5-ft) lanes. From Alder Street
approximately 100 m.(328 ft) northwest on Waughtown Street, the pavement is
approximately 12 m (40 ft) wide, with two (2) 4.2-m (12-ft) lanes delineated for
one-way travel. From this point to South Main Street, Waughtown Street
transitions to a one-way, three-lane facility with three 3.3-m (11-ft) lanes, and
then merges with South Main Street.
The existing cross-section of Alder Street at the intersection with
Waughtown Street is a two-way, three-lane facility with one (1) 4.2-m (14-ft) lane
and two (2) 3.3-m (11-ft) lanes.
The existing cross-section of Marshall Street at the intersection with South
Main Street is a two-way, two-lane facility with two 6.0-m (19.5-ft) lanes. See
Figure 6A for the existing conditions in the project area.
5
2. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way along all roads involved in this project is
assumed to be 18.3 in (60 ft) or to the back of curbs where the road is wider than
18.3 in (60 ft).
3. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside development is moderate in the project area. Included in this
development are four (4) retail businesses and one (1) gas station/convenience
store. The Washington Park/Salem Creek Greenway passes along the northern
project terminal. This section of road provides a link between residential
neighborhoods and downtown Winston-Salem, Salem Academy and College, Old
Salem Historic District, Winston-Salem State University, and North Carolina
School of the Arts.
4. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following streets intersect South Main Street at grade and are
controlled as noted:
Alder Street
Marshall Street
Waughtown Street
Stop-sign (on cross street only)
Stop-sign (on cross street only)
Stop-sign (on cross street only)
Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass
5. Speed Limit
Signalized
The project is inside the Winston-Salem City limits, therefore, the speed
limit on all roads in the project area is 60 kph (35 mph).
6. Existing Structures
There are two (2) existing structures on the proposed project. Bridge
# 314, carrying existing Waughtown Street over Salem Creek, will be removed as
part of the proposed project. This bridge has a sufficiency rating of 27.1 of a
possible 100.0. The deck has a notably low general condition rating.
Bridge # 8 carries existing South Main Street over Salem Creek. This
bridge has a sufficiency rating of 48.0 of a possible 100.0. The deck and
6
7. Utilities
All major utilities (electric, water, sanitary sewer, telecommunications,
and natural gas) are located on the project and will be accommodated during and
after construction of the project. Utility conflicts are anticipated to be high.
8. Public Transportation
Current public transportation services include fixed bus routes under the
Winston-Salem Transit Authority. This service covers all of Winston-Salem
through established routes. Specifically, two (2) routes service the southern
Winston-Salem region, including routes to the North Carolina School of the Arts
(NCSA), Winston Salem State University (WSSU), Bowman Gray Memorial
Stadium, and other area shopping centers, apartment complexes, and educational
facilities.
Several other services are available under the Winston-Salem Transit
Authority including ParaTransit, Trans-Aid, `Park and Ride' which uses major
shopping center parking lots, and Ride-Share vans.
9. School Bus Data
Nine (9) school buses make two (2) trips each along South Main Street
and Waughtown Street. These buses, together, serve approximately 25 schools.
B. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along South Main Street range
from 7,100 vehicles per day (vpd) near the south end of the project to 5,300 vpd at the
north end of the project. Projected design year (2025) volumes in these same locations
range from 9,400 vpd to 8,500 vpd. Waughtown Street volume is 7,500 vpd north of
Alder Street in the current year and 9,800 vpd in the design year. The most significant
turning movement is right turns from Marshal Street southbound on South Main Street.
The estimated traffic volumes are shown in Figures 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D. These estimates
of average daily traffic include 1% TTST (truck tractor semi-trailer) and 2% DT (dual
trucks). The traffic volumes are based on the urban model.
Traffic volumes were completed for the `No Build' scenario, Alternative 1, and
Alternative 2. These volumes were then used to analyze traffic patterns and operating
levels of service (LOS) for the three (3) project options. The `No Build' scenario was
used as a control or comparison. Alternative 2 levels of service matched those of
Alternative 1 at all intersections except South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem
Bypass.
8
Levels of service are used to describe the operating conditions on a street or
highway. When traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of a roadway or
intersection, operating levels of service (LOS) are diminished and congestion results.
Simply defined, level of service is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions
of traffic along a roadway or at an intersection of two roadways. Six (6) levels of service
are defined from A to F, with LOS A being the best and LOS F being the worst. Each
level of service represents a range of operating conditions.
For free-flowing sections of roadway, level of service is a measure of traffic
density and speed. For signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of
stopped delay. Generally, in suburban areas with traffic signals spaced less than 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) apart, the traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is determined by the ability of
the signalized intersections to accommodate the traffic volumes. The subject project is an
intersection realignment, and the traffic carrying capacity is determined by the ability of
this intersection to accommodate traffic volumes.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Service A - Level A describes operations with delay times of less than
5 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when vehicle
progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles
arrive during the green phase of the traffic signal. Most
vehicles do not stop at all.
Level of Service B - Level B describes operations with delay in the range of 5 to
15 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good
progression and short signal cycle lengths. More vehicles
stop than for level A, causing higher levels of average
delay.
Level of Service C - Level C describes operations with delay in the range of 15
to 25 seconds per vehicle. Vehicle progression is generally
fair. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this
level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant,
although many pass through the intersection without
stopping.
Level of Service D - Level D describes operations with delay in the range of 25
to 40 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of
congestion is more noticeable. Longer delays may result
from a combination of unfavorable progression and long
cycle lengths. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles that do not stop declines. Individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
Level of Service E - Level E describes operations with delay between 40 and 60
seconds per vehicle. This is the limit of acceptable delay.
The high delay values indicate poor progression and long
cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
9
Level of Service F - Level F describes operations with delay in excess of 60
seconds per vehicle. This level is considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. This condition occurs when
arriving vehicles exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be
contributing causes to such delay levels.
1. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
For unsignalized intersections there is no overall level of service
calculated, instead, levels of service are analyzed by individual movements. No
level of service is calculated for the mainline through and right turning
movements for unsignalized intersections. Since mainline through and right turn
movements are the priority moves, their flow is considered to be basically
unaffected by the intersection.
Unsignalized analyses were performed for the current year (1997) without
the project in place and for the design year (2025) with and without the project in
place. All analyses `with the project in place' were performed for Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2. The level of service at the unsignalized intersections in the design
year remained consistent for Alternatives 1 and 2. Though the level of service
does not change with the project in place, the area will benefit from the project
through the simplification of the road network. The project will also eliminate
several road intersection points, consequently eliminating potential accident sites
(see subsequent section II.C). The results of the unsignalized intersection
analyses are summarized in Table 1.
a. Waughtown Street/Alder Street
This intersection is currently a skewed four-leg intersection with
Waughtown Street running north-south and Alder Street running east-
west. The northern leg of Waughtown Street carries traffic northbound,
one-way. The western leg of Alder Street carries traffic eastbound, one-
way. All movements at this intersection are operating at a LOS A, LOS B,
or LOS C in the current year (1997) and at LOS A, LOS B, or LOS D in
the design year (2025) without the project in place (see Table 1).
NCDOT proposes to slightly change this intersection to facilitate
two-way movement on Waughtown Street. Waughtown Street, the north-
south movement, will be the main two-way movement. Alder Street, the
east-west street, will be the secondary two-way movement. The resulting
intersection will be a three-leg, stop-sign controlled intersection (see
Figure 6A and 6B for the existing and proposed intersection configuration,
respectively). See Table 1 for level of service ratings at each movement.
10
b. South Main Street/Waughtown Street/Marshall Street
The existing intersection at South Main Street, Waughtown Street,
and Marshall Street is a modified four-leg intersection (see Figure 6A for
the existing intersection configuration). South Main Street is one-way,
southbound through this intersection, making up the northern and southern
legs; Marshall Street is two-way, forming the western leg of the
intersection; and a connector to Waughtown Street carries the one-way,
westbound traffic through the eastern leg of this intersection. All
movements at this intersection are running at a LOS A or LOS B in the
current year and in the design year; the westbound left-turns are at LOS C
in the design year, without the project in place (see Table 1).
This intersection will be modified as a result of the proposed
project. Please see subsequent section II.B.l.c for a description of the
resulting intersection and corresponding level of service ratings.
C. South Main Street/Marshall Street
The proposed project will alter the South Main Street/Waughtown
Street/Marshall Street intersection, eliminating the eastern leg
(Waughtown Street connector). The result is a `T' intersection with South
Main Street (north-south) and Marshall Street (east-west) (see Figure 6D
for the proposed intersection configuration). South Main Street will be
operating as a two-way, five-lane facility. Marshall Street will be
restricted to right turns in and right turns out due 'to the short distance
between adjacent intersections (left turn storage for adjacent intersections
would interfere with vehicles attempting to access Marshall Street).
Movements at this intersection operate at a LOS C with Alternative 1 or
Alternative 2 (see Table 1).
11
TABLE 1: LOS: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
1997 2025 2025 2025
INTERSECTION APPROACH MOVEMENT WITHOUT WITHOUT ALT.1 ALT.2
SEB Alder Street N/A N/A A A
Waughtown Street/ WB L C D D D
Alder Street* R A A A A
EB T B B N/A N/A
R A A N/A N/A
South Main Street/ WB L C F N/A N/A
Marshall Street/ R A A N/A N/A
Waughtown Street EB R B B N/A N/A
South Main Street/
Marshall Street EB R N/A N/A C C
NOTE: `WITHOUT' denotes without the project in place
`ALT. 1' denotes with Alternative 1 in place
`ALT. 2' denotes with Alternative 2 in place
Peak hour volumes used for all analyses
* - See Page 3/Figure 6B for explanation of the proposed intersection configuration
2. Signalized Intersection Analysis
For signalized intersections, the level of service is calculated for the entire
intersection as well as for individual movements. A signalized intersection
analysis was performed on the South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem
Bypass in the current year without the project in place and design year without
and with Alternative 1. The South Main Street/Waughtown Street intersection
was analyzed as a signalized intersection in the design year, with Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2 in place. The results of the signalized intersection analyses are
summarized in Table 2.
a. South Main Street/Waughtown Street
The intersection of South Main Street and Waughtown Street is
proposed as a signalized `T' intersection. This intersection operates at a
LOS B in the design year with the project in place. There is no level of
service rating for this intersection without the project in place. See Table
2 for the level of service results by movement and intersection.
As part of this improvement, the northbound approach will include
one (1) through lane and one (1) combined through-right turn lane. The
southbound approach will include one (1) left turn lane and two (2)
through lanes. The westbound approach will include one (1) left turn lane
12
and one (1) right turn lane. See Figure 6C for the proposed intersection
configuration.
b. South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass
This intersection is located at the northern project terminal. The
existing intersection is currently signalized, and is made up of South Main
Street as the northbound approach, Salem Avenue as the westbound and
eastbound approaches, and Old Salem Bypass as the southbound approach.
Signalization of the Alternative 2 proposal would require two (2)
signals, one (1) at the South Main Street/Salem Avenue intersection and
one (1) at the Old Salem Bypass/Salem Avenue intersection, creating
design problems associated with signal coordination. These intersections
would be less than 60 m (200 ft) apart due to area development constraints
and the adjacent Greenway path (Salem Lake/Washington Park) and
public park (Central Park). The close spacing of the signals would cause
traffic queues to spill back into adjacent intersections causing serious
operational and safety hazards. For these reasons, the South Main
Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass intersection level of service
findings are not listed since they are based on a design that is not feasible.
This intersection currently operates at a LOS B. In the design year, this
intersection will operate at a LOS C if the project is not constructed.
As part of the Alternative 1 proposed improvements, an exclusive
left-turn lane will be added to the northbound approach. Additional
improvements resulting in improved level of service ratings are beyond
the scope of the project. Based on the recommended improvements, the
overall intersection experiences a drop in operating level of service from
LOS C to LOS D. The level of service can be attributed to the
introduction of a northbound left-turn movement. This is not currently
allowed, but will be a part of the proposed project. Left turns are currently
permitted at the South Main Street/Marshall Street intersection but will be
prohibited as part of the proposed project. Left-turning traffic at Marshall
Street is typically cut-through traffic accessing western downtown
Winston-Salem and Salem Avenue. The volume of vehicles using this
side road currently creates a traffic backup and will continue to do so in
the future. Allowing left-turns at South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old
Salem Bypass will provide the same access, more left-turn storage, and the
aid of a left turn phase at the traffic signal. The potential for traffic
conflicts will decrease at the signal. See Table 2 for the level of service
results by movement and intersection and Figure 6A and 6E for the
existing and proposed intersection configuration, respectively.
13
TABLE 2: LOS: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
1997 2025 2025 2025
INTERSECTION APPROACH MOVEMENT WITHOUT WITHOUT ALT.1 ALT.2
NB TR N/A N/A C C
SOUTH MAIN STREET/ SB L N/A N/A B B
WAUGHTOWN STREET T N/A N/A B B
WB L N/A N/A C C
R N/A N/A B B
OVERALL B B
NB L N/A N/A D
T B D D
SOUTH MAIN STREET/ R A A C
SALEM AVENUE/ EB LTR C C D
OLD SALEM BYPASS SB LTR B B C
WB L B B B
TR C D D
OVERALL B C D
NOTE: `WITHOUT' denotes without the project in place
`ALT. 1' denotes with Alternative 1 in place
`ALT. 2' denotes with Alternative 2 in place
Peak hour volumes used for all analyses
C. ACCIDENT RECORD
During the three (3) year period from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1997, an
average of 20 accidents occurred in the project area. Thirty percent (30%) of these
accidents were rear end collisions and 40% were angle (vehicles being hit while crossing
traffic). The majority of accidents in the project area are rear end and angle situations,
which typically occur when a vehicle slows down to make a turn or crosses traffic at a
minor street. The existing road network in the study area includes approximately seven
(7) intersection points (see Figure 6A for project area diagram). The proposed
improvement will reduce this to three (3) intersection points, providing fewer
opportunities for potential rear end and angle accidents.
D. THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND ROUTE FUNCTION
The current thoroughfare plan was adopted by the City of Winston-Salem,
Forsyth County, the Town of Kernersville, the Town of Rural Hall, the Town of
Walkertown, the Village of Clemmons, the City-County Planning Board, the
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and NCDOT in 1987. The plan designates
South Main Street as a minor thoroughfare and Waughtown Street as a major
thoroughfare. Salem Avenue, the northern project terminal, is considered a minor
14
thoroughfare, and Marshall Street, which intersects South Main Street on the project, is
also considered a minor thoroughfare.
Waughtown Street functions as a southeastern link between Winston-Salem and
Kernersville and is recommended for widening south of the subject project. South Main
Street is flagged for future improvements while Salem Avenue is listed as important but
not requiring improvements at the time the thoroughfare plan was adopted. The widening
of Waughtown Street south of the project area, and the route classification and function
justifies the proposed intersection improvement. The subject project will facilitate a more
efficient link and provide a safer roadway for commuters to and from the southeastern
Forsyth County area.
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
The construction alternatives consist of two (2) intersection configurations. The
recommended cross-sections for each alternative are a five-lane curb and gutter section on
South Main Street and a three-lane curb and gutter section on Waughtown Street. The
outside travel lanes are proposed as 4.2 m (14 ft) wide, enabling bicyclists to share the
road with motorists. The center turn lane will accommodate left turn moves into side
roads and retail establishments. Curb and gutter drainage treatment is recommended to
reduce right of way impacts and maintain consistency with the existing curb and gutter
facilities in the project area. See Table 3 for a comparison of the associated costs and
relocatees for the two (2) alternatives.
1. Alternative 1(Recommended Alternative)
Alternative 1, the recommended alternative, will remove a complex
network of one- and two-way streets connecting South Main Street and
Waughtown Street south of downtown Winston-Salem. The portion of
Waughtown Street between Alder Street and South Main Street will be removed
as well as will Bridge #314 on Waughtown Street. Waughtown Street will be
reconstructed from Alder Street to intersect with South Main Street at a signalized
`T' intersection approximately 30 m (100 ft) south of Bridge #8. See Figure 3 for
a copy of an aerial mosaic showing Alternative 1.
The recommended alignment will widen South Main Street symmetrically
from just south of Bridge #8. Widening will shift to the east across the bridge to
Marshall Street to avoid impacting a tributary channel running parallel to South
Main Street for approximately 120 m (400 ft). From Marshall Street to the South
Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass intersection, widening shifts to the
west. Alternative 1 relocates one (1) business on South Main Street and no
residences. Suitable relocation business sites are available in the region.
15
The recommended cross-section on South Main Street is a five-lane,
20.4-m (68-ft) curb and gutter section. This cross-section will contain a 3.6-m
(12-ft) center two way left turn lane, a 3.6-m (12-ft) inside travel lane in each
direction, and a 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel lane in each direction. A 0.6-m (2-ft)
curb and 3.0-m (10-ft) berm with a 1.5-m (5-ft) sidewalk will be provided on each
side of the roadway (see Figure 4A).
The recommended cross-section on Waughtown Street is a two-lane,
9.6-m (32-ft) curb and gutter section. This cross-section will contain a 4.2-m (14-
ft) outside travel lane in each direction and a 0.6-m (2-ft) curb and 3.0-m (10-ft)
berm with a 1.5-m (5-ft) sidewalk will be provided on each side of the roadway
(see Figure 4B).
A signalized intersection is recommended at South Main
Street/Waughtown Street. The South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem
Bypass intersection will remain signalized as part of this project.
2. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 uses a different alignment to simplify the existing network of
roads. Like Alternative 1, this alternative removes the section of Waughtown
Street between Alder Street and South Main Street. Bridge #314, on Waughtown
Street, will also be removed as part of Alternative 2. Waughtown Street will be
reconstructed from Alder Street to intersect with South Main Street at a signalized
`T' intersection.
This alignment will widen South Main Street symmetrically from the
southern project terminal to Bridge #8. As in Alternative 1, widening will shift to
the east across the bridge to Marshall Street to avoid impacts to a tributary
channel. From Marshall Street to the South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old
Salem Bypass intersection, widening continues to the east. The resulting South
Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass intersection will be skewed,
creating a `Y' intersection. The western leg of Salem Avenue will `T' into Old
Salem Bypass to the northwest of the new intersection. See Figure 6A and 6F for
the existing and proposed intersection configuration, respectively.
Alternative 2 will relocate two (2) businesses on South Main Street. One
(1) business, employing five (5) full time and two (2) part time employees, is
currently for sale. The second business, employing two (2) full time and one (1)
