SR 2643 Union Cross Rd widening

T.I.P. PROJECT NO. -490
WIDENING OF SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
TO A MULTILANE FACILITY
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD)
TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
' FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WBS No. 40278.1.1
FEDERAL AID No. STP-2643(2)

t
Ygop'iH
/

6 ~
A ~ f
e ~ /1
t3f TR
1
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
' FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C)
AND 49 U. S. C. 303

' APPROVED:

DATE fAg GREGORY J. THOR E, PH.D., MANAGER
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH,
NCOOT

' DATE JOHN F. SULLIVAN, III, P. E., DIVIS oN ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

' T.I.P. PROJECT NO. 0-4909
WIDENING OF SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
' TO A MULTILANE FACILITY
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD)
TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
' FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WBS NO. 40278.1.1
FEDERAL AID No. STP-2643(2)

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

MAY 200B

' DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY:
~1ti111/1/
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS G,4R0
3
SEA[
COLISTA S. FREEMAN, P.E. +56
SENIOR PLANNER G IN
'0 0 41

' I'J SISSETT, P.E.
PRINCIPAL

DOCUMENTATION PREPARED FOR:
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:

D~D fi~, iaj=g=4
' LISA M. FELLER, P.E.
PROJECT PLANNING ENGINEER

ccwe4l L
ROBERT ANDR JOYNER, P. E.
PROJECT ENGI EER

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

' SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD) TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
FORSYTH COUNTY
WBS NO. 40276.1.1
' FEDERAL AID No. STP-2643(2)
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-4909
' BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DIVISION, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH (PDEA), AND ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
' Accommodations for bicycle use will be reviewed and coordinated further with the county and
municipalities prior to completing the final design.
Bicycles will be accommodated with 14 -foot-vide outside lanes.

' BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DIVISION, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH, RIGHT-OF-WAY BRANCH, AND STRUCTURE
DESIGN UNIT
' The need for pedestrian access and accommodations through the US 311 and I-40 interchanges will
be reviewed further following the public hearing and prior to completing the final design.
Five-foot-wide sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Union Cross Road. Further coordination with the Town of
Kernersville and the City of Wlinston-Salem will be initiated to determine the exact locations of the sidewalks and to
prepare municipal agreements.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH AND
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
The intersections with Biloxi Avenue, Glenview Drive (future entrance to the Shops at Glenn
' Crossing), and the entrance to Weatherstone Development will be reviewed and evaluated further
during final design.
PDEA - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, PDEA - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT, AND
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be prepared and coordinated with the NC Historic
' Preservation Office to ensure impacts to the Smith-Tucker Rural Historic District are minimized.
The MOA was signed July 24, 2007, and filed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on July 31,
2007. A copy of the MOA is located in Appendix D of the FONSI. Per the MOA, the following measures will
' be taken to minimi.Ze impacts to the historic district.-
0 Asymmetrical Wlidening• Within the historic district, NCDOT will widen the road asymmetrically to
minimise the project's impact on the district's contributing resources.
' • Median: A thirty foot-wide raised median will control access to the surrounding land and may discourage
unsympathetic development within the historic district.
• Temple School Road Extension: For the purposes of this undertaking, NCDOT will not participate in the
' extension of Temple School Road
• Recordation: Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing condition of the Smith
Tucker Farms Rural Historic District and its surroundings in accordance with the Historic Structures and
Landscape Recordation Plan.

U-4909 Finding of No Significant Impact
May 2008 Page 1 of 2

RIGHT OF WAY BRANCH - UTILITIES
' Forsyth County Fire Department requests installation of fire hydrants on both sides of Union Cross
Road.

' STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT
Bridge Maintenance recommends replacement of the joints for Bridge No. 392 (US 311) to bring
them up to date for design standards and to match joints used in new construction for bridge
widening.
' NCDOT does not plan to widen Bridge No. 3,92 or replace the existing joints as apart of this project.

' ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
The contract for this project will include a special provision that will prohibit the burning of all
clearing, grubbing, and demolition debris generated from the project. All debris will be disposed of
by other means, according to state or local rules and regulations.
' DIVISION 9 AND ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Landscaping will be provided at the I-40 and US 311 interchanges and coordinated with the local
' municipalities.

DIVISION 9
' The implementation of construction mitigation measures for MSAT emissions listed in Appendix B
of the FONSI will be closely coordinated with environmental resource agencies, including EPA,
prior to project construction to ensure all appropriate measures are incorporated into the project.

' TRAFFIC ENGINEERING BRANCH
NCDOT will conduct a school safety study for Union Cross Elementary School.
' TRAFFIC ENGINEERING BRANCH
NCDOT will investigate the installation of flashing "School Zone" lights near Union Cross
Elementary School and R.B. Glenn High School.

' NCDOT, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Development, independent of and unrelated to this highway improvement project, is occurring
within the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District along Union Cross Road. Prior to the
authorization of right of way, NCDOT will determine whether development has occurred in the
' historic district, and if so, reevaluate the proposed alignment for the project.

' U-4909 Finding of No Significant Impact
May 2008 Page 2 of 2

' TABLE OF CONTENTS

' PROJECT COMMITMENTS

1.0 TYPE OF ACTION 1
' 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1

3.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5

' 4.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS 9
4.1 CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT SECTION 4(F)
EVALUATION 9
' 4.2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT SECTION 4(F)
EVALUATION 9
4.3 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING ............................19
5.0 REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 25
5.1 REVISED TYPICAL SECTION--- ......................................................................................................25
' 5.2 REVISIONS TO STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS 25
5.3 REVISED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 25
5.4 REVISION TO SMITH-TUCKER FARMS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY
' ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP 26
6.0 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION .....................................29
6.1 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................................29
6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 29
6.3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES 30
6.3.1 Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District Section 4(~ Property 30
' 6.3.2 Impacts to Section 4(f Property 31
6.4 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 32
6.5 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 37
' 6.6 COORDINATION 37
6.7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 37
7.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 3B
' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ...............................................................................................3
' Figure 2. Environmental Constraints 7
Figure 3. Proposed Typical Sections 27
Figure 4. Avoidance of Section 4(f) Resource 35

' Table 1. Impacts Summary 5
' APPENDICES

Appendix A Agency Comments
Appendix B Revised Air Quality Analysis
Appendix C Public Hearing Notice and Handout
Appendix D Memorandum of Agreement

' WIDENING OF SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD) TO A MULTILANE FACILITY
FROM SR 2691 (WALLBURG ROAD) TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN ROAD)
' FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WBS No. 40278.1.1
FEDERAL AID No. STP-2643(2)
' T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-4909

' 1.0 TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
' The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the human or natural
environment. This FONSI is based on the November 28, 2006 Environmental Assessment and
' Draft Section 4(~ Evaluation (EA), which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the
proposed project. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
' Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the EA.

' 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen SR 2643 (Union
Cross Road) from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) in Forsyth County
' (see Figure 1). The purpose of the proposed project is to provide sufficient capacity for the 20-year
projected traffic by improving traffic flow through the study area. The existing three-lane roadway
will be widened to a multilane, divided facility. A four-lane, divided curb-and-gutter facility is
' proposed south of I-40, and a six-lane, divided curb-and-gutter facility is proposed north of I-40.
Five-foot sidewalks on each side of Union Cross Road and a 30-foot, raised median are proposed.
Two existing interchange modifications or reconstructions are included for the junctions with
' US 311 and I-40. The total project length is approximately 3.6 miles.
The right-of-way proposed for the improvements to Union Cross Road will vary from
' approximately 120 to 140 feet wide. A 120-foot right-of-way is proposed south of I-40, and a
140-foot right-of-way is proposed north of I-40.

The proposed improvements include providing access management for driveways and roads
connecting with Union Cross Road to minimize conflicts and side-swipe crashes. Median openings
with traffic signals will be provided at several of the major intersecting roads to accommodate the
' traffic volumes from adjacent subdivisions. Access from closed roads and left-turn access for
"right-in/right-out" connections will require the use of other intersecting roads or U-turns at
median openings. The specific locations of median openings are based on traffic volumes and safety
' issues, such as acceptable sight distances and traffic operations on Union Cross Road. Since I-40
and US 311 are controlled-access highways, the interchange ramp connections with Union Cross
Road also have full access control with no driveway connections allowed.

1

i 1

Figure 1

Project Vicinity
Project Area
' U-4909 Union Cross Road
From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road
' a3 Forsyth County, North Carolina
4
obaccoville - 4y65` 5 yi- -
5
cc)
5 ...f •r~ ' ? Rural all tOJJBeICreek' 4+ ` 1ee~"°"`"4~
' 67 I 1 Stanleyville. j I I'
Bethan a'2 2 ; 1..1-- 68' x North Carolina
ti 2 66 5 ~Walkertown i
` F O R S_ Yx T H iF 1 Department of Transportation
~afarfto' y I? s $ Kernersvil't mss, ,eQ'
a
r sienna Winstonz ,Salem ~1
'I , Lewisville 9y r3 , 31
is
66
' ` a hr 150 1i<` g ,3

,p 1t.Clemmons~: ~ -
yr; [6ernijda R I
Project Vicinity Point
Thom vill 68
C::~ ~a
Sedge G co5e l
' amen Rd v~`~o~G End Project
k O/d T
Sa/em Ra m °'s
•1
d '
© 4 V
a °
G\ e o
~ p N
N
U
D Q
y9h v ,
~fRa Temple School Rd
Qedgecock Rd Legend
U-4909
311 Kernersville
I
b Winston-Salem
' Begin Project Waterbodies
Roads
Union Cross Rd
Qa Streams
0 0.25 0.5 1
S~ Miles

' The proposed project is included in the NCDOT's 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement
' Program (TIP). Although the TIP shows right-of-way acquisition and construction to begin in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the current schedule is for right-of-way acquisition to begin in FY 2008 and
construction to begin in FY 2010. The TIP includes funding for right-of-way of $13,000,000 and
for construction of $30,900,000. Total project funding in the TIP is $43,900,000. Current cost
' estimates for the proposed project are as follows:

Right-of-Way Cost $ 9,055,000
' Construction Cost $38.000.000
Total Cost $47,055,000

3.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Discussions of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are located in
Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the EA. A summary of impacts for the proposed project is shown in
Table 1.
' Table 1. Impacts Summa

RESOURCE IMPACT
Right-of-way 39.3 acres

Number of relocations 23 residences
5 businesses
' Number of property parcels 189 parcels
Archaeological sites 0
Historic ro ernes 1 Adverse Effect
Section 4 properties impacts 1 4.3 acres
Streams 4 existing culvert extensions 108 feet Intermittent
79 feet Perennial
Wetlands 0.015 acre
Endangered species 0
Endangered species habitat 0
' Prime 75 acres
Farmland Unique 0 acres
Statewide Important 4 acres
' D Oak-HickoryForest 10.4 acres
Natural communities Piedmont Bottomland Forest 1.1 acres
Earl to Mid-Successional 7.5 acres
' Fallow Field/Agriculture 15.4 acres
Noise Impacts - without abatement Residences 49
Businesses 2
Air Quality N Im act
Construction $38,000,000
Cost Right-of-Way $9,055,000
' Total $47,055,000

5

The recommended alternative will require the relocation of 23 residences and five businesses. In '
addition, right-of-way will be required of 189 property parcels.

The recommended alternative will not impact unique vegetative communities or potential habitat for '
protected species. Stream impacts are limited to culvert extensions for approximately 108 feet of
intermittent streams and 79 feet of perennial streams within the existing I-40 interchange area. No
new areas of stream impacts are anticipated. Approximately 0.015 acre (648 square feet) of wetland
will be impacted by the project (see Figure 2). '

One rural historic district, the Smith-Tucker Farms, that is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places will be impacted by the project. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation '
Office (HPO) and the property owner was implemented during the development of the project.
The proposed improvements were determined to have an adverse effect on this district in
accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. A Final Section 4(o Evaluation was ,
prepared in accordance with Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The Final Section 4(~ Evaluation is included with this Finding of No Significant Impact. A
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has also been executed between the Federal Highway '
Administration and the HPO to minimize effects to the historic district (see Appendix D).
Measures stipulated in the MOA have been incorporated into the design of the recommended
alternative. '
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 and a Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the N.C. Division of Water Quality are anticipated for the project.

In accordance with the 1981 Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658), impacts on prime and
important farmland soils were evaluated. Impacts to prime farmland soils are considered minimal '
since the project will widen the existing road and future plans that are already in place call for
residential or commercial development along a majority of the land adjacent to the road.

There are 49 residences and two businesses that are predicted to be impacted by highway traffic '
noise greater than noise abatement criteria. Of these, 14 residences and one business will experience
noticeable noise level increases. Noise barriers are not proposed for this project since they are not
cost-effective for this type of roadway with multiple intersections and driveways. Other abatement '
measures considered included additional buffer zones and vegetation screening. These options are
also not proposed for this project because they are considered impractical due to the large amount
of right-of-way-needed to provide buffers and screening with sufficient width to decrease noise. No '
adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a result of the project.
Of the five businesses to be relocated as a result of project construction, four are identified as '
having an underground storage tank (UST) located on the property. It is anticipated that the tanks
located at Cass Motor Company and Union Cross Mart will require removal as part of this project.
Tanks that are not located within the construction limits will be left in place. '

6 '

h:
a,
?
Legend
,
u ,t Existing and Approved Developments
Proposed Development
Historic Properties
r '
X 4 _ Jurisdictional Streams
Delineated Wetlands
• r , , PA'.
1rr' Proposed ul De
C Sacs
fr , ,'Y:: k Nr~
A "I
,3y r
' +a r "Y - F• ~ , w ~ . w~ - .aF ,9th-: F y ;.i
,Y
0
n t
v 0A
w .
!6 e
IVAN
r
m_
c
? l 'If
<
fa
iiTT
btw, „ `t•. - ,t js. ~ gyn. r w
v `4
T 1

fly a „~A, ~.•t , R S1
7P,! -mac as .tit ` i ! ;d:'o'*~ .~`t ~ 34`, -
A.
ZZ,
z
r~
•n
t , - a 's' ~ _ ~
rF li # y. 1 ! ;r r A' 1 e~" '`'R, c kixr r}Y.:.yt ,v ,t fr
T
"if ' '4 ~ : , xr era ' ~ -
y ,
J 3. s'rY,
V
IPT
J
. ~ r fit: vc^ n ~"y..~9ei~ ~ as . ` ~ R °f•~ Y
? ~ s , ,..mom _ ~iis
p
7 F, A'I X,

fi. a°sF? •,>t,:;..~ r,: s * +1. . .s 1. ~{~3:fT + ,,s" e, l 1+k1'',,f r'
r
t1•
y Y r
7 "Y'
.
t
a R
„ r k
End Project
Y
• r
f
a
f
t f-
`rte!
j °
i
' s.: t W, l~s~ ~ #~a- ~~.s *#e ,,l t~.~x ~n`S t,'` - a•~(~ 1=. fir.
Y '
R P., "k'j.~Tw ` nY$.?,!f ~ 4' 3 : Xy _ ,r;# e - T
<
. r r
4& 42
,
yURl~r ~
Figure No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
U-4909 Union Cross Road 00~
a
O From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Z
SROa,P Forsyth County, North Carolina
' OF TRAN Digital Orthographicphotos From North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Flown: February 15, 2006

1

' 4.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS

' 4.1 CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT
SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
The EA was approved by the NCDOT and the FHWA on November 28, 2006. The approved
' EA was circulated to the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in Appendix A.

' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Interior
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation*
' N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Winston-Salem Regional Office*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest Resources*
' N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission*
' City of Winston-Salem, Department of Transportation*
Town of Kernersville*
4.2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
' DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (USDOI)
' The Environmental Assessment was distributed to USDOI, and there were no comments.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
' Comment 1: EPA notes that there is one primary detailed study alternative (Asymmetrical
widening) that is also the recommended alternative.

' Response: Comment noted.

Comment 2: EPA has reviewed the purpose and need of the proposed project (Page 2-1) and
' does not have any specific issues with the P/N.

Response: Comment noted.
Comment 3: The [human and natural environment impacts] table references no impact to air
quality resulting from the project. Air quality analysis, transportation conformity and Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are discussed on pages 7-15 to 7-22. EPA notes that Forsyth County
' is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the non-attainment designation has
been deferred until December 31, 2006. Forsyth County was designated as moderate for non-
attainment for Ozone under the 8-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004.

9

Res '
ponse: Comment noted. According to the Revised Air Quality Analysis (see Appendix B),
the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008. ,
Comment 4: The EA in Section 7.16.3 lists possible MSAT Mitigation Strategies. However,
these mitigation strategies are generic (not project specific). There is no discussion as to what if '
any mitigation techniques could or would be employed for this specific project, including during
construction activities (e.g., Using ultra-low sulfur diesel for construction equipment).

Response: Additional information regarding Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) has been t
included in Section 5.3 - Revisions to the Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(0
Evaluation, as well as in Appendix B (Revised Air Quality Analysis) of the FONSI. It is likely
that MSATs will be significantly lower in the project area in the future. The project is anticipated '
to result in increased speeds and reduced congestion, which should contribute to lower MSAT
levels. It is recommended that the implementation of construction mitigation measures for
MSAT emissions listed on Page 9 of the Revised Air Quality Analysis should be closely '
coordinated with environmental resource agencies, including EPA, prior to project construction.
This coordination will ensure all appropriate measures are incorporated into the project.
Comment 5: Overall, the EA was very comprehensive. ,

Response: Comment noted. '

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP)
Comment 1: Based upon the information you provided, we have concluded that Appendix A, ,
Criteria for Council Involvement in Beviesving Individual Section 106 Cases, of our regulations, "Protection
of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), does not apply to this undertaking. Accordingly, we
do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is warranted. '

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 2: However, if circumstances change and you or other consulting parties determine '
that our participation is required, please notify us.
Response: If the project design is changed to the extent that it is determined ACHP '
participation is required, NCDOT will coordinate with the ACHP.

Comment 3: Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum '
of Agreement (MOA), developed in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) and other consulting parties, and related documentation at the
conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of this MOA with the ACHP and fulfillment '
of its stipulations are required to complete your compliance responsibilities under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.

Response: The final MOA has been filed with the ACHP and all stipulations will be fulfilled.

10 '

t N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
' WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
Comment 1: A permit to construct and operate Air Pollution Abatement facilities and/or
Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC (2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) will be required.

' Response: Comment noted.

Comment 2: Any open burning associated with subject proposal must be in compliance with 15
' A NCAC 2D.1900.

Response: All laws and regulations related to open burning will be followed during project
' construction.
Comment 3: Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos material must be in
' compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.1110(a)(1) which requires notification and removal prior to
demolition.

Response: Appropriate action will be taken if asbestos material is involved in the project.

Comment 4: The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect
' to the referenced Local Ordinance.

Response: Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control measures will be implemented.

' Comment 5: Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A,
Subchapter 2C.0100.

' Response: All appropriate laws and regulations will be followed in the event any wells are
abandoned.
' Comment 6: Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground
storage tanks (USTs) are discovered during any excavation operation.

' Response: NCDOT will coordinate with appropriate agency officials if unknown USTs are
discovered during construction.

' N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES (DFR)
Comment 1: The contractor should take steps to utilize the merchantable timber removed
' during construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood
products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch
with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of
' escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
Response: The contract for this project will include a special provision that will prohibit the
' burning of all clearing, grubbing, and demolition debris generated from the project. All debris
will be disposed of by other means, according to state or local rules and regulations.

' 11

1

1
Comment 2: If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and
regulations of open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Forsyth '
County is classified as a non-high hazard county, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning
permit applies.
Response: All laws and regulations related to open burning will be followed during project
construction.

N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. '
DIVISION OF WATER DUALITY (DWQ)
Comment 1: The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the '
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, or other surface waters. ,
Response: The project will impact approximately 187 linear feet of intermittent and perennial
jurisdictional streams and 0.015 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. ,

Comment 2: All future environmental documentation should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If '
mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a
conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate
mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. '

Response: NCDOT will provide all appropriate documentation to DWQ prior to issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification.
Comment 3: Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce '
the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include
road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management '
practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices,
such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.

Response: NCDOT will incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) from
NCDOT's toolbox approved in January 2007 by DWQ for stormwater runoff into the project
design. '

Comment 4: After selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to '
demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the
maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's
Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to t
wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as wetland mitigation. ,

12 ,

Response: NCDOT has selected the asymmetrical widening (best-fit) alternative as the
preferred alternative, which incorporates avoidance and minimization of impacts to streams and
wetlands to the greatest extent practical. It is anticipated that a total of 0.015 acre of jurisdictional
wetlands, 108 linear feet of intermittent streams, and 79 linear feet of perennial streams will be
impacted by the project. NCDOT will provide all appropriate documentation to DWQ prior to
t issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.

Comment 5: In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A
' NCAC 2H.0506(h)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any
single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement
' Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Response: It is anticipated that the project will impact a total of 79 feet of three perennial
' streams. NCDOT will provide all appropriate documentation to DWQ prior to issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.

' Comment 6: NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,
bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers
need to be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any
' construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water
Quality Certification Application.

Response: All anticipated impacts to wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers will be included in
the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.

Comment 7: Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or
' streams.
Response: NCDOT's BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control
guidelines will be followed during project construction.

Comment 8: Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical.
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality
Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation.

Response: See Response to Comment 6.

Comment 9: The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address
the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be
permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.

' Response: NCDOT will provide all appropriate documentation to DWQ prior to issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification.
' Comment 10: Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts
to wetlands and streams may require a Nationwide (NW) application to the Corps of Engineers
and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality

t 13

Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the '
NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and
minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development
of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans '
where appropriate.

Response: See Response to Comment 9. '

Comment 11: If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to
prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently '
contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for
elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
Response: All BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented during project '
construction.

Comment 12: If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to '
its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary t
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance. '

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 13: Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall
'
be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater
than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48
inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and '
other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a
manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or
upstream and downstream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence
that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is
unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction,
please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a ,
permit modification will be required.
Response: Appropriate culvert and structure placement procedures will be observed. '
Comment 14: If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural
stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at floodplain elevation '
and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel
widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage. '
Response: Appropriate pipe and culvert designs will be implemented.

14 '

1

' Comment 15: Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must
be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of
NCS000250.

' Response: Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented.

' Comment 16: All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and
Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion
' structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.

Response: NCDOT will implement the most current BMP measures during construction.
Comment 17: While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region
Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools,
' their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations
prior to permit approval.

' Response: Wetlands were delineated by qualified personnel, and jurisdictional determinations
were provided by the USACE in January 2006.

' Comment 18: Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream
channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams. This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent
' contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials.

Response: See Response to Comment 16.
' Comment 19: Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the
streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
' should be properly designed, sized, and installed.

Response: All appropriate measures will be taken to protect streams and aquatic life.

Comment 20: Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the
maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction
limits of the project by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.

Response: Appropriate measures will be taken to preserve and reestablish riparian vegetation to
the maximum extent possible.

N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION (WRC)
Comment 1: A portion of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (U-2579) is proposed in the
project vicinity. It is not clear if traffic projections for the design year, 2030, considered the

' 15

Beltway project being constructed in the area prior to 2030• but if not comparison of that ,
analysis with that used to design the subject project should be provided. '

Response: Traffic projections for U-4909 took into consideration project U-2579 and all other
TIP projects that could have foreseeable influence on traffic behavior in the project area.

Comment 2: Another potential roadway (a four-lane parkway) in the vicinity that's being '
proposed by consultants working on the Heart of the Triad (HOT) plan may play a role in future
traffic patterns of the area and should be considered in the planning of this project. The subject '
project is at the edge of the original HOT planning area; however it is now being proposed to
shrink the HOT focus area.

Response: The HOT Plan is still in the planning stages; therefore, any roadways included in the
HOT Plan are too preliminary to include in the analyses for the Union Cross Road widening.
NCDOT did closely coordinate with the local governments to ensure all reasonably-foreseeable '
development plans were included in the environmental studies for U-4909.
Comment 3: Although not mentioned in the Environmental Assessment (EA) document, it is '
our understanding that Kernersville and Forsyth County adopted Randleman buffer rules for the
Abbott's Creek watershed. The project should adhere to these rules to protect these headwater
streams. '

Response: According to DWQ, the Abbott's Creek watershed does not drain into Randleman
Lake; therefore, the Randleman buffer rules do not apply to this project. '

Comment 4: Water quality concerns downstream of the project include water supply, human
contact, and fish consumption. Therefore the quality of water leaving the project vicinity is '
important to the current and future health of areas downstream.

Response: All appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) measures for the protection of
water quality will be implemented. '
Comment 5: Our major concerns for this project are the indirect and, especially, cumulative
impacts. The project provides additional transportation capacity for existing and planned growth '
and is part of the infrastructure needed to support the approved development plans.

Response: Comment noted. ,

Comment 6: Treatment of stormwater and minimizing impervious surfaces will be critical in
protecting the water quality within and leaving the project vicinity. We recommend that the local '
officials require strong stormwater controls for development in the vicinity and use low impact
development techniques to manage stormwater quantity and quality. We encourage the use of
non-impervious materials to construct sidewalks, parking lots, and other facilities, particularly in '
developing watersheds and those with a high percentage of impervious surfaces.

Response: All appropriate BMP measures for the protection of water quality will be
implemented.

16 ,

CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' Comment 1: Because of the growth occurring in this area, the I-40 interchange at Union Cross
Road will be an important gateway into our community. Consistent [with] the recommendations
of the Legacy Comprehensive Plan, we request that the bridge and the adjacent right-of-way be
' designed and landscaped with attention to aesthetics to provide an attractive way into our
community.

' Response: The bridge at I-40 will be a standard concrete and steel structure. Landscaping will
be provided at the I-40 and US 311 interchanges and coordinated with the local municipalities.

' Comment 2: Given the residential uses in the area, the proposed 6-lane cross section north of I-
40 is a concern. We would appreciate a re-evaluation of the need for 6 lanes in this location.
' Response: Given the anticipated traffic volumes in the area north of I-40, a six-lane section is
necessary to provide acceptable levels of service, and it will provide for improved safety.

' Comment 3: Consistent with the recommendations of adopted plans in our community,
including the Legacy Comprehensive Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan, bicycles and pedestrians should
be accommodated as a part of the project. Related to bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, we
request consideration of the following:
o Sufficient right-of-way for a 10-foot sidepath on one side of Union Cross Road for
shared bicycle and pedestrian use in addition to the proposed 5-foot sidewalk on the
' other side of the road should be provided.
o A minimum 6-foot planting strip on both sides of the road should be provided for
additional separation between the vehicles and pedestrians and bicycles.
o The new I-40 interchange at Union Cross Road should provide safe bicycle and
pedestrian accommodation.

Response: A separate bicycle path is not within the scope of work for this project. The typical
' section of Union Cross Road has been revised to include 14-foot outside lanes, which will
accommodate bicycle traffic. Five-foot sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Union Cross
Road on a cost-sharing basis. The proposed ten-foot berms will not allow enough room for six-
foot planting strips. Safe pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be provided to the extent
possible across the single-point urban interchange at I-40. Further coordination with the Town
of Kernersville and the City of Winston-Salem will be initiated to determine the exact locations of
' the sidewalks and to prepare municipal agreements.

' TOWN OF KERNERSVILLE
Comment 1: Coordinate turn lanes with the developer on the northwest corner of Sedge
Garden Road and Union Cross Road.

' Response: NCDOT will review the approved site plan and accommodate ingress and egress
where possible.
Comment 2: Consider the number of existing "T" intersections between Kenosha Drive and
Sedge Garden/Old Salem Roads and provide as many safe turning movements as possible.

' 17

1

Response: NCDOT will align Kenosha Drive with Biloxi Avenue and provide a northbound '
Union Cross Road left-over into Shepherd Grove Road.

Comment 3: Consider the existing accesses into the Union Station Shopping Center and
mitigate any access modifications to the maximum extent practical. '

Response: A median break for Union Station Shopping Center's current access points will not
be allowed because of the proximity to the I-40 interchange and the full median access at '
Solomon Drive. Access to Union Station Shopping Center will be reviewed as the final design
progresses and more development plans become available.

Comment 4: Provide a left-over at Glenview Drive to provide access to the east side of Union
Cross Road; any operational interference with the proposed SPUI at I-40 due to stacking of the
left turns into Glenview Drive should only become an issue in the long-term, if ever. '
Response: NCDOT will not provide a southbound Union Cross Road left-over into Glenview
Drive because traffic using a left-over at that location would back up into the interchange at 1-40 '
and cause delays.

Comment 5: Construct dual southbound left-turn lanes with adequate storage and a northbound '
right-turn lane on Union Cross Road coupled with an eastbound through lane on Glenn Hi Road
to accommodate the extension of Glenn Hi Road.

Response: NCDOT will determine if the design for the Union Cross Road/Glenn Hi Road '
intersection can be adjusted when an approved site plan has been provided.

Comment 6: Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Clark Drive '
intersection to facilitate a full-service access to the east consisting of a future southbound left-
turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Clark
Drive. ,
Response: NCDOT will determine if the design for the Union Cross Road/Clark Drive
intersection can be adjusted when an approved site plan has been provided. '

Comment 7: Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Dell Boulevard
intersection to facilitate a full-service access to the east consisting of a future southbound left- '
turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Dell
Boulevard.

Response: NCDOT will determine if the design for Union Cross Road/Dell Boulevard '
intersection can be adjusted when an approved site plan has been provided. The Smith Tucker
Farms Rural Historic District is located near the southwest quadrant of this intersection, and any '
future adjustments to the intersection configuration must avoid using any land protected under
Section 106 and Section 4(o of the appropriate Acts.

Comment 8: Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Temple School
Road intersection to facilitate a full-service access to the east including dual southbound left-turn
18 '

1

' lanes and a northbound right-turn lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Temple
School Road to the east, which is proposed to be a major multi-lane east-west connector through
' the lower Abbott's Creek area and connecting to the Piedmont Parkway.

Response: NCDOT has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to minimize
' impacts to the Smith-Tucker Farms Historic District. A stipulation of this MCA is that NCDOT
AU not participate in the extension of Temple School Road as a part of U-4909; therefore,
NCDOT will not adjust the design for the Union Cross Road/Temple School Road intersection.

' Comment 9: Provide pedestrian facilities and biking opportunities along the length of the
project and across the newly constructed interchange.

