R-2568

DOCUMENTATION FORM
NC 109 WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT STUDY
DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES
Federal Project No.: STP-109(11)
NCDOT Project No.: 8.1600904
TIP Project No. R-2568C
A Merger Meeting for the NC 109 Improvements Study was held on August 15, 2006 in the
NCDOT Board of Transportation Conference Room. The following people were in attendance at
the meeting:
Name Agency
John Thomas United States Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher United States Environmental Protection Agency
Felix Davila Federal Highway Administration
John Hennessy NCDENR - Water Quality
Amy Simes NCDENR - Office of Secretary
Sue Homewood NCDENR - Water Quality
Sarah McBride Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
James Upchurch NCDOT - Winston-Salem Forsyth UA MPO
John A. (Andy) Bailey NCDOT - High Point Urban MPO
Hanna Cockburn RPO Contact-Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Greg Errett MPO Contact - Winston-Salem DOT
Phil Wylie MPO Contact - City of High Point
David Hyder City of High Point
Greg Venable City of High Point
Eric Midkiff NCDOT - PD&EA
Derrick Weaver NCDOT - PD&EA
Vince Rhea NCDOT - PD&EA
Pat Ivey NCDOT - Division 9 - Division Engineer
Keith Raulston NCDOT - Division 9 - Construction Engineer
Diane Hampton NCDOT - Division 9 - Environmental Officer
Roger Thomas NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Mike Little NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Andrew Nottingham NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Karen Gulledge NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Deanna Riffey NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Richard Silverman NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
Matt Wilkerson NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
Brian Overton NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
Mary Pope Fur NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
Mike Stanley NCDOT - TIP Development Unit
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Erosion Unit
Brian Eason H.W. Lochner
Eric Galamb H.W. Lochner
Christy Shumate H.W. Lochner
Kristin Maseman H.W. Lochner
Chris Werner H.W. Lochner
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service were not present. Comments
were received from NCWRC via email prior to the meeting (see attached email dated 08/14/06).

John Thomas opened the meeting by explaining the purpose of the meeting was to review the
Preliminary Corridors and their impacts in order to select alternatives to be carried forward for
detailed study. Following introductions, Lochner began by passing around the sign-in sheet,
copies of the meeting agenda and an email (attached) from Marla Chambers, (NCWRC).
Ms. Chambers was unable to attend today's meeting but had several concerns regarding
alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study.
Since it has been nearly two years since the Concurrent Point 1 Merger Meeting, Chris Werner
provided the group with a review of the project history , including a summary of the first round
of Citizens Informational Workshops (April 2004) and the purpose and need for the project
determined at the Concurrence Point 1 Merger Meeting (September 2004). He then updated
merger team members on events that have occurred since the previous merger meeting, including
conceptual line development, Preliminary Corridor development, the second round of Citizens
Informational Workshops (November 2004), typical sections and design criteria, traffic
projections and impacts based upon right of way limits set during the functional design
development. For more detailed information that was presented, please refer
to the Alternatives Report that was included in the Concurrence Point 2 Merger Packet.
After completing the presentation, Lochner opened the table for discussion. The following
discussions and comments were made:
¦ Chris Militscher asked for any specifics on the Low Income or Minority Populations
shown in Table 1. Chris Werner explained that through preliminary screening of census
data the urban area around the existing NC 109 / I-40 interchange suggests Low Income
or Minority Populations within this area. Corridors 1 and 3 are the only corridors that
terminate in this area. Mr. Werner noted more specific information will be determined in
the next stage of the study process.
¦ David Hyder asked for clarification on the calculations of relocations shown in Table 1 of
the Merger Packet. Mr. Werner explained the relocations were determined utilizing the
right of way developed from the functional designs, which was overlaid on spring 2006
aerials. Mr. Werner explained the right of way was 250 feet wide in a typical section, but
in areas of extreme topography the right of way was increased.
¦ John Hennessy asked if the upgrade existing alternative was symmetrical widening.
Mr. Werner explained that symmetrical widening was not used in order to reduce the
impacts.
¦ Representatives from the City of High Point questioned the use of "Super Streets" for this
project. Mr. Werner explained that the NC 109 corridor has been designated as a
Strategic Highway Corridor and NCDOT Congestion Management Section recommended
the use of the directional crossover with indirect left turns given its rural characteristics
and relatively low project volumes. Roger Thomas also noted that this type of
intersection reduces the amount of conflict points, provides a safer intersection and given
low volumes, can even eliminate the use of traffic signals. Pat Ivey noted that the
Division anticipates several intersections might require an intersection type other than the
directional crossover with indirect lefts. Mr. Werner explained that during the next stage
of the project a capacity analysis will be performed to evaluate and determine the types of
intersections that will be required based upon the traffic data. Roger Thomas noted that
the directional crossovers were used on each alternative in order to gain an equal impact
determination between alternatives.

John Thomas asked if improvements to NC 109 still need to be made to support any
future development along existing NC 109 if a new location alternative selected. Pat
Ivey explained that standard improvements, such as the development of left-turn lanes,
would be made with any future development along NC 109, but the R-2568C project
would not improve NC 109 if a new location alternative is selected as the preferred
alternative.
Sarah McBride asked if there are any locations within the project study area where
development is concentrated. Mr. Werner noted the new Dell Plant has recently been
constructed just to the northeast of the study boundary. Mr. Werner also noted within the
center of the study area, the Meadowlands Residential and Golf Community
(approximately 600 units) has been under construction over the past few years.
Mr. Werner noted that the developers are aware the area needs transportation
improvements and want to keep their potential customers aware of the NC 109
Improvements Study progress.
Chris Militscher was concerned with the percentage of traffic (43 %) that Corridors 4 and
5 are projected to remove from existing NC 109. Mr. Militscher wanted to know if there
was a threshold Lochner utilized to determine what percent reduction in traffic on
NC 109 would fulfill the Purpose and Need. Derrick Weaver stated he felt the estimated
43% reduction in traffic on NC 109 would fulfill the Purpose and Need, but to a different
degree when compared to other corridors. Mr. Militscher stated he just wanted assurance
that the Merger Team will not come back after detailed study to reevaluate the whether
corridors meet the purpose and need. Mr. Weaver noted that all of the corridors will have
varying degrees of fulfilling the Purpose and Need and will be compared during detailed
studies.
Chris Militscher suggested Corridor 1 remain for study since 51 % of the citizens who
responded were in favor of the upgrade existing alternative. Mr. Militscher
recommended eliminating Corridor 3 since it has the highest stream impacts.
Mr. Militscher also felt the area in the center of the study area through which Corridor 3
passes will be most prone to development. Mr. Militscher is concerned that the right of
way costs in this area could be excessive. Mr. Werner noted this corridor has been placed
in such a manner as to reduce the impacts to existing developments as much as possible.
Vince Rhea suggested the stream impacts could be minimized as the project progresses.
Mr. Rhea also noted that Corridor 3 is projected to remove the most traffic from existing
NC 109. Mr. Weaver stated that for these reasons NCDOT would prefer to keep Corridor
3 under consideration for detailed study.
John Hennessy wanted to remind the Merger Team that retaining more corridors for
further detailed study would result in a more expensive study and more effort required to
produce preliminary designs for all of the corridors. Mr. Weaver noted that even though
Table 1 shows five corridors, there are really only three major corridors. Corridor 5 and
6 are utilizing pieces of Corridor 3 and 4.
Discussion occurred regarding the existing interchanges along 1-40. Pat Ivey asked Chris
Werner to discuss Lochner's preliminary findings. Mr. Werner explained that using
preliminary traffic data Lochner had looked at the existing interchange of NC 109 and
1-40. Mr. Werner noted that with or without improvements to NC 109,140 as a corridor
would fail in the year 2030. Mr. Werner noted that improvements to the 1-40 corridor
would need to be addressed under a separate project. Mr. Werner stated that any
improvements to the NC 109/1-40 interchange would be ineffective since 1-40 as a
freeway system would be operating so poorly. Mr. Werner noted that during the next
stage of the process, all interchanges associated with all corridors, as well as any existing
upstream or downstream interchanges, will be analyzed and evaluated with the results
reported to NCDOT.
Felix Davila was concerned that the discussion regarding the service of I-40 and US 52
would result in a secondary purpose and need for the project. Chris Militscher asked if
the Purpose and Need Statement would need to be amended to include the 1-40
interchange service. John Hennessy suggested that the current Purpose and Need was
general enough that it would not require amending.
Sarah McBride questioned whether any overall cost estimates per corridor have been
compiled. Derrick Weaver noted the costs per corridor would significantly depend on the
amount of bridging that will be required. The locations of bridging will be determined in
the next stage of the project process.
The elimination of Corridor 6 was discussed since it is the longest corridor. Some felt
there were other corridors that achieved the same purpose while reducing impacts. Pat
Ivey asked Mr. Werner if he felt the "magenta" portion of Corridor 6 had more impacts
than the "yellow portion" of Corridor 5. Mr. Werner noted that without further
investigation he could not say one way or the other. Derrick Weaver felt that all
corridors should remain for further detailed study because they all had pros and cons but
all met the Purpose and Need of the project. Mr. Weaver directed the Team to the
Preliminary Alternatives report which documents the conceptual lines and corridors that
have already been evaluated and eliminated due to impacts or failure to meet the Purpose
and Need of the project.
Greg Errett expressed concern that the utilization of a 46 foot depressed median for the
upgrade existing alternative would result in a large amount of relocations. It was asked if
the use of the 23 foot raised median could be extended from Meadowview Drive south
through the intersection with Gum Tree Road. Roger Thomas explained that there were
several reasons the 46 foot median was chosen including correcting existing deficient
vertical curvature to achieve a Design Speed of 60 mile per hour. The 46 foot median
would allow for the maintenance of traffic and help with constructability. Mr. Thomas
also suggested the use of the 46 foot median would help provide the turning radius
needed for the U-turns associated with the directional crossovers with indirect lefts and
the median openings. He further stated that the reduction in median width and limits of
the reduced median width could be looked at in more detail during the preliminary design
process.
Chris Militscher asked if an EIS will still be required given the low level of impacts.
Derrick Weaver noted that it was considered an EIS originally due to the controversy
from the first NC 109 Improvements Study. Mr. Militscher suggested NCDOT
reevaluate whether an EIS is still warranted or if an EA will be adequate.
John Thomas asked if everyone agreed that all corridors should be carried on for further
detailed study. It was agreed by all Merger Team Members present that all corridors
should be carried on for further detailed study and was made official with the
Concurrence Point 2 Form signed.
Conclusion
Vince Rhea will distribute the Concurrence Point 2 Form to the Merger Team members not
present at today's meeting in order to obtain their signatures. Mr. Rhea noted the next step in the
project will be to inform the public via newsletter of the Merger Team's decision. It was
suggested the use of the directional crossovers with indirect lefts also be presented to the public
and local officials in the newsletter in order to receive their comments.
4
These minutes were recorded by H.W. Lochner, Inc. and are a summary of the meeting discussions
and decisions based on Lochner's understanding of the meeting. Corrections or additions to the
minutes should be sent to Vince Rhea, NCDOT-PDEA.
Prepared by Chris Werner, August 16, 2006
CC: Meeting Attendees
Project File
Werner, Chris
From: Vincent J Rhea, P.E. [vrhea@dot. state. nc. us]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:02 AM
To: Werner, Chris
Subject: [Fwd: R-2568C cp2 meeting 8/15/2006]
Chris
FYI. We should probably bring copies of this to the merger meeting to distribute and
include it in the meeting minutes.
Hope you had a good vacation!
Vince
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: R-2568C cp2 meeting 8/15/2006
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:24:23 -0400
From: "Marla Chambers" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Rhea, P.E., Vincent J111 <[e-mail]>,"'Thomas, John.T.,JR "'
<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>,"'Homewood,
Sue'" <[e-mail]>,"'Buncick, Marella "
<[e-mail]>,"'McBride, Sarah'',
<[e-mail]>
As some of you know, I won't be attending the meeting Tuesday due to a staff meeting.
I've reviewed the info packet and here are some of my thoughts regarding alternatives to
carry forward.
I believe the 'improve existing' (Corridor 1) should stay in the mix; it had the most
public support despite the number of relocations. It also keeps the impacts close to
where the resources are already impacted and reduces sprawl and secondary development
potential that a new location alternative has (which will translate to a further loss of
natural, agricultural and hunting land known to this area). We probably have to keep it
since it's the only one not in the critical water supply area.
Corridors 4 & 5 should be carried forward since they have the least stream impacts &
number of crossings, fewer floodplain impacts, & lowest number of relocations.
The significantly higher stream impacts for Corridors 3 & 6 concern me.
I'd also like to note, there is the potential (however slim) for the bog turtle to occur
in the area and should be addressed in the EIS as a state listed Threatened species.
Also, I understand that there are some historical Moravian agricultural districts set
aside in this area many years ago that should be investigated & possibly included on the
Environmental Constraints map. Info on this may be found in the Old Salem historical
archives.
Hope this has been helpful! Have a great meeting!
Marla J. Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm.
4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Rd., Suite M
Charlotte, NC 28227
[e-mail]
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
cell: 704-984-1070
!'h
'A tic 18 ?006
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TO Ay? 1k V 41
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '?r+I ALOPO
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 15, 2006
Mr. Peter Sandbeck
Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Historic Preservation Office
Dept. of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Mr. Sandbeck:
Subject: NCDOT Consultation with Michael Hartley and Martha Hartley concerning the NC
Study Listed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District concerning potential impacts to
Cultural Resources with the broader TIP # R-2568 (Highway Improvements to NC 109,
including widening and/or new location routes) in Forsyth and Davidson Counties
(Federal Aid No. STP-109(11), WBS No. 34468.1.4, ER-93-8784).
On August 14, 2006 Richard Silverman and Brian Overton of NCDOT's Human Environment Unit met
with Michael Hartley, Director of Archaeology at Old Salem, and Martha Hartley at the Archaeology
Office of Old Salem, Inc. for consultation regarding proposed highway improvements associated with
TIP# R-2568 (NC 109 in Forsyth and Davidson Counties).
In previous consultations between NCDOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), and the NC
Office of State Archaeology (OSA), it was recommended that Michael Hartley be contacted for
consultation because one or more alternatives are located in the vicinity of proposed and/or potential
historic resources. Preliminary corridor maps and aerials were presented by NCDOT to explain the
multiple alternatives currently under consideration. Environmental studies will assist the Merger Team in
selecting alternatives to be carried forward. It is important for cultural resources to be considered as early
in the planning process as possible.
The mapping illustrated the proposed boundary for Friedland Lower Tier Historic District, a resource
identified by Mr. Hartley and placed on the North Carolina Study List by the Department of Cultural
Resources (DCR). The Historic District has been documented as a remaining portion of one of the six
colonial Moravian congregations of the Wachdvia Tract (1753). Areas within this boundary contain the
highest quality and least disturbed archaeological sites and best represent the historic landscape of the
Friedland Lower Tier (ca. 1770s). During the discussion, Mr. Hartley confirmed that none of the
corridors encroach upon the District's Study List boundary. It was noted that one corridor (widen
existing NC 109 with a section of new location, indicated as "Corridor 1") is located within one-quarter
mile (southwest) of the Study List Boundary.
Mr. Hartley presented historic maps and information that showed historic Moravian settlement in many
areas throughout the overall project study area. These areas are not necessarily limited to the boundaries
of the Study Listed District. For all of the corridors, he emphasized that surviving features of important
early settlement likely exist that are unique and significant. At this time, the majority of these resources
have not been exhaustively examined and any major modifications, including road improvements and
subsequent land use changes, have the potential to disrupt remaining historic landscapes.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE.' WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583