part time employee, is a rental establishment. Suitable business sites are available
for relocation.
The South Main Street and Waughtown Street cross-sections
recommended with Alternative 2 are the same as those from Alternative 1 (see
Figures 4A and 4B).
16
A signalized intersection is recommended at South Main
Street/Waughtown Street. The South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem
Bypass intersection will remain signalized as part of this project.
This alternative is not recommended due to the complicated layout of the
proposed South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass intersection. One
of the purposes of this project is to simplify the existing intersection at South
Main Street and Waughtown Street. Alternative 2 introduces a new, complex
intersection to the project area. In addition to the complexity of the proposed
intersection layout, intricate traffic signal phasing (and possibly an added signal
south of this intersection) will be required to properly regulate traffic. The added
complexity of the proposed signal system will not achieve the purpose of
simplifying the existing intersection at South Main Street and Waughtown Street.
TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE COST AND RELOCATEE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE 1 (REC.) ALTERNATIVE 2
CONSTRUCTION $2,950,000 $3,000,000
RIGHT OF WAY $1,000,000 $1,311,250
TOTAL $3,950,000 $4,211,250
RELOCATEES
RESIDENTIAL 0 0
BUSINESS 1 2
TOTAL 1 2
NOTE: `REC.' represents Recommended
B. "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The "do nothing" alternative would avoid any potential adverse impacts to the
natural environment that will occur as a result of the proposed intersection realignment.
However, failure to make the proposed road improvements in this area will hinder future
traffic flow to and from downtown Winston-Salem and Old Salem Historic District, as
well as area educational institutions. This alternative does not replace the two (2)
deteriorating bridges found on the proposed project. Additionally, the "do nothing"
alternative does not improve traffic safety or operational efficiency and capacity.
Therefore, the "do nothing" alternative is not recommended.
C. ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
Selective use of public transportation, in conjunction with the proposed lane
additions, can enhance the effectiveness of the proposed project. However, public
transportation alone will not address the safety and capacity needs of the corridor.
17
Current public transportation services include fixed bus routes under the Winston-
Salem Transit Authority. This service covers all of Winston-Salem through established
routes. Specifically, two (2) routes service the southern Winston-Salem region including
routes to the North Carolina School of the Arts (NCSA), Winston Salem State University
(WSSU), Bowman Gray Memorial Stadium, and other area shopping centers, apartment
complexes, and educational facilities.
Several other services are available under the Winston-Salem Transit Authority
including ParaTransit, Trans-Aid, `Park and Ride' which uses major shopping center
parking lots, and Ride-Share vans.
Winston-Salem has exhibited a commitment to maintaining an updated transit
system in conjunction with the road improvements scheduled in the Thoroughfare Plan.
The transit service to the corridor in conjunction with the proposed project improvements
will ensure adequate service to the public by simplifying traffic movements in the project
area.
D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER
ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADS
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes limited
construction activities designed to maximize the efficiency of the present transportation
system. TSM measures enhance the operations of a facility, while minimizing capital
outlay. These measures can include physical improvements to the roadway network as
well as operational improvements.
Potential TSM options within the study area that have not been considered in
previously discussed alternatives include optimizing traffic signal phases and
coordinating signal operations. Projected traffic volumes for this area exceed the capacity
of existing roadways. Generally, if traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the roadways,
minor improvements to signal phases or optimization of signal timings will not improve
the level of service.
Although TSM measures will improve traffic safety and operations, they will not
correct the geometric configuration problems on the subject project. The road network
needs to be reconfigured to create a safer intersection. Therefore, TSM techniques are
eliminated from further consideration as an alternative to new roadway construction or
large-scale improvements to the existing roadway.
18
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The project area is a developed urban tract connecting
educational/institutional, residential, retail, recreational, and service land
uses. A used car dealership and other heavy commercial and light
industrial uses currently occupy the southwestern project area. To the
southeast, there is one (1) service station and several small businesses.
Behind the service station, on Alder Street, is a residential neighborhood.
In the center of the project area, two (2) retail buildings can be found. To
the east of the project is Central Park, an active recreational area including
ball fields, tennis courts, access to Washington Park/Salem Creek
Greenway Trail. A retail building is located between Central Park and the
intersection of Salem Avenue and South Main Street. Old Salem Historic
District and the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts (MESDA) are
located to the north of the project, along with heavy commercial and light
industrial use buildings to the northwest.
Also located in the project area are Salem Academy and College
(in the Old Salem Historic District), Winston-Salem State University to
the east, and North Carolina School of the Arts to the south.
b. Existing Zoning._
The proposed project is located in the Central Business District, as
described in the Vision 2005 - Forsyth County Comprehensive Plan. This
area is zoned for several uses. The area north of Salem Avenue is zoned
as Historic District. Central Park is zoned Institutional-Public. The
business in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of South Main
Street/Salem Bypass and Salem Avenue and the remainder of the project
area is zoned Highway Business.
C. Proposed Land Use
The project area is located in the Central Business District, which
is slated for urban development and historic preservation in an attempt to
promote employment and tourism in downtown Winston-Salem. The
proposed project would serve as radial access from I40, residential
neighborhoods, and the North Carolina School of the Arts to the center of
Winston-Salem.
19
Additionally, The Southeast Gateway Plan projects that the project
area be rehabilitated to a pedestrian friendly area including retail, service,
and convenience facilities. Old Salem plans to relocate the Old Salem
Visitors Center and construct a new parking facility in the northwestern
quadrant of the South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem Bypass
intersection. Old Salem has constructed a pedestrian bridge over Old
Salem Bypass, from the future Visitors Center to MESDA.
The specific project area is expected to connect North Carolina
School of the Arts (NCSA) with Old Salem and Downtown Winston-
Salem. It is desired that the downtown Strollway be extended through the
project area to NCSA.
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with proposed area land use. By
improving the intersection of South Main Street and Waughtown Street,
traffic will move more efficiently. Pedestrians will be required to
negotiate two (2) `T' intersections south of Salem Avenue in place of the
existing web of one-way roads, providing a safer environment. The
proposed alternative also provides opportunity for future improvements to
Waughtown Street, as outlined in the Southeast Gateway Plan, should
those improvements be included in future Transportation Improvement
Programs.
2. Neighborhood Analysis
Forsyth County is located in the northwestern section of the state,
bordering the mountain counties. Forsyth County is bounded by Surry, Stokes,
Rockingham, Guilford, Randolph, Davidson, Davie, and Yadkin Counties.
Forsyth County has a population of 265,878. Racial composition consists of the
following: 197,340 white, 65,923 black, 543 American Indian, 1,697
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 465 as other.
The immediate project area consists of a mix of historic,
educational/institutional, retail, and service land uses. Beyond the immediate
project area, residential, industrial, and educational/institutional land uses
dominate with some retail establishments also present.
3. Relocation Impacts
The proposed action will relocate no residences and one (1) business on
the proposed project. This business is a seasonal tenant on South Main Street.
Suitable relocation sites are available in the project area.
20
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted
projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the
following three (3) programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
1. Relocation Assistance,
2. Relocation Moving Payments, and
3. Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
See Appendix A for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs.
4. Public and Private Facilities
Facilities in the immediate area include Old Salem Historic District,
MESDA, Central Park, Washington Park/Salem Creek Greenway Trail, and
several retail and service facilities. Downtown Winston-Salem, Salem Academy
and College, Winston-Salem State University, and North Carolina School of the
Arts are located in the general project area. The public facilities near and in the
area will benefit through improved access following construction of the project.
Therefore, public facilities will not be adversely impacted.
5. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General
Statue 121.12a which requires that, if a proposed state action will have an
adverse effect upon a property listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
The project's area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties was investigated through field visits and consultation with the
maps and files of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). SHPO and NCDOT concur that the work related to realigning
the intersection of South Main Street and Waughtown Street does not fall
within the boundaries of either the Old Salem National Historic Landmark
or the Washington Park Historic District. This concludes necessary
coordination from NCDOT with SHPO.
21
b. Archaeological Resources
The NCDOT archaeologists have surveyed the project area for
archaeological resources that could be considered eligible for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places. No such resources were
encountered during this survey, therefore, no further archaeological work
is recommended. However, the project area lies in close proximity to Old
Salem Historic District, and substantial alterations to the current proposal
will require re-evaluation.
B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS
According to the Employment Security Commission, Forsyth County has a total
labor force of 150,300 (statistics updated in September 1998). Of this total, 146,600 are
gainfully employed and 3,700 are unemployed, producing an unemployment rate of
2.5%. This is less than the statewide unemployment rate of 3.1 %.
The 1990 median household income for Forsyth County was $30,449 ($26,647 for
the state of North Carolina) and the average household income was $39,499 ($33,242 for
North Carolina). Per capita income was $16,531 ($13,093 for North Carolina). Persons
living below the poverty level for Forsyth County totaled 27,102, and those living at 50%
of the poverty level totaled 11,85 1.
Some business owners will experience temporary negative impacts during the
relocation process. However, improved access will have a positive effect on the
remaining area businesses, educational/institutional facilities, and historical facilities.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The purpose of this section is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This section also attempts
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations will need to be conducted.
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Winston-Salem), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
Forsyth, Avery, and Caldwell Counties, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the U. S. Fish and
22
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and federal species of concern, and
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Christopher A. Murray
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology, Univ. North Carolina at Wilmington, North
Carolina, B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Certification: Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1130
Experience: N. Carolina Dept. of Transportation 1995-present, Environmental
Investigations, P.A. 1992-1994, Environmental Services, Inc. 1991-1992.
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and Protected Species Surveys
Definitions for the terminology used in area descriptions contained in this report
are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction
limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the
project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
1. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed in
this section. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Forsyth County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively. flat. The project is located in an
urbanized area of Winston-Salem surrounded by businesses, parks, and apartment
complexes. The project study area is located approximately 232 m (760 ft) above
mean sea level.
a. Soils
The project study area is located within the Pacolet-Cecil
Association. This association is comprised of well drained, brownish,
loamy soils that have a reddish clayey subsoil. Specifically, three (3)
mapped soil units are located in the project study area including: Pacolet-
Urban land complex, 2-10% slopes; Pacolet-Urban land complex, 10-25%
slopes; and Chewacla loam. The Pacolet-Urban land complex is a non-
hydric soil. Chewacla loam is a non-hydric soil that may contain hydric
Wehadkee soil inclusions.
The Pacolet-Urban land complex map units consist of areas where
Pacolet soils have been altered in many places by the construction of
23
buildings, streets, and parking lots located in Winston-Salem. About 45%
of the mapping unit is Pacolet soils and about 40% is comprised of Urban
land. Soils located in the Pacolet series are well drained and located on
gently sloping to steep upland. Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly
drained soil on flood plains. Infiltration is moderate and surface runoff is
slow. This soil is frequently flooded for very brief periods in the winter
and flooded occasionally for brief periods during the growing season.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major
water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Salem Creek crosses the project under Bridge #8 and Bridge #314.
There is also a tributary channel running to the west of Bridge #8. Both of
these have the potential to receive runoff from project construction.
i. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Drainage Basin. The proposed project
crosses Salem Creek, located in Yadkin sub basin 030704. Salem
Creek has its headwaters approximately 11 km (7 mi) northeast of
the project study area. The stream continues to the southwest
where it outfalls into Salem Lake and continues to the southwest
where it crosses the project study area. From the project study
area, Salem Creek flows to the southwest approximately 13 km
(8 mi) where it reaches its confluence with Muddy Creek. Muddy
Creek is the largest stream in this sub basin with one major
tributary, Salem Creek, draining heavily urbanized portions of
Winston-Salem. Salem Creek at the project site is approximately
14 m (45 ft) wide and 1 m (3 ft) deep. The flow rate was moderate
during the site visit. The substrate is comprised of boulder, stone,
cobble, gravel, and sand.
ii. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). According to the DWQ,
the best usage classification of Salem Creek [DEM Index No. 12-
94-12-(4)] is C. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
24
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture.
No water resources classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi)
of the project study area.
iii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of
these organisms are reflections of water quality. BMAN sampling
station B-17 is located on Tar Branch above its confluence with
Salem Creek. The confluence of Salem Creek and Tar Branch is
less than 0.3 km (0.2 mi) downstream of the project area. This site
was sampled in September 1993 and received a bioclassification of
Poor.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit..- R- J. Reynolds Tobacco Company/Plant No. 200 is a
permitted point source discharger to Salem Creek located
approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) east and upstream of the.project
study area. Discharge rates for this facility are not available.
Water quality throughout North Carolina is significantly
influenced by nutrient loading and sedimentation from agricultural
runoff. Winston-Salem is one of the largest urban areas in North
Carolina, with many streams affected by urban runoff and/or
permitted dischargers. Sub basin 030704 is located in an area of
easily eroded soils. Consequently, streams in areas of urban land
use are affected by sediment inputs and have large amounts of
coarse sand.
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study
area are dependent upon final construction limits. Roadway
25
construction in and adjacent to Salem Creek may result in water
quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the creek
will result in soil erosion leading to increased sedimentation and
turbidity. These effects may extend downstream for considerable
distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative
effect on water quality. The vegetation typically shades the
water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water temperature.
The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result
in more extreme fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer
portions of the year, the water temperature will increase, resulting
in a decrease in dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less
oxygen. Stream bank vegetation also stabilizes stream banks and
reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase
the potential for toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to
be carried into nearby water resources via precipitation, sheet flow,
and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials can
adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus
impacting its biological and chemicalfunctions. Indirect impacts
to surface waters may extend both upstream and downstream of the
project study area. Indirect impacts may include changes in
flooding regime, discharge, erosion and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the
entire impact area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation
with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of
surface waters. The following actions are methods to reduce
sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point
discharge into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams
• installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth
berms to control runoff during construction
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites to reduce runoff and decrease sediment
loadings
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along streams
26
• elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains
or adjacent to streams which would reduce the potential
of accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a
result of disturbance of the stream banks and substrate.
Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project
completion if exposed soils are re-vegetated and banks stabilized.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances
during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described
and discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism will include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms,
as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Fish
1960, Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et al. 1994; Potter et al.
1980).
27
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study
area: disturbed community and mesic hardwood forest.
Disturbed community encompasses several types of habitats that
have recently been or are currently impacted by human disturbance, such
as: roadside shoulder, maintained yard, and power line easement. These
irregularly maintained habitats are kept in a low-growing, early
successional state. Herbs, grasses, and vines located in the roadside
shoulder and maintained yard include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), fescue (Festuca sp.), common plantain (Plantago major),
bushclover (Lespedeza sp.), and beadgrass (Paspalum sp.). The power
line easement is located to the southwest of Bridge #8. This area receives
less maintenance and is dominated by kudzu (Pueraria lobata), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and milkweed (Asclepias sp.).
The mesic hardwood forest community is restricted to a narrow
band less than 6 m (20 ft) wide, bordering both sides of Salem Creek and
isolated tracts along Alder Street and Salem Avenue. Dominant species
located in the canopy and sub-canopy include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), ashleaf maple (A. negundo),
American elm (Ulmus americana), privet (Ligustrum sinense), tree-of-
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), white pine (Pinus strobus), and black willow
(Salix nigra). Species located in the herb and vine layer include poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle, and poke (Phytolacca americana).
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of
forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, such that both are required for survival and
reproduction. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) forage nocturnally in these
habitats and are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways. The
least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or
open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging
and nesting habitat. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer
forest edges where they primarily feed on woody perennials. Snakes such
as the black racer (Coluber constrictor) and eastern garter (Thamnophis
sirtalis) may venture into these communities to feed on small mammals
and insects. Chipping sparrows (Spizella passerina) also frequent
roadsides and brushy fields.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats may include
northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), gray squirrel (Sciurus
28