Response: Five-foot-wide sidewalks will be provided on a cost-sharing basis to accommodate
pedestrians, and 14-foot outside lanes will be provided to accommodate bicycles. Safe pedestrian
' and bicycle accommodations will be provided to the extent possible across the single-point urban
interchange at I-40. Further coordination with the Town of Kernersville and the City of
Winston-Salem will be initiated to determine the exact locations of the sidewalks and to prepare
' municipal agreements.
Comment 10: Design and coordinate utility installations to facilitate adequate lighting for the
' facility.

Response: NCDOT will coordinate utility installations to accommodate lighting for the facility
' at the I-40 interchange. Lighting for the remainder of the facility will be at the municipality's
expense.

' Comment 11: Provide interchange landscaping to enhance the new interchange and provide
corridor landscaping to compensate for the landscaping that will be removed to accommodate
the facility and enhance the overall corridor aesthetics.

' Response: NCDOT will provide landscaping at the I-40 and US 311 interchanges up to 0.75%
of the total construction cost. Additional landscaping and maintenance of all landscaping will be
at the municipality's expense.
' Comment 12: The Town of Kernersville further requests the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to design and build a high level service facility which will meet the needs of
' Kernersville area residents for the design year.

Response: NCDOT will design the facility so that it provides a high level of service in the
design year.

' 4.3 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Combined Public Hearing was
held for the project. The public notice and handout from the hearing is located in Appendix C.
The hearing was held on February 15, 2007, at R.B. Glenn High School, 1600 Union Cross Road
in Kernersville. Approximately 80 people attended the open house and formal hearing. Eight
19

People spoke at the hearing, and 65 written comments were submitted. Of the verbal and written '
comments, 18 comments voiced opposition to the project, and five comments were in support of ,
the project. The local community's specific concerns are included in the following list:
MEDIAN BREAKS
1. Request for additional median breaks on Union Cross Road from High Point Road to '
Dell Blvd.
2. Request for median break and short turn lane from US 311 to the vacant McGee
property. '
3. Request for turn lane at the Downey property driveway from High Point Road.

Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above. ,
1. Median break locations will be reviewed during final design.
2. A break in the control of access will be provided near the property line between the
Icenhower and McGee properties to allow for a right-in/right-out access. No median '
break will be provided at this location.
3. A left turn lane will not be provided from westbound High Point Road into the Downey
property because of the lack of space to develop a proper left-over into the property. '
KENOSHA DRIVE
13 Kenosha Drive should line up with Biloxi Ave.
13 ,
Should be able to turn right and left from Kenosha Drive.
o Why is Kenosha Drive proposed to be four lanes?
Response: Kenosha Drive will be redesigned to line up with Biloxi Avenue, and a four-way ,
intersection will be provided. The redesign of Kenosha Drive will reduce the cross section from
four lanes to three lanes. If new development generates extra traffic that creates the need for '
additional lanes for Kenosha Drive, then those lanes should be added at the developer's expense.

MORAVIAN CHURCH
o Concern about access into and out of the church.
13 ,
Request for a left turn only into church property going north toward Kernersville.
o Request to extend the right turn lane to furthest driveway on High Point Road, instead
of stopping the lane at first driveway.
13 '
Request to consider a U-turn with a signal at the intersection of Union Cross Road and
High Point Road.
Response: NCDOT will provide a median break and a northbound left-over into the Union
Cross Road Moravian Church property, near the northern property line of the church.
Provisions for U-turn movements will be provided at the Union Cross Road/High Point Road '
intersection.
HISTORIC PROPERTY (THE SMITH-TUCKER FARMS) '
Avoiding uninhabited historic house at Temple School Road will take inhabited house (several
comments). Move proposed alignment of Union Cross Road to the west to avoid inhabited
house. ,

20 '

' Response: The project has been designed to minimize impacts to the Smith-Tucker Farms
Historic District's contributing members. The inhabited house in question is not considered to
' be a contributing element of the district. Therefore, the proposed asymmetrical widening is still
recommended through the district as stipulated in the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement
(see Appendix D).

6-LANE SECTION VS. 4-LANE SECTION
° 6-lane that filters down to a 2-lane will cause even more traffic problems going from the
' Sedge Garden Road intersection into Kernersville.
° Why 4 lanes until I-40, then 6 lanes until Sedge Garden?

' Response: Traffic projections were used to determine logical locations to begin and end the
project. Because existing and projected traffic volumes along Union Cross Road notably decrease
south of Wallburg Road and north of Sedge Garden Road, it was determined that the widening
' project should occur between those roads. Union Cross Road will begin as a 4-lane section at
Wallburg Road, will transition to a 6-lane section at 1-40, and will then transition to a 2-lane
section at the Sedge Garden Road intersection. The roadway will be designed in such a way as to
' minimize traffic congestion at the transition points. Traffic projections and the number of
driveways will require six lanes north of 1-40 and four lanes south of 1-40 in order to provide
enough capacity for an acceptable level of service.
' BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS
° Numerous comments in support of bike and pedestrian accommodations.
° Include traffic signals and signs for bicycles and pedestrians.

' Response: The project will include five-foot-wide sidewalks for pedestrians and 14-foot-wide
outside travel lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic along Union Cross Road. NCDOT will
' continue to work with the local municipalities concerning pedestrian and bicycle issues.
ACCESS CONCERNS
' 1. Concrete island on Solomon Drive will block access to two properties at the northwest
corner of Union Cross Road and Solomon Drive.
2. Concern about no left turns to or from Loradale Drive.
3. One property owner has a 35-ft vehicle and enters on one side of property and exits out
the other side. Located at intersection of High Point Road and Union Cross Road.
Concerned about limited access.
4. Concern about access to Pinewood Terrace.
5. Median, limited breaks, and removal of traffic signals will cause problems with moving
farm equipment across Union Cross Road.
' 6. Limited median breaks and right-in/right-out only access will deter growth - developers
say they don't want to buy property in area because of proposed access.

' Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above.
1. NCDOT will investigate the location of the concrete island in an effort to minimize
access impacts to these properties.
2. Loradale Drive will remain a right-in/right-out design because it is located too close to
Dell Boulevard to have a full median opening or a left-over provided.

' 21

3. Entrance and exit from the property will be by right-in/right-out only. Due to the '

extension of the control of access into the southwest corner of High Point Road and '
Union Cross Road, there will be no access from Union Cross Road.
4. A left-over into Pinewood Terrace will not be provided because Pinewood Terrace is too
close to High Point Road and the planned left-over on the northern side of the
Moravian Church. ,
5. Comment noted.
6. Comment noted.
UNION CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1. Consider a through lane and an additional right turn lane in front of school between
Union Cross Road and Hastings Road for safety purposes. ,
2. Vehicles waiting to drop off and pick up children at school often line up from the school
west to Union Cross Road/High Point Road intersection and past the school warning
sign to the east on High Point Road. Design of the parking/pick-up area needs to be '
redesigned and enlarged.
3. A study of bus, truck, and other traffic through the intersection of Union Cross Road
and High Point Road, which is in the school zone, should be done. '
4. Overhead flashing "School Zone" lights should be installed on Union Cross Road and
High Point Road.
5. Speed limit near school (outside of 35 mph school zone) should be lowered to 45 mph. '
Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above.
1. NCDOT will investigate adding a right turn lane from the intersection of Union Cross ,
Road and High Point Road to the school.
2. See Response 1 above.
3. NCDOT will conduct a school safety study for Union Cross Elementary School.
4. NCDOT will investigate the installation of flashing "School Zone" lights. '
5. The posted speed limit along Union Cross Road outside of the school zone will be 45
mph once construction is completed.
GLENN HIGH SCHOOL ,
1. Request that guardrail remain in front of school.
2. Request that a noise barrier be installed in front of the school. ,
3. Request that school marquee sign remain in place.
4. Request that right-of-way be taken from side of road opposite baseball field so that
stadium seating remains in place. '
5. Concern that no road being proposed to connect Caleb's Creek Development (new
elementary school being built) with Union Cross Road. All traffic from Caleb's Creek
will have to travel I-40 to get to Glenn High School. '
6. Request for overhead flashing "School Zone" lights at the school on Union Cross Road.
7. Request for speed limit to be lowered to 45 mph or less outside of the 35 mph school
zone. '

Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above.
1. The guardrail in front of the school will be adjusted as needed, but will remain in the '
same general area.

22 '

' 2. A noise barrier will not be installed in front of the high school because minimal noise
increases are anticipated to occur at the school.
' 3. To the extent possible, impacts to the sign will be minimized.
4. Because the Glenn High School recreational facilities are protected under Section 4(0 of
the U.S. DOT Transportation Act of 1966, impacts to the baseball field must be avoided
' (see Section 13.3 of the EA). The proposed widening along Glenn Hi Road was
designed asymmetrically, with curb and gutter rather than a cut ditch, in order to avoid
and minimize impacts to the Section 4(o recreational facilities.
5. Providing a connecting road to the Caleb's Creek development is not within the scope of
the project.
6. NCDOT will investigate the installation of flashing "School Zone" lights.
' 7. The posted speed limit along Union Cross Road outside of the school zone will be 45
mph once construction is completed.
' SAFETY ISSUES
o Sight distance problem at Chamlin Road (turning onto Union Cross Road).
o Blind spot on Union Cross Road at Weatherstone development.

Response: Existing sight distance problems on Union Cross Road will be corrected with
construction of the project.

' UTILITIES
E3 Work with Winston-Salem to install sewer lines during widening project to avoid tearing
' up new pavement.
o Outside lanes will impact tail lines of septic system.

Response: During the design and construction phases of the project, NCDOT will coordinate
' with the appropriate utility owners to minimize impacts.
DRAINAGE ISSUES
' o Concern about drainage problems on private property during road construction.
° Concern about drainage problems on Union Cross Road during hard rains.

' Response: Drainage issues will be reviewed during the final design process.

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
' 1. 30-ft median - why that large when it requires more right-of-way?
2. Request for a traffic signal at Solomon Drive.
3. Keep traffic signals at Glenn Hi Road and Clarke Road.
4. Allow for the extension of Glenn Hi Road.
5. Concern about cost of relocation of invisible fence on property.
6. Concern about loss of old oak trees in front yard.
' 7. A majority of traffic turns down Wallburg Road.
8. Reconsider Hayes Road relocation (several requests) - reroute Hayes to intersect with
Hastings Road.
' 9. The proposed I-40 interchange design is a waste of money.
10. Concern about residential property values declining due to project.

' 23

11. Look forward to the project, especially if it ties into the I-40 interchange proposed for '
Old Salem Road. Traffic on Old Salem Road from Southeast Middle School, combined ,
with the pending Caleb's Creek Elementary School, is very heavy. These projects will
provide much better, safer access for parents and school buses, and will be safer for
students who drive to Glenn High School. The 1-40 interchange will allow faster
dispersal of buses. ,
12. Concern about effect on business, including access for large trucks and loss of parking.
Will there be enough room for employees, customers, and large delivery trucks?
13. 25+/- commercial acres currently under contract on Union Cross Road between 1-40 '
and Solomon Drive will be adversely impacted by the closing of Pecan Lane. NCDOT
should participate in the construction of a service road to access the property, since they
are closing Pecan Lane and denying driveway permits to Union Cross Road. ,
14. Why is Solomon Drive being designed as a four-lane facility, then transitioned to a two-
lane facility?
15. Concern over closure of Silver Creek Trail, the main entrance into Beeson Park '
Subdivision (several comments).
Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above. t
1. The 30-foot median provides a safer facility by reducing the number of fatalities in head-
on accidents. It also provides for dual left-turn lanes at major intersections.
2. A signal is included at Solomon Drive. ,
3. The designs for the intersections of Clark Drive with Union Cross Road and Glenn Hi
Road with Union Cross Road will not change from the design public hearing map. If
additional development plans for the area are completed, these intersections will be re- ,
evaluated and modified as needed when approved development site plans are presented
to NCDOT.
4. See Response 3 above. '
5. Property owners will be compensated for impacts to their properties.
6. If feasible, the construction limits will be modified to avoid taking the trees.
7. Union Cross Road will be realigned so that Wallburg Road is the mainline through
move. '
8. The realignment of Hayes Road will remain as shown on the design public hearing map
(intersecting with Wallburg Road) because it will move traffic away from the interchange
to allow the interchange to function at a higher level of service. The realignment will also '
improve the existing intersection at Wallburg Road by creating more of a 90 degree
intersection, which improves the safety of the intersection.
9. The proposed single-point urban interchange is needed to handle the future traffic. '
10. Any property directly impacted by the project will be appraised and offered fair market
value.
11. Comment noted. '
12. If impacts to businesses are significant enough, the business will need to be relocated.
The need for relocation will be determined as the design process continues and more
information regarding the extent of impacts becomes available. ,
13. Construction of a service road to connect Pecan Lane to Solomon Drive is outside of
the scope of the project. NCDOT will not participate in the costs associated with
constructing a service road. However, the property owner will be compensated for ,
impacts to the property.
24 ,

1

14. Solomon Drive is being designed as a four-lane section to accommodate dual left-turn
' moves off of Union Cross Road and to allow for a shared through and right-turn
movement out of Solomon Drive, along with a dedicated left-turn lane.
15. Silver Creek Trail will remain closed, but Kenosha Drive will be realigned to line up with
Biloxi Avenue for a four-way intersection, and a northbound left-over from Union Cross
' Road into Shepherd Grove Road will be provided.

5.0 REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
' 5.1 REVISED TYPICAL SECTION
The typical section shown in the EA, 12-foot travel lanes, has been changed to address the
public's concerns about bicycle accommodations. The proposed typical section consists of 12-
foot inside lanes and 14-foot outside lanes (see Figure 3). Providing a 14-foot outside lane allows
room for bicyclists. Five-foot sidewalks are still proposed for both sides of the roadway. Based
on an October 31, 2007 email between NCDOT and HPO, no additional 4(f) coordination will
' be required for the wider outside lanes. The original effects determination was based on
proposed right of way limits, which were not changed by the 14-foot outside lanes.

' S.2 REVISIONS TO STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
The stream and wetland impacts were incorrectly reported in the EA in Section 8.7.1 Permit
Issues (page 8-11) and Section 12.2 Natural Environment Impact (page 12-1). The stream
impacts should be listed as 108 feet instead of 102 feet, and the wetland impacts should be shown
' as 0.015 acre as opposed to no impacts.
5.3 REVISED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
' Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are more frequent on transportation projects during the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Transportation agencies are increasingly
expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their environmental
documents as the science emerges. MSATs analysis is a continuing area of research where, while
much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain
unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health impacts
' from MSATs are limited. These limitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how mobile
source health risks should factor into project-level decision-making under NEPA. Also, EPA has
not established regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate
' for use in the project development process. FHWA has several research projects underway to
more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation projects.
While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to qualitatively address
' MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach. The
FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative
analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in the revised Air Quality Analysis found
in Appendix B of this document.

