19920547 All Versions_Complete File_20100726

o ~ -
~ a ~ .
V
z

Y V.
~
e .e.k.
£ P ~~;'C R'~ 4 c ~ ~ _ ? 9y N n S ~ ~ - ~ m
~ C ' 6 N
Via. - • ' j3
R-27 09 r~
~ - - ~a, ~~~~ti~~ ' F r _ €
~,!t '`'v ` ~ ~~m o »h,
a'4 W 6 ~w C ~ -
w N sa:.
n... ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . a < ~ v ~ ~ N xn.:. ~ ~ ss ~ ~ ~ 1,, ' , ~ a ~c
t

y Z ~ , s
~
tX F ~ ~ ~ ~s
,,r • N
1 I11 D•, ~ n
`t _
v. ~ i`
a
y
~N ~ ~ _ "h.. ._P,,V*.,, Q
~ e _ .Q ~
'Si'. ~r 2s~ A
i . - 4`
_ _
~ ~ ; ~k
- off' ~ ~ . , oaoa°ca~
'f~ .c
;G - c~~a~c
, a , p ~ ~ m
a
t A
~ 1 < N `
L ~ G <<
. ~
. f ~
¢ r
. ;r -n . g~ .
t
~ r t ;
E .
-W
N .f z n
i
. ~ - _ i ~ c ,k~
1 i e
c . Y ~4 ~ VJ
4 N ~i ~
` , ~'r v i
r ~ a ti
. r~ L
< ; E
- 1
; t \ [ n•• 1 W

S9 . 1•
4 ' . ~ ~ ~ e
!F y k N # ~ C 1_ ice. ~ ' m° - V ~ • • j AV I t: O ~ r •
r V •:r`~ ~ _ 'r V • 1 ~ ~ .
v ~ / \ r & , i East F . ,1 . •t _ ~ ~ '
~ ~ ~4 .r = i
• ~ 2 ,a . Z • . • Ul ~ _ C ,a4 N
i... ~ ~ < . . i ~ ~
t~ t ~ ~ ~ SSS ~ \ i • =1?~' G • 28
~ . ~A ti . C ~7 • e".• ••1 ~lJ U-2913
0 . 'r a ~
.r ,,(y~ M ~ U° I G~ ~ ~4~- .
'~~d~ ' U-2524 .
i• i a w +Q 71
~ z n : ~ ~d
~ '•~•.4
<,jX S ~ h . ~ '1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f:~ e' 'H
- ' e ~
~ Mf •'1r
V/
~~~a ~ ~ Yti. U-33t3 _
lam- ' • - -
it _ ~ 'h" !r
~ `t ty =
• • • < .0 .5~~ 4~4 ~•4 W+ . ~ ~ •6~
r• ~ ~ ~ 1,3
r 4 ~ ~ N , ~j rs f ~ ~ ~ ~
. .
fY ~ ~ "r
_ l....,,•
• ~ ~ . r ~ ,
~ ~ ~-22M r i ~ - 999 ~ . r_
' ~ ~ ~ ,
~ Z ~ v
0 4 r- ~ ~ a
_ ~ ~ g;
• ~ Ky .j~ X~ 0
X ~ v

~ Z o
~ _ - I~ ~ - `''a, ~ ~ ~ •L
`t ~ - ~ y ;m .
,F- •
i , - 1, ~ * t, 3
u Ad f
r a R. 4,
2 ~ z p, CJ ti
~ ,
\
r s c~+ ° ,•t~•,
~ - I
h ,x ,r
~~~.>,,r,~ ' o.i FX .gip^a , s ~
5Z Y i. ti~,~~ < i • U)
Vl ~ J I~ 'K~ x { c • c
~ O 2 ~r ; U1
k t 'V I~ ~ ~ W~
~ < _
r`,n_ Z
~
~
~:w~
~~k~\
N~\ ,T~~~ `Y
i. ..i,~ ~
F
.
1 ~r
j S p
~ k~'~i , f
. ~ 1 ; r`'
i ~ '~J~ >~oa, y ` t ~ ~ t
~ ~ . S V Y ~ i
~ n~~T
R3gp;; C < 9 "'a ~ ~
t ~i ~ ~ ~ i
. ~ F.., n i~ Z N i C~ m N G w O ~
i ~
Y` ~ •
v l~ ~ ~ u
0 0 •s•• ~ G
0 o n 3
u 0 o ~ m I o ^ G ~ ~
~ -
W
a Q~ti' ~
r+ r+ 0 ~ ,-t ~ O ~ 0 ~ i ~ ,~t a i
Q W 0' N ~ N ~ N ~ (D ~ ~ ~ Q ~ (p ~
n ~ ~ O ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ O O O 0
O r+ ~ O - r+ V) - ~ ~ g : ;^J
(D O 0 0 ~ tD
(D ~ O ~ Q n n
Q N r+ ~ N r+ _ Q 0 N (O ~ 0 ~ u~
n O ~ - N (D ~D tr' •~r: y D
~ ~ (D n ~
~ -p n ~ O ~ r t1
~ N r+ Q. V) O ~ ~ D D Z N
r+ N s` ~ ~ n
O ~ ~ n 0 r+
~ ti~
N ~
, ; ~ - - {

N (D H ~ ; ~ V r •
Q 1•
(D N .y
n ~ 1•,
~ i'
O e . ~ M 1 M
~ Y r'
°IJa °„i; i~'' ~
~r-~l. I 7r
i . ~ i ~_S - ~ , i.
i ~
4 l L`
I
I 1
i I
i I,, i k'I
I
'i9,'? ~ i. -
~ I f

A' ution concerns delay bypass]
Home
Classifieds
Apartments
Cars
Classified Ads
Homes
Jobs
Personals
News
Headlines
Greensboro
Hi hQ Point
Randolph
Rockingham
Education
Government
Religion
Technology
Desktop News
AP News
Special
Reports
Archives
Opinion
Editorials
Letters
Sports
Headlines
ACC
College
Preps
Pro Baseball
Pro Basketball
Pro Football
Golf
Hockey
NASCAR
Life
Features
City Life
Healthy Life
HomeLife
Travel
Movies
The Arts
Dining
Triad Style
Photos
Web Cams
Traffic Cams
Multimedia
Photo gallery
HIGH POINT
Pollution concerns delay bypass
1-23-02
By PAUL MUSCHICK, Staff Writer
News & Record
HIGH POINT -- A section of the U.S. 311 Bypass is a year behind
schedule because of concerns about how to build the highway without
polluting the Randleman Reservoir.
The N.C. Department of Transportation has to meet new rules imposed
by the state to protect the drinking-water reservoir that's being built
with a dam on the Deep River.
Those rules limit how much land can be developed close to the water
and what preventative steps must be taken when building close to a
stream that flows into the future lake. The rules affect south High Point,
Archdale and surrounding towns.
What's holding up the bypass work, though, is what the Randleman
restrictions do not spell out.
They do not specifically say what must be done when a road is built
across streams heading toward the lake, said Michael Penney, project
manager with the DOT's Office of Project Development and
Environmental Analysis.
Without knowing how to minimize environmental impact, the DOT has
not been able to apply for permits it needs from state environmental
officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"It's sort of like hitting a moving target in an arcade game," Penney said.
The DOT and state environmental authorities are working together to
decide what should be required. A resolution is expected soon, Penney
said, and the permits could be applied for by March.
In the meantime, work has slipped by about a year on the next leg of the
bypass, from Business 85 in High Point to Tuttle Road in Archdale.
Work was supposed to start on part of that stretch in 2003 and part of it
in ?004 cnirl Phil WvliP Hiah Pnint'c trancnnrtstinn dire.rtnr
Whater
Your Ftr
mfla&
ca.

2 of 4 2/1/02 3:13 Pr
[Fwd: Pollution concerns delay bypass]
Subject: [Fwd: Pollution concerns delay bypass]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:36:59 -0500
From: Ernie Seneca <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
cynthia vanderwiele <[e-mail]>,
John Hennessy <[e-mail]>, Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>,
Larry Coble <Larry. Coble@ ncmai l.net>, Ron Ferrell <[e-mail]>,
Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pollution concerns delay bypass
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:19:46 -0500
From: Audrey Velazquez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC - DENR
To: Don Reuter <[e-mail]>, Johanna Reese <[e-mail]>,
Ernie Seneca <[e-mail]>
http://www.news-record.com/news/local/hp/bypass23rd.htm
1 of 4 2/ 1 /02 3:13 PM
P?lllution concerns delay bypassl
... _., - ,, .-.-.. - .... J..-, -b• - -.... - ..-_r ........... .... --.-.
Money "We're just frustrated," Wylie said.
Business News
Top 50
Personal
High Point, Archdale, Trinity and their neighbors are counting on the
Finance U.S. 311 Bypass to take traffic off their congested main streets and to
Public trigger economic development.
Records
When complete, the highway will connect Interstate 40 near
Community Winston-Salem with U.S. 220 near Asheboro. The first leg is open,
Welcome FAO
h
i
nt.
Po
from I-40 to Eastchester Drive in Hig
Become a
Partner
Partner Pages The second leg, being built from Eastchester to Business 85, is
Find any scheduled to open next year.
Organization
People &
Places The Business-85-to-Tuttle-Road section that's being delayed is next in
line.
Calendars
Obituaries The state was scheduled to start buying land for that piece last year. The
Site Index holdup is keeping landowners in the way of the bypass in limbo, Wylie
said.
People who expect the state to buy their land to make way for the road
are unclear how long it will be before they're forced out. They cannot
make decisions such as whether it's worth it to improve their homes for
the remainder of their stays.
"We can't advise them," Wylie said. "There's a practical side from the
homeowners and property owners down there. They'd like to get on
with their lives."
Contact Paul Muschick at 883-4422, Ext. 231, or
[e-mail]
® E-mail this story to someone
8 Print this article
r__ ?..., _. y
_ g__._ sports
_ munit _ Classifieds
Re ional News Life Com
Return to the Top
Contact Us Web Design & Advertising ( News & Record Corporate News & Record Jobs
3 of 4 2/1/02 3:13 Ph
[Fwd: Pollution concerns delay bypass]
Audrey Velazquez <[e-mail]>
Administrative Assistant to Director of Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
NC DENR

4 of 4 2/ l /02 3:13 PM
Subject:
Team Members:
Draft Minutes from Interagency Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on July 24, 2003 for R-06091B in Guilford/Randolph Counties
Eric Alsmeyer-USACE (not present)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele-NCDWQ (present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (not present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Brett Feulner-PDEA (present)
Jimmy Goodnight-Roadway Design (present)
Participants:
Max Price, NCDOT Hydraulics
Andy Healy, NCDOT Hydraulics
Steve Kendall, NCDOT Roadway Design
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT Structure Design
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ
The meeting began with Max describing the project location. He then went over the
Wetland and Buffer impacts Site by Site.
Wetland Impacts
Site 1
Max pointed out that an additional (64m - 210') of stream impacts right of Sta. 62+90
to Sta. 63+25 should be shown on the permit drawings. These impacts are the result of
the elimination of hydrology by filling the pond.
Max addressed the rip-rap pad at the outlet of 1000mm CSP. Beth agreed that if
velocities are high at pipe outlets, rip-rap may be needed. If so, the pad should be keyed
into the ground and not piled up so as not to disturb aquatic life. A detail for this type
of outlet protection is being investigated by the unit.
Site 2
Travis stated that all culvert inverts should be buried a minimum of 20% of culvert
diameter or F for aquatic passage. Max verified with the culvert reports that the three
significant structures were buried. A review design documentation has verified that the
smaller pipes were designed to be buried also.
Site 3
Travis request to see a note on the roadway plans and permit drawings concerning the
culvert sills and low-flow channels at the double barrel box sites. This note will be added.
Site 4
Brett Feulner was not aware of the status of using the pond at STA 79+00 Rt -L- for on
site mitigation. Max will check with Elizabeth Lusk on the status.
Site 6
Max pointed out that there may not be enough easement at the culvert for the temporary
diversion channel. The design to see if there will be any more impacts and easement
requirements.
Site 7
There was concern during the 4B meeting about the new fill affecting the hydrology for
the wetlands. Max confirmed that the 750mm RCP is providing the hydrology.
Buffer Impacts
All Sites
It was discussed that a "General" Major Variance would be required for this project.
It was discussed that the design data for grass swales, level spreaders, & preformed scour
holes could best be shown on a set half size plans and or in a stormwater narrative instead
of adding information to the permit drawings.
Cynthia, Beth and Max agreed to show buffer impacts all the way to the right of way and
or easement.
Max agreed to check slopes through buffers at the preformed scour hole locations and to
investigate other options if the slopes would not promote defused flow.
Max agreed to check grass swale lengths to make sure they meet or exceed the minimum
requirements.
? NORTH CAROLINA
<
FORD co(-N
_ ---
_ ? ? __ r r-{ I (- lJ 1 w
4o) - - - l 1 „- ( I -- - - - --
Gy ?
NO TO SCAL
WETLAND AND NCDOT
}?? ? !L1?'Sl1C"7? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STREAM ACTS GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609II3)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
MAPS FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 1 OF 17 12/ 31 % 02
ARCHC???_ BE
JECT
I'- P O
' _ I
WETLAND LEG, END
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WL
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
WL
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- -NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB -- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
---- WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
r'
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
LE,Ib
RIP RAP
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
O OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVE
SPR
L
EADER (L S)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
NCDT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0009IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 2 OF 17 12431102
1 '•.? •'.((r I -Ji,/% v ; ,' I'Lj i?? \ \?- F?..:?`1; "1, / ?``J'?\'.'t'? f • Y(. j ' ! C?J;= - ?. i? `. !'y .1'' ` %) ?'
J
?? ?/r..,1'' ? 1 , ..?_?. :.' ,i?•,1•?".uj. a? . ,? ?l?`?. `? ? ~: ?\~?? • 1,. .??
r KI-A
'ol
lell
?•. • ?+? ``'I 1''` ? ?;' / ?Lr?? ? •• 1'+? ._? j ?'i,'' ? ? ??,1? ?-1?' .11, •i,?,v-?J ?19; ? ? ?`
(io
•'.?= • I :.la;jl? '` ? 1 ? i?/ ???? ? ?-?"?? ,\. r r/ ??`? ? \_,.IJ ? ? j> ? -?_( r cif ? ,?' 1 ii r
yr + ; ,-r?r-r>L?/ ? Jn ?[, \ ? ^ j f (;?,?'' ' / \ .s.?-?? -! L?``-?• JJ cry.
±,?1?.rr.
'j ?t,_--? ?? ?? ?/ ?ji?+J?\t•, 1 ; 11?/?;:/'- S ??? r; ? ? ,• i ,? ?? .? ? C-' ??._.i?r 1 I ?v r/? ` ?;
/
??--?/1,????,? ?A1I ? ???? ?--?- ;??+ ,yrl? + t-/r ? ? ? 1 ? I ?•c?il. ? t ? ?-? ? , ? ? i l ? ??--•"??'?
\y` ? :.?i,l `1....r•..,?1\ ' ^, \ ? : ?' ? ?'tti}\ 4l? ? I?l I ? ? /,'-?1 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ?`? ? -? i? ? ? J +1 _/ ? / `-: -, C.?.^? t r r\
\ ` 1r?,?,t?. !?',-- - f/ ? 'cam, t'? I?•''?!? t :`'-J:'? ?:?? t???Q._%f 'tr//f ? J `?-._'{tl?t`r r?I 1'
?, I i `/ i ? ? , .-?` j 1? •`? r - ;i / f ` ?? l? \``l?`` `? .: ? 1) r . ?•`, ? 'c - t / ? ?. ?? ? t?? / ?? 1 r C
rl?lte?{' ?! 1`{`?' , y II?.? ? r/???,,Jlllv'i r ^ ?\ \i \, ? '? ? / lam`` +I ? 1 r ? ? t ??r •' '? J ij?h?•`t ? ?/?j ?
".. ?.r,.? '.?' .. ,f ? ...'F? i`'r? .r.J ?'!- ?•?.-L'+ %., r ``_''.. c' r. ,?ll, . l'/; if ,?'_. ., ,
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD// RANDOLPH COUNTIES
LOCATION PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
MAPS I'RO?f I-235 TO SDUTH O1? SR 190
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 3 OF 17 12 /'31 /02
SITE I
SITE 2 NAD 83
r '
C ?
r ?
1 I
I• /
SITE 3
4
SITE 4
C SITE 5
SITE 6
r
SITE 7 SITE 8
NCDOT
DIVISION Or HIGHWAYS
VIEW - GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)) r PROJECT: 8.1570001 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
q FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
SITE 9 NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 4 OF 17 12 / 31 % 02
JAMES P. HMLE. SR. I Q By 1_ 1
CL 8Pi
?•
ESSIE COX r +R
fs ?.
' / d +00
m
I ,
RUBY X. POwELL
\ SSIE CO? I CI? /
? ERS
tj
+/J
\ to ?n ?/ ti
0
\ /r I STONEY S. BOONE
r- oow
p z
'1r ?r Qn I? . + OF
O
a
4 to {_? ?
ti.' o`' V 1 I m
ti
2
J ?
N I JERRY W.OUEEN
YB? c?
64+00
a ariur
1
n
J Q
00
cc)
O
.?S r+
PLAN V l W
SITE I
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
/ SURFACE WATER
(POND)
10.. ^_0M
HOItI'LONTAL SCALP.
Ck.
iy? I,--
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 511 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 5 OF 17 7/10/05
- lk
ozk
s
\ ? 9,o I I I
NAD 83
\ \ C.C. CILBRETH
1a/ Q ? ?
\C L B t \
ti
6
a
3 \
RUSSELL J. HOFFMAN woo
CLASS I RIP-RAP -
? \ N
N x \
CROSS VANE--/ ?' \ I \
x \
x \
\ I \
x \ \
CA
m \ x \
N \
\ I \
N \ \ x
? \ I
\ x
\ x
PLAN VIEW ?
SIT E 2 NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DENOTES FILL IN GUILFORD. RANDOLPH COUNTY
SURFACE WATER
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 511 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
oa `OM NORTH OF ARCHDALE
HORIZONTAL SCALI?
SHEET 6 OF 17 7/10/03
. 1 76+00
1
PAUL A. LAWSON, SR.
I ? 1
1 ,PREFORMED
jSCOUR ROLE I ~
11 r ? m x 1.2 m \ I \ ? ? 1
/ j 300 CSP PAUL A. LAWSON. SR.
~ 1
NAD 83
3Q1
?cc I Br? I 1
?'-r•,F a 4F `? ? 4t,.
I O ?er 1
77+00
r
s

1 rose Vp? Ruck 1111,
1 2

1 " 2 2.1m z "
2. RCS Br `

1 2

?
\ I
H
\
? _? £
FREFOF.NED
P 3 400 6P SCOUR HOLE
375
-
2 m x I
I
T `
-
PAUL
A. LAWSON, SR. \ I _

T 1
1 I
PAUL A. LAWSON, SR.
1

PLAN VIEW
SITE 3 NCD
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DENOTES FILL IN GUILFORD/! RANDOLPH COUNTY
SURFACE WATER
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
tom 200. NORTH OF ARCHDALE
HORIZONTAL SCALE SHEET 7 OF 17
12031//02
1
i
I ?
NAD 83
az
I ?
MARY L. rrNC
ti
`? py a i RIPRAP1
Off'
'? do i I
f00 / I
i 1
?? f I
I
ti0 / Yr, N )
/L
\ K
/?p1 z I I \
1
/L Ta I r 1
I 1
80+00
I 1
PLAN VIE W ?
SITE -4 NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DENOTES FILL IN GUILFORD, RANDOLPH COUNTY
SURFACE WATER
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
cPOND) FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
o. .o„ NORTH OF ARCHDALE
HORI'LON1'AI, SCALE
SHEET 8 OF 17 7/10/03
i
? l
_ M -Law ?.
Vy

ROBERT L.BURGESS Q Q -
1 fl

p ? Ifl

1
16 / /
h 1 --x
x

X? J ??'1 v N
ROBERT L. BURGESS

70 X N

N
b't, N I x I
(3Z 2 ` I I

? ?

