U 4909_complete file

?J11 A r? Michael F. Easley, Governor
c.,
QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> Division of Water Quality
January 8, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
From: Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed widening of SR 2643
(Union Cross Rd) from existing SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) to existing SR 2632 (Sedge
Garden Rd), Forsyth County, TIP U-4909, DENR Project # 07-0223 (Due date
1/15/2007).
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated November 28, 2006. 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. It is our understanding thatthe project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
All future environmental documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary
as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
Nao thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit ?tl(rally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httr)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
ell
13. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
14. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
15. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and-Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
16. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
17. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
18. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
19. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964.
cc: John Thomas, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Federal Highway Administration
Chris Miltscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
=<DWQ:;4A1,;Transpprtation Permitting Unite
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0223 County: Forsyth
Due Date: 01/15/2007
Date Received: 12/20/2006
Project Description: Proposes to widen 3.6 milies of SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) to a multilane facility from SR 2691
(Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd) in Forsyth County. TIP No. U-4909
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville J1 Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water
? Coastal Management Water Resources
- Wildlife T Environmental Health
Mooresville n Groundwater
Solid Waste Mgmt
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer T Wildlife - DOT
Radiation Protection
Washington TT Forest Resources

Wilmington .
Other
T- Winston-Salem' Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
TJ_ Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
AFC ?
?NfiT<4N??hn , ?006
?ivq?ry
e
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs .
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0223 County: Forsyth
Due Date: 01/15/2007
Date Received: 12/20/2006
Project Description: Proposes to widen 3.6 milies of SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) to a multilane facility from SR 2691
(Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd) in Forsyth County. TIP No. U-4909
Thi,¢ Proiect is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville _ T Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville T-T Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville TT Groundwater Wildlife T Environmental Health
Raleigh Solid Waste Mgmt
T Land Quality Engineer _T
Wildlife -DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
rT Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
T_ Winston-Salem Land Resources
TT_ Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
IT Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
AFC ? f ?`??
2
rartR.' 1??6
?Rry
S.T.I.P. PROJECT NUMBER U-4909
WIDENING OF SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
TO A MULTILANE FACILITY
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD)
TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WBS ELEMENT 4027E
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NUMBER STP-2643(2)
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 USC 4332(2)(c)
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I.21•eG ??
DATE OF APPROVAL GREGORY J. T RPE, PHD
DIRECTOR
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
!! 20 .
DATE OF APPROVAL
w. 34'."
JOHN F. SULLIVAN, III, P.E., '
DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
S.T.I.P. PROJECT NUMBER U-4909
WIDENING OF SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
TO A MULTILANE FACILITY
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD)
TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NOVEMBER 2006
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS 8c CONSULTANTS
D/ate Michelle Fishburne, P.E.
Project Manager
Q
IIIAPIA91
ate J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a/20 f 2006
Date
,1-Z I
Date
N ?C A Rp
?J•?? d?2?Yv\
S I I Ip?

Mark Pierce, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Brian YamamoW,, P.E.
Project Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in coordination with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) proposes to widen an existing 3.6-mile section of Union Cross Road (SR 2643) in
eastern Forsyth County, southeast of Winston-Salem and south of Kernersville. This transportation action is
included in the NCDOT 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Project Number
U-4909.
The following sections summarize the purpose and need for STIP Project U-4909, the alternatives evaluated,
and the potential impacts associated with the recommended alternative as provided within this federal
Environmental Assessment. Based on the assessment of impacts associated with the recommended
alternative, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not recommended for this project. The
determination of the final documentation format will be based on the comments received at the Public
Hearing and received on this Environmental Assessment in accordance with National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended.
EXISTING UNION CROSS ROAD
Union Cross Road (SR 2643) is classified as a local urban collector
and as a major thoroughfare on the Winston-Salem Foryth Urban
Area 2030 Transportation Plan. NCDOT proposes to widen the
3.6-mile section of Union Cross Road from a three-lane road to a
multilane facility from Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden
Road (SR 2632). The project temini have independent utility and
were determined logical locations based on the base year and
projected traffic volumes.
This section of Union Cross Road includes two existing
interchanges: one with US 311, and the second with I-40. Posted
speed limits vary between 45 and 50 miles per hour (mph), with a
posted speed reduction to 35 mph in school zones.
Union Cross Road is a three-lane road with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane for left turn
movements. The roadway width is variable, depending on the availability of dedicated right and/or left turn
lanes but is generally comprised of three 12-foot wide lanes. However, Union Cross Road transitions to two
lanes just north of Biloxi Avenue. The existing right-of-way along Union Cross Road is generally 60 feet with
varying sections of curb and gutter located at several locations. Utilities located within the right-of-way
include electrical, fiber optic telephone and cable television, water and fire hydrants, natural gas, and sewer.
Union Cross Road currently has no control of access. Access to connecting roads is provided with at-grade
intersections and access to adjacent properties is provided with driveways. The study area is predominantly
zoned for low-density residential and agricultural uses. The land use adjacent to Union Cross Road generally
reflects this zoning description with individual homes and established residential neighborhoods with
community services such as parks, schools, and churches. There is also an obvious pattern of land use
changes occurring within the study area and adjacent to the road. Agricultural land is being sold for
development into residential, industrial, and commercial uses.
The 2005 annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Union Cross Road ranges from 11,000 to 20,200 vehicles
per day within the project limits, depending on the location and intersecting street. A traffic capacity analysis
of the existing three-lane facility indicates Union Cross Road currently operates at an acceptable level of
service, LOS "C". The total crash rate reported for this portion of Union Cross Road does not exceed
statewide critical rates for a two-lane facility. However, the study area has a 1.97 fatality crash rate which
exceeds the statewide rate of 1.17.
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE ES- 1
Union Cross Road (2006)
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PURPOSE AND NEED
The need for the proposed action is based on the projected failure in traffic operations on Union Cross Road
before the year 2030. The project area and vicinity are experiencing continual growth and includes many
existing and planned residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The purpose for the proposed
action is to provide sufficient capacity for the 20-year projected traffic by improving traffic flow through the
study area.
The estimated ADT on Union Cross Road ranges from 11,000 to 20,200 vehicles per day and is expected to
double to an estimated 23,100 to 40,700 vehicles per day in the project limits by 2030. Current commercial
and industrial development in the area, including the Dell computer manufacturing facility, is also expected to
generate a noticeable increase in truck traffic for deliveries and shipments. Therefore, the traffic analysis for
the year 2030, with twice the amount of traffic and without the proposed project, indicates the traffic
operations on Union Cross Road will fail (LOS "F") and would not function without considerable delays.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED
A range of alternatives were reviewed for the project to identify an alternative that is consistent with the
project purpose and need and has the least adverse impacts to the human and natural environment. The
following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further study:
? No-Build Alternative
? Transportation Systems Management (ISM) Alternative
? Mass Transit Alternative
? Symmetrical Widening Alternative
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative includes asymmetrically widening the existing three-lane road to a multilane
divided facility by adding additional lanes on either the east or west sides of the road, from SR 2691 (Wallburg
Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road). This asymmetrical widening is the recommended alternative for
U-4909 because it meets the stated purpose and need while minimizing impacts and construction cost. The
asymmetrical widening uses a "best-fit" approach providing opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to
historic properties, schools, churches, parks, and other properties adjacent to Union Cross Road. Utilizing
the existing roadway as part of the northbound or southbound lanes will also reduce the cost of the project
since traffic can be maintained on the existing two-lanes during construction and less existing pavement will
be removed.
The termini were based on existing and projected traffic volumes and related need for traffic capacity along
Union Cross Road. To provide sufficient traffic operations for the 2030 traffic volumes, the proposed
improvements include widening the existing road to a four-lane road south of I-40 and to a six-lane road
north of I-40. The proposed improvements also include upgrading the existing intersections with designated
left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes as needed. For the design year 2030, a majority of the intersections are
anticipated to improve from an overall LOS F without the proposed improvements to an acceptable LOS
with the proposed improvements.
The right-of-way proposed for the improvements to Union Cross Road will vary from approximately 120 to
140 feet wide. Both the four-lane and six-lane sections will include curb-and-gutter, a 30-foot raised median,
and two. five-foot wide sidewalks, one along each side of the road. The proposed improvements include
providing access management for driveways and roads connecting with Union Cross Road. The continuous,
dual-left, center-turn lane will be replaced with a 30-foot raised median. Median openings will be provided at
major intersecting roads in accordance with the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina
Highways Quly 2003).
PA&E ES-2 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPvRTAT/ON
COST ESTIMATE AND IMPACT SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 2006
The total estimated cost for this project is $45,300,000. This cost includes the construction cost
($34,900,000), right-of-way cost ($9,000,000) and utility costs ($1,400,000). The current funding amounts
included in the 2006-2012.State Transportation Improvement Program are $5,000,000 for right-of-way and
$30,000,000 for construction. Impacts associated with the proposed improvements are summarized in
Table S-1.
TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
RESOURCE IMPACT
Right-of-way 39.3 acres
N
b
f
l
ti 23 residences
um
er o
re
oca
ons: 5 businesses
Number of property parcels 189 parcels
Archaeological Sites 0
Historic Properties 1 Adverse Effect
Section 4(f) Properties Impacts 1 4.3 acres
Streams 4 existing culvert
extensions 108 feet Intermittent
79 feet Perennial
Wetlands 0.015 648 square feet)
Endangered Species 0
Endangered Species Habitat 0
Prime 75 acres
Farmland Unique 0 acres
Statewide Important 4 acres
D Oak-HickoryForest 10.4 acres

N
t
l C
iti Piedmont Bottornland
Forest
1.1 acres
1.1 acres
a
ura
ommun
es
Earl to Mid-Successional
7.5 acres
Fallow Field /
Agriculture 15.4 acres
Noise Impacts -without Residences 49
abatement Businesses 2
Air Quality No Impact
Construction (August8, 2006) $34,900,000
C
t Right-of-Way (April24, 200 $9,000,000
os Utilities (May 5, 2006) $1,400,000
Total $45,300,000
The project is located within a rapidly developing area of Forsyth County. Measures to avoid and minimize
impacts to the human and natural environment have been incorporated throughout the planning stages and
the development of the preliminary design for the recommended alternative. The recommended alternative
UNION GROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSE55MENT PAOE E'S-S
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROL/NA 0,rPARTMSNT OF TRANSPORTAT/ON
includes asymmetrical widening along Union Cross Road since it provided opportunities to minimize cost and
impacts to the environment.
The recommended alternative will not impact unique vegetative communities or potential habitat for
protected species. Stream impacts are limited to culvert extensions for approximately 108 feet of unimportant
intermittent streams and 79 feet of perennial stream bed within the existing I-40 interchange area. No new
areas of stream impacts are anticipated. Approximately 0.015 acre (648 square feet) of wetland will be
impacted by the project.
One rural historic district eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the project.
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and the property owner was implemented during
the development of the project alternatives. The proposed improvements were determined to have an
adverse effect on this district in accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. A Draft
Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared to determine if there were any feasible and prudent alternatives for this
project that would avoid this rural historic district. This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation is included with this
Environmental Assessment. Measures to minimize harm to this district have been incorporated into the
design of the recommended alternative.
The proposed project is expected to benefit the communities
within the project area by decreasing existing and projected traffic
congestion along Union Cross Road and improving safety. The
proposed widening of Union Cross Road is consistent with state
and local agency plans and the surrounding land use. The project
is located in an area planned and currently developing into future
residential, commercial, and light industrial development. It is
anticipated that cumulative and indirect effects associated with the
project will be minimal.
SCHEDULE
Property for Sale
The 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (Hedgecock Road Intersection)
(STIP) schedule includes purchasing property for the road right-
of-way in state fiscal year (SFY) 2007 and construction starting in SFY 2008. The project is programmed for
design-build type construction depending on the availability of funds.
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
This project was coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies as well as the public. As part
of the development of the Environmental Assessment, a scoping letter was mailed on August 15, 2005 to
federal and state regulatory agencies and state and municipal local officials to request information regarding
potential environmental impacts that could result from Project U-4909. A scoping meeting was also held on
September 7, 2005 with representatives of state agency personnel and local municipal officials.
In addition to agency coordination, a public participation program was also implemented during the project
development. This program included a project newsletter, local official meetings, and a citizens informational
workshop. Information obtained through both the agency coordination and public involvement phases of
this project have incorporated into the project as much as possible.
ACTION REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 for linear transportation projects is anticipated for the
project. This permit will be coordinated with the Wilmington District to clarify the requirements for this
project. Project construction impacts to streams in the study area will be approximately 187 total linear feet
and approximately 0.015 acre of wetland. Impacts will be limited to those systems which are located adjacent
to I-40. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must also be obtained from the NC Division of
Water Quality prior to issuance of a nationwide permit.
PAGE ES-4 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER 2006
POINTS OF CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information concerning this proposed action and this Environmental Assessment can be obtained
by contacting the following persons:
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E., Division Administrator
c/o Felix Davila, P.E., Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
C/o Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE ES-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1-1
1.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS .......................... 1 - 1
1 . 1 EXISTING ROADWAY .................................................................. 1-1
1.2 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... 1-1
1 .2. 1 ROUTE CLASSIFICATION ................................................ 1-1
1.2.2 ROADWAY SECTION STUDIED ........................................ 1 -2
1.2.3 ALIGNMENT AND POSTED SPEED LIMITS .......................... 1 -2
1.2.4 INTERSECTIONS AND SIGNALIZATION ............................... 1-2
1.2.5 TYPICAL SECTION, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND UTILITIES ............... 1 -2
1.2.6 CULVERTS AND BRIDGES .............................................. .1-4
1.3 ACCESS CONTROL AND ADJACENT LAND USE ................................ 1-5
1.4 NEW AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS ........................................... 1 -6
1.5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................... 1 -8
1 .5. 1 SCHOOL BUSES ......................................................... 1 -8
1.5.2 BICYCLE USE ............................................................. I -B
1.6 TRAFFIC SAFETY ...................................................................... 1 -8
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................... 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 2-1
2.2 REGIONAL AREA TRANSPORTATION ............................................... 2-1'
2.3 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK .......................................................... 2-2
2.4 ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS .................................................. 2-2
2.4.1 TRAFFIC SAFETY ......................................................... 2-2
2.4.2 BENEFITS TO STATE, REGION, AND COMMUNITY ................. 2-3
2.5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ................................................................ 2-3
2.5.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................... 2-3
2.5.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ...................................................... 2-5
2.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS .................................................. 2-7
3.0 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 3-1
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ............................................................ 3-1
3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................. 3-1
3.2.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
ALTERNATIVE ............................................................. 3-1
3.2.2 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ......................................... 3-1
3.2.3 SYMMETRICAL WIDENING OF EXISTING ROAD ..................... 3-2
3.3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE - ASYMMETRICAL WIDENING
ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 3-2
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................ 4-1
4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 4-1
4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE, STATUS, AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING............ 4-1
4.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TYPICAL SECTION ........................................... 4-1

f ,mvZA4mzm 20976

4.4 ALIGNMENT ............................................................................. 4-1
4.5 ACCESS CONTROL AND MEDIAN OPENINGS .................................... 4-3
4.6 INTERSECTIONS AND SIGNALIZATION ............................................ 4-5
4.7 SPEED LIMITS ......................................................................... 4-5
4.B TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................... 4-6
4.9 LEVELS OF SERVICE ................................................................. 4-6
4.1 O CULVERTS AND BRIDGES ........................................................... 4-7
4.11 NOISE BARRIERS ..................................................................... 4-7
4.1 2 SIDEWALKS ............................................................................ 4-7
4.1 3 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS ............................................... ..... 4-9
4.1 4 COST ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 4-9
5.0 RELATED PROJECTS ...................................................... 5-1
5.1 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ...................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 NEW HIGHWAY PROJECT ............................................... 5-1
5.1.2 WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY PROJECTS ............................. 5-1
5. 1 .3 BRIDGE REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT PROJECTS ...... 5-1
5.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 5-2
5.3 PROPOSED UTILITY CONSTRUCTION .............................................. 5-2
6.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHICS ..................... 15-1
6.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................ 6-1
6.2 COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 6-2
6.2.2 POPULATION BY RACE .................................................. 6-2
6.2.3 POPULATION BY AGE ................................................... 6-2
6.2.4 HOUSING UNIT GROWTH ............................................... 6-3
6.2.5 HOUSING VALUES ....................................................... 6-4
6.2.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES .................................. 6-4
6.3 ECONOMIC STATUS ................................................................... 6-5
6.3.1 EDUCATION LEVELS .................................................... 6-6
6.3.2 BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT ........................................ 6-6
7.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS ..................................... 7-1
7.1 LAND USE ............................................................................. 7-1
7.2 FARMLAND .............. ........................................................ . 7-1
7.3 CHANGE IN COMMUTING AND TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................. 7-2
7.3.1 RESIDENTIAL ACCESS .................................................. 7-2
7.3.2 COMMERCIAL ACCESS .................................................. 7-3
7.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ......................................................... 7-3
7.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION .......................................................... 7-4
7.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................................... 7-5
7.6.1 SCHOOLS .................................................................7-5
7.6.2 CHURCHES AND CEMETERIES ........................................ 7-5
7.6.3 FIRE STATIONS ........................................................... 7-5
7.6.4 PARKS AND RECREATION .............................................. 7-6

7.6.5 UTILITIES .................................................................. 7-6
7.6.6 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ............................................ 7-7
7.7 TRAFFIC SAFETY ...................................................................... 7-7
7.8 RELOCATIONS AND RELOCATION PROGRAMS .................................. 7-7
7.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ........................... ............................ 7-8
7.1 O WATER SUPPLY, WATERSHEDS, AND SCENIC RIVERS ........................ 7-9
7.1 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 7-9
7.1 2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 7-11
7.1 3 TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS ............................. 7-11
7.1 3.1 NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES ...................................7-14
7.1 3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ............................................... 7-15
7.1 4 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................... 7-15
7.1 5 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ................................................. 7-16
7.1 6 MOBILE SOURCE AIR Toxics (MSAT) ......................................... 7-1 7
7. 1 6. 1 BACKGROUND .......................................................... 7-17
7. 1 6.2 M S AT .................................................................... 7-20
7.1 6.3 MSAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................... 7-21
7.1 7 AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION ......................................... 7-22
7.1 8 AESTHETICS .......................................................................... 7-22
8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS .................................. S-1
B.1 GEOLOGY .............................................................................. B-1
8.2 SOILS .............................................................................. e- l
8.2. 1 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS .............................................. 8-1
B. 2.2 HYDRIC SOILS ........................................................... 8-2
8.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................. B-3
8.3. 1 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS ........................................... B-3
8.3.2 WETLANDS ................................................................ 8-5
B. 3.3 OTHER WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS ........................ 8-6
B. 3.4 WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS .......................................... 8-6
8.3.5 FLOOD HAZARD EVALUATION ........................................ 8-6
8.4 BIOTIC RESOURCES .................................................................. 8-7
8.4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES (FLORA) ........................................ B-7
8.4.2 WILDLIFE (FAUNA) ....................................................... 8-8
8.4.3 IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................... 8-8
8.5 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................. 8-9
8.5.1 AQUATIC HABITATS ..................................................... 8-9
8.5.2 AQUATIC FAUNA ......................................................... 8-9
8.5.3 IMPACTS TO AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ................................ 8-9
8.6 SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ....................................... B-10
8.7 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION .................... .............................8-1 O
8.7.1 PERMIT ISSUES ........................................................ 8-1 1
8.7.2 MITIGATION ............................................................. 8-1 1
8.8 PROTECTED SPECIES .............................................................. 8-1 2
S.B. 1 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ................................. B-1 2
8.8.2 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE
LISTED SPECIES ....................................................... 8-1 4
LOdm iaN Ca°maas aAD -Zmvim89MArrHrAL A ss'sE'amm-Nr ACHE 13t
mryvmmorm Z006

9.0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ....................................................... 9-1
9. 1 TRAVEL TIMES ......................................................................... 9-1
9.2 DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ................................................ 9-1
9.3 STATE, COUNTY, AND LOCAL TAX BASES ...................................... 9-1
1 0.0 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................... 10-1
1 0. 1 OTHER ACTIONS .................................................................... 10-1
1 0.2 PROJECT RELATED INDIRECT EFFECTS........ 10-1
1 0.3 PROJECT RELATED CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................... 10-2
1 0.3.1 TAX BASE CHANGES .................................................. 10-2
1 0.3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ........................................... 10-2
1 0.4 REGIONAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................ 10-3
1 1.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..... 1 1 -1
1 1. 1 AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................... 11-1
1 1. 1. 1 SCOPING COMMENTS ................................................. 11-2
1 1. 1 .2 SCOPING MEETING ....................................:............... 11-2
11.2 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING ...................................................... 11-2
11.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................. 1 1 -2
1 1 .3. 1 NEWSLETTER ........................................................... 1 1 -2
1 1.3.2 CITIZENS INFORMATION WORKSHOP .............................. 1 1 -3
11.4 SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS ................................... 1 1-3
1 1 .5 DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................... 1 1 -4
1 1.6 PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................... 1 1 -4
1 2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 12-1
1 2.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACT .................................................. 12-1
1 2.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ................................................ 12-1
1 2.3 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .......................................... 12-2
1 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 12-2
1 3.0 DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION ............................... 13-1
1 3.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................ 13-1
1 3.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................. 13-1
1 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES ................................. 13-1
13.4 SMITH-TUCKER FARMS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY ......................................................... 13-2
1 3.4.1 DESCRIPTION ........................................................... 13-2
1 3.4.2 ADDRESS AND OWNERSHIP ......................................... 13-2
1 3.4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO SIMILAR USED LANDS ....................... 13-2
1 3.4.4 UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................... 13-3
1 3.5 IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY ......................................... 13-3
PA&E IV f.imiaN GRPass t oAD -EIvvi 'CEAImEmrAt- Aso--ssm--mr

virtu rm Z E7
1 3.6 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 13-3
1 3.7 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ................................. 13-4
1 3.8 COORDINATION ...................................................................... 13-4
1 3.9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................. 13-4
1 4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................... 14-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A RELOCATION FORM
NRCS FARMLAND FORM
APPENDIX B STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (HPO)
CORRESPONDENCE AND CONCURRENCE LETTERS
APPENDIX C START OF STUDY
SCOPING LETTER RESPONSES
APPENDIX D NEWSLETTER
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
APPENDIX E REGULATORY AGENCY COORDINATION
LIST OF CHARTS
CHAPTER 1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1 - 1 CRASH OCCURRENCES (2002-2004) ................................................. 1 -9
CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-1 ANTICIPATED TRUCK TRAFFIC ............................................................. 2-5
CHAPTER 6 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
6-1 AGE DISTRIBUTION DATA .................................................................. 6-3
6-2 COMMUTER TRAVEL TIMES ................................................................ 6-7
UNrom C Caws oAc -ENb'rRvt4mLNTAL .4BSE'&Hm.-HT PASS V

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1-1 EXISTING INTERSECTIONS AND DEDICATED TURN LANE
MOVEMENTS .................................................................................. 1-3
1-2 EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN STUDY AREA .......................... 1-7
CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-1 2005 AND 2030 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................ 2-3
2-2 LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON, 2005 AND 2030
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ..................................................................... 2-6
2-3 2005 AND 2030 BUILD SCENARIO INTERSECTION CONTROL
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 2-7
CHAPTER 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4-1 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LANES FOR INTERSECTING ROADS .................... 4-3
4-2 PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS ....................................... 4-5
4-3 INTERSECTING ROADS WITHOUT FULL MEDIAN OPENINGS ...................... 4-6
4-4 LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON, 2005 AND 2030 TRAFFIC
PROJECTIONS .............................................................................. 4-B
4-5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................... 4-1 O
CHAPTER 6 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
6-1 COMPARISON OF POPULATION 133ROWTH ............................................. 6-2
6-2 POPULATION BY RACE, 2000 CENSUS DATA ..................................... 6-2
6-3 COMPARISON OF 13ROWTH RATES .................................................... 6-4
6-4 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 1 990 TO 2000 ..................................... 6-4
6-5 MEDIAN HOUSE INCOME COMPARISON, 1 990 TO 2000 .......................6-5
6-6 POVERTY STATUS (1 999 DATA) ..................... .............................. 6-6
6-7 EDUCATION ATTAINMENT ................................................................ 6-6
6-8 PLACE OF WORK (2000) ............................................................... 6-7
6-9 TEN Top EMPLOYERS IN FORSYTH COUNTY ........................................ 6-8
CHAPTER 7 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
7-1 PROPERTY OWNER RELOCATIONS ..................................................... 7-8
7-2 BUSINESS RELOCATIONS ................................................................ 7-8
7-3 POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATIONS ...................... 7-11
7-4 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ......................................................... 7-13
7-5 AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS ......................................... 7-13
7-6 CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE ............................................ 7-14
CHAPTER 8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
8-1 FARMLAND SOILS OCCURRING IN PROJECT CORRIDOR ..........................8-2
B-2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS ...................................................8-3
B-3 COVERAGE AREA OF PLANT COMMUNITIES......... .............................. 8-9
8-4 JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT
STUDY AREA ............................................................................. 8-10
8-5 JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE IMPACTS .............................................. 8-1 1
8-6 SPECIES RECEIVING FEDERAL PROTECTION .......................................8-1 2
8-7 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................... 8-1 4
CHAPTER 1 O .................................................... INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
10-1 DEMAND FOR BUSINESS SPACE ............................................... 10-2
v/ L/MOPTN CRass aArp -EhBR+imaNmrjv AL, A8sm`SBh9zmr
NmRrH Amaj,PtmA Dir#-Amy-m mr of rmAp4mrf- mrAri.-jN
LIST OF FisuRES
(LOCATED AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER)
CHAPTER 1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1-1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1-2 UNION CROSS ROAD (1 938)
1 -3 PROJECT AREA
1 -4 EXISTING UNION CROSS ROAD
1-4A: FROM WALLBURG ROAD TO PINEWOOD TERRACE
1-4B: FROM CHAMELIN ROAD TO 1-40
1-4C: FROM 1-40 TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD
CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED
2-1 TRIAD REGION
CHAPTER 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4-1 PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
4-1 A: FROM WALLBURG ROAD TO PINEWOOD TERRACE
4-1 B: FROM CHAMELIN ROAD TO 1-40
4-1 C: FROM 1-40 TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD
4-2 TYPICAL SECTIONS
CHAPTER 5 RELATED PROJECTS
5-1 OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
5-2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ALONG UNION CROSS ROAD
5-2A: FROM WALLBURG ROAD TO PINEWOOD TERRACE
5-213: FROM CHAMELIN ROAD TO 1-40
5-20: FROM 1-40 TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD
CHAPTER 7 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
7-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
7-1 A: FROM WALLBURG ROAD TO PINEWOOD TERRACE
7-1 B: FROM CHAMELIN ROAD TO 1-40
7-1 C: FROM 1-40 TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD
CHAPTER a NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
B-1 USGS QUADRANGLE MAP
Nov--"arm 24706
CHAPTER 1 3 DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
1 3-1 ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO THE SMITH-TUCKER FARMS HISTORICAL DISTRICT
1 3-2 SMITH-TUCKER FARMS HISTORICAL DISTRICT
1 3-3 HISTORIC DISTRICT IMPACTS
UNION OR1200 ROAD -CNV'ERONM-°NTAL AasEssmENT ALA- Vii
INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Assessment was prepared for a transportation action in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
of 1971, as amended. This action is proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is included in the
NCDOT 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Project Number U-4909. Project
U-4909, shown in Figure 1-1, proposes to widen an existing 3.6-mile section of Union Cross Road (SR 2643)
in eastern Forsyth County, southeast of Winston-Salem and south of Kemersville. The figures cited within
this document are included at the end of each Chapter.
1.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 EXISTING ROADWAY
Union Cross Road (SR 2643) is part of the North Carolina state road system and is maintained within
NCDOT Highway Division 9. This road is shown in Figure 1-2 on a 1938 State Highway and Public Works
Commission Map of Forsyth County. Union Cross Road originated as a
link between the town of Kemersville, southeastern Forsyth County, and
Plank Roads were composed of northern Davidson County. This link crossed the Fayetteville and
sand-covered planks laid over Western plank road at Union Cross. The Fayetteville and Western, built
wooden sills. Fayetteville and between 1848 and 1854, was the longest plank road ever chartered in the
Western was financed in the United States; it connected one of North Carolina's premier coastal plain
mid-1800s by private investment centers with the backcounty market towns of Salem and Bethania via
and tolls. High Point. The present-day High Point Road follows the approximate
path of the Fayetteville and Western. Union Cross Road crosses High
Point Road at the southern end of the project.
1.2 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
The following discussions summarize current condition and characteristics
of Union Cross Road within the project area. As used in this report, the
project area denotes the study area within an approximate 300-foot wide
corridor. The project vicinity describes a larger area that extends
approximately 0.5 mile on all sides of the study area. The project region is
the area represented on a standard 7.5-minute United States Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map.
1.2.1 ROUTE CLASSIFICATION
Union Cross Road is classified as a local urban collector and as a major
thoroughfare on the Winston-Salem Foryth Urban Area 2030 Transportation
Plan. It intersects with US Highway 311 (US 311) and Interstate 40 (I-40).
Union Cross Road continues to provide an important transportation link in
Forsyth County. As adopted by the North Carolina Board of
Transportation, US 311 in the project area is part of a designated Strategic
Highway Corridor (between I-40 in Winston-Salem and I-74 to the southeast
near Asheboro).
THOROUGHPARE.PLA
LAN

,r -

Winston-Salem Forsyth Urban Area
2030 Transportation Plan.
UN112N CROSS MMA0 -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PACaE 1 - 1
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1.2.2 ROADWAY SECTION STUDIED
As shown in Figure 1-3, NCDOT proposes to widen a 3.6-mile
section of Union Cross Road from a three-lane road to a multilane
facility. The logical termini designated for this project were
identified after reviewing the existing and projected traffic
conditions along Union Cross Road. The traffic volumes on
Union Cross Road notably decreased south of Wallburg Road and
north of Sedge Garden Road. Therefore, the southern terminus
for this project begins at Wallburg Road (SR 2691) and Swaim
Road (SR 2692), and the northern terminus ends at Sedge Garden
Road/Old Salem Road (SR 2632).
This project has independent utility since it will not preclude any
future improvement needed in the area. The existing and projected traffic volumes on the remaining north
and south portions of Union Cross Road do not currently warrant improvements. If in the future, traffic
volumes increase and the status for improvements on the remaining sections change, this project would not
prevent or change decisions regarding the need or type of improvements warranted beyond the Wallburg
Road or Sedge Garden Road termini.
The section of Union Cross Road proposed for this project includes two interchanges: (1) connecting with
US 311 on the south end of the project, and (2) connecting with I-40 on the north end. An evaluation of the
existing and future capacity of these interchanges was included with the Union Cross Road studies to
determine if these interchanges needed upgrading as part of this project. The study area identified for this
project included a 300-foot corridor width along Union Cross Road and 150-foot width along intersecting
roads. The corridor widened out to 800 feet at the US 311 and 500 feet at the I-40 interchanges.
1.2.3 ALIGNMENT AND POSTED SPEED LIMITS
Union Cross Road extends from the south in a northeasterly direction. Figures 1-4A, 1-4B, and 1-4C
illustrate the existing road on 2006 aerial photographs. Roadway curvature is minimal, with a long arching
curve located northeast of the US 311 interchange. The roadway between I-40 and Sedge Garden Road
transitions to two-lanes at Biloxi Avenue and has slightly more curvature with three arching curves.
Posted speed limits vary between 45 and 50 miles per hour (mph), with a posted speed reduction to 35 mph
in school zones (See Figures 1-4A, 1-4B, and 1-4C). Both I-40 and US 311 are highways with median cable
guardrails and 65 mph posted speed limits.
1.2.4 INTERSECTIONS AND SIGNALIZATION
There are currently 27 intersections along Union Cross Road with some type of traffic control, including two
new driveways at the Weatherstone Development currently under construction. Eight of the intersections are
controlled by timed traffic signals while the remaining intersections are stop-sign controlled. Table 1-1 lists
the intersections, traffic control method, and indicates whether dedicated turn lanes are available.
1.2.5 TYPICAL SECTION, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND UTILITIES
Under TIP number U-4759, approximately 3.1 miles of Union Cross Road in the study area was widened
from a two-lane road to a three-lane road with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane for either left
turn movements. Left and right turn lanes were also added to several intersections (Table 1-1). Curb and
gutter for drainage was added at some areas with intersection improvements. The roadway width is variable,
depending on the addition of dedicated right and/or left turn lanes but is generally comprised of three
12-foot wide lanes. For example, a fourth lane on the west side of Union Cross Road was constructed with
Project U-4759. This lane operates as a right-turn lane from Glenn High Road in front of R.B. Glenn High
School and ends as a right turn lane for Clark Drive.
PAGE 1-2 LlNION CROSS RcmD -ENV1RONMENTA4 ASSESSMENT
Southbound on Union Cross Road,
approaching Loradale Drive (2006)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMSER 2006
TABLE 1-1 EXISTING INTERSECTIONS AND DEDICATED TURN LANE MOVEMENTS
LOCATION TRAFFIC *DEDICATED LANE MOVEMENTS
CONTROL
`Union Cross Road
Swaim Road (West Side) Stop Sign Left Turn to Wallburg
Wallbur Road (East Side
Hayes Drive Stop Si None
US 311 Interchange
Stop Sign Left Turn, WB Entrance Ramp
South Side Right Turn, WB Entrance Ram
US 311 Interchange
Stop Sign Left Turn, EB Entrance Ramp
(North Side Right Turn, WB Entrance Ram
SB, Left Turn to WB High Point Rd
NB, Left Turn to EB High Point Rd
High Point Road Signal High Point Rd Left Turn to NB Union Cross Road
High Point Rd Right Turn to SB Union Cross Road
High Point Rd Right Turn to NB Union Cross Road
Pinewood Terrace Stop Si None
Weatherstone Development Stop Sign Under Construction
2 new driveways)
Chamelin Road Stop Si None
Temple School Road Signal Left Turn to NB Union Cross Rd
Ri ht Turn to SB Union Cross Rd
He ecock Road Stop Si None
Left Turn, NB
Dell Boulevard Signal 2 Left Turn to NB Union Cross Rd
2 Right Turn to SB Union Cross Rd
Loradale Drive Stop Si None
Clark Drive Signal Ri ht Turn, SB
Glenn High Road Signal Left Turn, NB
Right Turn, SB
Glennview Drive Stop S' None
I-40 Interchange South Side Signal Left Turn, WB Entrance Ram
I-40 Interchange (North Side signal Left Turn, EB Entrance Ram
Pecan Lane Stop Si None
Solomon Drive Stop Si None
Silver Creek Trail Stop Si Left Turn, NB approach
Biloxi Avenue Stop Si None
Kenosha Drive Stop Si None
Kin swood Drive Stop Si None
Shepherd Grove Road Stop Si None
Somerset Crossing Lane Stop Si None
SB, Left Turn to EB Old Salem Rd,
Sedge Garden Road (West Side) Signal NB, Left Turn to WB Sedge Garden Rd,
Old Salem Road (East Side) Sedge Garden Rd Left Turn to NB Union Cross Rd
Old Salem Rd Left Turn to SB Union Cross Rd
*SB = traveling south bound NB = traveling north bound
EB = traveling east bound WB = traveling west bound
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 -3
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The existing right-of-way along Union Cross Road is 60 feet; no additional right-of-way was purchased as
part of the U-4759 project. Both overhead and buried utilities are located within and adjacent to the right-of-
way along Union Cross Road and intersecting side roads. Utilities located within the right-of-way include
electrical, fiber-optic telephone and cable television, water and fire hydrants, natural gas, and sewer.
Preliminary surveys indicate the following utilities and environmental concerns are located in the right-of-way
of the study area:
? AT&T: underground fiber-optic cable.
? Sprint Communications: aerial and underground cables.
? Bell South: aerial and underground fiber-optic cables.
? Time Warner Cable: aerial and underground fiber-optic cables.
? Piedmont Natural Gas: plastic and steel gas mains.
? City of Winston-Salem: ductile iron water mains; elevated water storage tank.
? Duke Power: aerial transmission lines; underground service.
? Alltel: cell tower.
? Crown Castle International: cell tower.
? Aboveground and underground petroleum storage tanks.
? Water supply wells.
1.2.6 CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
Culverts for the road are primarily associated with stormwater management features along the ramps of
US 311 and I-40, or are associated with minor intermittent or small perennial stream crossings near the
perimeter of the study area. This section of Union Cross Road does not cross any major stream or
designated flood hazard zones.
The two bridges along Union Cross Road cross over US 311 and I-40. The bridge spanning US 311 was built
in 1981 and is 336 feet long and 68 feet wide. The superstructure has a reinforced concrete deck on steel
I-beams and plate girders. The substructure end and interior bents are reinforced concrete construction.
This bridge was rated as being in fair condition in 2003. The bridge has four lanes, two in each direction,
which taper back to two lanes on either side of the structure. Previous inspections recommend that joints on
the bridge should be replaced if it is to be widened as part of this project. If the bridge is widened the new
joints will not be compatible with the existing bridge joints.
The bridge spanning I-40 is 213 feet long and 48 feet wide. It was built in 1992 and has a concrete
superstructure with approach slabs and a reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete girders. The
substructure end bents and interior bents are reinforced concrete construction. The bridge was rated as being
in good condition in 2004 and currently has three lanes.
Dual bridges were constructed as part of Dell Boulevard in 2005 to span an unnamed tributary (UT) to
Swaim Creek. Each bridge accommodates two lanes of traffic; there are not any improvements or lane
modifications included as part of the proposed U-4909 project along these structures.
PAGE 1 -4 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL AsSE95MEN7-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER ZOOS
1.3 ACCESS CONTROL AND ADJACENT LAND USE
Union Cross Road currently has no control of access. Access to
connecting roads is provided with at-grade intersections; and
access to adjacent properties is provided with driveways. Full
access control is designated along US 311 and I-40 and the
interchange ramps.
The study area is predominantly zoned for low-density residential
and agricultural uses. The land use adjacent to Union Cross
Road generally reflects this zoning description with individual
homes and established residential neighborhoods with
community services such as parks; schools, and churches. There
is also an obvious pattern of land use changes occurring within
the study area and adjacent to the road. Agricultural land is
being sold for development into residential, industrial, and
commercial uses.

Land use along the southern end, between Wallburg Road and
the US 311 interchange, includes residential, recreation
facilities, and light industrial/commercial. Union Cross Park
and a Par-3 golf course are located south of the Wallburg
Road intersection with Union Cross Road.
The High Point Road intersection has a Moravian Church
with a cemetery on the northwest corner of the Union Cross
Road intersection and a gas station, tire store, and metal
fabrication shop on the northeast side. The Union Cross
Traditional Academy (Elementary School) is located on High
Point Road, east of the intersection. Single-family residences
are located across from the elementary school.
Union Cross Moravian Church Both the east and west sides of Union Cross Road in the
vicinity of Temple School Road have large tracts of land still
in agricultural production. At this location, fields are planted
annually with row crops or tobacco and are part of the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District discussed
further in Chapters 7 and 13.
Denser development approaches the I-40 interchange, including R.B. Glenn High School and a small-animal
veterinary facility, Union Cross Animal Hospital, just south of the interchange. Union Cross Station retail
shopping center, A Cleaner World dry cleaner, Pop Shoppe gas station, and Burger King fast-food restaurant
are located on the north side.
From the I-40 interchange northward to Sedge Garden Road, there are four residential neighborhoods along
Union Cross Road, including:
? Somerset Crossing, east side of Union Cross Road
? Kingswood, east side of Union Cross Road
? Kenosha Estates, east side of Union Cross Road
? Beesom Park, west side of Union Cross Road
UNION CROSS R MAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 -5
Union Cross Park
NOVEMBER ZOOS NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN3PORTAT/ON
Two gas stations with grocery marts, Cass Motor Company
used car sales lot, and Forsyth County Fire Station No. 26
are located at the Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road
intersection with Union Cross Road. A list of the non-
residential facilities adjacent to Union Cross Road and
intersecting roads is provided in Table 1-2.
1.4 NEW AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS
A large amount of new construction and development,
primarily by private developers, has occurred and is also
being planned within the study area. Kernersville and the Old 311 Curb Market
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Planning Department are
in the process of approving nearly 14,000 acres of residential development in the project vicinity. Several of
these developments have site plans approved by the City-County Planning Board and plans for construction
are being developed. The construction of these developments as well as other future development will
provide additional shopping, hotel, restaurant, and residential developments in the study area.
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools constructed Clark Drive as an access loop at R.B. Glenn High
School, which connects Glenn High Drive and Union Cross Road. A traffic signal was installed for traffic
control at the Union Cross Road intersection.
Some of the developments approved for construction or recently completed within and just outside of the
study area to date include Weatherstone (residential), Dell computer (industrial), Calebs Creek (mixed-use),
and Shoppes at Glenn Crossing (mixed-use). Driveway permits for some of these sites have been submitted
to the NCDOT for review and approval. Weatherstone is a residential subdivision under construction north
of the High Point Road intersection. The development proposes 300 homes for the site (See Figure 1-413).
Construction of a 500,000 square foot computer manufacturing facility for Dell was recently completed in the
200-acre Alliance Science and Technology Park. The Dell
computer facility is located adjacent to the project area, west of
Union Cross Road and north of Temple School Road (See
Figure 14B). This facility, accessed from Dell Boulevard and
Temple School Road, is expected to employ up to 1,500 people
and generate several thousand more jobs through suppliers and
supporting businesses.
Calebs Creek is a mixed-use community now under
construction east of the project area between Teague Lane and
Union Cross Road. It borders the east side of the study area
between I-40 and US 311 (See Figure 1-413). Calebs Creek will
cover over 935-acres and plans call for a village center (retail,
office, church, and recreation), a 250-acre golf course,
conservation areas, a 14-acre business park, and both single-
family and multi-family residential units. The project is expected to be completed by 2011 and have a
projected population of 4,600 to 5,400 people.
The Shoppes at Glenn Crossing is a 31-acre commercial development that will be located in the southwest
quadrant of the I-40 interchange with Union Cross Road. It will extend northward from Glenn High Road to
the eastbound exit ramp of I-40. The site is likely to include a grocery store, several retail outlets, and
outparcels suitable for commercial or retail development.
PAGE 1-6 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL AS8E58MENT
Dell Boulevard under Construction (2003)
NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT/ON
NOVEMBER 2006
TABLE 1 -2 EXISTINQ NONRESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN STUDY AREA
TYPE OF
FACILITY NAME ADDRESS/LOCATION
Business Union Cross Road Golf Center 4015 Wallburg Rd
Business Lyndon Steel Company 1947 Union Cross Rd
Business Colonial Structures 1946 Union Cross Rd
Park Union Cross Park 1935 Union Cross Rd
Municipal W-S Air Force Radar Base (ARCA) 1931 Union Cross Rd
Business Anderson Grocery (Closed) 1926 Union Cross Rd
Business Old 311 Curb Market 1799 Union Cross Rd
Business Cliffs Tire Shop 1797 Union Cross Rd
Church Iglesia Bautista Hispana 1645 Union Cross Rd
School R.B. Glenn High School 1600 Union Cross Rd
Veterinary Union Cross Animal Hospital 1581 Union Cross Rd
Business The Pop Shoppe/Exxon Gas and other stores 1557 Union Cross Rd
Restaurant Burger King 1551 Union Cross Rd
Business Cleaner World Dry Cleaner 1545 Union Cross Rd
Shop in
p g
Center Union Cross Station: anchored by Food Lion
Grocery and other stores (including CVS
Pharmacy)
1535 Union Cross Rd
Bank Cash Points ATM (at Union Cross Station
Shopping Center) 1535 Union Cross Rd
Business Cass Motor Sales 1401 Union Cross Rd
Business Quality Mart and Shell Gas 1400 Union Cross Rd
Business Union Cross Market/BP Gas 1399 Union Cross Rd
Municipal Forsyth County Fire Station No. 26 - Beeson
Crossroads Fire-Rescue 1105 Old Salem Rd
School Southeast Middle School 1200 Old Salem Rd
Church Union Cross Moravian Church and Cemetery 4295 High Point Rd
School Union Cross Traditional Academy (Elementary
School) 4300 High Point Rd
Manufacturing Quality Machine and Tool 1793 Union Cross Rd
UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1-7
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1.5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
The current (2005) annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Union Cross Road ranges from 11,000 to 20,200
vehicles per day (VPD), depending on the location and intersecting street. The ADT in the study area is as
follows:
? The 2005 ADT along Union Cross Road ranges from
within the project limits. By 2030, the projected ADT
increases to a range of 23,100 vpd to 40,700 vpd.
? The 2005 ADT on US 311, from the I-40 interchange
to east of High Point Road, is between 24,400 and
25,000 vpd. Estimates for 2030 indicate US 311 will
carry between 35,000 and 50,500 vpd at this same
location.
? The 2005 ADT for I-40, from the US 311 interchange
to east of the I-40 Business/US 421 intersection, ranges
between 56,000 and 93,000 vpd. Estimates for 2030
increase to a range of 75,000 vpd to 106,000 vpd.
11,000 to 20,200 vehicles per day (vpd)
Level of Service (LOS) is a
qualitative measure that characterizes the
operational conditions within a trafic
stream and the perception of trafc service
by motorists and passengers. Six levels are
used, ranging from `A" to `R " For
roadways, LOS `A" indicates no
congestion while LOS `F" represents
more traffic demand than road capacity
and extreme delays. The engineering
profession generally accepts LOS `D" as
a minimally acceptable operating condition
for s&nali,-ed intersections.
A traffic capacity analysis of the existing three lane facility indicates Union Cross Road currently operates at
an acceptable level of service, LOS "C" in 2005.
1.5.1 SCHOOL BUSES
The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System (WSFCSS) has three schools within the study area:
Union Cross Traditional Academy (Elementary School), Southeast Middle School, and R.B. Glenn High
School. The school system notes that between 90 and 100 buses service these schools every morning and
afternoon; no accidents involving school buses were reported during the study period. Bus routes are
reviewed annually before the beginning of the new school year by the WSFCSS Transportation Department.
Changes to established bus routes are generally not allowed after November 1 except in cases of
extraordinary circumstances or safety hazards. Bus stops are generally scheduled to be no closer than 0.2 mile
apart.
I .S.2 BICYCLE USE
There are designated bicycle routes within the U-4909 project limits. Union Cross Road is designated as the
Wachovia Tract Bicycle Trail between Wallburg Road and High Point Road. This bicycle trail is part of
North Carolina's Mountains-to-Sea State Bicycle Route: Sedge Garden Road is a locally designated bicycle
route which provides connectivity to this route. One bicycle-vehicle crash was reported during the 2002-2004
reporting period. This crash occurred at the intersection of the I-40 Westbound ramp and Union Cross Road
when the vehicle turned right from the end of the.ramp and hit three cyclists.
1.6 TRAFFIC SAFETY
For crash rate purposes, Union Cross Road is classified as a two-lane urban secondary road. Total crash rates
reported for this portion of Union Cross Road do not exceed statewide critical rates for a two-lane facility.
Between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 there were a total of 142 crashes (63 non-fatal injuries)
reported for this segment of roadway. When compared to the statewide crash rate for this same time period,
the total crash rate is lower than the total statewide crash rate. However, the study area has a fatality crash
rate of 1.97 which exceeds the statewide fatal crash rate of 1.17. Chart 1-1 shows a comparison of the crashe
rates reported during the three year study period with the statewide crash rate and critical rate.
PAGE 1 -L3 LJmaiv CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER 2006
The majority of crashes are either rear-end collisions or failure-to-yield front impacts (angle, left-turn).
Approximately 43 percent of the total crashes involved rear-end collisions, while 33 percent occurred
primarily during left turn and angle-type movements. Three head-on collisions have occurred; one was a fatal
accident. In addition to one accident involving a bicyclist, another accident involved a pedestrian being
struck by a vehicle.
CHART 1-1 CRASH OCCURRENCES (2002-2004)
4Du -----?-