It was the opinion of Mr. Hartley that the widening of the existing NC 109 has the least potential to affect
historic resources due to existing transportation-related ground disturbances and development. Any
corridors that are on new location have the greatest potential to affect lands historically associated with
the Friedland Lower Tier and other 18th century settlements in the area.
A corridor immediately east and adjacent to Friedland Lower Tier has been removed from consideration
(previously identified as "Pale Green": January 76 2004 Constraints Map). This was the only corridor that
adjoined and encroached upon the Study List district. Since the corridor has been eliminated from
further consideration, evaluation of the Study List District for National Register eligibility is not longer
being pursued by NCDOT, as the district is outside of the current APE. This replaces a continent from
NCDOT in a letter dated December 2nd, 2005 from NCDOT to HPO.
Once the preferred corridor is selected, NCDOT will conduct further consultation with the Hartleys,
HPO and OSA. In cooperation with these groups, specific research goals and archaeological survey
methodologies will be discussed to address the identification of historic resources within the project's
selected alternative's Area of Potential Effects (APE). NCDOT will coordinate with the Hartley's in
developing the historic contexts for evaluating historic resources within the greater Friedland Lower Tier
settlement and other potential 18th-19th century settlements.
Sincerely,
YV
Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Office of the Human Environment
Cc:
Michael Hartley, Old Salem, Inc.
Martha Hartley, Old Salem, Inc.
Dolores Hall, NC OSA
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT, HEU
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT, HEU
Vince Rhea, NCDOT, PD&EA
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC HPO
Sarah McBride, NC HPO
Jennifer Martin, Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc.
LeAnn Pegram, Forsyth County Joint Historic Properties Commission

1
North Carolina
'IMPROVEMENTS
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point 2
August 15, 2006
Federal Project No.: STP-109(1)
NCDOT Project No.: 8.1172401
Transportation Improvement Program Project No. R-2568C
AGENDA
1. Introduction
II. Project History and Current Status

III. Alternatives Location and Impacts
A. Corridor 1 - Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative
B. Corridor 3
C. Corridor 4
D. Corridor 5
E. Corridor 6
IV. Alternative Evaluation Discussion
A. Selection of Alternatives for Detailed Study
B. Concurrence Form
V. Upcoming Activities
f?Jl , 1"d ?d?())

A. Environmental Studies, Analyses, and Technical Reports
B. Project Schedule
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point 2
August 15, 2006
Federal Project No.: STP-109(1)
NCDOT Project No.: 8.1172401
Transportation Improvement Program Project No. R-2568C
1. INTRODUCTION
The NCDOT proposes to provide transportation improvements to NC 109 between Old
Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in Davidson County and 1-40/US 311 in Forsyth County. This
project is included in the NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
TIP Project Number R-2568C and is located in the vicinity of Winston-Salem, Thomasville,
and the town of Wallburg. The study area is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of this meeting is to present preliminary alternatives based on functional designs
as a starting point for alternative discussion. The Merger Team will identify alternatives to
carry forward for detailed study (Concurrence Point 2).
II. PROJECT HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS
In 2003, the NCDOT began studying alternatives for R-2568C. Coordination for this project,
including agency scoping, began in October 2003. Citizens Informational Workshops were
held in April 2004 to allow the public to comment on locations of potential alternatives. A
Merger Team Meeting for Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need) was held on
September 15, 2004. The agreed upon needs for the project include capacity deficiencies,
above-average accident rates, and deficient roadway geometry on NC 109. The agreed
upon purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow and service, improve safety, and reduce
conflicts between through traffic and local traffic along NC 109.
With information provided from the April 2004 Citizens Informational Workshops and the
agreed upon purpose and need, conceptual alignments were developed. The number of
conceptual alignments was narrowed down by combining those with similarities to develop
1000 foot wide Preliminary Corridors. Many of the conceptual alignments were evaluated
and eliminated based on at least one of the following: topographical limitations; amount of
residential and business impacts; inappropriate crossings of secondary roads and stream
crossings; potential wetland impacts; limited locations for feasible connections to US 311, US
52 and 1-40; potential impacts to historic properties; potential community impacts; and failure
to meet purpose and need. NCDOT identified five preliminary alternative corridors for further
R-2568C NC 109 Improvements Study
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
August 15, 2006
study and presented these to the public in a second set of workshops held in November
2005.
Ill. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives under consideration at this time include five preliminary alternative corridors
which are described below and are shown on Figure 2. Impacts of each corridor are shown
in Table 1.
A. Corridor 1 - Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative
Corridor 1 is the Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative with a bypass west of the town of
Wallburg. This corridor is 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. It includes four
directional crossover intersections; these intersections would be at Jesse Green Road
(SR 1753), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gum Tree Road (SR 1711) and Rex Road
(SR 1709)/Devoe Road (SR 2839). At all other intersecting roads, only right turns will be
permitted. Drivers will be forced to turn right onto NC 109 and then make a u-turn at
median openings to travel in the opposite direction.
Corridor 1 would require approximately 164 relocations. This alternative would also
impact 0.136 acres of wetlands. Four stream crossings, four floodplain crossings, and
seven major utility crossings are associated with this alternative. Three churches would
be impacted by Corridor 1.
B. Corridor 3
Corridor 3 is 9.5 miles long with 7.75 miles on new location. Corridor 3 is located to the
west of existing NC 109 and ultimately terminates just south of the existing interchange of
NC 109 and 1-40. It includes six directional crossover intersections; these intersections
would be at the NC 109 connection, Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751), Motsinger
Road (SR 1723), Gum Tree Road (SR 1711), Fox Meadow Lane (SR 1921), and Teague
Road (SR 2705), and connects to the existing interchange at NC 109 and 1-40.
Corridor 3 would require approximately 84 relocations. It would not have any wetland
impacts. Nine stream crossings and four floodplain crossings are associated with this
alternative and seven major utility lines would be crossed.
C. Corridor 4
Corridor 4 is 9.3 miles long with 8.5 miles on new location. Corridor 4 starts out on the
east side of existing NC 109, but then sweeps to the west where it ultimately terminates
just east of the existing interchange of South Main Street and US 52. It includes eight
directional crossover intersections; these intersections would be at Johnson Road
(SR 1755), Jerry Clodfelter Road (SR 1747), NC 109, Motsinger Road (SR 1723),
R-2568C NC 109 Improvements Study
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
August 15, 2006
Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700), Gum Tree Road (SR 1711), Old Lexington Road
(SR 1706), and Beckerdite-Steward Road (SR 2759).
Corridor 4 would require approximately 71 relocations. It would impact approximately
1.688 acres of wetlands. Two stream crossings and two floodplain crossings are
associated with this alternative. Five major utility lines and a railroad line would also be
crossed.
D. Corridor 5
Corridor 5 is 8.6 miles long with 7.4 miles on new location. Corridor 5 is a combination of
the southern portion of Corridor 3 and the western portion of Corridor 4 and ultimately
terminates just to the east of the existing interchange of South Main Street and US 52. It
includes seven directional crossover intersections; these intersections would be at the NC
109 connection, Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751), Motsinger Road (SR 1723),
Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700), Gum Tree Road (SR 1711), Old Lexington Road (SR
1706), and Beckerdite-Stewart Road (SR 2759).
Corridor 5 would require approximately 73 relocations. It would also impact approximately
0.558 acres of wetlands. Three stream crossings and two floodplain crossings are
associated with this alternative. Four major utility lines and a railroad line would also be
crossed.
E. Corridor 6
Corridor 6 is 10.1 miles long with 8.7 miles on new location. Corridor 6 is a combination
of the eastern portion of corridor 4 and the northern portion of corridor 3 and ultimately
terminates just south of the existing interchange of NC 109 and 1-40. It includes seven
directional crossover intersections; these intersections would be at Johnson Road
(SR 1755), Clodfelter Road (SR 1747), NC 109, Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gum Tree
Road (SR 1711), Fox Meadow Lane (SR 1921), and Teague Road (SR 2705).
Corridor 6 would require approximately 82 relocations. It would impact approximately
1.130 acres of wetlands. Seven stream crossings and four floodplain crossings are
associated with this alternative. Eight major utility lines would also be crossed.
IV. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION DISCUSSION
A. Selection of Alternatives for Detailed Study
B. Concurrence Form
R-2568C NC 109 Improvements Study
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
August 15, 2006
V. UPCOMING ACTIVITIES
A. Environmental Studies, Analysis, and Technical Reports
B. Project Schedule
¦ Draft Environmental Impact Statement
¦ Select Preferred Alternative
¦ Complete Final Environmental Impact Statement
¦ Right of Way Acquisition
¦ Construction
Winter 2008
Summer 2009
Summer 2010
Post Year
Post Year
R-2568C NC 109 Improvements Study
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting
August 15, 2006
4
0

O
°-?
P-
o
o
0
o
O
m
o
.t

00
o
z°
o

O
U

cr-
O
N
r
o
O
o
O
O
N
O
N
Cl)
Z y
7N
O
Z
Ix t; O
O
U r
cr'

++ O

00

O

Lo 06

a

o

O

O

O

O

°

O

N

O

M

N

0

Z

)

Z
V ? r
O ?,.

d
M
m to 0
u
l
` O f
l V7 ?. O O O O ti O 'kI' O O O 00 Z } O a)
4) N
O
a?
N
?
C -
W
o z
pp??

•
? Q

U)

O1

CJ

V

O

O

O

M

O

I-

O

-

O

N

Q

•!
t

Z ?Q

Z

O

}
X
O ? X
a. . w
?

? ~
w
w?
~

°
U)
U)
U)
w N
O U
a U)
U
V)

Z
m w N C) W m m EY
E ¢
U a
x

3: rn 0

U C7
Z

V J

J
-? o &4 CL o
m J

Q Z g

C
W
4)
Z ) (A
U) (n z
O -,
a ¢
Q H
w
? Z cp -

2 U
W U)

O p
CL
°
C: Oz O (n = ix U O H
p QQF-
U O W °
`
_j
v °
° 2 (n W
a
V z
O O
z rn
c °
s o
~ U?
?H U O
2
a U H
w
2 wop
(L= w
od Q
U Q a
)
E a c
U a?
E
aa) o -
LL
Q
}
U a
O
H c Z p
Q W L = w p OS U
L
O w
U
U
p N
w
w? w
O Z 2 Z - Z
m 3
z E
O
U lL
0 O
D? LL
0 " 0 zU 0 W p ° m
c z V W a Z

w
m
O
0-

w

O of
Q

U Q

J w
p
z
W

p
_

LL w w W

w Q W (n

0 p
co

0 ly
Q
CL U
W W
p? :D m m w 0 ? w Q a. 11 w E- O

? O
Z
LL
o
LL
O
ix w
j

-
O
z
=
LL

N

Op
z W
co Z Z p
z
w
w m(
?-D w
z O p
z(n U
Q
w W
m a
O
U
w 0 z z m g?
a g z
zo? Z)
Z Z Z O
i
?U co Z ?
2
D
z

L
Z
z (n
n.
m
0
0
L
Q.
T
a)
N
(°
Cl
0
N
N
a)
flu
c
0
0
O
(0
O
00
r
N
C
m
Q.
O)
c
c
c
w
f0
c
O
U
C
LL
C_
U
N
Q.
O
m
a?
v
N
T
0
t
rn
0.'
c
O
Q.
3
N
m
U
(0
d
E
N
O
Z
40
40
00
00
i
i
i
i
i
00
i
Davidson
County
?
?
?
?

52
Cl)
i
1 Qi ?
tg, b r l „ h
Hedg_gock R
7
1 ?? 1 dl
31 ( 74pffDr -
109
L4
7/7
cr e1. a a ,I, m? I
1b? 1
ache Dr WestoverD
Lek r
Pam ?r,
?? .. Moore R
o
109 ple
_t)
O
(l_ -? -? ? ? •? gay
W Burton Rd
i
P? ?P rfl? iIJ.
?- t
Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing NC 109
ln? North Carolina
N
Department of Transportation
w E NC 109 Improvements Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
s State Project No. 8.1172401
Mlles T.I.P. No. R-2568C
0 0.5 1 2 Figure 1 Project Vicinity
FF
F
0?