°
I
X 11
»M Jcozi

ROBERT 1. BURGESS

? 1 N
)
F
6Z 1
1 I 1
l
I
3Q1- 34
8
l
I ,

v. 1
1 1 % az 2
? x
NAD 83
fl ??
m I
C?
fey
41
x-
APR

I I
`
r? ?T I
I i u V
8Z1 3
Q
AZ 2 i
6Z
82+00

X Coe,

zil
5 c_+

x

ROBERT L.BURGFSS-

I
p1 G x
3 S
\
"

I I
l
O \
? ?.
i
e .
r l
I
O
W/ELB05Y
PLAN VIEW
SITE 5
DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
Oa 20.
HORIZONTAL SCALI:
x
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD,/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 9 OF 17 7/10/03
I
1 -
/
.G PRiFORMED ? m
N a
`' .SCOUR HOLE ? N
1.2 m :13 m ?. '
2 m
\ \ N NAD 83
\ m ? BILLY L. iUTTLE
\ \ osr N
sP?
42.
v
51-
e
SCOUR H
a.3.6m
BZ 2
`' ?37?5 ' i00 CS, W/ \ v?
\ \ 375
\ 2 Q 1.8 m \ __ ?
\ x 2.4 m RCBC
\ \ 1 Q dz 00> ?OJ ww OS
009
\ \\ n B Rlr
d F
! L `
•; •: ;b .. ..???? ` p m BYPASS DEVICE I x
Cy I l I 30 f.EITL SL'RIADER I X
?° '.(\ ` ? I I r -Y9- POS/ 1
ROCK WEIR \ m N
1 CROSS VANE T
i I I BiLllm l o.//tgOJ9/
L. TUTTLE
1
' 11 1
L 1\
11 / I
PLAN AVIE, 11 I I
NSI Ev fi ???1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
DENOTES FILL IN PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
SURFACE WATER US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
• : DENOTES MECHANIZED
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
CLEARING NG
tom 20. NORTH OF ARCHDALE
- - HORI",flV''.=k1. SC:-LI;
SHEET 10 OF 17 7//10/03
o bno ON

T
4 0
L ?
\
\\ \ 13z

HAROLD R. MARTIN 1
19 I • \

\ r

84+00

83

so
IV
750 `
I
00
?
i
375
N •
`- ENER DISS"ATOR
F
-
1 1
N G W
I
??

n I
I
I HAROLD H. TUTILE
I

I I
85+00
i
?
I
I
MILAN VIEW I
!? I
NCDOT
SITE 7
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
DENOTES FILL IN PROJECT:8.1570501 (R-0609IB)
WETLAND
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
low
`°j
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
?---? HORIZONTAL SCALE
SHEET 11 OF 17 7/10/03

?o
KEPLEY FRANK HARDWOOD CO..
I
I I
I I
I I
II
I
? I
I I
I I
I N I
? I
N ?
I r
CL B FU AP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I ? I
I ? f
I I
? I
I ? II
I
I ?
1 ?
I°< ? a
I` I
I /
I
PLAN VIEW
SITE 8
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
".0.
HORIZONTAL SCALE
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I
I
i
I?
/ Y
86t00
1
1
18 I ?
/r
.ROLD H. TUTTLE
Ir
??97t
,
f
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 12 OF 17 7/10/03
KEPLEY-FRANK HARDWOOD CO..INC.
20
NAD 83
N !AV
N
N
FALSE CUT
PLAN VIEW
SITE 9
02(A
/
2GI
2Q
PS (Tyr.
us
Em DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
l0a 20A
HORIZONTAL. SCALI;
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 13 OF 17 12/31102
/
/
/
r
r
r
If
) n
V /
/
2C4
s r?
1CA
?r_
lu
CL I Fi AP
/ az 1 ? az I
1
i
•? / f1Z Z`
? J
soX0
KEPLEY-FRANK HARDWOOD CO..INC.
20
END STATE PROJECT R-06091D -L- STA 90+29.616
END F. A. PROJECT MAF-F-119-1(1)
BEGIN STATE PROJECT R-2606
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
5905 Hyde Park Drive
Lessie Cox High Point, N.C. 27253
C. C. Gil6reth
Rt. 4 Box 252
High Point, N.C. 27260 r'
Margaret Haney 1625 NC 62 West
High Point, N.C. 27253
1515 Sheldon CE
James Hinkle, Sr.
High Point, N.C. 27263
P. O. Box 4250
Russell J. Hoffman
Archdale, N.C. 27263
P.O. Box 405
Robert Burgess
Dover Plains, NY 12522
975 Conrad Mine Rd
Kepley-Frank Hardwood Co
Lexington, N.C. 27292
Mary Ring 6891 Suits Road
Arcdale, N.C. 27263
7082 Suits Road
Paul Lawson, Sr. Arcdale, N.C. 27263
Harold Tuttle 921 West Sixth Street
Siler City, N.C. 2734,1
NCD'k`.j')'T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0609IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 14 OF 17 12/31102
PROPERTY
NAMES AND
PARCEL NO. NAMES
Billy Tuttle
China Tuttle
OWNERS
ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES
3180 Tuttle Road
Archdale, N.C. 27263
3193 Tuttle Road
Archale, N.C. 27263 t,•
CDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUILFORD/ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1570601 (R-0509IB)
US 311 HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
SHEET 15 OF 17 12/ 31 / 02

O (D W V Q) (I( A W N 'z (n
O (D

0

? (D

O Ca

+ 0:)

A

N
N

W

V
O

V
Q)

O)
07

O
A
CP
W
N

C/)
O
O O
O N
O) W } O (n O O 3^

-' O O U7 O r.• l 0.
'1
0 1 r r ? r r r r ? O
O
N N
O
-4

C -4

o
3

°

°
3 N `i

C Cl)
x o o x °o m e
.Z7 D .Z7 N .ZJ ?J N ? ? (1
O n N
r
r C) n
n lo

o CD 0 0
ca
A W A A : 7
d
N
m
(
o
P
r
o
"
-P -mi z
m
CL ?7
- r
Z O
O
N o m

m

o s m o
m D
?
va°
N
>
3

O
C
0

a 0

o 0

0 0

0
(
D (1
s(D z
C
N N co N " CL N
D
CL Z7

N O O O
O O O O
O
O _ Z=
0

W
O p
W O
W
O
(n O
O
(D
O
O
N
cn
O
N 7
O C
Cn

T
OCn %UC
? A
?j
N
o)
A

?:3

C
•
,-
n Z W t O ;o
j O ?C=JpS U) n
-3
-
3 m
v
00
0 00 ° Cl)? >
1
7'
7
0?0 >
= -3
O c?m
T
Q O 01 C1
.?
>?.
>
7
' N O O O n O (n
r
tn
n> : n

7?-3
o
0 ? a
bJ C

?p-3
o (D
W (D
CJ

--,
O (D W V Q) (!i A W N Z
O
Cn

W
O
O W
V co
A N
}
Cp V
CD V
M O)
W 0)
A W
N
T C()
t
O t
O t
N N
W
} j t
cD t
cn +
O O O O
„
3
O O W O O O O U7 O
r r r [ r r r r O O

.Zj N N

O p
O
CF)
O J
A
O
N (n

D X = = X = = O C
co
y
0 T n n
r co co
r n (7

0 0 0 0 0 M T
C) Q LO (0 ca
W W V co O] Q j

N
m
-? r
Z
o ? m
' T D D
rn Z

p
m

m
X -u
o n

a
?
?
n
-
i
o C
n
0 0

C) 0

C) 0

O o
g
C
N

(D O

U1
A
V1
V
O
n O N G
O
.
= cn 0
D
CL

T
O O O O O O O O Z
O O O N O N

W co 4

A
N NJ

N PI)

N

U)

CO

T
N O O
cn A a A 0 0 7
O Cn
O W N <
T
D
n
m
N
=
o -0
Cl) D
T m

N
N
N
cn
cn
0) C7 m
_ 7 ?< D

(")
W
W
(D
V
c
co
N
co
V
N
Ln
U
W a)

n 7
7 D 7

n
(D La
CL
p (n Z
C) M
v ° 3
r

D :? k,` ee ,
1-7 o30ED,?
JAI
F3034 c;sf A
17-7 O 30608
/?ea cll e,r s., t/5-1
303d ast
4 7-9 0 30601 (,/S- I v
( ?3034 Gisf
l3--?--3 ©3a?o?
?7-7-3 03060 (??-1 U
17-9.3 030 60e
-V ail{t,&,j c 4
OC T, e,.O-
c ? Cr-e?
13_ Z_3_3 ?o3o>oq-
ws- 11 NSW
L?ffl? Car•Qwad Crc-ek
l3 -Z_3_z ?o3n?o9
G
6,? &I 'd
17-q,6 03oho?
IA/S -I V -r,4
K? Ve? /plc
?7 7- / ppws? iv
Q 0008 ?
C"--'2t; &/<-e
030709
(3- 2--3-3-CC
3- 7)
V,tFaw cA
V QC?Ss., L?1C?
° 3o6c??
1-7-7-3

? /? r r
/ ? F,o , ? 0
1-=e c Cc
11 41,
"4?4e/
r
o?OF W A TFRpG
r? r
O `C
June 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator C/U&A)
SUBJECT: Summary of §401 Water Quality Certification issues for TIP Project No. R-609IA, R-609 1B, R-
2606A, R-2606B and R-2606 C (The US 311 High Point East Beltline,), Guilford and Randolph
Counties.
In follow up to the Concurrence Meeting on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 on the above-referenced projects, the NC
Division of Water Quality notes that the following issues must be addressed in order to be able to issue a Water
Quality Certification:
Documentation of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
1. The US 311 High Point East Beltline will require a quantitative assessment of the indirect and cumulative
impacts. NCDWQ has determined the appropriate study area (see attached). Results of the study may require
project-specific conditions to the §401 Water Quality Certification. The following is a list of the streams in
the study area, and their water quality classifications:
Hydrolozic Unit: 030608
Stream (Index)
Deep River (17)
Richland Creek (17-7)
Kivett Lake (17-7-1)
Mile Branch (17-7-3)
Jackson Lake (17-7-3)
Muddy Creek (17-9)
Taylor Branch (17-9.3)
Bob Branch (17-9.6)
Hvdroloaic Unit: 030609
Stream (Index)
Uwharrie River (13-2)
Carraway Creek (13-2-3)
Little Carraway Creek (13-2-3-2)
Back Creek (13-2-3-3)
Back Creek Lake (13-2-3-3-(0.7))
Water Ouality Classification
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV Critical Area
WS-IV Critical Area
Water Oualitv Classification
WS-III Critical Area
C
C
WS-II HQW
WS-II HQW Critical Area
Design & Construction Issues
1. The streams appearing on the §303(d) list of impaired waters are listed due to storm water runoff.
2. Water resources in the Randleman Lake Watershed will be required to follow the applicable Rules (see 15A
NCAC 2B .0250).
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
IAI

The §401 Water Quality Certification will require the following:
¦ Hazardous spill catch basins in all crossings of Water Supply Critical Areas.
¦ Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practice in order to
assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and
10 NTUs in trout waters).
a. Erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper design,
installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual.
c. NCDOT must develop a DOT-approved erosion and sediment control plan and implement and maintain
the control measures on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor owned or leased borrow pits associated with NCDOT projects.
d. NCDOT must implement and maintain a DOT-approved reclamation plan on all borrow pit and waste pile
(spoil) projects. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
e. NCDOT shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124 (b) -(e) only), for activities undertaken in all waters classified as WS
(Water Supply) and draining to the Critical Area, including: Horsepen Creek, and Long Branch, as well as
their unnamed tributaries. NCDOT will not be required to comply with 15A NCAC 2B .0124(a), which
restricts clearing to 20 acres at a time.
¦ Storm water runoff from the project should be designed to be directed to grassed swales, vegetated buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins or other site-appropriate means of receiving pre-treatment,
rather than routed directly into streams. Velocities shall be non-erosive through the Randleman Lake
Watershed buffers.
Avoidance and Minimization
1. It is the understanding of NCDWQ that R-2606B and R-2606C are in the preliminary design stage.
Therefore, wetland and stream impacts shall be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Stream Randleman Lake Watershed Bu ers and Wetland Mitigation
1. The General Major Variance from the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed may be used when it has
been demonstrated that all measures have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to the riparian buffer
areas.
2. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. The
mitigation plan, including on-site mitigation, should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values.
3. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be
required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
e