400 ro

350 n ? Crashes per 100 MVM
s ? Statewide Rate
m 300 ? Critical Rate
V v
C 250
o
> n
O 200 N
E '
7
Z 150 I
i

C
( M
LO
100 ;
f1
t N : c
Total Injury Fatal
Type of Crash (Non-Fatal)
Of the 21 intersections with Union Cross Road analyzed for traffic safety, six (6) intersections at the
following roads have distinct crash patterns.
? Wallburg Road/Swaim Road: A total of six (6) failure-to-yield (4 left-turn and 2 angle) crashes
occurred during the study period analyzed.
? High Point Road: A total of six (6) failure-to-yield (2 left-turn and 4 angle) crashes occurred during
the study period.
? Glenn High Road: Ten (10) crashes occurred at the unsignalized driveway into the school, with
6 involving left turns out of the school driveway onto Union Cross Road and 3 rear-end crashes on
Union Cross Road.
? I-40 Interchange: A total of twelve (12) rear-end crashes and ten (10) failure-to-yield (3 left-turn and
7 angle) crashes were reported as the primary cause of accidents at both ramps.
? Pecan Lane/Union Cross Station Shopping Center Driveway: A total of seven (7) failure-to-yield
(3 right-turn and 4 angle) crashes were reported during the study period analyzed.
? Sedge Garden Road/Old Salem Road: There were eight (8) failure-to-yield (5 left-turn and 3 angle)
crashes during the study period analyzed.
UNmN GRass ROAb -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 -9
NOVEMBER 2006
Blank
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAOE 1' 10 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Q
SURRY STOKES j T-
I Z
Y
? U
O
I ?
_-K.-------------------------
?? FORSYTH
YADKIN
47
t \
i
,
,
i \
DAVIE

1 t
DAVIDSON
0
tY
0
1
J
C?
RANDOLPHI
1:250,000
0 2 4 8
Miles
-Ad
\f?,

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
U-4909 Union Cross Road
From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Data Source: Forsyth County GIS Website
Figure No.
1-1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Union Cross Road provides transportation for a combination of commuting and local traffic in the southeast
area of Forsyth County including: Winston-Salem and Kernersville. Other surrounding areas include
Greensboro, High Point, and Thomasville. The purpose and need for this roadway is the same as it was
during the mid-1800's, to provide a transportation route for people, goods, and services between areas of
Forsyth County. Through time, denser residential and commercial land uses have developed and continue to
increase the travel demands throughout the region.
2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The need for the proposed action is based on the projected failure in traffic operations on Union Cross Road
before the year 2030. The project area and vicinity are experiencing continual growth and include many
existing and planned residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The purpose for the proposed
action is to provide sufficient capacity for the 20-year projected traffic by improving traffic flow through the
study area.
The proposed action is one component within the regional transportation system and is consistent with state
and local area transportation plans. The regional transportation system provides connectivity for local and
commuting traffic traveling within and through the area. In addition to the continued demands of
commuters traveling Union Cross Road, the construction of large multi-use developments, such as
Calebs Creek, and the Dell computer manufacturing facility in the study area will increase the transportation
demands on this road. As land use in the project area ands--ice
surrounding regions continues to develop, an increase in the capacity ,. 1_.
of the transportation infrastructure will be needed to meet these
demands. /
2.2 REGIONAL AREA TRANSPORTATION
Union Cross Road is in the eastern-central portion of Forsyth
County; southwest of Kernersville and southeast of Winston-Salem
(see Figure 2-1). Forsyth County is bordered to the west by Surry,
Yadkin, and Davie Counties; to the north by Stokes County; to the
east by Rockingham and Guilford Counties; and to the south by
Davidson County. These counties are part of a larger 12 county
region referred to as the Triad Region. The counties that comprise
the Triad region are Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth,
Guilford, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, and
Yadkin. The urbanized core of this region is the Winston-Salem,
Greensboro, High Point Combined Statistical Area, with an estimated
population of nearly 1.5 million people.
Winston-Salem Urban Area 2030
Transportation Plan
Winston-Salem has emerged as a banking, technology, and materials and products distribution center and is
developing a technical research park. Its largest employers are Wake Forest University, Wake Forest
University Baptist Medical Center, Forsyth Medical Center, Sara Lee Corporation, Wachovia, Reynolds
American, and GMAC Insurance. The Kernersville and Winston-Salem areas are home to a large Roadway
Express trucking center and a new Dell computer manufacturing plant. This Dell facility is expected to
employ several hundred people and will create several thousand additional jobs through its suppliers and
other support businesses. In response to this economic growth and job availability, the need for additional
housing, education, and municipal services is expected to occur in the study area.
Union Cross Road provides an important north-south connection for two major transportation arterials.
US 311 is located in the southern portion of the project area and provides a link between the urban centers of
UwaN CROSS RoAO -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 2- I
2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
A rnuRimcdal en?rcach to Iran: 3 acorn
?iann}ay artd fac8ity irn?G.Knlant
AIR Qu1ALf7v CONPOTWI TW
ANALVS19 REPORT AND
CONFORMITV ORTERMiNATION
Afav--maER 2006 NORT14 CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSF"ORTATION
the Triad Region. Interstate 40 is located in the northern portion and serves as North Carolina's major east
and west route linking Wilmington, the Triangle Region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill), the Triad Region
(Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Kernersville, and High Point), and Asheville in western North Carolina.
2.3 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
Principal arterials that serve the project area and vicinity include Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road, I-40,
US 311, and High Point Road which serve east-west traffic and NC 66 to the east of the study area which
serves north-south traffic. These roads are regionally significant, heavily traveled commuter routes.
Interstate 40 traverses the state from east to west and is a major route for local and interstate travelers.
US 311 is a strategic corridor and provides another connection between the I-40 corridor and I-73 and I-85
to the southeast.
Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road provides connectivity between NC 150 to the northwest and NC 66 to the
east. High Point Road provides an east-west connection between NC 109 and NC 66. Another important
local road is Glenn High Road, which intersects Oak Grove Road to the north and High Point Road to the
west of the study area, thereby providing another connection between Winston-Salem and the study area.
These roadways will carry commuters from High Point in the southeast, Kernersville and Greensboro in the
east, and Winston-Salem in the northwest as well as communities beyond the study area. Teague Lane, to the
east of the study area, provides a north-south connection between Old Salem Road and High Point Road and
provides a connection to Union Cross Road through the Hedgecock Road intersection.
2.4 ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS
The primary purpose of this project is to provide sufficient capacity for the future transportation demands.
Additional benefits anticipated from improving Union Cross Road include improvements to roadway safety
and infrastructure support for the region.
2.4.1 TRAFFIC SAFETY
The proposed project includes provisions for a median-divided roadway with intersection improvements that
could decrease the risk of collisions and improve traffic safety. As presented in Chapter 1, the total crash rates
reported for the study area portion of Union Cross Road do not exceed statewide and critical rates for a two-
lane facility. However, the study area has a 1.97 fatal crash rate which exceeds the statewide fatal crash rate of
1.17.
The majority of crashes were rear-end collisions or front-end collisions from a failure-to-yield for turning
movements. The six (6) intersections on Union Cross Road noted with distinct crash patterns include
Wallburg Road/Swaim Road, High Point Road, Glenn High Road, I-40 Interchange Ramps, Pecan Lane, and
Sedge Garden Road/Old Salem Road. Recent improvements under the U-4759 project provided left and
right turn lanes at the High Point Road intersection.
Project U-4909 proposes to close the Pecan Lane intersection and improve the intersections with Wallburg
Road, Glenn High Road, the I-40 Interchange, and Sedge Garden Road. The intersection improvements
include additional turn-lanes, longer sight distances, traffic signals, and/or improved intersection spacing.
One bicycle-vehicle crash and one pedestrian accident were reported during the years 2002-2004. The
addition of a 30-foot raised median could provide some added safety for pedestrians since they will have the
ability to cross one-direction of traffic at a time. The bicycle crash occurred at the intersection of the I-40
westbound ramp and Union Cross Road; the proposed project includes upgrading this .interchange to a
signalized single-point interchange (See Section 4.0).
PAGE 2-2 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL A55ESSMENT
u $ to k
,
T
Yaakin
4
Y 14
7
? E
I ? 5
Study Area:; ? q
Rock

0..
-I

* Project Location TRIAD REGION
Figure No.
Map Not To Scale U-4909 Union Cross Road
„40From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road
Forsyth County, North Carolina 2-1
x
0
Amer x
Data Source: Piedmont Triad Counsil of Governments
° R"" http://www.ptcog.org April 2006
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
A range of alternatives were reviewed for the project to identify an alternative that is consistent with the
project purpose and need and has the least adverse impacts to the human and natural environment. This
section identifies and summarizes the evaluation of preliminary alternatives considered for the project and
discusses why the asymmetrical widening alternative is the recommended action for project U-4909.
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to Union Cross Road within the
study area. Only typical maintenance activities would be provided along Union Cross Road. It would remain
as a three-lane roadway providing one lane in each direction and a center turn lane.
With increased development in the project vicinity and surrounding cities, the current (2005) annual average
daily traffic volumes (AADT) are projected to double by the year 2030. As traffic volumes increase, Union
Cross Road will experience unacceptable delays, increased travel times, and unsafe traffic conditions from
constant start and stop traffic movements. As noted in Section 2.0 of this document, Union Cross Road will
operate at a level of service (LOS) "F" if the project is not built. The. No-Build Alternative does not address
safety concerns by providing measures to reduce the risk of collisions or provide access control for turning
movements.
The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with the project's purpose or need since it will not increase
capacity to meet the future demand or improve traffic flow. In addition, the No-Build Alternative does not
meet the transportation goals of the North Carolina Department of Transportation nor the Winston-Salem
Forsyth Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative is
eliminated from consideration.
3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
3.2.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of a
roadway within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing or
adding additional through lanes to the existing road. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping,
signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements. Examples of
TSM operational improvements include traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and signal
timing changes.
Several of these types of improvements were constructed along Union Cross Road in 2005 as part of project
U-4759 (See Chapter 1). In addition, some elements such as signal coordination and access control are
recommended for this project U-4909. However, TSM improvements alone would not increase capacity or
improve levels-of-service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future design year 2030.
Therefore, the TSM Alternative is not recommended for this project and eliminated from further
consideration.
3.2.2 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The project study area is not currently served by mass transit due to the lack of demand, dispersed residential
areas and employment centers, and diversity of trip origins and destinations. Since the study area is
characterized by scattered residential communities and lacks one central regional destination, the area would
not be especially suitable for the implementation of mass transit systems as a sole solution to roadway
capacity problems.
UNION CROSS ROAD -E1VV1R01VMENTAL' A6SESSMENr - PAGE 3- 1
NOVEMBER Zoads NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiaN
Mass transit routes crossing the study area are not expected to reduce traffic volumes on the major routes
because commuter use may be low. Mass transit travelers would experience the increased travel time on mass
transit and a low frequency of stops at locations corresponding to longer trip lengths. Many riders may find it
necessary to transfer to other modes of transportation and access additional routes to reach a destination
within this geographically-dispersed region.
Many of the road users through the project area are commuters traveling to major thoroughfares such as I-40
and US 311 to reach other destinations throughout the Triad Region. While these commuters would benefit
from a mass transit solution, without consistent demand for its use (resulting in an expected low ridership)
the continued operation of this type of transportation system would not be cost-effective to the local
municipalities. Low demand and ridership levels often lead to reduction of route coverages thereby
eliminating transit options for commuters.
Therefore, the Mass Transit Alternative was not considered a Build Alternative and eliminated from further
consideration.
3.2.3 SYMMETRICAL WIDENING OF EXISTING ROAD
The Symmetrical Widening Alternative involves widening the existing three-lane road to a multilane facility
divided with a raised grassed median and sidewalks on both sides of the road. A four-lane section will be
provided south of I-40 and a six-lane section will be provided north of I-40. The existing interchanges at
US 311 and I-40 will be modified or reconstructed. This improvement would be operationally similar to the
Recommended Alternative (widening asymmetrically). However, when compared to the Recommended
Alternative, symmetrical widening has several disadvantages:
Symmetrical widening would be more costly than the recommended alternative because almost
none of the existing roadway pavement could be utilized. The center of the existing road would
be located under the proposed grassed median. The existing pavement would need to be
removed, adding further to the cost of the project when compared with the Recommended
Alternative.
2. Environmental impacts would be greater since with symmetrical widening a constant increase in
right-of-way width would be required on both sides of the roadway, regardless of the impacts
created. Symmetrical widening would eliminate opportunities to avoid impacts to natural
resources, historic properties, and public facilities such as parks and schools.
Since additional cost and adverse impacts would occur with the Symmetrical Widening Alternative while
offering no improvements in function or traffic operations when compared to the asymmetrical widening, the
Symmetrical Widening Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
3.3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE - ASYMMETRICAL WIDENING ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative includes widening the existing three-lane road to a multilane divided facility by
adding additional lanes on either the east or west sides of the road. This asymmetrical widening alternative
provides a four-lane road south of I-40 and a six-lane section north of I-40. The existing interchanges at
US 311 and I-40 will be modified or reconstructed.
This alternative is similar to the Symmetrical Widening Alternative discussed above, except it widens the road
at locations that "best-fit" the current road location and surrounding land uses. Widening locations were
evaluated on each side of Union Cross Road and then selected on either the east side or the west side to
improve the existing road alignment (location), minimize impacts, and permit maintenance of traffic during
construction. The existing pavement will be retained and used for either the northbound or southbound lanes
of the future multilane facility.
This asymmetrical widening is the recommended alternative for U-4909 because it meets the stated purpose
and need while minimizing impacts and construction cost. The additional lanes will increase capacity for
traffic, and the raised median will reduce the potential for collisions by providing access management for
turning movements with crossovers at intersections. Using this best-fit alignment allows avoidance and
PAGE 3-2 -UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN6PORTATION
NOVEMBER 2006
minimization of impacts to historic properties, schools, churches, and Union Cross Park. Utilizing the
existing roadway as part of the northbound or southbound lanes will also reduce the cost of the project since
traffic can be maintained on the existing two-lanes during construction and less existing pavement will be
removed. The proposed widening improvements recommended for this project are discussed in greater detail
in Chapter 4.0 of this document.
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL A6SESSMENT PAGE 3'3
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration
proposes to widen Union Cross Road from an existing three-lane road to a multilane transportation facility
for approximately 3.6 miles. As shown on Figures 4-1A, 4-1B, and 4-1C, the recommended improvements
extend from the Wallburg Road intersection south of US 311 to the Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road
intersection north of I-40. Two existing interchange modifications or reconstructions are included for the
junctions with US 311 and I-40.
The project lies entirely within Forsyth County and is located just outside the Winston-Salem jurisdictional
boundaries and the northern limits are within the Kernersville jurisdictional boundaries. Union Cross Road is
classified as a local urban collector and as a major thoroughfare on the Winston-Salem Urban Area 2030
Transportation Plan. The proposed improvements will increase the roadway's capacity and safety, which is
consistent with the urban area plans and the local urban collector classification.
4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE, STATUS, AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING
The 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) schedule includes purchasing property
for the road right-of-way in 2007 and construction starting in 2008. The project is programmed for design-
build type construction depending on the availability of funds.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing road while the new lanes are constructed.
When the new lanes are complete, traffic will be shifted onto the new construction and the existing lanes
widened and resurfaced as necessary.
At the US 311 interchange, the existing bridge may be retained for the project. At the I-40 interchange,
NCDOT will review the feasibility of constructing the new bridge in two stages to allow the existing bridge to
carry traffic during construction. After the first stage of proposed bridge construction is completed, traffic
could be shifted onto the completed section of the bridge and the existing bridge removed. When the
remaining portion of the bridge is completed, traffic can be shifted to its final configuration.
4.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TYPICAL SECTION
The right-of-way proposed for the improvements to Union Cross Road will vary from approximately 120 to
140 feet wide. A 120-foot right-of-way is proposed south of I-40 and includes widening Union Cross Road to
a four-lane divided curb-and-gutter roadway, with a 30-foot raised median and two five-foot wide sidewalks,
one along each side of the road. A 140-foot right-of-way is proposed north of I-40 and includes widening
Union Cross Road to a six-lane divided curb-and-gutter roadway, with a 30-foot raised median, and two five-
foot wide sidewalks, one on each side. Figure 4-2 shows typical sections for the proposed four-lane divided
and six-lane divided roadway.
4.4 ALIGNMENT
The existing location (alignment) for Union Cross Road will not substantially change with the proposed
improvements. Additional through lanes, a raised median, and sidewalks will be added asymmetrically along
the existing road to accommodate future traffic. Adding lanes to either the west or east side of the road
allows the existing pavement to be retained and resurfaced where feasible and to function as either
northbound or southbound lanes of the multilane facility. As shown on Figures 4-1A, 4-1B, and 4-1C,
transitioning and varying the widening on the east or west side provides opportunities to improve the
horizontal alignment, to minimize impacts, and to maintain traffic on Union Cross Road during construction.
UN/ON GROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 4-1
NOVEM9ER 2006 NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Alignments for several intersecting roads will be modified to further enhance traffic operations along Union
Cross Road. Table 4-1 lists the minor and major roadways intersected by Union Cross Road with the
proposed number of through lanes.
The alignments for Hayes Drive, Swaim Road, Hedgecock Road, Solomon Drive, and Kenosha Drive will be
modified to improve intersection spacing and sight distances along Union Cross Road. Hayes Drive will be
extended south connecting with Union Cross Road at the Wallburg Road intersection. The existing Hayes
Drive intersection will be closed providing additional distance between Hayes Drive and the US 311
interchange ramp. Swaim Road will be modified to connect with Union Cross Road south of the new Hayes
Drive-Wallburg Road Intersection.
Minor realignments, varying from approximately 400 to 1,000 feet, are proposed for Hedgecock Road,
Solomon Drive, and Kenosha Drive where each road intersects Union Cross Road. These minor changes are
primarily designed to improve intersection spacing distances and may also improve sight distances. In
addition to the Kenosha Drive alignment shift shown on Figure 4-1C, an optional alignment shift to connect
Kenosha Drive to Union Cross Road across from Biloxi Avenue was also reviewed. This location across
Biloxi Avenue was not recommended since the shift in Kenosha Drive would impact an additional residence
and also would be approximately 200 feet less than the minimum required 1,200 foot distance from the next
intersection at Solomon Road. Alignments for the remaining intersecting roads will remain the same.
The alignments for US 311 and I-40 will also remain the same; however, the ramps at these two existing
interchanges will be reconstructed as part of this project. The US 311 interchange will be converted from the
existing diamond interchange design to a partial clover interchange design. The ramp alignments will be
shifted to provide adequate space for loop ramps in the northeast and southwest quadrants. The existing
bridge over US 311 will remain in place as part of the new interchange.
The ramps for the existing diamond interchange design at I-40 will be realigned to connect with Union Cross
Road as a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) design. The existing bridge over I-40 will be removed and
a new bridge will be constructed to provide for the new design.
TYPICAL SPUI CONFIGURATION
While a 6-lane facility along I-40 in the study area will adequately service 2030 projected traffic volumes at the
Union Cross Road interchange, an 8-lane facility is recommended to maintain driver expectations, maintain
lane continuity, and maximize the life of the Union Cross Road bridge. An interchange modification report
for the reconstruction of the I-40/Union Cross Road interchange will be prepared to insure that traffic
operations on I-40 will not diminish from the improved connection with Union Cross Road. This interchange
modification report will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration for review and approval prior
to right-of-way acquisition.
PACE 4-2 UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NQRTH CAROLINA 0E ARTMENT OF 7RANSPOR7-ATi©N
NovzmG'ER ZOL76
TABLE 4-1 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LANES FOR INTERSECTING ROADS
INTERSECTING ROAD NAME PROPOSED NO. OF
LANES*
Swaim Road 2
Wallburg Road 2
Hayes Drive 2
US 311 4
High Point Road 2
Pinewood Terrace 2
Chamelin Road 2
Temple School Road 4
Hedgecock Road 2
Dell Boulevard 4
Loradale Drive 2
Clark Drive 2
Glenn High Road 2
Glennview Drive 2
I-40 4**
Pecan Lane 2
Solomon Drive 2
Biloxi Avenue 2
Kenosha Drive 2
Kingswood Drive 2
Shepherd Grove 2
Somerset Crossing Lane 2
Sedge Garden Road 2
Greenlawn Drive 2
Reynolds Price Drive 2
*Proposed number of lanes, not including turn lanes at intersections.
**Additional lanes on 1-40 will be needed by the year 2030.
4.5 ACCESS CONTROL AND MEDIAN OPENINGS
There is no regional access management plan for this area. Access control on Union Cross Road is in
accordance with the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways Quly 2003). Left-
turn access is currently provided with a continuous, dual-left, center-turn lane for adjacent properties and
adjacent road crossings. The existing intersections allow all through and turning movements.
UNION CROSS RaAO -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 4-3
NOVEMBER 24706 NORTH CAROLINA 0ERAR77MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The intersections along Union Cross Road from I-40 to Sedge Garden Road are closely spaced. Therefore,
the proposed improvements include providing access management for driveways and roads connecting with
Union Cross Road to minimize turning conflicts and side-swipe crashes.
The continuous, dual-left, center-turn lane will be replaced with a 30-foot raised median. Median openings
with traffic signals will be provided at several of the major intersecting roads to accommodate the traffic
volumes from adjacent subdivisions. The Pecan Lane and Silver Creek Trail intersections with Union Cross
Road will be closed, and access to the remaining cross roads and
adjacent properties will be provided either with channelized left
turn lanes in the median, called "left-over" turning movements
or as "right-in and -right-out" only turning movements.
Access from the closed roads and left-turn access for the "right-
in/right-out" connections will require the use of other
intersecting roads or U-turns at median openings. The specific
location of median openings were based on traffic volumes and
safety issues, such as acceptable sight distances and traffic
operations on Union Cross Road. These median openings will
be shown at the public hearing for public comments.
Cul-de-sacs will be constructed at each of the last properties
accessing Pecan Lane and Silver Creek Trail. Access for
properties to Union Cross Road will be provided from Solomon
Drive and Sedge Garden Road. Silver Creek Trail will continue
to be accessible from Biloxi Avenue and Sedge Garden Road via
Beeson Park Lane.

r
TYPICAL RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY
TURN MOVEMENT

Since I-40 and US 311 are controlled-access highways, the
interchange ramp connections with Union Cross Road also have TYPICAL LEFTOVER TURN MOVEMENT
full access control with no driveway connections allowed. For
the highway ramp intersections, there are short distances along Union Cross Road which also require full
access control to insure traffic operations remain safe to and from the highway. Ideally, this full control of
access designation prevents driveway access to Union Cross Road for approximately 1,000 feet from the
interchange ramp connection to the next intersection. For new projects, design exceptions are often
requested to minimize impacts and maintain access to properties located less than 1,000 feet from the ramps.
In the southwestern quadrant of the US 311 interchange, access control was broken to allow right-in/right-
out access for two large parcels. The proposed access control is as follows:
? US 311 Interchange - Access is controlled with no driveway openings on Union Cross Road from:
- Southwest interchange ramp for a distance of 600 feet with access maintained for existing
parcels
- Southeast interchange ramp for a distance of 1,300 feet from Ramp to Hayes Drive; and
- Northern two interchange ramps for a distance of 1,000 feet north to Highpoint Road.
? I-40 Interchange - Access is controlled with no driveway openings on Union Cross Road from:
- Southern ramps for a distance of 800 feet south to Glennview Drive and future Shoppes at
Glenn Crossing Entrance;
- Northwest ramp for a distance of 1,300 feet north to Solomon Drive; and
- Northeast ramp for a distance of 1,000 feet with access maintained to an existing parcel.
PAGE 4-4 UNION GROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT CJF TRANSPCRTATICN
4.6 INTERSECTIONS AND SIGNALIZATION
NCVEM9ER 2CE76
Table 4-2 lists the major roads intersecting Union Cross Road proposed as full movement intersections with
traffic signals. The existing signal at Clark Drive will be removed as part of the proposed project and access
will be provided by right-in/right-out movement with left-over turn lane. Any median breaks and/or changes
in median breaks that do not meet NCDOT's Median Crossover Guidelines will require review and approval
as a Design Exception for the project.
TABLE 4-2 PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
INTERSECTING ROAD NAME CONFIGURATION* TYPE OF CONTROL
Hayes Drive 4-le Signal
US 311 Interchange Signal
(Two Ram terminals
High Point Road 4-le Signal
Temple School Road "T" Signal
Dell Boulevard "T" Signal
Glenn High Road "T" signal
Interchange Signal
(Single SPUI terminal
Solomon Drive "T" Signal
Kenosha Drive "T" Signal
Sedge Garden Road/Old Salem

Road
4-leg
Signal
* Defznitions PerAASHTO Green Book, Chapter 8
Intersections with minor cross roads will be unsignalized without median openings. Stop signs will provide
traffic control for the roads listed in Table 4-3 and access will be limited to right-in/right-out movements.
There are a total of 11 signalized intersections and nine (9) unsignalized right-in/right-out intersections
proposed for the project.
There are two roads with right-in/right-out access where left turns will be allowed from Union Cross Road.
Left-turns will be provided into Clark Drive and the Shoppes at Glenn Crossing via left-over movements. In
addition, requirements for a median opening for the future intersection at the Weatherstone residential
development will be reviewed during design. At the north end of the project, the widening tapers back to the
undivided two-lane section north of Sedge Garden Road.
4.7 SPEED LIMITS
Current posted speed limits vary between 45 and 50 miles per hour (mph), with a posted speed reduction to
35 mph in school zones at Union Cross Elementary (near High Point Road intersection) and R.B. Glenn
High School (near Glenn High Road intersection). Both I-40 and US 311 are controlled-access highways
with median cable guardrails and are posted at 65 mph. Design speed limits on Union Cross Road will be
50 mph; speed limits will be posted for 45 mph once construction is complete.
UwoN CROSS Ri2AD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 4-5
NOVEMBER 2006
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 4-3 INTERSECTING ROADS WITHOUT FULL MEDIAN OPENINGS
ALTERNATE ACCESS

INTERSECTING ROUTE
DISTANCE TO
ROAD NAME TYPE OF ACCESS (NEXT INTERSECTION NEXT
FOR LEFT TURN INTERSECTION
CAPABILITY)
Pinewood Terrace Right-in/Right-out Temple School Road 0.6 miles
Hed ecock Road Right-in/Right-out Temple School Road 0.7 miles
Loradale Drive Right-in/Right-out Glenn High Road 0.4 miles
Clark Drive Ri ht-in/Ri ht-out* Glenn High Road_ 1,500 feet
Shoppes at Glenn
Crossing
Right-in/Right-out
Glenn High Road
1,000 feet
Biloxi Avenue
Right in/Right out Beeson Park Lane to Sedge
0.3 miles
Garden Road
Kingswood Drive
Right in/Right out Somerset Crossing Lane to
0.5 miles
Old Salem Road
Shepherd Grove
Right in/Right out Beeson Park Lane to Sedge
1
000 feet
Garden Road ,
Somerset Crossing
Lane Right in/Right out Sedge Garden Road 1,000 feet
* Median provides left-over movement from Union Cross Road.
4.8 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for 2005 on Union Cross Road was a maximum of 15,700 vehicles per day
(vpd) south of I-40 and 20,200 vpd north of I-40 for year 2005. Traffic projections for Union Cross Road
(mainline) and intersecting roads were prepared for the 2030 design year. The projections estimate that the
traffic volumes along Union Cross Road will nearly double in the project limits between the years 2005 and
2030.
? Union Cross Road: The 2005 traffic volumes along Union Cross Road ranged from 3,200 vpd south
of Wallburg to 20,200 vpd north of I-40. The projected 2030 traffic volumes along Union Cross Road
are expected to increase to 7,400 vpd south of Wallburg and 40,700 vpd north of I-40.
? Interstate 40: The 2005 traffic volumes along I-40 ranged from 60,000 vpd to the east and 61,600 vpd
to the west of Union Cross Road. The projected 2030 traffic volumes along I-40 are expected to
increase to 76,900 vpd to the east and 79,000 vpd to the west of Union Cross Road.
? US 311: The 2005 traffic volumes between I-40-and High Point Road ranged from 24,400 vpd to the
east of I-40 and 25,000 vpd to the east of High Point Road. The projected 2030 traffic volumes are
expected to increase to 35,000 vpd east of I-40 and 50,500 vpd west of Union Cross Road.
4.9 LEVELS OF SERVICE
A capacity analysis was prepared using base year 2005 and design year 2030 traffic projections to determine
the levels-of-service (LOS) along Union Cross Road, the intersections, and traffic weaving movements along
US 311 and I-40. Using the base year 2005 traffic volumes, existing Union Cross Road operates at LOS "C."
With the base year 2005 traffic, existing I-40 at the Union Cross Road interchange was determined to operate
at LOS "E" and existing US 311 at the Union Cross Road interchange at LOS `B."
PAGE 4-6 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CARCLPNA DEPARTME"NT CF 7RAN5PCT7-A71G7N Nc7VdMBER 2006
Using the projected 2030 traffic volumes, Union Cross Road with the existing three lanes would operate at
LOS "F." In order to function adequately and meet the future 2030 traffic demands, the project proposes to
widen the existing road to four lanes south of I-40 and to six lanes north of I-40. These proposed
improvements include upgrading the existing intersections with designated left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes
as needed. In addition, several intersections would require traffic signals to improve the level of service.
With the proposed widening, upgraded intersections, and additional traffic signals, a majority of the
intersections would improve to an overall LOS "A" or LOS "B" for design year 2030. (See Table 4-4)
The right turn movement from Biloxi Avenue at the right-in/right-out intersection with Union Cross Road is
projected to function at capacity in 2030. In addition, there are two individual left-turning movements at the
Union Cross Road intersections with Glenview Drive (future entrance to the Shops at Glenn Crossing) and
the entrance to Weatherstone Development that are predicted to operate over capacity. These three
intersections will be reviewed and evaluated further during final design to determine if there are cost effective
measures which would improve the level of service at these locations.
With or without the project, traffic along I-40 is projected to increase by 2030. By the year 2030, the existing
four lanes on I-40 will be over capacity. In addition, without any improvements to I-40 extensive queuing
along the I-40 ramps will occur at the Union Cross Road interchange. These I-40 ramps were determined to
operate at LOS "E" with the base year 2005 traffic. For I-40 to operate at an acceptable level of service in
2030, widening I-40 to six lanes through the project area is required with or without the project. State
Transportation Improvement Project R-2579, the Winston-Salem Beltway, includes the widening of I-40 to a
six-lane facility. This improvement would accommodate projected 2030 traffic volumes for the section of
I-40 through the project area and provide improved service along the interchange ramps.
In the year 2030, the existing four-lanes on US 311 would operate at LOS "D." Therefore, no
recommendations for lane improvements are included with this project along existing US 311 since it will
continue to provide adequate traffic volume capacity.
4.1 O CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
Union Cross Road does not cross any major streams within the project limits and thus there are no major
culverts or bridges proposed. There are existing bridges at the interchanges crossing US 311 and I-40. The
bridge over US 311 was rated as being in fair condition during the last bridge inspection in 2003. It will be
maintained in place and incorporated into the new interchange ramp/loop configuration. Previous
inspections recommend that joints on the US 311 bridge should be replaced to match the new joints if it is to
be widened as part of this project. The bridge over I-40 may be used for maintenance of traffic during
construction, but this bridge will ultimately be replaced with a wider bridge as part of the interchange
redesign.
4.1 1 NOISE BARRIERS
Noise barriers are not proposed for this project since they are not cost effective for this type of roadway with
multiple intersections and driveways. Other abatement measures considered included additional buffer zones
and vegetation screening. These options are also not proposed for this project because they are considered
impractical due to the large amount of right-of-way needed to provide buffers and screening with sufficient
width sufficient to decrease noise.
4.12 SIDEWALKS
Five-foot wide sidewalks, or potential multi-use paths, are proposed on each side of the roadway. It is
anticipated that the City of Winston-Salem and the Town of Kernersville will participate in the funding of
these sidewalks. Any sidewalks provided under this project will provide accessibility for handicapped persons
in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
UNION CRASS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 4-7
NOVEMBER 2006
TABLE 4-4 LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON,
2005 AND 2030 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPQRTATION
No Build Build
Movement 2005 2030 Movement 2005 2030
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road)/SR
2632 Old Salem Road) Signalized E F Signalized : t D
o
at S
mer
C
R
643
U
i
t C
i
L SB LT B C WB R
r
ss
oam
o
se
(
n
on
ross
SR 2
ng
ane
WB
LR
F
F C
R
t SR 3828
Sh
d
h
U
i
C
d G
R
d NB LT C F EB R
(
ross
oa
) a
ep
n
on
er
rove
oa
)
SR 2643 (
EB
LR
F
F _ g
NB Uz NB Uz C2, .
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at Kingswood Drive SB LT B C SB L A'
W B LR F F WB R C=
d
i
R
t K
2643
U
C
h
D SB WB R
) a
oa
enos
(
n
on
ross
a
SR
rive LR F
, F g
643
i
C
R
d
t SR 3814
Bil
U
i NB LT ff G
-
EB
R
) a
on
ross
oa
(
SR 2
(
n
ox
Avenue) EB LR F F
1

E
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 4373 (Silver Creek Trail) NB
EB L
LR B
F D
F
NB L B C

5R 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 2880 (Soloman Drive) SB
EB

WB L
LR
LTR
LTR
F F

F
F
Signalized D
NB L B E
i
t SR 2669
P
L
/Sh
i
U
C
R
d
643 SB L F F
n
oa
) a
(
ecan
ane)
opp
ng
on
ross
SR 2
(
Pl EB LTR F F WB R D
aza I W B LT F F
R F F
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at 1-40 Westbound Ramps Signalized C F WB R F B'
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at 1-40 Single Point Urban
Interchange Signarzed D

_
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at 1-40 Eastbound Ramps Signafzed E F EB R D g'
NB L F NB L F
i
t SR 2837 (Glenview Drive)/Sho
s
SR 2643
U
R
d)
C SB L B F SB .L C
p
(
n
on
ross
oa
a
i
t Gl
C EB LTR F EB R D 8
ross
ng
enn
a WB LTR C F WB R G
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 2679 (Glenn High Road) Signaled B F Signalized C
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at Clark Drive NB
E13 L
R NS
EB L F
R B B'
t SR 2682
L
d
t
D
i
R 2643
U
i
C
R
d W B
(
ora
a
r
ve)
(
n
on
ross
oa
) a
e
S W 8 LR C F R B
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at Dell Boulevard (Truck Entrance) Signalized A C Signalized A

SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 2683 (Hedgecock Road) SB
W13 L
L
R A
E
B F
F
F
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 2685 (Temple School Road) Signalized A B Signalized _ C
NB NB Uz
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at Weatherstone Develo
ment A B SB L '
p ± D F
J WB L F A
WBj R C
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at SR 1003 (High Point Road) Signalized C E Signalized C
NB LT A F
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at US 311 Westbound Ramps WB LT F F Signalized A
R B C
SB L A C
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) at US 311 Eastbound Ramps EB L F F Signalized B
R C F
NB L A A
t SR 4346 (Swaim Road)/SR 2691
SR 2643
U
i
C
R
d SB L A F
(
n
on
ross
oa
) a
d
W
l
b
R EB LTR F F Signalized B
oa
)
(
a
i
urg WB L F F
TR C . F
' Signalized in Build Scenario
2 HCS and Simulations were used to estimate unsignaiized U-turn operations
PALS 4-0 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DE-PARTMENT OF TRANSFORTATiON
4.1 3 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
NovEMaER 2006
This section of Union Cross Road does not correspond with a bicycle STIP project. During scoping of the
project, the Winston-Salem Planner noted the thoroughfare plan adopted by the North Carolina Board of
Transportation (NCBOT) in January 2005 includes widened outside lanes along the project to accommodate
bicycle use. The current proposed improvements do not include the additional outside lane width. The need
and cost to accommodate bicycle use will be coordinated with Forsyth County, Kernersville, and Winston-
Salem prior to completing final design.
4.14 COST ESTIMATES
The total estimated cost for this project is $45,300,000. This cost includes the construction cost
($34,900,000), right-of-way cost ($9,000,000) and utility costs ($1,400,000). The current funding amounts
included in the 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement Program are $5,000,000 for right-of-way and
$30,000,000 for construction.
Impacts associated with the proposed improvements are summarized in Table 4-5 and discussed
further in the following Chapters of this document.
Uwaiv CROSS ROAD -ENv/RdNMENTAL ASSESSME r PAGE 4-9
Nc1VEMSER 20C6
NORTH CAROLINA .DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPCRTATICN
TABLE 4-5 SUMMARY OF DIRECT PROJECT IMPACTS
RESOURCE IMPACT
Right-of-way 39.3 acres