carolinensis), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews
and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer of leaf litter. The slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) inhabits woodlands where they are
known to forage at night and spend the day in burrows under logs, stones,
and leaf litter. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) inhabits woodlands
where it may be observed under forest litter or brushy undergrowth.
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, is
located in the project study area. Perennial streams support an assemblage
of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water. Physical characteristics of the water body
and condition of the water influence floral and faunal composition of the
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource
also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
moderately sized perennial streams in urbanized areas may include
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three lined salamander
(Eurycea guttolineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (R.
palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). According to Fish
(1968), Salem Creek has an ecological classification of Carp-Catfish. The
stream is of no fishing significance due to local pollution. Fish species
that may be located here include rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
shiners (Cyprinella spp.), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or
near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions.
This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community (Table 4). Project construction will result
in the clearing and degradation of portions of these communities.
Estimated impacts are derived using the entire right of way width outlined
in preliminary plan sheets. Usually, project construction does not require
the entire right of way width, therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less. Bridge #314 and portions of Waughtown Street will be
removed as part of this project. Areas along Waughtown Street that will
29
have their pavement removed will be re-vegetated during project
construction.
TABLE 4. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Disturbed Community 2.0 ha (5.1 ac) 2.2 ha (5.4 ac)
Mesic Hardwood Forest 0.1 ha (0.3 ac) 0.1 ha (0.3 ac)
TOTAL 2.1 ha (5.4 ac) 2.3 ha (5.7 ac)
NOTE: `ha' denotes hectares
`ac' denotes acres
The biotic communities found within the project area will be
altered as a result of project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. However, the majority of
the project study area is in a highly altered state and plants and animals
here are well adapted to disturbed conditions. Additional disturbed
habitats will be re-established after project construction from the re-
vegetation of temporary detours. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species
following project completion. The mesic hardwood forest located in the
project is already fragmented. Due to the fragmented nature and limited
distribution of this community, impacts to fauna in the mesic hardwood
forest should be minimal.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in
the project area as well as those downstream. Bridge # 314 will be
removed and Bridge #8 will be replaced by another bridge. Accordingly,
impacts to water resources located in the project study area will be
minimal. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be maintained
during the entire life of the project.
3. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal
Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
30
Salem Creek is considered a jurisdictional surface water. This tributary is
thoroughly described in Section IV.C.l.b.i of this document. There are no
wetland areas located within the project study area.
Approximately 37 linear in (120 linear ft) of Salem Creek is located within
the project study area of Bridge #8. Approximately 16 linear in (53 linear ft) of
Salem Creek is located within the project study area of Bridge #314. Actual
impacts to the surface water community may be less than reported because the
entire right of way width and easements are often not impacted by construction
projects. The amount of surface water impacts may be modified by any changes
in roadway design.
4. Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will
be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Due to surface water impacts attributed to bridging and
approach improvements, a Section 404 Bridge General Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE office will likely be necessary for this project (61 FR 65874,
65918; Dec. 13, 1996). Final decision concerning applicable permits rests with
the COE.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of the Bridge General
Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from
the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
5. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
[ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
31
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of November 4, 1997,
the USFWS lists the following federally protected species for Forsyth
County (Table 5). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
TABLE 5. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR FORSYTH COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T S/A
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered*
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
NOTE: ' Endangered species are a taxon which are in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range
Threatened by similarity of appearance T(S/A) is threatened by similarity of
appearance with other species and is listed for its protection
An asterisk (*) indicates an obscure and incidental record
• Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered*
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape
in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal
stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat.
A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick under-story,
and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of
the RCW is up to 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually
in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the
ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a
large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its
eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers
in the form of old growth pine forests is not located in the project study
area. There were no pines of sufficient size and density located in the
project study area or nearby vicinity. A review of NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of RCW within
32
1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not
occur from project construction.
• Cardamine microanthera (small-anthered bittercress) Endangered
Plant Family: Brassicaceae
Federally Listed: September 21, 1989
Flowers Present: April - May
Small-anthered bittercress is a slender, erect, perennial herb with
fibrous roots. This herb has single (rarely more), simple, or branched stems.
The stem leaves are alternate, mostly unlobed, crenate, and cuneate. The .
flowers, which are born in April and May, have four (4) white petals, six (6)
stamens, and small, round anthers.
Small-anthered bittercress is found in small stream bank seepages,
wet rock crevices, adjacent sandbars, and stream edges in the Dan River
drainage basin of the North Carolina and Virginia Piedmont. North
Carolina populations are presently confined to Little Peter's Creek, Peter's
Creek, Elk Creek, and another unnamed tributary to the Dan River in Stokes
County.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for small-anthered bittercress is present along the
banks of Salem Creek at the project study area. Surveys for this species will
be conducted during the flowering season in April-May 1999. A review of
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
occurrences of small-anthered bittercress within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area.
• Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of
approximately 8 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in). This otherwise dark colored species is
readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or yellow spot on the
sides of the head and neck. The bog turtle has declined drastically within
the northern population of its range due to over collection and habitat
alteration. As a result, the bog turtle is listed as threatened within the
northern part of its range; and within the southern portion of its range
(which includes North Carolina), the bog turtle is listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance to the northern population. The listing bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles
from the southern population. The listing allows incidental take of bog
turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures
usually in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small,
shallow streams over soft bottoms. In North Carolina, the bog turtle has a
discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont.
33
The bog turtle is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance.
These species are not subject to Section 7 of the ESA. Suitable habitat for
the bog turtle is not present at the project study area. A review of NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known occurrences
of the bog turtle within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Therefore
impacts to this species will not occur from project construction.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal
species that may or may not be listed in the future. There are no FSC
listed for Forsyth County.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are in the
process of decline due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with
human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to
review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification
Forsyth County and the Town of Winston-Salem are participants in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Salem Creek crossings are in a
designated flood hazard zone and are included in a detailed flood study, having an
established floodway with the corresponding regulatory water surface elevations.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (see Figure 5) shows the established limits of the
100-year floodplain in the project vicinity; however, the 100-year floodway is not
shown.
The existing floodplain in the project area is moderately developed for
commercial use, and there are no buildings in the project vicinity with floor
elevations below the 100-year flood level. It is anticipated that the removal of
Bridge #314 and the proposed replacement structure for Bridge #8 will provide
equivalent or improved conveyance compared to that of the existing bridges,
therefore, the project will not have any adverse effect on the existing floodplain
and associated flood hazard. The proposed improvement may, however, warrant
floodway revisions. The NCDOT will coordinate with Federal Emergency
Management Agency and local authorities in final design to ensure compliance
with applicable floodplain ordinances.
7. Farmland
The North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of
34
land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service according to crop
yield and the level of resources expended. Land which is committed to urban
development is not subject to the level of consideration afforded other rural and
agricultural areas.
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
For the design year (2025), the 67 dBA contour is located along the right
of way of the proposed project and the 50 dBA contour is located approximately
106 m (345 ft) from the centerline of the proposed project. No receptors are
anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and no
noise sensitive receptors were identified that would be expected to experience a
substantial change in exterior noise levels per NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy.
See Appendix C for all Tables associated with this noise analysis.
Based on the type of facility and traffic volumes, the project's impact on
noise will not be substantial.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Forsyth County is located within the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Point non-attainment area for ozone (03), and the Winston-Salem non-attainment
area for carbon monoxide (CO), as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" non-attainment area
for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were re-
designated as "maintenance" for 03 on November 7, 1993 and for CO on
November 8, 1994. 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 Forsyth County. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Urban
Area 1997 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to
conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval dates for the TIP is June
1996. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is April 4, 1997. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40
CFR Part 51. There have been no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Air Quality analysis was conducted using Mobile 5A and Cal3QHC. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
non-attainment area. Based on the type of facility and traffic volumes, the
project's impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial. See Appendix C
for all Tables associated with this air quality analysis.
35
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP
for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
10. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts
There are no known facilities found in the project area with the possibility
for UST's. No known landfills or other potentially contaminated properties were
found in the project limits.
11. Construction Impacts
Environmental impacts normally associated with highway construction are
generally of short-term duration. The NCDOT will implement measures to
minimize anticipated construction impacts.
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project,
burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in
accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists and/or area
residents.
The general requirements concerning erosions and siltation are covered in
Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures (Standard
Specifications), which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution."
The N.C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize
erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together with
the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated
erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State Agencies.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
36
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation
or pollution.
NCDOT's general contract for right of way clearing allows the contractor
to market merchantable timber during construction to minimize the need for piling
and burning. This contract also includes specifications to protect trees outside the
construction limits.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
Construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious service
disruptions to utilities serving the area. Prior to construction, a determination will
be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the
project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this will be made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is
required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this work will
occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any damages to water lines
incurred during the construction processes. This procedure will insure that water
lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with minimal disruption in service to
the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the
transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. COMMENTs RECEIVED
1. Government Response
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following
federal, state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies
noted with an asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
• * N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
37
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments
* Forsyth County Commissioners
* City of Winston-Salem
Mayor of Winston-Salem
* Salem Academy and College
* Old Salem Incorporated
* Moravian Church in America
* Winston-Salem State University
* N.C. School of the Arts
* Southeast Gateway Group
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
2. Public Response
In addition to written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was held on April 2,
1998 at the Vintage Theatre in Winston-Salem to discuss the subject project. The
NCDOT Citizens Participation Unit advertised the meeting in the major local
media prior to its being held. Additionally, flyers were mailed to area interest
groups to be copied and distributed at the discretion of each organization. Those
groups receiving flyers included North Carolina School of the Arts, Old Salem
Incorporated, Salem Academy and College, and Winston-Salem State University.
Approximately 175 people attended the informal workshop including
representatives from NCDOT, the City of Winston-Salem, Forsyth County,
Moravian Church in America, North Carolina School of the Arts, Old Salem
Incorporated, Salem Academy and College, Southeast Gateway Group, and
Winston-Salem State University.
Separate petitions (consensus documents) were received representing the
area leasing/renting residents and the private homeowners/residents of Old Salem
Historic District. Individual comments were received from the following
organizations: the City of Winston-Salem, Old Salem Incorporated, and Salem
Academy and College. The following concerns were included in the petitions and
organization comments received:
• Area leasing and renting residents support Alternative 1
(recommended)
• Area homeowners are concerned that general safety on Old Salem
Bypass is deteriorating, citing speed limit, traffic volume, and truck
traffic as possible hazard sources
38
• Area homeowners suggested that Salem Avenue be considered an
alternative route for traffic currently using Old Salem Bypass to access
downtown Winston-Salem
• The City of Winston-Salem was concerned about the safety of
pedestrians in the project area
• The City of Winston-Salem suggested studying Salem Avenue as a
`primary entrance into the east side of downtown Winston-Salem and
possible primary connection to US 52 if the Stadium Drive interchange
is ever removed'
• Old Salem, Inc. suggested that the recommended alternative
`...recognize the roles of Broad Street, Marshall Street, Old Salem
Road [Bypass], and Salem Avenue as north-south connectors' and
provide convenient east-west connections for alternative access to
these four roads
• Old Salem, Inc. suggested `traffic calming' measures such as turning
lanes, median planters, traffic signals and pedestrian crossings be
implemented at the South Main Street/Salem Avenue/Old Salem
Bypass intersection and along Old Salem Bypass
• Old Salem, Inc. emphasized the need for a connector between South
Main Street and Broad Street (west of the proposed project) to
facilitate north-south traffic movement (see Section VI.B)
• Salem Academy and College supported Alternative 1 (recommended)
while expressing concern for pedestrians traveling to and from the
educational facility
• Salem Academy and College is concerned that the project will affect
future facility expansion
Of the comments received during and following the citizens informational
workshop, the majority concerned pedestrian safety in the project area. Other comments
included:
• General questions concerning the planning process and how public
opinion and suggestions could effect design decisions
• Affects of Alternatives 1 and 2 on area institutions in terms of future
growth, accessibility, and patron safety
• Affects of proposed improvements on traffic volumes in the area and
ultimately on quality of life issues for area institutes, private
homeowners, and area pedestrians
• Affects on the public park (Happy Hill) located to the east of
Waughtown Street
• Thoroughfare issues including north-south and east-west thoroughfares
39
• Maintaining Marshall Street intersection with South Main Street and
allowing full access to divert some of the left-turn volume from the
Salem Avenue intersection
• Possibility of rerouting Salem Avenue to the east to bypass Salem
Academy and College and the Moravian Church and allow for future
growth to the east
B. COORDINATION
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, other meetings and conferences were held to discuss planning and
design aspects of the project. This coordination included representatives from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, the city of Winston-Salem, and Old Salem
Incorporated. Additional meetings and phone conversations were held with Home
Moravian Church, Moravian Church in America, North Carolina School of the Arts, Old
Salem Incorporated, Salem Academy and College, Southeast Gateway Council, and
Winston-Salem State University to discuss the proposed project and the potential
community impacts associated with the project. The proposed project alternatives and
resulting recommendation address the major concerns presented by all interested groups,
while maintaining the original purpose and need of the project.
The Moravian Church in America mediated a meeting of several of the interest
groups in the project area. The groups included: Home Moravian Church, Moravian
Church in America, North Carolina School of the Arts, Old Salem Incorporated, Salem
Academy and College, Southeast Gateway Group, and Winston-Salem State University.
The Southeast Gateway Group and Winston-Salem State University did not sign the
resulting consensus document which outlines the collective position of the signature
groups on the project and alignment alternatives. The document supports improvements
to the South Main Street/Waughtown Street intersection. Concerns over the use of Salem
Avenue and Old Salem Bypass as north-south connectors were voiced. The document
supports Alternative 1 (recommended) as it was presented at the citizens informational
workshop. A request was made to incorporate a connector between South Main Street
and Broad Street (west of the proposed project) to facilitate north-south traffic movement.
This request was considered, but is beyond the scope of the project (to improve the
intersection of South Main Street and Waughtown Street). The involved organizations
have been informed that this suggestion should be presented to the Board of
Transportation, Forsyth County, the City of Winston-Salem, and the area MPO and TAC
for possible inclusion in the TIP.
40
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Personnel involved in studies for this document are as follows:
R. B. Davis, P.E. B. S. in Civil Engineering
• Assistant Branch Manager 28 years experience in transportation.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Linwood Stone, CPM M. A. in City and Regional Planning
Unit Head, Project Planning Unit B. S. in Civil Engineering
Project Development & Environmental Analysis 26 years experience in transportation.
Yvonne Goldblatt, E.I.T. B. S. in Civil Engineering
Project Development Engineer 3 years experience in transportation.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Jimmy Goodnight, P.E.
Roadway Project Engineer
Roadway Design Branch
B. S. in Civil Engineering
16 years experience in transportation.
Leon Oliver
Roadway Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Branch
Jim Morrison, P.E.
Assistant Roadway Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Branch
A. A. S.
33 years experience in transportation.
B. S. in Civil Engineering
8 years experience in transportation.
Christopher A. Murray M. S. in Coastal Ecology
Environmental Specialist B. S. in Zoology
Natural Systems Unit 8 years experience in wetland delineation,
Project Development & Environmental Analysis NEPA investigation, and protected species
surveys.
Edward T. Davis B. Arch.
Architectural Historian Diploma Architectural Association, London
Environmental Analyses Unit 16 years experience in historic preservation.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Thomas J. Padgett B. A. in Anthropology
Archaeology Supervisor M. S. in Anthropology
Environmental Analyses Unit 26 years experience in archaeological
Project Development & Environmental Analysis preservation.
41
Nick Bon-Harper
Archaeologist
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Harrison Marshall
Community Planner
Community Impact Assessment Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Steve Walker
Traffic Engineering Supervisor
Air Quality and Noise Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Rick Cox
Transportation Technician
Air Quality and Noise Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
B. S. in Archaeology
6 years experience in archaeological
preservation.
M. A. in Planning
13 years experience in planning.
A. S. in Civil Engineering
25 years experience in air quality and noise
impact analysis.
A. A. in Business Administration
27 years experience in air quality and noise
impact analysis.