The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be
instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pc: Mike Penney, NCDOT PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Asheville Field Office
Robert Deaton, NCDOT-Office of Human Enviornment
Marshal Clawson, NCDOT-Hydraulics
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
File Copy
Re: R-2606A Randolph Co. Meeting Minutes
Subject: Re: R-2606A Randolph Co. Meeting Minutes
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:57:32 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
To: Eric Alsmeyer <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Marshall W. Clawson PE"' <[e-mail]. nc.us>
BCC: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
Eric and Marshall:
I discussed the natural channel design issue with John Dorney-- the
interchange site with two sections and a 300+1-long pipe in between the stream
segments. DWQ is not willing to give mitigation credit at this time for that
site as it would not restore biological function to the stream.
Cynthia
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, doctoral candidate <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1 of 1 6/24/03 2:37 PM
May 23, 2003
Subject: Draft Minutes Interagency Hydraulic Design 4C Permit Review Meeting on
May 22, 2003, for R2606A, Randolph County.
Team Members: Participants:
Eric Alsmeyer - USACE (Present) John Frye - NCDOT Structures
Cynthia Van Der Wiele - NCDWQ (Present) Mike Penney - NCDOT PDEA
Travis Wilson- NCWRC (Absent*) Rachelle Beauregard- NCDOT ONE
Gary Jordan - USFWS (Absent) Marshall Clawson - NCDOT Hydraulics
Chris Militscher - EPA (Absent) Anne Gamber - NCDOT Hydraulics
Brett Feulner - NCDOT ONE (Present)
Teresa Bruton - NCDOT Design Services (Absent**)
Due to the time change, Travis Wilson could not attend.
** Teresa Bruton was not informed of the revised time.
Marshall Clawson began the meeting at 3:00 pm.
1. Causeway for Muddy Creek: Eric Alsmeyer questioned if consideration was taken for installing
the bent in the northeast quadrant. He believes a causeway may be needed.
2. Culvert Geometry: The permit drawings showed the centerline of the culverts. This caused
confusion over the number of barrels. The centerline must be removed.
3. Natural Channel Design: Cynthia Van Der Wiele questioned if mitigation would be allocated
for this site. Eric Alsmeyer commented that the other agency representatives would be needed
to determine this issue.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30
C? WATF9
? r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 23, 2001
Mr. Michael Penney, Project Development Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
SUBJECT: US 311 Bypass and Randleman Rules, R-0609 and R-2606
Dear Mr. Penney:
The purpose of this letter is to provide your Agency with a written clarification of the various
issues that were discussed at the May 14, 2001 meeting. This meeting focused on the
proposed US 311 Bypass and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Rules.
The questions posed to us at the meeting have illustrated more complex legal issues than what
our staff is able to address. However, in order to get your questions definitively answered, it
would be helpful to have them written and directed to our Water Quality Section Chief, Ms.
Coleen Sullins. In the mean time, so that your project is not indefinitely stalled, we can give you
some guidance so that we might proceed with the staff review of your Agency's projects, R-
0609 and R-2606.
First, the question was raised about whether or not the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is eligible for vested rights consideration. In looking at our rules'
definition of "existing development" [15A NCAC 2B .0202(29)], it appears to us that a NCDOT
project could not rely on the "vested" determination to exempt the Agency from a buffer
requirement. However, "vested rights" decisions are not determined by our agency and you
should probably propose them to your attorneys or to the Attorney General's office. Therefore,
at this point, Division staff will proceed with the review of your projects with the position that they
are subject to the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules and the Randleman Lake Water
Supply Watershed Rules.
The second question that was raised asked about the applicability of local government Water
Supply Watershed Protection programs to NCDOT. According to N.C.G.S. 143-214.5(1): "Every
State agency shall act in a manner consistent with the policies and purposes of this section, and
shall comply with the minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements
adopted by the Commission and with all water supply watershed management and protection
ordinances adopted by local governments." We interpret this paragraph to mean that NCDOT
must comply with the local Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinances of the local
governments in which R-0609 and R-2606 are located. We suggest that you request copies of
these ordinances from the appropriate local governments and review your projects to ensure
compliance with these ordinances. It is our opinion that the local governments may review your
projects, but the "power to implement this section [the Water Supply Watershed Protection
statute] with respect to development or construction activities that are conducted by State
agencies is vested exclusively in the Commission (N.C.G.S 143-214.5(b). When you submit
your final packet to our staff for review, please outline how you will comply with the local
ordinances.
-11
NCUEhR
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Mr. Michael Penney
July 23, 2001
Page Two
Related to the issues above, the review packet your Agency submits to the Division should
include a number of items. In addition to the items required for the 401 application, you will also
need to submit: 1) an outline summarizing how there was no practical alternative to the current
location of the projects within the Randleman buffers; 2) an outline summarizing how the critical
area was avoided to the extent practicable; 3) an outline summarizing how the projects have
minimized built-upon area, diverted stormwater away from surface waters, and how your
Agency will follow the stipulations contained in your document, "Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters;" 4) site plans indicating the location of the Randleman buffers
associated with your projects including the area of impact in acres or square feet; 5) the same
site plans indicating the location of any buffers associated with adjacent development so that we
may review your projects within their context; and 6) site plans illustrating the different proposed
alternatives for meeting the stormwater control requirements for the Randleman Rules (see the
following paragraph).
A third issue that was discussed in the May meeting was stormwater management controls
within the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed. In the meeting, you proposed installing
stormwater ditches, which would control nitrogen and attenuate flow prior to conveying the
stormwater through the riparian buffer, but would not maintain the required diffuse flow. As you
know, the Randleman Rules require that sheet flow be maintained to the maximum extent
practical through Zones 1 and 2. The Rules also state that stormwater management facilities
and ponds are allowable in Zone 2 when no practical alternative is demonstrated, and as
outlined in 15A NCAC 213.0250 (2)(e). Regardless, these facilities are not allowable in Zone 1.
However, the Division of Water Quality does not wish to summarily dismiss alternative
stormwater control options that might result in better stormwater control standards than what
would result from the controls required by the Rules. It is currently unclear as to whether or not
a variance would be required by NCDOT to install the alternative control, but that might be a
viable option. In any case, please submit site plans that include the range of stormwater
alternatives so that we may review them. Clearly illustrate and label each alternative (i.e., one
where diffuse flow would be achieved, etc.). It should be noted that each stormwater control
option must demonstrate sheet flow to the extent practicable. In addition, please submit a
written explanation of why the preferred stormwater control method is better and why the
standard control will not work in this particular project area, in other words, what are the
hardships particular to this land requiring an exception to the Rules.
Finally, if NCDOT drains a pond that is protected with buffer zones, the bufferable areas apply
to the renaturalized area, whether it becomes a natural wetland or stream. If NCDOT chooses
not to wait for the area to naturalize or propose a natural stream restoration design, the previous
riparian buffers around the pond would apply.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Megan Owen at 919-
733-5083, ext. 572 or Jennifer Frye at 336-771-4600, ext. 275.
Sincerely,
Megan Owen
r

Cc: Mr. Boyd DeVane, DWQ Planning Branch
Ms. Jennifer Frye, DWQ WSRO
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Mr. Bob Zarzecki, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Mr. Lee Burnette, City of High Point
Mr. Martin Myers, City of Archdale
Mr. Greg Patton, City of Randleman
Mr. Hal Johnson, Randolph County
Mr. Warren Simmons, Guilford County
Ms. Andrea Spangler, PTRWA
DWQ central files/NCDOT/Water Supply Watershed files
Reader files

STAT[
?4I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 12, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: John Hennessy
NCDENR-DWQ n
FROM: Michael Penney, PE
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: US 311 Bypass High Point East Belt; TIP Project Numbers R-0609
IA & IB and R-2606 A, B & C
Median Issue - 70-foot vs. 46-foot
On September 30, 2004, a meeting was held between NCDOT Hydraulics staff and NCDENR-
DWQ (DWQ) staff to discuss issues related to R-2606 A "Muddy Creek buffers". During the
end of this meeting DWQ staff raised a concern over the need for 70 foot median width for the
R-2606 A project and the other segments (R-0609 IA & IB, R-2606 B & Q.
Based on discussions during a NCDOT staff meeting held on October 12, 2004, regarding this
issue the Department would like to offer the following rationale and reasoning for the 70-foot
median versus a 46-foot median on the above referenced projects:
v The environmental documents [(R-0609 FEIS dated July 12, 1988) and (R-2606 EA dated
March 31, 1997, and FONSI dated February 26, 1999)] denote a 70-foot median in the typical
section proposed for each project;
Y The preceding segments of R-0609 (D, EA, EB, FA, and FB) have all been constructed with
a 70-foot median. R-0609 IA and IB are the final two segments of this project;
C The three segments of R-2606 (A, B and C) tie the R-0609 project to US 220 both of which
have 70-foot medians. Continuity of typical section a point which DWQ has concurred with
on other projects;
• Both R-0609 and R-2606 are part of the I-74 corridor in North Carolina. Other projects along
this corridor have been approved with a 70-foot median;
• Both projects are within the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed;
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
R-0609 IA & IB and R-2606 A, B & C
Median Memorandum, Page 2
November 9, 2004
• Should additional capacity be needed in the future NCDOT could add one lane in each
direction and preserve a 46-foot grass median. Which would continue to meet the surface
water runoff treatment requirements of Randleman;
• Two of the projects segments (R-0609 IA & IB) were reviewed during a 4A Meeting with the
Merger Team on November 8, 2000 and December 14, 2000. At no point during these
meetings did any member of the Merger Team voice a concern over or objection to the
median width of 70-foot;
• Three of the projects segments (R-0609 IA & IB and R-2606 A) have been reviewed by
members of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and DWQ during 413 and 4C
meetings. At no point during these meetings did any member of the USACE or DWQ voice
a concern over or objection to the median width of 70-foot;
• All five segments of the referenced project were field delineated regarding streams (subject or
not to buffer requirements and beginning point for buffering) during the summer of 2001
with NCDOT and DWQ (Raleigh and Division) staffs. At no point during these meetings did
any member of DWQ voice a concern over or objection to the median width of 70-foot, and;
• Three of the projects segments (R-0609 IA & IB and R-2606 A) are currently in Right-of-
Way acquisition based on a typical section with a 70-foot median. Redesign of the three of
the projects segments currently in Right-of-Way would cause a minimal delay of the
Construction Let by two years.
Based on these points noted above the Department respectfully request DWQ staff to reconsider
their concern of the 70-foot median for these projects.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 733-7844
extension 260.
cc Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Beth Barns, NCDENR - DWQ
Art McMillan, PE, NCDOT - Highway Design Branch
Jay Bennett, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Scott Blevins, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
David Chang, PE, NCDOT - Hydraulics Design Unit
Roy Shelton, NCDOT - PDEA
Jimmy Goodnight, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Phillip Todd, NCDOT - PDEA - Office of Natural Environment
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT - PDEA - Office of Natural Environment
Brett Feulner, NCDOT - PDEA - Office of Natural Environment
3
d t S-AJI
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P4 Y V?
10
20,
6
4NOST
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION B'N'CH
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 4, 2006
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Attention: Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Response to Request for Indirect and Cumulative Analysis for the High Point
Bypass, US 311 from south of US 29/70 to US 220, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project Nos. 8.1570601 and 8.1571501, Federal Aid Nos. MAF-F-
119-1(1) and MAF-F-119-1(1), TIP R-0609 IA, IB and R-2606A, B and C:
Divisions 7 and 8, Work Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480. 1.1
Reference: DWQ # 06-0331 On Hold Letter, dated April 24, 2006
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, dated March 28, 2005,
submitted with the Section 401 permit application.
Dear Mr. Klimek:
This letter addresses the first point of concern (first bullet point) in the April 24, 2006 letter from
DWQ to Greg Thorpe, which requests a quantitative assessment of indirect and cumulative
impacts related to proposed TIP R-0609 IA, IB & R-2606. Please refer to Figure 6 in the above-
mentioned Assessment for the following discussion. In addition, we are working to address the
other concerns listed in that letter, which will be answered separately.
Indirect & Cumulative Effects:
As much of the lands within the vicinity of the proposed project are subject to the rules and
regulations associated with the NCDENR-DWQ Water Supply Watershed program, a
quantitative analysis of the project's effect upon water quality is not necessary for any of the
lands covered by the these rules. Specifically, as these rules include a variety of mechanisms for
guiding development and protecting water quality within the watersheds they cover, (density
limits, impervious surface limits, riparian buffers, limits on certain activities) the proposed
project is unable to spur/spawn development in excess of what is already permissible by these
LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 201
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
f
It
rules. Therefore, any further analysis would reveal no additional information on the effects from
the proposed project upon the landscape.
There are two areas, subbasins, in the vicinity of the proposed project that are not covered by the
Water Supply Watershed program. One area is located to the west of the city of Asheboro and
south of the proposed project. This subbasin (YAD9) lies in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
A quantitative assessment of this area is not required as it is not located near, nor are there any
waters listed, on the 303(d) list, within this subbasin. Furthermore, this subbasin area already
has access to an existing facility in U.S. 311, which parallels the proposed project. The
proposed facility will offer access only through two interchanges (which are space approximately
five miles apart) as the proposed project is a fully controlled access facility. Therefore, the
proposed project is unlikely to spur/spawn extensive amounts of new development in this area,
beyond that which is occurring already in the vicinity of the project.
The second area which is in some proximity to the proposed project, but not covered by Water
Supply Watershed rules, is to the east of the project and east of the town of Asheboro. This is
subbasin CPF9. While this second basin is in some proximity to a 303(d) listed stream (Haskett
Creek), it is located in a different river basin (Cape Fear) than the first subbasin. We feel that a
quantitative assessment of indirect and cumulative effects for this basin is also unnecessary
because it is fairly well developed already, with existing areas of Asheboro surrounding much of
the section of Haskett Creek, which is listed as being impaired for unknown biological causes.
Furthermore, as the proposed project's connection to the existing US 220/I-73 is a freeway to
freeway interchange, providing no direct access from any other roads, there is no opportunity for
new access or development surrounding this interchange. In order for a traveler to access the
proposed project, they would have to get on the existing US 220/I-73 via an existing interchange,
either to the north or the south of the proposed project and transfer to the new road. To do so
from subbasin CPF9 and areas to the east of the project and east of Asheboro in the Cape Fear
Basin, travelers would have to wend their way through existing Asheboro to get to the proposed
project. In other words, the time barriers to get to the proposed project from the east will likely
minimize the prospect of meaningful amounts of new development, beyond that which is already
occurring.
In summary:
? Water Supply Watershed rules protect much of the area surrounding the project.
? One subbasin (YAD9) to the south and west of the proposed project does not have or drain to
any 303(d) listed waters.
? Another subbasin (CPF9) to the south and east of the proposed project, while in some
proximity to Haskett Creek a 303(d) stream listed for unknown biological causes, is fairly
well developed already and offers little direct access to the proposed facility and presents
travel time barriers in crossing through the City of Asheboro.
Therefore, NCDOT submits that the qualitative analysis of indirect and cumulative effects
already completed sufficiently describes the likely effects from the proposed project, and that a
quantitative analysis will not reveal any information which is meaningfully different.
- I -
1
Thank you for you assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need any additional
information about this project, please contact Bob Deaton at 715 1588 or Brett Feulner at 715-
1488.
Sincerely,
, Director
.
?.- Gregg TPm
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GT/ell
Cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sue Homewood, NCDWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. J.M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mike Penny, P.E., Planning Engineer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, Programming and TIP
Mr. Mike Penney, PDEA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
-3-
WETLANDS/401
GRoup
"AR d 2 2003
is T -r I T 1. t:rt._ WAT _
T :{r in '.i^; at. r.r:rta7/01/99
[PROJEC.rd'"o 8915 715®1 R-2606A
U N
O O O
D N 0 N Ul
? T
O o m o o
M 2' -o
_R 0 Z
N
AA O O O O n
r D of
D
14 r ?
y, N N
? N O
CO a
Lyl 10 0% o V
V
S
r ?
?' \ r r
8 ° z z
7 tv - x x
O ?
C??]] r
•. O 0 ? DO
CCyCC ?>I ~
C x -+ a
p
O S n m
? -+ L a
r m '+
A b
w
S °:0' A m
M ° n
V L -1
m
"Z y
o
ea ? -
5 N
N O N
°: z W o co
to
z m m V)
> 9 N N
>
in
A
m Ul A D m
D O C O
x?m -«- z
CD
o a
v a'
_ y I
? O
N N 0 ' 1
?O m 'p
0 r"
z D
z r
o
o m
X D n
2
?n o
oa
"G y
b ?
a
O
OL4
o?
k k 'b ? ? R7
to.
I ? ?O
x

r
f°
r
In 4
\ Y
r
G
61 El El
OO i d Nb
?
0$otb
:fix y c acCjn?0
I ata In -4 I:s
r4l
y P^it
+ o `n •• O
e'R + N
S o ?, It
R? f i
C ?^ ^y yOy
ENO b ?. ?? ?a
b .
C) ?A
m
om
7, zo
z 6 /+\
pa ^ ?.
to P=1 Nti (?
M Fa. K y `
z ;? $ z
Y ?
s
y b ?'QO ?. ^? + y
`?p o CO)
r H
3Z 9?z "Z7-
O
04? \?, ' % J DDI'?C?p T?
_ 4px ?c
2
Q C', t. V f? u' r?
1O a G?
ry N
y y ° ?
0 b? b N? N ??
/ ny Ogbo
O? t?gR7o
zw ?o0o '
yc ' W
ti
x
m
USER, RRaa DATE. 81?612X2
(tiN? it AltnA`GADITR.17nK P.fSH TIME, K26+25
Z
r rn p ^?
o ,? rn=z °° O
Q, ff o g m `?
I?vziN `hoo?';no?? 'y
o c °o pc?r,.1rn rnrn
izz
r N r rn z
::o Z) Z= rTi
c?a`n,I??o?,rnMm2R'I''
Ivwoz•-?• o-I?
No?z pOp ??-•?.
N rn? z 2 tH p IV p p to 0 ? aw??o
Igo rno?z°_?z 'rnrn
:lD
° ?_ cn to = i` 3 3
A m ?ry it.L4
N ~ n mv
II II N N = ?
t4
"'aN
??3CQ4
o to
33 ?,
Ln
-U- CSSta.88+57616 tuFTRICI
u n N ucn ?O
?Qo ?W
.ta NW
1i A
t=
to N
bg??Q?N
uA§q$
O
Otn? 2Ny?
0
oQm ?$°m
n m 3 y, ti `?
o 05A
vx nvro ? r m C ? 9* ? _ ??
m cp mx N? O?
n_mpti ti? t•`
AhN21N
`m'm m=a x zc ?? dVC
cl,
S _
ZJ.6r O
? A
m? t' m? I? Ng 23.68 ? ackvi
Ra O ?y mmg g n w o
???`Ns 1I ap~ I .. k -_ -
?/, ?\\ a I a ?;
ZAP
?Cno
e / ? O 3
I
O I ~i , I r.r N ? T, ° = I I 0 O$ C' gym, o r N
y 135/ 35 O ?y I p 4 .. S y i
MATCHLINE Y r
STA. 14+00 ?
-L- SEE SHEET 5 `~- ' y z A^ A
0

w''WC'ApN+?'5tGASO5P5M TIYf? l42%ti5m
t:W55B`Cdpp.R26LGASOSnrf
MA TCHUNE STA 00
< ? I - T E SHEET
hf M? I
o
i//.I I t?g,_ w .i S I
r ?
?' w?.y ? ? ? I I n
V °
r
rn2o ,
om
4

r co
O 3 35' i $ $
I € I
;2 I N a
m I a + ° I
I
I N A
o> O •1 ` N I
O I
?g o
I At
n I I
I rr)
25
nN
20
i
N
1 O
` r I
mm 1 I
I oa I
wNV.v? 1
.oNmNV ?
K?N'?A I Q? I
r1pZ I ? I
I I
?$ Nx K$$ `\ N ? 4 a ? va 10
\ s 30 w I va
0 o I?
aN ?9 c
N
10
/ i _ rp
m ?il
N I? rJ ? A A ?? 3 l
O r'm ?O M v '?- tltltl uI \
A 1' :Z? ,.,,'/fir. ytd W 7 1 mCO 1??r?.?tir `'?a. 5VWIWE
? ' 50.57'
/ m
127 sti 4rVE
?O .? e
Sl 4'23 '40'E w V
CO 0
25
h 'E N a?'
l 'r 1
I yI I' ? U N
?.?4, e,`fEt'R
i r? I? ? ? I r (yb+1??
I !r F C a I g -~ IT O
I? o
JJJI y. f n
I ' u m
I ? ? ?? I ? \ aoamv?v ry'1
1 5 ° <2 N'9D ? O?
1
t 1 ; ` NNmm ? U
.A r n to I J: •]:', N P N g ?i /b G? K
40 P o N
Vt 0 I
r A N V
/ ro ~ r1 z (1
m I ,5t \$ '3 ° = o r Cs7 3 Z? z
rl) 0o I \ $$ S n 'e: , z o
/ T I \? EEC
v _ SEE SN D q ?2j ?' S7
Qiy` N ?? r?r Z
;? TV
T N. 28 FO0 r" Q u u py xz me
N 8 Z
?H?1NE S
MA
x: 4r r
?NFr
IIYEr 74
MATCH,INE STA. 28+00 -L-
. ? 'J?,? ? ?11 $Ig SEE SHEET 5
I $g
Z
35' I
Z?Z
nx ..
+ O
NCh 35,

