The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-2568CADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. Department of Transportativn, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation NC 109 Improvements Study Frorn Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) to I401US 311 Davidson and Fors.yth Counties Federal Aid No.: STP-109(1) NCDOT Project No.: 8.1772401 T.I.P. I.D. No.: R-2568C Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ll a t ?70q;j Lal G Th P a e regory J. orpe, hD f0? Environmental Management Director Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Deparfinent of Transportation I 1 ? b &a4?? d''' Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: John F. Sullivan, lli, P.E. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director Federal Higllway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 (919) 856-4346 (919) 733-3141 The proposed project consists of improvements to t]-ie NC 109 corridor in Davidson and Forsyth Counties, south of the ciry of Winston-Salem. This statement documents the need for improveinents to the existing corridor and evaluates alternatives with respect ta costs and social, economic, and environmental impacts. A Preferred Alternative will Ue selected based on the findings of this study, an evaluation of conmlents received on this document, and comments received at the Public Hearing. Comments on the Draft EIS are due by- and should be sent to Mr. Thorpe at the above address. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation NC 109 Improvements Study From Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) to I-40/US 311 Davidson and Forsyth Counties Federal Aid No.: STP-109(1) NCDOT Proj ect No.: 8.1772401 T.I.P. I.D. No.: R-2568C \????I11I1?1I??i ti "CA0 ??=?'?FESS?? •.'L9 ? .' ?- ?' • ? DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY H. W. LOCHNER, INC. =•`Z S E AL - ' 1575'9 • ? L 1 •' <`A! N t: ? Date ephen Browde, P.E. CI Project Manager FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . ?2G l? Date Vincent Rhea, P.4gineer Project Planning gIZ1116 ?Z? G? Date Derrick Weaver, P.E. PDEA Project Engineer PROJECT COMMITMENTS NC 109 Improvements Study Davidson and Forsyth Counties State Project No. 8.1172401 TIP No.: R-2568C NCDOT Hydraulics Unit The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine stabxs of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). NCDOT Division 9 This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage strucbxre(s) and roadway embankxnent that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7 of 7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SUMMARY S.1 FEDER.Ai. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (X) Draft O Final O Draft Section 4(fl Evaluation attached S.2 CONTACTS The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Federal Highway Administration (FI IWA) John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Environxnental Management Director North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environxnental Analysis Branch 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 S.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This study evaluates transportation improvements proposed for the NC 109 corridor between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County. This transportation improvement project is identified in the Narth Carolina Deparhnent of Transpartation (NCDO'1) 2009-2015 State Transportation Ixnprovement Program (STIP) as Project R-2568C. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin after 2015. NC 7097m,brovements Page S-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve traffic flow and levels of service on NC 109 within the project study area. The secondary purpose is to improve safety on NC 109 within the project study area. S.4 OTHER MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY There are fifteen other projects located in or near the study area; nine NCDOT STIP projects, and six proposed local projects. These are listed below: NCDOT STIP Projects The following projects are currently listed in the 2009-2015 STIP: • R-4750. Upgrade existing US 52 from I-85 in Davidson County to I-40 in Forsyth County to interstate standards. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2010. • U-4909. Widen Union Cross Road (SR 2643) from Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632) in Forsyth County. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2010. • U-2923. Widen Clemmonsville Road (SR 2747) from Old Salisbury Road (SR 3011) to South Main Street in Winston-Salem. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2011. • U-2579. Winston-Salem Narthern Beltway Eastern Section Extension - new location multi-lane freeway. Conshuction of segxnent from US 311 to I-40 has not yet been programmed for funding. • B-4742. Replace Bridge No. 134 over a creek on SR 1755 in Davidson County. The project is currently under construction. • B-4101. Replace Bridge No. 142 over Abbotts Creek on SR 1741 in Davidson County. The project is currently under construction. S.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A screening evaluation was conducted to identify the alternatives that could fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. Five broad-ranged alternatives were established for consideration on this project. These alternatives include: • No-Build Alternative • Transpartation System Management Alternative • Mass Transit Alternative • Upgrade Existing Facility Alternative/Build Alternative involving the construction of a roadway on new location The preliminary alternatives that could not fulfill the purpose of and need far the project, had excessive undesirable impacts, or were considered unreasonable were eliminated from further consideration. The potential for adverse environmental impacts on residential communities and businesses, historic resources, streams, wetlands, and natural areas was also considered. The evaluations of the preliminary alternatives are included in Section 2 of this DEIS. NC 7097m,brovements Page S-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy Based on this first screening evaluation, only the Build Alternative was deterxnined to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. The Build Alternative includes several alternatives for the proposed project, referred to as the NC 109Improvements project. For purposes of comparison of project impacts, the No-Build Alternative is being carried forward through detailed study. Land suitability maps of the project study area were created highlighting man-made and natural features that make one particular area unsuitable or less desirable than another for roadway construction. Such features included places of worship, cemeteries, schools, residential communities, parks, known historic architectural sites, community facilities, streams, and wetlands. Based on input from local officials, the public, and agency representatives, numerous preliminary corridors over existing roads and on new location were considered for the project. More than 35 preliminary location concepts were identified. Similarities among preliminary location concepts, including location and overall concept purpose, were identified and combined to develop preliminary study corridors. The preliminary study corridors were evaluated for potential impacts to natural and human resources, design and construction feasibility, and ability to meet the purpose and need for the project. After this evaluation, thirteen corridors remained for further study. Based on discussions with various NCDOT departments and NCDOT Division 9, eight corridors were eliminated due to major environxnental impacts, prohibitive projected cost, and/or design constraints. Five preliminary study corridors then remained for detailed study: Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6(Alternative 2 was eliminated during screening). This evaluation and screening process is described in greater detail in Section 2.4.3. An impact matrix table was developed for the five preliminary study corridors to estimate the potential impacts of each corridor. Based on the results of this second screening evaluation, and consideration of comments received through public involvement and agency coordination programs, all five of the preliminary study corridors were subject to further consideration. Alternative 1 would upgrade existing NC 109, mainly on existing alignment, and the other four alternatives would be mainly on new location. Alternatives designed within each of these five corridors are evaluated in detail in this DEIS. S.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following is a narrative summary of the primary environxnental consequences associated with each of the alternatives under consideration. Table S-1 found at the end of this section provides this information in table form. Land Use and Transportation Planning The proposed project would be consistent with the state and local transportation plans far the area. NC 7097m,brovements Page S-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy Relocations Alternative 1 would result in the most relocations of the five alternatives, requiring 204 residential and business locations. Alternative 5 would require the least, with 74 residential and business locations. Environmental Justice The analysis contained in this DEIS would be consistent with that outlined in the Executive Order 12898 and the Departxnent of Transportation Environxnental Justice Order. Analysis and field observations do not indicate that the proposed NC 109 Improvements would adversely or disproportionately affect any minority or low-income populations. Community Cohesion Most of the neighborhoods in the project area would not experience residential displacements or community cohesion impacts as a result of the project alternatives, with a few key exceptions. Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in displacements along the western edge of the Meadowlands community. Alternatives 4 and 5 would impact three neighborhoods along Gumtree Road west of Friendship-Ledford Road, Cedar Estates, Holly Acres, and Briers Creek. In all cases, these impacts would be limited to the edges of these neighborhoods, minimizing the community cohesion effects of the project. Alternative 1 would require displacements along NC 109 but would have minimal impacts on community cohesion as it follows mainly the road's existing alignxnent and would not introduce a new disruption. While no major cross streets connecting to any of the residential areas would be closed as part of the proposed project, there may be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. NCDOT provides new access wherever possible to properties isolated by a project. All property access changes and proposed solutions developed for the preferred alternative would be presented to affected property owners. Community Facilities and Services Schools, libraries, and parks and recreation areas in the study area would not be impacted by any of the project alternatives. Alternative 1 would displace three places of worship, Alternatives 3 and 6 would displace two places of worship, and Alternatives 4 and 5 would not displace any places of worship. Utilities and Infrastructure Alternatives 3 and 6 would cross Duke Power transmission line easements in two locations. All five alternatives likely would directly impact power transmission line towers: Alternative 1 would impact three towers, Alternatives 3 and 6 may each impact one tower depending on final project design, and Alternatives 4 and 5 would each impact three towers. NC 7097m,brovements Page S4 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy None of the alternatives would impact major water facilities, such as treatment plants or pump stations. Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 would cross the Transcontinental natural gas pipe line, near the Meadowlands neighborhood, but would not require the pipe line to be relocated. Alternatives 4 and 5 cross the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway tracks near US 52. These two alternatives follow a common alignment at this location and would include a bridge over the tracks. Bridging should not impact railroad facilities or operations. Historic Elichitectural Resouices There are three properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) which are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. the George W. Wall House, the D. Austin Parker House and the Mark Parker House. Alternative 1 was deterxnined to have No Adverse Effect on the George W. Wall House and No Effect on the other properties. Alternatives 3 and 6 would have No Effect on the George W. Wall House and No Adverse Effect on the D. Austin Parker House and Mark Parker House. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have No Effect on any of the properties. Archaeological Resouices Based on prior archaeological reviews of the project study area, it was deterxnined that all alternatives under consideration would have equal likelihood of impacting prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Therefore, NCDOT, in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), has deterxnined that no further detailed studies of the corridors will be completed until a preferred alternative is selected. Once the preferred alternative is selected, NCDOT and HPO will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources within the corridor. Should items be located, NCDOT will coordinate with the Office of State Archaeology as needed to deterxnine what further action should be taken. Section 4(0/6(o Resouices None of the detailed study corridors would impact potential Section 6(fl resources. The three historic properties within the project's APE are potential Section 4(fl resources. Alternatives 4 and 5 would not involve use any of these properties. Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 may each have minor visual and/or noise impacts on historic properties; however, these impacts would not constitute substantial impairment of these properties and therefore would not constibxte constructive use of the properties. Section 4(fl would therefore not apply to any sites within the project area. Visual Impacts All of the project alternatives would introduce a visual intrusion into the largely rural landscape, although this impact would be smaller for Alternative 1 because most of this alternative follows the existing NC 109 alignment The other four alternatives would have similar impacts on the NC 7097m,brovements Page S-S IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy visual character of the project area, introducing a new roadway facility. The overall visual character of the project area would be impacted by the introduction of a new roadway facility. The historic properties within the project area are considered visually sensitive resources. Alternative 1 may have a slight negative impact on the visual quality of the George W. Wall House. Alternatives 3 and 6 would have a moderate impact on the visual quality of the D. Austin Parker House as they could create a moderate intrusion into the agricultural landscape. Alternatives 3 and 6 would also have a low impact on the visual quality of the Mark Parker House, which is adjacent to the D. Austin Parker House. Air Quality In comparing the projected carbon monoxide (CO) concentration levels with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour standard (9 ppm) are expected. The 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are not expected to exceed 3.7 and 2.8 ppm (including background contributions), respectively, at any of the sites for any of the three years investigated. Noise Alternative 1 would result in the highest number of total impacted receptors (97) without mitigation. Alternative 5 would result in the lowest number (31). A more detailed traffic noise analysis, including consideration of noise abatement measures, will be perforxned once a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) is selected. Hazazdous Material and Waste Sites Twenty-seven facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (USTs), three automotive salvage yards, three automotive repair sites, one dry cleaner and one industrial site were identified in the project sbxdy area. Alternative 1 could potentially affect the greatest number of sites (25), while Alternatives 4 and 6 could potentially affect the fewest (3). Based on current knowledge, it is not expected that conditions at any of these sites would preclude construction of any of the alternatives SoiLs Review of available information for the project area indicates that there are no soils or geological features that would preclude or alter the corridors of the alternatives under consideration. Detailed geotechnical investigations will be undertaken as part of the design phase if one of the build alternatives is selected as the preferred alternative. Prime and Important Farmland In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and State Executive Order Number 96, an assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land NC 7097m,brovements Page S6 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or statewide important farmland soils, as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS far this project was initiated by submittal of Forxn AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). None of the proposed alternatives resulted in a total site assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for the project. No Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) would be impacted by any project alternative. Surface Waters As shown in Table S-1, the number of stream crossings for the project alternatives ranges from 20 for Alternative 1 to 34 for Alternatives 4 and 5; stream impacts range between 4,4321inear feet for Alternative 1 and 10,7291inear feet for Alternative 5. Streams crossed by the proposed alignment within any of the alternatives may be temporarily and locally impacted by road construction. Potential short-terxn water quality impacts include temporarily increased sedimentation and turbidity levels. An increase in impervious road surface area will result in increased runoff with the potential for carrying higher pollutant loads. Adherence to the NCDOT's BestManagement Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters during design and construction of the proposed project are expected to minimize impacts. Floodplains and Floodways All five alternatives would cross the 100-year floodplains associated with Abbotts Creek and Brushy Fark. Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 would also cross the 100-year floodplains associated with South Fark Muddy Creek and Fiddlers Creek. Alternatives 4 and 5 would cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Soakas Creek. Alternative 5 would have the greatest area of floodplain impacts (10.46 acres) while Alternative 6 would have the smallest area (5.35 acres). Corridor location and concepbxal design have taken into consideration all factors to minimize impact to floodplains. Major drainage structures proposed far the project would cross the floodplain at or near perpendicular angles, 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. NC 7097m,brovements Page S-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy Terrestrial Plant Communities The maintained-disturbed community type accounts for the majority of the vegetative cover in all of the alternate corridors. The dry-mesic oak hickory forest is the next most abundant community type within the study area. PiedmonUlow mountain alluvial forest communities are represented least within the study area. Terrestrial Wildlife Most of the project area is rural in character with scattered residential and small commercial developments. Large forested areas are still present near the project study area, but are limited primarily to lands immediately adjacent to the larger streams. Clearing and conversion of land for highways, railroads, agricultural, timberland, commercial, and residential uses has eliminated cover and protection for many species of wildlife, but has increased habitat for others that are able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. There is little habitat for interior species, but woodland strips bordering small tributaries often serve as travel corridors between habitat types. Agricultural fields and residential areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species. Any of the project alternatives would impact area wildlife. Due to the existing amount of urban development in the project area, wildlife habitat is fragmented. The new location alternatives and the portion of Alternative 1 on new location would add further fragxnentation to the area. Wildlife expected to occur in the project area are generally acclimated to fragxnented landscapes in this area. However, fragxnentation and loss of forested habitat may impact other wildlife in the area by reducing potential nesting and foraging areas, as well as displacing animal populations. Aquatic Communities Aquatic habitats within the project sbxdy area range from ephemeral waters to interxnittent streams, to permanent riverine habitat The diversity of streams within the project sbxdy area provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species. Resident aquatic species may be temporarily displaced during construction. Water resource impacts may also result from the physical disturbance of the forested stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the sbxdy area. Removing streamside vegetation can cause elevated water temperatures, cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity, and ultimately lower the species diversity in the stream. Measures to maximize sediment and erosion control during construction would protect water quality for aquatic organisms. Juris dictional Is s ues Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the US NC 7097m,brovements Page S-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has major responsibility for implementation, perxnitting, and enforcement provisions of the Act. Table S-1 provides inforxnation regarding the area wetlands, jurisdictional ponds, and streams impacted by the proposed preliminary engineering designs within each alternative. Total direct wetland impacts range from 0.14 acre for Alternative 6 to 0.58 acre for Alternative 1. Protected Species There are four federally-protected species with habitat ranges that extend into the sbxdy area: the bog bxrtle (Clemmys muhelbergii), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera), and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Habitatfar the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is also found within the sbxdy area. The proposed project is expected to have No Effect on any of these species. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The construction of the NC 109 Improvements project will improve overall mobility in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Winston-Salem area by providing either additional capacity on existing NC 109 or an additional transpartation corridor. The project will also improve accessibility for adjacent properties gaining new roadway frontage. While the project will have a moderate impact on improving area wide mobility and accessibility to the area road network, several other factors will influence the magnitude of the projecYs indirect effects. The anticipated growth rate in the project area is approximately one percent per year, a modest rate that should moderate the demand for new residential and commercial development and limit rapid land use change in the area. In addition, the abundant supply of developable land will limit the development pressures on most parcels. The lack of existing or planned water and sewer service through much of the area will also limit the magnitude of induced land use change in the area. Specific areas closer to the project alternatives are more likely to experience development influenced by the project. Parcels along new location alternatives and near new intersections will likely become attractive for development of large-lot rural residential subdivisions. Again, the modest annual growth rate predicted far the project area will moderate the pace of this development. The project alone is not likely to have a major effect on land use changes in areas more than a few miles from the project alternatives. The construction of the NC 109 Improvements and any resultant induced development and complementary land development coupled with the construction of the other transportation projects listed in the STIP and other private development projects could constitute a cumulative impact on the study area. However, it is anticipated that NPDES Phase I and II storxnwater rules, enforcement of local zoning and subdivision regulations and adherence to local land use plans NC 7097m,brovements Page S-9 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy will support appropriate land development and in turn minimize any development-related impacts. S.7 UNRESOLVED ISSUES OR AREAS OF CONTROVERSY No major unresolved issues remain to be addressed prior to publication of the FEIS. S.8 OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE ACTIONS REQUIRED The proposed NC 109 Improvements (STIP Project R-2568C) would require environxnental regulatory permits and actions as discussed in the following sections. S.8.1 Permits United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. A perxnit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is required for any activity in water or wetlands that would discharge dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. To obtain perxnit approval, impacts to wetlands must be mitigated through avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures in accordance with the Memorandum ofAgreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination ofMitigation Under the Clean GVaterActSection 404(b)(1) Guidelines (February 1991). Additional policy and guidance has been established throughAn InteragencyAgreementlntegrating Section 4041NEPA (May 1997) which is usually referred to as the 1VEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Authority. Federal Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Regulations promulgated in 33 CFR Part 323. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality Section 401 GVater Quality Certification. Any activity which may result in discharge to Waters of the United States requires a certification that the discharge will be in compliance with applicable state water quality standards. An application for a US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 perxnit is considered an application for a water quality certification. Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1. Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H and 2B. NC 709 Improvements Page 5-70 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. A perxnit is required for projects involving sewer systems, treatxnent warks, disposal systems, and certain storxnwater runoff that could result in a discharge to surface waters. The State has the authority to administer the national NPDES program for projects in North Carolina. Authority. North Carolina General Statute 143, Article 21, Part 1. Regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 2H.0100. S.8.2 Other Regulatory Actions United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 404 PermitReview. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) responsibilities include review of Section 404 permits. The USFWS recommendations to the USACE on how impacts to fish and wildlife resources and habitats can be minimized. Authority. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 7. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Iand Quality Soil and Erosion Control Plan. Persons conducting land-disbxrbing activity shall take all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage caused by such activities. Pursuantto GS 112A-57(4) and 113A-54(d)(4), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be both filed and approved by the agency having jurisdiction. Authority. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A. Department of Environment and Nabxral Resources Chapter 4. 15A NCAC 04B.0101. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Air Quality Burn Permit. Any burning done during the construction of the proposed project will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in accordance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. S.8.2 Subsequent Actions The approval of this DEIS does not complete the project implementation process. The following is a summary of actions, events, and sbxdies to be completed priar to project conshuction. Coordination with resource agencies will be maintained throughout the entire process. The DEIS will be circulated to environxnental agencies and the public for review. Then, the following NC 7097mprovements Page 5-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy studies and actions will be completed to advance the project though the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process: • A Corridor Public Hearing will be held to present the alternative corridors and solicit public comments. • The comments received through the DEIS review and public hearing processes will be thoroughly considered in the selection of the preferred alternative by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and FHWA. • NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point 3- Least Environxnentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) will be selected. • The preliminary designs for the preferred alternative will be refined and will include efforts to further minimize impacts to the human and natural environments, specifically to streams and wetlands. These minimizations will be approved at the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point 4A meeting. • A copy of the preferred alternative engineering designs will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The NCDOT, in coordination with the HPO, will deterxnine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources along the preferred alternative. • A mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands will be developed in consultation with the USACE. The Final Environxnental Ixnpact Statement (FEIS) will be prepared based on the results of the items listed above. The FEIS will be circulated for public and agency review. After approval of the FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), a Design Public Hearing will be held to receive public comments on the refined preliminary design for the selected alternative. The final roadway design plans will be prepared, taking into consideration all public and agency comments received on the preliminary designs and FEIS. Other actions which must be completed priar to the start of project construction include but are not limited to the following: • Preparation of an erosion control plan incorporating the NCDOT BestManagement Practices for protection of Surface Waters. • Coordination with municipalities and utilities for relocation and reconfiguration of utility systexns. • Implementation of the Relocation Assistance Program. • Approval of all required permits and certifications. NC 7097mprovements Page 5-72 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Summazy S.9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table S-1 contains a summary of environmental impacts associated with the build alternatives selected for detailed study. The alternatives are shown on Figure S-1. .; .. O .O Bu$d Alternative Alternative 1 Altemative 3 Altemative 4 Alternative 5 Altemative 6 Length of Length on Existing 7.74 1.80 0.81 1.29 133 Corridor (Miles) L.ength on New Locarion 1.80 7.61 839 721 8.72 Tota1 L.ength 9.54 9.41 920 8.50 10.05 Residential 165 87 75 70 97 Relocations Business 39 5 3 4 5 Tota1 204 92 78 74 102 Minority Populations Impacted 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0 0 0 0 0 Churches 3 2 1 1 2 Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 Number of New Directional CrossoverIntersections 13 6 8 8 6 New Indirect Lefr Turns (No Duectional Crossover) 9 2 2 0 3 Railroad Crossings 0 0 1(Grade Sep.) 1(Grade Sep.) 0 Ma'or Utilit Conflicts 3 4 3 3 4 Historic Sites with Adverse Effects 0 0 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Sites 0 0 0 0 0 Federall Protected S ecies 0 0 0 0 0 Prime Farmland (acres) 230.13 124.81 137.41 139.13 124.98 Hazazdous Materials Sites 25 9 3 4 3 Noise Im acted Recetors 97 61 33 31 61 100-Yeaz Floodplain (acres) 10.44 9.94 5.87 10.46 535 Wetlands (acres) 0.58 0.15 021 0.16 0.14 Stream Crossin s 20 24 34 34 24 Streams Stream Impacts nearfeet i 4,432 7,757 9,259 1Q729 6,500 Constmction $70,000,000 $78,5O0,000 $85,600,000 $78,400,000 $81,5O0,000 C Ri hbof-Wa $69,975,000 $49,425,000 $34,975,000 $39,950,000 $46,710,000 ost R/W Utility $4,758,169 $628,221 $657,572 $657,572 $618,841 Tota1 $144,733,169 $128,553,221 $121,232,572 $119,007,572 $128,828,841 NC 7097mprovements Page 5-73 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1-1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................... 1-1 1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 1-1 1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. 1-2 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 1-3 1.5.1 Project Setting ................................................................................. 1-3 1.5.2 Project History ................................................................................ 1-3 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE .......................................................................... 1-6 1.6.1 Existing Road Netcvork .................................................................. 1-6 1.6.2 ModalInterrelationships ................................................................. 1-7 1.6.3 Commuting Patterns ....................................................................... 1-8 1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................. 1-8 1.7.1 Demographics ................................................................................. 1-8 1.7.2 Economic Data ............................................................................... 1-8 1.7.2.1 Employment ..................................................................................... 1-8 1.7.2.2 Major Employers .............................................................................. 1-10 1.8 TR.ANSPORTATION PI.ANNING ................................................. 1-11 1.8.1 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program ................. 1-11 1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans .............................................................. 1-12 1.9 TR.AFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES ............................................ 1-12 1.9.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics .................................................. 1-12 1.9.2 Existing No-Build Traffic Conditions (2008) ................................. 1-14 1.9.3 Year 2035 No-Build Traffic Projections and Capacity Analysis..... 1-16 1.10 CRASH ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 1-19 NC 7097mprovements Page i IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................... 2-1 2.2 TR.ANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 MASS TR.ANSIT ALTERNATIVE ................................................... 2-2 2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND UPGR.ADE EXISTING FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... 2-3 2.4.1 Logical Termini .............................................................................. 2-3 2.4.2 Design Features .............................................................................. 2-4 2.4.2.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................. 2-4 2.4.2.2 Typical Sections ............................................................................... 2-4 2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Corridors ............................................... 2-9 2.4.3.1 Description of Preliminary Corridors ........................................... 2-11 2.4.3.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study ........................ 2-13 2.4.4 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives .................................... 2-16 2.4.4.1 Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative (Alternative 1) ................ 2-16 2.4.4.2 Alternative 3 ..................................................................................... 2-16 2.4.4.3 Alternative 4 ..................................................................................... 2-17 2.4.4.4 Alternative 5 ..................................................................................... 2-17 2.4.4.5 Alternative 6 ..................................................................................... 2-18 2.4.5 Interchanges and Intersections ...................................................... 2-18 2.5 TR.AFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES ............................................ 2-21 2.5.1 Year 2035 Build Traffic Projections ................................................ 2-21 2.5.2 Year 2035 Build Capacity Analysis .................................................. 2-22 2.5.2.1 Roadway Segments ........................................................................... 2-22 2.5.2.2 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .................................... 2-23 2.5.2.3 Year 2035 Travel Times .................................................................. 2-24 2.6 TR.AFFIC SAFETY ............................................................................ 2-25 2.7 COSTS ................................................................................................ 2-25 NC 7097mprovements Page ii IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 HUMAN CHAR.ACTERISTICS ....................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Population Characteristics .............................................................. 3-1 3.1.1.1 Population and Demographics ....................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.2 Ethnicity and Race ........................................................................... 3-3 3.1.1.3 Age of Population ............................................................................ 3-4 3.1.1.4 Limited English Proficiency ................................................. 3-4 3.1.2 Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.1 Employment ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.2 Income ............................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.3 PovertyStatus ................................................................................... 3-6 3.1.2.4 Housing ............................................................................................. 3-7 3.1.3 Community Facilities ...................................................................... 3-8 3.1.3.1 Parks and Recreational Facilities .................................................... 3-8 3.1.3.2 Schools ............................................................................................... 3-9 3.1.3.3 Places of Worship ............................................................................ 3-9 3.1.3.4 EmergencyServices ......................................................................... 3-11 3.1.4 Community Cohesion ..................................................................... 3-12 3.1.4.1 Neighborhoods ................................................................................. 3-12 3.2 I.AND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PI.ANNING ................... 3-14 3.2.1 Land Use Plans ............................................................................... 3-14 3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use ............................................................................ 3-14 3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics ......................................................... 3-14 3.2.1.3 Future Land Use Plans ......................................................... 3-16 3.2.2 Transportation Plans ....................................................................... 3-18 3.2.2.1 High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization ........................ 3-18 3.2.2.2 Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ..................................................................................... 3-18 3.2.2.3 Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan ........................................... 3-19 3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHAR.ACTERISTICS ................... 3-19 3.3.1 Noise Characteristics ...................................................................... 3-19 3.3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 3-20 3.3.3 Farmlands ....................................................................................... 3-21 NC 7097mprovements Page iii IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 3.3.4 Utilities ............................................................................................ 3-23 3.3.4.1 Electric Power Transmission .......................................................... 3-23 3.3.4.2 Water and Sewer ............................................................................... 3-23 3.3.4.3 Natural Gas ....................................................................................... 3-24 3.3.5 Visual Quality .................................................................................. 3-24 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 3-24 3.3.7 Mineral Resources .......................................................................... 3-26 3.3.8 Floodplains/Floodways .................................................................. 3-27 3.3.9 Protected Lands .............................................................................. 3-27 3.4 CULTUR.Ai.RESOURCES ............................................................... 3-27 3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources .................................................... 3-29 3.4.2 Archaeological Resources ............................................................... 3-29 3.4.3 Section 4(t) and 6(t) Resources ....................................................... 3-31 3.5 NATUR.Ai. ENVIRONMENT CHAR.ACTERISTICS .................... 3-31 3.5.1 Soils, Topography, and Geology ..................................................... 3-31 3.5.1.1 Soils .................................................................................................... 3-31 3.5.1.2 Climate and Topography ................................................................. 3-34 3.5.1.3 Geology .............................................................................................. 3-35 3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ................................................... 3-35 3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities ....................................................... 3-35 3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................ 3-38 3.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities ...................................................................... 3-40 3.5.2.4 Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, and Natural Communities .................................................................................... 3-41 3.5.3 Water Resources .............................................................................. 3-41 3.5.3.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................... 3-41 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters .................................................................................. 3-41 3.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues ........................................................................ 3-44 3.5.4.1 Wetlands, Stream, and Ponds ......................................................... 3-44 3.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers ................................................................................ 3-44 3.5.4.3 Protected Species ............................................................................. 3-44 3.5.4.4 Essential Fish Habitat ...................................................................... 3-48 3.5.4.5 Areas of Environmental Concern .................................................. 3-49 NC 7097mprovements Page iv IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 3.5.4.6 Anadromous Fish Habitat .............................................................. 3-49 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 DIRECT IMPACTS ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Hum an Environment ...................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1.1 Community ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1.1.1. Neighborhood Impacts .................................................. 4-1 4.1.1.1.2. Community Access ......................................................... 4-2 4.1.1.2 Relocations ........................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.1.3 Community Facilities and Services ................................................ 4-4 4.1.1.3.1. Schools .............................................................................. 4-4 4.1.1.3.2. Places of Worship ........................................................... 4-4 4.1.1.3.3. Parks and Recreational Facilities ................................... 4-4 4.1.1.3.4. Police, Fire and Emergency Services ............................ 4-4 4.1.1.4 Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 4-4 4.1.1.5 Economic .......................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning ......................................... 4-7 4.1.2.1 Land Use Plans ................................................................................. 4-7 4.1.2.1.1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ..................................... 4-7 4.1.2.1.2. Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans ................. 4-7 4.1.2.2 Transportation Planning ................................................................. 4-8 4.1.2.2.1. Compatibility with Highway Plans ............................... 4-8 4.1.2.2.2. Compatibility with Transit and Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans ................................................................................. 4-8 4.1.3 Physi cal Environment ..................................................................... 4-8 4.1.3.1 Noise .................................................................................................. 4-8 4.1.3.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................... 4-10 4.1.3.3 Farmlands .......................................................................................... 4-15 4.1.3.4 Utilities ............................................................................................... 4-16 4.1.3.5 Visual Quality .................................................................................... 4-17 4.1.3.6 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 4-18 4.1.3.7 Floodways and Floodplains ............................................................ 4-19 4.1.3.8 Protected Lands ................................................................................ 4-20 NC 709 Improvements Page v IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 4.1.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 4-20 4.1.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources ................................................... 4-20 4.1.4.2 Archaeological Resources ............................................................... 4-21 4.1.4.3 Section 4(f) Analysis ........................................................................ 4-21 4.1.5 Natural Environment ...................................................................... 4-22 4.1.5.1 Soils .................................................................................................... 4-22 4.1.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ................................................... 4-22 4.1.5.2.1. Terrestrial Plant Communities ...................................... 4-22 4.1.5.2.2. Wildlife .............................................................................. 4-22 4.1.5.2.3. Aquatic Communities ..................................................... 4-23 4.1.5.3 Water Resources ............................................................................... 4-24 4.1.5.3.1. Groundwater .................................................................... 4-24 4.1.5.3.2. Surface Water ................................................................... 4-25 4.1.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues .......................................................................... 4-25 4.1.5.4.1. Wetlands, Streams and Ponds ....................................... 4-25 4.1.5.4.2. BufferAreas ..................................................................... 4-31 4.1.5.4.3. Mitigation Evaluation ..................................................... 4-31 4.1.5.4.4. Protected Species ............................................................ 4-33 4.1.5.4.5. Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................... 4-34 4.1.5.4.6. Areas of Environmental Concern ................................. 