42
1 ,p
71
- WINSTON-SALEM ik
a. w.w
70
r 7
INSET SEE FIGURE 1B ?; .._.
B 'w c!'':?. ?.
/0 1
N
I
S
L 29 .e i\, 6 i ?i i 26R =
_ ire \ s / .3 (•2
1311
v 1? ?_ ?' SIG -_•?_f? 17?---?-?•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T?l
` _?.. / ?'?/ - ' • Cwt
4,, 3; - ?.y 61 Beros
Y
- t `•? S'LEWISI
??Yins?ot?Sahm;
J
01
I
>tltertarn 1•
H
s erne sr
S'-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT
SR 2456 (SOUTH MAIN STREET) AND
WAUGHTOWN STREET
WINSTON SALEM, FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP No. U-2926
VICINITY MAP FIGURE I A
SP
N
Ili
2
O
o,
S. u
No
h?
Qe
Pv
0
REMOVE
EXISTING
REMOVE
EXISTING
N? S
O?
H
Y
V
Q
+? 3
30
L ------- ? LL:?_ Z
CH. OF
GOD
NORTH
2wi?iim RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
N
DIGGS
\7111
DfXle eRpg0
``SQ 4•lStOE. .E. Scr+. GF?
= IMON ESSORI -SCH.
I? . SCALE : - 1"=500'
?9
C3 '
Y?
rT
Cte
14 " \ sr
WINSTON-SALEM
a??.
P
sr
A)
Cc <<?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT
SR 2456 (SOUTH MAIN STREET) AND
WAUGHTOWN STREET
WINSTON SALEM- FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP No. U-2926
I VICINITY NIAP FIGURE IB
Q ?
O? O
C 4?
r c T x
?fj
IP W>
ro
-r z
m IN
11 Z
Y'
40 0
an N,
?ii•
1
2]
z
O
U
V 1
n?
W
^O
A
O
a
Q
3
w
O
Cx7
Q
a
94
^
1L1
0
0
O
M
? x
V)
o -a
?