N
O
uS , tN

^
An

?o L
'
° +
.e tp

N I
3
N$ / co

m
S
Z
v
w
WIRE BOW e n e I $ II II 11 11 If If f/1
24
30 \`'tC fV?yV
t r m ? 5 / y
}? ! l ? pmmA I a - ,-1
11 44444(4
`Q'F
\ I I c? PDE
If lit
$ $ $ UI A o
$ : i I 0 $ bL,fibR?Ln
frooW Cl)
r n 1.1 1710 W
0 I i F. ° v,gb?tvpw??
PpZ2
I t1i
&i F-Z
iN D-'cr I m Z,
Rl O`
0n 1 ' - I I v
x++ '- II ry ;
mr?p ?~ I A ??O
a ? ? dh vl I °mz ?? g?
? I -,p7 C?)
om m :. ./ I mx i ?17i? I wm MR
_ pN ? A I O -( IT7
29.
C) Z 2 ? I/ / T Tr 12
o 00 .r; / a I o s rn
` o y
S 89'28-14.2- E A
u 350 s' s M \ INCR r, ,, _
za
. ___ --, -.-_\ INCH[ h °hl .v b ° '._ N ___'g•:' C
R MOV .l rI
as0 e") 1 I !
j \ a g
-i rr /9
r•.yv v` I sci !? 1 - ? X5/•4 ! /?
?C S.
O
ZI
x ? 1 .?? ( n??q? ,/+ pl/I y,Va + ? $ m" ?mm ? {,, ? ? I
! ? I J timtnn ?? l:? ?]Jm a'0" I <O 1 < O m? .Iiik \ ?i-
? 7 ? ' zo,ox l ? +Onm`n? ? 1 me c. ?n:r - I d_ S\. ? ,,,f"?,
,r ? " -'r :r' /.y/('?? N'40 p I +78 ? 0 ? ? 1 o a? a ? orcc? : ?" ?I ? ? t5 3? 2
? NO.r I m ?m m o„?Pg sag ?'
== E g!
N A:? ".fS ?m:o I 1 m?F F.
y 1
.I '? ! {'. " .( r I , 1 n ti py. 111 ??
tpirmOn I V! (? N 1 m? O ?- I ..:,`^ - •\
??// I"O, I J \ L\
15• 15D 1 Z OO I
I1=i1o-O
d' • 1 :O 1
41ry ? J O? I ~ 1 `n= ? ??O ? 1 ?I
.Zml !/ Oi %1r I W ? t) r ? ? O !l. I I
t
o {3 ?,
P,?
tl I
rL -0 co
0 40
(wA
iI ? !Y Irli j ° iD
c? {{,, X55.29' -% ?
N 1 n?
00
MOREOUITY,INC O. _
98 PG 1330
.? OB 15
0 39 PG 72
a
p 1 ?D I
n ?,? vI i`•? cn O
/Q Q I Y`? '.? ?+ 1
i1 m
2 ?t ^?, Q ?O? JO¢ ON1 2
rrl
m
ova Z n
N ` I4 V1? Cr3 a
V) ITt 117 " r- - CI7
o
SEE m nor ??
ST A, 42-00
o
° a MATCHUNE SHEET
A,."5"MCNwA,•NX 501PSN 7?YE H,754J '
MN1556Cd(pJ+I6LKaS0)p/
MA T =?mmE v a ;
E ,n mmNm n
HL
m s? 0m
ST A. A• 42+00
EE SH
85? 02
J N W a 0 l1 < 1 (? A m a
r om
tin
35' to x
, ?v[n I g 3s' _,1•,{n- mN`? ? yam' ? f,. ?? g g?c3 =_
ms
c?7 N I W ": ,. J _ N? k^ NJ r ' v?ot'
I ?,i <+ mOo ?S r, A ?? Ong
N co
C' sag
mS (00 izo
?N W
°.,o°i ? G1 ???<jC oyo O(C'?j
c N / ?N <r?tAiC
t n = TAy?? Y ?Z wm p p II 'i II 4 V1
N
't,. }?J > ? I f x L. NO_?J gag
Gl1V?N `?
4 1. / DACi c•' N °, $ /' ???\ ?? C ?? ?Nm{PV °• b?•A IN Ln
.?? tic •?? ???? ?,? ?? rm??°?rmzy rz
? ri? ? ??o - u?ii •C / ?? f? ?? C? ??n
r
4 g ?? ?. oo ,4 pa $ a rrl oDv
S? fA,b =u?nrnviv.. / xmv ' mn ' qy 'N $ ?+?'?Qa
q?FFfq K mmom ^? _ To " pm t`. $ ?? vON
nm=A'r 45
AmO r? _/..., -1 t / OmngW 3 '40 f 1
r /
rn my
? I
v,?-IrODv
:tgu 9%2I ,? t? II II 11 q II N
m G!1 II NO
C') LA Ln ZA Cm
?S'qe\ $ $ / N $ $. - o y X11 w
r QUFFfq ? ?? n _b? \ my, 7 _ ?; a . ?3?L5 ?
T a a mm `C ?0 W ? W
ina "I + om
Nejsq?)• ,r.,< I ')?O ^ y ."`1 ... Rmmp Il 'f IN
Fy 1w o ? i NA_?o... ? /S II II 11 C
r _
.22 , v'mm Ar (7? _
M CD P2
I[<
01
\ 8O )C?J•38 '?'y 1 ` g Ap j VI u?'AA ??
S8J TOE/P. 5??O ? N W-: I 'OOCO ?
aP 'T'm wI? mmxm n ? Ir?co
(9 / $ $ vrn?L ?S Im -0Ji /,?^ $ G' in O4 tN !`...6ig b`• ...? 77 z•F p
RR mmarzs W I+ z Z, o °h A - i 1 -?s.oo N
",p0? AyA2 $ N
4
' ' N
y`JTay? ? LN?p Id a rn a r r^ Y ?n ?'.---? bJ
'O o -1 ?p +
1? CD
? %R?-1 WNfINNtI.- • N a !l'' Z J0.!gB.
NnN O? NaOrmm?? ? Illr C° / t` ? N N 'V n J6
vim a°y ?zvimmNn .i.._
OVA Plat Tl'/!1?'INa ' ,.. y 4+• t -
rn-1 A? TDaxNZm
?m Imo v?iZ pmA ( 2 l,l a ??? _??. 6d.9q•
N?? ADO -Mp Fm f rn71 a $ 1OI ,_ i I Om y N80'g1gyE /
_ n mr,n o '1. V1 In I -- ?.C
USO NJ;m m n I '? :1 I O -707 KA
mr4 `=yo A _ ? J I? ? I ? CrnN O Z ?o
`, a ?mci '?' ?z I 8571 I 1 1 * rn z
mrzlr^ T x I so M1 P2 R ry ? C.1 cyN
I
n? ?? ?c r v 0 ,ll I O ti ?rn 50 A? t
A /
:wg
m 20
.rA
\ ~O N
0' g
j nH
(CL
' - 6'r0E io °c3
?'8z2r01.E
o?
917.00'1074 /
I
•? NS /?/ ??? Cl
yWO / POS.P6•
00
I J
+ a nv?r?v+ I / Gn0
` ?.. I?-0 co
omim / / mm
?1 O? u ro m•' ?t n?y3 p ?G 1
i 1A •m gym'- a ?`T rn ytn
+ x v q A
r y re Nmm?O y t`
^? W $ I to MpN- 2j?? rn Gn
VOM
%.?v?_irn iOrTS?•• I / p It3 mr?n Imm I
.q rnv1
ao'o m°r°no g N
?
V) vg
Gn rill
m In n, m I e °
I p
? m m I I ?? r
Pin
?T ior4E coa \ ' a ??m°a \ -{ / \ id
Cr ?^ o r N
ry S g28rW 78919. 10 RR SPIM I '`l awp= I / u N \ m O ,? < R w xyr z QOOI
00 RZ -0
Gm`s` E` SF `? / I A 2 S .nom
Tor \ ? ?' CA
I O n b
'U x
9 S !, / m c?e r is
SHEET a e°
LINE STA. 56+00 -L- S
MATHC EE
u
GMr? ini?555'[MrnnwrwfCnoen 7Tltl H 5-
RFr Rr\4558'CIlYM2606oY.19.M
MATHCLINE STA. 56+pp -?- SEE SHEET 7
r.,
rn
? r
G IF

r
?
iq(
A
C
S 9
9'7Ty R.1
9Q11p Ner(r
ti' ??
^\
\?? ` I pl

a ? ? ? u F -Z ..?M ?\ ? \Fr.• I
f tr t \ I.?
N \
/'? r
` ?

N v
APB
N
w ;-I
,

t qti• ? ?
o
5? m
-1 W
?
N
o
_ ` n o
-v
o
m
? mo
0 3
?OrNy
/ ?vW
t?r
b
a
0
N +
wl
! W
zr
1 ?
r ?
? t7N
f
2
222
2222
C I N r
C?? I
1
m?mm
2"1mrn
? Nco
-4 W L
0
0
v
l/r
o+

mN-I
mo
`?mmm
I KmmA
NR,yO
yr m
I -N-Oi
J
6
N
m
T /?

OJ n e ^

c I

n
:o

\ I
I

SE
?S I
I

F I

I
$ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
-?- SEE SHEET 9
ST A• ?0+00
M pT CHLINE
a 25
ti h?h
N? 6
OfN'rA
Kn mm I
Z
? NNO nil m ?
? ,.?' NNO ? O p? Ql
d?? S Nm? `? mRw
A
aB„? mym ?a o \D !n
i
5S 2mm =m?? / ? ?ra°
~ m ?m° °ma w 2
„N=o fN°o m - emu.,` $ 'a II 4 4411 4 V1
v
tf^ amp' 7? _.?,? V,6 0
$
w , ? N
,? $ O N I 4 INN ° I
OPtnmr = }l?•J?(7 V1 V1 11? .yp, 1
°0°\nA aQmj ?C N1W?^``O?
ym ? Ill t°mmn ? I ?•ytp
H / ° y N?•yN m r
a / i +r av yr N
W
m
0%
Qo
O z
O /
N?
m

/0? ? 4 11 II II II V1
N*
/ 30 g
oPmma
mm
m ???
A
m
ONA
/ ? f1NNN N-ymr
? ?

r 1
Nym
O At•
?
<
NvOn OPNNr mr
?
r m mm?
;N Ill
i
O
y
? 3?oi NipOn Nnrmrr N? II ,,II II II 4 v
6
$ No r Nr?? m ?a V??°
Q C mO pv?n
m Z
0x
A. .?; IN IN*
_
y,
Z
NO b
Of N
Z

?l l?1

0
A

? / Y
7
65

1

1
N 1
5 a? ?

a?
ur
sue'
se a os,
S6F
;? mo
R?
m 70
N
n
m
35' \ 35'
C3

NT
A
Cl Z
V N
30'.t ASS \
I `
I
I
I
I
I
T?-
FF?,4M. - - ...1
iic c
V3'l
t'

o •
'
IS
W ;

a~ c(TO,
I
0 J 1 1
JJ .
, ? Qml

N: \,
v (n rorot
O 6
y
1 C

mm I
R N r?j O m,<3,/ ?
t

i
i
i
i
i
R
m
om

:,m
m
m
N?
0
aH,
PRFI
7-
Yi T4&177
RNmO
c? c? S
m
tiNPr /
3
MATCHLINE STA. 70+
00 -L- SEE SHEET 8
I 1
Y
moo-
'?
m
? Z W Zmm
a K0mmp
n Amo
J H
f ? 1 mNr"'m
N?Ny
D!1 :'+ W OZ
[
JO ff
J N

'
1
0
mz
om
y
Z N
rnrn
rni N
N?
O

j I
I
/ I
f 1,14
? m V+Nr
momma
ommm
I ?m=n n
In?mr I
y?y< 1
oi^ 21
f o
NAO=1
i ?Zm ? I
A m
a a+
l0 ~
NI W I
00
O I
I
I
I I
a, 4 ? q
1/ i
iI
/%/? I ammo
mmm
/: ?olnv
r?'•i, Insm?
// 11N ?; Nti
oZ
a
IIt 8?
\??,`' X11
\?? t:. 1 II vin+m i?
I I m
i ?? 41 II mn??
E: r DON a
^?.. IfI z?vw
I^} \???. NO rNi
\W\;w x

H
w
W
N

a
N
O
0
m
0
m
r_. /
/i rn
ile"
1
^ ? I
? I
I
I
I
I
x$70 \ y f?
yr .' / /`• ?
S
40
:0 -1-0
cn?til-pD? \

o?ll'
A *A
V b 1 A
o O
T1 2 ca
y Ln ti
O y m NNA
A (/) Noommy
* O ioov+n
75
}]? p +INam
V ? rryy
NZNm
N Ow
m n
m
H
N II it If R N (n i
bL,fibQ?a'!u,
??g4ji,A 0
Y
Tf t°'
u u,,!r u
Q
u,
I c3A
A rn???oDv
V1 if If If II Y
I If
tJ N N D 1 N
C-) L4
Zi
Wr-aj `?? pp? A
p \\ A A
N B,0'e \\ n 1 ?>
U? m
*p?g8? 45
1"ly / n Vf` \
m0-0 1
?mm?1
InmO?_
N?On I
1 nma°? , f
ri awo=
N r
r 111 I
r
3
J1?
II;
?t°? ,r r l 7
,,
n
m

C)
4 N 4 If t11 In
??Ln
-I?pD-
11111111II"1
N
N•4?
'q
:1D -i-oD-
II II 11 11 q?.
8Z!
n
"? I 1
KN r I
m I
?? N N r

a

b
? V
-V ca
mT
o
m=

C.
m
.ml
?
W N '1 lnN
m yN OI<_
W O
<Z

- /0 I N y
1rv,
11 Zl 1T ? TNmmm? /?/ II' J
1 1 1
p O to r NN_ O J.! ?? 1
Wi ? / •.S N ?0
,y? ?'^
p

1 1 -n
Ca -n
.,•}/ //? r
I
d?/
a
Fnw

O
?-D n rr $$ N
/ .,
S N

rn
50 STREAM BUFFIR V
S? "
// T
.•oti?° I
?Itn
ln .
r
I a
mmilrnm? °
o
--- _ s
m rn ?

? N am ? ?
y m \
t
c c?'O °m mg° 5 STREAM 0U ER At - i
r SEE SHEET
- 10
MATCHUNE ST A. 84+00 -?

60

v+o x

$

g
-11
, 11

m<N
ono
°

m

O
? t A
?yln BY
?''
?
` .1s0 $ $-
h ? y
?
NpN /? NCO .-. •
? 0
rN.? ?
... .
N p
0? N O
n .
C
f m
~ m?
u J.
. O
f
/ amp;
O
nP-+rm

50 5
rv`??mm? Ca
N-?Omm
1/IZNOI/i?
Naa ?
NZ`?GZ
m
w
n
Np?O H J9
c,
G]gj ?, la
r
z
i
I?
6G"*' ?i 55SCaOPP]5c%asNJCVn TiYE. iirJdOw•
PHFe fr4i55B•GIATP<ti(CV.WM
\ 50 TRS EAM BUFFER
m
o ?o
AI K
Y
: Cr"y" `?
L/4

rf??
r m ' \
O

b
? r
y4
?? A
?
e A
A
m? A

?I I/1 Ln

?
V s o F
- ,n
r
? I
Z i:z
m i
l
N? b '
z
o m /

C
b
'
rri
z
rri
,
J
?
J
{ NS A
mN o
<

.%• a
mV??
?vCOi?m
NNn
? I
mrr
l
? N I
NpaO O I
?'
n N Z
-i I
mZ0 m
48 i I
yr? I

?, I
r, ZAm ? I
,.. a
lA I
ny
?
` zN \ I
map
pa I
z,
-? I

p$ ?y I
n-woo ?(r
s
a
o
KzmNS?

uo
O ,o
-o \
o
"
o,_or
c?P
WA r
N,.,r V'?yA
or mZ5 -m
II

I

$ f

o

r? I
a
k
A

9i
+•
1 ?
n
I
y
`a

m
?
©
1 v1 1`
Cf A I
1 ee
MATCHLINE STA. 84+00 -L- SEE SHEET 9
/ e l of ^?? ??0 8 8 I
I , N I
I t
? I
1
? O? I a
KN I ?I
A
T? I m
` s
N ?•
1 ?
4F,R? I
n
'ra
J I
P? I
r,_ I
ro
r l
I
I
CN_I
n 1 fn 1 ? I
O m I
tn?
` A
1 A
I •-1
I r
r/
?Illll
r I
v N
A
? % lJl
1 .
Iq
I/
ul
I
lu I
I
I
I
ul
WI I
u I;
III "..
I
II
II ?

I I I
II I
I
1': ? II
I

I

II
PIN.ON
11m0?
Omani
InAOa
tnO ? r II I

II
A
O
o I I
m?
H O

? II
r r1

<<v.,? .gall\?c

r t..
I
nbb
mmrn
m?Z a
?Zrn?