Number of relocations: 23 residences
5 businesses
Number of property parcels 189 parcels
Historic Properties 1 Adverse Effect
Section 4(f) Properties Impacts 1 4.3 acres
Archaeological Sites 0
Streams 4 existing culvert
extensions 108 Feet Intermittent
79 Feet Perennial
Wetlands 0.015 acre 648 square feet)
Endangered Species 0
Endangered Species Habitat 0
Prime 75 acres(')
Farmland Unique 0 acres(')
Statewide Important 4 acres(l)
D Oak-Hickory Forest 10.4 acres

i
i
N
t
l C Piedmont Bottomland
Forest 1.1 acres
a
ura
ommun
t
es Earl to Mid-Successional 7.5 acres
Fallow Field /
Agriculture
15.4 acres
Noise Impacts - without
b
(2) Residences 49
a
atement Businesses 2
Air Quality No En act
Construction (August 8, 2006) $34,900,000
C
t Right-of-Way (Apri124, 2006) $9,000,000
os Utilities (May 5, 2006) $1,400,000
Total $45,300,000
(1) Farmland acreage was calculated based on a "worst-case" corridor width of 200 feet.
(2) Stream, wetland, and natural community impacts calculated based on 25 feet beyond slope stake limits.
(3) Noise abatement was evaluated for the project and determined not feasible with the multiple driveways along the roadway.
PAGE 4- 7 0 UNION CROSS RCAO -ENV/RCNMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER 2006
? Two Winston-Salem Forsyth County schools are located in the study area. The R.B. Glenn High
School is located at 1600 Union Cross Road and Union Cross Traditional Academy (elementary) is
located at 4300 High Point Road. Both schools serve students from the local demographic area and
operate on a traditional school calendar (between August and June).
? Union Cross Moravian Church, located at 4295 High Point Road, has a small private cemetery a
parsonage (residence), and a building used for after-school activities. The church operates a pre-
school during the traditional school year and a summer day camp during other months.
? Glenview Baptist Church is located within the study area near the corner of Glenn High Road and
Oak Grove Road. It also has a small private cemetery on the property. This church operates a pre-
school and provides child care services.
? Iglesia Bautista Hispana, located opposite the Dell Boulevard and Union Cross Road intersection, is
affiliated with Triad Hispanic Ministries.
? Forsyth County Emergency Management Services (FCEMS) operates two fire stations in the study
area, Station Number 26 and Number 28. Station No. 26 is located in the northeast quadrant of the
Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road intersection with Union Cross Road. This fire station has three bays
and provides rescue and fire response services. Station No. 28 is located east of the study area at the
High Point Road and Watkins Ford Road intersection. It provides rescue backup services for Mercy
Medical.
6.3 ECONOMIC STATUS
As regional economic growth and development continue to expand, the U-4909 project area is expected to
experience the same trend. Between 1990 and 2000, the area experienced a 54 percent increase in median
household income as shown in Table 6-5. This is likely attributable to the higher percentage of residents in
the work force age range as noted in Chart 6-1.
TABLE 6-5 MEDIAN HOUSE INCOME COMPARISON, 1 990 TO 2000
MEDIAN
FORSYTH
NORTH CAROLINA
LINTY
COUNTY
STUDY AREA
INCOME
-1990(s) 26,647 30,449 33,136
2000($) 39,184 42,097 51,007
Percent Change 47% 38% 54%
*Figures rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder, STF1 and STF3,1990 and 2000.
Income data collected in 1999 indicates there is a lower overall incidence of households below the income
poverty level as compared to the State and County (see Table 6-6). Individuals living below the poverty level
will have the greatest reliance on social support services and public transit options than other income groups.
Since there are no transit services along this portion of Union Cross Road and no social service facilities
nearby, it is expected there would be fewer residents with low incomes living in the study area. However, the
data shows there are slightly more low income members in the over 65 age range than in the county or state
and slightly less in the under 5 age range (see Table 6-6).
UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 6-5
NOVEMBER 2006
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 6-6 POVERTY STATUS (1 999 DATA)
POVERTY STATUS NORTH FORSYTH STUDY AREA
CAROLINA COUNTY
Population Total 7,805,328 296,044 8,150
Percent below income 12% 11% 6%
over level 1999
Percent below income 10% 11%
o
/0
over level under age 5
Percent below income 13% 11% 14%
poverty level over age 65
*Figures rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder, STF1 and STF3, 1990 and 2000.
6.3.1 EDUCATION LEVELS
Education attainment data was collected for persons 25 years or older in North Carolina and Forsyth County.
Overall, the level of education achieved by residents of Forsyth County differs only slightly in comparison to
those recorded for the State. Table 6-7 shows the comparison.
TABLE 6-7 EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
EDUCATION LEVEL ATTAINED
(POPULATION AGE 25 OR
OLDER)
NORTH CAROLINA
FORSYTH COUNTY
Total Population 5,282,994 204,081
Less than 9th Grade 8% 6%
911, to 12h Grade 14% 12%
High School graduate
(including equivalency) 28% 27%
1 or more years college,
no degree 14% 14%
Associate Degree 7% 6%
Bachelor's Degree 15% 19%
Master's Degree 5% 6%
Professional School Degree 1 % 2%
Doctorate Degree Less than 1 % Less than 1 %
High School Graduate or Higher 70% 74%
*Figures rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder, STF1 and STF3, 1990 and 2000.
6.3.2 BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT
Demographic data for the study area census tracts shows a high percentage of residents are employed outside
of Forsyth County. These workers likely commute to one of the surrounding urban centers, thereby
contributing to the traffic congestion locally. Table 6-8 provides a comparison of employment and commuter
patterns.
PAGE 6-6 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER 2006
TABLE 6-8 PLACE OF WORK (2000)
PLACE CENSUS TRACT - FORBYTH COUNTY
OF (2000)
WORK* 33.06 33.06 33.06 33.08 34.02 34.02
BG 3 GB 2 BG 1 BG 1 BG 2 BG 1
Total 816 1,046 620 1,970 556 444
County of 0
31% 51% 62% 61% 69/0
0
70/o
Residence
Outside
County of 69% 48% 38% 38% 31% 29%
Residence
*Figures rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder, STF1 and STF3, 1990 and 2000.
With the study area being centrally located in the Triad Region, urban centers such as Winston-Salem and
Kernersville are less than 10 miles from the Union Cross Road and I-40 interchange. On average most
residents commuting to areas outside the project area experience travel times of 10 to 24 minutes as shown in
the comparison of commuter travel time (Chart 6-2).
CHART 6-2 COMMUTER TRAVEL TiME5
1600 2, -
1600
1400
S 1200-
1000-
8W
Or 600
400
200
0
t s 'o 's ?'a ?s ?o '?s ?o "s sa o0
$g $ $ $ ?a $ $ $ $ 1o x
f 43 17 l9 ?y ?y "A vy S? c'g
S
Time (minutes)
4wrew MOM Sratm Rrmsror r1th* i1am m amtrirnn Far3Firwlmr _cTFI and MM
Despite the decline in manufacturing jobs since the early 1980s, Forsyth County has experienced a growth
trend in other employment sectors. The development of two business and technology parks in the study area
will contribute to the continued growth in employment opportunities. According to the North Carolina
Employment Security Commission, the Winston-Salem metro area had the largest annual percentage increase
in employment at 3.2 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics records a three year decline in unemployment
rates in the Winston-Salem area, from 5.7 percent in 2003 to 4.7 percent in 2005; as of March 2006 the rate
has further declined to 4 percent.
Forsyth County's historical job growth shows an increase of nearly 15 percent from 1990 to 2005 with the
annual average labor force increasing from 146,537 to 167,214. Examples of the employment options
available in the project vicinity are shown in Table 6-9.
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RAGE 9S-7
NOVEMBER 20097
/NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 6-9 TEN TOP EMPLOYERS IN FORSYTH COUNTY
COMPANY NAME INDUSTRY TYPE
Winston Salem Forsyth County Schools Education and Health Services
North Carolina Baptist Hospitals Education and Health Services
R Reynolds Tobacco Company
Forsyth Memorial Hospital Inc. Education and Health Services
Sara Lee Corporation Manufacturing
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Education and Health Services
Wachovia Bank Financial Activities
U.S. Air Inc. Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
City of Winston-Salem Public Administration
State of North Carolina Public Administration
Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina
Easy access to US 311 and I-40 will continue to spur residential and commercial development in the study
area. The Dell computer manufacturing plant built in the study area represents a recent major employer that
is expected to generate additional work opportunities through its suppliers. Dell requires its suppliers to
replenish its goods within 90 minutes and they must carry up to 10 days worth of inventory. To meet these
business criteria, these companies are likely to develop either distribution or manufacturing facilities in the
area. Anticipated employment growth will require additional traffic volume capacity along Union Cross
Road.
PAGE 6-0 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
7.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
This section identifies the impacts of the proposed improvements to the human environment and measures
to minimize adverse impacts, where feasible. Where available, information about other agency programs that
preserve or minimize and mitigate for these resources is also provided.
7.1 LAND USE
Land use within and surrounding the project area is transitioning
from large-scale agricultural farming to denser residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. The project area's proximity to
nearby urban centers makes this area a convenient bedroom
community for Winston-Salem, Kernersville, High Point, and
Greensboro. Most land in the study area is currently zoned for
low-density residential and agricultural uses, but areas near major
intersections are zoned for light industrial, commercial, and
community services, such as schools and churches.
The project area is in Forsyth County, which is part of the North
Carolina Piedmont Triad Region. According to newspaper Home being moved from its current
reports (Greensboro News & Record), the Triad region was location sits across from sign advertising
listed as the third-fastest growing area in the nation in 2001. land offered for development
Growth projections from the 2000 Census data indicate the
Guilford/Forsyth County area will have a 38 percent increase in population to over one million residents by
2030. According to the Winston-Salem Forsyth County Legacy Plan, the 1990 census showed that nearly
13,500 persons commute to work from Forsyth to Guilford County and an additional 5,400 persons
commute from Guilford to Forsyth County. With few transit options available, most Triad residents
commute by car to work and other destinations outside their neighborhoods. The area northeast of I-40 is
within Town of Kernersville jurisdiction; otherwise, the proposed project is outside of any municipal city
limits. However, under a municipal annexation agreement, new development located east of Union Cross
Road can request annexation by the Town of Kernersville. New development located to the west of Union
Cross Road can request annexation by the City of Winston-Salem.
As economic development continues to grow in this area, the rate of transition from low-density residential
and agricultural to commercial development will continue to increase. Current examples include the new
Weatherstone residential community and Alliance Science and Technology Park, which are under
construction, and the many new developments proposed within the project area and adjacent to Union Cross
Road (see discussions in Sections 1.0 and 5.0). This type of growth is projected to continue in the urban
planning documents prepared by the Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, and Town of Kernersville Planning
departments and is independent of the proposed U-4909 improvements.
The widening of Union Cross Road to a multilane facility is consistent with local and regional growth and
development plans prepared by the Town of Kernersville and the Winston-Salem and Forsyth County City-
County Planning Department. The proposed project will not adversely impact the planned land use and
zoning for this area. Widening Union Cross Road provides additional transportation capacity for existing and
planned growth and is part of the infrastructure needed to support these approved development plans.
7.2 FARMLAND
The 1981 Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658) requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
However, prime farmland soils previously converted to urban development are not subject to protection
under the Act.
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-1
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANBPORTAT/ON
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey data for Forsyth County notes that over
22 percent of soils mapped in the study area are considered prime farmland soils and an additional
23 percent are considered important local and state farmland soils. The Union CrossiSoutheast Foryth County
Plan estimates as much as 40 percent of the County's farmland is located in the Union Cross area.
A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006 Appendix A) was submitted to the NRCS, to
determine the relative value of the converted farmland. The NRCS noted in the land evaluation that the
relative value of this farmland to be converted scored a 95 out of a total 100 points. In assessing the
corridor, the relative value for the project rate at 152 points based on a scale of 0 to 260 points. The
recommended alternative would not substantially impact prime, unique, or statewide important farmland or
eliminate any current agricultural activities
Agricultural fields along Union Cross Road are planted
with crops each year. The proposed project will impact
approximately 75 acres of prime farmland soils.
Approximately four acres of this impact are within the
Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District.
Additionally, four acres of local and statewide important
soils would also be impacted. Impacts to prime
farmland soils are considered minimal since the project
will widen the existing road and future plans which are
already in place call for residential or commercial
development along a majority of the land adjacent to the
road.
Measures to minimize the continued conversion of farmland to denser developments are supported by both
the state and Forsyth County agricultural resource agencies. These agencies have implemented measures to
protect valuable farmland resources through zoning, voluntary farm conservation programs, and funding to
land trusts and governmental agencies to purchase development rights from farmers.
Other protective measures are available through voluntary use of private land trust organizations for .
farmland preservation such as the Conservation Trust for North Carolina, North Carolina Nature
Conservancy, Piedmont Land Conservancy, and American Farmland Trust.
7.3 CHANGE IN COMMUTING AND TRAVEL PATTERNS
This project is not anticipated to cause a major shift in regional commuting patterns within the Piedmont-
Triad area of the state; however, the proposed improvements will increase the existing capacity of Union
Cross Road for local and regional commuters traveling north or south between I-40 and US 311. NC 66 is
the only other north-south roadway that connects I-40 and US 311 in the project vicinity. Other related
projects that are planned for traffic capacity and safety improvements are discussed in Section 5.0. The
anticipated changes to traffic patterns in the project area are reviewed in the following sections.
7.3.1 RESIDENTIAL ACCESS
Access to residential properties adjacent to Union Cross Road will change. The proposed project will modify
the existing roadway from a three-lane, undivided to a four to six-lane roadway with a 30-foot raised median.
Union Cross Road has numerous individual residences along both sides of the road, many located in close
proximity to the road right-of-way. Residential neighborhood developments are located primarily along
intersecting roadways north of the I-40 interchange, while individual home sites are located primarily
between the southern terminus and I-40.
PAGE 7-2 LJN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Forsyth County Farmland Photo: NRCS, December 2001.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
Several new neighborhood developments are planned for the area
between I-40 and US 311. One new development, Weatherstone,
is currently under construction just south of Chamelin Road (to the
east of Union Cross Road) and will have two access points to
Union Cross Road. Calebs Creek is a planned development that
will feature a golf course, retail, and multi- and single-family
residential units. It will have access to Union Cross Road through
a planned extension of Glenn High Drive (to the east of Union
Cross Road) and at Glennview Drive and Hedgecock Road.
Abbotts Plantation is another planned development that will be Entrance to new Weatherstone
located to the east of Weatherstone and will likely have access to development from Union Cross Road
Union Cross Road through the Weatherstone development. There
will be no impacts related to neighborhood cohesion resulting from the proposed project. The proposed
project will not cut off any neighborhoods. A section of Pecan Lane and Silver Creek Trail will be terminated
as cul-de-sacs because of the project; however, access to properties on the road will be maintained via
existing connecting roads.
As noted previously, the proposed improvements will include a raised median to separate traffic flow and
reduce the risk of head-on collisions. Openings in the median will be provided at intersections with major
cross roads. Turn lanes will be provided for specific intersections and intermediate cross-ovens, but left turn
access will be controlled for the individual residences that occur along Union Cross Road. Additional
measures to manage access along Union Cross Road will be reviewed during the final design phase of the
project. While the proposed project will change travel patterns by limiting left turns, the impact is
considered minimal since access will remain for residences and neighborhoods along the road with left-ovens
and right-in/right-out access permitted.
7.3.2 COMMERCIAL ACCESS
The proposed improvements will not close access to, nor are they considered to have a substantial adverse
impact on, commercial properties. Presently the only commercial location with limited access to Union
Cross Road is the Union Cross Station shopping center located in the northeast quadrant of the I-40
interchange. This shopping center contains a small strip mall anchored by a Food Lion grocery store and a
CVS pharmacy. Other outbuildings include a dry cleaner, fast-food restaurant, and gas station with shops
and a car wash. The shopping center accesses Union Cross Road through two driveways, both located north
of the I-40 westbound exit ramp. Pecan Lane intersects Union Cross Road at an unsignalized intersection
directly across from the southernmost access driveway. Other commercial locations in the study area are
small businesses which have driveway access directly onto Union Cross Road.
To improve safety, the project proposes to terminate Pecan Lane as a cul-de-sac west of Union Cross Road
and limit driveway access at the shopping center to right-in/right-out lanes. Additional improvements
requested by representatives of the shopping center include realigning Solomon Road with the northernmost
driveway and installing a traffic signal to control access at the new intersection.
7.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
This section of Union Cross Road does not correspond to a bicycle STIP project, nor are there any
independent bicycle or pedestrian projects in this corridor. There are currently no bicycle accommodations
or sidewalks along Union Cross Road or the local intersecting streets, except along Glenn High Road
adjacent to R.B. Glenn High School. There were several comments regarding guardrail needs at the school
made subsequent to the workshop and the guardrail was added. The project will not impact these existing
pedestrian accommodations adjacent to R.B. Glenn High School. In addition, there are not any other
pedestrian or bicycle facilities located in the project area that would be impacted.
Sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Union Cross Road which will improve pedestrian access. Any
sidewalks provided under this project will provide accessibility for handicapped persons in accordance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
UNIr7N CRf7S8 ROAD -ENV/RdNMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-3
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CARL7LINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Wallburg Road at the southern terminus of
the proposed project is part of the designated
Mountains to Sea Cross-State Route .2 bicycle
trail. A short segment of this trail runs
through the study area, traveling northward
from Wallburg Road to eastbound High Point
Road and its continuity is important. This
particular section of Union Cross Road
connects two local bike routes; the Sedge
Garden Connector and the Union Cross
Connector.
The Winston-Salem Urban Area Bicycle Plan
recommends widening the existing bicycle
route streets on each side of the road to
provide for 14-foot wide travel lanes. These Statewide Bicyde Routes
improvements are requested to be completed
during roadway improvement or maintenance projects. The 2030 Winston-Salem Urban Area Transportation
Plan also includes recommendations for bicycle facility improvements. Preliminary plans for this project call
for the typical section south of I-40 to consist of a multilane curb-and-gutter facility with a 30-foot raised
median and sidewalks on each side of the roadway. The typical section north of I-40 includes six-lanes. The
U-4909 project will improve pedestrian access along both sides of the road with installation of the sidewalks.
Adding additional through lanes may also provide safer passing for vehicles around bicyclists on the road.
7.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Public transit systems in the region are members of the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation
(PART). PART is a regional cooperative created to promote the development of sound transportation
systems, which provide transportation choices, enhance mobility, accessibility and safety, encourage
economic development and desirable growth patterns, and protect the man-made and natural environments
of the region (PART, 2006). Services include day and night express buses, park-and-ride service, Amtrak
commuter rail service, Trans-AID, and Connections medical center shuttles. Regional members of PART
include the Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA), Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA), and High
Point Transit Authority (HPTA).
? The PART transit systems averaged 1,200 daily passengers in 2005. A new service line was recently
initiated to carry passengers from the Kemersville transfer line to the Dell plant in the study area.
? Trans-AID provides specialized transportation service in Forsyth County for the physically disabled.
WTSA reports over 93,000 passenger trips were completed in 1999/2000.
? The PART Connections transit service operates daily service to the Chapel Hill and Duke medical
centers. This service averaged 550 passenger trips per month in 2004.
? The Amtrak Connector meets both the Carolinian and Piedmont trains, making round-trip rail travel
for commuters possible between High Point and Winston-Salem.
? A statewide rideshare matching service, Share the Ride NC, provides a service for commuters to find
van and car pool opportunities with individuals who share similar commutes and work hours.
The closest public transportation to the study area is provided by WSTA, which offers approximately
45 different public transit routes. The closest WSTA route is located northwest of the study area along
Waughtown Street and Reynolds Road north of I-40. Since there are no transit routes in the study area,
construction of the U-4909 project will not impact transit commuter services.
The additional road capacity provided by construction of the project will improve level of service in the area,
thereby improving commuting times for carpools and vanpools.
PAGE 7-4 LIMON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 201795
7.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
7.6.1 SCHOOLS
There are three schools within the project area: Union Cross Traditional Academy (elementary), Southeast
Middle School, and R.B. Glenn High School (See Figures 7-1A, 7-1B, and 7-1C). Union Cross elementary is
located in the southeast quadrant of the High Point Road intersection. Southeast Middle School is located
on Old Salem Road, about 0.7 miles east of the Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road intersection with Union
Cross Road. The R.B. Glenn High School facility is located in the southwest corner of the Glenn High
Drive and Union Cross Road intersection. Construction of the U-4909 project will create temporary impacts
during construction to access at the elementary and high schools. The middle school and several other
schools in the vicinity are served by buses that utilize Union Cross Road in the study area. All school buses
traveling through the Union Cross Road study area will be temporarily impacted by traffic congestion related
to construction.
7.6.2 CHURCHES AND CEMETERIES
Two churches and one cemetery are located in the study area. Union Cross Moravian Church is located in
the northwest quadrant of the High Point Road intersection. The church complex includes the main church
building, a house (parsonage), an outbuilding used for after-school activities, and a private cemetery. The
church supports a ministry to approximately 400 people, with approximately 200 people regularly attending
Sunday services. Services or meetings are held each day of the week during both morning and evening
hours. Seasonal activities are held at the church throughout the year, which are open for community
participation. The Moravian church also operates a preschool program which will be converting to a year-
round program in the fall 2006. The church began developing plans in June 2006 for construction of a
Family Life Center. Church property will have 0.31 acre impacts due to proposed right-of-way changes at
the High Point Road and Union Cross Road intersection improvements. No impacts will occur to the
cemetery or any church buildings.
The second church in the study area is the
Iglesia Bautista Hispana (Triad Hispanic
Ministries) facility located on the east side of
Union Cross Road at the Dell Boulevard
intersection. This church has services on
E ,,I Sunday and Wednesday evening each week to
support a ministry for approximately 150
people. The church has two driveways
MORAN= accessing the east side of Union Cross Road.
After construction of the new Dell Boulevard
facility was completed, a solid line was painted
Iglesia Bautista Church along Union Cross Road at the northernmost
driveway, which lines up with the traffic signal
at Dell Boulevard, to indicate that left turns are no longer allowed into this driveway. Southbound traffic on
Union Cross Road must turn left into the southernmost driveway. The project will not require property
from this church for right-of-way acquisition. The southern driveway into the parking lot will become a
right-in/right-out only access. However, the northern driveway into the parking lot will remain as a full-
movement signalized intersection with Dell Boulevard.
7.6.3 FIRE STATIONS
Two Forsyth County fire stations are located in or adjacent to the study area, Station Number 26 and
Number 28. Station No. 26, the Beesons Crossroads Volunteer Fire Department, is located in the northeast
quadrant of the Sedge Garden/Old Salem Road intersection with Union Cross Road. This fire station has
three bays and provides rescue and fire response services. Trucks operating out of the facility include a
rescue response vehicle, pumper engines, and pumper tankers. It is staffed full time with both volunteers
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-5
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and Winston-Salem fire department personnel, with up to seven personnel available for around-the-clock fire
and rescue response.
Station No. 28, the Union Cross Volunteer Fire Department, is located east of the study area at the High
Point Road and Watkins Ford Road intersection. This station currently operates with volunteer staff only
and is staffed during the week between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The station provides rescue backup services
for Mercy Medical. The Forsyth County Fire Department plans to add full-time around-the-clock EMS
response capability as of July 1, 2006. Currently, the station operates two tanker engines and a rescue truck.
Project construction along Old Salem Road at the northern terminus will need to be staged such that
driveway access at Station No. 26 is not blocked. Building a multilane divided facility would restrict access to
fire hydrants if available only on one side of the roadway. Placing water hoses across multiple lanes of traffic
would create a traffic hazard as well as restrict the efficiency of the fire department in responding to
emergency situations. The Forsyth County Fire Department requests installation of fire hydrants on both
sides of the road.
7.6.4 PARKS AND RECREATION
Union Cross Park, a Forsyth County facility, is the only public park facility located in the study area. The
15-acre facility provides two lighted softball fields, three tennis courts (two are lighted), a lighted basketball
court, a sand volleyball court, horseshoe pits, playground with gym equipment, picnic shelter with tables,
three tables with outdoor grills, a walking path, restroom facilities, and parking lots. The park site is also the
home of the old Winston-Salem Air Force Radar base, which was given to the County in 1974 to be used as
a park. The Forsyth County Parks and Recreation Director, Mark Serosky, indicated that the old radar base
facility was granted to the County by the federal government and is protected through deed restrictions.
Conversion of any land considered part of this grant would require in-kind replacement of equal value,
subject to approval through federal oversight. Forsyth County asks that NCDOT avoid taking any right-of-
way from the park. The proposed project begins widening at the southeastern corner of the Wallburg Road
and Union Cross Road intersection, thereby avoiding the park. No additional right-of-way will be required
from the park.
The three Forsyth County school locations in the study area each maintain a playground and recreation
fields. The R.B. Glenn High School participates in track, soccer, baseball/softball, and football programs
each year. The school has facilities for these programs, including a stadium and gymnasium building. These
facilities will not be impacted by the project.
A privately owned golf driving range is located off Wallburg Road, directly across from the Union Cross
Road Park ball fields and parking lot. This facility will not be impacted by the project.
7.6.5 UTILITIES
Several utilities are located within the existing right-of-way along Union Cross Road and include the
following list of services. Additional details are available in a scoping letter dated August 31, 2005 from the
State Location and Surveys Engineer (see Appendix C).
? AT&T underground fiber-optic cable runs along the south side of High Point Road from
Gibsonville. The fiber-optic cable is enclosed in a 6-inch diameter HDPE casing for 351 feet under
Union Cross Road.
? Sprint Communications aerial and underground telephone cables are located along the east side of
Union Cross Road. The telephone cable runs from the Union Cross Animal Hospital south of
Glenview Drive to the shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the I-40 interchange and a
telephone hub at Shepherds Grove Road. Aerial cables with signal booster boxes attached to poles
and buried cables continue along Union Cross Road past the Sedge Garden Road intersection in the
north end of the project.
? Time Warner has both underground fiber-optic and aerial cables located throughout the project
corridor.
PAGE 7-6 UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER ZOMS
? Piedmont Natural Gas has 4-inch diameter plastic and 6-inch diameter steel gas mains as well as
8-inch diameter high-pressure steel gas mains located in the project corridor (see Appendix C).
? The City of Winston-Salem has sanitary sewer force mains that include 4-inch diameter, 6-inch
diameter, 8-inch diameter, and 12-inch diameter pipes that run along Union Cross Road and
intersecting roads in the project corridor. An 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer main that starts at Pecan
Lane runs along Union Cross Road northward to the Union Cross Station sewage interceptor. The
Somerset Crossing sewer lift station is located along I-40 east of Union Cross Road (see Appendix C).
? The City of Winston-Salem also has water mains of various sizes that run along Union Cross Road
and intersecting roads in the project corridor. These water mains range in diameter from 6-inch,
8-inch, 12-inch, 16-inch, and 20-inch to 24-inch pipes. An elevated water storage tank is located
behind the R.B. Glenn High School stadium near the corner of Union Cross Road and Glenn High
Road (see Appendix C).
? Duke Power has aerial transmission lines with underground service throughout the entire project
limits. This service crosses the I-40 bridge to the east and the US 311 bridge on the west side.
? Two cellular telephone service towers are located in the project vicinity. An Alltell tower is located
on Hastings Road, northeast of Union Cross Road and along US 311. A Crown Castle International
tower is located on the northwest quadrant of Old Salem Road and I-40.
? NCDOT has an Incident Management Matrix sign located along I-.40 to the west of Union Cross
Road.
7.6.6 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
There are no post offices, banks, hospitals, or libraries in the study area, along Union Cross Road or
intersecting side roads.
7.7 TRAFFIC SAFETY
NCDOT compiled three-year crash rates for urban roads in Highway Division 9, which include Forsyth
County, for the years 2001 though 2003, as well as statewide crash rates for the same time period. NCDOT
reports the crash rate for Division 9 urban secondary roads at 328.39 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
(mvm) of travel and 325.17 per 100 mvm for Forsyth County. The statewide crash rate for urban secondary
roads was 424.13 crashes per 100 mvm. The crash rates for Union Cross Road in the study area are 203.56
per 100 mvm near the southern termini, 400.47 per 100 mvm through the central portion of the project, and
221.10 per 100 mvm near the northern termini (NCDOT Traffic Safety Systems Management website). Total
crash rates reported for the study area portion of Union Cross Road do not exceed statewide critical rates for
a two-lane facility.
The proposed project includes minor alignment shifts at the intersections, access management for driveways,
and also improved traffic operations. With these improvements the project is anticipated to decrease the
occurrences of accidents along Union Cross Road.
7.B RELOCATIONS AND RELOCATION PRE313RAM13
As required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18), the
NCDOT right-of-way acquisition policy provides a relocation program to help property owners when
unavoidable relocations occur because of roadway construction. The relocation program offers assistance,
moving payments, or replacement housing payments or rent. Another component of the relocation policy is
to provide "last resort housing" when comparable replacement housing is not available or is unavailable
within an individual's financial means. Through the last resort housing program NCDOT has greater
latitude in offering replacement payments which exceed federal or state legal requirements.
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-7
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTAT/ON
A relocation evaluation report was prepared in April 2006 and is included in Appendix A. Construction of
the U-4909 project will require relocation of 23 residential properties and five businesses as shown in
Table 7-1.
TABLE 7-1 PROPERTY OWNER RELOCATIONS
TYPE OF
RELOCATION OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITIES
Residential 22 1 23 0
Businesses 1 4 5 1
Farms 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0
The relocation report indicates adequate replacement housing is available for affected residences. Public
housing is available through the Winston-Salem Housing Authority. The last resort housing program will be
available should the need arise, but its use may not be necessary.
The relocation report indicates suitable replacement business sites are available, as noted in local news
publications and real estate advertisements, for those businesses impacted by the project. Adequate business
services will still be available in the general project area and surrounding communities. Table 7-2 lists the
five business locations that will be impacted as a result of right-of-way acquisition.
TABLE 7-2 BUSINESS RELOCATIONS
NAME LOCATION ON BUILDING SIZE NUMBER OF TYPE OF
UNION CROSS ROAD (SQUARE FEET) EMPLOYEES BUSINESS

Old 311 Curb 1799 Union Cross Road
2 full-time
grocery mart,
northeast comer, High Point Road 1,000
Market 2 part-time gas pumps
intersection
Cliffs 1797 Union Cross Road
2-tim Tires,
Alignment adjacent to the Old 311 Curb Market 1,200 e
2 pan-tune automotive
Shop repair services
1400 Union Cross Road
3 full-time
grocery mart,
Quality Mart southwest comer, Sedge Garden 1,500 2 part-time as pumps
Road intersection g

Cass Motor 1401 Union Cross Road
2 full-time
southeast comer Sedge Garden/Old 800 used-car sales
Company 1 part-time
Salem Road intersection

Union Cross 1399 Union Cross Road
3 full-time
grocery mart,
northeast comer, Sedge Garden/Old 1,500
Market
Salem Road intersection 2 part-time gas pumps
7.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The purpose of federal Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, is to identify, address, and avoid
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low-income
populations. This Order also defines disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income
populations as an adverse affect that:
? Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or
? Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably
more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-
minority population and/or non low-income population.
PAGE 7-8 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN9PORTAT1ON NOVEMBER ZOO$
The proposed project would not specifically benefit, harm, or disproportionately affect any social group. The
project is expected to enhance the community's overall economic vitality and employment. Access to the
broader community, as well as to existing public and private facilities and services, would be minimally
changed by the project.
The Department of Transportation Order 5610.2 (1991) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Order 6640.23 define Adverse Effects, in part, as the totality of significant individual or cumulative human
health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects. These may include, but
are not limited to:
? bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death;
? air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination;
? destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources;
? destruction or diminution of aesthetic values;
? destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality;
? destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private services;
? adverse employment effects;
? displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations;
? increased traffic congestion; and
? exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from
the broader community.
7.1 O WATER SUPPLY, WATERSHEDS, AND SCENIC RIVERS
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) uses a watershed-based approach to protect
North Carolina's surface water resources. As part of this non-regulatory effort, the state's river systems were
divided into 17 major river basins. Basinwide water quality plans have been written for each of these river
basins; these management plans were developed to identify and protect the state's water resources. Within
each river basin, NCDWQ classifies surface waters based on their intended best uses, including use for water
supply systems. Streams that have not been assigned a use classification or rating will generally carry the
same classification or rating as the receiving waters.
Streams in the study area are located entirely within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. Since Union Cross
Road occurs along a ridge, there are two drainage systems in the study area. As noted in Section 8.3.1 Stream
Characteristics, streams draining to Abbotts Creek and Mary Reich Creek have a use classification of WS-III
waters. Streams draining to Swaims Creek and Fiddlers Creek carry a use classification of Class "C" waters.
A complete description of the study area streams and their use classification are included in Section 8.3.1.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) calls for a continuing evaluation of outdoor recreation
needs and resources of the United States and identification of potential wild, scenic, and recreational river
areas within the nation. As noted in the Winston-Salem Beltway (U-2579) Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) documents, no streams or rivers in Forsyth County qualify for listing as wild and scenic river systems.
7.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account
the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
LJN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL A55ESSMENT PAGE 7-9
NOVEMBER ZQ06 NORTH CiAROLIMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Archaeological resources were initially addressed' in a January 12, 2005 memorandum prepared by the
NCDOT Archaeology Unit. This information was combined with a memorandum prepared by the NCDOT
Historic Architecture Unit and was submitted to State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on January 14,
2005. The HPO recommended no archaeological survey for this project in a September 13, 2005 letter (see
Appendix B). However, an archaeological reconnaissance of the project area was completed by NCDOT on
September 28, 2005. A memorandum documenting background research and archaeological field
reconnaissance results was submitted to HPO on November 2, 2005. This memorandum concluded the
project area had only a moderate potential for archaeological resources. The HPO.agrees with this
assessment. See letter in Appendix B.
Historic architectural resources within an Area of Potential Effects (APE) were identified for the project.
The boundaries of the APE were coordinated with the HPO and a study was conducted in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A Survey Report was prepared in accordance
with provisions outlined in FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(o Documents, the NCDOT's Survey Procedures and Report Guidelines for Historic
Architectural Resources (October 2003), and federal regulatory guidelines.
There are no properties in the study area listed on, or previously determined eligible for, inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or having local historic designation. A survey in the area
identified 28 potentially eligible properties that were reviewed with the HPO. The majority of the properties
were evaluated during previous comprehensive historic architectural surveys conducted in Forsyth County.
Of the 28 properties evaluated, the report noted four properties are eligible for the NRHP. These properties
include:
? The former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and associated housing development (Property
1) eligible for the National Register under Criteria A for association with Cold War Era defense
strategy and Criteria G, significance for properties less than 50 years old.
? The Boone Trail Association marker (Property 6) eligible for the National Register under Criteria F
for commemorative properties.
? The David Smith Farm (Property 14) is listed on the North Carolina state study list and eligible for
the National Register under Criteria C for design and construction.
? The Smith-Tucker Farms (includes Properties 13, 14, 15) eligible for the National Register as a Rural
Historic District under Criteria A for association with agriculture and Criteria C for design and
construction.
In a November 14, 2005 letter, the HPO concurred with the determinations for properties Not Eligible for
the NRHP. Therefore, a report was prepared and sent to the HPO on December 12, 2005 which evaluated 8
properties in depth. The report concluded that there were four properties eligible for the NRHP in the APE.
In subsequent correspondence dated February 23, 2006, the HPO did not concur with the report and stated
that upon further review of the log well house structure (Property 19) it was eligible for the National Register
under Criterion C, architecture as a type. HPO recommended placement of a ten-foot rectangular buffer
measured from the well house foundation be used to protect this structure. In order to avoid impacts the
roadway was widened to the opposite side of the log well house.
On April 26, 2006 NCDOT met with HPO and FHWA to discuss effects of the project on eligible
properties. A form was signed March 28, 2006 by HPO, NCDOT, and FHWA concurring that the project
will have "no adverse effect" on the log well house since the ten-foot buffer was avoided (see Appendix B).
The three parties also agreed that the project would have "no effect" on the former Winston-Salem Air
Force Radar Station (Base) and the Boone Trail Association marker. However, the form notes the project
will have an "adverse effect" on the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District. Measures to avoid and
minimize adverse effects to this historic district were implemented to the extent possible, while still meeting
the purpose and need of the proposed widening project.
PAGE 7- 10 1.INION GROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
Execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be required for this project. A Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation was prepared for the unavoidable impacts to the Historic District and is included in Chapter 13
of this document. The Draft Section 4(? Evaluation will be reviewed and based on comments a Final 4(f)
Evaluation will be prepared to determine if there are no feasible and prudent alternatives for the project that
would avoid impacts to this district.
7.1 2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potential environmental liabilities can be associated with the possible presence of oil or hazardous materials
in soils and/or groundwater. A Phase I environmental site assessment, as defined in ASTM E-1527-00 and
E-1528-00, was not performed as part of this project.
Based on a field study conducted by NCDOT in August 2005, eight possible active or abandoned
underground storage tank (UST), sites may be located in the study area. These locations are listed in
Table 7-3. No hazardous waste sites, landfills, or other geo-environmental concerns were noted. Soil and
groundwater assessments at each of the potential UST sites will be conducted before right-of-way
acquisition.
TABLE 7-3 POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATIONS
LOCATION UST ANTICIPATED
SITE (UST OWNER) ADDRESS FACILITY ID IMPACTS
NUMBER (SEVERITY)
Anderson Grocery 1926 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
1 ace Oil Road 0-015953 soils ow
Old 311 Curb Mart 1799 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
2 Hutchens Petroleum Road 0-216532 soils ow
Former Fire
Department - currently 1780 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
3 owned by Moravian Road None soils (Low)
Church nknown
R.B. Glenn High School

4
(Forsyth County Board 1600 Union Cross
0-029655 Petroleum contaminated

of Education Road soils (Low)
?'
The Pop Shoppe 185 1557 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
5 d-State Petroleum Road 0-035990 soils ow
Quality Mart 33 1400 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
6 QualiOil Road 0-034372 soils ow
Cass Motor Company 1401 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
7 None
(Unknown) Road soils ow
Union Cross Mart 1399 Union Cross Petroleum contaminated
8 (Kyles Friendly Service Road 0-025043 soils ow
As noted in Section 7.8, five businesses will be relocated as a result of project construction. Of these
businesses, four are identified in Table 7-3 above as having an underground storage tank located on the
property. It is anticipated that the tanks located at Cass Motor Company (Site 7) and Union Cross Mart
(Site 8) may require removal as part of this project. Tanks that are not located within the construction limits
will be left in place.
7.13 TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Noise is generally considered any unwanted sound and it can be emitted from many sources. Construction
noise and dust, as well as temporary disruption of traffic flow on local roads, may affect residences,
businesses, and farming operations in the vicinity of the project. Noise related to roads and highways is
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-1 1
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CARz7wNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
usually a composite of tire-roadway interaction, engine exhaust systems, drive train, vehicle sound systems
(radios, CDs), and vehicle horns.
The magnitude of noise is described by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure called sound pressures. Since
the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel. Sound pressures described in decibels (dB) are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). The weighted-A
scale (dBA) is used for vehicle noise measurements because it places emphasis on the frequency
characteristics that correspond to human subjective response to noise. Sound pressure levels are referred to
as Leq (h), or equivalent sound level, which is the level in dBA of constant sound that would contain the
same acoustic energy in an hour as the actual sound, which varies over time. This allows the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise to be represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
An analysis was performed using TNMO 2.5
procedures to determine if the proposed project
would substantially increase noise in the area and
require noise abatement measures. NCDOT uses a
10 to 15 dBA increase in noise level to define a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The
analysis focused on traffic noise, which is a
composite of noise from a vehicle's engine exhaust,
drive train, and tire-roadway interaction. Ambient
noise measurements were also taken in the vicinity
of the project to determine existing noise levels.
Noise Model Information - Any traffic noise
prediction method can be used for noise
analysis if the methodologies are consistent
with the standards mandated by 23 U.S.C.
109(1). Traffic noise prediction models used
for federally-funded transportation projects
must be consistent with the methodology of
the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM®).
It is NCDOT's policy that any new projects
entering the planning process should use
TNMO.
The FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures for use in determining if highway noise
levels are compatible with various land uses. Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Procedures for Abatement of Higbway Traffic
Noise and Construction Noise outlines abatement criteria and procedures for use in the planning and design of
highways. When future noise levels either approach or exceed the criteria levels for each activity category,
mitigation of traffic noise is considered. For the U-4909 project, the identified receptors are residential
(Category B), business (Category C), and church/school (Category E). Noise abatement criteria levels are
shown in Table 7-4.
As noted in the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, neither federal nor state government is
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new developments when the building permits have
been issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the date of public knowledge. The
`date of public knowledge' is based on the approval date of the final environmental document. Local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are used for new developments
occurring after this public knowledge date.
PAGE 7- 1 Z UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENV/RaNMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRAMORORTAT/ON NOVEM9ER 2006
TABLE 7-4 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
ACTIVITY LEQ(H) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
CATEGORY
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
57 and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
A (Exterior) those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
B (Exterior) residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A
C (Exterior) or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
E (Interior) libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Ambient noise levels were measured along Union Cross Road, 50 feet from the edge of pavement. This
noise level information was collected to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise level increases. Noise levels ranged from 62.9 dBA to 66.5 dBA, with a
background noise level of 45 dBA in areas where traffic was not the predominant source of noise. Ambient
noise levels were taken from three separate locations on Union Cross Roads as shown in Table 7-5.
TABLE 7-S AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
SITE SECTION DESCRIPTION LEVEL
LEVEL
1 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd.) Approximately 750 feet Gravel 62.9
North of SR 1003 (High Point Rd.)

2 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd.) Approximately 150 feet
Gravel
66.5
North of SR 2837 (Glennview Drive)
3 SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd.) at Kingswood Drive Grassy 64.7
The noise analysis evaluated noise levels along the entire length of the project. It is barely possible to detect
real-life noise level changes of two to three dBA, but a five-dBA change is more readily noticeable. Table 7-6
lists the criteria for determining levels of increase. The predicted noise level increases associated with the
proposed project range up to +13 dBA. There are 49 residences and two businesses that are predicted to be
impacted by highway traffic noise greater than noise abatement criteria. Of the 49 residences and two
businesses impacted by noise levels, 14 residences and one business will experience noticeable noise level
increases; however, impacts associated with a substantial noise increase of 15 dBA or greater are not
anticipated for this project. The existing Union Cross Road edge of pavement will be maintained at R.B.
Glenn High School and widening will occur to the east side of the road. Minimal noise increases are
expected to occur at the high school.
UNION CRO69 ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7- 13
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 7-6 CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL JNCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (RIBA)
EXISTING NOISE
LEVEL IN LEQ(H) INCREASE IN (IBA FROM EXISTING NOISE
LEVELS TO FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
<= 50 >= 15
51 >= 14
52 >= 13
53 >= 12
54 >= 11
>= 55 >= 10
7.1 3.1 NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Since there are impacted
receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area, consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to all impacted receptors. A description of noise abatement strategies is provided below.
? Alignment: Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. For the U-4909 project, changing the road alignment is not a viable alternative for
noise abatement.
? Traffic Management: Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations, can provide effective noise abatement. Past project experience has shown
that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of
approximately one to two dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to three
dBA and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a
viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management measures, including the
prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of
providing additional capacity. Traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for
noise abatement because.of the negative effect on roadway capacity and level-of-service of the
proposed facility.
? Sound Barriers: Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a
measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable
measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect traffic noise emissions. These measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls. The proposed project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of
access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections
to the proposed roadway, and most intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier
to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise
reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier
for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to
restricted sight distance is also a concern. This type of control of access eliminates the consideration
of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.
PAGE 7-14 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 200gs
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along the road require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would
tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this
case.
? Proper1y Acquisition: The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize
noise impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost
to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost per
benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not
recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control at the local planning
level.
? Vegetation: The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project
because of the substantial right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. Research
conducted by FHWA has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100-feet wide to
provide a three-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a five-dBA reduction, substantial
amounts of additional right-of-way would be required. The cost to purchase additional right-of-way
and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost allowed per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were
identified that would be impacted by this project.
Based on preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and noise abatement measures are
not proposed.
7.1 3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth and pavement removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-
by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving
operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. Considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts
are not expected to be substantial.
7.14 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact to air quality of a new roadway
facility or the improvement of an existing facility. Automobiles and trucks are considered a major source of
emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by
incomplete burning of carbon in fuels and is the most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles.
Microscale air quality analysis using
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling
Methodology For Predicting Pollutant
Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was performed to
determine future CO concentrations
for the proposed project and to
predict the CO concentration near
sensitive receptors.
Since automobiles and trucks are a substantial source of CO
emissions, monitoring for this gas is focused on traffic-oriented
sites such as urban areas. Receptor sites are used to collect both
local and background ambient CO concentrations near
highways. Local concentrations are defined as the CO
emissions from vehicles operating in the near vicinity (distances
within 400 feet) of a receptor location. Background
concentrations are defined by North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as the
concentration at the upwind edge of a local source.
For the study area, line source computer modeling using the
MOBILE6 source emissions computer model was used to calculate carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors for the years 2010, 2015, and 2030 and background information was obtained from NCDENR. The
background CO concentration for the study area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm), which is a
suitable ambient CO concentration for most suburban and rural areas.
L/IYION CR066 ROAO -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE66MENT PAGE T- 15
NOVEMBER 20176 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The worst-case air-quality scenario for the proposed project was determined to be in the vicinity of the High
Point Road intersection. Comparison of the predicted levels with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards maximum concentration for an one-hour averaging period (35 pp.) and an eight-hour averaging
period (9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. The following levels are predicted:
? In 2010, CO levels are 3.00 ppm.
? In 2015, CO levels are 2.80 ppm.
? In 2030, CO levels are 3.10 ppm.
Since the worst-case air meteorological conditions estimate is 1.8 ppm, the 8-hour CO concentration level
does not exceed the standard.
7.1 5 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY
In 1990, the Clean Air Act (CAA) established federal regulations for control of toxic air pollutant emissions.
Under this law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enforcement authority and sets limits on
how much of a pollutant is allowed in the air of the United States. The EPA has directed each state to carry
out the implementation of the CAA by developing a state implementation plan. This plan must be approved
by the EPA and is a collection of the regulations the state will use to enforce air quality regulations and clean
up polluted areas. The CAA allows individual states to have stronger pollution controls, but they are not
allowed to have weaker pollution controls than those set by the EPA for nationwide application.
In North Carolina, EPA has designated the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) as the lead
agency for enforcing federal laws and regulations dealing with air pollution in North Carolina. The State
legislature enacted air quality rules for Air Pollution Control Requirements under North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 15A NCAC 2D, with Air Quality Permit Procedures mandated under
15A NCAC 2Q. These air pollution control regulations require transportation projects to conform to the
pollution control plans in areas where poor air quality has led to a designation as a non-attainment area.
The project is located in Forsyth County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point
nonattainment area for one-hour ozone (03) and the Winston-Salem nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these
areas as a moderate nonattainment area for one-hour 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring
data, these areas were redesignated as maintenance for one-hour 03 on November 8, 1993 and for CO on
November 7, 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 Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2030
LRTP, and the 2006-2012 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the
intent of the SIP. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) made a conformity
determination on the Winston-Salem/Forsyth MPO LRTP on October 1, 2005, the High Point MPO LRTP,
on October 1, 2004, the Winston-Salem/Forsyth MPO MTIP on October 1, 2005, and the High Point MPO
MTIP on October 1, 2005. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or
scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Forsyth County was designated as moderate nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard on
April 15, 2004. Effective on November 22, 2004, EPA reclassified Forsyth County from a moderate
nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area. Forsyth County is under an Early Action Compact
and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been deferred until December 31, 2006. 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable until December 31, 2007 (one year after the nonattainment designation
becomes effective).
PAGE 7- 195 L/NION CR289 ROAd -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
7.1 6 MOBILE !SOURCE AIR TDxics (MBAT)
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-
road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary
sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
7.1 6.1 BACKGROUND
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The
MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are
present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned.
Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products.
Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities
regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority
in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly
promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its
national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline
sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent
increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by
87 percent, as shown in the following graph:
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (MT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VW
(trillions/year)
6 -r
(-57%)
V61T4.13Ova
D P IA+QB?+G a37ti;
3
Fomauelvxk ?%r
ketfllel?,de iC%)
1.34liadiaRe )
,4=0ll -63*
0
Emissions
(tonslyear)
200,000
100,000
2000 2006 2010 2016 2020
Notes. For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors weregenerated using MOB=6.2. MTBE proportion of
market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline R" and oxygenate content are held constant.
VMT.- Highway Statistics 2000, Table VW-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%.
+DPM + DEOG++ is based on MOBILE6.2 generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and S04
from dieselpowered vehicles, with theparticle size cutoff set at 90.0 microns.
UNrlJN CROSS Rz2AO -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7-17
NOVEMBER ZOOS NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were
necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section
202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available
technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes
associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in
accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would
involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate
ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate
human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on
the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science
that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
? Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to
key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE
6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level.
MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5
miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the
ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a
specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds
and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately
capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not
sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in
trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs
are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions
of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to
quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions.
MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses
between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of
travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
? Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current
regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade
ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine
compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for
predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a
geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific
times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The
NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in
the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of
documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public.
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of
monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background
concentrations.
? Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of
MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment
and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health
impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual
concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are
PAGE 7- IS UNION CROSS RI7Ad -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER ZOOS
actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for
70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made
regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-
year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of
toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of
occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated
difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be
useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts
that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of
studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health 'outcomes through
epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals
demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure
applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure,
the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a
national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at
http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from
the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from
EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and
toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.
? Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
? The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are
inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route
of exposure.
? Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and
sufficient evidence in animals.
? 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
? Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in
male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.
? Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental
exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate
matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
? Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard
from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms,
such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed
from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health
Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major
series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of
mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.
UNION GROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7- 1 9
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRAvaPORTATION
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes --
particularly respiratory problems. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full
spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but
more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed
above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this
project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical
approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. Because of the
uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on
human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict
relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from
each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project
alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted
above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for
smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts
on the human environment."
7. 1 6.2 MSAT•
In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various
alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by
alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations,
although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the
health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with
respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this
project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of
MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under
the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can
give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the
various alternatives.
The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled
A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project
Alternatives, found at: ww-,v.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htrn.
For each alternative in this EIS/EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle
miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The
VMT estimate for the recommended build alternative may be slightly higher than that for the No-Build
alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips
from elsewhere in the transportation network. (See Sections 2.0 and 4.0 of this document for the capacity
and level of service discussions.) This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the
recommended alternative along the corridor, with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the
parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased
speeds. According to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all priority MSATs except diesel
particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases
will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of
technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the widening alternatives would be approximately the same, with
the only variation in which side of the road is being widened, it is expected there would be no appreciable
difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative
chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national
PAGE 7'20 LIN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL Ass_-s6MEN7*
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER ZOOd
control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020.
Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMr growth
rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even
after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future
in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes proposed as part of the recommended alternative will have the effect of moving
some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, there may be localized areas where
ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under the recommended alternative than the No-Build
alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the
expanded roadway sections where the widening is located completely on one side. (See Section 4.0 and
Figures 4-1A, 4-1B, and 4-1C of this document for the widening locations.) However, as discussed above,
the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be
accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current'models. In sum, when a highway is widened
and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative
could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and
reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in
other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, 'on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel
regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases,
will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
7.1 6.3 MSAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Lessening the effects of mobile source air toxics should be considered for projects with substantial
construction-related MSAT emissions that are likely to occur over an extended building period, and for post-
construction scenarios where the NEPA analysis indicates potentially meaningful MSAT levels. Such
mitigation efforts should be evaluated based on the circumstances associated with individual projects, and
they may not be appropriate in all cases. However, there are a number of available mitigation strategies and
solutions for countering the effects of MSAT emissions.
Mitigating for Construction MSAT Emissions
Construction activity may generate a temporary increase in MSAT emissions. Project-level assessments that
render a decision to pursue construction emission mitigation will benefit from a number of technologies and
operational practices that should help lower short-term MSATs. In addition, the SAFETEA-LU has
emphasized a host of diesel retrofit technologies in the law's CMAQ provisions - technologies that are
designed to lessen a number of MSATs.
Construction mitigation includes strategies that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per unit of
operating time. Operational agreements that reduce or redirect work or shift times to avoid community
exposures can have positive benefits when sites are near vulnerable populations. For example, agreements
that stress work activity outside normal hours of an adjacent school campus would be operations-oriented
mitigation. Also on the construction emissions front, technological adjustments to equipment, such as off-
road dump trucks and bulldozers, could be appropriate strategies. These technological fixes could include
particulate matter traps, oxidation catalysts, and other devices that provide an after-treatment of exhaust
emissions. The use of clean fuels, such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, also can be a very cost-beneficial strategy.
The EPA has listed a number of approved diesel retrofit technologies; many of these can be deployed as
emissions mitigation measures for equipment used in construction. This listing can be found at:
www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/--retroverifiedlist.htm.
Post-Construction Mitigation for Projects with Potentially Significant MSAT Levels
Longer-term MSAT emissions can be more difficult to control, as variables such as daily traffic and vehicle
mix are elusive. Operational strategies that focus on speed limit enforcement or traffic management policies
may help reduce MSAT emissions even beyond the benefits of fleet turnover. Well-traveled highways with
high proportions of heavy-duty diesel truck activity may benefit from active Intelligent Transportation
System programs, such as traffic management centers or incident management systems. Similarly, anti-idling
UN/ON CRL79S ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSE56MENT PAGE 7-Z 1
NOVEMfifER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT UP TRANSPORTATION
strategies, such as truck-stop electrification can complement projects that focus on new or increased freight
activity.
Planners also may want to consider the benefits of establishing buffer zones between new or expanded
highway alignments and areas of vulnerable populations. Modifications of local zoning or the development
of guidelinbs that are more protective also may be useful in separating emissions and receptors.
The initial decision to pursue MSAT emissions mitigation should be the result of interagency consultation at
the earliest juncture. Options available to project sponsors should be identified through careful information
gathering and the required level of deliberation to assure an effective course of action.
7.1 7 AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be removed from the site, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning
will be done in accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
air quality implementation plan (SIP) in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to ensure
burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions
are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the t dust generated by construction when the control
of the dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
7.1 8 AESTHETICS
Although the study area contains a Rural Historic District, no natural features in the study area have been
identified as having unique visual or aesthetic values for which some public scenic protection or designation
has been made. Since the proposed project involves widening an existing roadway, construction of the
project should not cause substantial changes to current views. Given the growth plan described in local
planning documents, residential and commercial development in the area is expected to convert much of the
study area, changing the existing rural atmosphere to one of a more developed, suburban character. The
project is considered to have a low visual impact in the project area.
PAGE 7-22 L./NION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
This chapter identifies impacts of the proposed improvements to the natural aspects of the environment.
Field investigations and pedestrian surveys were conducted by qualified biologists during May, August and
November 2005 to assess the existing natural environment within- the project area. Details of the
methodology and investigations supporting the information provided in this chapter are provided in the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) completed in January 2006, appended by reference.
8.1 GEOLOGY
The proposed project is located along a ridge in the Piedmont physiographic region of north-central North
Carolina. The landscape is characterized by gently sloping and rolling hills and fairly broad ridges.
Elevations in Forsyth County range from approximately 800 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 950 feet
above MSL. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 8-1. Elevations along Union Cross Road are
approximately 950 to 970 feet above MSL and slope downward along each side of the road. The proposed
improvements to Union Cross Road will generally follow the same elevation of the existing roadway,
including the existing bridges over US 311 and I-40.
8.2 SOILS
The process of soil development depends on both biotic and abiotic influences, such as Past geologic
activities, nature of parent materials, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, time,
climate, and topographic position in the landscape. Land use adjacent to Union Cross Road is
predominantly agricultural and residential, with some commercial and institutional facilities.
Soil associations are defined as landscapes that exhibit distinctive development patterns, and usually vary in
slope, stoniness, drainage, and other physical characteristics. They consist of one or more major soils and at
least one minor soil. The Forsyth County Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) indicates
Pacolet-Cecil and Wedowee-Louisburg associations occur in the study area.
? The Pacolet-Cecil association consists of broad smooth ridgetops, long side slopes, and long narrow
drainageways. Soils in this association are well-drained, with brownish loamy surfaces to reddish clay
subsoils; they are located on upland areas. In a typical landscape, Cecil soils occur on ridgetops,
Pacolet soils on side slopes, and Congaree soils are found in drainageways.
? The Wedowee-Louisburg association consists of narrow winding ridgetops, long side slopes, and
narrow drainageways. The brownish loamy or sandy soils are well-drained and excessively drained.
Subsoils are characterized by yellowish clayey or reddish sandy layers. In typical landscapes, the
Wedowee soils are found on ridgetops, Louisburg soils occur on side slopes, with Congaree soils in
the drainageways.
8.2.1 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
The NRCS has established three categories of important farmlands in North Carolina: prime, unique, and
statewide. In general, prime farmland soils are those with slopes between 0 percent and 8 percent that also
have few limitations or only moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate
conservation practices. Unique farmland soils are those that have a special set of properties that are unique
for producing certain high-value crops (such as blueberries). Farmland soils designated for statewide
importance are those that do not quite meet the requirements for prime farmland and do not have use
restrictions because of drainage problems; are stony or rocky; have slopes greater than 15 percent; severe
erosion; or frequent flooding. Criteria used for prime and unique farmlands were published in the Federal
Register and in the General Manual of the NRCS National Soil Survey Handbook. Criteria for farmland of
UN/ON GROSS M12AD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE S- 1
NOVEMBER 2CC6 NORTH CARuwp4A DcPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATfLIN
statewide importance were developed by the North Carolina NRCS. Table 8-1 lists farmland soils in the
project corridor. Impacts to farmland soils are described in Section 7.2.
TABLE 8-1 FARMLAND SOILS OCCURRING IN PROJECT CORRIDOR.
Soils
Classification Soil Type Acres Total Acres
ApB 39.89