N I
N
.-.. O 'ZS
-tf
y
C) cd
C)
?
U
W E N
Q' M
w
O

W
w
~
1--1 M

o
N ?
N
M
U
^J1
TS .O
?+
G y
O CIS
N O
?t N L], U

T
3
r'? O 0
U
110
N
N
H
U
W
ti
O
a
a
H
Q
W
w
O
U
V 1
W
Z
N
W
V 1
O
O
F?-1
3
w
O
W
Cl)
a
ce
a_
0
0
0
M
w
u
Q
w
O
H
W
U
w
N
M
H
E o I
W -
0 3
o .?
?t -
? N
N Wit' C
N ?
?r
b
b
M -
fV
O
^o
o ?
U

0 3
N
N
i
H
U
W
ti
O
a
a
H
p
W
w
??? Co - o QZ ° ZONE B
%o _ ? °a ¦ I? Q?: Z O N E`?B'' -? 765 ,
?/' iQ G5 O q ?- ! ERVI E R .^-I 761
^C4F
I ° g° ?GpG o4_?C °o° oQ Q$-3 Ia ZONE B ZONE B
c
? % I r\ co
° ZONE A
° °y?\ ,C? ?oQ ? f 4\ I ,1 i O O (EL768) 1-
' o o H ?CaO c - 5/84
ZONE B I!
\ Q op ?? m J? p??op e o 06??'
:\ \ o \o ?I o '' 4 p r.'.
-V c \rQ '' o o; oopoooOOOO00? ; \'
?'??° o o Q \\ZO N E B s 3 °OO Oo-
A ? \ ?? . PT o00 °o
;Project Area; 0" a0
^
o r. Z NEB
ZONE B ONE C
R SS-202 P
? I
RM S 201 2 00
G o r ?3
ZONE B
=Z" NEB 9s - /
G STREET y+ N 1 q - Da
r 1 T9` 0000 •000 a0r'0 Gk.
?? -, o „ o - W/NSTONSALE
SOUTHBOUND U G o ?oouco
,?. .;v 10 c ° II -RAILROAD \ d p p c I-,
?0 1 ° 0
1-2
a ° 3 o ?° o I
R-4 0 C,
ZONE-B
PAAX BOULE VgR4 ? v1JGL ` J ?.n -S` dill J O o_?//1`w ° p ?\ \?\
XE .. ? ° ^C ?.t,Yn _ _ 9 R-6.?• O. aJ ? O Qee O ?B-"?r?_
?? 1 _ ° g o °0 00
_c ej
_?';? -ZONE C
R 4 ooo.?
?/ ? - ?Occ 0I l o CI ° L% SPRAGUEi _
STREET LI _
I^ = r F .
coi: o ?II't ?: _ Ly gild Q\_
C, '
J I I l i J
ZO. I _? II _ ._'.ic.'`I1?7,S ` M1x.. OLI-- '1rI ?(RQC ;; [,?1: R-T
PCG;?_;, I?c w ?Cr:n i roi Q i U?I ,n a _ zil
Z O N E A 5 R-4=''
1/5/84 06
s?? O 805 ZONE Bile -,ZONE P^
ZONE'B ° !
785- - 812 1/5/84 Flood Insurance Rate Map
x B-3
RM Figure 5
PARKWAYS s ^ JP-2----
:? R M JP-7. CO IN,
-ZONE B
Y YIVa ' _ ?R ' I ? R M
S p Co
ip-1 -0
821? t n
ALA
S

0
00
SALEM AVENUE
----------------
,
,
,
,
i ?
i
1 '?
cn
0
C
m
y
b
r

?AL?DER STYE
i ?\ T
FIGURE 6A
EXISTING INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATION
MARSHALL STREET
PROPOSED UN-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
WAUGHTOWN STREET/ALDER STREET
Ili
WAUGH7'OWN
ALDER STREET
to
H
FIGURE 6B
PROPOSED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
SOUTH MAIN STREET/WAUGHTOWN STREET
?t

0
x
x
a
0-4
z
nooo
WAUGHTOWN STREET
j
N
FIGURE 6C
PROPOSED UN-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
SOUTH MAIN STREET/MARSHALL STREET
IfA
MARSHALL STREET
---------------------
•

0
z
FIGURE 6D
PROPOSED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
SOUTH MAIN STREET/SALEM AVENUE/OLD SALEM BYPASS
ALTERNATIVE
0
d
SALEM AVENUE_
nooo

14 1
FIGURE 6E
PROPOSED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
SOUTH MAIN STREET/SALEM AVENUE/OLD SALEM BYPASS
ALTERNATIVE 2
.4>
0

0
0
a
kl- -
,
O `

,
FIGURE 6F

I 50.4 2,1 9
2
iss \0%b
N
0
0

w
N
O
7,700
A

O C
D
rn Z
CD
U- O C = _ O
I
C CD
c

:2

T

' C>

: Q°

-

?
T

Q7
i - Z Z C
D -p C) `O ? r
c --4 _
-40
?
v
A
y
a
Z
1 OCR
Z
0 v
4 $ Cal

O

? -a

g a 3
13
3 rrn

s o v m
? z
rTl '? c ai
e m

b
1YGIET[

Va
9,400
I 50 9
(2,1)
`1 1 6
OS
0 q' b
N?
N
O
O
UU
l
AW,
14
Ul
10
0
9,800

o
- c

rn n
c ?
c --}-
c
Z
-n
? C = CAD CD
T O

Z r-2_ _ CD
CS
C_-
vvv n 1O Z r
IV
?? va
'ms N
p
%0 rn rn s
"

A
z
o '
? o ? ??v o 8 os
?„ m
1 g o v m
ryr}I ? ? ? ??? v
b
W141EiC

A i
?v
Q
N ? N
0
I c
Ui
10
W
O t O
9,400 19,000
O
?O
O
1i
a
J
O
60 -4 2M) 10 60 < (2M 10 57 -4 ?2M 10
` SOUTH MAIN STREET
O
N a
O
O
w
55 ?a ? o
o \ o
?b o
pp9
0
N
N
O
N ? O
is
Z

2 p
f3R

Z ? I I I I I I I
r
o=
D
C O D
°
S
c p Z
N c
?
a n Y n

13,400
O?
AA\
?a
O
_o
0
A
?O
f9??

A
O?
O
A
8
0
o
A
A
O
O
N
N
O
O
? a
y
?-? C>
0
o n
o r7
N
0
? ij! ov 00
0
O A
)
? O
C^ 0
O
`O 0
9,400 19,000 14,200 ' ,
0
?o
Z
PM 55 -4 PM 10
60-4 t2M 10 ' O 60 -4 (2,1) 10 (2,1)
? o 0 60
0
ss
N IO
a
00
0
G
IS
0
0 0
0
0Cb
co
N
r
oZ

O " p
33Cal
a $
?a

r

N ' ?,r g o Z
l7n
N
,r a o
$ -, <

WAMC
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REPORTS
AND PROGRAMS
? RELOCATION REPORT
El E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 9.8091857 COUNTY FORSYTH Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.:
- U - 2926 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Intersection realignment of South Main St. (SR 2456) & Waughtown St.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 1 1 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 160-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70m 0 250.400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400600 0 70-10OM 0 4004600 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 0 Soo UP 0
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 0 0
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 3. Similar business services are available in general area of
.X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, project not being affected.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4.(a) Christmas Toy Shop Clearing House - 1 SF bus., approx.
employees, minorities, etc. 8000 sq. ft., possible seasonal tenant, est. 6 seasonal
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Employees
6. Source for available housing (list). (b) Old Salem Log Homes - sign only - 2 pole wooden sign
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? * plans indicate small bldg in R/W- but is only a sign
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. Yes, local housing authority
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. Yes, because no residential relocation needed
families? 14. Winston-Salem Journal, internet, Meridian Commerical
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Realty
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within.
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12
Heather Ful hum tk -T-/ft 12-03-98
Ia
zze,-i
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
Original 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
FE E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
PROJECT: 9.8091857 COUNTY FORSYTH Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U -2926 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Intersection realignmen t of South Main St. (SR 2456) & Waughtown St
.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 1 2 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 OI L- 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-260 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 0 250-400 0 40-70M 0 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400m 0 400.600 0 70400M 0 400-600 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 up 0 loo up 0 600 up
0
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 0 0
X 3. Will business services still be available after. REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 3. Similar business services are available in general area of
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, project not being affected.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. (a) Clifford Office Products - 1.5S frame business, estimated
employees, minorities, etc. 5 full time employees, 2 part time, approximately 10,000
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Sq. ft., building currently for sale
6. Source for available housing (list). (b) Crystal's Golden Tanning & Beauty Salon - 1 S block bus.,
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? Approximately 2000sq. ft., possible minority owned
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Business, estimated 2 full time employees, 1 part time, rent
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. at least $600.00 per month.
families? * Old Salem Log Homes Sign also in R/W - 2 pole wooden
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Sign
X 11. Is public housing available? 11. Yes, local housing authority
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Yes, because no residential relocation needed
housing available during relocation period? 14. Winston-Salem Journal, internet, Meridian Commerical
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Realty
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
F 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12
eT lo w

Heather Ful hum 12-03-98
Relocation Agent Date Approved b ate
ur,,, 1;j•" r%cviam= U ungmal & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAM
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will
be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation assistance,
*Relocation moving payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement".
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law*91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also
supply information concerning other state or federal programs offerina assistance to
displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may
not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.
APPENDIX B
AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS

1 ( 1T`7 . €
4.
W?
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett. Secretary
January 27, 1998
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Realignment of the Intersection of South Main Street and
Waughtown Street in Winston-Salem; Forsyth County; TIP #U-2926
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0469. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 02/27/1998. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone]-
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant

116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1 ! P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION of May 18, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. Richard B. Davis, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Davis:

i. V I ?• rw\ r.7? J ?v
Fh'VIRON I
This is in response to a letter from your office dated January 20, 1998, requesting
our comments on "Realignment of the intersection of South Main Street (SR 2456) and
Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP
Project U-2926" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199820446).
Our comments involve- impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
1
C. E. Sh ord, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
May 18, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Realignment of the intersection of South Main Street (SR 2456) and Waughtown
Street, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP Project
U-2926" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199820446)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
The proposed project-is located in L^Jinstan-Salerr, :vrhici Is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Based on a review of Panel 278 of the
February 29, 1996, Preliminary Forsyth County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map, both South Main Street and Waughton Street cross Salem
Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. Reference is made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been provided previously to your office.
The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP, administered by
FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to
community flood plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local
building official.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at [phone], Extension 25
Review of the subject project indicates that the proposed work includes a crossing
of Salem Creek. All work restricted to existing high ground areas will not require prior
Federal permit authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization,
pursuant to Section 40?.of the Clean Water Ac. of 1577, -as amended, will -be required
for the discharge of excavated or fill material within the crossing of the aforementioned
waters and wetlands. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
project, extent of fill work within streams and wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts,
etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
At this time, construction plans are not available for review. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of development within any waters and
wetlands, the applicant st.ould contact Mr. Thomas for a final determination of the
Federal permit requirements.
5tA7[ u
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
February 26, 1998
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611-201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0469; Scoping Proposed Realignment of the Intersection of South Main
Street and Waughtown Street in Winston-Salem; Forsyth County; TIP #U-2926
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document.- The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
,>rJ'
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region I fit;, [ 1 V Q
Q`
21 1998 z
i-..? InIoN OF art
1 16 West Jones Street Raleigh. North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Allinnative Avim Lmplo%•er
gUTE I .
- In
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 17, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook s ? V-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Realignment of the intersection of South Main
Street, (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street,
Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, State Project No.
9.8091857, TIP Project U-2926, GS 98-0041, 98-
E-4220-0469
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
National Register historic districts within the general area of the project:
Old Salem Historic District (FY 2509). Old Salem is designated a National
Historic Landmark.
Washington Park Historic District (FY 25510).
We look forward to consultation with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation regarding the project's effects on these two historic districts.
The remains of an old bridge and the granite footings of an 1890s trolley car
bridge, as well as other archaeological resources, are likely to be present within the
project area south of the Old Salem Historic District. We recommend that in-depth
historic research and archaeological survey be conducted to evaluate potential
project effects of the undertaking.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: At"learinghouse
B. Church
Tom Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2507 1;?9
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES GAA
117
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEvrrr MEMORANDUM
SECRETARY
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee v
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0469 Scoping Realignment of South Main Street
Intersection and Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem,
Forsyth County
DATE: February 19, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be
provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional
information is-needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify
our respective divisions.
attachments