.SF ,St m 'D
a `
f I
C2 ~ N ?c I
{z
I ??. S'?, }
m l ' N y ?r Ir .I'i?
,.y? ,6 ???_f???•??? ?°??? ivy ? ?r?--i f
MATCHLINE STA. 98+00 -L- SEE SHEET 11
4\M,
1z. *,.
Gd f
tD A 85 \
K
N?O \
n
4A
r
lg ? •r
55
cn? nib y ,
n 11 II III '/ ??,•
W lllm ,,,?
NymNa i „?: WW \'?
ay r
Nf and ??
\nNNr? ? `?
20ZN
m j
NT pa ?yf ?? " '•.?
m ? `) p II VIII II (? ,
L. LA
mbyrODb b ,r? ? >
? unllull?n ???
ta??'?lya? /
90
1
\.\\V c: 5 1111
r
N
N
r /
p \ / 9.
? O
i
w m
ZSlgj? ; ?CA
F;
• a?
a
0
165 ?N 8zb

oyw'[3s
o?mm

+

e a ?z ?
!-; ? ?I
i Y \

\ ? l
't

?'a ark.

MATCNLINE STA. 98+00 -L- SEE SHEET 10

X 9'\ t
i x
i'
. r
:I
e- , r
?
T
yr I J ?
I ?/n ao
?;B I o
I
? / I I? .? A A F\ / OL
\ s A yR
j )
11 \
A x„g I ? \ ? . \ n\\ I a3? :y
r11 SA sj A --
n ?'? x I /? as ?A acv -??? ?J
Y3 ??.y ??1 S9 \ 'v "-A;3 X11` j t? \.\' \.r ?, v
.F F 2 j, I ?? S
v- i -? I n j y
41
l; I r

it
e J L-? 1 "« ° /\r s
• i
i ^ l
I _ `1 1 0y-? ? F?i.-.-,'rte ? ) h 1 V ? ?1 I ? E? \? ? ? ^. ??
r- fyf/sc / a I N ,1X', 1 f
?uu be SJ/?. \ I\ I pr"' / ah l ,, .4 F
J_-
S`n r°? S J T I !
ti;
aa..
a C t•. 1 \ iy ???
g y+ ? ? _ ?
C Q ? '•e '?l ? I ----Ni ,r a aF?kF a .1'
r FFSt \ / ? x a
a t ? ? n ?"7 \ a ? % / ? \.
o /
Ell,
68 \ \ ?d 1 \ Av 4 /
a 1 /
/ aa?aZQ /11 ? i /s; YZ?
''<a 346 ./ ' 43 1 Sc'"R fa Aa
7 4i- 68 be ?I ?/ 1^3 B
/ li 6a a I v U 5 Y
I
s _
z ? kB fi ' 1 _ afi ? ? a'
+ ^I A ? ? \ i-?i
p ,t 1 lei a as Q \
? w-
/ apnl ?'"n£TMA? •? ii??y4 I !' I .a,,. ?` At a 3 c§3
MATCNLINE STA. 126+00 -L- SEE SHEET 12 i :U a
V5 R, PPo DATE, d/iG/2.712
0;x, AA+559Y'ADON%MKw?zlnn 71YE, 14,3.102
MATCHLINE STA. 126+00 -L- SEE SHEET II I
o y \. I yap s°a°w°mi
PSCym \\
P
I
r3
i

«in ad.
aPE? / r F
I
r l;
1
i( ( 35' J5'
F
I
3

`\
On
?n 7

? 9 .

LK

9
z ?°
m D.
y po
b0
°n
° \
Oy m m P
mil ? -tr

° w
i? ?
+y
\
s Zn
n

co
p +
V1N

N,
O
O
O
iD
m
j
I
I
0
I O to
mp
xp
0o
I "
"m
10
I n
? ms
i
i
I
I
Ic')
I
I?
I
Om
I ~
Kpl
I o,
'*N
?o
rm '
mx '
D?
u I
N?
O c
-§n
i :qw
zr
1 n
N
V W
T-O
4 N
D +
D ?
D•
v?
?I
n
v
?
p n u u ? ?
IQRiu n
g
?,
y

Q L4

iz,

u u u n l ?.
I30
b?j?A '
?
W

8

I
v, m / I
yN. ?' / I

\ ? O
? ? 0
I
m
rn

r
1
n

P m
4u.
I
I
I
I
I
N
O
Z
135
/0
c? o a
b M V*D +'.ao.
$$r
-1
J' `T/O, y y y
q ? Sro ? iyx? ?
` s
\
o b

l1Ni 8
zn ro
$? of
Zi

, S =
';y
', ? Z
o n
D??
aro o

rn
.a
?
o
o' a VJ I,I

0
Z
0
O

• Q\?y
l
"J r
? G
1
to
to
37m y 2 N
o °g w
z ,?n
? ?o ry
(m??
m P V
l:4'56CM
?RF. A:\1.558`CAO
nT [L N.7:a7-
I/ I

vo=ti
OmN.>
'OV`W
=mopp•
N7nrm0
Z.Z,
mmr
mpro
n
n=ZT+r
"m o
?e
?C
ro mz4
I °m
Q)
Z
mm
m
m Ob
rrl
z
N
S
ym
N
' m
\ \ N r

OZ2

? Ig ' k
? AIN
r
x
?
, 8 8
n
8 rn w
1
,n
iZ~
N
m 3US. e 204.33' _
A 51739'03'w
l
?
R
T

' I
1 KE
A4
R.HAYES
Q9 377 PG 343
n PS DG 7T
7
MATCHLINE STA. 20+00 -Y2 - SEE SHEET 14
r
? QA
A
9A
N y
o?
??tn
to
G1?n
Gy1 a?,[[
OtJ
N

ro, / rryyl???ii
Lnn / a$
I I

??
81i, I
N
U?
'L
C" 09
9? aye
N)6'>> ?0.i9R-E1
NS6'}
m
I
8>
? A
s

cn??I-ODD
m q M G 4 U LA
pnil
1?NUl-1
A ylN?70?*p ?t
a4 ?4 ?i$
y
llYEi NJLO?m
\

\ K
N W W N
KKO1
\ ?
N atwp
\ l
+ zo -4
-
c
F

J
D o (
"All A/. O ICY o-?_?

--

w

---- a:
2
+ 1386_70 MILEPOST 10
389,9 JO M
_
'

MOST 9

-
BETA cc
A
_
?- __
---?__., _
•
` _
.- . - - - '
€
..P ?_-
--- - - -- -- -,

4s m . Ewll cREMOVE
__ _ Mov
c _ I
rn _ ?c,v Y
s ? -c
s ?? \ ?A? s z'' my I $ N11?6p{
p N
0 4;3
-,'O?-+ V V 1
''ppn Ma ip b?eY Dflm ?G'lV ? C t?Olr I_
yy C a 4 mN T. PJ Nm y U? 1?.QoZ21 O
?.?[qqlm mMy'm i !=.t l.lO ?Y ~m?n Am?v om
~pY? Z y O mpr A ZPax Nmp?pn ?m
,7,70 N > M N N? I D 3JX ?.
H4 nzm xOa i In oT r ??^ o ?.
xm
c9i7M
284.12' F K r Om? 'o
7a ?.Y 284.121 . 9-0 0
2.38'01'W EIP 103.40' , N
N4
hat. T. 0'. ^ N n '
F RJ ° p - AXLE ?E= ??4XLF
1 ? N<2b6'- 5•i EIP .i`/?
N h
N D `' / A?NV
^1 "'? e. . 1l m a Om pm
i C m ;_ A .0 ?? N OPl
cH
C ~ Vy? i.? N
b m it cl?? A N y
PI ?9. l N
-85.00'
? 5<85903'E
IIT.T2' V m jy I
N49'OB'Z9'M n
? O
s ? I
4 I
Gyp : s b?.: I
im \
z I
I
54 "0 \\
A
\ KCO rW rln?ln 1 '
?'nIC
NN{{?? 8l'+
81? -c
8
1
N ? rn
0
_0 ? yN
y ? rnrn
rn m ?c
m Z?
N?
ar3 rmrvartl ? ?
/
!
J b
m ? /
o ?? y

f1?ry /
? I
or
? o l

, y
v

N
y
N
c
N
Y/Y ?YpY1YY
1
* D
m
N
-? 0
m
R -v "<
YOb uY
ry N
M
m
()
2
m
M
l
]7 AmK
Ry OfnN
x ?
m?u
? ml
z L'?
0
1
W
au --A •
NO_
?
'z mr1Pig
N mpl„Y
rr 5wOx ^^x``
N N ? V
cn?-irpD?
mFFlllFUU?
g ?w?y?m Jc
K
w N
?Wr
a ' y
? rO
/5
I
I
1
,I
?I
,I
J I?
I?
-K i Amov
so??'s - w ONi ? ?m,°o ? I I
"9 If
/ _ n `7?D yPYOO
vi; z
K TI?J' 'S y..
10
a v
N Y I

;LIA?
'III fIC: 1
`

NO
>'dFM I I
I
I
I
In^Inlnar s ?
?v `?' M
i
1 +
x ymm?>
mmmm?? z
rn
n? VN
O F1
h n 11?
F'

N Z?yV ?/
c? o so Jes Ko z, ;
N \ K
=
y
I?.

O
5 I
iO
t9 ?9S 4 nn
Np ?, .

P/ ..
pp
E DONALD N
BOMMAN
A \ .
DID 1261 PG &S ? 1 1 - r
. z2+00 -YI-
o?
V N
? V m
V Tic O
~ O

am°
` .
^
I r-im
?rv? L E71
O
l? ?_

109.91' N
ut
4Y' 2CE 'S

io
.
$ZI? Z
Cy

It
N
V
m
m
? Q N
V? EIP M.tl/ 20 O
17Y \ ??Br'°°
: U w ? M•bz ?• i ?
h ?
r
r s 8 7 c
i;
q u liF?
u r 2 CID

? gyp{

"' ®

n

y
ey ~ ..

? _

z
Z 01

Q
P
n
!1 02 r- z
l 0 0 M
z
O
a
Y? A p
+ a `
1? 4s
aa'' - ?? n
? C)
Z
Y
" ' ? ?

W
k;
O g
? 2 b
b
QO ="?
- de r 0a
A
oz c

/IV a =W z
z

USER, RP-
ax, AN N5mAmem slam
DATE, 872612W2
TIME, 11,3242

°
Np®
MATCHLINE STA. 38+ g N°
00 - yI- SE
E SHEET I I o . /? ` ?ic ? 3^ ?s LL OS JJ'Jn.,, -
A Q
Riw!
< WaN I
O
'
B ,/W

+ 1
O
vNy Gfr
I
N O

UI f7
O

T

T
}
+
+
O
}
O

I
I

I
I 1
I

'
1, z4
AOO.
.0 of
9,4
IT U/ Tr -? \.?I' F '?? ?tNt,? U ? ? NO. ?4, V-1Oy Uti NO110'pp.
" ° ? I y 6 ? / JJ•55Y N ±WOV' F
I m z
w ? ?b
" N
UCT _
U 02 I $ $'? ? ,>, ? AS _ y $ .O ?p OR?'c`'/ ?R'LF2. sT'Q
la /0
02 R ' ?? ?• ? ... 2,R M
I J?, ,mac •?.. ti... ?_ woo N05?o p5,f
i \i ?` \ mmm °ca
?aov W.,
?xm
/4,
40 701A
pzz "d
Al
t T
T+! ???,? FR'yFi? (T 0 A OpRNFR TO ElPI V ni
7
Ac I~, ° /3%13 Oy 14 .6b.bZrO11
it ? u o
l I`_ _ NOI w m Vf N
975.92.`
a /
I P
0 0 _`
00
fly) q2 (E a ?
l (FROM O D
II II II N_
999.02• ? 41 ? ? 0 ])
I ?
I - m
m2
Nqp 83
ENO 7ME 45
^, 3 f9,rC005
H / / ? ° I 9s28f `
O ?' I
n ? O S I
a
s `I aD Q? ?m g Rl
Z ? -1 I I K
ca iA
a$m® 4a oy
o
=m ? ?N pp**
yi _4
r.vl
^10 2
r
y(n V)
a8
f .?
7i Ul
m
Im as o1 -? ~ C .q $ ? a? r? 'i' G'i
?1 In rn RfT IN .- - 2 w rd g .?i Z x
rn z (? B 'S g •ia r"isu3 z n o a Cj7 2 ?? 0 O
rn rn BY2- POT H o Cl b
5+00.00 r ti r C" r"
m Z
y _ _ m s?="_ ° ?m z ?= V1
y r-' ?$ I o N V' o
o
AM-
",
..a STAB( o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
N11CHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 15, 2006
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
?l qy ?l J
e?
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Amended Request for Mitigation Confirmation for the High Point East
Beltway, US 311 from south of US 29/70 to US 220, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project Nos. 8.1570601 and 8.1571501 Federal Aid Project
No. MAF-F-119-1(1), TIP R-6091A, IB and R-2606A, B and C: Divisions 7
and 8, Work Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480. 1.1
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The purpose of this letter is to modify the February 10, 2006, April 7, 2006, and May 15,
2006 requests that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Randleman
Buffer impacts. The EEP accepted mitigation in letters dated February 24, 2006 and
April 11, 2006. Impacts to jurisdictional wann water streams within HUC 03030003
have decreased by 190 feet within the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030003. Below is a
summary of the total amount of jurisdictional impacts.
o Within Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030003, warm water stream impacts total
19,749 feet, riverine wetland impacts total 2.24 acres, non-riverine wetland impacts
total 1.948 acres
o With Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103 wann water stream impacts requiring
mitigation total 7,242 feet, riverine wetland impacts total 0.21 acres and non-riverine
wetland impacts total 0.033 acres.
o Randleman Buffer impacts requiring mitigation after the ratios are applied total
5,511,700
Please send the letter of confirmation to our office confirming the receipt of this amended
mitigation request. In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be
perfonned; the NCDWQ requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness
and ability to provide the mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUITE 240
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies
submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ Ms. Sue Homewood, DWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT, Audit Manager
Mr. Majed Alghandor, P.E., Project Management/ Scheduling Unit
File

a wSTATEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o?
ryF o I ? v
dosgN 1OS --7o06
ON /1),
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?Re
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
May 15, 2006
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: Amended Request for Mitigation Confirmation for the High Point East
Beltway, US 311 from south of US 29/70 to US 220, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project Nos. 8.1570601 and 8.1571501 Federal Aid Project
No. MAF-F-119-1(1), TIP R-6091A, IB and R-2606A, B and C: Divisions 7
and 8, Work Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480. 1.1
The purpose of this letter is to modify the February 10, 2006, and April 7, 2006 requests
that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Randleman Buffer impacts.
The EEP accepted mitigation in letters dated February 24, 2006 and April 11, 2006.
Impacts to jurisdictional warm water streams within HUC 03030003 have increased by
118 feet. Impacts to riverine jurisdictional wetlands have increased by 0.007 acres.
Buffer impacts have changed since the original request and amended requests were
submitted to EEP. Buffer impacts have increased by 31,466 ft2 in Zone 1 and 18,431 ft2
in Zone 2. Please send the letter of confirmation to our office confirming the receipt of
this amended mitigation request.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation
be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUITE 240
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER M:R (ITC• unnnni AI n- norms r,.. _._... ....?..,...
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ Ms. Sue Homewood, DWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT, Audit Manager
Mr. Majed Alghandor, P.E., Project Management/ Scheduling Unit
File