Prime ApC 0.53
74.43
CcB 33.77
VaB 0.24
CcC 0.41
Statewide CeC2 1.49
3.73
Importance Ch 0.65
PaC 1.18
LwE 0.14

Unimportant PaF 0.10
0.55
WdC 0.25
WeB 0.06
8.2.2 HYDRIC SOILS
One of the three parameters used in wetland delineations is the presence of hydric soils. The NRCS defines
a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Hydric soils are further classified as either "A" or "B."
Soils referred to as hydric "A" are completely hydric throughout the mapped soil unit. Soils classified as
hydric "B" are non-hydric but contain inclusions of hydric "A" soils, usually in depressional areas or along
the border with other soil units.
The only hydric soil mapped in the study area is a Chewacla soil unit, which is classified as hydric `B." No
wetlands were identified in the areas mapped as a Chewacla soil unit. Hydric soils were identified in the field
within Wetland 1, located between and adjacent to two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Abbotts Creek, and
within Wetland 3, located near the headwaters of UT4 to Abbotts Creek (see Figure 7-1C). However, the
Forsyth County soil survey map of the area does not show the soil in this location is a hydric soil, most likely
because it is so small of an area.
Water resources information obtained from Division of Water Quality (DWQ) publications was used in the
field to document the physical characteristics and jurisdictional status of streams and wetlands. in the study
area. Wetlands were identified and evaluated using the three parameter approach (evidence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) and delineated based on the methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetland systems were classified
using the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowarden, et. al., 1979).
Streams were delineated and classified based on the DWQ Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams, Version 3.1 (2005).
PAGE 8-2 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CARQL/NA DEPARTMENT ajF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
Stream and wetland delineations were field mapped using a global positioning satellite (GPS) system. Field
verifications by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and DWQ were completed in December 2005
and a jurisdictional determination QD) was issued by the USACE on January 23, 2006 (Action ID
200620353).
8.3 WATER RESOURCES
Descriptions of water resources identified during field investigations in the study area include physical and
water quality characteristics, best usage classifications, and relationships to major regional drainage systems.
All streams and wetlands identified within the study area were GPS mapped. Figures 7-1A , 7-1B, and 7-1C
show the location of streams and wetlands delineated within the study area.
8.3.1 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
The USGS developed a uniform hydrologic unit cataloging (HUC) system used to organize and number
watersheds based on hydrologic features. Each hydrologic unit is defined by an 8-digit number; tributaries to
streams are assigned the same hydrologic unit as the stream it flows to (receiving water). In addition to this
system, the DWQ divided the state into 17 river basins, which are each separated further into subbasins.
Each subbasin is assigned a stream index number; tributaries are assigned to the same subbasin as the
receiving water. The DWQ also classifies surface waters based on their intended best uses, with unnamed
tributaries (UTs) receiving the same usage classification as the receiving water.
Eight jurisdictional UTs were delineated in the study area; they are all located entirely within the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin. These include UTs to three named streams: Abbotts Creek, Mary Reich Creek, and
Fiddlers Creek. These streams all originate as first order, headwater systems in the study area. Two of the
jurisdictional streams are located outside the study area, but are included in the NCDOT natural resource
assessment report because of their close proximity to the proposed project. These two streams are identified
as UT3 to Abbotts Creek and UT to Swaim Creek.
Union Cross Road follows a ridge and streams in the study area drain either to the east or west of the
proposed project. The ridge divides the project area into two different USGS 8-digit hydrologic units and
two different DWQ river subbasins. Table 8-2 lists each jurisdictional stream and its classification.
TABLE 8-2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
ID
NUMBER NAMED
STREAM USGS
B-DIGIT
UNIT YADKIN
RIVER
SUBBASIN DWQ
INDEX
NUMBER BEST USAGE
CLASSIFICATION
UT1
UT2
UT2A Abbotts Creek 12-119-(1)
UT3* 03040103 03
07
07 11I
WS
UT4 -
- -
UT1 M
i
h
R
UT1A ary
e
c
k
C 12-119-3-1
UT2 ree
UT Fiddlers Creek
03040101
04
03
07 12-94-13-3
Cl
C
UT* Swaim Creek -
- 12-94-13-1 ass
*These streams are not located within the study area; however, they are located within close proximity
and are included in the NRTR.
UNION CROSH ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL A88ESSMENT PAGE S-Z
NOvEM6ER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Waters draining to the east side of Union Cross Road drain into the Abbott's Creek watershed, which is a
protected water supply watershed as noted by the best usage classification of WS-III. This classification
denotes waters protected as water supplies that are generally located in low to moderately developed
watersheds.
Streams draining to the west of Union Cross Road are not located within a water supply watershed; they
carry a best usage classification of "C." The Class C designation indicates waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. No High Quality Waters
(HQW), WS-I or WS-II drinking water supplies, or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within a
one-mile radius of the study area.
There are no streams classified as C-Tr (Trout) in the study area and Forsyth County has not been designated
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs). None of
the study area streams support trout, anadromous fish, or warm water fish; no essential fish habitat (EFH)
has been designated for any streams within a one-mile radius of the study area. Therefore, no in-stream
moratoriums will be requested.
UTS TO ABBOTTS CREEK
The UT1 to Abbotts Creek is a small perennial, headwater stream that originates north of I-40,
approximately 0.42 mile east of Union Cross Road. It flows southward under the interstate to its confluence
with UT2 to Abbotts Creek, which is located outside the study area.
UT2 to Abbotts Creek also originates north of I-40 approximately 0.39 mile east of Union Cross Road. It is
a small perennial headwater system that flows southward under I-40 to its confluence with UT1.
The UT2A to Abbotts Creek originates from a wedand (Wetland 1) located between and adjacent to UT2
and UT2A. Downstream of the wetland it continues as a small perennial stream to its confluence with UT2
on the north side of I-40.
UT3 to Abbotts Creek originates as a jurisdictional intermittent headwater stream, located approximately
125 feet outside the study area boundaries. It is noted in this report due to its proximity to the study area.
UT4 to Abbotts Creek originates as an intermittent stream, approximately 29 feet down gradient of a
stormwater pipe outlet located on the south side of the I-40 eastbound on-ramp from Union Cross Road.
UT4 to Abbotts Creek flows as an intermittent stream for approximately 45 feet to Wetland 3, at which point
it transitions into a perennial stream that continues to its confluence with UT2 to Abbotts Creek.
UTS TO MARY REICH CREEK
The UT1 to Mary Reich Creek is a perennial headwater stream originating north of US 311 and flowing
southward under US 311. It flows for a short distance (less than 35 feet) under the highway before flowing
under Hayes Drive. UT1 has its confluence with Mary Reich Creek outside the project study area.
Characteristics of the varying reaches include:
? The stream reach north (upstream) of US 311 has a top of bank width of two to four feet and a
substrate predominantly consisting of sand and cobble, with some larger rocks.
? The confluence with UT1A is located along the short stretch of stream between US 311 and Hayes
Drive.
? The reach of UT1 located south (downstream) of Hayes Drive exhibits severe erosion below the
pipe outfall, with a scour area approximately 15 feet wide and 30 feet downgradient. This reach of
the stream has rocks which appear to have been placed in the channel.
The UT1A to Mary Reich Creek is an intermittent stream that originates at the outfall of two drainpipes
located on the south side of US 311. Roadside drains located along US 311 collect and deliver stormwater to
PAGE B'4 UmiuN CROSS ROAD -EENvIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
these two drainpipes. This stream flows westward down an embankment between US 311 and Hayes Drive
to its confluence with UT1 just north of Hayes Drive. The drainpipes are currently located about 20 feet
above the substrate; the heavy scour area under both the drainpipes and throughout the channel shows the
extent of erosional forces. Stream widths range from one foot near the confluence with UT1 to nearly
20 feet wide in other areas. The substrate is predominantly sand and cobble, but larger rocks have been
placed in the channel, most likely to help dissipate the erosional forces.
The UT2 to Mary Reich Creek originates to the south of Hayes Drive, downgradient of a culvert that runs
under the roadbed. Below the culvert outfall is a scour area approximately 25 feet wide by 40 feet long. UT2
flows southward to its confluence with UT1 to Mary Reich Creek outside the study area boundaries. The
substrate is predominantly sand and silt. Two ephemeral channels deliver roadside drainage to the
upgradient end of the culvert, located on the north side of Hayes drive.
UT TO FIDDLERS CREEK
The UT to Fiddlers Creek originates on the north side of the I-40 on-ramp (eastbound) from Union Cross
Road. A jurisdictional intermittent stream flows from a scour pool approximately 25 feet wide and 35 feet
long formed below the pipe outlet under the Interstate ramp. The channel flows northwesterly for
approximately 80 feet before it becomes ephemeral. The gradient is slight is this area, but further
downstream and outside the study area boundaries the stream reestablishes its flow. At this point the
intermittent channel has a top of bank width of two to four feet with a substrate of sand and cobble. This
reach of the UT flows for approximately 185 feet before it transitions to a perennial stream, which continues
flowing to the northwest to its confluence with Fiddlers Creek. While not within the study area boundaries,
this reach is noted because of its proximity to the study area.
UT TO SWAIM CREEK
The UT to Swaim Creek originates outside the project study area as a jurisdictional perennial headwater
stream. A non-jurisdictional ephemeral channel drains from the study area to its confluence with the UT
outside the study area. The UT to Swaim Creek flows toward the northwest to its ultimate confluence with
Swaim Creek. The stream was wet during the May 2005 field visit and was dry during the November 2005
field visit.
8.3.2 WETLANDS
Two jurisdictional wetlands, identified as Wetland 1 and Wetland 3, were delineated within the study area.
Wetland 1 is located between UT2 and UT2A to Abbotts Creek, north of I-40 and east of Union Cross
Road. Dominant vegetation consists of black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus
sermlata), tulip poplar (Liiiodendmn tulpifera), sedges (Carex spp), and rushes (Juncos sp.). Wetland hydrology
indicators include inundation and saturation in the upper 12 inches of soil. The soil color matrix (Munsell
Moist) is 10YR 5/1 with mottles of 10YR 5/6 that are prominent and common. Soil texture is sandy clay
loam. Wetland 1 is best classified as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) system.
Wetland 3 is located at the headwater of UT4 to Abbotts Creek, south of I-40 and east of Union Cross Road.
The vegetation consisted of black willow, rushes, cut grass (Leerria ogyZoider), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and manna grass (Glyceda striata). Wetland hydrology indicators included inundation and saturation
in the upper 12 inches, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns in wetlands. The first 10 to 12 inches of soil
had a matrix color of 2.5YR 5/1. No mottles were observed. The soil represented a texture of sandy loam.
This wedand is best described as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE S-5
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA 0£PARTMENT yr TRANSPDRTATn7N
8.3.3 OTHER WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting water
quality standards or which have impaired uses. The February 2006 (public review draft) of North Carolina's
303(d) report does not include any of the streams located within the study area. However, an eight-mile long
reach of Abbotts Creek is included on the list, from US 29 and US 70 to the Abbotts Creek arm of Highrock
Lake at I-85, because it is considered biologically impaired. This impaired reach is not located near the
project study area.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program and dischargers are required by law to register for a permit.
According to the most recent list (April 2006), there are no NPDES permitted discharges within a one-mile
radius of the study area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality monitoring
stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water
quality data or parameters collected is determined by the waterbody's classification and corresponding water
quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a
waterbody supports its designated uses. There are no AMS monitoring sites in the study area.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is used to assess the biological integrity of streams by
examining the structure and health of the fish community. The index incorporates information about species
richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance and fish condition. There are no NCIBI
monitoring sites located in the study area.
Bioclassification criteria has been developed that is based on the number of benthic macroinvertebrates
(primarily Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera) present in streams and rivers because they are very
sensitive to the effects of water pollution. Streams and river reaches are given a bioclassification rating that
ranges from Excellent to Poor based on benthic macroinvertebrate collection data. These bioclassifications
are used to assess the various impacts of both point source discharges and non-point source runoff. There
are no benthic sampling sites in the study area (NCDWQ, 1999).
8.3.4 WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS
Adverse long-term impacts to water resources are not expected to result from this project. Temporary
construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of
stringent erosion control measures and use of best management practices (BMP) as outlined in NCDOT's
BMP-Construction and Maintenance Activities, Protection of Surface Waters (BMP-PSW), and Sedimentation Control
guidelines. The contractor will be required to follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures (as outlined in 23 CFR 650, Subpart B and Article 107-13) entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and
Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures).
Coordination with USFWS and NCWRC will be required for all stream relocations, as mandated by the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act [72 Stat. 563, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq. (1976)].
8.3.5 FLOOD HAZARD EVALUATION
The City of Winston-Salem, Town of Kernersville, and Forsyth County participate in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The proposed project does not cross any major stream systems and this project
will not affect any designated flood hazard zones. 'The proposed roadway improvements will not have any
adverse effect on existing floodplain areas.
PAC E- B-6 Umaty CR755 ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
8.4 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources in the study area include both terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition of
these communities throughout the study area is reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and past
and present land uses.
8.4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES (FLORA)
Most of the study area is rural with a mixture of agriculture, residential, and small commercial business
adjacent to Union Cross Road. Five different terrestrial plant communities were observed in the study area:
? dry oak-hickory forest
? fallow field/agriculture
? early to mid-succession community
? piedmont bottomland forest
? maintained/disturbed/residential areas.
Distribution of these plant communities throughout the study area reflect past and present land use practices
for logging, farming, natural selection, succession, and maintained clearing. The majority of the study area is
a maintained/disturbed/residential area. The descriptions and general locations of these five plant
communities are provided in the following section. Figures 7-1A, 7-1B, and 7-1C also provide an aerial photo
view of the project area for further reference.
DRY OAK-HICKORY FOREST
The dry oak-hickory forest is located predominantly along I-40, the I-40/Union Cross Road interchange,
US 311, the US 311 /Union Cross Road interchange, and Hayes Drive. Small areas also occur along the east
side of Union Cross Road, south of Hayes Drive, and south of Chamelin Road. Another small area is
located on the west side of Union Cross Road between Loradale Road (to the north) and Hedgecock Road
(to the south). The canopy is dominated by white oak, Virginia pine, white pine, tulip poplar, sweetgum, and
northern red oak. Eastern red cedar dominates the mid-canopy. The herbaceous layer consists
predominantly of blackberry, with Japanese honeysuckle along the edges. Approximately 69.8 acres of this
community are located in the study area, comprising 18.6 percent of the total plant community coverage.
FALLOW FIELWAGRICULTURE
Fallow fields and agricultural areas were noted throughout the study area. In geographic orientation from
north to south, they occur along the south side of Solomon Drive, along the west side of Union Cross Road
immediately south of Solomon Drive, along the north side of I-40, just west of the Union Cross Road on-
ramp (west bound), along the south side of the I-40 off-ramp (east bound) at Union Cross Road, and along
portions of the east and west sides of Union Cross Road between the I-40 ramps and R.B. Glenn High Road.
Dominant vegetation in these fallow fields consists primarily of willow foxtail, various goldenrod, little
bluestem, broomsedge, and fescue. This community covers 43.8 acres and makes up about 11.6 percent of
the total plant community.
EARLY TO MID-S000ESSION COMMUNITY
This plant community is found in several locations in the study area: south of the US 311 on-ramp (east
bound) from Union Cross Road, north of the US 311 off-ramp (north bound), near the Union Cross Road
and I-40 on-ramp (west bound) intersection, and the most of the area within the I-40/Union Cross Road
interchange. Dominant vegetation includes Virginia pine, eastern red cedar, red maple, blackberry, daisy
fleabane, and multiflora rose. The early to mid-succession community covers approximately 30.8 acres in the
study area, representing 8.2 percent of the vegetation community.
UNION CROS6 ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSE86MENT PAGE B-7
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA D F)FARTME/YT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIEDMONT BOTTOMLAND FOREST
The piedmont bottomland forest is located near several streams discussed previously in Section 8.3.1 of this
document. This plant community is located adjacent to UT1, UT2, and UT2A to Abbotts Creek; UT1 and
UT2 to Mary Reich Creek; and adjacent to UT to Fiddlers Creek. The dominant canopy species includes
tulip poplar, green ash, sweet gum, loblolly pine, and American sycamore. The piedmont bottomland forest
community comprises approximately 2.7 percent, or 10.1 acres, of the vegetative cover in the study area.
MAINTAINED/DISTURBED/RESIDENTIAL AREA
The largest plant community in the study area is the maintained/disturbed/residential area, which covers
approximately 221.5 acres, or 58.9 percent of the study area. The maintained/disturbed/residential
landscape does not include impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, or buildings. This community is
found along the roadway shoulders and rights-of-way throughout the entire length of Union Cross Road, the
Y-line intersections, and residential properties. The majority of the residential properties are located between
I-40 and Sedge Garden Road and between US 311 and Chamelin Drive. The dominant species in this plant
community is fescue grass.
B.4.2 WILDLIFE (FAUNA)
The majority of the study area is covered by some type of maintained plant community, whether it is
agricultural land or residential property. The forested communities are interspersed across the study area,
occurring mainly along the roadway corridors and the stream systems. The mature vegetation of the dry oak-
hickory and bottomland'forest communities provides forage and cover for mammal species characteristic to
these communities and connectivity to other forested areas outside the study area. The fallow and
agricultural fields provide forage and spatial diversity for many avian species as well as opportunistic species
that forage on cultivated crops. This community and the other non-forested communities also provide edge
habitat favored by many bird, reptile, and small mammal species. The terrestrial species observed in the
study area are those commonly found in suburbanized settings. These species have adapted to survival in
fragmented landscapes and often thrive due to the limited number of natural predators and artificially
maintained food sources (e.g., row crops, gardens, feeders, pet food, and trash cans).
Mammal species noted in the study area included white-tail deer and opossum. Other species adapted to
suburban and disturbed rural areas which are expected to occur include red fox, raccoon, eastern cottontail,
gray squirrel, and woodchuck. Small mammals such as white-footed mouse and woodland vole can be
expected to utilize open fields and woodland edges.
Avian populations are expected to be the most abundant species using the varied habitats offered in the
study area. Few species were observed, but included house finch, eastern towhee, and Indigo bunting.
Common forest and edge species expected to be found in the study area include Carolina chickadee, tufted
titmouse, golden crowned kinglet, white breasted nuthatch, northern flicker, common (yellow-shafted)
flicker, red-bellied woodpecker, northern cardinal, blue jay, and pileated woodpecker. Those most common
to open areas and early succession habitats include field sparrow, eastern bluebird, northern mocking bird,
American robin, Carolina wren, common crow, red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and
turkey vulture.
Amphibian or reptile species were not observed during the field studies, but the study area provides habitat
for several common species that are expected to occur. These include various toads,, southern leopard frogs,
tree frogs, salamanders, eastern mud turtles, yellow bellied slider, Carolina anole, ground skink, worm snake,
rough green snake, eastern garter snake, and water snakes.
8.4.3 IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Table 8-3 summarizes the acreage associated with each plant community identified in the study area and
shows the impacts anticipated for the proposed improvements. Over half of the study area is
PAGE B-B Umzm CRO36 ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL A3SES6MENT
NORTH CAROLINA L7EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NQVEMSER 2006
maintained/disturbed/residential landscape. The impacts to terrestrial communities will be minimal since
the proposed improvements will extend along the existing roadway.
TABLE S-3 COVERAGE AREA OF PLANT COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITY TYPE ACRES IN
STUDY AREA PERCENTAGE M
OF STUDY AREA ACRES
IMPACTED*
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest 69.8 18.6 10.4
Fallow Field/Agriculture 43.8 11.6 15.4
Early to Mid-Succession Community 30.8 8.2 7.5
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 10.1 2.7 1.1
Maintained/Disturbed/Residential Area 221.5 58.9 17.0
Total 376 100 51.4
*Impacts calculated using slope stake limits plus 25 feet.
8.5 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
8.5.1 AQUATIC HABITATS
Aquatic habitats in the study area include ephemeral waters found in ditches, channels, and depressions,
intermittent and perennial streams, wetlands with surface inundation, and ponds. Characteristics of the
streams found in the study area are described in Section 8.3.1. Further information is included on the
assessment forms provided in the Natural Resources Technical Report.
8.5.2 AQUATIC FAUNA
The intermittent and perennial streams found in the study area provide a variety of aquatic habitats suitable
for numerous aquatic species. Woody debris located in the streams provides habitat, shade, and concealment
for aquatic invertebrate species which are an important part of a stream's food chain. Since the streams are
small headwater systems, reptiles and amphibians are more likely to use these systems for nursery areas as
well as sources of food and cover.
The NCDWQ Fish Database does not currently have data on fish species occurring in the study area
streams, most likely because they are small systems. Fish were not observed in the streams during the field
studies.
8.5.3 IMPACTS TO AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction activities.
Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials into the aquatic
communities at the construction site. As a result, sand bars may be formed both at the construction site and
downstream. Increased light penetration from the removal of stream side vegetation may increase water
temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen
concentrations. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts stream-side vegetation. Such
disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation. that can clog the gills and feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. These organisms are slow to recover and may never once
the stream has been severely impacted.
UNUM CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 8-9"
NOVEMBER Z006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
8.6 SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Any activities that result in the discharge of fill into Waters of the US must strictly follow Clean Water Act
and state riparian buffer regulatory guidelines. Jurisdictional waters include perennial and intermittent
surface waters, forested and non-forested wetlands, and associated riparian buffers. Avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation are considered in sequential order when addressing impacts to
Waters of the US.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into Waters of the US. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the principal administrative agency of the Clean Water Act;
however, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in
33 CFR 320-330. Surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and streams are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 program., Jurisdictional surface waters include perennial and
intermittent streams. Wetlands are also identified as Waters of the US, as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual states for regulation of discharges into
Waters of the US. Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution Control and Environment" and
codified in NCAC 15A, the DWQ has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of
the provisions of the Act.
8.7 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
Ramp improvements along the I-40 interchange at Union Cross Road will require minor extensions to
existing culverts. The culverts are in streams detem-lined by the USACE to be jurisdictional resources and
therefore subject to permitting requirements for impacts to these resources. Table 8-4 provides a list of
jurisdictional streams and wetlands requiring mitigation.
TABLE 8-4 JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY
AREA
STREAM / WETLAND CLASSIFICATION COVERAGE AREA MITIGATION
UT1 to Abbotts Creek Perennial 375 linear feet Required
UT2 to Abbotts Creek Perennial 370 linear feet Required
UT2A to Abbotts Creek Perennial 205 linear feet Required

UT4 to Abbotts Creek Intermittent 45 linear feet Not required
Perennial 1,485 linear feet Required
UT to Fiddlers Creek Intermittent 115 linear feet Not required
UT1 to Mary Reich Creek Perennial 385 linear feet Required
UT1A to Mary Reich Creek Intermittent 216 linear feet Not required
UT2 to Mary Reich Creek Perennial 250 linear feet Required
Wetland 1 PF011/ 0.76 acre Required
Wetland 3 PF011/ 0.003 acre Required
1/ PF01 = palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetland
PAGE S- 10 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.7.1 PERMIT ISSUES
The USACE issues general and individual permits. Nationwide permits (NWP) are a type of general permit
used throughout the United States that authorize certain activities that are considered routine and are
expected to have minimal adverse consequences to the environment. Regional general permits (GP) are
specific to the Wilmington District for waters and wetlands of North Carolina; the District establishes the
associated conditions. These permits are issued for specific activities that are expected to result in limited
environmental impact. Individual permits are generally reserved for projects with potential for substantial
environmental impacts. This permit requires a full public interest review, including public notices and
coordination with involved agencies, interested parties, and the general public.
Permits will be required for the proposed roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface
waters. A nationwide permit is anticipated for the type of activity, the extent of the impacts, and the specific
environment impacted for this project. The permit will be coordinated with the Wilmington District to
clarify the requirements for the permit. Project construction impacts to streams in the study area will be
approximately 102 feet (linear) and will be limited to those systems which are located adjacent to I-40 and
US 311. Extension of the existing pipes in these areas is typically permitted under a USACE nationwide
permit (NWP) 14 for linear transportation. projects. A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must
also be obtained from the NCDWQ prior to issuance of a nationwide permit.
8.7.2 MITIGATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which
embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the U.S, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts, minimizing
impacts (rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time), and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in
sequential order.
It is the decision of the USACE and the NCDWQ to require mitigation for impacts associated with project
construction. The USACE has the discretion to require compensatory mitigation for any impacts to Waters
of the U.S. The NCDWQ has the discretion to require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more than 0.5 acre of non-tidal
wetlands or 150 linear feet or more of perennial or intermittent stream impacts. NCDOT provides
mitigation for all impacts to streams that exhibit important aquatic function, as determined by the USACE,
and for all impacts to wetlands. Table 8-5 lists the jurisdictional resource impacts that will require mitigation.
TABLE 8'S JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
STREAM IMPACTS WETLAND
LOCATION (LINEAR FEET) IMPACTS TYPE OF IMPACT
INTERMITTENT PERENNIAL
Culvert Extension,
UT1 to Abbotts Creek 29 Fill Sl
ope
Culvert Extension,
UT2A to Abbotts Creek 23 Fill Sl
ope
Culvert Extension,
UT4 to Abbotts Creek 45 27 Fill Sl
ope
Culvert Extension,
UT to Fiddlers Creek 63 Fill Sl
ope
648 sq. ft./
Wetland 3 Fill slope
0.015 acre
Total Impacts 108 feet 79 feet 0.015 acre
UNION CROON OAn - NV1ff0r+Mr rAf_ .a K HLrNT A E- iff-T T
, € Vrtd&E'R CZ745 a arm ,r maa'?L mA arPAmr°mcmr air TF.,A , ,tee. mr rra
B.B PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in decline due to either natural forces or their
inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species listed as
federally protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Prohibited actions which may affect any species protected under the ESA
are outlined in Section 9 of the Act. Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws
such as the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1999, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, or the Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as threatened () or endangered (E) are recorded in the
ESA. As defined by the Act, an endangered species is any plant or animal which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A threatened species is any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Information about potential occurrence of federal and state protected species and their habitats was obtained
from USFWS data (as of March 29, 2006) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats (updated as of March 2006). If suitable habitat for a protected species was
observed, pedestrian surveys were conducted during the appropriate survey season to determine their
presence.
B.B.1 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
The study area is located in eastern Forsyth County. Table 8-6 lists the three species identified by the
USFWS as potentially occurring in Forsyth County. Descriptions of the species and habitat requirements are
detailed in the Natural Resource Technical Report; the biological conclusion for each species is provided in
the following section.
The GIS data maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Qanuary 2006) shows
that protected species have not been identified within a one-mile radius of the study area. The closest
population of any documented species occurrence is over five miles northeast of the study area. This historic
record from 1967 for bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergia) is in a different watershed than the study area.
TABLE B-6 SPECIES RECEIVING FEDERAL PROTECTION
SPECIES FEDERAL STATE BIOLOGICAL
(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS STATUS CONCLUSION
Bog turtle Threatened (similar Threatened Not Required
Clemm s muhlenbe iz appearance)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered Endangered No Effect
Picoides borealis
Small-anthered bittercress Endangered Endangered No Effect
Cardamine micrantbera
PAGAr S- 1 Uivfcw M roars RcrAD -Zt4v ma7t~_-Nr'AL Ae Ksoms-Nr
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 2006
BOG TURTLE (CLEMMYS MUMLENBERG//)
Family: Emydidae
Federal Status: Threatened, due to similarity of appearance
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
These small turtles are readily distinguished from other turtles by a large, conspicuous bright orange to
yellow blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and are only infrequently active above
their muddy habitats during specific times of year and temperature ranges. Bog turtle habitat consists of
bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those that have soft muddy
bottoms. The southern populations of bog turtles are listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance to
the northern bog turtles, which are listed as threatened.
Biological Conclusion: NOT REQUIRED
Wetland 1 provides potential habitat for the bog turtle. The bog turtle is listed as threatened due to its
similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection and is not subject to Section 7
consultation of the Endangered Species Act. A biological conclusion for the species is not required.
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER (P/CO/OES BOREAL/S)
Family: Picadea
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This bird is a small woodpecker with a black and white barred back, and a conspicuous large white cheek
surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small red mark at the upper edge of the
white cheek and just behind the eye. Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) are found in open pine forests in
the southeastern United States where they use open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and
lack a thick understory. The RCW excavates nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with
open, pine dominated foraging habitat. Cavities are located from 12 to 100 feet above ground level and
below live branches. These trees can be identified by "candles," a large encrustation of running sap that
encrusts the tree trunk. Colonies consist of one to many of these candle trees (USFWS, 1992).
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable pine stands do not occur in the study area and habitat does not exist for the RCW. RCW cavity
trees were not found during field investigations; therefore, a half-mile survey radius was not conducted. A
search of the NCNHP database on November 10, 2005 found no occurrences of this species within a one-
mile radius of the study area. This project will have No Effect on the RCW.
SMALL-ANTHERED BITTERCRESS (CAROAM/NE MICRANTHERA)
Family: Brassicaceae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: September 21, 1989
This slender, erect, perennial herb is a member of the mustard family and has fibrous roots. It has single.
(rarely more) simple or branched stems with alternate, mostly unlobed, crenate, and cuneate leaves. The
flowers have four white petals, six stamens, and small round anthers. Small-anthered bittercress blooms in
April and May. It grows primarily in seeps and wet rock crevices of streambanks adjoining sandbars,
floodplain depressions, and moist woods near small streams fully to partially shaded by trees and shrubs. It
occurs on Rion, Pacolet, and Wateree soil series, where slopes are 25 to 60 percent. Small-anthered
bittercress is endemic to the Dan River drainage in Stokes County, but is also historically known from
Forsyth County.
UNION CRO88 ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL A88E88MENT PAGE S- IS
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
The USFWS listing indicates this species was last observed in Forsyth County more than 50 years ago. A
review of the NHP database indicates this species has not been seen in the county in more than 20 years.
After discussions with the NCDOT coordinator from the USFWS Asheville Field Office, it was determined
that surveys for this plant were not warranted or required for this project. A biological conclusion of No
Effect is supported by the USFWS and confirmed in a letter dated May 16, 2005 (see Appendix E).
B.B.Z FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
The USFWS listed one FSC for Forsyth County as of the March 29, 2006 protected species report. Table 8-
7 lists the FSC and state classification for this species.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of rare plant and
animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. An April 24, 2006 review of electronic GIS mapping data
maintained by NCNHP indicates there are no state protected species within a one-mile radius of the study
area.
TABLE 8-7 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE HABITAT POTENTIAL
NAME NAME STATUS STATUS PREFERENCE HABITAT
Brook floater Alarmidonta FSC E Ponds, slow No
varicosa flowing streams
w/mud or sand
bottoms
PAGE 8- 14 UNmm CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL A35ESSMENT
1 1.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This project was coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies as well as the public. A list of
agencies contacted for comments via scoping letters is provided below. An asterisk (*) next to the name
indicates that a written response was received. Comments and concerns expressed were incorporated into this
document, and copies of responses received are included in Appendices C, D, and E.
1 1.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
As part of the development of the Environmental Assessment, a scoping letter was mailed on August 15,
2005 to federal and state regulatory agencies and state and municipal local officials to request information
regarding potential environmental impacts that could result from Project U-4909. The following agencies and
local officials were notified:
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service *
? U.S. Forest Service - Recreation and Lands Office
? State Clearing House - Department of Administration
? NC Department of Cultural Resources
- Division of Historical Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
- Division of Archives and History
? NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
- Division of Marine Fisheries
- Division of Parks and Recreation
- Division of Water Quality *
- Natural Heritage Program *
- NC Wildlife Resources Commission
? NC Department of Transportation
- Bicycle and Pedestrian Division
- Rail Division *
- Geotechnical Unit *
- Historic Architecture *
- Locations and Surveys Unit *
? Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce
? Winston-Salem Department of Transportation *
LNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 7 T -I
NOVEM9ER 2006
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
? Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School -Department of Public Instruction
? Winston-Salem/Forsyth County City-County Planning *
1 1 .1 .1 SCOPING COMMENTS
Scoping comments received from state and local officials were addressed throughout this EA. Copies of the
comment letters are included in Appendix C and are summarized below.
1) NC DENR/Division of Parks and Recreation: A written response was received acknowledging that
at this time "The Division has no comments on the project as currently proposed."
2) NC DENR/Division of Water Quality: A written response was received acknowledging that their
"preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area."
3) NC DENR/Natural Heritage Program: A written response was received acknowledging that they
have "no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas at the site or
within a mile of the project area."
4) Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools, Planning/Department of Public Instruction: A written
response was received acknowledging that there are three schools located on Union Cross Rd in the
project area and each has 90-100 bus routes in both the AM and PM hours. Other pertinent
comments are that while any construction in the area will have a profound effect on traffic, the
widening of Union Cross Rd would be a welcome relief.
5) The Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce notes the Dell manufacturing facility, Heart of Triad
project, and FedEx facility are likely to generate additional development in the project area. They
request that the Union Cross Road facility be sized adequately to handle future traffic volumes and
capacity demands.
1 1 .1 .2 SCOPING MEETING
A scoping meeting was held on September 7, 2005 with representatives of state agency personnel and local
municipal officials. The following groups participated: NCDOT Congestion Management, Design Build,
Division 9, Highway Design, Hydraulics, Locations and Surveys, Photogrammetry, Program Development,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Project Management, Project Services, Public
Involvement, Right-of-Way, Roadway Design, Roadside Environmental, Structure Design, TIP
Development, Traffic Safety, Transportation Planning, and Work Zone Traffic Control, Town of
Kernersville, and City of Winston-Salem.
1 1.2 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING
An information meeting was held with Winston-Salem, Kernersville, and Forsyth County local officials on
August 25, 2005. This meeting was held to discuss. project development, project status, constraints, and to
request discussion and input for planning purposes.
11.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1 1.3.1 NEWSLETTER
A comprehensive mailing list was developed for distribution of a project newsletter to introduce the project
and to announce a planned citizen's informational workshop (CIW). A copy of the July 2005 newsletter is
included in Appendix D. The newsletter was sent to over 2,000 individuals and agencies on the project
PAZE- Y I -2 LIMON CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOVEMSER 2006
mailing list, property owners in the project vicinity, and citizens who previously requested they be added to
the mailing list.
1 1.3.2 CITIZENS INFORMATION WORKSHOP
On September 22, 2005, a Citizens Informational Workshop (CM was held for the proposed project from
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at R.B. Glenn High School in Kernersville. In addition to the workshop
announcement in the project newsletter, the CIW was advertised in the Journal Reporter and NCDOT
websites and in the following local newspapers:
? Winston Salem journal on August 21 and 28 and on September 4, 11, and 18, 2005.
? Winston Salem Chronicle on August 24 and September 1, 8, and 15, 2005.
? Kernersville News on September 1, 3, 6, 13, and 20.
The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the project study, discuss concerns, solicit community
comments and concerns, and answer questions on the corridor and other aspects of the project. The format
for the workshop was informal. A sign-in sheet and comment forms were located at the entrance. Copies of
the newsletter were also available. Auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons were available in
accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act. Several project boards were displayed for citizens to view.
Nearly 100 residents attended the CIW along with seven local officials and one member of the media. At the
workshop, a welcome station was set up to greet citizens, provide instructions and handouts, and to record
attendance. Another station was set up to provide an area for children to draw with crayons and coloring
books. Three wall-stations were also set up to present the mapping related to this project. Each mapping
station included the Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, the Division 9 TIP Projects Map, and
the Study Area Map on aerial mosaics.
Primary concerns received from comment sheets were for safety of the students at R.B. Glenn High School
because of the close proximity of the school to Union Cross Road. Requests included the recommendation
that guardrail be installed along the road next to the school. Summaries of these and all public comments
concerning the project are included in Appendix D.
1 1.4 SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS
In May 1992, an agreement between the US Department of Transportation, the Office of the Assistant of the
Army (Civil Work) and the US Environmental Protection Agency developed a policy statement to (a)
improve interagency coordination and (b) integrate the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Section 404 of the Water Quality Act. In May 1997, the Wilmington District of the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Division of the Federal Highway Administration, and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation signed an Interagency Agreement that provided procedures to
integrate NEPA and Section 404 for transportation projects in North Carolina.
The current procedures for the integration of NEPA and Section 404 are referred to as the `Merger 01
Process." This Merger Process is based on concurrence from a Project Merger Team at major milestones of
the development of the project. The Merger Process Team includes representatives from federal, state, and
local agencies.
The environmental studies and development of the preliminary designs for the proposed widening of Union
Cross Road were coordinated with representatives on the Merger Process Team. Based on this coordination.
and the minimal impacts to Waters of the US, this project was determined to be exempt from the Merger
Process. All the agencies will have an opportunity to review and comment on the project during the
circulation of this Environmental Assessment
UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONM£NTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 7 -3
NuvEMSER 2006 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1 1 .S DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Environmental Assessment (EA) will be circulated to the same agencies that received the scoping letters
for review and comment. A 30-day comment period, starting after the distribution of the EA by the State
Clearinghouse, will be provided to obtain comments on the proposed action and assessment of
environmental impacts. Copies of the EA will also be distributed to locations in the vicinity of the project
area for public access prior to the Public Hearing. Responses to comments regarding the project and EA will
be provided in a final environmental document.
1 1.1S PUBLIC HEARING
Following the distribution of this Environmental Assessment, a Design Public Hearing will be held in late-
summer/early-fall of 2006. Formal notices will be included in the local newspapers a minimum of 30 days
prior to the Hearing. Additional notices for the meeting will also be sent to persons on the project mailing
list.
This Public Hearing will include a formal presentation which will be recorded and a transcript prepared.
Topics such as right-of-way procedures and project schedules will be discussed at the hearing. Maps showing
the location and design of the recommended alternative for Project U-4909 will be presented. Public
comments received will be considered and addressed in the continuing project development process.
Representatives from NCDOT and the FHWA will be present at the Public Hearing to answer questions and
respond to comments. This Public Hearing will include a formal presentation and a tape recorder to formally
document comments if requested. Maps showing the engineering designs for the recommended alternative
for Project U-4909 and requirements for right-of-way will be available at the meeting.
PAGE 1 1-4 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL AHS-Mga"ENT
1 2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the purpose and need for NCDOT Project U-4909, the
alternatives evaluated, and the potential impacts associated with the recommended alternative. The
recommended alternative is consistent with the project purpose and need since it increases capacity on Union
Cross Road. The proposed improvements include widening Union Cross Road from three lanes to a
multilane facility to accommodate the future 2030 design year traffic.
The environment surrounding Union Cross Road is rapidly transitioning from agricultural use to denser
residential, commercial, and industrial use. Union Cross Road is located within an area of Forsyth County
that is continuing to experience residential development and commercial growth. Elements that have spurred
this growth include the project area location in relation to:
? A centralized location of the Piedmont Triad including major employment centers such as
Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, and Kernersville,
? Easy access to transportation infrastructure such as US 311 and I-40, and
? The current expansion of light industry in the surrounding business parks.
Measures to avoid and minimize environmental impacts include using a best fit alignment for asymmetrical
widening. Widening the existing road is not expected to cause substantial adverse impacts since the existing
roadway alignment will be utilized as much as possible. In addition, construction of the U-4909 project
conforms to regional transportation and land use plans.
1 2.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
The recommended alternative will increase roadway capacity; provide additional safety by dividing the
northbound and southbound lanes with a new median; and improve pedestrian access with sidewalks on both
sides of the road. There will be changes in some travel patterns along Union Cross Road with the
replacement of the center turn lane with a new median; however, complete loss of access to remaining
properties will not occur as a result of the project. In addition, the median provides managed access which
assists in improving safety along Union Cross Road and at the intersecting roads and driveways.
The recommended alternative will relocate 23 residences and 5 businesses. One rural historic district eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the project. Coordination with the NC
Historic Preservation Officer and the property owner was implemented during the development of the
project alternatives. The proposed improvements were determined to have an adverse effect on this district.
Measures to minimize harm to this district have been incorporated into the design of the recommended
alternative. A Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared to evaluate alternatives for this project that would
avoid this property.
The proposed project is expected to benefit the communities within the project area by decreasing existing
and projected traffic congestion along Union Cross Road and improving safety. Implementation of the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in any adverse community impacts.
12.2 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
The recommended alternative will not impact unique vegetative communities or potential habitat for
protected species. Roadway widening will not adversely impact farmland, water quality, or natural habitats.
Stream impacts are limited to culvert extensions for approximately 102 feet of stream bed within the existing
I-40 interchange area. No new areas of stream impacts are anticipated. No wetlands will be impacted by the
project. A nationwide permit is recommended, and no mitigation is required.
UHiaN Cmafim RQAp - ZMvimat~rmrAL Ass_-asm_-Nr PAGE' 7 2-1