--C- c s ?996 -
A?c
P.O. Box 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET. RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.Nc.US/EHNR/
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comrnission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 277604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joseph H. Mickey, Jr., Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
original signed by
Jae Mickey
DATE: January 29, 1998
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for the realignment of the intersection of South Main
Street, (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, State
Project No. 9.8091857, TIP Project U-2926
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and state funded
Categorical Exclusion for the subject project.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheets for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project. In order for us to provide a meaningful review through the formal process of submitting
the environmental document through the State Clearinghouse, the environmental document
prepared for this project should include the following information:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern animal and plant
species. Contact is the Mr. Steven Hall of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(919/733-7701).
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
Mr. Vick 2 2/3/98
TIP U-2926
4) Description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreages of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be listed.
Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps has been contacted to determine the
need for a 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate for
unavoidable habitat losses. `
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's professional background and
qualifications.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to the NCDOT in the early
planning stages-of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact me at 336/366-2982.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A ffl?.'?VA
r41s 0
D E N F1
February 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator 41_?
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0469; WQS# 11943; Realignment of
South Main Street Intersection (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street, Winston-
Salem, Forsyth County, State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP U-2926
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Card Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
bangs were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G. If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H. The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road construction, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
The National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) require that the EA or EIS for this project evaluate all direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is the relationship between
transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land uses that the
environmental document should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of
the document should discuss the known relationship between new or widened
roads, highways and interchanges and resulting inducements for urban
development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges and along connecting
arterials. The EA must further address the long-term environmental impacts of this
road project, including the potential indirect impacts of the induced urban
development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, 'n
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998
Page 3 ..
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along this proposed road and all secondary
roads be influenced by the access or increased traffic flow provided by this
project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these parcels become more likely to develop into urban uses with the
provision of public road access, adequate road frontage or traffic safety and
control features from the project?
vii) Will this new road serve as an inducement to additional urban development
on the adjacent parcels, given the provision of additional traffic handling
capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in the future), of
other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer, water and
electricity) in the area? To what degree will this new road encourage and
facilitate urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
- development thatwill be allowed-or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the road project and this
additional urban development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998
Page 4 .
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc.
An indirect impact analysis of a transportation project should evaluate increases in
development in the vicinity of the road project if the project will be providing new
or improved access to future growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect
water quality impacts of induced development might include: increases in ground
and surface water withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in
wastewater collection and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in
surface water discharges; and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the
project service area and along connector streets that experience increases in land
development due to the project. Land-disturbing activities associated with road
construction and land development may also result in increased stream
sedimentation and secondary wetland impacts. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and wetlands and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
'These impacts could be of special concern -if-the project is proposed in an area with
,itate and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department. Please be aware that 401 Certification may
be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis:\980469 DOT Scoping- realignment
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Off ice
u05 2A
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: ' D --E - O y(o 9 Due Date: Z I b cl2
After review of this project it has been determined that the F.NR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES pemtit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill PertniL
O Permit to construct& operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal J? Lr w? ?^t??5?t /? 4i?a p f) :cvc-•«i
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900 V
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing

asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A 60 days
NCAC 213.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820.
(90 days)

7 Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for arty land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of 530 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
01 The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 davs)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater 30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued.
O North Carolina Burning permit Chu-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
O Oil Refrting Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plant. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
Continued on reverse
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of 55,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged (NIA)
according to ENR rules and regulations.
O Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application forth. (N/A)
O State Ickes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions & 15-20 days
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 60 days
(130 days)
O CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
O CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify'
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
O Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)

Z 3 ?v3 .

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
O Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville. NC 28801
[phone]
D Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
O Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
O Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
919) 946-6491
O Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
O Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington NC 28405
[phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(910) 7714600
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Number
4 S C: 6
County
Project Name 4767 S. il.,Q?`f Type of Project
r-? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
?--? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et.. sea.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
U facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
Q? relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
DE?-INR 3198 (Revised '/?3)
S`ote of IvJri l ?C7 .? "lam
De ;D 0,'T ?e"lt of Crl\0i file Y,
Health and Naiural Resources
Division of Lana Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT FEVIEw CObII1Eh'TS
Project Number: ?? --? b?LG/ county:
r '
Project Name:
NC Office of State Planning - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
'Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction c_ geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-5.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
c_ (comments attached)
For r,.ore information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey office at 919/733-3836.
e
UJ a
svi?::?r ate
-rosion and Sediae^_taticn Control'
NO
ccmmenz:
T*.is project will require a== c-ral of an erosion and sedimentation
control olan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
cr_ than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an enviro:uaentai document is required *to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If ary portion of the project is located within a High-Quality
Water Zone ('r.QW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
_..
from t "he .:rl'
Other (comments attached)
Gr =act +'•R Ta:.d Quality Sectisn at 915/733-4574.
m....Cre -.GfOr:nctiCn CGC.a.: ?..._
I . .
F.•-i 7
A
a
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY AND TRAFFIC NOISE
TABLES
TABLE N1
It
140
130 -
120
110 -
100
90-
D
E 80
C
I
B 70-
E
L 60
S
50 -
40 -
30
20
10 -
0
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
Firecrackers
Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
Textile loom
Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
Quiet typewriter
Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
Average home
Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSONS THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category (h) Descri tion of Activi Cate o
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administratinn
C rma FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in jEqL) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >=15
>= 50 >=10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.

?1
c
a?
a
a
W
M ,
za
h?
a?
z
w
mm
F-d
N
ON
N
i
a
E-+
ri
U
0
w
.r?
s
0
N

EA w Q r-? V'1 M
O > eli
z??-
0

U V C7 V
n
c
W

k
L
L

c s

Q y
?

? N

z o
s
o w
?
_ s
L
[? y O 'fl
y y

E
O
?D O v
i
y
d ?
E

c c o
to R r,

s s ?-

O O =
3
%c NO o
to to s
N
r4 7

cn
v tC
3

LQ
F" ? N M

Lid
z
a ? I 1 I j I I I
(?
? ? ¢
W ? j
i^ _
.. id
I Id IM ?
j Iv1 Ian j?
i
1
_
o U + + + I
i
+ 1+ I
1+ I+ I+
z
Z 1

'?
cn
L i I I
I ! j
LLI
i

E5
z
C*\ LU

a
C,

O
? ??'
IC !C I
IC4
mo. ? ?
ell
^..
;r,
10 iC C
X :. U ,
c
w LT. w I I I

U cis a. z
y

w -j

z .,

V
L.
05
M z Q _o' I N I c 3
N Q P Q
? ?
o
a
=
?

C) m
y
3
to

3

3 w
1

Q v
w
U w

? U U U w

? U U U U U

O
GT
?
`? cn
e
?

ul

m

to cm
C
.R

y

y cm
C
.a

y

H

y
F I I VI m im cn Im T. Cn J im IM m
LO
(, I
n ?+
Q N d
wr vi
r.
I 'V
..? I ?
r.r I 00
rl
Y
rA rt
i ?
L
? J
G
o ?
y
L O
U C)
U U
O U
O
-? O
° U
U f?
>
a? 4
w
? U
y M
N
CA L
R ?
OCQ R
o S.
r,
Vl
L1. O
a :a
CA W
O O
0 ?
F
s
J
11
0
a
t
a ¢ I I I I, i I
I N C 1 ',d It11 iV1 v1
LTI LTJ
Z a Z i+ + + I+ + ?+
i
I iT i-r j 13 Ix i Ian '?; '-r
a I' a I, l j
3 i
? I l j I
W
N ? ? ? I I
CT LY] ? i
N u; ? l i; i l( I
I i
VII
V1 J ? ? to ?? ?c ? '^ ??• ? I? ;.;c ?ri
i iD ? IN I- 1? IN
C I i? I I I
I
X N Q
U i I I I
/1? W ?0... i I j 1 I
Y•.y
QOj w W O
O Q I 1
1:4 I I
U VJ ?" Z I '
,?, L I I I
S 21
cC E-
zw->
a/ W v? W Q I ?» y
M t? r
LTj
Z a a?
vs
z i.
r a
N Q¢ a o R R
2 :2 'w 7E3 ?3 3 (A I
O
a v

U U U U w U U U U U
cn W vs
a a a
O cn

Q ?
e C C G C ? C C C
?
^. ? .?

'.. N ? ? ? ? o0
U ¢

v ?
v
C
o
U. V
O ?
V
V
o ?
?^ W
_ o
:S U
o U
b
O r
r
v a
?x
N rs.
•'o U
y M
N
Vl tr
LQ d
? s
o ?
ti y
0 •?
V
? R
N N
Q Q
N
^t
F
0
U
zU
Wow
°z°
Q ?
N
On
W O O O O
0
Q??
pCSy7
I?
H Q O O O O
?
w
? V a U o 0 0 0

FQF N Qa' O O O O

ink F" O O O O
y

25
?+
[?
N
N
N
N
6
rF?'ji
1 ? 1 N
I
8
A
e q .
f

N
tn
M
00
00
No
00
?-o
w
w
Q
5
?+
00
M
M
m
v 0

en

S

? C4

%

b

oil O? O?
t h Y1

3
w

O O ? ?

n
N w w °
C ca
G ?
G Q

.-; N M ?
C?
h
a
V O
N ~G"i
G
O
iv
U
r
o
w
CO H
fA ?
G
b
M a
"'WCCC
h N
rr ?
-+ N

N
O?
N
?a
M?1
W
d U
zU
G) r?+
HaC01?
O?
U c
w ?
H ?
N

c a
V1 O w ?y O O O
a
U
p
„?
?
a
?t
?r ?. o 0 0
?Oz
z
?
N O O O
W

c 0 0 0
N

W ? O O ( O
w
°
z
O O I c

w „? o o cr,
a

^',? N N O

0
v
•-?
o
0

N
_o a
? g o

Q Q o
w w v?
N
z
a
c
U
S
w
?o
a
?+ N
s s
N
ON
H
dU
N
zU
aw cz
Hasa
W C
fs.? C%
tor)
v)
et
E'! N
oza_
H C) ?j N
Q O (?? o 0 0
E., U
a > ?
?wQ
a c? :.

o

0

0
t;' U
?
oz
z
N
A O O O
W
a

z N
ev O O O

a
a
a h
r, o I o c
W
z ?
0 F
? o
0
0
0

W ,? O O M
foy,
.
a
?

.. o 0
N
q

o y
«s
a

o
` ?
°
w w n
?
N
z
a
F
0
S
0
S
? N
W z
a? W
aF
? •c
H
t? U
o ?
t= t=
b?
as
N
z c
It
Table Al:
L
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
t
JOB: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown St., Forsyth Co. RUN: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown, Build Yr.2005
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------- ----- *----------- ---------- ---------- --------- *--- -------- ---------- -------------- ---------- ----- --------
1. WB Rt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 5.5 3.7 * 300. 270. AG 435. 13.7 .0 13.2
2. WB Rt. Queue * 11.0 3.7 27.3 3.7 * 16. 90. AG 684. 100.0 .0 7.2 .23 2.7
3. WB Rt. Dep. * 5.5 3.7 5.5 305.0 * 301. 360. AG 435. 13.7 .0 13.2
4. WB Lt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 -7.4 -1.8 * 312. 269. AG 20. 13.7 .0 13.2
5. WB Lt. Queue * 11.0 -1.8 14.5 -1.8 * 4. 90. AG 798. 100.0 .0 3.6 .14 .6
6. WB Lt. Dep. * -7.4 -1.8 -7.4 -305.0 * 303. 180. AG 20. 13.7 .0 13.2
7. ER Dep. * -7.4 -5.5 305.0 -5.5 * 312. 90. AG 455. 13.7 .0 9.6
8. SB Appr. * -5.5 305.0 -7.4 .0 * 305. 180. AG 800. 13.7 .0 13.2
9. SB Queue * -7.4 11.0 -7.2 38.4 * 27. 0. AG 342. 100.0 .0 3.6 .39 4.6
10. SB Lt. Queue * -3.7 11.0 -3.7 43.6 * 33. 360. AG 342. 100.0 .0 3.6 .46 5.4
11. SB Dep. * -7.4 .0 -7.4 -305.0 * 305. 180. AG 365. 13.7 .0 13.2
12. NB Appr. * 5.5 -305.0 5.5 .0 * 305. 360. AG 385. 13.7 .0 13.2
13. NB Queue * 5.5 -11.0 5.5 -39.8 * 29. 180. AG 1369. 100.0 .0 7.2 .55 4.8
14. NS Dep. * 5.5 .0 5.5 305.0 * 305. 360. AG 365. 13.7 .0 13.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----
* -------
CYCLE
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION
IDLE
SIGNAL
ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
--------------------- --- - ----------- ------- ------------ ---------- ----------- --------- -------- -----------
2. WB Rt. Queue * 120 45 2.0 435 1600 340.17 1 3
5. WS Lt. Queue * 120 105 2.0 20 1600 340.17 1 3
9. SS Queue * 120 45 2.0 365 1600 340.17 1 3
10. SB Lt. Queue * 120 45 2.0 435 1600 340.17 1 3
13. NB Queue * 120 90 2.0 385 1600 340.17 1 3
s
C
Table Al: (Cont'd)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X y 2
--- ----------------- ----- * --------------------------- ----------*
1. REC 1 (NW) * -15.0 15.0 1.8 *
2. REC 2 (NW) * -15.0 45.0 1.8 *
3. REC 3 (SW) * -15.0 -30.0 1.8 *
4. REC 4 (SW) * -15.0 -60.0 1.8 *
5. REC 5 (NE) * 15.0 30.0 1.8 *
6. REC 6 (NE) * 15.0 60.0 1.8 *
7. REC 7 (NE) * 15.0 15.0 1.8 *
8. REC 8 (NE) * 45.0 15.0 1.8 *
9. REC 9 (SE) * 15.0 -15.0 1.8 *
10. REC 10 (SE) * 45.0 -15.0 1.8 *
11. REC 11 (SE) * 15.0 -30.0 1.8 *
12. REC 12 (SE) * 15.0 -60.0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the-angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION - -
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REM REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12
------*------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX * 4.2 4.7 4.3 3.9 4.0 3.4 5.3 3.6 5.6 3.4 5.6 4.6
DEGR. * 103 153 59 30 183 190 189 228 219 306 318 343
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.60 PPM AT 318 DEGREES FROM REC11.
4
3
0