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
?c r ??<< 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960
May 3, 2006
Colonel John E. Pulliam, Jr.
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27889-1890
SUBJ: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT); U.S. 311 Bypass (TIP
R-0609 IA-113 & TIP R-2606), Guilford and Randolph Counties. Action I.D. No.
200400340.
Dear Colonel Pulliam:
This letter is in response to the public notice for the NCDOT U.S. 311 Bypass (TIP
numbers R-0609 IA-113 and R-2606) (also known as the High Point East Beltway), dated April
14, 2006. The NCDOT proposes to construct the U.S. 311 Bypass at a new location, southeast of
High Point, in Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. The proposed road project is
approximately 14 miles in length, and will impact 4.874 acres of wetlands, 12.17 acres of open
waters, and 29,860 linear feet of streams. There are 22 wetland crossings and 47 stream
crossings. As compensation for the proposed impacts, the NCDOT proposes to construct 946
linear feet of on-site stream mitigation, and to pay the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) for the remaining mitigation requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 4 Wetlands Regulatory Section, has reviewed the public notice, the
permit application and design sheets, the Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE)
Assessment, and other documents. We have the following comments for your consideration.
A,ge of the Environmental Documentation
The EPA notes that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of
Decision (ROD) for R-0609 were issued in 1988, while the Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for R-2606 were issued in 1997 and 1999,
'respectively. It appears that the documents (particularly the FEIS and ROD for R-0609) were
not coordinated with the resource agencies, and were simply circulated to the agencies after
approval. Neither document has been updated with a supplementary EIS or EA. The EPA does
+ 2
not have copies of the FEIS, ROD, EA, or FONSI, and has no information on the purpose and
need for the project, the alternatives that were considered, the efforts made towards avoidance
and minimization of impacts, the choice of the Least Environmental Damaging Practicable
Alternative, or other planning decisions. Neither the permit application nor the public notice
provide adequate information on avoidance and minimization activities, and the documents
provide no information concern ing other impacts, such as relocations, air quality, or prime or
unique agricultural land. The EPA has not received a response to previous requests for copies of
the ROD and FONSI for this project. The EPA again requests copies of the ROD for R-0609
and the FONSI for R-2606.
According to the permit application, the wetland and stream delineations were updated in
2005, making that data current. However, it does not appear that data concerning other
environmental impacts were updated. For example, we note that the Triad area is in non-
attainment for both 8-liour ozone and PM (Particulate Matter) 2.5. We are concerned that the
project may not be in confornity with the Clean Air Act amendments, as the analysis for air
quality appears to have been conducted anywhere from 7 to 18 years ago.
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The public notice provides no information on actions taken to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands and streams as required by the Clean Water Act's 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The
permit application indicates that avoidance was addressed in the development of the FEIS and
EA for the project, but no further information is provided. It appears that wetland impacts were
not adequately described in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The wetland
delineations were conducted after the final environmental documents were issued, which would
make avoidance of these resources difficult. We note that for the 14 mile project, there are 5.66
miles of stream impact. For each mile of roadway, there is 4/10 mile of stream impact.
Of the proposed 47 stream crossings, only one (Muddy Creek) is proposed to be bridged.
All but two of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS-IV, WS-IV
Critical Area, or WS-II High Quality Waters (HQW)). Further, both Muddy Creek and Richland
Creek are listed on North Carolina's 2004 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as not meeting
their designated uses, due to fecal coliform levels. Richland Creek is also listed for impaired
biological integrity due to unspecified sources.
The permit application shows that the interchange with Interstate 85 is located directly on
top of six separate tributaries to Richland Creek. All of these tributaries will be completely
piped and filled within the footprint of the interchange. A review of Figure 6 in the ICE
Assesment indicates that portions of the interchange may be located in the Critical Area of the
water supply. The NCDOT should provide information on the alternatives and minimization
activities considered for this interchange, and how the Critical Area will be protected.
Also, it appears that no floodplain pipes are proposed on any of the crossings in the
proposed project area. We ask that all pipe sizes and floodplain pipe information be provided to
the resource agencies. Also, we request that justification be provided for the proposal of culverts
or pipes (rather than bridges) at WS-II HQW and WS-IV Critical Area stream crossings.
3
Further, it appears that the current stream discharges were estimated using NCDOT
procedures for rural watersheds. This may be adequate along some portions of the project which
are not expected to be greatly developed. However, for areas where development is expected,
the pipe and culvert sizes should be based upon build-out. Perhaps the use of revised
calculations (based upon build-out) for some of the larger streams may result in the justification
for bridges, rather than culverts.
The permit application lists the following minimization activities: construction of 2:1 side
slopes, burying culverts 20%, and construction of storm water best management practices
(BMPs). Site-specific minimization measures discussed in the permit application are almost
exclusively stonn water BMPs. Other than the side slopes, there is little discussion of
minimization of fill impacts in the road corridor. While we are encouraged that such attention is
given to stonn water BMPs in this water supply area, we request more information concerning
efforts to minimize the fill footprint.
There is no discussion of narrowing the road widths or rights-of-way (ROW), which
could greatly minimize wetland and stream impacts. The ROW is proposed to be 300 feet wide
for the majority of the corridor, and up to 394 feet wide for a least a portion of R-2606. The
NCDOT should justify the extraordinary ROW width which is proposed, and investigate the use
of a narrower ROW to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams. The median width is
currently proposed at 70 feet, similar to roads planned decades ago, but much wider than many
highways currently constructed. We recommend that the NCDOT investigate the use of a 46-
foot median, in order to minimize wetland and stream impacts.
Compensatory Mitigation
Although EEP has accepted the responsibility for compensatory mitigation for this
project, we are aware that the NCDOT is pursuing further on-site mitigation opportunities. The
EPA recommends that the NCDOT continue to pursue on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities in the proposed corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Mikdlak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS, Asheville
NCDWQ, Raleigh
NCWRC, Charlotte
NCDOT/PDEA
Vk
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
136 *1 REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
raacc? 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960
May 3, 2006
Colonel John E. Pulliam, Jr.
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27889-1890
SUBJ: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT); U.S. 311 Bypass (TIP
R-0609 IA-IB & TIP R-2606), Guilford and Randolph Counties. Action I.D. No.
200400340.
Dear Colonel Pulliam:
This letter is in response to the public notice for the NCDOT U.S. 311 Bypass (TIP
numbers R-0609 IA-IB and R-2606) (also known as the High Point East Beltway), dated April
14, 2006. The NCDOT proposes to construct the U.S. 311 Bypass at a new location, southeast of
High Point, in Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina. The proposed road project is
approximately 14 miles in length, and will impact 4.874 acres of wetlands, 12.17 acres of open
waters, and 29,860 linear feet of streams. There are 22 wetland crossings and 47 stream
crossings. As compensation for the proposed impacts, the NCDOT proposes to construct 946
linear feet of on-site stream mitigation, and to pay the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) for the remaining mitigation requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 4 Wetlands Regulatory Section, has reviewed the public notice, the
permit application and design sheets, the Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE)
Assessment, and other documents. We have the following comments for your consideration.
Age of the Environmental Documentation
The EPA notes that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of
Decision (ROD) for R-0609 were issued in 1988, while the Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for R-2606 were issued in 1997 and 1999,
'respectively. It appears that the documents (particularly the FEIS and ROD for R-0609) were
not coordinated with the resource agencies, and were simply circulated to the agencies after
approval. Neither document has been updated with a supplementary EIS or EA. The EPA does

2
not have copies of the FEIS, ROD, EA, or FONSI, and has no information on the purpose and
need for the project, the alternatives that were considered, the efforts made towards avoidance
and minimization of.impacts, the choice of the Least Environmental Damaging Practicable
Alternative, or other planning decisions. Neither the pen-nit application nor the public notice
provide adequate information on avoidance and minimization activities, and the documents
provide no information concern ing other impacts, such as relocations, air quality, or prime or
unique agricultural land. The EPA has not received a response to previous requests for copies of
the ROD and FONSI for this project. The EPA again requests copies of the ROD for R-0609
and the FONSI for R-2606.
According to the permit application, the wetland and stream delineations were updated in
2005, making that data current. However, it does not appear that data concerning other
environmental impacts were updated. For example, we note that the Triad area is in non-
attainment for both 8-hour ozone and PM (Particulate Matter) 2.5. We are concerned that the
project may not be in conformity with the Clean Air Act amendments, as the analysis for air
quality appears to have been conducted anywhere from 7 to 18 years ago.
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The public notice provides no information on actions taken to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands and streams as required by the Clean Water Act's 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The
permit application indicates that avoidance was addressed in the development of the FEIS and
EA for the project, but no further information is provided. It appears that wetland impacts were
not adequately described in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The wetland
delineations were conducted after the final environmental documents were issued, which would
make avoidance of these resources difficult. We note that for the 14 mile project, there are 5.66
miles of stream impact. For each mile of roadway, there is 4/10 mile of stream impact.
Of the proposed 47 stream crossings, only one (Muddy Creek) is proposed to be bridged.
All but two of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS-IV, WS-IV
Critical Area, or WS-II High Quality Waters (HQW)). Further, both Muddy Creek and Richland
Creek are listed on North Carolina's 2004 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as not meeting
their designated uses, due to fecal coliform levels. Richland Creek is also listed for impaired
biological integrity due to unspecified sources.
The permit application shows that the interchange with Interstate 85 is located directly on
top of six separate tributaries to Richland Creek. All of these tributaries will be completely
piped and filled within the footprint of the interchange. A review of Figure 6 in the ICE
Assesment indicates that portions of the interchange may be located in the Critical Area of the
water supply. The NCDOT should provide information on the alternatives and minimization
activities considered for this interchange, and how the Critical Area will be protected.
Also, it appears that no floodplain pipes are proposed on any of the crossings in the
proposed project area. We ask that all pipe sizes and floodplain pipe information be provided to
the resource agencies. Also, we request that justification be provided for the proposal of culverts
or pipes (rather than bridges) at WS-II HQW and WS-IV Critical Area stream crossings.
:r
3
Further, it appears that the current stream discharges were estimated using NCDOT
procedures for rural watersheds. This may be adequate along some portions of the project which
are not expected to be greatly developed. However, for areas where development is expected,
the pipe and culvert sizes should be based upon build-out. Perhaps the use of revised
calculations (based upon build-out) for some of the larger streams may result in the justification
for bridges, rather than culverts.
The permit application lists the following minimization activities: construction of 2:1 side
slopes, burying culverts 20%, and construction of storm water best management practices
(BMPs). Site-specific minimization measures discussed in the permit application are almost
exclusively storm water BMPs. Other than the side slopes, there is little discussion of
minimization of fill impacts in the road corridor. While we are encouraged that such attention is
given to storm water BMPs in this water supply area, we request more information concerning
efforts to minimize the fill footprint.
There is no discussion of narrowing the road widths or rights-of-way (ROW), which
could greatly minimize wetland and stream impacts. The ROW is proposed to be 300 feet wide
for the majority of the corridor, and up fo 394 feet wide for a least a portion of R-2606. The
NCDOT should justify the extraordinary ROW width which is proposed, and investigate the use
of a narrower ROW to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams. The median width is
currently proposed at 70 feet, similar to roads planned decades ago, but much wider than many
highways currently constructed. We recommend that the NCDOT investigate the use of a 46-
foot median, in order to minimize wetland and stream impacts.
Compensatory Mitigation
Although EEP has accepted the responsibility for compensatory mitigation for this
project, we are aware that the NCDOT is pursuing further on-site mitigation opportunities. The
EPA recommends that the NCDOT continue to pursue on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities in the proposed corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Nfiledlak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
cc: USFWS, Asheville
NCDWQ, Raleigh
NCWRC, Charlotte
NCDOT/PDEA

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
May 15, 2006
Subject: Amended Request for Mitigation Confirmation for the High Point East
Beltway, US 311 from south of US 29/70 to US 220, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project Nos. 8.1570601 and 8.1571501 Federal Aid Project
No. MAF-F-119-1(1), TIP R-6091A, IB and R-2606A, B and C: Divisions 7
and 8, Work Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480. 1.1
The purpose of this letter is to modify the February 10, 2006, and April 7, 2006 requests
that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Randleman Buffer impacts.
The EEP accepted mitigation in letters dated February 24, 2006 and April 11, 2006.
Impacts to jurisdictional warm water streams within HUC 03030003 have increased by
118 feet. Impacts to riverine jurisdictional wetlands have increased by 0.007 acres.
Buffer impacts have changed since the original request and amended requests were
submitted to EEP. Buffer impacts have increased by 31,466 ft' in Zone 1 and 18,431 ftz
in Zone 2. Please send the letter of confirmation to our office confinning the receipt of
this amended mitigation request.
-,in order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation
be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
. 51 my
G vim! ?C?
.? ar+.rtN
ti1q y ??
?9Npsfi.,l4,O
44D -
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ??RB
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OE TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIROr VENTAL ANALYSIS
1593 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27699

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Brett Feulncr at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ Ms. Sue Homewood, DWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT, Audit Manager
Mr. Majed Alghandor, P.E., Project Management/ Scheduling Unit
File
V
JUN 12
?fin,
byF DFNR -
nAIVOgANO TER BR"C
H
Mr. Richard Spencer
N.-
,EIco stem .a
PROGRAM
June 2, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Strategy Letter:
R-0609IA/IB and R-2606A/B/C, US 311 Bypass (Future I-73),
Guilford and Randolph Counties, Cape Fear River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03030003) and Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging
Unit 03040103); Central Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) is willing to provide compensatory wetland and stream mitigation
required for the subject project. This mitigation strategy letter replaces the mitigation
strategy letters issued on February 28, 2006 and May 15, 2006. The impacts
associated with this project are located in Cataloging Units 03030003and 03040103 of
the Cape Fear and Yadkin River Basins, respectively, and in the Central Piedmont eco-
region. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request letter dated February 15, 2006,
the project will impact a total of 26,991 feet of stream, 2.45 acres riparian wetlands, and
1.981 acres of non-riparian wetlands. The impacts associated with these projects are in
two cataloging units and are as follows:
Cape Fear 03030003 Stream: 19,749 feet
Riparian Wetlands: 2.24 acres
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 1.948 acres
Yadkin 03040103 Stream: 7,242 feet
Riparian Wetlands: 0.21 acre
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 0.033 acre
Also, this project will impact buffers located in CU 03030003 of the Cape Fear
River Basin. The total buffer impacts are 1,428,207 square feet in Zone 1 and 886,076
square feet in Zone 2 with a total buffer mitigation requirement of 5,613,735 square feet.
RUM
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Approximately 102,036 square feet of the buffer mitigation will be completed within the
existing right of way of the project. Therefore, EEP will commit to providing the
remaining buffer mitigation need of 5,511,700 square feet. If the buffer impacts or the
amount of mitigation required from EEP increases or decreases for this project, then this
mitigation strategy letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation strategy letter will
be required.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MCA Account (Fund 2984) into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
(Fund 2982).
Compensatory wetland and stream mitigation for this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of Agreement between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed on July 22, 2003 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland and stream
mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project as listed
above by the end of the MOA year in which the permit is issued. If the above referenced
impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation strategy letter will no longer be valid and
a new mitigation strategy letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
Willi D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, P.E., PDEA, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-0609IA/I13 and R-2606A/B/C Revised
0 Is
\0?0? ... , ?q pG
?
>1L-of- ::?

June 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director p 11v
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch W 3??
b?ry
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator w,y?R?R?N,,ey
SUBJECT: Summary of §401 Water Quality Certification issues for TIP Project No. R-6091A, R-609 IB?t-
2606A, R-2606B and R-2606 C (The US 311 High Point East Beltline,), Guilford and Randolph
Counties.
In follow up to the Concurrence Meeting on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 on the above-referenced projects, the NC
Division of Water Quality notes that the following issues must be addressed in order to be able to issue a Water
Quality Certification:
Documentation of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
1. The US 311 High Point East Beltline will require a quantitative assessment of the indirect and cumulative
impacts. NCDWQ has determined the appropriate study area (see attached). Results of the study may require
project-specific conditions to the §401 Water Quality Certification. The following is a list of the streams in
the study area, and their water quality classifications:
Hvdroloeic Unit: 030608
Stream (Index)
Deep River (17)
Richland Creek (17-7)
Kivett Lake (17-7-1)
Mile Branch (17-7-3)
Jackson Lake (17-7-3)
Muddy Creek (17-9)
Taylor Branch (17-9.3)
Bob Branch (17-9.6)
Hvdrologic Unit: 030609
Stream (Index)
Uwharrie River (13-2)
Carraway Creek (13-2-3)
Little Carraway Creek (13-2-3-2)
Back Creek (13-2-3-3)
Back Creek Lake (13-2-3-3-(0.7))
Water Ouality Classification
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV Critical Area; §303(d) list of impaired streams
WS-IV Critical Area
WS-IV Critical Area
Water Oualitv Classification
WS-III Critical Area
C
C
WS-II HQW
WS-II HQW Critical Area
Design & Construction Issues
1. The streams appearing on the §303(d) list of impaired waters are listed due to urban storm water runoff.
2. Water resources in the Randleman Lake Watershed will be required to follow the applicable Rules (see 15A
NCAC 2B .0250).
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (httv://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlan(is)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen 11, Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
#161
le 4
The §401 Water Quality Certification will require the following:
• Hazardous spill catch basins in all crossings of Water Supply Critical Areas.
¦ Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practice in order to
assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and
10 NTUs in trout waters).
a. Erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper design,
installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual.
c. NCDOT must develop a DOT-approved erosion and sediment control plan and implement and maintain
the control measures on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor owned or leased borrow pits associated with NCDOT projects.
d. NCDOT must implement and maintain a DOT-approved reclamation plan on all borrow pit and waste pile
(spoil) projects. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
e. NCDOT shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (15A NCAC 413 .0124 (b) -(e) only), for activities undertaken in all waters classified as WS
(Water Supply) and draining to the Critical Area. NCDOT will not be required to comply with 15A
NCAC 2B .0124(a), which restricts clearing to 20 acres at a time.
¦ Storm water runoff from the project should be designed to be directed to grassed swales, vegetated buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins or other site-appropriate means of receiving pre-treatment,
rather than routed directly into streams. Velocities shall be non-erosive through the Randleman Lake
Watershed buffers.
Avoidance and Minimization
1. It is the understanding of NCDWQ that R-2606B and R-2606C are in the preliminary design stage.
Therefore, wetland and stream impacts shall be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Stream Randleman Lake Watershed Buffers, and Wetland Mitigation
1. The General Major Variance from the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed may be used when it has
been demonstrated that all measures have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to the riparian buffer
areas.
2. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. The
mitigation plan, including on-site mitigation, should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values.
3. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be
required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Ar IN
The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be
instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pc: Mike Penney, NCDOT PDEA
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Asheville Field Office
Robert Deaton, NCDOT-Office of Human Enviornment
Marshal Clawson, NCDOT-Hydraulics
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
File Copy
Wool U11
I NN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 1 0 200
.ti nscon-sal,,.;n
Regional Office
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 4, 2006
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Attention: Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
LYNDO TIPPElT
SECRF.I'ARY
Mq y J
"'tr (.:%
?ayosq OST??U?iry`I?
4
?Zi 11%CN
Subject: Response to Request for Indirect and Cumulative Analysis for the High Point
Bypass, US 311 from south of US 29/70 to US 220, Guilford and Randolph
Counties, State Project Nos. 8.1570601 and 8.157150 1, Federal Aid Nos. MAF-F-
119-1(1) and MAF-F-119-1(1), TIP R-0609 IA, IB and R-2606A, B and C:
Divisions 7 and 8, Work Center Nos. 34345. 1.1 and 34480. 1.1
Reference: DWQ # 06-0331, On Hold Letter, dated April 24, 2006
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, dated March 28, 2005,
submitted with the Section 401 permit application.
Dear Mr. Klimek:
This letter addresses the first point of concern (first bullet point) in the April 24, 2006 letter from
DWQ to Greg Thorpe, which requests a quantitative assessment of indirect and cumulative
impacts related to proposed TIP R-0609 IA, IB & R-2606. Please refer to Figure 6 in the above-
mentioned Assessment for the following discussion. In addition, we are working to address the
other concerns listed in that letter, which will be answered separately.
Indirect & Cumulative Effects:
As much of the lands within the vicinity of the proposed project are subject to the rules and
regulations associated with the NCDENR-DWQ Water Supply Watershed program, a
quantitative analysis of the project's effect upon water quality is not necessary for any of the
lands covered by the these rules. Specifically, as these rules include a variety of mechanisms for
guiding development and protecting water quality within the watersheds they cover, (density
limits, impervious surface limits, riparian buffers, limits on certain activities) the proposed
project is unable to spur/spawn development in excess of what is already permissible by these
INC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 201
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27699
rules. Therefore, any further analysis would reveal no additional information on the effects from
the proposed project upon the landscape.
There are two areas, subbasins, in the vicinity of the proposed project that are not covered by the
Water Supply Watershed program. One area is located to the west of the city of Asheboro and
south of the proposed project. This subbasin (YAD9) lies in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
A quantitative assessment of this area is not required as it is not located near, nor are there any
waters listed, on the 303(d) list, within this subbasin. Furthermore, this subbasin area already
has access to an existing facility in U.S. 311, which parallels the proposed project. The
proposed facility will offer access only through two interchanges (which are space approximately
five miles apart) as the proposed project is a fully controlled access facility. Therefore, the
proposed project is unlikely to spur/spawn extensive amounts of new development in this area,
beyond that which is occurring already in the vicinity of the project.
The second area which is in some proximity to the proposed project, but not covered by Water
Supply Watershed rules, is to the east of the project and east of the town of Asheboro. This is
subbasin CPF9. While this second basin is in some proximity to a 303(4) listed stream (Haskett
Creek), it is located in a different river basin (Cape Fear) than the first subbasin. We feel that a
quantitative assessment of indirect and cumulative effects for this basin is also unnecessary
because it is fairly well developed already, with existing areas of Asheboro surrounding much of
the section of Haskett Creek, which is listed as being impaired for unknown biological causes.
Furthermore, as the proposed project's connection to the existing US 220/1-73 is a freeway to
freeway interchange, providing no direct access from any other roads, there is no opportunity for
new access or development surrounding this interchange. In order for a traveler to access the
proposed project, they would have to get on the existing US 220/I-73 via an existing interchange,
either to the north or the south of the proposed project and transfer to the new road. To do so
from subbasin CPF9 and areas to the east of the project and east of Asheboro in the Cape Fear
Basin, travelers would have to wend their way through existing Asheboro to get to the proposed
project. In other words, the time barriers to get to the proposed project from the east will likely
minimize the prospect of meaningful amounts of new development, beyond that which is already
occurring.
In summary:
? Water Supply Watershed rules protect much of the area surrounding the project.
? One subbasin (YAD9) to the south and west of the proposed project does not have or drain to
any 303(d) listed waters.
? Another subbasin (CPF9) to the south and cast of the proposed project, while in some
proximity to Haskett Creek a 303(d) stream listed for unknown biological causes, is fairly
well developed already and offers little direct access to the proposed facility and presents
travel time barriers in crossing through the City of Asheboro.
Therefore, NCDOT submits that the qualitative analysis of indirect and cumulative effects
already completed sufficiently describes the likely effects from the proposed project, and that a
quantitative analysis will not reveal any information which is meaningfully different.