Corridor 4
r-iWzft! =
1 ?
. J
T. r
'1 1. If'. f A'' .." V I M.•
Irv,
`W?'4 Y. gIII!I
K 17,
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
N
NC 109 Improvements Project W F
Forsyth and Davidson Counties ?1V `V Legend
State Project No. 8.1172401 ' - Corridor 1 - Corridor 5
T.I.P. No. R-2568C
Preliminary Alternatives o ozs os ors 11 Corridor 3 Corridor6
'FOl
Figure 2 (Aunust 15. 2006) ? Corridor 4 - Existing NC 109
t;'b0 , ]fA0 6,OW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

VVt:I LANDS / 401 GROUp
SEP 0 2 uO4
WATER QUALITY SECTION
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NC 109 Improvements Study
from SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US 311
Federal Project No. ST11-109(1)
NCDOT Project No. 8.1 17240
Transportation Improvement Project No. R-2568 Sections C through F
i
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I
j OiNORTH e \
1A Rat
1 ?
i(
OF 1,9
Prepared 13y:
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
LOCHNER
August 2004

Il
I

1
.r

s

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. .. 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PRO.1I+,CT .............................
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT' ..................................................... .. 1
.. 4
' 4.0 PROJECTAREA DESCRIPTION .......................................................................
4.1 Project Setting ....................................................................................................... .. 5
.. 5
4.2 Project 1 listory ......................................................................................................
5.0 SYSTEM LINKAGE .............................................................................................. .. 7
..7
5.1 Existing Road Network .........................................................................................
5.2 Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................. .. 7
.. 9

' 5.3 Modal Interrelationships .......................................................................................
6.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................... 10
11
6.1 Demographics .......................................................................................................
6.2 Economic Data ...................................................................................................... 11
12
6.3 Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................... 13
7.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ............................................................................... 14
7.1 Local Thoroughlare Plans .....................................................................................
7.2 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program ......................................... 14
14
8.0 NC 109 CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOMh.TRIC DEFICIENCIES...........
8.1 Existing NC 109 Characteristics ........................................................................... 17
17
8.2 Existing NC 109 Geometric Deficiencies ............................................................. 17
9.0 NC 109 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................... 21
' 10.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................
11.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 27
30
' LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections Along Existing NC 109 23
2 Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections Along Existing NC 109 24
3 Levels of Service for Two-Lane Highway Segments Along Existing 26
' NC 109
4 Crash Rate Comparison 28
1
1

C
1

1

t

1
1

1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FICURES
Figure.
1 Proicct Vicinity Map and Study Area
2 Study Area Notable Features
3 Fxisting Road Network
4 'transportation Impromment Projects Near the Project Study Area
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Winston-Salem "Transit Authority System Map
13 Winston-Salem Land Use Plan
C Thomasville Land Use Map
1) Traflic Data from NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch
Page
2
6
16
1
Ll

1
1

1
1
1

11

7 7
J

1

1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes a project that addresses proposed improvements to
North Carolina (NC) Route 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in Davidson
County to 1-40/US 311 in Forsyth County. Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the
project in relation to the state and a map of the project study area.
The purpose of this report is to document the purpose of and need for improvements
within the project study area. The content of this document conforms to the requirements
of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, which provide direction
regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA, and the Federal
Highway Administration's Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and
Section 4(0 Documents (Technical Advisory T66430.8.A, October 1987).
2.0 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The need to improve NC 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in Davidson
County and 1-40/US 311 in Forsyth County is demonstrated by the following summary of
existing and projected conditions.
• Capacity Deficiencies
Deficient roadway geometry (lack of
passing zones and adequate clear zones,
narrow travel lanes and narrow shoulders),
numerous driveways, and no control of
access reduce the carrying capacity of
NC 109. The two-lane highway segments
operated at an unacceptable LOS E in 2003
In 2025, all segments of NC 109 are
predicted to operate over capacity at
unacceptable LOS E or LOS F.
Level of Service
The LOS is defined with letter designations
from A to F. LOS A is the best operating
conditions along a roadway or at an
intersection, and LOS F is the worst. In
urban areas, LOS D is generally
considered acceptable, while in rural
areas, LOS C is considered acceptable.
LOS E and F conditions cause significant
travel delay, increase the potential for
accidents, and contribute substantially to
the inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
In 2003, two of the four signalized intersections on NC 109 within the project study area
' operated at Level of Service (LOS) E or F and over capacity. Three of the twenty-two
unsignalized intersections operated at Level of Service E or F and over capacity.
NC 109 Improvements Study ]
Purpose and Need Statement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Forsyth
County
\
Davidson \
County \
\
\
i i Miles
0 1 2 3

'
From 2003 to 2025, traffic volumes along NC 109 are expected to increase sixty to ninety

' percent. By 2025, all four of the signalized and twenty-one of the twenty-two
unsignalized intersections have movements that are projected to be over capacity. The
two-lane highway segments are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F.
'
• Above-Average Accident rates
' Between May 2000 and April 2003, a total of 235 crashes were recorded along this
section of roadway. Of this total, four accidents caused fatalities and 113 accidents
' caused injuries. The total accident rate for existing NC 109 within the project area for the
three-year period from May 2000 through April 2003 (197.19 accidents per 100 million
' vehicle miles traveled [MVM], is approximately eight percent higher than similar rural
NC
t
i
h C
li
N
18295
id
/MVM
i
h
i
rou
es
n
ort
aro
na (
ents
acc
). W
t
out
mprovements to
NC 109 accident rates are expected to increase with increased traffic volumes.
'
• Deficient Roadway Geometry
' The existing cross-section of NC 109 consists primarily of two ten-foot travel lanes with
unpaved shoulders varying from three to six feet in width. Beyond the roadway shoulder,
' many side slopes are steep and not protected with guardrail. Coupled with inappropriate
shoulder width, the steep side-slopes do not provide adequate clear zone for the majority
' of the project. This provides little recovery area for vehicles leaving the roadway.
The horizontal alignment generally meets design standards with the exception of an
approximately 715-foot radius curve and an approximately 640-foot radius curve in the
Wallburg area. For desired design speeds, current design standards require a minimum
t curve radius of 1,205 feet.
The vertical alignment follows the rolling terrain of the study area with maximum grades
' of 7%. Sharp vertical curves over the crests of hills do not provide sufficient distance for
a motorist to see an obstruction in the roadway and to stop if necessary. Such curves are
' said to lack adequate stopping sight distance. Stopping sight distance is defined as the
length of roadway ahead visible to the driver.
' Detailed discussion of the existing and projected conditions and the needs for the
proposed action are presented in Sections 4.0 through 8.0.

' NC 109 Improvements Study 3
Purpose and Need Statement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

t
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
' In order to addre
th
t
t
d
d
th
d
ill h
ss
e s
a
e
nee
s,
e propose
project w
ave the following
purposes:
'
• Improve traffic flow and levels of service on the section of NC 109 in the project
' study area.
Needs Addressed: Existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service along
existing NC 109 cause significant travel delay, increase the potential for
accidents, and contribute substantially to the inefficient operation of motor
' vehicles.
' • Improve safety and reduce conflicts between through traffic and local traffic
along NC 109.
' Needs Addressed: Accident rates along NC 109 within the project study area are
currently above the statewide average accident rates for similar facilities.
' • Improve deficient roadway geometry.

Needs Addressed: American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and NCDOT design guidelines recommend twelve-foot
lanes and eight-foot shoulders with two feet of the shoulder paved for a facility
with the characteristics of NC 109. These design guidelines also state that the
optimal clear zone should be a minimum of thirty feet. Improvements to vertical
and horizontal geometry will increase sight distance, improve safety, and reduce
conflicts.
NC 109 Improvements Study 4
Purpose and Need Statement
I
1?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

4.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
1 4.1 Project Setting
As shown in Figure 1, the proposed project study area is located in Davidson and Forsyth
Counties. This portion ofNC 109 serves commuting traffic between employment centers
in the City of Thomasville (Davidson County) and the City of Winston-Salem (Forsyth
County) and local traffic accessing commercial and residential areas along the road.
The project is located in the piedmont region of North Carolina. The study area's terrain
is rolling. Elevations climb from a low of approximately 720 feet above sea level in the
southern end of the study area to a high oi'approxiinately 960 feet above sea level in the
northern end of the study area.
The study area is drained by Abbott's Creek, Spurgeon Creek, Reedy Run, Cool Branch,
Brushy Fork, South Fork Muddy Creek, Sawmill Branch, and Fiddlers Creek. The
southern portion of the project study area, south of Gumtrec Road, is located within the
Yadkin River Water Supply Watershed.
Portions of the study area are within the jurisdiction of the City of Winston-Salem and
the recently incorporated Town of Wallburg (see Figure 1), as well as unincorporated
I areas of Davidson and Forsyth Counties.
The once rural study area is becoming more suburban. Residential development is
becoming more dense along NC 109. New neighborhoods, such as the Meadowlands
neighborhood and golf course, which is just east ofNC 109 near Wallburg, are currently
are under development. Commercial areas are scattered along NC 109, but dense in the
northwestern portion of the study area within the City Limits of Winston-Salem. 'T'here
' are two business parks located in the northeast corner of the project study area,
Centre 311 Industrial Park and Union Cross Business Park. Salem Business Park is
located in the northwestern corner oi'the project study area, near the interchange of US
52 and 1-40. Ridgewood Industrial Park is located just north of the project study area. The
location of these business parks are shown on Figure 2.
Several schools are located within the pro.l'ect study area including Ledford Middle
School, Ledford Senior High School, Wallburg Elementary and Easton Elementary.
Ledford Elementary School, located at 1490 Friendship-Ledford Road, will be open to
students in Fall 2005. These schools are shown on Figure 2.
NC 1091rnprovements Study 5
Purpose and Need Statement
s

1
t

1
it
L

1

"WI
1a
t r.j.
I
311
r I rl ?'

1 QP

Fishel
i
'ice ? Q ' o,
n ? r
/ ? Fl d
1 '.
LL ?'
Rd
-s j n 4 2
00, eR I
`'? \ raa ?. 109
alley R C \
i
unity aytld, o o r"??o
\ ? `y> 9c coo l \ r ?c5 I
I o?or / OM?c
r choo\ d \ c 0°t9
Ml aY g a
alph mill,
L d
/7 °
sheer ? ` ' ??2
52 / a$ Cloy _ ??' a 0 W Burton Rd
.. ?,/7e?R \ r a?ac ?o
a ?o \ . ?a
J
Legend
w r.
O Preliminary Study Area Boundary - Park Watershed Area
i Public Scholl Col( Course Proposed Wallburg Limits
Existing NC 109 Business Park Winston-Salem City Limit Feet
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
f North Camlins
Department of Tmnsportstlon
INC 109 Improvement Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. R-2568
Figure 2 Study Area Notable Features

4.2 Project History
In the 1984 Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan, improvements to existing NC 109 were
listed as the second highest priority project for the county. In 1990, a Feasibility Study
for improvements to NC 109 from I-85 Business in Davidson County to US 311 in
Forsyth County was completed by NCDOT.
In 1993, NCDOT began a planning study for improvements to NC; 109 from I-85
Business in Davidson County to I-40/US 311 in Forsyth County. In June 1995, the
project was broken into two sections. The southern section (TIP Project Number R-2568
Sections A and B) includes improvements to NC 109 from Business I-85 to just north of
SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road). The northern section (TIP Project Number R-2568
Sections C through F) includes improvements to NC 109 from just north of SR 1798 to
1-40/US 311.
The southern section "was designated as the priority section to be constructed first"
(NCDOT, NC 109 Update Newsletter, June 1995). An Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the southern section (TIP Project Number R-2568 Sections A and B) was signed in
1996. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in 1997.
TIP Project R-2568 Section A included improvements to the I-85 Business Interchange,
which were completed in 2004. TIP Project R-2568 Section B includes NC 109 from just
north of the I-85 Business interchange to just north of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798).
Section B is scheduled for letting in Fall 2004.
5.0 SYSTEM LINKAGE
5.1 Existing Road Network
NC 109 is the only direct route between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and functions
as a north-south connector between I-85, I-85 Business and 1-40/US 311. South of the
project study area in Davidson County, NC 109 intersects with US 64, NC 47, and I-85.
NC 109 runs between Troy, North Carolina and Winston-Salem.
Figure 3 shows the location of regional interstates, US routes, and NC routes in the
vicinity of NC 109.
NC 109 Improvements Study 7
Purpose and Need Statement

1-85 extends from Montgomery, Alabama through Atlanta, Georgia to Richmond,
Virginia and runs southwest-northeast through Davidson County. 1-85 connects
Davidson County with Greensboro and Durham to the northeast and Charlotte to the
southwest.

1-40 is an east-west interstate route that traverses Forsyth County. 1-40 extends from
Wilmington, North Carolina in the east, across the United States to Los Angeles,
California. I-40 connects Forsyth County with Greensboro to the east and Hickory to the
southwest.
Segments of three US routes and six NC routes are in Davidson County. The US routes
are US 29/70, US 52 and US 64. US 29/70 and US 52 run north-south and connect
western Davidson County with Winston-Salem. US 64 tuns east-west and connects
Lexington with Asheboro in Randolph County. The NC routes are NC 8, NC 47, NC 49,
NC 62, NC 109, and NC 150.
Segments ofthree US routes (US 52, US 311, and US 158) are located within Forsyth
County. US 52 runs north-south through Winston-Salem. US 311 runs east-west through
Forsyth County. US 158 runs diagonally from the southwest to the northeast corner of
Forsyth County. NC Routes within Forsyth County include NC 8 (Germanton Road),
NC 67, NC; 65, NC 66, NC 109, and NC 150. All of the NC routes in Forsyth County
are radial facilities that project outwardly from Winston-Salem.
Regionally, NC 109 provides a north/south connection for 1-40 and 1-85. Locally, NC
109 provides an important route for daily commuter traffic to and from Winston-Salem
and Thomasville. Improvements to NC 109 would provide the additional capacity
necessary for this link of the roadway network to operate safely and efficiently.
5.2 Commuting Patterns
NC 109 is one of the major travel routes used by residents commuting to and from
Thomasville and Winston-Salem. In 2000, 11,062 residents commuted from Davidson
County to Forsyth County, while 4,136 residents commuted from Forsyth County to
Davidson County. The importance of this road as commuter route has increased in
recent years with continued residential development within the project study area.
NC 109 Improvements Study 9
Purpose and Need Statement
t

t

1

1

I

u
t
11

5.3 Modal Interrelationships
5.3.1 Mass 'T'ransit
I Commuter bus service is provided by the Winston-Salem Transit Authority to a small
portion ol'the northern section of the project study area. Two bus routes, the Martin
Luther King, Jr. .Boulevard/ Peachtree/ Old Lexington Road Bus Route and the Main/
Konoak/ Cassell Stoney Glen 13us Routes, arc located within the pro.jcct study area. The
Winston-Salem "Transit Authority System Map is included in Appendix A.
Within Davidson County, there is no available commuter bus service. I lowever, the
Davidson County Transportation System provides transportation for the human service
agencies, the elderly, the disabled, and the general public of Davidson County. The
service uses standard vans, small buses, and small buses with wheelchair lilts to assist
persons with specialized transportation needs. (Davidson County Transportation
Department Website: www.co.davidson.nc.Lis, Accessed on April 15, 2004.)

The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PARS') Provides bus service
between Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Highpoint. Buses run from the Winston-
Sal cinTransportation Center to the PART regional hub at the Piedmont Triad
International Airport every half hour from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays. From the
regional hub, passengers can travel to High Point or Greensboro. (PART Website:
www.partnc.org, Accessed on May 17, 2004.)

5.3.2 Railways
Within the project study area, the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway (WSSB) runs
parallel to US 52 and is shown on Figure 2. The WSSB is owned jointly by CSX and
Norfolk Southern Railway. The WSS13 track is used by two to four freight trains per day.
No passenger trains operate over the WSSB rail line.
The nearest commuter rail service terminals are located in Greensboro and High Point.
5.3.3 Airports
The Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTI) is located in Guilford County,
approximately sixteen miles northeast of the project study area. PTI provides the Triad
with direct and connecting commercial air passenger and airfreight service to national
and international destinations.
NC 109 Improvements Study 10
Purpose and Need Statement
t

N

F
t

1

t
t

L
t

The majority of private air traflic in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County originates at the
Smith Reynolds Airport. This airport, owned by the Airport Commission of Forsyth
County, is a general aviation airport with limited commuter flights. The airport is located
approximately six miles north of the project. study area.
5.3.4 Bike Routes
The 700-mile Mountain-to-Sea Cross State Route traverses the study area along (,umtree
Road and Wallburg Road. This bike route traverses the state From Murphy in the west to
Mantco in the cast.

6.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
6.1 Demographics

Davidson and Forsyth Counties are part of the 12-county 1 iedmont 'triad Region.
Davidson County has a total area of 552 square miles and three incorporated
municipalities in the county, including Thomasville, Denton, and Lexington, which is the
county seat.
Forsyth County has a total area ol'410 square miles. There are eight incorporated
municipalities in Forsyth County, the largest being Winston-Salem, the county seat.
Forsyth and Davidson Counties have been growing rapidly. From 1990 to 2000,
Davidson County's population increased 16.2 percent, From 126,688 to 147,246. During
the same decade, Forsyth County's population increased 15.1 percent, from 265,855 to
306,067 (NC Department of Commerce Website: cmedis. commerce. state. nc. us,
Accessed 04/05/04).
The populations of both Davidson and Forsyth Counties are expected to increase through
2030. The population of Davidson County is projected to grow 13.3 percent (to 166,833
people) from 2000 to 2010, 11.7 percent (to 186,335) from 2010 to 2020, and an
additional 10.3 percent (to 205,603) from 2020 to 2030. The Population of Forsyth
County is projected to grow 13.4 percent (to 347,165 people) from 2000 to 2010,
12.4 percent (to 390,124) from 2010 to 2030, and 11.3 percent (to 434,096) from 2020 to
2030 (NC Office of State Planning Website: demog.state. n.c.us, Accessed 04/05/04).
NC 1091rnprovements Study 11
Purpose and Need Statement
t

t

it

1
fl
r

t

1
6.2 Economic Data
Davidson County, including the Cities ol'Lexington and '['homasville, is known for the
nnanulaCturing of furniture. Thirty-seven percent of employment in Davidson County can
be classified as manufacturing. The top four major employers in Davidson County
include Lexington Furniture IndLIStrieS Thomasville Furniture Industries, FIlison
Windows and Doors, and Stanley Furniture Company (Piedmont Triad Partnership
Website: www.picdmonttriad.nc.com, Accessed 02/17/04).
Retail trade (16.8 percent) is second to manufacturing in total employment. '['he service
industry (16.5 percent) employs the third largest number ol'workers, with government
employment (14.2 percent) being fourth. While approximately 9.4 percent ofthe total
acreage of Davidson County is classified as farn land, agricultural employment is listed
as less than one percent of employment in the county.
Forsyth County and the City of Winston-Salem have long been synonymous with the
manufacturing of tobacco. The number one employer in Forsyth County is R.1 Reynolds
'T'obacco Company. The area is also known for its medical facilities including the
second, third, and foUPth employers, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Wake Forest
University School of Medicine, and Forsyth Memorial Hospital, respectively (Piedmont
Triad Partnership Website: www.piedmonttriad.nc.com, Accessed 02/17/04).

The service industry, ?,which includes the aforementioned medical facilities, employs
approximately thirty-two percent ol'the employees within Forsyth County. Retail trade
(18.3 percent) is second to service in total employment and is followed closely by
manufacturing (16.9 percent). While approximately 19.4 percent of the total acreage o17
Forsyth County is classified as farmland, agricultural employment is listed as less than
one percent of employment in the county.
Th
e unemployment rates in 2002 in Davidson County and Forsyth County were 6.5
percent and 5.6 percent, respectively, which were lower than the statewide
unemployment rate o176.7 percent. Davidson County ranked 22nd out of the one-hundred
North Carolina counties in 2001 with the per capita income averaging $25,909. Forsyth
County ranked 3rd out of the one-hundred North Carolina counties in 2001 with a per
capita income averaging $32,213. The statewide per capita income averaged $27,308 in
2001.
t
NC 109 Improvements Study 12
Purpose and Need Statement
t

t
1

i

I
C!
1
1
n
1

6.3 Land Use Plans
The Legacy Development Guide is the general, long-range policy guide for decisions
concerning the overall growth and development of Forsyth County and its eight
municipalities. The Legacy Development Guide was adopted by the City-County
Planning Board and the City of Winston-Salem in 2000, and Forsyth County in 2001.
The Winston-Salem/Porsyth County Growth Management Plan Map is included in
Appendix 13. Within the project study area, the majority of land is included as
"Suburban Neighborhoods." Suburban neighborhoods are defined as "area with the most
undeveloped land where much of the future residential, commercial, and industrial
development should occur."
One of the nine proposed Metro Activity Centers is located within the project study area
at the US 311 South Activity Center at US 311 and Ridgewood Road. A Metro Activity
Center "is a focal point for community-wide activities - living, working, shopping,
education, recreation and cultural, spiritual or civic activities." The core area of the
Metro activity center is "a quarter-mile in diameter, located near the intersection of major
roads and contains commercial institutional, office and high density residential uses."
(Legacy Development Guide, p. 30-32)
Davidson Forward is the Davidson County Land Development Plan that was adopted in
2002. The purpose of this plan is "to help Davidson County avoid the mistakes that
many other rapidly growing areas have made and to set it upon a course that will preserve
the character and quality oi?the area, while accommodating the inevitable growth that is
coming." (Davidson Forward, p. 1)
The Davidson County Development Strategy Map is included in Appendix B. This map
shows the property along NC 109 within the project study area as "Preferred
Rural/Agricultural Areas." The Preferred Rural/Agricultural Area is defined as "areas
where urban services, such as water and sewer, are not in place and not likely to be put in
place within the next 20 years." Development densities within the project study area,
which is included in the Yadkin River Waters Supply Watershed, shall be no less than
40,000 square feet.
t

NC 109 Intproventents Study 13
Purpose and Need Statement

t

fl
1

1
[J

t

a
i
7.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANS

7.1 Local Thoroughfare Plans
The transportation planning process identities deficiencies in the transportation planning
system by using modeling and forecasting techniques that analyze land development
patterns, employment, population projections and community values. This analysis
results in the development of an overall transportation plan that includes a thoroughfare
plan. A thoroughfare plan is a system of roadway improvements proposed to address
identified deficiencies within an area. The development o1 these recommendations
involves consideration ofthe human and natural environment. The planning process
includes extensive input for the local community and results in a. plan that is mutually
adopted by the local governing body, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and
the NCDOT Board of Transportation. (NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch, Purpose
and Need Guidelines, 2000)
Three 'T'horoughfare Plans have been developed that include the project study area.
These plans and their recommendations for improvements to NC 109 are described
below.
Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan. The Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan was
updated last in 1984. In the 1984 Thoroughfare Plan, the improved cross-section
recommended 1-or NC 109 from the Thomasville City limits to the Forsyth County Line
is a lour-lane divided highway with a minimum median width of thirty feet.
High Point Urban Area Thoroughfare Man. The High Point Urban Area
"Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by NCDOT in November 2001. This plan recommends
that NC 109 should be widened to a four-lane divided roadway.
Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan. The Forsyth County Thoroughfare Plan was
updated in 2002. This plan recommends that NC 109 should be widened to a four-lane
divided roadway.
1 7.2 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
This project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOTT) 't'ransportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project number It-2568
Sections C through F. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled post year.
Construction of TIP Proicct R-2568 Section A was completed in early 2004 and included
NC 109 Improvements Study 14
Puipose and Need Statement

t

t

t
r-1
Li

1

f
Ir-,

improvements to the interchange located at N(_. 109 and Business 1-85. 111 1 ?olcct
R-2568 Section B is scheduled to be let in ball 2004. This section includes widening
NC 109 to (our lanes with a forty six-foot grass median from just north of Business 1-85
to just north ofOld Greensboro Road (SR 1798).
Officr'I'IP projects located in the general vicinity ol'thc proposed improvements to
NC 109 arc shown in Figum 4 and listed below:
Project B-3834 is a bridge replacement project on SR 1779. Project B-3834 will replace
Bride Number 156 over hanks Creek. Right-ol=way acquisition is scheduled for Federal
Fiscal Year (1, FY) 2004 with construction to follow in FFY 2005.
Project B-4102 is a bridge replacement project on SR 1777. Project 13-4102 will replace
Bridge Number 153 over a creek in Davidson County. Right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled for FFY 2004 and construction is scheduled for PFY 2004.
Project B-4742 is a bridge replacement project on SR 1755. Project 13-4742 will replace
Bridge Number 134 over a creek in Davidson County. Right-of--way acquisition is
scheduled for FFY 2008 and construction is scheduled for FFY 2009.
Project B-4101 is a bridge replacement project on SR 1741. Project B-4101 will replace
Bridge Number 141 over Abbott's Creck in Davidson County. Right-of way acquisition
is scheduled 1-or ITY 2005 and construction is scheduled for FFY 2006.
Project B-3332 is a bridge replacement project on SR 2699. Project 13-3332 will replace
Bridge Number 149 over Fiddlers Creek in Forsyth County. Right-of-way acquisition is
currently in progress and construction is scheduled for FFY 2004.
Project U-2579 is a proposed new location multi-lane fi•eeway (Winston-Salem Northern
Beltway Eastern Section Extension). Planning is in progress with right-ol=way
acquisition scheduled to begin in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2008.

t
NC 109 Improvements Study 15
Purpose and Need Statement
4

I

a

!rj

t
t
w

r?

I

- ?7 Co , in
)un
t-
° r ?
er5? - --?Iry} n `
r? e._
U-2579 - ( -
V
VV- B-3332 a a -
T
° ?rb °rdRd O r _
- 109 - a 1?SF
j 52 ; . 311 r d sKef clog.
1 = pex ? ? i ?f
( (}ep
%
J
Flsh I d
tj B-4101
_ a I k!I `
_ -'
10
-- 1 L
( A D
I ? °? II
d R ? ? ?, ,{ t oa ,l
B-4742
311
w;? y 0v50 ?-
i I J
er ?1Q N1 r /I e? o e
8
\
\f'i 109 B-4102 a
Burton
29
r8yer i
/ Ha Y Sc I
B-3834 ?= 4
Bell- d &
/ C i Il nm, f: ?r ? I k
v i 52
i
' ?-- ?
- r
/ 29 a ; --
?Cily Lake
t i IJ! r'
ti ?bka? Upper eke R ??,???
t f s
ington Ix ?p
Legend N
Bridge Replacement Project W
Proposed New Location 5
Multi-lane Freeway Feet
0 5.000 10.000 15.000
NorM Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 109 Improvements Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. R-2568

8.0 NC 109 CHARACTERISTICS AND GEOMETRIC
DEFICIENCIES
8.1 Existing NC 109 Characteristics
Existing NC 109 within the project study area is a two-lane undivided rural highway with
no control of access. This existing cross-section oi' NC 109 consists primarily oi'two ten-
foot lanes with unpaved shoulders varying from three to six lect in width. NC 109 in the
vicinity interchange of" 1-40/US 31 1 has been widened to a five lane, sixty- l'our-foot curb
and gutter cross section. Speed limits on NC 109 are 45 mph except within Wallburg,
where the speed limit is 35 mph.
Currently, under the North Carolina Moving Ahead! Program, there is a NCDOT
Division 9 project that will widen NC 109 lanes by two feet and provide two-foot paved
shoulders from the curb and gutter section from the Davidson County line north to
1-40/US 31 1. Ewen with these improvements, this section of NC; 109 does not meet the
design guidelines presented in Section 8.2.
'There is a split diamond interchange where NC 109 intersects with 1-40/US 311. There
are four existing traffic signals along NC 109 within the project study area. These signals
are located at the following intersections: I-40/US 311 westbound on ramp, I-40/tJS 311
eastbound orrramp, Gumtree Road (SR 1711), and Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798).
8.2 Existing NC 109 Geometric Deficiencies
As stated in the previous sections, NC 109 has ten-foot lanes and three- to six-foot
unpaved shoulders. Beyond the roadway shoulder, many side slopes are steep and not
protected with guardrail. Coupled with not having the appropriate shoulder width, the
steep side-slopes do not provide adequate clear zone for the majority of the project. This
provides little recovery area ror vehicles leaving the roadway.
i
l
AASHTO
d
T
i
Off
h
) an
ransportat
on
ic
a
s (
American Association of State Hig
way
NCDOT design guidelines recommend twelve-foot lanes and eight-loot shoulders with
two feet ofthe shoulder paved for a facility with characteristics ol"NC 109. 'T'hese design
guidelines also state that the optimal clear zone should be a minimum of thirty feet.
Clear zone is the area adjacent to the roadway, available for safe use by errant vehicles.
This area should be free of obstacles such as unyielding signs, non-traversable drainage
structures, utility poles and steep slopes.
NC 109 Improvements Study 17
Purpose and Need Statement

l

I
11
I
I

s
ri

a

I

I

E
I

r

' NC 109 Improvements Study 19
Purpose and Need Statement
Picture 1: Intersection of Shady Church Road and NC 109 looking south.
Picture 2: Intersection of Willard Road and NC 109 looking south.
a

Table 1: Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections Along
Existing NC 109

I

1
1
t

Intersection with NC 109
Movement Level of Service
2003 2025
AM PM AM PM
WB Through-Left 1; D D D
WB Right I? D F I;

1-40 WB On Ramp N13 Left D C F
F
NB 'through A A A A
SB Through I? C I' F
SB Right E C D C
EB Left D 13 C B
E13 Right 1' F F F
1-40 FB Off Ramp
N13 Through
B
C
F
E
NB Right A B A C
SB Left I? F F I'
S13 Through A C A A
ER L,eit B C I F
LB Through-Right B B D C
WB B C F F
Gumtree Road (SR 1711) N13 Left A A F
NB Through-Right A A F D
SB Lcft A A F I'
SB 't'hrough-Right A B F F
E13 Left B A D C
EB "Through-Right B A D C
W13 B 13 E E
Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) NB Left A A D E
NB Through-Right A A D C
S13 Left A A E E
SB "Through-Right A A C D
' NC 1091mprovements Study 23
Purpose and Need Statement

f
t

r_,

1

1
u

I

Table 2: Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections Along
Existing NC 109
t

I
r
rl

Intersection with NC 109
Di
ti Level of Service
rec
on
2003
2025
AM I'M AM PM

M
d
Vi
R
d
SR 2706 S13 B A C 13
ea
ow
ew
oa
(
)
WB
C
C
F
1?

'l'eague Road (SR 2705) E13 F F. F I
N13 A B 13 C
Union Cross Road (SR 2643) W B C C F 1 '
S13 13 A C 13
Willard Road (SR 2700)
WB
E
1?
F
I
S13 13 A C 13
SR 2702 EB D v F 1:
NB A B B C
SR 2780 Eli C D I-? 1"
NB A A B C
EB I; E * F
Rex Road (SR 2839) / WB E 1 * 1?
Devoe Road (SR 2701) NB A B B C
SB 13 A C 13
Joe Shawn Road (SR 3858) WB D C F F
SB 13 A C B
Meriwether Drive (SR 3807) WB D C F F
SB 13 A C 13
Grey Stone Road (SR 2990)
WB
C
13
E
D
SB A A B A
Robbins Road (SR 1724)
EB
B
C
D
E
NB A A A B
Ray banning Road (SR 1729)
WB
C
B
D
D
SB A A B A
Motsinger Road (SR 1723) EB D C F F
NB A A B C
Wallburg (SR 1730)
WB
D
C
F
F
SB A A B A
EB C C F F
Georgetown Road (SR 1733) WB
- C C F F
NB A A A B
SB A A B A
NC 109 Improvements Study 24
Purpose tend Need Statement
1

I

rl

I
t

t
t

I

I
I

Table 2: Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections Along
Existing NC 109

Intersection with NC 109
Direction Level of Service
2003 2025
AM PM AM PM

Franklin Drive (SR 1928) W13 C (' 1,
L'
S13 A A R A
Wallburg-High Point Rd (SR 1741) W13 C C F F
S13 A A B A
Appache Dr (SR 1970) W13 C 13 I D
S13 A A B A
Stoney Ridge Road (SR 1749)
W B
C
13
13
F,
SB A A 13 A
Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751)
EB
D
C
F
1;
NI3 A A A B

Lexington Avenue (SR 1755) W13 C 13 1? F
S13 A A B A
EB C C F 1'
Jesse Green Road (SR 1753)
W13
C
C
F
F
NB A A A B
SB A A A A
-- i,evei or ,)ervice was not able to be computed clue to out of range delay values (>999.9 seconds)
NC, 109 Improvements Study 25
Purpose and Need Statement
I
f
r,

I

f

I
C
I I

t
1

Table 3: Level of Service Analysis for Two-Lane Highways Segments Along
Existing NC 109
t
t

Two-Lane Hi
S
m
nts
h
a Level of Service
g
w
y
eg
e 2003 2025
1-40/US 311 to Meadow View Road (SR 2706) E F
Meadow View Road (SR 2706) to Teague Road (SR 2705) E F
Teague Road (SR 2705) to Union Cross Road (SR 2643) E 1,
Union Cross Road (SR 2643) to Willard Road (SR 2700) E E
Willard Road (SR 2700) to SR 2702 E F
SR 2702 to SR 2780 E F
SR 2780 to Rex Road (SR 2701)/Devoe Drive (SR 2839) E F
Rex Road (SR 2701)/Devoe Drive (SR 2839) to Joe Shawn Road (SR 3858) E F
Joe Shawn Road (SR 3858) to MCITiwcather Drive (SR 3807) E F
Merriweather Drive (SR 3807) to Gum Tree Road (SR 171 I/SR 2692) L. F
Gum Tree Road (SR 171 1/SR 2692) to Gray Stone (SR 2990) F, E
Gray Stone (SR 2990) to Robbins Road (SR 1724) E E
Robbins Road (SR 1724) to Ray Lanning Road (SR 1729) E F,
Ray Lanning Road (SR 1729) to Motsinger Road (SR 1723) E E
Motsinger Road (SR 1723) to Wallburg Road (SR 1730) E E
Wallburg Road (SR 1730) to Georgetown Road (SR 1733) E E
Georgetown Road (SR 1733) to Franklin Drive (SR 1928) E E
Franklin Drive (SR 1928) to Wallburg-I ligh Point Road (SR 1741) E I"
Wallburg-High Point Road (SR 1741) to Appache Drive (SR 1970) E E
Appache Drive (SR 1970) to Stoney Ridge Road (SR 1749) E E
Stoney Ridge Road (SR 1749) to Shady Grove (SR 1751) E E
Shady Grove (SR 1751) to Lexington Avenue (SR 1755) E E
Lexington Avenue (SR 1755) to Jesse Green Road (SR 1753) E E
Jesse Green Road (SR 1753) to Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798/1756) E 1;
NC 109 Improvements Study 26
Purpose and Need Statement

t
t
t

H

L'

11
t

t

J

1
10.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Roadway deficiencies combined with increasing capacity demands and uncontrollable
factors, such as inclement weather, can make for undesirable travel along existing
NC 109 within the project study area. A review of accident data for NC 109 from just
north of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in Davidson County to the south ramps of the
1-40 interchange in Forsyth County for the period between May 1, 2000 and April 30,
2003 showed a total of 235 crashes along this section of roadway. Of this total, Lour
accidents caused fatalities and 113 accidents caused injuries.
Approximately twenty-one of"the at-grade intersections along the project area had three
or more crashes during the analysis period and eight of these averaged at least two
crashes per year. There were also four intersections that averaged a minimum of three
crashes per year. These intersections were as follows:
• Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751) with nine crashes,
• Gumtree Road (SR 1711) with twelve crashes,
• Rex Road/Devoe Road (SR 2701/SR 2839) with nine crashes, and
• Louise Street with twenty-live crashes.
Approximately sixty-four percent of the twenty-five crashes occurring at Louise Street
were rear end crashes. A primary concern in this vicinity are crashes resulting from
vehicles stopping in the roadway to make a left turn or from vehicles stopping in the
roadway to make a left turn or from vehicles stopped in the roadway due to congestion.
For crash rate purposes, NC 109 is classified as a two-lane undivided rural North
Carolina (NC) route. Table 4 shows the comparison of the crash rates for the analyzed
section of NC 109 versus the 2000-2002 statewide crash rates 1-or a comparable road type
and configuration.
As shown in Table 4, current crash rates exceed the critical non-fatal injury crash rate
primarily due to a large number of rear end (slow or stop) crashes, vehicles slowing,
stopping, or being stopped in a travel lane, vehicles being on a straight (grade) section of
road, and drivers who were inattentive or failed to reduce speed.
NC 109 lrnprovements Study 27
Purpose and Need Statement

I

w

t

Table 4: Crash Rate Comparison
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 Million Statewide Ratez Critical Rate3
Vehicle Miles (MVM)
Total 235 197.19 182.95 203.75
Fatal 4 3.36 2.39 5.14
Non-Fatal
113 94.82 75.45 96
88
Injury .
Night 58 48.67 61.76 74.02
Wet 53 44.47 30.62 39.38
t_sasnes occurring trom may j, 2uuu mrougn Apra SU, 2UU3 along NC; IU9 between Old Greensboro Road and 1-40
2 2002-2002 statewide crash rate for rural 2-lane undivided NC routes in North Carolina
s Based on the statewide crash rate (95percent level of confidence)
Approximately forty percent of non-fatal injury crashes were rear end (slow or stop)
crashes. This exceeds the statewide average by forty-six percent. Of these non-fatal
injury crashes:
• Twenty-seven percent of vehicles were slowing, stopping or were stopped in a t
travel lane,
• Thirty-seven percent were traveling on a straight (grade) section of road, and
• 'twenty-eight percent of drivers were either inattentive or failed to reduce speed.
'these factors exceeded the state averages for non-fatal injury crashes occurring on 2-lane
undivided rural NC routes by thirty-eight percent, eighty-three percent, and twenty-eight
percent, respectively.
Approximately forty percent oflwet crashes were rear end (slow or stop) and
approximately thirty-two percent occurred while vehicles were slowing, stopping, or
stopped in a travel lane and these factors exceeded the state averages for wet crashes
occurring on two-lane undivided rural NC Routes by Iiffy-three percent and fifty-four
percent, respectively. Also, approximately twenty-one percent ofmotorists involved in
wet crashes contributed to these crashes by failing to reduce speed, which exceeded the
state average for wet crashes occurring on two-lane undivided rural NC Routes by
thirty-eight percent.
Approximately forty-five percent of wet crashes occurred between the hours of 3:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m., fifty-three percent occurred within 150 fleet from an intersection, and
filly-three percent involved only one vehicle. More than half occurred in the Forsyth
County portion of the project with approximately forty-seven percent concentrated in a
1.1 1 mile segment between Meadowview Drive (SR 2706) and Leona Street.

NC 109 Improvements Study 28
Purpose and Need Statement
11

1
F1
ril

i]
J

t

Approximately forty-two percent of wet crashes resulted in a rear end collision, and
another twenty-eight percent resulted in a vehicle leaving their lane of travel. Many wet
crashes involved vehicles stopping Ior traffic or waiting to make a left turn, and Gumtrec
Road (SR 1711) had the largest amount of wet crashes of any intersection. Officers
indicated that weather directly contributed to approximately thirty-five percent of the wet
crashes, which is eighteen percent above the state average for two-lane undivided rural
NC routes.
Approximately forty-one percent of all crashes were rear end crashes and, of these forty-
i
ht
t i
l
d
hi
l
g
e
percen
nvo
ve
a ve
c
e attempting a left turn onto an intersecting street or
driveway, and another thirty-three percent involved vehicles waiting behind stopped
traffic. Approximately fifty-two percent of rear end crashes that occurred at intersections
involved vehicles attempting to make left turns, and the intersections that had the
maiority of these crashes were Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751) in Davidson County
and Joe Shawn Road (SR 3858), Rex Road/Devoe Road (SR 2701/SR 2839), and Louise
Street in Forsyth County.

Ledford Senior Hi h School is located at 140 .lesse Green Road SR 1753
g ( 1753),
approximately 0.4 miles west of NC 109. Two crashes involving student-aged drivers
occurred at this intersection in 2001.

I I

t

NC 109 Improvements Study 29
Purpose and Need Statement

t

r-J,
fl

11.0 REFERENCES
American Association ol'State IIighway and Transportation Officials
1996 Roadside Design Guide
2003 Policy on Geometric Design of'llighways and Streets
City-County Planning Board
2000 The Legacy Development Guide
2003 Draft Union Cross/Soulheast Forsyth County Area Plan
Davidson County
! 2002 Davidson Forward: Davidson County Land Development Plan
Federal Highway Administration
1987 Guidance for Preparing and Processing E vironmental and Section 4(f)
Documents. II-IWA "Technical Advisory T66430.8.A. October 1987
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
2004 Website: www.nass.usda.gov:gl/ipcdb/
North Carolina Department of Commerce
2004 Websitc: cmedis.commerce.state.ne.us/countyprolilcs
North Carolina Department of"Fransportation, Planning and 1nvironmental Branch
1995 Environmental Assessment for NC 109 from 1-85 in Thomasville to Just
North of SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road)
2004 NC 109, from. North of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1795) to 1-401US 311
Purpose and Need Capacity Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch
2000 Purpose and Need Guidelines
North Carolina Office of State Planning
2004 State Demographics Website: www.demog.state.nc.us
Piedmont Authority for Regional "transportation
2004 Website: www.partnc.org

NC 109 Improvements Study 30
Puipose and Need Statement

u
r-,
II

e

t

Piedmont 'T'riad Council of Governments
2004 Piedmont 'T'riad Commuting Patterns and Statistics
2004 Wcbsite: www.ptcog.org
Piedmont Triad Partnership
2004 Website: www.piedmonttriadnc.com
Winston-Salem Transit Authority
2002 System Map
2004 Website: llttp://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/DOT/wsta.html

t
r I
I
NC 109 Improvements Study 31
Purpose and Need Statement

t
r?
t

1
t

t

1
t
t
t
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
NC 109 Improvements Study
Purpose and Need Statement

u

1
?l

1
t

H

E

t
t

t
1
1

1

1

1

I
1

t

1

Ire
?J
In
Ll

t

1
t
1

t

J
t
u

t
t
t

1

e

r
1
t
1

t
i
1
1
1
t
1
t
t
1
Appendix D
2003 Existing Traffic Volumes
2025 Project Traffic Volumes under the No-Build Condition
NC 109 Improvements Study
Purpose and Need Statement
mmmmm "m M
a e
to C ,
L
M C ro C rI
0 N M ro
G
O
?t?•..faw°? ?
C[

oy?ro 0 yly0
?
"?' ,•y••'1Y ?wC w?ytC9
0
roOpG
?
C
.. ,
r n
? ty
x
t?•
y
?C
yy ..30 :?
m

o
tv o n v

7
N
O
O
W
cn
v
v
------ --------------I----------.---
6 WO
> 09
Ad,
(-Il
y Z
n
O
? y
Oy
? d
y ?
f 1
5 ??
y Z
b

.. O En

o e z
c d

. a
? H O
O ?
"4 Ut
II ? p
c
En

O Ul

O N ?
0
z

H
? o
M

NJ WsiIM
OOLZ ?Js
p?issoao uoiun
Etr9Z us
oI.I To
C.m
00 004
00 4
y T
W -
0 C)
00
cm Cn
o? ?o
CA
W -+
00 004
OOZ
N
O
0
A
co o
0 0
0904 Wz) 9
->
ON
4 - 00£
ON
6 Wz) ASS
Wd
<- 006 4*
-0 006 008 -4'
004
J?

'•\ 0 0
OO

o co
°
s
°U?
h
'\ F
-4

O
i
0
<-0044
-> 0044 004
0004
0-4
O O
SSa W
? 8
d
? I N

?
M`?' ° 06 ?Eti)
"L
Wd
cn
0-4
0"0

OOL
08LZ ?IS
Z
O
CL
Q
ZOLZ as
Frya??? ?? 009 ?- 0064 pM onftal
C
-> OOU 9OLZ ?lS

\ 0

- c,
...(Jl
0 0
ON
Main MopeaW
9OLZ 21S --> 00£ 004 -?'
OOZ 0
N
WZ) g
SS , o
00
? ?
o? g

J Ll

O
0
0 J
J
O
0 A
N •O
0 O
0
C)
N
JI
1
2Q
a
ooy?

J ?
?1T
d 4
OL 4 0

/ 0 C)
F 0 00
,AD
O
Or"I s- OM 00404 4 009Lb !-
-> 0OW7 OMO0 ---> 009Lb ->
y
O 7??
D ON 0
? 00 O

N
7O
} I
1 ?
W 0 0
? 00
3

I 00 ? ? °O
1 i
m m " " m
a C
cl
m ti d
o%G
C M Iti
Ox w
ro
O Ell
tv g
y y 0
x O : WO A b
[?
o°
N
pO?ro
C [
rO
C ?
Ny?,C
1 G7 ? r
H
d -e z M lam!
?
d?
N
0
0
W
m
v
z
0
ai
C
a
W
N
•-------- ---------- ------ --------------

A .y
?
00
0
l Orlf
c:)

'006- pH suiggoH

T f -, bu L 2?S
j 00 ?-
00

(
?
6
Wd
?S9

Cl)
C)
? A
?w
(11
o
ell
00 e
Q
0
0
o ?
rI. ?+
o
0
A o
0
w
Guo;S AeaE) ooh o0
066Z ?IS_ E- 1
->
006-
006 006 w r
?C)
0 O
PM
9 ?2 ?) 0.55
y Z
Ul
d `
.
`

to `\

o y
y \
\
\ w -+
OObZ
000 ? 0066
d m oajl wnE 4- '
-
) 0066 p8 aaal wnE)
`
My Z69Z ?lS \\
00
J ?t? g 6LL6 us
oObZ \?
6
06 pL
?
1 -p `O w
C3 00
f (
O
06 W
09 \\
\ 04 (07) 0~09
Wd

H
H \
\
N ?
C3 ?0
\
r
z
0
0 0?
y ?? o
?z
7 ?
0
r?
H
O
7
0
b
0
O O \
JQ iay}eamlljaw <°0£
L08E CIS -, 006 -? '? •? ``SO
00£ 0oZ
ticoGG?
99 g ao ? -u
We)
Wd W
4 ?Ln
0
I
P8 uMeyS aor- Ooz
?-
998E ?s -y 006 T
ooz 006 W
00
99? W) 8 00
0 ?0
?
)
8
W
?99
0 00
O o0
'x-00 6
04 ??'? X006 4 00Z P8 x08
ad Gonad .
6£8Z Z!S , 006--a
006`
It 0 WLZ Zfs
0V
006-->
OM- w
J
w
Wz)
99?
8 o0
o
000 -
d

D o
D

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lulwyl
3] I

., e O
O
dt dro C
C
W
cn
Qj2roO ??
D SR 1749
oby Stoney Ridge RD

°
' r
7.
?v C
° GCS
t D
z v
? p
?
d sR
19
Ap
pa
Cho pr
7
S
A '116,
y Z 10' pM
X2,1) /-0
d
R
F?nkli 9 ?r .10
O y
y h
(Z' c)
? 9s
Z ooL
y Z ooL
pU UMOIGBiOGS
EEL 4 US
rjOO 00?
(-,I
? e n
? o
? ? zz
a\ ?
C
ii
y
0
0
ro
y
t,C
O ?
a
? c
o ?
o
o N
°w
oc.y ? ? ? loaa o4
C=7 y ? `? 9? vJ
y
y 0 z oy?
O p?o&L? ?S
00
b
O
9
EstAX'40;
O
OJ ,O 6S0 c
O
b O° O°?JI
o° o
OOb 000
000
O1 0
'? ) ? " 0
? A-:I-
w
0
Q]'
C
6
? W) P.- 99 ao T
ooZ d.
?° ?
-> 00l
OOZ 00l ?N
O O
100 v w
0
60 M
P
.100
(2,1) & 100
"w
og
0
06 (s,W is 99
EZL i us
?o
PO
100
00
5r
0
.?00 \y
O JJJ? 5
rn
Ul
w "0
0

a ? C
4
7?
Cti
> 1
C
p o ro
on
S ?n
e??oz
y?no?y" 2y?
?r0
a
ory' lyr??q zz
?H?C
M
?.y,drobM.G c O H
LCO?.:
H y ? q r
C?
O v y ro
7
r7
p
CyA
[ ?
Y C?7

0 v
d co
d
[6 e
7
tc
y ?
It d
O
O y
y ?
?r
y ^?
v 1
?-i tC (-) b r

Lh ..

o y ?

O O O
y 00

r`r
r CA
r
? a o

ON
C
)
o
N 0
z

l
°w ? t7

? O
7
N
0

N
O
O
W
CD
v
v
O
0
w
i
n
(n
(D
0 ?o
2 WO ?S9
,w
rnw
o°
0<ObZ °+
py aogsuaajE alp 0062 o0L -?, 00 °
93LL 2JS °O
?v
`966
o + to
sC
ro,
o?
;?ul
a C3 C:)
ool -4?-- 800?-
<- °os
oo? f
-> o01-? ?> -->
OOL 001-`> w 006
00 L-`*
C o .A
° (1'Z)
0L w i?09
o?
?O
.4-
an-V uo;6uixa] 002
'99LL Ns
99 .4 wd) 2
w
ti°
00
'?- 009 021
Jul, oou
T f' ->
002
w?
00
G,0
2, wd 09
w
w°
O O
O
00£ T
009 w

z
O
133-
a
M
(Q
IN
M paoIpaI/diyspuauj
OOL L ?ls
o? uaaJE) assay
- £9L L ?1S
G3 of (wd) ^s
(n OD
00 ON 009L
f> 009> pb oingo anoJE) Lpe4S
''_, LOLL bS
At? .9?
I
w
?
0 0

-----------
-------------
----------- n
---------

CR dbd Orb

p'? O y
'P
e
('± d
C`? n
aro
v? >n
9?
C ?y
?
x
? t
1
.?.Cro°v ?'< a ?Oyr

pv C y ` t4 m
z
b C
u d
O
e
Clf

y ?
? y
O y
H
ri
H
y
y d n b r
? O

N y z 77 O
ul
00 t? z
i?
G. O N ?
O r}i
? y
?
O
O
00
y

y ? a
O

cn
O
y

qt o y
o
C\
o

O
N O

? z
W F
n C9
y
?y O
M ~

----
N D -------- --------- ----
C) -----
? -----------
D
°
0 oo co
N .-
8
09
m s? W?
co N3
o g
00Z
v,
?(0. OOL ON
D ( -0 ON
m
v o 0 09LZ Ids
o O
D
v
o? ?o
cVON
00
OOZ
ON 4 009
) 009 ZOLZ HS
W
0
0
(L'Z)
6
99
C) C) Nd
(E'b)
6 Wd 0-09
CO
-
J
On
O O
PH PRIMA 4 OOCL
OOLZ NS ->OOEL OOLL-*
OOZ N
\ o0

O
O to `?•
•?
O '•?S°\r
hF

00
PH ssojo uolun <- 006L
£v9Z aS -) 006L 00Z
OOLI-*
,I co
0 C:)
0c)
5s (?

wd) a
C)
C)
1 ?CD
o (E 0)
OL
0L
(D" Wd

Fd 0o OOZL
-00 L L
4 O
E
ojer ?, (? j O
Z PH an6eal
C
Lek ( -)0 00£Z SOLZ NS
• L A j
1 0 O

40- t
--
.

MOIA Mopeaw
f- 009 O O
90LZ HC' -> 009 OOZ -?'
J
OOb A°w
O O
O O
S5 i (L'Z) 9 0
V
Wd o `i
O
O
°1
o?
A ?
? N
V .?
m V
OI'D N
I? 77000
400
o gti J I (9'9L)
co -vrn OL Ef Wd 0 L
77g
71,00
<- OOLOL 009EL t- 00609 E-
Ot")
-0 OML
T
0 2600
0 C)
A

cl) -4
0 -r?-
o
(D o O

I l
y O 0
009EL -> 00609 ->

a? t d
drone
Ujr'C 'd d
, L
?dydw? e
0
o" ° p Y
z
d ?
d
M

yn
?d
,Tt N
Oy
n ?
y
1-1
to
y

? d o ? ? 2z o

d
<
O
ci
o a ?
O
c o

cn

o

o ?
y S
O N O
z
P

y
?y O

0

N
O
N
m
-I
m
D
v
•---------_ - - - - -- ----------- --------
a
a)
••-• _.._.._.._.. •.645
O
C4
O
0 0 OO l OOz
'-OOl ?- pM suigggj
T ? 00 vzL 6 2iS
0
0
w ` ss
6 (d)
0 I ??
m
J 0
Z
O
rn
quo}S AEJE) 00z o0
066Z bS 4-
> 006
OOZ 006 - o
o
0 o°
PM
9 (2 ?) X55
rn
L
co \ \ o T?
., o
\ ? J
7 .4-- OOZZ
.41 -0069
?- \ \ ? P ? f- OOZZ ?4 p2j aeil wnE)
00b -? -> 6 LL 6 ?tS
OOzb OOzz-> -1T 0069
`\0
096-* o00
(£'t7)
Oc
X09 \
\
\ 000
(£'b)
Wd \ 9
0L
Wd
\ \

C)
\
co
?

O C3
`

009 .

L08£ 2Js >
009 OOZ
00b
m ,Q O
S'yT
?

'
v D
A
00
cc:)
?.
CD
c
C?
£) 8
ss (L
d 0

\
W ?
°
)

ooti n C)
4p

4-
pj umeys qor 41 W
9990 2?S > OOZ
OO? OOZ c
o
°
W z) °
8
ss
s}
Ad

'
(
8
;-9s
Wd

000 *-00z
04--- 0Z 42-1b M Xqb
f-
0
6olz ?s
ooz 0 0
0 0
v
('Z)
S9
8 00 L 4N
MC) C)
- w -

D
o
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
- - - - - - - - - - -
boo
Y?t'O
? ;4
°zr
H ? ro ?
b C?
I'mw
Q

z
Q?1 CyG?
n
O1 rro
nn
?.7?CM?Hw ?s7C"O
Y
?
?? c,
`
o
y?r? byw
?i ?0
Y
? ? ?
p V?
(
? j
.4
.O `J qQ
? V ? C7 ?d :?
i
0
v
'
:?
-11 M
C ^C
O
5- d
rl-
(11
? e n
N
cn
o:
y
0
0
-s
O ?
:r c
o
0
O N
A C
0
W
t
c
r
C
C

CD
CD
11"
I

0
o • ,
W Z)
6
44 0
Wd o
EOOb

-> OOZ
OOt7 OOZ N m
00
O O
SR 1749
Stoney Ridge RD
S& Appache Or
s '
%
10 pM
d •
-1 S '?10
?-? ?"3 F R 1928
(? nkli,7 0? 200
O y
n
? d
y ?
(Z'£)
C'? 4s d e
oz?
y ?
? ?zL
oo
p?j UM0196aoes
££L L 2iS
C-* cn
,tea, z° ? o
?0 °
9,6
C!1
60
a
a
cn
cn
cn
9,
0
y
Zo
60
r?
X00
9
?stu' 00
J ?0 990 ? ?
0
O ooOg?JI
?a
100
100 A
00
C
o? I?
V
cn co
CD C3 a
000 A OU
I ?> F006-
? f-OOL
004
00 ?- -?
OOL
000
000

06 ?Wd) 0-99
009Z
W
0092
1 Ja6uiStow
£ZL L 2ls
0
O JJ ?C, w m
6
co co
EM = M M = CX?j = t C:::) = = [:?D = = = = = L-

O G
04
ox?w? ?M m
??o?oz
vv??Mnoro p ?yw
?z?zrO
>?
Z:l? 7yC
proy
x
-aS
?.it7bd
r nn
ro
?? 2
y° N?
fp =?
r m
x?v C) D
o z o
t7 o u C
e
t?
0
m
N
(D
,m-

Foos ooa z oo06
00? 009
_ 009 t- qa uaajo assay
> oo l---* I T S. CM ?JS
0
006 M -* 0
QQ6_1 -'VUI
000
6 W X
0
09
-4
C ?
°
co
1
a
0 O
040e1 t)+
-> oos--?` T
GAV U016UIXGI 00£6 009 .
SSL6 ?1S o0
(Z'£) 9
99
4
Vdd
0?r ?o

C)
N
cn
`4 C
o:
H
_J
nt
H
H
O ?
c ?
o
A O
0
w
y ?
? d
? O
Q ??
? y
y ?
?r
y Z
td (: ?
b ?z r
n ?O z
H z? O
?z
O
H
a
C
En
cn
In
b
O
to
r
H
O
A
O
8 ?w?) X59
OE0b6
OM
00
W£)
9 d i? 09
z
0
Q .
Pa pjojpa-I/dlyspuau.?
OOL 6 bS .

pa ojogsueajo plo o co 9SL6 2?S °O
0
\ X66
-J ??fs
1-4 C
V V
0
O O AQ,
o .
0l I
V
J (D
° o °o X006
f-OOZZ
Tr
0 O
N
N
n C:
O? O
009Z--*
006 rn
m co
O? I ?O
06 (£'ti) ^9
01i Nd
opOO 006'6 OOLZ
OOE 6 ?'-
OOL pa oingo anoJE) Lpe4S
6SL6 Z!S
co w
0 0
o? co
T?-
n
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-tA V ZGGI - 1 uq©(, i N4
o v, W - S I q - i . `emu` &Ov- Cater ?br ` C?oa(pln?.??+ p ??O?S
A CcWMAK-` - 'Ili W(?S1nrsS ???,.?
? b, ) ?-j 1
Gc V- a? 0 coved cre c?, d vj? t, 1 S ZG' S?cc? 5 ?o s

- W . -Z-00v .- loo Z,
vC? - Z 31 'zoo A6T-
6 it_ - 3 7 I( (Zw-o
- dos ?u??? ?-??I?u•?
(?nO4+? ZCIL5-
- aW MA. W??e?- ?p?rs way v? ;w (U?e? ; LOS c,Mo?.
? 11c,lanwe M.? Prod' ?r 1-Gs cw?? .
laAt Oiv, L,/ t46,
September 15, 2004
Concurrence Agenda
Page 3
3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. BRYAN KLUCHAR -NCDOT - PDEA Branch
TIP - R-2519B Yancey & Mitchell Counties, US 19 E to a multi-lane facility from SR 1186
in Micaville to the existing multi-lane west of Spruce Pine in Yancey and Mitchell Counties,
Division 13.
Team Members:
Angie Pennock, USACE
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Militscher, US EPA
Harold Draper, Tennessee Valley Authority
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ/Wetlands
Sarah McBride, NC Dept of Cultural Resources - SHPO
David Baird, High Country RPO (Non-Signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff & other agency staff:
Roger Bryan, NCDOT Division 13
David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics
Rekha Patel, NCDOT Roadway Design
Doug Calhoun, NCDOT Structures
Jaime Adrignola, NCDOT Transportation Planning
Chris Underwood, NCDOT PDEA-ONE
Gene Tarascio, NCDOT GeoEnvironmental
Linwood Stone, NCDOT PDEA
*Purpose of meeting is to achieve concurrence point 2 (Alternatives carried forward).
September 15, 2004
Concurrence Agenda
Page 2
Team Members:
Phil Conrad, Cabarrus-Rowan MPO
Felix Davila, FHWA
Chris Militscher, EPA
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Jean Manuele, US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Brian Wrenn, NC DWQ
John Hennessy, NC DWQ
Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO
NCDOT Technical Support Staff & other agency staff:
Alden Whitmore, Division 10
Tim Boland, NCDOT Division 10
Benton Payne, NCDOT Division 10
Pay Ivey, NCDOT Division 9
Diane Hampton, NCDOT Division 9
Randy Henegar, NCDOT - Hydraulics
Roger Thomas, NCDOT - Roadway Design
Mary Frazier, NCDOT PDEA-ONE
Chris Manley, NCDOT PDEA-ONE
Derrick Weaver, NCDOT PDEA
*Purpose of meeting is to achieve concurrence point 3.
1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. RICHARD BREWER -NCDOT - PDEA Branch
TIP - R-4060 AIleghany County US 21 Sparta Western Loop, Sparta SR 1172 (Grandview
Drive) to US 21 two lane roadway on new location.
Team Members:
Jake Riggsbee - FHWA
John Thomas - USACE
Brian Wrenn - DWQ
Marla Chambers - Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick - Fish & Wildlife Service
Renee Gledhill-Earley - SHPO
Chris Militscher - EPA
David Baird, High Country RPO (Non-Signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff & other agency staff:
Phil Harris - PDEA/ONE
Carl Goode - PDEA/OI-IF.
Jim Speer - Roadway Design
Marshall Clawson - Hydraulics
Dan Thomas - Transportation Planning
Michael Pettyjohn - Division 11
* The purpose of this meeting is to submit engineering and environmental information
to the project merger team in order to attain Concurrence Point I, Purpose and Need.
J „a SYATZ
M?? 7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
AGENDA
Concurrence Meetings
Wednesday September 15, 2004
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Board Room
1 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
9:00 p.m. -10:30 p.m. VINCE RHEA -NCDOT - PDEA Branch
TIP - R-2568, NC 109 Improvements Study from SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to
1-40/US311, Davidson and Forsyth Counties.
Team Members:
Felix Davila, FHWA
Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR - DWQ
Marla Chambers, NC -WRC
Gregory Errett, MPO
Hanna Cockburn, RPO
Andy Grzymski, MPO
NCDOT Technical Support Staff & other agency staff:
Pat Ivey, NCDOT-Division 9
Keith E. Raulston, NCDOT-Division 9
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT- Structure Design Unit
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT- Hydraulics Unit
Roger Thomas, NCDOT- Roadway Design Unit
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT-PDF_.A/ONE
Derrick Weaver, NCDOT PDF_,A
* The purpose of this meeting is to present the purpose & need for the project to the
Mergers team and achieve concurrence point one.
10:30 p.m. -12:00 Missy Dickens -NCDOT - PDEA Branch
TIP - R-2903 US 52 Improvements Project, Stanley, Cabarrus and Rowan Counties.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
\NATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
? R pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co tom-- Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
> _I Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 19, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator W"
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 109 from SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US
311, Davidson & Forsyth Counties, F.A. Project STP-109(1), State Project No.
8.1172401,
TIP No. R-2568 C, D, E, and F.
In reply to your correspondence dated December 15, 2003 (received December 19, 2003) in which you
requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the
following water resources will be impacted:
Stream (Index)
Muddy Creek (12-94)
Fiddlers Creek (12-94-13-3)
Abbotts Creek (12-119)
Spurgeon Creek (12-119-3)
Mary Reich Creek (12-119-3-1)
Reedy Run (12-119-4)
Brushy Fork (12-119-5)
Water Oualitv Classification HU
WS-IV; §303(d) 030704
C 030704
WS-III Critical Area 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III Critical Area; §303(d) 030707
NC Division of Water Quality staff is familiar with project area-a site visit was conducted on December
16, 2003. DWQ would encourage NCDOT to conduct origin-destination studies and to examine
opportunities for transit-oriented development so that rural dwellers can commute to Winston-Salem
without diminishing their quality of life. DWQ has the following comments:
Environmental Documentation
1. One environmental document should be prepared that addresses the entire R-2568 project rather
than a document for each segment.
2. Traffic data regarding existing levels of service and accidents will need to be provided to support
the stated purpose of the project. DWQ staff did not find evidence of traffic congestion or
roadway geometry deficiencies during the site visit.
3. DWQ recommends an alternative that bypasses the community of Wallburg due to the scenic
quality, small town character of the community and potential historic property §4(f) issues.
4. Given the predominantly rural to semi-rural nature of the project area, and the presence of
degraded water resources, NCDOT should be prepared to assess the indirect and cumulative
effects of this project (all segments) if upgrade existing or new location alternatives are pursued.
5. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
imp nrtc to wptlnnrlc and ztranmc with rnrrPC n= nrling rrinpping Tf mitigntinn is ra =nired. it is
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
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.
Planning, Design & Construction
1. The population of Davidson County is projected to grow 25 percent and Forsyth County 26
percent between 2000 and 2020. Much of this development is likely to occur along highway
corridors (1-40,1-85, US 64 and US 29/70) and in smaller suburban municipalities. Most of the
new development is occurring in the Fiddlers Creek watershed. Substantial habitat degradation
was observed during biological surveys of South Fork Muddy Creek below the confluence of
Fiddlers Creek. Actions are needed to reduce the effects of non-point source pollution,
particularly from stormwater runoff from construction sites and developed areas in Fiddlers
Creek. Growth management within the next five years will be imperative in order to improve or
maintain water quality in this sub-basin. Growth management can be defined as the application
of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with the
conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. DWQ strongly encourages
assistance to local communities to help them plan for growth while preserving their quality of
life.
2. If NCDOT wishes to upgrade NC 109 to handle more traffic, Hydraulic Design should be aware
that this could trigger the need for a hazardous spill catch basin in the vicinity of Abbotts Creek
and Brushy Fork due to the roadway type and traffic volume/type.
3. Muddy Creek is on the §303(d) list of impaired waters for turbidity primarily attributed to
stormwater runoff from construction sites and developed areas. Brushy Fork was placed on the
§303(d) list for sediment from non-point sources. In order to prevent further degradation of water
quality, DWQ urges
¦ The use of Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
¦ Phased grading and seeding plans designed to minimize the exposure of bare ground;
¦ Pre-treatment of storm water runoff to the maximum extent feasible, rather than routed
directly into streams. This can also be partially accomplished through vegetating roadway
right-of-ways and using BMPs to treat roadway runoff.
¦ Removal of sediment during construction of the project through basins and traps (or other
site-appropriate means).
¦ Restoration of riparian vegetation.
4. Sedimentation is a major contributor of water quality degradation within the project area. The
causes are both streambank erosion and urban runoff. DWQ recommends that NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit develop plans that reduce the potential for bank scour (i.e., energy dissipation
methods) and methods to improve streambanks along the project.
5. Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as rip-rap)
along the bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation
eliminates habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks
lining a bank absorb the sun's heat and warm the water even more. Trees, shrubs and other native
vegetation cool the water by shading it. Straightening a stream, clearing streambank vegetation,
and lining the banks with grass or rock severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects and fish
need to survive. NCDOT is urged to avoid and minimize these activities and replace any existing
vegetated stream buffers along the project area to the maximum extent possible.
6. Stream and wetland impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the
NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts
of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland
Restoration Program (WRP) or Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) may be available
compensatory mitigation.
The South Fork Muddy Creek is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin that has
been identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest
need and opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given
higher priority than a nontargeted watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration
projects.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pc: Christopher Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, USFWS Asheville
File Copy
P J)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele [)E'('° X00
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director WATER t=UAl.lr Y8 (;r1()1V
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 109, SR 1798 (Old Greensboro
Road) to I-40/US 311, Davidson and Forsyth Counties, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-109(l ), State Project No. 8.117240 1, Project
No. R-2568
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project and
a project location map. The purpose of the scoping meting is to have an early review of the
scope of work and allow better implementation of the project. A scoping meeting for this project
is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 10:30 AM in the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please reference page 4 of the
scoping sheets).
Thank you for your assistance in this part of the planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Vincent J. Rhea, P.E., Project
Development Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 261. Please include the TIP Project Number in all
correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
December 15, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SF.CRE:PARY
TLANDS;.; Rol If,,,
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
_- 1

\
\
\

win0oh Sala f 3a?mRd ?
8099 C ek YVaw htbwnst

I 9
A dlehn' m
High Rd n

?
'Po 0
?
' I . ? tim
i
C nstfiR Dr
t TO I :
C. eL„ i ?oih ?f la
ash ?? Union
CrosB Rd o a?
? ' 9P T
(
Wa klns Forpl
Rd
52 Soa9o eAd ?
a 6g i ?

150
a
m 311 a

1 ?' o
.
Peragod Qri
I
b \ 1 , 'u

n I
?? !l?rgar•i n?EU q?ul?Mp.?

rte pA

... y
`Q9 +....
?Y
NCI
S

HIIIw6od o
o
r Qi
...
.?
,,
I n r
m R 109 , r
dson Oli a
«.

F O !e

° n
Georgetown Rd ...,.
ishel
p d
i r
Wallb Curly R
d

r? i ?urYi...+?Mf nRd m?mrr
re
wW:'?{V ?!

6 O
a
D
Rd c°'
o? Qa
Iral Rd
Q-a
O ? v
o
?`m fd rh.'h ?
Hartman Rd G?? ""ileRd
vo
errace Dr 4
S0

m 'S
, 4Z§ Pse
goo
C gaclga 4^
? o
coo
m ?Ge?LOO
munilY Rd Ilor Rd pa
C? °
A6 m
O?
GrJL ? \a

EnrerPri ?. mca
ms
se Rd e
6
?D ?0 O Burton Rd
d

Pa O3

N re r
n ?
o
81

A,.
NL.
N
W E
Study Area 7r
Winston-Salem City Limits S
Miles
0 1 2 3 4
` NOInN DAROLWADIPMIY[Nl
/ ? O! ilAN Ay
• prviMOt1 w 0P 1"K ?[ONwAY4
??.y ..+'Y?r M?![CT DEY[LO[M[NI WD
!MVlIdIM[NiAI WAIYLE MIANCM
NC 109 Improvement Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. R-2568
Exhibit A Project Vicinity
Forsyth
County
Davidson
Coujity
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 12/01/03
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2568
Project # 8,1172401
F.A. Project # STP-109(1)
Division 9
County Davidson and Forsyth
Route NC 109
Functional Classification Rural minor arterial
Length 9.6 miles
Purpose of Project: To reduce congestion, improve deficient roadway geometry and increase
safety on existing NC 109.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: Alternatives
have not been developed at this time.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EIS
Environmental study schedule: DEIS .............. 4/07
EIS ............... 4/08
ROD ............. 10/08
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other? No-X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Access Control: Limited
Type of Roadway: Multi-Lane
Interchanges Grade Separations
Typical Section of Proposed Roadway: Multi-Lane
or (%)
Stream Crossings 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or schedule
of project*:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
Windening ....................................... $ 9,260,800
Resufacing ...................................... $
Subgrade Stabilization ............................. $
New Pavement ................................... $
Shoulders: Paved .............................. $
Earth ............................... $
X Earthwork and Fine Grading .............................. $ 8,467,730
Subsurface Items: ...................................... $
X Subgrade Stabilization .................................. $ 1,773,500,
X Drainage (List any special items) .......................... $ 2,880,000
Sub-Drainage .......................................... $
Structures:
Bridge Rehabilitation ........................... $
1 New Bridge ...38' x 150' ................. $ 484,500
Widen Bridge ........................... $
Remove Bridge ........................... $
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. .. $ 398,376
2 Culvert Extension ............................... $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew .. $
Noise Walls ..................................... $
Any Other Misc. Structures ....................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................... $ 585,600
Concrete Sidewalk .................................... $
X Guardrail Items ................................... $ 281,100
X Fencing: W.W. X and/or C.L. ............. $ 147,000
X Erosion Control ...................................... $ 798,000
Landscape ........................................... $
Lighting ............................................. $
X Traffic Control ....................................... $ 367,500
Signing: New ................................... $
Upgrading ............................. $
Traffic Signals New ............................. $ 110,000
Revised .......................... $
RR Signals: New ................................ $
Revised ............................. $
With or Without Arms ................ $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement .............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo X Markers X ........... $ 117,500
Delineators .......................................... $
X Other (Mob./Misc., Clearing/Grubbing and Utilities) ......... $ 13,858,694
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 39,629,000
Contingencies & Engineering (15%) ........................ $ 5,971,000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $

Construction Cost $ 45,600,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $

Right of Way Subtotal: $

Preliminary Engineering $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Prepared By: Vince Rhea, P.E. Date: 12/04/03
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ,
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
DL 12/05/03 Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scoping Sheets for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after comments.
7 . O? W A r?R Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O?1 pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
y Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
r Division of Water Quality
-1 Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Q 'C Division of Water Quality
November 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator C4)dw
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 109 from SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US 311,
Davidson & Forsyth Counties, F.A. Project STP-109(1), State Project No. 8.1172401,
TIP No. R-2568 C, D, E, and F. State Clearinghouse Project No. 04-0107.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 28, 2003 (received October 28, 2003) in which you requested
comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water
resources will be impacted:
Stream (Index) Water Quality Classification HU
Muddy Creek (12-94) WS-IV; §303(d) 030704
Fiddlers Creek (12-94-13-3) C 030704
Abbotts Creek (12-119) WS-III Critical Area 030707
Spurgeon Creek (12-119-3) WS-III 030707
Mary Reich Creek (12-119-3-1) WS-III 030707
Reedy Run (12-119-4) WS-III 030707
Brushy Fork (12-119-5) WS-III Critical Area; §303(d) 030707
NC Division of Water Quality staff is familiar with project area. DWQ would encourage NCDOT to conduct
origin-destination studies and to examine opportunities for transit-oriented development so that rural dwellers can
commute to Winston-Salem without sacrificing their quality of life. DWQ has the following comments:
Environmental Documentation
1. One environmental document should be prepared that addresses the entire R-2568 project rather than a
document for each segment.
2. Given the predominantly rural to semi-rural nature of the project area, and the presence of degraded water
resources, NCDOT should be prepared to assess the indirect and cumulative effects of this project (all
segments) if upgrade existing or new location alternatives are pursued.
3. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is required, 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.
Planninlz Desikn & Construction
1. The population of Davidson County is projected to grow 25 percent and Forsyth County 26 percent
between 2000 and 2020. Much of this development is likely to occur along highway corridors (1-40,1-85,
US 64 and US 29/70) and in smaller suburban municipalities. Most of the new development is occurring
in the Fiddlers Creek watershed. Substantial habitat degradation was observed during biological surveysAMM
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http•//h2o enr state nc us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
.e
of South Fork Muddy Creek below the confluence of Fiddlers Creek. Actions are needed to reduce the
effects of non-point source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff from construction sites and
developed areas in Fiddlers Creek. Growth management within the next five years will be imperative in
order to improve or maintain water quality in this sub-basin. Growth management can be defined as the
application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with the
conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. DWQ strongly encourages assistance to
local communities to help them plan for growth while preserving their quality of life.
2. If NCDOT wishes to upgrade NC 109 to handle more traffic, Hydraulic Design should be aware that this
could trigger the need for a hazardous spill catch basin in the vicinity of Brushy Fork due to the roadway
type and traffic volume/type.
Muddy Creek is on the §303(d) list of impaired waters for turbidity primarily attributed to stormwater
runoff from construction sites and developed areas. Brushy Fork was placed on the §303(d) list for
sediment from non-point sources. In order to prevent further degradation of water quality, DWQ urges
¦ The use of Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
¦ Phased grading and seeding plans designed to minimize the exposure of bare ground;
¦ Pre-treatment of storm water runoff to the maximum extent feasible, rather than routed directly into
streams. This can also be partially accomplished through vegetating roadway right-of-ways and using
BMPs to treat roadway runoff.
¦ Removal of sediment during construction of the project through basins and traps (or other site-
appropriate means).
¦ Restoration of riparian vegetation.
4. Sedimentation is a major contributor of water quality degradation within the project area. The causes are
both streambank erosion and urban runoff. DWQ recommends that NCDOT Hydraulics Unit develop
plans that reduce the potential for bank scour (i.e., energy dissipation methods) and methods to improve
streambanks along the project.
5. Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as rip-rap) along the
bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation eliminates habitat for
aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks lining a bank absorb the sun's
heat and warm the water even more. Trees, shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading
it. Straightening a stream, clearing streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock
severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects and fish need to survive. NCDOT is urged to avoid and
minimize these activities and replace any existing vegetated stream buffers along the project area to the
maximum extent possible.
6. Stream and wetland impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible,
alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet
to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should
be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules 115A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) or Ecological
Enhancement Program (EEP) may be available compensatory mitigation.
The South Fork Muddy Creek is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin that has been
identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a
nontargeted watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pc: File Copy
M SrA1t o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
October 14, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to NC 109 in Davidson and Forsyth Counties. The project is included in the 2004-2010
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year and
construction in post years.
Alternatives that will be considered include the No-Build Alternative, Transportation
Management Alternative, Multi-Modal Alternative, Upgrade Existing Roadway Alternative, and New
Location Alternatives.
Preliminary alternatives will be identified and evaluated through the preparation of land
suitability mapping, a screening evaluation of existing human and natural environments, and an
evaluation of the ability of each alternative to meet the project's purpose and need.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by November 28, 2003 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Vince Rhea, P. E., Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 261. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director S ? 11
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC 109, From SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US 311,
Davidson and Forsyth Counties, Federal Aid Project No. STP-109(1),
State Project No. 8.1172401, T.I.P. Project No. R-2568 C, D, E and F
o0r??3
s RECFj ?
pp so?A
A
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH INC

.

ll i
?al?
il? e k it (? I _? 7 II •J
High R
L
?. [ F I
gent/ Dr
1\??
< i of r -? J I 'nQ( ?J _ ? I I I I i? I 7J ? I (O ? d? ..
% ? ? J } r I R ? _ . , I d,
?-? -? _ N ?1}??• ?.? , e i ??Vi//a? ,? ( Unlo? Ctosli; pitdi I s For IR
,? Wa in
,
52
r? I l , t
r- ?/ - Sea9?e
41 ff
{) 1 a
f 1At ?f, 4 FI ! 150 ?rt.,?? + l ?o 311 fi
m f
( l
u?u?? t1nT Li??? p?
_ 1 I
rag Qr?
?s
, t, Y?d ri
109
o i 3' J?i?1ti'•
I ?? ridrit
Irgetow
I9n l n Rd
P ?? tl r d Wal b ?'a. c ?yRd
l IX ?
S a ??$
1 1 1_t1I ilkI ?I . o f a
Mr q
d
l? j?;l
I ? j ? I I? ?\ oc r ??
iral Rd
f t r ? l l e? O/Ur
"a4n?.4R? o??? ?omesilleRd; (_ t I
I
?ce r 01
m p
i
r
`o
,1 ?? ae) ?,c ?ycp ?i Napo
I g
?m I IIer?Rd ?i l Q,?? •? ?\ ?l? ??\?G?m?:?Ii!Z
f r 1 Gr , `? ? i I
EntarAp?PRd
1 rl
I
Berton. Rd
( % A
Study Area
Winston-Salem City Limits
N
A?_
W E
S
Miles
0 1 2 3 4
NONTNCNOLWAO! IWNT
OF MANE TATI
DnllT -NpNW?T! lMlNi
R ftMFNTAL ?L AN FN WO
NVMSSMNCN
lNViIIONMl
NC 109 Improvement Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. R-2568
Exhibit A Project Vicinity
Forsyth
County
.
.
.
Davidson
County
r 13.-3
rZ?Q`?,D 3o7of
i
("let
0301°? 030707 1) c
?CAyecn -5 C
45 -707
o?
? 30
{y
?,7D7
J 0
,W s.. l l l CA

NN A) F Michael F. Easley, Governor
`O?William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
a Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator OA,?610
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 109 from SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to 1-40/US 311,
Davidson & Forsyth Counties, F.A. Project STP-109(1), State Project No. 8.1172401,
TIP No. R-2568 C, D, E, and F.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 14, 2003 (received October 20, 2003) in which you requested
comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water
resources will be impacted:
Stream (Index)
Muddy Creek (12-94)
Fiddlers Creek (12-94-13-3)
Abbotts Creek (12-119)
Spurgeon Creek (12-119-3)
Mary Reich Creek (12-119-3-1)
Reedy Run (12-119-4)
Brushy Fork (12-119-5)
Water Oualitv Classification HU
WS-N; §303(d) 030704
C 030704
WS-III Critical Area 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III 030707
WS-III Critical Area; §303(d) 030707
NC Division of Water Quality staff is familiar with project area. DWQ would encourage NCDOT to conduct
origin-destination studies and to examine opportunities for transit-oriented development so that rural dwellers can
commute to Winston-Salem without sacrificing their quality of life. DWQ has the following comments:
Environmental Documentation
1. One environmental document should be prepared that addresses the entire R-2568 project rather than a
document for each segment.
2. Given the predominantly rural to semi-rural nature of the project area, and the presence of degraded water
resources, NCDOT should be prepared to assess the indirect and cumulative effects of this project (all
segments) if upgrade existing or new location alternatives are pursued.
3. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is required, 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.
PlanninJ?, Design & Construction
1. The population of Davidson County is projected to grow 25 percent and Forsyth County 26 percent
between 2000 and 2020. Much of this development is likely to occur along highway corridors (I-40, I-85,
US 64 and US 29/70) and in smaller suburban municipalities. Most of the new development is occurring
in the Fiddlers Creek watershed. Substantial habitat degradation was observed during biological survey
of .Cnnth Fnrk Mnrlrl3i Crank halnw tha rnnflnnnra of Fiddlers C'raak Artinnc ara naarlerl to rarlnra the
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
(919) 793-17R6 (nhone)919-739-61193 (fax). (hnn•/1h2o.enr.state..nv mdnewetlands)
effects of non-point source pollution, particularly from stormwater runoff from construction sites and
developed areas in Fiddlers Creek. Growth management within the next five years will be imperative in
order to improve or maintain water quality in this sub-basin. Growth management can be defined as the
application of strategies and practices that help achieve sustainable development in harmony with the
conservation of environmental qualities and features of an area. DWQ strongly encourages assistance to
local communities to help them plan for growth while preserving their quality of life.
2. If NCDOT wishes to upgrade NC 109 to handle more traffic, Hydraulic Design should be aware that this
could trigger the need for a hazardous spill catch basin in the vicinity of Brushy Fork due to the roadway
type and traffic volume/type.
Muddy Creek is on the §303(d) list of impaired waters for turbidity primarily attributed to stormwater
runoff from construction sites and developed areas. Brushy Fork was placed on the §303(d) list for
sediment from non-point sources. In order to prevent further degradation of water quality, DWQ urges
¦ The use of Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
¦ Phased grading and seeding plans designed to minimize the exposure of bare ground;
¦ Pre-treatment of storm water runoff to the maximum extent feasible, rather than routed directly into
streams. This can also be partially accomplished through vegetating roadway right-of-ways and using
BMPs to treat roadway runoff.
¦ Removal of sediment during construction of the project through basins and traps (or other site-
appropriate means).
¦ Restoration of riparian vegetation.
4. Sedimentation is a major contributor of water quality degradation within the project area. The causes are
both streambank erosion and urban runoff. DWQ recommends that NCDOT Hydraulics Unit develop
plans that reduce the potential for bank scour (i.e., energy dissipation methods) and methods to improve
streambanks along the project.
Removing trees, shrubs and other vegetation to plant grass or place rock (also known as rip-rap) along the
bank of a river or stream degrades water quality. Removing riparian vegetation eliminates habitat for
aquatic macroinvertebrates that are food for trout and other fish. Rocks lining a bank absorb the sun's
heat and warm the water even more. Trees, shrubs and other native vegetation cool the water by shading
it. Straightening a stream, clearing streambank vegetation, and lining the banks with grass or rock
severely impact the habitat that aquatic insects and fish need to survive. NCDOT is urged to avoid and
minimize these activities and replace any existing vegetated stream buffers along the project area to the
maximum extent possible.
6. Stream and wetland impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible,
alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet
to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should
be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) or Ecological
Enhancement Program (EEP) may be available compensatory mitigation.
The South Fork Muddy Creek is one of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin that has been
identified by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as an area with the greatest need and
opportunity for stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a
nontargeted watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pc: Vince Rhea, NCDOT PDEA 1548 MSC
Robert Deaton, NCDOT PICS 1583 MSC
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
M 5sr
yd y P 4N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'T'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 14, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 CROUP
OCT 2 0 2003
MEMORANDUM TO
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FROM:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: NC 109, From SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US 311,
Davidson and Forsyth Counties, Federal Aid Project No. STP-109(1),
State Project No. 8.1172401, T.I.P. Project No. R-2568 C, D, E and. F
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to NC 109 in Davidson and Forsyth Counties. The project is included in the 2004-2010
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year and
construction in post years.
,Alternatives that will be considered include the No-Build Alternative, Transportation
Management Alternative, Multi-Modal Alternative, Upgrade Existing Roadway Alternative, and New
Location Alternatives.
Preliminary alternatives will be identified and evaluated through the preparation of land
suitability mapping, a screening evaluation of existing human and natural environments, and an
evaluation of the ability of each alternative to meet the project's purpose and need.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by November 28, 2003 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Vince Rhea, P. E., Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 261. 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: WWWNCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
cl C
o3Q7oq
G
?l E Q
1141jody
l2 -q'?I 0307?'y
v
js ?fo ri c
t , s 6.3d?o 7
j2-IIq
C,V,6 - l I I
(2 - II ?--? D 30?0 7
,;t«,
ws-i?l C9
/z?119-3-I 30 7
ws-III k
C
?2_IIy_? D. o 0

\
Ial?
?7F ?I c 1 i 1,7
k Y
1, ?ln R(( R? ?f
q stofrDr
o
Unlo???os?? r{il,? _ r' 9iry.?
Wal(ins For ?Ri'
? ?Tea9ee
52 ?

f?.????
1
'150
?
,'
1
m
j
Fy
Par
9o ?dli
? J I

.?hY1. ?r
i
?
ss?.-

N

,
I 109

Fish I
i I

? Wallb
rolrl r?r?I ?p, uR??m?m ?7 ut ?:?? , o- ? 0 r

IralRd
di
y
l t a 311 ? ., _
I ?
Gdorgeto`Nn Rd
Tho t
?' i IharNrlad Rd 110svuieRal
r? v I t I A
I ? t ? ?? I ? 9pN 1'Gi
r -? IIer'Rd
i
ImyrtliyR? - ? I ? 1 ?? ? ???%? ? •p°,
I r ( Or ,
?? I 1
EnterPn I I r 10 / I
1 '' ?Rtl t-i I70
I a
t I 1 • ? l ? ??\ `
41
Cr,/'D, Rd
i
I s°o I
I i
I` a I `tea 1 i o?P?
c? 40+\?0
t\ ?
O ?
? \ r
Burto
0 n Rd_
rl I
Study Area
Winston-Salem City Limits
N
W +E
5
I I I -6mmmmJ Miles
0 1 2 3 4
NORINCMOIWb plPMIYlNi
d II1M1P011I?iNM!
i I ombN>H a NwNw?Yb
?j?. .lpYlCY pEVlIMMlMi M0
[NVFIONMFNiLL MAlYblb lRMCM
NC 109 Improvement Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. R-2568
Exhibit A Project Vicinity
Forsyth
County
Davidson
Couipty
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovern mental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: November 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed improvements to NC 109, from SR 1798
(Old Greensboro Road) to I-40/US 311, Davidson and Forsyth Counties. TIP No.
R-2568 C, D, E, and F.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided on the scoping sheets and have the following preliminary comments.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to make improvements to NC 109 in Davidson and Forsyth
Counties. Alternatives that will be considered include the No-Build Alternative, Transportation
Management Alternative, Multi-modal Alternative, Upgrade Existing Roadway Alternative, and
New Location Alternatives. It appears the project will impact South Fork Muddy Creek (Class
C) and Fiddlers Creek (Class C) in Forsyth County and Abbotts Creek (WS - III) and Brushy
Fork (WS - III) in Davidson County. The Davidson County streams flow to Lake Thom-A-Lex,
which is a water supply reservoir for Thomasville and Lexington.
The NCWRC has no specific concerns at this time regarding this project. However, to
help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general information needs are
outlined below:
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 0 Fax: [phone]
NC 109
Davidson & Forsyth Counties 2 November 14, 2003
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A
listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the
following programs:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include the
linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland acreage
should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may
be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). If the USACE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential borrow sites and waste areas should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result from
secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
NC 109
Davidson & Forsyth Counties 3 November 14, 2003
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