I 2.3 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECT
IagQ,f;rH CARoLfifA DEPA Rrifrivr O.F° 's?,33.Y? :??Ya?rdtY"BL.Tfm?
The proposed widening of Union Cross Road will enhance the attractiveness of the surrounding area for
development. The project is located in an area already designated for future residential, commercial, and light
industrial development. With several urban employment centers nearby, the close proximity to new housing
developments, the continual increase in commercial growth, and easy access to major transportation
corridors, the project is not expected to influence the occurrence of new growth or development. The
project may only slightly influence the rate at which growth and development occur given the historic growth
rate in this area. Land use controls and regulations are in place that, if properly enforced by local planning
districts can minimize and/or avoid potential indirect and cumulative impacts to water quality.
The potential for project-induced land use changes for development is low. The proposed project does not
make the available locations more easily accessible from a development standpoint. It is likely under both the
Build and No-Build alternatives that the available developable land in the project area would convert to
residential or commercial use at some point in the future. Any development that occurs because of the
proposed project is expected to result in positive socioeconomic impacts such as increased tax base and new
employment opportunities.
It is anticipated that cumulative and indirect effects associated with project implementation will be minimal
based on the following conclusions:
? The project will not eliminate current access conditions on Union Cross Road and as such is not
anticipated to have notable indirect impacts on change in land use, water quality, economic vitality or
population density.
? Widening Union Cross Road will increase the total amount of impervious surfaces within the study
area but not to a notable degree in terms of sediment loading with stormwater runoff, streams, and
waterways.
? There is a substantial amount of private development in the planning and agency approval stages of
development within the study area. When considering the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed project in relation to the magnitude of other actions, it appears unlikely that the
improvements proposed to Union Cross Road would contribute measurably to the environmental
change in regards to the natural or social economic resources.
? The widening of Union Cross Road would have a small effect on the desirability of land adjacent to
the roadway for future commercial and industrial development.
12.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the project technical studies and coordination with the public and regulatory agencies, there is no
indication that implementing the proposed improvements along existing Union Cross Road would have a
significant impact on the environment. The recommended alternative includes asymmetrical widening along
Union Cross Road since it provided opportunities to minimize cost and impacts to the environment.
Measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the human and natural environment have been incorporated
throughout the planning stages and the development of the preliminary design for the recommended
alternative. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not recommended for this
project. The determination on the format for the final National Environmental Policy Act documentation
for this project will be based on the comments received at the Public Hearing and the comments received on
this document.
PAIM 12-2 UNION CRCYB'JF ROAO - OP-AFr ENBWROJ 14_- NrAL A EMOOMENr
1 3.0 DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in coordination with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) proposes a transportation action to widen Union Cross Road from just south of
Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to just north of Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632). Four historic properties and one
rural historic district are located along Union Cross Road. These historic properties and the rural district are
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and require an evaluation in accordance with Section 4(f)
of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and the federal regulations 23 CRF 771.135.
The intent of the Section 4(f) legislation is to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside; the general
provisions state that "the Secretary (of the US Department of Transportation) shall not approve any ...
project ... which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local
officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as
so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,
and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm..."
1 3.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action includes widening existing Union Cross Road in Forsyth County from three lanes to a
multilane facility with two to three through lanes in each direction, a 30-foot raised median, and five-foot
sidewalks. The current driveway access to properties adjacent to Union Cross Road will remain and minor
access changes including one driveway per property, a median with limited openings for left turns, and the
need for right-in and right-out intersections will be incorporated with the project. These access changes will
not eliminate access to existing properties but will create changes in current travel patterns by incorporating
minor access control for left turn movements, crossovers, and limiting turns to intersections.
The proposed right of way width will vary from 120 to 140 feet in width.. Additional design details for the
proposed improvements are discussed in Chapter 4.0 and shown on Figures 4-1A, 4-1B, and 4-1C in this
Environmental Assessment.
13.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The primary purpose of the proposed action is to increase the capacity along Union Cross Road to improve
growing transportation demands and traffic flow through the study area. Union Cross Road provides an
important north/south link between residential areas and businesses and employment centers located in
Winston-Salem, Kernersville, Greensboro, and High Point as well as along the US 311, I-40, and I-40
Business corridors. This project is included in local and state transportation plans as a north-south route.
The widening of Union Cross Road supports current development in the area by providing adequate capacity
to accommodate the existing and future 20-year projected traffic. Current (2005) traffic in the project area is
projected to double by the year 2030. Both single-vehicle and tractor-trailer truck traffic will increase along
Union Cross Road. The demand for additional traffic capacity will also increase as other planned residential
and commercial developments are approved by the Winston-Salem and Forsyth County City-County
Planning Board.
1 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES
Within the project area, there are four (4) properties and one rural historic district eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and two publicly owned recreational facilities that qualify as Section 4(f) resources.
As shown in Figures 7-1A, 7-1B, and 7-1C, these resources include:
? Former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station
? Boone Trail Association marker
UminN CROSS Rz2Ab - DRAFT SECTION 4(F) PAGE 13- 1
NOVEMBER 2006 NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION
? David Smith Farm
? Log Well House
? Smith-Tucker Farms
? Union Cross Park
? Recreational Facilities for R.B. Glenn High School
The proposed widening along Union Cross Road was designed asymmetrically to avoid and minimize impacts
to all environmental resources, including Section 4(f) resources. The only Section 4(f) resource that could not
be avoided by the proposed widening is the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District (Historic District).
As shown in Figure 13-1, the Historic District is partially located within the boundaries of the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) and is on both sides of the existing Union Cross Road. The Historic District shares
its boundaries with the existing Union Cross Road right-of way limits. The Historic District will be impacted
since property from the district will be needed to construct the recommended alternative. During the Section
106 coordination with the Historic Preservation Office, the recommended alternative was determined to have
an "adverse effect" on the Historic District.
1 3.4 SMITH-TUCKER FARMS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY
1 3.4.1 DESCRIPTION
The Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District (Historic District) is considered eligible for the National
Register for its association with agriculture and for the design and construction of the buildings. The Historic
District features four pre-1955 rural dwellings with associated domestic outbuildings and agricultural
farmland still in cultivation, displaying a remarkable continuity in agricultural life in Forsyth County.
The Historic District boundaries are located on both the east and west sides of Union Cross Road in the
vicinity of the Temple School Road intersection. As shown on Figure 13-2, the boundaries follow Dell
Boulevard to the north and extend south across Temple School Road. The Historic District boundaries
encompass over 290 acres with five pre-1955 rural building complexes on Union Cross Road and Temple
School Road. Three of these five complexes, the David Smith Farm, the Noah Smith House with
outbuildings, and the Smith Tenant Complex House are within the project Area of Potential Effect (APE).
There are three additional building complexes inside the Historic District Boundaries, two located adjacent to
Union Cross Road and one located adjacent to Temple School Road, that are considered noncontributing.
1 3.4.2 ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP
Access to the Historic District is provided along Union Cross Road, Temple School Road, Hedgecock Road,
and Chamelin Road. The Smith and Tucker Farms represent five generations of occupancy by two
interrelated families. The property is currently held by the heirs of Ina Smith, Charlie Tucker and David
Smith. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Smith live along Union Cross Road and Temple School Road and continue to
farm the surrounding lands.
1 3.4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO SIMILAR USED LANDS
The study area is a mix of agricultural fields (both fallow and farmed), rural residences, and suburban
development (municipal and commercial). Although there are other farms surrounding the project area,
several of the farms within the project area are for sale and are developing rapidly into denser type uses such
as the residential neighborhoods and shopping centers. In 2003, one parcel of property adjacent to the.
Historic District, south of Temple School Road was sold to the City of Winston-Salem as part of the Alliance
Science and Technology Park. In 2005, the Dell Computer Assembly Plant was constructed on the north
side of Temple School Road as part of the Alliance Science and Technology Park. The property for the Dell
PAGE 13-2 LINlCN CROSS ROAD - DRAFT SECT/CN 4(F)

Computer Assembly Plant was sold by Tucker descendants who no longer live in the Union Cross Road
community.
1 3.4.4 UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS
There were no unusual characteristics associated with the Historic District noted during the research and field
surveys performed in the project. In addition, HPO did not identify any unique or unusual characteristics for
this Section 4(0 property.
1 3.5 IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY
The Historic District is located on both sides of Union Cross Road and could not be avoided by the
recommended alternative. As shown in Figure 13-3, the recommended alternative widens Union Cross Road
on the east side as it enters the Historic District from the south and then transitions to the west just north of
Temple School Road. The widening will require 4.3 acres of property from the total 290 acres within the
Historic District Boundaries.
During the design of the recommended alternative, asymmetrical widening was incorporated into the design
to minimize harm to the Historic District. The asymmetrical widening provides an opportunity to impact
noncontributing properties and minimize impacts to the contributing properties.
Since the project proposes to widen the existing three-lane roadway, visual impacts to the district will be low
since the property is and will continue to be located adjacent to the roadway. The recommended alternative
proposes four lanes at this location and will be divided by a 30-foot raised median. The raised median may
assist in minimizing the visual impacts by breaking the view of continuous asphalt, such as a 60-foot width
required for five-lanes, to 24-feet of asphalt on each side of the median. The median may also assist in
providing a safer road crossing for pedestrians near or within the Historic District. Sidewalks will be
provided on each side of the road for pedestrian use. With the increase in traffic and the closer proximity of
the road from widening,, there will be an increase in noise levels where the property within the Historic
District fronts the roadway. Mitigation for this impact is not feasible since the Historic District has access to
the Union Cross Road and encompasses three at-grade intersections with Chamelin Road, Temple School
Road, and Hedgecock Road.
1 3.6 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
Several preliminary alternatives were considered for the project including the No-Build Alternative, a TSM
Alternative, and a Mass Transit Alternative. Each of these alternatives was eliminated form further study
because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project.
? No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with the proposed action's
purpose or need since it will not provide increased capacity for access to the current and future
development in the study area, improve traffic flow, or improve north-south roadway
connectivity.
? Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative - Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of a roadway
within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing
or adding additional through lanes to the existing road. TSM improvements alone would not
increase levels-of-service to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future design year 2030.
? Mass Transit - The project study area is not currently served by mass transit due to the lack
of demand, dispersed residential areas, diffused employment centers, and diversity of trip
origins and destinations. Since the study area is characterized by scattered residential
communities and lacks one central regional destination, the area would not be especially
suitable for the implementation of mass transit systems as a sole solution to roadway capacity
problems.
UNION CROSS =AO - CRAFT SECTION 4(F") PAGE 1.x-3
P CFVER40_-R 2£' 06 NL'.mrH CAROLINA DEi-ARrAfjewr OF- 7-RAN sPc7mrA7'1E7ks'
? New Location Alternative - For purposes of reviewing avoidance alternatives for the Section
4(f) resource, a new location alternative that could potentially avoid the Historic District was
also considered. However; constructing a new multilane transportation facility on new location
is not considered a feasible and prudent alternative given the 3.6 miles of existing roadway and
right of way available, the short length between existing interchange connections to US 311
and I-40, and the current major thoroughfare road classification. Even if the design criteria for
the major thoroughfare classification could locate new interchange connections to I-40 and US
311, it would not be feasible to construct new interchanges on these highways given the
location and close proximity of the existing interchanges. In addition, constructing a new
multilane facility would be more expensive and have substantially higher impacts to both the
human and natural environment in comparison to widening the existing roadway. Therefore,
this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
13.7 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Measures to minimize harm were incorporated during design by using a 30-foot median for the roadway
section and transitioning the widening on both sides of the Historic District. There are county, state, and
private programs available to property owners that could further minimize harm including the Forsyth
County zoning ordinances, the North Carolina Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, and the American
Farmland Trust.
There are several roads located within the Historic District which may limit landscaping and screening as
opportunities for additional measures to minimize harm from visual impacts and increases in noise. Three
existing roads (Temple School Road, Union Cross Road, and Hedgecock Road) and the corresponding two
intersections are located within the Historic District. In addition, sections of the northern and southern
boundaries follow the right-of-way limits for existing Dell Boulevard and Chamelin Road.
Given the proximity of this Historic District to these existing roads, current NCDOT polices may limit or
even prevent an effective use of landscaping and/or screening of the proposed improvements within the
district. A "clear zone" width is needed adjacent to the existing road and a clear "sight-triangle" is required at
each corner of the intersections. These areas must be clear without obstructions for safety in regards to off-
road collisions and safe sight-distances at the intersections. Therefore, opportunities for landscaping and/or
other methods of screening this Historic District along the right-of-way from the proposed improvements are
not proposed.
13.8 COORDINATION
Early coordination for the project was initiated with review agencies including HPO during the start of the
project study. Scoping letters went sent to all agencies to receive comments and the location known sensitive
resources within the project area. Additional coordination with the HPO was held during the development of
the project to obtain concurrence with the eligibility of properties over 50 years of age and to obtain the
determination of effects to the eligible properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
This Draft Section 4(f) will be distributed to the local, state, and federal agencies for. review and comment. In
addition, coordination with the HPO and the other review agencies will be initiated. A Memorandum of
Agreement will be prepared to document measures to minimize impacts and the NCDOT commitment to
coordinate with HPO if design changes are made in the proximity of the Rural Historic District which could
affect the amount of right-of-way area required for the project.
13.9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District is eligible for the Historic Register based on its agricultural,
design, and construction integrity for farms within Forsyth County. This Historic District encompasses
17 contiguous house and farm parcels and sections of three existing state roads on 290 acres. The

NORTH CAROL/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRANBPORTATiaN NOVEMSER 20L76
surrounding area includes farmland which is rapidly developing into dense residential, commercial, and
industrial developments. The recommended alternative proposes to widen existing Union Cross Road from a
three-lane roadway to a multilane facility. The widening will impact 4.3 acres within the Historic District
from the acquisition of right-of-way.
Coordination with the review agencies was initiated early and continued through the development of the
preliminary designs for the project. The Section 106 determination of effect coordinated with HPO indicated
that the project will have an "adverse effect" on the Historic District. Avoidance alternatives were considered
for the project. However, these avoidance alternatives do not meet the purpose and need for the project or
caused major impacts when compared to widening the existing roadway. Measures to minimize harm to the
Historic district were coordinated with the HPO and included in the design decisions by minimizing the
right-of-way from the district, by widening asymmetrically, and by locating the widening on property that is
noncontributing to the Historic District.
This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation will be circulated with the Environmental Assessment to local, state, and
federal agencies for review and comment. In addition, a public hearing in the vicinity of the project will also
be held to obtain comments on for the project, project studies, and proposed improvements. Comments
from the agencies and the conclusion regarding the use of property from the Historic District will be included
in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
UN/ON CROSS RnAO - ORAF-r SECT/ON 46FI PAGE 13-5
NOVEMBER Zt706
Blank
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 13-5 UNION CROSS ROAM - DRAFT SECTION 4(r)
14.0 REFERENCES
American Public Transportation Association (APTA). North Carolina Transit Links. World Wide Web:
www.apta.com/links/state_local/nc.cfm#A39. Accessed on April 27, 2006.
Caleb Smith, Archaeologist, November 1, 2005. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Union Cross Road
Improvements, Forsyth County. NIP No. U-4909. SHPO ER No. 05-1882.
City of Winston-Salem website. World Wide Web: www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us. Accessed on May 8, 2006.
Community Impact Assessment and Environmental Justice for Transit Agencies: A Reference, dated January
2002, Public Transit Office, Florida Department of Transportation, National Center.
Conformity Analysis Report and Conformity Determination for the Winston-Salem Urban Area 2025 long
Range Transportation Plan, dated May 28, 2002, The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Statewide Planning Branch.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior.
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Draft Economic Impact Analysis, DELL, Winston-Salem, NC, dated April 2005, Karnes.
Draft Winston-Salem Northern Beltway Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis, dated October 2004,
North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Federal Highway Administration, USDOT, 2006. February 3, 2006 Memorandum; Interim Guidance on Air
Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.
Forsyth County Area Plan. February 7, 2006. Map 6, Union Cross Area Plan 2004. Forsyth County and
Winston-Salem GIS, Planning Information and Graphic Services, City-County Planning Board.
Forsyth County website. World Wide Web: www.co.forsyth.nc.us. Accessed on May 8, 2006
John Davenport Engineering, Inc., October 25, 2005. Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for Caleb's Creek,
LLC. Project Number: JDE-05097. Mixed-Use Development, Kernersville, NC.
Kubilins Transportation Group, Inc., October 2002. Traffic Impact Analysis. Union Cross Shopping
Center. Kernersville, NC.+
Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 18, 2005. Community Impact Assessment. TIP No. U-4759. WBS No.
40173.1.1. Dell Boulevard-Winston-Salem: SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from 1-40 to SR 1003
(High Point Road) and SR 2685 (Temple School Road) from SR 2643 to SR 1003, Forsyth County,
North Carolina.
Louis Berger Group, Inc., May 1, 2006. Community Impact Assessment. TIP No. U-4909. WBS No.
40278.1.1. Union Cross Road - Winston-Salem: SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691
(Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), Forsyth County, North Carolina.
LlwoN CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 14-1
NOVEMBER 2L706 NORTH CAR471-/NA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN51FORTAT1ON
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2006. Forsyth County, North Carolina. Soil Data Mart,
United States Department of Agriculture. World Wide Web: http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/
State.aspx. Accessed on May 10, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2005. North Carolina Portion of the National Hydric Soils
List, August 11, 2005. United States Department of Agriculture. World Wide Web: ftp://ftp-
fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/ Lists/nc.xls. Accessed on May 10, 2006.
Noise Effects Handbook, A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise, dated 1981, Office of
the Scientific Assistant, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Architectural Historian Jennifer Cathey,
December 2005. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report Final Identification and
Evaluation. Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge
Garden Road), Forsyth County, NC. TIP No. U-4909, WBS No. 40278. Federal Aid No.
STP-2643 (2).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Planning and Environment website. World Wide
Web: http://www.ncdot.org/planning. Accessed on May 1, 2006
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), February 25, 2005. Survey for historic
architectural resources in the Dell Facility project area, Forsyth County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Congestment Management Section, November 29,
2005. Capacity Analysis of TIP Project No. U-4909. SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2632
(Sedge Garden Road)/SR 2632 (Old Salem Road) to SR 4346 (Swaim Road)/SR 2691 (Wallburg
Road)., Forsyth County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation. Projects. World Wide Web: www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/projects/
projects_intro.html. Access on April 27, 2006.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways, Bridge Maintenance Unit,
September 19, 2005. Bridge Inspection Report. Bridge No. 330392. SR 2643 across US 311.
Forsyth County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways, Bridge Maintenance Unit,
September 19, 2005. Bridge Inspection Report. Bridge No. 330458. SR 2643 across US 311.
Forsyth County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Environmental Specialist William A. Barrett,
January 2006. Executive Summary. TIP No. U-4909. Federal Aid Project No. STP -2643(2). WBS
No. 40278.1.1 Widening of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a Multi-lane Facility from SR 2692
(Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), Forsyth County, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Environmental Specialist William A. Barrett,
January 2006. Natural Resource Technical Report. TIP No. U-4909. Federal Aid Project No.
STP-2643(2). WBS No. 40278.1.1 Widening of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a Multi-lane Facility
from SR 2692 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), Forsyth County, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), April 21, 2006. Relocation Report. U-4909:
SR 2643-Union Cross Road Widening Project, Forsyth County.
PAGE 14-2 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLPNA LS£PARTM£NT OV TRANSPORTATION NOVEMBER 21306
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Safety Planning Group, Traffic Engineering and
Safety Systems Branch. Traffic Safety Analysis, Forsyth County, SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from
SR 2691 to SR 2632. TIP U-4909. August 30, 2005.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), State Geological Engineer, Njoroge W. Wainaina,
P.E., August 25, 2005. Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report. Winston-Salem SR 2643 (Union Cross
Road) from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road). TIP No. U-4909. WBS
No. 40278. Forsyth County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section. Highway
Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis. SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) in Forsyth County, WBS
Element #40278.1.1, TIP No. U-4909. November 2, 2005.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Traffic Safety Unit., August 30, 2005. Traffic
Safety Analysis, Forsyth County. TIP Number: U-4909. SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691
to SR 2632.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Transportation Planning Branch. Traffic Forecast
for Union Cross Road (SR 2643), Widening. TIP U-4909. July 29, 2005.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Transportation Planning Branch. Revised Traffic
Forecast for Union Cross Road (SR 2643), Widening. TIP U-4909. August 4, 2005.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), August 24, 2005. Start of Study Notice and Scopig for
U-4909. Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 2691
(Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) in Forsyth County. Sue Homewood, Winston-
Salem Regional Office. WBS 40278.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). June 2002. Basinwide Assessment Report, Yadkin
River Basin, Executive Summary, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART), 2006. World Wide Web:
http://www.partnc.org/index.httn Accessed May 3, 2006.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2006. Official Soil Series Descriptions. USDA-NRCS Soil
Survey Division. World Wide Web: http://ortho.ftw.nres.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi.
Accessed on February 17, 2006.
United States Bureau of the Census, American FactFinder website. World Wide Web: www.census.gov.
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County 2025 Multi-ModalLong Range Transportation Plan, 2004. World Wide
Web: http://www.cityofws.org/Home/Departments/Transportation/Planning/Articles/2030Plan.
Accessed on August 2, 2006.
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Bicycle Map. March 1992. Published by NCDOT Bicycle Program.
Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, Eastern Section Extension. TIP No. U-2579A. Newsletter, October 2001.
World Wide Web: www.cityofws.org/DOT/assets/pdf/ EastExtensionNewsletter.pdf. Accessed
on April 28, 2006.
Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA). World Wide Web: www.cityofws.org/DOT.
UN/ON CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 14-2
NOVE aER ZOL76
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANBPORTATJON
PAGE 14-4 UNION CROSS ROAD -ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
j EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 40278.2.1 COUNTY Forsyth Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
1. D. NO.: U-4909 F.A. PROJECT STP-2643(2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 2643 (Union Gross Road) Widening Project in Forsyth County

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL:
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 22 1 23 0 0 0 1 6 16
13USineSSeS 1 4 5 1 VALUE OF.DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 so-150 0 o-20M 0 so-ISO 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250-400 0 40-70M 2 250-400 1
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 4 400-600 1 70-10oM g 400-600 57
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 16 600 ur 0 100 up 402 soo UP 23
!!; displacement? TOTAL 22 1 412 81
*
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond b N umber)
after project? 3. Business services will still available in the general area of

x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, Kernersville.
n indicate size, type, estimated number o 4.
employees, minorities, etc. A. Old 311 Curb Market- 2 FT/ 2 PT empl. -1000 sf blk bldg
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? B. Cliffs Alignment Shop- 2 FT/ 2 PT empl. -1200 sf blk bldg
6. Source for available housing (list). C. Quality Mart- 3 FT/ 2 PT empl. -1500 sf blk bldg

X 7. Will additional housing programs be D. Cass Motor Co: 2 FT/ 1 PT empl.- 800 sf blk bldg w/
needed? garage.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be E. Union Cross Market - 3 FT/ 2 PT empl. -1500 sf blk bldg
considered? (possible minority owned)

X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 8. Last resort housing may be applicable on project.
families? 11. Winston Salem Housing Authority.

X' 110. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. There appears to be adequate DSS housing for this
x 11. Is public housing available? project, however, combined with the pending Northern
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Beltway project, comparables may have to be found in
x; ?w housing available during relocation period? Winston Salem or High Point.

X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14. Winston Salem Journal, MILS, Kernersville News
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
'z4 a ; 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 M

N ?
04-19-06
?
Heather Fulghum Date ?
`' Relocation Coordi ator Date
Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E Revised 09-02 Original & 1 Copy: Relocation GourUnlatui
JUL-25-2006 TUE 09;52 AM SALISBURY AREA OFFICE FAX NO, 7046378077 P, 02

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ,u , x. li???xvp I?YYIMY
SCS-C :"A-1015
SOM CONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION FACT RATE NG
FOR CORRYDOR TYPE PROJECT'S
Part I (To be Completed by Federal Agency) 3. DM of Land Evaluation Request 4, 5 lc el 1 of -
7/I U06
1, Names of Project 5. Federal Agoncy Involved -
Union Cross Road. U-4904 FH61..
2, Type of Project 6. Comity and State
Rosd widening Forsyth Cci n ;.y, NC
PART II (To be completed by SCS) I. Date Request Received by SC
3. Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Y.
(if no the FPPA dots not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form No 4. Aorc :rrigc Size -"
5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmab Land • ent Jurisdiction: 7. Atz a. mt of Ff TA/ - -

8. Nam Land Evalua6o Sys Used 9 Name of Local Site +4 m ent Sy m
R 10. Du II 1a : S

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) A I t- , mativ ant
CorridorA :•rridorI Corri?orU
A. Total Acres to be Converted Directly 78. ] 6 ac
.B. Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
C. Total Acres in Corridor 78.16 ac
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland
14 6,3?*
. - -'? ' -' -
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland 3 Y g?, -' ^ -""-
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Rolative Value
PART V (To be completed by SC')) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
Farmland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Maximum - -
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are ex lamed in 7 CFR 658.5(c Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 A
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 14 - -
3. Pment of Corridor Being Farmed 20 LA
-
- -
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20 ? - - -
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 14 -' T - - -
6. Creation ofNonfarmable Farmland 25 "' ?- -
7. Availability of Farm Support Services 5 5 - -
8. On-Farm investments
20 0

1
- --- - -
9. Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 Q - "" -
10. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10 3
TOTAL CORIUDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 r) r? - ' - -`
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agenc)) - -
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Corridor Assessment (Form Part VI above or it local site 160
assessment)
TOTAL P01NT5 otal of above 2 lines 260 S a
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to 3. Date of Selection: A Was a ora l Site Assessm :,nt Used?
be Converted by Project:
is, K9
,?
Yes
N

5. Reason for Selection: _
o
" ' -' - -
(D" 1 d7NL ??rr- ?? 1
Signature of P om le ' this Part: D tp r - - ' - -
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternative Corridor - `
APPENDIX B
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (HPO)
CORRESPONDENCE AND CONCURRENCE LETTERS
a ST Q.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 13, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ftt?, peju szi.L .ck
L
G4:- ¢I
Office of Arclu'vt
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
L - ir.t: 9f23?a5
0 -<-13 01.?
SUBJECT: Scoping, Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a Multilane Facility from SR
2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), U-4909, Forsyth County,
ER 05-1882
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2005, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over twenty
years, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area. Therefore, we
recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures
over fifty years of age and report the findings to us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Strect, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
December 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck r
SUBJECT: Archaeological Potential of the Proposed Improvements to Union
Cross Road (SR 2643), TIP U-4909, Forsyth County, ER 05-1882
Thank you for your letter of November 2, 2005, transmitting the archaeological reconnaissance report: by
Caleb Smith of your staff for the above project.
We have reviewed the report and find it to be a complete and well-written assessment of the archaeological
potential of the proposed project area.. We concur with Mr. Smith's assessment of low to moderate potential
and his recommendation that no intensive archaeological survey is needed. We will add this reconnaissance
and assessment report to our survey report files.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning.the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763: In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Caleb Smith, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2769911617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 hW Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 17 [phone]/7154801
Federal Aid # TIP # U-4909 County: Forsyth A-II n t ot lit
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632
(Sedge Garden Road)
On November 14, 2005, representatives of the
9 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as (List Attached) are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
2 zL, ? 3
Z- y, Z S, 2-
? There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed pro erties within the project's area of potential effects.
pa.v, c t swt ?kl t Fa-.-?, , 5 fvoCy ??vvFe A-1 v i -si cl -e, AfYE-
? All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
? There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
.ry I ?i L ?
t K ?? ?p ? I oW i I,y-o p? ? ?L tiy.? tr't?V o^ ?i ?v'GX v c.?t t` s? vti`'
Signed: (-? i S ?ipri ? ?y S ' G r-31 S ?•i ray s ?U 1 ? Z' ? (° , t 3 ? 14, 1$- ? I of ? Z o
-f?l?tv??. ?- r; c? 1 t t 4 v S
Representative, NCD T Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
;0 Y5/ Ij / L d
Representative, HPO
Date
Preservation Officer
)/I
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
6 4 BY ?t s P X"L I/ j, r
Q#.1 L v
C. r;ia'Y;; tJ?f.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. ]Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeckp Vj;kV
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) From
SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), U-4909, Forsyth County,
ER 05-1882 ...
Thank you for your letter of December 12, 2005, transmitting the above survey report by Jennifer Cathey.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is listed in the State Study List and remains eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places:
David Smith Farm, SE corner of junction with SR 2643 and SR 2683.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are eligible.for the National Register of Historic Places:
Former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing, north and south sides of Union Cross
Road, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A for association with Cold War Era defense strategy
in the United States. The property is also eligible under Criteria Consideration G for properties that have
achieved significance within the last 50 years. Most of the complex was built between 1958 and the mid-
1960s.
The former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing is eligible as a discontiguous
historic district comprised of resources of high integrity and located in two separate, noncontiguous tax
parcels. The following buildings and structures contribute to the former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar
Station and Military Housing Historic District and are found on the site plan, page 27, of the survey report:
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/7154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/71511801
Main Radar Station, military housing development located around Woodgate Circle, GATR radar
replacement, Main Radar station multipurpose building, two-story barracks, Quonset huts, one-story metal-
sided building, one-story concrete block building, and five-story concrete radar tower base. (fhe five-story
concrete radar tower base is outside the Area of Potential Effects).
The district excludes the new Union Cross Park complex located on one of tax parcels. In the new park are a
ball field, tennis court, and two concrete utility buildings, once part of the Winston-Salem Air Force Radar
Station complex. According to the report, these resources have been substantially altered as part of Union
Cross Park landscape plan and do not contribute to the former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and
Military Housing Historic District.
We concur with the proposed National Register boundary as described and delineated in the report.
Union Cross Boone Trail Highway & Memorial Association Marker, 4300 High Point Road is eligible for the
National Register under Criteria Consideration F. The marker is a twentieth-century cultural artifact - a
commemorative object, significant because it equates American eighteenth-century exploration with early-
twentieth-century expansionism. The marker is also significant for its role in conveying local historical identity
by referencing the Fayetteville and Western Plank Road and its proximity to Daniel Boone-associated sites.
We concur with the proposed National Register boundary as described and delineated in the report.
We would like to convey our appreciation of the in-depth and succinct contextual history and analysis of the
Daniel Boone historical markers. Our office can use the material as a quick reference to the distinctive
markers.
Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, both sides of Union Cross and the intersections of Temple
School and Hedgecock roads; is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for its
association with agriculture and Criterion C for its construction and design. The district features four pre-
1955 rural dwellings with associated domestic and agricultural outbuildings still in cultivation, displaying a
remarkable continuity in agricultural life in Forsyth County.
The district is comprised of the David Smith Farm and associated buildings, Daniel Smith Complex, Smith
Tenant Complex, Robert Tucker Farm and associated buildings, Charlie Tucker House; and the Ira Tucker
Farm and associated outbuildings. The district retains a high degree of integrity and displays architectural
stylistic influences and vernacular forms from the mid nineteenth to the mid twentieth centuries. We concur
with the proposed National Register boundary as described and delineated in the report.
We do not concur with your evaluation of the Well House and property located at 1462 Union Cross Road.
We think the Well House is significant and eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as a type,
retaining the distinctive characteristics of a log well house, expressed in its materials and construction. The
Well House retains a remarkable degree of integrity. It is sited in its original location and retains all the
identifying features of its use.
We do agree that its agricultural context has been comprised, but this resource is individually distinctive and
stands out among others of its type in the local area. We have contacted Forsyth County preservationist John
Larson about the Well House. He believes that the Well House may be the only remaining intact log well
house in its original location in the county and perhaps in the Piedmont. Mr. Larson is planning a site visit to
the Well House shortly. We will be able to recommend a proposed historic boundary after our discussion
with Mr. Larson.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
Motsinger House, 1442 Union Cross Road, is not eligible for the National Register because the house and
accompanying outbuildings are not architecturally distinctive. Artificial siding and some replacement windows
have comprised the house's integrity. The property's agricultural context has been eroded by new
development and a loss of farmland.
Properties 3 - 4; 7 -12;16 -18; 21 - 28.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at-36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Jennifer Cathey
2 7 200-6
to Cs - ,r .?_
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office `' •'`_r4:'>
Peter B. Sandbeclt, Adminkratot , ...
Michael F. Easley, Govemor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 23, 2006 , . -- - ??
`•./ 1.15
MEMORANDUM ,44.5e I-?-? i?.3e6
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck & j - Ak*Sad?
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) From
SR 2691 _(Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 Sedge Garden Road), U-4909, Forsyth County,
ER 05-1882
Thank you for your letter of December 12, 2005, transmitting the above survey report by Jennifer Cathey.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is listed in the State Study List and remains eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places:
? David Smith Farm, SE corner of junction with SR 2643 and SR 2683.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
? Former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing, north and south sides of
Union Cross Road, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A for association with Cold War
Era defense strategy in the United States. The property is also eligible under Criteria Consideration G
for properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years. Most of the complex was built
between 1958 and the mid-1960s.
The former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing is eligible. as a
discontigdous historic district comprised of resources of high integrity and located in two separate,
noncontiguous tax parcels. The following buildings and structures contribute to the former Winston-
Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing Historic District and are found on the site plan,
page 27, of the survey report:
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8(,53
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Marl Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715.4801
Main Radar Station, military housing development located around Woodgate Circle, GATR radar
replacement, Main Radar station multipurpose building, two-story barracks, Quonset huts, one-story
metal-sided building, one-story concrete block building, and five-story concrete radar tower base.
(The five-story concrete radar tower base is outside the Area of Potential Effects).
The district excludes the new Union Cross Park complex located on one of tax parcels. In the new
park are a ball field, tennis court, and two concrete utility buildings, once part of the Winston-Salem
Air Force Radar Station complex. According to the report, these resources have been substantially
altered as part of Union Cross Park landscape plan and do not contribute to the former Winston-
Salem Air Force Radar Station and Military Housing Historic District.
We concur with the proposed National Register boundary as described and delineated in the report.
? Union Cross Boone Trail Highway & Memorial Association Marker, 4300 High Point Road is eligible
for the National Register under Criteria Consideration F. The marker is a twentieth-century cultural
artifact - a commemorative object, significant because it equates American eighteenth-century
exploration with early-twentieth-century expansionism. The marker is also significant for its role in
conveying local historical identity by referencing the Fayetteville and Western Plank Road and its
proximity to Daniel Boone-associated sites. We concur with the proposed National Register boundary
as described and delineated in the report.
We would like to convey our appreciation for the in-depth and succinct contextual history and
analysis of the Daniel Boone historical markers. We will can use the material as a quick reference to
the distinctive markers.
? Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, both sides of Union Cross and the intersections of
Temple School and Hedgecock roads, is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A for its association with agriculture and Criterion C for its construction and design. The district
features four pre-1955 rural dwellings with associated domestic and agricultural outbuildings still in
cultivation, displaying a remarkable continuity in agricultural life in Forsyth County.
The district is comprised-of the David Smith Farm and associated buildings, Daniel Smith Complex,
Smith Tenant Complex, Robert Tucker Farm and associated buildings, Charlie Tucker House, and the
Ira Tucker Farm and associated outbuildings. The district retains a.high degree of integrity and
displays architectural stylistic influences and vernacular forms from the mid nineteenth to the mid
twentieth centuries. We concur with the proposed National Register boundary as described and
delineated in the report.
We do not concur with your evaluation of the Well House and property located at 1462 Union Cross Road.
We think the Well House is significant and eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as a type,
retaining the distinctive characteristics of a log well house, expressed in its materials and construction. The
Well House retains a remarkable degree of integrity. It is sited in its original location and retains all the
identifying features of its use.
We do agree that its agricultural context has been comprised, but this resource is individually distinctive and
stands out among others of its type in the local area. We have contacted Forsyth County preservationist John
Larson about the Well House. He believes that the Well House may be the only remaining intact log well
house in its original location in the county and perhaps in the Piedmont. Mr. Larson is planning a site visit to
the Well House shortly. We will be able to recommend a proposed historic boundary after our discussion
with Mr. Larson.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:
? Weavil House, 4005 Wallburg Road, is not eligible for the National Register because it has lost
integrity through artificial siding and replacement windows. The property's agricultural context has
been eroded by new development and a loss of farmland.
? Motsinger House, 1442 Union Cross Road, is not eligible for the National Register because the house
and accompanying outbuildings are not architecturally distinctive. Artificial siding and some
replacement windows have comprised the house's integrity. The property's agricultural context has
been eroded by new development and a loss of farmland.
? Properties 3 - 4; 7 -12; 16 -18; 21 - 28.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Jennifer Cathey
John Lawson, Old Salem

- ?
w

North Carolina Department of Cultural Res .
y
Y f
ources :y? r F,=`? r nary C `M

State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
February 23, 2006
mxd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of High-ways
C `'
FROM: Peter Sandbeck W9 P,c back --
V
SUBJECT: Well House, Widen Union Cross Road (SR 2643), U-4909, Forsyth County, ER 05-1882
On February 16, 2006, staff from our office and the NC Department of Transportation conducted a site visit
to the Well House, a property determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
located within the Area of Potential Effects for the above project.
After viewing the structure, we reaffirmed our opinion that the structure is eligible for the National Register
under Criterion C, architecture as a type. Therefore, we recommend a rectangular boundary that
encompasses the land upon which the Well House rests and a ten-foot buffer measured from the Well House
foundation. This boundary will provide a sufficient setting to convey the structure's architectural significance.
We look forward to discussing any potential effects the proposed undertaking may have upon the Well House
historic resource.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
- Sarah Woodard David
John Larson, Old Salem ;
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 276991617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/7154801
Aft 10 Lx%19 106
v-49o?
SN Po
Federal Aid #: STP-2643(2) TIP#:U-4909 County: Forsyth
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691 to SR 2632
On March 28, 2006, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
[] Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
® There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
[] There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Date
Representativ , 'CD DT
FHWA, for the Division Administrator; or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
to Historic Preservation Officer Date
Federal Aid #: STP-2643(2) TIP#: U-4909 County: Forsyth
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
}-o r rne^>' W i ns?vn - Salev+?,, ? f ?O rc.2 ?S? ? ?DUS ?- ? ??
Bcone- T?rc?l 4i9kw M)n,urvjOj- (v.)
?
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Sm., I Y l - TL) C_6A_ Fa"t VW5 Q'vxa1 1-f U (u) E A& its -E?r?
LD9 Well ?6o5e_ LDIE-) N,)c) AaVVL5e_ E_??t4.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
l,-c 1N?1 l- O use _ WDO -F i s CwO i 1' 1'1? kk u'
OLxo u Vhk P.o
bo V
I,- PI-It -
y?Q
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA HPO

Union Cross
and Housing Development r} ``

0

. as $G4Tp O
14
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPET
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 4, 2005
MEMO TO: Ms. Mary Pope Furr, Historic Architecture Supervisor
FROM: Diane K. Hampton, P.E., Division 9 Environmental Engineer
SUBJECT: Forsyth County Road Improvements associated with the New Dell Computer
Facility - Historic Review
As discussed with you on January 4, 2005, I am enclosing 2 sets of maps showing the roads that
will be improved for the new Dell Facility. One set is for you to perform an historic architectural
review and one set is for Mr. Matt Wilkerson to perform an historic archeological review.
The following roads will be improved:
Union Cross Road - upgraded from 2 lanes to 3 from just north of I-40 to US 311.
Temple School Road - upgraded to 2 lane (each way) divided median from Union Cross to curve
- this will be 120 feet wide.
Temple School Road - 2 feet widened each side from curve to High Point Road.
High Point Road _ 2 feet widened each side from Temple School Road to Union Cross Road.
Dell Boulevard - new 2 lane each way divided median (will need permits) - this will be 120 feet
wide.
If you need any other information, please call me at 336-703-6500. Thank you for your
help.
CF: Mr. Pat Ivey, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Mike Shaffner, District H Engineer
Division of Highways ® Division Nine ® 375 Silas Creek Parkway, Winton-Salem, NC 27127
Telephone [phone] a Fax [phone] ® Courier Box 13-12-04
vm n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF T'RANSPOR'TATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPET
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 14, 2005
SUBJECT: Forsyth County - Dell Computer - Road Improvements
Ms. Sarah McBride
historic Preservation Office
Division of Archives and Historv
109 E Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2507
Dear Ms. McBride:
We are providing information as discussed in our telephone conversation on January 14,
2005. In an effort to provide the necessary capacity to safely handle the traffic that will be
generated by the new Dell Computer facility in Forsyth County, we are planning to improve some
existing roads and build one new access road. These are summarized below:
Upgrading Union Cross Road from two to three lanes from north of I-40 to US 311.
Upgrading Temple School Road from Union Cross Road to the curve to a 44ane facility.
Minor widening of Temple School Road from the curve to High Point Road.
Minor widening of High Point Road from Temple School Road to Union Cross Road.
Construction of a 4-lane divided road to be called Dell Boulevard.
Our NCDOT archeologists and architectural personnel have prepared the attached reports
documenting their background research.. No National Register properties were found. No
jurisdictional permits will be required for this work, as we are completely avoiding any impacts.
The work is to be funded with State money and no Federal funds will be used, therefore, there
will be no requirement for Section 106.
We would appreciate your review of this material and any comments that you may have.
If you have any questions, please call me at 336-703-6500.
Respectfully,
Diane K. Hampton, P.E.
Division Environmental Engineer
Enclosures
CF: Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. May Pope Furr, Historic Architectwe Supervisor, PDEA
Mr. Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor, PDEA
Division of Highways ® Division Nine o 375 Silas Creels Parkway, Winston-Salem, NC 27127
Telephone [phone] ® Fax [phone] ® Courier Box 13-12-04
md?
STA'L'E OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYND>7 T iPPETr
GOVERNM SEOMTARY
Apra I!, 20®5
(Tuesday)
IEMORANDUM TO: Mr. James Upchurch, T mnsportati®® Eng ®eer
Transportation Planning Branch - Western Planning Group - Triad Unit
FROM: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer %d. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: Ms. Teresa Bruton, P.E. (Project Services)
Mr. Clarence Coleman, P.E. (FHWA)
Mr. Felix Davila, P.E. (FHWA)
Asir. Anthony Houser, F.E. (Roadway Design)
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E. (Division 9)
SUBJECT: 1-40 Interchange Modifinatiom ustifmcation is TMMc Forecasting
U-4759: SR2643 (Union Cross Road) Widening Project in Forsyth County
I am waiting to cones that the FH WA requirements for the Union Cross Road -1-46 Interchange
Modification Justification QMJ) are being considered in your traffic forecast for this project
Aids. Teresa Bruton met recently with Mr. Clarence Coleman to discuss the requirements for the M. It was
concluded that the analysis should include the two adjacent interchanges along 1-40 in both directions.
Therefore, your traffic forecast should include volumes for the 140 interchanges with US 311, the proposed
Winton-Salem Eastern Bakway, NC 66, and 1-40 Business. ,
Should you have comments or questions regarding this issue, please contact me at 733-78444 x214 at your
earliest convenience. We appreciate your time and look forward to your Traffic Forecast Report.
1P1G ADDRM:
HC DEPAM M OF TRAMF rAnox
PROJECT DEVELOFW-ff AM
ENVPDM*KrAL AMALYM BRAWM
150 UAL s8W= CemtER
Raeam NC 27099.1630
TB.B mmm 918.733-3141
FAM 019-733-8783
MWITE VNWIR KCD0T.ORGAgAAWWG
LOCATM;
TRAASPMATM SWLD1%13
1 sourMU(<p.UMTOR.STRMT
PALeeN NC 27601
1 iVF
INCDENR h:.. .:,
V?
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re es- ;--
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William
August 18, 2005
v--4-9 o9
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D; NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage, Program
SUBJECT: ' Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multilane facility from SR
2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road); Forsyth County
REFERENCE: TIP Project No. U-4909
The Natural Heritage Program has no record. of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean.
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of .
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.nesparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and'animals and significant
naturalcommiuuties in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate,to
contact -me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Se'rviceCentet, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
s=hone:. M-13984 - FA 919?71r3060 • Intemet.:www.enr.state.nc.us
NoftbCar&i a
NCDENR ?_-9a9
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Lewis R. Ledford, Director
August 18, 2005
Mr. Mark Pierce, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and, Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Departi.
ent
of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Pierce:
The North Carolina Division of Parks acid Recreation has reviewed Study Notice and Scoping
Information for U-4909. The Division has no comments on the project as currently proposed.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sin . rely
Brian L.. Strong
Environmental Review Coordinator
?..: 1615 Mail Service.Center Raleigh, North. Carolina 276994615
Phorie: "919733-4181 ;TAX: '919-715-3085 - Intemet www.n?t6eKs.net
An EgW.Opportunlty, Affirmative Ar.ioir Employer - 50 % Recyded • 10 % Post Corisumer Paper
i
One.
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Date: 9/14/2005 2:36:10 PM
Subject: Aug. 18, 2005 Correspondence
Steven Taynton,
This is in response to TIP No. U-4909, WBS No. 40278 regarding SR 2643
(Union Cross), SR (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden), widen to
multilanes, 3.6 miles.
Steve, you asked about the impact to Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools.
Be aware that we have Union Cross Elementary School just off Union Cross
Rd. (ADM of 1,038), Glenn High School on Union Cross Rd. (ADM 1,608), and
Sedge Garden Elementary (ADM 1,004) at the intersection of Union Cross Rd.
and Sedge Garden Rd. These schools have 90 to 100 bus routes in the AM and
90 to 100 in the PM each day. Any widening project will have a profound
effect on traffic at whatever time you choose. I will say that once
completed, any widening project would be a welcome relief in that area.
If you need any further information, please let me know.
Thanks,
Gene Miller
Gene Miller
Assistant Superintendent for Operations
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
P.O. Box 2513
Winston-Salem, NC 27102-2513
[phone]
Ex IZ jrJ--?UrJ
?Si" ? Da:E
OFWATF9
p
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary"
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM ..
At AEA.-P
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director BY /41.?5'° I A02 8/3)/05
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch v- ?9
FROM: 4sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
150
SUBJECT: Start of Study Notice and Scoping for U-4909: Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) in Forsyth
County, WBS 40278
In reply to your correspondence dated August 15, 2005 in which you requested comments for the above referenced
project, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to tributaries to the following streams:
Stream Name River
Basin Stream
Classification(s) Stream Index Numbe
Mary Reich Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-3-1
South Fork Muddy Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13
Swaim Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-1
Abbotts Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-(1)
Fiddlers Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-3
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of all streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Future documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable
to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation,
appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. 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 for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or
to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
D. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands
wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be required if
oarolina
IVc ` C
Mural!
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
August 24, 2005
Page 2
E. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
F. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event
that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration
Program maybe available for use as stream mitigation.
G. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
H. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
I. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
J. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. ,
K. 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 No. 3366/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be
followed.
L. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to
allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or
streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not
degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-
4600.
cc: Mark Pierce, P.E., NCDOT - PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ Wetlands/401 Transportation Unit

f ti Y w
f? - o? emu,
Q \p=?; Q ?...
P R 01
FNV I RO'R
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 31, 2005
ED
° r19;0 ?atx ' 7105
MEMORANDUM TO; Ivlr._Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Director Jog
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM:. Mr, Charles W. Brown, PE,-PIsS :.
State Location and Surveys Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments to widen :SR 264.3.Union Cross Road,
From SR 2691 Wallburg Road to SR 2632 Sedge Garden
Road, WBS 40278.1.1, Forsyth County".TIP U-4909
Utilities:
AT&T has-an underground fiber-optic cable along::the South side of High Point Road;
inside 351 feet of 6" HDPE:Casing under Union Cross Road running from Gibsonv Ile.
Sprint Communications. has aerial and underground cables alo! "the, East side of Union
Cross Road from Union Cross Animal Hospital South of Glenview Drive over I-40 East
of bridge to Shopping Center in the Northeast quadrant to a telephone hub At -Shepherd's
Grove Road. Aerial cables with signal booster boxes attached to'-poles and buried cables
continue along Union Cross.Road at the North end of project past Sedge Garden Road:
BellSouth has both aerial and underground. fiber-optic cables throughout entire project
from Glenn High Road South past Wallburg Road crossing at US 311 interchange.along
Union Cross Road. BellSouth has underground cable along Sedge Garden and Old. Salem
Roads.. Buried fiber-optic cable along1oradale Drive serves.Specfra Site
Communications cell tower. BellSouth has a telephone hub in Northeast quadrant of High
Point and Union Cross Roads. BellSouth has buried fiber-optic cablethrough.High Point
Road intersection.
Time Warner Cable has both aerial and underground fiber-optic cables throughout
proj ect.
Piedmont Natural Gas has 4" plastic gas mains along the West side of Union •Cross Road
and North side of Sedge Garden and Old Salem Roads.'The:4"plastic gas•mam increases
to a 6" steel .gasmain near Biloxi Avenue and continues South along;West`side of.Union
Cross Road to Station 15 North of Solomon Drive connecting to 'aa `gh=pressure 8'.'.`steel
gas main. The high-pressure 8" .steel .gas main continues South along;IJniori Cross Road
crossing under I-40 and interchange ramps West of bridge to the South side changing to a
high-pressure 6"1steel gas main.on the West side of Union Cross Road to North side
Scoping Comments for U-4909
Glenn High Road. A new 6" plastic gas main connects and crosses South under Glenn
High Road on the West side of Union Cross Road that crosses under to. the East side of
Union Cross Road South of Glenn High School. This new 6" plastic gas main continues
South along the East side of Union Cross Road ending at Woodway.Drive. A new 6
plastic gas main crosses under Union Cross Road to the South side of Temple School
Road ending across from Dell Computer Manufacturing Plant. A high-pressure 6" steel
.gas main along the South side of Union Cross Road South of the US 31 a .interchange -
serves the Union Cross Business Park ending South of project limits at Wallburg Road.
The City of Winston-Salem has an sanitary sewer main starting at Pecan Lane heading
North along Union Cross Road to the Union Cross Station Interceptor. Also 8" sanitary
sewer mains at Kenosha Drive, Shepherd°s Grove Lane and North on Union Cross :Road
to a 6" force main at Somerset Crossing Lane. They have a 12 force main along North,
side of Sedge Garden and Old Salem'Roads and an 8" sanitary sewer main along South
side of Old Salem Road. An 8" sanitary se-wer main along Union Cross Road near the
intersections with Green Lawn and Reynolds Price Drives. A 4" PVC sewer force main
from Union Cross Elementary School crosses under High Point -Road to the East side of
- Union Cross Road. Theri runs Northl'Glenn.Hi.gh School where. it, crosses under to_tlie. .
West side to an 8" DI sanitary sewer main running behind High. School and connecting: to
an 8" VC sewer main along Glenn High-Road.:The.8" sanitary sewer main on Glenn High
Road also crosses under Union Cross Road to East side at Union Cross Animal Hospital.
They have an 8" sanitary sewer main in -the Union Cross Business Park South of US -3.11. .
The City of Winston-Salem has a 20" DI water main along the *West side of Union Cross
Road that tees into a 16" DI water main under Union Cross at Wallburg Road and an 8'.
DI water main to the South. The 20" DI water main continues North crossing under.TJS . ,
311 interchange West of the.bridge and iuns'parallel with an 8" DI water main. Tlie20"
DI and 8" DI water mains cross under High Point Road and continue North along the °
West side of Union Cross Road. -An 8" DI water main also:runs.parallel to theNortl .side
nion
of High Point Road.'The 20":DI and 8" DI water mains along the; West side oft
Cross Road have connections to the East side for 6" DI water main at Pinewood: Terrace
and an 8" DI water main at Hedge cock Road. A 16" DI water main connects:from the
West along Temple School Road. The 20" DI water main increases to a:24" DI water
main at Glenn'High School. The 24" DI water main crosses an existing .5" water main at
Glenn High Road. The 24" DI and 8" DI water mains continue North along the West side
of Union Cross Road with al 2" DI water main connection under road to Glenview Drive
The 24" DI'and 8" DI water mains cross under I-40 interchange West of the :tiidge.and
continues North with-6" DI and 8" DI water main connections to side streets .A 12" DI
water:main connects along Sedge Garden Road with both 16 DI and 8" DI water .mains
7along Old SalerrRoad. A 12" DI wafer main runs North alongUnion Cross"-Road North
ions
of the intersection with Sedge Garden and Old Salem Roads with side sfreef connect.
Duke Power has aerial transmission lines with underground service throughout the entire
project limits including over I-4.0 East of the bridge and over US 31.1 West of the bridge.
Page Three
ScopingComments for U-4909. --
Alltel has a cell tower next to US 311 at Hastings Road Northeast of Union Cross Road.
Crown Castle International has cell tower in Northwest quad of Old Salem Road and I-40.
The City of Winston-Salem has an elevated water storage tank behind Glenn High School
Stadium and Somerset Crossing Sewer Lift., along I-40 East of Union Cross Road.
NCDOT has an. Incident Management Matrix Sign along I-40 West of Union Cross Road.
Environmental:
Above ground and underground petroleum storage tanks are located along entire project.
Project.located in Abbott's Creek Watershed and Yadkin River Basin. Closed Air Force
Radar Installation located along Union Cross South of Wallburg Road is now Union
Cross Park and mixed use. light industry. Well casings located in numerous front and back
yards. Triad Hispanic Ministries located across from Dell Boulevard may require
environmental justice research. West side of Union Cross Road in City of Winston-Salem
Planning Zone. East side of Union Cross Road in Town of Kemersville Planning'Zone.
East side of Union Cross Road has more restrictive Abbott's Creek Watershed Vegetative
Buffer Provisions.
Cultural:

High Point Road signed Scenic Union-Cross Connector 24 Bike Route. Southeast quad of
.High Point Road at Union Cross Road has Boone Trail Highway / Old Plank Road Trace
historical marker. Proposed developments along Union Cross Road include Caleb's
Creek in the I-40 Southwest quadrant, Weather Stone (formerly Gateway Village), and.
Abbott 's:Plantation across from Temple School Road. Union Cross Station Shopping
Ce46rs'in:;the Northeast quadrant of I-40. Bike route sign on Sedge Garden and
Hastings .Hill, Roads..
Union Cross Moravian Church Cemetery located in Northwest quadrant of Union Cross
.and High Point Roads. Horse Boarding Stable fencing located next to Union Cross Road.
Tobacco fields/barns located on Union Cross Road. Beeson Crossroads Fire Department
Statioi26 located in Northeast quadrant of Union Cross and Old Salem Roads. Southeast
Middle School located in Southwest quadrant of Old Salem at I-40: Churches and
Schools iii study limits. Traditional Academy founded 1927 High Point Road East of
Union Cross.
Engineering:
Project Study Area speed limits vary between 65 mph on I-40 and US 31.1, 45 to 50 mph
along Union Cross Road, 35 mph in School. Zones, and 25 mph along Subdivision
Streets. Both I-40 and US 311 are controlled access with median cable guardrails. New
entrances to Glenn High School and Dell Boulevard constructed on Union Cross Road. A
proposed Temple School Road extension East to Piedmont Parkway. NTCDOT has added
sigrialize'd turning lanes, curb & gutter, widened exit ramps, 2 bridges, and controlled
access fencing.
PLT
CC: Mr. Ar t McMillan, PE, State Highway Design Engineer
Mr: Jay. Bennett, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, PE, State Hydraulics Engineer _
Mr. Njoroge Wainaina, PE, State Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, PE, State Natural Environment Engineer
Mr. Mark Pierce, PE, Project Development Engineer
T:t
MSr? ?" P X9
STATE OF NORTH-CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO T]PPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 6, 2005
Memorandum
To: Mr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attn: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: James B.'Han-is, PE
Engineering Manager
NCDOT Rail Divisio
State Project: WBS 40278 (U-4909).
FIA Project: NIA
County: Forsyth
.Description: Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multilane
facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge
Garden Road)
..Subiect: Start of Study
The NCDOT Rail Division is in receipt of your scoping letter on the above subject
.bridge replacement project.
After review of the project scoping letter and location of the. project in relation to
nearby railroad tracks, it has been determined that no rail interaction will be involved
on`:tl%is project.
IIG
Thank you for keeping the Rail Division involved in'the early project planning stages.
-please call Brad Smythe, Project Engineer, at 715-8741 if you have any, additional
questions.
.:JBH/bds'
file
-MAILING ADORESSJ TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATIOP
Roll DIVisIgN.:. ; FAX:: [phone] OdP&ALNAIZD
?ENGINEERING?FETK81tANCH _ 862-CAPITALBO,ULFTAIZD
1556.MSC
WE851TE: N1vw.bytlain.org RnLEICH,-NC 2763
-RALEIGH' NC "27699-1556
4110
v :.h.?)C9
October 13, 2005
?iinsto>? Salem
Mr. Mark Pierce
North Carolina Department of Transportation Department of
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 City ofWinsron-Salem
P.O. Box 2511
NVinscon-Salem, NC 27102
RE: Union Cross Widening Project (U-4909) 1c1 336.727.2707
Fax [phone]
w .cityofws.org/dot/
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on project U-4909, Union Cross Road
widening. The following.are comments from Winston-Salem Department of
Transportation staff and City-County Planning Board staff.
The Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the North Carolina Board
- of Transportation on January 6, 2005 calls for a median divided facility with wide outside
lanes and.sidewallcs on both sides of the street. We feel that this would be the minimum
that is. needed for this project and would help to discourage strip development along the
corridor.
However, for safety reasons, our preferred recommendation is.a multi-lane median
divided facility with four foot striped shoulders signed for bicycles and sidewalks on both
sides. Two alternatives to the preferred recommendation would be that right-of-way is
reserved to construct a 10 foot side path on both sides of Union -Cross Road, or a 10 foot
side path on.one. side of the road with a five foot sidewalk on the other :side: Also, with
current residential construction, commercial development, a park and a high school in the
project area, we request that all intersections be designed to include crosswalks and
pedestrian signals.
Finally, care should be taken with respect to possible historic properties in the area as
well as any natural features. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or .
need additional information.
Sincerely,
Greg enable
Planner
` a

e°`?F4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 1, 2005
(Tuesday)
MEMORANDUM TO : U-4909
Scoping Meeting, Minutes
Routing List (11/1/05)
FROM : Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT : 9/7/05 Scoping Meeting Minutes.
U=4909: 9R;26-43 - Union Cross Road Widening Project in Forsyth County
This memorandum presents the minutes from the Scoping Meeting-held on September 7, 2005 in the Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470 of the Transportation
Building in'Raleigh). This memorandum also summarizes the scoping comments and includes copies of the
original correspondence received by Project Development through October 31, 2005.
A copy of the routing. list for this transmittal is attached for your reference. Should you have comments,
questions; or revisions to these minutes, please contact me at the address below, or by e-mail at
[e-mail], or by telephone at [phone] x214.
1. Attendance Record
The following 43 individuals were in attendance or participated by teleconference:
via teleconference
via teleconference
Brett Abernathy, P.E., P.L.S
Rob Allen, P.E., P.L.S.
David Bailey
Mike Bruff, P.E.
Teresa Bruton, P.E.
Dale Burton, P.E.,_P.L.S.
Marc Cheek, P.E.
Greg Eri4t
Tim Gardiner, AICP
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT :DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
_ 1548 Mi IL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NCD.O.T Division 9
NCDOT Ehotogrammetry
NCDOT Right. of. Way
14CI)OT' Transpgrtation Planning Branch
NCDOT.Design:Build
NCDOT Location &'-Surveys
NC DOT Structure Design
Winston-Salem DOT
NCDOT Community Studies
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE:
www.neddt.org /doh /preconstruct/pe /
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILOW,G
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 276D-1
s?
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
Noyember 1, 2005 -
Page 2 of 6
Kim Gillespie, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
via teleconference Diane Hampton, P.E. NCDOT Division 9
Erin Hendee NCDOT Congestion Management
Kimberly Hinton NCDOT Public Involvement
Tony Houser, P.E. NCDOT. Roadway Design
Deborah Hutchings, P.E. NCDOT Transportation Planning
Joseph Ishak, P.E. NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control
via teleconference Pat Ivey, P.E. NCDOT Division 9
Drew Joyner, P.E. NCDOT.Project Development
Doug Lane NCDOT Project Services
Christopher Lee NCDOT Roadway Design
Calvin Leggett, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
Ed Lewis NCDOT Public Involvement & Community Studies
via teleconference Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT Natural Environment
Art McMillan, P.E. NCDOT Highway Design
Eric Midkiff, P.E. NCDOT Project Development
Ouang.Nguyen, P.E. NCDOT Structure Design
Bruce Payne, P.E. NCDOT Roadway Design
Nathan Phillips, P.E. NCDOT Congestion Management
Mark Pierce, P.E. NCDOT Project Development
via teleconference Russell Radford Town of Kernersville
Karen Reynolds NCDOT Project Development
Roy Shelton NCDOT PDEA
Laura Slusher, P.E. NCDOT Traffic. Safety
via teleconference _ Caleb Smith. NC DOT Archaeology
JerrySnead, P.E. NCDOT Hydraulics
Mark Staley, E.I. NCDOT Roadside Environmental
Mike. Stanley, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
Linwood Stone NCDOT Project Development
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D. NCDOT PDEA
via teleconference Pat Tuttle; P.E., P.L.S. NCDOT Division 9
via teleconference Brian Ulrich Town of Kernersville
James Upchurch NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
2. Sconing:Information. Sheets
Proj ect. Description: SR 2643 (Union Cross Road), SR 2691(Wallburg Road) to
SR 2632 .(Sedge Garden Road), widen to multilanes, 3.6 similes.
General Project Need: Capacity
Metropolitani tcurai riar ing yrgai
Section 4,04 / NEPA 1Vleror Process
v Feasibility Studv Comi leted: n/a
Winston-Salem Forsyth Urban Area MPO
to be screened after environmental studies
v Teti ,."of Environmental Documents / Project Schedule: EA (June 2006) FONSI (Nov 2006)
R/W (FFY 2007) Let (FFY 2008).
Air Quality Status: Non-attainment / Maint. for CO and Early Action Compact Area.for 8-hr Ozone
Len of.ProtkLimits: 3.6 miles
Tyke of AccessControl: Existing: none Proposed: to be determined
Straetdre Iriveritory: #330392: US 311 Interchange #330458: I-40 Interchange

I'
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 3 of 6
Functional Classification: Urban Collector / Local
Strateaic.Corridor Information: n/a
Thorou4fare Plan Designation: Major Thoroughfare on W-S Forsyth Urban Area Plan
Roadwa?ypical Sections: Existing: 3-1ane shoulder section
Proposed: multilane; curb & gutter section with raised median.
Tvvical Section in. Compliance with Conformity Determination: yes
Right; of Way: Existing: varies proposed: to be determined
Existing Posted Speed: 35 to 50 mph
Proposed Design Speed: 50 mph
Traffic Forecasting: (volumes presented during meeting were revised on 9/12/05, as follow)
Current Year (2005 AADT): 11,000 to 20,200 vpd
Design Year (2030 AADT): 23;100 to 40,700 vpd
%TTST; 1-2% %Dual: 3 - 6%
Railroad Involvement: none
Cost-Estimate: Construction Right of Way Total Cost
TIP Estimate: $ 30,000,000 $ 5,000;000 $ 35,000,000
Current Estimate: $ 30,900,000 $ 5;000,000 $ 35,900,000
3. Written Scoping Comments
I received the following correspondence prior to this meeting, and included it in the agenda for open
discussion, as applicable. Please refer to the attached correspondence for more details.
1) EN1Z.- Parks & Recreation (8/18/05 No comments on the project as currently'proposed.
DENR-.Natural Heritage Program (8/18/05): No record of rare species, significant natural
communities, or priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
r DENR - Division of Water Ouali y (8/24/05 General and project=specific comments.
NCDOT. Bridge Maintenance (8/26/05): Joints should be replaced on bridge over US 311 if
widened.
v NCDOT Division Environmental Officer (8/30/05 (1)Potential historic property at 4005 Wallburg
Road and owners have contacted State Historic Preservation Office for listing application; (2)State
Historic listed property at the southeast corner of Hedgecock and Union Cross Road; ()Union Cross
Road is on a ridge line; (4)Glenn High School is very close to Union Cross Road; and (5)Many homes
and.businesses along Union Cross Road.
NCDOT.Location & Sgn eys (8/31/05): Utilities: (')AT&T. has an underground fiber-optic cable;
_ t2?Spi nt Communications has aerial and underground cables, ?3?B'eh SoU. has aerial and
underground f ber-optic cables; (4)Time Warner Cable has. aerial and. underground fber-optic cables;
(5)P e'dmont.Natural Gas has plastic and steel gas mains; (6)City of Winnston-Salem has gravity and
force-ir am.sanitary sewers; (7)City of Winston-Salem has ductile iron water mains;: ($)Duke Power
has: aerial transmission lines and underground service; (9)Alltel has acell tower; (10)Crovm Castle
International has a cell tower; (")C' ity of Winston-Salem has an elevated water storage tank;
Environmental:,.-.. )Ab6yPground and underground petroleum storage.4anks t13?Project is located in
Abbott's Greek ..Watershed and:. Yadkin River Basin; ( 4)Closed Air Force Radar Installation in Union
Water supply wells; "Triad Hispanic Ministries across from Dell
Cross Par1c at Wallburg Road; (15)
+." Boulevard migfiY require environmental justice research; (17)City of Winston-Salem Planning Zone
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November-I,.2 2005
Page 4 of 6
west of Union Cross Road; (18)Town of Kernersville Planning Zone east of Union Cross Road;
(19)More restrictive Abbott's Creek Watershed Vegetative Buffer Provisions on east side of Union
Cross Road; Cultural: (20}Bicycle routes: Scenic Union Cross Connector 24 Bike Route, and route
along Sedge. Garden. and Hastings Hill Roads; (21)Boone Trail Highway / Old Plank Road Trace
Historical MArker; X22)Proposed developments: Caleb's Creek, Weatherstone; Abbott's Plantation;
(23`Union Cross Station Shopping Center; (24)Union Cross Moravian Church Cemetery; (25)Horse
boarding stable; (21) Tobacco field/barns; (27)Beeson Crossroads Fire Department Station 26;
(*Southeast Middle School; (29)Churches and schools in vicinity; (30)Traditional Academy;
En neerw: (31)Speed limits: 65 mph (I-40); 45-50 mph (Union Cross Road); 35 mph (school
zones); 25 mph (subdivision streets); (32)Controlled access on I-40 and US 311; (33)New entrances to
Glenn High School and Dell Boulevard; (34)Proposed Temple School Road extension eastward to
Piedmont Parkway; and (35?NCDOT has added signalized turn lanes, curb and gutter, widened exit
ramps, two bridges, and controlled access fencing.
I received the following correspondence during the period from 9/7/05 through 10/31/05. Please refer to
the attached correspondence for more details.
> NCDOT Rail Division (9/6/05): No rail interaction will be involved on this project.
> NCDOT Geotechnical Unit (9/7/05): No significant geotechnical issues.
> NCDOT=Historic Architecture (9/7/05): Phase I Reconnaissance Survey (2/25/05) from US 311 to I-
40;'Phase II Survey of the project area underway.
> FHWA (9/7/05): Modification of I-40. Interchange will require FHWA involvement
> NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division (9/21/05): Designated bike routes exist on this project.
> Winston-Salem DOT (10/13/05): preferred typical .section is a multilane, median-divided, curb and
gutter facility with 4-foot delineated bike lanes; W-S DOT also recommends sidewalks on both sides
of Union Cross Road.
4. Additional Scopin Issues & Open Discussion
> Existink structures and property in close proximity to existi
Homes and small businesses
• Glenn High School
> Potential historic resources (Union Cross School; David-Smith Farm; Ed Crews Property; others ?)
> Union"Cross Road Park at southern project terminus (Union Cross Rd / Wallburg Rd intersection)
> I4d.°Iuteirchangre
Check capacity and modify with respect to existing and proposed commercial site development
• Cary I-40 widening through the Union Cross Interchange; widen to the outside.
• Need.:more study of control of access. at the I-40 Interchange, including road relocations; this
interchange is the key to traffic flow in the area.
Due tdptoximity to I-40 Interchange, consider relocation of Pecan Lane ?
I-40 Interchange design is the key to traffic flow through this area.
Congestion Management Design Report will not include recommendations for the Interchange
.
.:: M&dif cation Report; Project Development to coordinate with Congestion Management to
Yequest`in-house or contracted design services for IlVIR:
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 5 of 6
> US 311 Interchange adequacy for Union Cross Road widening ?
• 68-foot approach available now
• Is an interchange modification necessary ?
• Signals at US 311 Interchange ?
• 4U 311 /1-74 Strategic Highway Corridor." - US 311 paved shoulders need to be widened from
4 feet to 10 - 12 feet to upgrade to I-74 standards.
> Wallburg Road as a through-movement at southern terminus ?
> Signals vs. Roundabouts ?
> Lighting for interchanges ?
All. SPUIs are lighted
US 311 Interchange is debatable
> Transit service by Piedmont Transit Authority
• To serve Alliance Business Park within 6 months ?
• Bus pull-outs ?
> Sidewalks
. Both sides ?
West side only ?
• Winston-Salem to participate ?
• Kernersville to participate ?
> Bicycle facilities
• NC Bike Route 2: Mountain to. Sea
• Possibly a shared lane (14-foot outside lane ?)
• Continue coordination with Tom Norman (NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division) and Lakesha
Dunbar (W-S DOT)
> Related TIP Projects
• U4759: Division 9's 3=1ane widening of Union Cross Road
• U-2579A: Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (eastern section)
• Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
• Proposed residential and commercial development in vicinity
> Final Traffic Forecast Report (2030) is pending.
> Median breaks on Union Cross Road
• 1200=foot spacing
• At cross-overs and signals
> Kernersville is in the process of approving 1,400 acres of residential development in vicinity.
> Federal funds will be used on this project.
> Control of access ?
Limited access at interchanges ?
• Partial control of access along remainder of Union Cross Road ?
To be determined later
I:.. > Preliminary mapping is available now
> Need to coordinate closely with NCDOT Utilities Unit
> Roadway Design to request final surveys since U-4759, 3-lane widening of Union Cross Road, is
now'complete.
- > Project Development to submit environmental requests:
Individual environmental requests for each discipline to Carl Goode (Human Environment).
TWo :copies of the environmental request to Phil Harris (Natural Environment).
> Design Build Team
• D-B' Award. after Concurrence Point 4A if the project follows the Merger Process, or after the .
preferred alternative is selected if the project is not following the Merger Process.
. D-B: Team will probably obtain permits.
?' 0 Roadway Design to transfer project to Design-Build Team after the Public Hearing.
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 6 of 6
5. Schedule
Activities Completed
• Programmed in 2006 - 2012 TIP as a state-funded project (mid-July 2005)
• Newsletter No. 1 (late-July 2005)
• Start-of-Study Notice. & Scoping Information Sheets (8/15/05)
• Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate (8/15/05)
• Preliminary Engineering Funds (8/18/05)
• Press release issued for notice of Citizens Informational Workshop (mid-August 2005)
• Traffic Forecast Report - 2005 Base Year (8/24/05)
• Geotechnical / Geoenvironmental Pre-Scoping Report (8/25/05)
• Winston-Salem / Kernersville / Forsyth Local Officials Meeting (8/25/05)
•. Traffic Safety Analysis / Crash Data Report (8/30/05)
Activities Underway
• Division 9 coordination of related residential and commercial development projects
• Traffic Forecast Report - 2030 Design Year
• Congestion management analysis and design
• Access management analysis and design
• Constraints mapping
• Roadway functionals
• Newspaper advertisements for notice of Citizens Informational Workshop
• Submittal of requests for environmental input
> Future Activities
• , Citizens Workshop (9/22/05)
• Environmental field surveys, detailed inspections, and studies (to commence after workshop)
• Merger Process Screening
< End of Memorandum >

NCD®T PROJECT NEWSLETTER
r ?Oa NOF1 Qq
~ 9?
hP
W
p?
,C
9 ?P
O
OF T{tANBQ
Union Cross Road Widening Project in Forsyth County
. (TIP Project No. U-4909)
ISSUE NO. 1 JULY 2005
Newsletter Published By: North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is publishing this newsletter to keep the citizens and other
interested parties informed about the status of the Union Cross Road Widening Project in Forsyth County.
Land Development Generates Traffic
Land development in Winston-Salem and Kernersville
3s increased traffic volumes on all of the roads in the
-rea. Additional residential and commercial land
development is proposed or currently under construction
that will place additional demands on Union Cross Road.
Caleb's Creek Subdivision (1,500 homes and
commercial out-parcels) is now under construction
between Teague Lane and Union Cross Road.
Weatherstone Subdivision (300 homes) is now under
construction near the intersection of High Point Road
and Union Cross Road. The proposed Hovanian
Subdivision (500 homes) will be located between
Hedgecock Road and Watkins Ford Road. The Shoppes
at Glenn Crossing is proposed between I-40 and Glenn
High Road on Union Cross Road. Another shopping
centef is proposed near the interchange of I-40 across
from Pecan Lane. Dell Computers has begun
construction of their facility in the 200-acre Alliance
Science and Technology Park, which is located west of
Union Cross Road and north of Temple School Road.
Current Construction
As an interim response to the existing traffic capacity
demands, NCDOT Division 9 has been making
aprovements to Union Cross Road, Temple School
Aoad, Glenn High Road, High Point Road, and the
interchanges at I-40 and US 311. The purpose of this
work is to improve capacity and reduce the existing
congestion in this corridor. The following construction
has been underway for the past few months:
• Widening Union Cross Road to three lanes from
Wallburg Road to I-40 and adding right turn lanes at
particular intersections and at Glenn High School;
• Widening a portion of Temple School Road to 4 lanes
with curb and gutter drainage;
• Widening Glenn High Road to 3 lanes at the
intersection with Union Cross Road;
• Widening a portion of High Point Road with turn
lanes at Temple School Road;
• Ramp improvements for the I-40 interchange; and
• Ramp improvements for the US 311 Interchange.
Division 9 has made much progress on this improvement
project and anticipates construction to be completed by
the end of this summer.
Studies & Future Improvements
NCDOT will continue to study the entire metropolitan
area in order to plan for and design future improvements
for the Union Cross Road corridor.
Traffic forecasting is being conducted to estimate future
volumes for Union Cross Road with respect to the
existing and proposed roadway network. Based upon
preliminary findings, Union Cross Road must be
widened beyond the Mane facility that is now under
construction to handle future traffic volumes.
Studies & Future Improvements
(continued)
The project will begin at Wallburg Road and end at
Sedge Garden Road as presented on the Project Location
Map.
Additional surveys and fieldwork will be conducted to
assess the human and natural environment in the project
vicinity. These studies will be used to plan and design
the best-fit alignment for the multilane widening of
Union Cross Road. NCDOT requests your cooperation
as we access your property to conduct our studies.
Citizens Workshop in September 2005
NCDOT will hold a Citizens Informational Workshop
on Thursday, September 22, 2005, between the hours of
4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Glenn High
School at 1600 Union Cross Road, Kernersville.
Interested individuals may attend this informal workshop
at their convenience during the referenced hours.
The purpose of the workshop is to allow citizens, public
officials, representatives of the Department of
Transportation, and other interested parties to meet on a
one-on-one basis to receive comments, answer r
questions, present information, and discuss the
preliminary scope of the widening project.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under
the Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled persons
who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Mark
Pierce at the address and telephone number listed below
so that arrangements can be made as early as possible.
... So What's Next ? . , .
These are the next events and project milestones with
anticipated dates.
Sedge
N Gortlep
v Rd C?a
Rd
End Project
1-40
ay
a°+F
Glenn Hlgh Road
i
W
O
U
School Road y gecock Road
a m
B ms
ac
High ,o
m
poi' f ?
m? a Gs3 fed r
?° Begin Project
U.4909
Unlon Cross Road (SR 2643) Widening Project Project Location Map
Forsyth County, NC
For More Information
b Develop the scope of the project (summer of 2005)
Citizens Informational Workshop (9122105)
Begin environmental field studies (late ,Sept 2005)
Write: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director -- -
Attn: Mark Pierce, P.E. Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation C
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Call: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer(919) 733-7844 x2I4
I
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
PROPOSED FOR UNION CROSS ROAD WIDENING
WBS NO. 40278 TIP Project No. U-4909 Forsyth County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on T hursday September 22, 2005
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Glenn High
School at 1600 Union Cross Road in Kernersville.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. NCDOT proposes widening Union Cross Road. The project will begin at
Wallburg Road and end at Sedge Garden Road.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mark Pierce, P.E.,
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, or by phone at (919) 733-
7844 ext. 214, fax at [phone], or E-mail at mspierceAdot. state. nc. us
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop, to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. To request special assistance, please contact Mr. Pierce as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL W®IKSIIOF
FOR
UNION CROSS ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
FROM WALLBURG ROAD TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD
NEAR WINSTON-SALEM AND KERNERSVILLE IN FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NUMBER U-4909
HELD AT
GLENN NIGH SCHOOL
1600 UNION CROSS ROAD
KERNERSVILLE, NC 27284
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 ( 4:00 - 7:00 P.M.
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
UNION CROSS ROAD ( SR 2643 ) WIDENING PROJECT
FRONT- WALLBURG ROAD (SR 2691 ) TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD (SR 2632)
NEAR WINSTON-SALEM AND KERNERSVILLE IN I+ORSYTH COUNTY -
TIP PROJECT NUMBER U-4909
L?
PURPOSE OF TIIIS CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The purpose of this workshop is to allow citizens, public officials, representatives of NCDOT, and other
interested parties to meet on a one-on-one basis to receive comments, answer questions, present
information, and discuss the preliminary scope in the earliest stage of project development. Please
record your comments, questions, concerns, or appreciation regarding this project on the enclosed
connnent sheet.
NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed of the possible
effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not available at this
time. We are now just beginning the scoping and planning for this project. After the workshop is
conducted, we will begin field surveys and detailed inspections to determine the proposed impacts of
this widening project to the human and natural environment. Those studies will be used to establish the
best-fit alignment of the roadway. Detailed roadway design plans will later be used to establish the
typical section and required right-of-way limits.
Written comments on this project may be submitted to NCDOT representatives at the workshop or
mailed to NCDOT. If additional information is needed or you would like to submit comments after the
workshop, please address requests and conunents to:
Write: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director - - - w
Attn: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 r
The following toll-free number is also available for general information regarding NCDOT. The
Customer Service Office answers this toll flee customer service line from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
Cell 1-877-DOT-4YOU
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NCDO.T is proposing to widen approximately 3.6 miles of Union Cross Road (SR 2643) from a 3-lane
facility to a multilane facility from Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632) as
presented in the approved 2006 to 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and shown
below. This project also includes capacity studies and upgrading, as warranted; for the I-40 and
US 311 interchanges. We anticipate the use of state and federal funding on this project.
Sedgel G
N ?r?ett
Rd
End Project
,a
1-40
R
Glenn High Raad 1
school Raad ecdge, Road
OCk
o?
1
a?
m
Q ?
Begin Project
U-4909
Union Gross Roast (SR 2643) Widening Project Project Location P&p
Forsyth County, NC
PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT
Land development in Winston-Salem and Kernersville has increased traffic volumes on all of the roads
in the area. Additional residential and commercial land development is proposed or currently under
construction that will place additional demands on Union Cross Road.
The purpose of this project is to relieve the existing congestion in the vicinity by increasing the traffic
capacity on Union Cross Road. Traffic forecasting and congestion management designs are being
conducted to estimate future volumes and typical sections for Union Cross Road with respect to the
regional roadway network. Based upon preliminary findings, Union Cross Road inust be widened
beyond the 3-lane facility that was recently completed in order to handle existing and future traffic
volumes.
11 CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST 11
Environmental Assessment Report
Right-of-Way
Construction
Right-of-Way Cost
Construction Cost
Total Estimated Cost
2006
Federal Fiscal Year 2007
Federal Fiscal Year 2008
$ 5,000,000
$ 30,900,000
$ 35,900,000
ANOTHER PROJECT IN TIRE VICINITY - WINSTON-SALEM BELTWAY
The Winston-Salem Northern Beltway Project is another TIP project in the vicinity of Union Cross
Road. The Eastern Section Extension, TIP Project Number U-2579A, includes the portion from
US 421 (I-40 Business) east of the City to US 311 southeast of the City. The following is a summary
of recent milestones and anticipated dates for future activities for U-2579A.
October 2004 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) /
Supplemental Draft EIS is published
Nov/Dec 2004 Open Houses. and Public Hearings were conducted
March 2005 Preferred Alternative was identified
December 2005 Supplemental Final EIS / Final EIS is anticipated
March 2006 Record of Decision is anticipated
May 2006 Additional Public Meetings and Design Public Hearing

YOUR COOPERATION IS NEEDED
®® fieldwork will be needed to assess the human and natural environment in the
We are still in the early stages of project development. Additional surveys and
®® project vicinity. These studies will be used to plan and design the best-fit
alignment for the road widening. NCDOT requests your cooperation as
we access your property to conduct our studies.
s
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING
Project development and environmental.studies for this widening project will comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act. The type of environmental document prepared for this project will be a
Federal Environmental Assessment.
The Environmental Assessment Report, which is currently scheduled to be completed by the summer
of 2006, will present the purpose and need for the proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and
analyze the project's impact on both the human and natural environment. The document will address
the following areas:
Traffic Capacity and Safety
Neighborhoods and Communities
Relocation of Homes and Businesses
Historic Architectural Resources
Archaeological Resources
Wetlands and Streams
Protected Species
Wildlife and Plant Communities
Land Use
Construction and Traffic Noise
Air Quality
Hazardous Materials
If our studies indicate that there will be no significant impacts to the human or natural environment, a
Finding of No Significant Impact Report will be prepared after. the Environmental Assessment Report.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC I VOlLVEMEENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation during project
development. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
Published in the N.C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
SCOPPIING LET'T'ER agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
This is an informal meeting for the public. Citizens, public officials,
CITIZENS representatives of NCDOT, and other interested parties meet on a
INFORMATIONAL one-on-one basis. Workshop handouts and other meeting materials
WORKSHOP provide citizens with project information. Comment sheets are also
available to convey comments, questions, concerns, and appreciation.
Copies of the environmental documents are submitted to the State .
Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide copies
DOCUMENT of the documents to the public. Copies are available for public
DISTRIBUTION viewing at the NCDOT Transportation Building in Raleigh, the
Division 9 office in Winston-Salem, the State Clearinghouse office,
local government offices, including the local council of government'
office, and local public libraries.
The public hearing is a formal meeting held in the project area. Verbal
PUBLIC HEAP-ING and written comments are received and documented for the public
record. 'The hearing format typically involves a short presentation
followed by an opportunity for citizens to comment.
Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT, provide information, ask
CITIZEN LETTERS questions, and express concerns or appreciation regarding the
proposed improvements. Correspondence from citizens and interest
groups is considered throughout the course of project development.
COMMENT SHEET
UNION ACROSS ROAD ( SR 2643 ) WIDENING PROJECT
FROM WAL LII$uRG ROAD ( SST 2691) TO SEDGE GARDEN ROAD (SR 2632
NEAR WINSTON-SALEM AND K ERN ERSVI LILE IN ]FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT Nu miBER U-4909
(please print)
NAME
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT SHEET TO:.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director Attn: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
NCD®T - PDEA 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
(please print)
t?? .?Y9Oi nn
W ? D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Brett Abernathy, P.E., P.L.S.
Division Project Engineer
NCDOT
Division 9
FROM: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Summary of 9/22/05 Citizens Informational Workshop
U-4909: SR 2643 -Union Cross Road Widening Project in Forsyth County
This memorandum presents a summary of the Citizens Informational Workshop held on September 22, 2005
from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Cafeteria of Glenn High School at 1600 Union Cross Road in Kernersville.
This memorandum also presents a summary of the public comments received by Project Development during
the period from July 19, 2005 through November 8, 2005.
A copy of the routing list for this transmittal is attached for your reference. Should you have comments,
questions, or revisions to this memorandum, please contact me at the address below, or by e-mail at
[e-mail], or by telephone at [phone] x214.
1. Attendance Record
November 9, 2005
(Wednesday)
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Based upon observation and the attendance record, approximately 121 individuals attended the workshop
including 95 Citizens, Board Member Nancy Dunn, Lakesha Dunbar (Winston-Salem DOT), Greg Errett
(Winston-Salem DOT), Stan Polanis (Winston-Salem DOT), Russell Radford (Town of Kernersville), Lynda
Schwan (Winston-Salem Planning), Tim Shields (Town of Kernersville), Greg Venable (Winston-Salem
DOT), Ashley Coffinan (Kernersville News), and 17 NCDOT representatives including Division Engineer
Pat Ivey, Brett Abernathy (Division 9), Jennifer Cathey (Historic Architecture), Diane Hampton (Division 9),
Kimberly Hinton (Public Involvement), Tony Houser (Roadway Design), Judy Joines (Division 9 Right of
Way), Bryan Kluchar (Project Development), Ray Lambert (Division 9), Mike Patton (Division 9), Mark
Pierce (Project Development), Keith Raulston (Division 9), Karen Reynolds (Project Development), Jamille
Robbins (Public Involvement), David Spainhour (Division 9), Linwood Stone (Project Development), and
Patrick Tuttle (Location & Surveys).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
WESSITE:
www.ncdot.ora/doh /preconstructIDe /
U-4909: 9122105 Citizens Information Workshop
November 9, 2005
Page 2 of 3
2. Purpose & Format of Workshop
The workshop allowed citizens, business owners, developers, local officials, representatives of the Board of
Transportation, representatives of the Department of Transportation, and other interested parties to meet on a
one-on-one basis to receive comments, answer questions, present information, and discuss the preliminary
scope of this widening project.
A welcome station was set up to greet the citizens, provide instructions and handouts, and to record
attendance. Another station was set up to provide an area for children to draw with crayons and coloring
books. Three (wall) stations were set up to present the mapping related to this project. Each mapping station
included the Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, the Division 9 TIP Projects Map, and the Study
Area Map on aerial mosaics.
3. General Comments related to U-4759 (Division 9's 3-Lane Widening of Union Cross Road)
The following citizens are concerned that the recent widening of Union Cross Road has created drainage
problems on their properties. They requested that NCDOT address their concerns as soon as possible.
Ms Son_ya Ketner (1768 Union Cross Road, 336-769-3684): drainage running across her property;
property pins need to be replaced; and lawn needs seeding.
Ms Deborah Jones (1772 Union Cross Road, 336-769-2129): basement now floods.
Mr. and Mrs. Tucker: surveyors damaged crops; parking in their driveway; asphalt in their driveway;
did not get fair market value for land; and Roland Stanley with Division was very good in
addressing their concerns on construction.
Mr. Joe Idol (5855 Hedgecock Road), requested that the traffic signals be synchronized.
4. General Comments related to U-4909
Although some citizens stated that additional widening was needed, several citizens and business owners
voiced concern over losing additional frontage or possible relocation if Union Cross Road is further widened.
5. General Comments related to other issues in Division 9
Mr. James Saylors (6141 Parnell Road, 336-784-9489), noted that a large hole exists at the intersection of
Kemersville Road and Oak Grove Church Road and shrubbery has been planted obscuring sight distance.
Ms. Rena Sanford inquired about the status of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway Eastern Section
Extension (U-2579A). I forwarded Ms. Sanford's comments and questions to Ms. Missy Dickens (Program
Development Staff Engineer) on August 9, 2005.
6. Food Lion Shopping Center
Greenwood & Charles, Inc. owns the shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the I-40 - Union Cross
Road Interchange. They lease to several tenants, with the largest being Food Lion and Burger King.
U-4909: 9122105 Citizens Information Workshop
November 9, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Greenwood & Charles feel that a median would limit full access to their shopping center and decrease the
commercial value of their property. Food Lion has notified Greenwood & Charles that it will leave the site if
their access if affected by this project. The other tenants are on short-term leases. Greenwood & Charles
believe that those tenants might also leave if access is limited. Greenwood & Charles has requested that
NCDOT demonstrate the need for a median north of the I-40 Interchange and to consider other alternatives
such as realignment of Solomon Drive to coincide with the northern entrance of the Food Lion Shopping
Center that would also serve Union Cross Towne Centre (a development proposed by the Land Development
Resource Group). Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., legal counsel for Greenwood &
Charles, has requested that we respond to them regarding this issue. Continued coordination between
Greenwood & Charles, the Land Development Resource Group, the local officials, and the NCDOT Project
Team will be required to ensure proper traffic flow at the I-40 Interchange with consideration of this existing
development.
7. Glenn High School
Comments related to the proximity of Glenn High School to Union Cross Road were offered by the following
citizens and faculty members: Ms. Sharon Bryan; Mr. John Fowler; Ms. Natalie France; Ms. Pamela Greene;
Ms. Pam Idol; Ms. Cynthia Scales; Ms. Tammy Simpson; Ms. Laura Slate; and Ms. Linda Weaver. They
recommend that a protective fence and guardrail be installed along Union Cross Road for the safety of the
students and the staff. They note that approximately 600 students exit the building along Union Cross Road
every 1 %z hours throughout the school day, and approximately 400 cars ingress and egress the parking lot
each school day. Two of them have recommended that any future widening be on the east side of Union
Cross Road to prevent additional right of way acquisition on the school property.
S. Sidewalks; Bicycles, & Trees
Ms. Sharon Richmond, resident and Planner for the Town of Kernersville, commented that Union Cross
Road is and will be the connection between the residential communities and the retail and office nodes in the
vicinity. Ms. Richmond recommends that provisions for pedestrians (sidewalks) and cyclists (bike lanes),
and large street trees be incorporated into this project to maintain a residential appeal rather than a highway
splitting a community.
9. Union Cross Moravian Church
Mr. Wayne Greene, Elder at Union Cross Moravian Church (336-869-6393), stated that, if NCDOT needed
to acquire the Parsonage for right of way purposes, the Church would be willing to sell the property.
10. Union Cross Towne Centre
Land Development Resource Group (336-674-9828) has been planning the Union Cross Towne Centre and
coordinating directly with Division 9 regarding access. Division 9 has been providing updated layout plans
to other members of the NCDOT Project Team for consideration in congestion management design, access
management design, roadway design, and project development. Continued coordination between the Land
Development Resource Group, Greenwood & Charles (owners of the Food Lion Shopping Center), the local
officials, and the NCDOT Project Team will be required to ensure proper traffic flow at the I-40 Interchange
with consideration of this proposed development.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS /Z-7
U.S.
WILMIN 3TON DISTRICT -4 ?
Action Id_ 200620353 County: Forjsy?h Quad: ] ernersville
N TIVICATION OF JMSD CTIONAL DETEIZNEINATION
property Owner/Agent: Pliill'rp S. Rarrls, M, .VE
Address: NC DOT
159$ ):111 Service Center
Rateiff'li, NC 27699-1598
Telephone No.: coff? V
Property description'
Size (acres) 0S Nearest Town Kerner wille
Nearest Waterway South Fork-Muddy Creek River Basin Yadkin
USGS HUC 03040101, Coordinates N 360335.24 W 800647.90
Location description Union Cross /toad SR 2643 'YP rh'-4904 ad.Lacelnt to South pork Muddv Creek. and Fiddlers
Creek south of Kernersvil.le in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the-Following Apply:
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
rhis property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This prelinunary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Referonce 33 CFR Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wedands on the above described property subject to the pen-nit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the dare of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the sizo of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wotland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X_ The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
roviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S.,, to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
aoo'd 166tt pax zvu sown MG 9L8 616 80:01 900Z. PZ'MVJ0
Action ID :
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
dati:mvnation and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact rohn Thomas at 919 876-9441.
13asis For Determination: 't'here. Are e:tream channels )xif g Your oroiect site which are tributaries of South Fork Muddy
Creek which flows into the Yndkin vex and the ,A,tlantic Ocean.
Remarks: {{
Corps Regulatory Official: J.
-7 Dare 01/23/2006 Expiration Date (? U23J2011
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):•
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"L, olated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
)'age 2 of 2
Anna TA6D* . ORE qVE Rovsn £Z89 9L8 616 60:OT 900Z.PZ'XVJ0
.TYMSDICTIONAL DETEI2MYNATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DIsMCT OFFICE: kaliegh Regulatory Field Office
FLLE NUMBER: Action ID: 200620353
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION:
Sutt:
County:
Center coordinates of site (latitudetlongitude): 360335,24N 800647.90W
Appraxunatn gild of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 5 acres.
Nama of ncares't watorway: South Fork Muddy Crock
Name of watershed: Yadkin
SMSDICTIONAT. DETERMINATION
Completed: Desktop dereauunation Date: 01/23/2006
Site visit(s) Date(s): 12/05!2005
Revised 8/13/04
sarisdictiorrat Decermination (JD):
CI prelia inary ID - Based on available information, ? there appear to be (or) ? there appear to be no "waters of the United States"
and/or "navigable warm of the United States" on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331).
Approved m -Arl approved SD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331).
Check all that apply:
] here are "navigable waters of the United States' (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the ruwieWdd
area. ApproxinIate size of jurisdictional Area:
There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CF R part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area.
Approximate siza of jurisdictional aria: 2.
There are "isolated, non-navigable, inrra-state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area.
Decision supported by S'W'ANCC/Migratory 13ird Rule lnfora-ation Sheet for Dcter nination of No Jurisdiction.
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETV-RhMiATION:
A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as `navigable waters of tho Ulrited States":
? • The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and rlow of the tide and/or art presently used, or have been wed in
the past, or may be susceptible for use t trans o interstate or fortign commareo.
B_ Wators defined under 33 CFR part 378.3(a) as "waters of the United States":
Ell (1) no presence of waters, which are currently used. or were used in the past, or may ba susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign comineree, including all waters which arc subl}eel to the ebb and flow of the tide.
?n I (2) The presence' of interstate waters including interstate wetlands .
! (3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streatns), mudflats, sandflats,
wedands, sloughs, prairio potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect intcrstato commcrct including, any such waters (check all that apply):
? (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in inurstate or foreign commerce.
? (iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by.indwtries in interstate commence.
r: (4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US.
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) - (4) above.
(6)1"re presence of territorial•seas.
:ti. (7) The presence of wetlands adjacene to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent w other wetlands.
Rsitionxlo for the Basis of Surisdictiotral Detertnlnation (applies to any boxes checked above). if the jurisdictional water or
wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connection(s) to the dowtrstream navigable waters. IfB(1) or B(3)
is used as the Basis ofJurisdicfidn, docu rent navtgabilfty and/or fnterstate commerce connection (i.e., discuss sita cpy3dfnons, including
why the waterbody is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate orforeign commerce). If B(2, 4, S or
6) is used as the Basis ofArlsdiction, document the rationale used to make the detmt nination. If B(7)1s'used as the Basis of
Jurisdiction, document the rationale wear to make ac(jacency derer ninarion. There are stream channels within ire project site that are
tributaries of South Fork Muddy Crtiek that flows into the Yadkin Rivor and die Atlantic Ocean.
North Carolina
Forsyth
--.,, - - nnvnn C7nC Ain GTG :A•AT AAA7 li7'K1Wn.
Lateral Extent of Yurisdiction: (P.efetence: 33 CFR parts 328 and 329)
Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by: High Tide Line indicated by:
® natural line impressed on the bank
clear ? oil or scum line along shore objeet;l
? ,
the presence of litter and debris ? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? changes in the character of aoil ? physical wArkings/charact'eristies
? destruction of terrestrial vegetation ' tidal gages
? thrlving other:
Q other:
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum; ? physical markings; ? vegetation linos/changes in vegetation types.
Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by:
Basis For Not Asserting Turisdiction:
M10 The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands.
Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR parr 328(x)(1, 2, or 4-7).
( Headqu=s declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 3283(a)(3).
The Corps has made a case-specific determination that rho following waters present on the situ are not Waters of the United States:
? Waste treaunent systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3.
? Artificially irrigated areas, which `Would revert to upland if the irrigation ceasod_
? Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice gowing.
? Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water cre:atcd
by excavating and/or dilarig dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
? Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation oparadou is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CPR 328.3(x).
? Lsolattd, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce.
? 1•'rtior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale:
? Non-tidal drainage or inigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain. rarionale:
? Other (explain):'
DATA REVIEW ' FOR JURSMIC110NAL DETERMINATION (Wark all that apply):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of rho applicant.
Data sheets ptepared/submittcd by or on behalf of the applicant.
® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated 12/0512005, prepared by (company): NC DOT
? This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated , prepared by (company):
Data sheets prepared by the Corps.
Corps' navigable waters' studies:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Hillsborough
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minum 13istorio quadrangles:
U.S. Geological Survey 15 Minuto historic quadrangles:
US13A Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey:
National wetlands inventory maps:
Stam/Local wetland inventory maps:
FFMA/1'IR,M maps (Map Name & Date):
100 yeas' Floodplain Elevation is: (NG.VD)
Aerial Photographs (Name & Date):
Other photographs (Date):
Advanced Identification Wetland maps:
Site visit/deterrnination conducted on:
Applicable/supporting case law.'
Other information (please specify):
Wetl=ds are identified and delineated uinS the methods and criteria m7mblishcd in the Corps Wedand Delinealion Mannal (97 Manual) (i.e., Occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, by4ie soils and wWand hydrology).
z temr "adjacen{' mc3n6 bordering. conlibxrous, oe neighboring. Wetlands separated ftum other wa= of the U.S. by rntrn-mado dikes or barriers. natural
river bums, beach dunes, and the like arc also adjacent.
"nT"INWP . o p? 11 11 r r r• o +L illy Y.