Table A2:
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown St., Forsyth Co. RUN: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown, Buitd Yr.2010
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---------------------- -- -- ------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- -------------------------- -------- -------------
1. WB Rt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 5.5 3.7 * 300. 270. AG 450. 13.0 .0 13.2
2. WB Rt. Queue * 11.0 3.7 28.3 3.7 * 17. 90. AG 669. 100.0 .0 7.2 .24 2.9
3. WB Rt. Dep. * 5.5 3.7 5.5 305.0 * 301. 360. AG 450. 13.0 .0 13.2
4. WB Lt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 -7.4 -1.8 * 312. 269. AG 20. 13.0 .0 13.2
5. WB Lt. Queue * 11.0 -1.8 14.5 -1.8 * 4. 90. AG 764. 100.0 .0 3.6 .14 .6
6. WB Lt. Dep. * -7.4 -1.8 -7.4 -305.0 * 303. 180. AG 20. 13.0 .0 13.2
7. ES Dep. * -7.4 -5.5 305.0 -5.5 * 312. 90. AG 470. 13.0 .0 9.6
8. SB Appr. * -5.5 305.0 -7.4 .0 * 305. 180. AG 840. 13.0 .0 13.2
9. SS Queue * -7.4 11.0 -7.2 40.9 * 30. 0. AG 335. 100.0 .0 3.6 .42 5.0
10. SB Lt. Queue * -3.7 11.0 -3.7 45.5 * 35. 360. AG 335. 100.0 .0 3.6 .48 5.8
11. SE Dep. * -7.4 .0 -7.4 -305.0 * 305. 180. AG 390. 13.0 .0 13.2
12. NB Appr. * 5.5 -305.0 5.5 .0 * 305. 360. AG 410. 13.0 .0 13.2
13. NB Queue * 5.5 -11.0 5.5 -41.4 * 30. 180. AG 1295. 100.0 .0 7.2 .57 5.1
14. NS Dep. * 5.5 .0 5.5 305.0 * 305. 360. AG 390. 13.0 .0 13.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
---------------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----
* ------
CYCLE
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION
IDLE
SIGNAL
ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------ ------------ --------- ---------- ----------- ---------- --------- -------- --------- --
2. WB Rt. Queue * 120 46 2.0 450 1600 325.25 1 3
5. WB Lt. Queue * 120 105 2.0 20 1600 325.52 1 3
9. SS Queue * 120 46 2.0 390 1600 325.52 1 3
10. SS Lt. Queue * 120 46 2.0 450 1600 325.52 1 3
13. NB Queue * 120 89 2.0 410 1600 325.52 1 3

C
Table A2: (Cont'd)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
- * COORDINATES (M)

RECEPTOR * X Y 2
------------------- ------ *---- ----------------------- ----------*
1. REC 1 (NW) * -15.0 15.0 1.8
2. REC 2 (NW) * -15.0 45.0 1.8
3. REC 3 (SW) * -15.0 -30.0 1.8
4. REC 4 (SW) * -15.0 -60.0 1.8
5. REC 5 (NE) * 15.0 30.0 1.8
6. REC 6 (NE) * 15.0 60.0 1.8
7. REC 7 (NE) * 15.0 15.0 1.8
8. REC 8 (NE) * 45.0 15.0 1.8
9. REC 9 (SE) * 15.0 -15.0 1.8
10. REC 10 (SE) * 45.0 -15.0 1.8
11. REC 11 (SE) * 15.0 -30.0 1.8
12. REC 12 (SE) * 15.0 -60.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 RECS REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12
------*------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX * 4.2 4.8 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.4 5.2 3.7 5.5 3.4 5.5 4.7
DEGR. * 103 154 56 20 181 189 185 229 221 306 319 344
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.50 PPM AT 221 DEGREES FROM REC9 .

f

4'
Table A3:
1,
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown St., Forsyth Co. RUN: U-2926: SR 2456/Waughtown, Build Yr.2025
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. K AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--- ----------------- --- *----------- --------- -------------------- *----------- ---------------------------------- -------------
1. WB Rt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 5.5 3.7 * 300. 270. AG 505. 12.6 .0 13.2
2. WB Rt. Queue * 11.0 3.7 30.7 3.7 * 20. 90. AG 665. 100.0 .0 7.2 .27 3.3
3. WB Rt. Dep. * 5.5 3.7 5.5 305.0 * 301. 360. AG 505. 12.6 .0 13.2
4. WS Lt. Appr. * 305.0 3.7 -7.4 -1.8 * 312. 269. AG 25. 12.6 .0 13.2
5. WB Lt. Queue * 11.0 -1.8 15.3 -1.8 * 4. 90. AG 729. 100.0 .0 3.6 .14 .7
6. WB Lt. Dep. * -7.4 -1.8 -7.4 -305.0 * 303. 180. AG 25. 12.6 .0 13.2
7. EB Dep. * -7.4 -5.5 305.0 -5.5 * 312. 90. AG 530. 12.6 .0 9.6
8. SS Appr. * -5.5 305.0 -7.4 .0 * 305. 180. AG 950. 12.6 .0 13.2
9. SS Queue * -7.4 11.0 -7.2 45.9 * 35. 0. AG 333. 100.0 .0 3.6 .48 5.8
10. SS Lt. Queue * -3.7 11.0 -3.7 50.6 * 40. 360. AG 333. 100.0 .0 3.6 .55 6.6
11. SB Dep. * -7.4 .0 -7.4 -305.0 * 305. 180. AG 445. 12.6 .0 13.2
12. NB Appr. * 5.5 -305.0 5.5 .0 * 305. 360. AG 470. 12.6 .0 13.2
13. NB Queue * 5.5 -11.0 5.5 -46.3 * 35. 180. AG 1274. 100.0 .0 7.2 .68 5.9
14. NB Dep. * 5.5 .0 5.5 305.0 * 305. 360. AG . 445. 12.6 .0 13.2
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
--
-
-
-----------------
LINK DESCRIPTION -----
* ------
CYCLE
RED
CLEARANCE
APPROACH
SATURATION
IDLE
SIGNAL
ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
------------------------ -- --------- --------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------- --------- --
2. WB Rt. Queue * 120 47 • 2.0 505 1600 316.54 1 3
5. WB Lt. Queue * 120 103 2.0 25 1600 316.54 1 3
9. SB Queue * 120 47 2.0 445 1600 316.54 1 3
10. SS Lt. Queue * 120 47 2.0 505 1600 316.54 1 3
13. NB Queue * 120 90 2.0 470 1600 316.54 1 3
l
Table A3: (Cont'd)
MF
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
------- ------------- ----- *--- -------------- ---------- ----------*
1. REC 1 (NW) * -15.0 15.0 1.8
2. REC 2 (NW) * -15.0 45.0 1.8
3. REC 3 (SW) * -15.0 -30.0 1.8
4. REC 4 (SW) * -15.0 -60.0 1.8
5. REC 5 (NE) * 15.0 30.0 1.8
6. REC 6 (NE) * 15.0 60.0 1.8
7. REC 7 (NE) * 15.0 15.0 1.8
8. REC 8 (NE) * 45.0 15.0 1.8
9. REC 9 (SE) * 15.0 -15.0 1.8
10. REC 10 (SE) * 45.0 -15.0 1.8
11. REC 11 (SE) * 15.0 -30.0 1.8
12. REC 12 (SE) * 15.0 -60.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION -
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12
------*------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX * 4.3 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.5 5.4 3.9 5.5 3.6 5.4 5.3
DEGR. * 101 151 56 35 182 188 190 230 216 307 319 342
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.50 PPM AT 216 DEGREES FROM REC9 .
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A&V 0 21
A*a oft
DEN R
February 18, 1998
MEMORAND
TO: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0469; WQS# 11943; Realignment of
South Main Street Intersection (SR 2456) and Waughtown Street, Winston-
Salem, Forsyth County, State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP U-2926
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G . If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H. The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road construction, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
I. The National Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) require that the EA or EIS for this project evaluate all direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is the relationship between
transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land uses that the
environmental document should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of
the document should discuss the known relationship between new or widened
roads, highways and interchanges and resulting inducements for urban
development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges and along connecting
arterials. The EA must further address the long-term environmental impacts of this
road project, including the potential indirect impacts of the induced urban
development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along this proposed road and all secondary
roads be influenced by the access or increased traffic flow provided by this
project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these parcels become more likely to develop into urban uses with the
provision of public road access, adequate road frontage or traffic safety and
control features from the project?
vii) Will this new road serve as an inducement to additional urban development
on the adjacent parcels, given the provision of additional traffic handling
capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in the future), of
other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer, water and
electricity) in the area? To what degree will this new road encourage and
facilitate urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the road project and this
additional urban development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
98-0469 DOT Scoping
February 18, 1998 FEB Page 4 i
going to significantly impact the environment, including water qualm
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc.
An indirect impact analysis of a transportation project should evaluate increases in
development in the vicinity of the road project if the project will be providing new
or improved access to future growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect
water quality impacts of induced development might include: increases in ground
and surface water withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in
wastewater collection and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in
surface water discharges; and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the
project service area and along connector streets that experience increases in land
development due to the project. Land-disturbing activities associated with road
construction and land development may also result in increased stream
sedimentation and secondary wetland impacts. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and wetlands and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department. Please be aware that 401 Certification may
be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis:\980469 DOT Scoping- realignment
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit
y „a AA7[o
aY e yam ?.
?Q awvd'?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Yvonne Goldblatt, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Minutes for SR 2456 (South Main Street) and Waughtown
Street intersection, State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP Project
U-2926
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 16, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in
the Planning and Environmental Conference Room (Room 470). The following people attended:
Greg Errett Winston-Salem City DOT
Glenn N. Simmons City-County Planning
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Mike Patton Division 9
Doug Waters Division 9
Parks Icenhour Location & Surveys
Mark Cole Traffic Engineering - Traffic Control Section
Buddy Murr Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics
Stephen Lowry Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Ray Moore Structure design
Jimmy Goodnight Roadway Design
Leon Oliver Roadway Design
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
Don Sellers Right of Way
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Lanette Cook Program Development
Jerry Hayes Statewide Planning
Richard Davis Planning & Environmental
Linwood Stone Planning & Environmental
Tina Brockelsby Planning & Environmental
Yvonne Goldblatt Planning & Environmental
??
air
INTRODUCTION
The following general project description opened the meeting.
PROJECT STATUS
The 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for the
realignment of the intersection of SR 2456 (South Main Street) and Waughtown Street.
The TIP calls for right of way acquisition to begin in FY 2000 and for construction to
begin in FY 2002. TIP funding includes $500,000 for right of way and $1,800,000 for
construction.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the subject project is to improve safety, traffic flow, and access to
educational and historic facilities in the area.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The following environmental issues were discussed:
? Salem Creek/Salem Lake Greenway
0 in the project area
0 city intends to move greenway to follow Salem Creek under South Main Street
bridge
0 city owns land in the intended greenway area, but has not set right of way aside
specifically for greenway
? Archeological Site
0 possible site in the project area
? Old Salem, Salem College/Salem Academy, North Carolina School of the Arts
0 Old Salem would like to discourage through-traffic on Old Salem Avenue; this
would require the intersection of Salem Avenue and South Main Street to be
realigned to `encourage' travel off Old Salem Avenue
0 the schools would like to encourage/facilitate pedestrian traffic
ALTERNATIVES TO STUDY
CROSS-SECTION
It was agreed to study a multi-lane curb and gutter section due to the urban nature
of the project area. The number of lanes necessary will be determined by the traffic
projections expected by March 1998. Wide outside lanes [14 feet (4.2 meters)] will be
investigated to accommodate bicycles due to the proximity to educational and historic
facilities.
2
ALIGNMENTS
Two alignment alternatives were decided upon. Both alternatives will replace the
subject section of South Main Street with a multi-lane curb and gutter section and replace
Waughtown Street with a new alignment to `T' into South Main Street. Lane
configuration will be determined by the needs of the projected traffic.
ALTERNATIVE 1 (TIP ALTERNATIVE)
The TIP alternative requires the removal of Waughtown Street from Alder
Street to South Main Street/Salem Avenue. The bridge on this section of
Waughtown Street will be removed. South Main Street will be widened to a
multi-lane section. The number of lanes will be determined by the needs of the
projected traffic. The bridge on South Main Street (bridge #8) will be removed
and replaced. Waughtown Street will be reconstructed to `T' into South Main
Street at a signalized intersection. The intersection of Alder Street and
Waughtown Street will be investigated to determine if a signal is warranted. The
intersection of South Main Street and Salem Avenue will remain signalized.
Please see the attached figure for the preliminary configuration.
ALTERNATIVE 2
This alternative will follow the same removal and reconstruction schedule
as outlined in the Alternative 1 description for the subject section of South Main
Street and Waughtown Street. South Main Street will veer right north of the
reconstructed bridge. This will require the reconfiguration of the intersection of
South Main Street and Salem Avenue. Please see the attached figure for a
preliminary configuration.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The traffic projected for the design year (2025) will be reviewed to determine the
necessary lane configuration at the subject intersection. The Traffic Engineering Unit
will also be consulted to determine the necessity of a signal at the intersection of Alder
Street and Waughtown Street (this signal was recommended in the feasibility study).
Sidewalks will be reconstructed to replace any existing sidewalks which will be
removed during construction, in accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy.
Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Branch will coordinate with the City of
Winston-Salem and the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation for the potential
incorporation of bicycle accommodations on the project.
The Salem Creek/Salem Lake Greenway is located in close proximity to the
subject project. The City of Winston-Salem plans to relocate the greenway to parallel
Salem Creek which passes under the South Main Street bridge, but does not currently
3
own the right of way necessary for this move. For this reason, the Planning and
Environmental Branch, in accordance with the January 1994 Administrative Action to
include Local Adopted Greenway Plans in the NCDOT Highway Planning Process, will
work with the City of Winston-Salem on any possible accommodations.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office stated that the historic districts to
the north and to the south of the subject project will not be directly affected by the subject
project, though the affects on Old Salem will need to be monitored. Possible archeological sites
in the immediate project area warrant an archeological survey.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality responded prior to the scoping meeting
regarding Salem Creek. No problems are anticipated with the construction of the TIP
Alternative. It was requested that stormwater runoff be diverted into vegetation not directly into
Salem Creek.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys with NCDOT sent comments regarding the subject
project. In his comments, utilities including water, sewer, telephone, electric, and cable were
noted along the subject project. Existing conditions were inventoried. Recommendations concur
with those of the feasibility study and the TIP Alternative.
Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit noted in comments sent prior to the scoping meeting,
that the South Main Street bridge (#8) is located in a regulated floodway. The flood profile in the
FEMA study shows the 100-year water surface elevation up to the middle of the existing bridge
girders. This needs to be addressed in the design of the replacement bridge to avoid infringement
on the floodway by the new bridge.
The City of Winston-Salem noted interest in this project on behalf of the city, area
organizations, and area residents. This will be taken into account when scheduling subsequent
meetings and mailings.
SCHEDULE
Though a complete schedule was not established during the meeting, the following
preliminary milestones were noted.
4
MILESTONES (RESPONSIBLE UNrr)
Complete Traffic Counts (Statewide Planning):
Citizens Informational Workshop
Roadway Surveys (Location & Surveys): -
Roadway Preliminary Designs/Cost Estimates (Roadway Design):
Environmental Information (Planning & Environmental):
Right of Way Estimates (Right of Way):
Document Completion (Planning & Environmental):
cc: Scoping Participants
DATE DUE
March 1, 1998
Spring 1998
Spring 1998
July 1, 1998
August 1, 1998
Dec. 1, 1998
April 1999
5
SALEM AVENUE
L?
Enin?O
SALEM AVENUE
--11. lair rte"'-- - - -