f
it
Thank you for you assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need any additional
information about this project, please contact Bob Deaton at 715 1588 or Brett Feulner at 715-
1488.
Sincerely,
1
o. Greg 4Th,:, SIE.,(4Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GT/ell
Cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Sue Homewood, NCDWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. J.M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mike Penny, P.E., Planning Engineer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, Programming and TIP
Mr. Mike Penney, PDEA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
-3-
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Meeting
Concurrence Point No. 4 Impact Minimization and Avoidance
November 8, 2000
MINUTES
Project Title: US 311 Bypass - High Point East Belt
Guilford and Randolph Counties, North Carolina
T.I.P. Project No. R-0609 IA & IB
State Project No. 8.1570601
Federal-Aid Project No. MAF-F-119-1(1)
A NEPA/Section 404 Meeting was held on November 8, 2000 in the NCDOT Board of Transportation
Room at the Transportation Building. The purpose of the meeting was the above referenced pipeline
project to the Merger Team regarding issues of avoidance and minimization and to receive concurrence of
Point 4 of the Section 404/NEPA Merger Agreement. The following persons attended the meeting:
Tom Kendig, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Michael Penney, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT Roadway Design
Jimmy Goodnight, NCDOT Roadway Design
Abdul Rahmani, NCDOT Hydraulics
Marshal Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews (By Phone), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tom McCartney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David Cox, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
John Hennessy (For Cynthia Van Der Wiele), NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
April Montgomery, N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
Andy Grzymski, High Point Urban Area MPO
Michael Penney initiated the meeting by requesting introductions around the room. Kathy Matthews
attended the meeting by phone. Mr. Penney started the discussion by reviewing the project history and
stream, wetland & pond impacts on R-0609 IA & 1B, see attached meeting handout. Mr. Penney stated,
per NCDOT memos on pipeline projects, the above referenced project is to go to the Merger Team
regarding issues of avoidance and minimization and to receive Concurrence Point 4. Eric Alsmeyer stated
that the Corps would not be able to sign off on Concurrence Point 4 since the project had not been sent
out for Public Notice and Comment by his agency; this usually occurs prior to choosing a "least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative" (LEPDA). General discussions occurred regarding the
process prior to merger, the current merger process and how this project could be handled. John Hennessy
asked what river basin is the project in; Cape Fear - however the Randleman Buffer Rules will apply.
R-0609 IA & 113
11/08/00 Meeting Minutes
Mr. Hennessy stated the Randleman Buffer Rules needed to be addressed now to avoid problems and/or
complications during permitting; a field meeting maybe necessary to answer questions.
The Merger Team decided to review plan sheets, denoting stream and wetland impacts, of the both IA and
113. The following areas were discussed:
Area # 2 R-0609 IA - Roadway [(main line) -L- Sta. 17+80 to 19+601 alignment shift to the
south. Current plan shows crossing Mile Branch and a tributary, Mr. Hennessy requested
the shift to impact the stream system once. Roadway Design staff indicated the Baker
Road crossover -L- Sta. 11+98± would be a control point other concerns were raised
regarding horizontal issues (broken back curves) and relocations. Roadway Design will
see shift can be done.
Area # 5 R-0609 IA - The proposed Jackson Lake Road (-Y2- Line) crossover bridge of the US
311 Bypass has been extended to cross Mile Branch. The resource agencies indicated
that NCDOT could receive on-site restoration credits if the stream was restored without
using rip-rap.
Area # 6 R-0609 IA - Questions regarding how the Mile Branch tributary denoted on the plans at
-L- Sta. 33+20± right (south of the proposed roadway) would be tied into Mile Branch
were raised by the resource agencies. Upon review of the Hydraulic Plans it was
determined that the tributary is to be rerouted to tie in to Mile Branch at -L- Sta. 32+70±;
this was acceptable to the resource agencies.
Area # 13&14 R-0609 IB - Roadway [(main line) -L- Sta. 63+00± to 69+00±1 alignment shift to the
east. Current plan shows several crossing of Taylor Branch paralleling the roadway, Mr.
Hennessy requested the shift to avoid impacts to the creek. Roadway Design staff
indicated the I-85 and US 311 Bypass Interchange, NC 62 crossover and alignment shift
a -L- Sta. 71+70± would be control points other concerns were raised regarding
relocations. Roadway Design will see shift can be done.
Area # 15&16 R-0609 IB - The roadway alignment shift to the west avoiding the Taylor Branch
wetland system was reviewed and acceptable to the resource agencies.
After reviewing the plans Mr. Penney asked Jimmy Goodnight when the revised plans would be
available. Mr. Goodnight stated within a month. Mr. Penney asked which agencies would need plans;
Kathy Matthews indicated a need for plan sheet roll(s) and Tom McCartney and Elizabeth Lusk requested
sets of half-sized plans. A request was made for a Stream and Wetland Impact Summary per site along
with the requested revisions for the next Merger Team Meeting (December 2000 or January 2001) on this
project.
Mr, Penney asked what was needed to comply with the pipeline project memos. The resource agencies
agreed based on the review on the plans, during this meeting, and the requested alignment shifts in
December or January NCDOT would meet the intent of avoidance and minimization and therefore
proceed with their permit applications.
NOVEMBER 8, 2000
CONCURRENCE MEETING UPDATE
US 311 BYPASS
HIGH POINT EAST BELT
GUILFORD AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES
FROM US 29-70 TO NORTH OF NC 62
NORTH OF ARCHDALE (TIP No. R-0609 IA)
AND
FROM I-85 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE (TIP No. R-0609 IB)
State Project No. 8.1570601
Federal-Aid Project No. MAF-F-119-1(1)
November 2, 2000
R-0609 IA &: IB
TIP Project No. R-0609 IA & IB
FROM US 29-70 TO SOUTH OF SR 1920
NORTH OF ARCHDALE
Table of Contents
ITEM
Project History
Purpose of Meeting
Wetland and Stream Impacts
Attachments
ITEM
Project Location Map
Project Breakdown Map
FEIS Signature Cover
Purpose and Need
ROD Cover
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
401 Water Quality Certification DEM Project # 925474
For R-0609 Phases D, E and F
1 1 /02/00
Paee
1
2
2
Paue
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-11
A-12
US Army Corps of Engineers Action # 199101397 (Permits # 26 and 25)
For R-0609 Phases D, E and F A-13
Army Corps of Engineers Permit # 199820081
For R-0609*Phases EB / FA A-16
NC DENR - DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ Project # 920000547
For R-0609 Phases EB / FA
A-19
R-0609 IA & 1B
Proiect History
11/02,,'00
The US 311 Bypass - High Point East Belt was let to a Consulting Engineering Firm to prepare
an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) in 1985. The project Scoping Letter was sent out in
February 1986. A Draft EIS was prepared and published in the Federal Register on December
29, 1986 for comment. On July 12, 1988 the Final EIS was approved by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) with a Record of Decision (ROD) issued on September 21, 1988.
On February 28, 1991 the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) submitted
permit applications to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). On October 8, 1992 NCDOT received permits from
USACE and DEM (October 2, 1992) for Phases D, E, and F.
NCDOT let R-0609 D for construction on November 17, 1992. R-0609 E was subdivided into
two segments, EA and EB, due to funding constraints. R-0609 EA was let- for construction on
August 16, 1994. R-0609 G (the paving of R-0609 D) was added to the Transportation
Improvement Program and let for construction in November 21, 1995. Please'note that R-0609 G
is within the construction limits of R-0609 D and does not require additional permitting. R-0609
F was subdivided into two segments, FA and FB (six structures within the project limits of FA),
due to funding constraints.
On October 10, 1997 NCDOT submitted permit applications to the USACE and NC Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for Phases EB and
FA. On January 30, 1998 NCDOT received permits from USACE. On March 13, 1998 NCDOT
received permits from DWQ for Phases EB and FA.
R-0609 EB and FA were let for construction on May 14 and May 19, 1998, respectfully. R-0609
FB and R-0609 H (the paving of R-0609 EB and FA) were added to the Transportation
Improvement Program with both to be let for construction in Fiscal Year 2002. Please note that
R-0609 FB and H are within the construction limits of R-0609 FA and do not require additional
permitting.
The final sections of the project are IA and IB. R-0609 IA (from US 29-70 to north of NC 62
north of Archdale) is scheduled for Right of Way acquisition in August 2001 and construction let
in August 2003. R-0609 IB (from I-85 to south of SR 1920 north of Archdale) is scheduled for
---- -- Right of Way- acquisition in April 2002 and construction letin September-2004._ R-0609_I13
_.
connects to R-2606 (US 311 from south of SR 1920 to US 220 north of SR 1712) which
completes the US 311 Bypass project. R-2606 has received, within the last year, concurrence
from the agencies regarding avoidance and minimization.
R-0609 IA & IB
Purpose of Meeting
11/08/00
Per the February 23, 2000 Memorandum from Ms. Debbie Barbour, PE, State Design Engineer,
NCDOT, TIP Project R-0609 IA and IB is to go before the Merger Team for review. NCDOT is
seeking concurrence from the Merger Team regarding avoidance and minimization on sections
IA and IB.
Wetland and Stream Impacts
Section IA and IB are currently under design in both Roadway and Hydraulics. As a result of a
field review of the projects by the US Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT Natural Systems
staff on November 2, 1999, NCDOT agreed to shift the alignment of IB to the west in an effort
to avoid several high quality wetlands. The following are the estimated impacts for each section:
Section Stream (Linear Feet) Pond (Acres) Wetlands (Acres)
IA 10,342 2.29 0.80
IB 3,690 2.60 0.73
Total
14,032
4.89
1.53
Refinements in design of section IA have decreased impacts to wetlands by 0.25 acres. The shift
in the alignment of section IB has increased impacts to ponds (farm) by 2.28 acres and decreased
impacts to wetlands by 1.52 acres.
REGIONAL MAP i

?J
4
STUDY AREA SCALE: 1*-13 ML
SEE FIGURE 1.2 FIGURE 1.1
z
F- -:i::
U O
Wp0_
=LL)
0_ =
co
Ln
W
E--
z
D
0
U
CL
J
o?
w
o?
m
z ?--
W
?N
z
C45 0
o(D
W=
01
UM
J ?
V
N
Q
U-
0'..
O
%0
609-21

NMOHS 31da d0 Sb 31"f1J:)y 3sv S1SOJ GNd S31nC]3HJS 1J3fObd

FHWA-NC-EIS-86-02-F
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
US 311 BYPASS
HIGH POINT EAST BELT
FROM US.311 NORTH OF HIGH POINT TO US 311 SOUTH OF ARCHDALE
GUILFORD AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1570601 (R-609)
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. F-119-1(1)
ADMINISTRATION ACTION
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) BY THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF=TRANSPORTATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPZnATING AG3MCY
DEPARTMENT 01.7 THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
This statement documents the need for transportation improvements
in the north-south traffic corridor at High Point and adjacent
areas of Randolph and Guilford Counties. Existing and projected
conditions in'the area are described and alternative corridor
locations are evaluated with respect to costs, social and
economic impacts, and environmental consequences.
i
Date James M. Gre nhill, NCOOT
M?nacer of Planning & Research
7 ? ? 88
Date of Approval ??,.. _gional Federal Highway
Administrator
I
For additional information contact:
Mr. Kenneth L. Bellamy
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Post Office Box 26806
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. James M. Greenhill
Manager of Planning & Research
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Teleohone: [phone]
11

In 1977 the High Point Thoroughfare Plan was revised and updated.
In this plan the High Point East Belt was shown in the same
general location as Alternative 1 in this report. The report was
approved by the City on March 17, 1977, and by the State Highway
Commission on August 12, 1977.
on October 13, 1978, the Board of Transportation approved the
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). The US 311 Bypass
was included in this program.
The High Point Thoroughfare Plan was revised in 1980. The US 311
Bypass remained in the same general corridor as in the 1977 plan.
This plan indicated the US 311 Bypass interchanging with NC 62
and I-85.
The plan was adopted by the City of High Point on June 19, 1980,
the City of Archdale on July 22, 1980, and by the Board of Trans-
portation on August 8, 1980.
On December 18, 1981, the Board bf Transportation approved a
revised T.I.P. The US 311 Bypass was included only as an example
of Needs.
In June, 1984, I-85 from south of Lexington to Groomtown was
opened to traffic. I-85 is constructed with interchanges at
existing US 311 and at NC 62.
On October 10, 1985, the Board of Transportation approved a re-
vised T.I.P. which included US 311 Bypass of High Point. The
program calls for right-of-way acquisition in FY '88 and con-
struction in FY '90, 191, '93 from the northerly terminus in High
point south to US 29.& 70. The portion of the Bypass from US 29
& 70 to US 311 south of Archdale is programmed for right-of-way
and construction in future years.
1.3 Need for the Project
Existing US 311 presently passes through the central business
of High Point and Archdale. All truck and through
traffic must use this at grade arterial-street, which--has twenty-----
six signalized intersections, because there is no available
bypass route.. The proposed US 311 bypass has been an important
part of the Transportation Plan for many years. Without the
proposed project operating speeds will continue to decrease,
delays will increase, and accidents will likely increase. It is
highly desirable to remove trucks and through traffic from
existing US 311 in order to maintain existing operating con-
ditions. Without the proposed improvement, existing US 311 will
become a totally inadequate facility. To better understand the
need, the next several paragraphs will describe the operating
conditions in terms of capacity and the safety aspects of the
existing facility.
1-6

In this section the existing traffic operating conditions along
the existing US 311 route will be described in terms of levels of
service (L.o.S.). Level of service is a qualitative measure of
the effect of a number of factors which include speed and travel
time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving
comfort and convenience, and operating costs. In practice, se-
lected specific levels are defined in terms of particular
limiting values of certain of these factors. Six levels of ser-
vice designated A through F, from best to worst, cover the entire
range of traffic operations that may occur. To better understand
the various levels of service, a description of each follows as
found in the Highway Capacity Manual 1965 Edition.
"Level of service A describes a condition of free flow, with low
volumes and high speeds. Traffic density is loci, with speeds
controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and physical roadway
conditions. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability
due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers "can maintain'
their desired speeds with little or no delay.
Level of service B is in the zone of stable flow, with operating
speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditionz.
Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed and
lane of operation. Reductions in speed are not unreasonable,
with a low probability of traffic flow being restricted. The
lower limit (lowest speed, highest volume) of this level of ser-
vice has been associated with service volumes used in the design
of rural highways.
Level of service C is still 'in the zone of stable flow, but
speeds and maneuverability are. more closely controlled by the
higher volumes. Most of -the drivers are restricted in their
freedom to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. A
relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained, with
service volumes perhaps suitable for urban design practice.
Level of service D approaches unstable flow, with tolerable oper-
ating speeds being maintained though considerably affected by
- - changes---in- operating.._co..ndit-ions. Fluctuations in volume and
temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops-in --- -
operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and
comfort and convenience are low, but conditions can be tolerated
for short periods of time.
Level of service E cannot be described by speed alone, but rep-
resents operations at even lower operating speeds than in level
D, with volumes at or near the capacity of the highway. At
capacity, speeds are typically, but not always, in the neigh-
borhood of 30 mph. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppages
of momentary duration.
1-7

Level of service F describes forced flow operation at low speeds,
where volumes are below capacity. These conditions usually
result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction
downstream. The section under study will be serving as a storage
area during parts or all of the peak hour. Speeds are reduced
substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods
of time because of the downstream congestion. In the extreme,
both speed and volume can drop to zero."
1.3.1 Capacities
The existing US 311 (Main Street) in High Point and Archdale is
the primary north-south arterial through the central business
districts for both cities. US 311 is a four lane facility with
left turn lanes at major intersections in High Point, narrowing I `?
to two lanes through Archdale.
Presently, most signalized intersections on existing US 311 are
operating at an acceptable L.O.S., with 21 of -the 26 inter-
sections analyzed operating at L.O.S. C or better (17 at L.O.S.
A). Only one intersection, US 311 at Archdale Road, is currently
operating over capacity.
Using the projected annual daily traffic volumes for Year 2006
(shown on Figure 1.3), calculations were made to determine future
L.O.S. at these intersections with and without the East Beltway
included in the traffic network. For comparative purposes, no
intersection improvements were assumed for either existing or
future conditions. The results are summarized in Table 1.1
showing that if the Beltway is not built, the number of inter-
sections which presently operate at L.O.S. C or better would drop
from 21 to 11 intersections. Intersections exceeding capacity
would increase from one to seven.