?r
u 14
`}'r.
ir
. +
?r
7
?
qq
nn
I
NCDOT
Applicant: File Number: 200620353 Date: 01/23/2006
hed is:
A See Section below

ITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
IN
A
r1m 6ion

tandard Permit or Letter of eission
ROFFERED PERMIT S
B
L ERMIT DENIAL C
PPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
RELIMINARY J'IIRISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIO
J y ''
.mr _ 1F .? ....... ... .. rr_.wwMrW?,•J•rn;?SMNlXa,IARYY?3:.IY'IDYI}IN1.?t?P3q -:t '?' '?'?i.lw'f•. a?4/Ar.?ia1Sl?t ?4 YG:
3'11 „'•
A: T1 T)AL PROFFERED NERNIIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for•fi?al
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authoriwd- Your sij?iature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit iii its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its tem-4 and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return
the form to the district engineer- Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
detennined that the permit should be issued as previously written. Aftr evaluatuag your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B beloru_
PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit'
I
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Pennission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the pemiit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the pem-dt.
T APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
appeal Process by completing Section II of this fonn and sending the form to the division engineer. This form,
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
--'7 Tc?xu n7T 7v? A'1KGn F7.AA qtA 6t6 6 n:nt 9002. DZ'XV.0
D: APPROVED JUIUSDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information-
. ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved ]D. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administzitive
Appeal Process by comphling Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the dare of this notice.
F IMINARY' J'CMSDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
h may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
on for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD,
,.•i .?. _ - •-• -- - ..._ is - - - '?11P`:•.• ??; '°?6l ;'•..1?,••,n
1'• tl? ,7rr.
't.. `I•J`. +rl.i. :o• 41 ?F? }.1,1 I:`.:/ 44
to
u.•,
E S;"F I(lf , iJ"oli ,•?
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR O13JE, CTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this fornn to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record-)
ADDITIONAL 1NFORM:ATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new infonaiation or analyses to the record.. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative recor4. _
' -'F .• C r . ?" n 1. s. ? i'? ? ..;X?;F.a` - ?'q,?;1,b?•ih•,??! _+•1?:, .?ka'• 1,S?i1?'Rq,r,?t'+;? a
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
andJor the appeal process you may contact: may also contact: AA e Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M IS
Atlanta Geox is 30303-8801
RXGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
OMSION ENGl1 ER:
Commander
U.S.. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MIS
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
PTA-7 T'cer'4 lc1uv qwN gnwan C70C 010 AT9 AT:AT ann7.ir7.1TWr
U.S. ARMY CO "S OF ENGI NEERS
WILMINGTON D[STRICT
Action1d, 200620-153 Caamty: Forgyth U.S.G.S. Quad:Kerrterrsville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETE&MINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Phfllfp S. t9[arris, IM PE
Address: SC no
1.599 Mail Service Center
1~;.atleigh' NC 276994.598
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres) 05 Nearest Town Ncrnersville
Nearest Waterway. nuth Fgrk. l6 uddV Creep River 11asin Yiidida
USGS I-T C 03040101 Coordinates N2 4235„24 W ROiI. 647,911
Location description Union Crass ll agd (S..R 2643) TI-E U-4909 adjarMt to South Fork Mkddy Creek :tm.d Fidr9lem
Creak, south, of Kernersville, In Forsyth County, North Carolina. Based on the revisions yotr grovided us dated June
22, 2606, this deterttid stun is modified to includes the iurisdictional deter.miaRtiou located at site 17 of the proposed U-
4969 7prgj er t.
Indicate Which of the Following A-pp.] :
Based on preliminary inforzvation, thero may be, wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the, Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verifiedby the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
t mder the 1egulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
'there are 1 wAgable Waters of the United agitates within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 4014 of the Clean WAter Act. Unless there is a change in the Yaw or
our published rogvlatiors, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
a3otifiCallb>,.
X There are wetlands on the above described property satbject to the pcrrait rcquireiamrs of Section 4014 of the Clean Water
Aa (MVA)(33 USC ? I344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years fiom the da.tc of this not cation.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. D to to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delinayation in a tirmily manner. Por a more finery
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
veritted by the Corps. We strwigly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Carps. Once verified, this survey will provide azx accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law of our published regulations, =y be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Eegulatory Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
dewminntioa =y be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the'date of this notification.
Theve are; no watrrr,, of the U.$., to include NWtlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit wgaireinerim of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless tltkre is a diange in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years $oni the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You. should contact the Division of Coastal Managoment in Washingtot7, NC, at [phone] to deternae
their requirements.
> o1of2
Action Tlx:
hlactiunr; of dredged or fall xrxaterial within waters at tha CIS =V6r wbtlands without a Depart=, ut of the Army permit rtay
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean water Act (33 USC § 1311). ff you have any questions reLpvding this
de cmiim ion =Xor i:hie Corps regulatory prograrn, plcaSd contact ?inll Tboaxras at U9-
Basis For Detexmination: There are stream charxaels within Your proieet site ?rlri?h ?r.? tril}tttmi.es of, Somth Fork M.ud4
?enr3rks:
Corps Regulatory official.
bate 0112312066
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
Date 01123/201.1.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data fora must be attached to the file copy of this fom.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Pro(xss And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property wAnerlagent copy of this form.
d If the proptivy contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in etr?arl:s" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination hi formation Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Page .2 of 2
N
C
O
d.
t ?

O L
(
D
nn? /
C\j
l
J
?
?
T
3• .?.n E
?
??
) .
0

t
3
LL 0

f?
i ? is

s a

i c
a) p

1 L
?
'''..

rk.
f 6? Iy

? IC
f--a

c

D
i->
c
O
a C
Q
Q D
N
E
L
N
C
H
Q
co
LR
N
O
O
O
N
I\
N
O
O
c
Q-.
NI
I
O
O
O
Michael F. Easley, Governor
r`
a?g rED
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
I 0 2006
>.• JUL Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 5, 2006
Mr. William A. Barrett
DOD I ED
1?.
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Subject: SR 2643 widening from SR 2691 to SR 2632
Forsyth County
F°deral Aid Project No. STP-2643(2)
TIP Project Nos. U-4909
;L 1.0 2006
J 1.
WON Of HIGIi10t1AYS
PDEA•Oi FICEOP+-YAT!Ak ENVIRONMENT
Ora-Site ]Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)
Dear Mr. Barrett:
On June 22, 2006, Sue Homewood from the Division of Water Quality (Division) conducted an on-site visit
with representatives of NCDOT - PCDEA to review a stream and wetland feature located adjacent to SR 2643
(Union Cross Rd) in Forsyth County for applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)). The
features reviewed (Site 17) were not reviewed in a previous on-site determination dated December 16, 2005.
This letter shall be considered an addendum to the determination dated December 16, 2005 and in no way
modifies the previous determination.
Site 17 is located on the south side of the I-40 Eastbound on-ramp from Union Cross Rd (see attached map).
The Division has determined that the stream features noted on the attached summary (initialed and dated) are
accurate, and that the perennial portion of the stream feature is subject to mitigation rules. This on-site
determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by
the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John
Dorney, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650.
Individuals that dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface
water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date
that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start
until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The
Division recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals
are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which. conforms to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60
days.
Noe Carolina
?tlfll???l,/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet: h2o.emstate.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107 FAX [phone]
Mr. Wuliam A. Barrett
July 5, 2006
NCDOT Projects U-4909
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation requirements and does not approve any activity
within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require
additional information please call Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
ACVAlan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments: Site 17 Map
Site 17 determination drawing
cc: John Thomas, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Wetlands/401 Transportation Unit
DWQ WSRO File Copy
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: _ ?' ?C?
1. Applicant's name: PC- 2. Evaluator's name:R rz, I'S S,-,, ?,J ,.g--
3. Date of evaluation: } --s (I-3 C:?-.. 4. Time of evaluation: Z : U C?
5. Name of streait r l• 1`t- > ' 6. River basin: Ya (v- A
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: 1
10. County: r s\(-(c--
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (cm -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note neanmaads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
S (' 1,4-
14. Proposed channel work (if any): U V, k o yw
15. Recent weather conditions: G d L ?^ < 5
16. Site conditions at time of visit C ( Y C?
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 `Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is. there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation paint? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (RNO. 20. oes channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential 2Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
5% Forested Cleared / Logged Other ( 1
22. Bankfall width: v? 3 r- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): F1"
24. Channel slope down center of stream ' -Flat (0 to 2%) Z entle (2 to 4%) mate (4 to l0%) ^Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by detem+inirtg the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. n
Total Score (from reverse):- Comments: K0-41J-t
Evaluator's Signature Date I U
This channel evaluation form is intended to be only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular. mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Continent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
PSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'.: 4.,Eresence.,D?'llgw Jypet?isten?,?ools in: stream :: ? . ,':
0
0 4 '
0 S
no. flow. or-..saturahon:1-s0 .xtron :flow - niax: in#s
Eyidence?astlhuman<alteratioa

f
a
ti
d
0-,6
01

3
ex
ensive.
l#era
n ?
. no.alteraf on max points
5 Parfait one `6 .
0 ,0
4

a
n(] fff er . 0 .coati Dais a buffer -max rots - - 0 =5
EvlrYencebentltii?es?ox7temicarischages
- -,,, z rfi?rd,Nr K^.f>•.w m,, l ,u E °i -- t
extensive%tiise s,p2scliar "-:axr omts Q -4.5 7Q -
- ,4
--
-
- l:lt

g -
eCilD1I1LWSe1l6BC)?
lSie
*? )•, ti" .? X.:t,a as i

0-73

0-4 -
---------
--
-,-0
-4

r'
IIOP
disc e.? =s ?s s Awetlaid ..etc. ; max o is
Q B n1

i

6 Presence ofan acentT66 d lain "
?, r.,c ?rs?w w
i?`
0 -
Q - 4
0 2; -
no`#loc?
50ax
4Censi".Ro "latn??.ti?a?c~ Dints
v.ntTII?'llllLeII?r*EiO11lAi?3aCCess'
7 " d
-I
re ach
d c
ien
'` ' 'k
k ax
t
l 0 - 5 0 -4 6 2 ,
ee
ent
e
e
t
o
.
Din
s
8 "- eseneeao uad adept wetlands .:> " -
p
4
0
0 2
"
no,uretlands'=aD?' aaentAuetlands:max., 'oiAts 6 - ;
t . ro"4 l81tn $sI?IIOB7 ?v r5?i 4

g F n
t,.Y;' al 4r3i'fl S ).Lri 1W?? N Si.? 3<- .i 1
n.?
extenslaie°cliaanelizaiiosi Q a ur uzlWander-M
ma9C; mt6
0 5
0 4

c
a0 3 `?•,
?

fi
r? pig r u,,,,?evesy" kii
5 m?(<,af 7 tWaF aryci 'All
s
IlI1[I
"
??
`

0 5

p

4 0
?
?A
e
8
a
,
'
xle
s
v
de
? 4 4 a
,.
o
i
e
s ficon,. a use
7
.
1
?
?'? ?
?? ? r?'? tY?xC ),''-'' ?ii"gkti.) n`YGrySt'?.1'3?1hi}$?'r?ri?.'$Aali+xl\}?y^bi.1i.'LE+Sd "?Yf 7A "
>, ?it1C'm? OIIS"?'?Q' 8'?olea.CI'8?6]ZC?S.., SSin87t4t oMt6 1 ?
,k 1 .?? ?/ ?
r f ? 0 S -
u?

C,.
?^x

"h ( ???LLW??. r?l[?J??'?rl?lLLQ? yV l?1Gi{#Y,g
+
X

-5

A

? hti
a
i,
o
(dee x?se?
d&1's
a!
x
ee
f"+ sL'Be Ar18711?tfRILlCSW7

`
5
(seuerere?erosion;--?0^an+?`Crn . ler?-?'anax; rots . -
g. SRbUtd?anl?ell3117"?i?1$]l?($ff ''

yg l
4 ?kF it i s nnfW a q ,.?ttw--__ T wv1S
8
h;l
'
j
1
"
p 3
Q q
77
Q 5 ^<?

.;
no ?1
T
eAL?
n if $n8eu
CDC
t[uu
1 OttiWax Dolts J
"?or3tnbe;nrorlucton
y} ?j. fi y?{'sY?,rr
S?1
? a
~
Q '"?
Q [?;
t
C W4
u ?x
aRc <
4S
SA19S
?A?3(RIenCE?' OIIItS ? J r
reseolblinfil/sRpleoCleomnlezes.-

{n0 rlf ieB?il lOD+px3 1 iVKel [e-mail] ed ..ill]ax oints 0 0= 5 0 6
HibifBumlei€i x s _

R' Qw
(littl
n
?a'bYt
0
'
o
v
?0 6
X0-,6
e_or
o.
at
. on+ u hats=max
mts
18 L7anopy eager oVertre
abed`--'
_
s.
n
sh
din
e
coi
ti
i
" - 0 =5= 0-S
o
a
v
hor4 1,
i
i
uous5-Mano =
max
oints
19 U. Substrateembeddedness
0-'4
0
4
dee 1 .embed e We",structure=max } : - .
2 wesej Cop a, ?stceam in?enteUratte& (see Page 4}
0 _
' 0 = a - 5 0= 5 '
'
no evidence
0 . types =-max; omts
" reseneexDhmphitiians
21
x
(no evidence
J Q,.co tumo.rous: es =,max omts 0 4

- 0 -4 0- 4
22 Presenee.-osh
d 0-4 0 , 4, 07-4
no evi
ence ?O , nuti emus s =,max•: Dints

- :Evidence d' Hfe ise
no:.evidence`- al undanf evidence .aaax' aoints
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
,Utl,i -
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Mtn ,? 7"' Al-ecm 2- k-PhA d Date: b tf D Y'
Applicant /Owner:. G I County: i",t
Investigator: frx* Ifw-, -??c'!21 I'n1li? State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No: Transect ID:
=
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. I(,in G Js l 9. htv&i, /qru w 99d _ S SG
2.Tr?ac*fns pan-aniFs _ G 10.
3. 11.
4. Dille Dopkdc %f- U 12.
5. Ritzy I., 10w ?_ D6f 13.
WW - c6l 14.
7.Red A&01" F? 15.
8. Toth ?11dr SL LJ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are/are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland -Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs PrimarvAdicators:
_ Other 1 undated
? Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Sent Deposits
Field Observatlus [.5
' Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.). Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: ?-? (in.) Oxidized. Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
_
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
J?
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture; Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
educing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Solis List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present. Yes ? No Within a Wetland. YesZ No,
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)?d P??t
Project / Site:U- Q!70 e c?tl+? • w ?-Z S ?Z ?`? Date: 1 1 os-
Applicant / Owner: MCD10 County: -,
Investigator: I'S^??' i'-eu nor State: Alt
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes • No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No?
m Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
f9kC 9.
4 t'G
2. jA, C U 1 o. o• ra-c y
3.A [cc- r* G - 11.
'?ourrua0
4. S ISO-C t( 12.
_
5. f7lac 1.1G'yw _. 13.
6. d o < U 14.
7. ik?adhn( 15.
8. c? r?ij(? V f3? L - 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-)-
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species arelare not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
At , Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other /FQ1 - Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
d Data Available
d
R
o
/N - Water Marks
r
e
ec
o
- Drift Lines
Field Observations: - Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 12 (in.) Secondary. Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: in.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) - FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Muns
elll Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
`
O-Z ?/ ?-s 7 S " t ''
Z-? Z 5'? ?l 3 5 ?Z s' r vnInef7f C e4b'
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No J Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No _X
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is.not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands. Delineation Manual.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream. Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: ti y ?a Latitude:
Evaluator. Site: l fy > Longitude:
Total Points: Other
stream is at least intermRtent S' County. . e.g. Quad Name:
12: 10 or perennial if z 30 ? ?? S4 C-
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = JI"
1'. Continuous bed and bank
0
2 ? l
3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
6..Active/relic fioodpiain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 8, Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade co Is 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
NEE Q
Yes = 3
Man-mace cacnes are not ramu; sae uu u1jaw lm ni ,--
G. t7 Ururu vuvww? -
14. Groundwater low/discharge
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 1 2 3
Water in channel - d or rowm season
0
5
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 .
17. Sediment on plants or debris ® 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack fines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? N = Yes = 1.5

V. YV.V ? v
2 . Fibrous roots in channel
3
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25.. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizhtj'156cteriatfungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 .. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; er =
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item zu tocuses on me presence or aquauc ui wollenju pool-.
Sketch:.
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.)
{eCpr'v,oa ncd fld? dc4nW 'a )?A
?Lt'' ?fccL/ corrv; ckd Pe -

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?} 5 Project: Latitude:
Evaluator. t 1, A , -4. r? - Site: C?. Longitude:
Total Points:Other
Stream is at least intermittent??. County:s e.g. Quad Name:
if 2:19 or perennial if 2:30
A. Geomorphology subtotal

18. Continuous bed and bank l I W."
i ax
0
imn,
1
ow" so
2

3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 .3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 -5 2 3
7. Braided channel 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees C 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on eAstin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No.A
Yes = 3
Man-made.dittihes are not rated; See 01scussrons in manual
14..Groundwaterflow/diischarge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 11
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o - Yes =1.5

4...
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish : ' 0 7 5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish _Q 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) a 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC16 0.0 FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
"Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upiana plants, item za Tocuses on uie pre wiuv ul ayuau, ul wcuauu Fla,
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

5 ??;.? r r ?rvw { ?
j USACE AID# DWQ # Site #__t_ (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following in/fformation forith`evstream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: F t? ?1?"'? W 1 1 `1 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 5 - 7' 4. Time of evaluation: (0SU N
5. Name of stream: ? 1 ( 6. River basin:
V
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50-740c 10. County: Y?-r4 CSS 4
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):C C;Vt.;>S
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Pboto/GlS Other GLS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed charm
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions i
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 ,-.Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters ,-Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is, there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ?1 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ® NO 20, Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: .56% Residential IOC7) % Commercial _% Industrial Agricultural
fi L% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( 1
22. Bank full width: C kf S 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I`L'te '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) ? Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
'25. Channel sinuosity. Straight ,./ Occasional bends !Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range .between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
g LX)
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: .--d') T t Tf l
-.A A
Evaluator's Signature ' Juste
This channel evaluation form is tended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environ ental professionals in
gathering the data required the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY AS ESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream. Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date:61 ( 31d 1 Project: Latitude:
Evaluator. 1'P . j? Site: ?F-& Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least hrtermittent 30 County: 61f \i1 e.g. Quad Name•
If a 19 or rennial !f a 30
i
A. Geomorphology subtotal= S
18. Continuous bed and bank , i
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity • 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Activairelic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
.8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
98.Naturallevees ® 1 2 3
10. Headcmts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or di•ainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on eAstino
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
o = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made d tches are not rated; see disc:usslons in manual
R 4hMirninew M11htntal c 47 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water In channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 © 3
16. Leaflltter 1.5 317 0.5 0
.17. Sediment on, plants or debris 0 .1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines'or piles (Wrack lines) 0 ?9? +_ 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (rado)dmorphic features) present? o = Yes = 1.5
r` Rininnv fGnhtntai n ci • S 1
2. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 et-lrb
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. ® 0.5 1 1'.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 antl 21 tocuS on the presence at upland plants, item zu tocuses on the presence or aquatic or weuano pjans.
Notes: (use back side of this forth for addit Sketch:
ional notes.)
/'1•
??or?ifi hoc 0 ?`' ?? 6av4dcl-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: 19d? cj2? /? 5-#6a,?A'1 -qq0J
Applicant / Owner
Investigator: ml'(4 Date:
County:
State: C_:
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Nom Community ID:
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. IZL'? ?e 9:
.2. --y-Rf Q 10.
3. S 11.
4. , 6-w ' F 12.
5. 3'w) 13.
6. W6'd) u 14.
7. C), -y- cue c.. PS 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species arelare not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology-Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
1-?Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
!=?Drainage Patterns in We
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

th to Free Water in Pit:
De Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
p ater-Stained Leaves

© Local Soli Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
C
*d
o
cc
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
in ahes Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

5
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol cretions
_ Histic Epipedon gh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
! Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Solis List
ti!Gfeyed or. Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoWithin a Wetland? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes =No
Remarks: Location (describe) istis not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream. Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: - (4cl Latitude:
Evaluator. Site: N" GI Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least intermittent .County: e.g. Quad Name:
Ifs 19 or perennial lfL 30 .
A. Geomorphology subtotal = • 5-
1°. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
2 Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soli texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 .3
5. Active/relic floodplain 49- 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a. Natural levees 1 2. 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or.drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USES or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
o = 0
Yes=3
Man-made ditches are not retell; see disarssion . in manual
Q L.lvrlYrw{nmi /Qni?M+.?l - n 1
14. Groundwaterflow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hm since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0,5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redo)dmorphic features) present? o = Yes = 1:5
t" Rinlnnv f?uhtntai = ? 1
26b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fmh 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Maembenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous. algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL.= 1.5 SAV = 20; Other = 0
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
" items 20 and 27 tocus on the presence of upland plants, item za tocuses on V{e presence or equaua or weuanu prams.
Sketch:
rte h rr.?? rr? j ?,t, o +'h cA' U i, y)o 4- ? t -frw?r
C.
'
S I r R
t? 1
_n,f*jr in-IV,
V
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream. Identification Form;' Version 3.1

f
Date: -b _0 Sr Project: _1/9L Latitude:
Evaluator. 9. M71- Site: A.I Longitude:
Total Points: 16. 2.5- t Other
Stream is at least intem9ftent County: ?tl e.g. quad Name'
If a 19 or perennial If z 30 '' FFJJ
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
3
Continuous bed and bank
1' 0 1
.
2. Sinuosity 0 2
2 3
3
In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3 0 1
.
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
4 0 2 3
.
Activeirelic floodplain
5 0 2 3
.
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel no 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
3
9 s. Natural levees 1 2
2 3
10. Headcuts 1 .
0 0.5 1
11. Grade controls 1 1
5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 .
13: Second or greater order channel on existing Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
° Man-maoe a=ws are notrowu; awa umajumui m n u ?m way
1 C"'^I
B. M rol0 .7UDwLd! = • ` _
14. Groundwatsrflow/discharge . _........_ -
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 his since rain, or 0 1 2 3
Water in channel - d or growing season
0
16. Leaflltter 1.5 1 0.
-17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 CV -- 1.5
19. Hydric soils (radoximorphic features)- present? No = Yes = 1.5
A '57-5' ,
G. C1010yy ouutuwl -
3
2
1
0
2. Fibrous roots in channel
F17. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish (0) 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus.
28 0.5 1 1'5
.
Wetland plants in streambed
29 FAC = 0.5; f-A cW = 0. OBL =1.5 SAV = 2 .0; Other = 0
.
_ __ ___ __ ,? _ ....e s sm m8rt nr wa4land ol arrts.
items zu ana zi locus on me preserrus ul uviallu - .w,..... -.7- r--- -- - -
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

L4 s - ?I I
Vx
I
A d?
f 0 r

North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ?- -G J- Project: Latitude:
Evaluator. 1?Afa- 557-- She: f- I Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least intermittent .Z r County: ? J r1 e.g. Quad Name:
If
z 18 or perennial ifa 30 It, P101 A. Geomorphology Subtotal = L 1
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 !T-K! 3
2. - Sinuosity
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0
0
1 2
2 3
iV
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 • 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches
EA? 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 /M 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 .1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. g
-!
Yes = 3
Man-rnaos a=nes are no[ nj=; ausa u -.a
t5. m rul QUULULOI - - "
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or proving season 0 2 3,
16. Leaflitter 1,5 1 5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 740 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris fines or plies (Wrack lines)
19. Hydric soils (redoAmorphic features) present? 0 0.5
N - 1.5
Yes =1.5
r7 1,5'
Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
-jibs-Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
22. Crayfish 012 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 19 - 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5
0.5 1
1 1.5
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW = 0.7 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- hems zu ana z'i rocus on me presenw ui uNlonu Fnanu, --
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Vvlef -

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream, Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Q 3- Project: _ ?j'Q 4 Latitude:
Evaluator: 9 _ RA-M f Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent ` S County:
N 219 or perennial if z 30 e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geornorphology. subtotal = ?.Z •s

18. Continuous bed and bank
i
0
111101 oil
1
IMPM
2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Sall texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
98. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5'
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
n ¦ ?. .J?I??.. I@..Liwiw? - -1 ?

14. Groundwaterflow/discharge
.
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season
0
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 11-9 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 .? 1 1.5
18. Organic debris fines or piles (Wrack fines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? C-No = Yes = 1.5
0-1--.' fee 114re+01
2 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians
- 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) t 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; pedphyton E 1
- 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. C? 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
° items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence or aquauc or weuana pianis.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
(/1 S ?
?, ? e?Yl arwnfia wx G( it ye rfl a f
c? 41 t2 i (l.« Gf S (l - Po,n
Pe., nfn

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: (fj- l•? 7 J , ?71 ?i Latitude:
Evaluator. Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
stream is at least intermittent .-, County: e.g. Quad Name:
lm 19 or rennial if z 30 f L{
Geomorphology subtotal =
A
'
.
18. Continuous bed and bank 0
- 1 "2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 110 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 ^1; 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches C0,) 1 2 3
7. Braided channel (Q? 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits (107 1 2 3
Natural levees
9e t0 2 3
.
10. Headcuts 0 rf;; 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
A
Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No =_
evidence.
- Man-mane ones are not racau; mm ui ann w. a...w....a. .
w
ts. n roio ouuwwi - -
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0. 1 2?
Water in channel - d or rowin season
1
{Q.5) 0
16. Leaflitier .5
17. Sediment on plants or debris b 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
:i-
ki. DIUIU y auuwl01 -
2. Fibrous roots in channel
e'3_,?
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish OJ 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 C'I 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ` 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. (0-I 0.5 1 1.5
•
Wetland plants in streambed
29 0.'
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Me&
. _-- ..c e..-N^ - m fianri nianis
-.items zu ano Y7 Toms on ma prasanw u, uplauu N.a.,y...?... ?...
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
4- ,
Jj,
y.
s,,
t r
n+j 4-
;dr .¢v¢nln9
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
18. Continuous bed and bank NOW
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity 0 - 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ® 1 2 3
11. Grade controls .0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway fD? 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
o = 0
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3.
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o = 0 Yes =1.5

20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 42
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 (Q 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of uplana plants, item za focuses on uw presence ui ayuaw ui wouauu NlauW.
Sketch:

'llflCWC /AJO( lOdl irl, f'h,t3? Y ?'.c ic2nc ?1c7??t
1??! Glt/?; ?fiaj C'c/U?e? ?' ?Jco?l?? c???' ??
Gl /ICE) Its d(A .?V ' '? 1-Y CO/0-1r r Goad
f lKzd
&)ri-Darr.-6 he ; Of--o vv 616'1,06W
00 ow<
('a ?
i s Ill
b
',' /1 b tJC
M V ? f
IA -XI
no(v?af t .? (a IV ga- 046f,
?? . cuivr.- f
pe 4wi o Wert
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
FR,.
..
sure/z
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment: _/1 G
1: Applicant's,name:. 8C-h& _i 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation E-4 4. Time of evaluation: ?? yl
5. Name of stream: /,??1G4,?-? ?_- -- - . River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: fr
{
9. Length of reach evaluated: 6 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
.Latitude (ex. 34.872312): longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (cinale): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
&a zaw/)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
/ /Ilr /YI FNL?l'llf? ? ?1?? 61
15. Recent weather conditions: NA
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 0& 4-_
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters .Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is. there 'a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (SP If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? . YES <SDI 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: b? % Residential % Commercial Industrial _%. Agricultural
Forested % Cleared / Logged LO -11. Other f J!?3& )
22. Bankfull width: 233.. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): oft
24. Channel slope down center of stream Flat (t) to 2%) d Gentle (2 to 4%) .Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ? sional bends Brequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion.. Page 3 'provides a, brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation: If a
characteristic cannot he evaluated due to site or, weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture' into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. 4 •i? rrc y Cf l r e?rybiloy
Total Score (from reverse): ZY Comments: (C [ti'C a2 _ 6&
Evaluator's Signature Date rd?
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by.the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x. 26.
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'am' I

r " ikresenterofdl ?V' e>t3 nt obis Iastream :r r r
no flow:nr!..Sa at<on 0??stton Iow :;riax; Dints . `<
' x'?E?iddence:palinman?iteration ?.?
,'. extensiverat#erntinn?0 ??`lteration =anaac, Dints
kppar?ant?¢oae
'4 "M-45
no buffer =,*?eoni ousnde.uffer-3nax ; "rots
r_ .
a
'r""?' a zE?ideneefntu emlca[sdischargeS
r
4C
s
'
? u
'S
0 ,@//??
;
.,yig. I t
it W}
gfy4 rid wl
::?
oxtensi -e dts s
t
y
k - ,.., r
-
a
om
s

??
di
"?
la
c
no
sc e.-
? e • s'?wet
: ??axmts
nlls et
rese?rccefat?jaoudpIaia
„7 . .. nd?lopii laui ?U?ensuueo? °?lain?x Dints
L M t ?atrm irtea Y A
M? 4 K. x?? &e n? ncoes?
O _"? :5
0
4
0 2
a dee 1 entmnohed
O' eht lOndin :,.?nax° Omts -
3?gh _
a seeen,n?eiielands'
° p- 6 0- 0 7
no-vuetlan?s. , e!
`t ve
?ssmax ' omts

i J _
Y 41 9 vi? q( 45 ?y.[?a 4uo? X Y?t?????tk I t by l t J 1
+ic'
tlx:
. ,.:x eXtC11B1V6 e d . ^ tna7b$ omt$ `?

v.v..

t t;r
,: ? E v i7s # @'?k ? r uniPJd`4t' l? 4:i li }' k -
'
' ' <ay?1 7?,? 4? rr ti ? fS?? s as '? 2; ? iy
e
xensrve a o e
edime
t?t
=
ax
n
am
y. ?{1t ,
,.]
ry{v
y
?
j
h ?T t,:? t? . ?, .` YeW C?DC?SLLUgI,C.9LLC 'tt?T'
?
w s!t ?' I' H?r?y}
4 ??
o
i
?
f }
.: !tgi
s
a
?noac;
,', h43+,4Y?{ y+ u 1 +?it^x;i?fhi' ??t
OWN.
?? 1'f' IIe c"'iIQ' iLL?1 k
'i W
3

'tK, P 1 N'
qS

(J

C.
.
g x
,
7
5r CT.iiiNiesPlll?:ICS?t
?.t.
,?^4'?CT

..S

O
$''
„ .
.
saveeesAsion ffi
1
t
, usi
acs,? m
s

1 S afi p' asi n?u gm,
+
t
°'r
?
0 3
p 4
0
{ a?
v
r
?
t
is
sotli
(
5
t
s
OS
xe
il
• ,
0
Oin
:.
S
?
?
?? N Jr - ,z..h f ? FYf.,4C?
w4M +i 1k+5 .. ?s?:^ 4
P$subn ,:.. x}?a+timboxludfon ':

0 -5

0 4 ,

0 3

4

3 S Y'?'xes F?'JI t4v4 Ypt
ln4Cn
,
:^
?

rx
?j?
!' ,
!i;
' Ar - -

77
ig E7 1

yzI nF r

0 b ?

* t a0 6

0' 6
ormo, i p ane ts, ,2nax.'o
mts 'It

18a lAnllpj4q?ergtreawlred
1 k
/? r7h JgiM lk t 0 3 A 'S 0 7?
?
I1Q,Shadm
tiOnaeon
ve ttxuwus?caa ax pmts
m /
L
s
1 bstcateiiediledne"
9

deo 1 ::em?eddetl -Qloosesauctu?re -:maxi
"4

1 7
(?
O
i rEreseneewfs R vertebrates seepage 4)
k Q
4 0 -
,
s
r r8 r 2?
no evid
60 ?
e = O';Aeo ynamexou = , es = max- oints - -:5 fl-

3
1
rt"'resencabfifblans
no evidence -';0;- comma mumeroai. ` mm points)
" ?Prei3eIICe?o
22
no
evidence es=_ma?c
Dints
`0 - 4
p-'A
:0 - A? Q
.
.
?j E?ideffe"DWAdllfemse Y
. nn evidennce- Qunt7atlt:i±aence.=,maz, oints
1
1 W-11
1,

.; . .. $! .. .... • .I.'n :i'?+.yW` }?,j".y.{ry?x f q , . These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

2

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream.Identification Form; Version 3:1
Date: 3 rS- Project flq Latitude:
Evaluator. Site: # r Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least lntemdttent 7.? County: C e.g. Quad Name:
If z 19 or perennial If z 30 rDD
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = ?• Sr
1°. Continuous bed and bank
0
.1 MIMMMO
2 SIMMM
2. Sinuosity 0 . 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 e4lv 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9'.Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 . 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
Man-made m cues arenot rated: sea discussion m manual
R 4lvrirr?lnnv fSuhtntal . ?. 5 l '
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 6t 3-
15. Water in. channel and > 48 his since rein, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflttter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wreck lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redo)imorphic features) present? No = 0 es =
r` Rinlnnv fRllhfntal = J 1
2 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 .0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 .1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Maorobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
'27. Filamentous algae; pedphyton 1
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed . FACW = 0.75;
2 3
OBL1.5 SAV = 2. ,Other = 0
items zu ano zi tocus on me presence or upiano plants, item zu focuses on me presence of aquatic or wetland plaids.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
plc
(+QCCfi/t? hM, w? (i? 6! tcrn na d wd
Lr? T!1 tL' ifwaf Lorb (*.N rl°l
Nl ?•a
A I Jdl.P f u.A a s+k-or A. ?.,Iri ? ? ctS?d .t?r
I i ...I r
(.??, ?/Il?? •.. ) IOl T?M ?'U??G+??{J-'f` r(.-rP,?ryP ?-'?OG/I?!...f11'i?1
-' ?T1?e " 114 ?trv? L"C l a r .Fe-("Rco .. q s l- ?, c L?

+' T Lj' r-r ;I._ .6
'C'? Cw
? + USACE AID#
DWQ#
(indicate on attached map)
r; 6 M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the str am reach under assessment:
6+
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: t5 0 4. Time of evaluation: 3 G ' V
5. Name of stream:- J U k 6. River basin-
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order'
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. .12. Subdivision name (if any): n 0
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Method location determined (circle): GPS
13. Location of reach, under evaluation (
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions;
16. Site conditions at time of
Longitude (ex. 77.556611):
Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S . Other G1S Other
ds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Site #
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known. -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters .-Water Supply Watershed - (I-IV)
18. Is. there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ' If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: %Residential _% Commercial Industrial Agricultural
Forested Cleared / Logged Other
22. Bankfirli width: 6, ra 23. Bank height (from bed. to top of bank): r i
24. Channel slope down center of stream Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10'/0) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion .of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by detaining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section.. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): /D0 Comments: RW2
! t'?
Evaluator's Signature Date-` "NZO
This channel evaluation form is inten to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envviron ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers .to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval.and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
40
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
I nese cnaractensncs are not assessed in coastal streams.
r . . 4.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream. Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 1-- Project: Latitude:
Evaluator.? Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream Is at least intermittent 5 County:e.g. Quad Name:
Hz 19 or perennial Ifa 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal
18. Continuous bed and bank
0
.2
3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Activeirelic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 8. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 0 clr§ 1 1:5
13. Second or greater order channel on ew•stin4
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes=3
"Man-moos altcnes are not ratoo; see aiscussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
. Water in channel - d or rovAn season ^
9 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hyddc soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 133
r Rinlnnv !.L`??htntal ? ? 1
2 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
7R E. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL.=1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
- Items zu ant zi mcus on ins pmsence•or upiana prams, item zy rouUMM on M8 pMBncM U1 ayuawc V1 woualw pa-.
Sketch:
Ltd- Yh
pr?rv?s?r c.ckssM.\ ? ?f•a?-?-
r
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: ?0 S / [3 Dater 3 U
Applicant/ Owner: ,A/fi? County:
Investigator: State:
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
7 Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes P40
- Transect ID:
?
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.f cer rLktvm 9. !Emf l4?C s:p, ? PC
2 ,i?c?c hul^ s??vMC ':7uA, _ 5&(--t- 10.
3. liX tllG ra -F ? 11.
4. .08A 12.
5. kgn 4 va 44?-`r 13.
aC00Q, Artw rm'Frxnf 1-t r 14.
7. Arp.r- *g,6rl 'M 5 _C:&C- 15.
8.;14.:g-Lj,-aRv-1 S* + 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC.excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species are re no
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot was taken...
.HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other undated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
.Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
?Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r
Depth of Surface Water: (?•)
Segondary Indicators:
Z Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

a 2+ ?? ?r 2 coo;
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils. List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National•Hydric Solis List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes' No Is the Sampling Point /
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes i1 No Within a Wetland? Yes' N V
Hydric Solis Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ak
0
?iy?sgN'f' 1119
?Lps qr? ?? V/?
r°?? PG US. ?'
6
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P4+0ti
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 1, 2005
(Tuesday)
MEMORANDUM TO : Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality / Wetlands
NCDENR
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
FROM : Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT : 9/7/05 Scoping Meeting Minutes
U-4909: SR 2643 - Union Cross Road Widening Project in Forsyth County
This memorandum presents the minutes from the Scoping Meeting held on September 7, 2005 in the Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470 of the Transportation
Building in Raleigh). This memorandum also summarizes the Scoping comments and includes copies of the
original correspondence received by Project Development through October 31, 2005.
A copy of the routing list for this transmittal is attached for your reference. Should you have comments,
questions, or revisions to these minutes, please contact me at the address below, or by e-mail at
mspiercekdot.state.nc.us, or by telephone at [phone] x214.
1. Attendance Record
The following, 43 individuals were in attendance or participated by teleconference:

via teleconference
via teleconference
Brett Abernathy, P.E., P.L.S.
Rob Allen, P.E., P.L.S.
David Bailey
Mike Bruff, P.E.
Teresa Bruton, P.E.
Dale Burton, P.E., P.L.S.
Marc Cheek, P.E.
Greg Errett
Tim Gardiner, AICP
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NCDOT Division 9
NCDOT Photogrammetry
NCDOT Right of Way
NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
NCDOT Design Build
NCDOT Location & Surveys
NCDOT Structure Design
Winston-Salem DOT
NCDOT Community Studies
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE:
www. ncdot. org /doh /Preconstruct /pe /
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 2 of 6
Kim Gillespie, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
via teleconference Diane Hampton, P.E. NCDOT Division 9
Erin Hendee NCDOT Congestion Management
Kimberly Hinton NCDOT Public Involvement
Tony Houser, P.E. NCDOT Roadway Design
Deborah Hutchings, P.E. NCDOT Transportation Planning
Joseph Ishak, P.E. NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control
via teleconference Pat Ivey, P.E. NCDOT Division 9
Drew Joyner, P.E. NCDOT Project Development
Doug Lane NCDOT Project Services
Christopher Lee NCDOT Roadway Design
Calvin Leggett, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
Ed Lewis NCDOT Public Involvement & Community Studies
via teleconference Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT Natural Environment
Art McMillan, P.E. NCDOT Highway Design
Eric Midkiff, P.E. NCDOT Project Development
Quang Nguyen, P.E. NCDOT Structure Design
Bruce Payne, P.E. NCDOT Roadway Design
Nathan Phillips, P.E. NCDOT Congestion Management
Mark Pierce, P.E. NCDOT Project Development
via teleconference Russell Radford Town of Kernersville
Karen Reynolds NCDOT Project Development
Roy Shelton NCDOT PDEA
Laura Slusher, P.E. NCDOT Traffic Safety
via teleconference Caleb Smith NCDOT Archaeology
Jerry Snead, P.E. NCDOT Hydraulics
Mark Staley, E.I. NCDOT Roadside Environmental
Mike Stanley, P.E. NCDOT Program Development
Linwood Stone NCDOT Project Development
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D. NCDOT PDEA
via teleconference Pat Tuttle, P.E., P.L.S. NCDOT Division 9
via teleconference Brian Ulrich Town of Kernersville
James Upchurch NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
2. Scoaina Information Sheets
Project Description: SR 2643 (Union Cross Road), SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to
SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), widen to multilanes, 3.6 miles.
General Project Need: Capacity
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Area: Winston-Salem Forsyth Urban Area MPO
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Candidate ? to be screened after environmental studies
Feasibility Study Completed: n/a
Type of Environmental Documents / Project Schedule: EA (June 2006) FONSI (Nov 2006)
R/W (FFY 2007) Let (FFY 2008)
Air Quality Status: Non-attainment / Maint. for CO and Early Action Compact Area for 8-hr Ozone
Len h of Project Limits: 3.6 miles
Type of Access Control: Existing: none Proposed: to be determined
Structure Inventory: #330392: US 311 Interchange #330458: I-40 Interchange
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 3 of 6
Functional Classification: Urban Collector / Local
Strategic Corridor Information: n/a
Thoroughfare Plan Desi ang_ tion: Major Thoroughfare on W-S Forsyth Urban Area Plan
Roadway Typical Sections: Existing: 3-lane shoulder section
Proposed: multilane curb & gutter section with raised median.
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination: yes
Right of Way; Existing: varies Proposed: to be determined
Existing Posted Speed: 35 to 50 mph
Proposed Design Speed: 50 mph
Traffic Forecasting: (volumes presented during meeting were revised on 9/12/05, as follow)
Current Year (2005 AADT): 11,000 to 20,200 vpd
Design Year (2030 AADT): 23,100 to 40,700 vpd
%TTST: 1 - 2% %Dual: 3 - 6%
Railroad Involvement: none
Cost Estimate: Construction Right of Way Total Cost
TIP Estimate: $ 30,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 35,000,000
Current Estimate: $ 30,900,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 35,900,000
3. Written Scoying Comments
I received the following correspondence prior to this meeting, and included it in the agenda for open
discussion, as applicable. Please refer to the attached correspondence for more details.
DENR - Parks & Recreation (8/18/05): No comments on the project as currently proposed.
DENR - Natural Heritage Program (8/18/05): No record of rare species, significant natural
communities, or priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
DENR - Division of Water Quality (8/24/05): General and project-specific comments.
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance (8/26/05): Joints should be replaced on bridge over US 311 if
widened.
NCDOT Division Environmental Officer (8/30/05): (1)Potential historic property at 4005 Wallburg
Road and owners have contacted State Historic Preservation Office for listing application; (2)State
Historic listed property at the southeast corner of Hedgecock and Union Cross Road; ()Union Cross
Road is on a ridge line; (4)Glenn High School is very close to Union Cross Road; and (5)Many homes
and businesses along Union Cross Road.
NCDOT Location & Surveys (8/31/05): Utilities: (1)AT&T has an underground fiber-optic cable;
(2)Sprint Communications has aerial and underground cables; (3)Bell South has aerial and
underground fiber-optic cables; (4)Time Warner Cable has aerial and underground fiber-optic cables;
(5)Piedmont Natural Gas has plastic and steel gas mains; (6)City of Winston-Salem has gravity and
force-main sanitary sewers; (7)City of Winston-Salem has ductile iron water mains; (B)Duke Power
has aerial transmission lines and underground service; (9)Alltel has a cell tower; (10)Crown Castle
International has a cell tower; (")City of Winston-Salem has an elevated water storage tank;
Environmental: (12)Aboveground and underground petroleum storage tanks; (14)Project is located in
Abbott's Creek Watershed and Yadkin River Basin; (14)Closed Air Force Radar Installation in Union
Cross Park at Wallburg Road; (15)Water supply wells; (16)Triad Hispanic Ministries across from Dell
Boulevard might require environmental justice research; (17)City of Winston-Salem Planning Zone
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 4 of 6
west of Union Cross Road; (18)Town of Kernersville Planning Zone east of Union Cross Road;
(19)More restrictive Abbott's Creek Watershed Vegetative Buffer Provisions on east side of Union
Cross Road; Cultural: (20)Bicycle routes: Scenic Union Cross Connector 24 Bike Route, and route
along Sedge Garden and Hastings Hill Roads; (21)Boone Trail Highway / Old Plank Road Trace
Historical Marker; (22)Proposed developments: Caleb's Creek, Weatherstone, Abbott's Plantation;
(23?Union Cross Station Shopping Center; (24?Union Cross Moravian Church Cemetery; (25)Horse
boarding stable; (26)Tobacco field/barns; (27)Beeson Crossroads Fire Department Station 26;
(28) Southeast Middle School; (29)Churches and schools in vicinity; (30)Traditional Academy;
Engineering_ (31)Speed limits: 65 mph (1-40); 45-50 mph (Union Cross Road); 35 mph (school
zones); 25 mph (subdivision streets); (32)Controlled access on I-40 and US 311; (33)New entrances to
Glenn High School and Dell Boulevard; (34)Proposed Temple School Road extension eastward to
Piedmont Parkway; and (351NCDOT has added signalized turn lanes, curb and gutter, widened exit
ramps, two bridges, and controlled access fencing.
I received the following correspondence during the period from 9/7/05 through 10/31/05. Please refer to
the attached correspondence for more details.
NCDOT Rail Division (9/6/05 No rail interaction will be involved on this project.
NCDOT Geotechnical Unit (9/7/05): No significant geotechnical issues.
NCDOT Historic Architecture (9/7/05), Phase I Reconnaissance Survey (2/25/05) from US 311 to I-
40; Phase II Survey of the project area underway.
FHWA ,9/7105). Modification of I-40 Interchange will require FHWA involvement
NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division (9/21/05): Designated bike routes exist on this project.
Winston-Salem DOT (10/13/05): preferred typical section is a multilane, median-divided, curb and
gutter facility with 4-foot delineated bike lanes; W-S DOT also recommends sidewalks on both sides
of Union Cross Road.
4. Additional Scoyine Issues & Open Discussion
Existing structures and property in close proximity to existing right of way
• Homes and small businesses
• Glenn High School
Potential historic resources (Union Cross School; David Smith Farm; Ed Crews Property; others ?)
Union Cross Road Park at southern project terminus (Union Cross Rd / Wallburg Rd intersection)
I-40 Interchange
Check capacity and modify with respect to existing and proposed commercial site development
Carry I-40 widening through the Union Cross Interchange; widen to the outside.
• Need more study of control of access at the I-40 Interchange, including road relocations; this
interchange is the key to traffic flow in the area.
Due to proximity to I-40 Interchange, consider relocation of Pecan Lane ?
I-40 Interchange design is the key to traffic flow through this area.
Congestion Management Design Report will not include recommendations for the Interchange
Modification Report; Project Development to coordinate with Congestion Management to
request in-house or contracted design services for IMR.
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 5 of 6
US 311 Interchange adequacy for Union Cross Road widening ?
• 68-foot approach available now
• Is an interchange modification necessary ?
• Signals at US 311 Interchange ?
• "US 311 / I-74 Strategic Highway Corridor" - US 311 paved shoulders need to be widened from
4 feet to 10 - 12 feet to upgrade to I-74 standards.
Wallburg Road as a through-movement at southern terminus ?
Signals vs. Roundabouts ?
Lighting for interchanges ?
• All SPUIs are lighted
• US 311 Interchange is debatable
Transit service by Piedmont Transit Authority
• To serve Alliance Business Park within 6 months ?
• Bus pull-outs ?
Sidewalks
• Both sides ?
• West side only ?
• Winston-Salem to participate ?
• Kernersville to participate ?
Bicy_ cle facilities
• NC Bike Route 2: Mountain to Sea
• Possibly a shared lane (14-foot outside lane ?)
• Continue coordination with Tom Norman (NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division) and Lakesha
Dunbar (W-S DOT)
Related TIP Projects
• U4759: Division 9's 3-lane widening of Union Cross Road
• U-2579A: Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (eastern section)
• Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
• Proposed residential and commercial development in vicinity
Final Traffic Forecast Report (2030) is pending.
Median breaks on Union Cross Road
• 1200-foot spacing
• At cross-overs and signals
Kernersville is in the process of approving 1,400 acres of residential development in vicinity.
Federal funds will be used on this project.
Control of access ?
• Limited access at interchanges ?
• Partial control of access along remainder of Union Cross Road ?
• To be determined later
Preliminary mapping is available now
Need to coordinate closely with NCDOT Utilities Unit
Roadway Design to request final surveys since U-4759, 3-lane widening of Union Cross Road, is
now complete.
Project Development to submit environmental requests:
• Individual environmental requests for each discipline to Carl Goode (Human Environment).
• Two copies of the environmental request to Phil Harris (Natural Environment).
Design-Build Team
• D-B Award after Concurrence Point 4A if the project follows the Merger Process, or after the
preferred alternative is selected if the project is not following the Merger Process.
• D-B Team will probably obtain permits.
• Roadway Design to transfer project to Design-Build Team after the Public Hearing.
U-4909: 917105 Scoping Meeting Minutes
November 1, 2005
Page 6 of 6
5. Schedule
Activities Completed
• Programmed in 2006 - 2012 TIP as a state-funded project (mid-July 2005)
• Newsletter No. 1 (late-July 2005)
• Start-of-Study Notice & Scoping Information Sheets (8/15/05)
• Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate (8/15/05)
• Preliminary Engineering Funds (8/18/05)
• Press release issued for notice of Citizens Informational Workshop (mid-August 2005)
• Traffic Forecast Report - 2005 Base Year (8/24/05)
• Geotechnical / Geoenvironmental Pre-Scoping Report (8/25/05)
• Winston-Salem / Kernersville / Forsyth Local Officials Meeting (8/25/05)
• Traffic Safety Analysis / Crash Data Report (8/30/05)
Activities Underway
• Division 9 coordination of related residential and commercial development projects
• Traffic Forecast Report - 2030 Design Year
• Congestion management analysis and design
• Access management analysis and design
• Constraints mapping
• Roadway functionals
• Newspaper advertisements for notice of Citizens Informational Workshop
• Submittal of requests for environmental input
Future Activities
• Citizens Workshop (9/22/05)
• Environmental field surveys, detailed inspections, and studies (to commence after workshop)
• Merger Process Screening
< End of Memorandum >
Name Title Agency Street/PostalCode City/State
U-4909 Sco in Meeting Minutes Routing List 11/1/05
Mr. Brett Abernathy, P.E., P.L.S. Division Project Engineer NCDOT Division 9
Mr. Majed AI-Ghandour, P.E. Program Development Acting Assistant Branch
Manager
NCDOT
1,994 Mail Service Center
Ralaiyh, NO 27699-1534
Mr. Rob Allen, P.E., P.L.S. Assistant State Photo rammetric Engineer NCDOT 1585 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1585
Mr. Wright R. Archer, III, P.E. Resident Engineer - Forsyth Count NCDOT Division 9
Mr. Al Avant Program Development Assistant Branch Manager NCDOT 1534 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Ms. Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse Director N. C. Department of
Administration 1302 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Mr. David M. Bailey State Ne otiator NCDOT 1546 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1546
Mrs. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E. Deputy Highway Administrator - Preconstruction NCDOT 1541 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1541
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E. State Project Services Engineer NCDOT 1591 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1591
Mr. William Barrett Natural Environment Specialist NCDOT 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Ms. Teresa Becher, P.E. Access Management Engineer NCDOT 1592 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1592
Mr. Jay A. Bennett, P. E. State Roadway Design Engineer NCDOT 1582 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1582

Ms. Margaret Bessette, AICP
Principal Planner Winston-Salem /
Forsyth County
Planning Board
P. O. Box 2511 Winston-Salem, NC 27102-
2511
Mr. Charles W. Brown, P.E., P.L.S. State Location & Surveys Engineer NCDOT 1588 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1588
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E. Transportation Planning Branch Manager NCDOT 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1554
Ms. Teresa Bruton, P.E. Design Build Project Engineer NCDOT 1591 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1591
Ms. Marella Buncick Fish and Wildlife Biologist United States Fish and Wildlife Service 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Dale Burton, P.E., P.L.S. Assistant State Location & Surveys Engineer NCDOT 1588 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1588
Ms. Jennifer Cathe Architectural Historian NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Ms. Marla J. Chambers Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission 4614 Wilgrove - Mint Hill
Road, Suite M Charlotte, NC 28227
Mr. David Chang, P.E. Assistant State Hydraulics Engineer NCDOT 1590 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Mr. Marc Cheek, P.E. Structure Design Squad Leader NCDOT 1581 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Mr. Brian Cole Field Supervisor USFWS - Asheville
Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. John Couch, P.E. Division Traffic Engineer NCDOT Division 9
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow Division of Archives and History Cultural N.ural Department Resources of 4610 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4610
Mr. Felix Davila, P.E. Area Engineer FHWA - NC Division 310 New Bern Avenue,
Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Mr. Robert Deaton, AICP Community Planner NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Mr. Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Director of Construction NCDOT 1520 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1520
Ms. Miss Dickens, P.E. Program Development Staff Engineer NCDOT 1542 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1542
Ms. Nancy W. Dunn Division 9 Member N. C. Board of
Transportation 485 Shepherd Street Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Dr. J. David Edwards School Planning Section Chief N. C. Department of
Public Instruction 5602-00
Mr. John Emerson,. P.E. State Bridge Maintenance Engineer NCDOT 1565 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1565
Mr. Gregory Errett Transportation Planner/ Representative Winston-Salem /
Fors h MPO P. O. Box 2511 Winston-Salem, NC 27102-
2511
Mr. David Franklin NCDOT Coordinator USACE P.O. Box 1890 Wilmington, NC 28402-1,890
Ms. Ma Pope Furr Historic Architecture Supervisor NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Mr. Tim Gardiner, AICP Community Planner NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Name Title Agency . Street/PostalCode City/State
Ms. Kim Gillespie, P.E. Project Management Engineer NCDOT 1534 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley Environmental Review Coordinator N. C. Department of
Cultural Resources 4017 Mail Service Genter Mt h NO ZTM-CT
g
Mr. Carl Goode, P.E. Human Environment Unit Head NCDOT 1553 Mail Service Genter Fiaiel n, NG 27699-1583
Ms. Diane K. Hampton, P.E. Division Environmental Officer NCDOT Division 9
Mr. James B. Harris, P.E. Rail Division Engineering Manager NCDOT 1556 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1556
Mr. Philip S. Harris, 111, P.E. Natural Environment Unit Head NCDOT 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Ms. Erin M. Hendee Plan Review Project Design Engineer NCDOT 1592 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1592
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E. State Hydraulics Engineer NCDOT 1590 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Mr. John Hennessy Division of Water Quality / Wetlands NCDENR 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. David Hinnant State Railroad Agent NCDOT - Utilities
Coordination Unit 1555 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1555
Ms. Kimberl Hinton Public Involvement Officer NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Mr. Dan Holderman Assistant State Bridge Maintenance Engineer NCDOT 1565 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1565
Ms. Sue Homewood NCDOT Coordinator NCDENR - Division of
Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Mr. Anthony A. Houser, P.E. Roadway Design Unit Project Engineer NCDOT 1582 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Ms. Deborah Hutchings, P.E.• State Traffic Forecasting Engineer NCDOT 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1554
Mr. Joseph Ishak, P.E. Work Zone Traffic Control Project Engineer NCDOT 1580 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1580
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E. Division Engineer NCDOT Division 9
Mr. Keith Johnston, P.E., P.L.S. State Photo rammetric Engineer NCDOT 1585 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1585
Ms. Judy Joines Division Right of Way Agent NCDOT 1605 Westbrook Plaza
Drive, Suite 201 Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E. TIP Program Manager NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Mr. J. Kevin Lacy, P.E. State Traffic Engineer NCDOT 1561 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
Mr. Doug Lane Project Services Unit NCDOT 1591 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1591
Mr. Christopher H. Lee Roadway Design Unit Design Engineer NCDOT 1582 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Mr. Don G. Lee State Roadside Environmental Engineer NCDOT 1557 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch Manager NCDOT 1542 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1542
Mr. Harry LeGrand Natural Herita e-Pro ram NCDENR 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Mr. Ed Lewis Public Involvement & Community Studies
Supervisor NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Ms. Elizabeth Lusk Natural Environment Supervisor NCDOT 1598 Mail Service Center Ralei h, NC 27699-1598
Mr. Brian Ma hew, P.E. Traffic Safety Systems Engineer NCDOT 1561 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E. State Design Engineer NCDOT 1584 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1584
Mr. J. Robert Memo State Utility Agent NCDOT 1555 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1555
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E. Project Development Central Region Unit Head NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Mr. Christopher A. Militscher
Senior Environmental Scientist
USEPA c/o FHWA-NC Division, 310
New Bern Avenue, Suite
410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1418
Mr. Robert Mosher, AICP, ASLA Bicycle & Pedestrian Division Transportation
Planner NCDOT 1552 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1552
Ms. Quan Nguyen, P.E. Structure Design Project Group Engineer NCDOT 1581 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1581

Ms. Mary Noel
Staff Officer U. S. Forest Service -
Recreation and Lands
Office
P. O. Box 2750
Asheville, NC 28802
Mr. Tom Norman Bicycle and Pedestrian Division Director NCDOT 1552 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1552
Mr. Michael T. Patton, P.E. Division Maintenance Engineer NCDOT Division 9
Mr. Bruce Payne, P.E. Roadway Design Unit Design Engineer NCDOT 1582 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Name Title Agency Street/PostalCode City/State
Natural Heritage
Ms. Linda Pearsall NHP-DPR Head Program - Division of 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1615
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Gre Perfetti
P
E State Brid
D
i
E
.
,
.
Mr. Nathan K. Phillips
P
E ge
es
gn
ngineer
Con
esti
M NCDOT 1581 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
,
.
.
Mr. Russell D. Radford g
on
anagement NCDOT 1592 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1592

Mr. Keith E. Raulston
P
E
Division C
t
ti
E Town of Kernersville P. O. Box 728 Kernersville, NO 27285-0728
,
.
.
Mr. Rodger Rochelle
P
E ons
ruc
on
ngineer
State Alt
t
D
li NCDOT Division 9
,
.
.
Mr. Ernie Seneca erna
e
e
very Systems Engineer
Publi
I
f
i NCDOT 1591 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1591

Mr. Michael C
Shaffner
P
E c
n
ormat
on Office Director
District 2 E
i NCDOT 1503 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1503
.
,
.
.
Mr. Roy Shelton ng
neer
PDEA Br
h St
ff E
i NCDOT Division 9
anc
a
ng
neer NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center R
l
i h
NO 276

Mr. Tim Shields
P
bli
W
k
Di a
e
,
99-1548

Mr. Patrick B
Simmons u
c
or
s
rector
Rail Di
i
i
Di Town of Kernersville P. O. Box 728 Kernersville, NO 27285-0728
.
Ms
Laura Slusher
P
E v
s
on
rector
T
ffi
S
f
P
j NCDOT 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1553
.
,
.
. ra
c
a
ety
ro
ect Engineer NCDOT 1561 Mail Service C
t R
l
i
h

Mr. Caleb Smith
Arch
l
i
t en
er a
e
g
, NC 27699-1561

Mr
Jer Snead
P
E aeo
og
s
H
P
d
li
j NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Ralei h, NC 27699-1583
.
,
.
. ro
y
rau
cs
ect Design Engineer NCDOT 1590 Mail Service Cent R
l
i
h
NC

Mr. David W. S ainhour, P.E.
Division Operations Engineer
NCDOT er
Division 9 a
e
g
,
27699-1590
Mr. Mark Staley, E.I. Soil & Water Operations En ineer NCDOT 1557 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1557
Mr. Mike Stanley
P.E. Program Development TIP Squad Leader - Central
,
Re ion NCDOT 1534 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1534
Mr
Linwood Stone Project Development Central Region Project
. Engineer NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NO 27699-1548
Mr. Mike Street

Di ENR - Divs Ion of
NC
Mar

P. O. Box 769

Morehead City, NC 28577
Mr. Brian L. Strong Environmental Review Coordinator NCDENR - Division of
Parks and Recreation 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1615
Mr. Dewa ne L. Sykes, P.E. Assistant State Roadway Design Engineer NCDOT 1582 Mail Service Center Raleigh
NC 27699-1582
Mr. Geor e L. Teague Division Bridge Maintenance Superintendent NCDOT 515 Cam Road ,
Salisbury, NC 28147.
Mr. John Thomas Regulatory Project Manager USACE - Raleigh Field 6508 Falls of the Neuse Raleigh
NO 27615
Office Road, Suite 120 ,
Dr. Gregory Thorpe PDEA Branch Director NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center Ralei h
NO 27699-1548
Mr. Patrick Tuttle, P.E., P.L.S. Area 3 Locating Engineer NCDOT P. O. Box 1210 ,
King
NO 27021-1210
Mr. Brian Ulrich Town of Kernersville P. O. Box 728 ,
Kernersville
NO 27285-0728
Mr. James Upchurch Transportation Planning Branch NCDOT 1554 Mail Service Center ,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1554
Mr. Greg Venable Transportation Planner Winston-Salem DOT P. O. Box 2511 Winston-Salem, NC 27102-

Mr. N'oro a W. Wainaina, P.E.
State Geotechnical Engineer
NCDOT
1589 Mail Service Center 2511
Ralei h
NC 27699-1589
Mr. Steve Walker Air & Noise Supervisor NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center ,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Mr. Matt Wilkerson Archaeology Supervisor NCDOT 1583 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Mr. William H. Williams, Jr. Aviation Director NCDOT 1560 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1560
Mr. John B. Williamson, Jr. Right of Way Branch Manager NCDOT 1546 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1546
o ?,,
+ ?L:E
NCDENR -¢?a9
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Lewis R. Ledford, Director
August 1.8, 2005
Mr. Mark Pierce, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Pierce:
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed Study Notice and Scoping
Information for U-4909. The Division has no comments on the project as currently proposed.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sin rely
i
Brian L. Strong
Environmental Review Coordinator
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615 NOOne
I't?1C1IO/l/lria
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • Internet: vrww.ncsoarks.net ?aturQ.[[?
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer- 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper
All,?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment. and Natural
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
August 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM
-< r-l ve
N?
S
ze -ces
Willia
f '
33
,- DA.is D
U,4-909
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D; NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: ' Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multilane facility from SR
2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road); Forsyth County
REFERENCE: TIP Project No. U-4909
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/lihp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate.to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
One
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 N01 thCaSOlllla
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone] • Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us f?tl?ar l in
_-_.n 1 /V
l
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 0--44 09
FROM: 4Sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
SUBJECT: Start of Study Notice and Scoping for U-4909: Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) in Forsyth
County, WBS 40278
In reply to your correspondence dated August 15, 2005 in which you requested comments for the above referenced
project, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to tributaries to the following streams:
Stream Name River
Basin Stream
Classification(s) Stream Index Numbe
Mary Reich Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-3-1
South Fork Mudd Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13
Swaim Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-1
Abbotts Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-(1)
Fiddlers Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-3
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of all streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Future documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable
to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation,
appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. 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 for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or
to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
D. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be required if
o Carolina
wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. Ne
Ntura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
VI CIVVIy J. I IIVI NC, rI I. U., U I I fd(:Lof
August 24, 2005
' Page 2
E. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.-
F. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Wetlands Rules {I 5A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event
that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
G. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
H. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
I. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters, such as grassed swales, buffer,areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
K. 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 No. 3366/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be
followed.
L. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to
allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or
streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not
degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-
4600.
cc: Mark Pierce, P.E., NCDOT - PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ Wetlands/401 Transportation Unit
(-9 -Q?o9
Subject: U-4909 Sept 7 Scoping Mtg 5???
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:02:18 -0400 / /
From: "Dan D. Holderman" <dholderman @ dot.state.nc.us> ! Z a'l d !5;
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Mark Pierce <[e-mail]. nc.us> , John Emerson <[e-mail]>
Mark - Bridge Maintenance would like to see the joints replaced
on the existing bridge over US 311 (Bridge #392) when/if the
bridge is widened. The existing joints are leaking badly, and
replacing them will help protect the steel as well as make the
joints uniform throughout the entire bridge.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
Dan Holderman
Ass't State Bridge Maint. Engr. - Operations
835-8217
Subject: U-4909, Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 Union Cross Rd. - Forsyth Co.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:04:14 -0400
From: "Diane Hampton P.E." <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Pat Ivey, P.E." <[e-mail]> ,
"David Spainhour, P.E." <[e-mail]>,
"Mike Shaffner, P.E." <[e-mail]>
CC: Mark Pierce <[e-mail]>
I have reviewed the scoping sheets and have the following
comments :
1. There is a potential eligible historic property at the
beginning of the project - photo attached. This property is
owned by Tim and Lynda Hamilton at 4005 Wallburg Rd. The house
was built in 1890. I have had conversations with them in the
past and know they are opposed to losing any of their property.
They have contacted the State Historic Preservation office about
having their property listed as historic.
2. There is also a State Historic listed property at the
southeast corner of Hedgecock and Union Cross Rd.
3. Union Cross Road generally follows the topographic ridge
line, so there no creeks to cross it. If we can keep the new
road along the same alignment and try to follow the ridge line
(except where historic or other issues prevent us), we should be
minimizing (down to zero) any jurisdictional impacts.
4. Glenn High School is very close to the existing Union Cross
Road. There is little to no room to expand the road in that
direction, without moving the school.
5. Unfortunately, there are many homes and small businesses
along Union Cross Road that would be impacted by this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.
Diane Hampton, P.E.
Division Environmental Engineer
e 0/0
LTyd??td
?t

4 v
_PROJE?
`t ., ro vLti,? tt
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 31, 2005]
?y S p _ DKIZ ?17145
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Director -+9 09
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Mr. Charles W. Brown, PE, PLS
State Location and Surveys Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments to widen SR 2643 Union Cross Road,
From SR 2691 Wallburg Road to SR 2632 Sedge Garden
Road, WBS 40278.1.1, Forsyth County, TIP U-4909
Utilities:
AT&T has an underground fiber-optic cable along the South side of High Point Road,
inside 351 feet of 6" HDPE Casing under Union Cross Road running from Gibsonville.
Sprint Communications has aerial and underground cables along the East side of Union
Cross Road from Union Cross Animal Hospital South of Glenview Drive over I-40 East
of bridge to Shopping Center in the Northeast quadrant to a telephone hub at Shepherd's
Grove Road. Aerial cables with signal booster boxes attached to poles and buried cables
continue along Union Cross Road at the North end of project past Sedge Garden Road.
BellSouth has both aerial and underground fiber-optic cables throughout entire project
from Glenn High Road South past Wallburg Road crossing at US 311 interchange along
Union Cross Road. BellSouth has underground cable along Sedge Garden and Old Salem
Roads. Buried fiber-optic cable along Loradale Drive serves Spectra Site
Communications cell tower. BellSouth has a telephone hub in Northeast quadrant of High
Point and Union Cross Roads. BellSouth has buried fiber-optic cable through High Point
Road intersection.
Time Warner Cable has both aerial and underground fiber-optic cables throughout
project.
Piedmont Natural Gas has 4" plastic gas mains along the West side of Union Cross Road
and North side of Sedge Garden and Old Salem Roads. The 4" plastic gas main increases
to a 6" steel gas main near Biloxi Avenue and continues South along West side of Union
Cross Road to Station 15 North of Solomon Drive connecting to a high-pressure 8" steel
gas main. The high-pressure 8" steel gas main continues South along Union Cross Road
crossing under I-40 and interchange ramps West of bridge to the South side changing to a
high-pressure 6" steel gas main on the West side of Union Cross Road to North side
Scoping Comments for U-4909
Glenn High Road. A new 6" plastic gas main connects and crosses South under Glenn
High Road on the West side of Union Cross Road that crosses under to the East side of
Union Cross Road South of Glenn High School. This new 6" plastic gas main continues
South along the East side of Union Cross Road ending at Woodway Drive. A new 6"
plastic gas main crosses under Union Cross Road to the South side of Temple School
Road ending across from Dell Computer Manufacturing Plant. A high-pressure 6" steel
gas main along the South side of Union Cross Road South of the US 311 interchange
serves the Union Cross Business Park ending South of project limits at Wallburg Road.
The City of Winston-Salem has an 8" sanitary sewer main starting at Pecan Lane heading
North along Union Cross Road to the Union Cross Station Interceptor-Also 8" sanitary
sewer mains at Kenosha Drive, Shepherd's Grove Lane and North on Union Cross Road
to a 6" force main at Somerset Crossing Lane. They have a 12" force main along North
side of Sedge Garden and Old Salem Roads and an 8" sanitary sewer main along South
side of Old Salem Road. An 8" sanitary sewer main along Union Cross Road near the
intersections with Green Lawn and Reynolds Price Drives. A 4" PVC sewer force main
from Union Cross Elementary School crosses under High Point Road to the East side of
Union Cross Road. Then runs North to Glenn High School where it crosses under to the
West side to an 8" DI sanitary sewer main running behind High School and connecting to
an 8" VC sewer main along Glenn High Road. The 8" sanitary sewer main on Glenn High
Road also crosses under Union Cross Road to East side at Union Cross Animal Hospital.
They have an 8" sanitary sewer main in the Union Cross Business Park South of US 3.11.
The City of Winston-Salem has a 20" DI water main along the West side of Union Cross
Road that tees into a 16" DI water main under Union Cross at Wallburg Road and an 8"
DI water main to the South. The 20" DI water main continues North crossing under US
311 interchange West of the bridge and runs parallel with an 8" DI water main. The 20"
DI and 8" DI water mains cross under High Point Road and continue North along the
West side of Union Cross Road. An 8" DI water main also runs parallel to the North side
of High Point Road. The 20" DI and 8" DI water mains along the West side of Union
Cross Road have connections to the East side for 6" DI water main at Pinewood Terrace
and an 8" DI water main at Hedgecock Road. A 16" DI water main connects from the
West along Temple School Road. The 20" DI water main increases to a 24" DI water
main at Glenn High School. The 24" DI water main crosses an existing 6" water main at
Glenn High Road. The 24" DI and 8" DI water mains continue North along the West side
of Union Cross Road with a 12" DI water main connection under road to Glenview Drive.
The 24" DI and 8" DI water mains cross under I-40 interchange West of the bridge and
continues North with 6" DI and 8" DI water main connections to side streets. A 12" DI
water main connects along Sedge Garden Road with both 16" DI and 8" DI water mains
along Old Salem Road. A 12" DI water main runs North along Union Cross Road North
of the intersection with Sedge Garden and Old Salem Roads with side street connections.
Duke Power has aerial transmission lines with underground service throughout the entire
project limits including over I-40 East of the bridge and over US 311 West of the bridge.
Page Three
Scoping Comments for U-4909
Alltel has a cell tower next to US 311 at Hastings Road Northeast of Union Cross Road.
Crown Castle International has cell tower in Northwest quad of Old Salem Road and I-40.
The City of Winston-Salem has an elevated water storage tank behind Glenn High School
Stadium and Somerset Crossing Sewer Lift Station along I-40 East of Union Cross Road.
NCDOT has an Incident Management Matrix Sign along I-40 West of Union Cross Road.
Environmental:
Above ground and underground petroleum storage tanks are located along entire project.
Project located in Abbott's Creek Watershed and Yadkin River Basin. Closed Air Force
Radar Installation located along Union Cross South of Wallburg Road is now Union
Cross Park and mixed use light industry. Well casings located in numerous front and back
yards. Triad Hispanic Ministries located across from Dell Boulevard may require
environmental justice research. West side of Union Cross Road in City of Winston-Salem
Planning Zone. East side of Union Cross Road in Town of Kernersville Planning Zone.
East side of Union Cross Road has more restrictive Abbott's Creek Watershed Vegetative
Buffer Provisions.
Cultural:
High Point Road signed Scenic Union-Cross Connector 24 Bike Route. Southeast quad of
High Point Road at Union Cross Road has Boone Trail Highway / Old Plank Road Trace
historical marker. Proposed developments along Union Cross Road include Caleb's
Creek in the I-40 Southwest quadrant, Weather Stone (formerly Gateway Village), and
Abbott's Plantation across from Temple School Road. Union Cross Station Shopping
Center is in the Northeast quadrant of I-40. Bike route sign on Sedge Garden and
Hastings Hill Roads.
Union Cross Moravian Church Cemetery located in Northwest quadrant of Union Cross
and High Point Roads. Horse Boarding Stable fencing located next to Union Cross Road.
Tobacco fields/barns located on Union Cross Road. Beeson Crossroads Fire Department
Station 26 located in Northeast quadrant of Union Cross and Old Salem Roads. Southeast
Middle School located in Southwest quadrant of Old Salem at I-40. Churches and
Schools in study limits. Traditional Academy founded 1927 High Point Road East of
Union Cross.
Engineering:
Project Study Area speed limits vary between 65 mph on I-40 and US 311, 45 to 50 mph
along Union Cross Road, 35 mph in School Zones, and 25 mph along Subdivision
Streets. Both I-40 and US 311 are controlled access with median cable guardrails. New
entrances to Glenn High School and Dell Boulevard constructed on Union Cross Road. A
proposed Temple School Road extension East to Piedmont Parkway. NICDOT has added
signalized turning lanes, curb & gutter, widened exit ramps, 2 bridges, and controlled
access fencing.
PLT
CC: Mr. Art McMillan, PE, State Highway Design Engineer
Mr. Jay Bennett, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, PE, State Hydraulics Engineer
Mr. Njoroge Wainaina, PE, State Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, PE, State Natural Environment Engineer
Mr. Mark Pierce, PE, Project Development Engineer
dµ??n
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum
To:
Attn:
From:
State Project:
F/A Project:
County:
Description:
.Subject: Start of Study
The NCDOT Rail Division is in receipt of your scoping letter on the above subject
bridge replacement project.
After review of the project scoping letter and location of the project in relation to
nearby railroad tracks, it has been determined that no rail interaction will be involved
on this project.
Thank you for keeping the Rail Division involved in the early project planning stages.
Please call Brad Smythe, Project Engineer, at 715-8741 if you have any additional
questions.
JBH/bds
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
September 6_2005
Mr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
James B. Harris, PE
Engineering Manager .VVV
NCDOT Rail Divisio
WBS 40278 (U-4909)
N/A
Forsyth
Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2,643 (Union Cross Road) to a multilane
facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge
Garden Road)

Cc: file
MAILING ADDRESS:
RAIL DIVISION
ENGINEERING & SAFETY BRANCH
1556 MSC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1556
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: www.bytrain.org
LOCATION:
CAPITAL YARD
862 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH, NC 27603

Subject: U-4909 meeting
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:55:31 -0400
From: "Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail]
I have reviewed the file for this project and really there are no
significant Geotech. issues. Therefore, I do not plan to attend
this afternoon's meeting unless you think I am overlooking
something. Thanks.

?ivmv-c
Subject: U-4909 historic architecture survey
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:01:31 -0400
From: "Jennifer A. Cathey" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail], Mark Pierce <[e-mail]>
I will not be able to attend today's meeting for U-4909, but I
did want to follow up/restate the conversation that Tony and I
had yesterday about survey for historic structures in the project
area. My memo to Diane Hampton dated February 25 shows the
results of a Phase I reconnaissance survey of Union Cross Road
from I-40 to US 311. It shows structures over 50 years of age
that I located in the field, and the approximate location of
structures identified during the State Historic Preservation
Office's (HPO) 1981 survey of the area. My reconnaissance does
not cover the area south of US 311. (We have learned from Diane
Hampton that at least one property owner in that area may pursue
historic status.) The map indicates structures that will require
further survey and research, and does not indicate present-day
National Register eligibility of any structures. Phase II
survey of the project area, in which we will begin to sort out
National Register eligibility with the HPO, will begin after
travel restrictions are lifted. Depending on the results of
eligibility consultation with the HPO, a Phase II survey report
may be required. Production and HPO review of this type of
report can take several months. I will need a map identifying
the new study area and design information before conducting the
survey. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns --
Jennifer
Jennifer Cathey
Historic Architecture Section
Human Environmental Unit
NCDOT
919-715-1516
U' r- 4409
Subject: U-4909
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:22:28 -0400
From: "Davila, Felix" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]> l
Mark,
I could not attend todays Meeting on U-4909 since I was at the R-2309AB.( STP- 220(5))Post
Hearing Meeting which lasted from 11:00 am to around 1:00 pm in the Roadway Design
Conference Room, then I went for lunch.
Mark, although I was invited to the U-4909 scoping meeting I noted the project is listed
as state funded in the 2006-2012 TIP Books.
Please advise if there are any issues on the U-4909(state funded project) which requires
FHWA consultation/involvement. Usually we do not get involved in projects that are not
federally funded.
Mark is there is any relationship between U-4909 and TIP U-4759 Project. Please note that
U-4759 is also state funded but I think it may require a modification to one interchange
in the interstate system which requires FHWA involvement despite the kind of funds used.
See attached file.
<<U4759.doc>>
Name: U4759.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
F)U4759.doc' Encoding: base64
Description: U4759.doc
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
r
t
9
CORY,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 12, 2005
(Tuesday)
LYNDO TIPPErr
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. James Upchurch, Transportation Engineer
Transportation Planning Branch - Western Planning Group- Triad Unit
FROM: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer 7l00d& ?d. ?.staat_'?
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: Ms. Teresa Burton, P.E. (Project Services)
Mr. Clarence Coleman, P.E. (FHWA)
Mr. Felix Davila, P.E. (FHWA)
Mr. Anthony Houser, P.E. (Roadway Design)
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E. (Division 9)
SUBJECT: 140 Interchange Modification Justification & Traffic Forecasting
U4759: SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) Widening Project in Forsyth County
I am writing to confirm that the FHWA requirements for the Union Cross Road - I-46 Interchange
Modification Justification (IMJ) are being considered in your traffic forecast for this project
Ms. Teresa Bruton met recently with Mr. Clarence Coleman to discuss the requirements for the IMJ. It was
concluded that the analysis should include the two adjacent interchanges along I-40 in both directions.
Therefore, your traffic forecast should include volumes for the I40 interchanges with US 311, the proposed
Winston-Salem Eastern Beltway, NC 66; and I40 Business. I
Should you have comments or questions regarding this issue, please contact me at 733-7944 x214 at your
earliest convenience. We appreciate your time and look forward to your Traffic Forecast Report
MATING ADDRIE : TMEWONE: 919.733.7141 LOCATM:
NC DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUKDWO
PRwECT OEVSnP11E+RNO 1 S0u111vkMWOT0N STREET
ENVIRONme1TAL ANALYSIS BRANCH V&SSITE WWW..N000T.0RGftANNWG RUSIGH NC 27601
150 MAR. SERVICE CENTER -
RA WN NC 27899.16{6

f
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD
Date: ?-Time: //-/,3-
Call To : eye
.-C-ar r-om4 Returned By : /?i42?L- 'mac ,2c? ? 2 ?z-r ???•,? EZ„ )
CC:
TIP ProjectNo.: County:/
Subject: 57 e, Cpl ?' e?l'
?- t/V s 0;;r
? , ;
T
C'
4?-
.7 7-
`` r
October 13, 2005
Mr. Mark Pierce
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Union Cross Widening Project (U-4909)
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Winston-Salem
Department of
Transportation
City of Winston-Salem
P.O. Box 2511
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
-lel 336.727.2707
Fax [phone]
www.cityofws.org/dot/
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on project U-4909, Union Cross Road
widening. The following are comments from Winston-Salem Department of
Transportation staff and City-County Planning Board staff.
The Winston-Salem Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the North Carolina Board
of Transportation on January 6, 2005 calls for a median divided facility with wide outside
lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. We feel that this would be the minimum
that is needed for this project and would help to discourage strip development along the
corridor.
However, for safety reasons, our preferred recommendation is a multi-lane median
divided facility with four foot striped shoulders signed for bicycles and sidewalks on both
sides. Two alternatives to the preferred recommendation would be that right-of-way is
reserved to construct a 10 foot side path on both sides of Union Cross Road, or a 10 foot
side path on one side of the road with a five foot sidewalk on the other side. Also, with
current residential construction, commercial development, a park and a high school in the
project area, we request that all intersections be designed to include crosswalks and
pedestrian signals.
Finally, care should be taken with respect to possible historic properties in the area as
well as any natural features. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or
need additional information.
Sincerely,
Greg enable
Planner
? D?AUG 3 9 f?!'S .
T(,gNDSq aSTpR Ug QTY
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: , Sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
SUBJECT: Start of Study Notice and Scoping for U-4909: Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) in Forsyth
County, WBS 40278
In reply to your correspondence dated August 15, 2005 in which you requested comments for the above referenced
project, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. More specifically, possible impacts to tributaries to the following streams:
Stream Name River
Basin Stream
Classification(s) Stream Index Numbe
Mary Reich Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-3-1
South Fork Mudd Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13
Swaim Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-1
Abbotts Creek Yadkin WS-III 12-119-(1)
Fiddlers Creek Yadkin C 12-94-13-3
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of all streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Future documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable
to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation,
appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. 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 for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or
to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
D. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands.
wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be required if
fo' hCaroli
Wna
Naturally
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50%a Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
v, vuut y ,,. i wi pt::, n i.v., Lmteutur
August 24, 2005
Page 2
E. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
F. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event
that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
G. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
H. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
1. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
K. 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 No. 3366/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be
followed.
L. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to
allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or
streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not
degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-
4600.
cc: Mark Pierce, P.E., NCDOT - PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ Wetlands/401 Transportation Unit

M.
LV
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 15, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
o?
o ?G6I O"
°Sz?R.,. UOS
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Start of Study Notice and Scoping Information Sheets for U-4909:
Widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multilane
facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden
Road) in Forsyth County, WBS 40278
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the improvements to Union Cross Road.
The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2007 and construction in fiscal year 2008. It is
anticipated that an Environmental Assessment will be prepared for this project.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency.. We would appreciate your response by
September 16, 2005. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the
proposed project in more detail. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify
the project engineer.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Pierce, P.E.,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 214. Please include the
TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-4909
WBS No.: 40278
Federal Aid No: (N/A)
Division: 9
Sent Date: August 15, 2005
Revision Date: (N/A)
Meeting Date: September 7, 2005
Count K. Forsyth
Project Description:
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road), SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road), widen
to multilanes, 3.6 miles.
General Project Need:
F7c-ity-
Metroi)olitan / Rural Planning Organization Area:
NEPA/404 Merizer Candidate?: u Yes
Feasibility Study Completed?: Yes
Winston-Salem Forsyth Urban Area MPO
I? No U Not sure
No Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
T e:
Environmental Document: EA
FONSI
Right of Way:
Let:
Dates:
June 2006 J
November 2006
FFY 2007
FFY 2008
Air Quality Status: Non-attainment Maintenance Attainment
Non-Attainment / Maintenance for CO and Early Action Compact Area for 8-hr Ozone.
Sheet 1 of 5
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
3.6 miles -1
Existing: none
Proposed:
1: US 311 Interchange
2: I-40 Interchange
Functional Classification: Urban Collector / Local
Strategic Corridor Information: (N/A)
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan Major Thoroughfare on Winston-Salem Forsyth
Designation (Facility Type): Urban Area Plan Roadway Typical Section:
(Existing / Proposed) .
Existing: 3-lane shoulder section
Proposed: multilane c&g section with median
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
Yes No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: varies
Proposed:
Existing Posted Speed: 35 to 50 mph Proposed Design Speed: 50 m h
Traffic AADT): % TTST: 1 to 2%
Current Year: E(2005) 10,600 to 19,900 vpd ADT % Dual: 3 to 6%
Design Year: 30) 16,400 to 27,000 vpd ADT % DHV: 10
Design Standards Applicable: L? AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
(N/A)
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
C'nnstniction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
$ 30,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 35,000,000
$ 30,900,000 $ 5,000,000 $3 5,900,000
Sheet 2 of 5