' 25

5.4 REVISION TO SMITH-TUCKER FARMS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT '
SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP
Since the approval of the EA, an option to purchase memorandum was executed on a 101-acre '
parcel of land within the historic district, situated between the Dell facility, Dell Boulevard,
Union Cross Road, and Temple School Road in May 2007. This property was rezoned from
agricultural to light industrial use in September 2007. '

26 '

UNION CROSS ROAD 6-LANE SECTION

CENTERLINE

38' 30' 38'
10' 14' 12' 12' 12' 12' 14' 10'
2 2,
5' ORIGINAL
GROUND
S~OQE JP~~S
' ROES SIDEWALK IDEWALK
~JP TRAVEL LANES RAISED GRASSED MEDIAN TRAVEL LANES
ORIGINAL s~0e CURB & GUTTER WITH CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER
' GROUND

UNION CROSS ROAD 4-LANE SECTION

' CENTERLINE
26' 30' 26'
' 10' 14' 12' 12' 14' 10'

ORIGINAL

NP~1t5 _ GRO ND
vo
NPR\~5 SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
RAISED GRASSED MEDIAN
' ORIGINAL S'OV TRAVEL =AN S TRAVEL LANES
GROUND CURB & GUTTER WITH CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER
1

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRU'CT'ION
' INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION

P~0t NORUB 04t h
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS Figure No.
h 9
U-4909 Union Cross Road NOT TO SCALE
' From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road 3
99/MEM'OF RRRI5e0phP Forsyth County, North Carolina NCDOT Preliminary Roadway Plans, Created July, 2007

' 6.0 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in coordination with the Federal
' Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes a transportation action to widen Union Cross Road
from just south of Wallburg Road (SR 2691) to just north of Sedge Garden Road (SR 2632). Four
historic properties and one rural historic district are located along Union Cross Road. These historic
' properties and the rural district are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and require
an evaluation in accordance with Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966
and the federal regulations 23 CFR 771.135.

' Section 4(f) provisions state that "the Secretary (of the US Department of Transportation) shall not
approve any project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park,
' recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as
determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an
historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there
is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all
possible planning to minimize harm..."
' 6.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action includes widening existing Union Cross Road in Forsyth County from three
lanes to a multilane facility with two to three through lanes in each direction, a 30-foot, raised
' median, and five-foot sidewalks. Fourteen-foot outside lanes will be provided to accommodate
bicycle traffic. The current driveway access to properties adjacent to Union Cross Road will
remain and minor access changes including one driveway per property, a median with limited
' openings for left turns, and the need for right-in and right-out intersections will be incorporated
with the project. These access changes will not eliminate access to existing properties but will
create changes in current travel patterns by incorporating minor access control for left turn
movements, crossovers, and limiting turns to intersections. The proposed right-of-way width will
' vary from 120 to 140 feet in width.
6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
' The primary purpose of the proposed action is to increase the capacity along Union Cross Road
and improve traffic flow through the study area. Union Cross Road provides an important
north/south link between residential areas and businesses and employment centers located in
' Winston-Salem, Kernersville, Greensboro, and High Point as well as along the US 311, I-40, and
I-40 Business corridors. This project is included in local and state transportation plans as a
north-south route.

' The widening of Union Cross Road supports current development in the area by providing
adequate capacity to accommodate the existing and future 20-year projected traffic. Current
' (2005) traffic in the project area is projected to double by the year 2030. Both single-vehicle and
tractor-trailer truck traffic will increase along Union Cross Road. The demand for additional
traffic capacity will also increase as other planned residential and commercial developments are
' approved by the Winston-Salem and Forsyth County City-County Planning Board.

' 29

6.3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES
Within the project area, there are four (4) properties and one rural historic district eligible for the '
National Register of Historic Places and two publicly owned recreational facilities that qualify as
Section 4(~ resources. These resources include:

Former Winston-Salem Air Force Radar Station '
o Boone Trail Association marker
o David Smith Farm
E3 Log Well House '
o Smith-Tucker Farms
13 Union Cross Park
o Recreational Facilities for R.B. Glenn High School '

The proposed widening along Union Cross Road was designed asymmetrically to avoid and
minimize impacts to all environmental resources, including Section 4(~ resources. The only
Section 4(o resource that could not be avoided by the proposed widening is the Smith-Tucker
Farms Rural Historic District. The historic district is partially located within the boundaries of
the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and is on both sides of the existing Union Cross Road. The '
historic district shares its boundaries with the existing Union Cross Road right-of way limits. The
historic district will be impacted since property from the district will be needed to construct the
recommended alternative. During the Section 106 coordination with the Historic Preservation '
Office, the recommended alternative was determined to have an "adverse effect" on the historic
district.
6.3.1 SMITH-TUCKER FARMS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT SECTION 4(F) '
PROPERTY

DESCRIPTION '
The Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District is considered eligible for the National
Register for its association with agriculture and for the design and construction of the '
buildings. The historic district features four pre-1955 rural dwellings with associated
domestic outbuildings and agricultural farmland still in cultivation, displaying a remarkable
continuity in agricultural life in Forsyth County.
The historic district boundaries are located on both the east and west sides of Union Cross '
Road in the vicinity of the Temple School Road intersection. The boundaries follow Dell
Boulevard to the north and extend south across Temple School Road. The historic district '
boundaries encompass over 290 acres with five pre-1955 rural building complexes on Union
Cross Road and Temple School Road. Three of these five complexes, the David Smith Farm,
the Noah Smith House with outbuildings, and the Smith Tenant Complex House are within ,
the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). There are three additional building complexes
inside the historic district boundaries, two located adjacent to Union Cross Road and one
located adjacent to Temple School Road, that are considered noncontributing. '

ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP
Access to the historic district is provided along Union Cross Road, Temple School Road, ,
Hedgecock Road, and Chamelin Road. The Smith and Tucker Farms represent five
generations of occupancy by two interrelated families. The property is currently held by the

30 '

' heirs of Ina Smith Charlie Tucker and David Smith. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Smith live along
Union Cross Road and Temple School Road and continue to farm the surrounding lands.
' Since the approval of the EA, an option to purchase memorandum was executed on a 101-
acre parcel of land within the historic district, situated between the Dell facility, Dell
Boulevard, Union Cross Road, and Temple School Road in May 2007. This property was
' rezoned from agricultural to light industrial use in September 2007.

RELATIONSHIP TO SIMILAR USED LANDS
' The study area is a mix of agricultural fields (both fallow and farmed), rural residences, and
suburban development (municipal and commercial). Although there are other farms
surrounding the project area, several of the farms within the project area are for sale and are
' developing rapidly into denser type uses such as the residential neighborhoods and shopping
centers. In 2003, one parcel of property adjacent to the historic district, south of Temple
School Road was sold to the City of Winston-Salem as part of the Alliance Science and
' Technology Park. In 2005, the Dell Computer Assembly Plant was constructed on the north
side of Temple School Road as part of the Alliance Science and Technology Park. The
property for the Dell Computer Assembly Plant was sold by Tucker descendants who no
' longer live in the Union Cross Road community.
UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS
There were no unusual characteristics associated with the historic district noted during the
research and field surveys performed in the project. In addition, the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) did not identify any unique or unusual characteristics for this
' Section 4(f) property.

6.3.2 IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY
The historic district is located on both sides of Union Cross Road and could not be avoided
by the recommended alternative. The recommended alternative widens Union Cross Road on
the east side as it enters the historic district from the south and then transitions to the west
just north of Temple School Road. The widening will require 4.3 acres of property from the
' total 290 acres within the historic district boundaries.
During the design of the recommended alternative, asymmetrical widening was incorporated
' into the design to minimize harm to the historic district. The asymmetrical widening provides
an opportunity to impact noncontributing properties and minimize impacts to the
contributing properties.

' Since the project proposes to widen the existing three-lane roadway, visual impacts to the
district will be low since the property is and will continue to be located adjacent to the
' roadway. The recommended alternative proposes four lanes at this location and will be
divided by a 30-foot, raised median. The raised median may assist in minimizing the visual
impacts by breaking the view of continuous asphalt, such as a 60-foot width required for five-
lanes, to 24-feet of asphalt on each side of the median. The median may also assist in
providing a safer road crossing for pedestrians near or within the historic district. Sidewalks
will be provided on each side of the road for pedestrian use. With the increase in traffic and
' the closer proximity of the road from widening, there will be an increase in noise levels where
the property within the historic district fronts the roadway. Mitigation for this impact is not

' 31

feasible since the historic district has access to the Union Cross Road and encompasses three '
at-grade intersections with Chamelin Road, Temple School Road, and Hedgecock Road. '

6.4 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
Several preliminary alternatives were considered for the project including the No-Build
Alternative, a TSM Alternative, and a Mass Transit Alternative. Each of these alternatives was '
eliminated from further study because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project.
° No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with the proposed
action's purpose or need since it will not provide increased capacity for access to the '
current and future development in the study area, improve traffic flow, or improve
north-south roadway connectivity.
13 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative - TSM improvements '
involve increasing the available capacity of a roadway within the existing right-of-way
with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing or adding additional
through lanes to the existing road. TSM improvements alone would not increase levels- '
of-service to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future design year 2030.
Mass Transit - The project study area is not currently served by mass transit due to the
lack of demand, dispersed residential areas, diffused employment centers, and diversity '
of trip origins and destinations. Since the study area is characterized by scattered
residential communities and business developments, and lacks one central regional
destination, the area would not be especially suitable for the implementation of mass '
transit systems as a sole solution to roadway capacity problems.
o New Location Alternatives
A new location avoidance alternative was investigated around the east side of the Smith- ,
Tucker Farms Rural Historic District (see Figure 4). Preliminary cost estimates for this
new location alternative indicate that right of way and construction will increase
approximately $5,327,500 and $3,800,000, respectively, over the proposed widening '
action. This avoidance alternative will also impact the Weatherstone subdivision, as well
as other residences, resulting in as many as 22 additional relocations over the proposed
widening action. Because the Weatherstone subdivision is currently under construction, ,
as many as 46 additional relocations could occur as a result of selecting this alternative.
In order to provide adequate access from Union Cross Rd to the new location facility,
Dell Boulevard would need to be extended from its existing intersection with Union
Cross Rd to the new alignment. This Dell Boulevard extension would impact several '
residential properties and the Iglesia Bautista Hispana (Triad Hispanic Ministries) facility.
This church supports a ministry for approximately 150 people.
Construction of the avoidance alternative will result in fragmentation of farmland, t
established residential communities, approved new developments, and wildlife habitat.
An active farm located between Hedgecock Road and Loradale Drive would be bisected '
by the alternative. Construction of this alternative would severely reduce the property's
ability to operate as a farm. The Weatherstone development and the Hedgecock Road
community would be bisected, which would severely impact community cohesion. In '
addition, the Weatherstone development is currently under construction, and the new
location alternative would impact future phases of the development. Wildlife habitat
would also be fragmented by the new location alternative, leaving approximately 113 '
acres of land isolated between existing Union Cross Road and the new alignment. This

32 '

! small acreage between the two roads would impede the movement of wildlife and isolate
' wildlife into smaller, more vulnerable populations.

Construction of the new location alternative through the rural area would increase noise
impacts and would be visually intrusive. A new four-lane facility in the rural community
! would introduce new noise impacts, while noise levels on existing Union Cross Road
would continue to impact homes and businesses. In addition, a new multi-lane roadway
would substantially alter the view of the existing rural landscape.

! The new location alternative would introduce new intersections just north of High Point
Road and at Dell Boulevard and Loradale Drive. Other roads and driveways may have
! access to the new facility as well. These new intersections would result in additional
conflict points, increasing the potential for more vehicular crashes.

! Because of the location of the historic district, Temple School Road would not be
extended as part of this project, and it would not have direct access to the new location
facility. Temple School Road serves the Dell facility, which employs approximately 1500
! people and receives high volumes of heavy truck traffic. The lack of a Temple School
Road extension to the new location alignment would force much of the Dell traffic to
use existing Union Cross Road.
' The new location avoidance alternative will not meet the purpose and need of the
project, and it is not prudent due to the cumulative impacts discussed in the preceding
! paragraphs. The new location avoidance alternative will not serve the existing and
approved developments along existing Union Cross Road, which include the Dell
facility, the Swann-Union Cross development, and the Shoppes at Glenn Crossing; nor
' will it serve R.B. Glenn High School. These developments are major destinations along
Union Cross Road for shopping, employment, and deliveries; therefore, traffic, including
large volumes of heavy trucks, will still need to utilize existing Union Cross Road.

!

!

!

!

! 33

' r

Q.
~r E M Q O O
n p
CD Q y
R
N
4. CD

' <
4 z

cn

.40

t ,
3

a 1°'~ pr 4.~
eiy

li` w 1 try ~ ~a ,+e
44
g u R
IM,
D
q
3 ao•.
(n ~ C:
P'r• •V d ~'-~~1 `A+ M etro, a~ "4-~P1T."
~P
CD 0
l J CD "'~1 ~q~' ~r • .~v ~ ~r'~, ~ ° " ` 1c ~ . v -+f~.'."'"~A 1 " gs a i` y~"J.* ' ~ ~ .~.~y;~,.
y
° 3 # O\F
N~l
Six 4. w' ww ,r• stir _ g
' J ?
\ F .}`w , a yw4 f;: ' a O ~ ~ ~M.IC a
0 4
a. ,
71,
Z 9 G t k t ~J Q CC 4 A H
O g,k N f 411
Q w .
4
y TT I f @{{~^ M yf F ^ t/ ! xn R' a '4R'+
G) O
O
rp"A
0) CD cn
0 4 Any
O
lIt
PN IooyaS alduaal
Y
t, H x zw~ € 5 t~ O b iA x
3 M i+ ry
6
~ Ora ~ d
r
ktti At
l.lII~® [
o NI r ° • ~~q.~
C7 1-, s rA. y~ A~?sq"
S11 4„
F
~ ~ ' VS t Y T 5 F ,~'"1": ~"s ~ s . © 'wt• ° Y ~ r+ ~ ~S
i
p ~F9k p} c® ° 1 y ~i ~t 41
ayy w ,nom 1+
.
a
nn Hii, Rd.,
w.
,
A
e
:IR
Y"P l 9 Ra E v7
7 t' o F ~ta ~t iA, as h*~~! L~ ~Stq}
14^"r
V
CD L r ;M~ k A
n-
~ E ~ x is r~ * 0 1
r
o n der 4
00 &
s
z , ~'*v.. t ;AI 4u. .5~. y~ ..g ^r`w £r._~.,s 4,.a, ~~»'SIMF` ,py yr: ani r, + a,•a tee...,
~ kr
r:d $f G yy ,~ilr ~M'~~ do'wa~ t
Sys. 4. r~~`«„A iaF fi..~.° 1 s~.. '~+*°.r' ~ti~r`".~`a:,~' 4r: w - "YW'~•My~+i A•ydyY~ ,"yc"~eA. r£~: 'ti...

' 6.5 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
The following measures have been incorporated into the project in order to minimize harm to the
Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District:
o Within the historic district, NCDOT will widen the road asymmetrically to minimize the
' project's impact on the district's contributing resources.
o A 30-foot-wide, raised median will control access to the surrounding land and may
discourage unsympathetic development within the historic district.
' o For the purposes of this undertaking, NCDOT will not participate in the extension of
Temple School Road.
13 Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing condition of the
' Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District and its surroundings in accordance with the
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan.

' 6.6 COORDINATION
Early coordination for the project was initiated with review agencies including the HPO during
the start of the project study. Scoping letters were sent to all agencies to receive comments and
' the location known sensitive resources within the project area. Additional coordination with the
HPO was held during the development of the project to obtain concurrence with the eligibility of
properties over 50 years of age and to obtain the determination of effects to the eligible
' properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The Draft Section 4(f) was distributed to the local, state, and federal agencies for review and
' comment. In addition, coordination with the HPO and the other review agencies was initiated.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, since the proposed widening
has an adverse effect on the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, NCDOT has entered
' into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the HPO, and the Federal Highway
Administration. The FHWA, the HPO, Forsyth County, and the owners have reviewed the
MCA. NCDOT, FHWA and the HPO have signed the MCA (see Appendix D).

