NC 109 (6)

i
r'
3s
zz?
? a,.,s?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
April 19, 2011
Mr. John Thomas
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Dear Mr. Thomas:
N- -.
APR 2 6 2011
W¢s:engalem
Regional Office
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS Application for a Department of the
Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to discharge
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for the transportation
improvements proposed for the NC 109 corridor in northeastern Davidson County and
southeastern Forsyth County, North Carolina
R-2568C WBS No.34468.1.4/F.A No.STP-109(1)
STIP Projects R-2568C
The following application, including separate attachments for (1) ENG Form 4345, (2) project study area
mailing list and list of property owners with jurisdictional impacts, and (3) mailing list (labels), is
submitted for your consideration. As you are aware, this project was selected for treatment under the
Merger process. At this juncture, the Regulatory Division has provided concurrence with Purpose and
Need (CP 1), and with the selection of Detailed Study Alternatives and bridging decisions (CP 2 and 2A).
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared and is being distributed with this application.
The following information is a summary of relevant project details and is being provided to assist in the
Section 404 regulatory review of the project. This letter and attachments should provide sufficient
information for the issuance of a Public Notice for the project.
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly proceed toward selecting
the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative) which meets the purpose and need
of the project following analysis of public input. Once the LEDPA is selected and approved, efforts will
be undertaken to further minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to
propose suitable compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Mr. Vince Rhea, PE, at (919)
733-7844 extension 269 or Ms. Rachelle Beauregard at [phone].

Gregory vfhorpe h.D.
Project Develop ent and
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EI%ARONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Analysis Branch (PDEA)
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
i SOUTH WILINNGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

CC: Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Ms. Amy Euliss, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early, State I4PO
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. Felix Davila, PE, FHWA
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Mr. Jay Bennett, PE, Roadway Design
Mr. John Frye, PE, Structure Design
Mr. Jerry Snead, PE, Hydraulics
Mr. Philip Harris, III, PE, Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Pat Ivey, PE, Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Majed AI-Ghandour, PE, Project Development
Mr. Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. A. L. Avant, Programming and TIP
Ms. Beth Hannon, NCDOT EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. Derrick Weaver, PE, PDEA
Mr. Drew Joyner, PE, Human Environment Unit
i
i
Costs and Schedule
The 2009-2015 STIP does not include identified funding for right-of-way acquisition or
construction of this project. However, the Draft 2012-2018 STIP does identify $24,100,000 for
right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 2020.
Preliminary cost estimates for each build alternative are presented in Table 1. These figures
include estimates for construction, right-of-way, and utility costs and range from $119,007,572
(Alternative 5) to $144,733,169 (Alternative 1). These estimates are based on conceptual right-
of-way limits from the preliminary designs for each alternative.
Table 1. Build Alternative Cost Estimates
Description Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Construction Cost $70,000.000 $78,500,000 $85,600,000 $78.400,000 $81,500,000
Right-of-WayCost $69,975.000 $49,425,000 $34,975,000 $39.950,000 $46,710,000
R/W Utility Cost $4,758,169 $628,221 $657,572 $657,572 $618,841
Total Cost $144,733,169 $128,553,221 $121,232,572 $119,007,572 $128,828,841
Alternatives
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not make any substantial improvements to the NC 109 corridor
through the year 2035, with the exception of regular maintenance such as patching and
resurfacing, regarding shoulders, and maintaining ditches. It would include all other NCDOT
programmed roadway improvements and other roadway projects in the area that are included in
the adopted Winston-Salent/Fot:eyth County 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and High
Point Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Currently there are two capacity projects proposed in the
project area. The first includes upgrading US 52 from I-85 in Davidson County to I-40 in Forsyth
County to interstate standards. The second includes widening Union Cross Road (SR 2643) from
Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632) in Forsyth County.
New Location Build Alternatives
To maintain at least a LOS D with 2035 design year traffic forecasts, the proposed facility
requires at least four travel lanes (two in each direction). There are three distinct typical sections
proposed for different portions of the Build Alternatives. The New Location Alternatives would
include full control of access, a 46-foot median, a design speed of 60 mph, and a posted speed of
55 mph. Ponions of Build Alternatives on existing NC 109 would include partial control of
access. South of Teague Road along the Upgrade Existing Alternative, the typical section would
include a 46-foot median, a design speed of 60 mph, and a posted speed of 55 mph. North of
Teague Road as the area becomes more urban, the Upgrade Existing Alternative and portions of
the New Location Alternatives tying into existing NC 109 would transition to an urban typical
section with a 23-foot raised median, curb and gutter, a design speed of 50 mph, and a posted
speed of 45 mph.
Upgrade Existing Alternative (Alternative 1)
The Upgrade Existing Alternative (Alternative 1) includes making roadway improvements along
NC 109 that would better serve traffic in the design year 2035. Existing NC 109 within the
project study area is a two-lane undivided rural highway with no control of access. The existing
cross section of NC 109 consists primarily of two ten-foot lanes with unpaved shoulders varying
from three to six feet in width. In the vicinity of the 1-40/US 311 interchange, NC 109 has a five
lane, 64-foot curb and gutter cross section. Speed limits on NC 109 range from 45 to 55 mph
except within Wallburg, where the speed limit is 35 mph.
This alternative follows NC 109 from Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) for three miles where it
turns to the northwest to bypass the Town of Wallburg, crossing Motsinger Road (SR 1723) 0.4
miles southwest of its existing intersection with NC 109. Corridor 1 ties back to NC 109 0.4
miles west of the existing intersection of NC 109 and Motsinger Road and follows NC 109 to the
existing interchange at 1-40.
Alternative I is 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative I includes thirteen
directional crossover intersections, including four with traffic signals: at Jesse Green Road (SR
1753), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gumtree Road (SR 1711) and Rex Road (SR 1709)/Devoe
Road (SR 2839). At all other intersecting roads, only right turns would 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.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 follows NC 109 from Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) one mile and then turns
northwest, crossing John Green Road (SR 1752), Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751),
Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gumtree Road (SR 1711), Mount Vernon Church Road (SR 1708),
Fox Meadow Lane (SR 1921), and Teague Road (SR 1705). Alternative 3 parallels Friendship-
Ledford Road (SR 1700) north to Fox Meadow Road, then continues north into. Forsyth County,
connecting back to NC 109 0.75 miles south of the interchange with 1-40. Alternative 3 then
follows NC 109 and connects to the existing interchange at I-40.
This alternative is 9.5 miles long with 7.75 miles on new location. Alternative 3 includes six
directional crossover intersections: at NC 109, Jesse Green Road (SR 1753), Shady Grove Church
Road (SR 1751), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gumtree Road (SR 1711), Fox Meadow Lane (SR
1921), and Teague Road (SR 2705). Alternative 3 connects to the existing interchange at NC 109
and I-40.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 follows NC 109 from Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) approximately 0.55 miles
and then turns northeast crossing Jesse Green Road (SR 1753), Johnson Road (SR 1755), Jerry
Clodfelter Road (SR 1747), and Stony Ridge Drive (SR 1749) east of existing NC 109.
Alternative 4 then turns west and crosses NC 109, Motsinger Road (SR 1723), and Friendship-
Ledford Road (SR 1700) and then turns northwest crossing Gumtree Road (SR 1711), Old
Lexington Road (SR 1706), Beckerdite Road (SR 2759), and the Winston-Salem Southbound
Railway railroad tracks. Alternative 4 connects with the existing interchange of US 52 and South
Main Street (SR 4205).
This alternative is 9.3 miles long with 8.5 miles on new location. Alternative 4 includes seven
directional crossover intersections: at Jerry Clodfelter Road (SR 1747), NC 109, Jesse Green
Road (SR 1753), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700), Gumtree
Road (SR 1711), Old Lexington Road (SR 1706), and Beckerdite-Stewart Road (SR 2759).
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 follows Alternative 3 over existing NC 109 from Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) 1
mile and then turns west at Jesse Green Road (SR 1753). It crosses John Green Road (SR 1752)
and then Shady Grove Church Road (SR 1751) approximately 0.2 miles east of the intersection
with Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700). Alternative 5 continues northwest paralleling
Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700) and passing southwest of Meadowlands Residential and Golf
Community. Alternative 5 then follows Alternative 4 for the remaining 3.6 miles to connect with
the existing interchange of US 52 and South Main Street (SR 4205).
This alternative is 8.6 miles long with 7.4 miles on new location. Alternative 5 includes seven
directional crossover intersections: at NC 109, Jesse Green Road (SR 1753), Shady Grove Church
Road (SR 1751), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700), Gumtree
Road (SR 1711), Old Lexington Road (SR 1706), and Beckerdite-Stewart Road (SR 2759).
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 follows Altemative 4 for 4.5 miles before splitting off to the northwest to follow
Alternative 3 for 4.4 miles all the way to the existing interchange of I-40 and NC 109.
This alternative is 10.1 miles long with 8.7 miles on new location. Alternative 6 includes five
directional crossover intersections: at Jerry Clodfelter Road (SR 1747), NC 109, Jesse Green
Road (SR 1753), Motsinger Road (SR 1723), Gumtree Road (SR 1711), and Teague Road (SR
2705).
Each of the Build Alternatives under consideration would tie into an existing interchange at its
northern terminus: Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 terminate at the I-40/NC 109 interchange, and
Alternatives 4 and 5 tie into the US 52/South Main Street (SR 4205) interchange. The I-40/NC
109 interchange, along with the I-40/Clemmonsville Road interchange, makes up a spread
diamond interchange. Ramps on this interchange serve as a collector-distributor system to move
traffic between I-40 and the two diamond interchanges. The interchange at US 52/South Main
Street is a diamond interchange.
Along the alternatives, the use of directional crossovers with offset left turns is proposed for
major intersections. Directional crossovers are generally used in the following situations, all of
which can be applied to the project area:
• High speed rural median divided facilities
• Corridors with partial or limited control of access
• Intersections with a documented crash history
• In congested areas where it is desirable to minimize the use of traffic signals.
The directional crossover eliminates full movement median openings. Traffic on the primary
highway is not affected as all movements are still permitted; however, traffic on the secondary
highway must turn right onto the primary highway. Through and left turn movements from the
secondary highway are then directed to a median u-turn crossover approximately 800 to 1,300
feet downstream of the intersection. The figure below illustrates the directional crossover
intersection. Because these turning movements are separated, the need for signalization at
intersections is reduced. Other intersections and driveways will have right-in, right-out capability
only.
m
w
N
Z
Left-over Intersection Configuration Concept:
Waters of the United States
All of the Build Alternatives have the potential to cause adverse impacts on waters of the United
States. These impacts are described below.
Water Quality
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) identifies the state's river and stream
systems by basins and subbasins. The project study area is located within subbasin 03-07-04 and
03-07-07 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit for the
Yadkin River (Hydrologic Unit Code 03040101).
There are one hundred and twenty-four (124) jurisdictional streams or stream segments located
within the project study area. All streams in the project study area have a water quality best usage
classification of Water Supply (WS) III or C. Class C waters are freshwaters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including propagation and survival), and wildlife.
Secondary recreation is any activity involving human bodily contact with water on an infrequent
or incidental basis. WS-111 waters are protected for Class C uses and are used as sources of water
supply where a more protective WS-1 or WS-11 classification is not feasible. No WS-1, WS-11,
water supply Critical Areas (CA), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile of the project area.
Salem Creek is the only stream within the project area on the NCDWQ 2010 Draft 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters. It is on the list due to impaired biological integrity from Salem Lake to Middle
Fork Muddy Creek (north of the project area).
NCDWQ Basinwide Assessment Reports address long-term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring stations through chemical monitoring and sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish communities. The benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station closest to the project
area is on South Fork Muddy Creek approximately five miles west of the project study area; it has
consistently received a bioclassification of Good-Fair.
Impacts to water resources in the project area could result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream banks,
riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation,
and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result
from the construction activities mentioned above:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area;
• Alteration of stream discharge because of silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns;
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity because of increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal;
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature because of vegetation removal;
• Alteration of water levels and flows because of interruptions and/or additions to surface and
groundwater flow from construction;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff; and
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, the BMPs contained
in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters would be followed
strictly for the duration of the project.
Jurisdictional Resources
Project construction for any of the Build Alternatives cannot be accomplished without infringing
on jurisdictional waters, including streams, wetlands and ponds. Streams may be filled, relocated,
or placed in a culvert by project by project construction. Wetlands may be either partially or
completely filled. In some instances, larger wetland areas may become hydraulically
disconnected from an adjacent stream.
On October 7, 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the jurisdictional verification
for all wetlands, streams and ponds delineated for the project. The locations of jurisdictional
resources to be impacted by each Build Alternative are shown in Figure 3.
Streams
There are one hundred twenty-four jurisdictional streams or stream segnnents within the project
study area. Streams within the project area that typically contain permanent flowing water are
classified as perennial; while intermittent streams are characterized by temporal flow
interruptions. Stream and wetland classifications follow Cowardin et al. (1979). Long-term
impacts to streams along the proposed project would be limited to stream reaches within the
footprint of the roadway. Impacts to stream reaches adjacent to the footprint would be temporary
and localized during construction. Long-tern impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from
construction are expected to be negligible. Sixty-six of the jurisdictional streams within the
project study area would be directly impacted by the Build Alternatives. Table 2 lists and
describes each of these sixty-six streams and shows the estimated impacts to each by each Build
Alternative. These impact estimates take into account avoidance and minimization measures that
have been incorporated into the project, including bridging of streams. Impacts were calculated
using slope stakes plus 25 feet. Alternative 5 would have the greatest total stream impacts
(10,729 linear feet), and about 87 percent of the impacts (9,368 linear feet) would be to perennial
streams. Alternative 1 would have the lowest total stream impacts (4,432 linear feet), and about
92 percent of the impacts (4,067 linear feet) would be to perennial streams.
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "Waters of the
United States." Wetlands are described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (33 CFR
328.3(b) [1986]).
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (USACE, 1987). Open water systems
and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to Section 404 review.
Jurisdictional wetlands within the project area were delineated and located using Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology.
The Water Quality Section of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) has prepared a wetlands assessment procedure entitled Guidance for Rating Wetlands
in North Carolina. The NCDEM procedure rates wetlands according to six functional attributes:
water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value,
and recreational/educational value. Each attribute is given a rating from "1" to "5." A higher
rating for a functional attribute indicates a higher value for that attribute to the environment. A
different multiplier is used with each attribute so that the highest possible sum of the six products
is "100." These attributes are weighted (by the multiplier) to enhance the results in favor of water
quality functions. Pollutant removal is weighted to be the most important wetland attribute.
Water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life functions are given equal weight as
secondary attributes, and wildlife habitat and recreation/education functions are given minimal
credit. Table 3 lists the jurisdictional wetlands in the project study area, their NCDEM ratings,
and the potential impact of each Build Alternative on each wetland. Impacts were calculated
using slope stakes plus 25 feet. Alternative I would impact the most wetlands (25,274 square
feet, or 0.58 acres). Alternative 6 would impact the least wetlands (6,100 square feet, or 0.14
acres).
Ponds
Ponds are classified as palustrine unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded areas. There are a
total of nine jurisdictional ponds in the project area. All of the ponds are man-trade. The
substrate of the ponds is mostly silt and sand. Table 4 lists the jurisdictional ponds in the project
study area and the potential impact of each Build Alternative on each pond. Alternative I is the
only Build Alternative that would impact any jurisdictional ponds. It would impact two of them,
for a total of 9,300 square feet of impacts.
13
Table 3: Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands within the Project Study Area
Wetland Size Cowardin NCDEM Impact (sq. ft.)
ID (sq. it) Classification Rating t
I Alt* Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt 6.
WA 2,803 PEM 25
BDI 5,526 PEM/PSS 24 I E 3,921 3,921 --
BDO 6,634 PEM 23 4,358 -- 4,358
HRG 192 PFO 13 -- -- --
BD2 10,445 PFO 65
BD3 27.274 PEM/PSS 64 -- -- --
BD4 2.565 PFO/PSS 64 -- -- -- -- --
HRA 2.184 PFO .15 871 -- -- -- --
HRB 26 PFO 22 -- -- -- -- --
BD5 118,944 PEM 48 10.454 -- -- -- --
BDF 60.218 PFO/PEM 35 436
HRD 1,242 PFO 36 -- -- -- -- --
HRC 7,030 PFO 36 -- -- -- -- --
HRE 49.552 PEM 51 12.632 -- -- -- --
BDG 501 PFO/PEM 27 9 -- -- -- --
BDH 19,886 PFO/PEM 27 -- -- -- -- --
HRF 5,736 PSS 28 872 -- -- -- --
BDK 3,745 PFO 34 -- -- -- -- --
HRL 1,484 PFO 38 -- 438 -- 435 --
HRG 192 PSS 33 -- -- -- --
HRH 6,468 PEM/PSS 48 -- -- -- 2.614 --
HRI 10,445 PEM/PSS 48 -- 6,098 -- 88 1,742
BDI 868 PFO 20 -- -- --
BDJ 2,509 PFO 20 -- -- -- -- --
BDL 7,441 PSS 28 -- -- -- -- --
BDM 410 PSS 23 -- -- -- -- --
BDN 984 PSS 23 -- -- -- -- --
HRJ 3,277 PSS 36 -- -- 875 -- --
HRK 5,272 PSS 40 -- -- -- -- --
Totals -- -- -- 25,274 6,536 9,154 7,058 6,100
Floodplains
Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by EO 11988, Floodplain Management;
US DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and 1'rotection; and Title 23, Section 650 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. The intent of these regulations is to avoid or minimize
encroachment within the 100-year (base) floodplain by transportation projects, where practicable,
and to avoid supporting land use development that is incompatible with floodplain values.
Natural and beneficial floodplain values of these floodplains include natural moderation of
floods, open space, and wildlife habitat.
14
Table 4: Jurisdictional Ponds within the Project Study Area

[ Size Impact (sq. ft.)
Pond
D (sq. ft.) Type
Alt. 1
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Alt 6.
DJ A 36,061 PUB -- -- -- -- --
DJ 20 74,645 PUB -- -- -- -- --
DW 4 14,944 PUB -- -- -- -- --
CW 1 7,685 PUB -- -- -- -- --
HRA 3 1,525 PUB -- -- -- -- --
HR 3-A 22,256 PUB 363
BD 2 21,803 PUB
DW 1 35.330 PUB 81937
HR 7 11,941 PUB -- -- -- -- --
Totals -- -- 9,300 -- -- -- All five Build Alternatives would cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Abbotts Creek.
All five would also cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Brushy Fork, although they
would cross this floodplain in different locations. Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 would cross the 100-
year floodplains associated with South Fork Muddy Creek and Fiddlers Creek. Alternatives 4
and 5 would cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Soakas Creek. Floodplain impacts
would range from 5.35 acres for Alternative 6 to 10.46 acres for Alternative 5. Major drainage
structures proposed for the project would cross the floodplain at or near perpendicular angels,
minimizing the length of floodplain traversed. All hydraulic structures would be designed such
that the proposed structures would not significantly increase upstream flooding and would not
increase the flood hazard potential of the existing floodplain.
Construction of any of the alternatives under consideration would increase the amount of
impervious surface area within the study area, thereby increasing stormwater runoff to local
waterways. The area impacted by this increased runoff would be minor in relation to the
remaining pervious surface areas. The increased amount of road surface draining into the area
would be small in relation to overall drainage areas.
Each of the alternatives under consideration crosses several streams or drainages for which box
culverts or pipe culverts would be required to maintain hydraulic flow. A field investigation and
preliminary hydraulic study was conducted for the major stream crossings along the project
alternatives. Twenty-three stream crossing sites were determined to require a hydraulic structure.
None of the wetland or pond impact sites along the alternatives were determined to require a
hydraulic structure.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Land development activities that may adversely impact wetlands require consent through permit
approval from the regulating agency. At the federal level, under the CWA Section 404b(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4(r)), the USACE is obligated to
require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams as a condition of permit
approval. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams include: avoiding impacts, minimizing
impacts, and compensating for impacts.
15
Avoidance
Avoidance examines the appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to wetlands
and streams. During development of preliminary designs for the proposed project, efforts were
taken to avoid impacts to wetlands and streams where possible. Further avoidance can take place
during construction by locating construction activities outside of stream channels and avoiding
deposition into stream channels during roadway construction.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to streams and wetlands. General steps that should be implemented during the final
design stage to minimize impacts by the proposed project include:
• Minimizing "in-stream" activities;
• Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control recommended in NCDOT's
BMPs for the protection of streams and wetlands;
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of right-of-way
widths and steepening of fill slopes where possible; and
• Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating streams.
Specific minimization efforts performed thus far include:
• Elimination of alternatives that would result with higher stream and/or wetland impacts,
when similar alternatives would perform the same function with fewer impacts
• Proposed bridging of several streams crossed by Build Alternatives.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented in an effort to further minimize
impacts. Reduction of fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings will reduce necessary wetland
impacts.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is meant to replace, on at least a one-to-one basis, the lost functions and
values of natural streams and wetlands affected by development activities. NCDOT will
investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once a preferred
alternative has been chosen. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). In accordance with the °2003
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources"
(MOA), the NCEEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean
Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with Federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Endangered status
refers to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range," and Threatened status refers to "any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
(16 U.S.C. 1532). The federally protected species listed for Davidson and Forsyth counties are
presented in Table 5. These species are briefly described below, along with a description of the
16

potential impacts of the five Build Alternatives on the species and their habitats. This analysis is
required under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Table 5: Federally Protected Species Listed for Davidson and Forsyth Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status
Bog turtle Clennrvs tnuldenbergii T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker* Picoides borealis E
Small-anthered bittercress* Cordanine mieranthera E
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthuc schweinitzii E
E - Endangered; T - Threatened; T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
'Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
Bog turtle - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
Biological Conclusion: NOT APPLICABLE.
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
to the northern population; therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under
Section 7 of the ESA. No known occurrence of the bog turtle has been reported by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) within the project vicinity (0.5 mile on all sides of
the project study area). While suitable habitat for the bog turtle is present in the project area, no
evidence of this species was observed during field surveys within the study area or project
vicinity.
Red-cockaded woodpecker- Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT.
The project area and project vicinity are dominated by habitats lacking a prevalence of pine. The
pine habitats which are present are generally less than 30 years old, have large components of
hardwoods, occupy small areas, or have no other contiguous pine habitats.
A review of available NCNHP records, aerial mapping, and a site reconnaissance indicate that no
areas of potentially contiguous nesting, roosting, or foraging habitats occur within a 0.5 mile
radius surrounding the project study area. This 0.5-mile radius assessment area is required for a
red-cockaded woodpecker survey. It can therefore be concluded that no suitable habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker exists within the project study area; therefore, a Biological Conclusion
of No Effect is rendered for this species.
Small-anthered bittercress - Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT.
Suitable habitat for this species exists within the study area in the form of seeps and wet rock
crevices of stream banks, adjoining sandbars, moist woods near small streams fully to partially
shaded by trees and shrubs. NCNHP records did not reveal any occurrences of this species within
one mile of the study area. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was rendered per NCDOT
Memorandum from Karen M. Lynch on September 11, 2006, which only requires surveys for
small-anthered bittercress in the Dan River drainage (subbasin 03-02-01).
Schweinitz's sunflower - Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT.
A review of the NCNHP elemental occurrence database records indicated that no recorded
occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower are found within one mile of the project study area. A
17

known population of the species is documented several miles south of the study area along NC
109.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower exists within the project study area in the form of
disturbed-maintained areas, including clearings, field edges, and roadsides. During the field
reconnaissance (October-December 2006) several Helianthus plants were found within the study
area, some with flowers still present, however none were Helianthus schuveinitzii. Frost had
already browned many perennial plants in the study area, and hard frosts continued throughout
the field reconnaissance period. A second field study was conducted in Septebmer 2007, which
falls within the flowering time for this species. No Schweinitz's sunflower individuals were
observed during the survey. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect is rendered for this species.
Wild and Scenic Rivers and Other Protected Lands
In the project area, no water bodies are deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified and amended at
16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A-
30). There are no state/national forests, or garnelands and preservation areas in the project area.
Section 4(f) Resources
According to Title 23 USC 138 (Section 4[f]), the USDOT
...shall not approve any program or project... which requires the use of any publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of
national, State or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials
having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State or local
significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to
minimize hann to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting from such use.
Within the project area there are no public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges affected by
the proposed project. As described below, there are several historic architectural resources within
the project area. No part of any historic property within the project area would be used by any of
the Build Alternatives. For this reason, Section 4(f) would not apply to any of the historic
properties in the project area.
Cultural Resources
This project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended (16 U.S.C. § 470f), and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as Title 36, Part 800 of the
Corte of Federal Regulations. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
18

Historic Architectural Resources
Field surveys of the Historic Architectural Area of Potential Effects (APE) were conducted by
NCDOT architectural historians in 1995, 1996, 2004 and 2005. The survey consisted of
background research into the historical and architectural development of the area and a field
survey of the APE. The field survey was conducted to identify all properties within this area that
were greater than 50 years of age. Three properties within the architectural APE for the project
were found to be eligible for the NRHP: the D. Austin Parker house, Mark Parker House, and the
George W. Wall House. The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with this
finding in December 2009.
Historic Architecture Resources Impacts
None of the proposed alternatives would require right of way from any of the three eligible
properties. For the George W. Wall House, the HPO concurred with the determination of No
Adverse Effect for Alternative 1 and No Effect for the other four alternatives. For the D. Austin
Parker House and the Mark Parker House, the HPO concurred with the determination of No
Adverse Effect for Alternatives 3 and 6 and No Effect for Alternatives 1, 4, and 5.
Archaeological Resources
Overview studies of archaeological resources in the project area were conducted in 1993 and
1995. The project's Archaeological APE consists mainly of the three separate 1,000-foot wide
corridors and the 1,000-foot wide shared corridor, as well as additional area at proposed
interchange locations. At the time of the study, the NC Office of State Archaeology had records
of eleven archaeological sites within or near the study area. Nine of the sites have prehistoric
components and five have historic era components.
Archaeological studies in Davidson and Forsyth Counties and the surrounding region indicate a
fairly intensive occupation of the region throughout the prehistoric and historic past. Even though
few archaeological sites are presently recorded in the study area, this can be attributed to a lack of
archaeological survey rather than a lack of archaeological sites. It is likely the study area contains
a number of archaeological sites, and a few of the sites could be significant enough to warrant
intensive documentation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. The Department of Cultural Resources found that the alternatives have roughly the
same potential for containing archaeological resources. Therefore, the HPO agreed to postpone
the archaeological survey until the final corridor is selected
Hazardous Materials
In April 2009, NCDOT conducted a study to identify properties within the project study area that
are or may be contaminated. Such properties may include, but are not limited to: active and
abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills, and
unregulated dumpsites. Based on the study no hazardous waste sites or landfills were identified
within the project corridor limits. Twenty-seven possible UST facilities and eight other
geoenvironmental concerns, including three automotive repair sites, three automotive salvage
yards, one dry cleaner and one industrial site, were identified within the proposed project
corridors. If any of the potential hazardous materials sites cannot be avoided by the Preferred
Alternative, further assessments of the properties will be conducted and the results reported in the
Final EIS. These assessments will evaluate the properties for specific types and amounts of
hazardous materials and will include right of way acquisition recommendations. It is not expected
that conditions at any of these sites would preclude construction of any of the alternatives.
19
Logical Termini/Independent Utility
FHWA regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(f) that must be used to
frame a highway project:
In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to
transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:
(1) Connect logical tennini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters
on a broad scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable
and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the
area are made; and (3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
The proposed project has logical termini. It would connect segments of NC 109 south of this
project from 1-85 Business to Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798), which have recently been
improved, to either 1-40 to the north or US 52 to the west, two chief travel routes in the Winston-
Salem area. The project termini adequately encompass the area required to address the project
scope. In addition, the project is of sufficient length (between 8.5 miles and 10.0 miles) to
address environmental matters on a broad scope. Because the proposed project would improve
mobility in the project area and improve levels of service along the NC 109 corridor, it would
have independent utility; it would be a reasonable expenditure of capital even if additional
transportation improvements in the area were not made. The proposed project would not restrict
consideration of other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements contained in the
NCDOT STIP or local long range plans within the project study area.
Conclusion
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345 and mailing labels. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This letter, along with the
Draft EIS, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice for the
project.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Mr. Vince Rhea at (919)
733-7844, extension 261.
20
N

o
N 3
F ?
d o ?Fm c3
?
v ?
A j "" I

F+ F'
N N Z N
l0 lD C ? •?
A A 3 am
" O N d
w w m " 3
A A
? g z ?z
+
C ?
n
- o• m v
n n " 3 A

xaF
N N S C
J1 z
n
w w »
w w ? F
w A
n
m
N C
ll? V? M N
N N n n
O
. m
.
0

c`
v v
? ? N N
lD fD d O-
7 J ?
of a H O
d
V1
.r

o -
? m

d
.r
3 m

N
N
eT

O -
? N

d
w
3 `m
?' m m w
? ? ?

N
F+ F+ »
N 31 V < d
v o w D
p
0 0 ?

a
3 m
L
EI
N

N A V ? d
u o o w D

0 0 ?

a
o i„ N ? 3 m

A ?
A ?
N
w

o -
? A

v
a = 3 m

N

v
S
9
.7
3
M
3
C
a

"
;
^
^
c
c
^c
^c
^c n
c
CD n
c n c n c
m
c
? c c c c c
l c
l
?
i
(D ?
lD -1
fD ?
?
H
?
N
N N
?
N (D ? fD '? fD ? lD ? D ? 9 -1 l0 fD

b lD

F N

N lD

F lD

F w
?
F N F N F N F N F N N
F N
F F N F N V1
F O N
F O N
F O N
-? O F
O C C N
p
x O
x b O
x b p
x b - O
x b O
b O
b O
x b O
x b b b b x
b .? p b ? w o? -
b
A F
A F
A F
A F
A F
x F
x F
A F
A F
x F
b
x F
b
= F
b A
F T
O
F
~
?
? 3

?
'
F+ N N? N N N N N N N? N b N H N N A ,
i, W ,
i, N v
i N H "' jt N
l A O t+ O ?

F+ N N I-+ F+ N N I-+ N N F-' N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
1-+ r
N N N N N N N N N N N Z N ?
lD l0 tD lD lD l0 W tD t0 l0 tD l0 l0 l0 ?-` ? b N C j ^
'
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A •` A A f+ 3 p_
ry
r r+ r ?+ t+ r r r r r t+ N b
X 1
r
w r
w W w w w w w w W W W W W
W N w W f?D
3
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A t+ A A W
< G < < < < < < < c < c c c < <
N N N N N N N N N N N N v, = ? = = _ S a m
_ ?
b
\ \ \
n \
n \
n n \
n X
3 A
n n n n n n n n n n n n n

A N A N A ? A ? N W N ?, a
N
? W W W N N N W W O? A 01 lJ? ? A V, A
?

N W A W N N N A 1-+ O J w0 W N W J w v
l?0 l~O N N J N Ol lD N N F+ J N N G
N N GG
I n
a
N c
W N N A N A A A ? J A A W A A A A A =j D
p0 ?.+ N 00 A iD N W 00 A N N N N lp 01 V Ol ? n
,. m
O

m
m m m m m p m ? m m ro m m ro m m
' m » Na
fD 3 3 in m m m io m m m m ? iu
? m
J m
J m
? ? .b. n
J 3 7 > > J J J J -
^
J
J
^ C^
J J J 7 ?_ J J > > N G
_ b N N N 7
.+ ti r n b

b

? lD
7
b
N
3 ?

N

J N
J
b

3 m

1 N
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
?
N F+ A A A A A A A A W W W W N N N ?+
Ol < N< tD N N N N N O O 00 00 J N N O O Q? b
+ N O J A O V W A F+ W N Do W O? = D
O w W N W + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
O O N O O N O O N N O N N O N N N N j
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
J
b

N N H N O? N W N A A A f+ W W 3 b
O W N O N N O tD J W N F+ 00 O V O O x. = 9 A
N N A 00 lp A tp V N lD V Ol N O V ? ._. N b
00 F+ W N N A V N O 00 l0 A O A O N b»
1 N
r r r r r r r r r r r r
»
?-+ F' A A A A A A A A W W W W
O? < N< t0 N N N N N O O 00 00 J N b
+ h+ + r+ O V A O Oo V 01 Oo A F+ W N ? ? i i ^ D
O W N W + + + + + + + + + + + + p
O O N O O N O O N N O N N O jp
O O O O. O O O O O O O O
b

F+ N F+ F+ 01 N W 1-+ A A A F+ W 3 N
O W ?O O N ? N O l0 J W F+ F' Oo ?, J V y?
F+
CU f+
F+ A
W Oo
N lp
N
A A
V m
N J
O N
W
w tp J
A 0
O N
? r .... !D b
? w
N
r
N r
N r
N r
F+ N
N O O m b

V N 0 N p
O N
O O O O

b
w
w = 3 m
O J O O x. ? ? 01

?
?
.
.
O
O J
O
O
N ? .
i
N
1
3
9
Z
n c n c n c n c n c
' n c n c n c o z n o n o z
-i
?
? m -i m "i
? ro
? N C
W C
W C
W o o c C
? T

n m C
(D
? ro C
? F? y w
N
? V N
? V ?p N
F O lD N
F 'O lD N
F 'O N
? 'O !p N
F? lD ? S ?
C d _ ?
]J a+ _ -1
? d S OO
JJ F W J
A d
N o' F
F
? O F
? O
N
F C F c c - c c F c c F C r
w o r
w
o r
N n o W
?+ 2 c O lD Ip O O (p

00-4
= a'
o w W
p w W
o w
v w O
ao
o w
A J O n
N S
m s
'
'
v,
A N
F, Q
F _ c c
`
d c C
n
3
- W ~ N N N 00 ?. w _
w W< V ,? N 2
J d E O
O O 1
y O O O Oi O y 0 O S N<

f+ F F+ F` F+ 1-` F+ F N
IJ N
F+ ~
N F+
N
N
?-+
N
F+
F+
Z V1
N j N N N N N j tb N ?
l
1-+ N F? N F+ N f+ r+ A A Fa f+ ?-+ F+ A t0 O 3 6 N
? ?' 1-` l0 t0 F+ A A d
lp lp lp lp t
D lp w
w
N
to
v+ N
w
r
?' X
i x 3
w w W A A W W W ? aA p 'a V A W W ww
c < c < c < c < c < < < < < <

x m
G G G G G G G G ) )
n r
n n 3 A
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

~ m
N N N F' N A N W W N Ql 01 N O A N S -d.
?' N N N N N N N A N W 00 00 00 N N W
O O T C
A Z
W N N F+
?"'
N N N W
N
N A
N A
N W
O
W N
LD N
W y n
N a W t0 ? A N N O ? ~ V V V w VI N
N.. lfl N Vl VI 111 N I I 1 ?
A
i n
u
N
C
N N N W N W W N O? N W N A N N N A _
N
00 N N W V Ol 00 N 00 f+ W J N N W N N n n
a m
O

O D
tD ? tD tD (D ? tD tD tD tD (D tD tD O tD lD rC tD t »

m 3
m
m
? 3
m 3
m
3
m
m
io
?
?
m
io
'm
m
m G
m

J 3 ? J J J ^ 3 J > > > > > J J J
N
y 7 R = N J N 01 N _ d = N d _ _ N 7
H

r
a r
w r
w N
N lD OD d

O o O O ?

J
d
ee
A a 3 f?D

N N
r r r N
N N F?
A lD N YI

+ + + Q

O O O
J
d
^
N 00 w = 3 m
W 00 N o y W
.01
90
lD F+ V ? R
N
;r
m
01 r
~
W r
~
W r
I-+
N r
N
N r
N
O r

A r

N r
W
F+ r
W
F+
N
A K r
N
00
N
N
+ O + + + + + y O Vr V A r r r ^ D
+ O
O O O O O O O O O O O
I ?
I
a W ?+ N N ?+ J Oo F+ ? r-r A - 3 N
W F' 60 N ?' N x, A
N N O O
J
N
N
.
.
.
.
, p w d
C) ? W W 60 N A V W O W W ? rOi
N
r
w r
W
N r
N r
N r
V
w
t+ t+ A f A tp N d
N O V J O

O G r
O O O O O p
1 ? O O O O O

d
.
00 F?
Ol N N 00 W - 3 fD
N W 00 N J 'O
? O O ? r+ J N .Z
1 N
r r r r r r r r r H
Q? W W N F+ O W a^

A
N
O
N
J
N
a
N
.
.
.
W
,
r
r
r
r .
e
D
N O N O O O N O O j T
O O O O O O O O O
J
d
j' W ? N N ?+ V W O? = 3 N
W !'' Oi r+ x
N O O r O m
O N W w
W OD ? A J F, i n
N

Ol
Q
rD
I`A
n
0
7
C
m
O.
00
C T' C T C T C C C p p C C A C w c A C C C D u

-?
-1
-1
W
O _

O?
c
J

O T
c
J
c -1
J

J
W -{
n v »

3
F ? ?
W J? O T
< O T
< T
? m
< A ? A ? A ? JJ V
= W = = = G
T <
IT W ? JC S
( J> O m <
IT .T yCj N 0 fD (D = J fD Ol J fD F O 61
3
z s z s s p s .... .... < A
`. c G1 a -- s D a T a = a a -- a. ,? p

F+
N 1-+
N F+
N N
N N
N F+
N F+
N
F+
F+
H
F
f
F+
N
N
?''
N
Z N
j
N j
N N N N N C? ti
?
lp lp lp lp lp lp t x
lp lp lp lp lp lp lp lp lp
A O m
3
F A A A A A A A A F+
? ? ? ? ? F, +

Vf 1/i N N l/1 N t/1 to l/i = l/i N = N ? ,?
- _ _ 3 G
n n n n n n 3 A
n n n n n n n n n n n
?

N
N
N
N
N
W
W m

? m

~ m

0

N

N

N
N
A
O L
?
.
?' a
to W A W A A to A '
O
O
O to ,
?
M
?
C
A Z
? F? W N N N N N ? O N N N N N p A ? ?
N l0 N O W N O A ? ? M W N N lD ? N = C
w A
n
w
u"i C
W W w w A In In W A A A A W W w w Ol N
D
J 00 t0 tD T t+ N Oo Vi A ip t0 Oo Oo O W O (j
?
d
,. m
O

T J ? v T T T T T T T T J T T T T ?
lD lD (D fD fD lD (D lD fD (D (D fU (D (D !p !D ? fD » N

J ^ J J J J J J J J J J + J J J J N
_ m Fl, m m F, zu, d v d

n
n J J
d

r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r
N r r r r r r
?
N A W W N lp t0 W N O N N N W d
U? V O? In W V V lp , ~

O O N O O O O O O O O O m
O O

d
N I-+ A W N N w N V N N N N S 3 m
to A O? A V N A W O lD N A
01 N A A 01 A W V V Z , O W ,,, ry y
Oo
I F+ In Oo Vt N ? A ? m O ? r+ ?' ? w
"
'?
r
lD r
W
N
O1
lp K r
V r
V r
W
"'?
mo

,
O
O
+
N ,
w
D
i t
n
O O D
O O O O G
O O p O O O N

W N N I-? F+ N A
N T? (D
N 0 W 00 m A i0 O x N W
W W N J W N V ?' d ,?.?
? N
I r N

o o

o ? m

v
3 `m
x A
b I
? N
'?
r
0
O r
W
N
01
lD < r
V r
V
A r
W
+
W
+ + O N N O D + D
O O O O O O O J ?D

- J
N
w N `? ?. to A ? 3 m

i
? to
tD
i M
O W
01 Oo
N 01
H A
lA tp
lD ? x. ? ? N
Oo w i-, V w F+ V ? „
W n
1 N
r y?

o o. D

o ? m

IN

01
V
fD
N
N
CL
O
3
Ol
LA
m
Cu
3
LI
n
VI
D
r+
3
d
C

o c °J "c Ac o c ^c ^c ^c c Z
° T
n
^
n m m -1 m
n - W e W c - W e d»
F W S F W -" A O. A
3
S _
N F W x W A Z a r A a r A a r 3 N
a
? C < O C = N N N W N °' w N m v v d A N m ?' O O
' A O O A O O
' s
W S O N A d JC ? F <°' p J JC F
? = F = F = F O JC F ?
S?
? N S 7
v ? F
S?
v ? 0
D N < ? ? H l0 H W td
i V ydi d
W < F < i
F-` N 1-+ F+ F-` N I-+ N N F+ N F+ N
N N N ?-+ ? N N N N N N N N N N Z E N
b+ N N N N l0 l0 lD l0 l0 tp tD lO tD tD C p •+
F+ ?+ N i-+ A A A A A A A A A A 3 a N
tO lp l0 f+ ?
A F+ N N F+ N F+ F+ N F+ r+ Q A d
tn tO w w w w w w w w w w w X 3
-
? v A AA A A A A A A A A A
C
< <<
< <<
< G < < <
G C
< C
C C
C <
< C
< C
< <
< C
< 2 Z
LP LP N N Vf N = = r V1 lp LP N q
N 0
- - - _ 3 O.
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
n \
n \
n \
n \
n \
n \
n ry X
3 A
n n n n n n n n

F.
N W
? d
W N O N Ol W W N N N N N A C. F
00 ~ N N ?-+ W O? T W W Ql W A Oo ....
O O In ? G
p 2
W
W W
lD N
N
W
W W
Ql N
W N
W
lp
~ N
J
W
N
W N
p P1
.r
l0
lJ? N Li W Ln In N Lr lr F+ N O lA =
0
0
A
n
m
N C
to A In A In In A A A A N W In to A ?j D
ll? tD In N W F' tp A A In tD In O O Oo ? ^
01 m
O

v v v O v v v v v v v v v v ? :,
m ro to ro to ro m m ro ro ro m m ro m » H

ro
io
m
?
m
io
io
m
io
io
ro
m
m
io
m a
a
3 > > > > J J J J ? J J > >

a a a N d a a a a a d d d a a h 0
d
r
N r
N r
N r
A
»
Q1 01 O1 N d
V V 01 . . . . . . "! D
+
O
O O O O
J
a
N t+ N - 3 N
N N ? N x? V Ir

ll? p J l0 ? eZ
N
r r r r r r r r r r r r »
N
O N
F+ A
V+ A
r+ A
N ?'
?/' { w
W w
N W
t+ W
O N
Oo N
V N
J
d
N N F+ W N + V ~ A W A W
^
D
+ + + + + O +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+
p
O In O In O O O O O O N In O O
O O O O O O O O O N O O
J
d
w
? N N Oo 00 J - 3 N
O A F' O l
n ? W J O? N ? W x ry y W
i ? ? F+ O O O In O? Oo ?
A N W W W J W N N A i i
v N
IA

O
? A

a
W ? 3 m

A d O
N
r
N r
F? r
W
?
O f+ O y
N V D
+
O
O O O
J
d
w = 3 m
P a J x 5 c ,,,
A ? u

A r
A r
A
N r
W r
W r
W r
W r
N r
N r
N ti
lI? F? F+ N { W N N O W V V d

N
W
f+
+ V
O
In
F+
A
w
Q?
W r
e
D
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + p -
O to O O O O O O N ll? O O
O O O O O O O In O O

a
W N
N W N N W
00
M ?'
V =? N
F+
+ O lI? W V O1 N
W x? V ?
F p O O In 60 00 Fn
N d
F? W W Lo V W N N A d w
N N
v
Q
fD
fd
n
1M
7
C
fl.

a
a¢ o
?
Ketnatsvd 9d<n
o

.? r

Waughlown SI
I Glenn Hrgh Rd
Glenn Hlgl' Rd
a
m
r..,i, yery
9ecn

-p nk
A?zr")"O School Rd R

311 m
Grp e 1?
Presl

Dr
ey 3

rs
,?
?ta9° y y

O m

wood Tar
?
F Clu°
109 P
c

_
' Union Cross Rd 7
a
m
n
27
a
D
Teague Rd Jq?? i oQ

den R
Lang
Pebble Ln
Oscar Ln
R? tee Rd
?
N Gu?
Rex Ra
1•irrc l'llr Cnurrhy
1 Davidson Crlrrrill, Q. ? ?-?-
'
C
m Y
m ? ? o
Rd
? Vt
s p
es?ore
3 ?
??
~
I o `ee gca q
-'- --- = r , ?O
Rd I r ur d
0o 8arne5 p` r 3 G r
?
I y
TO
a? ?It•e iyga fie II x
?J??1.1.J??J J ?
y

pavldson Or 3
mk
I ?
I
$Ulletto Rd I Rd
Georget
Fps i - "y. yok/e Tree Lme Or
y
I 'Py
I
a vy Franklin Or
a I ?ry O ce Or '`•
a u) I rm 4
m
4a !
I;
F resr Creek Dr ?C
ma

----- 1 ?
- ----.---- y.
omt Pd
d PQ-6
s Pecre Or
Rd A
a ? _ - _ ?•"'A AP
-
c y
p a
m L a m Ln
Q pl
Haymo r a9eRa
J
ey R1
Slo
3 yP
?
6 Mellon Q-
n
0o C D
` a
?2 Pam Or Lake Or G1o
N

s n a
?a

9a

? g
I?t ?? O
J tt?1j m
r14
n
J`JJ J:
t
cr
h
oveG J

Harrnran pd .
.
o
G
K o? F
0 Gt
m?Sf ° Z
SreeY

d? 1
a
y NS
C_ N O'

j
' $
o Galley Rd C
n
d y

°- uOnes Or
s J
v
F ee
Jesse v p
y cent Cl q Gauntry Ln ?os
-
West Dr
spry Rd
ccP?o a L
?Y?yc'ele Ln
D Go
F_l! Rd
w
%aed Rd 0?

? ?D
r
ruN
FL
rry 109
u ?
3
? c?
'° George Mu o
J
si ? eAr P
4
rrK.ay $ch?
Jh?<
?
? /Rry en'o
e°aie ' ?Po. Q-
y-r ?
0
n A

q

? a _
zj'sBR
a c 2 pa
1 ova
Dale Nt n)f WC Onrl Alai' Davidson County. C,1,,$,J
Legend
Alternate 1
Alternate 3
Alternate 4
Alternate 5
Alte-nate 6
Study Area Boundary
N
W t:
S
I ' I I Miles
0 0.5 1 2
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 109 Improvements Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. No. R-2568C
Build Alternates
Figure 2 for Detailed Study

G
O rYan Rd a
-
W
?n
52

1?1: fit, r .
1,1111
la

:311
109 ?o
?dO Presley or
C,11111,t- Dr
J
l?nr•c?Ur Cnurtt`•?--M--°

I
,
_ r

r Ra
l I
-?,nkl+n Or
,
I
r ,
I i -- i
1
U
G
C`
l G, Pam Dr Lake Dr
+?p Qa MctS ??
o-
T D

,
52 v
o Bflllt'.V Rd
O /

Ner n• a
., spry Rd 4 a
v Q i
1
-egend X11 `.
T ' r?l?r
O ?;o,rldor 1 :- 4 CG I
??':
? ti Q\ra
-
l Dorridor 3
Q .orrldor 4
109
corridor 5
O corridor 6

??l jfl h)
Study Area Boundary 7C 7h,0--
-- - Perennial Streams North Carolina
intermittent Streams Department of Transportation
Delineated Wetlands
NC 109 Improvements Project

Forsyth and Davidson Counties
r,n
y State Project No 8 1172401

Note: Corridors shown are 1.000 feet wide. T I P No R-25680
7.
MMMMMMMMJ F Actual right-of-way width generally would be no more than 300 feet.
n ?on? 4.000 ON _ Figure 3 Wetlands and Streams Index
-
-
Dara Sources rd, nr.,
r7C ,n,. M-in' L rnJ,.,r ::; ,ot•.
I . ;,1 qnIm Salem/r?rsy Dt ounly G'.Pi

- rushy Fork
UT B
See Figure ?-B
Wetland BD 5 UT Brushy Fork 109
Pond Meadow UT Soakas Creek Wetland BD 3

.
Wetland BD 2
3
9?A
Wetland BD 4
°
°
= Brushy Fork
Brushy Fork

T ppP

Pond CW 1
I
Canincn, rr.!
_ Brushy Fork
UT Soakas Creek
UT Spurgeon Creek
UT Brushy Fork

Pond DW 411
UT Spurgeon Creek
Wetland HR G
UT Reedy Run - UT Spurgeon Creek
F
UT Brushy Fork

d UT Spurgeon Creek

Wetland BD O

Pond HR 6 l Wetland HR L Pond DJ 20
\
UT Reedy Run
-
UT Reedy Run
UT Spurgeon Creek
Pond HR 5

l
I I
UT Reedy Run
UT Reedy Run \
UT Spurgeon Creek
Pond HR 7 UT Reedy Run I "
I

L
I
UT Abbott's Creek
?
-
y
y _ Abbott's Creek
R 1 ,?,?Eryl' -
MurN1 Y °'4
_,
?e
Pond DJA
Wetland BDT-
Legend
tl
k W
d WA
UT Abb
'
e
an
ott
s Cree
Corridor 1
0
Corridor 3 Stream SA 109
® Corridor 4 3rdC• J„'"n
0 Corridor 5
O Corridor 6
Study Area Boundary
Perennial Streams
North Carolina
s
Intermittent Streams
Department of Transportation
Delineated Wetlands
v NC 109 Improvements Projecl
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
Sta!r, Project No 8 1 1724n I
Note: Corridors shown are 1,000 feet wide. T i P No R-2568C
Actual right-of-way width generally would be no more than 300 feet.
?
Fe,! Figure 3-A Wetlands and Streams
Data Sources NCDOT NC Une: Mao' Uar usni r;u,inP, 1, t, nr Wmsbu, S alp :n'Fou>?Ih i;acnty h `i?l

s

i
.e
i
i
i
i
i
i

Forsyth
C0w,t%
i
Da% idson 1
County
?
?
?
?

? rn? Iy? tI t? I r1nchJ111e Rd °? Old.do/r•nr Rd
r J`? ?,' J' JUJU K 4 D!0'S°lem Rd- ?`?•
7 , rnnwew Dr
o ?
s CIreA Pk ft'°"phtown St A, lenn H1gh Pd
10
o ¦ ¦
4b 6f
? g.
? ? 11 • ? '' nsro/1Or
OnS?llle ? •
clcrdfn tJmm? Cross Rd
Pd li ` qa . • wwkW1F°rd RA
Iru9`?r - . o yne d
3
L a
?a '6-111- 150 411
¦ 4
Q` Charlie Rd 4
y'?, N ¦ `es Rd S? o^ Churc'Ir Rd
"'rck d ¦ ( O
S ' /°, C I
2 ¦ I (_. ° g Y GedSctownRd
o Fls„tl Rd
c _ o ? _ ? a ¦ ylollbur9Niyy t
r;e Rd oche Dr ¦ °jnrRol Westover Dr`
'Pa ,v 1 ¦ R' ¦ ? I
Cenva/'Pa o JF loft 0d ?1 R; I
p c a
° h N! I
Z F
"C"111-11 Rd (XI
° Dye o;"A P•d
? 0
a ? ? ? ?4 nyb°'
Z ¢ " g T c (lrc t
t9r•N d1k /oats p o L A ¦ Odd I
°' a 0 a ? P t
C E!/er SPN o °s. o 1110[01 I
Cum ?Lr* i
l?`?y °o °aw • ton PJe Chestnut St I
4??ntetPr,sr Rd ed C/ Ma?oy'kh c£ ?. 14 a+? I
m °O/Rd o. P? t
0 ?`)
oQa % ?a Q c? wawmn Rd gurronPd
Lmmrrm°n Rd o o ?Gry? ?g Vote r
Data Sou ces: NCDOT, C One Map!. Davidson Count'v; City of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County, ESR1 I,J If I UiJ..3:J?i/IJIJIJ? /'I
Legend
4 a Project Study Are;,
U P
1
1
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
AL? North Carolina
Department of Transportation
NC 109 Improvements Project
Forsyth and Davidson Counties
State Protect No 8.1172401
T.I.P. No. R-2568C
Figure 1 Project Vicinity