NORTH
ER STREET \ `
CP
I i
?r
f
I i M
' d
? I

r r? ro ?
o' M O

d ? t4
d
H O a a
a m r t"

7C 7?7 ? 7
N r?

hi -3 H

M

O
C
a
r

II I Y70 m
-All
1 1 m?
I i
v
ANE
750°8 <Z1') ?-'CO /
c
x, /I (CU ZI
p
0
j ,l I O I = n?
• __ __ _--- , (., v? Pip ?? '\\ , •
_ - - - =__
((( ?' OX 7z17. M
4i
m
ULM
=_ m
f I (4y?F",rFy??. m
20 -
AIR
lam. -.:k?' 1
X 1 7 5
T'l p
?i
\ 01
s??
r
?d ?ymoq
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
f?ECEI VED
NOV 12 1997
ENVIRO.NMEKA1SOiENCES
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
VED
1997
WA r` Q? }- o
?Uonurge Cod ?c-110N
ldanco Enf.
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc
eW11Z-9h4&_ ?a
Review of Scoping Sheets for Intersection of SR 2456 (South Main
Street) and Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County,
State Project No. 9.8091857, TIP Project No. U-2926
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Tuesday, December 16, 1997 at 2:00 pm in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Yvonne Goldblatt, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 214.
YGG/plr
Attachment
9
,+=
ATTENTION
For all those planning to attend the U-2926 scoping meeting, please note that the
Transportation building, along with the majority of the NCDOT buildings, have recently
installed card access security systems. Due to the new security systems, all visitors will
need to enter the building through the main entrance (Wilmington Street) where they will
register with the Security Guard and receive a Visitor's Badge. This badge will need to
be visibly worn at all times while in the building. Upon leaving the building, all visitors
will be required to sign out with the Security Guard and return the badge.
Thank you for your cooperation. If there are any questions regarding the new
visitor's procedures, please contact the Security Section at [phone], or Yvonne
Goldblatt, Project Planning Engineer, at [phone], ext. 214.
v
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 10-20-97
Revision Date 11-6-97
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2926
State Project # 9.8091857
F.A. Project # N/A
Division 9
County Forsyth
Route(s) SR 2456 (South Main Street) and Waughtown Street
Functional Classification Minor Arterial and Other Principal Arterial, respectively
Length 0.483 km (0.300 mi.)
Purpose of Project To improve traffic flow at the intersection of SR 2456 (South Main
Street) and Wauahtown Street.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: To realign
Waughtown Street creating a siqnalized 'T' intersection with SR 2456. The existina section
of Wauahtown Street between Alder Street and SR 2456 will be removed. SR 2456 will be
widened to n 5-lane facility from Salem Avenue to the new intersection with Wcnightnwn
Street_ The 5-Inne cross-section will he tapered to the existing 9-Inne sectinn south of the
new intersection Replacement sidewalks sill be included on both sides of SR 2456 and
Waughtown Street.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Study Schedule: CE due April, 1999
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or I%)
How and when will this be paid?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: (Proposeo) Full Partial X None
Number of Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing variable
Proposed 5-lane facility
Traffic (ADT): Current (1996) N/A Design Yr (2020) N/A % TTST N/A % Duals N/A
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Existing 64 km/h ( 40 mph)
Proposed 64 km/h (40 mph)
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies ...... $ 2,450,000.00
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ....... $
Force Account Items ........................................................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ........................................................................................ $ $1,800,000
Right of Way ........................................................................................ $ $500,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE ......................................................... $ $2,300,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED N COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ............................................................................... $ 979 X50.00
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
-Paved .............................................................................. $
-Earthen ............................................................................... $
X Earthwork (INCLUDES PAVEMENT REMOVAL) ......................... $ i xi nnn nn
Subsurface Items .......:................................................................. $
_X- Subgrade and Stabilization ........................................................ . Aq ng-5 nn
-X_ Drainage (list any special items) ............................................... $ 90.nn0.00
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................... $
-X_ Structures
Bridge Rehab ..................................................................... $
X New Bridge ........................................................................ $ 488.4nn nn
-X -Remove Bridge (TWO BRIDGES) ...................................... $ 8n.RnA_n0
New Culvert ....................................................................... $
Culvert Extension ............................................................... $
X Retaining Walls (AT NEW BRIDGE) ................................... $ 300.000.00
Noise Walls ...............................................................
Other Misc ................................................................
X Concrete Curb & Gutter .................................................
-X -Concrete Sidewalk ...........................................................
Guardrail ............................................................................
Fencing
W.W ..........................................................................
C.L .............................................................................
X Erosion Control ..................................................................
Landscaping .....................................................................
Lighting
X Traffic Control ...............................
Signing
New ..........................................................................
Upgraded ................................................................
_X _Traffic Signals
....... $ 4A gnn on
....... s-,5.5 99n nn

....... $ 60.000.00

Y_ New (TWO SIGNALS) ........................................................ $ 90.000.00
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised ............................................................................. $
With/without Arms ........................................................... $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
-Drainage Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
X Pavement Markings
_---Paint ................................................................................................. $
Thermoplastic (INCLUDES MARKER COST) .................................. $_A-10n 0
-Raised Pavement Markers .......................................................... $
-Delineators ................................................................................................ $
_,X--Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) (30%) ........................... $ 511 247 nn
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .............................................. $ 2.217.000.00
Engineering & Contingencies (10%) ................................................................ $ xri nno on
PE Costs ............................................................................................................... $
Force Account .................................................................................................... $
Subtotal ............................................... $ 2.450.000.00
Right-of-Way
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated Cost ......
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $
Utilities ........................................................................................................ $,

Right-of-Way Subtotal ..................................................................... $
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $
Prepared by: ate 11-6-97
The above sc ing has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer- Precon
Chief Engineer- Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
.............. $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/ Municipality
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
Init. Date
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:

------------------ / PI
----
--J-----L - - -
6 vm
7
.
L.d 'a I
_
^ '? >I WI \ SM Ids
311

? l ?? I 0P 1 1 \ ? T ?
i ,
y
WINSTON-SALEM I
la.w
POP. -
, \

Z

' % ; INSET SEE FIGURE
-
- .-'--

' \
I

• I -

1
196 v `/ I
g 2632
I
,-
coo- i
/ _
2,0
196 ?? `?•
O
/
421 91

'L'I FC I\-
j 31
\
?
/ ? ?/?193 \ I \

?
1 ( \ 2 Ir I
'l - ? ? -
1
I
52 n `
?O
@ / ? \
\ \ q. 1 11 `-00.
N
?' O 40 O • ?2. 8 67 / I
L-' I I 1 \ /'
267a
l
1 2 '
1
\ 1 ..fdK
/
•? \ \
T
,' \? .
.3
F
ti I \ ', 311
'j
-d "0 O

8 I

-\
___ - ?' •i ?
? I; /, WIC
? ? - \ \
'?°, -\ •\ ? ?
_
_ -
---- --- --
L -
%- -?J1 -?-?--
- - - -

------ --- -
------

%
Fdk 1 _
50 a
10 § Q
P
?o
SStNel I e 158 j
Bethama 3l1 aikertown' q
F S? ° ,:' H 11
Wins on^sal M:7 Z' `
31 .3,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT
SR 2456 (SOUTH MAIN STREET) AND
WAUGHTOWN STREET
WINSTON SALEM, FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP No. U-2926
VICINITY MAP FIGURE
? la- cI&f-12-?u)
SU
Fj / k-\

No NW I
Y?Ik Pew 04P E
'tea ER,OFX 7.
cpt CDM ?C s-
20 VA ST
?N q ? J
wa@?„ ? Yc?g?e =eu
;?° >z N
AR-
• ?m ROOSE%ELT AV
°p TAFT AV
?g 4 -'s GGIICETTE ST _ 3
'r; o c? S T'
2 CHILDREN'S 49 a
? i
HOM to o
Y
12rn
\\ DD ? ? IIM
Q
W dl 1( r.il?T O
J V y

T :? x
N a ?

?
N

a 25th ? Z
2< th s WINSTON-SALEM -f
PARK
D. a T a
22ew a W a y•... i ,??•
a nG v? A
ID ` F
z st Sr
21sr
St
B?vD - i

:M
4

179h

T

ft

N

J > >e

t a.
?irr CL
T
N

F

to ?f.
=
16th

15th
st = 17th
?? 6n s

'T 'r
o
t2

th $?
16th ST
I.
~ ST
o O

14th
ST
:ath° ?
T. I to
< t?th wl W
jflt
? p AR
?z.
z
1 TH a ' G
?
°?
?
T > 2M ST. S
g
311 rE!

lltn
A. L
VER?44N .:
0- . 1 311
qtr P? m ST. i to a 3 F " sr
Av. .Z. ? - 9 th ,... OC.D er c act
?Zt °`m" ?s ST. A = _ O a T. - 3r6 F._A
N, 4t r S 2nt7 2 ST
:R a W:ry "? s'LL a I. R-y? civI:..:w
GLAD
F 4r u
Q'
t. ??" rr ? ^ I -5{ c . 16 ; w ,.. W st m
P ?? ? s « 1st E 158 40 z
d y •
a ' n. _ ? - i - ! 421 >, W
?r p
? M sr ' ?sT RAY . et-ts rt? r n ? .,toy " fdY ?
BAdli ?e •` ?, YARD ¦
s, s ? ? uM 1 ? r
HO fr . o APP SALEM i ow 73' OLDS
a
EME T .IKtNS -
B;.Wwcn- ST 4 ST. _ R?
PROJECT LIMITS ¢ AN <
p -gJ A BIA.
s?urn5t`?
a ST i er?t D F ? S: ," - t
A ? ? Y s y?E ?i'
PARK AR E?
G F p a? p c5 t ENt,iCA ;mar sr 04 BLVD. °
01
HA; t t
¢.rvi 4&' s u MAN0GA.
IR 5 Y m 3r Z S'av y Q MqN ?_ e? P V"' 'y.`? > F "" D I uMw'? s`
v 'L
A! a Aa ER H ?, ro''Ng? a°° G 3 ?? ?? „ u Q 109 MOPAtsor' sT z O?
3 r z ?, C
b? i F _3St a 11ASkiNGI01i 8''?7 4 r ,, zotP a'q?!
v s
PARK
ZZ ei R AN ?.,' .p to p01. b .x r ""5Z
W :N a ? ?? 9 GL ova ? i:?' N Ca ^TOWER ST.
¢ r< J PR
Z ; 'y A E. ST ALLtN S
ST a C N. W. M e2 H
?, PP •F W if w A A N ?? a l ~ ti I? W I A ST
?! F8N1ME S f!i. Spy S RY. : ?3 N M N T Wpi = 1
NA I I DNA W
' ?µl r= f r• ~ o FL e M F
= 1 SPR4S
GUARO' A I N _ s- i <
pt,?eAl Y? w¦' o. ,.r- a : ST N ~ R
J`?7 ??? _. ?:' _.. _.e ... K NR r..) ... ??!I I
J•?' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
H DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT
O SR 2456 (SOUTH MAIN STREET) AND
WAUGHTOWN STREET
WINSTON SALEM, FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP No. U-2926
S
VICINITY MAP FIGURE IB
0