4-35 4.1.5.4.7. Anadromous Fish Habitat ............................................. 4-35 4.1.6 Construction Impacts ..................................................................... 4-35 4.1.6.1 Energy ................................................................................................ 4-35 4.1.6.2 Lighting .............................................................................................. 4-35 4.1.6.3 Visual .................................................................................................. 4-35 4.1.6.4 Noise .................................................................................................. 4-36 4.1.6.5 Air Quality ......................................................................................... 4-36 4.1.6.6 Utilities ............................................................................................... 4-36 4.1.6.7 Water Quality .................................................................................... 4-37 4.1.6.8 Erosion Control ............................................................................... 4-37 4.1.6.9 Geodetic Markers ............................................................................. 4-38 4.1.6.10 Borrow and Disposal Sites .............................................................. 4-38 4.1.6.11 Traffic Maintenance and Detour Accessibility ............................ 4-38 NC 709 Improvements Page vi IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 4.1.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............ 4-38 4.1.8 Relationship Between Short-term Impacts and Long-term B en efits ............................................................................................ 4-39 4.1.9 Permits and Certifications .............................................................. 4-39 4.2 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................. 4-40 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 4-40 4.2.2 Potential for Indirect Impacts ......................................................... 4-41 4.2.3 Potential for Cumulative Impacts ................................................... 4-43 4.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........... 4-43 5 LIST OF PREPARERS 6 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT 7 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 7.1 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Early Coordination .......................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process ............................. 7-1 7.1.3 Combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process ............................. 7-1 7.1.3.1 Concurrence Point 1-Purpose and Need ................................... 7-2 7.1.3.2 Concurrence Point 2- Alternatives for Detailed Study ............. 7-2 7.1.3.3 Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths ........... 7-3 7.1.4 HPO Coordination .......................................................................... 7-3 7.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 Local Officials Meetings ................................................................. 7-3 7.2.1.1 FirstPublic Officials Meeting ......................................................... 7-3 7.2.1.2 Second Public Officials Meeting .................................................... 7-3 7.2.1.3 Third Public Officials Meeting ....................................................... 7-3 7.2.2 Citizens Informational Workshops ................................................. 7-4 7.2.2.1 First Citizens Informational Workshop ........................................ 7-4 NC 709 Improvements Page vii IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents 7.2.2.2 Second Citizens Informational Workshop ................................... 7-4 7.2.3 Mailing List ..................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.4 Newsletters ...................................................................................... 7-5 7.2.5 Hotline ............................................................................................ 7-5 7.2.6 Project Website ............................................................................... 7-5 7.2.7 Small Group Meetings .................................................................... 7-5 7.2.8 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Outreach ............................... 7-6 7.2.9 Corridor Public Hearing ................................................................. 7-6 7.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PURPOSE AND NEED AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 7-6 8 REFERENCES NC 709 Improvements Page viii IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES S-1: BUILD ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED STUDY .................... S-14 1-1: PROJECT VICINITY ......................................................................... 1-4 1-2: PROJECT STUDY AREA .................................................................. 1-5 1-3: TR.ANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NEAR THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................... 1-13 1-4: TR.AFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................ 1-17 2-1: TYPICAL SECTION ........................................................................... 2-6 2-2: CONCEPTUAL CORRIDORS ......................................................... 2-10 2-3: PRELIMINARY STUDY CORRIDORS (JANUARY 2004) ............. 2-12 2-4: PRELIMINARY STUDY CORRIDORS (MARCH 2005) ................ 2-14 2-5: BUILD ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED STUDY .................... 2-15 2-6: DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER INTERSECTION .......................... 2- 3-1: CENSUS TRACTS .............................................................................. 3-2 3-2: COMMUNITI' FACILITIES ............................................................. 3-10 3-3: NEIGHBORHOODS ......................................................................... 3-13 3-4: ZONING CATEGORIES ................................................................... 3-15 3-5: FUTURE I.AND USE CATEGORIES .............................................. 3-17 3-6: PRIME FARMI.AND SOILS .............................................................. 3-22 3-7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES .................................................. 3-25 3-8: WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................... 3-28 3-9: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ............................... 3-30 4-1: WETI.ANDS AND STREAMS ........................................................... 4-25 NC 7097mprovements Page ix IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES S-1: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................ S-14 1-1: PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................... 1-6 1-2: EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR .......................................................... 1-10 1-3: PROJECT AREA MAJOR EMPLOYERS .......................................... 1-11 1-4: YEAR 2008 TR.AFFIC VOLUMES ALONG NC 109 .......................... 1-14 1-5: CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ALONG NC 109 (2008) ..................................... 1-13 1-6: YEAR 2035 TR.AFFIC VOLUMES (NO-BUILD) .............................. 1-18 1-7: LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ALONG NC 109 (YEAR 2035) ........................................................... 1-19 1-8: EXISTING NC 109 AND AVERAGE STATEWIDE CRASH RATES ................................................................................................ 1-19 1-9: 2006-2009 CRASH DATA .................................................................... 1-21 2-1: BUILD ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................ 2-5 2-2: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS .................................. 2-20 2-3: 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO BUILD VS BUILD) ...................... 2-22 2-4: MULTII.ANE SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (2035) ................ 2-23 2-5: FORECAST TRAVEL TIMES ALONGN NC 109 CORRIDOR...... 2-24 2-6: COST ESTIMATES FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES ...................... 2-25 3-1: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-2000 ............................................... 3-3 3-2: ETHNICITY AND RACE, 2000 ........................................................ 3-4 3-3: AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2000 .............................................................. 3-4 3-4: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, 1990-2000 .............................................. 3-5 3-5: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1989 AND 1999 ...................... 3-6 NC 709 Improvements Page x IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Table of Contents 3-6: INDIVIDUALS BELOW POVERTI' LEVEL, 1990-2000 ................. 3-7 3-7: HOUSEHOLDS, 1990-2000 ................................................................ 3-7 3-8: HOUSING UNITS, 1990-2000 ............................................................ 3-8 3-9: SCHOOLS IN VICINITI' OF PROJECT AREA .............................. 3-9 3-10: PLACES OF WORSHIP IN PROJECT AREA ................................ 3-11 3-11: FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ..................................... 3-19 3-12: CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN NOISE ............ 3-20 3-13: PRIME FARMLAND SOILS IN DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES ........................................................................................ 3-23 3-14: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES ........................ 3-26 3-15: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN OR NEAR THE PROJECT STUDY AREA 3-31 3-16: SUMMARY OF NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE MAPPED SOILS FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................. 3-33 3-17: SUMMARY OF RIVER BASIN CLASSIFICATION DATA........... 3-42 3-18: FEDER.Ai.LY LISTED SPECIES FOR DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES .................................................................... 3-45 3-19: FEDER.Ai. SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED FOR DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES ............................ 3-48 4-1: RELOCATIONS ................................................................................. 4-2 4-2: SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS .................................................... 4-9 4-3: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................. 4-12 4-4: IMPACTS TO PRIME FARMI.AND SOILS ..................................... 4-15 4-5: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS S ITE S .................................................................................................. 4-18 4-6: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS ................................................ 4-19 4-7: SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 4-20 4-8: TERRESTRIAL PI.ANT COMMUNITI' IMPACTS ........................ 4-22 4-9: IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ................................... 4-31 4-10: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................... 4-44 NC 709 Improvements Page xi IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Table of Contents APPENDICES A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A.1 FEDER.Ai. AGENCIES A.2 STATE AGENCIES B NOTICE OF INTENT C NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER FORMS D FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORMS E JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES TABLES F PROJECT NEWSLETTERS NC 709 Improvements Page xii IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the proposed action sbxdied in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides a summary of the need and purposes for improvements to the NC 109 corridor in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County, in the vicinity of the City of Winston-Salem. This document has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Narth Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). This document conforms to the Council on Environxnental Quality (CEQ) guidelines regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 469 Documents (Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 1987). 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This study evaluates transportation improvements proposed between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County. The general location of this project is shown in Figure 1-1. This transportation improvement project is identified in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO'1) 2009-2015 State Transportation Ixnprovement Program (STIP) as Project R-2568C. 1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The need for improvements to the NC 109 corridor between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County is demonstrated by the following summary of existing and projected conditions. Detailed discussions of the existing and projected conditions and the needs far the proposed action are presented in Sections 1.6 through 1.10. • Existing and Projected Unacceptable Levels of Service Existing level 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 1 Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffc stream and how motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS defnition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service, with letter designations from A(best) to F(worst), represent operations for each type of faciliry for which analysis procedures are available. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action segxnents of NC 109 are predicted to operate over capacity at unacceptable LOS E or LOS 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 RaLes 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 far the three-year period from February 2006 through January 2009 (228.69 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [MVM]), is approximately 36 percent higher than similar routes in North Carolina (167.65 crashes/MV1Vn, and exceeds the statewide critical crash rate (189.94 crashes/MV1Vn by approximately 20 percent. 1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION Projects can serve both primary and secondary purposes. FHWA considers a primary purpose to be a"driver" of the project; it "Yeflects the fundamental reason why the project is being pursued" (AASHTO, 2007). A secondary purpose is an additional desirable purpose, but not the core purpose of the project. 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 sbxdy 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. The performance measures considered when developing and evaluating alternatives in terms of their ability to meet the purpose and need were as follows: • The ability to provide a transportation facility between Old Greensboro Road and the Winston-Salem area that consistently operates at an acceptable LOS on its mainline (LOS D or better) in 2035. • Reduction in travel times between Old Greensboro Road and the Winston-Salem area relative to the no-build scenario. • Reduce the rate of rear end crashes along the NC 109 corridor, the most common type of accident along the corridor. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.5.1 Project Setting The project study area is located within the Piedmont Region of North Carolina near the southeastern edge of the City of Winston-Salem. Most of the study area lies in northern Davidson County; the northern portion of the study area is in southeastern Forsyth County (Figure 1-1). The City of Thomasville, in Davidson County, lies south of the project area; the portion of NC 109 examined in this study serves commuting traffic between employment centers in Thomasville and Winston-Salem. Greensboro and High Point, the two other major cities which along with Winston-Salem make up the Piedmont Triad economic region, lie to the east of the project area. The cities of Lexington and Salisbury lie to the southwest. As shown in Figure 1-2, the northern boundary of study area is defined by I-40/US 311 in southeastern Forsyth County, the western boundary is defined by US 52, and the southern boundary is defined by Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798). Portions of the study area are within the City of Winston-Salem and the Town of Wallburg, as well as unincorporated areas of Davidson and Forsyth Counties. The once rural study area is becoming more suburban. Residential development is becoming denser along NC 109. New neighborhoods such as the Meadowlands residential and golf community, which is just west of NC 109 near Wallburg, are under development. Rural residential and agricultural uses are found throughout much of the study area; more urban development patterns are concentrated at the narthwestern corner of the study area. Commercial areas are scattered along NC 109, but dense in the northwestern portion of the study area within Winston-Salem. There are several business parks located along the northern edge of the study area. 1.5.2 Project History In the 1984 Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan, improvements to existing NC 109 were listed as the second highest priority project for the county. In 1990, a Feasibility Study for improvements to NC 109 from I-85 Business in Davidson County to US 311 in Forsyth County was completed by NCDOT. In 1993, NCDOT began a planning study for improvements to NC 109 from I-85 Business in Davidson County to I-40/US 311 in Forsyth County. In June 1995, the project was broken into two sections. The southern section (STIP Project Number R-2568 Sections A and B) includes improvements to NC 109 from Business I-85 to just north of SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road). The northern section (STIP Project Number R-2568 Section C) includes improvements to NC 109 from just north of SR 1798 to I 40/US 311. NCDOT designated the southern section as the priority section to be conshucted first (NCDOT, NC 109 Update Newsletter, June 1995). An NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement ? ? ? ? i ?x\ i i i i i i i i i 00 i i Fursyth County ! I Da t C? 1 \ ? \ ? Legend Project Study Area 6mE=6=mmi Miles 0 0.5 1 2 N W E s ? 52 109 N W E Legend f r Project Study Area s Miles 0 0.5 1 2 Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action Environmental Assessment (EA) far the southern section (STIP Project Number R-2568 A and B) was signed in 1996. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in 1997. STIP Project R-2568A included improvements to the I-85 Business Interchange, which were completed in 2004. STIP Project R-2568B included NC 109 from just north of the I-85 Business interchange to just narth of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798); it was completed in 2007. The initial agency scoping meeting for R-2568C was held in January 2004. The first round of Citizens Inforxnational Workshops was held in Apri12004 and the second round was held in November 2005. Between 2004 and the present, environxnental screening, alternatives development, and detailed studies based on preliminary level designs were completed in accordance with NCDOT policies and procedures. Table 1-1 contains a brief summary of the projecYs history. .; Date .OJECT HISTO. Event 1984 Pro ect a ears on Davidson Count Thorou hfare Plan 1990 NCDOT completes feasibility study for NC 109 from I-85 Business to US 311 1993 NCDOT begins planning study for NC 109 from I-85 Business to US 311 1995 Project se arated into two sections 1997 FONSI signed for southem section of NC 109 (R-2568A and B) 2004 Agency scoping meeting held 2004 Fust Citizens Informational Worksho s held 2004 Merger Team achieves Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need 2004 Construction of R-2568A com leted 2005 Second Citizens Informational Workshops held 2006 Merger Team selects altematives for detailed study (Concurrence Point 2) 2007 Construction of R-2568B com leted 2009 Mer er Team achieves Concurrence Point 2A: Brid in Locations 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE 1.61 Existing Road Netcvork NC 109 is the only direct route between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and functions as a north-south connector between I-85, I-85 Business and I-40/US 311. Locally, NC 109 provides an important route for daily commuter traffic between these areas. South of the project study area in Davidson County, NC 109 intersects with US 64, NC 47, and I-85. NC 109 runs between Troy, North Carolina and Winston-Salem. In the vicinity of the project, I-85 connects Davidson County with Greensboro and Durham to the northeast and Charlotte to the southwest. I-85 extends from Montgomery, Alabama through Atlanta, Georgia to Richxnond, Virginia and runs southwest-nartheast through Davidson County. I-40, which connects Forsyth County with Greensboro to the east and Hickory to the southwest, is an east-west interstate route that traverses Forsyth County. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action US 52 (fubxre I-285) is a major north-south route at the western edge of the project area, connecting Winston-Salem to Lexington and points south. US 311 crosses east-west through the northeastern corner of the project area, connecting the project area to High Point to the east; it connects to I-40 in southeastern Winston-Salem. Business I-85/US 29/70 extends east-west approximately three miles south of the project area. Other important east-west roads in the vicinity of the project include Union Cross Road (SR 1730) in the northern portion of the sbxdy area, Gumtree Road (SR 1711) and Wallburg-High Point Road (SR 1741) in the central portion, and Old Greensboro Road at the southern end. Other important narth-south roads include Wallburg Road (SR 1730) along the eastern side of the project area, Motsinger Road (SR 1723) and Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700) in the central area, and Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) and South Main Street (SR 4205) at the western side. 1.6.2 ModalInterrelationships Bus Commuter bus service is provided by the Winston-Salem Transit Authority to a small portion of the northern section of the project study area. Two bus routes, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard/ Peachtree/ Old Lexington Road Bus Route and the Main/ Konoak/ Cassell Stoney Glen Bus Routes, are located within the project sbxdy area. Within Davidson County, there is no available commuter bus service. However, the Davidson County Transportation System provides transportation for the human service agencies, the elderly, the disabled, and the general public of Davidson County. The service uses standard vans, small buses, and small buses with wheelchair lifts to assist persons with specialized transportation needs. The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) provides bus service between Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and Highpoint. Buses run from the Winston-Salem Transportation Center to the PART regional hub at the Piedmont Triad International Airport every half hour from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays. From the regional hub, passengers can travel to High Point or Greensboro. Regional buses also run along US 52, at the western edge of the project area, connecting Lexington and Winston-Salem. Rail Within the project study area, the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway (WSSB) runs parallel to US 52. The WSSB is owned jointly by CSX and Norfolk Southern Railway. The WSSB track is used by two to four freight trains per day. No passenger trains operate over the WSSB rail line. The nearest commuter rail service terminals are located in Greensboro and High Point. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action A[7' The Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTI) is located in Guilford County, approximately sixteen miles northeast of the project sbxdy area. PTI provides the Triad with direct and connecting commercial air passenger and air&eight service to national and international destinations. The majority of private air traffic in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County originates at the Smith Reynolds Airport. This airport, owned by the Airport Commission of Forsyth County, is a general aviation airport with limited commuter flights. The airport is located approximately six miles north of the project study area. By improving traffic flow and levels of service and reducing travel times along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area, the project would also increase access to area rail and airpart facilities. 1.6.3 Commuting Patterns NC 109 is one of the major travel routes used by residents commuting to and from Thomasville and Winston-Salem. In 2000, 11,062 residents commuted from Davidson County to Forsyth County, while 4,136 residents commuted from Forsyth County to Davidson County. Net out- commuting is greater than in-commuting for Davidson County; a fairly high percentage of Davidson residents who commute to jobs outside the county. Net in-commuting is greater than out-commuting in Forsyth County. Mean commuting travel times in the area are slightly lower than the State average. 1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 1.71 Demographics The project study area has experienced moderate population growth in recent years; this growth has been somewhat slower than in North Carolina as a whole, although it has outpaced nationwide population growth. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the project study area grew by approximately 17 percent (see Section 3.1). Growth trends have varied considerably across the project area. The northeastern part of the project area, in southeastern Forsyth County near Kernersville, has grown much faster than the project area as a whole as suburban development spreads into this once rural area. Likewise, areas just south of the project area near Thomasville have grown more rapidly as suburban growth spreads north from Thomasville. Other parts of the project area have experienced modest population growth. Moderate growth overall is expected to continue in the future in the project study area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action 1.7.2 Economic Data 1.7.21. Employment According to the Employment Security Commission, the manufacturing sector comprises a large but declining share of total employment in the area (see Table 1-2). It is the largest employment sector in Davidson County, claiming 27 percent of the County's total employment, and is the second largest sector in Forsyth County, claiming 13 percent of its total employment in 2007. Significant manufacturing sub-sectors within the area include furniture, tobacco products, textiles, and apparel. While manufacturing remains an impartant employment sector in the region, it has faced a significant loss of manufacturing jobs as major employers have eliminated jobs and closed plants in the area. Since 2000, two of the area's largest manufacturers, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Thomasville Furniture, have eliminated over 3,000 jobs combined. Nationwide trends, including offshoring of factories, suggest that the manufacturing sector will continue to decline. The total number of jobs in Davidson County declined by 10.3 percent between 1997 and 2007, largely due to loss of manufacturing jobs. Overall job growth in Forsyth County and other surrounding areas has helped to offset Davidson's job loss. Health care, one of the fastest growing job sectors in Forsyth County, employs the largest number of warkers in Forsyth. The management sector is Forsyth's fastest growing sector (129.7 percent job growth between 1997 and 2007), although it still claims a fairly small share of the county's total employment (2.6 percent). The retail and educational services sectors are also significant employers in Forsyth and growth in the educational services has been brisk. Retail, educational services and health care are also significant employment sectors in Davidson County, together claiming nearly one-third of the county's total employment. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-9 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ': EMPLOYME NT : •' Davidson County Employment Forsyth County Employment S ector 1997 2007 % Change 1997 2007 % Change 1997-2007 1997-2007 Public Administration 1,954 2,071 +5.9% 7,233 6,980 -3.5% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 50 44 -12.0% 114 72 -36.8% Minin * 63 N/A 38 55 +44.7% Utilities 167 131 -21.6% 372 201 -46.0% Construction 2,120 2,738 +22.6% 7,955 8,326 +4.7% Manufacturin 20,050 12,030 -40.0% 31,859 23,693 -25.6% Wholesale Trade 1,437 1,977 +37.6% 5,592 5,886 +53% RetailTrade 5,233 4,610 -13.5% 20,145 20,895 +3.7% Transportation& Warehousin 1,524 1,341 -12.0% 10,040 7,892 -21.4% Information 383 306 -20.1% 2,616 1,886 -323% Finance and Insurance 664 726 +93% 10,768 10,321 -4.1% Real Estate & Rental and 318 297 -6.6% 2 261 2 145 -5.1% Leasi , , Professionaland Technical 678 754 +112% 5 983 7 607 +27.1% Services , , Management of Companies and Enter rises 1,629 718 -55.9% 1,953 4,487 +129.7% Administrative & Waste 1 026 2 321 +1262% 12 795 13 054 +2.0% Services , , , , Educational Services 3,834 4,637 +20.9% 14,111 18,895 +33.9% Health Care & Social 3 803 4 486 +18.0% 19 958 32 251 +61.6% Assistance , , , , Arts Entertainment & , 322 498 +54.7% 2 131 2 085 -22% Recreation , , Accommodation & Food 2 919 3 361 +15.1% 12 007 14 680 +222% Services , , , , Other Services 961 891 -73% 4,607 4,780 +3.7% Total 49,072 44,000 -103% 172,538 186,191 +7.9% Source: Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information, 1997-2007 *Indicates disclosure suppression; data not available 1.7.2.2. Major Employeis Table 1-3 lists the largest employers in Davidson and Forsyth counties. Davidson County Schools are that county's largest employer. Other educational and health facilities including Davidson County Community College, Lexington Memorial Hospital, and Lexington and Thomasville city schools are significant employers. Despite the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs, several manufacturers including furniture manufacturers Leggett and Platt and Thomasville Furniture and window manufacturers Atrium Companies, PPG Industries and Jeld-Wen remain major employers in the area. Reflecting the importance of the health care sector to Forsyth County's economy, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Forsyth Memorial Hospital, and Wake Forest University School of Medicine are among its major employers. Educational services are NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-70 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action also well-represented by Winston Salem-Forsyth County Schools, the largest employer in Forsyth County, and Wake Forest University. Two of the manufacturers that have long been mainstays of this region, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Hanesbrands (apparel manufacturing), are also major employers in the area. Wachovia Bank is headquartered in Winston-Salem and is another of Forsyth's major employers. . ; PROJECT .. . O. EMPLOYERS DAVIDSON COUNTY Em lo er Industr Em lo ment Ran e Davidson Count Schools Education and Health Services 1,000+ County of Davidson Public Administration 500-999 Atrium Com anies Inc Manufacturi 500-999 Bradle Personnel Inc Professional and Business Services 500-999 Wal-Mart Associates Inc Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 500-999 Davidson Count Communit Colle e Education and Health Services 500-999 Lexin ton Memorial Hos ital Education and Health Services 500-999 Lexington City Schools Education and Health Services 500-999 PPG Indushies Fiber lass Products Manufacturi 500-999 Jeld-Wen Manufacturin 500-999 Thomasville Cit Schools Education and Health Services 500-999 Le ett & P1att Inco orated Manufacturin 250-499 Thomasville Fumiture Inc Manufacturing 250-499 FORSYTH COUN`I'P Winston Salem Fors th Co Schools Education and Health Services 1,000+ North Carolina Ba tist Hos itals Education and Health Services 1,000+ Fors th Memorial Hos ital Inc Education and Health Services 1,000+ Wake Forest University School of Medicine Education and Health Services 1,000+ RJ Re nolds Tobacco Com an Manufacturin 1,000+ Hanesbrands,Inc. Manufacturing 1,000+ Wachovia Bank Financial Activities 1,000+ Ci of Winston-Salem Public Administration 1,000+ State of North Carolina Public Administration 1,000+ US Air Inc Trade, Trans ortation, and Utilities 1,000+ Wal-Mart Associates Inc Trade, Trans ortation, and Utilities 1,000+ Wake Forest University Education and Health Services 1,000+ Source: Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information, December 2007. 1.8 TR.ANSPORTATION PI.ANNING 1.8.1 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program The North Carolina STIP is a multi-year plan for all state transpartation projects. The STIP contains funding inforxnation and schedules for proposed transportation projects throughout the state and is updated every two years to reflect changing priorities and funding availability. The proposed NC 109 Improvements project is included as Project No. R-2568C in the 2009-2015 NCDOT STIP. The following projects are currently listed in the 2009-2015 STIP far the project area (Figure 1- 3): NC 7097m,brovements Page 7-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action • R-4750. Upgrade existing US 52 from I-85 in Davidson County to I-40 in Forsyth County to interstate standards. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2010. • U-4909. Widen Union Cross Road (SR 2643) from Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632) in Forsyth County. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2010. • U-2923. Widen Clemmonsville Road (SR 2747) from Old Salisbury Road (SR 3011) to South Main Street in Winston-Salem. Conshuction is scheduled to begin in 2011. • U-2579. Winston-Salem Narthern Beltway Eastern Section Extension - new location multi-lane freeway. Conshuction of segxnent from US 311 to I-40 has not yet been programmed for funding. • B-4742. Replace Bridge No. 134 over a creek on SR 1755 in Davidson County. The project is currently under construction. • B-4101. Replace Bridge No. 142 over Abbotts Creek on SR 1741 in Davidson County. The project is currently under construction. 1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans The High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO) maintains jurisdiction over an area that includes most of the project area within Davidson County, including the Town of Wallburg. The current High Point Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, last updated in 2006 recommends that NC 109 should be widened to a four-lane divided roadway. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) far the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Urban Area adopted its 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan in 2009. This plan also recommends that NC 109 should be improved to a four-lane divided roadway. The Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan, last updated in 1984, recommended that NC 109 from Thomasville to Forsyth County be improved to a four-lane divided facility. These Thoroughfare Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Plan comprise the tools that public officials will use to assure the development of a street system that will accomplish the goals established in local comprehensive and land use plans while also meeting existing and fubxre multi-modal travel desires within the area. 1.9 TR.AFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES 1.91 Existing Roadway Characteristics 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 I-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. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-72 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement nd e .._'??t 4•J?JUJ?J?`JJ???v1U?JIJIJI "f. IRi5u3h!owr, 57 f'A ? ` ? HNhp? - .? f G1enn ? ? m U-2579 ? U-2923 U-4909 109 '?? 4 a`Y d)4a or ° ' o P?esP.Y 3 f ??? t ! `;1 ? a F we? 6 Union Cross Rd / h Sclwnzall Srunc?, a ?pd s C x ? 1^, -p s I , , eLn yGarl.?? p Langden Rd peb6l R-4750 o RexRd ?' ? t7 C F t j? r orsy e oroe J _.-_ - r- - - - ---- -. --r------- - 1 i D?vidaneCrroet)r n ` T c__b_ I N Qto?je ?Y ? ? m m $ a U' . s Rd ? v 4° o .5°a tt 6,mLs p„ ?rtie 8a?ne ? j ? ? GhUrcARd y'? y ' U O 4 ? ,in? ? i R? JIfj a ? o- ? c G ?awdsortOr ? o i ? gpilottc fid , Rtl t G eory FshelP,tl T ae[.i ? 1 ?OhJey nROr i a ' s'7 - 7 FrankEn Or e Dr ? i ? ? x. 5 F,esiCreeh,0, ?,e Or R? G w a ac Q `q h AoP ?. ' ro ? ? d `° r 4O B-4101 m ? yaQ ? l?lelfo» Ha1'mere 0,- SfoneY Rid9aRd a a? ? ¢ QS p ? S ` G 1 a?a PamDr LekeDr VI r'A P w a Y! rn 4iT'? y ° ?? ? JvJ' 0 my ?o ? N ?o ry ? B-4742 ' eaifeyRd c . u 2 w ? d S (L ?O?sv p-0 $ ?isen a ?ounUYL?? .?. o ,fecs 4Vest Dr ? a l sPre' pd re?' ? 'ry?h:zle Ln EllerRti ita Go i:. ?taad Rd ?G?' a 109 y' 0? ?eorgb ????Rny ? ? A y ?e 4? F oS Ra/ph.4lipe?.Ya °- 11?4$Y'4=?=a ? ?'?, ?? ? v W,q,r . la?F x n ry/?yT ? ?? . 2 Ei gRa ? ? ? I : am m Afp Da[a Sources: NCDOT, IVC One Iviap!, Davidson County, CAy of Wns[on-SalerNForsylh County, ESRI North Carolina ? Legend Department of Transportation ? StudyArea Boundary NC 109 Improvements Project Urban Project Forsyth and Davidsan Caunties Rural Project ? State Project No. 8.1172401 ? Bridge Replacement Project T.I.P. No. R-2568C I ? ? I Miles TIP Projects FIgure 1-3 0 0.5 1 2 Near the Study Area Pa e 1-13 Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action Rural residential and agricultural uses typify much of the land use along NC 109, with development becoming denser and more intense toward the northern end of the project area. There are few residential subdivisions near NC 109, 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 Wallburg. Commercial development is concentrated in a few areas: the intersection of Gumtree Road and NC 109 contains two retail shopping centers, fast food restaurants, and service stations; and central Wallburg contains a small number of retail stores, offices, restaurants and other commercial establishxnents. Other commercial uses, including restaurants, auto-related businesses and small offices, are lightly scattered along NC 109. 1.9.2 Existing No-Build Traffic Conditions (2008) Far this project, the Highway Capacity Manua12000 and its accompanying software (HCS 2000) were used to determine the current (2008) and fubxre (2035) levels of service (LOS). Traffic flow and LOS on rural arterial two-way highways, such as the NC 109 corridor, are influenced by the geometric characteristics of the facility (curvature, grade, lane width, shoulder width and sight distance), adjacent land use, traffic density, truck percentage, bxrning movements, and the effect of traffic signals. As shown in Table 1-4, NC 109 within the project limits is currently carrying traffic volumes at or beyond its design capacity, with all segxnents operating at LOS D or worse. This is primarily due to a lack of north-south linkages with sufficient capacity to service the future travel demand between Thomasville and Winston-Salem. Average operating speed on NC 109 within the project limits was 38 mph in 2008. • ; • • 11 TRAFFIC VOLU NC 109 Segment MES • 1 Cuaent ADT* LOS I-40 to Teague Rd. 14,316 D Teague Rd. to Union Cross Rd. 14,988 E Union Cross Rd. to Gumtree Rd. 11,964 D Gumtree Rd to Motsinger Rd. 9,860 D Motsinger Rd. to Wallburg Rd. 10,296 D Wallburg Rd. to GeorgetownRd. 10,532 D Georgetown Rd. to Wallburg High Point Rd. 10,420 D Wallburg High Point Rd. to Shady Grove Church Rd. 9,748 D Shady Grove Church Rd.to Johnson Rd. 9,972 D Johnson Rd. to Jesse Green Rd 8,976 D Jesse Green Rd. to Old Greensboro Rd. 9,312 D * Extrapolated from 2003 and 2005 data NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-74 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action As suggested by the varied land uses along NC 109, travelers on this road are a combination of commuters traveling from areas south of the project area and local travelers accessing retail uses, public uses and other services along NC 109. The conflict between these groups and their travel characteristics adds to driver frustration, particularly since NC 109 currently only has one lane of traffic in each direction for most of its length. Along NC 109, the number and spacing of unsignalized and signalized intersections with associated delays dictates the capacity and LOS as much as the number of lanes or traffic demand. Seven of nine existing unsignalized intersections along NC 109 for which 2008 data were available have undesirable LOS E or F on at least one of the critical turn movements during either the morning or evening peak (see Traffic Analysis for BypassAlternatives forNC 1091mprovements Study, Lochner 2009a). Table 1-5 summarizes LOS at signalized intersections along NC109 during 2008. As shown, the intersections have on average LOS C and D during peak periods of travel. Some of the movements currently have LOS E and F. .; .. O . A • i Location Movemnts • LOS D IN •A • ii LOS (DELAI) TERS LOS ECTIONS LOS (DELAI) SEL C D SET C E NC 109 & Gumtree Road NWL C D NWT C C(26.9 sec) g D(49.4 sec) NEL C F NET C B SWT C B EBL C C EBT D C WBL D C WBT C C ?L c C 33 9 c C 313 NC109 & Old Greensboro Road NBT C ( . sec) C ( sec) NBR C D SBL C D SBT C C SBR C C NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-75 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action 1.9.3 Year 2035 No-Build Traffic Protections and Capacity Analysis To estimate the impact of fubxre growth on the existing transportation network, NCDOT prepared a travel demand model to project 2035 traffic volumes far the "no-build" condition. No-build is defined as no improvements being made to NC 109 or any minor side roads and no bypass constructed. The 2035 year traffic indicates that NC 109 will carry up to 28,380 vehicles per day (VPD) between Old Greensboro Road and the I-40 interchange with NC 109 (Figure 1-4). The conflict between types of travelers on NC 109 will increase through 2035, adding to driver frustration on an at- or over-capacity facility. Examples include travelers wishing to travel directly and quickly between home and their destinations but slowed by school traffic, 35 mph zones, and usually slower local commuters making frequent stops with slower 90 degree turns along NC 109. Because of the rural nature of the existing facility, there are few places where the horizontal and vertical geometry allow vehicular passes to be made safely. Additionally, passing is difFicult because of such high opposing traffic volumes. The population of the project area is expected to increase by approximately 50 percent by 2035. As a result of continued growth in the area, the travel demand in the NC 109 corridor is projected to increase by nearly 90 percent. Traffic volumes forecast on segxnents of NC 109 in 2035 are shown in Table 1-6. The southernxnost section, between Old Greensboro Road and Jesse Green Road, currently carries 9,312 VPD and is forecast to have a demand of approximately 17,520 VPD in 2035. The northernmost section, between Teague Road and I-40, currently carries 14,316 VPD and is forecast to have a demand of 28,380 in 2035. As a result, the average delay experienced by commuters between Old Greensboro Road and I-40 will increase from 15 minutes to 45 minutes between 2008 and 2035 under the no-build scenario, a tripling of the wait time. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement 0 Q] ? ?- ° Q- Waughfown St Glenn Hrgh Rdl, Gle r n _?,, ? b Sch o! Rd Q-c? "??98 D 311 ?' , Teague Rd to Union Cross Rd fen?n ti 1 os 28? [F] I-40 to Teague Rd Unron Cross Rd 943 D 271 F i' 7p ¢ 7ea`? s n ar ? m Osc - l Union Cross Rd to Gumtree Rd Langder? ? 120 D ° m 224 ? Xg? Q, Gurntree Rd to Motsinger Rd ? ??? Foreyth caunty 99 D ? ---------------- --- - -- --- 185 E co? h?v ? e a,? ? $ames ?,d ? Chvrcli Rd Wallburg Rd to Georgetown Rd 105 D rdson pa? , 998 E ? 'i??otsinyer Rd to Wallburg Rd George . n Rd ? Fishel I ?? Tre6 Lr' 103 D Jb?s`-i?d v" 193 E i 0 ? F'j IJ U ? r ry I Georgetown Rd to ? ? ? I X Wallburg-High Point Rd Wa/j6 J ? I 104 D r_ J ? , 196 [E] ? ? J "Q ?/ , ?- I I intRd ---- ???r- --? m APpachE-Dr. J a a .4?1 4? I -? paia?e pr 5, E ? e tid?' ? ' i - StOne,y o ? I 'fJallb?ng-High Point Rd to I - .' Shady Grove Church Rd ll Shady Grove Church Rd ' ?0? ?J P t J h d d P? Df ?' , o o nson 52 ?? ?' 98 D - + 100 D o ? 183 ? 187 ?????? ? ' ?i//eR o ? toJ °l G J ? ? Courttr ? h o y ?l o ? - Johnson Rd to z , Baile Jes e Green Rd y Rrl z '? 90 D ??? ?o ? 169 E ?.. Ln .. , N ?ai1 ? __ ro e-a ? o ¢ ? ? S?Yy ? EII ??? rRd Jesse Green Rd to 109 ?yj C1 Old Greensboro Rd 93 D e4o, ? ? 2? ? ? Sh ,o,?`al 175 E Ralp ? l ? %? Schoo r ?'a?o 9illen'Rd 0 ?ry Da[a Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, CAy of Wnston-SalerNForsylh County, ESRI North Carolina Legend N Department of Transportation ? StudyArea Boundary E'l Municipal Boundary w E NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidsan Caunties ###[X] 2008 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Buiid) [LOS] State Project No. 8.1 172401 1# 2035 Estimated AADT In Hundreds (No Build) [LOS] S T.I.P. No. R-2568C Traffic Volume ?Miles Figure 1 -4 0 0.5 1 Com arison Pa e 1-17 Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action • C •• 2035 TRAFFIC VOLU NC 109 Segment MES ' • 1 Forecast ADT • : D Forecast LOS I-40 to Teague Rd. 27,060 F Teague Rd. to Union Cross Rd. 28,380 F Union Cross Rd. to Gumtree Rd. 22,440 F Gumtree Rd to Motsinger Rd. 18,500 F Motsinger Rd. to Wallburg Rd. 19,260 F Wallburg Rd. to GeorgetownRd. 19,820 F Georgetown Rd. to Wallburg High Point Rd. 19,600 F Wallburg High Point Rd. to Shady Grove Church Rd. 18,280 F Shady Grove Church Rd.to Johnson Rd. 18,720 F Johnson Rd. to Jesse Green Rd 16,860 F Jesse Green Rd. to Old Greensboro Rd. 17,520 F Building all other planned STIP projects is not likely to be sufficient to meet regional capacity needs. The delays for segxnents in 2035 indicate failing levels of service for most of the corridor netwark. Another measure of congestion, the average netwark speedZ, also shows declining driving conditions under the 2035 no build scenario. Average netwark speed, currently estimated to be 38 mph, would decrease approximately 68 percent to 12 mph by 2035. The total time it takes to travel the length of the NC 109 corridor within the project limits (currently 15 to 18 minutes) is forecast to increase by as much as 278 percent by 2035. Without improvements beyond those listed in the 2009-2015 STIP, service will remain at LOS F with increasing congestion, longer delays, declining average speeds and longer travel times. Projected wait times at five of the unsignalized intersections are between 5 and 10 minutes (see Traffic Analysis for Bypass Alternatives for NC 109lmprovements Study, Lochner 2009a). Eleven of the intersections are expected to have wait times for critical turn movements between 10 and 30 minutes. Two intersections show wait times of over one hour. Table 1-7 summarizes the level of service at the signalized intersections along NC 109 in the year 2035. As shown, the vast majority of turn movements have an undesirable LOS E or F during both the morning and evening peak periods. Gumtree Road will have a significant delay of over 15 minutes. Z Average Network Speed is measured in miles per hour and shows directly the ability of the street and arterial network to move vehicles throughout the system. It represents the average speed along the major arterials in the study area on an average day. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-78 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ': • ' O Location .. O Critical Movements D INTERSECTION .. 0 AM LOS LOS (DELAI) S ' • PM LOS 1 LOS (DELAI) SEL F F SET F F NWL F F NC 109 & Gumtree Road E i ti Si l ?T F 15 min 42 sec F 34 min 30 ( x s ng gna ) NE L F E sec NET F F SWT F F EBL F F EBT F F WBL F F WBT F F NC 109 and Old Greensboro R d E i ti Si l NBL F 3 min 11 sec F 3 min 9 sec oa ( x s ng gna ) NBT E D NBR D D SBL F F SBT F F 1.10 CRASH ANALYSIS The crash rate data obtained is far the 10.2 mile section of NC 109 between SR 1755 (Old Greensboro Road) in Davidson County to I-40 in Forsyth County. The data in Table 1-8 show that the NC 109 corridor exceeds the statewide crash rates in all categories except the fatal category and exceeds the critical crash rate in the total and non-fatal injury categories. Two hundred and nineteen (219) crashes occurred on NC 109 in the project area, representing a crash rate of 228.69 crashes per 100 MVM. That is 36.4 percent higher than the statewide rate at 167.65 crashes per 100 MVM. : i D AVERAGE D .. RA TES Existing NC 109 Statewide Average Critical Crash Rate Crash Type Crash Rate per 100 Crash Rate per 100 MVM* MVM^ # per 100 MVM Total Accident Rate 228.69 167.65 189.94 Fatal Accident Rate 0 1.98 4.87 Non-FatalInjury AccidentRate 114.87 63.02 76.89 Night Accident Rate 67.88 5633 69.47 Wet Accident Rate 3133 25.46 3436 * Accident rates are expressed in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM) of travel. This study uses accident data for the period 2/1/2006-1/31/2009 for the project area. ^ 2005-2007 statewide crash rate for US routes. " Based on the statwide crash rate (95°k level of confdence). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-79 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action As shown in Table 1-9, the most common type of accident (25.6 percent) in the corridor was rear end crashes, which are common in congested, stop-and-go conditions. Approximately 17 percent of crashes were angle type crashes and nearly 12 percent were left-turn same roadway type of accident. These types of crashes typically occur when a driver fails to respond to changes to constantly changing traffic conditions characteristic of congested areas. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-20 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 1- Purpose and Need for Action ': 11 11 •• D Accident Type • Number Percent of Total Angle 38 1735 Collision - Animal 20 9.13 Backing up 2 0.91 Collision - Fixed Object 24 10.96 Head On 1 0.46 Left Tum - Different Roadways 14 639 L eft Tum - Sam e Roadway 27 1233 Other Collision with Vehicle 3 137 Other Non-collision 1 0.46 Overtum / Rollover 7 320 Pedestrian 1 0.46 Ran Off Road - Left 1 0.46 Ran Off Road - Right 10 4.57 Ran Off Road - Straight 1 0.46 Rear End - Slow or Stop 56 25.57 Rear End - Tuming 5 228 Right Tum - Different Roadway 1 0.46 Right Turn - Sam e Roadway 3 137 Sideswipe - Opposite Direction 2 0.91 Sideswipe - Same Direction 2 0.91 Tota1 219 100 NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-27 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four broad-ranged alternatives were established for consideration on this project. These alternatives include: a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation System Management Alternative, a Mass Transit Alternative, and a Build Alternative. Each broad-ranged alternative may be comprised of several components or sub-alternatives. This chapter presents the range of alternatives considered far the project, a discussion of the alternatives eliminated from further consideration, and the alternatives selected for detailed study. Each alternative is assessed with respect to its ability to meet the project's purpose and need. As noted in Section 1, planning studies and alternatives development far this project began in 1993. The following section describes all alternatives considered for detailed study, the reasons for eliminating some of these alternatives, and the alternatives retained for detailed study. 21 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, regrading shoulders, and maintaining ditches. The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way nor substantial construction costs. There would be no long-term disruptions during construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there by any residential or business relocations. All other planned STIP and local projects would be constructed (see Section 1.8). Currently there are two capacity projects proposed in the STIP 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 (STIP No. U-4750). The second includes widening Union Cross Road (SR 2643) from Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632) in Forsyth County (STIP No. U-4909). As explained in Section 1.9, many of the intersections along NC 109 currently operate at or over capacity (LOS E or F). With no improvements along existing NC 109 and no new routes for future traffic, all segxnents along NC 109 and nearly all of the existing unsignalized and signalized intersections along the roadway will be over capacity by the year 2035. As discussed in Chapter 1 and above, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need; however, in accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A: p.15), the No-Build Alternative will be given full consideration to provide a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternative. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.2 TR.ANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE The Transpartation Systems Management (TS" Alternative includes limited conshuction activities designed to maximize the traffic flow and efficiency of the present transportation system. There are two main types of TSM roadway improvements: operational and physical. Examples of these improvements include: Operational Improvements • Traffic law enforcement • Turn prohibitions • Access control Physical Improvements • Addition of turn lanes • Intersection realignment • Improved warning and information signs • Speed Restrictions • Signal coordination • Signal phasing or timing changes • New signals or stop signs • Intersection geometric and signalization improvements • High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes The TSM roadway improvements typically are effective in solving site-specific capacity and safety deficiencies in urban areas. However, these enhancements would not improve the level of service at the intersections or along the existing roadway netwark enough to make a substantial difference. Forecast capacity problems at many of the existing intersections are due to through volumes that exceed the theoretical capacities of the roadways. In order to provide any improvement in the forecast traffic congestion on the NC 109 corridor, additional through lanes are needed. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV ) lanes are typically utilized for urbanized areas with a population over 200,000. Since the project area's population lies below this threshold, HOV lanes and the other TSM measures would not adequately address the needs of the project and have been eliminated from further consideration. 2.3 MASS TR.ANSIT ALTERNATIVE The Mass Transit Alternative includes options such as expanding the existing bus service, implementing a light rail or fixed guideway system, or a regional rail service so that the number of vehicles and subsequent congestion on local roads would be decreased. Commuter bus service is provided by the Winston-Salem Transit Authority to a small partion of the northern section of the project sbxdy area. Two bus routes, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard/ Peachtree/ Old Lexington Road Bus Route and the Main/ Konoak/ Cassell Stoney Glen Bus Routes, are located within the project study area. Within Davidson County, there is no available commuter bus service. However, the Davidson County Transportation System provides transportation for the human service agencies, the elderly, the disabled, and the general public of Davidson County. The service uses standard vans, small buses, and small buses with wheelchair lifts to assist persons with specialized transportation needs. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 2 - Alternatives The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) provides bus service between Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point. Buses run from the Winston-Salem Transportation Center to the PART regional hub at the Piedmont Triad International Airport every half hour from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays. From the regional hub, passengers can travel to High Point or Greensboro. Mass transit operations are compared to other forxns of travel by evaluating the number of times people use mass transit far traveling to work, shopping, schools, etc. rather than using private automobiles. Because of the minimal transit service available through most of the project area, transit likely serves an extremely small number of existing trips in the area. Even with expanded bus services to the project area, this alternative would not address adequately the purpose and need for the project. The FHWA considers urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 as areas where Mass Transit Alternatives should be considered (FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A: p.15). The project area is located on the less densely populated fringe of the Winston-Salem area and the population near the project area is less than 200,000 people. According to the US Census, approximately 56,000 people resided within the project study area in 2000. Far this and the reasons noted above, the Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES AND UPGR.ADE EXISTING FACILITI' ALTERNATIVE The NC 109 Corridar Improvements Build Alternative includes constructing a new facility between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Forsyth County. The Upgrade Existing Facility Alternative includes making roadway improvements along NC 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) and southeastern Forsyth County. The new facility is proposed as a four-lane median divided facility with partial control of access, a design speed of 60 miles per hour, and a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Directional crossovers with offset left bxrns will be used at major intersections (see Section 2.4.6). No signalized intersections are proposed. Driveway accesses along NC 109 will be right in, right out only. Several build alternatives and one upgrade existing facility alternative have been considered for the project, all of which would meet the purpose and need of the project, improving safety, traffic flow and levels of service along the NC 109 corridor. 2.4.1 Logical Termini FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771. l ll(fl) outline three general principles to deterxnine project limits. The regulations state: "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 EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall: NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives • Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environxnental matters on a broad scope; • 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 • Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." The proposed project has logical termini. It would connect segxnents of NC 109 south of this project from I-85 Business to Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798), which have recently been improved, to either I-40 to the north or US 52 to the west, two chief travel routes in the Winston- Salem area. The project terxnini 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 environxnental 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. 2.4.2 Design Features 2.4.21. Design Criteria Design criteria are established standards and procedures that guide the establishxnent of roadway layouts, alignments, geometry, and dimensions. Detailed design criteria far the Build Alternatives are listed in Table 2.1. They were developed in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets (2004) and the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual. The design criteria are influenced by the type of roadway required to fulfill the purpose and need of the project 2.4.2.2. Typical Sections Typical sections are drawings or descriptions of a roadway that define cross-sectional features such as roadway and shoulder widths. Like design criteria, typical roadway cross-sections are influenced by the type of roadway required to fulfill the purpose and need of the project. Design criteria and typical sections were established for the proposed highway facility based on existing (2006) and projected travel demand (2035) along the facility. 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 NC 709 Im,brovements Page 24 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives 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. The proposed typical sections are presented in Figure 2-1. A: : D A LTERNATIVE DESIG N . . Upgrade Existing NC Upgrade Existing/New New Location 109, South of Teague Location NC 109, Factor (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 Road North of Teague Road and 6) (Alternative 1) (Urban Areag Alternative 1 Functional ,qiterial Arterial Arterial Classification Terrain Rolling Rolling Rolling Control of Access Full Partial Partial Desi n S eed 60 MPH 60 MPH 50 MPH Right of Way Width 250 feet minimum 250 feet minimum Variable -10 feet past construction limits NlaXlrn um R 1200 feet " - R 1200 feet " - R 926 feet ' - Horizontal Curvature " ° " ° '" ° Maximum Grade 4%maximum 4%maximum 5%maximum Number of Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet Median-6feet Median-6feet Outside (w/o guardrail) Outside (w/o guardrail) No shoulder will be Shoulder Width -12 feet -12 feet provided Outside (w/guardrail) - Outside (w/guardrail) - (see Figure 2-1c) 15 feet 15 feet Median Width 46 feet depressed 46 feet depressed 23 feet raised median median median Nlax""'u" 0 08 ftJft 0 08 ftJft 0 04 ftJft Su erelevation . . . . . Stopping SightDistance CurrentAASHTO CurrentAASHTO CurrentAASHTO Standards Standards Standards Length of Vertical CurrentAASHTO CurrentAASHTO CurrentAASHTO Curve Standards Standards Standards Cross Slopes 1/4"/foot (2%) 1/4"/foot (2%) 1/4"/foot (2%) ormal Sect. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-5 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement C O ? 0 0? b N ? L N (O 0 Q h ? w ' 0 (? o ? a 4' ?r H 3 (0 ? NU ?:cCOO > U) U o ? o ?N ;?? 0 ? +J ? Ea ?3; o? zo L ? yU O a) E 20 a ?z a ' *' Z Q m Z ? a E? o a- Q CD? ? x mW ? ZUo a r i N ? L ? ? LL L 4G` 301 (IN F ILL) 12' ? 2 4' 17' I 7' 2 4' 12' 18, ' 10 2' 21 (iN cuT) 8' 4' 44` 8` o.oa 0.02 0.02 0,04 6e ? ?o ? 0 4 0.02 0.02 o.oe o ? 6 6' 60l FIL? GRADE GRADE CuT HINGE POINT POINT HINGE Zo1 POINT POINT ? USE 15' IN GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS FUNCTIONAL CLASS. = ARTERIAL DESIGN SPEED = 60 MPH MAX SUPERELEV. _ $% 30' (IN FILL) 12' * 8' I 4 ` ? I 4 6' 24' I 7` I 7' nr 2' I 0. 6e j ' 601 60l FILL GRADE HINGE POINT ` POINT 9 * USE 15' IN GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS 6' 24` 4` 2' q 0.0; GRADE POINT 12' 18' 6' 10, (IN CIJT) q ` 8' o , 01 ° vos E3- ? 6e ? 60 CUT HINGE POINT FUNCTIONAL CLASS. = ARTERIAL DESIGN SPEED = 60 MPH MAX SUPERELEV. _ $% c o -? ? N L N (a 0 Q- ? V w co O ? ' ? oQ (0 ? 0 NU U ?cCOO > zm U O ?N r O? ? +? +J C a E ? oof zo LU O a) 0p ?z r Z Z E aa o a Q oc Q p S ? 7 X m W ? zUo U ? N d L ? ? LL ? 10, 2 q' 23' 2 4' I 0' q? I ae 1 0,02 0.02 0e08 0.08 0.02 0,02 GRADE GRADE 2? ? POINT POINT FUNCTIONAL CLASS. = ARTERIAL DESIGN SPEED = 50 MPH MAX SUPERELEV. = 6% Section 2 - Alternatives 2.4.3 Evaluation of Preliminary Corridors Numerous corridors over existing roads and on new location were considered for the project to deterxnine the best location for a new facility. The preliminary location concepts were developed based on comments received from the public and local officials and by reviewing natural and cultural resources in the project area. More than 35 preliminary location concepts were identified (see Figure 2-2); all had the same southern terminus along NC 109 at Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798), with narthern terxnini considered along US 52,140, and US 311 at existing or proposed interchanges. Similarities among preliminary location concepts, including location and overall concept purpose, were identified and combined to develop preliminary study corridors. To begin the selection of alternatives for detailed study, the preliminary study corridors were evaluated for potential impacts to nabxral and human resources, design and construction feasibility, and ability to meet the purpose and need for the project. In considering preliminary impacts, planning and design objectives included avoiding residential housing, businesses, and public meeting places such as places of worship; avoiding properties on or eligible far the National Register of Historic Places, where feasible; and avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands, streams, and other natural resources. Corridors were eliminated based on at least one of the following impacts: • Conflicts with the topography of existing land, • Severity of impacts in densely developed areas, • Inappropriate crossings of secondary roads, • Natural resources impacts, • Failure to meet project purpose and need, • Limited locations for feasible connections to US 311, US 52, and I-40, and • Potential impacts to historic properties. Several corridors with obvious "fatal flaws," including substantial impacts to wetlands, streams, and communities, were eliminated early in the alternatives development process. Those without obvious fatal flaws were presented to local officials and planners. Based on their input, the following concepts were eliminated: • Corridors with a northern terxninus at the US 311/Ridgewood Road (SR 2698) were eliminated due to substantial impacts on the Proposed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District (see Section 3.4.1). • Corridors with a northern terxninus at the US 52/West Clemmonsville Road were eliminated due to topography, proximity to an adjacent landfill, and poor crossings with existing roads. • Corridors bisecting the Meadowlands residential and golf community were eliminated due to residential and environxnental impacts, cost, and poor location with respect to electrical transmission lines. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-9 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement ..? ?J' ?IU???JV?J??rr3V???? "f nd aA ?•-n 1'??yU9 c htowr, Sy °jf Pa, 2 `? ? Glenn High Ptl n?? tig??Hiq b .? m ? 0 ? -kI 0 m ? o ?ym ?or?P%eSCAOO1Rtl cO?'R n o ? E Cle,x?T°n 5 ?? J `13 0?O a? woW 7er m ? 109 ` e? .p n U,won Goss Rd b a y Rfl V No, ? ? ?e y ,?V Y Po- I Ln Langden Rd pebbie egRd Frrs??#JaCornetj? ? ---- -- - ?` RexP.d r - - i P¢l4?SOI! COlDdl)r I } Q' `aT? C ----- ? ,?- .5 " _ S y' e[%._ ?' . s Rd 8aine f n E ?UraR R ? c e rv 4 d 3 m Fo .?. ?rlre ' ~ a ¢ "', t? ? I ?aen?fsort I)r ? G @ ? @ SOIIaNo Fis ? 1 Rd i ? i /f?J?W TraR[.inaOr Rtl Gaorg? 4 Li ey a v * ;o .@ ce Or fraIkAn Or ? / ? VJ I ?'m _ i\\ . t? _ -___- __ - - - _-'__ '-_Uixe R ? - _ C Poin(Rd J 1, ?7 Q s ? ? O Q y ? w t. w po 'Ao- ?O Gn t? a z ? ? llleffon ?. ?a)'moreCr StoneYRid9aR8 a 4 .? a 52 s P y. w Part, er ? Lake Dr a? VI y C a oJFO 0 N ?.?? anRy ?' s a . ? te k,Sy a ? sn y)1H ? C N ?O alifeyRd G? c ? i S w ? (t ?cenlCf ? GounD o f Dr V 1`L° y a ? es U 4 sPre' pd 0 ?'? ? '??Ja:zle Ln Eff Rct ?S a G?' ,taad Rd c 0 G a 09 ? k\ N e`\??' George MurPhY ??O ti " c ?'+$ ?' F oS ry@?i 't`?'' o a ?'+ey S?. ? ?- o? I so?y Da[a Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson Coun ty, CAy of Wns[on-SalerNForsylh County, ESRI G\ North Carolina N Department of Transportation Legend w "?? NC 109 Improvements Project Conceptuai Corridors ? Forsyth and Davidsan Caunties ? StudyArea Boundary s State Project No. 8.1172401 T.I.P. No. R-2568C I Miles Figure 2-2 Conceptual Corridors o 0.5 1 2 P e 2-10 Section 2 - Alternatives Thirteen corridors remained for further study after this evaluation. These are described in the following section. A more detailed discussion of alternatives development, evaluation, and screening is in the Preliminary Alternatives Report (Lochner, 2006) prepared far this project. 2.4.31. Description of Preliminary Corridois The thirteen corridors remaining for further study after evaluating the preliminary location concepts were made up of different combinations of segxnents. These corridors are shown in Figure 2-3; they are described by colored segments and grouped by northern terminus location as followed: US 311/proposed GVinston-Salem Northern Bypass Interchange • Blue-light green-light purple-orange-light blue • Blue-yellow-green-orange-light blue US 311/Union Cross Road (SR 1730) Interchange • Blue-light green • Blue-red-light green • Blue-light green-light purple-dark purple-blue-red-light green I-401NC 1091nterchange • Blue (Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative) • Blue-yellow-blue • Blue-light green-light purple-orange-blue • Blue-light green-light purple-dark purple-blue • Blue-yellow-green-orange-blue • Blue-light purple-green-yellow US 52/South Main Street (SR 4205) Interchange • Blue-light purple • Blue-yellow-light green-light purple These thirteen corridors were discussed during a series of ineetings in 2005 between representatives ofvarious NCDOT departments and NCDOT Division 9. Over the course of many months of discussion and analysis, eight corridors were eliminated from further study, as discussed below. The two corridors proposed to tie into the interchange of US 311 and the proposed Winston- Salem Northern Beltway were deterxnined to be infeasible due to impacts to Spurgeon Creek and to two public golf courses, as well as prohibitive cost. These corridors were therefore eliminated from further consideration. NC 7097m,brovements Page 2-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives Three corridors tied to an existing interchange at US 311 and Union Cross Road (SR 2643). A comparison of these three alternatives revealed that one (blue-light green-light purple-blue-red- light green) had far greater impacts to natural and human resources, as well as design concerns with poor skews at Johnson Road (SR 1755) and Clodfelter Road (SR 1726). This corridor was eliminated from further study. Six corridors, including the Upgrade Existing NC 109 Alternative, made use of the existing interchange of NC 109 and I-40/US 311. Of these corridors, two (blue-light green-light purple- orange-blue and blue-yellow-green-orange-blue) had substantially higher impacts to residential developments along Rex Road (SR 1709), Langden Road (SR 2702), NC 109, and to the Meadowlands Residential and Golf Community than other corridors with the same terxnini. In addition, the orange segxnent common to these corridors had design concerns with poor skews at Gumtree Road (SR 1711) and Willard Road (SR 1968). These two corridors were eliminated from further study, leaving four corridors terminating at I-40. Of the four remaining corridors terxninating at I-40, one was found to have substantially higher relocation impacts than the other three corridors. The blue-light green-light purple-dark purple- blue corridor also had design concerns with poor skews at NC 109 and Clodfelter Road (SR 1726). This corridor was therefore eliminated leaving three corridors terxninating at I-40. These corridors include the blue (Upgrade Existing Alternative), blue-yellow, and blue-light purple- green-yellow corridors. Seven corridors remained for further examination and comparison (see Figure 2-4): two terminating at US 311/Union Cross Road; three terminating at I-40/NC 109; and two terminating at US 52/South Main Street Preliminary traffic projections were obtained for each of these corridors. These projections revealed that the corridors tying to I-40 and US 52 would remove substantially more traffic from the NC 109 corridar (at least 73 percent and 43 percent respectively) than the corridors tying to US 311. Because the two corridors tying to US 311 did not reduce traffic by a significant percentage along the NC 109 corridar they were determined not to meet the full purpose and need for the project and were eliminated from further study. Five corridors then remained for analysis and comparison. These corridors are shown in Figure 2.-5. 2.4.3.2. Alternatives Carried Forwazd for Detailed Study The five preliminary corridors were then assessed in greater detail for impacts to human, environmental, and cultural resources using conceptual construction limits (plus an additiona125 feet for potential clearing impacts) to begin the selection of alternatives for detailed studies. Preliminary impacts were assessed far the following resources (summarized in Table 2-2): • Number of relocations (residential and commercial), • Number of stream crossings and linear feet of stream impacts, • Number of floodplain crossings, • Acreage of wetland impacts, NC 7097m,brovements Page 2-73 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement ..? ?J'?IU? ??JV?J??rr3V???? "f nd aA ?•-n 1'??yU9htowr, c Sy °jf Pa, 2 `? ? Glenn High Ptl n?? b tig??Hiq .? m 0 ? ? /.? 0 m ? o ?ym ?or?P%eSCAOO1Rtl cO?'R n ? g°'"'rn+ 3'11 °i . 0 z SS?? E ae,omp° woW 7er m f - 109 ? p a Union Goss Rd b 4 N ? ?'? Pd iPa? a Te29 ?, d 3L d ` arl.?? Ln Langden R pyG Fgp61¢ Forsyt7eCoroetj? r ------- --- RexRd . s Rd 8a?ne ? r - I D¢L2?SOI! COltlCf)r n o-' _--?--_-_T _'-_-'-' - I ? ? m m $ j ? ? GhUrcR Rd Oy __-`- y_'--b y a '~ ?e yrlre y ' 4 U 1nC ? U I p?C y Id? k ?'?? V ? $ a F i pawdson Or ? ? w ? G ghllottc fid FIS i ? ? ?1?JbMe aF[.inaDr Rtl Gaoryd a y i ? ,? T7 4 Li e Dr n FranW Or ? h ? r ? I & i o ? ? ? F, est Creet; D,- ?'c? ? y Poinl Rd Or a ?7 A G Q s ? w ca ? AoP O t' w m Gn oC? 6 a ?b ? lllelfon Ha1'mer StoneY Rid9a a R8 4 a.a5 ? 52 ? y. a F2rt7 Dr ? a Lake Dr a ??rlp " ^ Y 4iT'3 Y O -Po. ° ?? ua'Y?nan Rry V? ; ! rn ? ,e.e?.ejJ JvJ' o ;; ?y G? r oJeQ Hksl x 19 S ? C N ?O BM alifeyRd O? 7 ? J?? S a (L 0? W ?cenlCf ? GounD1`L° SO? ¢ E y J=ssa ? o U 4Vest Dr sPre' pd 0 a ?'? ? ? '??Ja:zle ?n Eff Rr/ ad a Rd G?' c 0 a 09 ,ta ? ,;< y `J? dta' e ?eorge M uRhy ??m t ? C? Fjj. p9 o a ?'+ey S?. d's'ry 4iYa?- N? ?- o? I so?y Da[a Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, CAy of Wns[on-SalerNForsylh County, ESRI G\ North Carolina ? Department of Transportation Legend NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidsan Caunties ? StudyArea Boundary State Project No. 8.1172401 ? T.I.P. No. R-2568C Miles Figure 2-4 Preliminary Study 0 0.5 1 2 Corridors March 2005 Pcge 214 Section 2 - Alternatives • Major utility and railroad crossings, • Length of corridor on new location, • Historic resource impacts, and • Number of new directional crossover intersections. The five preliminary corridors and inforxnation about the potential impacts of each were presented to the public at workshops held in November 2005. Representatives of federal, state, and local agencies met in August 2006 as part of the NEPA/404 Merger Process for this project to consider the potential impacts of each alternative, along with public comments, and to select alternatives to carry through for detailed studies. The Merger Team retained all five alternatives for detailed study. The build alternatives for detailed study are shown in Figure 2-5 and described below. 2.4.4 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives 2.4.41. 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. 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. 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) far 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 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 perxnitted. 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. 2.4.4.2. 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- NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives 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 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. 2.4.4.3. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 follows NC 109 from Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) approximately 0.55 miles and then turns nartheast 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 bxrns west and crosses NC 109, Motsinger Road (SR 1723), and Friendship- Ledford Road (SR 1700) and then bxrns 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). 2.4.4.4. 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 far 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). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.4.4.5. 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). 2.4.5 Interchanges and Intersections Each of the build alternatives under consideration would tie to an existing interchange at its northern terxninus: Alternatives 1, 3, and 6 terxninate at the I-40/NC 109 interchange, and Alternatives 4 and 5 tie to 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 type interchanges. The interchange at US 52/South Main Street is a diamond interchange. Along the alternatives, the use of directional crossovers with offset left bxrns 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. Figure 2-6 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. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-78 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement 0~4 8 ~ co ~ W F w ' = ayc LU ic w ~ W °w tW7 ww ~ tt O F- W U. W g yZe~ ~ g R ~ yy W WIAdOSW ~ W >NMO W F m N ~ Q I a w¢a~w} ~ ~ 8 ?Zr rOQ~OW~ ~ Z a~ I k ~ dOf=A0~2 C='! hli t} ~ m w?. cj ~ 6s ~°ww~a w ~iog I t1 F ~ H H W~ W M H ~ ~ WW aaZMMO Z I w ~=oo Z ?+oZM I m a j y ~ H ~ mso~oo ~ ~ a ozom z~/ I m < 0 Q > > ~ ~ M W }s ~ ~i ~ W ~ mLL m3 J ~ I • U LL ZWO ~4iA~JO< ~ I ~ Qp 2?40Jw[5H ~lI ¢ (J21JnW~ZF-O ~ Z ^ M»OC7O NoSLLLL O2 NtA~ . Oq ~tlJU~m a O Z~ a Z W wl~ O Z- Z I 9D Z S~QW>-J9 ov~a JV)JQ x z ~ ~ N > H tl7 U. 0~J a = I oai> ~ O~ ozz ms ~ w zo~cDwms°ozZU' ~ I W ~ ~ ~ N N MO Z ~ ~ _ ~ W ~ W-'m~~~5.)p ~ U VJp?+?Zr~?~iW~JmbW ?yW O fA JJJWJ ~ \ Z W 1- W Q J» y~ iW600Qlim7lL ~ ~ . . . . . Z r N W <4] lD ~ 6 t Z W ~ Q > OL y ~ ~ . J Z a W ~ Z y I O ~ ~ ~ I W $ I ~ - ~ I ~ I f + 4 g i U F~g Q ` ,i ~ I I a~ ~ 1 I f W •o v~ Z ~ gLL i ' ,ZI• 99 \ a'~ NVI03N a e N f, - . 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 2-6 Directional Crossover Pa e 2-19 Section 2 - Alternatives .B . .. . Preliminary Corridor Altemative 1 Upgrade Existing Altemative 3 New Location Alternative 4 New Location Alternative 5 New Location Altemative 6 New Location Len h on Existin 7.9 1.75 0.8 L2 1.4 Length of C id Mil Length on New Location 1.6 7.75 8.5 7.4 8.7 orr or ( es? Total Length 9.5 9.5 93 8.6 10.1 Number of New Directional Crossovers with Indirect Lefr Turns 4 6 8 7 7 Railroad Crossin s 0 0 1(Grade Sep.) 1(Grade Sep.) 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0 0 0 0 0 Churches 3 0 0 0 0 Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 Ma'or Utilit Conflicts 7 7 5 4 8 Recorded Historic Sites 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Known Federally Listed Species Habitats 1 1 1 1 1 Number of 100-Year Flood lain Im acts 4 4 2 2 4 Relocations* 164 84 71 73 82 Hazazdous Material Sites 0 0 0 0 0 NWI Wetland Number of Crossin s 2 0 3 2 1 Impacts Acreage 0.136 0 1.688 0.558 1.130 Streams Stream Crossin s 4 8 2 3 7 Stream Impacts (lineaz feet) 949.99 2858.62 484.75 856.99 2390.50 Riparian Buffers No No No No No Water Su 1 Critical Areas CA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Number of Greenwa Crossin s 0 0 0 0 0 Potential Section 4(f) Impacts None None None None None Low Income or Minori Po ulations Yes Yes No No Yes * Impacts as presented at the August 15, 2006 Concurrence Point 2 Meeting based on April 2006 functional designs (slope stakes plus ten feet). + Based on year 2006 aerial photographs. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-20 IJraft Env'eronmentallmpact Statement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.5 TR.AFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES Traffic operations and levels of service were evaluated for the alternatives under detailed study far the design year 2035 (see Traffic Analysis for BypassAlternatives for NC 1091mprovements Study, Lochner 2009a). The traffic volume projected far the project alternatives in the year 2035 is 34,400 average annual daily traffic (AADT). The main purpose of the build traffic analysis is to evaluate the perforxnance measures identified for deterxnining the ability of alternatives to meet the project purpose and need: operation at acceptable LOS in 2035 and reduction in travel times between Old Greensboro Road and the Winston-Salem area relative to the no-build scenario. 2.5.1 Year 2035 Build Traffic Projections When compared to the 2035 No-Build alternative, all the build alternatives except Alternative 1 show an overall reduction in AADT on NC 109. Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in the greatest overall reductions in AADT on NC 109, reducing AADT by more than 40 percent on most segxnents of NC 109. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also result in reductions in AADT on NC 109, but these reductions would be more modest for most segments. Alternative 1 would increase AADT on most segments of existing NC 109 (the exceptions are the new location segxnents), but under Alternative 1 capacity on NC 109 would also increase as this alternative would upgrade existing NC 109. The segxnent of existing NC 109 forecast to experience the highest traffic volume in 2035 under the No-Build scenario, between Teague Road and Union Cross Road, would experience approximately 58 percent reductions in AADT with Alternatives 3 and 6, an approximately 39 percent reduction with Alternative 4, an approximately 35 percent reduction with Alternative 5, and an approximately 6 percent reduction with Alternative 1. Table 2-3 summarizes the comparative changes in 2035 AADT on NC 109 for all the alternatives relative to the No-Build scenario. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-27 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 2 - Alternatives ' : 2-3:2035 TRAFF IC VOLLJM ES • : D VS. : D No-Build Build Altemative (AADT and percent change) NC 109 Road Segment AAD,I, Alternative Altemative Alternative Altemative Alternative 1 3 4 5 6 I-40 to Tea Road gue 27,060 32,000 34,400 22,000 23,000 34,400 (183 %) (27.1 %) (-18.7 %) (-15.0 %) (27.1 %) Teague Rd. to Union Cross 26,800 12,000 17,400 18,400 12,000 Rd. 28 ,380 (_5.6 %) (-57.7 %) (-38.7 %) (-352 %) (-57.7 %) Union Cross Rd. to 26 600 11 800 17 600 18 600 11 800 Gumtree Rd. 22,440 , (18.5 %) , (-47.4 %) , (-21.6 %) , (-17.1 %) , (-47.4 %) Gumtree Rd. to Motsinger 27,000 11,000 18,000 19,000 11,600 Rd. 18 ,500 (45.9 %) (-40.5 %) (-2.7 %) (-2.7 %) (-373 %) MotsingerRd. to Wallburg 10,200 12,900 19,600 20,600 13,500 Rd 19,260 (-47.0 %) (-33.0 %) (1.8 %) (7.0 %) (-29.9 %) Wallburg Rd. to 7,600 10,300 17,000 18,000 1Q900 Georgetown Rd. 19,820 (_61.7 %) (-48.0 %) (-142 %) (-92 %) (-45.0 %) GeorgetownRd. to 12,800 10,300 17,000 18,000 1Q900 Wallburg-High Point Rd. 19,600 (_34.6 %) (-47.4 %) (-133 %) (-82 %) (-44.4 %) Wallburg-High Point Rd. 24,600 8,600 15,100 16,100 9,400 to Shady Grove Church Rd 18280 (34.6 %) (-53.0 %) (-17.4 %) (-11.9 %) (-48.6 %) Shady Grove Church Rd. to 26,800 10,300 5,000 18,100 5,000 Johnson Rd 18,720 (432 %) (-45.0 %) (-733 %) (-33 %) (-733 %) Johnson Rd to Jesse Green 21 500 5 400 1 100 13 200 1 200 Dr. 16,860 , (27.5 %) , (-68.0 %) , (-93.5 %) , (-21.7 %) , (-92.9 %) Jesse Green Dr. to Old 21 800 25 600 26 000 26 100 24 200 Greensboro Rd 17,520 , (24.4 %) , (46.1 %) , (48.4 %) , (49.0 %) , (38.1 %) 2.5.2 Year 2035 Build Capacity Analysis Traffic operations analyses were conducted for multilane sections and intersections along the five build alternatives. 2.5.21. Roadway Segments As shown in Table 2-4, all multilane segxnents along all five build alternatives are expected to operate at desirable levels of service (LOS C or better) under 2035 conditions. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-22 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 2 - Alternatives ': • S Multilane Segment ERVICE 1 LOS - NB LOS - SB Union Cross Rd. to Willard Rd. B B Willard Rd. to Gumtree Rd. B C Gumtree Rd. to Existing NC 109 B C Motsin er Rd. to Existin NC 109 A B Existing NC 109 to Haymore Dr. B B Jerry Clodfelter Rd. to Jesse Green Rd. B B Jesse Green Rd to Old Greensboro Rd. B B Baden Rd. to Teague Rd. A A Teague Rd.to Mt. Vemon Church Rd. A B Mt. Vemon Church Rd. to Gumtree Rd. A B Gumtree Rd. to Motsinger Rd. B B Motsinger Rd. to Shady Grove Church Rd. B B Shad Grove Church Rd. to Existin NC 109 B A Jesse Green Rd to Old Greensboro Rd. B B Main St. to Old Lexington Rd. B B Old Lexington Rd. to Gumtree Rd. B B Gumtree Rd. to Friendshi -Ledford Rd. B B Friendship-Ledford Rd. to Motsinger Rd. A B Motsinger Rd. to Existing NC 109 A B Existing NC 109 to Jerry Clodfelter Rd. B B Jerry Clodfelter Rd. to Existing NC 109 B B Existin NC 109 to Old Greensboro Rd. B B Main St. to Old Lexin ton Rd. B B Old Lexington Rd. to Gumtree Rd. B B Gumtree Rd. to Friendship-Ledford Rd. B B Friendshi -Ledford Rd. to Motsin er Rd. B A Motsinger Rd. to Shady Grove Church Rd. B A Shady Grove Church Rd. to Existing NC 109 B A Jesse Green Rd to Old Greensboro Rd. B B Baden Rd. to Teague Rd. A A Teague Rd.to Mt. Vemon Church Rd. A B Mt. Vemon Church Rd. to Gumtree Rd. A B Gumtree Rd. to Motsinger Rd. A B Motsinger Rd. to Existing NC 109 A A Existin NC 109 to Jerry Clodfelter Rd. B B Jerry Clodfelter Rd. to Existing NC 109 B B Existing NC 109 to Old Greensboro Rd. B B 2.5.2.2. Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections The traffic operations analysis conducted for each build alternative is summarized below. Details can be found in the Traffic Analysis for Bypass Alternatives for NC 1091mprovements Study technical memorandum (Lochner 2009a). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-23 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 2 - Alternatives Directional crossover intersections proposed along the NC 109 corridor were analyzed as unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized intersections forecast to not achieve a desirable LOS for the design year 2035 in both the AM and PM peak periods were upgraded to signalized intersections. In addition, unsignalized intersections forecast to achieve acceptable LOS butto experience long queues interfering with flow along upgraded NC 109 were also upgraded to signalized intersections. The majority of signalized intersections along the five build alternatives were forecast to experience acceptable LOS for all movements in 2035. The exceptions were the intersections at NC 109 and Old Greensboro Road (existing signal) and at Friendship-Ledford Old Greensboro Road for all five alternatives and the existing signalized intersection at NC 109 and Gumtree Road for Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6. 2.5.2.3. Yeaz 2035 Travel Tunes The travel time was approximated for each build alternative in 2035 and the 2035 no-build scenario between the southern project terxninus at Old Greensboro Road and each alternative's northern terminus. Travel times were approximated using Synchro 7, incorporating delay forecasts from the intersection operations analysis at the following major intersections: Old Greensboro Road, Jesse Green Road, Johnson Road, Shady Grove Church Road, Wallburg-High Point Road, Georgetown Road, Wallburg Road, Motsinger Road, Gumtree Road, Union Cross Road, and Teague Road. Forecast travel times are shown in Table 2-5. .; F ORECAST .. • 6:45 - 8:30 a.m. i ••• DO• 4:45 - 6:30 p.m. Average Altemative Yeaz NB SB NB SB Travel Speed Existin 2008 15 min 15 min 15 min 18 min 38.2 m h No-Build 2035 45 min 55 min 30 min 68 min 12.1 mph Altemative 1 2035 21 min 27 min 21 min 22 min 26.4 mph Altemative 3 2035 17 min 19 min 21 min 19 min 31.6 m h Altemative 4 2035 23 min 17 min 20 min 20 min 30.0 mph Altemative 5 2035 17 min 19 min 21 min 19 min 31.6 mph Altemative 6 2035 23 min 17 min 20 min 20 min 30.0 m h * Calculated using Synchro 7, incorporating delay forecasts for major intersections. All five build alternatives would substantially reduce the total time to travel the length of the NC 109 corridor within the project limits relative to the 2035 no-build scenario. Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in the greatest reduction in travel times, reducing the travel time by as much as 72 percent (for southbound traffic during the p.m. peak travel time). Alternatives 4 and 6 would result in reductions in travel times by as much as 71 percent (for southbound traffic during the p.m. peak travel time). Alternative 1 would result in the smallest reduction, but it would still reduce travel times in both directions during the a.m. and p.m. peak travel times. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-24 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 2 - Alternatives 2.6 TR.AFFIC SAFETI' The proposed project will be designed to meet current design standards (as listed in Table 2-1). Average accident rates along a four-lane divided roadway with full or partial control of access, as is proposed far the project, are lower than those along a two-lane undivided facility with no access control, as is its existing condition. A four-lane divided roadway with full or partial control of access would reduce congestion and provide increased capacity, which would be expected to reduce significantly the number of conflicts, and in particular, the rate of rear end crashes, occurring along existing NC 109. 2.7 COSTS Preliminary cost estimates for each build alternative are presented in Table 2-6. These figures include estimates for conshuction, 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 concepbxal right of way limits from the preliminary designs for each alternate. A: Altemative • Length miles • • Construction Cost : D ALTER Righbof-Way Cost NATIVES* R/W Utility Cost Tota1 Cost Altemative 1 9.54 $70,OO0,000 $69,975,000 $4,758,169 $144,733,169 Altemative3 9.41 $78,5O0,000 $49,425,000 $628,221 $128,553,221 Altemative 4 920 $85,600,000 $34,975,000 $657,572 $121,232,572 Altemative 5 8.50 $78,400,000 $39,950,000 $657,572 $119,007,572 Altemative 6 10.05 $81,5O0,000 $46,710,000 $618,841 $128,828,841 * Construction and utility cost estimates prepared in March 2010; right-of-way estimates prepared in August 2009. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 2-25 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes the economic, social, and natural environxnents within the project study area. The descriptions are general in nature and address the entire project area rather than providing a separate description of the area as it relates to each bypass alternate. Data were collected from existing sources, such as local planning documents, databases, and other publications; through agency scoping comments and coordination; and from field surveys of the project area. This information will be used to evaluate the possible environxnental impacts of each of the detailed study alternatives. The environmental consequences of the detailed study alternatives are discussed in Section 4. 31 HUMAN CHAR.ACTERISTICS For purposes of discussing socioeconomic conditions, the study area is comprised of Census Tracts 601, 602, 605, and 606 in Davidson County and Census Tracts 19.01, 20.01, 33.06, 34.01, 34.02, 35 and 36 in Forsyth County based on the 2000 Census (see Figure 3-1). This study area includes the Town of Wallburg and a portion of Winston-Salem, as well as unincorporated areas of Davidson and Forsyth Counties. 3.1.1 Population Characteristics 3111 Population and Demographics The study area and surrounding areas have experienced moderate population growth from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 3-1). Although growth in these areas has been somewhat slower than in Narth Carolina as a whole, it has outpaced nationwide population growth of 13.2 percent. The population in the study area increased by 17.2 percent, similar to the growth rates in Davidson and Forsyth Counties. Winston-Salem's population grew by 29.5 percent, but much of this population growth is attributable to annexation, which has expanded the city's boundaries. According to the City-County Planning Board of Forsyth and Winston-Salem (2005), most of Forsyth County's growth is attributable to natural growth, rather than in-migration, while in- migration is responsible for more than half of Davidson County's growth. The US Census Bureau 2008 American Community Survey estimates that Davidson County's population expanded by 7.4 percent from 2000 to 2008 and Forsyth County's population increased by 12.1 percent over that time period. The 2008 population estimates are not available at the Census Tract level and so cannot be determined far the sbxdy area. However, given that the study area's growth has closely followed the overall county population growth in the recent past, it is likely that the study area has experienced a similar rate of growth over this time period. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement a 'r<ot&,?n S! c F ?d5l? . IP. ? rIducl?; ParNO ? ? l JI, ' V, J,cY _ a A f b ?ci 52 srJK- '•. °,?'' ? /4 r a ?1??? ???.oJ CI ? ?.? r ` •G ?a?c..R? u" I / ? ?• ! Olenn,viewbr ? , ?? ? II-asrraaHPNp? ' Y ? °sc?'y?cl Rd °I o? ?1a?c:;eofAa f'e 6L L? _ wi.9tBffD! ? ? ? . o , ,09 J4.ui JQ, d e ? '? ? ? A6 ' ? P?.m?ns y?? r,l lln'o?i Cross Rr1 Qa,?dv T?> - a dRd j ,__.. d}2d ? R Te?0 d" 311 1n 35 Langde ?ni ?; ar r ti ? m b `?2y 5? s L? ? Fo7?yTkCuu Sy EiexR `? y = .Oa AndrPm5G1r ? ?r qCn n DaVi?3sUn Co ?f ; . ?,-' ,y? ? 2 t?" 36 ?aSRd c. ?i hRd <• x ?'GhzyeRd ?`vnfRrf a C p ?y1 h Hdw?aedOr Lu? ? ?1 9 C ? ?yo ?? py,Adaon D = Wlr6 om$tY?_t??_ ?,„ , r 0 z , etown (1d 1 ?r, u - RJ kyesRtl Id'nn?q. - 'Sii?o? ?atoC?? F?anld?n C'r cn F o4r ? • ? Friea[.r?l 2. -r p ?.C- .,? ?'::' ,. v a ?Cafh.-, Df S' ^ ' bE?e-sio??.Dr a ? N fGl]B)/1'Itlae ?,* 64 ? y !`?_ ?? rta ti 1 ? x ? ? ? Ivlorifb Rd . ? ? 8ailayftrf .?? :oa ^ a c?} , ? p1 ? o Q ?, srent G2 co+ , y?- se C?r tia Rd c P' ?v o ?, , ? e ? /? N ` O2 ? ? V c d CnES"r,wsr '`'s o?uOakP. ? Rakih A/A'e.? 4tl h?' Y? y'? c ."'Pn ?? n ?+ l Z ` I MnirVS ? V48urtonP.d RJ 606 a aD? ?? tei i T-6?i?i`Or ? Nun ? [1 " v ? - n H;?sp? srnrool 5 L' 2 ne ? ? ? Ea fQd ' '+"or?`9e Waike?Rd sPr JdNeSiio& t,?, ? m i! nsitA?,'? ??°?A a n } 52 RD R? i a a o. ? ?c I C_ ?I or ? 605 j 19 t?„z r Ru ' Nif;? ? I L, SJit%, /iS.l ,s VC Y' , Ib9?Q3in ?t I. Nof,'tlA?? g/a„£S ? ?? ati"?drhie . E s r, ? n + ? ? ? ) ?P9 ' ty.:? ? S,h? [2' C S by i O N' Legend ` 0 ' ?6Ijt? Rtl RO ? ? HinR ? Altemate 1 Rd E.4vo Altemate 3 ?e n??a U s A`? Alternate4 Alternate 5 y s " ? a ? s ov n Ol \\4' ? Alternate 6 ?e? ? ? E North Carolina ? SiudyArea Boundary Department of Transportation 1 V Census Tracts NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyfh and Davicison Counties ? , rd Stete Project Na 8.1172401 T.I.P. =Na R-2568C 1 1 • 1 I?,IilES ?? ? ?: o os 1 2 Data Sources"NCDOT, NOOne Mapl, Davitlson County, City of Wnslon-SalemlForsy[h County, ESRI, US Census Bureau Figure 3-1 Census Traets P e 3-2 Section 3 -Affected Environment Growth trends varied considerably across the study area. In the northwestern corner of the study area, in an urban part of Winston-Salem, population actually declined from 1990 to 2000. Other areas, such as the southeastern and northeastern corners of the study area, near Thomasville and Kernersville, respectively, had growth rates of nearly 40 percent, much faster than the area as a whole. A: • A • GROXWH, i iii Population Growth rea 1990 2000 # % StudyArea 47,540 55,722 8,182 172% Davidson Count 126,677 147,246 20,569 162% ForsythCounty 265,878 306,067 40,189 15.1% Winston-Salem 143,485 185,776 42,291 29.5% North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4% Source: US Census 1990, 2000. 311.2 Ethnicity and Race The racial composition of the project area and surrounding communities was examined in order to provide insight into the presence or absence of traditionally-underserved populations (see Table 3-2). According to the 2000 Census, minority residents make up approximately 20 percent of the study area population. This is somewhat lower than for North Carolina as a whole, although the study area has a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic residents (6.4 percent) than the State (4.7 percent). Davidson County's racial and ethnic makeup is somewhat more homogenous than the study area, with a higher percentage of white residents and smaller percentages of nonwhite and Hispanic residents. Forsyth County and Winston-Salem have more diverse populations than the study area, with smaller percentages of white residents and higher percentages of nonwhite and Hispanic residents. Within the study area, the highest percentages of nonwhite and Hispanic residents are found in its northwestern corner, near I-40/US 311 in Winston-Salem (Census Tracts 19.01 and 34.01). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment ' : Area D RACE, 111 White Nonwhite Hispanic Census Tract 601 95.1 % 4.9% 1.4% Census Tract 602 932% 6.8% 1.0% Census Tract 605 98.0% 2.0% 0.7% Census Tract 606 95.8% 42% 2.4% Census Tract 19.01 32.9% 67.1% 26.8% Census Tract 20.01 50.1 % 49.9% 5.6% Census Tract 33.06 913% 8.7% 22% Census Tract 34.01 38.7% 613% 22.1 % Census Tract 34.02 89.0% 11.0% 42% Census Tract35 49.8% 502% 14.6% Census Tract36 78.1% 21.9% 8.8% Study Area 79.6% 20.4% 6.4% DavidsonCounty 78.1% 21.9% 32% Fors th Count 68.5% 31.5% 6.4% Winston-Salem 55.6% 44.4% 8.6% NC 72.1 % 27.9% 4.7% Source: US Census 1990, 2000. 311.3 Age of Population Age distribution provides insight into the available wark force, which is an indicator of population trends and employee availability and provides inforxnation relative to service provision needs. In addition, the absence of individuals of working age can reflect the availability of jobs. Table 3-3 shows the relative ages of populations in the study area and surrounding communities. The age distribution within the study area is very similar to the distributions for Davidson County, Forsyth County, Winston-Salem and North Carolina as a whole. A: Area D • : Under 5 • iii 5-19 20-54 55+ Median A e Study Area 6.8% 20.0% 51.4% 21.8% 36.0 Davidson County 6.5% 20.0% 50.7% 22.8% 37.1 Forsyth County 6.7% 20.0% 51.8% 21.5% 36.1 Winston-Salem 6.7% 19.9% 51.5% 21.9% 34.6 NorthCarolina 6.7% 20.5% 51.7% 21.1% 353 Source: US Census 1990, 2000. 3.1.1.4 Limited English Proficiency According to Executive Order 13166, federal and state agencies are directed to "take reasonable steps to ensure 'meaningful' access to inforxnation and services". In some cases, this can be interpreted as meaning information should be presented in a language other than English and/or at a reading level reflective of their level of literacy. While there are few individuals classified by the Census as speaking English less than "very well" in most of the study area, the northwestern corner does contain areas with high concentrations of individuals with limited English proficiency NC 709 Im,brovements Page 34 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment (LEP). The concentration of LEP individuals in these areas, which also feature higher concentrations of Hispanic individuals, ranges from approximately 28 percent to 7 percent of the total populations of the four Census Tracts in this area (Census Tracts 19.01, 34.01, 35 and 36). Most of the LEP individuals in these areas are Spanish speakers, with 32 percent to 9 percent of the total populations of those four Census Tracts speaking Spanish. Targeted public outreach has been provided for these communities over the course of the study (see Section 7.2.8). Spanish language newsletters will be distributed priar to the Corridor Public Hearing and Spanish translation services will be provided at the hearing. 