The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC 109 (9)t t N r?°°a?? RN q US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE Of Engineers sr?e y?-4t?jy, Wilmington District Issue Date: June 10, 2011 Comment Deadline: July 11, 2011 Corps Action ID: SAW-2008-02845 The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received information from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), regarding a potential future requirement for Department of the Army permit authorization to impact streams and wetlands adjacent to South Muddy Creek, Brushy Fork, and Abbotts Creek, tributaries of the Yadkin River, associated with the proposed improvement of the NC 109 corridor between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County up to but not including interchanges with I-40. The project is referred to as Transportation Improvement Project (TIP R- 2568C). Specific alternative alignments and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans and charts. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at www.saw.usace.army.miI/wetlands Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation Attn: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director, PDEA 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Authority The Corps will evaluate this application to compare alternatives that have been carried forward for study, pursuant to applicable procedures of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33U.S.C. 1344). Background A NCDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for the NC 109 corridor improvement (TIP R-2568C) on September, 2010. The social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the reasonable and feasible build alternatives for this project have been evaluated and are described within the Draft EIS. Existing NC 109 within the project area is a two-lane undivided rural highway with no control of access. This existing cross-section of NC 109 consists primarily of two ten-foot lanes with unpaved shoulders varying from three to six feet in width. NC 109 in the vicinity of the a?> interchange of 1-40/US 311 has been widened to a five lane, sixty-four-foot curb and gutter cross section.'Speed limits on NC 109 are 45 mph except within the Town of Wallburg, where the speed limit is 35 mph. Five Build Alternatives are evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS. Alternative 1 would upgrade existing NC 109, mainly on existing alignment, and, the other four would be mainly on new location. All five alternatives would begin at Old Greensboro Road. Three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 6) would terminate just south of I-40/US 311; the other two alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) would terminate at US 52. Figure I is a project vicinity map and Figure 2 illustrates the Build Alternatives. The figures are attached to this Public Notice. Location The proposed project is located from the intersection NC 109 and Old Greensboro Road (SR 1789) in northeastern Davidson County north into southeastern Forsyth County up to but not including interchanges with I-40, in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina (center of study at - 36.0266° N and -80.1622° W) Existing Site Conditions Rural residential and agricultural uses are found through6ut the portion of the study area in Davidson County. There are a few residential subdivisions in the area, with most of these subdivisions including fewer than 20 lots. The only major residential subdivision is the Meadowlands development, a golf-course oriented subdivision near central Walburg. Commercial development is concentrated in a few areas: the intersection of Gum Tree Road and NC 109 contains two retail shopping centers, fast food restaurants, and service stations; central Wallburg contains a small number of retail stores, offices, restaurants and other commercial establishments; and the Midway area, just east of the US 52 interchange at Hickory Tree Road, contains two retail shopping centers along with service stations. A similar pattern of land uses to that found in Davidson County, characterized by rural residential uses and agricultural uses is also found in southern and southeastern Forsyth County. At the northwestern corner of the study area, residential development becomes somewhat more urban, with smaller lots and a mix of single-family and multi-family housing. Apartment complexes are found on NC 109 and Teague Road. Commercial uses, including service stations, restaurants, bars, and small offices, and light industrial uses, including building contracting businesses and auto-related business, are located near 1-40 on NC 109, Old Lexington Road, and Clemmonsville Road. Two large industrial parks are located along US 52: the Salem Business Park, on Old Lexingtion Road, and the Piedmont Triad Industrial Center, located near the interchange at South Main Street. Industrial parks are also located in southeastern Forsyth, near US 311. The Centre 322 Industrial Park and Ridgewood Industrial Park are located along Ridgewood Road to