1-8

TABLE 1.1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
No. of Intersections
Year 2006 Year 2006
Level of Existing without with
service Description (1986) Beltway Beltway

A Free Flow 17 4 11
B Stable Flow (Slight
Delay) 2 4 2
C Stable Flow (Acceptable
Delay) 2 3 5
D Approaching Unstable
Flow (Tolerable Delay) 3 5 0
E Unstable Flow-Capacity
(Intolerable Delay) 1 3 4
F Forced Flow/Long Delays 1 7 4
TOTAL 26 26 26
Source: Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., 1986.
With the inclusion of the proposed East Beltway into the network,
intersection capacities would show a significant improvement.
Under this scenario, 18 of the 26 intersections would have a
L.O.S. of C or better, and four intersections would exceed
capacity.
- - l.-3-.-2 ..Safety
Accident records from January 1, 1981, to December 31, 1985 (a
period of 5 years) were used in analyzing two sections of
existing US 311 in Randolph and Guilford Counties. The two
sections include:
* US 311 in Randolph County from SR 1928 to the Guilford
County line.
* US 311 in Guilford County from Randolph County line to
Belleview Drive.
1-9
IU
The section of US 311 in Randolph County, a distance of 4.91
miles with an annual average daily traffic volume of 11,000
vehicles, experienced some 206 accidents with one fatality. The
total accident rate was 2.09 accidents per million vehicle miles
(MVM) with a fatal accident rate of 1.01 accidents per 100 MVM.
The accident rate of 2.09, compared to the overall state rate of
5.42 in urban areas (1985) is well below average. -The fatal rate
(1.01 accidents per 100 MVM) is also below the statewide urban
streets' fatal rate of 1.7.
The accident severity index on this section is 13.39, higher than
the statewide average of 11.0.
Table 1.2, Randolph County Accident Type Summary, shows number
and percent of total
US 311 section in Randolph County.
TABLE 1.2
RANDOLPH COUNTY ACCIDENT TYPE SUMMARY
No. of Percent
Accident Type Accidents of Total
Ran off road (right)
Ran off road (left)
Ran off road (straight)
No collision (overturn)
Pedestrian
Parked vehicle
Moped
Other object
Rear-end slow or stop
Rear-end turn
Left turn (same road)
Left turn (cross traffic)
Right turn (same road)
Right turn (cross traffic)
Head-on
Sideswipe
Angle
Backing up
TOTAL
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch
1-10
29 14.1
18 8.7
2 1.0
1 0.5
2 1.0
2 1.0
1 0.5
1 0.5
61 29.6
8 3.9
17 8.3
11 5.3
4 1.9
4 1.9
6 - --- 2.9
3 1.5
33 16.0
3 1.5
206 100.0

0
D
The summary shows that the types of accidents associated with
intersections and driveways (i.e., roar-end, turns, and angle)
represent 67 percent of the total. These types of accidents
usually increase when volumes increase and L.O.S. deteriorates.
The section of US 311 in Guilford County, a distance of 6.63
miles with an annual daily traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles,
experienced some 1,531 accidents in the 5-year period. The total
accident rate was 5.75 accidents per MVM, slightly higher than
the statewide average of 5.42 accidents per MVM for urban
streets. There have been two fatal accidents during the 5-year
period for this section. The fatal accident rate was 0.75 ac-
cident per 100 MVM compared to a rate of 1.70 on statewide urban
streets.
The severity index for this section was 11.14, just above the
statewide average of 11.00.
Table 1.3, Guilford County Accident Summary, shows number and
percent of total accidents for the 5-year period along the US 311
section in Guilford County.
TABLE 1.3
GUILFORD COUNTY ACCIDENT SUMMARY
No. of Percent
Accident Type Accidents of Total
Ran off road (right
Ran off road (left)
No collision (overturn)
No collision (other)
Pedestrian
Parked vehicle
Bicycle
Moped
Fixed object
Rear-end slow or stop
-Rear-end-(turn)-..
Left turn (same road)
Left turn (cross traffic)
Right turn (same road)
Right turn (cross traffic)
Head-on
Sideswipe
Angle
Backing up
TOTAL
68 4.4
15 1.0
7 0.5
1 0.1
21 1.4
19 1.2
11 0.7
7 0.5
8 0.5
383 25.0
- _ .35 - - 2.3,
185 12.1
143 9.3
31 2.0
49 3.2
18 1.2
83 5.4
427 27.9
20 1.3
1,531 100.0
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch
1-11
W
The summary shows those types of accidents associated with inter-
sections and driveways to be 81.8 percent of the total. This
high percentage is indicative of the urban nature of the roadway
section.
To further delineate existing locations along these two sections
of US 311 subject to high accident rates, "spot" areas of special
concern have been identified and are listed below. These loca-
tions are generally found at intersections. (See Figure 1.3 and
Table 1.4.)
TABLE 1.4
AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Intersection
No. of Accidents
(1/1/81 - 12/31/85)
US 311 - SR 610 (Fairfield Road) 12C
US 311 - Fraley Road 57
US 311 - Linden Avenue 47
US 311 - Ward Avenue 43
US 311 - US 29A (Kivett Drive) 40
US 311 - US 29A (English Road) 90
US 311/29A - Westwood Avenue 40
US 311 - US 29A (Montlieu Avenue) 40
US 311 - Parkway 44
US 311 - US 70A (Lexington Avenue) 56
Source: NCOOT Traffic Engineering Branch
In summary, the two sections of US 311 investigated experienced a
total of 1,737 accidents in a 3-year period. Of the 1,737 ac-
cidents, 1,391 (80.1 percent) were of the rear-end, turning, or
angle type which is common in urban areas due to frequency of
intersections and driveways.
The accident rate for the Randolph County section
nificantly below the statewide average for urban stre?
the Guilford County section rate was slightly higher.
accident rates were below the statewide rate for both
The severity indices for both sections were higher
statewide average.
1-12
was sig-
:ts, while
The fatal
sections.
than the D
0
0
Record of Decision (ROD)
FIIIJA-NC-EIS-86-02-F September 21 , 1968
US 311 Bypass, Guilford 6 Rondolph Cos.
Environmental Programs Manager
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Rohert D. Radics
Cirector, Office of Planning
and Program Development
Atlanta, Georgia
This documents the Record of Decision (ROD) (as required by 40 CFR 1505.2) for
the sub;ect project. This record incorporates the memorandum (attached) of
July 1, 198e from Mr. Kennett: L. Bellamy, Division Administrator, which served
as a preliminary ROD. Based upon the environmental impact atatement and public
input., the Federal Highw&y Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have selected Alternate 4. Based upon all relevant factors, FHWA
has determined that this is also the environmeaLally preferable alternative.
The preliminary ROD contains a description of the alternatives considered,
measures to minimize harm, and all necessary monitoring requirements. The final
EIS contains a detailed discussion of these item:.
All correspondence received betijeen the final EIF and the date this R!'-r; Has
signed has been reviewed. Based on thie review we find that there have been no
new, substantive issues or impacts identified. Tberefore, the FEIS and Dre-
limiuary RrL remain valid.
JOHN S. HUMESTON
9-ter -9a
Environmental Proprar..c Manager Date
cc: ADA-NC
HEV-11
HRC-04
..u.?_ FCC
I 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 2, 1992 Acting Director
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
US 311 Bypass, from west of Oak Hollow Reservoir to US
29/70
Guilford Coun-:iy
DEM Project # 925474, DOT # R-0609D, E, F; 8.1570601
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality
Certification to place fill material in an additional 1.1 acres
of wetlands or waters for road construction and bridge crossing
of Oak Hollow Lake located at US 311 from west of Oak Hollow Lake
to US 29/70 in Guilford County, we have determined that the
proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality
Certifications No. 2671 and 2745 issued January 21, 1992. Copies
of the General-Certifications are attached. These Certifications
may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 26 and 25, respectively.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919-733-1786.
jrd/us3lla.ltr
Attachment
-- Sincerely, - - -
i
Preston Howard, Jr
P. E.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Cent?Ag1cllcles fvtooresville Raleigh
?7 Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6^? nn lam/ ??5wa rt;0V.13-I6Vilcili/fe Kesouces4Commisslion5-3900 919/x96-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity tUfirmative Action Employer
(P o
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
_ WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
G WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 8, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199101397 and Nationwide Permits No. 26 and No. 25
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
ATTN: Mr. L. Jack Ward
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
Q, O
OCT 1 2 1992 =
22? DIVISION OF
G? HIGHWAYS
Reference is made to your request (Pre-Discharge Notification) for
Department of the Army permit authorization to discharge fill material into
jurisdictional waters of the United States for the proposed U.S. 311 Bypass
(High Point East Belt) from West of High Point Reservoir to an interchange a,
US 29/70; T.I.P. Nos. R-06090, E, F; State Project No. 5.1570601.
Your application package included proposed impacts at twenty-five single
and complete project sites located from the existing U.S. 311 to the U.S.
29/70 Interchange, a distance of approximately 8 miles. Our review of your
plans indicates that sites 3 thru 6 and 8 thru 25 are all located above the
headwaters of the impacted tributaries with each involving less than an acre
of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Sites 1 and 2 involve impacts of 6.54 acres (total) to jurisdictional waters
of the United States adjacent to the above raters of Hiatt Branch associated
with the construction of Ramp D. The remaining site (Site 7) is a crossing of
a finger of Oak Hollow Lake. It is proposed to bridge this crossing entirely,
with the only fill in surface waters or wetlands consisting of concrete
footings for bridge pilings. This crossing may be authorized under Nationwide
Permit No. 25 for structural discharges provided all conditions (enclosed) of
this nationwide permit are met.
For the purposes of the--U.S -Army Corps of -Engineers-_Regulator,i_Program,
Title 33, code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters
provided:
a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters
of the United States;
-2-
b. The permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include
a delineation of affected specific aquatic sites, including wetlands; and
c. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Your proposed work, involving adverse modification to of less than an acre
of waters of the United States located above the headwaters of the tributaries
of Sites 3 thru 6 and 8 thru 25, is authorized by NWP provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. Your propose'
work for sites 1 and 2, involving adverse modification of 6.54 acres of waters
of the United States located above the headwaters of Hiatt Branch is also
authorized by NWP provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
enclosed conditions. In addition, to compensate for impacts to Hiatt Branch
you must implement and comply with a final mitigation plan, coordinated with
and approved by my staff, which incorporates the draft mitigation plan dated
September 18, 1992, and revised October 5, 1992. Construction of the
mitigation .mites will be initiated at such time to provide fur planting of
vegetation the first suitable planting period (December 1 through March 15)
following commencement of project construction. If you cannot meet this
timetable due to construction staging, you should submit written documentation
to this 'office justifying the reason for a delay, as well as the anticipated
date of mitigation construction.
Please be aware that this authorization does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any other required or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
[phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
Certification prior to starting work.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, re ssued';-or revoked.- Also;- this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization.is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
-3-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any qstions,
Please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Officeuetelephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
• no wri
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and -
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-768;
Mr. John Dornev
water Quality Sectiot,
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
/ WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
! P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
INFIEMYPUESM January 30, 1998
Regulatory Branch

.? . _. _ _ 1998 czy,-
CIV ':;f' ? OF Q?
?.. ?i1Ch' F Y.'7
Action ID. 199820081 and Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Road Crossing)
Mr. H. Franklin•Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your application of October 10, 1997, for
Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material
within waters of the United States, including 8,006 linear feet
of stream and 0.7 acre of wetlands, within the Deep River
;,ainage basin, for the construction of road crossings associated
with the proposed US 311 Bypass, from NC 68 to US 29/70 (TIP No.
R-0609 EB/FA), in High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory
Program, the "December 13, 1996 Federal Register, Final Notice of
Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits (61
FR 65874)" listed nationwide permits. Authorization, pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided by Nationwide Permit No. 14
for fills for roads crossing waters of the United States
.(including.we.tlands.and_ot_her_.special_aquatic sites) provided:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is
limited to a filled area of no more than one-third acre.
Furthermore, no more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands;
C. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected
highflows and the movement of aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project
for crossing of a water of the United States; and
e. For fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands,
the permittee notifies the District Engineer in accordance with
the "Notification" general condition.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed general
conditions, and with the following special conditions:
1. The permittee is required to provide stream
mitiation for 5,898 linear feet of the 8.006 linear
feet of stream impact. The permittee shall submit a
final plan for a minimum of 11,796 linear feet of
stream restoration mitigation (at a 2:1 ratio for
impacts to the 5,898 linear feet of stream) acceptable
to the Corps of Engineers within two years of the date
of this letter.
2. The stream mitigation must be in the same
cataloguing unit of the USGS "Hydrologic Unit Map --
11174, State of North Carolina," as the impacts
authorized, if practicable. If no opportunities can be
found in the same unit, it may be performed in an
immediately adjacent unit. If no opportunities exist
in the same or immediately adjacent units, then the
permittee will notify the Corps, and the Corps will
_-consult- on- appropriate -si-tes-to _mitigate_.-for - the
wetland impacts.
3. The permittee shall complete construction and
planting of the stream mitigation site(s) within one
year of final approval of the stream mitigation plan by
the Corps of Engineers.
You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone
[phone], regarding water quality certification. These
nationwide permits do not relieve you of the responsibility to
obtain other required State or local approvals.
2
This verification will be valid for two years from the date
of this letter unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
reissued or revoked. This verification will remain valid for the
two years if, during that period, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification. If during the two
years, the nationwide permit authorization expires or is
suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced or are under
contract to commence, in reliance upon the nationwide permit,
will remain authorized. This is provided the activity is
completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide
permit's expiration, modification or revocation.
Questions or comments may
Raleigh Field Office regulatory
[phone],.extension 23.
be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
staff, at telephone
Sincerely,
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department
Environment and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
of
3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
C?CDD ?
C?L3
NORTH CAncuKA DEPARTmmNr of
ENVIRONMENT AND N/QuRAL RE3ou C
Much 13, 1998 .
Guilford County C
DWQProjcct # 920000547
TIP No. R--0609E/FT ti
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS f r ??qR ,
Frank Vick; NC DOT > 19
PO Box 25201 0li/r 98
Raleigh NC 27611-5201 y> /Y 8/0'V
ly?,A F
Dear Mr. Vick
.rz Lam'
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material 1.8 acres of wetlands for the purpose of constructing the US 311 (High Point) Bypass forth NC 68 to
us 29!70 in Guilford County, as you described in your application dated October 10, 1997. After reviewing
your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers
3103 and 3100. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and General Permit 031
when the Corps of Engineers issues them. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control. Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise speed in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby
responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre. compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 1SA NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and
(7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. A total of 6085 feet of stream restoration shall be required for this project. A detailed mitigation plan
depicting restoration sites, monitoring plans and schedule for restoration shall be provided to DWQ for
written approval within one year of the date of this certification. Implementation of this mitigation plan
is to be completed within one year of written approval form DWQ. Stream restoration for this project is
defined as: (1) the reestablishment of wooded buffers next to channels
(2) the restoration of stream sinuosity when needed
(3) the stabilization of streambanks when appropriate
(4) the control of existing runoff to non-erosive velocities if resultant stmambank stability
can be demonstrated.
The ultimate goal is 6085 feet of restored streams with protected vegetated buffers, natural sinuosity and
stable streambanks.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
_ . This letter completes the review of the Division of Water
Quality under Section 401 of the. Clean Water._._
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Pn o r. I.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
John Dorney
Central Filcs 920000547.ltr
Division of Water Duality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Crook Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recyclod/10% post consumer paper

S
5_ V1 ?

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT A
February 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
John Hennessy, NCDENR-DWQ
Beth Barns, NCDENR - DWQ
Art McMillan, PE, NCDOT - Highway Design Branch
Jay Bennett, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Scott Blevins, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
David Smith, PE, NCDOT - Preconstruction
David Chang, PE, NCDOT - Hydraulics Design Unit
Roy Shelton, NCDOT - PDEA
Jimmy Goodnight, PE, NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT - PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
Brett Feulner, NCDOT - PDE -Office of Natural Environment
FROM: Michael Penney, PE
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: US 311 Bypass High Point East Belt; TIP Project Numbers R-0609 IA &
IB and R-2606 A, B & C; Guilford and Randolph Counties; Federal Aid
No. MAF-F-119-1(1) and STP-NHF-311(3); State Project No. 8.1570601
and 8.1571501; WBS No. 34345.1.1 and 34480.1.1
Median Issue - 70-foot vs. 46-foot
Based on the November 12, 2004 Memorandum to NCDENR-DWQ and subsequence
discussions with NCDENR-DWQ staff the week of November 15, 2004, regarding the median
width issue for the above referenced projects, NCDENR-DWQ determined that the 70-foot
median is acceptable on February 2, 2005.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 733-7844
extension 260.

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION: I
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC