20160299_FEIS_20070417

US 64 Improvements
City of Asheboro
Randolph County, North Carolina
From US 64 just east of SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) to US 64 0.6 miles east of SR 2345
(Presnell Street) for a distance of approximately 14 miles
Federal -aid Project No. NHF - 84(19)
State Project No. 8.1 571 401
YOBS No. 34450.1.1
TIP Project R -2836
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY EARTH TECH OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
FOR
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
c�
Date
Roger D. Leers, P.E.
Project Manager
14666
.Nt
'�tst
111E1tas"
Date Brian F. Yarnamo o, P.E., {Group Leader
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch,
NDDOT
Date
Jooj�-Contv`Tr, FEW, Project Manager
Project Development & Environmental
NCDOT
*,Bra
Qq

77P PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This environmental document was prepared in accordance with the implementing
regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal
Highway Administration technical guidance documents, most notably Technical
Advisory T 6640.8A, "Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and
Section 4(f) Documents" (October 30, 1987).
The NEPA implementing regulations emphasize paperwork reduction and
production of documents which are useful and comprehensible to both decision-
makers and the public. To those ends, the regulations permit three approaches
to preparing a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). These include the
"traditional" approach, which involves rewriting the entire Draft EIS, a
"Condensed" Final EIS, and an "Abbreviated" Final EIS, This environmental
document was prepared using the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement format.
Abbreviated FEIS Format. An "Abbreviated" FEIS format is permitted under
conditions provided in 40 CFR 1503.4(c), which includes receipt of minor
comments on the Draft EIS; the need for only factual corrections; and, an
explanation as to why comments received on the Draft EIS do not warrant further
response. It also requires that a summary of agency and/or public comments on
the Draft EIS be included in the Abbreviated FEIS. In addition, the Federal
Highway Administration's Technical Advisory requires the Abbreviated FEIS
include a section identifying the Preferred Alternative and describing how it was
selected, as well as provide wetland impact findings; floodplain encroachment
findings; and a list of commitments for mitigation measures associated with the
Preferred Alternative. All of these items have been provided in the document.
Change in Environmental Impacts since the DEIS. The Draft EIS presents the
environmental impacts associated with nine alternatives, developed from two
basic corridors. A summary of those impacts is provided in tabular form in Table
S.1, which is included in both the DEIS and again in this Abbreviated FEIS to
assist the reader. Some,, of,the environmental,, i rn r)acts,,,have chan aed,sin ce1hav
i6bfMs�6d.# A review of the floodplains within the entire project area, as shown in
the 2006 updates of the Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps was conducted. The
2006 updates revealed that the area of floodplains around streams crossed by
each alternative considered in the Draft EIS increased. Due to the close
proximity of the alternatives, as well as common portions shared among many of
the alternatives, the same streams, and therefore, the same floodplains, were
typically crossed. All of the floodplains increased in width, some also increased

in length. Therefore, it can be concluded that the changes in floodplain impacts
would have occurred on all nine of the detailed study alternatives, and would not
have altered the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Ve i, 11 g 0
This is discussed is greater detail in
r p,
Sections 1.32 and 2.4.
Residential displacements increased as a result of policy changes by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that affect functional roadway
designations, specifically NC 49, and access control requirements along
secondary roads at interchange ramps. After completion of the DEIS, NC 49 was
designated a Strategic Highway Corridor, which will enhance mobility between
Charlotte and Raleigh. Therefore, the NC 49 interchange design created during
the DEIS and used to calculate impacts had to be modified to accommodate this
future higher speed traffic flow. This design modification occurred within the
selected corridor. Because an interchange with NC 49 was common to all study
alternatives, the design changes would have been necessary regardless of the
alternative selected as the preferred. The requirement for control of access
along secondary routes was strengthened, with access prohibited within 1000
feet of an interchange ramp. These two policy changes affected the design and
resulted in the likely displacement of additional homes. This is discussed in
greater detail in Sections 1.22, 1.25, 1.34, and 2.1.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps were prepared for Randolph County in 2006 by the
State of North Carolina, Floodplain Mapping Program, in partnership with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. More information on this is provided
in Section 2.3 of this document.

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
S.1 Federal Highway Administration
( ) Draft ( ) Final (X) Abbreviated Final
This document was prepared as an Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) in accordance with specifications contained in 40 CFR
1503.4(c). This Abbreviated Final EIS and the Draft Environment Impact
Statement (DEIS) were prepared under the auspices of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and are intended for use
by both decision - makers and the public. These documents include the disclosure
of relevant environmental information regarding the proposed project and
conform to the methodologies and requirements of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) guidelines regarding the implementation of NEPA and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, "Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents" (October
30, 1987).
According to the regulations implementing NEPA in 40 CFR Part 1503.4(c), the
use of an abbreviated version of a Final EIS is permitted to expedite the
document's preparation when only minor factual changes are needed and the
comments to the Draft EIS do not warrant further substantive response. In using
the Abbreviated FEIS format, we are appending the DEIS by reference. Copies
of the Draft EIS were distributed to agencies listed in Chapter 4. Additional
copies of the Draft EIS are available for review by the public at NCDOT offices in
Raleigh and its Division 8 offices in Asheboro and Aberdeen. To review the Draft
EIS, the reader may contact the individuals listed in Section S.2 or the Division 8
offices.
With the abbreviated format, information in the DEIS is not repeated in this
document, only new and explanatory information is provided. Some information
provided in the DEIS is updated in this document in response to agency and
public comments, and as needed to disclose new information or changes in
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts, as calculated during
preparation of the DEIS, are presented in Table S.1 in the Summary of this
document. Impacts to four environmental features or considerations changed
since completion of the DEIS, including wetlands and streams, which decreased,
and residential displacements and floodplains, which increased. The reasons
why these changed, and the revised total impacts, are discussed in detail in this
Abbreviated FEIS. The changes in impacts are a result of actions and policies
that would have affected any of the detailed study alternatives selected as the
Preferred Alternative and would not have affected the selection decision.
The Abbreviated Final EIS format for the US 64 Bypass project in Randolph
County, North Carolina was agreed to jointly by the FHWA and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) due to the adequacy of information
contained in the DEIS; the success of public and agency involvement in the
development and review of the project; and agreement among the FHWA,

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NCDOT, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other federal and
state regulatory and resource agencies regarding the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Copies of the DEIS are available for
review at the NCDOT through the contacts provided below.
F1 P 4 W_. ,L. -.nom
The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning
this Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Federal Hiahwav Administration
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone: [phone]
S.3 Proposed Action
The proposed action will improve the existing US 64 corridor in the Asheboro
vicinity in Randolph County in central North Carolina (see Project Location, Figure
2.1 in Appendix E). As part of this action, the NCDOT also proposes to improve
the access to the North Carolina Zoological Park, located southeast of Asheboro.
Collectively, these US 64 improvements are identified as Project Number R -2536
in the NCDOT's 2007- -2013 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The project is designated as a component of the US 64 Intrastate Corridor. The
Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Asheboro, which was adopted by the City in
January 1999 and the NCDOT on March 4, 1999, prioritized the proposed action.
This document provides an overview of the nine (9) build alternatives presented
in the Draft EIS and the selection of the Preferred Alternative. The nine
alternatives follow two basic corridors with varying crossover points to create nine
roadway combinations on the south side of Asheboro. All alternatives share the
same corridor with the NC Zoo Connector, which will provide a new access to the
North Carolina Zoological Park, located 4.5 miles south of US 64. Narrative

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
descriptions of the alternatives studied for the project are presented in Summary
Section SA Alternatives Considered. Graphic representations of their locations
are presented in Figure 2.6, Detailed Study Alternatives (Appendix E).
1 '29',"sho � ImFigure,,2­2, in Appendix, Ei;,was,;.selected,,gs theLeast
-�IAEnvironmentally,Damaging Pr,acticable.,,uAlternativ.,e,,.r;(LED
,,,","-,�nd,,the,i,NGDO,T?,%T,Preferred °Aiternativo,,,,,'�,,,vThe basis for selection of Alternative 29
includes public comments, environmental impacts, and cost. A summary of the
environmental impacts documented in the Draft EIS is provided in Table S,11.
Alternative 29 is a four-lane, median-divided facility with full access control on
new location. The alternate is nearly 14 miles in length.
" ,"Soven,interchangea,,are proposed'with,,thafo[lowing�ro-4dwa,,ys:'
• US 64 west of Asheboro,
• NC 49,
• US 220 Bypass (future 1-73/74),
• the proposed Zoo Connector,
• NC 159,
• NC 42, and
• US 64 east of Asheboro,
The Zoo Connector is proposed as a two-lane parkway facility on new location. A
bridge will carry NC 159 over the Zoo Connector. Special design features for the
bridge and surrounding landscape will provide an aesthetically enhanced
entrance to the Zoological Park.
In Chapter 2, Section 2.2 - Preferred Alternative and Reasons for Selection, a
detailed description of the typical roadway cross-sections for each segment of the
project is provided. Figures 1.2a -1.2m in Appendix E, illustrate the preliminary
roadway design for the Preferred Alternative. Typical sections are shown in
Figure 2.3 in Appendix E.
to "PrN6
alter p 'xistiO ,I The existing and projected traffic
p
g Q th,009h�AsbebOrd
and land use patterns along US 64 diminishes its function as an Intrastate
With the separation of local and regional traff ic,�the,,proposed,,improvements will,�,,,-
also ty3}
x . .. .
in g, 61, N,40q'r
,g,, , "0
,,,,c-ln,,the statewide,,average,forsimilarroadways:
Traffic congestion along NC 159 due to Zoo patrons makes local access difficult
for residents in the area and at times causes substantial delays along the
roadway. By diverting approximately 30 percent of NC 159 traffic, the proposed
Zoo Connector will resolve the congestion and related safety issues along NC
H/

TIP PROJECT P-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMEIVTA L IMPACT STATEMENT
159 without requiring widening and reconstruction of that roadway and the
extensive residential displacements that would result.
S. 4 Other Major Government Actions
.,,,Fjv,e,,other,,,,pr,oje,-ts,,in the 71 P-areinthe gene ral,vicinity,of-the, proposed action.
Appendix E, Figure 1.1 shows the general locations ofwi",4407 R-22220;.,'R*2635'-"
,U :22,0 0,,and+Ur34orlIlin°relation,to�-T,,IP��ProjectfR,,2,,5 (US 64, Asheboro Southern
Bypass), The five projects are listed below:
Project- 1 4407minvolves ,safety,�i mprovements»required,,,to�upgrade;the,sectioniof
US,220,,Bypass,-,to,in,te,rstate,standards�,from north of the northern Asheboro city
limits to US 220 Business south of the southern Asheboro city limits. This facility
will be part of the 1-73174 interstate route. The total project length is 8.0 miles.
,,Construction is,, scheduled ,to=begin,,in Federal Fiscal,�Year,,,,,,,,(FF-Y,,),x,2009
-Pfdj00t"R-

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED TED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
northeast ,-tflLs,,,corri'dorwcrossesjOld,Gox �Road,,J3ichlandC reek,,,,SR,282,4,(Pin-e,,,,,,,,,,,
Hill,Ro mile,east,,�of,,the,NG,42/Brow "tRoa6,*,*,,,
i,n,tersection,.�-,I,tN-,then,,curves- northwar,dr,,c,--ros siing,,$ rp ,,and,,,,SR 2604
qv
(,�uck,,,Road),;,,,endingy-ata,,U,S-,,64,east,of,,Asheboro,about,,,,O,,,6€mile,,"Od§fbflh,o,
,US.641SR,,2345,,(Presnell'Stmi' t),sintersec-tion,.,.,,�...,,,,�,,
Alternative 1
Alternative I begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles east of
the US 64/SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south
across Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 1 mile west of the
NC 49/SR 1193 intersection. The corridor curves to the southeast to cross
Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.3 miles north of the Mack Road/Danny
Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns easterly to cross the
Little River, the US 220 Bypass (Future 1-73/74), and Southmont Drive. The
corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business, just north of Crestview
Church Road. Past Crestview Church Road, the corridor curves to the northeast
to cross tributaries to Tantraugh Branch and NC 159, about 0.2 miles north of the
NC 159/SR 2839 (Staleys Farm Road) intersection. Continuing northeast, the
corridor crosses Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NC 42 about
0.3 mile east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road intersection. The alternative
then crosses Squirrel Creek, SR 2604 (Luck Road), and a tributary to Gabriels
Creek to end at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6 miles east of the US 64/Presnell
Street intersection.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 between the western Bypass terminus
and SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward
the east to cross NC 42 about 1 mile east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road
intersection. This corridor then curves northward, crossing Squirrel Creek and
SR 2604 (Luck Road) and ends at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6 miles east of the
US 64/Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 from the western
Bypass terminus to between US 220 Business and NC 159. Just east of
Crestview Church Road, this alternative curves slightly south avoiding a wetland
area on Tantraugh Branch. It then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves north
to cross NC 159 about 0.1 miles south of the NC 159/SR 2839 (Staleys Farm
Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds northeast across Old Cox Road,
Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and Fleta Brown Road. Alternative 4
crosses NC 42 at the same location as Alternative 2 and follows the same
corridor as Alternative 2 from this point to its terminus at US 64 east of Asheboro.
V

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile east of
the US 64/SR 1424 (Stutts Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south
across Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49, about 1 mile west of the
NC 49 /SR 1193 intersection. The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek
and Mack Road about 0.1 miles north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road
intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns easterly to cross the Little River
and US 220 Bypass (future 1- 73174) where Southmont Drive crosses over US 220
Bypass. The corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5 mile
south of Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast until about
halfway between US 220 Business and NC 159. At this point, the corridor curves
northeast and crosses Staleys Farm Road then NC 159 about 0.1 mile south of
the NC 159 / Staleys Farm Road intersection. Continuing northeast, the corridor
crosses Old Cox Road, Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NC 42
about 1 mile east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road intersection. It then curves
northward, crossing Squirrel Creek and SR 2604 (Luck Road), ending at US 64
east of Asheboro about 0.6 miles east of the US 64 /Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of
the US 64/SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south,
crossing Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 1.3 mile west of
the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection. From this point, Alternative 13 curves to the
southeast using the same corridor as Alternative 1.
Alternative 14
Alternative 14 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of
the US 64 /SR 1424 (Stutts Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south,
crossing Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 1.3 mile west of
the NC 49 /SR 1193 intersection. Alternative 14 then curves to the southeast
using the same corridor as Alternative 2.
Alternative 22
Alternative 22 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of
the US 64/SR 1424 (Stutts Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south,
crossing Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 1.3 mile west of
the NC 49 /SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49) intersection. The corridor continues south
across Taylors Creek, then southeast using the same corridor as Alternative 10.
Alternative 33
Alternative 33 is the same as Alternative 13 from the western terminus to Mack
Road. From this point to the eastern terminus, Alternative 33 is the same as
Alternative 10.
yr

TIP PROJECT R•2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Zoo Connector
The Zoo Connector is proposed to be a "parkway- type„ facility, with two- lanes,
controlled- access and grassed shoulders sloping into swales. The facility will be
approximately two miles in length. Extensive landscaping is planned along the
corridor, making it a true gateway to the North Carolina Zoological Park. A four -
lane divided roadway was considered but is not justified based on the future traffic
projected to be generated by the Zoo.
The Zoo Connector's northern terminus will include a trumpet -type interchange
connecting to the proposed US 64 Bypass about 0.8 miles west of NC 159,
providing adequate weave distance between interchanges. From the new
bypass, the Zoo Connector will proceed southeast across Tantraugh Branch and
Staley's Farm Road (there will be no access between the Zoo Connector and
Staley's Farm Road). As it nears NC 159, the Connector will curve toward the
south and parallel NC 159 to the west and then connect to the NC 159/NC 159
Spur intersection, the main entrance to the NC Zoo. A half - diamond interchange
is proposed at this crossing, with ramps constructed on the east side of NC 159.
The Zoo Connector will cross under NC 159, creating a more aesthetic entrance
into the North Carolina Zoological Park..
S.6 Preferred Aftemative
Of the nine alternates under consideration in the Draft EIS, °Alternat1ve =29.was,,,,,
l'.referred=,Alto.mativ ,_by3 the,North:,Carolina° Department of=YTransportation: =�NThe
Federal Highway Administration also endorses Alternative 29 as its Preferred
Alternative. The following summarizes the reasons for its selection:
• It has=no adverse =effects on,, historie ,architecturalsesource&m,,,,.
• A l arnatlxe . ,ha . ,,ha.feastfarea,of= wetletnd,"irn 6
Th a4,P pate { =Ii iptmiza�.,,Imp,a ta.rtet eighborhoods and community-
• Itravoida „im pa, cts to>,,the:.S, cot,Rush Ballpark; a private ball fieldrando
importantcommunity resource.
S.7 Summary of Impacts
The FEIS identifies the environmental effects associated with the US 64 Bypass
and Zoo Connector. Table S.1, which follows this Summary, summarizes the
environmental impacts calculated during completion of the Draft EIS. Since then,
some environmental impacts have changed. These include wetland and stream
impacts, which decreased, and residential displacements, which increased. Also,
floodplain impacts increased due to recent revisions in the floodplain boundaries.
A summary of all environmental impacts and a brief explanation regarding the
changes to the four issues noted are summarized in this section.
NA

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Economic Effects
Overall, the project is likely to have beneficial economic impacts on the region
due to improved regional access along US 64 to the area's businesses, as well
as to the NC Zoo. Businesses along existing US 64 should benefit from improved
level of service on the roadway, as substantial congestion is known to discourage
patronage during heavily congested periods. Localized impacts to properties
near the roadway could be positive or negative. Some areas may become more
attractive for development due to improved access. Recognizing this, local
municipalities have planned for commercial development in the vicinity of some
interchanges along the project corridor, particularly US 220 and NC 49. Other
property, particularly residential property exposed to noise and visual impacts
could decrease in value or experience a conversion to commercial use over time.
This may result in a short -term loss in property value, but in the long -term, could
produce a net gain, as commercial property is typically higher in value.
Relocation Impacts
Alternative 29 will displace 187 residences, of which approximately 22 are
minorities, and relocate 34 businesses, none of which are known to be minority -
owned. The likely residential displacements increased from 145 shown in Table
S.1 due to design changes at the NC 49 interchange and the extension of access
control up to 1000 feet along secondary roads intersecting the proposed freeway.
One church will be displaced, the Asheboro Seventh Day Adventist Church,
located on Trogdon Hill Road at the project's eastern terminus, immediately south
of existing US 64. It will be displaced by the interchange of the US 64 Bypass
with existing US 64. Construction of the church began after the 1998 and 1999
citizens informational meetings and the January, 2001 relocation surveys, but
prior to the 2003 public hearing. The displacement of the church also was
disclosed in Chapter 4, Section 1.1.5, Community Facilities, of the Draft EIS.
Land Use Impacts
The majority of the study area is currently zoned residential /agricultural, with
existing land uses consisting generally of low density rural residential interspersed
with a few subdivisions, and an occasional commercial or industrial use. The City
of Asheboro's Land Development Plan and Thoroughfare Plan, and Randolph
County's Growth Management Plan all include the proposed project and detail
future objectives based on its construction. New employment centers are
planned for the proposed interchanges at US 64 West, NC 49, and US 220
(future 1- 73/74). The project is consistent with approved City and County land use
plans.
Communitv Cohesion
The presence of a new, controlled- access facility can have both positive and
negative impacts to the cohesion of a community or neighborhood. Positive
effects may include shorter travel times and more convenient access between
homes, stores, and businesses. On the negative side, a new roadway can create
a barrier between residential areas and their shopping centers, recreational sites,
and schools, matting travel to these resources more circuitous. At a
VI/I

TIP PROJECT 8-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
neighborhood level, a new bypass can divide neighbors previously connected by
a local street system. However, due to the sparsely developed nature of most the
study area and the efforts to avoid community impacts during the project's
alternative development and preliminary design phases, community disruption is
expected to be minimal. Nevertheless, several neighborhoods will be impacted
by property acquisition and displacements. These include the mobile home parks
located near the Twelve Tree Road community, just west of US 220 at the
proposed interchange with the Bypass; the Crestview Manor subdivision located
to the east of US 220; the Indian Wells Loop Road community on the west side of
the Zoo Connector interchange with the proposed Bypass, the Trodgon Hill Road
residential area found at the project's eastern terminus, just south of existing US
64, and the residential area along Jason Hoover Road southwest of the NC 49
interchange.
Visual Impacts
The US 64 Bypass study area is characterized by rural, agricultural, and large-lot
residential properties, although some suburban areas exist along NC 159, in the
US 220 vicinity, and just south of US 64 at the project's eastern terminus. The
visual quality of the facility is expected to be generally positive for its users, as
more viewing opportunities of the rolling countryside would occur. However,
adverse visual impacts could occur at residential home sites. The visual quality of
the Zoo Connector will be exceptional, as the NCDOT will work with Zoo officials
to develop a landscape plan for the parkway. Other landscape plans for the
project, particularly at interchanges, will be developed and incorporated into the
final construction plans. Grade-separations over existing roads will have the
greatest visual impacts, as they will be most visible. No adverse visual impacts
are expected for businesses, commercial districts, or industries.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to include aesthetic features into roadway designs.
The NCDOT will incorporate the measures listed below into the final roadway
construction plans to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional roadway.
Integrate landscaping into the project design to promote visual continuity
of the roadway and blend it into the natural landscape to the extent
possible.
Minimize the loss of vegetation, particularly during construction, when
equipment access, storage and staging are required.
Design any necessary noise attenuation features that are found to be
feasible and reasonable per the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy
to be compatible with surrounding natural features and development.
Water,.,Qug&,,
_ormwaterFrunoff,rate.
'r * ,roadway,,.
Jtiopa J
, #JmpevJoq
surface area; -This ,is,an unavoidabliD;"Iongtof
-construction of,,the,bypas&. The project also has the potential to degrade
temporarily the quality of water in the surrounding streams due to soil erosion
during construction. Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources and water quality. These measures include implementation of an
erosion and sedimentation control plan, specified provisions for waste materials
Ix

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and other sediment control guidelines will be strictly
enforced. Design-elementssugh,,A
s
s,,§ 4 s
9thp 41
t
,� F, p m Q ;a
co,nsidered,and,=,incorporated,wherei,appropriate: toimitigate,,for,,the,pote,ntiaL!nput•,,
of- toxins ,,,,,and,nutrients, into ,-,su,r-fac-e,,,swaters,.-,
Soils
The properties of the soils within the selected corridor could affect the engineering
design of the proposed project. Soil limitations include erosion hazard,
shrink1swell potential, differential settlement, low strength, corrosivity, and flood
hazard. These soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering
design, incorporating techniques such as soil modification, appropriate choice of
fill material, use of non-corrosive subgrade materials, and the appropriate design
of drainage structures.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs all federal agencies to
"avoid, minimize, and mitigate" actions that will have an adverse or
disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations. Specifically,
the Order addresses persons belonging to the following groups: Black, Hispanic,
Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, and those whose
household incomes are at or below the federal poverty thresholds. The Order
particularly emphasizes the importance of public participation in the project
development process, directing that "each Federal agency shall provide
opportunities for community input in the NEPA process." Agencies are further
directed to "identify potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with
affected communities, and improve the accessibility of meetings, crucial
documents, and notices." In compliance with Executive Order 12898, a review
was completed to determine whether these social groups would experience
disproportionably adverse health and/or environmental impacts from the
proposed project. A summary of the findings of that review is presented below. It
is concluded that the project will not disproportionately affect minority and/or low-
income populations. In addition, measures were taken to ensure representation
of minority and low-income populations during the project planning process.
Minority Populations
According to the 2000 Census, minority households represent about 23.5 percent
of the City of Asheboro's population, while minority groups in Randolph County
represent only 10.8 percent of its total population. Based on relocation surveys
conducted for the Draft EIS, construction of Alternative 29 will impact 22 minority
households, about 11.8 percent of the total residential displacements, No
minority-owned businesses will be displaced.
A Hispanic community resides in the Crestview Manor subdivision, located near
the center of the project, just east of US 220. The NCDOT implemented a special
outreach program targeted to this Hispanic community, described in the following
VA

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Public Involvement section. As a result of the community outreach efforts, the
preliminary design for Alternative 29 was revised to include a grade - separation
carrying SR 2987 (Pastureview Road) over the proposed US 64 Bypass. This
design minimizes the number of displaced residences within the neighborhood
and maintains cohesiveness that would otherwise be disrupted by the Bypass.
Low- Income Populations
According to an analysis of 2000 Census data, in 1999 the percentage of affected
families with incomes less than $15,000 in the Alternative 29 corridor was
approximately 4.57 percent. This compares favorably to the ratio of low- income
families in the City of Asheboro and Randolph County, which is 12.5 percent and
6.8 percent, respectively.
In 2002, the latest reporting year available, the US Census Bureau Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates report that 12.9 percent of North Carolina citizens
live in poverty. Poverty rates in Randolph County dropped during the three -year
period from 1999 to 2002, with 11 percent of Randolph County citizens living with
incomes below the federal poverty threshold, which was $15,020 in 2002 for a
family of three. (The average household size in Randolph County, according to
the 2000 Census, was 2.55 persons.)
Public Involvement
An important component of the Environmental Justice compliance process
involves keeping potentially affected citizens informed of the proposed project and
providing ample opportunities for full participation in the project development
process. Part of the community impact assessment for the project involved
interviews, using a Spanish interpreter, with Hispanic households in the Crestview
Manor subdivision. Many of the Hispanic families interviewed did not know of the
proposed project, but indicated that they would be willing to move as long as
relocation assistance was available. The NCDOT conducted a meeting on May
31, 2001 with Hispanic community leaders to obtain their suggestions about
effectively designing an outreach program to the Hispanic community. The
Hispanic outreach program included a small group meeting with members of the
Hispanic community in Crestview Manor, as well as providing interpreters at the
Citizens Informational Workshop and the Corridor Public Hearing during May
2003.
Transit Dependent Populations
There is no public transportation system available in Randolph County.
Therefore, no public transit impacts are anticipated.
Cultural Resource Impacts
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. This section requires
federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
#►

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment
on such findings.
Historic Architectural Resources
A survey of historic architectural resources within the project corridors identified
one property, the Cox -Brown Farm, as eligible for listing in the NRHP. This
property is located adjacent to Alternatives 1, 2, 13, and 14 at the intersection of
NC 159 (Zoo Parkway) and Crestview Church Road. The State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) has concurred with the NCDOT determination that the
project will have no effect on this historic property. The environmental
commitments pertaining to the effects determination were met with the selection
of Alternative 29 as the Preferred Alternative. The commitments included
maintenance of trees along the southeastern edge of the property and extension
of the tree line along the new ramp for Alternatives 1, 2, 13, and 14. Because the
Preferred Alternative is located nearly one mile south of the Cox -Brown Farm,
none of the trees adjacent to the property will be affected by the project. In
addition, the wooded parcel between the historic farm and the proposed
alignment will provide the desired vegetative buffer from the interchange ramp,
thereby rendering the requirement that the tree line be extended along the ramp
moot.
Archaeological Resources
An intensive archaeological survey of Alternative 29 (Preferred) was conducted
from June through August 2005. Eighty -two (82) archaeological sites were
discovered within the Preferred Alternative corridor. Of those, three are
recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
under Criterion D, Data: site 31 RD 1398, site 31 RD1399, and site
31 RD1426/1426" ("denotes a historic site). The first two sites are prehistoric,
while the third site, 31 RD142611426 ** is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places for the historic data it contains, although there is a prehistoric
component at the site.
The survey results were coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office,
Office of State Archaeology. It was determined through consultation with the
HPO that the project as currently proposed will have an adverse effect on the
three eligible archaeological sites. Therefore, a Memorandum of Agreement was
developed for implementing mitigation involving data recovery at the site(s) upon
acquisition of right -of -way and prior to commencement of construction activities.
The HPO concurred with the survey findings, recommendations of eligibility for
the three sites, and proposed mitigation, as indicated in their letter, dated April 7,
2006, and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the NCDOT on
August 8, 2006, the Federal Highway Administration on August 16, 2006, and the
State Historic Preservation Officer on August 14, 2006. The MOA is provided in
Appendix D. A commitment to perform this mitigation is included in the Project
Commitments, or "green sheet" attached to this Abbreviated FEIS.
Xl!

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Noise Impacts
Noise impacts to adjacent land uses along the Alternative 29 corridor were
calculated using projected design year traffic volumes to determine potential
noise impacts on sensitive receivers. The noise and abatement analysis was
conducted in conformance with the procedures and criteria approved by the
Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Alternative 29 is expected to impact 36 residences and two
businesses. Noise barriers were considered for each impacted receptor. A
barrier was determined to be reasonable and feasible at one location, the
residential area along Twelve Tree Road adjacent to the US 220 Bypass. A
noise barrier analysis indicates that a wall averaging 19 feet in height and
approximately 1,400 feet long would benefit 12 receptors in that neighborhood. A
final decision on the installation of abatement measures will be made upon
completion of the final roadway design and design public hearing for the project.
Air Quality Impacts
Randolph County was designated as a moderate nonattainment for ozone under
the eight -hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November 22,
2004, the EPA reclassified Randolph County from a moderate nonattainment
area to a marginal nonattainment area. Randolph County is under an Early
Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment designation has been
deferred until April 15, 2008. On April 15, 2009, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93
becomes applicable (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes
effective).
Prime and Important Farmland
Alternative 29 will impact approximately 88 acres of prime or statewide important
farmland. There are approximately 71 parcels within the corridor with farming
activities. Four of these are larger than or as large as the average farming unit
(107 acres) for Randolph County. The corridor received a rating of 101.3 points
on a scale of 260. Ratings greater than 160 require consideration of mitigation
options. Therefore, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) site
assessment criteria require no further protection or action.
Hazardous Material Sites
A field reconnaissance survey for hazardous material sites was undertaken to
identify known and potential hazardous materials and waste sites. Preliminary
results found one active gasoline station/convenience store located just south of
Alternative 29, at the intersection of US 220 Business and SR 2842 (Leo
Cranford Road). This station includes three underground storage tanks (USTs)
and one above - ground storage tank. Two additional underground storage sites
were identified at the eastern project terminal on each side of Loflin (Pond) Road
at US 64. If existing UST sites cannot be avoided, the NCDOT will coordinate
with state and local agencies regarding proper remediation procedures.
xui

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Jurisdictional Resources
v,.vj,It.cr.oss:2-3,streamsl, affectingr29i896!Iinear�feet,,ofistream,,length
-under�the,pigrmitting,,jurisdiction,of,thwUSAO, E�,,Weland,impactsY,total,,3,,,.,,3�'ade
T,he,,;total,a,rea,of affected ,ponds .is,2,,,J,,a,c,r,e&,. Wetland impacts have been
minimized through the use of highway design techniques such as reduction of fill
slopes, alignment adjustments, profile adjustments, and construction of bridges
instead of culverts at three locations, Little River, Vestal Creek, and North Prong
Richland Creek. The bridges also reduce the overall total stream impacts of the
project. The project's total stream and wetland impacts have been reduced from
the impacts shown in Table S.1 prepared for the Draft EIS, which were 30,817
linear feet of stream length and 4.1 acres of wetlands. The total reduction in
impacts through minimization efforts were 921 linear feet of stream and 0.8 acres
of wetlands.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams will be further minimized to the
extent practicable. Compensatory mitigation will be provided for all unavoidable
impacts to these valuable natural systems. When all on-site opportunities are
exhausted, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program, pursuant to the tri-party
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the
NCDENR, and the NCDOT, will provide compensatory wetland stream mitigation.
Floodplains
The proposed Bypass will encroach upon the 100 -year floodplain of the Little
River, Vestal Creek, and North Prong Richland Creek. Crossing each stream at a
perpendicular or nearly perpendicular angle will minimize encroachment into the
floodplain of each stream. Water feature crossings are also designed to minimize
or eliminate flood level risk. Additionally, the proposed bridge crossings at all
three streams will further minimize the floodplain impact at each location.
Floodplain impacts from Alternative 29, as shown in Table S.1, increased due to
the expanded floodplain boundaries delineated in the updated Flood Insurance
Rate Maps published in 2006, rather than changes to the Preferred Alternative. A
review of the newly delineated floodplains within the project study area indicates
that similar increases would have been observed for the other eight detailed study
alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS. Based on the same design used to
calculate impacts during preparation of the Draft EIS, the floodplain impacts
increased by 4.75 acres, due to mapping changes alone. However, after the
inclusion of the three sets of bridges over three streams during preparation of this
FEIS is taken into account; those new impacts were minimized by 2.41 acres.
Therefore, the net change in floodplain encroachment is 2.34 areas, with a total
impact of 12.24 acres.
Federally Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of federally-protected species for
Randolph County shown in Table 3.12 of the Draft EIS in Chapter 3 on page 3-46
was updated on April 27, 2006. Two additional Federal Species of Concern and
one new Candidate species, the Georgia aster, was included in the list. Also, one
species, the Pee Dee Crayfish Ostracod (dacVoctythere peedeensis) was
X/V

TIP PFUJECT P-2536
ASSREVIA TED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STA TEMENT
removed from the county's list. Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 of this Abbreviated Final
EIS provides the updated list of federally - protected species and Federal Species
of Concern for Randolph County, North Carolina. The list of protected species in
Randolph County, as of April 27, 2006 includes two endangered species, the
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitz#)) and the Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas). No Threatened species were listed.
Surveys were conducted on October 1 and 6, 2004, during the Schweinitz's
sunflower's flowering season. The survey concluded that no individual plants
would be affected by Alternative 29. The NCDOT has committed to conducting a
survey of suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower within the construction
limits of the Preferred Alternative within two years prior to construction of the
project.
S.8 Areas of Controversy
Public involvement and agency coordination activities were implemented throughout the
project planning process. Several issues of concern were identified during the public meeting
process:
• Citizens objected to Alternatives 1 and 13 because of impacts to neighborhoods
along NC 42, including Crystalwood and Kennedy Country Estates. Alternative 29
does not directly impact these residential neighborhoods.
• Concerns were raised over potential impacts to the privately - owned S. Scot Rush
baseball field, located near Mack Road. The ball field is used by little league
organizations, high schools, and others. Alternative 29 will not directly impact the
ball field.
• Comments were made that the Bypass should be located further south to avoid
residential impacts and relocations. Corridors further south were not considered
because they were constrained by both the NC Zoo and the Uwharrie National
Forest (Harvey's Mountain).
S.9 Unresolved Issues
The Draft EIS states that the following issues will be addressed prior to the publication of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement:
An intensive archaeological survey of the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative ( LEDPA) would be conducted.
Federal and state regulatory and agency concurrence with the selection of the
LEDPA and with the avoidance and minimization efforts within the Preferred
Alternative corridor will be sought.
Preparation of a conceptual mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland and stream
impacts would occur in cooperation with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
when the roadway design is finalized.
An archaeological survey was completed for the Alternative 29 corridor in June through
August 2005. Three sites discovered during the survey within the Preferred Alternative are
recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The findings and
proposed mitigation are discussed in Section 2.7 of this Abbreviated FEIS.
KIN

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Concurrence was reached among the NEPA1404 Merger Team on Alternative 29 as the
LEDPA at its meeting on May 12, 2004. Additional information on the reasons for its
selection is provided in Section 2.9 of this Abbreviated FEIS.
The state and federal agencies participating in the NEPA/404 Merger process concurred with
the avoidance and minimization measures achieved during the development of the project's
preliminary design at the Concurrence Point 4A meeting on May 24, 2006.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. will be achieved through cooperation
with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Conceptual and detailed mitigation plans will be
developed as the project reaches the permitting phase.,-T1hftf
mitigation I&ihIfq'Y ftini5the,T only unrosolvisd,issue:noted in�,t,h,,,,,P,,,,
S.10 Action Required by Other Federal and State Agencies
The permits listed below will be obtained prior to commencement of construction activities for
the project.
An Individual Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (33 USC 1344) from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will be required for wetland and stream impacts.
*,,-A,,,'.!no,,pmcfidA[' ",determination,and,,�,a,,40,1,,,,,Wat4gr,.,Qualiiy,,.,,Ceilificatlp
, n
,frp
th,e,Nor,th-Carblina-Department,of-Environment.and,,,N,,,at,ur,al,,f,3e,so.ur,ce,;s,,,--,,Division-.,of
_V
ater Qua] ity,. (DW - Q),,,fo rst re am,,,c- ross i ngs., is,,req u i redi,,..
,
A National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) Permit is required for
projects involving certain stormwater runoff discharges to surface waters. The State
has the authority to administer the national NPIDES program in North Carolina, as
stated in regulations promulgated in 15A NCAC 21-1.0100.
• A Burning Permitwill be required from the North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources for fires started within 500 feet of woodlands under the protection of the
Division. Thirty-day permits are typically issued for highway projects, in accordance
with implementing regulations 14 NCAC 9C.0.200-.0203.
• Another Burn Permit is required for any burning done during construction of the
proposed project in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality, in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2D.0502.
• Section 404 Permit Review is required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, to
determine the project's impacts on fish and wildlife resources, including federally-
protected species. The USFWS provides recommendations to the USAGE on how
the project can avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife or its habitat.
P1101

C\j
6
LO
u) (Y)
J
4)
s}
R
Ci
N
C,
C\l
co
co
0
0
q
p
W
CZ
S
�2
cy�
M
(C!
r-
d'
q
m
N
CO
ti
M
C\j
6
LO
u) (Y)
J
4)
s}
R
CD
131
co
V
N
49
C\l
co
co
N
cq
cli
cy�
M
(C!
r-
d'
q
m
N
CO
ti
M
vi
cc
ca
w
>
Q
C>
C,
(D
n
4)
f
91
0
C3
0
c=
o
R
R
42
0
0
p
m
cv
w
1:
R
N
I
C15
co
N
.75
Q
cq
0
2
<
z
C,
0
L z
IL
CO
w
LL
—M
1 1 ,
- ,
N
co
co
0
Lo
QE
ui <
M
O
R
0
c>
o
✓
cm
0
rn
-
co
c\j
co
6
co
cj
co
6
1
11
c�
CR
c6
0
D
n
0
cq
to
0
c,
M
co
c\j
ca
Ltf
0 o
m cm
o
co
c,�
CC v.
'Y5
C5
O
o
;
c)
6
Iq
-
:J
-
CL
.
Z5
T
�
J�,
��!
c�
-
co
w
cy�
CD
ro
L,>
C\j
�9
C\l
co
co
m
C\l
Cl)
>
Q
C>
C,
(D
n
42
0
0
p
0
.75
Q
cq
0
2
<
z
C,
0
L z
IL
CO
w
LL
—M
1 1 ,
- ,
N
co
co
0
Lo
C�
�o
ui <
cm
Z5
T
CD
c
C:
cu
m
0
fia <
CY
0-0
Cl
0
m
LL
co
w
.0
cc
.0
E
17
-
Zb
0 .0
—
C:
Ic
Cl
0
W
X E
0
c,
<
E2
2
a)
S
LIL
co
Z 0
'
9
<
a
0
B
Q
�3
-C
E
a,
0
E
0
cc
PI
.1 3,
a:
0
cr
M
0
a-
0
0
O
in
co
z
z :CE,
0
w
m
ro
C\l
42
0
.75
Q
0
2
o
L z
IL
13)
Cc
w
LL
2
U-
1 1 ,
- ,

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary................................................ ...............................
S.1
Federal Highway Administration ...................... ............................... i
S.2
Contacts .............................. ............................ . .. . .............................ii
S.3
Proposed Action .................................................. .............................ii
S-4
Other Major Government Actions ..................... .............................iv
S.5
Alternatives Considered ..................................... .............................iv
S.6
Preferred Alternative ........... ............................... ............................vii
S.7
Summary of Impacts ........... ............................... ............................vii
S.8
Areas of Controversy ..................................... ...............................
xv
S.9
Unresolved Issues .......................................... ...............................
xv
S.10
Action Required by Other Federal and State Agencies ..............xvi
Chapter1
— Errata ............................................................................................................
..............................1
1.1
Corrections to Draft EIS .................................... ..............................1
1.2
Supplemental Information and Updates to the Draft EIS ..............1
Chapter 2
Preferred Alternative and Basis for Selection ..............................................
..............................6
2.1
Introduction and Overview ............................... ...............................
6
2.2
Preferred Alternative and Reasons for Selection ..........................
7
2.3
Floodplain Findings ........................................... ..............................9
2.4
Jurisdictional Findings ....................................... ..............................9
2.5
Noise Impacts ................................................... .............................10
2.6
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ..................... .............................13
2.7
Cultural Resources ........................................... .............................14
2.8
Air Quality Impacts ........................................... .............................15
2.9
Agency Coordination ...................................... ...............................
20
2.10
Public Involvement ........................................... .............................23
2.11
Wetlands and Stream Mitigation ..................... .............................25
2.12
Section 4(f) Applicability ................................... .............................25

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL EWIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Chapter 3 Comments and Responses ......................................................................... .............................26
3.1 Agency Comments Received on the DEIS and Responses to Comments 26
3.2
Responses to Comments ................................ .............................27
3.2.1
Federal Agencies ....................................... ...............................
27
3.2.2
State Agencies ........................................... ....•..........................
36
3.2.3
Local Agencies ........................................... ...............................
38
3.3
Public Comments ............................................. .............................38
3.3.1
Summary of Public Comments .................... .............................39
3.3.2
Response to Public Comments ................. ...............................
40
Chapter 4 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement .................................. .............................42
4.1 Federal Agencies ............................................. .............................42
4.2 State Agencies ............................................... ............................... 42
4.3 Local Governments.... ................................................................... 42
4.4 Local Agencies ............................................... ............................... 43
4.5 Libraries .......................................................... ............................... 43
4.6 Community Liaisons ....................................... ............................... 43
Appendix A Agency Correspondence ..................................................................... ..............................1
Appendix B NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point Forms .................................... ..............................2
AppendixC Public Involvement ............................................................................... ..............................3
Appendix D Memorandum of Agreement ............................................................... ..............................4
AppendixE Figures .................................................................................................. ..............................5
1.1 TIP Projects In Vicinity
1.2 Preliminary Design
2.1 Project Location
2.2 Alternative 29 (Preferred)
2.3 Typical Sections
2.4 2030 Traffic Projections
2.5 Potential Noise Wall Location
2.6 Detailed Study Alternatives
Tables
Table 1.1 Species Under Federal Protection in Randolph County ....... ............................... 4
Table 2.1 Current Definition of Substantial Increase ......................... .............................11
Table 2.2 Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ................................ .............................11
Table 2.3 Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ............................ .............................12
Table 2.4 U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions,
2000 - 2020 ................................................................ .............................16
Table 3.1 Total Comments in Opposition to Individual Alternatives ....... .............................39
Table 3.2 Total Comments in Support of Individual Alternatives ........... .............................39

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Page intentionally left blank

TIP PROUECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This chapter contains corrections, clarifications, and updates to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of July 23, 2002 prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 1503.4(c).
1.1 Corrections to Draft EIS
1.11 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented that in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1.5 —
Parks/Recreational Facilities, the first sentence states that there are no existing public
or private parks and/or recreational facilities within the detailed study corridors.
However, it is later stated in this section, "Alternative 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14 would impact
the baseball field on the Browne property, which is used for practice by local teams."
The S. Scot Rush baseball field located near Mack Road is privately owned, but is
used by the public. The large tract containing the ball field will be affected by the
project, but the ball field will not be impacted. The location of the ball field can be
seen on Figure 1.2d in Appendix E.
1.2 Supplemental Information and Updates to the Draft EIS
Project Modifications
1.21 A grade-separation, or bridge, carrying SR 1424 (West Chapel Road) to the south
over the proposed Bypass, tying it to SR 1325 (Stuffs Road), was added to the
project design. The grade-separation and realignment of West Chapel Road is
illustrated in Figure 1.2a in Appendix E. The roadway is located near the project's
western terminal. The grade-separation reduces neighborhood impacts in the area
by providing access across the freeway, thereby maintaining cohesiveness in the
community. The design of the proposed service road on the south side of the Bypass
was adjusted to accommodate the grade-separation. These changes to the
preliminary design occurred after the Corridor Public Hearing on May 22, 2003.
However, the proposed service road is contained within the Alternative 29 study
corridor presented at the hearing.
1.22 Th' NCt,49 „interchange design °,I rhdd if led in 11 , I ad ' d o ” rdamcd,"with"Ah,"d , o' stmt
1,2c in Appendix E. ,1 -ri acicfitioh,
,P,,Q,lip 10,
0
called for the US 54 Bypass to cross over

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
existing NC 49.
Yeast cif Old
steam impa
� _ , ct§. In addition, less borrow material will be needed at that interchange.
1.23 The diamond ramps at other interchanges were modified to allow for construction of
loops in the future, when warranted. The preliminary roadway design for the entire
Preferred Alternative is presented in Figures 1.2a through 1.2m in Appendix E.
1.24 A grade-separation carrying SR 2987 (Pastureview Road) over the proposed Bypass
was added to minimize impacts to the Crestview Manor subdivision, specifically, to
reestablish the inter-neighborhood connection severed by the bypass. The grade-
separation is shown in Figure 1.2f in Appendix E. The service road south of the
Bypass in the Crestview Manor subdivision initially proposed in the Draft EIS was
eliminated, further reducing the number of relocations. These changes to the
preliminary design also occurred after the Corridor Public Hearing in May, 2003. The
design changes were contained within the study corridor presented at that hearing.
1.25 Controlled-access was extended up to 1000 feet in each direction along NC 42 in the
vicinity of the proposed interchange with the Bypass. In the vicinity of the proposed
interchange with NO 159, access control was extended approximately 600 feet along
NO 159 on the south side of the interchange and 425 feet on its north side. Lengthier
access control along NO 159 was constrained by the entrance to a residential
subdivision to the south and a convalescent care center to the north.
1.26
1.27 Filly slope ratios of,2;,l',,,,Inslieu",,bf,,,4,'l,'tt'opes we'i"a' 6VO606d't reduce 4m
a
pp
d
a, . ..
'arl6sts V ..... . ...
The potential noise impacts of these design changes were reviewed. It was
concluded that no new noise barriers would be reasonable and feasible due to the
design changes listed in sections 1.21 through 1.27. All changes to the NC 49
interchange design were contained within the Alternative 29 study corridor presented
at the Corridor Public Hearing on May 22, 2003.
Updated Information
1.28 Summary Section S.4 describes five TIP projects in the vicinity of the US 64 Bypass,
two of which are different from the six in the Draft EIS. Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) Project Number R-2217, which involved widening improvements to US
64 from two to four lanes from Ramseur east to the existing five-lane section in Siler
City, is now complete. Another roadway improvement project in the Asheboro area
has been added to the new TIP. Project U-3600 will improve US 220 Business from
SR 2261 to US 311. This project and other current TIP projects in the area are
illustrated in Figure 1.1 in Appendix E.
P41

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1.29 Table S.1 in the Summary Section provides construction cost estimates developed
for each build alternative during preparation of the Draft EIS. The estimate for
Alternative 29, the Preferred Alternative, was updated during preparation of the
Abbreviated FEIS based on the latest construction bid prices and refinements to its
preliminary design. The September 2006 estimated cost of construction of the 13.68
mile alternative is $286,400,000, excluding right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocation costs. The right-of-way cost for the Preferred Alternative was revised in
May 2006, and is estimated to be $33,510,000, bringing the project's estimated total
cost to $319,910,000. The combined effect of impact minimization efforts, bid price
inflation, and NCDOT design guideline changes would have increased the cost of any
of the other detailed study alternatives similarly.
1.30 In Chapter 1, Section 1.8.1., the Draft EIS indicates that the project was scheduled in
the 2002-2008 State Transportation Improvement Program. The schedule in that TIP
was noted at the Corridor Public Hearing, with right-of-way acquisition beginning in
FFY 2007 and construction in FFY 2009. The 2007-2013 TIP has revised the
schedule, with right-of-way acquisition now scheduled to begin in FFY 2010 and
construction slated for IFFY 2012.
1.31 e,A
its 1,noire-ra 'I a
ndiCuMulatiVe,,,,,F=,,ff qqt
s, 9'alysis that addresses land use effects and
, mpacts on natural resources was conducted for the LEDPA. Cumulative
cumulative and indirect impacts were not considered to vary between the build alternatives due
to their proximity in relation to one another. Therefore, the analysis was conducted
while the Abbreviated FEIS was being preparecl��,,,,,,) . mar. 0 1 �
, Aptimm fithleAnalysis-and itp,,j
yps,ult
1.32 Chapter 2 (p. 2-7) of the Draft EIS notes that several minimization options will be
considered to reduce fill in wetland areas. Also, Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS (p. 4-56)
discussed stream mitigation and noted a difference between Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) criteria and USACE criteria for determining mitigable stream length. During
the 4A Merger Meeting, the USACE representative clarified that all stream impacts
cited in the Merger Team packet were jurisdictional and that the higher impacts, the
DWQ totals, would be those considered in the meeting. The total amount of linear
feet of impacts for which mitigation would be required would be determined at the
permit phase. In order to reduce impacts to wetlands and streams, fill slope ratios of
2:1 in wetland areas and in the vicinity of streams is proposed. Bridges are proposed
to minimize linear impacts to Vestal Creek, North Prong Richland Creek, and Little
River. As a result of these and other minimization efforts, wetland imp -
reduced ,to,,3.3,,acr.es,,fr,om,,4,,l ac,res,,,and stream impacts were reduced to 29,896
linear feet from 30,817 linear feet of streams under the jurisdiction of the USACE.
It should be noted that the USACE
has jurisdiction over all streams impacted by the project, although mitigation is not
required for all impacts.
1.33 Chapter 2, Section 3.3.4.1 — The federally- protected species list for Randolph County
published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and included in the Draft
EIS was dated March 22, 2001. An updated list was published on April 27, 2006.
Table 1.1 identifies the plant and animal species on the current list. Two
invertebrates and two vascular plants species were added to the Randolph County
list since its last update in 2003, One of these, the Georgia aster, is a Candidate
species, which is defined as a species under consideration for official listing for which
3

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
sufficient data are available to propose listing as endangered or threatened but for
which listing is precluded by other priorities. This classification is distinguished from
Federal Species of Concern, which also are species under consideration, but for
which insufficient data are available.
606r� It extends
10"ddditbh;°,601rltld I)'HAbIt6t­,weo',des t"
, ,jdn
through an area including approximately 1.5 miles of Fork Creek, from a point 0.1
river mile upstream of SR 2873 bridge downstream to the Deep River then
downstream approximately 4.1 river miles of the Deep River in Randolph and Moore
Counties to a point 2.5 river miles below the SR 1456 bridge. T,,
nstrogn
P11,900'A
Table 1.1. Species Under Federal Protection in Randolph County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Hehanthus schweinitz#
Notropis mekistocholas
Schweinitz's sunflower
Cape Fear shiner
Endangered
Endangered
Etheostoma coffis lepidinloin
Carolina darter
FSC
Moxostoma sp.
"Carolina" red horse
FSC
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
FSC
Alasmidonta varicosa
Villosa vaughaniana
Brook floater
Carolina creekshell
FSC
FSC
Toxoplasma pullus
Lampsillis cadosa
Savannah lilliput
Yellow lampmussel
FSC
FSC
Symphyotrichum georgianum
Georgia aster
C
Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil
FSC
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 27, 2006 (fflM.fws.aov/southeas
1.34 The number of residential displacements increased from 145 estimated in the Draft
EIS to 187. This increase is due to the changes in the design discussed above, most
notably the extended access control along cross streets with interchanges. Several
displacements will result from the access control extension along NC 49 and NC 159.
One additional displacement resulted from the addition of the grade-separation at
West Chapel Road (SR 1424) and two from the modification of the NC 49
interchange. The estimated residential relocations would increase similarly for any of
the other detailed study alternatives, due to the uniformity of these required design
changes.
135 In 2004, the City of Asheboro updated its Parks and Recreation Comprehensive
Master Plan. The Plan notes that the City currently has no greenway facilities, but
proposes construction of seven (7) miles of trails, linking parks and other recreational
sites, most notably the North Carolina Zoo. To accomplish this, the Plan proposes a
trail following Vestal Creek, then turning south along Richland Creek to the Zoo. The
Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization is working with the City on a feasibility
study for the Asheboro Zoo Greenway. A bridge is proposed at the US 64 Bypass
crossing over Vestal Creek. The remainder of the proposed greenway corridor lies to
the east of NC 159 and the proposed Zoo Connector. The NCDOT will coordinate
with the City of Asheboro regarding the status of the greenway and crossing issues
4

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
related to the Vestal Creek bridge as the right -of -way plans for the project are
developed.
1.36 The State of North Carolina, Floodplain Mapping Program, in cooperation with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency has engaged in a statewide program to
update all Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Typically, the more precise maps
indicate that floodplain boundaries are wider or more far - reaching than shown on the
previous FIRMS. This was the case in Randolph County, where maps were updated
in 2006. As a result, the floodplain impacts of the Preferred Alternative increased by
4.75 acres from the 9.90 acres calculated in the DEIS (from the previous FIRMS), to
14.65 acres, based on the DEIS roadway designs. However, the subsequent
inclusion of three sets bridges to minimize stream impacts results in a minimization of
floodplain impacts of 2.41 acres. Therefore, the net change in floodplain
encroachment is 2.34 acres, for a total impact of 12.24 acres based on the updated
FIRMS. The design changes previously discussed did not affect any floodplains.
1.37 The List of Preparers provided in Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS was modified. Additional
preparers since the Draft EIS include the following:
Earth Tech of North Carolina, Inc.
Leza Wright Mundt, AICP
Project Planner
Ms. Mundt is a transportation planner in Earth Tech's Raleigh office. She has
more than 23 years of experience in transportation planning and preparation
of environmental documents, including environmental impact statements,
environmental assessments, and categorical exclusions. Her technical
expertise includes community impact assessment, project management and
coordination, and development of public involvement programs. Ms. Mundt
assisted in the preparation of the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Cindy Bower Camacho Project Planner
Ms, Camacho is a planner in Earth Tech's Raleigh office. She has over 25
years of experience in land use and coastal planning, as well as indirect and
cumulative impact assessment. Ms. Camacho prepared the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects analysis for the project and assisted in the preparation of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
5

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
2.1 Introduction and Overview
The proposed action will improve the US 64 corridor in the Asheboro area and provide
improved access to the North Carolina Zoological Park (NC Zoo) in Randolph County, North
Carolina. This portion of the US 64 Intrastate Corridor improvements is identified as Project
Number R-2536 in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NODOT) 2007-2013
State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project's general location is illustrated
in Figure 2.1 in Appendix E.
Zoo Cdh KlThe bridge and surrounding landscape would be designed in cooperation
with the NC Zoo to provide an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the Park. An interchange
would connect the Zoo Connector to the proposed US 64 Bypass west of NC 159.
The purpose of the US 64 improvements is three -fold: 1) to improve traffic flow and levels of
service on existing US 64; 2) to reduce congestion and thereby improve safety on existing US
64; and 3) to enhance high speed regional travel on the US 64 Intrastate Corridor. An
additional purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to the North Carolina
Zoological Park, located southeast of the project study area.
The US 64 improvements are part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway Corridor 26, US 64
— NC 49 from Charlotte and Statesville to Raleigh. North Carolina's Strategic Highway
Corridors initiative represents a timely effort to preserve and maximize mobility and
connectivity on a core set of highway corridors while promoting environmental stewardship
through maximizing the use of existing facilities to the extent possible, thereby fostering
economic prosperity through the quick and efficient movement of people and goods. The
initiative offers the NCDOT and other transportation stakeholders an opportunity to consider a
long-term vision when making land use decisions, as well as design, and operational
decisions about the highway system.
The US 64 — NC 49 Corridor Study Phase I Report was published in May 2005. This report
assesses the mobility and connectivity needs of people and freight to and through the central
portion of the state. In addition, it evaluates alternatives to foster economic growth and
development, relieve congestion on 1-40 and 1-85, and optimize transportation funding. The
intent of the US 64 — NC 49 Corridor Study is to develop a facility "master plan" improvement
strategy for the enhancement and long-term preservation of passenger and freight mobility.
Extended periods of congestion are prevalent in the urbanized areas through which 1-40 and
1-85 pass. The US 64—NC 49 corridor is the most direct alternative to 1-40 and 1-85, between
Raleigh and Charlotte.
A new location high-speed facility around Asheboro will advance these goals by providing
regional travelers an alternative to existing US 64 through Asheboro. This separation of local
and regional/commuting traffic will improve mobility and may improve safety for all motorists.
Regional and commuting traffic traveling between Charlotte and points east will experience a
.9

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
decrease in travel time, as will intrastate travelers. Patrons and employees of the NO Zoo
also will be served with an alternative to local routes in accessing the Zoo, benefiting local
residents as they move between their homes and daily destinations, as well. Delay and
congestion on NO 159 associated with the NO Zoo and daily commuter traffic will be reduced
substantially, as approximately 30 percent of the traffic on the route will be diverted to the Zoo
Connector.
The need for capacity improvements along US 64 is demonstrated by existing levels of
service (LOS) D in the NO 159 vicinity and LOS E on the two -lane segment west of
Asheboro. Additionally, design year traffic volume forecasts LOS F west of Asheboro, at NC
159, and in the segment between NC 159 and NO 42 (westbound). Eastbound traffic on US
64 is also expected to function poorly in the design year, with a LOS F forecasted between
US 220 and NC 159, a LOS D between NC 159 and NC 42, and a LOS E between NO 42
and Presnell Street.
The poor existing and projected levels of service along most segments of US 64 through
Asheboro are a result of traffic volumes at or exceeding roadway capacities. US 64 currently
is carrying up to 30,500 vehicles per day (VPD) on the five -lane segment through Asheboro,
and up to 12,200 VPD on the two -lane segment west of town. Traffic volumes are projected
to increase by 77 percent, up to 54,100 VPD, on the five -lane segment by 2025. The two -
lane segment is projected to carry twice (112 percent) as much traffic, up to 25,900 VPD, by
2025. No access control exists along the corridor and driveways are numerous.
The Thoroughfare Plan for the Cityof Asheboro documents reasons for this project, including
congestion and delay that will continue to increase into the design year. Safety conditions will
likely deteriorate due to incompatibility between increased volumes of local and through
travelers.
The updated NCDOT project schedule provided in the 20072013 State Transportation
Improvement Program calls for right -of -way acquisition to begin in FFY 2010 and construction
to start in FFY 2012.
2.2 Preferred Aftemaiive and Reasons for Selection
Alternative 29 is the Preferred Alternative for the improvement of US 64 in the City of
Asheboro and in Randolph County, North Carolina. Its location is illustrated in Figure 2.2 in
Appendix E. Descriptions of each typical section follow.
Alternative 29 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles east of the US
64/SR 1424 (Stutts Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south across Cable Creek, SR
1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NO 49 about 1 mile west of the NO 49/SR 1193 intersection. The
corridor curves to the southeast to cross Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.3 miles
north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns
easterly to cross the Little River and US 220 Bypass (future 1- 73(74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over US 220 Bypass. The corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business
about 0.5 mile south of Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast to about
halfway between US 220 Business and NC 159. At this point, the corridor curves northeast
and crosses Staleys Farm Road there NO 159 about 0.1 mile south of the NO 1591Staleys
Farm Road intersection. Continuing northeast, the corridor crosses Old Cox Road, Richland
Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NO 42 about 1 mile east of the NC 42113rowers Chapel
Road intersection. It then curves northward, crossing Squirrel Creek and SR 2604 (Luck

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Road), ending at US 64 east of Asheboro about 0.6 miles east of the US 64 /Presnell Street
intersection. The roadway's total length is 13.68 miles.
Typical sections for the proposed US 64 Bypass and the Zoo Connector, described below,
are shown in Appendix E, Figure 2.3.
• One typical section is proposed for the US 64 Bypass from west of Asheboro east of
SR 1424 (Stutts Road) to east of Asheboro and the US 64 intersection with Presnell
Street. It will consist of four 12 -foot wide travel lanes and a 70 -foot median with 12-
foot shoulders on both sides of the travel lanes. Ten (10) feet of the outside
shoulders and four feet of the inside shoulders will be paved.
• The Zoo Connector consists of two typical sections. At its northwestern terminus, an
interchange with the US 64 Bypass, the Zoo Connector is a four -lane roadway with a
46 -foot median and 8 -foot wide outside shoulders. It retains this typical for a distance
of approximately 1,700 feet before transitioning to a two -lane roadway. Travel lanes
for both typical sections are proposed to be 12 -feet in width.
The NCDOT Corridor Selection Committee selected Alternative 29 as the Preferred
Alternative in August 2004. The Committee reviewed the project's purpose and need
statement, alternatives, and their environmental impacts. Comments received on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement at the public hearing, the post- hearing meeting, and during
the subsequent comment period were considered during the selection of Alternative 29 as
the Preferred Alternative. Table S.1 provides a summary of the project's impacts as
calculated during preparation of the Draft EIS.
Alternative 29 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the following reasons:
• It was selected on May 12, 2004 as the LED PA by the FHWA, NCDOT, U SAC E,
NCDENR -DWQ and other federal and state regulatory and resource agencies.
• The preliminary design has minimized community impacts and avoids the
controversial and serious neighborhood impacts of Alternatives 1 and 13.
• it has the fourth fewest number of stream crossings, with 23 crossings, among a
range of 18 to 26 crossings for the nine alternatives.
• It affects the smallest area of wetlands.
• It has the fourth lowest noise receiver impacts of the nine alternatives considered.
• It is supported by local governments, including the City of Asheboro.
The Federal Highway Administration endorses Alternative 29 as the Preferred Alternative.
Construction cost estimates for Alternative 29 were updated based on the more detailed
information available upon completion of the preliminary roadway designs and recent
increases in the cost of construction materials. The estimates also take into account
proposed stream impact minimization, including three sets of dual bridges over Little River,
Vestal Creek, and North Prong Richland Creek. The Preferred Alternative was estimated in
September 2006 to cost $286,400,000 to construct, including engineering and contingencies.
The cost of right -of -way acquisition for the project is estimated to be $33,810,000. The total
project cost is estimated to be $319,910,000.
8

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
2.3 Floodplain Findings
Regulatory floodplain encroachment was evaluated for Alternative 29 (Preferred) pursuant to
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and 23 CFR part 650.105(q). Alternative
29 crosses 23 major streams and their associated floodplains. Designated floodplains
associated with Little River and Vestal Creek will be impacted by the proposed Bypass. The
floodplains associated with North Prong Richland Creek will be impacted by the Zoo
Connector. However, these three streams will be bridged and no significant encroachments
are anticipated. The NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) during the final design phase.
As discussed in Section 1.36, the total acres of floodplain encroachment has increased since
completion of the Draft EIS, due to publication of updated, more accurate Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) by the State of North Carolina, Floodplain Mapping Program, in
cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Revisions to FIRMs
statewide were prompted by the devastation wrought by Hurricane Floyd in 1999. An
analysis of the aftermath of that storm indicated that a high percentage of flooded structures
were located outside mapped floodplains. This finding prompted the decision to update the
FIRMs throughout the state.
The revisions to Randolph County's maps were completed in 2006. The new maps revealed
an increase in the overall area of floodplains throughout the project area. This resulted in an
increase in the total floodplain encroachment from the 9.90 acres impacted by the Preferred
Alternative shown in Table S.1. A review of the new floodplains within the project study area
indicates that similar increases would have been observed for the other eight detailed study
alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS. It is noteworthy that the variance between the highest
and lowest floodplain impacts of the nine alternatives is approximately 10 percent. This
range would be expected using the revised FIRMs for any of the detailed study alternatives.
Based on the original design used to calculate impacts for the Draft EIS (as shown in Table
S.1), the total acreage of impacts increased by 4.75 acres to 14.65 acres. However, the
inclusion of three sets of dual bridges during design refinements made for this FEIS
minimized floodplain impacts by 2.41 acres, resulting in a total impact of 12.24 acres, or a net
change of 2.34 acres. None of the design modifications to the NC 49 interchange, or those
resulting from the extension of access control along secondary roads occurred in floodplains.
It should be noted that the three sets of bridges proposed for mitigation of stream impacts
also mitigate floodplain impacts. Without the bridges, floodplain impacts would have been
14.65 acres.
2.4 Jurisdictional Findings
Wetlands
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) regulates the discharge of fill and dredged
material into "Waters of the U.S.," including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Water
Pollution Control Act of 1977, commonly known as the Clean Water Act. The occurrence of
wetlands was determined using the three parameters discussed in the Corps of Engineers'
Wetland Delineation Manual (1987).
9

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
All jurisdictional wetlands are associated with streams and tributaries. Alternative 29
(Preferred) will impact 3.3 acres of wetlands, a reduction of 0.8 acres from that estimated for
the Draft EIS. Jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts will be further minimized to the
extent practicable through continued coordination required by the Merger 01 Process.
Compensatory mitigation will be provided for all unavoidable impacts to these valuable
natural systems. When all on -site opportunities are exhausted, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
pursuant to the tri -party Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE, the NCDENR,
and the NCDOT, will provide compensatory wetland stream mitigation.
Streams
In accordance with Section 404 regulations, the USACE, along with the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), under
15A NCAC 2H.0506, regulates impacts to perennial and intermittent streams in North
Carolina. The project's impacts to regulated surface waters are anticipated to be 29,896
linear feet of streams.
2.5 Noise Impacts
An updated noise analysis was conducted on Alternative 29, the Preferred Alternative,
providing a more detailed evaluation of the alternate's noise impacts and possible mitigation
measures. The results of the analysis can be found in the Technical Memorandum: Noise
Impact Assessment, which is appended to this FEIS by reference and is available for review
at the NCDOT. The analysis was based on 2030 traffic projections, shown in Figure 2.4,
providing a 20 -year horizon from the project's construction year. Traffic noise impacts occur
when either; a) the predicted traff ic noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria (NAC) for the applicable land use category; or b) when the predicted
traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels (23 CFR 772). Table 3.10 in
the Draft EIS presents the existing noise levels measured within the project study corridor.
Abatement measures must be considered for receptors under either case. The NCDOT
Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (2004) states that noise levels within one decibel (dBA) of the
NAC are considered to be "approaching" the criteria. A "substantial increase" in noise levels
also is defined in the NCDOT policy, which provides a sliding scale of the level of increase in
noise from existing conditions. Relatively quiet areas with ambient noise levels of 50 decibels
or less must experience an increase in noise of 15 decibels or greater, while areas with more
ambient noise can experience an increase of 10 to 14 decibels or more to qualify for
abatement, as shown in Table 2.1. This represents a change in the definition of "substantial
increase" from the policy in place at the time the noise analysis was prepared for the DEIS.
At that time, "substantial increase" was defined as an exterior increase in noise levels of 15
decibels or more where ambient noise levels were measures at 50 decibels or less, or 10
decibels or more where ambient noise was greater than 50 decibels.
10

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
Table 2.1. Current Definition of Substantial Increase in Noise Levels
Existing Leq(h)*
Increase
50 dBA or less
15 dBA or more
51 dBA
14 dBA or more
52 dBA
13 dBA or more
53 dBA
12 dBA or more
54 dBA
11 dBA or more
55 dBA or more
10 dBA or more
The Traffic Noise Model (TNM), version 2.5 (FHWA, 2004) was used to predict traffic noise
generated by the project. Receptor locations were modeled at intervals of 25, 50, 100, 200,
400, 800, and 1,600 feet from the proposed roadway location to estimate worst -case future
noise level contours. Table 2.2 describes the noise impacts along the Alternative 29 corridor,
based on its logical roadway segments. All Category B receptors located within the 66
decibel noise contour and any Category C receptors located within the 71 decibel noise
contour were considered to be potentially impacted by noise. The 36 Category B receptors
are all residences, whereas the two Category C receptors are businesses.
Table 2.2. Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
1. Distance is from the edge of pavement of the proposed US 64 Bypass.
2. Distances are measured from the center of the proposed roadway or Y -line.
3. Activity Categories are from the SHWA Noise Criteria. All Category 8 receptors are residences; all Category C
receptors are businesses,
I
Approximate
Maximum 2030
Contour
Number of
Roadway
US 64 Southern
Predicted Noise
Distances
Impacted
Segment and
Bypass Segment or
Level (dBA Leq) ae:
(ftf
Receptors in
Description
Y -line
Activity Category3
50 100 200
66 71
A B C D E
ft ft ft
dBA dBA
1 - US 64 West to
US 64 West
73.3
69.5
63.1
193
123
0
6
0
0
0
Autumn Wood
Lane
NC 49
72.4
68.7
62.5
182
112
0
1
0
0
0
2 - Autumn
US 64 Bypass from
Wood Lane to
NC 49 to US 220
73.5
69.7
63.1
206
138
0
3
0
0
0
US 220
Bypass
Business
US 220 Bypass
78.3
74.4
67.8
288
187
0
5
0
0
0
US 64 Bypass from US
3 - US 220
220 Bypass to
75.8
72.0
65.5
248
170
0
8
0
0
0
Business to
NC 159
east of NC 159
NC 159
69.2
63.6
57.7
86
NA
0
2
0
0
0
4 - East of NC
US 64 Bypass from
75.8
72.0
65.5
248
170
0
4
0
0
0
159 to east of
NC 159 to NC 42
NC 42
NC 42
73.0
67.3
61.1
128
76
0
1
0
0
0
5 - East of NC
US 64 Bypass from
75.3
71.5
65.0
238
164
0
4
1
0
0
42 to
NC 42 to US 64 East
US 64 East
US 64 East
75.4
71.3
64.5
205
137
0
2
1
0
0
TOTAL,
0
36
2
0
0
1. Distance is from the edge of pavement of the proposed US 64 Bypass.
2. Distances are measured from the center of the proposed roadway or Y -line.
3. Activity Categories are from the SHWA Noise Criteria. All Category 8 receptors are residences; all Category C
receptors are businesses,
I

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the federal or state
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of a proposed roadway project is the approval date of the Record of
Decision (ROD). For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that noise- compatible designs are used
along the proposed facility.
A summary of the noise level impacts is presented in Table 2.3. Noise impacts to receptors
in Segment 1 could not be effectively mitigated. Driveways and local streets to residences in
that segment require gaps in a barrier. Noise barriers with gaps permit sound to bypass the
barrier and do not function effectively. Except for the Twelve Tree Road area, the receptors
in the remaining segments were found to be too far apart or isolated to achieve a cost of
abatement per receptor under the $36,500 threshold.
Table 2.3. Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
12
Receptor Exterior
Impacts
Roadway
US 64
Noise Level Increases
Substantial
Due to
Segment
Bypass
Noise Level
Both
Number and
Segment or
� o) LO
Increase
Criteria
Description
Y -line
° r Lb b u, o CAI
9911,
r r N
IL
1- US 64
West
US 64 West
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
Autumn
NC 49
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wood Lane
US 64
2- Autumn
Bypass from
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
3
Wood Lane
NC 49 to US
to US 220
220 B ass
Business
US 220
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bypass
US 64
3 - US 220
Bypass from
Business to
US 220
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
8
6
east of NC
Bypass to
159
NO 159
NC 159
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
US 64
4 -East of
Bypass from
NC 159 to
NC 159 to
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
4
3
east of
NC 42
NC 42
NC 42
0
1
0 1
0 1
0
0
1 0
0
0
US 64
5- East of
Bypass from
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
5
4
NC 42 to
NC 42 to US
US 64 East.
64 East
US 64 East
2
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
20
13
6 1
1 1
15
5
0
20
16
12

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A noise barrier analysis was conducted for the Twelve Tree Road area, just west of US 220.
Noise reductions of 10.9 to 5.0 decibels were achievable with a wall ranging in height from 12
to 22 feet, with an average height of 19 feet. Figures 1.2d and 2.5 (Appendix E) illustrates the
barrier location. The wall, at 1,417 feet in length, will benefit 13 residential receptors at a cost
of $393,120. The cost per benefited receptor is $30,240. The NCDOT threshold for noise
abatement in this area is $36,500 per benefited receptor.
2.6
An Indirect and Cumulative Effects Repottfor the project was prepared in 2005. The report
finds that the project's primary effects will be to through travelers on US 64, who will benefit
by avoiding the congestion along existing US, 64 in Asheboro; to local traffic and residents
along NO 159, who will experience a reduction in traffic volume of approximately 30 percent
on that route; and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed NC 49, US 64 West, and
US 220 (1-73174) interchanges, who are expected to experience an increase in property
values and change in land use due to the improved accessibility.
Overall land use patterns are not expected to change substantially from those planned in the
Asheboro and Randolph County land use plans, which call for new major employment
centers at the NO 49, US 64 West and US 220 interchanges. Detailed corridor plans are
proposed by the city to guide growth, maximize its economic benefits, and minimize
environmental effects in the new employment centers. Most additional non-residential
development is planned for north of existing US 64. Asheboro has adopted new urban
design standards to encourage infill and redevelopment in its central business district.
Randolph County's Economic Development Corporation's targeted industry study
recommends targeting distribution, medical equipment, and design industries. The proposed
Bypass and the improved mobility it provides may indirectly enhance the County's ability to
attract transportation and distribution operations. The city has excess sewer and water
capacity to accommodate future growth.
Cumulative effects to natural resources are not anticipated to be substantial, as the project
will not change the rate of development in the Asheboro area, except at the interchanges,
where urban/commercial development is planned. Low-density residential development is
planned and expected to continue throughout most of the project area. Land development
regulations that affect natural resources are described below:
• Both Asheboro and Randolph County implement two-tier watershed protection
ordinances.
• Asheboro designates rural conservation areas and open space conservation
corridors.
• Asheboro typically requires stormwater detention for large developments requiring
special use permits.
• Randolph County enforces a two-mile Environmental District around the Zoo for
natural resource protection and maintenance of the area's rural character.
• The County requires sedimentation and erosion control plans as part of their site
development permitting process.
13

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The 2000 U.S. Census shows that 72 percent of county residents live north of existing US 64.
Current land use policies support continuation of this population distribution. The Zoo and the
Uwharrie National Forest in the southern portion of the county are both constraints on
development in that area.
A review of zoning enforcement and implementation activities within both jurisdictions shows
a compliance rate of over 90 percent, Therefore, is it anticipated that development activities
in the project study area will closely follow the adopted land use policies currently in effect.
2.7 Cultural Resources
Archaeolog
An intensive archaeological survey of the Alternative 29 (Preferred) corridor was conducted
from June through August 2005. Eighty -two (82) archaeological sites were discovered within
the Preferred Alternative corridor. Of those, three sites are recommended as eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D, Data; as the sites may be
likely to yield information important to the study of prehistory and history.
Site 31 RD1398 (Schoolhouse Ridge Site) is an Early to Middle Archaic period (8000 to 3000
BC) quarry and Lithic Reduction site. A large site; it is estimated to comprise approximately
175 acres in the vicinity of SR 2839. Although portions of the site have been subject to
widespread disturbance and erosion, other parts, including portions within the project corridor
demonstrate stratigraphic integrity. It is estimated that 10 acres lie within two sections of the
project's proposed construction limits. The remainder of the site is outside the Area of
Potential Effect. Testing at the site yielded thousands of artifacts related to quarrying and
early -stage lithic reduction activities, including quarrying tools, cores, Guilford and Early
Archaic stemmed projectile point knives (PPK), and pieces of debitage.
Site 31 RD1399 (Tantraugh Branch Site) is a Late Paleoindian (8500 to 7900 BC) to Early
Archaic (8000 to 6000 BC) Lithic Reduction site located near Tantraugh Branch. It exhibits
evidence of short -term habitation. The site is estimated to be approximately seven acres in
size. The entire site lies within the Area of Potential Effect and would likely be destroyed by
project construction. Excavations at the site yielded numerous secondary and tertiary flakes,
bifaces of various stages, and four projectile points. The research potential of the site is due
in part to its physical relationship to the Schoolhouse Ridge Site. The Tantraugh Branch Site
contains lithic material that very likely came from Schoolhouse Ridge. The ability to integrate
the investigation of the two related archaeological sites into one research strategy affords a
rare opportunity to investigate the relationship between quarry sites and lithic
red uctionlrepackaging sites.
Site 31 RD1426/1426 ** (Trogdon- Squirrel Creek Site) is a site with two components, one is a
lithic site from an unknown prehistoric period and the other a domestic farmstead from the
late eighteenth century through the early twentieth century. The site is located near Squirrel
Creek. Subsurface deposits were identified, as well as features such as a stone chimney,
stone foundation piers associated with the main house, and an abandoned dirt wagon road.
Artifacts recovered include assorted salt glaze stonewares, lead glazed earthenwares,
creamware, pearlware, and whiteware sherds, glass panel bottles, and cut nails. Two historic
contexts are applicable to the study of the site, Quaker ethnicity and yeoman farms. The
entire site is located within the project's construction limits, as currently proposed.
14

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The survey results were coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office, Office of
State Archaeology, which concurred with the survey findings and recommendation of
eligibility for sites 31 RD1398, 31 RD1399, and 31 RD142611426 * *, as indicated in their letter
dated April 7, 2006 (see Appendix A). It was determined that the proposed project would
have an adverse effect on the three eligible sites. Therefore, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) was developed and signed by the NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and
the State Historic Preservation Officer, which specifies the mitigative measures that will be
undertaken. A copy of the MCA is included in Appendix D. The MOA states that Data
Recovery Plans for each site will be developed and submitted for review to the HPO. Data
recovery efforts will be conducted at the archaeology sites upon acquisition of right -of -way or
right -of -entry agreements from property owners and prior to commencement of construction
activities at the site locations. The NCDOT will ensure that all other stipulations specified in
the MOA are accomplished. A commitment regarding the data recovery at the three sites
has been added to the Project Commitments page, or "green sheet," attached to this
Abbreviated FEIS.
Historic Architecture
A survey of historic architectural resources within the project corridors identified one property,
the Cox -Brown Farm, as eligible for listing in the NRHP. This property is located adjacent to
Alternatives 1, 2, 13, and 14 at the intersection of NC 159 (Zoo Parkway) and Crestview
Church Road. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with the NCDOT
determination that the project will have no effect on this historic property. The environmental
commitments pertaining to the effects determination were met with the selection of Alternative
29 as the Preferred Alternative. The commitment required maintenance of trees along the
southeastern edge of the historic property and extension of the tree line along the new
interchange ramp. Because the Preferred Alternative is located nearly one mile south of the
Cox -Brown Farm, none of the trees adjacent to the property will be affected by the project. In
addition, the wooded parcel between the historic farm and the Preferred Alternative alignment
would provide the desired vegetative buffer from the interchange ramp, thereby rendering
moot the requirement that the tree line be extended along the ramp.
2.8 Air Quality Impacts
Randolph County was designated as a moderate nonattainment for 03 under the eight -hour
ozone standard on April 15, 2004. Effective on November 22, 2004, EPA reclassified
Randolph County from a moderate nonattainment area to a marginal nonattainment area.
Randolph County is under an Early Action Compact and the effective date of the
nonattainment designation has been deferred until April 15, 2008. On April 15, 2009, 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 93 is applicable (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes
effective).
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also regulates air toxics.
Most air toxics originate from human -made sources, including on -road and non -road mobile
sources, area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories or
refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act, are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel
evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted through the
15

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics result
from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule,
EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission
vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline
sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards
and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA
projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these
programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,
and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM
emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the graph on the following page.
Table 2.4. U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics,
Emissions, 2000-2020
VIVIT
(trillionYyear)
DPM+W-0�47%
3
R- FFIXIkli+ t65'i
Emissions
(tons/year)
200,000
100,000
The EPA is the lead federal agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001).
This Abbreviated FEIS includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of the
proposed project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-
specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the Preferred Alternative.
16

TIP PROJECT R­2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Due to these limitations, the following discussion is provided in accordance with Council for
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or
unavailable information:
Information That is Unavailable or Incomplete. Evaluating the environmental and health
impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several elements,
including emissions modeling; dispersion modeling to estimate ambient concentrations
resulting from the estimated emissions; exposure modeling to estimate human exposure to
the estimated concentrations; and final determination of health impacts based on the
estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings that
prevent a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables used in determining emissions of MSATs in the context of
highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level,
it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip -based model.
Emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average
speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to
predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location
and time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating
speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest -scale projects and
cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate
matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other
MSAT emission rates do change with variations in trip speed. Also, the emissions
rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a
limited number of tests of mostly older- technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions
of particulate matter (PM) under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with
MOBILE 6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. These deficiencies compromise
the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions.
Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's
current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated
more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of
carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of
dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can
occur at some time and location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it
difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway
project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is conducting research on best
practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs.
This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and
communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along
with these limitations on dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of
monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project - specific MSAT
background concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and
concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current
techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching
meaningful conclusions about project - specific health impacts. Exposure
assessments are difficult because it is difficult to calculate accurately annual
17

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that
people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These
challenges are magnified for 70 -year cancer assessments, particularly because
unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70 -year
period. Also, some uncertainties remain associated with the existing estimates of
toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low -dose extrapolation and
translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of
these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives
is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the
impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to
decision - makers, who would weigh this information against other project impacts.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of
MSATs. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission
types, a variety of studies show either statistical association with adverse health outcomes
through epidemiological studies or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when
exposed to large doses. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to
the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of, or benchmark for, local
exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various
toxics when aggregated to a national or state level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human
health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment.
The IRIS database is located at http: / /www.epa.govfiris. The following toxicity information for
the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence
Characterization summaries.
Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acroleln cannot be determined because the existing
data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for both the
oral or inhalation route of exposure.
Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in
humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.
1,3- butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of
nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female
hamsters after inhalation exposure.
Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust is the combination of diesel particulate
matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also presents chronic
respiratory effects, possibly the primary non - cancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged
exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms such as
18

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been
developed from these studies.
The Health Effects Institute, a non - profit organization funded by the EPA, the FHWA, and
private industry, has undertaken a series of studies to research near - roadway MSAT hot
spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics.
The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.
Relevance of unavailable or incomplete information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts on the environment, and evaluation of impacts based upon
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air
toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While
available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between
alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project
alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project
alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health
impacts. Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant
adverse impacts on the human environment' in the context of MSATs.
In this document, the FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative
to the various alternatives and acknowledges that the Preferred Alternative may result in
increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and
duration of exposures are uncertain. Because of this uncertainty, the health effects from
these emissions cannot be estimated.
MSAT Impacts by the Project
Each alternative corridor of the proposed project consists of a combination of relocating US
64 south of Asheboro onto a new location and constructing the two -mile Zoo Connector
parkway. The project will have full control of access between interchanges with existing
roads.
For each alternative considered in the Draft EIS, the amount of MSATs emitted would be
proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assuming that other variables, such as fleet
mix, are the same. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is higher than that
for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the Build
alternatives along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT
emissions along existing US 64 (Dixie Drive).
The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased
speeds. According to EPA's MOBILE 6.2 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority
MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to
which the speed - related emission decreases offset VMT - related emission increases cannot
be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of the technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the alternative corridors are nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternative corridors. Also, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the
19

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
design year as a result of EPA's national control programs, which are projected to reduce
MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ
from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VIVIT growth rates, and
local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to
be lower in the future i n nearly all cases.
The new travel lanes planned as part of the project will have the effect of moving some traffic
closer to nearby homes and businesses. Therefore, there may be localized areas where
ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under the Preferred Alternative than
compared to the No-Build Alternative. However, the magnitude and duration of these
potential increases compared to the No-Build Alternative cannot be accurately quantified due
to the inherent deficiencies of current models.
In sum, when a highway is widened or relocated and, as a result, moves closer to receptors,
the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the
No-Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in
congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in
other locations when traffic shifts away, particularly on existing US 64 and NC 159. However,
on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over
time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT
levels to be substantially lower than they are today.
2.9 Agency Coordination
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the FHWA, and the NCDOT set policy and guidance through "An Interagency
Agreement Integrating Section 404/NEPX (May, 1997) which is generally referred to as the
NEPA/404 Merger Agreement. This agreement describes a phased approach to the
coordination process where a "Project Merger Team" is assembled at the beginning of a
selected highway project and reviews a series of four concurrence points as project
development progresses. The Merger Team reviews the project with respect to each
concurrence point and provides written concurrence before the next step in the project's
development is initiated.
• Detailed Study Alternatives — Approximate Bridge Lengths (Concurrence Point 2A)
• Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (Concurrence Point 3)
• Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts (Concurrence Point 4A)
The Merger Team evaluated nine build alternatives in detail. The nine build alternatives are
shown in Appendix E, Figure 2.6. Brief descriptions of these alternatives follow:
Alternative 29 — (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 29 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south across
20

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about one mile west of the NC
49 /SR 1193 intersection. The corridor curves to the southeast to cross Taylor's
Creek and Mack Road about 0.3 miles north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road
intersection is the same as Alternative 1 from the western terminus to Mack Road.
From Mack Road, the corridor turns easterly to cross the Little River and US 220
Bypass (future 1- 73174) where Southmont Drive crosses over US 220 Bypass. The
corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5 mile south of
Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast until about halfway between
US 220 Business and NC 159. At this point, the corridor curves northeast and
crosses Staleys Farm Road then NC 159 about 0.1 mile south of the NC 159 /Staleys
Farm Road intersection. Continuing northeast, the corridor crosses Old Cox Road,
Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NC 42 about 1 mile east of the NC
42/Browers Chapel Road intersection. It then curves northward, crossing Squirrel
Creek and SR 2604 (Luck Road), ending at US 64 east of Asheboro about 0.6 miles
east of the US 64 /Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south across
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about one mile west of the NC
49 /SR 1193 intersection. The corridor curves to the southeast to cross Taylor's
Creek and Mack Road about 0.3 mile north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road
intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns easterly to cross the Little River, the
US 220 Bypass (Future 1- 73/74), and Southmont Drive. The corridor continues
eastward across US 220 Business, just north of Crestview Church Road. Past
Crestview Church Road, the corridor curves to the northeast to cross tributaries to
Tantraugh Branch and NC 159, about 0.2 mile north of the NC 159 /SR 2839 (Staleys
Farm Road) intersection. Continuing northeast, the corridor crosses Richland Creek,
SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NC 42 about 0.3 mile east of the NC 42/Browers
Chapel Road intersection. The alternative then crosses Squirrel Creek, SR 2604
(Luck Road), and a tributary to Gabriels Creek to end at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6
mile east of the US 64 /Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 between the western Bypass terminus and
SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward the east
to cross NC 42 about 1 mile east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road intersection.
This corridor then curves northward, crossing Squirrel Creek and SR 2604 (Luck
Road) and ends at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6 miles east of the US 64 /Presnell
Street intersection.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western Bypass terminus to
between US 220 Business and NC 159. Just east of Crestview Church Road, this
alternative curves slightly south avoiding a wetland area on Tantraugh Branch. It
then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves north to cross NC 159 about 0.1 mile
south of the NC 159/SR 2839 (Staleys Farm Road) intersection. The corridor
proceeds northeast across Old Cox Road, Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road),
21

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
and Fleta Brown Road, Alternative 4 crosses NO 42 at the same location as
Alternative 2 and follows the same corridor as Alternative 2 from this point to its
terminus at US 64 east of Asheboro.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile east of the
US 64 /SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south across
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NO 49, about one mile west of the NC
49 /SR 1193 intersection. The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek and
Mack Road about 0.1 miles north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road intersection.
From Mack Road, the corridor turns easterly to cross the tittle River and US 220
Bypass (future 1- 73174) where Southmont Drive crosses over US 220 Bypass. The
corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5 mile south of
Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast until about halfway between
US 220 Business and NO 159. At this point, the corridor curves northeast and
crosses Staleys Farm Road then NO 159 about 0.1 mile south of the NC 159 /Staleys
Farm Road intersection. Continuing northeast, the corridor crosses Old Cox Road,
Richland Creek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill Road), and NO 42 about one mile east of the NO
42/Browers Chapel Road intersection. It then curves northward, crossing Squirrel
Creek and SR 2604 (tuck Road), ending at US 64 east of Asheboro about 0.6 miles
east of the US 64 /Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of the
US 64 /SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south, crossing
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NO 49 about 1.3 miles west of the NO
49 /SR 1193 intersection. From this point, Alternative 13 curves to the southeast
following the same corridor as Alternative 1.
Alternative 14
Alternative 14 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of the
US 64 /SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south, crossing
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NO 49 about 1.3 miles west of the NO
49 /SR 1193 intersection. Alternative 14 then curves to the southeast using the same
corridor as Alternative 2.
Alternative 22
Alternative 22 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Stuffs Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south, crossing
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NO 49 about 1.3 mile west of the NO
49/SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49) intersection. The corridor continues south across Taylors
Creek, then southeast using the same corridor as Alternative 10.
Alternative 33
Alternative 33 is the same as Alternative 13 from the western terminus to Mack Road.
From this point to the eastern terminus, Alternative 33 is the same as Alternative 10.
22

TIP PACUECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Zoo Connector
The Zoo Connector is proposed to be a two -lane, parkway - style, controlled- access
roadway. A four -lane divided roadway was considered, but was not justified based
on the future traffic expected to be generated by the North Carolina Zoological Park.
The Zoo Connector will connect to the proposed US 64 Bypass with a trumpet -type
interchange about 0.8 mile west of NC 159, providing adequate weave distance
between the two interchanges. From the new bypass, the Zoo Connector will
proceed southeast across Tantraugh Branch and Staleys Farm Road (there will be
no access between the Zoo Connector and Staleys- Farm Road). As it nears NC 159,
the Connector will curve toward the south and parallel NC 159 to the west, then
connect to the NC 159/NC 159 Spur intersection, which is the main entrance to the
NC Zoo. A half- diamond interchange is proposed at this crossing, with ramps
constructed on the east side of NC 159. The Zoo Connector will cross under NC 159,
which will create a more aesthetic entrance into the North Carolina Zoological Park.
Concurrence Point 2A was added to the 4041NEPA merger process after the agency visit in
2000 that required an additional field visit. The Merger Team field meeting for Concurrence
Points 2A and 3 was held on May 12, 2004. Site visits were made to Little River, Tantraugh
Branch, North Prong Richland Creek, and Vestal Creek. The team reached concurrence on
Point 2A, agreeing to bridges at Little River, North Prong Richland Creek, and Vestal Creek.
The dual bridges at each crossing will consist of three spans, each approximately 55 -feet in
length, for a total length of at least 165 feet. This span width will accommodate two 30 -foot
wildlife crossings at each location for Little River, Vestal Creek and North Prong Creek.
At Concurrence Point 3, the Project Merger Team selected Alternative 29 as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) on May 12, 2004, based on
Concurrence Point 2A, Bridges and Quantities of Stream Impacts, a review of other
environmental impacts, and public comments as noted in Section 2.10. Copies of the signed
concurrence forms are provided in Appendix B.
Concurrence Point 4A addresses further efforts to minimize wetland and stream impacts
during the preliminary design phase of the project. At their meeting on May 25, 2006, the
Project Merger Team reviewed the design modifications to the preliminary roadway plans
made since the Draft EIS was completed. These modifications resulted in a reduction in the
linear stream impacts of approximately 921 feet, based on a comparison of impacts
presented at the Concurrence Point 2A Project Merger Team meeting. At the time of the 2A
meeting, the impacts to streams totaled 30,817 linear feet. Subsequent design changes,
which reduced stream impacts, were discussed in Chapter 1. Other changes to the design
that reduced stream impacts involved utilization of 2:1 slopes in the area of streams and
wetlands and at grade - separations, efforts to cross streams at perpendicular angles, and
adjustments to the construction limits and slope stakes to minimize longitudinal impacts along
the project's mainline. A copy of the signed concurrence form is provided in Appendix B.
2.10 Public Involvement
A public involvement program was developed and implemented throughout the project
consistent with guidelines for NEPA public involvement regulations (40 CFR Part 1506.6).
The public involvement program for the project included multiple newsletters and news
releases; small group meetings; public officials meetings; citizens informational workshops;
23

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Response: We respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the Zoo Connector and NC
159 serve the same purpose. As noted in the response to Comment (10), the two -lane Zoo
Connector will be a full access control facility. Conversely, NC 159 is a winding, local arterial
that provides access to residences fronting the roadway as well as residential subdivisions
throughout the corridor. If the Zoo Connector were not constructed, widening NC 159 would
be required to provide additional capacity and improve safety along the corridor.
NC 42 connects to Sanford, approximately 46 miles southeast of Asheboro. It provides one
of only three crossings over the Deep River south of existing US 64 in Randolph County and
provides access to NC 22, which runs from north to south through the County. Information
about the traffic volumes served by both interchanges is provided in the response to
Comment (10).
Comment (13): "The Parkway configuration maintains the 4 -lane median divided design.
With a lower design speed, a parkway would reduce the safe line -of -sight distances to allow
more road curves with greater horizontal and vertical variation. Less cut and fill earthwork
would result in less construction runoff and the roadway noise and relocation impacts could
be lessened. EPA requests that this design alternative be evaluated and presented in the
Final EIS for the preferred alignment."
Response: Reference is made to the response to comment (7), which discusses the
purpose and need for the project and its design criteria.
Comment (14): "On Figure 3.2B Autumnwood Lane does not continue and connect to
Ashworth View Dr. as shown. At least four (4) houses within the corridors are not
depicted in this figure. They are not new houses either. At least 10 to 15 homes (single
wide trailers) in the northern corridor are not shown off Twelve Tree Road north of Miller
Road."
"There is a tributary to Little River northeast of the private Ballpark (S. Scott Rush Park)
which is not depicted. There is another small tributary at the end of Miller Road that
leads to the Little River. Briles Road (Subdivision north of Danny Bell Road) does not
continue across Taylor's Creek and into the corridor but stops just past the last house on
the left by Cortez Road. NCDOT should investigate these inaccuracies in the mapping and
ensure that all project maps are accurate and agree with the tabular statistical data."
Response: Figure 3.2B was reviewed for the omissions noted by the EPA. The NCDOT
concedes that not all environmental and cultural features (such as streams or residences) will
appear on exhibits used in the Draft and Final EIS. However, we make every effort to identify
these features for the project's design files. Ground surveys for streams, which are located
using Geographic Positioning System (GPS) equipment, and windshield surveys
supplemented with aerial photography are conducted to determine potential displacements
during preparation of the Draft EIS. This information is transferred into the electronic
preliminary roadway design files, which includes the most detailed information currently
available on the project corridor. The tabular statistical data on environmental impacts are
based on these preliminary design files. Figures in the Draft and Final EIS are provided for
illustrative purposes and are not used to calculate impacts to the various natural resources or
residential and other properties. For example, one of the sources for base mapping of Figure
3.2B was the USGS topographic quadrangle for the area, which was photorevised in 1981.
Though USGS quadrangles show structures, we agree that a 25 year old source would be
inadequate for identifying possible displacements. Randolph County provided data on
32

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
subdivision streets shown on the figure. Typically, some subdivision or local streets are
formally platted but never constructed, which would account for their appearance on county
mapping, although they do not exist on the ground. Figures 1.2a -I included in Appendix E
provide aerial photography of the Alternative 29 corridor, with streams, unnamed tributaries,
and major roadways labeled.
Comment (15): "Notwithstanding the effectiveness of man -made sound barriers, we
suggest that NCDOT should carefully consider use of vegetative buffers both as a visual
screen and as a means to block unwanted highway noise as part of the overall mitigation
design. Noise levels need not be reduced 10 dBA nor require a 200 -foot buffer to have
psychological and aesthetic benefit in noise mitigation. We suggest that NCDOT evaluate
the use of a dense vegetative buffer where the goal would be to realistically reduce impacts
by 2 to 5 dBA."
Response: According to Highway Norse Fundamentals (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1980), vegetation of a density such that there is no clear line of sight between
an observer and the noise source for a distance of 30 meters, with a vertical tree height of at
least 5 meters would generate a noise reduction of approximately 5 decibels (dBA). To
accomplish this level of reduction, and maintain it into perpetuity, approximately 100 feet of
additional right -of -way would have to be acquired in the vicinity of each noise impact area. In
many areas, this would result in the acquisition of the residences the mitigation effort would
seek to protect from highway noise. A landscape plan will be incorporated in the final design
plans for the project. While this plan will not address attenuation of noise, it will, in many
cases, provide a visual and therefore psychological barrier between residences and the
roadway, particularly in the interchange areas.
Comment (16): "Field investigation revealed that Tantraugh Branch and associated forested
wetlands in the south east part of the study area, appear to be of high quality. This area also
contains low elevation wetland seeps but may require the loss of other wetlands if another
alternative is selected. The Tantraugh Branch System should be avoided or minimized to the
extent practicable."
Response: The NEPA / 404 Merger Team meeting minutes of May 12, 2004 of a site visit
to Tantraugh Branch reveals the team members visited the Alternative 29 seepage wetland
and confirmed it to be a low quality wetland, as its initial `wetland rating worksheet" rating of
19 indicated, due to its low value for water storage, pollutant removal, bank stabilization,
aquatic life, and recreation. The adjacent forested wetland was identified as higher quality,
consistent with its rating of 68, but was determined to be typical of wetland systems found
along Tantraugh Branch. Therefore, a bridge was not requested nor recommended at this
site.
Comment (17): "Farmland losses should be minimized to the extent practicable. The effort
to determine the extent of impacts to individual farms should be performed prior to final
design"
Response: The project will unavoidably impact approximately 88 acres of farmland.
According to the NRCS's Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form analysis there are 71
effected parcels with some active farming activities, four of these are larger or as large as the
average size farming unit (107 acres) for the county. It does not appear that there will be
substantial areas that will become non4armable as a result of the proposed project. Indirect
and cumulative impacts to farmland are discussed in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects
33

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Report prepared for this project. Impacts to individual farms are always taken into
consideration during the development of preliminary roadway design and final construction
plans. Efforts are made to follow property lines or field breaks, where design criteria permits.
Farmers are frequent attendees at public meetings, and their input regarding concerns about
irrigation ponds, storage barns, and cattle crossings are taken seriously, as the loss of these
resources can directly affect the profitability of their operations. Frequently, designers meet
with farmers to discuss issues to ensure that the viability of agricultural fields is maintained
during and after project construction.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (December 17, 2002)
Comment (18): "It appears that the mass transit alternative for improving conditions on NC
159 was dismissed without adequate discussion. The implementation of a park -and -ride
facility to transport zoo visitors may be a viable alternative based on the information in the
draft document. It appears that the problems on NC 159 are attributed to the heavy volume
of zoo visitor traffic conflicting with local uses during peak hours. Another problem that
attributes to the congestion and delays on NC 159 appears to be the confusion that non-
resident zoo visitors have in reaching the zoo from US 220 and US 64. Both of these may be
resolved by implementation of a shuttle service to transport zoo visitors to and from the zoo
via satellite park - and -ride areas."
Response: A satellite park - and -ride lot and shuttle system serving Zoo patrons is not
deemed feasible for a number of reasons: 1) It would result in confusion among Zoo patrons
due to the redundancy of the extensive Zoo parking facilities currently provided by two lots on
the Zoo grounds, including spaces for 1,971 cars, 71 buses and/or recreational vehicles, and
51 handicap spaces on 27 acres. The Zoo provides a free shuttle transporting visitors
between the Zoo and the two parking lots, which are approximately one mile apart, and also
shuttles visitors between various Zoo attractions. 2) Zoo officials indicate that the majority of
patrons would not utilize a remote park - and -ride facility when free on -site parking is available.
3) Zoo officials indicate that it would not be operationally feasible to locate another parking
facility in Asheboro, nearly 6 miles from the Zoo, or purchase nearby rural property to shuttle
visitors to the Zoo. Eight -three (83) percent of Zoo visitors come from outside the seven
county region surrounding Asheboro and are unlikely to seek out and use an off -site parking
facility, according to Zoo staff. 4) if a park -and -ride facility was constructed, given the
extensive parking available at the Zoo, a high percentage of visitors would be expected to
continue to use NC 159 to access, and park at the Zoo. Therefore, the need to widen NC
159 would not be delayed or prevented.
Comment (19): `The proposed US 64 four -lane divided, controlled access facility is currently
proposed to begin at the existing four -lane divided facility on the east side of Asheboro and
terminates at the existing two -lane uncontrolled access facility just west of Asheboro. The
two -lane facility west of Asheboro is currently at LOS of E and is projected to reach a LOS of
F by 2025. It is stated in the Draft EIS that TIP project R -2220 will provide the necessary
improvement to US 64 on the west side of Asheboro. The EIS frequently presumes that the
westbound portion of US 64 will be in place about the same time R -2536 is constructed. This
implies that the two segments, R -2220 and R -2536 are inter - related and necessary together
to improve current conditions on US 64 corridor in this area. It is our understanding that both
projects are tentatively scheduled to be constructed within the same year. Based on the
above and information contained in the Draft EIS, it appears that the R -2220 and R -2536
segments are connected actions and that the discussion of the improvements to the west
34

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
portion of US 64 to its logical termini in Lexington should be included in this EIS. Therefore, it
is recommended that TIP Project R -2220 be discussed and reviewed with this proposed in
the EIS. This treatment of the analysis would in no way preclude staged construction of the
two segments."
Response: A State Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
were completed for R -2220 on November 29, 1993. The western portion of the project has
already been constructed. The remainder is currently unfunded and unscheduled.
The US 64 corridor in Asheboro supports a substantial amount of commercial development.
As discussed in the DEIS, reducing congestion, and thereby improving safety, is an important
need within that section of the US 64 corridor. The documented crash rates exceed the
statewide average for similar roadways, with the majority of crashes being rear -end and
angle collisions; typically found where driveways are numerous. The need to reduce
congestion in the Asheboro area supports the project's logical termini. The US 64 Bypass
project is a distinct and separate element of the Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan, with
connections to existing US 64 at each end to provide logical termini for the Bypass. The
nearly 14 -mile long Bypass is of sufficient length to enable analysis of environment impacts
over a broad scale. Because the Bypass is proposed on new location, as compared to the
planned widening improvements to the west, the consideration of other alternatives is not
restricted.
The proposed Bypass will separate through traffic from local traffic, reducing volumes on
existing US 64 and conflicts between longer distance travelers and local motorists. The
existing capacity and safety issues along US 64 in Asheboro make the project more urgent
than the planned improvements in the rural area to the west. These factors give the project
its independent utility, as it will provide this functional improvement to traffic flow and by
extension safety, regardless of improvements to US 64 to the west.
Comment (20): In section 3.2.4.3 it is stated "(t)here are no mining or quarry operations
within the project study area." However, in section 3.2.8.2 there was mention of interference
to the noise meters generated by large trucks from a quarry operation. There appears to be
some inconsistency here."
Response: In the Existing Noise section of the Draft EIS it was noted that the large trucks
referred to in Section 3.2.8.2. were carrying soil and gravel, and presumably came from a
quarry. A windshield survey of the corridor and questions to county planning staff both failed
to locate any quarry within or near the project study area.
Comment (21): "In section 4.1.1.5 — Parks/Recreational Facilities, the first sentence states
that there are 'no existing public or private parks and/or recreational facilities within the
detailed study corridors.' However, it is later stated 'Alternative 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14 would
impact the baseball field' on the Browne property, which is'used for practice by local teams.'
This needs to be clarified. It appears that there is a recreational facility on private land that is
used by the public. Therefore, the opening sentence would be incorrect, and should be
revised."
Response: The S. Scot Rush baseball field near Mack Road is privately owned, but used
by the public. The correction is noted in Chapter I, Section 1.1.
35

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Comment (22): "The protected species surveys mentioned in section 4.3.4.3 should be
updated for the final EIS since three years have elapsed since the original survey. This is
especially important since populations of Schweinitz's sunflower were identified outside the
corridors, but within the project study area."
Response: Field surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted in October 2004
within suitable habitat areas throughout the Alternate 29 study corridor and expanded areas
around interchanges. No known additional populations of Schweinitz's sunflower were found
within the study corridor and within expanded areas around the interchanges. The NCDOT
will perform additional surveys within two years prior to construction.
Comment (23): "An indirect and cumulative analysis should have been presented in the
DEIS. It is understandable that NCDOT would want to defer this analysis until a selected
alignment has been identified. However, an adequate discussion of the reasonably
foreseeable indirect and cumulative effects is required in order for decision - makers, other
agencies and the public to formulate opinions and provide meaningful comments on the
proposed alternatives. It appears that enough information is currently available for a
reasonable analysis of indirect and cumulative effects to be presented in the draft document.
Response: Due to their close proximity and common interchanges, the anticipated
indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed project were not expected to vary between
the build alternatives or contribute to the choice or elimination of these alternatives.
Therefore, the assessment of indirect and cumulative effects was conducted for the Preferred
Alternative only and are addressed separately in an Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report
and summarized in this Abbreviated FEIS.
3.2.2 State Agencies
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division Forest Resources.
(August 12, 2002)
Comment (24): 1. The construction of the roadway has a significant impact to forestlands,
ranging from a low of 566 acres to a high of 642 acres for Alternative 33. 2. We support the
selection of Alternative 13 as the Preferred Alternative since it impacts the fewest forested
acres."
Response: Comments noted. Forest impacts comprise a substantial impact and
represent an irretrievable commitment of natural resources as they are converted to
transportation use. However, after weighing the impacts on all natural and human
environmental resources, Alternative 29 was selected as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative and is NCDOT's and FHWA's Preferred Alternative.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
(September 24, 2002)
Comment (25): "The access to the NC Zoo (Zoo Connector) is proposed as a two -lane,
divided, parkway -type facility with access control. This document does not define the
meaning of "parkway -type facility'."
36.

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Response: Reference is made to Figure 2,1 in the Draft EIS, which provides the typical
section for the Zoo Connector. A similar existing example is the Blue Ridge Parkway, a
controlled access, two -lane roadway. The Blue Ridge Parkway has travel lanes of similar
width to the proposed Zoo Connector as well as grassed shoulders falling into swales with
slopes ranging from 6:1 to 2:1. One difference; unlike the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Zoo
Connector will have two -foot wide paved outside shoulders.
Comment (26): 'The DEIS considered 18 evaluation criteria factors in the evaluation of
corridor segments and preliminary corridors. The evaluation factors did not include the
number of working farms, plant nurseries (agri- businesses) or tree plantation businesses
potentially impacted. These types of facilities are more irreplaceable than residential
housing/potential relocatees. These impacts are not addressed adequately in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences."
Response: The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assigns ratings to
potential farmland impacts based on designated prime and statewide important farmland
soils in order to determine the level of significance of these impacts. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not address the assessment of individual farms by type, plant
nurseries or tree plantations that may be impacted. Seventy -one parcels with farming
activities were identified within the 1000 -foot wide Alternative 29 study corridor. A windshield
survey and review of aerial photographs of the Preferred Alternative identified approximately
14 farms, tree plantations, or agri - businesses that may be impacted by the project.
North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation (September 30, 2002)
Comment (27): "Although Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was not found in
the Asheboro Bypass corridor during the 1999 survey period, we suspect that a population
could be found during construction, because there is so much potential habitat for the species
in the area. A population could have been missed due to herbicide spraying or mowing during
the survey period. Also an issue with the Schweinitz's sunflower is secondary impacts.
Increased development in the area is likely to impact known populations of this federally listed
species. NCDOT can partially mitigate for these likely impacts by cooperating with the NC
PCP, NC Zoo and USFWS efforts to implement the Schweinitz's sunflower recovery plan by
permanently protecting populations within Randolph County."
Response: Comments noted. Surveys for the Schweinitz's sunflower (Hellanthus
schweinitzil) were performed during August and September, 1999 and no populations were
found in the study area. A second survey in October, 2004 within suitable habitat throughout
the Alternate 29 study corridor again confirmed that none were present in this area. An
additional survey will be conducted prior to construction.
According to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report, most new development in Randolph
County will continue to occur north of existing US 64. The proposed Bypass will likely
stimulate growth at its proposed interchanges with NC 49, US 64 West, and US 220 (1-
73/74), which is consistent with the land development plans adopted by the City of Asheboro
and Randolph County, The October 2004 Schweinitfs sunflower surveys included
expanded areas in the vicinity of the interchanges, taking into account the likelihood of new
development. No populations were located in those areas, as well as the project corridor.
Development in the remaining portion of the project area is expected to continue to be
37

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
comprised largely of low density residential. Constraints to development include the two -mile
buffer imposed by Randolph County around the North Carolina Zoo and the Uwharrie
National Forest in the southern portion of the county.
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (October 8,
2002)
Comment (28): `The DEIS adequately considers historic and architectural resources by
stating the project would have no effect on the Cox -Brown Farm, eligible for the National
Register. We would like the no effect statement to be modified and include "with
environmental commitments" in the Summary Chapter of the report."
Response: The NCDOT, the FHWA, and the HPO have concurred that Alternative 29, is
the LEDPA and Preferred Alternative. Alternative 29 will have no effect on the Cox -Brown
Farm. The environmental commitments would have applied only to Alternatives 1, 2, 13 and
14, as the remaining alternatives, including Alternative 29, are located nearly one -mile from
the historic farm, rendering the need to screen the farm from the roadway moot.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (October 3, 2002)
Comment (29): `We have reviewed the DEIS for this project and found that the document
adequately describes the direct environmental impacts of the build alternatives. We remain
concerned over the potential impact to the high quality natural communities both from direct
and indirect impacts. NCDOT should discuss the indirect and cumulative effects that this
new location roadway will likely have on southern Randolph County. These findings on
cumulative and indirect effects should be presented in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for this project."
Response: Comments noted. An Indirect and Cumulative Effects Reportwas prepared
for this project and is summarized in Section 2.5.
3.2.3 Local Agencies
No local agencies provided comments on the Draft EIS.
3.3 Public Comments
As previously noted, a Pre - Hearing Open House and Corridor Public Hearing were held on
May 22, 2003 at the National Guard Armory in Asheboro, North Carolina. The open house
and hearing were advertised in local newspapers. Newsletters and flyers were also used to
notify interested citizens and property owners within the project study area. Copies of these
materials are provided in Appendix C of this document.
Approximately 350 people attended the hearing, with 82 speaking. A petition with 179
signatures in opposition to Alternative 1 and support of Alternative 2 was submitted at the
hearing. In addition, 56 written comments were received at the Pre - Hearing Open House,
38

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Corridor Public Hearing, and during the subsequent post- hearing comment period. A
transcript of the public hearing comments is provided in Appendix C.
3.3.4 Summary of Public Comments
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 on the following page provide numeric summaries of the comments
received stating either support or opposition to each of the nine alternatives. As the tables
show, no one alternative had overwhelming opposition, excepting Alternative 1, which was
opposed by 193 individuals, largely comprised of 179 petition signers. Opposition to
Alternative 13, which follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 was implicit in the citizens
concerns about the corridors' affect to the neighborhoods on the northeast side on NC 42.
Those same petitioners indicated support for Alternative 2 or other alternatives that did not
affect the citizen's neighborhood.
Table 3.1. Total Comments in OnDosition to Individual Alternatives
Alternative
1
2
4
10
13
14
22
29
33
14 (plus
9 (plus
petition
S
6
5
15
3
1
4
2
with 179
with 179
signatures)
signatures)
Table 3.2. Total Comments in Support of Individual Alternatives
Alternative
f
2
4
10
13
14
22
29
33
9 (plus
7
petition
2
0
12
5
3
1
3
with 179
signatures)
In addition to the comments received in support or opposition to specific alternates, five
citizens supported any or all alternatives for the project. Conversely, four citizens opposed all
alternatives.
Several citizens offered comments about the proposed improvements, which indicated
neither support nor opposition to any particular alternative. Two citizens supported use of US
220 as the western leg of the Bypass. Five citizens wanted to move the Bypass further west,
while five others wanted to move the Bypass further east and/or bypass Ramseur. Four
citizens wanted to move the proposed Bypass further south of the southernmost alternative.
Three citizens requested a study of a corridor north of Asheboro. Four citizens preferred that
existing US 64 (Dixie Drive) be widened.
Three citizens wanted to use and/or improve existing NC 159 as the zoo entrance and
eliminate the proposed Zoo Connector. One citizen suggested closing the existing zoo
entrance at NC 159 when the proposed Zoo Connector is constructed.
39

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL EWIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3.3.2 Response to Public Comments
Comments stating preferences or opposition to specific alternatives or the project as a whole
were tallied and noted. Citizens at the hearing asked about the decision- making process and
when the Preferred Alternative selection would occur. The hearing moderator explained the
selection process; that it is a joint effort among the NCDOT, FHWA, and resource agencies,
who take into consideration factors such as public comments, environmental impacts, and
residential and business displacements in comparing the alternatives and selecting the
preferred.
Several citizens who provided written comments asked questions or requested that additional
information be mailed to them regarding the project. Copies of portions of the preliminary
plans for various alternatives, the public hearing transcript, the post- hearing meeting minutes,
the impacts summary table from the Draft EIS, and detailed responses to specific questions
were subsequently provided to 10 citizens, including three who made statements at the public
hearing.
Several citizens expressed concerns about the project's potential impact on the S. Scot Rush
ball field. Alternative 29, the Preferred Alternative, does not directly impact the ball field, as it
will be located approximately 1,500 feet south of the private recreational facility.
A few citizens asked why alternatives were not considered further south of the project study
area. Two important environmental constraints prevented consideration of alternatives
further south; Harvey's Mountain, which is largely owned by the U.S. Forest Service; and the
location of the NC Zoo, just to the southeast of the project study area. The topography in the
Harvey's Mountain area would have required substantial cuts to allow for the grade
requirements of the proposed freeway -type facility, increasing both environmental impacts
and costs. Another consideration is travel time, which is an important factor in planning a
bypass facility. Greater distance from the urban area will increase the overall length of the
facility, thereby increasing the time it takes to drive from west to east around Asheboro. If
extended too far, the proposed facility would become less attractive to motorists, with many
likely to choose to continue on the existing facility. This loss of users affects the purpose of
the project and does not address the safety issues related to the combined local and through
traffic on existing US 64.
A bypass to the north of US 64 was preferred by a few citizens, who were concerned about
the project's impact to farms south of US 64. One citizen felt a northern bypass would be
shorter, and therefore less expensive to construct. A bypass to the north of US 64 was not
considered in the Draft EIS because of the impacts that would result to the water supply
watershed. Additionally, urban development is more extensive on the northern side of US 64.
An alternate in that area would likely have much greater relocation impacts.
Widening existing US 64 was recommended by several citizens as an alternative to the
proposed Bypass. Widening the existing roadway does not meet key elements of the
project's purpose and need. Additional capacity will be needed in the US 64 corridor by the
project's design year. An additional lane in each direction on existing US 64 will not provide
enough additional capacity to accommodate projected traffic growth in the corridor.
Furthermore, widening would not address the safety issue along the roadway, as the
combination of local and through traffic would not be alleviated. If existing US 64 were
widened to seven lanes, left -turn access control, in the form of concrete median barriers that
40

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
prevent left turn movements except at intersections and designated median breaks would be
required for safety. This access control would likely be opposed by many of the businesses
along the roadway.
The proposed facility is consistent with the Intrastate Corridor System, which includes US 64.
The system was generated to provide for high speed travel between the state's major
population centers on major US and NC routes.
Some public hearing participants asked if the project could be extended to the east and
bypass Ramseur, as well. Key purposes of the proposed Bypass are to alleviate congestion
and improve safety in the US 64 corridor in the Asheboro area. This need comprises the
project's independent utility. The need for a bypass around Ramseur has not been identified
at this time. A US 64 /NC 49 corridor study is now underway by the NCDOT Transportation
Planning Branch. The study will recommend appropriate improvements throughout the
corridor, including the Ramseur area. A bypass around Ramseur may be one of the study
recommendations
Some commenting citizens asked about using US 220 Bypass as the western leg of the US
64 Bypass, rather than continuing west to near Stutts Road. Using US 220 Bypass would not
bypass the entire congested area along existing US 64, thereby increasing travel distance but
not reducing travel time for through traffic. Additionally, the proposed Bypass is expected to
divert a substantial amount of traffic from US 220 between the proposed Bypass and existing
US 64. This reduction in volume on that facility will be beneficial to its level of service in the
future, as traffic volumes on that route are expected to increase substantially as the 1- 7311 -74
corridor is completed.
A few citizens suggested that the Zoo Connector extend from US 220 Bypass instead of the
proposed US 64 Bypass. Traffic studies have shown that a larger proportion of Zoo traffic
arrives at the Zoo via US 64 rather than US 220 Bypass. This traffic would continue to use
NC 159 to access the Zoo. The congestion problems on that route would not be alleviated by
utilizing US 220 Bypass.
Several citizens asked about extending the project's western terminus further to the west.
Planning and preliminary design have been completed for TIP Project No. R -2220, which
involves widening improvements to the west of Asheboro. A portion of that project, from 1 -85
to 1 -85 Business, has already been constructed. The remainder, the eastern section of the
project to US 220, is listed in the current TIP, but construction is unfunded.
41

TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Draft EIS was approved on July 23, 2002 and distributed to the following federal, state,
and local agencies listed below. It also was made available to the public.
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies that provided written comments after reviewing the Draft EIS.
Copies of letters received are included in Appendix A of this document.
The agencies listed below will receive a copy of this Final EIS.
4.1 Federal Agencies
Department of Agriculture *
Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Transit Authority
General Services Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service *
4.2 State Agencies
Department of Administration *
Department of Commerce, Division of Travel and Tourism
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest Resources
Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
Department of Public Instruction
Department of Economic and Community Development
State Clearinghouse *
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Zoological Park
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division 8
4.3 Local Governments
Piedmont -Triad Council of Governments
Chairman, Randolph County Commissioners
42

Mayor of Asheboro
Randolph County Manager
4.4 Local Agencies
City of Asheboro Planning Department
City of Asheboro Engineering Department
Randolph County Planning Department
Randolph County School System
4.5 Libraries
Randolph County Public Library
4.6 Community Liaisons
Asheboro /Randolph Chamber of Commerce
TIP PROJECT R-2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
43

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

United States Department of Agriculture
o N RCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205 Telephone No.: (919) 873 -2134
Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax No.: (919) 873 -2154
August 29, 2002
Ms. Gail Grimes, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
Dear Ms. Grimes:
Date
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Federal Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for US64 Im rovements- Asheboro Randolph Coun North Carolina Federal -Aid
Project No. NHF -64 19 State Project No. 8.1571401 TIP Project R -2536.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
Mary K. ,,Combs
State Conservationist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
,t NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
a�itat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
September 25, 2002
Ms. Gail Grimes, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1 548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Dear Ms Grimes:
This responds to your August 12, 2002, request for comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for US 64 Improvements - Asheboro, Randolph County, Federal -Aid Project No
NTH- 64(19); State Project No. 8.1571401, TIP Project R -2536. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries) has reviewed the DENS and determined that the resources involved are
not ones.for..which we are responsible. Therefore, we do not wish to provide additional comments
This letter does not satisfy requirements by the appropriate Federal action agency to consult with LIs
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, if any activityf ies) "may
effect" listed species and habitats under NOAA Fisheries purview In this regard, required
consultation should be initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721 Executive Drive
North, St Petersburg, Florida 33702 -2432.
Please contact me at the letterhead address or at (252) 728 -5090 if additional assistance is required.
Sincerely,
_;�:5c Zxz�
62"
Ron Sechler
Fishery Biologist
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC
2
® Prinred on Recycled Paper
k
f °',-E .w�`'�`O

ER 021802
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
15 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
September 30, 2002
t<
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager '
Project Development & Environmental
� Analysis Branch, NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 64 Improvements through the
City of Asheboro in Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) and offers the following comments for your consideration. These
continents are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended,
(16 U.S.C. 661 -6674) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The DEIS addresses the proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT)
to improve the US 64 corridor in the vicinity of the City of Asheboro and improve access to the
North Carolina Zoological Park. Nine alternatives that would go south of Asheboro are discussed
in the DEIS. These alternatives range from 13.6 to 14.4 miles in length. The DEIS does not
select a preferred alternative.
Specific Comments
The DEIS discusses (Chapter 1) the needs for the proposed action and the primary purposes of
the action. The Department finds the project purpose and need to be adequate.
The DEIS presents (Chapter 2) an extensive discussion of the alternatives available to fulfill the
project purpose. Early planning considered 33 preliminary corridors from which nine were
selected for detailed study. A four -lane, median divided facility with controlled access is
considered necessary to meet the project purposes (p. 2 -7). The Department concurs that a
bypass to the south of Asheboro has many advantages (p. 2 -12) including the avoidance of
impacts to water supply watersheds north of the city.
The discussion of the affected environment (Chapter 3) is extensive. The Department finds the

description of the existing natural environment to be thorough and accurate. Data on the eight
major perennial streams within the detailed study corridors (Table 3.8, p. 3 -20) is especially
informative. This information clearly indicates that the project would cross the watershed divide
between the Yadkin -Pee Dee basin to the west and the Cape Fear basin to the east. The species
given as federally listed species and Federal Species of Concern have not been amended since
these data were acquired in March 2001 (p. 3 -44). We recommend an updated species list be
used when issuing the Final EIS. I E
The DEIS provides thorough information on the river and stream crossings of each of the nine
detailed study corridors (pp. 4 -27 to 4 -31). The number of crossings range from 18 (Alternative
13) to 26 (Alternative 10). The discussion of impacts to streams caused by highway construction
is presented (p. 4 -56) and such information should be considered in the selection of the preferred
route.
The DEIS presents useful information on the wetlands that would be impacted by each of the nine
- detailed study corridors (pp. 4 -50 to 4 -53). The project area contains three general wetland
types: low elevation seeps, forested wetlands, and emergent wetlands. Total wetland impacts
based on preliminary designs range from 4.1 acres (Alternatives 29 and 33) to 8.8 acres
(Alternative 4). Forested wetlands would have the highest losses with five of the nine alternatives
impacting 6.8 acres or more of forested wetlands. The Department agrees with the position that
wetlands in the project area serve valuable functions, including providing habitat for a variety of
vegetation and wildlife, flood water alteration, sediment stabilization, and toxicant retention.
Wetland impact data should be carefully considered in the selection of the preferred alternative.
The DEIS notes (p. 4 -54) that wetland impacts can be minimized through refinements of the
preliminary design. The document also lists (p.'4-54 and 4 -55) several design features that can
minimize wetland impacts due to highway construction. These include decreasing the footprint of
the roadway through reduction of fill slopes, alignment adjustments, construction of bridges
instead of culverts, and lengthening bridges, where appropriate. The DEIS notes (p. 2 -7) that the
proposed 70 -foot median may be reduced in wetland areas to -minimize impacts to these areas. [2
The Department recommends that median width be reduced through wetlands and that slopes of
any required fill areas be as steep as practical to further reduce wetland loss.
The incorporation of the design features mentioned above, especially the bridging of wetlands,
should minimize permanent wetland losses. However, some permanent wetland losses are likely
to occur. The Department believes that there should be no net wetland loss in the project area.
To achieve this goal, there must be a comprehensive plan of compensatory, wetland mitigation.
The DEIS briefly discusses wetland mitigation (p. 4 -55) and notes that a conceptual mitigation
plan will be included in the Final EIS. The Department recommends that compensatory mitigation
should be within the project area and replicate, to the extent possible, the type(s) of wetlands lost. 1 71
Compensation should strive to restore, enhance, and/or preserve riparian areas along the riparian
corridors to be impacted.
PA

The DEIS lists the six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) (p. 3 -46) known to occur in Randolph
County. If the historic record (last observed more thin 50 years ago) for the Pee Dee crayfish
(Dactyloctythere peedeensis) is excluded, five FSC have habitat within the project area (p. 3 -46)
and all are aquatic species. The FSC include two fish: the Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis
lepidinion) and Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp.) and three mussels: the Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), and Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana). These FSC are those plant and animal species for which the Department remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) should be
contacted for information on species under state protection.
The DEIS addresses (pp. 3 -44 to 3 -46) the two federally endangered species known to occur in
Randolph County. The list from March 2001 is still current and includes Schweini#z's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzi), a perennial herb, and the Cape Fear .Shiner (CFS) (Notropis
mekistocholas), a minnow with a small range limited to a portion of the Cape Fear River basin in
Central North Carolina.
By correspondence dated March 27, 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided Earth
Tech a preliminary assessment that the project site did not contain suitable habitat for any
federally listed species. This assessment contained the standard provision that the FWS position,
pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, could be reconsidered, based on new information regarding
either the project or the species to be affected. We consider the DEIS, released 2.5 years after
this preliminary assessment, to be such new information and comments below are based on that
document.
The DEIS concludes (p. 4 -57) that the project would have `no effect" on Schweinitz's
sunflower. This conclusion is based on "extensive field surveys" performed during August and
September 1999 that failed to find the plant in areas that would be impacted by the project.
However, several populations were found outside the corridors under consideration and
occurrence data from the NCNHP indicate that the species occurs in the Asheboro area.
While the Department can concur that construction of any of the nine alternatives is not likely to
adversely affect the species at this time, we request that the NCDOT plan for additional surveys
to be conducted within two years of actual construction. As the DEIS notes (p. 4 -57) potential
habitat for the species occurs along roadsides, power line rights -of -way, and the edges of field
throughout the project study area. Since the species grows in areas that are periodically
disturbed, it may colonize areas within the chosen alternative.
The DEIS states (p. 4 -57) that the proposed project is "not anticipated to result in an adverse
impact" to the CFS. Since the CFS is restricted to the Cape Fear River basin, it can be assumed
that the species is not present in the western part of the study area within the Yadkin -Pee Dee
3

River Basin. However, the project area does contain five creeks which drain to the Cape Fear
River (Table 3.8, p. 3 -20). As the DEIS states (p. 4 -51) construction impacts on aquatic
communities may not be restricted to the community in which construction occurs. Construction
can result in these communities receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion,
particularly in locations where steep to moderate slopes exist.
The DEIS states (p. 3 -46) that occurrence data of the NCNHP show no records of the CFS in
within 0.5 miles of the study corridors; however, these records document the presence of the
species in Fork Creek, a stream in southeastern Randolph County that flows into the Deep River,
less than ten miles south of the confluence of Richland Creek and the Deep River. Our review of
NCHNP data also shows a known occurrence of the CFS in the Deep River just south of the NC
42 crossing which would be just north of the Richland Creek -Deep River confluence.
In general, the NCDOT should not rely exclusively on the absence of occurrence records in the
NCNHP database in its determination of project impacts on the CFS. This database only indicates
the presence of known occurrences of federally protected species and does not necessarily mean
that a given species is not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of NCNHP data should not be substituted for actual field surveys. The NCDOT should base
each determination on a thorough comparison of the habitat requirements of the species with that
present in the project area. Information about the habitats in which these species are often found
is provided on the FWS web sites, http! / /endanpered.fws.gov and
bttp: / /es. southeast ,fws.gov /T &E %2OSpecies.htrn. If suitable habitat exists, field surveys should
be conducted by qualified personnel. Upon completion of the field surveys, the Department
should be informed of the findings including the survey date, survey methods, qualifications of
staff conducting the survey, and the determination of the affects of the proposed project on the
federally - listed species.
Based on all the information currently available, there is no conclusive evidence that the CFS
occurs in the immediate project area. However, the presence of the species in waters with a direct
connection to the project area is a source of concern. The North Prong Richland Creek is likely
to support a variety of minnows, shiners, and darters (p. 3 -44). Since this species and all aquatic
resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation, the Department recommends that any impacts
to the tributaries of the Deep River, such as Richland, Vestal, Squirrel, Gabriels Creeks, or
Tantraugh Branch, be avoided if possible. When in- stream construction does occur in these
streams, we request that the following measures be implemented to ensure protection for all
aquatic resources occurring downstream:
1) Installation of in- stream silt curtain weighted at the bottom, and stringent bank erosion
control. If tree removal is required, stumps and roots should remain intact for bank
stabilization;
2) In- stream construction activities should be initiated only during low flow conditions that
permit the effective deployment of the silt curtain; and,
4
E

3) In-stream construction activities should be avoided during the Cape Fear shiner spawning
period (between April 1 and June 30). ;
Summary
Overall, the DEIS is very thorough and well organized. The purpose and need along the process
leading to the nine build alternatives for detailed study is adequately explained. The nine build
alternatives vary in impacts to important areas of wildlife habitat, such as forested wetlands,
and opportunities exist to select an alternative and employ design features to minimize the
permanent loss of such habitat. Opportunities also exist to provide in -kind compensatory wetland
mitigation within the project area. Finally, opportunities exist to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts on both FSC and two federally endangered species by ensuring adequate updates on the
presence of Schweinitz's sunflower and minimizing in- stream degradation throughout project
construction and during the sensitive spawning period of the CFS.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, I can be reached at 404 -331 -4524.
CC.,
FWS Raleigh Field Office
FWS, R4
OEPC, WASO
5
Sincerely,
re o ue
Regional Environnnental Officer

1906T
cJ
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
Washington, D.C. 20230
October 8, 2002
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Dear Ms. Grimes:
Enclosed are additional comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 64
Improvements - Asheboro Randolph County, North Carolina. We hope our comments will assist
you. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this document.
Sincerely,
4/ James P. Burgess, III
NEPA Coordinator
Enclosure
"~
a
4 �

MEMORANDUM FOR: James P. Burgess III
Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning
FROM: Charles W. Challstrom
Director, National Geodetic Survey
SUBJECT: DEIS - 0209 -02 US 64 improvements - Asheboro Randolph. County,
North Carolina
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the National Ocean Service (NOS)
responsibility and expertise and in terms of the impact of the proposed actions on NOS activities
and projects.
All available geodetic control information about horizontal and vertical geodetic control
monuments in the subject area is contained on the National Geodetic Survey's home page at the
following Internet World Wide Web address: http: / /www.ngs.noaa.gov After entering the this
home page, please access the topic "Products and Services" and then access the menu item "Data
Sheet." This menu item will allow you to directly access geodetic control monument infonnation
from the National Geodetic Survey data base for the subject area project. This information
should be reviewed for identifying the location and designation of any geodetic control
monuments that maybe affected by the proposed project.
If there are any planned activities which will disturb or destroy these monuments, NOS requires
not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such activities in order to plan for their
relocation. NOS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocations)
required.
For further information about geodetic control monuments, please contact Rick Yorczyk;
SSMC3 8636, NOAA, NINGS; 1315 East West Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910;
Telephone: [phone] x142; Fax: [phone], Email: Rick.YorcM!@Lnoaa.gov.
NOS has a state representative in North Carolina, who could provide further assistance. His
contact information is: Gary W. Thompson, Chief, NC Geodetic Survey, Elks Building, 20323
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -0323; Telephone: 919 - 733 -3836; Fax: [phone];
Email: [e-mail]

iEO sr�T�s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL_ PROTECTION AGENCY
yW REGION 4
32 y ���� qf ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
�F`
�"''� o= 61 FORSYTH STREET � �� V E
4( PAO, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 -8960 .
w
November 25, 2002 lZu 12� ?spL
4
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager o`���?
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch'```
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
Subject: US 64 Improvements - Asheboro, Randolph County Draft Environmental Impact
Statement; TIP Project R -2536; FHW- E40796 -NC; CEQ No. 020367
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
providing comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A bypass on new
location is proposed south of the City of Asheboro, approximately 14 miles in length.
The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow, level of service,and relieve
congestion through the City of Asheboro. An equally important purpose of the US 64 bypass is
to provide an optimal access roadway (connector) to the North Carolina Zoo, which dictates that
the bypass run somewhat close to the zoo located southeast of the city. The zoo is becoming a
regionally significant attraction. EPA concurs with the purpose and need for the project.
The range of alternatives initially included other transportation modes and traffic
management in addition to new highway corridors. A US 64 bypass to the north of the center of
Asheboro was considered but logically eliminated because it would not serve zoo traffic. The
nine identified bypass alternatives considered in detail represent two basic corridors very near
each other and only one corridor connecting the bypass to the zoo. Also, the new corridor
alternatives analyzed in the DEIS are identical in their 4 -Iane high -speed design specifications. A
more flexible design, such as a lower speed parkway should have been considered which could
lessen adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the DEIS does not present a full range of
alternatives.
The most pronounced adverse impacts are residential relocations, increased noise, loss of
deciduous forest and altered surface water habitat. Residential relocation impacts would be high
regardless of alternative selected but particularly so with Alternatives 10, 29 and 33. We believe
a parkway configuration should receive further consideration as a way to mitigate this impact.
Intemet Address (URL) • http7 lwww.apa.gov
PAruM UnaR vnlahla . Pdntnei with Vanalahle 00 Based inks on Remled PaDer (Minimum 30% Posiconsumer)

-2- 4
Lower speeds would reduce the safe sight distances and grading requirements which in turn
would allow for more curves and possibly the avoidance of more residences and natural
resources.
Impacts from excessive noise exposure, ranging from 117 to 148 sensitive receptors, are
substantial and should receive additional consideration for mitigation, which NCDOT indicates
will occur. Some of these receptors are residences expected to experience increases up to 23
decibels due to the project. A parkway configuration, allows greater latitude to fit the project
into the existing rolling terrain and predominant semi -rural residential land use. This
configuration could also help reduce noise by lessening the generated roadway noise and by
increasing distances between the road and sensitive receptors.
While no high quality surface waters have been identified in the project area, we think
impacts to the relatively unspoiled Tantraugh Branch and its forested wetlands could be lessened
by selection of Alternative 1, 2, 13 or 14. Alternative 13 in particular would have a substantially
lower linear impact on the surface streams than all other alternatives.
The project's long -term mobility benefits would be further ensured and the environment
might benefit by eliminating one or two of the 7 proposed interchanges from the 14- mile project.
NCDOT should consider deleting the NC 159 interchange and/or the NC 42 interchange, EPA 10
requests an analysis of the reduced environmental impacts and impact to the project utility by one
or two less interchanges and that it be made available for decisions on the selected alternative.
An additional concern to EPA is the absence of an indirect and cumulative impacts
analysis in this DEIS. Information on land use changes and impacts to natural resources from 1
building a bypass would be helpful to citizens and decision - makers.
The alternatives do not vary substantially in their environmental impact but the selection
of any one of them requires tradeoffs. We can, however, identify two alternatives, Alternatives 1
and 13, as representing a better balance of impacts minimization relative to relocations, excessive
noise, surface streams, and deciduous forest habitats than the other alternatives. Accordingly,
these alternatives would be preferred by EPA and are being assigned a rating of LO (lack of
objections). The other 7 alternatives are rated EC (environmental concerns) because they would
result in unnecessarily higher impacts to human and/or natural resources. The document is rated
"2" meaning that EPA has identified the need to improve the assessment of impacts and
mitigation which can and should be provided in the Final EIS. Detailed comments are enclosed
for your consideration.