the south and north of US 311, respectively. The Union Cross Business Park is a very large industrial park located on Wallburg Road south of US 311. While much of the residential development in southeastern Forsyth is rural, large-lot residential, there are some small residential subdivisions in this area. There are one hundred and twenty-four (124) jurisdictional streams or stream segments located within the project study area. The proposed project study area also has twenty-nine (29) jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland and streams have been delineated in the field and were verified by the Corps of Engineers. These jurisdictional areas have been documented and rated as recorded in the project's referenced draft EIS and are available for review in the provided "Section 404 - NEPA Merger Process Application" package that is available on the Wilmington District Web Site at ?v,.vw.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands Applicant's Stated Purpose The project purpose as stated by the applicant is: ? Existing and Projected Unacceptable Levels of Service Existing levels of service (LOS) on some two-lane segments along NC 109 were an unacceptable LOS E or F in 2008. From 2008 to 2035, traffic volumes along NC 109 are expected to increase by approximately 90 percent. In 2035, under no-build conditions, all segments of NC 109 are predicted to operate over capacity at unacceptable LOS E or F. By 2035, all four of the signalized intersections along NC 109 within the project area and all but three of the forty-one unsignalized intersections are projected to be over capacity. ? Above-Average Crash Rates Between February 2006 and January 2009, a total of 219 crashes were recorded along this section of roadway. Of this total, 110 crashes caused injuries. The total crash rate for NC 109 within the project area for the three-year period from February 2006 through January 2009 (228.69 crashes per 1,00 million vehicle miles traveled [MVM]), is approximately 36 percent higher than similar routes in North Carolina (167.65 crashes/MVM), and exceeds the statewide critical crash rate (189.94 crashes/MVM) by approximately 20 percent. The primary purpose of the proposed action is to improve traffic flow and levels of service along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area. The secondary purpose is to improve safety along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area. By meeting these, the project will address existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service and above average crash rates along the NC 109 corridor. Project Description Maps showing the location of the project study area and the five build alternatives are included with this public notice. These maps facilitate the above written background description of the proposed improvements of the NC 109 corridor. The project alternatives are: 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-Salem/Forsyth 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. Portions 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 I) 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 I-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 Motsinget Road and follows NC 109 to the existing interchange at I- 40. Alternative 1 is 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative 1 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 I-40. Alternative 3 then follows NC 109 and connects to the existing interchange at 1-40. 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 S 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 Alternative 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: 0 High speed rural median divided facilities 0 Corridors with partial or limited control of access 0 Intersections with a documented crash history 0 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. 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. The impacts of the alternatives that are being reviewed are described in the attached table (Table 1). In order to more fully integrate Section 404 permit requirements with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to give careful consideration to our required public interest review and 404(b)(1) compliance determination, the Corps of Engineers is soliciting public comment on the merits of the proposal, and on the five build improvement alternatives discussed above. At the close of this comment period, the District Commander will evaluate and consider the comments received as well as the expected adverse and beneficial impacts of the proposed roadway improvements to select the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA). The District Commander is not authorizing construction of the NC 109 Corridor Improvement Project at this time. A final Department of the Army permit could be issued, if at all, only after our review process is complete, impacts to the aquatic environment have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and a compensatory mitigation plan has been approved. Other Required Authorizations This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the NCDWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Attention: Mr. Brian Wrenn by July 01, 2011. Essential Fish Habitat This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Cultural Resources The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work. Endangered Species The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information, the Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as threatened or endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 within the project area. A final determination on the effects of the proposed project will be made upon additional review of the project and completion of any necessary biological. assessment and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service. Evaluation The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Commenting Information The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials, including any consolidate State Viewpoint or written position of the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing. Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, July 11, 2011. Comments should be submitted to John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587. ATTACHMENT (1 of 8) Table I contains a summary of impacts associated with each alternative. These impacts were calculated based on preliminary design plans. TABLE 1: SUMMARY • • Build Altemative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 3 4 5 6 Length on 7.74 1.80 0,81 1.29 1.33 th of Len Existin g Corridor Length on New. 1.80 7.61 839 7.21 8.72 (Miles) Location 41 9 20 9 8.50 10.05 Total Lcn,th 9.54 . . Residential 168 98 75 70 108 Relocations Business 39 5 3 4 5 78 74 113 . Total 207 103 Minority Populations ulations Im acted 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0 0 0 0 Churches 3 2 1 1 2 0 Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 Number of New Directional 13 6 8 8 6 Crossover Intersections New Indirect Left Turns (No 9 2 2 0 3 Directional Crossover I (Grade 1 (Grade Railroad Crossings 0 0 Se .) Se J 0 Major Utility Conflicts 3 4 3 3 4 Historic Sites with Adverse 0 0 0 0 0 Effects 0 0 Section 4(f) Sites 0 0 0 0 FederallProtected S ecies 0 230 13 0 81 124 0 137.41 0 139.13 124.98 Prime Farmland acres) . . Hazardous Materials Sites 25 9 3 4 3 Noise Impacted Rece tors 97 61 33 31 61 100-Year Flood lain acres) 10.44 9.94 5.87 10.46 5.35 Wetlands acres 0.58 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.14 Stream Crossin s 20 24 34 34 24 Streams Stream Impacts 4 432 7 757 9,259 10,729 6,500 (linear feet) Construction $70,000,000 $78,500,000 $85,600,000 $78,400,000 $81,500,000 W ht-of-Wa $69,975,000 $49,425,000 $34,975,000 $39,950,000 $46,710,000 Cost R/W Utility $4,758,169 $628,221 $657,572 $657,572 $618,841 Total $144,733,169 $128,553,221 $121,232.572 $119,007,572 $123,828,841 ATTACHMENT (2 orb I \ K I ? I I I I / I _ ..f Forsyth -i.:_ County ...E : ^ ? I _ ?. J:., ni.,? .?.. ,[_ l ,f ? Davidson County r - \ I I \ I I I ? I / \ I I \ ? I 1?pep l' mm hem J Flji fi] 1??? ??"\/r?l 52 ?fw S? _ 'Ch ? ihftd ? l0 ? 111 C.k?l?' tr? FPeP P ',` vu 1 n H g c?, r :. I 4? '*i ? 0 66 .. T ? X-1 tl / - ? I ? ? ? 31 t ? U f \ // ? I Cf o y ?7 Uhlan cross a d [//_ t 1r 2ytyordr T - Te iI ?d 09: .1 a . W k: /?? 150 ? ( // -. /fl 4 Wf0 It C? '.?C? Rd J?? C 0 Chu M1 tl Q, T cq CFO hI ?I i 4 q 11d ? ?` ° i[k0 0 [. 4 ?iy ?J? OS A -4 town0d / 4 e d ??I 11 ? • d j o n y/ollEUr9 ig1Q H. ee Fn "'e ? p°me Dr ar Wet[°oer Or CIRt. o_ G eD a PD ? 0?\?u µE h N rt °n FE 52 E -Sho rn ? pd h y 1- 6 eeR"O" ? r sp v Qo be 1 a. osvrypp ¦ _ , ?o`d nae !?'°Or 1J 60 ? n a : nN Jky ° ': Chestnut St dv° s En[esPrise Ad ¢° C ], ry c . Y? , p A? d oPph 109 oPp r ? P,.qw pb a pt WOUrt°n fld Burt°n0d F m L zim l/ l i ?n i eG[ee Data Sources: NCDOTpNC One Map!. Davidson C unty; City o1 Winston,SaleMFOrsyth Coumy, ESRI O tf Ifl].?flfl ?}r c/` N Legend ur E I:: Project Study Area S Miles 0 0.5 1 2 North Carolina 1 Department of Transportation NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Counties Slate Project No. 8.1172501 T.I.P. No. R-2568C Figure 1 Project Vicinity ATTACHMENT (3 of f 1r?3?fa?3?]31f? \ - X --------- - ----- t ue- u { '1 = 7 1l? \ ? t ]s ? ?/ _ i P \ 109 n g r t I J F 5 t I} ? 1 r 5t ? ? f p r 1 iA ps ? 5 y jh _ ? r I C 1 f I !'J ? p f ' : ={I t / ,i V WW?" t'µ ? / ? "' l {? 5A 1- l ? ? / 1 Cyr t i ? yy ] t' ? ? t r ! I w 1 s1 +ir. i n? f' ?'? r t t k+i r Y e ? t YY 9 r?. ?' fr nwA Sr n_y?l tYi .! ' ]s +tN '? ] '?? `° d ? ., . ,l Ira r l"' ' I -+,:k i? r y ? ? t ( u . !? ti S 7 !h ?y)p ° a ?l 2l t r;?. ? ? 'p ?y . p a 7?!< 1- 5 a it < 4 ? r °, tp r }Mt ?4? t .v ? + t Y 4 1 1 . e ,? .. I° J tti 4 I t> esW .f1 c 1 !r irtL`rw? ?/ -T uw y r E `t a l j ? 1 t „ F r ry 10i s \ t rt t ' - I° `-?3 g 1 a 1t 3 + 1 y r _ f I ? r jf j F p .$?`? ? r rYi Y? 1\) d 4 ?•?'r2F 1 Ni ?f 1` - { 1 I I ? ? I { 1 'w ? f .1 T {. 4? 1 °? Y? ???P ¢I I'/1 lJ.r7 lirl IJ 4 ?h? t ? ? .v ? _ ?4: ) l ? t If 1 1 f7?'1T tt 1U I W F? Qj a r 1 ? ti i k E 1.>` 3y1+ ++ W, to-r"1 ?f t n? .?1t 1???.? i `f 31ii4 Y £3y..y. 4's i t ??lrr.? e f ¢ h x Tp. 141 2 ? {. ? x ? X S ?.t4 vS ¢ ? ? ?? l 1.4 ? I" p r 1 v l Er. F ?' t ate 9k,?'x l rx..'r'?tJ t- b1 r ?.y f}'t?Lr e k5 P 1 \ ? r a I y } t u ? { ?? 3 N t r t'M 17 i Y?l? ? I4111'. }Vb G?1 )"4 'ilk ? ae ? . ? sz a yt° wr 4? OlS 1 S ? a rllq{i( '? .l 'XyC : 1.R h ?' ?? ? )( r+ i?C0?A1? b #t+ i c i ya .(r tl 1 t t.. ..• vA 1 }? t', ffl? L "L { !? S y l ` t 1? CC !! f? 1T jd ! tx T'C F'!- t CY Lbi i ? '.$ . 4. . ryp??RR G i Y ( n? x- 4 LLIIIJJF?f k l W °Y ry ' al a 7 ?1 f c l, ? µ ?,Po F 'a ? ? t .1 +F a `I 1N k ? ? T.? ?S ? xt I >i x r °° 4'?_ 371 e t z`t' ? .?zl ¢° ° ? § z i i -'ea i r e , y ?4 ??t ??c A r bd rre y C ?4 I!?] y 4 c? t2 r7 ? r--F ?) iV r ? Shy )?'T.fjP°y34 t` € 'iii y5yr rt a P ' /,i T?f I r d r ? ) d ? r ee :y [(n t ?L >, ?f Y ]t t r{ y?,l-i )I ? ? .3.: ' F e ]' k t a¢ }• { 14 T 1 Y 109 i'. I S V npd d E/?+1 ?, 1/ 1 5 nta 4 I t f Mfl / 1 it M y 5 - - ?l ? t Nq M t? t .- 4 a e?°y v f J t t. v Y I l '- t 1 ' ? q 1 4 a s v:' o ? 3?7JJ?? Yu$w i. u Y.??'? [mss ry,Chtl NN?imSbnsmryifcnry - North Carolina Legend N ® Department of Transportation , o Alternate I w ? E ??t / / NC 109 Improvements Project = atemale 3 ? //t J ? 1? Forsyth and Davidson Counties m Alternate a \ Vr Slate Project No. 8.1172401 A6mate 5 S T,I.P. No. R-2568C ® Alt t fi erna e I { Miles Build Alternates ® sludy Area 3.ur,d" 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 2 for Detailed Study A"CTACHMENT (4 of 8 562 e ?I r ?ar i 52 Legend Q uma,1 ® wmo,a Q wma,. O d wo s O maal6 ®SLyP a8c 2a -?1- Pemnrzal su-- w- memmam seeame cesn<nea weev.ae : sa e h F ? 11 ?b i f 4 a t kS t = e L V t ?? ... ? le ' ( dl. ? a I r , ,V ? r Iai Note: dote sllovn are 1,0o01eotwido. Actual ngtngf-way wCoMidth Benelally would be no more flan 300feet . aplO? .c?xw miwa?m rum;FSN 51 North Carolina Depart ment of Transportation NC 109 Improverearts Project Forsyth aM Oawdmn Counties stale P,. No. em'2<01 TA P.Ne.R-2.eC 3 WaUands and Streams Index ATTACHMENT (5 of 8) ATTACHMENT (6 of 8) ATTACHMENT (7 of 8' 9 nl?Jj? CD 1????3 ? _ 2 a s a 1 1I i s a a "' g a g x c ; 8 - N4 F ? ?9 N SI ?1Y ? gimYp E°1S_ AA v / n ' JrZ yY , A a .emS ups // ' r. .. .arJAn ; a? ; / . r mA Is M9 A / .V 3 L r = . y ^ i r UT Salem Creek _ t•4.a\.n,.v { { EA Q Wt.r4 _MM?rntl '? ?nsl z [ : `? n v . a ( 40. , .. .. »,. q3 A- Welland BD K - UT Fiddler's Creek -r4 UT Fiddler's Creek +,i ^`, UT Fiddler's Creek .a a ?0'Pp WWiui 317 . ....A a _.. .. u44 G,ei / tE I q A ?'u...9 C A 1 x!MM a a ? 4 as viE Em y 't ?f Pa m.v a W. a4.Jrt ? ? ? e nm.r. c.m 4 e,a„?w s 88 _ rTM-rc?.., c. Fiddler's CN AM,.r„ iMOa ... Cq - LO MOM WMN _ .. _ :VLJ Q& R N E s ? ° 5 a - f $ ? fl..'r4 .._ HR yNgf EM+v sE "h?fn to 590 B A' -- i,. UT Fiddler's Creak ?. L Wetland BDH? Fork UT Soakas CreekiWetland HR E 'lw I'a ¢ -vu 1 ,-50. ? MY y 1 s .v1 1 Ts"? A 1 F I 1 Y. - - - - - - - - - - - - - s - 1 T } 'S Legend - Q comaart - 0. w a c y I & Ir COMt«a rsm of I 9 ¢ ' .. b? ` C«da«5 ® :rte E 4 :6 Q c«„a«s 5 a + `, UT Soakas Creek ' -1- O SMY Mea Oa dry Yaaa 1 1 W V '?- Partnna S4ea { $ North Carolina -..? m„msumsa -- Department of Transportation t See F191/fe 3 D NC 1091m mvemeriz ProJea r ,_ p FmsyM and Dan9son LOUnOes Yr sUN Roe No 8.1172401 NOh Comtlors show are 1,000 feat once. T.IP No 0.25504 i ,F?1 Aqual rightal-way wiClh gerorally would be no more than 3001eet. - - 0 375 750 1,500 225o Figure 3 C Wetlands and Streams ATTACHMENT (8 of 8; 0 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: SUBJECT: SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS Application Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean dredged or fill material into waters of the United State improvements proposed for the NC 109 corridor in northeast( southeastern Forsyth County, North Carolina R-2568C WBS No.34468.1.4/F.A No.STP-109(1) STEP Projects R-2568C EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. SECRETARY for a Department of the Water Act to discharge for the transportation n Davidson County and 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 26.1 or Ms. Rachelle Beauregard at (919) 431-6764. Gregory vfhorpe h.D.,Nfanager Project Develop ent and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOLSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27899-1548 LOCATION: TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC CC: Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only) Ms. Amy Euliss, NCDWQ (7 copies) Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early, State HPO Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC Ms. Chris Militscher, USEPA Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS Mr. Felix Davila, PE, FH WA 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, 111, 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 Harmon, NCDOT EEP Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch Mr. Derrick Weaver, PE, PDEA Mr. Drew Joyner, PE, Human Environment Unit Introduction The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve the NC 109 corridor between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County. NCDOT has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. Existing NC 109 within the project area is a two-lane undivided rural highway with no control of access. This existing cross-section of NC 109 consists primarily of two ten-foot lanes with unpaved shoulders varying from three to six feet in width. NC 109 in the vicinity of the interchange of 1-40/US 311 has been widened to a five lane, sixty-four-foot curb and gutter cross section. Speed limits on NC 109 are 45 mph except within the Town of Wallburg, where the speed limit is 35 mph. Five Build Alternatives are evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS. Alternative I would upgrade existing NC 109, mainly on existing alignment, and the other four would be mainly on new location. All five alternatives would begin at Old Greensboro Road. Three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 6) would terminate just south of 1-40/US 311; the other two alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) would terminate at US 52. Figure I is a project vicinity map and Figure 2 illustrates the Build Alternatives. The figures are attached to this letter. Purpose and Need The needs associated with the proposed action are • Existing and Projected Unacceptable Levels of Service Existing levels of service (LOS) on some two-lane segments along NC 109 were an unacceptable LOS E or F in 2008. From 2008 to 2035, traffic volumes along NC 109 are expected to increase by approximately 90 percent. In 2035, under no-build conditions, all segments of NC 109 are predicted to operate over capacity at unacceptable LOS E or F. By 2035, all four of the signalized intersections along NC 109 within the project area and all but three of the forty-one unsignalized intersections are projected to be over capacity. Above-Average Crash Rates Between February 2006 and January 2009, a total of 219 crashes were recorded along this section of roadway. Of this total, 110 crashes caused injuries. The total crash rate for NC 109 within the project area for the three-year period from February 2006 through January 2009 (228.69 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [MVMj), is approximately 36 percent higher than similar routes in North Carolina (167.65 crashes/MVM), and exceeds the statewide critical crash rate (189.94 crashes/MVM) by approximately 20 percent. The primary purpose of the proposed action is to improve traffic flow and levels of service along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area. The secondary purpose is to improve safety along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area. By meeting these, the project will address existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service and above average crash rates along the NC 109 corridor. 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 i 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-Way Cost $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-Salem/Forsyth 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 1-85 in Davidson County to 1-40 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. Portions 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 I-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 I 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 1 is 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative 1 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). 3 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 Alternative 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 1-40/NC 109 interchange, and Alternatives 4 and 5 tie into the US 52/South Main Street (SR 4205) interchange. The 1-40/NC 109 interchange, along with the 1-40/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-III 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-I, WS-II, 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 segments 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. n C S• p ? .q E c w` c 0 o 0 N Y.m n m n m ° 10 rv w a E E "? Q v i . + .r m E « O O p O O O ti O O N p O O + A N m n J T? m N T W Ol o c o ? E E w? c S C N n m n m ' MM WS E_ C5 N Q rv m c c a o o 0 0 0 0 ¢ $ ° + g g Q - i m N T o orv + I + m N m n J n J ? ? w J lO O m m O lD N m N [O (.'1 O O1 n n m Q m Q Q N m V E C N N N n rm-I m N N m Q H (N`1 C d a O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N N O N O O Q w- + + + i 4 i ? + ^ r m N ? h lO p M n n W OOi Ol i ti ? ti N N N lQV N C r v 76 _ t5 9 n v ` E v ` v v E ` w ` a v ` v ` v v v v v ` v E ` v .n o v y v c n i n v a w _ w a u a w a w a n v a i a a u a a w _ a 0 V G :E O m o m o^p m Q m Q C V N Q m m N vi ?n v m m m m m m u ? m 3 '^ m N m m ?^ ?^ Q o o m ? Q O H .v .y N N O H N N rv N N m .+ N ? V z y S + T O O O N m ? Z' p N N N N ry m N N rv Q N rv C lb 16 ? m m 3 E x `a _ u u O E N N ? - N - N - V ? - - N N C z z 3 3 3 1 3 N 3 3 3 3 I 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 N 3 3 E a Q m Q m Q m q Y Y Q m Q m in zr? a a m a E m ti' m m " m ? . m m m m m m ?? N Z ? N N ,y N ,y N ?y ?y .. N ?y . . N • . N •y - . N r4 .4 r4 e1 e1 N r4 N '1 f1 '1 ? •" a' v' v' x T LL d a o r a t? ? 2 r ? ? N > > > m m v w c N w? x w 0 w Y w 0 Q n s U ` s s 2 2 2 2 2 2 n: ¢ ¢ ¢ m mLLp ¢ wo oo mLLO Oa m m mx mY m`y ` E au z m mm c c c ? c `. m .? ? LL `, s O O O o N Z Q J V J V ?¢ J¢ J¢ 7 J¢ K J j j ? ? ? d C d Q a N V u N a C CC C m H A c 0 L 1 d a f G ?" < N rv W n m W m ?+ `e q n c r E a o5 n io vi o o ° N C Q C o Y N ° Y + O Y O Y O N O ? J J J J J J J J J Y A e 0 E _ m m c `w 0 0 0 a O R ? n O J N J O O J T, A e _ n C d C O_ N CO n m W e m _ N d C ?K b Q ?6 W l0 Vf O .6 O ° ° d E W W T N I W N N O M W ° C Y O O N O O O O O O O O O C O + + + O O O p O vl O N O a A N N W + O i e + + N T n p ? y? + •y m •y •+-? N + •y ? + N ? J J J J J J M J J J J J L' ? O1 n O V1 14 d E _ rv N q C y O O O O C O O + +l N ? b T J ? h O J n N J 0 W J C O m ro -F -F -16 -F -F C d H O a C C C C v C v C a C v C v C v C v C v v E C v C v C ` 9 •? ' a `v d d v `d v a` w m `d a w a `d d `d ? a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 Q m o .n o .n in m N in e e e m e .. vi m vi a .n .n m o .n ?n N V 3 ° W ul V1 N V1 VI VI Vf O /1 f N T H m N T M m T M m p V • Y N N f ?l Z w v v W e m vj M m vj 1? W °ti I m c 3 •? m d rv rv m rv rv m m I rv' o 16 a Cr E v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u x a ?%+ i i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 E o o e v a a a a a e "? ? '? ? ? x a E mi e m v M. v ti v .mr v Mi v d e d d v O1 m ? o m m m m m m m m m m N .. N_ Z N N N N N N N N N N N E m L ti W L N W L ti Y Y p n Y 2 m Y 2 m Y 2 Y n Y LL> „? ? y r a " Ln a " LL > m '? m ° ° ° o ° _ x o' o" o v¢ a a¢ a v `? 20 E q v ¢ I 0 x c x a ¢i m s my 'nz jmt jm? jm?' F V - r v w r i Fu - u 0 u - ?- F a j o 0 0u 0u 0u 0 0? ?LL m` v d 7 C C U H a, ^ Q W W o ° `? n c .r r o r ? m n r N N . i m c a c ° 0 0 °o °o °o Q N ^ N ? M ? r r r r r ? r r r d O ' ti N J m J J J J J J J n ?D O ? n N N 6 L? r r N W m n W r r r r r r r ? E m W N rv l0 .. ' c o ° o o °0 0 Q O_ n ? I + O + n n N ^+ ? m r r r N J m J Q J Q J J `m m m R n d W W m m o Q _ L r r r • r ? N n N C5 O 14 W ? ? 6 C • E _ Q m. m+ m ^ ? N m N Q ' c L O O O g o O O O O N O N ^ O j + N + % O Q . ? d OI n O 1 N J J J ? J J J ? q n OI m 6 C •L' r r N QW m r r i r r r r r r r ? E ? m W N c o o v + + Q - r n m r r r r r r r r rv m Q N J J J w ? U n c Y N n N n ° o r r r r r r E _ ° e x . q C « L O O O + N J J J N m N N N N _ o . N _ W _ -ra v o y m 6 _ y N G' c c c c c c c 2 c E c c c ' y A v a d v v v w v a v E v E v E a v v E v 44 v a a a v v a a v a a v a y a `u n y v '? a n a a a o. a a a 5 ? a ? o. c a 0 u? N W N ;E N Q .y N m N N N N Q n N m m .+ N W ?o ?n W m ?o m n rv m ? N N R V >J C N N VI V1 VI O V1 N N Q m N U1 N O V N N m M Q O N N O N N N fr Ol H N m 2 L N V1 °N m m W N N m L1 N N ° x Q O N t0 40 m N d N N .4 tV N 0 C d u u u u u u I u u u u u u u u E x ?_ e u v E _ - V1 N ?1 - VI N VI N N N N VI V1 N ?%+` i z' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m M Q o Q' Q °- m m m d Q m m m E x .+ . . M ? N VI Y1 M ? ? 6 O1 N O 1 O ) O1 O1 o m m on r r `" f y c rn m e m e m e m .? .+ 17, 1? r . . ' ^ 2 r .rvi .r .y ,y rv .. .4 .Ni rNY .rvi r .-? r .. rvi .rvi .y > m O N O Q O E; O O '^ O ti O ¢ O pl E L°a3 L.a p ^ 'I ° . . m -, q m m c V N m c L p v N o v o v a m m a m v m 0 - j O Q ] Y y p N c u b o o m o m O o Q m m m m p x m a ?°n v°i a ?' ¢ ? ` y °1 c c m¢ c A z m¢ n n y ' n ns a n" ., E y s r Y r v a u r c m m x m x W x j m x ay N s N a N m N s N N w v '^ a '^ v NZ L a ° o ` ° o v LL m? F, ? o o d ru ?- r? w r w r i- ? u ru LLu LLu > >u > >u ou °u > > 9 W 7 C C O U d a F? N 0 0 0 w E :. a q c y c o 0 0 0 o m ? m m Q ?o m m o I I I ? 0 0 o J J J L' q O O d m N O d VI N m N ¢ C Z' ? i ? ? ? 1D N m+ n ? O d ? Odi m O ? E? m n v t f d a .+ m n e V 1 ? O ti .. rv .+ y c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + Y + + 0 + + + .n o m ,n 0 m o m m .n m n .+ m d T m o `o o n aD o d n + + ? J J J J J J J J J J J J ` L' q vl O d O d T O] O N h d Vf rv m H 6] d 6 C ?. N O o Vf b N T V1 h N d m d m .-, o ? E_ 0 0 m ,y m m .+ .+ d m d n d ? o N 'o .n m 0 o rv c y c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .n .n .n .n o .n v? o .n .n o o in .n o O Q - io m m o .n m d m m n m o d n o + .+ + ?o 0 0 .n .n m o o in v? .n m a .n a m ? E = q c v c 0 N ? E q c ` w c 0 O y c O C A o w .? ' A a N _ ' N _ N _ _ c _ _ _ c _ a a' _ ' c c S c y m, E v `? m E ` v ` v ` v ` c ` aci v ` v ` v v E ` E cw ` ' ? w a a v v v w w w w v w w n n w w w ? ? a a - o. a a a a a a - a _ 0 u g N= m d n d m d m d ? d m ? d rv d d n m t0 C .n d m d d VI m d rv N m u 3 C VI N N V N N N 0 ?' N m n N m ci O 4 d Ol N l0 N N N d m O1 •-I O• .y V yq. •y N N N Z Y' 9 • d N ? ? y ? b ? Z c 3. i m N ? e ? o d ? c m ry N rv d T T m N m (7 y u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u E x q q a _ j N N N N A N A N y C V1 ?1 ?1 v, ?1 1 3 3 I z? z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 d d ti d d• d d d d d d d d d V d d E x a m m 'n m T m T T m ? m m m q " i ? n gy . . . . . , . Vi . r . i . m y E . + c e e v d c e c c c c c c c c o c o rv m rn T m m m rn m m m m m m m m m N Z N N N N N N N N N ? N •y N .y 1 - O O O O 0 O O O Y - N 1- 2 2 v 2 U U U 7 U U U V U U U U U U U v d 7 C .C _d q P e X E $ `a c 0 '^ n01x rc'i ? a n c N e x P i E _ m c d a c o r mo r n a° c.?. a ? E n C V Q C _O P E ? x .-1 c `a c 0 N R C „ ? c c ? 'C a a 0 9 < . _ n N n V1 J U 3 o a m m V p Z ? L H " m p E v v - - z i 3 3 E x `a e m m' m v a .. ., v a c E m m N Z H ° E m ^ Q w `. v x mo m d N N 0 U p J - y j W ? v f Z J U v d C r C N 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) [19861). 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 Raring 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-made. 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 1 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. ft.) Classification Rating Alt. l Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt 6. WA 2,803 PEM 25 -- -- -- -- -- BD1 5,526 PEM/PSS 24 -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- FIRH 6,468 PEM/PSS 48 -- -- -- 2,614 -- HRI 10,445 PEM/PSS 48 -- 6,098 -- 88 1,742 BDI 868 PFO 20 -- -- -- -- -- BD1 2,509 PFO 20 -- -- -- -- -- BDL 7,441 PSS 28 -- -- -- -- -- BDM 410 PSS 23 -- -- -- -- BDN 984 PSS 23 HR1 3,277 PSS 36 875 HRK 5,272 PSS 40 -- -- -- J Totals -- 25,274 6,536 9,154 7,058 1O0 Floodplains Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by ED 11988, Floodplain Management; US DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection; 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 ID (sq. ft.) Type AIL 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 AIL 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 8,937 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(I) 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 el 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 Clemmys muhlenhergii T(S/A) Red-cockaded woodpecker* Picoides horealis E Small-anthered bittercress* Cardamine micranthera E Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus sclnveinitzii 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 schweinitzii. 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 Star. 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 gamelands 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 harm 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 Code 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 geoenvironntental 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 Term inilIndependent Utility FHWA regulations outline three general principles at 23 CFR 771.111(1) 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 termini 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 I ? I I I I / I I / 71 t I' Yb1 tii i ?s'tAta c a el km Re ?. r? l Bt t 'L I J ? 4 't L f }- C. ? J (( .i J t l y "e II I ]f - v ,u v t , I V 6) I l: iLl 52 W?Whro n5t ?t? i-n 1 t? 7 M1 l E e n ^ S I?, 7^r1? Ce ka zT N e c? 'Glenn„9-r`•j-b; It I 1 f f ? , ?: TL? lil n Itil I 1.= I r ett 1lfiyrp I 7T'??` W Qe!^!a "sv ne „_" `? l s ?Q un acras: V '1 ,o9 1167 ' Watk ns POrd S' 1 ???_R n^t,_t1 It I " Teat°°N •?'. ?> -„?}t?'. a )^ne e 1 1 1'3- \ ?Ry 150 r' r efe I y S ? ¢ Y I-- ,_ .ae i?} J n d7 i In dianr ChcFRe Chah, Rd' v 4.. _ P t : c/ ry )?i I col _ A w kaa ?k ,-tel. t.,, 1 I lQ \?f _ ci°)/ j ti. s'. h`, -MIIJ J zz-? 1 r? _.% + 1.? I II 1 3_ er.??\ '.•\ ` frt lrlslr "Y?': e sn rRd I Cenvo,,? t'?. i 1? ??F j j ca tD? ?r tau Ra /\' 1 ( I `` ??2 ?T\° \ rote . N? mob' i._-. I i :t.l ss 1,f \o_ , t '\ sh ?r°" a- xa ;l DI ioneio. it t OvdG" 1' A,. e i" 1' -IPw1 11--cv ?? \n V V \1 • al J ?J. ?v 1e 0,?? '°a,. va^ / t?CA smut Sr { re0 - Re • •N e+?/ 1?'! oe o y xr c cs?<'' we con Rd a rnPa ; y+Fi ', I Zmme ?\?r°jsl °il \ GtaF -. f?.y r :. o 1, v `Rd t m Dela Sources'. NCDOT.NC One MBPI, Dav as'on DOOnCy. -CtY of WnsionSalertVFOrsyN County.?ESPo / IJ.Q,If lfl DIf II " °y I / Forsyth 1 County Davidson - \ I County ` ? !y ???r It \ V1 \ \ \ N Legend W E t Project Study Area s Iv Miles 00.51 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 Figure 1 Project Vicinity it \ w+ -1 L 8-. ? MFM yr r 109 it i ? e w y? i urtye ? _ JF 6 ?. ? 5 .'?? ¢118 ..'? d .? I _oj 'k, t r 8 nai f R 1 d d \ g. :g , a , t ti j 52 ?l a A a p p -• N $ .U a - t J 109 "T' 0 All 8 _ .. North Carolina Legend " Department of Transportation o Anernate t -AUemarea w e NC 109 Improvements Project Auemare a D Forsyth and Davidson Counties Auemare 5 5 State Project No. 8.1172401 T.I.P. Na. R -2568C D Auemare e Miles Build Alternates . study Area eoendar, 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 2 for Detailed Stud i T i, •? _ sz I r 1 1 I A- l1 > . l??e V 1 ?i `? ? if .I r * . Ti ? ` 109 _ r r ? I A.moM A, I R, 1 ? g R.- 'T t f ? w ' C C 77 52 `j? ,v . - w l . Le end g m„ux a 0 O co„worv 109 C3 ..ire" s \ l ? '? A ` ???1 - A 7 ® sver nee e owmn _ V - '"'C `•? 1 -0 ] In ff mn?nw?so.eme ea ee veu.me ?` w e ? / North Carolina Department of Transportation ` r _ ??-?' ? t \v ?I .. NC 109 Improvement, Project Fa.aHn me oewsm cwnnes V J eo a una ll II `` YY99 ` Note Condors an 1 oW tool wke P w M. ?IF I- KWal rgMal-wey wiEN generally wouN Ge rw more titan 300 tool. ae 0 It. = , Fi ure3 Wetlands and Streams Index j nr.sa,..xew..,ea.ua,o:..s?ro;,9,nnum?ra.s.e=s?meo-mp.ESVi ? g / UT Brushy Fork _ .-?._..- SeeFigure3 B Y Wetland BD 5 UT Bmshy Fork 1 109 \ Pontl Meadow UT Snakes Creek Wetland BD 3 I Welantl BD 2 \\\ j Wetland BD4 Brushy Fark \° ?^ "'"""MMM ((( Brushy Fork ! I W Pond CW 1 61 t Brushy Fork I i UT Soakas Creek i UT Spurgeon Creek r I UT Brushy Fork . -' - --- ?? -- -. J Pond DW4 UT Spurgeon Creek \/- UT Reedy Run Wellantl HR G `? °?,. UT Spurgeon Creek t n A UT Brushy Fork 1 UT Spurgeon Creek `- ?? Wetland BD 0 \ Pontl HR 6 Wetlantl HR t\ Pontl DJ 20 ' A° k ? V . aJ . UT Reedy Runes - - -- - \ UT Reedy Run ?'. ?i / Pontl HR 5 ` i '- UT Spurgeon Creek j t UT Reetly Run i ? UT Reedy Run \ / UT Spurgeon Creek Pond HR 7 UT Reedy Run !s - \ , UT Abbott's Creek 1R tk 2 `Abbott's Creek - Pend f 1 ar/ - Wetland BD1 Legend O c-do UT Abboll's Creek Welland WA t ? 0 c°mara - St SA 1w ream > - yr O Cor o. ComOarS - ®SOtlYMVBOUMery - - / UGrJ..!J?IWJJ? -/4"- Gsrennv Smarm I ` North Carolina nenr 6veeme Department of Transportation au,.,ae vWNm. .-.? NC 1091on,.emorde Pmjeat rr:rm and oona:on Counties SM1b'mj. NO n 7,Mbl 9 Note. Come EOW o ale 1,000 feet wide. . . iI P. No R255da ' AMd rigM1t-of-way widO generalty would be no more than 300 feet - Fi A W tl d d St 3 wue u.ua?.ae.uFe ve.ees....o,r+wm ava gure - e an s an reams . . I L d egen _ I South Fork Mudtly Creek _\ O comm.. '? I ? cw?m•5 \I ? O 4wnmra I\ Wetland HR E '? aaa? swdr.e.. m.w,r P-,Somme G UT South Fork Mutldy Creek \'t deenew . C3 w Pond DW 1 Pond DW 1-2 \\\\\\ r ,d'V? - •? Feel 109 o 375 )W L50o 1350 f I w UT Seekers Creek I 5 / l I I ? ?i I o ' _ I r t i r III?,, UTSoakas Creek .t m?'II?lV?r.°i rr \ c? UT Soaked Creek Welland HR C / ! Wetland BD F - %?-? UT Soakas Creek Welland HR D '1 I - - - ' -' it I i Brushy Fork UT Soake oaka ks Creek ? UT Brushy Fork In Brushy Fork l d HR3A ! Po n Pontl DJ B \$ \\ ?_ jj Pond HR 3 _ I UT Brushy Fork UT Long Dmnrh I ? ? ? UT Brushy Fork UT Long Branch ? Welland HR A; ? UT Brushy Fork I's y °fi 'i'- ----- - F.»?a UT Bushy Fork { J- 1 UT Soaked Creek __ _ ___-_ __ 109 Wetland HRH r- ---------.----7----- -- - 1 Long Branch Welland HR Welland BD 5 UT Brushy Fork U I / Wetland BD 2 Pond HR 4 Pond Meadow ( Welland BD 3 1 = Brushy Fork Welland BD 4 i h. I 1 I Brushy Fork Wetland BD N UT Soakas Creek .t i Welland BD M Long Branch Pond CV 1 -' - - _ _ - W ll tl HR G l - _ ; e an _ ? UT Soakas Creek I _ ;-? ?l - I Brushy Fork _ - I North Carolina I UT Brushy Fork I ® Department nt of Transportation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : No toe Im9rwNmems Projetl In Brushy Fork Sea Fgwe 3-A FoNeyrnaanoa ewncowrea Slate PIOIM NO.011]3001 l '`--lw-•-'- Note: corridors shown are 1, 000 feet wide. T.LP. No R25e8e y Ptwel nghl-obway width generalN would m no mare then JaJ reel. erytl ?,?, - Figure ]B Wetlands and Slmams AI R 6 a' \ 2 yy ry ? , ? J 3? C a W West ?9 ? A Gi A _ A e .'\ G'ron 52 3 g$ I? ? b ] \ 1. e \? ?_ S ?w \ , UT Salem Creek M s -? j t / A 9 e I n Wellantl BD K - UT FItltllers Credk - 0 ? 8 f?, ?,,o.< a UT Fiddlers Creek `•,+q Of ' A . *e v - ai ?v UT Fiddlers Creek 311 E s ' e s Creek gl_? .+ 109 UT Fiddler v°' ... :. ' ' # sm .. ' UT Pintller's Creek _ I tE r .sr r - !C fl wm YI • ` t' c n; UT Fiddlers Creek \ Wetland BD H \ - I Wetland BD G e -< ??r 1 Fiddlers Creek 8. e, u? 1 _- a u w. Welland HR F - - South Fork Muddy Creek n , Pond DW3 1 Pond DJ N 2 UT 3 s Creek Pond OW 1-2 Pond DW 1 UT Snakes Creek Wetland HR E e f ' ? I t ____ 111 ______ ___ _.- ' _____L f Le end ti r- ? g + .•. an C°maw] mod' ? A?` f I. % comaw] -- ,ks ? 9 4 \J -?-? C roc c"mare O u' 'la - $ UT Soakas Creek ?- - s A North Carolina aw a.ro. ddd y? rrr?'' ??? ??. ® Departmentof Transportation . - o. JJL • See F' ure 3-D NC 1091 Wmerrents Pmled ? _ \m - - Po #A MDevlosonc ijIdee ` -\ ? - - s aNeaaslnea0l Nde. COrnoors shorn m ' reel wlJe i.LV Na R?25B9C u_,`?` ?r°°I I d Actual ri9h4 . oFwaywiMh 9eneralN weltl he no more than 300 feet - ?• d S 0 375 760 1 s00 2.259 o.:so?.-r..m.xcm.?,"..,a rrom, uraxrw.s.e..t?..n reMn, rs.i Figure 3-C Wetlands an treams ,,, . . ] I UT Soakas Creek . t -"t--- f UT Soakas Creek 52 ' I t \ 1 'et E " °{ x- - - UT Soakas Creek , L a r- ?_ UT Soakas Creek -- Wetlantl HR K Soakas Creek s { `Welland HR J _ J i' UT Snakes Creek Pond CW tJ I 3 lJi Soakas Creek - i ? 3 G II i UT Soakas Creek /' - I c % I 5 i a B UT Soakas Creek y "I lk , r y ` UT Soakas Creek Welland BD L I '( l ^^^x I l i I UT Soakas Creek 1a .11 I Legend UT S k C k Q oa as ree I? co m'a _ , r- UT Soakas Creek _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . IIJJ UT Soakas Creek Q m,nm,. € I ce,mm" See Fqure 3-B - UT Soakas Creek I I / Q w,:.m, e .C?- - \ UT Boakas Creek UT Soakas Creek j North Carolina _ Department of Transportation gee veeew u ?l???l„ ,n / g \ NLtWI o v Proles d- fv yfh tlOeNJSm Counties s W prle P 4?'1- a11]3401 \ Note. lle shown are 1 fee, WICK. _ iIP NO n .35ft9C '??Pwr or wa ual ngMUway wa'ICO generally ly would ould o. De n o o mom than 700 feel. Pd ?QI ure 7-D Wetlands and Streams Fi 0 375 rw 1 sgg 2250 ?o„?N w.m«wwrcna g