' 6.7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District is eligible for the Historic Register based on its
agricultural, design, and construction integrity for farms within Forsyth County. This historic
district encompasses 17 contiguous house and farm parcels and sections of three existing state
roads on 290 acres. The surrounding area includes farmland, which is rapidly developing into
dense residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The recommended alternative
' proposes to widen existing Union Cross Road from a three-lane roadway to a multilane facility.
The widening will impact 4.3 acres within the historic district from the acquisition of right-of-
way.
' Coordination with the review agencies was initiated early and continued through the development
of the preliminary designs for the project. The Section 106 determination of effect coordinated
' with the HPO indicated that the project will have an "adverse effect" on the historic district.
Avoidance alternatives were considered for the project. However, these avoidance alternatives do
not meet the purpose and need for the project and would cause major impacts when compared to
' widening the existing roadway. The new location avoidance alternative would result in higher
project costs, more relocatees, greater farmland impacts, larger community impacts, additional
noise and visual impacts, and new traffic conflict areas. Measures to minimize harm to the

' 37

'
historic distract were coordinated with the HPO and included in the design decisions by providing
a 30-foot-wide, raised median, widening asymmetrically, and by locating the widening on property ,
that is noncontributing to the historic district. An MOA outlining measures to minimize impacts
to the historic district has been signed.
The Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation was circulated with the EA to local, state, and federal agencies '
for review and comment. In addition, a public hearing in the vicinity of the project was held to
obtain comments on the project, project studies, and proposed improvements.

Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of '
land from the Section 4(~ resource, and the proposed action includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the Section 4(~ property resulting from such use. '

7.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the EA and upon comments received '
from federal, state and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that this project will not
have a significant adverse impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not t
controversial from an environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, ecological,
cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and
will not disrupt any communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined a Finding '
of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact
Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required.

38 '

i

Q uX z

p w
W
IL 13
a
Q }
E3
z
W
[7
Q -

I

I

Subject: EPA Comments on Federal EA for U-4909, Forsyth Co.
' Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:36:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail],
' [e-mail]
Mark/Brian/Eric: Please forward the attached comments to the appropriate PDEA project
' manager. I see that the document was signed by Mark & Brian and now you both work in the Eastern
region. Thanks.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
' USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
Name: U-4909EA.forsythco.doc
' Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)

' Federal EA for U-4909, SR 2643 (Union Cross Road), from SR 2691 to SR 2632; Widen to Multi-lanes,
Forsyth County

EPA comments: This is a 3.6 mile-widening Non-Merger project.
' EPA notes that there is one primary detailed study alternative (Asymmetrical widening) that is also the
recommended alternative. EPA has reviewed the purpose and need of the proposed project (Page 2-1) and
does not have any specific issues with the P/N.
' Human and natural environment impacts for the recommended alternative are as follows:
Residential relocations: 23
' Business relocations: 5 (1 Minority-owned)
Archaeological sites: 0
Section 106/4(f) Properties: 1 (Adverse Effect/l @43 acres)
Noise Receptors: 49 Residences/2 Businesses
Churches/Schools: 1/0
Wetlands: 0.015 acres
Streams: 187 linear feet total
' Terrestrial forests: 11.5 acres
Prime farmlands: 79 acres total
ESA: None
Buffers: None
' Critical Water Supplies: None.
Air quality: The table references no impact to air quality resulting from the project. Air quality analysis,
transportation conformity and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are discussed on pages 7-15 to 7-22.
' EPA notes that Forsyth County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the non-
attainment designation has been deferred until December 31, 2006. Forsyth County was designated as
moderate for non-attainment for Ozone under the 8-hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. The EA in
Section 7.16.3 lists possible MSAT Mitigation Strategies. However, these mitigation strategies are generic
(not project specific). There is no discussion as to what if any mitigation techniques could or would be
employed for this specific project, including during construction activities (e.g., Using ultra-low sulfur
diesel for construction equipment).
Overall, the EA was very comprehensive. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please provide a
copy of the FONSI when it becomes available.

' Preserving America's Heritage

February 12, 2007

Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
' North Carolina Division
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
' Re: Widest SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) from SR 2691(Wallburg Road) to
SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road)
Forsyth County, North Carolina
FederalAidit. STP-2643(2), TIP U-4969
ACHP Ref. 5862
:
' Dear Mr. Sullivan
The Advisory Council. on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recently received. your notification and
supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on properties
' eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information you
provided,. we have concluded that Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement in Review ng Individual
Section 106 Cases, of our regulations, "Pcoteetion of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), does not
apply to this undertaking. Accordingly, we do not believe that our participation in the consultation to
resolve adverse effects is warranted. However; should circumstances change and you or other consulting
parties determine that our participation is required, please notify us.
' Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(bxl)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
developed in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other
consulting parties, and related documentation at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of
' this MOA with the ACHP and fulfillment of its stipulations are required to complete your compliance
responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Thank you for providing us with your notification of adverse effect. If you have any questions or require
' further assistance, please contact me at [phone] or kharris achpgov.
Sincerely,
' Ka nHi s
.
Historic Preservation Specialist
' Office of Federal Agency Programs

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
' 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 • Washington, DC 20004
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • achp®achp.gov • www.achp.gov

North Carolina

Department of Administration

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Britt Cobb, Secretary
January 23; 2007
Mr, Gregory Thorpe
N.C. Dept.. of Transportation
' Program Development
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534

' Dear Mr. Thorpe-

Re: SCH File # 07-E-4220-0223; EA; Proposes to widen 3.6 piles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd) in Forsyth
County. TIP No. U-4909

' The above referenced e
• nvnolunental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions ofthe National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A40, when a
' state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act., Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

' Sincerely,

' Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

' Attachments

' cc: Region I
Region K

MailhigAddress; Teleplione: (919)807443S Location Address:
1361 Mail Sen•ice Center Fax [phone] 116 West tones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-001 state Courier 151,01-00 Raleigh, Forth Carolina
e-mail Cltivxaggettonanaitnel
' An Equal ©pportimityUfftinative Action Employer

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

Seeretu ss ?rice
tjEt70P~TD(T:'•S DO

TO: Gnrys 3aggerC ,
State Cl~ar_n^y`rouse ~ ~ I~y~, ~.::...,+1 ,;~y,~k1.,

FROM Melba McGee, ,
environmental Reviev,• coordinator
RE: 07-0223 e-nirg of SR 25:3 Union Cross Road to Sedge
arden Ro a ; orsyth County '
DAtEt January{ 19, 2007

ne deo rtment Asks . lat Careful consideration be. g yen t? the ,
attached comments. The applicant is anccwraged to work dire tiv with
offer corgT~nt ng agencies i additional information is needed. agency
co-mm nts should Lm add essed c for to fina .izina the Finding o` ?~o ,
Significant impacts.
Thank you =or the oppo-tu_nity to respond. '

Attachments

Qfl~ '
1501 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 N4 Carolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: w ww,enr.state,nc.us/ENRi a~J j'a~j
nts _G.t~l ? Rffim~a'~: A.^frtsn Empisyer • ~ 9¢ ~~7•~ 1.14 P,s! Gonsum~.r Pater i

Stag of North Carolina ReriAtvi~,g Office:
t~GDA bepartment of Environment and Natural Resources Prajec, Number. ~ ue Date: '

' 1N j ERGOVERNMENTAL. REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the D.tiA permits) andlet appto+ials indicated may need to be obtained in orderfo'r this project
to complyufitlyNorth Carolina Law. Questions regarding these, permits should be:zddressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(StatutoyTime Limit)
' Q. Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Applica ion 90 days Wore begin construction onward of construction 30 days
facilities, seiuersystem extensions & sewer systerns contracts. Qn•site inspection. Pest-application technical conference usual. lye days)
not, discharging Into state surface waters.
0 NPDcS-permit to discharge into surface water ands- Lppfica ion loo d.ys be`orz b,in ectisn} 0.i-sae inspection preappliceaen
' pornitt0:.operate and conrtrucfwastewater facilities con'ere~Setsual,AddironsIlycbmrope.mi,, toconstruct vrastevra:ertreatmn,- 90-1120d4s
discharging into state surf`:e waters. fins y grant d OW NPDEi Peply titht,33 days after receipt of plans or issue (NIA)
0. NFDES permrc•whiche;errs ia.er.
f~] ~';aterUse?errnif Preapplicalontechnical conferenceusual;ynecessary 30 dais
Well Construction Perini: Complete application must be received and permit issued prior tom' 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fdl Perini, Avoht tio.1 copy must l e served onea h adjacent ripananproa ry ormen 55 Goys
On-she inspection. Preapplication conference usual Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and FA Permit. ( day')
Permittacans ruct4,oper3taARP6;icidon4,'ement
faciiRies and/or emission sources as per 15 A NCAC NIA 50 days
(ZQ.010•~, 20.0300,2H,~5)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
' must be in compliance-with 15 A NCAC 2D.103
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in coin Trance with
13 A NCAC 2D.1110(a) (1) whi;h requires notificatio.1 NIA cUdays
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (.0 dogs)
' Control Group 919.733.0820_
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
'2D.0300
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land d'nturbing aclivity. An erosion &sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbei Plan filed with proper Regional! Office (Land Quality section) at (east 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of 540 for the frr>>, acre ar any part of an aue. (30d"ys)
' The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed yr ;h respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit On-ske inspection usual..Surety bond fdrd -nth DENIt. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The approprlate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if perm t excezds 4 days 1 day
fNIA)
' Special Ground Clearutce$urning Permit-22 counties On-site °rnspectian WN.C.Eksion of Forest Resources required 11 more than five t day
In coastalN.C.,Writh otgartfe scis: acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested lK A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned'
Oil Refining Facilities 90.120 days
Rik (N;'A;
J Dam Safety Permit N pe: ink ie4uired, application W days before bggin construction. Apphpnt
must hire WC.qualifik engineer to; prepare plans,inspeetconstructior.,certiy
construction if according to DENR approvtd plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
' fee orS2CA.00 must accompany the apprrcatlon. An additional processing fee
based an a petcentage or the total project cost wilt be required upon completion.

PERMIT 5 SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or R. QUIP,EMENTS Normal Process Time
ISmtutor/ Time Limit)
Permitto drill 6ploratory l er gzs v..elt r'e sutey t-~ndof 55 03 with GENR runn:ng to State of N.'- conditional that any 10 days '
wall opened by drill operator shal%upon abanaonrnent,be plugged acccrding (h Ai
to GENR rules and tegul ti.rons
r~ Geophysical Fxpfotation Perlni ppal .anon. filed with DENR at least 10 days pno'to issue of permit. Application i0 days
•_aer. Nc staneard o, a.rcatron corm. iNtA) '
Q StoteLakeiC.-mioctionPe.mi-, Appll%aatl7nfe?sbased onstru ur ,iaeis r-rged Must ncludedescription; 15-20 days
S g avangs of structure &pr0of of of ae s r or riparian property. (ht/a)
'
A4jWale, `Quality tcrtifcation 55 days
N A (130days)
69 days
CAtv1A P;r^rit foi T.'.A)QrZ dS4'e1oN? Fnt E5230.1013 actor vary applicat ion (i 30 d ays)
CAMA"PermitforMIN09d aeloment accompanyappiication yj
(25 days)
~cafy;
Sever-al geodetic monuments are located In o nearine o e area if an j rronum^nt needs to be rna~ed cr destroyzd, please,
F:.C. Geodec c Sr3rv2y, 9oY 27507 EZ.1„gh,it,C, 2; 611
t:
Abandonmentofaaywe:ls.ifr u:rzdrr:ustbeinaccoidancew-.tnTitle'SA.Subchapter2C.OtC2.
f ,ycd,t.atrbn of the proper regional office is regC_steciif o.rn_an" ,4ndargrot:nd. storage ta_nis (UST S) are d1s:6vered during any'gxcai?'ion oiY.ration.
t d5 days
ComaGancewith15ANCAC'NIDtti7;Cog,:a._torttiwater?uL=si,a•- fired. (NIX '
Cthet commentstattach aid :ionai paces as n2Cessap:being cet:ain to Lite aom:tt?nt autharit}•} ,

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. ,
Cl Asheville Regional Office 0 Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington ReglonalOffice
59 Woodfin Place 914 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28301 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]

ay ettevilte Regional Office. q Raleigh Regional Office Winston Salem Regional Office '
©.F
225 Green Street; Suite 714 3500 Barrett Drive, i?0.3ox 27687 585 1Naughtiown Street
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Winston- alem,N.C.17101
(910) 4B6-1541 (91'9) 5714700 [phone] '
O Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mail ,
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]

' North Carolina. '
De artment of Environment ar North Carolina
FOREST Division of Forest Resources
•fi~i? Kira! Resources
i1
at SERVICE
i
NCDENR 1 Iichtiet F. En:51ey, Governor N C Don Sinith, Acting Director 'At N illia N illia in G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 4, 2047

' M11E5-40RA DI154
TO, Melba McGee, Office of Legislative .Lffairs

FROM: 1 Iichacl Mann, NC Division of Forest Resources

SUBJECT: Administrative Action, Environmental Assessment and Draft. Section 4(0
Evaluation.. Proposal to widen 3.6 miles of SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd). to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd) in
' Forsyth County. TIP No. U4909

PROJECT'; 07-0223

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced document and has
no objection to the project as proposed. \Ve do offer the following comments concerru ng
' impacts to woodlands.
1. The contractor should take steps to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. Ho-,vex er, if the wood
products cannot be* sold then efforts should he made to haul off the material or turn it into
mulch with a tub Grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning and the
risk of escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, higlhw°ays; schools, and
' towns.