3.1.2 Economic Characteristics 31.21 Employment An important deterxninant of the overall economic well-being of an area is the unemployment rate. As shown in Table 3-4, unemployment rates in all project areas were equal to or lower than the State's unemployment rate in 2000 and had changed little since 1990. The 2000 unemployment rate was lowest within Winston-Salem (3.6 percent), while the rate was slightly higher within the sbxdy area (5.2 percent). Following State and national trends, unemployment rates in the area have risen since 2000. The 2008 unemployment rates for Davidson and Forsyth Counties were 7.3 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, compared to a rate of 6.3 percent for Narth Carolina (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). The 2008 unemployment rate is not available at the Census Tract level, so cannot be determined far the study area; however, based on past trends it is likely to be similar to the 2008 unemployment levels for Davidson and Forsyth. A: LJNE A MPLOYMENT RATE, i iii Unemployment Rate % Change rea 1990 2000 1990 to 2000 Study Area 4.6% 52% +0.6% DavidsonCoun 3.7% 4.1% +0.4% Fors th Count 4.9% 4.6% -03% Winston-Salem 3.7% 3.6% -0.1% North Carolina 4.6% 53% +0.7% Source: US Census 1990, 2000. 3.1.2.2 Income As shown in Table 3-5, the study area has had a somewhat higher median household income than the State as a whole. In 1999, the median household income in the study area was $42,119, compared to $39,184 for North Carolina. The figure far the study area was also somewhat higher than Davidson County's median household income ($38,640) and nearly identical to Forsyth County's ($42,097). Median household incomes in the demographic sbxdy area, the two counties and Winston-Salem grew more slowly between 1989 and 1999 than the State's median household income. The U. S. Census Bureau estimates that median household income grew by 13 percent and 11 percent in Davidson and Forsyth Counties, respectively, between 2000 and 2008. In 2008, median household income was estimated to be $43,663 in Davidson County and $46,561 in Forsyth County. Estimates far this timeframe are not available at the Census Tract level and so NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-5 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment cannot be deterxnined far the study area. However, it is likely that median household income has A: D IA • • D INCOME, Median Household Income D 1999 Change Area 1989 1999 $ Increase 1989 to 1999 % Increase 1989 to 1999 StudyArea $29,912 $42,119 $12,207 39.7% DavidsonCounty $27,913 $38,640 $10,727 38.4% Fors thCount $30,449 $42,097 $11,648 383% Winston-Salem $26,488 $37,006 $10,518 39.7% NorthCarolina $26,647 $39,184 $12,537 47.0% Source: US Census Bureau, 1990, 2000. grown similarly in the study area to the two counties. While the overall study area had a higher median household income than the State, the northwestern corner of the sbxdy area near I-40/US 311 in Winston-Salem (Census Tracts 19.01 and 34.01) had significantly lower median household incomes than the study area as a whole. In 2000, the median income in Census Tract 19.01 was $22,500 and in Census Tract 34.01 it was $29,747. 31.2.3 Poverty Status Between 1990 and 2000, the study area, Davidson County and Forsyth County experienced slight increases in the percentage of individuals living below the poverty line. In contrast, North Carolina as a whole experienced a slight decrease in the percentage of individuals in poverty. However, year 2000 poverty levels were slightly lower in the study area and the two counties than the State. Winston-Salem had a higher percentage of residents in poverty than the study area. Poverty status is shown in Table 3-6. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2008 the percentages of residents in poverty in Davidson and Forsyth were 15.1 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively, compared to 14.3 percent far the State. Based on this estimate, poverty is expanding faster in Davidson County than in Forsyth County ar the State. Estimates for 2008 are not available at the Census Tract level and thus the 2008 poverty level in the study area cannot be deterxnined. While poverty levels are fairly low in the study area, there are neighborhoods within the study area with substantial numbers of residents in poverty. Census Tract 19.01 in Winston-Salem, near I-40/US 311, had the highest percentage of residents in poverty (34.3 percent) within the study area. Other Census Tracts in the area near I-40/US 311 had higher percentages of residents in poverty than the study area as a whole. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 36 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment ' : DIVID ' : • • ' 1 111 Below Povert Level % Change Area 1990 2000 1990to 2000 Stud Area 8.7% 9.7% +1.0% Davidson County 9.8% 10.1% +03% Forsyth County 8.7% 9.7% +12% Winston-Salem 152% 152% No chan e North Carolina 12.5% 123% -02% Source: US Census Bureau 1990, 2000. 3.1.2.4 Housing Similar to trends observed for population growth, the number of households in the study area and in Davidson and Forsyth Counties grew moderately between 1990 and 2000. This growth was slightly slower than the State's growth in the number of households. Winston-Salem's 27.7 percent growth in the number of households is attributable in part to annexation expanding the city's boundaries. While total population and the number of households grew in all areas under consideration, average household size decreased slightly in nearly all areas, reflecting a nationwide trend towards smaller household sizes. Average household size increased slightly in the study area from 2.53 in 1990 to 2.54 in 2000, when it surpassed average household size for the State overall. This small increase reflects increased suburban residential development in once rural parts of the study area. Table 3-7 shows change in households in the project area. A: • • D i iii Households Household Size Area 1990 2000 % Change 1990- 2000 1990 2000 Study Area 18,682 21,908 173% 2.53 2.54 Davidson Count 48,886 58,156 19.0% 2.53 2.50 Forsyth County 107,459 123,851 153% 239 239 Winston-Salem 59,713 76,247 27.7% 230 232 NorthCarolina 2,517,098 3,133,282 24.4% 2.54 2.49 Source: US Census Bureau 1990, 2000 As shown in Table 3-8, approximately 43 percent of housing units in the study area were constructed priar to 1970. Housing stocks in the study area, Davidson and Forsyth Counties and Winston-Salem are older on average than in North Carolina as a whole, reflecting the modest growth experienced in this area in recent decades. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment ' : • 1 111 Tota1 1990-2000 1980-1989 1970-1979 1969 or Earlier Area Units Units %of Units %of Units %of Units %of Built Tota1 Built Tota1 Built Tota1 Built Tota1 StudyArea 23,383 5,155 22.0% 4,250 182% 3,893 16.6% 10,085 43.1% Davidson 62 432 15 100 242% 10 980 17.6% 11 255 18.0% 25 097 402% Coun , , , , , Forsyth 133 093 25 707 193% 24 834 18.7% 24 525 192% 57 027 42.8% Coun , , , , , Winston- Salem 82640 11,623 14.1% 14,348 17.4% 14,288 173% 42,381 513% North Carolina 3,523,944 949,985 26.9% 692,633 19.7% 641,117 182% 1,24Q209 352% Source: US Census Bureau 2000. 31.3 Community Facilities Community facilities and services that serve the projectvicinity include schools, recreational facilities, parks, places of worship, and emergency services. 3.1.3.1 Parks and Recreational Facilities The City of Winston-Salem operates several parks in the project area. Belview Park, just north of I-40/US 311 in the northwestern corner of the project area is a 6-acre park featuring a soccer field, basketball court, fitness trail, playground and picnic shelter. Sprague Park, about 0.75 miles east of Belview Park is an 18-acre park featuring a public pool and a playground. Easton Park is located between NC 109 and Old Lexington Road in the northwestern corner of the project area; it is a 27-acre park with tennis courts, a basketball court, a softball field, a playground and a picnic shelter. Weston Park, located just east of US 52, is a 16-acre park featuring basketball and tennis courts, a softball field, a playground and a picnic shelter. Within the project area, Forsyth County operates Union Cross Park, located at the intersection of Union Cross Road and Wallburg Road. It is a 15-acre park with extensive softball facilities, as well as tennis, basketball, sand volleyball courts, a walking path, picnic facilities and a playground. The nonprofit Wallburg Booster Club operates the Wallburg Athletic Complex on Motsinger Road in Wallburg. The complex includes facilities for basebalUsoftball, soccer, basketball, and football. The Wallburg Booster Club operates numerous youth recreational sports leagues through the Athletic Complex. There are three golf courses in the project vicinity. The Meadowlands Golf Club is located within the Meadowlands community in Wallburg. The Old Homeplace Golf Club and the Maple Leaf Golf Club are located at the northeastern corner of the project area, near the Davidson- Forsyth county line. All three of these golf courses are privately-owned but open to the public. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.1.3.2 Schools The project area is served by the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System and the Davidson County School System. Schools in the vicinity of the project are shown on Figure 3-2 and listed in Table 3-9. A: •• School • PROJECT .• . Location Easton Elementary School East Clemmonsville Circle east of Old Lexington Road, Winston-Salem Union Cross Elementa School Hi h Point Road east of US 311, Kemersville Carter G. Woodson School of Challenge Goldfloss Street west of US 52, Winston-Salem Hill Magnet Middle School Tryon Street and Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem Fors h Vocational Hi h School South Main Street south of I-40, Winston-Salem Wallburg Elementary School Motsinger Road south of NC 109, Wallburg A.G. Cox Middle School Motsin er Road south of NC 109, Wallbur Friendshi Elementa School Friendshi -LedfordRoadwestofNC109 Ledford Middle School East side of NC 109 south of Old Greensboro Road Ledford Senior High School Jesse Green Road and John Green Road, west of NC 109 3.1.3.3 Places of Woiship There are 22 places of worship located within the project sbxdy area (Table 3-10). Their locations are shown on Figure 3-2. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-9 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SN 1 7 1 ? a aa -T ? ' \5 , 11 ¢ ? ?I I ? ?? G I z ? rti L I 6,?5a? -= r Q'? ? • ? ? I F O - ? ?' y l ?T , ? . 1?intl???--5??]?rl? ? _ Wau I °r Gfenn Hiyh P,d ? h - ? . ? C? ° ??enn N? 0 , .. - ? ? ¦¦ ro ? ? 44p ? y m ? nIP/o Schaol RU . ;? • C?'!r,r?u ` a ` Et - ' - - ???' • _ . i ? 1a?0 ill? ??1 ' G - - m1ood Ter n5v ? O1e W m'no . .? UmonCrossRd .? a G . Osear Ln GraySOn t ti i1G?D ?`fl R % Fol'Sli'rh _ coI171fs? REk Rd 1 ' 1 . 1 /?/l4r?.fi. ?I O IIII ?+I?l!:1%l?I . 0, I';?0 . Ib. - I - -- a -------- ------ ? , cl? -? ti 5 Rd I r 8a1T1 e O ? ? c C?i?R?7;•?+urz ? - ?, y _ U ? ¢ 1 ?F ' I w c I l' ? ? ? ? ' Q r ,c S i Davidson ? S,jIletto Rd P? ? Georget Fishe , ?' -- ?J ? C , a Oarl?? Tree Un ??y e pr ? ?'nkley i ?o I a ? e` o e' ,? `'D ' . o o, F•? ?'4C??I?' ? ? _ '? v? c I .Q ? i ?'U O e Dr ?eStCreelrDr bG. o -------D,X, -------?5'v? d u ?r oinCRd ? r ? y y ? a N? Q a ?a Ln ? ? D C?O G 4 hTelJon D StoneY?Rid9 ? ? z c, ?o r • • •? ~ ?? s Pam Or Lake Dr ec? ? °y a a o o Q. ?a ? g hut? ? PG O ykSt °" ?a He7inan ?,y 2 Lc? v ? rddl 30 J S 4 ?P ?. N o Barley Rd ? ???????• ? o ? m o- ? i ? h b ?0,7?y O' ?? ? rep4? l' , fCf ? Gount?'.'/-? IP 55 6 e ? n t Dr ? ? ' e•?:u •,•? °i G Wes ? u SpiYRd d?' ? 114a111 Je??? ? Legend ??' GA? ? Alternate 1 y ??? School ? ? ? Alternate 3 <E ? ? ryfo Alternate 4 Place of Worship o sq Alternate 5 Cemetery ? Alternate 6 ? StudyArea Boundary ? Firestation l ' ?Nf North Carolina ? Golf Course 0-6,F Park Department of Transportation ? ry ? NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Countres ? tP, Rd i State Project No. 8.1172401 ;oJ T.I.P. No. R-2568C Feet o 2,000 4,000 9,000 Figure 3-2 Community Facilities Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESR I Pa e 3-1 0 Section 3 -Affected Environment ': 1 • •' PROJECT •• Church Location Shady Grove United Methodist NC 109 south of Wallburg Church FirstFellowship BaptistChurch NC 109 south of Wallburg Amity Baptist Church NC 109, Wallburg Wallbur Ba tist Church NC 109, Wallbur Comerstone Baptist Church NC 109, Wallburg Vemon Forest Baptist Church Mt. Vemon Church Road (SR 1708) New Mount Vemon Methodist Mt. Vemon Church Road (SR 1708) Church Old Mount Vemon Church Friendship-Ledford Road (SR 1700) New Friendship Baptist Church Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) Calvar Tem le Old Lexin ton Road SR 2743 Amazing Grace Baptist Church Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) Union Ridge United Methodist Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) Church Immanuel New Eden Moravian Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) Church Saint Peter's World Outreach Old Lexington Road (SR 2743) Center Marantha Baptist Church NC 109, Winston-Salem Meadowview Ba tist Church Nathan Avenue Church of Christ NC 109, Winston-Salem Fellowship Baptist Church Teague Road (SR 2705) BereanBa tistChurch NC 109, Winston-Salem Restoration Christian NC 109 Winston-Salem Fellowship , Christ Wesleyan Church Union Cross Road (SR 2643) Parkview Primitive Baptist Ridgewood Road (SR 2698) Church Crestuiew Baptist Church Union Cross Road (SR 2643) 31.3.4 Emergency Services Davidson County has a central9ll Communications Center which serves as the public safety answering point for all agencies in the County. All portions of the County are served by Davidson County EMS, which provides Advanced Life Suppart (ALS) services. The Wallburg Fire Departxnent, located on NC 109 in central Wallburg, is a volunteer agency providing fire protection services to northeastern Davidson County. The Davidson County Sheriff's Office provides service throughout Davidson County. In Forsyth County, emergency first response is provided by the Winston-Salem Fire Department within the city limits and in surrounding areas. The Palmer Lane South Fire Station, part of the Winston-Salem Fire Department, is located off East Clemmonsville Road in the northwestern corner of the study area. The Union Cross Volunteer Fire Departxnent, located at 4401 High Point Road northeast of the study area, provides emergency first response to this part of unincorporated Forsyth County. The Forsyth County Sheriff's Departxnent provides service throughout Forsyth County and residents of incorporated Winston-Salem are also served by the Winston-Salem Police Department. NC 7097m,brovements Page 3-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 31.4 Community Cohesion 3.1.4.1 Neighborhoods The northwestern corner of the study area, in Winston-Salem consists of older, urban neighborhoods. The Weston neighborhood is centered around Weston Park and the Easton neighborhood is centered around Easton Park. The Kimball Acres neighborhood is north of Teague Road and west of NC 109. The locations of these neighborhoods are shown on Figure 3- 3. In the southern and eastern parts of the study area, residential development is primarily low- density and rural in nature. There are few large subdivisions, the notable exception is the Meadowlands development, a golf course community off of Motsinger Road in Wallburg. It is currently under development and was approved for 682 residential units. The remainder of the subdivisions in the project area are small, generally consisting of 10-50 lots. Most are built out, but a small number of them are currently under development. The following small subdivisions and aparhnent complexes are within the project study area and are depicted on Figure 3-3: • Fiddlers Creek Apartxnents • Forest Village • Cole Village Apartxnents • Eden Park • St. Peter's Heritage Place Apartments • Briers Creek • Whitford Place Apartxnents • Brushy Creek • Plantation Place Apartments • Indigo Ridge • Starlight Valley Apartments • Glenn Ridge • Spring House • Cedar Estates • Cherokee Valley • Salem Springs • Forest Creek • Meredith Woods • Green Oaks • Barnswood Estates • Willowcrest • South Main • Rolling Acres • Crossland • Lynnhaven Park • Merriweather Estates • Holly Acres • Crestview Estates • Wilson Heights • Greystone • Davidson Heights • Friendship Acres • Smith Acres • Willowcrest NC 7097m,brovements Page 3-72 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement \y t7l\ ,u Crestview Estates i? Forest Creek ,,.? , ? ? ? K ? Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.2 I.AND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PI.ANNING 3.2.1 Land Use Plans 3.211 Existing Iand Use Most of the study area consists of rural residential and agricultural land uses, although suburban development is becoming more prevalent in parts of the area. The northwestern corner of the study area is more urban in nabxre, with higher-density residential development interspersed with commercial and industrial uses. Rural residential and agricultural uses are found throughout the portion of the study area in Davidson County. There are 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 Wallburg. 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 establishxnents; and the Midway area, just east of the US 52 interchange at Hickory Tree Road, contains two retail shopping centers along with service stations. Other commercial uses, including restaurants, auto-related businesses, and small offices, are lightly scattered along NC 109. A small number of rural commercial uses, including farxn-oriented retail businesses, kennels, and stables are located in various parts of the area. A similar pattern of land uses to that found in Davidson, characterized by rural residential uses and agricultural uses, is 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. Apartxnent 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 businesses, are located near I-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 Lexington 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. 3.2.1.2 Zoning Characteristics As shown in Figure 3-4, the rural/agricultural and residential zoning categories are predominant in the study area. Industrial zoning is concentrated along the northern and western edges of the NC 7097m,brovements Page 3-74 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement I u IL ____ \ r f?5 il ? -_ t ?i - LI ?lJ f???r?J= ??J?r ? ? • ? . ; ?l. ? n? ?if?un c!i fie '.. - - _ -_ ?? ? ? ?? _ ? _ . . I r ,? .i _ „?-?? zi ?. JF l ? d . , I i ?I r l ?. 0 - ? ?r- r ti ? r ' I .., LZ J i .. ? ? I ? L ? ..... ':-?f ? ? ??r r n • r? ?? ? `` ` _ .. , L ? .• ? ??+ _- ?'? • - ' ?? ? r ,, ' ?r..r:'/ ? .,, • _j 'i ?_- ,? rj's?ill? -- ? u ? + _ --- - r L - F_ ? -i I ? r ? f ? 1l / .J =Ji J - ? i-----------= j-I-----?- -------- ?---------I-- - ? - -_ o? .; " ? cl f? ?? \ I 1` L ' L . F_- ?i? ??dl:C ? ?? L ?' -i I -- -- Ji ? ? J> d i ? ,? t > I ? ? C I C i ?? ? ?%; ? !_ r~ ? ? ` L ? L i- - - r y J ? ??f=°, rT - -_- -- _ ? i vV ? "^.?. ' •• . ?.: ,. . . y l ` 20,}`''` C t ? ? ? _i4l?l?au • ? ? u. f - ? ? f. JI ? _ . ?•) p:f/lf Jf I . , ? ? _ l ??w I \ - l ? y S/Y S/ ; ? .. . ._ - ? . - -•rilo? ?r1 _ _ i ? .i. ? I J ..? ? l..l J! . ? 1 ?f?!, =r . 6 jp y ,? ( ; .? ?I ? I _ ?? 1 ?0 l 1 9 ? ? ,. ? ?`,r,/ i.',,?%? _ - - ? • ? _ ,? . ? ¦ - ?? , - . .. . - < _ s ? ? I , , ),??)? ,- ? - ? Cata Soui„ PI_-G1?T, H C One [,,1apl, DaviJ_ori _ounty : ity cifi t ri Galeio.?Fri i_r/th Cri uritv, ES RI Legend North Carolina ? Alternate 1 Zoning D t t f T t ti epar men o ranspor a on Alternate 3 El Residential Alternate4 ff] Rural - Agricultural NC 109 Improvements Project Alternate 5 i Retail Center FQCSyth afld L}aV1dS07! CQURtlBS ? Aiternate 6 i office State Project No. 8.1172401 T I P No R-2568C . . . . ? SiudyArea Boundary i Industrial i OpenSpace MIIeS Figure 3-4 Zoning Categories 0 0.5 1 2 Page 3-15 Section 3 -Affected Environment study area, particularly in the vicinity of US 52 and I-40/US 311. Commercial zoning is lightly scattered through the study area, mainly occurring along existing NC 109 and Gumtree Road. 3.2.1.3 Future Iand Use Plans The Legacy Development Guide (2001) is the general, long-range policy guide for growth and development in Forsyth County and its eight municipalities, including Winston-Salem. It includes the Forsyth County Growth Management Plan Map, which designates the County's desired future land use pattern. These designations for the portion of the County in the project area are shown in Figure 3-5. A key land use division is the County's Municipal Services Area (MSA) boundary. Areas within the MSA are currently served by adequate infrastructure and public services. Most of the study area in Forsyth is within the MSA. Land within the MSA is divided into several different designations; most of the sbxdy area is designated as "Suburban Neighborhoods," defined as the area where suburban development has already occurred and where most future residential, commercial and industrial development should occur. A small area at the narthwestern edge of the study area is designated as "Urban Neighborhoods," where future infill development and revitalization are encouraged. Metro Activity Centers are proposed within Suburban Neighborhood Areas; one of these, the US 311 South Activity Center at US 311 and Ridgewood Road, is located within the study area. Metro Activity Centers are intended as the "focal point for community-wide activities-living, working, shopping, education, recreation and culbxral, spiritual or civic activities." The remainder of the study area in southeastern Forsyth County is designated as a Future Growth Area. While the Legacy Development Guide recognizes and values the rural nature and agricultural resources in this area, it also recognizes that factors including proximity to job centers and the regional road netwark will lead to significant development pressures in the area. The County developed the SoutheastForsyth Area Plan (2005) to address those pressures and encourage development that protects the natural and aesthetic resources of the area. The area plan designates most of the area east of Gum Tree Road and Wallburg Road for future Rural Conservation Subdivisions, in which 50% of land inside a residential development would be protected as open space. Davidson Forward (2002) is the land development plan guiding future growth in Davidson County. As Wallburg does not have any adopted municipal land use plans, Davidson Forward also guides growth within the town. It includes the Davidson County Land Development Strategy Map, which designates most of the study area as "Preferred RuraUAgriculbxral Areas," defined as areas currently without public services such as sewer and water and unlikely to gain these services within the next 20 years. This is shown on Figure 3-5. The County seeks to preserve rural and agricultural uses in these areas. Residential lot sizes within this part of the study area, also included in the Lake Thom-A-Lex Water Supply Watershed, are limited to a minimum of 40,000 square feet. The southern edge of the study area, along Abbott's Creek, is identified as a"Preferred Conservation Area," where development is strictly limited. The northwestern portion of the study area within Davidson County is identified as an "Area of NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement i ,. .?. I 111 JJrJ^ J r1J ? -? ' ? ?r?J.? : ?f 1J }- ? .. u " . ? ? l _ J JJ .l . ?? , P. 1 ??? ,,<; • `? ,?s. ?- „±J _ 11II ` }" U ?'I?I! 'J v ' .r?-?? Y3/ IJJ ? 1 J?. / ??4 _ lnioir C?os=!1 j I?? ? -- - -- =- ---- - - - _ - - __ _ _ _ _ - _ / 1I l Y? ?Ji:J( ? fl I .ll/1=?3f! i_. \???5 ? I ?r I '0?:? ? r 4----- ------------- --?- - Ilf } - --- ?? ? ? ?? = ,s? ?,? ?? - _ 1"J J ' 1J? I' U I L in ?Y-In;illn Jf ----_------ --- -- =- --- ? F-?? ? ?? :.f:? ? ? ? ?. I1?J??J// • ??!!?11.: f ?-? ? ? ? ? /- \ ,? ??flfl J! r f:I.:: Jf 1 ?<1??? ?J--- 1 ; lj \f 15 j f ~ ? "- zril:ry ?1 I . -???r? r•-i ? J ? ??f??fl ?? ? ??St? ? . A v °i,?1 ?? ? ?? t'?, ' . ?:/?:?? ?? s Data Sources: IVCDOT, IVCiOne ?. ry J •. . Niapl, Davi-clsomCounty, City ofNJinston -SaleriVForsyth County, ESRI Legend ? Alternate 1 Future Landuse North Carolina Department of Transportation Alternate 3 ? Preferred Rural /Agricultural Area Alternate 4 i Area ofTraditional orGreenspace Development NC 109 Improvements ProjeCt Alternate 5 i Preferred Conseroation Area Forsyth and DaVldson COURtles ? Alternate 6 Future Growth Area ? State Project No. 8.1172401 T.I.P. No. R-2568C ? StudyArea Bou ndary ff] Urban Neighborhoods ? Surburban Neighborhoods Miles Figure 3-5 Future Land Use Categories 0 0 5 1 2 . Page 3-17 Section 3 -Affected Environment Traditional or Greenspace Development." Typical large-lot suburban development is acceptable in this area. Davidson Forward also identifies Commercial Service Centers, areas of current and fubxre concentrations of commercial development. The NC 109 intersection with Gum Tree Road is identified as a Commercial Service Center, as is the Midway area at the US 52 interchange at Hickory Tree Road. Davidson Forward specifically identifies the widening of NC 109 to four lanes as a policy supporting its vision for the County's future. 3.2.2 Transportation Plans 3.2.2.1 High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization The High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO) coordinates all transportation planning activities in the High Point urbanized area. Within the project area this includes northeastern Davidson County, including Wallburg. The HPMPO Thoroughfare Plan, adopted in 2006, includes all proposed roadway improvements in the project area without regards to funding ar timing. Projects on the Thoroughfare Plan are included in the HPMPO travel demand model. The HPMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), adopted in February 2009, is a tool for guiding transportation decisions through 2035 in the HPMPO area. The LRTP includes only fiscally constrained projects, so while many projects on the Thoroughfare Plan are included in the LRTP, those for which no funding or horizon date have been projected are not. The LRTP integrates long-term and short-term considerations across all modes of transpartation, including highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and air and freight; also, it carefully balances operations and maintenance with capacity management. It emphasizes linkages between modes within the HPMPO area and to regional transportation systems. The LRTP supports the efficient movement of people and goods while balancing economic, social, and environxnental goals and constraints. Included in the LRTP is a Roadway Element, which lists recommended roadway improvements for horizon years through 2035. Because the Thoroughfare Plan only includes roadway improvements, the Roadway Element is the only component of the LRTP to include Thoroughfare Plan projects. Both the LRTP and the Thoroughfare Plan include the widening of NC 109 through the project area. A Transit Element and a Bicycle/Pedestrian Element are also included in the LRTP, which lists recommended improvements to those transportation systems through 2035. No transit improvements in the project area are included in the Transit Element In the Bicycle and Pedestrian Element, greenways are proposed along Abbott's Creek and Spurgeon Creek. 3.2.2.2 Winston-Sa1em Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization The Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (1VW0) coordinates transportation planning activities in the Winston-Salem urbanized area, which includes the northwestern portion of the study area in Davidson County and all of the sbxdy area within Forsyth County. As far the HPMPO, the Winston-Salem MPO has a 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, adopted in 2009. The Winston-Salem MPO Comprehensive Transportation NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-78 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment Plan (CTP), adopted in 2008, shows all proposed transportation improvements to meet anticipated travel demand but does not address timing or funding. The CTP is a multi-modal plan, listing proposed improvements to the roadway system, transit and rail netwark, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Both the CTP and the LRTP include the widening of NC 109 through the project area. The CTP includes a recommended high speed rail corridor just east of US 52 and recommends bicycle improvements along NC 109, Friendship-Ledford Road, Old Lexington Road, Gumtree Road, Union Cross Road, Teague Road, Barnes Road, and South Main Street in the project area. No bicycle, pedestrian, ar transit improvements in the project area are included in the LRTP. 3.2.2.3 Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan Davidson County adopted a Thoroughfare Plan in 1984, but this document has not been updated since then. Davidson County does not have its own MPO; all partions of the study area within Davidson County fall either within the HPMPO area ar the Winston-Salem MPO area. 3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHAR.ACTERISTICS 3.3.1 Noise Characteristics A preliminary Traffic Noise Analysis was prepared far this project (NCDOT 2008b) and is summarized in the following subsections. The noise impacts for the proposed improvements have been assessed in accordance with FHWA guidelines published in 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772. In order to deterxnine the degree of impact of Highway traffic noise on human activity, the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) established by Part 772 were used. The NAC, listed in Table 3-11 for various activities, represent the upper limit of acceptable traffic noise conditions, as well as a measure of that which may be desirable with that which may be achievable. The NAC apply to areas having regular human use and where lowered noise levels are desired. They do not apply to the entire tract of land on which the activity is based, but only to that portion where the activity takes place. . ; NOISE ABATEM ENT . . Activity Leq (h? Description of Activity Category dB(A) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary A 57 significance and serve an important public need and where (Exterior) the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 Picnic areas, recreational areas, playgrounds, active sports B (Ex erior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed land, properties or activities not included in (Exterior) Categories A or B above. D ---- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. NC 7097m,brovements Page 3-79 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment The NAC are given in terms of the hourly, A-weighted, equivalent sound level in decibels or dB(A). The A-weighted sound level is a single number measure of sound intensity with weighted frequency characteristics that correspond to human subjective response to noise. However, since most environxnental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to condense all of this information into a single number called the equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq is the value of a steady sound level that would represent the same sound energy as the actual time- varying sound levels evaluated over the same period. For highway traffic noise assessment, Leq is typically evaluated over a one-hour period, and is denoted as Leq(h). Traffic noise impacts occur when predicted traffic noise levels either. (1) approach or exceed the NAC ar(2) create a substantial increase over existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of "substantial increase" is shown in Table 3-12. .; . . O. SLJBSTANTIAL . NOISE HOURLYA-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS -DECIBELS dBA Existing Noise Level in Leq(h) Increase in dBA from Existing Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels 50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA 51 dBA 14 or more dBA 52 dBA 13 or more dBA 53 dBA 12 or more dBA 54 dBA 11 or more dBA 55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy 3.3.2 Air Quality An Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the project in 2009 (Lochner 2009b) and describes existing air quality conditions in the project area. The air quality analysis was performed in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide. The principal air pollutants of automotive emissions are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Nitrogen Oxides. Other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulates, are produced to a lesser degree. A wide range of photochemical oxidants (ozone) also result through a complex series of light-induced reactions between emitted hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. Automobiles are not regarded as significant source of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less then seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. All areas within North Carolina are designated as either attainxnent, non-attainxnent, or unclassifiable with respect to each of the six pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas that have pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are designated as attainxnent. Areas where the NAAQS are exceeded are designated non-attainment. The project is located in the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point nonattainxnent area for fine particles PM 2.5 as defined by the EPA. The area is in attainxnent with the NAAQS far the other criteria NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-20 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment pollutants. A qualitative PM 2.5 hotspot analysis was found not to be required far this project; the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.116 requirements were met without a hotspot analysis since the project was found not to be of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). This project meets the statutory transportation conformity requirements without a hotspot analysis. FHWA concurred with this decision on June 16, 2006. Highway vehicles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. Far this reason, and because CO is a relatively non-reactive pollutant, CO was used in the analysis as an indicator of the air pollutants produced by traffic activities on the proposed roadway. CO 1-hour and 8-hour concentration of 2.7 parts per million (ppm) and 2.0 ppm, respectively, were used for background concentration in the analysis. These values were reported as average ambient background concentrations in the Forsyth County area by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 2007. 3.3.3 Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities on prime, unique, statewide and locally important farmland soils, as defined by the US Department of Agriculbxre (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540). The NRCS, in cooperation with the state and local agencies, developed a listing of Prime and Statewide Important Farmland of North Carolina. Prime Farxnland is defined as soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land already in or committed to urban development or water storage is not included. Unique Farmland is used for production of specific high-value food or fiber crops. It has the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed. State and Locally Impartant is defined by the appropriate state or local government agency as soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These definitions are based on measures of the soil's capacity to support productive farm activity, not of current cultivation. Soils in the study area considered to be prime or of statewide importance are listed in Table 3-13 and mapped in Figure 3-6 (USDA, 1994, 1976). There are no soils designated Unique Farxnland in Davidson or Forsyth Counties. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-27 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement ?i Kmt?OYy,j'Oe?a ? ?a Irv [W? 70 Wauyhfown Sf ? ? a h Glenn High P,d o ? ? Q ??yhRd N gp a Glenn 0 0 y m ? ? . a a- 41e0A/o School Rd O m a 5;a e ciemm0n ? ?ra ?o?,a P,?S?v pr o? ?. wood re, ?- /27 a ? Union Cross Rd ? Q a a AN c ?'R a??e Ftd Te ? ? ? 1?1 ? ?i?i JS ? t ? G Langden R ??aYson pscarRn ?y G?mYCye N For?sydh County r---- .? ? ! i Puvrdson Cor?,atp ? i m ? ? " -- o - ---- m RexRd / ? ----?a - -- ------- ------ -- b „ _ e c ? ? m Rd t0& ?a' q ? Q t ? b G?,Urch Barnes ? p °`or y -? ?_ U P.d G+ ? p ? P," I ? ? O pavidson ? i sviwno Pd I m +` Ra Georggt Fish i i I v ? /??'?'okley yd rree C/qe Dr '. ,. z I n e Dr ? FrenklinDr ? ry`u2u? f o i --- --- p` -Q ------- h%? a ` y ' 1F rest creelr or G afnt P,d ? fFl ! W ti N? ? ? ? p pP.. `p N ^ a G ?a ? o` ` m n Ln zd 3 ,S, E ? ea a TY k. Haymo r ge y Nlel/on D SfoneY Ri? Parn or ? Lake Dr r ? a 1, {l ?t`o r HBrf/l]dn Rd = 26- , JB O AA- Sn2,dy ?i? Sl w ? ? b a K ? ? c N ?G ' o ? ? 8 ? ? • ailay RU ? ? a ;o ? '° Jon@S ?r + ?ceniCf O .ountry Lri m Rd y ? e?? o Jesse r06t? U West Dr SPry R c,`?, ? ??eyo'a1e?-n P, d 'nod Rd GC 4W? -? cLr ' ?i;a?va "ra ?a Geor5" \i,9? yS' ?o.sh ? m ? ?hoo/ n ? h? df W ,4 g \ ?raR ¢ ? r J' ? e ?Y 4 ? O\a Data Sources': RIrDOT, NC One PAap!, Oavidson County, City of b"+Nnston-Salem%Forsyth Counbi, ESP,I, USD:?. Legend North Carolina ?Alternate1 Department of Transportation Alternate 3 Alternate 4 NC 109 Improvements Project Alt 5 t Forsyth and Davidson Counties erna e ? Alternate 6 State Project No. 8.1172401 T.I.P. No. R-2568C ? Study Area Boundary Prime Farmiand Soils I I 0 0 5 I 1 I MI?eS 2 Figure 3-6 Prime Farmland Soils . Pa e 3-22 Section 3 -Affected Environment • : PRIM Map Symbol E • • D • D' D • Map Unit Name M FORSYTH COUNTIES Fazmland Classification AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland A1B Altavista sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes All areas are rime farmland ApB* Appling sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland CcB* Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland CcC* Cecil sandy loam, 6 to10 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland CeB2* Cecil clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland Ch* Chewacla loam Prime farmland if drained Co* Congaree loam All areas are prime farmland DaB Davidson loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are rime farmland EnB* Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland GeB Georgeville silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland HeB Hemdon silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland HIB Hiwasee loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes All areas are rime farmland KyB Kirksey silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland MaB Madison fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland MeB* Mecklenburg loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland MeB2 Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are rime farmland Ok Oakboro silt loam Prime farmland if drained PaB* Pacolet fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland PcB2* Pacolet clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland SfB* Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland VaB* Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland WeB* Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are prime farmland WkB* Wickham fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes All areas are rime farmland * Soil rype found within the project area 3.3.4 Utilities There are various utility systems operated throughout the project area, including electrical, water, sewer, and gas services. 3.3.4.1 Electric PowerTransmission Most of the project area is served with electric power by Duke Power, while some portions are served by Energy United, a smaller energy cooperative. 3.3.4.2 Water and Sewer The Winston-Salem-Forsyth County Utilities Division provides water and sewer service to all individuals living within the Winston-Salem city limits and to most of the individuals residing in unincorporated areas south of the city. Individuals living in the southeastern part of Forsyth County (nartheastern corner of the project area) are served by individual and community wells and septic systems. With the exception of the Meadowlands subdivision near Wallburg, which is served by Winston-Salem - Forsyth water and sewer, the portion of the study area in Davidson County is served by individual and community wells and septic systems. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-23 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.3.4.3 Natural Gas Piedmont Natural Gas provides natural gas service throughout the project area. 3.3.5 Visual Quality The study area is rural with sporadic development consisting mainly of residential properties and farxn complexes. Some commercial properties exist along the project area, consisting of a few small businesses. The introduction of any large facility in an area alters the local perception of the visual environment. A location may be deemed visually sensitive for its visual quality, uniqueness, cultural importance, and viewer characteristics. According to Federal Highway Administration Guidelines, high visual quality is obtained when area landscape components have impressive characteristics that convey visual excellence. Striking landscapes are not limited to the natural environment and can be associated with urban areas as well. Visual quality is subjective in that it is also deterxnined by a viewer's perception of an area. A field review was conducted in order to investigate the area for its overall visual quality. The review did not yield any significant findings of special or unique natural areas, officially designated recreation areas, or officially designated scenic overlooks within the immediate project area. The farmlands and rolling terrain are characteristic of much of the North Carolina Piedmont. Several private historic properties do exist within the project area. These properties were investigated further far their visual sensitivity (see Section 4.3.5). 3.3.6 Hazardous Materials In April 2009, NCDOT conducted a study to identify properties within the project sbxdy 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 geoenvironxnental concerns, including three automotive repair sites, three automotive salvage yards, one dry cleaner and one industrial site, were identified within the proposed project corridor. These sites are described in Table 3-14 and shown on Figure 3-7 NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-24 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement ? ' j r ,.? .? '? ? '_- ' I , _ ? '' ' ra ?P T SNU9E ? -_ ? _ ti ga ? + ? T. J ?y \ ? 3 '?' ?f rG ' tl' ?7 Waughtown St -- ? "pq. r? Glenn Hrqh P,d q G`enn N?h Rd 0 0 0 5 m m ` / q0 y ? .. ? enln/e Schao1 RU .ILF .....? 9 ? m ? - „t? ? PresleV Dr .?? wood Ter elrtn ille R U/m E Gl m'.nonsv Union Cross Rd El- A c \ Ja Tea9ua Fd s? ?f i ? G OscarLn Langden R Gra?rSOn t ? R a? ee, ?. ? l , R ex Rd 1'OfS?W1 COIlllfy i Duvrtlson C'ourz?c b ; ---- ? ------------ ---- -? ' ? '+ c k e arfie.Qa Barn eg ' c I ) ? ? 5 ? i ??vidson Dr u rr m? R ? S?lletto Rd Georget 0/ Fis % Tree Line Q? p ? y n(ley b ?o ? Frankfin Dr .o ? I ?U O e Dr ? r I \ I I ° ? F'eStCreIl, Dr `'SG 0 ----- _ _ `--? PoinCRd o Dlx/? '??`iy?, O r ? y a - Q a ?a Ln G ? ? D C?o 4 ? h1elJon D HaYmo d9e ? yb StaneY Ri z C, ? ?s Pam Or Lake Dr e ct? a ? a _ o Q. o C e p 1 /'dKman Rd c?n ?c y c11 ?? ykSt ° ?a / o 9 ? "F Barley Rd 0 0 ? m o- ? i ? s ? Or Q- c enfCf ? GOUnti'.'/ ? ri E: Jesse ?tYs ° ? °i West Dr ? 4 - z U Ln ? ?D Go? t m I a LeJend R? S `?a 4 er °r \1?11 6 ? Altemate 1 ?' ?' 0?'?? ? F . ?P•1e Altemate 3 w sh ??Eaforv ARemate 4 ? a ?,1 9 Altemate 5 °?hPF ? Altemate 6 ? StudY Area BoundarY ? ?1 O r t? ::? ??J?J ???J?? ?' r i i ? ?"t) Hazardous Materials Site 0 North Carolina ? ? ? Underground Storage Tank Department of Transportation Oth ? ? er ? NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Countres s? r R State Project No. 8.1172401 H"'tPd T.I.P. No. R-2568C ? ' Hi/Inn ?r? " Feet ? o 2.000 4.000 8.000 ? Figure 3-7 Hazardous Materials Sites Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESRI Pa e 3-25 Section 3 -Affected Environment : Site # POTENTIAL Type 'D• UST Facility ID ' Anticipated Contamination Anticipated Severity 1 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 2 UST 0-012072 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 3 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 4 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 5 UST 0-032254 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 6 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 7 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 8 Auto Salvage None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 9 UST 0-031754 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 10 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 11 Dry Cleaner None Contaminated soils and water Low 12 UST 0-036650 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 13 UST 0-015971 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 14 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 15 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 16 UST 0-012934 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 17 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 18 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 19 Auto Repair None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 20 UST 0-016908 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 21 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 22 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 23 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 24 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 25 UST 0-016024 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 26 UST None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 27 UST 0-016554 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 28 Auto Repair None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 29 Auto Salva e None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 30 Auto Salva e None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 31 Industrial None Contaminated soils and water Low 32 UST 0-021235 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 33 UST 0-016015 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 34 UST 0-021657 Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 35 Auto Re air None Petroleum contaminated soils and water Low 3.3.7 Mineral Resources There are no mining operations or quarries within the project study area, although several quarries are located nearby. As such, none of the project alternatives would directly impact the production of mineral resources. Construction of the project may temporarily increase the demand for locally crushed stone and sand. However, such an increase in demand would not adversely impact mineral resources. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-26 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.3.8 Floodplains/Floodways Riverine floodplains are low-lying areas adjacent to stream channels that are prone to periodic flooding during heavy or prolonged rains. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a one percent chance of flooding during any given year. The floodway is the channel area that needs to be kept free of encroachment so the 100-year flood can be carried without increasing the level and extent of flood elevations. Streams for which detailed hydrological studies have not been conducted do not have defined floodways, so only the 100-year floodplain boundaries are estimated and mapped. There are no FEMA buyout properties in the study area. A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988 "Floodplain ManagemenY" and with 23 CFR 650 Subpart A`I,ocation and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains." This evaluation is based on the results of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) detailed flood insurance studies and FEMA's Federal Insurance Rate Mapping (FIRAd) for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Davidson and Forsyth Counties. FEMA completed detailed flood insurance studies for Davidson on March 16, 2009 and for Forsyth on January 2, 2009. Figure 3-8 shows the floodplains and floodways in the project study area. Named streams with defined floodplains in the project study area include Fiddlers Creek, South Fark Muddy Creek, Soakas Creek, Long Branch, Brushy Fork, Abbotts Creek and Spurgeon Creek. 3.3.9 Protected Lands There are no federal or state protected lands within the study area. There are also no waters within the study are that are considered by the National Park Service to be Wild and Scenic Rivers (USDA-USFS 2009). 3.4 CULTUR.Ai. RESOURCES This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(fl of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, codified at 49 U. S.C. Section 303. Section 4(fl states that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harxn to the property resulting from use. The following sections summarize the cultural resources identified within the project study area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-27 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement .. 9 . /"`= NU9E ? I ? 0 p \ F 4b Q WaughtoWn St Hiyh P,d R? h Q ° Glenn Nioh ? C' Jti rh'? o c, O ? ?y Q ?l ? wai,till s a 440 ?. ? r?.. ,elP/?SchaolRU R o` . v rb n ecock z / t o V 0 ?'?a g ?E? ?'-a ? m Da a ;,: l?a? presleV ? ? ? ??j ? G i t`? I .......... svilla R E GIet9r? _ /J G ?n od Ter ? wC?? 6 a 0 Union Cross Rd ? ? SOLItb o o ? J a7 ? t Q a9§°n ? ? ?oscar Ln ? ? ? Lan9den R 0 G1 ?SY (2? l 1 O ? `4??? ????ltlll r 0 ? R ex Rd ? ? O '?'1 9 n rorsrr/4,c01111tv------ ? '- ------- J' ? O r-- 7 ------------ ----------- ? - Duvidson Courzt -- c , m cr p ° I T ? t2 ? O .. Q7 O ? I y s Rd -ily Bame 4 r? I G,l ? ¢ 0?? ? :: - ? cr ? . - ? ?j • ? ? ? Q ? /" I pY vzz C ? i D?l,??{SUn c ?; rc m? r J?jr?-F?J ? ? ? ? «yetovvnR 5???t{o F ? ? ? pFlshef Rd i - ? ? ?. 7r ne Dr ? y nkley ° ? p `y p N e -o ? . I ?U ? e Dr Frar?kfir? Llr m f o , I x O / ? L I ?,/ ?v F rest Cree1? Dr e'S?. ? ------------ / --------D X -- --ySvi??, o u ? Q ? J v,.,,?ir "nt R d F or O ? L 1? a I m I p? ?"v . ti N e z ,vHaymo r e '`ti StaneY Rid9 Q? h?leflon D `? V ? o ? Cry \ z a , n c,a O a p ? ?? Pam Or Leke Dr b d `•r?j. 02 ? rr ?1l ?..? ?l a = ? "' o co "P ? b3 na P G ?'aKman R,y ? Q ? Lo? 1 0 4 t, J`l ?C', O '? 1B ? ??1tY'?\ S ` SarleyRd Q ? o- c'' q a O 't V B aQi O n o- ? \ Ll11 Q U ? d Jp7 ? ? p1? gs Or ?? ?a ?untYV Ln ? ?"+ G o 4 o Jesse ? ? west Dr ? 6 SP?Y R 1• ? , 1?iale ILI) ? EllerRtl _ ?a G o ? a C?c °r Legend 6\1?11 a ? ? c? ?eor? ? t ? Alternate 1 0 a ? Alternate 3 N 0\? Alt t 4 Cp erna e } Alternate 5 f ? A d ? Alternate 6 8 / ?? O 4 ?? r• O 0 ? ? ? Stud Area Boundar y y National Wetland InventoryArea C16 North Carolina 100-Year FloodzoneArea D t t f T t ti epar men o ranspor a on t t ? Vlf S l W h dA a er upp y a ers e rea NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Countres r a State Project No. 8.1172401 H"'tPR n T.I.P. No. R-2568C ?Feet { s 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 ? Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESRI, USDA, USFWS Fig ure 3-8 Water Resources Pa e 3-28 Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.4.1 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 surveys in 1995 and 1996 addressed R-2568 as a whole while the 2004 and 2005 surveys focused on the APE for R-2568C. For each survey of the project, all structures over fifty years of age within the APE were photographed and evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. In August 1995 HPO concurred with NCDOT that the D. Austin Parker House and the Mark Parker House were each eligible far the NRHP under Criterion C for architecture. The following year, in November 1996, the HPO agreed with NCDOT that the John William Hiatt Farm was eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for architecbxre. Eight years later surveys for historic strucbxres were redone for R-2568C. In August 2005, NCDOT architectural historians confirxned the eligibility deterxninations far the D. Austin Parker House, the Mark Parker House, and the Hiatt Farm. In addition, NCDOT recommended that the Yokeley Farxn was eligible under Criteria A and C for agriculture and architecture. HPO concurred with the repart in September 2005, but raised questions about three additional properties: the Friedland Lower Tier Rural Historic District, George W. Wall House, and Dempsey B. Clinard House. NCDOT responded to HPO inquiries, stating that and the Clinard House and Yokeley Farxn were outside the APE for the project, and that none of the proposed alternatives would encroach upon the Friedland area. HPO concurred with these assessments in December 2009. Therefore there are three eligible properties within the architectural APE far the project: D. Austin Parker House, Mark Parker House and the George W. Wall House. A copy of the concurrence forxn between NCDOT, HPO and FHWA regarding the effects of the proposed project on the eligible properties in the architectural APE is in Appendix A.2. The locations of the historic properties in the project area are depicted on Figure 3-9. 3.4.2 Archaeological Resources Overview studies of archaeological resources in the project area were conducted in 1993 and 1995 (NCDOT 1993, 1995). The study utilized previously-collected archaeological data from the project area and surrounding region to identify the types of archaeological resources that might be located in the highway project area. The potential effect of the project on significant archaeological resources was also considered. The projecYs 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 sbxdy, the NC Office of State Archaeology had records of eleven archaeological sites within or near the study area (see Table 3-15). Nine of the sites have prehistoric components and five have historic era components. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-29 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement ? ' j r ,.? .? '? ? '_- ' I , _ ? '' ' ra ?P T SNU9E ? -_ ? _ ti ga ? + ? T. J ?y \ ? 3 '?' ?f rG ' tl' ?7 Waughtowr? St -- ? "pq. r? Glenn Hrqh P,d q G`enn Nioh Rd 0 0 0 5 m m ` / q0 y Schao1 RU ? 9 ?LF ? ?e a - ? PresleV Dr .?? ott? wood Ter ille R t??? ? ? . nnsv E Gle w /1)7 ?a mm ?on Cross Rd 4 ? ne y \\ ay \p ? U WC:IY.:!I111U' LlLIC1lY1 U? p? Mark Parker House a ? D. Austin Parker House ?t Langden R Gra?rSOn OscarLn °• o o - o UC?r?C? ?ffrLL d ? • ? CW W?11??1? i1 L?C?JI?JULIt?J? R ex R UVC-JLW 1'OfS?'fl1 COIlllfy J:?x - ` F i Duvrtlson C'ourz?c b ' ; ---- ? ------------ ---- - _ ?y cr cl? i m m k r ?~ -?-___ _M1 ?-_ cl? arfie ? m` " Bari i ? , o- ? y t i ??vidson Dr .c a i 5?Wtt° George Wall Nouse T ree Line Or ? y nkley Franklin Dr .o ? I ?U O e Dr ? r I \ I I 75 . F res 'h _-_-_-_-_-_ I p ? . . . o - ---Vbp?.? a p , Dempsey Clinard Nouse D r Ap4c)r,? r ? y ? ? N"a a ?a Ln Q G ? ? D C?o 4 ? Haymo r d9e ? ?a ? yb hlelJon D StaneY R? z C, ? ?s Pam Or Lake Dr e ct? a ? a _ o Q. o C ¢ ? p ?'aKman R,y 2 'Lc? y S adl ?Y? ykSt °?a "F Barley Rd 0 0 ? m o- Le i ? s Or Q-? ? '/ ? ? ?' Jesse Unti' ? . GO ?entCf t Dr ? °i ? Wes z U Sp''Y RIi Ln ? G Legend ? Aiternate 1 ? ?? ?eorg ' Alternate 3 Aiternate 4 <E ? ryf?rUp 1 9 Alternate 5 0? d 'SeF ? Alternate 6 John William Hiatt Farm ? Study Area Boundary rq Proposed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District ' North Carolina Proposed Yokeley Farm National Register Boundary Department of Transportation Historic Site ? ? NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Countres ? R ` tP, Rd i State Project No. 8.1172401 T.I.P. No. R-2568C momW Feet Historic Arehiteetural 000 Figure 3-9 o 2 000 4 000 8 . , , Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESR I Resou rees Pa e 3-30 Section 3 -Affected Environment 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 sbxdy 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 Departxnent 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 (see HPO letter in Appendix A.2). A: PREVIOUSLY DENTIF WITHIN O. .. THE .OJECT S Site Number IED A• • • • ATED TUD .. T e of Site 31PT79 Prehistoric and historic 31PT82 Prehistoric 31PT85 Prehistoric 31PT86 Prehistoric 31PT87 Prehistoric 31PT88 Prehistoric 31PT266 Historic 31PT272 Prehistoric 31PT287 Prehistoric and historic 31PT288 Historic 31PT289 Prehistoric and historic 3.4.3 Section 4(t) and 6(t) Resources Within the project area there are no public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges affected by the proposed project. As described above, it is likely the study area contains archaeological sites, but a complete archaeological survey will be conducted once a Preferred Alternative is selected. As described above, there are several historic architectural resources within the project area. Three of these resources, the George W. Wall House (NRHP listed) and the D. Austin Parker House and Mark Parker House (NRHP eligible) are within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project These three historic resources would be subject to the requirements of Section 4(fl of the Departxnent of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 303). Section 6(fl of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) addresses impacts to lands developed in public ownership using LWCFA funding. There are no Section 6(fl resources in the project area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-37 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.5 NATUR.Ai. ENVIRONMENT CHAR.ACTERISTICS 3.5.1 Soils, Topography, and Geology 3.511 SoiLs Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors which include past geologic activities, nature of the parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, the age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. General soil associations incorporate areas with distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and drainage. The study area is located within the Chewacla-Congaree, Cecil-Pacolet, and Poindexter-Enon- Zion (Davidson County), and the Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree, Pacolet-Cecil (Forsyth County) soil association (USDA 1994, 1976). Soil associations contain one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape. Mapping units are named for the major soil series within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soil series. The Chewacla-Congaree soil associate is characterized by nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly to well-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and subsoil; forxned in recent alluvium on flood plains. The Cecil-Pacolet soil association is characterized by gently sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. The Poindexter-Enon-Zion soils are characterized by gently sloping to steep, moderately deep and very deep, well-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil (USDA 1994). In Forsyth County the Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree soil association contains somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained, grayish and brownish, loamy soils that have a dominantly grayish subsoil. This association is found on flood plains subject to overflow. The Pacolet-Cecil soil association is characterized on uplands by broad smooth ridgetops, long side slopes, and long narrow drainage ways, with well-drained brownish, loamy soils which have a reddish clayey subsoil (USDA 1976). As shown in Table 3-16, the proposed project study area contains 23 soil series in 37 soil mapping units (USDA 1994, 1976). Of these soil mapping units, four are classified as hydric. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-32 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment . B . . O . . . O . O . O SERVICE (NRCSI M"P ED SOII-S • D WITHIN THE S TUD • • • Map Soil Series Name Taxonomic Classification H dric ode s AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent Fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic Yes slo es Ha ludults A1B Altavista sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent Fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic Yes slopes Hapludults ApB Appling sandy loam 6 to 10 percent Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slopes CcB Cecil sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults No CcC Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults CcD Cecil sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults No CeB2 Cecil clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No Ch Chewacla loam Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic yes Fluva uentic D strude ts Co Congaree complex Fine-loamy, mixed, nonacid, thermic Typic yes Udiflwents DaB Davidson loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Clayey, kaolinitc, thermic Rhodic Kandiudults No EnB Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent Fine, mixed, active, thermic Ultic Hapludalfs No slo es GeB Georgeville silt loam, 2 to 8 percent Fine, kaolinitc, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es HeB Hemdon silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Clayey, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Hapludalfs No HIB Hiwasee silt loam, 2 to 6 ercent slo es Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic Kanha ludults No MeB Mecklenbur loam, 2 to 8 ercent slo es Fine, mixed, active, thermic Ultic Ha ludalfs No Ok Oakboro silt loam Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic yes D shochre ts PaB Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es PaC Pacolet sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slopes PaD Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Fine, kaolinitiq thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es PcB2 Pacolet clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Clayey, kaolinitic, thermic Typic No Kanha ludults PcC2 Pacolet clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Clayey, kaolinitiq thermic Typic No Kanha ludults PcD2 Pacolet clay loam, 10 to 15 percent Clayey, kaolinitiq thermic Typic No slopes Kanhapludults Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 2 to 8 Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Ha ludalfs Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 8 to Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? 15 percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Hapludalfs Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 15 to Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? 25 percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Hapludalfs NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-33 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment ': • D Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 2 to 8 Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Ha ludalfs Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 8 to Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? 15 percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Ha ludalfs Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 15 to Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic P? 25 percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Hapludalfs Poindexter and Zion sandy loams, 25 to Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Typic ? 45 percent slopes Hapludalfs; Fine, mixed, active, mesic Ultic No Ha ludalfs SfB Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent Fine, mixed, active, thermic Aquultic No slopes Hapludalfs VaB Vance sand loam, 2 to 8 ercent slo es Cla e, mixed, thermic T ic Ha ludults No VaD Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Clayey, mixed, thermic Typic Hapludults No slo es WeB Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No WeC wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es WeD wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults No slo es Wh Wehadkee soils Fine, kaolinitic, thermic T ic Kanha ludults No WkB Wickham fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 Fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Typic Kapludults No ercent slo es W1C Wilkes soils 6 to 10 percent slopes Loamy, mixed, thermic, shallow Typic No , Hapludalfs W1F Wilkes soils, 15 to 45 percent slopes Loamy, mixed, thermic, shallow Typic No Hapludalfs 3.51.2 Climate and Topography The climate of the Winston-Salem area is influenced by elevation, distance from the Atlantic Ocean, and by latitude and location of the county. The lowest temperature ever recorded was -7 degrees and the highest on record was 107 degrees. The average high temperature in July is 89 degrees and the average low temperature in January is 30 degrees. The average length of the freeze-free growing period is approximately 200 days, lasting from early March through late October. Thunderstorms account for a large part of the rainfall received during the growing season. During this time of year precipitation is highly variable from month to month, day to day, and place to place within the county. By autumn, rainfall amounts frequently increase overall. Tropical storxns in late summer and fall sometimes contribute to this increase. Rainfall in winter is usually associated with large low-pressure systems moving over the Eastern seaboard. Snow and sleet usually occur annually, but amounts are typically small. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-34 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment The sun shines, on average, more than half the total number of daylight hours in winter and nearly two-thirds of the total number of daylight hours in other seasons. The average relative humidity is approximately 85 percent, dropping to about 50 percent by midafteinoon (USDA 1976). The study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of central North Carolina. The topography in the project sbxdy area is generally characterized as gently rolling to hilly landscapes. Elevations in the study area range from 740 to 920 feet above mean sea level (USGS 1994). The lowest elevations are near Soakas Creek and US 52 at the western edge of the project area area and the highest elevations near Union Cross Road in the northeastern corner of the project area. 3.51.3 Geology The northern part of the study area lies within the Milton Belt and the southern part lies within the Charlotte Belt, two major geologic belts located in the North Carolina Piedmont. The Charlotte Belt is the core of an ancient volcanic island archipelago. Ash blown out of volcanoes erupting during the collision blanketed much of the Charlotte Belt. The area is characterized by felsic (light-colored) and mafic (dark-colored) igneous rocks. Felsic rocks are more common in the study area. The felsic rocks, primarily granites, can be divided into two main types-rocks that have all minerals of about the same size and rocks that have large feldspar crystals surrounded by smaller grains. The Milton Belt is characterized by volcanic and sedimentary rocks and consists of gneiss, schist and metamorphosed intrusive rock. Metamorphosed intrusive rock is interxnediate in hardness between the parent sedimentary rocks and slate and is classified as argillite. A variety of rocks and minerals are being mined or have been mined in Davidson and Forsyth Counties. 3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in this description of biotic resources. Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative faunal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used far the floral species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name only. 3.5.21 Terrestrial Plant Communities Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project sbxdy area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use practices. Agriculture, development, and forestry practices have resulted in the presentvegetative NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-35 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment patterns. There is often some degree of overlap, or intergrade, between biotic communities, where characteristics of multiple community types are present. All community types have had some degree of past or continued human disturbance and do not reflect, in totality, the characteristics of "natural communities" described in Schafale and Weakley (1990). Six plant communities occur within the study area: Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, Pure Pine Community, Clearcut Community, Agriculbxral Community, and Disturbed-Maintained Community. Two of these communities (Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest and PiedmonULow Mountain Alluvial Forest) can be classified as natural communities by Schafale and Weakley (1990). A description of each community type follows. Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest This forest type is found throughout the Piedmont and Coastal Plain and possibly ranges into some of the lower elevation areas of the Blue Ridge. Landscapes typically include mid-slopes, low ridges, upland flats and other dry-mesic upland areas, especially on acidic soils. Under natural conditions these forests are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Natural reproduction occurs primarily in canopy gaps. Rare severe natural disturbances, such as wind storxns, open these canopy gaps, allowing pulses of increased regeneration of less shade-tolerant species. Shade-intolerant tulip poplar can reproduce in sufficient numbers within natural gaps to persist into the climax in Piedmont forests. Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and pioneer hardwood species including red maple (Acer rubrum) tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua). Dominance of these species will depend on the amount of disturbance. Areas that were cultivated are generally dominated by even-aged pine stands which are replaced by the climax oaks and hickories only as the pine ages out and dies from the stand. Logged areas may regenerate with a mixture of pine and hardwoods. Within the study area, this plant community generally dominates the uplands. This forest can be found on side slopes, upland flats, and some lower slopes where natural vegetation remains. This forest type is dominated by oaks and hickories, with white oak (Quercus alba) being the most prevalent. Other dominant species include red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya alba [tomentosa]), Southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra),. Occasionally American beech (Fagus grandifolia) may be common as well. Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), bxlip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum are also common in disbxrbed areas. Typical understory species include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), red maple, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Shrub species include dwarf pawpaw (Asimina parviflora), downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesguianum), sassafras (Sassafrs albidum), and American strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). Muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus guinguefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are the vines present. Herbs are usually sparse and include heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), Chrishnas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), downy rattlesnake orchid (Goodyera pubescens), and pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-36 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest This forest type is found throughout the Piedmont and ranges into the lower Blue Ridge valleys. This plant community type occurs along river and stream floodplains in which separate alluvial landforxns and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish. This community type typically has an open to dense understory or shrub layer and a sparse to dense diverse herb layer. The canopy can consist of a diverse mixture of bottomland and mesophytic species including river birch (Betula nigra), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), bxlip poplar, sweetgum, American elxn (Ulmus americana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black walnut (Tuglans nigra), green ash (Frcixinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). Understory species may include boxelder (Acer negundo), southern sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Shrubs may include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and American strawberry-bush, among others. Vines that are frequently prominent include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus guinguefolia), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and greenbrier (Smilcix sp.). The herb layer is as diverse as the other vegetation layers in this community. Common species include touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), violets (Viola sp.), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), bamboo grass (Microstegium vimineum), and heart-leaved aster (Aster divaricatus). Pine Community Pine forests are present in many locations within the study area, including areas of planted pine and areas of naturally-occuring pine. The plantations are generally dominated by white pine (Pinus strobus) or Virginia pine and are generally greater than five years old. The stands of natural pine are typically dominated by V irginia pine, and are more than ten years in age. The pine creates a dense overstory, blocking sunlight and allowing a sparse or absent understory and herbaceous layer. Understory species may include red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. Woody vines such as poison ivy and greenbrier may also be present. Clearwt Community The clearcuts within the project area were created in the recent past, and are generally covered by dense, scrubby vegetation. Young red maple, Virginia pine, and sweetgum are the most common woody species present. Vines such as greenbrier, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and poison ivy may also be prominent. The herbaceous layer is generally dense and may include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), asters (Aster spp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and other herbaceous species. Invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet, and kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), are very common in these highly disturbed situations. Agriwltural Community Agricultural fields are the third most abundant land use in the study area. Most of the fields are actively farxned far tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), and soybeans (Glycine max), with few tracts left fallow. Livestock pastures are also common, with a cover of fescue (Festuca sp.) being the most common cover type. Species common to disturbed habitats, particularly cocklebur NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-37 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment (Xanthium strumarium), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), and rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium) frequently occur along field edges. Disturbed-Maintained Community This community includes three types of habitat that have been or are currently being impacted by human disturbance. These four habitat types are regularly maintained roadside shoulders, utility and railroad rights-of-way, and residential and commercial areas. For purposes of this report, the floras of these areas have been included together into a more simplified "disturbed/maintained community". The majority of these habitats are kept in a low-growing, early successional state. A comparable community type is not described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The regularly maintained roadside and railroad rights-of-way are mowed frequently and are dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The dominant species include fescue, Japanese honeysuckle, dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Queen Anne's lace, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild onion (Alllium canadense), blackberry, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), plantain (Plantago sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), a variety of asters and goldenrods, and dandelion (Tarcixacum officinale). The utility rights-of-way are generally covered by dense vegetation, somewhat similar to the vegetation found in the surrounding natural communities. Within the project study area, common herbaceous species include broomsedge, dandelion, aster, fescue, dogfennel, sunflower (Helianthus sp.), asters, ragweed, and goldenrods. Saplings of Virginia pine, sweetgum, and red maple are also prevalent in these rights-of-ways. Prominent vines include trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), blackberry, poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, and kudzu. The residential and commercial areas include maintained lawns and landscaped areas surrounding businesses. Species found in these areas include fescue, nandina (Nandina domestica), lily turf (Liriope muscari), crape myrtle, (Lagerstroemia indica), boxwood (Buxus sp.), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii), burning bush (Euonymus alatus), and Chinese privet. Native vegetation may also be present in transition zones between residentiaUcommercial and natural areas. 3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest can be found in the disturbed communities. The faunal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead faunal components. The European starling*' (Sturnus vulgaris), northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos) and American robin* (Turdus migratorius) are common birds that use these habitats to find insects, seeds, or worxns. The eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and the eastern bluebird* (Sialis sialia) may utilize fences for perching and preening. Mourning doves* (Zenaida macroura) and red-tailed hawks* (Buteo jamaicensis) may be found perching on overhead power lines. The 1 An asterisk (*) indicates that the species, or evidence of the species, was observed during feld surveys in the project area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-38 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are true opportunists and will eat virtually any edible items including vegetation, fruits, seeds, insects, and carrion. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests, and clearings or prefer a mixbxre of habitat types. The eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefers a mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the roadside and residential areas. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus) will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas. The black rat snake (Elaphe guttata) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) are neotropical migrants that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas and in clearcuts. The blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) can be seen utilizing edge habitat all year round. Forested areas are important habitat for many wildlife species, providing crucial foraging, nesting, and/or denning areas. Raccoons* (Procyon lotor) are generally associated with swamps and streamside forests, and their tracks are often seen along stream banks. The barred owl (Strix varia) utilizes river bottoms and moist woodlands for nesting as well as feeding. Neotropical migratory birds, in particular, are dependent on these areas. Species such as the northern parula (Parula americana) and the Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) thrive in wooded riparian areas, while the summer tanager (Piranga olivacea), and the red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) prefer the upland woods. Species such as the downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), wild turkey* (Meleagris gallopavo), red-bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes carolinus), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), and the bxfted tihnouse* (Parus bicolor) are found in wooded areas throughout the year. Other species that live in forested areas but are seldom seen include the gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Felis rufus), and worxn snake (Carphphis amenus). Forested areas dominated by pine are especially appealing to the pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and screech owl (Otus asio). In the leaf litter of the terrestrial forested habitats, the woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) may be found. The gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis) is often observed foraging in wooded areas, both on the ground or in trees. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) and the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) can be found under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth, while the red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) forage in the same leaf litter. The eastern box bxrtle* (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial bxrtle but will often be found near streams in hot, dry weather. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 3-39 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.5.2.3 Aquatic Communities Aquatic habitats within the project sbxdy area range from ephemeral waters present in interxnittent, channelized, first order streams to perxnanent, riverine habitat Abbott's Creek, South Fark Muddy Creek, and Fiddler's Creek are the largest streams within study area. Large streams with good water quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats are expected to support a more diverse assemblage of fish and other aquatic organisms than smaller tributaries. During field studies for this project, a visual survey of the stream banks within the project study area was conducted to document the aquatic community. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in channels within the project area. Fish species expected to occur in drainages within the project vicinity include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salonoides), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) (NCDWQ 2006). Forested wetlands are especially appealing to the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), the gray tree frog (Hyla chrysoscelis) and the northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus). Narthern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping bxrtles* (Chelydra serpentina), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), and green frogs* (Rana clamitans) may be plentiful near larger waterways, while two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus) are common in smaller streams, seepages, and springs. Suitable aquatic habitat exists in the project sbxdy area to support bird species such as the great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), wood duck* (Aix sponsa) and belted kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon). According to North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), no in-water wark moratoriums are required for fisheries concerns, including anadromous fish, at any of the proposed stream crossings in the study area. Within the sbxdy area, one type of wetland system exists: palustrine. The palustrine system (denoted in the classification system by a"P') consists of all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergents. Subclasses far this system and the corresponding definitions include: • Forested (FO) - Characterized by woody vegetation over 20 feet in height • Emergent (E1V) - Characterized by erect, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season. • Scrub-Shrub (SS) - Characterized by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. All three subclasses of wetland are present in the project area. Detailed descriptions of each wetland are included in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Lochner 2007c). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 340 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.5.2.4 Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Area, and Natural Communities Natural Heritage Areas are North Carolina registered protected areas with known occurrences of protected plant or animal species. Natural Areas are areas with no current protection status but with known occurrences of protected plant or animal species. Natural Communities represent exceptional examples of a particular natural community. There are no Natural Heritage Areas, Natural Areas, or Natural Communities within the study area. 3.5.3 Water Resources This section summarizes inforxnation contained in the Preliminary Hydraulics Study (Mulkey 2008) and the Natural Resources Technical Report (Lochner 2007c) prepared far the project. 3.5.3.1 Groundwater The principal aquifer in the project area is the Piedmont and Blue Ridge carbonate-rock aquifer. Most of the rocks that compose the crystalline-rock and undifferentiated sedimentary-rock aquifers are crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks of many types. Unconsolidated material called regolith overlies the crystalline-rock and undifferentiated sedimentary-rock aquifers almost everywhere. The regolith consists of saprolite, colluviums, alluvium, and soil. Recharge is highly variable in the Piedmont province because it is determined by local precipitation and runoff, which are highly variable and are influenced by topographic relief and the capacity of the land surface to accept infiltrating water. The relatively gentle topographic relief of the Piedmont favors accumulating of a thick regolith. 3.5.3.2 Surface Waters The project sbxdy area is located within sub-basin 03-07-04 and 03-07-07 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (NCDWQ 2003) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit far the Yadkin River (Hydrologic Unit Code 03040101) (USGS 1972). Best Usage Classification A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the state of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segxnents of streams in the basin. Four named streams within the project study area are crossed by the project alternatives, and five other named streams receive drainage from the project area. The unnamed tributaries (UT) present within the project area have not been individually classified by NCDWQ; therefore, they carry the same classification as their receiving streams. Table 3-171ists the Stream Index Numbers (SIN) far the named streams that are either crossed by the alternatives ar that receive drainage from the project study area. Best Usage Classifications, and Subbasin Numbers are also listed (NCDWQ 2002, NCDWQ 2003). NC 7097m,brovements Page 347 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment All of the streains that receive drainage from the study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C or WS-III. Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including propagation and survival), and wildlife. Secondary reereation is any activity involving human badily contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis (NCDWQ 2003c). WS-III waters are protected for Class C uses and are used as sources of water supply where a more protective WS-I or WS-II elassification is not feasible (NCDWQ 2003c). : ' Streaxn Name • ' ' BASIN Streaui Index Nuniher (SIN)* • DA Best U,age Classification (BUC)* Subbasin Number (SBN)* Abbott's Creek 12-119-(1) WS-III 03-07-07 Reed Run 12-119-4 WS-III 03-07-07 S ur eon Creek 12-119-3 WS-III 03-07-07 Brush Fork 12-119-5- 1 WS-III 03-07-07 Lon Branch 12-119-5-2 WS-III 03-07-07 Cool Branch 12-119-5-4 WS-III 03-07-07 Buck Branch 12-119-5-1.5 WS-III 03-07-07 Saakas Creek 12-94-13-4 C 03-07-04 South Fork Mudd Creek 12-94-13 C 03-07-04 Fiddler's Creek 12-94-13-3 C 03-07-04 Salem Creek 12-94-12-(4) C 03-07-04 *rvcDwq zooz, zoas No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resouree Waters (ORW), Water Supplies (WS I or WS II), which are waters that are afforded special protection, occur within one mile of the project area. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network Basinwide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the NCDWQ through the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN). BMAN is part of an ongoing amUient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for seleeted benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are interpreted as reflections of water quality. The samples are evaluated on the number of intolerant taxa groups (i.e., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)) present and a taxa richness value, or EPT S. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data far all species of each collection. The taxa richness and biotic index values are given equal weight in final site classification. Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent. According to the Basinwide Assessrnent Report, Neuse River Basin (NCDWQ 2007), there are no B1VL4N monitoring stations within the study area. In the Neuse River subbasin 03-04-07, the benthic macrainvertebrate monitoring station closest to the project area is on South Fork Muddy NC 909Improvementr Page 342 Draft Environrraental Impact Statement Section 3 -Affected Environment Creek approximately 5.0 miles west of the project study area. This monitoring site (B-38) was sampled in 2006, and received a bioclassification of Good-Fair. Section 303(d) Waters Narth Carolina's §303(d) List is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliforxn bacteria, or by pollution such as hydromodification or habitat degradation. The source of impairxnent might be from point sources, non-point sources, and atxnospheric deposition. The standards violation might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of impairxnent. Salem Creek is the only stream within the project area on the current current §303(d) List. It is on the list due to impaired biological integrity from Salem Lake to Middle Fark Muddy Creek (north of the project area). Rich Fark Creek (SIN 12-119-7), approximately 0.5 miles south of the project area, is on the §303(d) list due to impaired biological integrity, fecal coliform, and low dissolved oxygen from its source to Abbott's Creek. (NCDWQ 2006). Permitted Dischargers Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater "point source" discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants, and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential subdivisions, and individual homes. Storxn water "point source" discharges include storxn water collection systems for municipalities and storm water discharges associated with certain industrial activities. `Point source" dischargers in Narth Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) perxnit Discharge perxnits are issued under the NPDES program and delegated to NCDWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are two perxnitted point source discharges located within the projectvicinity (NCDWQ 2009a). One discharge is permitted to an individual, John F. Fulk, and discharges into Soakas Creek, less than half a mile north and downstream of the project study area. Lucent Technologies, at 3370 Lexington Road discharges into an unnamed tributary of Middle Fark of Muddy Creek, located within the project study area Non-Point Source Discharges Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source (NPS) pollution comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt runoff moves over the earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are collected, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals from urban runoff; sediments from construction sites, land clearing, and eroding stream banks; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may NC 709 Im,brovements Page 343 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment not be known. These pollutants generally have harxnful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, wildlife, and fisheries. Biologists conducted a visual observation of potential NPS discharges located within and near the project study area. Atxnospheric deposition from passing vehicles; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential and agricultural areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby residential driveways were identified as potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area. Despite the fact that riparian buffers are found along most of the streams in the project study area, NPS pollution has a detrimental effect on these streams because they are in the very upper reaches of a highly urbanized watershed, with a population estimate of more than 100,000 and a high population density that includes a lot of impervious surfaces (NCDWQ 2003). According to the Basinwide GVater Quality Plan, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, non-point sources of pollution within the basin are primarily runoff from the urban areas of Winston-Salem, High Point, and Thomasville (NCDWQ 2003). 3.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues 3.5.4.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Ponds Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands are also classified as "Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional consideration by the USACE. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and USACE as: "Those areas that are inundated or sabxrated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 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 subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soil; hydrophytic vegetation; and evidence of wetland hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (Environxnental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands and streams within the project study area are depicted on Figure 3-8. 3.5.4.2 Riparian Buffers The Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin is not subject to vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the State of Narth Carolina. 3.5.4.3 Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) as amended. Federally protected species listed NC 709 Im,brovements Page 344 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment as occurring in Davidson and Forsyth Counties (USFWS 2009a, 2009b) are shown in Table 3-18. Descriptions of these federally protected species, along with habitat requirements, are presented in the following table. Impacts to these species, including Biological Conclusions, are discussed in Section 4.5.4.5. A: D•ALLY IJSTED SPECIES IJSTE D•• DAVID• D FORSYTH COUNTIES Potential Common Name Scientific Name County Federal Habitat Status* Present Vertebrates Davidson Bogturtle Clemmysmuhlenbergii T(S/A) Yes Forsyth Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis Fors th E No Vasculaz Plants Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Fors th E Yes Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Davdison E Yes *E - Endangered, T - Threatened, T(S/A) -Threatened due to similarity of appearance Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Family: Emydidae Federally Listed: 1997 The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle reaching a maximum carapace length of 4.5 inches. These turtles have a somewhat domed carapace that is weakly keeled and is light chestnut brown to ebony in color. The scutes have a lighter-colored starburst pattern in some individuals. The plastron is brownish-black with contrasting yellow or cream areas along the midline. This species is distinguished by a conspicuous orange to yellow blotch on each side of the head. The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in freshwater wetlands characterized by open wet fields, meadows, and spring-fed seeps with slow-moving streams, ditches, and boggy areas. The bog bxrtle is also found in wetlands in agriculbxral areas subject to light to moderate livestock grazing, which helps to maintain an interxnediate stage of succession. During the winter, this species hibernates among rootstocks of shrubs and sedges. Mating occurs in April and May, and the female deposits one to six eggs in sphagnum moss or sedge tussocks from late May to before July. The diet of the bog turtle is varied, consisting of beetles, lepidopteran, snails, millipedes, pondweed and sedge seeds, and carrion (USFWS 2009c). Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Family: Picidae Federally Listed: 1970 This small, non-migratory woodpecker measures 7 to 8.5 inches long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back (USFWS 2001). Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difFicult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpecker include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is NC 709 Im,brovements Page 345 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf, slash, pond, or other southern pine species. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pine trees, generally older than 60 years that have been infected with red-heart disease. Excavation of a cavity usually initiates through an old dead branch opening in the bole of the tree. An aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20+ cavity trees on 3.0 to 60 acres. The average size of a cluster is about 10 acres. The typical cluster is occupied by a related group of individuals called a clan. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the excavated cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. The typical territory for a clan will range from 60 to 600 acres in size. Red-cockaded woodpecker prefers mature, open, pine forests and will not generally range greater than about 130 feet over cleared ground or hardwood stands. The clan will only exploit those pine stands for food that are contiguous with their nesting habitat Pine flatwoods and pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonxnent of cavity trees. Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) Family: Brassicaceae Federally Listed: 1989 Small-anthered bittercress is a slender, erect perennial herb, usually with one but occasionally with multiple stems, either simple or branched, 8-16 inches (20-40 cm) high. Roots are fibrous. Leaf edges have shallow, rounded teeth. Bottom (basal) leaves are lobed, 0.4-0.8 inch (1-2 cm) long, and 0.2-0.24 inch (0.5-0.6 cm) wide. Upper leaves are alternate and usually unlobed, 0.4-0.6 inch (1-1.5 cm) long, and wedge shaped, with the narrow point at the stem. Reduced leaves (bracts) occur at the base of the flowers. The flowers have four white petals, 0.08-0.12 inch (2-3 mm) long, six stamens, and small, round anthers. Flowering and fruiting occur April-May. Seeds are brown, about 0.04 inch (1 mm) long. The brown seeds are approximately 0.04 inch (1 mm) long. Very little is known about the life history of this species, including the identity of pollinators although ants have been observed on the flowers. This plant is primarily found along seeps and wet rock crevices of stream banks, adjoining sandbars, moist woods near small streams fully to partially shaded by trees and shrubs. Occasionally found in full sun (one population in Virginia). Although the species also was known historically from Forsyth County in North Carolina, the single population there was destroyed when the site was converted to cattle pasture in the early 1960s. All other North Carolina populations are located in the Dan River drainage (USFWS 1991). NC 709 Im,brovements Page 346 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Family: Asteraceae Federally Listed: 1991 Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows from 3 to 6 ft(1 to 2 m) tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above mid-stem. The stem is usually pubescent but can be nearly glabrous; it is often purple. The lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to alternate above. They are variable in size, being generally larger on the lower stem, and gradually reduced upwards. The pubescence of the underside of the leaves is distinctive and is one of the best characters to distinguish Schweinitz's sunflower from its relatives. The upper surface of the leaves is rough, with the broad-based spinose hairs directed toward the tip of the lea£ From September to frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with comparatively small heads of yellow flowers. The species occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have high gravel content and are moderately podzolized. Schweinitz's sunflower usually grows in open habitats not typical of the current general landscape in the piedmont of the Carolinas. Some of the associated species, many of which are also rare, have affinities to glade and prairie habitats of the Midwest. Other species are associated with fire- maintained sandhills and savannas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and piedmont. The habitat of this sunflower tends to be dominated by members of the aster, pea, and grass families, an association emphasizing affinities of the habitat to both longleaf pine-dominated sandhills and savannas of the southeastern coastal plain and to glades, barrens, and prairies of the Midwest and Plains (USFWS 2009e). Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species that may or may not be listed in the fubxre. These species are not legally protected under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are forxnally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the Narth Carolina State Endangered Species Act of 1987 and the Narth Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, state listed species are not protected from NCDOT activities. Table 3-19 includes FSC and state-listed species for Davidson and Forsyth Counties and their state classifications (USFWS 2006A, 2006B). The table also includes inforxnation on whether suitable habitat is present for each species (Franklin and Finnegan 2006 and LeGrand, et al. 2006). Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act (GS 113-331) and the Narth Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (GS 106-202.12 et seq.). However, the level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Species with the NC 709 Im,brovements Page 347 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment status of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), Watch List (WL), and Proposed (P) do not receive State protection. A: D • A • • • D STAT E-LISTED SPECIES •• DA VID • D FORS YTH COUNTI ES Potential Common Name Scientific Name County Federal State Habitat Status Status' Present Vertebrates Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis Davidson FSC SC Yes Eastern small-footed Myotis leibii Davidson FSC SC` Yes bat Invertebrates Brook floater Fusconaia masoni Forsyth FSC E Yes Vascular Plants Prairie birdsfoot- Lotus unifoliolatus var. Davidson FSC SR-T Yes trefoil hellen Symphyotnchum Georgia aster Davidson FSC T Yes georgianum a E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, SR=Signifcantly Rare, SC - Special Concern, T- Rare throughout its range b Obscure: The date the element was last observed in the counry is uncertain. c Listed by USFVJS, tracked by NCNHP, but no occurrences have been reported in this counry. NCNHP records reviewed August 20, 2009 (http://207.4.179.50/nhp/county.html) No FSC species were observed during the projecYs field investigations. One FSC species, Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil, was recorded as occurring within one mile of the project study area. The NCNHP elemental occurrence database records were consulted on October 16, 2006. Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil population 013 is sibxated along Abbott's Creek on the west side of NC109 about 6 miles south of Wallburg. The first and last observation was on September 14, 1956. This observation would be considered historic, as it was made over 50 years ago. Bald eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Habitat for nesting bald eagles primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the southeast are concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana, and sporadically located elsewhere (USFWS 1987). 3.5.4.4 Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801 et seq.) requires the US Secretary of Commerce to develop guidelines assisting regional fisheries management councils in the identification and creation of management and conservation plans for essential fish habitat (EFH). There is no essential fish habitat in the project area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 348 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 3 -Affected Environment 3.5.4.5 Areas of Environmental Concern The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission issues Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) perxnits for development in Areas of Environxnental Concern (AECs). As this project is not located in a coastal area, there are no AECs in the project area. 3.5.4.6 Anadromous Fish Habitat Anadromous fish habitat consists of low salinity areas that contain the physical, chemical, and biological attributes necessary for anadromous fish to spawn successfully. No anadromous fish habitat is in the project area. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 349 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section describes potential positive and negative impacts of the five build alternatives (Corridors 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) on the social, physical, and natural environxnents within the project study area. Where applicable the No-Build Alternative is also discussed. Preliminary plans were prepared for each of the alternatives and slope stake limits (width of side slope). Quantitative impacts are based on slope stake limits plus twenty-five feet of clear zone on each side to more accurately estimate the impacts. These limits may be revised during the final design, as alternatives are shifted to accommodate design requirements or further impact minimization efforts. A summary of the environxnental consequences is provided in Section 4.3. 41 DIRECTIMPACTS 411 Human Environment Impacts to the human environxnent may include impacts to communities, changes in community access, relocations, disruption of community services or facilities, and economic impacts. Many of the direct impacts to the human environment presented in this section are thoroughly detailed in the CommunitylmpactAssessment Report (Lochner 2007a) prepared far this project 4111 Community 41111 Neighborhood Impacts Community cohesion impacts include the effects of neighborhood division, social isolation, changes in community character, increased/decreased neighborhood access, and shortened travel times. In the cases of all neighborhoods directly impacted by the alternative corridors, the neighborhoods' rural visual character and surroundings would be altered with the presence of a major highway facility. The following sections describe the impacts specific to neighborhoods identified within the study area. These neighborhoods are shown on Figure 3-3. The No-Build Alternative would not impact community cohesion. Most of the neighborhoods in the project area would not experience residential displacements as a result of the project alternatives. There are a few key exceptions. Alternatives 3 and 6 would impact the Meadowlands community, off Motsinger Road in Wallburg. These impacts would likely be limited to displacements from parcels along Heatherwood Drive, near the western edge of the development Alternatives 4 and 5 would impact three neighborhoods along Gumtree Road west of Friendship-Ledford Road. Displacements would likely affect a small number of parcels on the north end of Bradley Road in Cedar Estates, along the western edge of Lamore NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Court in Holly Acres, and along the southwestern edge of the Briers Creek neighborhood, off Ivy Yokeley Road. Alternative 1 would require displacements within subdivisions along NC 109, although access to Plantation Place Aparhnents, near the north end of the project on the west side of NC 109, would be altered such that Cedar Springs Drive and Baden Road would be combined to create one access point with a traffic signal at NC 109. 4111.2 CommunityAccess While the proposed NC 109 improvements will use directional crossovers at major intersections, the proposed project will provide improved mobility throughout the study area and should reduce congestion on existing NC 109. Each alternative would provide improved access to employment centers in Winston-Salem and would also provide for faster travel between Thomasville and Winston-Salem. Relative to Corridor 1, Corridors 3 and 6 would provide more direct access to I- 40/US 311 and southeast Winston-Salem and Corridors 4 and 5 would provide more direct access to US 52, on Winston-Salem's southern outskirts. By providing access to these regional facilities, the project would provide for faster travel times to regional destinations. Through traffic traveling on existing NC 109 would be anticipated to transfer to the new location alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 ar6). Local community and social patterxis, however, are not expected to change. Since through traffic would be diverted from existing NC 109 by the new location alternatives, accessibility to facilities and services within the developed community centers is expected to improve for local traffic. While no major cross streets connecting to any of the residential areas would be closed as part of the proposed project, there may be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. The NCDOT provides new access wherever possible to properties isolated by a project. All property access changes and proposed solutions developed for the preferred alternative will be presented to affected properly owners through NCDOT's public involvement process. 4.1.1.2 Relocations Potential residential and business relocation impacts based on preliminary designs for each alternative are shown in Table 4-1. The number of relocations is based on information provided with the NCDOT Relocation report (2009) far the project A: RELOCATION S* Business Relocations Residential Relocations Altemative 1 39 165 Altemative 3 5 87 Altemative 4 3 75 Altemative 5 4 70 Altemative 6 5 97 * Based on NCDOT Relocation report from September 2009. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 would require the greatest number of relocations, requiring 165 residential relocations and 39 business relocations. Alternative 5 would require the fewest number of relocations, requiring 70 residential relocations and 4 business relocations. It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing is available for relocatees priar to conshuction of state and/or federally assisted projects. Furtherxnore, the NCDOT has three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplements. With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist displacees with inforxnation such as; availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payment Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner ar tenant to purchase or rent property at higher cost ar to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). This program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocation to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project far this purpose. The relocation officer will deterxnine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its wark to allow ample time, priar to displacement, for negotiation and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The relocatees are given a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement housing will be within the financial budget of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer also will assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property. All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as: 1) purchases of replacement housing; 2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public; and 3) moving existing owner-occupied housing to another site (if practicable). The relocation officer also will supply inforxnation concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the study area, it is not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program would be necessary for the proposed project. However, this program will still be considered as mandated by State law. 411.3 Community Facilities and Services 41131 Schools No schools will be displaced or otherwise directly impacted by any of the project alternatives. 4113.2 Places of Worshin Alternative 1 will displace three places of worship Marantha Baptist Church, Cornerstone Baptist Church, and Shady Grove United Methodist Church, all on NC 109. Alternative lwill also impact the driveway at First Fellowship Baptist Church, a small portion of the parking lot at Berean Baptist Church, near the northern end of NC 109. Alternatives 3 and 6 will displace the Marantha Baptist Church and will also require acquisition of a portion of the Fellowship Baptist Church parcel, along Teague Road. Corridors 4 and 5 will have no impacts on any churches. 41133 Parks and Recrearional Faciliries No parks or recreational facilities will be directly impacted by the project. The Wallburg Athletic Complex is just east of the new location segment of Alternative 1 but access to this property will not change. 4113.4 Police. Fire and Emergency Services The proposed project would not relocate any emergency facilities. By improving capacity in the area, the project may improve accessibility through the area for emergency reasons and could have a small positive impact on response times. In general, positive effects on emergency services would be similar for each of the alternatives. Alternative 1 may particularly improve traffic flow near the Wallburg Fire Station, as it is located along the segment of NC 109 that would be bypassed by the new location portion of the alternative. Near intersections that would not allow direct left turns, and instead require first a right turn and then a U-bxrn at a median opening a short distance away from the intersection, response times for emergency vehicles could be lengthened slightly. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 44 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 411.4 Environmental Justice Legislative Background It is important to take into consideration the effects the project would have on minority and low- income groups. This is supported by several federal laws and regulations that require the evaluation of the effects of a transportation action on communities which, historically, have not actively participated in the decision-making process. Impacts to individuals are covered through Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires that Federal agencies ensure that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance on the basis of their race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or religion. This protection is expanded to communities through the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1970 (23 CFR Section 109 (h)), which emphasizes the equitable treatment of communities being affected by transportation projects. This act requires the consideration of the anticipated effect of proposed transportation projects on residences, businesses, accessibility of public facilities, tax base, and other community resources. The need to identify low-income and minority populations and include them in the projecYs decision-making process gained greater emphasis as a result of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environxnental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations (February 11, 1994). This order directs all federal agencies to deterxnine whether a proposed action would have an adverse or disproportionate impact on minority and/or low-income populations. FHWA guidelines regarding environxnental justice are contained in FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (December, 1998). This publication serves as guidance for analysis in compliance with Executive Order 12898 and defines Low-Income/Minority Population as: "any readily identifiable group of low-income/minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant warkers or Native Americans) who would be similarly affected by a proposed FHWA program, policy, or activity." Analysis An analysis of demographic data at the Census Tract level showed that the area along existing NC 109 between Teague Road and I-40/US 311 has significantly larger percentages of non-white residents and residents in poverty than the project area as a whole and also as compared to Winston-Salem as a whole. To further analyze the demographic characteristics of this area, a comparison of minority and low income populations at the Census Block level was perforxned. Based on 2000 Census data, four Census Blocks along this part of NC 109 have significantly higher percentages of non-white and/or Hispanic residents than the area as a whole (poverty data NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-5 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences are not available at the Block level, but at the Census Tract level these data correlate with high non-white and/or Hispanic populations). For comparison, Winston-Salem's overall non-white population is 44 percent and its Hispanic population is 9 percent The population of Census Tract 34.01-Block 2009 (east side of NC 109 between Meadowview Drive and Nathan Avenue) is 67 percent non-white. The population of Census Tract 35-Block 1003 (west side of NC 109 between Cash Drive and Cedar Springs Road is 63 percent Hispania The population of Census Tract 35- Block 1004 (west side of NC 109 between Cedar Springs Road and Louise Road) is 85 percent non-white. The population of Census Tract 35-Block 1005 (west side of NC 109 between Louise Road and Charles Street) is 90 percent non-white and 19 percent Hispanic. Alternatives 1, 3, and 6 would impact the areas described in the above paragraph. Based on the NCDOT Relocation Report (2009) prepared far this project, approximately ten percent of the relocations required by each of these three alternatives would affect minority residents or minority-owned businesses. This is a much smaller proportion than the percent of nonwhite residents in the project study area as a whole (approximately twenty percent), so these alternatives would not have an adverse or dispropartionate direct impact on minority or low- income communities. These alternatives would have relatively few minority displacements due in part to the fact that small proportions of the total displacements associated with each of the three alternatives affect minority neighborhoods. Alternatives 4 and 5 would not affect areas with high percentages of non-white residents or residents below the poverty level, so neither of these alternatives would have an adverse or disproportionate impact on minority or low-income communities. Although Alternatives 1, 3, and 6 would require relocations within minority communities, it is unlikely that any of these alternatives would result in significant community disruptions in neighborhoods with large minority populations. For all three alternatives, impacts to minority communities would be largely limited to the partions on existing NC 109. It is unlikely that the impacts associated with widening the existing roadway would isolate existing neighborhoods or disrupt activities in those neighborhoods because these alternatives would not create a new disruption. Access from these neighborhoods onto NC 109 may change slightly (e.g., full access may change to right-in/right-out access), but there will otherwise be minimal disruptions associated with the project Avoidance andMinimization Efforts The alternative corridors were located to avoid passing through the centers of neighborhoods and subdivisions. Preliminary engineering designs further minimized relocations where possible. Public Involvement Opportunities NCDOT has attempted to include all residents and property owners in the study area in the projecYs decision-making process. Efforts to include residents of communities within the area are discussed in Section 7. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 46 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.1.5 Economic The proposed improvements to NC 109 have the potential to encourage positive economic growth in the project area. Businesses along NC 109 would receive direct benefit from an upgraded existing facility (Alternative 1) as traffic capacity and mobility improve and the route becomes more attractive to traffic traveling between Thomasville and Winston-Salem. The existing commercial development around the Gum Tree Road intersection in particular would benefit It is possible that by diverting through traffic from central Wallburg, Alternative 1 could negatively impact businesses located along NC 109 in that area. By possibly diverting traffic from existing NC 109, the remaining alternatives could also have a negative impact on existing businesses along the roadway; however, many of the existing businesses along NC 109 appear to serve local rather than regional markets. It is also possible that the use of directional crossovers at major intersections, in which traffic on the secondary highways would be limited to making right turns onto NC 109, could have a somewhat negative impact on some types of businesses near these intersections. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have a positive economic effect in the vicinity of the existing US 52 interchange at South Main Street as more of the regional traffic traveling between Thomasville and Winston-Salem would travel through this interchange area, increasing the market for highway-oriented commercial development. These two alternatives would also provide improved mobility near the Piedmont Triad Industrial Center at the US 52 interchange, increasing access for workers and for movement of goods. 4.1.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning 4.1.2.1 Land Use Plans Since all five alternatives include new location, existing land uses within the project corridor would be changed under any of the build alternatives. The No-Build Alternative would not introduce any impacts to existing land use. 4.1.2.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Land use impacts resulting from highway construction include physical displacement or alteration of adjacent land uses (direct impacts) and alteration of existing or planned uses of lands occurring because of the project, but removed from the project in time or space (indirect impacts). Land use decisions are typically made by the land owner in concert with local jurisdictions (county and municipal governments). These decisions are guided by the inclinations of the owners, economic conditions, physical constraints of the land, local land use policies, zoning restrictions, and the issuance of building permits. State or federal governments have no controls over these decisions except through regulatory permitting legislation. As such, a detailed discussion of development trends and potential indirect impacts of the project is included in Section 4.2, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 41.21.2 Compatibility with Future Land Use Plans Land use plans typically address the general area of a proposed transportation improvement rather than a specific location; therefore, the anticipated land use plan impacts of the proposed project would be the same for each of the five alternatives. The proposed project has been under consideration for many years and is acknowledged and supported in all area highway plans (see Section 4.1.2.2.1) and is also specifically identified in Davidson Forward as a project which supports the County's vision far the future. Davidson Forward identifies most of the project area as a Preferred Rural/Agricultural Area and seeks to preserve rural and agricultural uses in the area. While improved traffic capacity and increased accessibility in the area could help stimulate additional residential development, the fact that most of the project area lacks sewer and water service and is unlikely to gain these services will limit this development. Forsyth County's Legacy Development Guide (2001) identifies the future land use vision for most of the project area as Suburban Neighborhoods. A small area at the northwest edge of the project area is designated as Urban Neighborhoods, where future infill development and revitalization are encouraged. The proposed project would suppart each of these visions in this part of the study area. 4.1.2.2 Transportation Planning 41.2.21 Compatibility with Highway Plans The proposed project is consistent with local and state transportation plans far the area. The project is listed as a Strategic Highway Corridor Project in the NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP as Project Number R-2568C. The southern terminus of the project is Old Greensboro Road, in Davidson County, and the northern terxninus is I-40/US 311 in Winston-Salem. The HPMPO Thoroughfare Plan (2006), the Winston-Salem MPO CTP, and the Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan (1984) all recommend the widening of NC 109 to a four-lane divided roadway. The HPMPO LRTP (2009) includes the widening of NC 109 as a Horizon Year 2025 project The Winston-Salem MPO LRTP (2008) identifies widening of NC 109 through the project area to I-40/US 311, including a bypass of Wallburg, as a 2025 project and indicates that the project may include some new location. 41.2.2.2 Compatibility with Transit and Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans The proposed project is consistent with all local transit and bicycle/pedestrian plans. 41.3 Physical Environment This section describes potential impacts of the proposed project to the following aspects of the existing physical environment: noise, air quality, farxnlands, utilities, visual environment, hazardous materials, floodplains and floodways, and protected lands. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.3.1 Noise A preliminary traffic noise analysis far this project was conducted using FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict fubxre noise levels and to deterxnine if noise levels generated along each alternate would exceed criteria established by FHWA. A more detailed traffic noise analysis will be performed once the LEDPA far this project is selected. The results of the preliminary analysis are presented in a Traffic Noise Analysis memorandum (NCDOT 2008b), summarized below. A copy of the full memorandum is available for review in the NCDOT Project Development and Environxnent Analysis office, at 1 South Wilmington Street in Raleigh. The TNM traffic noise predictions are for highway related noise during the years 2006 and 2035. Noise levels have been predicted for that hour of the day when the vehicle volume, operating speed and number of heavy trucks combine to produce the worst traffic noise conditions. This condition usually occurs at Level of Service (LOS) C. If the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is not predicted to exceed the LOS C volume for a given segment, the DHV was used in the model. If the DHV for a given segxnent exceeds the LOS C volume, then the LOS C volume was used. Using this method, noise levels at all other time periods would be lower than those indicated in this discussion. TNM was used to deterxnine the number of receptors that would be impacted by noise during this worst-case traffic noise level condition for design year 2035. As described in Section 3.3.1, a receptor is considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC and/or predicted to sustain a substantial increase (see Tables 3-11 and 3-12). Table 4.21ists the number of receptors impacted by each alternative based on the above criteria. Receptors to be acquired for proposed right-of-way based on preliminary designs were not included in these calculations. Based on this analysis, Alternative 1 would impact the most receptors (97) and Alternative 5 would impact the fewest (31). . ; . • • • Impacted Receptors Altemative 1 97 Altemative 3 61 Altemative 4 33 Altemative 5 31 Altemative 6 61 Based on this analysis, and in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, traffic noise abatement measures such as sound barriers could be considered feasible or reasonable for this project. When a final alternative is selected far the project, a full traffic noise study will need to be conducted, including identifying all new and existing land use areas along the proposed project corridor. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-9 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Information on Noise for Local Officials It is the policy of NCDOT that the type of material used in construction of noise abatement measures be an engineering decision based on economics, effectiveness, and to a limited degree, visual impact. Visual impact considerations assure that a barrier meets a basic aesthetic level and a basic durability level such that excessive deterioration or corrosion will not occur. It is also a part of this policy to have traditional highway resources pay for the required noise abatement. Should a local jurisdiction request that a material be used far the noise barrier that is more costly than that proposed by NCDOT, the requesting body must assume all of the additional cost If a local jurisdiction insists on the provision of a noise abatement measure deemed feasible but not reasonable by NCDOT, a noise barrier may be installed, provided the locality is willing to assume all of the cost of the abatement measure, including but not limited to preliminary engineering, conshuction, maintenance, and that NCDOT's material, design and construction specifications are met. In an effort to prevent future noise impacts on currently undeveloped lands, NCDOT uses the following criteria: The "Date of Public Knowledge" is the approval date of the final environxnental document. Far this project, this will be the Record of Decision (ROD). After the Date of Public Knowledge, Federal/State governxnents are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of the proposed highway project. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, it is the responsibility of the local governing bodies to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized. The date for deterxnining when undeveloped land is "...planned, designed and programmed..." for development will be the issuance of a building permit for an individual site. 41.3.2 Air Quality The air quality analysis conducted for this project, Air QualityAnalysis TechnicalMemorandum (Lochner 2009b), evaluated the impacts of the proposed improvements on future air quality conditions in the project vicinity. A copy of the full report is available for review in the NCDOT Project Development and Environxnent Analysis office, at 1 South Wilmington Street in Raleigh. A summary of the methodology, procedures, and conclusions is provided below. Methodology The air quality analysis was perforxned in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-70 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences The principal air pollutants of automotive emissions are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulates, are produced to a lesser degree. A wide range of photochemical oxidants (ozone) also result through a complex series of light-induced reactions between emitted hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. Highway vehicles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. Far this reason, and because CO is a relatively non-reactive pollutant, CO was used in the analysis as an indicator of the air pollutants produced by traffic activities on the proposed roadway. In order to evaluate the future air quality effects of the proposed project, two concentration components must be identified; background and local. Added together, the two concentrations indicate the concentration of CO in the sbxdy area and can be compared to the NAAQS. Local CO concentrations were predicted at selected sensitive sites adjacent to the proposed alignxnents for specified years using a line source model. The combined CO concentrations (background and local) were then assessed against the NAAQS to determine the extent of the impact the proposed project would have on the air quality in the project sbxdy area. Two intersections along Alternative 3, which were identified as having the potential for generating the highest CO concentration because they are the locations in the sbxdy area with the highest projected traffic volumes, were used for the analysis. The determination of which intersections have the potential for generating the highest concentration of CO is primarily dependant on traffic volume and congestion. The two intersections with the highest volume of entering vehicles are the intersections of the proposed Alternative 3 alignment with Gum Tree Road and Shady Grove Church Road. Air quality projections were calculated far the project completion year (2015, subject to availability of funds), interim year after project completion (2020), and the design year (2035). NC 7097m,brovements Page 4-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences CO 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of 2.7 parts per million (ppm) and 2.0 ppm, respectively, were used for background concentrations in the analysis. These values were reported as average ambient background concentrations in the Forsyth County area by the EPA for 2007. Microscale CO projections were made using the EPA-approved MOBILE6.2 and CAL3QHC (Version 2.0) computer models. MOBILE6.2 was used to determine CO emission factors which in bxrn were used in the CAL3QHC model to generate CO concentrations. CAL3QHC is a versatile dispersion model which predicts CO concentration for roadway segxnents and/or intersections. It utilizes CALIlVE3 for all concentration computations. Analysis Results Table 4-3 lists the predicted one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations for the No- Build and Build Alternatives for receptors located at the right-of-way line. In comparing the projected CO concentration levels in Table 4-4 with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, no violations of the 1-hour standard (35 ppm) or 8-hour standard (9 ppm) are expected. The 1- hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are not expected to exceed 3.7 and 2.8 ppm (including background contributions), respectively, at any of the sites for any of the three years investigated. : • • RESULTS 1-Hour Concentrations for Altemative 3- Gum Tree Road Intersection* Yeaz Analysis Site 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 M 3.0 3.1 33 32 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 32 2025 2 3 3.0 32 3.4 33 3.1 3.0 32 32 32 32 2035 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 33 33 33 3.4 1-Hour Concentrations for Altemative 3- Shady Grove Church Road Intersection* Yeaz Ana1 sis Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2015 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 2025 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 2035 33 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 32 32 8-Hour Concentrations for Altemative 3- Gum Tree Road Intersection^ Yeaz Ana1 sis Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 23 23 22 23 2.5 2.4 22 22 23 23 23 2.4 2025 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2035 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 8-Hour Concentrations for Altemative 3- Shad Grove Church Road Intersection ^ Yeaz Analysis Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2015 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2025 23 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2035 2.5 23 23 22 23 23 23 2.4 2.4 * Includes 2.7ppm background concentration ^ Includes 2.Oppm background concentration NC 7097m,brovements Page 4-72 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Statelmplementation Plan (SIP) Consistency The project is located in Davidson County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem- High Point nonattainxnent area for fine particles PM 2.5 as defined by the EPA. This area was designated nonattainxnent far the PM2.5 standard in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) on January 5, 2005, with an effective date of April 5, 2005. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP) (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Davidson County. The High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Winston Salem MPO 2035 LRTP and the 2009-2015 Transpartation Improvement Programs (TIPs) conforxn to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conforxnity deterxnination on the High Point MPO LRTP on February 26, 2010, the Winston Salem MPO LRTP on Febnxary 26, 2010, the High Point MPO TIP on February 26, 2010 the Winston Salem MPO TIP on Febnxary 26, 2010 and Davidson County projects from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) on February 26, 2010. For the donut area of Davidson County, the projects from the 2009-2015 STIP conforxn to the intent of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The USDOT made a conformity determination on Davidson County projects from the STIP on February 26, 2010. The current conforxnity deterxnination is consistent with the final conforxnity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conforxnity analyses.The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Davidson or Forsyth County. All local transportation plans, as well as the 2009-2015 TIP projects in the area, have been found to conforxn to the intent of the SIP. The current conforxnity determination is consistent with the final conforxnity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the projecYs design concept or scope, as used in the conforxnity analyses. The project is located in Forsyth County, which is within the Winston-Salem nonattainxnent area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated this area as moderate nonattainxnent area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance far CO on November 7, 1994. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Forsyth County. The Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2035 LRTP and the 2009-2015 Transportation Ixnprovement Programs (TIPs) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on the Winston-Salem MPO LRTP on February 26, 2010, the High Point MPO LRTP on February 26, 2010, the Winston Salem MPO TIP on February 26, 2010, and the High Point MPO TIP on February 26, 2010. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the projecYs design concept or scope, as used in the conforxnity analyses. NC 7097m,brovements Page 4-73 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Davidson and Forsyth Counties were designated as moderate nonattainxnent for ozone under the eight-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. However, on Apri12, 2008, the EPA reclassified the area as attainxnent for the 8-hour ozone standard. Because the proposed project is located in an attainment area, the provisions of the November 24, 1993, USDOT regulation provisions (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) are not currently applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainxnent area. The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be significant. During construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the Narth Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to ensure that burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atxnospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be perforxned under constant surveillance. Also, measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfart of motorists or area residents. Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, air toxics are also federally regulated. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of 21 of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. Six of these are priority MSATs: benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,2-butadiene. MSATs are emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. With available technical tools, it is not possible to accurately estimate health impacts of MSATs at the project level. However, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the projects. For each project alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), assuming other variable s such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than far the No-Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation netwark. Increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions along each Build Alternative, but corresponding decreases in emissions along parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. Because estimated VMT is similar for each of the Build Alternatives, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT NC 7097m,brovements Page 4-74 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences emissions by 72 percent between 1999 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the sbxdy area are likely to be lower in the fubxre in nearly all cases. A more detailed discussion of the qualitative MSAT analysis for this project is presented in theAirQualityAnalysis TechnicalMemorandum (Lochner 2009b). More information about MSAT analysis is available in the FHWA memorandum Interim Guidance Update on Mobil Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (2009). 4.1.3.3 Farmlands In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) and State Executive Order Number 96, an assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land acquisition and conshuction activities in prime, unique, and local or statewide important farmland soils, as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). In order to deterxnine the potential impacts to farxnlands, the acreage of soil types within the proposed corridors has been determined (see Table 3-13 for a listing : • PRIME . . D SOILS Build Alternative Prune Fazmland Soils Impacted (acres) Altemative 1 230.13 Altemative 3 124.81 Altemative 4 137.41 Altemative 5 139.13 Altemative 6 124.98 of these soils). Table 4-4 summarizes impacts to farmland soils. As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS far this project was initiated by submittal of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. A separate form for each county (Davidson and Forsyth) was prepared because the NRCS assessment is completed by individual county. This coordination effort served as the basis for deterxnining the relative farxnland impacts of each alternative. The NRCS responded by completing their portions of this form and providing a relative value of farxnland that may be affected (converted) by the proposed project. The NRCS assigns ratings to potential farmland impacts in order to determine the level of significance of these impacts. The ratings are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted and is deterxnined by the NRCS on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a scale of 0 to 160 points, evaluates farmland soil based on its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection, and sites receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR Section 658.4). Because separate Land Evaluation Criterion Values were assessed for each county, these values had to be combined in order to assign a total value to each alternative. A weighted average of the two values for each alternative (one for its portion in Davidson and one for its portion in Forsyth) was calculated based on the percent of the alternative length in each county. NC 709Im,brovements Page 4-75 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Rating Forms are provided in Appendix D. None of the proposed alternatives resulted in a total site assessment score greater than 160 points. Therefore, in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for the project. 41.3.4 Utilities Electric Most of the project area receives electrical service from Duke Power; limited partions are served by Energy United, a smaller energy cooperative. Alternatives 3 and 6 would each cross Duke Power transmission line easements in two locations, near the Friendship Acres and Glen Ridge neighborhoods. Alternative 1 would not cross any existing power transmission lines, although it may impact a planned transmission line in the Meadowlands community, depending on the evenbxal location of that infrashucture. Alternatives 4 and 5 would not cross any transmission lines. All five alternatives likely would directly impact power transmission line towers: Alternative 1 would impact three towers, Alternatives 3 and 6 may each impact one tower depending on final project design, and Alternatives 4 and 5 would each impact three towers. Through coordination with the electric power companies during development of final plans and construction, the alternatives are not expected to affect customers. Water and Sewer Existing water and sewer lines serve limited portions of the project area, mainly in the northern part of the area. These lines are underground and generally follow existing roads. None of the corridors would impact major water facilities, such as treatment plants or pump stations. Temporary disruptions in service could result during construction of any of the alternatives; however, this impact would be minimized through coordination with Winston-Salem - Forsyth Utilities or other providers. Natural Gas Natural gas service lines are located within portions of the study area. As with water and sewer service lines, natural gas service is more concentrated in northern portions of the project area and the lines are underground and generally follow existing roads. The Transcontinental natural gas pipe lines, which consist of a 36-inch pipe and a 30-inch pipe, extend east to west across the project area near the Meadowlands neighborhood. Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 would cross the pipe lines, although the pipe lines would not need to be relocated. Temporary disruptions in service are possible during conshuction of any of the alternates; however, this impact would be minimized through coordination with Piedmont Nabxral Gas. There are several North Carolina Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) properties in the project area but none would be impacted by any of the project alternatives. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Railroads Alternatives 4 and 5 cross the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway tracks near US 52. These two alternatives follow a common alignment at this location and would include a bridge over the tracks. Bridging should not impact railroad facilities or operations. 41.3.5 Visual Quality The introduction of any large facility in a rural area alters the local perception of the visual environment. A location may be deemed visually sensitive for its visual quality, uniqueness, cultural importance, and viewer characteristics. According to Federal Highway Administration guidelines, high visual quality is obtained when area landscape components have impressive characteristics that convey visual excellence. Striking landscapes are not limited to the natural environment and can be associated with urban areas as well. Visual quality is subjective in that it is also deterxnined by a viewer's perception of an area. Due to the rolling topography of the project area and the agricultural nabxre of much of the area, scenic views are plentiful, particularly in Davidson County. All of the alternatives would introduce a visual intrusion into the landscape, although this impact would be smaller for Alternative 1 because most of this alternative follows the existing NC 109 alignment. While trees and vegetation could be lost due to widening existing NC 109, the widening would not involve introducing a new visual intrusion. The other four alternatives would all have similar visual impacts on the project area, with Alternatives 4 and 5 possibly having slightly greater impacts than Alternatives 3 and 6 because they include more new alignment. The overall visual character of the project area would be negatively impacted by the introduction of a new roadway facility, but measures have been and will continue to be taken to minimize these impacts. These include avoiding dense residential areas and minimizing cut and fill slopes by following existing ground lines where possible. Visually Sensitive Resources Several private historic properties and a proposed rural historic district do exist within the project area. Visual impacts to these sites have been categorized using the following rating: • No Impact - The view of the alternative has minor implications to the existing landscape ar there is no impact at all. • Low Impact - The view of the project is limited, the visual resource is limited in importance, there are dominating visual intrusions in the viewshed from other sources, or there is a weak visual contact between the facility and the landscape. If any of the proposed actions are closer to the resource than the existing facility, but do not necessarily create a visual impact due to visual intrusions, it has been rated as having a low impact. • Moderate Impact - The view of the project is a moderate inhusion into the visual environment with greater contrast than the low impact but not as great as a high impact. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-77 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences • High Impact- The project is in proximity and visible to viewers, has a strong contrast with the landscape, is in an area of importance with limited visual intrusions, or involves substantial view sensitivity. The George W. Wall House is located in central Wallburg near the location where the northern end of the new alignment portion of Alternative 1 would tie back into existing NC 109. The roadway improvements for Alternative 1 near this location may have a low impact on the visual quality of this properly. The other alternatives would not impact this property. The D. Austin Parker House is located on Teague Road just to the west of Alternatives 3 and 6. Due to the open, rural quality of the home's properly, these alternatives may be visible from the property. These two alternatives would have a moderate impact on the visual quality of the property as they could create a moderate intrusion into the agricultural landscape. The Mark Parker House is located just west of the D. Austin Parker House. The D. Austin Parker House property creates a visual buffer between the Mark Parker House and Alternatives 3 and 6, so these alternatives would have a low impact on the visual quality of the property. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5, would have no impact on the visual quality of these two properties. The remaining historic properties in the project area, the Dempsey B. Clinard House, the John William Hiatt Farm, the Yokeley Farm, and the proposed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District are outside of the APE for the project and are therefore unlikely to receive negative visual impacts due to the project. 4.1.3.6 Hazardous Materials Based on field surveys described in Section 3.3.6, twenty-seven facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (USTs), three automotive repair sites, three automotive salvage yards, one dry cleaner and one industrial site were identified in the project study area. Table 4-5 lists the number of sites potentially affected by each alternative. 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 Environxnental Impact Statement These assessments will . ; . • • • HAZARDOUS . Altemative Number of Hazardous Materials Sites within Corridor Altemative 1 25 Altemative 3 9 Altemative 4 3 Altemative 5 4 Altemative 6 3 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. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-78 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.3.7 Floodways and Floodplains All five 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 Fark Muddy Creek and Fiddlers Creek. Alternatives 4 and 5 would cross the 100-year floodplain associated with Soakas Creek. Alternative 5 would have the greatest area of floodplain impacts (10.46 acres) while Alternative 6 would have the smallest area (5.35 acres). These impacts are presented in Table 4-6. Major drainage structures proposed for the project would cross the floodplain at or near perpendicular angles, 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 A: i i A• •OD Number of Total Floodplain Alternative Floodplain Crossings Impacts (acres) Altemative 1 4 10.44 Altemative 3 4 9.94 Altemative 4 3 5.87 Altemative 5 3 10.46 Altemative 6 4 535 the remaining pervious surface areas. The increased amount of road surface draining into the area would be small in relation to overall drainage areas. Major Drainage Structures 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 far the major stream crossings along the project alternatives. This investigation is documented in the hydraulic technical report prepared far the project (Mulkey 2008). The report identifies the stream crossings for which a hydraulic shucture would be required (streams or drainages requiring a 72-inch pipe or larger culvert) and describes the type and size of hydraulic shucture required at each site. Twenty-three stream crossing sites were deterxnined to require a hydraulic strucbxre. These sites are listed in Table 4-7. None of the wetland or pond impact sites along the alternatives were determined to require a hydraulic strucbxre. NC 7097m,brovements Page 4-79 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences A: A' • HYDR ALTLIC ' • DA • Site Stream Alternatives Existing Structure Drainage Flood Recomxnelided Area (sq. rni.) Zone Structure ' Bridge 1@ 51'; 1@ Retain and add 1 Abbott s Creek 1 3 4 5 6 33.08 Yes , , , , 50'; 1 51' additional brid e 2 UT Reedy Run 1,3,5 6' x 6' RCBC (1) 0.28 No 8' x 7' RCBC (1) 3 Brushy Fork 1 None 0.24 No 12' x 6' RCBC (1) 4 UT Brush Fork 1 None 0.19 No 9' x 7' RCBC 1 5 UT Brushy Fork 1 5' x 5' RCBC (1) 0.15 No 7' x5' RCBC (2) 6 Brushy Fork 1 6' x 7' RCBC (3) 1.36 Yes 9' x 8' RCBC (2) UT South Fork " 180' Dua145" 7 1 9' x 9' (4) 6.50 Y es Mudd Creek brid e 10' x 11 5' RCBC 280' Dua154" 8 Fiddler's Creek 1 . 9 73 yeS 4 . brid e 9 UT Spurgeon Creek 4,6 None 0.92 No 10' x 7' RCBC (2) 325' Dua154" 10 Brushy Fork 4,6 None 3.09 Yes brid e 11 Long Branch 3,6 None 0.41 Na 6' x 7' RCBC (2) South Fork Muddy 250' Dua154" 12 Creek 3,6 None 8.17 yeS bridge 300' Dua154" 13 Fiddler's Creek 3,6 None 9.81 Yes bridge 14 UT Reed Run 3,5 None 032 No 7' x 6' RCBC 2 15 UT Reedy Run 3,5 None 0.59 No 8' x 7' RCBC (3) 16 UT Brushy Fork 3,5 None 2.01 Yes 12' x$' RCBC (3) 300' Dua154" 17 Brushy Fork 3,5 None 330 yes bridge 18 Long Branch 4,5 None 0.71 No 6' x T RCBC (2) 19 Lon Branch 4,5 None 0.17 No 7' x 7' RCBC 1 20 UT Soakas Creek 4,5 None 0.58 No 7' x 7' RCBC (2) 21 UT Soakas Creek 4,5 None 0.16 No 5' x 6' RCBC (2) Retain and extend 22 Soakas Creek 4,5 10' x 13' RCBC (2) 4.57 Yes RCBC Retain and extend 23 Soakas Creek 4,5 10' x 9.5' RCBC (3) 4.77 yes RCBC 4.1.3.8 Protected La,nds The project would not impact any Wild and Scenic Rivers, State or National Forests, gamelands or preservation areas. 4.1.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.4.1 Historic Anchitectural Resounces The potential effeet of the proposed project on historic architectural resources was evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historie Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. According to the criteria for Effect and Adverse Effect developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, potential effect is based upon the following: NC 909 Improvementr Page 4-20 Draft Environrraental Irvapact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences • No Effect - There would be no effect, neither adverse nor beneficial, on potential cultural resources. • No Adverse Effect- There would be an effect, but it is determined that the effect would not compromise those characteristics which qualify the property for listing on the National Register. • Adverse Effect- There would be an effect that would compromise the integrity of the property. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, there are three properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) which are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. These resources, shown in Figure 3-8, include the George W. Wall House, the D. Austin Parker House, and the Mark Parker House. The George W. Wall House is listed on the National Register. None of the proposed alternatives would require right of way from any of these three properties. Far the George W. Wall House, the HPO concurred with the determination of No Adverse Effect for Alternative 1 and No Effect far the other four alternatives. Far 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. A copy of the HPO concurrence forxn, dated December 11, 2009, is in Appendix A.2. 41.4.2 Archaeological Resouices Based on the prior archaeological reviews of the project sbxdy area (NCDOT 1993, 1995), it was determined that all the build alternatives under consideration would have equal likelihood of impacting prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Therefore, NCDOT, in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, has deterxnined that no further detailed sbxdies of the corridors will be completed until a preferred corridor is selected. Once the preferred alternative is selected, NCDOT and HPO will determine a survey protocol for evaluating archaeological resources within the corridar (see HPO letter in Appendix A.2). Should items be located, NCDOT will coordinate with the Office of State Archaeology as needed to deterxnine what further action should be taken. 41.4.3 Section 4(o Analysis As described in Section 4.1.4.1, HPO has reached a fmding of No Effect or No Adverse Effect for each of the alternatives on the three resources within the APE for the project. No part of any of these three properties would be used by any of the alternatives. Impacts to these three properties would be limited to minor visual and/or noise effects: Alternative 1 may have a slight effect on the George W. Wall House and Alternatives 3 and 6 may have slight effects on the D. Austin Parker and Mark Parker Houses from this perspective. These effects would not, however, constitute substantial impairment of any of these properties, so the impacts would not constibxte constructive use under Section 4(fl. Far this reason, Section 4(fl would not apply to any of the historic properties in the project area. As indicated in Section 4.1.1.3.3, none of the alternatives NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-27 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences would impact any parks or recreation areas; Section 4(f) therefore would not apply to any parks or recreation areas in the project area. 4.1.5 Natural Environrnent This section describes potential impacts of the proposed praject to the following aspects of the existing natural environment: soils, biotic communities and wildlife, and water resources. 4.1.5.1 Soils Review of available information for the project area indicates that there are no soils or geological features that would preclude or alter the corridars of the alternatives under consideration. Detailed geoteehnieal investigations will be undertaken as part of the design phase if one of the five build alternatives is selected as the preferred alternative. 4.1.5.2 Biotic Cornrnunities and W'ildlife 4.1.5.2.1 Terrestrial Plant Cornrnunities Table 4-8 summarizes acreages of terrestrial communities located within the study area. Maintained communities may include the impervious surface assoeiated with the existing roads. Detailed descriptions of these eommunities are included in Section 3.5.2.1 and in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Lochner, 2007e). The inaintained-disturbed cortununity type accounts for the majority of the vegetative cover in all of the alternatives. The dry-mesic oak hiekory farest is the next inost abundant community type within the study area. Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest communities are represented least within the study area. .. . . . O (ACRES) Terrestrial Coimnunity ?ternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Altemative 5 Alternative 6 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial 0.34 2.24 0.53 0.84 2.11 Forest Dry-Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest 30.94 131.21 86.16 117.02 104.31 A riculture 15.37 81.42 71.16 76.86 75.05 Pine 1.10 15.81 7.65 5.58 16.21 Clear Cut 22.86 8.10 19.22 20.30 7.02 Maintained- Disturbed 146.56 53.87 89.61 74.84 69.47 TOTAL 217.17 292.67 274.33 295.43 274.17 4.1.5.2.2 Wildlife Most of the project area is rural in character with scattered residential and small commercial developments. Large forested areas are still present near the project study area, but are limited NC 909 Improvementr Page 4-22 Draft Environrraental Impact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences primarily to lands immediately adjacent to the larger streams. Clearing and conversion of land for highways, railroads, agricultural, timberland, commercial, and residential uses has eliminated cover and protection for many species of wildlife, but has increased habitat for others that are able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. There is little habitat for interior species, but woodland strips bordering small tributaries often serve as travel corridors between habitat types. Agricultural fields and residential areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species. Any of the project alternatives would impact area wildlife. Due to the existing amount of urban development in the project area, wildlife habitat is fragmented. The new location alternatives and the portion of Alternative 1 on new location would add further fragxnentation to the area. Wildlife expected to occur in the project area are generally acclimated to fragxnented landscapes in this area. However, fragxnentation and loss of forested habitat may impact other wildlife in the area by reducing potential nesting and foraging areas, as well as displacing animal populations. Furthermore, forested areas provide connectivity between populations of conspecifics, allowing for gene flow, as well as a means of safe travel from one foraging area to another. In particular, songbirds may be heavily affected by fragmented forests because this increases their susceptibility to predation and nest parasitism. Measures to be implemented during design and construction of the project that can minimize impacts to local wildlife include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and the construction of culverts that can provide passage from one side of the road to the other. No bridges are recommended for wildlife crossings on this project. 41.5.23 Aquatic Communities The diversity of streams within the project study area provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species. Large streams with good water quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats are expected to support a more diverse assemblage of fish and other aquatic organisms than smaller tributaries. Water resource impacts may result from the physical disturbance of the forested stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the study area. Removing streamside vegetation increases direct sunlight penetration, which ultimately elevates water temperatures within the stream. An increase in stream water temperabxres often stresses or reduces the population of aquatic organisms. Disturbing stream buffers can also create unstable stream banks, further increasing downstream sedimentation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna that rely on them as a food source. The removal of the riparian buffer may also increase the amount of sediment released into the stream. Temporary and perxnanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from this increased sedimentation. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-23 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet from the stream channels. In situations where water depth is 3 to 18 feet and the velocity is slow (such as in a swamp) silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to minimize the chance of erosion or run- off from affecting the stream channel. Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge conshuction as it can adversely affect aquatic life. NCDOT's Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) for the Protection ofSurface GVaters (1997) should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all construction phases. 4.1.5.3 Water Resouices 41.531 Groundwater The northern and western parts of the proposed project occur in the Muddy Creek subbasin and the southern parts occur in the Abbotts Creek subbasin. Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation would be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The contractor would be required to follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control ofErosion, Siltation, and Pollution pursuant to NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. These measures include the use of dikes, berxns, silt basins, and other containxnent measures to control runoff. Measurements include the elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be revegetated with herbaceous cover after construction to help reduce runoff and sediment loadings. Direct discharges into streams should be avoided whenever possible. Runoff effluent should be perxnitted to filter through roadside vegetation in order to remove possible contaminants and to decrease runoffvelocities. Long-term impacts on water quality are also possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff. The following mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce short-term and long-term water quality impacts would be incorporated wherever practicable: • Development of roadway alignments that avoid streams and ponds to the extent possible; • Use of design measures to protect water supplies, minimizing stream crossings, and minimizing segments of roadway that closely parallel streams; • Use of grass shoulders, grass lined ditches, and vegetative buffers to intercept highway runoff; NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-24 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences • Implementation of construction practices that protect stream bottom habitat from siltation by sedimentation control, retention of riparian vegetation buffers, and restoration of stream bottom habitat taken by conshuction; and • Restricting use of bridge deck drains in bridges. 41.53.2 Surface Water Only one stream, an unnamed tributary to Salem Creek, is within any of the build alternative corridors. It is at the far northwest corner of Alternative Corridors 1, 3 and 6. It is north of I-40 and would not be impacted by the alternatives within these corridors. Expected effects of the project on surface water are similar among the build alternatives. Stormwater runoffrates would increase slightly due to the increase in impervious roadway surface area. This is an unavoidable, long-term impact resulting from construction of any build alternative. The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on surface water. Pollutants that may be contained in the storxnwater runoff include: • Sediment eroded during construction activity; • Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used to plant and maintain highway landscaping; • Petrochemicals, oil, grease, and heavy metals associated with operation of vehicles; • Trash and debris discarded by highway users; and, • Chemicals and hazardous materials accidentally spilled during transport. The project has the potential to temporarily degrade the quality of water in surrounding streams by means of soil erosion during construction. Construction impacts are presented in Section 4.1.6. 4.1.5.4 JurisdictionalIssues 4.1.5.4.1 Wetlands. Streams and Ponds Project construction for any of the detailed sbxdy alternatives (DSAs) 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 construction. Wetlands may be either partially or completely filled. In some instances, larger wetland areas may become hydraulically disconnected from an adjacent stream. The locations of streams, wetlands, and ponds estimated to be impacted by each DSA are shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-9 presents the amount of streams, wetlands, and ponds to be impacted by each DSA. Detailed impacts are presented in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Lochner, NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-25 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement 5•??,? ,.? ,? .? ? ___ . I SNU u _ ? ?.,? Ae ?.,? ?? ? r ga + ? -fat???????1 -nn ? ? -? ? Hiyh P,d q 0 G`enn N?h Rd 000 0 0 5 m m ? ?LF J School RU 9 I - c3e ? j ?°`? presleV Dr w oem,pnnsvilla R ? Compton Dr Cros s ni ? r y, c 'Ao ? Jl oscar Fors,.tlz coliTit,, ------=------ ? ---------- -- ? Davrtlson Courrtc _ ? - ---- --- - --- `- - ? _ - ? \ - 2, rfie Y I .. F?J. 48, S Rd a? ? i ? Rd Georget + \ Frankfin Dr ---------------- - - ? i ? - I ? o ? ? ?Jl Pam Or Lake Dr f ? ? O O ' a /'dKman Rd v? C ?o y 4 ? Barle y Rd ? b ?p??S 5 ? \ ?? 1 ` cenfCf ? GOUntYVLn ? West Dr or SP'y Rd C ? ?ty,g o ? z d?' o . J Legend R? S ? 0 Corridor 1 O Corridor 3 ?o c'A , 0 Corridor 4 a 1 g ? Corridor 5 Corridor 6 ? StudyArea Boundary ???j` °-? Perennial Streams 06 North Carolina Interrnittent Streams ? Department of Transportation C3 Delineated Wetlands ? NC 109 Improvements Project J Forsyth and Davidson Countres ? State Project No. 8.1172401 ? Note: Corridors shown ar e 1,000 feet wide. H.?fn T.I.P. No. R-2568C miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij Feet ? Actual right-of-way width generally wo uld be no more than 300 feet. o 2.000 4.000 8.000 ? Figure 4-1 Wetlands and Streams Index Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESRI Page 4-28 UT Brushy Fork i See Figure 4-9B ? Wetland BD 5 UT Brushy Fork g ? ? Fo t CrecJCOr ? Pond Meadow UT Soakas Creek Wetland BD 3 a Wetland BD 2 Wetland BD 4 ?F ? e? Brushy Fork I f Brushy Fork I akside Dr a ? Pond CW 1 I Comanche Td Brushy Fork ? UT Soakas Creek ? i UT Spurgeon Creek [ UT Brushy Fork Ha''m e °,. ? Rldge Rci ( ?? ? Sto _- __ _, - - ,_ _ _ --- PondDW4 UT Spurgeon Creek Wetland HR G ? UT Reedy Run aN '` UT Spurgeon Creek ? ?ohf RJ h SO? R UT Brushy Fork e? IV Glodiefter Rd ? ? o- a ? UT Spurgeon Creek ? a ,?Hn sst a Wetland BD O Proc.W a, Pond HR 6 5 Wetland HR L ¢? Pond DJ 20 f ? ? UT Reedy Run ? UT Reedy Run b Pond H R 5 - UT Spurgeon Creek ? ? -? ry c t UT Reedy Run ?... UT Reedy Run UT Spurgeon Creek Pond HR 7 UT Reedy Run n te ? Joss? d da?0 L° UT Abbott's Creek s ? y ?r 1 ? F Abbott's Creek ?r ? fT?p ;, 4 R{ ??_.o L ? Pdrpby yr ?? ?eof g G ° .t ' O ? Pond DJA Legend Wetland BD1 , UT Abbott's Creek 0 Corridor 1 0 Corridor 3 - 0 Corridor4 Gdc` L??S'?O`PSRd 0 Corridor 5 O Corridor 6 . ? ? StudyArea Boundary C) °-? Perennial Streams ? North Carolina ? Interrnittent Streams ° Department of Transportation ? Delineated Wetlands °r, ?y NC 109 Improvements Project Forsyth and Davidson Countres ry State Project No. 8.1172401 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. Feet Fi ure 4-1A Wetlands and Streams 0 375 750 1 500 2 250 g , , Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-Salem(Forsyth County, ESRI Pa e 4-27 Campton Dr N ? Un- c,oss pd Legend i ? O Corridor 1 ? O ? Corridor 3 South Fork Muddy Creek O Corridor4 j 0 Corridor 5 1 O Corridor 6 Wetland HR E ? StudyArea Boundary -?° Perennial Streams UT South Fork Muddy Creek Interrnittentstreams \ C3 Delineated Wetlands Pond DW 1 ? U i" Pond DW 1-2 C? ? De?rt?e R, GrayS??,, pabb?a?Feet ? g 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 ?_n t ?-L Y?kIY S (1) Q) arynda R` 5 Rj ? ? ?umttaa Nlerrnveather Ct E o 'm ?1 ? . . . . . . . . .. .? ._., .-. - ?. _: . . _ lp, 0 j o ? y F ??? a o + v 9 , -_-_-_-_-4 - .. ? Eashiev Q ? ? _ UT Soakas Creek = °- - - \ ../1 ? Nfount Ver1017 Church P.d ? Greystont Dr UT Soakas Creek rg.[ i D? UT Saakas Creek ? Wetland H R C ? Reece Rd ? Wetland BD F Wetland HR D ' UT Soakas Creek = s ? Brushy Fork pavids?n Di UT Soakas Creek UT Brushy Fork UT Brushy Fork Glenwood Dr '3 Pond HR 3-A a ? = Pond DJ B ? Pond HR 3 ? a ? a a a Brushy Fork UT Long Branch $ o ?ca gt?,l0 UE?C? UT Long Branch UT Brushy Fork Tree Un Dr N -? ? ? oi Wetland H R A ai UT Brushy Fork o UT Brushy Fork UT Soakas Creek *4 Wetland H R H - - - - - ? ? -? 1 Wetland HR I Wetland BD 5 UT Brushy Fork UT Long Branch Wetland BD 2 Pond HR 4 Pond Meadow Wetland BD 3 Brushy Fork \ Wetland BD 4 ? ? Brushy u Fork ,i Wetland BD N ? UT Soakas Creek Wetland BD M AFna°hefl' ? ?n ;n j Long Branch Pond CW 1 ?°ma?°ha T?, Wetland H R G UT Soakas Creek 0a1 `" ` ? Brushy Fork North Carolina ; UT Brushy Fork Department of Transportation N NC 109 Improvements Project ?UT BruShy Fork See Frgure 4-1R Forsyth and Davidson Countres State Project No. 8.1172401 ? ta?raoq 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. Figure 4-1 B Wetlands and Streams ? Data Sdurces: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County;_ESRL p; Page 4-28 ????ie St m2 4nni n?/h Mo am ? cr ? q`Q ? x Q ? ? r ? q m ?{?id St m C? F//Jhp,?? ?l ? r1 o y ? z ?E ?t ?--??? `'? " Wn s 4 0 5p? y ' r;? ?ra?ght? St °7 a' ° `?,/auSh?OW'? ln 4 yV TOWET St Q ? a ° rt Shetby Ln a ? bIewland Dr v < A ? FranX St W" ? ? v y Oonafci St SE S". v? Al1en $t m ? Q v? ? ?ysf ? !! `?/d/sh N East?vood Dr Sf " c r 9 Cl ? TroY Or - "ry " ` a ARame St Niarne St ya' qd?s?! ° ? Cir o WitbtrrSt m ? a Mame St V2rdun St Cline St ? o v D JunfaAve Junia °? ? O ? Ave ? m > ? ? B+t{fon St . Y 1i? 0 ? h9onm01dhs1 2 var :i v ? i m ? o v? ? Poinsetta Dr ? `cs?? ? Q '' 4 JuE,gt m c ? m j Z ? ry C ? voglerSt ? 8urqoyneCt o UT Salem Creek - E D?VOnshiiz? g v ? Sp? o Q ? ?' m C ? cc ?C?e S cn `D a j Go/U71oss St ? c ? t cn o J c? m ?QQ Tara C{ U Wetland BD K o UT Fiddler's Creek ? Di=eDr 5? ? ro IP ? ?p °j AurH U«" st UT Fiddler's Creek Ho-ton St s c ` ? Fanning p,d m UT Fiddler's Creek 8a Or ? 9Sl n O y R??t?ie St ? N ? o o?yhF Ahans/reldSt ?o I<aw k O Qnwd e r St ?s- d o oSC b Cil@@R ? Woodoo[eSt ?1?sDrs? H o LSl ?a ? - ? , Co/ton St Clia ? J ?t o m Lton3` UT Fiddler's Creek, S ? `? ? e UT Fiddler's Creek ? SameyAve S? O EnRght St SE O?Wn[yay?n S ? N Ll, E Gasell St ??o p1a??? '^L ? uk S? cn ro? FemdaleAve o U ? x o C+'anfortl sr sE William Dr Eton St Y TvlerC{ rt s Gado p ng UT Fiddler's Creek s ?G r\ ?? Gash Dr atookvje°" Rd Wetland BD H "e1"a `p Wetl n3uas nr and BD G Gr°ss Rd unjon ? ?-------- 4 ? Fiddler's `' ? Sto 06 ? Y GJeRJ7 Clr Creek o r Vli ti7amin9 St:?rLn ?> Ra ?j m ? ? ? yl altrude Ln d ??On Cr P1 ?- '?, 6rool:Wetland H R F h4eiba Lri Hi7lhaven Dr South Fork Muddy Creek ? o ? ? Casa Vista Ln .? ? Pond DW 3 ? Rd je R? Ts??L 6??C ! Pond DJ N T?' ? UT Soakas Creek Pond DW 1-2 Z ? N y N 11 Q- << ° ? Pond DW 1 ? n a ? ? 2 UT Soakas Creek Wetland HR E Cf) La,?qde CU (D Snvder Rid9e Ln ?l ? C ? J? ? _. .. .. dJ __. . ? J ? T ? 0 POl"Sylh COllllq 4 Legend ? ? ---------------------------- ----- -- f-__v? ?5 ? c? r f?? ?. tti . ?s ------ ----------------- I ? Corridor 1 a ? r -I 5 F? `ys'h,. - Q z i y Corridor 3 nurcn Rci ? Corridor 4 ? Corridor 5 s,,,,as Rd Iz- Corridor 6 ? a N b UT Soakas Creek \ ? StudyArea Boundary Bruce Nifony Rd ,ndo "-? Perennial Streams North Carolina Interrnittent Streams Department of Transportation I q r yV ? Delineated Wetlands I See FlguYe 4-1D NC 109 Improvements Project ? Forsyth and Davidson Countres ' ? State Project No. 8.1172401 R ? 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. 6=mh==6==w=W=====4 Feet ! Streams Figure 4-1 C Wetlands and 0 375 750 1 500 2 250 , , i Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!, Davidson County, City of Wnston-SalemlForsyth County, ESRI Page 4-29 i Cf7ristif?e C? I I ? f I I I NorE ? h?eipd Dr ? i#a248 ? t ? ; ? t t' rn?? o -J -1 UT Soakas Creek i i UT Soakas Creek i i I ? ? I v , m ? Q `? I v ? ? ° I a ? Q ypa ? ? c m ? UT Soakas Creek erenda Dr ? ? Old US NA131 52 ? j st UT Soakas Creek _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ? U m I ? I 7 I ?I UT Soakas Creek Wetland HR K y ? c arpenter 4ds°' R i ? ry r ? o ? Wetland H R J d ? f i P,egalwood Dr ? R UT Soakas Creek y ' Pond CW ? b 11) Candlelkqlit Or ? aacxen,?lSa-? wartR`? ? m ? f ? UT Soakas Creek ? ] E' F ? oYSyt 7 OILTIl?' ______ L -~------------ - ?_----, D«vidson Counh, - OId Cexing£on Rd A - ? t - i ? SunsetDr ? i ? Ernes[ LamLieth Rd i ? UT Soakas Creek i , i ? q ; ? i o ? ?7r ? -0 .. co DavidsonNerghfs `v Cb o ? ro ? d?d ? ?J?by N+illar D e ? ov UT Soakas Creek m ! ? ? '? ? ? a I w ' z ci,z5cnur ?n I @ UT Soakas Creek Wetland BD L ? AnUe,- pU ! ? e oµleV FRd . ? ? ? ville Rd a ? OJd ThorYi?s d f? ? \`?y I G a?O,hei- ; I J ? I ? Chades Dr q i e I C ? i ro I da` UT Soakas Creek Lo , BraUley P, Z . RU .? ?? i ? l ? Legend ? ° i ? corriaor 1 UT Soakas Creek ? 0 Corridor3 / UT Soakas Creek UT Soakas Creek coR?ao?4 I 0 0 Corridor 5 See Figure 4-18 UT Soakas Creek ? I Q Corridor 6 UT Soakas Creek ? StudyArea Boundary °-? Perennial Streams UT Soakas Creek Narth Carolina Interrnittent Streams Department of Transportation C3 Delineated Wetlands NC 109 Im rovements Project ? p - Forsyth and Davidson Countres ? o State Project No. 8.1172401 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. ra° e` Figure 4-1 D Wetlands and Streams 0 375 750 1,500 2.25o ? Data Sources: NCDOT, NC One Map!;Davidson County, City of Wnsto-SalemlForsyth County, ESRI Pa e 4-30 Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 2007c) prepared for this project; tables summarizing this information are presented in Appendix E. These impaet estimates take into aceount avoidance and minimization ineasures that have been incorporated into the project, including the bridging of streams and wetlands. Details of the jurisdictional resources that are ta be bridged can be found in Section 4.1.3.7. The impacts were calculated using slope stakes plus 25 feet. Based on the information in Table 4-9, Alternative 5 would have the greatest total stream impaets (10,7291inear feet) and the greatest perennial stream impacts. Alternative 4 would have slightly higher intermittent stream impacts. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the greatest number of stream crossings (34). Alternative 1 would have the lowest total stream impacts (4,4321inear feet and the lowest number of stream crossings (20). Alternative 1 would affect the most wetlands and ponds, impacting 0.58 wetland acres in six wetlands and 0.61 pond acres. fllternative 6 would impact the least wetlands, impacting 0.14 acres and t"ro wetlands. Alternatives 4 and 6would not impact any ponds. : • JURISDICTI ONAL ' Perennial Stream Total Stream Total Number of Wetland Impact Total Number Pond Impact Alternative Impacts (linear ft) Impacts (linear ft) Stream Crossings Area (acres) of Wetlands Area (acres) Impacted 1 4,067 4,432 20 0.58 6 0.61 3 7,203 7,757 24 0.15 2 0.46 4 7,862 9,259 34 0.21 3 d 5 9,368 10,729 34 0.16 4 0.46 6 5,910 6,500 24 0.14 2 0 Source: Data in table were calculated using GIS with data from the NatraraiResourcesTechnrca/Reportprepared far this project (Lochner, 2007c) and preliminary engineering designs dated July 21, 2009. 4.1.5.4.2 Buffer Areas The Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin is not subject ta vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the State of North Carolina. 4.1.5.4.3 Mitigation Evaluatian n-fitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) eompensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation poliey directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981). NC 909Improvementr Page 4-39 Draft Environrraental Irvapact Statement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed. Federal Highway Administration policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harxn to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. Avoidance andMinimization During development of preliminary designs far the proposed project, efforts were taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers where possible. Impacts can be avoided to streams, wetlands, and federally protected species with the use of environmentally sensitive design. Impacts to the jurisdictional surface waters were minimized by crossing streams at a perpendicular angle, and can be further minimized by avoiding construction activities in the stream channels, and avoiding deposition into the stream channel during roadway construction. Adjustment to the roadway alignxnent was made to avoid these sensitive areas. OtherAvoidance andMinimizationMeasures 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. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures will minimize further degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in streams and tributaries. Compensatory Mitigation The USACE may require compensation under an Individual Perxnit if the discharge causes the loss of greater than 0.1 acres of Waters of United States or if the activity causes more than 150 linear feet of perennial streambed impacts or intermittent streambed impacts if the interxnittent stream has important aquatic function(s) as denoted on USACE's "Interxnittent Channel Evaluation Forxn." In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), NCDWQ may require compensation for impacts to 150 linear feet or more of jurisdictional streams and/or one acre or more of wetlands. The USACE may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and perennial streambed or important interxnittent streambed that result from activities authorized under an Individual Perxnit. The NCDWQ may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts for activities authorized under a Major Water Quality Certification (WQC). Impacts incurred during project construction may require mitigation. Final compensation requirements for stream and wetland impacts are left to the discretion of USACE and NCDWQ. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-32 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Appropriate compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland and stream impacts from the preferred alternative would be deterxnined in consultation with these agencies. A conceptual mitigation plan would be developed far the preferred alternative and presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement A final mitigation plan would be completed priar to issuance of a Section 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 4.1.5.4.4 Protected Species Complete surveys for all federally protected species were conducted along all build alternatives for the project. Prior to conducting field surveys suitable habitat was defined for each species. Suitable habitat for each species is defined in Section 3.5.4.3. Once the habitat requirements and life history information for each species were compiled, areas of likely suitable habitat were identified. These areas were established through review of project aerial photography, field notes from project wetlands delineation and determination efforts, and data from previous natural systems surveys done in the study area. Literature searches regarding natural resources in the project area were initiated in the summer of 2006. Subsequent field wark began in the fall of 2006 and was completed by fa112007. The areas of likely suitable habitat were visited and surveyed for the particular species. The field surveys first consisted of an assessment of the area's likelihood of being suitable habitat as identified in the research material and element occurrence records. Each area was visually inspected by a team of experienced biologists. If the field visit deterxnined that the area was suitable habitat, then intensive searches far the particular species were conducted. Priar to conducting field surveys, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) element occurrence records were reviewed to determine the stabxs of known element occurrences in the area. Boa turtle (Clemmvs muhelbereit) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Applicable The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance to the narthern population; therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under ESA §7. No known occurrence of the bog turtle has been reported by the NCNHP within the projectvicinity (0.5 mile on all sides of the project sbxdy area). While suitable habitat far 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. Bald eagle (Hnlineetus leucocephalus) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect NCNHP records (reviewed October 16, 2006) did not indicate any occurrences of bald eagles or their nests within the projectvicinity. Field inspection for suitable nesting and foraging habitat was conducted within the study area and within another one mile radius beyond the study area. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species was observed within the study area or project vicinity. The surface waters are either too small, impacted by development or agriculbxre, NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-33 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences or have a closed canopy, all of which would impair nesting and foraging activity. Given these circumstances, the proposed project will have No Effect on this species. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides boreaGs) 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 (Cardaminemicranthera) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect Suitable habitat far 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 "1Vo EffecY" 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 (Helianthus schweinifyia) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect A review of the NCNHP elemental occurrence database records indicate that no recorded occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower are found within one mile of the project study area. A 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 September 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 far this species. 4.1.5.4.5 Essential Fish Habitat No essential fish habitat will be impacted by any of the project alternatives. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-34 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 41.5.4.6 Areas of Environmental Concem No AECs will be impacted by any of the project alternatives. 4.1.5.4.7 Anadromous Fish Habitat No anadromous fish habitat will be impacted by any of the project alternatives. 4.1.6 Construction Impacts All of the build alternatives under consideration would have similar construction impacts. All of the construction impacts listed below would be temporary in nature and can be controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conforxnance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard NCDOT procedures. For detailed information concerning BMPs, refer to the NCDOT guide, BestManagementPractices for Construction andMaintenanceActivities (2006). This section of the DEIS describes the potential construction impacts of the project. 41.61 Energy Construction of any of the alternatives is expected to result in less total energy utilization than the No-Build Alternative. Conshuction of the facility would initially require the consumption of energy and resources that would not be used if the project were not built. Operation of the facility, however, would compensate for the energy lost during construction by increasing the efficiency of the regional roadway system. Increased energy efficiency on the new facility would be attributed to its improving capacity and traffic flow, resulting in decreased vehicle delays, more efficient vehicle operating speeds, and diversion of traffic away from less convenient and less efficient roadways. 41.6.2 Lighting Temporary impacts due to lighting used during construction are expected to occur. Properties near the construction area may experience these impacts. Impacts due to lighting can be minimized by regulating the hours of construction activities in sensitive areas. 41.6.3 Visual Short term visual impacts are expected to occur due to conshuction activities and equipment To reduce the potential for visual impacts, construction activities would be contained within as minimal an area as practicaL Construction easements on parcels outside the alignment, where required, would be managed to minimize potential visual impact. Following construction, ground cover, landscaping, or related materials may be used to restore or enhance areas to preconstruction conditions or better. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-35 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 41.6.4 Noise Construction of the project will result in temporary increases in noise levels within the vicinity of the project Noise and vibration impacts would be from the heavy equipment movement and construction activities such as pile driving. Sensitive receivers located close to the construction activities may temporarily experience increased noise levels. Construction noise can be controlled by regulating the hours of construction and equipping machinery with noise reduction devices. Storage and staging areas would be located as far from noise sensitive areas as practicable. NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in noise-sensitive areas adjacent to the project. The NCDOT also reserves the right to monitor conshuction noise and to require noise abatement where limits are exceeded. NCDOT can also limit wark that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours. 41.6.5 Air Quality Construction activities could have a short-term impact on air quality, primarily during site preparation. Particulate matter (dust) is the pollutant of primary concern during the construction period. Dust would be generated during earth moving activities, handling of cement, asphalt, or aggregate, and equipment travel over unpaved haul roads. Wind erosion of exposed areas and material stockpiles would also generate particulate matter. The amount of dust generated would vary, depending on the construction activity and local weather conditions. Where excess dust is anticipated to be a problem, effective dust control measures would be implemented in accordance with standard NCDOT procedures. Dust control would be the responsibility of the contractor and could include: • Minimizing exposed earth surface; • Temporary and perxnanent seeding and mulching; • Watering warking and haul areas during dry periods; • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles; and • Using covered haul trucks. Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by federal standards. Any burning of cleared materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Specifically, a Burning Permit from the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources must be obtained for burning within woodlands or 500 feet of woodlands under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources. 41.6.6 Utilities Construction of the proposed project would require some adjustment, relocation or modification to existing public utilities such as natural gas pipelines, power transmission/distribution lines, water and sewer lines, and telephone and cable lines. Impacts to these utilities are described in Section 4.1.3.4. Any disruption to utility service during conshuction would be minimized by NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-36 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences phased adjustments to the utility lines and close coordination with utility providers and property owners in affected areas. 41.6.7 Water Quality Runoff from the project construction site could impact water quality by the transport of sediment, nutrients, or hazardous materials. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 413.0001.0027), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be prepared for land-disturbing activities that cover one or more acres to protect against runofffrom a ten-year storxn (see Section 4.1.6.8). BMPs to minimize water quality impacts during conshuction include, but are not limited to: • Scheduling construction activities to minimize exposed area and duration of exposure; • Clearing only minimal distances ahead of grading; • Temporary seeding, sodding, and/or mulching of disturbed areas; • Use of gravel or straw on exposed surfaces priar to revegetation; • Revegetating as soon as possible after construction; • Use of energy dissipaters at outfalls; • Construction of temporary sediment traps; • Use of silt fences; • Covering stockpiled materials; and • Wetting exposed areas during windy conditions. Additionally, NCDOT's standard practices will be employed during construction of the project. The standard practices require the proper use and handling of construction materials. Every precaution should be taken by the contractor to avoid erosion and discharge of waste water, bitumens, or hazardous materials, including fuel, lubricants, solvents or other chemicals, to ground or surface waters. 4.1.6.5 Erosion Control As described above, an erosion and sedimentation control plan in accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act must be prepared far this project Thus, prior to the start of project construction activities, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared in accordance with the NCDENR publication North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (2006a) and the NCDOT sediment and erosion control program. The plan will identify BMPs to be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation. BMPs would include but are not limited to: • Minimizing exposed earth surface; • Installation of silt fencing; • Temporary and perxnanent seeding and mulching; • Watering working and haul areas during dry periods; and • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-37 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.1.6.9 Geodetic Markeis The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) geodetic monuments are located across the counhy to provide a physical marker that is primarily used for land survey controls. There are 39 monuments that fall within the project limits. Of these, 8 would be impacted by construction of one or more of the project alternatives and the remaining 31 would not be impacted by any project alternative. Mitigation far the impacted monuments will be replacement at a nearby location to maintain the netwark of survey controls in the project area. 41.610 Borrow and Disposal Sites All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other construction phases would be removed from the project site and burned or disposed of by the contractor in accordance with State and local regulations. Litter and other general trash would be collected and disposed of at local landfill locations. Conshuction waste and borrow with regard to wetlands will not be allowed unless properly permitted by USACE. Specific locations of borrow and disposal sites will be deterxnined during the final design phase of the project. 41.611 Traffic Maintenance and Detour Accessibility Maintenance of traffic and sequence of construction would be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. A traffic control plan will be developed during the final engineering design phase. The traffic control plan will address any disturbances to existing traffic patterns, road closures or realignments, as well as define designated truck routes and parking areas for construction vehicles. Signs would be used where appropriate to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. The local news media would be notified in advance of road closings and other construction related activities which could excessively inconvenience the community so motorists, residents, and businesses could plan their day and travel routes in advance. Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained to the extent practical through controlled construction scheduling. Traffic delays would be controlled to the extent possible where many construction operations are in progress at the same time. 41.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Implementation of the proposed project involves a commitment of the range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At present there is no reason to believe such a conversion will be necessary or desirable. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-38 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. They are not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of state funds which are not retrievable. 4.1.8 Relationship Between Short-term Impacts and Long-term Benefits In general, the alternatives would have similar impacts on the local shart-term uses of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-terxn productivity. Completion of the project would, over the long term, be consistent with local, county, regional, and State plans. The construction phase of the project would cause limited adverse effects on the human environment which are deemed to be of a short-terxn nature. Existing homes and businesses would be displaced. However, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners, tenants, and business owners within the project area. Improved mobility and access to and from the study area could stimulate economic and business growth and viability as well as long-terxn residential interest Construction activities could create shart-term air quality, noise and visual impacts for nearby residents and businesses. Normal traffic patterns would also be disrupted. Implementation of BMPs and NCDOT standard construction procedures would help minimize these impacts. Increased bxrbidity levels in creeks and streams adjacent to construction activities could temporarily affect localized water quality. BMPs, as described in Section 4.1.6.6, would minimize potential water quality impacts. In addition, NCDOT will consult with the USACE in order to deterxnine measures that will minimize impact to waterways and wetlands. The proposed project would be classified as a long-term productive facility. This project, with its desirable design characteristics, would provide for safe and efficient vehicle operation. The benefits, such as reduced operating costs, reduced travel time, and general economic enhancement of the area offered by the long-terxn productivity of this project, should more than offset the short-terxn inconvenience and adverse effects on the human environxnent. 