2. If woodland burning is needed,. the contractor must comply NNith the laws and regulations of
open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113=60.31, Forsyth CoImty is
classified as anon-high hazard counties, and G.S.11.3-60.24 requiring a regular burning
permit applies.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on
our forestland be considered during the planning process.

cc: BaM' New

' 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Phone: 919 - 733-2162 ext. 2551 FAY: 919 - 715-5247 1 Internet: «\xryv.dfr.state.nc,us
' AN' EQUAL OPPORTMTY % AF IR,b1ATIVE ACTIONI EINTLOYM- SO°io 1MCYCLEt)1100, POST
tONSUMER PAPER

Michael F Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Sec ratan
\Q OG tiorh Gato ina Dezarsnen, of En:ircriment and Na u a' Resources
an W. Klmek. °.E D.rector
CQ 7f" Divisian of Water ouality
G1 `C

' January s, 2007

ME-NIGRANDUM

To:, \ielba McGcc, DEi\R Environmental Coordinator

' From: Sue Hotreii=ood, I~it'ision of ~'atzr Qtiat'sty, ~trnszon-alem Regonalf~:e
Subject: Conlment,~ on the Emironmcmal Assessment related to proposed widening of $R 264'
' (Onion Cross Rd) from exhairg SR 2G91(Wallburg Rd) to existing SR 76 %7 (Sedge
7 - 7
Garden Rd), Forsyth Count, TIP U-4909, DE\`R Project ft 07-0223 (Due date
+
V15/2007).
This office has reviewed the refdarczd document dated November 2a, 2006. The Division of Water
Ou41tty (DWQ) is responsible for the issuanee of, oe Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Wq ers of the U.S.. including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
il :sented will result trt imp' acts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ
offers the foiloning comments based or. review of the aforementioned document,
1:. All future environmental documents should pro-vide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
r proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding ttiappin;. If mitigation is necessary
as required by 1 a , \CAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to prccer.t z con*' tua l (if not finalized)
mitigation plan w ix i the emironmentai documentation. Appropriate rnitigation plans will be
' required prior to issuance of a X01 Rater Quality Certification.
2 En*onrner;tal assessment alternatives should consider design cntena that reduce the iripacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These altarlatn es should include road d'esips that
' allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of Nc 01~.vQ stofrnii-raer Becb Flfcaizak .infra Practices, such as grassed stales,
buffer areas, preforrned scour holes, r<tention basins, etc,
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance ofthe 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NTCDOT is respectfully reminded that they \All need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacis to wetlands (and streams) to the maiximum extent practical. In
' accordance with the Environmental'Management Commission's Rules { 15A 1C_kC 2H;0506(h)1,
midtg ion will be required` for impacts of greater than 1 eere to wetlands'. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Prograin may be available for use as ~,vetland
mitiga#iotl.
4. In. accordance with the Environmental Nfanagement Cornmissiori's Rules 11 SA `TCAC
agre
' 2H.0506(h) mitigation will be required for impacts of ater than 150 linear feet to my single
perennial stream, In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The \C Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
' available for use as strearn mitigation.
~rturallf
' jrwi% an Pemtnter6ngt fik
1o50?acl ~-nr~e Ce, ~ate~h fart Cersl ra 27o991c,5'J
2321 C abVe-. Boulevard; Su.te 250. Ralagh No"Jt Carolina 276%4 .
Ph6*.9.9-733.1783lFAX91g733~893einteri'atht,~t 7lh2aenr.~taie.nC:usr~~etlands
' A~'tga81o cr tiy'~ffirmz ~Actoacne rlec-5GgiRecyo2d~ttr For:Cas=6;P3u

S. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts; including but not limited to, bridain;, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional we;thands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included '
in the final impact calculations. These impacts in addition to any constructions impacts, temporary
or ot}iemise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands ors*rcarn-s.

7. BorroNv/%vastc areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrowlwaste areas grill need to be presented in the 401 , NI'ater Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
S. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwaier management. More specifically, storrri«vater should not be pe_-ni tted to '
discharge directly into streams or sttrfaee waters,

9. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and '
streams may require an Nationwide (NW) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure tbat.water qualit4 staneiar. is are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a format application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent 'on appropriate avoidance and minimization of-,v etland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stonnwatcr management plan, and th,
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
10. If concrete is used during construction, a drip work area should be :maintained to prevent direct ,
contact bemyecn curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
11. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed. the site shall be graded to its preconstruct on '
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or intulched to stabilize; the soil and
appropriate native %voodyr species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saiv-s, mow°ers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leafing the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
12. Placement: of culverts and other structures in waters; streams. and wetlands shall b, placed below ' % the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 24 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 43 inches, to allow
low flovy passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
includin; temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a nsanner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or sireambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being '
maintained if requested in vvritin` by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the \G DWQ for guidance
on hove to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.

13. If multiple pip: s or barrels are required} they should be designed to rrnmre natLtral stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elc ation and/or sills where.
appropriate: Widening the stream channel shop: ld be avoidet . Stfzarn channel ti -idenins at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases Water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts a0Uati0 life passage.
14. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of Noith Carolina Sediment and Erosion
' Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NC90062:50. ,
l5. All work. in or adjacent to stream N aters should be conducted in:! dry work area. Approved BMP
' measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and N-1dintena%e routines
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other div=ersion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in AbNvin water.
' 16. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NIN I) maps, \C Coastal Re-iori Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-Ck, S) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite ivetlattd delineations prior to pcimit.
' approval.

17, Heavy equipment should be operated frorri the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should b ; inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
' 18. Riprap should not be placed in th ; active thaiNve channel or placed in the streanibed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioen`ineering boulder- or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
' 19. Riparian ve;;etatior (native trees and shxubs' ) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must he reestablished. within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of constnrction.

The NC..DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you /rave any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Horn ewood at 336-771-496.

' cc: John Thomas, VS, Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Reg<rlatory Field Office
Federal Highway Administration
Cluis Miltscher, En<<ironmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, tC Wildlife Resources Conunission
D Q tVtnsion-Salem Regional Office
DWQ 401 Transportation Permitting Unit

92 North Carolina Wild-IM Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, EXecutive Director

' TO: Melba McGee; Enviro-t nentat Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Inter overnnieptal Affairs, DENR

FROM: Marla Chambers, l\V'estern . CDOT Pemiit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NC.N RC

t DATE: January 12; 2007

SUB)Wl': Review of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed ~,vtdening of SR 2643
1 (Union Cross Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 2691 (V&'allburg Road) to SR
2632 (Sedge Gorden Road), Forsyth County. TIP NTo. U-4909. OLIA No. 07-
023, due 111512007.

North Carolina Departm611, of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted for review an
Environrncental Assessment (CA) document for the subject project. Staff biologists with the
North Carolina Wildl fe Resources Commission (IrCt RC ) haV reviewed., the information
provided. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National
E'nviironnontal Policy Act (42 U:S.C. #332(2){c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination :'pct
e (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).

NCDOT proposes to widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) to a multi lane, median divided, curb-
s ancl-gutter facility fiord SR 2691. (Vl allburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road) for a project
length of approximately 3.6 miles. The project area includes iNvo existing interchanges, one with
I'40 and the other «iith US 311.. 'Four lanes are proposed for south of the 1640 interchange and
six fnnes are proposed to the north. Side«.all s will be provided on, both sides of the road. Union
Cross Road currendy has no control of access.
' A portion of the ti'l{ioston Salem Northern Beltway (U-?a79) is proposed in the project vicinity.
It is not clear if traffic projections for the design year, 2430, considered the Beltway. project
being constructed in the area prior to 2030; but if not, comparison of that analysis ~ tth that used
to. design the subject. project should be provided. Another potential roadway (a four-lane
parkwdy) it-x the vicinity that's being proposed by consultants working on the Heart of the Triad

M tiling Address Division of Inland Fisheries • 1121 A4ai1 SeMce Center • Raleigh, NC '21699-1721
Telephone: [phone]. • Fax: [phone]

U-4409, Union Cross Rd. (SR 26-13)
UT's to Abbott's Crock. Forsyth Co. - 2 - January 1?, 2007
'
(IIOT) plan may play a role in future traffic patterns of the area and should be considered in the
planning of this project. The subject pro Jectis at the edge of t[e original HOT planning area;
However it is now being proposed to sprint: the HOT focus area.
Direct impacts to water resources include approximately 187 linear feet of stream inipaets duc to
four culvert extensions in the I-40 interchange area and 0.015 acres of wetlands clue to a fill
slope. Union Cross Road is situated on a ridge; which limits the direct impacts associated with '
this project. 'raters draining to the west of the road flow to an utntar ed tributary (UT) of
Fiddlers Creek and an. UT to Swaim Creek, both Class C waters in the Muddy Creek watershed.
Streams draining to the east side of the road flow into the Abbott's Creek watershed, a protected
water supply watershed classified as WS 111. Streams in the project area of this watershed are
UT's to Abbott's Creel: and UT's to Mary Reich Creek. Although not mentioned in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) document, it is our understanding that Kemersville and ForsyTh
County adopted Rwidleman buffer rules for the Abbott's Creek watershed, The project should '
adhere. to these rules to protect these headwater streams.
Protecting the water qual, tv of headwater streams is of vital importance to the water quality
downstream. The project is within the Yadkin River Basing which provides between 65 and 70
percent of the drinking water for Forsyth County. Both Muddy Creek and an eight-mile long
reach of Abbott's Creek, just before it flows into High Rock Lake, are on the 303(d) list of ,
impaired waters. High Rock Lake is a popular recreational area for fishing, swimming, and
boating. Winer quality concerns downstream of the project include water supply, human contact,
and fish consumption. Therefore the quality of water leaving the project vicinity is important to ,
the current and future health of areas downstream.
Our major concerns for this project are the indirect and, especially, cumulative impacts. The '
project is located in a very rapid] y rroxving area of Fonyth County. The population grown! rate
for the study area from 1990 to 2000, 52«'as more than twice that. of Forsyth County, V5%,
and considerably higlier than the state's grov-11i rate, Gab/o. The project area is within the North
Carolina Piedmont Triad Region, which % vas reported as the third fastest ;;rowing area of the '
nation in 2001. A study commissioned by Smart UroNvth America, Measuring Sprawl and Its
Impact (BN ng; et., al., ?M) identified this region as ranking second in the nation for urban
sprawl. The Guilford/Forsyth County area is projected to grow by 38% by the design year, 2030. '

The study area is predoiniriantly zoned for low-density residential and agricultural uses. The
Union Crosslgoutheast Forsyth County Plan estimates as much as 40% of the county's farmland
is in the Union Cross area. The project will directly impact 1~ acres of prime farmland and an
unknown amount indirectly, "There is an obvious pattern of laird use changes occurring in the
project area toward higher density residential, commercial, and industrial uses. A large amount
of new construction and development has occurred and is being planned in the study area. Local
authorities are in the process of approving nearly 14,000 acres of residential development in the
project vicinity. A Dell computer manufacturing facility has recently located adjacent to the
project area and is expected to generate a noticeable increase in truck traffic. The project ,
provides additional transportation capacity for existing and planned grovolt and 'is pat of the
infrastructure needed to support the approved development plans.

U-4909, W03 Gross Rd. (Sit 2643)
U'r's to Abbon's Creek, Forsyth Co. 3
Treatment of stornivvatcr and mititniz'tng impervious surfaces xvill be critical in protecting the
water duality sxithih and leaving. the project vicinity. Numerous studies hake shown that when
10=15% of a watershed is converted to impervious surfaces, there is a serious decline in the
health of receiving waters (S6hueler 1994) and the quality of fish habitat and wetlands are
negatively impacted (Booth 1991., Taylor 1990- The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
has reported measured declines in -vvater quality in the basin since 1996 and the descriptions of
' the project area streams in the document reveal that negatiyc effects to stream channels, such as
erosion, scour and down-cutting, are already occurring from current levels of development.
' We recommend that the local officials require strong stormwater controls for development in the
vicinity and use low impact development techniques (see lo~~in~actdeyelopntent:ork, for
information) to manage storrnwater quantity{ and quality. We encourage the use of non
impervious materials to construct sidec~allcs, parking lots, an d other facilities, partieularl~ in
developing watersheds and those with a High percenta~,e of impervious surfaces. 4ieasures to
mitigate secondary and eurnulative impacts can be found in the Guidance Memorandum to
Address and N itigate Secondary and Cumulative Impact-5 to Aquatic and 'Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality (L'CWkC 2002).

Thank you for the opportunity to review and co nment Qn this project. If you have any questions
54
regarding these comments, please contact me at (70) 5

1
Literature, Cited:
Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system-impacts, solutions, and
prognoses. Northwest Lnvironniental Journal, 7(1)-93- 1l b.

Evt ng, R., Rutgers Unit.; Pendall, R., Cornell Univ. and Chen, D., Smart Gro\%-tit America,
2041 \castirirg Sprawl and I.ts Impact. Available:
hare`/ Wv,fi, smarturo\vtliamerica.t>r~'spr3~v=lindexlmeasurinasora«v1. (accessed
' 1/12/2007).
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2002. Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate;- Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial
Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. Nc*--- PC, Raleigh. Available:
http:/1x,.,,.vlv.neNvildlife.orgtpao7_Wild l feSpeciesCoiilpa7c3_ inip<lc;ts.pdf. (February
2003).
Scliueler, `Toni, 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness, Watershed Protection Tec=luiiques.
1:3 (pp10{1-111).
Taylor, B .L. IM, The influenecs of wetland and watershed morphological characteristics and
' relationships to Afetland vegetation comrAunities. 'tasters thesis. Dept: of Civil
Engineering. University of Washington. Seattle, NKk.

cc: Nlarella Buncick, USFWS
Sue Homey+•ood, NCDWQ

l
1
0 1
x;40

1
Dcparfinent of
March 13, 2007 Transportation
1 City or Winston-salcm
P.O. Box 2511
Winston-Salem; NC 27102
Tel [phone]
Mr. Carl Goode, P.E. Fax [phone]
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit Head `^°.euY°Fvs-°tg/d°t'
158J Mail Service Center
1 Raleigh, NO 27699-183
RE: Comments on Union Cross Road {SR 2643) Widening, WBS No. 40278,1.1 and
1 TIP Project No: U-4909
Dear Mr. Goode:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Union Cross Road Widening
ProjStaff of the Winston-Salem Departmert of Transportation and the Winston-
.'t
Urban Area M.PO have reviewed the project environmental assessment and maps
and provide the following comments on the location and design of the proposed project:
1 The Union Cross Road widening project was ranked seventh in the 2003
Transportation Needs Report, a priority listing of transportation needs projects for the
entire Metropolitan Planning Organization which includes all of Forsyth County and
1 parts of Davidson, Davie and Stokes Counties. We are happy to see this project move
from the Needs list to the Transportation Improvement Program with funding for
construction in Fiscal Years 2008 to 2010.

This area of our community is destined to grow and include major industrial facilities,
commercial and retail establishments as well as many new residential subdivisions.
' This project reinforces the current efforts by the Triad cities and the Piedmont
Authority for Regional Transportation with the Heart of the Triad study to plan for
future growth and guide the change that is to come.

Because of the growth-occumng in this area, the I-40 interchange at Union Cross
Road will be an important gateway into our community. Consistent the
1 recommendations of the Legacy Comprehensive Plan, we request that the bridge and
the adjacent right-of way be designed and landscaped with attention to aesthetics to
provide an attractive entrance way into our community.

1

,
Given the residential uses in the area, the proposed 6-lane cross section north of I-40 is
a concern. We would appreciate a re-evaluation of the need for 6 lanes in this
location. '
Consistent with the recommendations of adopted plans in our community, including
the Legacy comprehensive plan and the Bicycle ltfastei- Plan, bicycles and pedestrians '
should be accommodated as a part of the project. As a general policy, we should
provide alternative transportation choices particularly with the location of Glenn High
School at the intersection of Glenn Hi Road and Union Cross Road and the adjacent
residential and commercial properties. The Environmental Assessment notes that
there have been 4 bicycle and pedestrian fatalities along Union Cross Road which
points to the need for safe facilities. Related to bicycle and pedestrian '
accommodations, we request consideration of the following:

• Sufficient right-of-way for a 10 foot sidepath on one side of Union Cross Road for. '
shared bicycle and pedestrian use in addition to the proposed 5 foot sidewalk on
the other side of the road should be provided.
• A minimum 6 foot planting strip on both sides of the road should be provided for '
additional separation between the vehicles and pedestrians and bicycles.
• The new I-40 interchange at Union Cross Road should provide safe bicycle and
pedestrian accommodation. '

We are pleased to see the realignment of Union Cross Road with Wallburg Road to
accommodate the higher anticipated traffic volumes on Wallburg Road.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Union Cross Road Project. We
would welcome the opporhuiity to meet NCDOT staff to further discussion our concerns
and requests.

Sincerely, ,

Staniev F. Polanis ,
Department of Transportation Director

1

_
P.0, Box 72$ ~ IRQ720 McKaughan Street
Kernersville, N.C. 27285-0728 G Telephone [phone]
1 i 22 Fax (336} 996-4059

March 21, 2007 9FCEtvGo

1 Mr. Pat Ivey, PE
Division Engineer
NC Dept of Transportation
Division of Highways
Division Nine
375 Silas Creek Parkway
' Winston-Salem, NC 27127

RE: Union Cross Resolution Signed; Union Cross Corridor U-4909 Map for Resolution

Dear Pat:

' On March 6, 2007, the Kernersville Board of Aldermen adopted a Resolution regarding the
subject project. The Resolution goes into detail regarding certain design aspects of the
project, We have also enclosed a map that references the Board's comments:.

1 We are a little late in getting this to you so I am coping Tony Houser as well. Please forward
this to the appropriate team that is handling project comments.
Sincerely,

Timothy G. Shields
Public Works Director

c; Carl Goode, Human Environment Unit
1 Tony Houser, RE, Project Design Engineer

Enclosures

1

NOW, THEREFORE, th'e Board of Aldermen of the Town of Kernersville formally requests the '
North Carolina Department of Transportation to:

(1) Coordinate with the owners of the property located at the northwest corner of Sedge Garden
and Union Cross Roads to accommodate turning lane storage for an eastbound left-turn lane and
companion right-turn lane from Sedge Garden Road and a Union Cross Road access into the
approved Neighborhood Shopping Center.
(2) Consider the number of existing "T" intersections between Kenosha Drive and Sedge
Garden/Old Salem Roads and provide as many safe turning-movements as possible.
(3) Consider the existing accesses into the Union Station Shopping Center and mitigate any '
access modifications to the maximum extent practical.

(4) Provide a left-over at Glenview Drive to provide access to the east side of Union Cross Road; '
any operational interference with the proposed SPUI at 140 due to stacking of the left turns into
Glenview Drive should only become an issue in the long-term, if ever.
(5) Construct dual southbound left-turn lanes with adequate storage and a northbound right-turn
,
lane on Union Cross Road coupled with an eastbound through lane on Glenn Hi Road to
acm
comodate the extension of Glenn Hi Road, This is extremely important to the Town of
kernersville due to the fact the proposed plan illustrates limited access at the Glenview Drive ,
intersection and the Glenn Hi Road intersection:
• will become the first major intersection south of I-40;
is is located adjacent to a High School; '
• is proposed to serve a large percentage of design traffic which originates from the east;
e is on the W=S/FC Urban Area WO and Town of Kemersville Thoroughfare Plans;
therefore; the Town believes it is imperative to construct this 'intersection to its ultimate design
now. The extension of Glenn Hi Road is proposed to be a multi-lane facility extending to the east '
through the center of the Caleb's Creek Project, across Teague Lane, and through the proposed
Metro Activity Center at Hwy 66.
(6) Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Clark Drive intersection to
facilitate a full-service access to the east consisting of a future southbound left-turn lane and a
northbound right-tum lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Clark Drive.
(7) Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Dell Boulevard intersection to
facilitate a full-service access to the east consisting of a future southbound left-turn lane and a
northbound right-turn lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Dell Boulevard:
(8) Design the infrastructure and utilities at the Union Cross Road/Temple School Road
intersection to facilitate a full-service access to the east including dual southbound left-turn lanes
and a northbound right-turn lane to accommodate the proposed extension of Temple School Road
to the east, which is proposed to be a major multi-lane east-west connector through the lower
Abbott's Creek area and connecting to the Piedmont Parkway.

' (9) Provide pedestrian facilities and biking opportunities along the length of the project and
across the newly constructed interchange.

' (10) Design, and coordinate utility installations to facilitate adequate lighting for the facility:,
(t 1). Provide interchange landscaping to enhance the new interchange and provide corridor
landscaping to compensate for the landscaping that will be removed to accommodate the facility
' and enhance the overall corridor aesthetics.

The Towrt of Kernetsvle further requests the North Carolina Department of Transportation to 1'inmit all
le area to the maxrrnum Eent practical and desrgri and Build a
' local mobility impacts to the Keriiersvrl i
high level service facility which will meet the needs of Kcrnersville area residents for the design year:
Adopted the 6ffi day of March, 2007.
Curtis L. ;Swisher, Mayor
ATFESTt

/ale F. Martin, Town'% Clerk

© LI

t~.~ A

~s~•.~ ~k ~.k ~ +J ~ R.r~a7"'.. ~~4p ~~F t'~g. o e

` R E ` fir[ °Ara G4F~R~;~ 24 Ee3S# X p

t' ` .,a i .t iia "y i _ f ~ ~ i.iR ~ ~f~•~.ft ~+t`~ ~k~ ~ ~R3'
.i ~ i ~ ' ~ e ~ ~ ~ ; g $ ~ ~ rr g# z9flF. cps cs;. = 'g "s ^ o '
Fir
Oil
' - ..A+i1 •y ~ ~ g' a: R~ fG fRGN r~ ~ k ~ e5. .o~.
a

t• wl L 1
f
S
a
a
r
Air"
1
AIM

m a,
x_N
~ J
Z Q
d Q
Q ~
J
Q

d'
a
0
W

W

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

September 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM TO: Lisa Feller, P.E
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Bobby Dunn
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section

SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis for SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) Widen .
from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden
Road), Forsyth County, WBS # 40278.1.1, TIP # U-4909

This memorandum supersedes the revised air quality report dated November 3, 2006.

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (revised)

Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
t air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a
new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.

' Federal standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), are
required to set levels that protect human health. There are currently NAAQS for six pollutants
and they are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (N02), ozone (03), lead (Pb), particulate
matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (S02). The main pollutants that are significant from
transportation sources are carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter.

Carbon Monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that interferes with the delivery of oxygen
to the body's organs and tissues. The health effects of CO vary depending on the length and
intensity of exposure and the health of the individual. CO has both a one-hour and eight-hour
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG.
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW..DOT.NC.ORG RALEIGH, NC
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1548

2

standard. The health threat is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease.
Effects of CO include dizziness headache, fatigue, visual impairment, reduced work capacity,
reduced manual dexterity, and poor learning ability.

The incomplete burning of carbon in fuels such as gasoline produces CO. High
concentrations of CO occur along roadsides in heavy traffic, particular at major intersections,
and in enclosed area, such as garages and poorly ventilated tunnels. Peak concentrations
typically occur during the colder months of the year when CO vehicular emissions are greater
and night-time inversion conditions are frequent.

Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOD. '
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they
react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC and NO2
are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these
technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation
facilities of the area.

The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally take place 10 to 20 kilometers
downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole, not individual
streets and highways, are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and are analyzed using an area-
wide analysis. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and
in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid
droplets found in air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke, while '
others are so small that they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Fine particulate
matter (PM-2.5 define particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) result from fuel
combustion from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities, as well as from '
residential fireplaces and wood stoves. Coarse particulate matter (PM-10 define particles that
are less than 10 micrometers in diameter) includes fuel combustion, industrial processes, and
transportation sources. Transportation sources account for only 6 percent of the total PM-10 '
emissions nationwide. The PM standard is under review and may be changed in the future to
account for fine particular matter and the effects on human health. The NCDOT Standard
Specification for Roads and Structures requires contractors to control dust and other particulate '
matter at all areas utilized during construction, including unpaved roads, haul roads, and borrow
and disposal sites.

Lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are predominantly the result of non- t
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of lead
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 NAAQS.

3

The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the
intersection of SR 1003(High Point Road) and SR 2643(Union Cross Road). The predicted 1-
hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are 3.00,
2.80 and 3.10 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the
' NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level
' does not exceed the standard. - See Tables Al through A3 for input data and output.

The project is located in Forsyth County, which is within the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-
High Point nonattainment area for the one hour ozone (03) and the Winston-Salem
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattainment area for one hour 03
' and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance
for one hour 03 on November 8, 1993 and for CO on November 7, 1994. Section 176(c) of the
CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the
' state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Forsyth County. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the High Point MPO 2030
' LRTP and the 07-13 Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) conform to the intent of the
SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on the Winston-Salem/Forsyth MPO LRTP
on 1011105 (1 hour ozone and CO) and 4/5/06 (PM2.5), the High Point MPO LRTP on 10/1/04 (1
' hour ozone) and 4/5/06 (PM2.5), the Winston Salem/Forsyth MPO TIP on 6/29/07 and the High
Point MPO TIP on 6/29/07. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final
conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the
' project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Forsyth County was designated as a moderate nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour
' ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November 22, 2004, EPA reclassified Forsyth
County from a moderate nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area. Forsyth County
is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has
' been deferred until April 15, 2008. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable until April 15,
2009 (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes effective).

1
Mobile Source Air Toxics

' In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from
' human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g.,
airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries).

' Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road
' equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the
fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the

4 t

incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics
also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.

The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on '
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229
(March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean
Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile '
source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national
low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and
gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle '
standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and
2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will
reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde '
by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87
percent, as shown in the following graph:
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000- '
2020
VMT Emissions '
(triNions/year) (tons/year)
6
200;000
Benzene (57%) '
vrtarr+3 tsj
DPWDEJG (4:Y)
'
3 100,000
N natlew". '

iLaWal}de ei2m)
I " daft he On)
AmAh (ii3ti}
0 2000 20O"M
05 2010 2015 2020
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using '
MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held
constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held
constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, '
analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is
based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic
carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size '
cutoff set at 10.0 microns.

As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel '
standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another
rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust ,
the full 21 and the primary 6 MSATs.

' S

Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project.
However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health
' impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these
limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40
CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

t Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental
and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve
' several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order
to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions,
exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated
' concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the
estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings
or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT
' health impacts of this project.

Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are
' not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of
highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional
level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based
model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on
average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have
the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at
' a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can
only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be
present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions
effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not
sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do
change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2
' for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the
conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to
quantitative analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT
emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and
performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is
not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller
' projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.

Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The
' EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and
validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic
concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
' The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum
concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic

6

area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at
specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess '
potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in
applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This
work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and '
communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA. process and to the general public.
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced
with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project- '
specific MSAT background concentrations.

Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and ,
concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current
techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching
meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure '
assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual
concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year
that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. '
These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in
travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70- ,
year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing
estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose
extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general '
population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health
impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh '
this information against other project impacts that are better suited for
quantitative analysis. ,
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating
the Impacts of MSATs: Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. ,
For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some
either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through
epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when '
exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, t
the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to
evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. '
While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the
modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various
toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to '
these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a
database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various '

' 7

substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at
http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized
MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization
summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and
represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and
toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.

' Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the
existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential
' for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in
humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.
' 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of
nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female
hamsters after inhalation exposure.
Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the
' combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary
noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary
' function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic
bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

' There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to
roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA,
FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-
roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile
source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not
expected for several years.
' Some recent studies have reported that proximity, to roadways is related to
adverse health outcomes particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this
' research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both
criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these
studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be
useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.

Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating
Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment,
and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research
' methods generally accepted in the scientific community: Because of the
uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While
' available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes
between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from

8 '

each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by
each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be '
useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions
model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for
smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete '
information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the
alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment."

This document provides a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the
various alternatives and acknowledges that some of the project alternatives may result in
increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations '
and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health
effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and '
uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates
of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods '
do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is
possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project.
Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, '
it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT
emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented
below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology '
for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project
Alternatives, found at:
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxie/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the
effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, '
under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of
MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative.
The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along '
SR 2643 (Union Cross Road-)). Upon completion of the widen of SR 2643, the localized
increases in MSAT concentrations would most likely decrease on SR 2643, due to
decrease in speed and the existence of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road). However, as '
discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to
the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies
of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to '
receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be
higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in
speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). '
Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet
turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause ,
region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.

Lessening the effects of mobile source air toxics should be considered for projects with '
substantial construction-related MSAT emissions that are likely to occur over an

9

extended building period, and for post-construction scenarios where the NEPA analysis
' indicates potentially meaningful MSAT levels. Such mitigation efforts should be
evaluated based on the circumstances associated with individual projects, and they may
not be appropriate in all cases. However, there are a number of available mitigation
' strategies and solutions for countering the effects of MSAT emissions.

During construction of the proposed project, 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 done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
' air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
' constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.

' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic
' Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club
(2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air
quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air
Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR
' 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.

1

1

V
X p
0 0
W Q
IL
a
Qo
z
Q
W
• V
I-
p
Z
0
Z_
Q
W
V
J
m
a

NOTICE OF A DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 2643 (UNION CROSS RD) FROM SR
2691 (WALLBURG RD) TO SR 2632 (SEDGE GARDEN RD)

TIP Project No. U-4909 Forsyth County

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)'will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House and a Design Public Hearing on Thursday, February 15, 2007 at
R. B. Glenn High School at 1600 Union Cross Road in Kernersville.

NCDOT representatives will be available at the Pre-Hearing Open House
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to answer questions and receive
comments relative to the proposed project. The Pre-Hearing Open House will be held in
' the Cafeteria. The opportunity to submit written comments or questions will also be
provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above mentioned hours.
' A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium. The presentation
will consist of an explanation of the proposed location, design, the state - federal
relationship, and right of way and relocation requirements and procedures. The hearing
' will be open to those present for statements, questions and comments. The
presentation and comments will be recorded and a transcript will be prepared.

' NCDOT proposes to widen an existing section of SR 2643 (Union Cross Rd) to a
multilane facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd). The
purpose of the project is to improve safety, route connectivity, and traffic flow through
the project study area. Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and
businesses will be required for this project.

A map displaying the location and design of the project and a copy of the
' environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the Winston-Salem City Hall South - Room 307 located at 100 East First.
' Street, Winston-Salem; at the Kernersville Planning Department located at 134 East
Mountain Street, Kernersville, and at the NCDOT Division Office located at 375 Silas
Creek Parkway, Winston-Salem.

' Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Carl Goode, P.E., Human
Environment Unit Head at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone
[phone], or email [e-mail]. Additional material may be submitted
' until March 19, 2007.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
' Disabilities Act for disabled, persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Goode as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.

/mot
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

~\I n, T4r-,'tJ.,

Widening of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road)

from SR 2691 (Wallburg Road) to '

SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road)

WBS Number 40278.1.1 '
TIP PROJECT U-4909

Forsyth County

Design Public Hearing

R.B. Glenn High School '
1600 Union Cross Road

Kernersville '

Informal Open House 4:00 P.m. - 6:30 P.m. '

Formal Presentation 7:00 p.m.

February 15, 2007 '

PURPOSE. OF PROJECT

This ro'ect proposes to widen an existin section of SR 2643 Union Cross Rd) to a multilane
p J g
facility from SR 2691 (Wallburg Rd) to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Rd). The purpose of the project
' is to improve safety; route connectivity, and traffic flow through the project study area.

PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Today's hearing is an important step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) procedure for maktng you, the pudic, a part of the project development process. The
purpose of the hearing is to obtain public input on the location and design of the proposed
project.

' Planning and environmental studies on the highway project are provided in the environmental
report - Environmental Assessment (EA). Copies of this report and today's hearing map
displaying the location and design have been available for public review at the Winston-Salem
City Hall South - Room 307 located at 100 East First Street, Winston-Salem, at the Kemersville
Planning Department located at 134 East Mountain Street, Kernersville, and at the NCDOT
' Division Office located at 375 Silas Creek Parkway, Winston-Salem.

YOUR PARTICIPATION

Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by making your comments
and/or questions apart of the public record. This may be done by having them recorded at the
' Formal Public Hearing or by writing them on the attached comment sheet. Several
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation are present. They will be
happy to talk with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. You may write
' your comments or questions on the comment sheet and leave it with one of the representatives or
mail theni by March 19, 2007 to the following address:

Mr. Carl Goode, P.E.
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit Head
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Email: c oodeOtidot.state.nc.us
' Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW
DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out
of place at public hearings. Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR
REFERENDUM to determine the location and/or design by a majority vote of those present.

WHAT IS DONE.WITH. THE INPUT?

A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has
• ended, NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division,
Right of Way, Public Involvement & Community Studies and others '
who play a role in the development of a project will attend this meeting.
The project will also be reviewed with federal agencies such as the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as well as state agencies such as the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. When appropriate, local government officials will attend. '
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post- '
hearing meeting The NCDOT considers safety, costs, traffic service, social impacts and. public
comments in making decisions. Complex issues may require additional study and may be
reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of
Transportation. ,

Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and a summary is available to the public. You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet.

NEED. FOR. THE PROJECT
The project study area and vicinity are experiencing continual growth and include many existing
and planned residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The current. Average Daily '
Traffic (ADT) on Union Cross Road ranges from 11,000 to 20,200 vehicles per day and is
expected to double to 23,100 to 40,100 vehicles per day by the year 2030. Current commercial
and industrial developments in the area are expected to generate a significant increase in truck I
traffic. Based on traffic projections and without the proposed project; Union Cross Road would
operate very poorly with considerable delays in the future.

Tonight's public hearing will present the design and modifications that have occurred since the '
2005 Citizens Informational Workshop.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT, Division of Highways, proposes to widen Union Cross Road from an existing ,
three lane roadway to a multi-lane facility from Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road. In
addition, the interchanges with US 311 and with I40 will be modified or reconstructed. The
project length is approximately 3.6 miles. '

Union Cross Road will be widened to a four lane, divided, curb and gutter roadway with a
30-foot raised median and five-foot sidewalks on both sides south of I-40. North of I-40, Union
Cross Road will be widened to a six lane, divided, curb and gutter roadway with a 304oot raised
median with five-foot sidewalks on either side.

At the US 311 interchange, the existing bridge may be retained for the project; however, the
ramps will be reconstructed as part of this project. The US 311 interchange will be reconfigured
from its existing diamond interchange design to a partial clover interchange design.

' The existing bridge over I-40 will be removed and a new bridge will be constructed to provide
for a redesigned interchange. The existing diamond interchange ramps will be reconfigured to
connect with Union Cross Road at a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) design. NCDOT
' will look at the feasibility of constructing the bridge in two stages to allow the existing bridge to
continue to carry traffic during construction. After the first stage of the proposed bridge is
completed, traffic could be shifted to the completed portion of the new bridge and the existing
' bridge removed. When the remaining portion of the bridge is completed, traffic: could be shined
to its final configuration.

' Access to cross roads and adjacent properties will be. provided via either channelized left turn
lanes in the median, referred to as "left=over" turning movements or as "right-in, right-out" only
turning movements. This type of design will protect the integrity of the roadway, which means it
' will move traffic longer into the design year without the need for additional major
iinpiovements.

' During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing road while the new lanes ate
constructed. When the new lanes are complete, traffic will shift onto the new construction while
the existing roadway is widened and resurfaced.

1

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION

Length: 4.0 miles

Typical Section: See Figures '

Right of Way: Varies from 120 -140 feet '
Access Control: No Control of Access; However, Access Management measures will be

used
Full Control of Access (@ interchanges only):
No Private Driveway connections will be allowed.

Relocatees: Residences: 23 Businesses:5

Estimated Cost: Right of Way Cost: '
Y $ 13,000,000
Utilities cost: S 1,400,000
Construction Cost: $ 34,900,000 '
Total: S 45,300,000
Tentative ,
Schedule: The tentative schedule is shown below. A number of factors can affect a
Project schedule, so schedules are subject to change.

Right of Way Acquisition _ February 2008 '
Construction - February 2008

*****SEE TABLE S-1 FOR A SUMMARY OF IMPACTS*****

' TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ImpACTs
' RESOURCE IMPACT

Right-of--way 50.3 acres
Number of relocations: 23 residences'
5 bus..inesses
Number of property parcels 189 parcels

Archaeological Sites 0

Historic Properties 1 Adverse Effect
Section 4(f Properties Impacts 1 4.3 acres
' 4 e'. ''nsting culvert 108 feet Ititermittent
Streams
extensions 79 feet Perennial
' Wetlands 0.015 (648 square feet)
Endan eyed Species 0
Endan ercd Species Habitat 0
Prime 75 acres
Farmland Unique 0 acres
Statewide Impor=t 4 acres
' Dry Oak-Hicko Forest 10.4 acres
Piedmont Bottomland
Forest 1.1 acres
Natural Communities
Earl to Mid-Successional 7.5 acres
FalloI%y Field
Agriculture 15.4 acres
Noise Impacts - without Residences 49
abatement Businesses 2
Air Quality No Im act
' Construction (Ax xrt 8, 2006) $34,900,000
Cost Right-of-Way (A rill=); 200 $9,000,000
Utilities (Mai 5, 2006), $1,400,000
Total $45,300,000

L UNION CROSS ROAD 6 LANE' SECTION

3v 36'
10' n` n• 12• lr 12•. 11" 10• i CHWINAL
2•
UND
l 1 GXWE o
ONG04AL Vrf I
,~,p, -naurro.waw~ -awcr. n MW i
-L-- UNION CROSS ROAD 4 LANE SECTION
I
i
24• 2y,
T -5. o
1 _ ~o
0`Y2 _ I _?iPxi I .may F"-- . Vpy-4
DSO 1 a~^."^^. ~ - ~ 71D AUC
OIYGMUL VMS' A\ ~ ~ ~-.aw ra www~
o~ou~ rrw M w-~

~.,...,r,
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL S.ECTIO:NS
U-4%0Q Union CfAw Rpad NOT.TO SCALE Figure No.
' From WaYGur9 Road W, 36.00e GarWn;:Road 4-2'
Forsyth County, No&,Car(* a:. NCDOT M•WNnuy RcWwaY Maya, CnaNd May 11, 2006

I

i

i

Stokes

1
F
l\
r ` Forsyth !

r

{ Kernersville
a
Winsto Salem LJ R 952

,13
r• ; V u
Guilford
1t

r ~ - I
kq_
I
' Davidson

Legend

Bridge TIP Projects
Urban TIP Projects
' Rural TIP Projects

1:250,000
mites OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
' 0 1 2 4 R 8 Figure No.
U-4909 Union Cross Road
From Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road
k.t Forsyth County, North Carolina 5-1
Data From the North Carolina Department of Transportation

1

RIGHT-OF-WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be '
staked in the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right-of-Way Agent will contact
you and arrange a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project
will affect you. The agent will inform you of your rights as a property owner. If pennanent '
right-of-way is required, professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or
appraise your property. The evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and
accuracy and then the Right-of-Way Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market '
value of the property at its highest and best use when appraised will be offered as compensation.
The Department of Transportation must:

1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights. '
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE '

If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of the project,
additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available. You will also be '
provided with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments,
moving procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional
monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases,
increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist
business owners. The Right-of-Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.

NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND
RELOCATION PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ,
SIGN-IN TABLE.

t

COMMENT SHEET
Widening of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road)
from SR 2691 (Wallburg to to SR 2632 (Sedge Garden Road)

1
Formal Design Public Heating - February 15, 2007

' TIP No. U-4909 Forsyth County Project 40278.1.1

' NAME:

ADDRESS:

COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:

' Comments may be mailed by March 19, 2007:

' Mr. Carl Goode, P.E.
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit Head
' 1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

O z
x w
o~
Z W
W W
IL
Qa
LL
0
0
z
a
a
W

I

i
I

i

i i i

~r
US.Department North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
of Transportation Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Federal Highway July 31, 2007
Administration
Mr. Don Klima, Director In Reply Refer To:
Office of Federal Agency Programs HDA-NC
' Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. # 809
Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Klima:

The Widening of Union Cross Road in Forsyth County, North Carolina is a Federally-Aided
project. This project is referred to as Federal-Aid Project # STP-2643(2), TIP U-4909.
' In our letter of January 9, 2007, we provided you with notification of the adverse effect finding
of the proposed project on the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, a property
determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As required by 36
' CFR 800.6(b)(iv), we are filing the attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that was
developed in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for this
project. The County of Forsyth and the owners of the contributing properties in the Historic
' District that are affected by the undertaking have participated in the consultation but have
declined to officially sign the MOA.

' It is our understanding that the filing of the enclosed MOA with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation completes our compliance responsibilities under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Questions concerning this submittal may be directed to
' Felix Davila of this office at [phone], extension 106.
Sincerely,

' /s/ Felix Davila

For John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator

' Attachment

cc: Mary Pape-Fury
Peter Sandbeck
' File: STP-2643(2)
Reading File: 7g3lop0l.fd
' FDavi la:dkr:07/31 /07
14 G .s E I
a
AMERICAN
' ECONOMY

U-4909, Forsyth County

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, NORTH CAROLINA '
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
TIP No. U-4909
WIDEN SR 2643 (UNION CROSS ROAD)
FORSYTH COUNTY, NC '
FEDERAL AID NO. STP-2643(2)

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the '
widening of SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) in Forsyth County, North Carolina (the
Undertaking) will have an effect upon the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, a '
property determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and has
consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to
36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and '
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) planned
widening of Union Cross Road from Wallburg Road to Sedge Garden Road encroaches ,
on the properties that make up the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District, a property
determined eligible for the National Register; and

WHEREAS, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO have invited NCDOT to be a signatory; '
and
WHEREAS, the County of Forsyth and the owners of the contributing properties in the '
historic district that are affected by the undertaking, have participated in the consultation
and has been invited to concur with the Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement); and '

NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA, NCDOT and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order
to take into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic property. '

STIPULATIONS
FHWA and NCDOT will ensure that the following measures are carried out:

Asymmetrical Widening: '
? Within the historic district, NCDOT will widen the road asymmetrically to
minimize the project's impact on the district's contributing resources. '

Median:
? A thirty-foot-wide raised median will control access to the surrounding land and '
may discourage unsympathetic development within the historic district.

U4909, Forsyth County
1

1 Temple School Road Extension:
? For the purposes of this undertaking, NCDOT will not participate in the
extension of Temple School Road.

Recordation:
? Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing condition
1 of the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District and its surroundings in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation
Plan (Appendix A).

1

' OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Unanticipated Discovery
1 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(a), and prior to initiation of construction activities,
NCDOT will ensure preparation of a plan of action should archaeological or architectural
resources be inadvertently or accidentally discovered during the construction phase of the
project. The plan will provide for an assessment of the significance of the discovery in
1 consultation amongst NCDOT, FHWA, and the SHPO. Inadvertent or accidental
discovery of human remains will be handled in accordance with North Carolina General
Statutes 65 and 70.
1 Dispute Resolution
Modification, amendment, or termination of this Agreement as necessary will be
1 accomplished by the signatories in the same manner as the original agreement. Disputes
regarding the completion of the terms of this agreement will be resolved by the
signatories. If the signatories cannot agree regarding a dispute, any one of the signatories
1 may request the participation of the Council to assist in resolving the dispute.
Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30) days to any plans or
documentation provided for review pursuant to this Agreement, FHWA will consult with
the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO
determines that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA will forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will either:

? Provide FHWA with recommendations, which FHWA will take into account in
1 reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or

? Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Sections 800.7(c) and
1 proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a
request will be taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR
Sections 800.7(c) (4) with reference to the subject of the dispute.
1

1

1

U4909, Forsyth County

Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain
only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all the actions '
under this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.

Execution of Agreement
Execution of this Amended Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA, NCDOT and the
North Carolina SHPO, its subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its
terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the
Undertaking and its effects on FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to
comment on the Undertaking and its effects on the historic property, and that FHWA has
taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic property.
1
AGREE:

1

Federal Highway Adminis ration ,

John F. Sullivan, I, P.E. Date '
Division Administrator

State Historic Preservation Officer: '

D '
Jeffery ow Date
North Carolina a Historic Preservation Officer

North Carolina Department of Transportation: '

Gregoryo e, Ph.D. Date
Manag
roj ct Develop ent and Environmental Analysis Branch '
d(IP

1

U-4909, Forsyth County

' CONCUR:

County of Forsyth, North Carolina:

' Ferrell Clay Date
Chair, Forsyth County Historic Resources Commission

CONCUR:

' Owners of Affected Contributing Properties within the Historic District:

Paul Stephens Date

' Ina'Stephens Date

Stan Grandy Date

' Carol Grandy Date

U4909, Forsyth County

APPENDIX A

Historic Structures and Landscape Documentation and Recordation Plan ,
TIP No. U4909
Widen SR 2643 (Union Cross Road) '
Federal Aid No. STP-2643(2)
Forsyth County North Carolina

I. Historical Background: A brief historical and physical narrativeldescription of the
Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District should be prepared to include the
following:

? Dates of construction '

? Architects/builders, if known
? Owners and uses of the buildings since construction '
? Size and sketch plan of contributing farm complexes

? Materials and any significant architectural details or elements '

II. Photographic Requirements: Photographic views of the building and associated
facilities, including: '

? Overall views of the Smith-Tucker Farms Rural Historic District including
fields, streetscapes, and views to communicate the relationship of buildings, '
roads, and fields.
? Exterior views (elevations and oblique views) of each dwelling in the '
historic district.
? Exterior views of each outbuilding in the historic district, photographed
either individually or in groups
? Details of construction or design including exterior and interior
architecturally significant elements.

? Streetscapes showing the relationship of the building to the street an d
adjoining properties /blocks if possible.
? Sketch site plan keyed to photographs listed above. '

IIl. Format: Traditional or Digital '

Digital al Images on CD, (must be accompanied with prints of each image):
¦ Use at least a 3 megapixel camera

1

U-4909, Forsyth County

¦ May be jpeg format
¦ Must be at least 2100 pixels x 1500 pixels (300 ppi for a 5" x 7")
¦ Label files as follows: County Name, Property Name, Describe View/ Image,
Photographer Name, Photo Date, Photo Number jpg.
¦ Prints - 5" x 7" in color, on good quality photo paper.

Traditional
' ¦ 35mm. or larger black and white negatives (all views).
¦ 8 x 10 black and white prints (all views). Color slides (all views).
¦ All processing to be done to archival standards. Fiber based paper is the
' traditional archival standard. According to Kodak, however, their resin-coated
paper meets archival standards if it is stored in total darkness (in an envelope) and
at low humidity.
' ¦ All photographs, negatives, and slides to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards (County Name, Property Name, Describe View/
Image, Photographer Name, Photo Date).
IV. Copies and Curation:

¦ One (1) set of all CD's, negatives, prints, and slides will be deposited with the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Division of Archives and
History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the
statewide survey and iconographic collection.

'I