4.1.9 Permits and Certifications The design and conshuction of the proposed project will dictate the magnibxde of the impacts to surface waters. If impacts occur, permits and certifications will be required from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar protection and consideration from the regulatory agencies. These perxnits are authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and are under separate state laws regarding significant water resources. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 4-39 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Section 401 and 404 Permits In accordance with provisions of the CWA §404 (33 USC 1344), a permit will be required from the USACE far the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." If the total impacts exceed 300 linear feet or 0.5 acres, or multiple crossings of the same stream are incurred, an Individual Permit is necessary. Due to the extensive nature of jurisdictional streams and wetlands associated with this project, it is likely that an Individual Permit may become necessary. If an Individual Permit is required, a corresponding Major 401 Water Quality Certification will be required by NCDWQ. The USACE will determine final perxnit requirements. This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the NCDWQ priar to the issuance of any Section 404 Nationwide Permit or an Individual Perxnit Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certifications for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted far the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit. During construction activities, NCDOT's BMPs will be utilized, including erosion control measures. 4.2 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS An assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects that may result from the proposed NC 109Improvements project as well as other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities within the vicinity of the project was completed using NCDOT's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ofTransportation Projects in North Carolina (2001). The results of this assessment are detailed in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report prepared far the project (Lochner, 2007b) and are summarized below. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions In recent years the project area has experienced modest growth at a similar rate to overall growth in Davidson and Forsyth Counties, and at a slower rate than in North Carolina overall. However, some areas on the fringes of the project area, such as the Kernersville area in southeastern Forsyth County and the portion of High Point within Davidson County, have grown faster than the area as a whole. The study area, along with Davidson and Forsyth Counties, are expected to continue to experience modest population growth. With the continued decline in the manufacturing sector, this once manufacturing-centered area has lost large numbers of manufacturing jobs over the last decade and will likely continue to lose these jobs. Growth in the health care, educational, and retail sectors has partially offset the loss of manufacturing jobs in the area, but the area as a whole is not expected to experience significant job growth. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 440 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences Land uses throughout the project area are largely rural, consisting mainly of large-lot residential and agricultural development. Nearby areas within incorporated High Point and Thomasville are more suburban in nature, consisting of larger residential subdivisions. At the northwestern corner of the study area, land uses are more urban in nature, consisting of higher-density residential uses, retail commercial uses, and industrial uses. While still fairly rural, the northeastern corner of the study area includes a number of large business parks, featuring light industrial, commercial and office uses. Most of the project area is not currently served by water and sewer infrastructure and there are no immediate plans to extend these services into areas without service. Adjacent areas in western High Point and northern Thomasville are, however, expected to receive water and sewer service as growth continues in these areas. In addition to the NC 109Improvements project, there are a number of other NCDOT and local MPO transportation improvements planned for the project area. These are listed in Section 1.8. Each of these improvements will increase capacity and build linkages in the regional transportation system, facilitating travel movement and improving access. The study area includes several notable natural and cultural features. Three historic properties are within the APE for the project and several more are in the surrounding areas. Rich Fark Creek and Hunts Fark Creek, which lie just south of the project area, are on the §303(d) Ixnpaired Waters List. The Abbotts Creek Water Supply Watershed III (WS-II1) and Leonard Creek WS- III, part of the larger Lake Thom-a-Lex Water Supply Watershed, extend across the study area. State and local regulations limit development densities and intensities in these areas. The study area contains habitat for five federally-protected species. No occurrences of any of these species have been reported in the study area. Direct natural environxnental impacts by NCDOT projects would be addressed by programmatic agreements with resource agencies, and will be further evaluated by the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit during project perxnitting. Because few indirect impacts are anticipated, the cumulative effect of this project, when considered in the context of other past, present and future actions, and the resulting impact on notable human and natural features should be minimal. Therefore, any contribution of the project to cumulative impacts resulting from current and planned development patterns is expected to be minimal. 4.2.2 Potential for Indirect Impacts The construction of the NC 109 Improvements project will improve overall mobility in northeastern Davidson County and southeastern Winston-Salem by providing either additional capacity on existing NC 109 or an additional transportation corridor. The project will also improve accessibility for adjacent properties gaining new roadway frontage. While the project will have a moderate impact on improving areawide mobility and accessibility to the area road network, several other factors will influence the magnitude of the projecYs indirect effects. The anticipated growth rate in the project area is approximately one percent per NC 7097m,brovements Page 447 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences year, a modest rate that should moderate the demand for new residential and commercial development and limit rapid land use change in the area. In addition, the abundant supply of developable land will limit the development pressures on most parcels. The lack of existing or planned water and sewer service through much of the area will also limit the magnitude of induced land use change in the area. Specific areas closer to the project alternatives are more likely to experience development influenced by the project. Parcels along the new location alternatives and near the alternatives on intersecting roadways will likely become attractive for development of large-lot rural residential subdivisions. Proposed directional crossover intersections, particularly the Gum Tree Road and Rex Road/Devoe Road intersections on Alternative 1, the Teague Road intersection on Alternatives 3 and 6, and the Beckerdite-Stewart Road intersection and terminus at US 52 on Alternatives 4 and 5, are likely to experience new highway commercial development. Again, the modest annual growth rate predicted for the area will moderate the pace of this development. The area of older urban development near the northern terminus of existing NC 109 is unlikely to experience significant redevelopment as a result of this project. The NC 109 Improvements project alone will not have a major effect on land use change in areas more than a few miles from the project alternatives, although the project may contribute to cumulative effects in these areas (see below). Most of the notable feabxres in the project area will not receive indirect effects as a result of land use change stimulated by the project. The NRHP-eligible Mark Parker House and D. Austin Parker House are located on Teague Road near the proposed intersection with Alternatives 3 and 6. It is possible that induced development near this intersection or along Teague Road may have an indirect effect on the scenic character of these properties. The scenic character of the proposed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District, east of Alternative 1 in Forsyth County, may also be affected by new residential development in this area. While areas at the northern end of Alternatives 1, 3 and 6 have relatively high concentrations of minority and low-income residents, it is unlikely that the project will lead to land use change in these neighborhoods. While induced residential development in the area could affect water quality in the area, most water resources are located away from the project alternatives. None of the project alternatives cross any of the §303(d) streams in the project area and critical areas far the Abbotts Creek and Leonard Creek watersheds are located several miles away from the project alternatives. In addition, the drainage areas for Rich Fark Creek and Hunts Fark Creek, located southeast of the southern terxninus of the project alternatives, are less likely to experience project-induced development than areas closer to the alternatives. While a small partion of the Salem Creek drainage area is located within the project area, this area already contains significant urban development the project is unlikely to induce higher development densities or intensities in this already developed area. Local land use policies and regulations and state regulations are also in place to limit densities and development impacts near the §303(d) streams and in the water supply watersheds. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 442 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences 4.2.3 Potential for Cumulative Impacts The construction of the NC 109 Improvements project and any resultant induced development and complementary land development, coupled with the completion of recent transportation and development projects along with the construction of planned transportation projects and private development projects, could constitute a cumulative effect on the sbxdy area. Improvements to the southern section of NC 109, from Business I-85 to just north of Old Greensboro Road (STIP Projects R-2568A and B) were completed in 2006. Together with R-2568C, these projects will improve mobility between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and could stimulate land use change between these two areas. The widening of Union Cross Road and the proposed North-South Connector, along with the development of major job generators in southeastern Forsyth and southwestern Guilford Counties will accelerate land use change in the northeastern part of the study area. This is particularly true in High PoinYs annexation area in northeastern Davidson County, where local policies ensure that municipal water and sewer will be extended to any properties annexing into the city. These projects will also stimulate land use change in southeastern Forsyth County, particularly west of Wallburg Road and Union Cross Road, where water and sewer are currently available. Development pressures may lead to water and sewer eventually being extended east of Wallburg Road, where extensive developable land is available in close proximity to major employment centers such as the Union Cross Business Park. By improving mobility in the region, the NC 109 project may also play a cumulative role in this induced land use change. Together, recent and planned transportation projects and private development projects, and the NC 109Improvements project, will also cause cumulative increases in traffic volumes in the project area. South of the project area, cumulative effects of the project are not likely to negatively impact notable features. This area is largely outside of area water supply watersheds. Development along Rich Fark Creek, a§303(d) stream in this area, is strictly limited by Davidson County land use policies as a Preferred Conservation Area. Wetlands are somewhat prevalent along streams in the southern part of the study area; federal wetlands regulations should limit impacts to these resources. East of the study area, Rich Fark Creek is designated by the City of High Point as Recreation/Open Space, which also strictly limits development The High Point annexation area within Davidson County does not extend into the Abbotts Creek Water Supply Watershed. The watershed does extend into southeastern Forsyth County local policies and regulations and State regulations are in place to limit densities and development impacts in this area. The scenic character of the proposed Friedland Lower Tier Historic District could also be cumulatively affected by induced residential development in this area. 4.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Estimated environxnental impacts and costs associated with each of the build alternatives are summarized in Table 4-10. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 443 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 4 - Environmental Consequences .BLE 4-10 .. O .O Bu$d Alternative Alternative 1 Altemative 3 Altemative 4 Alternative 5 Altemative 6 Length of Length on Existin 7.74 1.80 0.81 1.29 133 Corridor (M$es) L.ength on New Location 1.80 7.61 839 721 8.72 Tota1 L.ength 9.54 9.41 920 8.50 10.05 Residential 165 87 75 70 97 Relocations Business 39 5 3 4 5 Tota1 204 92 78 74 102 Minority Populations Impacted 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 0 0 0 0 0 Churches 3 2 1 1 2 Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 Number of New Directional CrossoverIntersections 13 6 8 8 6 New Indirect Lefr Turns (No Duectional Crossover) 9 2 2 0 3 Railroad Crossings 0 0 1(Grade Sep.) 1(Grade Sep.) 0 Major Utility Conflicts 3 4 3 3 4 Historic Sites with Adverse Effects 0 0 0 0 0 Section 4 Sites 0 0 0 0 0 Federally Protected Species 0 0 0 0 0 Prime Farmland (acres) 230.13 124.81 137.41 129.13 124.98 Hazazdous Materials Sites 25 9 3 4 3 Noise Impacted Receptors 97 61 33 31 61 100-Yeaz Flood lain acres 10.44 9.94 5.87 10.46 535 Wetlands acres 0.58 0.15 021 0.16 0.14 Stream Crossings 20 24 34 34 24 Streams Stream Impacts (linearfeet? 4,432 7,757 9,259 1Q729 6,500 Constmction $70,000,000 $78,5O0,000 $85,600,000 $78,400,000 $81,5O0,000 C Ri hbof-Wa $69,975,000 $49,425,000 $34,975,000 $39,950,000 $46,710,000 ost Uriliries $4,758,169 $628,221 $657,572 $657,572 $618,841 Tota1 $144,733,169 $128,553,221 $121,232,572 $119,007,572 $128,828,841 NC 709 Im,brovements Page 444 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SECTION 5 LIST OF PREPARERS This document was prepared by the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation with assistance from H. W. Lochner, Inc. Federal Highway Administration Clarence Coleman, PE Operations Engineer; 16 years experience Felix Davila, PE Area Engineer; 17 years experience North Carolina Department of Transportation VincentRhea, PE Project Development Engineer; 38 years experience Eric Midkiff, PE Central Region Project Development Unit Head; 21 years experience Derrick Weaver, PE Central Region Consultant Engineering Unit Head; 17 years experience H.W. Lochner, Inc. Stephen C. Browde, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 25 years experience Senior Roadway Design Engineer in roadway design Roy D. Bruce, PE M.S. and B.S. degree in civil engineering with 30 years Project Manager experience in transportation engineering, environmental analysis, and document preparation Brian Eason, PE Project Manager/Design Unit Kristin Maseman, AICP Project Manager B.S. degree in civil engineering with 20 years experience in roadway design M.R.P.in urban and regional planning with 10 years experience in land use planning and NEPA documentation. NC 709 Improvements IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Page S7 Section 5- List of Prepazers Michelle Fishburne, PE* B.S. degree in civil engineering with 21 years experience Project Manager in transportation planning and document preparation Brian Byfield, AICP M.R.P. in urban and regional planning with 14 years Seniar Environxnental Planner experience in land use planning and NEPA documentation. Jonathan Williamson B.S. in applied geography with 9 years experience in GIS Technician GIS data analysis and map preparation Emily Rackley* B.S. in biology with 5 years experience in natural Environmental Biologist resources investigation Heather Renninger* B. S. in ecology with 9 years experience in natural Environmental Biologist resources investigation/environmental permitting and stream restoration. Brian Dustin* Environmental Biologist Suzanna Rea, PE* Senior Transportation Planner B.S. in forestry with 6 years experience in natural resource investigation. B.C.E. degree in Civil Engineering with 10 years experience in transportation planning and document preparation Christina Shumate, AICP* M.E.M. degree in environxnental management with 9 Environmental Planner years experience in environxnental planning and NEPA documentation. Cindy Szwarckop, AICP* Senior Land Use Planner Chris Werner, PE* Transpartation Engineer Doug Wheatley, EI Transportation Engineer Bill Bollman Senior Engineering Technician M.U.R.P. in urban and regional planning with 15 years experience in land use planning and NEPA document preparation. B. S. degree in civil engineering with 9 years experience in environmental planning and roadway design. B. S. in civil engineering with 6 years experience in roadway design. A.S.T. in design technology with 15 years experience in roadway design. NC 709 Improvements IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Page S2 Section 5- List of Prepazers David Martin A.A.S. in civil engineering technology with 19 years Roadway Design Engineer experience in roadway design. Dave Shannon, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 16 years experience Design Engineer in engineering and environxnental analysis Dave Zawada, PE M.S. and B.S. degrees in civil engineering with 35 years Environmental Engineer experience in environxnental analysis and document preparation * No longer employed with H. W. Lochner, Inc. Mulkey Engineeis and Consultants Jonathan Scarce, PE B.S. degree in civil engineering with 20 years Project Manager experience in hydraulic design. Kevin Alford, PE, CFM B.S. degree in civil engineering with 9 years experience Project Engineer in hydraulic design. Matt Harvey B.S. degree in civil engineering with 9 years experience Designer in hydraulic design/roadway design. NC7097m,brovements Page 5-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 6- List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement aze Sent SECTION G LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT Federal Agencies US Environxnental Protection Agency US Department of Transportation US Department of Interior US Department of Commerce US Department of Agriculture US Department of Energy US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Environxnental Affairs Federal Rail Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of Management and Budget Regional Offices Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Department of Housing and Urban Development US Arxny Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services Administration Federal Transit Authority State Agencies NC Department of Human Resources NC Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Department of Culbxral Resources NC Department of Public Instruction NC Department of Commerce NC Department of Economic and Community Development State Clearinghouse Section 6- List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement aze Sent Loca1 Governments and Agencies Chairman, Wallburg Town Council Chairxnan, Winston-Salem City Council Chairman, Forsyth Council Board of Commissioners Chairman, Davidson County Board of Commissioners High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Davidson County Department of Planning and Zoning Winston-Salexn/Forsyth County City-County Planning Board SECTION 7 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 71 AGENCY COORDINATION 711 Early Coordination To begin early coordination far the project, a Start of Study letter was distributed on October 17, 2003 to the appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies, local officials, NCDOT staff, and other stakeholders. The letter introduced the project, provided preliminary inforxnation on the range of alternatives to be considered and solicited comments for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of the project. Pertinent comments received from these agencies and officials are included in Appendix A. The forxnal scoping process was initiated through the distribution of a scoping letter on December 15, 2003, to representatives from various NCDOT departments and agency staff. The scoping letter included preliminary project inforxnation and a project location map. It also served as an invitation to a forxnal scoping meeting held on January 14, 2004. At the scoping meeting, attendees discussed the history and purpose of the project, the study process, and known environxnental constraints in the project area. Project limits were also discussed. FHWA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environxnental Ixnpact Statement far the project on March 18, 2009 (see Appendix B). 7.1.2 Combined NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process In a May 1, 1992 agreement, the US Department of Transportation, the Office of the Assistant of the Army (Civil Warks), and the US Environxnental Protection Agency (EPA), developed policy that (a) would improve interagency coordination and (b) would integrate NEPA and Section 404 procedures. On May 14, 1997, the Wilmington District of the US Arxny Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Narth Carolina Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the North Carolina Departxnent of Transportation (NCDO'1) signed an Interagency Agreement that provided procedures to integrate NEPA and Section 404 for transportation projects in North Carolina. In 1997, NCDOT, FHWA, and USACE agreed that "these procedures apply to all projects needing Federal Highway Administration action under the National Environmental Policy Act and a US Arxny Corps of Engineers Individual Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act These procedures are limited to those projects determined by Federal Highway Administration and Narth Carolina Deparhnent of Transpartation to be processed with an Environmental Impact NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Statement to comply with NEPA, and/ar those projects that require an Individual Section 404 Perxnit." The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process is based on concurrence from Merger Team Members at four major milestones (concurrence points) during project sbxdies. Far the NC 109 Improvements project, the Merger Team includes representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, including FHWA, USACE, EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), Narth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO and NCDOT. The four points for concurrence are (1) project purpose and need, (2) alternatives selected for detailed study, (3) least environxnentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), and (4) avoidance and minimization. The NEPA/404 Merger Process was amended in 2001 and is referred to as the "Merger Process." The amended procedures far the Merger Process were implemented in March 2003. The Concurrence Points amendments in the Merger Process include the addition of Concurrence Point 2A and the separation of Concurrence Point 4 into three items: A, B, and C. Concurrence Point 2A includes coordinating the bridge locations, lengths, and cost with the Merger Team, and the three items for Concurrence Point 4(A, B, and C) include Avoidance and Minimization, a Hydraulic Design Review, and a Perxnit Drawing Review, respectively. The project has proceeded through Concurrence Points 1, 2, and 2A as described below. After further public involvement and distribution of this DEIS, it is expected that the Merger Process will continue with Concurrence Point 3. Copies of the signed Concurrence Forms can be found in Appendix C. 71.21 Concurrence Point 1-- Purpose and Need Members of the Merger Team concurred with the purpose and need for the project on September 15, 2004. The agreed upon needs for the project include capacity deficiencies, above-average accident rates, and deficient roadway geomehy on NC 109. In order to address the stated needs, the agreed upon purpose of the project is to improve safety, traffic flow, and level of service along the NC 109 corridor in the project study area. 71.2.2 Concurrence Point 2- Alternatives for Detailed Study The Merger Team met on August 15, 2006, to review the five preliminary corridors under consideration and their potential impacts in order to select alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study. The Merger Team agreed that all five corridors should be carried on for further study and these five are examined in detail in this DEIS. There was extensive discussion at this meeting about the use of directional crossovers with indirect lefts. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 7- Coordination and Public Involvement 71.2.3 Concurrence Point 2A - Bridge Locations and Lengths The Merger Team met on April 28, 2009, to review the stream and wetland crossings along the five alternatives selected for detail study and to achieve concurrence on bridging decisions. The Merger Team viewed several stream crossing sites in the field to determine if the hydraulic structure recommended following preliminary analysis was appropriate. It was agreed that bridges would be included at the seven sites identified in preliminary hydraulic analysis. No additional bridges were proposed, although it was agreed that NCDOT would consider design modifications at certain sites later in the study process to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional impacts. 7.1.3 HPO Coordination Representatives of NCDOT, FHWA, and HPO met on March 24, 2009, to review project alternatives for effects to historic properties. The following conclusions were reached: • Mark Parker House - No Adverse Effect (Alternatives 3 and 6); No Effect (Alternatives 1, 4 and 5) • D. Austin Parker House - No Adverse Effect (Alternatives 3 and 6); No Effect (Alternatives 1, 4 and 5) • George Wall House -No Adverse Effect (Alternative 1); No Effect (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6) • Dempsey Clinard House-No Effect (All alternatives) • John Hiatt Farm - deterxnined to be outside the Area of Potential Effects (APE) 7.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The early and continued involvement of citizens who may be affected by the sbxdy's outcome has been a vital part of the planning process far the NC 109 Improvements project. The public involvement program for this project included local officials meetings, citizens informational warkshops, small group meetings, newsletters, and a toll-free project hotline. 7.2.1 Local Officials Meetings 7.2.1.1 Fiist Public Officials Meeting A public officials meeting was held on March 6, 2002, at the NCDOT Division 9 office in Winston-Salem. This meeting was held to give NCDOT personnel an opporbxnity to hear suggestions and concerns about the project and the project area. Three local officials attended this meeting. 7.2.1.2 Second Public Officials Meeting The second Public Officials meeting was held on November 15, 2004, at the NCDOT Division 9 office in Winston-Salem. Nine local officials attended this meeting. This meeting was held to allow public officials to review the purpose and need for the project and to discuss preliminary NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 7- Coordination and Public Involvement corridor concepts far the project. Based on discussion at this meeting, the group decided to remove a potential interchange at Ridgewood Road in Forsyth County due to geometric constraints and traffic demand considerations, and also decided to remove a potential interchange at West Clemmonsville Road/US 52 due to existing high traffic volumes and the need for extensive design improvements at this location It was also agreed that an alternative affecting the Meadowlands development would be shifted to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. 7.21.3 Third Public Officials Meeting A public officials meeting was held on October 13, 2005, at the NCDOT Division 9 office in Winston-Salem. Eight local officials attended this meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to update public officials about the current stabxs of the project and to provide inforxnation far them to use when answering questions from the public in advance of the Citizens Informational Workshops held in November 2005. NCDOT received input on the five alternatives under consideration and provided inforxnation about the directional crossovers with indirect left bxrns that are proposed for project intersections. 7.2.2 Citizens Informational Workshops 7.2.21 Fiist Citizens Informational Workshops The first Citizens Informational Workshops were held by NCDOT on Apri16, 2004, and April 15, 2004. The first meeting was held in the southern portion of the study area while the second meeting was held in the northern portion. The purpose of the meetings was to introduce the project and solicit comments or suggestions concerning the proposed improvements or areas of environmental concern. Approximately 350 people attended and approximately 50 written comments were received. Comments addressed the need far the project and its location. Copies of comments received are available from NCDOT by request. 7.2.2.2 Second Citizens Informational Workshops The second Citizens Inforxnational Workshops were held by NCDOT on November 10, 2005, and November 14, 2005. These meetings allowed the public to review the proposed study corridors. The public also had the opportunity to comment on the project purpose and need at these meetings; another opporbxnity to comment on purpose and need was provided in Newsletter 6, distributed in May 2009 (see Section 7.2.4). Approximately 500 people attended and over 270 written comments were received. Comments reflected area residents' desire to maintain the area's rural character, to protect natural resources, increase safety, and minimize residential impacts. Many respondents were in favor of upgrading existing NC 109. Copies of comments received are available from NCDOT by request. 7.2.3 Mailing List A mailing list was developed in order to distribute project information to interested persons. The list was compiled from property owner data for the project study area and nearby communities. In NC 709 Im,brovements Page 74 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 7- Coordination and Public Involvement addition, any individual, group, or government official expressing an interest in the project was placed on the mailing list. The list contains approximately 7,000 names and addresses. 7.2.4 Newsletters To date, six project newsletters have been published and mailed to citizens, groups, and officials on the mailing list (see Appendix F for copies of these newsletters). Newsletter 1 was distributed in March 2004, Newsletter 2 was distributed in October 2005, Newsletter 3 was distributed in Apri12006, Newsletter 4 was distributed in October 2006, Newsletter 5 was distributed in September 2008, and Newsletter 6 was distributed in May 2009. These newsletters provided information on the study process and progress. Additional newsletters will be mailed at upcoming project milestones to announce the Corridor Public Hearing, the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the selection of a preferred alternative, the publication of the Final Environxnental Impact Statement/Record of Decision, and the Design Public Hearing. 7.2.5 Hotline A toll-free hotline (1-800-554-7849) was available for public comments, suggestions, or questions. The hotline service is available Monday through Friday during regular business hours. More than 100 hotline calls have been received to date. 7.2.6 Project Website NCDOT maintains a project website far the public to access information regarding the stabxs of this project. The website is updated periodically at project milestones and to detail project progress. Included on the website are descriptions of the study process, maps of the study area and alternatives under detailed study, the project schedule, frequently asked questions, and contact inforxnation. In addition, the website contains links to copies of recent newsletters and meeting summaries. The website is located at http://www.ncdot.org/projects/ NC 109Improvements. 7.2.7 Small Group Meetings Representatives from NCDOT, the local MPOs, the Piedmont Triad Regional Planning Organization (RPO) and the Davidson County Planning Deparhnent attended a small group meeting in the Winston-Salem City Hall Annex on August 3, 2004, to discuss the project. NCDOT displayed maps of the project area and discussed the purpose and need for the project. NCDOT received input on recent development in the project area and on existing conditions on NC 109. On June 13, 2006, NCDOT gave a formal presentation on the project at the Wallburg Town Council meeting to update local representatives on the status ar the project. The presentation included a brief update on the project history, the project development process and the project schedule. At the end of the presentation, the project representatives answered questions from the Town Council and the public in attendance. NC 709 Im,brovements Page 7-5 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 7- Coordination and Public Involvement 7.2.8 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Outreach To provide project inforxnation to Spanish-speaking residents of the project area, the first project newsletter, distributed in March 2004, was translated into Spanish. Copies of the Spanish version of the newsletter were distributed in person at local Hispanic groceries and churches and local gas stations. A Spanish translator was present at the first Citizens Informational Warkshops in April 2004, but no warkshop attendees requested translation services. 7.2.9 Corridor Public Hearing A corridor public hearing for the project will be held following the publication of this DEIS. 7.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PURPOSE AND NEED AND ALTERNATIVES In accordance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-Li), the public was provided an opporbxnity to review and comment on the project purpose and need and alternatives. The purpose and need statement was included in newsletters distributed to project area properly owners in May 2009 and October 2005. The second Citizens Inforxnational Workshops, in November 2005, also provided an opportunity for the public to comment on purpose and need. Project alternatives were included in the May 2009 newsletter and in a newsletter distributed in October 2006. Copies of these newsletters are in Appendix F. The project purpose and need and alternatives have also been available to the public via the project website. Six e-mail comments and three written comments letters were received following distribution of the May 2009 newsletters. Five of the e-mail comments and all of the written comments indicated concern about potential impacts on the Meadowlands community and a preference for alternatives with the least impacts on the Meadowlands. Two of these comments also expressed doubt about the need for the project. The sixth e-mail comment indicated a preference for Alternative 1 because it would disrupt existing development less than the other alternatives. NCDOT responded to each of these comments. Public comments received to date and those received following publication of the DEIS and the corridor public hearing will be used in the corridor selection process to identify the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) far the project NC 709 Im,brovements Page 76 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement SECTION 8 REFERENCES NOTE: Copies of all cited technical reports are available upon request from NCDOT. [AASHTO] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2006. Roadside Design Guidelines. [AASHTO] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2004. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. [AASHTO] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2007. Defining the Purpose and Need and Deterxnining the Range of Alternatives far Transportation Projects. In AASHTO Practitioner's Handbook. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Civilian Labor Force Estimates for Narth Carolina. hLtp://jobs.ese.state.ne.us/Imi/laus/elf/selelf l.hhn CALTRANS. June 1997. Community Impact Assessment, Environmental Handbook Volume 4, June 1997. City-County Planning Board of Forsyth County and Winston-Salem. 2001. Legacy Development Guide. City-County Planning Board of Forsyth County and Winston-Salem. 2007. Direction 2007 Forsyth County Trends and Profiles. City-County Planning Board of Forsyth County and Winston-Salem. 2005. Union Cross/Southeast Forsyth County Area Plan. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1988. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Davidson County. 1984. Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan. Davidson County. 2002. Davidson Forward: Davidson County Land Development Plan. NC 7097m,brovements Page 8-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation ManuaL Tech. Rpt Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981 (7 CFR 658). Fearnbach History Services, Inc., August 2008. Forsyth County Phase II Survey Update Report. Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Reports. httv://www.faa.¢ov/airports_airtraffic/airports/plannin¢_capacitv/npais/reports. Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Section 4(fl Policy Paper. FEMA, March 16, 2009. Flood Insurance Study - A Report of Flood Hazards in Davidson County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas. FEMA. January 2, 2009. Flood Insurance Study - A Report of Flood Hazards in Forsyth County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas. Franklin, Misty and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environxnent, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2009. High Point Urban Area 2035 Multi-Modal Long Range Transportation Plan. High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. High Point Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2006. Preliminary Alternatives Report, NC 109 Improvements Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2007a. Community Impact Assessment Study, NC 109 Improvements Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2007b. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report, NC 109Improvements Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2007c. Natural Resources Technical Report, Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. NC 7097m,brovements Page 8-2 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 8 - References H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2009a. Traffic Analysis for Bypass Alternatives for NC 109Improvements Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. H. W. Lochner, Inc. 2009b. Air Quality Analysis. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S. McRae, S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Departxnent of Environxnent and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison IIL 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Mulkey, Inc. 2008. Preliminary Hydraulics Analysis, NC 109Improvements Study. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation. Nabxral Resource Conservation Service (1VRCS). (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540) North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. hLtp://Www.cgia.state.ne.us/cost.htmI Narth Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1997. State Map of North Carolina, Physiographic Provinces. Raleigh, N.C. [NCDENR] North Carolina Departxnent of Environxnent and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources. 2009. North Carolina Geodetic Survey. httv://www.nc¢s.statenc.us/ (viewed on August 4, 2009). [NCDENR] North Carolina Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources. 2006a. North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. [NCDENR] North Carolina Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources. 2006b. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/ basinsandwaterbodies/03-06-15.vdf (viewed on August 20, 2009). [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2009. Air Quality Analysis for Proposed NC 109. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2006. Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities. NC 7097m,brovements Page 8-3 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 8 - References [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. Community Impact Assessment Framework. http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstrucUpe/ohe/CommStud/framework.html (viewed on July 16, 2009). [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2008b. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis for Proposed NC 109. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1995. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report -Improvements to NC 109. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2005. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report -Improvements to NC 109. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation. Memorandum from Karen M. Lynch, to projectfiles (pertaining to Stokes, Forsyth Counties) Subject Surveys for Cardamine micranthera, small anthered bittercress. September 11, 2006. [NCDOT] North Carolina Departxnent of Transportation, Planning and Environxnental Branch. 1995. Environxnental Assessment for NC 109 from I-85 in Thomasville to Just Narth of SR 1798 (Old Greensboro Road). [NCDOT] North Carolina Departxnent of Transportation, Planning and Environxnental Branch. 2004. NC 109 from Narth of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) to I-40/US 311 Purpose and Need Capacity Analysis. [NCDOT] North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch. 2000. Purpose and Need Guidelines. [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2007. Basinwide Assessment Report, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. N.C. Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. N.C. Department of Environxnent and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2006. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Ixnpaired Waters List [2006Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report]. httu://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUGeneral 303d.htm. (viewed on November 21, 2006). NC 7097m,brovements Page 84 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 8 - References [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2009a. Active NPDES Permits. httu://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/NPDESweb.html (viewed on August 20, 2009). [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2009b. Fish Community Database. httu://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/documents/YadkinRiverBasin OOO.xIs (viewed on August 21, 2009). [NCDWQ] North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2009c. Surface Water Classifications. httu://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html (viewed on August 21, 2009). NC Floodplain Mapping Information System. wwwncfloodmaps.com [NCNHP] North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Heritage Data. httu://www.ncnhp.ore/Paees/heritaeedata.hhnl (viewed on August 20, 2006). [NCNHP] North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera). www.ncnhp.org/images/109.pd£ (viewed on August 20, 2006). North Carolina Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information. httu://www.esc.statenc.us (viewed on July 15, 2009). North Carolina Office of State Planning. 2009. State Demographics Website. hLtp://www.demog.state.ne.us Narth Carolina State Data Center. Narth Carolina Commuting to Work. 2000. httu://www.demo¢.state.nc.us (viewed on July 15, 2009). O'Shea, T.J. and M.E. Ludlow. 1992. Florida manatee. In S.R. Humphrey (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, p. 190-200. Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation. 2009. httu://www.partnc.or¢ Piedmont Triad Partnership. 2005. Competitive Realities - Piedmont Triad Region, North Carolina. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments. 2009. Piedmont Triad Commuting Patterns. httu://www.ptco¢.or¢/vlannin¢ services/re¢ional vlannin¢/GIS. h?p Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press - Chapel Hill. Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. NC 7097m,brovements Page 8-5 IJraftEnvironmentallmp actStatement Section 8 - References Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume L Mammals. University of Florida, Gainesville. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environxnent, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. United States Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census. httv://www.census.¢ov (viewed on July 15, 2009). United States Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census. httv://www.census.¢ov (viewed on July 15, 2009). [USDA-USFS] United States Department of Agriculbxre, Forest Service. 2009. National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. httu://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR94/lartabl3.htm. [USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Soil Survey of Davidson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture. [USDA-SCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Soil Survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U. S. Deparhnent of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1991. Small-anthered Bittercress Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 22pp. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1994a National Wetlands Inventory Map, Midway, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1994b National Wetlands Inventory Map, High Point West, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1994c National Wetlands Inventory Map, Winston- Salem East, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2000. Technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). httu://www.fws.¢ov/rcwrecovervL/files/rcwoodpecker.pdf (viewed August 20, 2009). NC 7097m,brovements Page 86 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement Section 8 - References [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009a. Davidson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. httv://nc-es.fws.¢ov/es/coun , f? r.htxnl (viewed August 20, 2009). [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009b. Forsyth County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. httv://nc-es.fws.¢ov/es/coun , f? r.htxnl (viewed August 20, 2009). [USFWS] U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009c. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) hLtp://ne- es.fws.gov/es/couMfr.httnl (viewed August 20, 2009). [USFWS] United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009d. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). httv://nc-es.fws.eov/birds/balde.hhnl (viewed August 20, 2009). [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009e. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitsii). httv://www.fws.¢ov/endan¢ered/i/q/saq6o.html (viewed August 20, 2009). [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. Hydrologic Unit Map, State of North Carolina. Reston, VA: United States Deparhnent of the Interior, 1974. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. Midway Quadrangle, North Carolina. Photorevised 1969. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, VA: United States Department of the Interior, 1957. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. High Point West Quadrangle, North Carolina. Photorevised 1993. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, VA: United States Department of the Interior, 1957. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. Winston-Salem East Quadrangle, North Carolina. Photorevised 1950. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, VA: United States Departxnent of the Interior, 1957. Winston Salem Transit Authority. 2009. System Map. httv://www.wstransitcom/schedules.htm Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2008. Winston-Salem Urban Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2009. 2035 Winston-Salem Urban Area Long Range Transportation Plan. Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2008. 2009-2015 Metropolitan Transpartation Improvement Program NC 7097m,brovements Page 8-7 IJraftEnvironmentallmpactStatement