-3- a
Thank you for providing the DEIS for review. EPA will remain engaged in the
interagency Merger Team as the project development process proceeds. If you would like to
discuss our comments, please contact Ted Bisterfeld on my staff at tel. [phone].
Sincerely,
L11
Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, Office of Environmental Assessment
Enclosure
cc: Nicholas Graf, FHWA Raleigh
Garland Pardue, USFWS Raleigh
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE Raleigh

EPA Comments on US 64 Bypass, Asheboro, NC - Draft EIS
DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Alternatives
The alternatives do not vary to a significant degree. The length of the new location alternatives
ranges from 13.6 miles to 14.4 miles. The number of interchanges for all nine (9) of the
alternatives is 7. Proposed interchanges for NC 159, now the zoo parkway, and the proposed
interchange for the proposed zoo connector are only 0.8 miles apart. Because of their duplicate
function and proximity, EPA believes the NC 159 interchange may be'unnecessary and its deletion 12
would lessen environmental impacts. An interchange at NC 42 is proposed. This road does not
connect any major urban areas to the southeast and potentially the interchange also could be
deleted from the project to lessen impacts. Table 4.16 is the statistical summary for the
alternatives; several key parameters are listed below.
Relocations: 110 to 156
Business relocations: 13 or 14
Stream Crossings: 18 to 26
Linear feet of Streams: 2,3012 to 31,383
Noise Receptors: 117 to 148
Deciduous Forests: 487.2 acres to 561.8 acres
Evergreen Forests: 26.3 acres to 39.0 acres
Mixed Forests: 32.6 acres to 58.6 acres
Floodplains: 8.9 acres to 9.9 acres
Similar ranges exist for impacts to pasture lands, cultivated acreage, and residential/community
acreage.
The project area contains many small drainage areas generally in a north -south orientation. The
bypass would cross them in a generally east -west orientation. The Parkway configuration
maintains the 4 -lane median divided design. With a lower design speed, a parkway would reduce
the safe line -of -sight distances to allow more road curves with greater horizontal and vertical
variation. Less cut and fill earthwork would result in less construction runoff and the roadway 13
noise and relocation impacts could be Iessened. EPA requests that this design alternative be
evaluated and presented in the Final EIS for the preferred alignment.

2. Affected Environment
Based on site inspections, some of the Detailed Study Alternatives maps are inaccurate.
On Figure 3.2B, Autumnwood Lane does not continue and connect to Ashworth View Drive as
shown. At least four (4) houses within the corridors are not depicted in this figure. They are not
new houses either. At least 10 to 15 homes (single wide trailers) within the northern corridor are
not shown off of Twelve Tree Road north of the intersection of Miller Road. They are not new
houses either. There is a tributary to Little River northeast of the private Ballpark (S. Scott Rush
Park) which is not depicted. There is another small tributary at the end of Miller Road which
leads to the Little River. Briles Road (Subdivision north of Danny Bell Road) does not continue
across Taylor's Creek and into the corridor but stops just past the last house on the left by Cortez
Road. NCDOT should investigate these inaccuracies in the mapping and ensure that all project
maps are accurate and agree with the tabular statistical data.
3. Noise and Visual Impacts
�00
Page 3 -33 of the DEIS addresses the noise impacts evaluation. At Site S, the noise meter reading
was taken higher than preferable with respect to the roadway, and trees on either side of the noise
meter blocked some of the sound. This finding supports EPA's contention that vegetation in a
landscape design, also has some merit as noise mitigation. NCDOT and FHWA need to recognize
that landscaping can have a positive effect on noise mitigation if installed properly.
Notwithstanding the effectiveness of man -made sound barriers, we suggest that NCDOT should
carefully consider use of vegetative buffers both as a visual screen and as a means to block
unwanted highway noise as part of the overall mitigation design. Noise levels need not be 15
reduced 10 dBA nor require a 200 -foot buffer to have psychological and aesthetic benefit in noise
mitigation. We suggest that NCDOT evaluate the use of a dense vegetative buffer where the goal
would be to realistically reduce noise impacts by 2 to 5 dBA.
4. Water and Wetland Resource Impacts
A number of the riparian areas and wetlands in the project area (e.g. Little River) contain
introduced species such as Chinese privet thickets. Cable Creek in the Western segment has been
impacted in places in the past from forestry practices and agricultural uses.
Wetland impacts require tradeoffs from one type to another depending on alternative. Field
investigation revealed that Tantraugh Branch and associated forested wetlands in the south east
part of the study area, appear to be of high quality. This area also contains low elevation wetland 16
seeps but may require the loss of other wetlands if another alternative is selected. The Tantraugh
Branch system should be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable. If the interchange at NC
159 were deleted, it could result in less impact to this system.

[ I
5. Terrestrial Impacts
Deciduous forest is the dominant wildlife habitat community of the project area. Minimization of
loss of this cover type should receive emphasis. While we realize this habitat would incur a major
impact from the proposed project, Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14 would have a substantially
lesser impact on deciduous forest.
Page 4 -21 of the DEIS indicates that the farm and pasture lands impacts would be from 250 to
4350 acres (including all categories of importance) depending on the alternative. It states further
that the extent of effects on individual farming operations will be determined during final design.
Farmland losses should be minimized to the extent practicable. The effort to determine the extent 17
of impacts to individual farms should be performed np 'or to final design.
6. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
There is no indirect- cumulative impacts analysis in this document. NCDOT is electing to
postpone this analysis until the deliberation on a selected project alternative and present it in the
Final EIS. In this instance, the consideration of the broader implications of the bypass project on
the area's socio - economic and natural resources may not greatly affect the selection/placement of
the build alternative. It is important for reviewers and decision - makers, however, to consider the
broader implications of building a bypass project on the area's socio- economic and natural
resources. This project would likely result in dramatic changes to the present semi -rural land use
in the area. It should be a concern to the county and the City of Asheboro that the resulting
development and infrastructure complement the zoo and the community. We estimate that there
would be less indirect and cumulative impacts to natural resources associated with the alternatives
(1, 2, 13, or 14) located in the corridor closer to the city center.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CA�OLINA 28402 -1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTIONOF. December 17, 2002
Regulatory Division
Action ID 200201260, US 64 Improvements —Asheboro, Randolph County, North Carolina,
State Project No. 8.151401, TIP Project R -2536.
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Dear Ms. Grimes:
This is in response to your letter, dated August 12, 2002, requesting comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the above referenced project. After review of the
Draft EIS, the following comments are offered:
1. It appears that the mass transit alternative for improving conditions on NC 159 was
dismissed without adequate discussion. The implementation of a park - and -ride facility to 18
transport zoo visitors may be a viable alternative based on the information in the draft document.
It appears that the problems on NC 159 are attributed to the heavy volume of zoo visitor traffic
conflicting with local uses during peak fours. Another problem that attributes to the congestion
and delays on NC 159 appears to be the confusion that non - resident zoo visitors have in reaching
the zoo from US 220 and US 64. Both of these may be resolved by implementation of a shuttle
service to transport zoo visitors to and from the zoo via satellite park - and -ride areas.
2. It is questionable that the proposed project as identified in the Draft EIS passes the test of
independent utility (stand alone) or has Iogical termini on the west end of the project. The
identified purpose of the proposed project is as follows:
a. To improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on US 64;
b. Relieve congestion on US 64 in the city of Asheboro;
c. Improve assess to the North Carolina Zoological Park; and
d. Improve high -speed regional travel along the US 64 intrastate corridor.
The proposed US 64 four -lane divided controlled access facility is currently proposed to
begin at the existing four -lane divided facility located on the east side of Asheboro and
terminates at the existing two -lane uncontrolled access facility just west of Asheboro. The two -
lane facility west of Asheboro is currently at LOS of and projected to reach a LOS of F by
2025. It is stated in the EIS that TIP project R -2220 will provide the necessary improvement to 1 g
US 64 on the west side of Asheboro. The EIS frequently presumes that the westbound portion of

US 64 will be in place about the same time R -2536 is constructed. This implies that the two
segments, R -2220 and R -2536 are inter - related and necessary together to improve current
conditions on US 64 corridor in this area. It is also our understanding that both projects are
tentatively scheduled to be constructed within the same year. Based on the above and
information contained in the Draft EIS, it appears that the R -2220 and R -2536 segments are
connected actions and that the discussion of the improvements to the west portion of US 64 to its
logical termini in Lexington should be included in this EIS. Therefore, it is recommended that
TIP Project R -2220 be discussed and reviewed with this proposal in the EIS. This treatment of
the analysis would in no way preclude staged construction of the two segments.
3. In section 3.2.4.3 it is stated, "(t)here are no mining or quarry operations within the
project study area." However, in section 3.2.8.2 there was mention of interference to the noise 20
meters generated by "large trucks from a quarry" operation. There appears to be some
inconsistency here. Please clarify.
4. In section 4.1.1.5 — Parks/Recreational Facilities, the first sentence states that there are
"no existing public or private parks and/or recreational facilities within the detailed study
corridors." However, it is later stated "Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 would impact the baseball 21
field" on the Browne property, which is "used for practice by local teams." This needs to be
clarified. It appears that there is a recreational facility on private land that is used by the public.-i
Therefore, the opening sentence would be incorrect and should be revised.
5. The protected species surveys mentioned in section 4.3.4.3 should be updated for the
final EIS since three years have elapsed since the original survey. This is especially important 2
since populations of Schweinitz's sunflower where identified outside of the corridors but within
the project study area.
6. An indirect and cumulative analysis should have been presented in the draft EIS. It is 23
understandable that NCDOT would want to defer this analysis until a selected alignment has
been identified. However, an adequate discussion of the reasonably foreseeable indirect and
cumulative effects is required in order for decision - makers, other agencies and the public to
formulate opinions and provide meaningful comments on the proposed alternatives. It appears
that enough information is currently available for a reasonable analysis of indirect and
cumulative effects to be presented in the draft document.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our comments. Should you have any
questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call Mr. Richard K. Spencer at the
Wilmington Field Office at 910 -251 -4172.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
2

Copies famished:
a
Ms. Cynthia F. Van Der Wieie
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Mr. Ted Bisterfeld
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8960
Mr. Art King, DEO
Division 8
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1067
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
9

.r
r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resot "rces
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
�� 31 12 ¢S
MEMORANDUM .� SeF��/ ?p0 CO CP
TO: Chrys Saggett Q
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 03 -E -0067 DEFS for US 64 improvements, Asheboro, Randolph
County
DATE: October 4, 2062
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina"27699 -1601
Phone;_919- 733-49841 FAX:. -9i 9-715 -30601 Internet :.ww.
_werir.state.nc.us /ENR/, ._
"�"� -_. ��. k•Fcu Qope .a+ryu[..nw.:,ason-Fn+wr;: -w4 Re4o.c Pa Am �.n; -r„s� -�, °� .. ai -_ .� -

North Cuolin.
�y Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
� Siicli el F. Easley, Governor
NCD'ENR'*'%ViUiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
'
N rill Carolina
FOREST,
.Division of Forest Resources—.
SERVICE.,
N4- C6),
Stanford ll: Adams, Director'
2411. Old US 70 West..:.
Clayton, NC: 27520
August 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT DEIS for the Proposed US 64 Asheboro Bypass, Randolph County
PROJECT #: 03 -0067 & TIP # R -2536
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced Environmental
Impact Statement and offer the following comments concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. The construction of the roadway has a significant impact to forestland, ranging from a low of
566 acres for Alternative to a high of 642 acres for Alternative 33.
24
2. We support the selection of Alternative 13 as the preferred alternative since it impacts the
fewest forested acres.
3. Our other concerns have been addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the document and look forward to future
correspondence. We encourage efforts that avoid or minimize impacts to forest resources during the
final planning of this project.
cc: Mike Thompson
� t
-OCT 2002
0o SacretaE1' ii;D
�— 'y s offrca
C-0 DOA
1616 %fall Service Center, Raleigh, north Carolina 27690 -1601
Phonn• 919 -- 7 i ; -2162 1 FAX- 9I4 — 7.i.i -(11 ,C 1 Inr,:rner• wwLv dfr cram nc iic -

(R41 02
p%e
MEMORANDUM
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E_ Director
Division of Water Quality
September 24, 2002
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Ck,?dAJ
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 64 Improvements, Asheboro, Randolph
County; F.A. Project No. NHF- 64(19); State Project No. 8. 1571401; TIP Project R -2536; -
State Clearinghouse Project No. 03 -E -0067.
The proposed US 64 improvements in Asheboro, Randolph County are a response to poor levels of
service and high accident rates along existing; US 64 and the need for improved access to NC Zoological
Park. in addition, US 64 is part of the NC Intrastate System and intended to provide "high speed, safe
travel service within the state.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated July 23, 2002 (received August 28, 2002). The
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
• Due to the complete build -out along existing.US 64 in Asheboro, widening the existing alignment to
improve travel would be infeasible. There is no control of access.
• The access to the NC Zoo (Zoo Connector) is proposed as a two-lane divided, parkway -type facility
with access control. The document does not define the meaning of "parkway -type facility".
• DWQ agrees that corridors should be considered south of US 64 to meet the project's purpose and
need statement.
• A total of 44 corridor segments were initially screened with nine preliminary corridors remaining_ At
this time, DWQ does not have a preferred alternative.
• The Draft EIS (Chapter 2 Alternatives) considered 18 evaluation criteria factors in the evaluation of
corridor segments and preliminary corridors. The evaluation factors did not include the number of
working fares, plant nurseries (agri- businesses) or tree plantation businesses potentially impacted.
These types of facilities are more irreplaceable than residential housing/potential relocatees. These
impacts are not addressed adequately in Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences.
IN Indirect and cumulative impact analysis should be conducted on the selected alternative and included
in the Final EIS.
Written concurrence of §401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project. Please be
aware that §401 Water Quality Certification may be denied if wetland or stream impacts have not been
avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to
provide continents on your project. Should you have any questions or require any additional information,
please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Jo
I ,
cc: USACE Wilmington Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Cowy
SAM
North Carolina 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)
919 - 733 -1786 (phone), 519- 733 -6893 (fax), httpllh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet1and s/..;, . -

F.w A 1
G qI Michael F. Easley, Governor
+`C G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rn r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
�' Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
0 Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COMMENTS
The Winston -Salem Regional Office (WSRO) recommends that the applicant
coordinate a Pre- Application Meeting and Site Visit with the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine if a Section 404
Permit (USACE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ) will be required.
Even though a Section 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the EA/EIS
procedure is complete, proceeding with the pre - application and application process will
enable the applicant to address Water Quality concerns and Regulations early in the
project's development. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Avoidance and Minimization of surface water and riparian buffer impacts,
?. Stormwater Management requirements (as related to the 401 Program),
3. Compensatory Mitigation for streams, wetlands, andlor buffers (where
applicable),
4. !dater Supply, Nutrient Sensitive, Trout, Outstanding Resource, and/or High
Quality Watershed,concems and requirements (where applicable),
?. Compliance with and protection of appropriate Water Quality Standards, on-
site as well as off -site, both during construction and after.
NPDES STORMWATER PERMITS COMMENTS
Any construction activity including clearing, grading, and excavation activities
resulting in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are required to obtain a
NPDES Storrnwater Permit, NCC 010000, prior to begianina these activities.
Any facility that is defined as having stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity is required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit (varies) prior to
beginning operation.
STATE STORMWATER PERMIT -CONIMFNTS
State_ Stormwater- Permits may be required for development activities draining to
Outstanding Resources Waters ar activities within one mile and draining to High Quality
Waters. These must also be obtained prior to development activities.
T+1&
i�rQC
Customer Service
1 800 858 -0368
Division of Water duality / Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street - Winston- Salem. NC 27107
Phone: [phone] Fax:.
(336 ) 771 -4630 Intern et httpllwq.ehnr.state.nc.us
WSR410/01

0012002 a North Carolina Division of
RECEIVED _� Environrgent and Natural Resources
Secretary's Office
DOA Division of Parks and Recreation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Brian Strong, DPR Environmental Review Coordinator>��
DATE: September 30, 2002
SUBJECT: US 64 Improvements - Asheboro, Randolph County Project Number 03 -E -0067.
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the US 64 Improvements - Asheboro, Randolph County.
Environmental Review Comments Project 03 -E -0067
Although Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was not Found in the
Asheboro bypass corridor during the 1999 survey period, we suspect that a population could be
found during construction, because there is so much potential habitat for the species in the area.
A population could have been missed due to herbicide spraying or mowing during the survey 27
period. Also an issue with Schweinitz's sunflower are secondary impacts. Increased development
in the area is likely to impact known populations of this federally Iisted species. NC DOT can
partially mitigate for these likely impacts by cooperating with the NC PCP, NC ZOO and
USFWS efforts to implement the Schweinitz's sunflower recovery plan by permanently
protecting populations within Randolph County.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at
(919) 715 -8711.
CC' Project files (2) A
A

Federal Aid # TIP #R -2536 County: Randolph
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description:
On March 19, 2002, representatives of the
• North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT)
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
There are no effects on the National Register - listed property /properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register - eligible property/properties locate�d- �within
he project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. 4Lt�
[] There is an effect on the National Register - listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
[] There is an effect on the National Register - eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT
Date
A, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency -' " ' Date
-3 1 19/0
Representative, HPO ( J ' Date
4A,9�311VOz-
�r
State Historic Preservation Officer

Federal Aid # TIP 482536 County: Randolph
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register - listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
) -
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an affect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
r
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA , ` HPO "`-

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Section 4041NEPA
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Conaurronce PoInt Rio, 2A: Approximate lengths of bridges on Detaifed
Study Alternatives
Project Nemo]TIP Description. Proposed Asheboro Southem Bypass. US 04 west to
US 64 east, Four lame sway on new location, in
Randolph County.
TIP Project No:
R-2530
Federal Aid Project Flo:
N H F -64(1 g)
State Protect No:
8,1571401
WBS Igo:
34450.1.1
Alf alternatives are fuH oontml of access wfth interchanges at the following. US e4 west,
NO 49, US 220 Bypass, NC Sao Connector, NC 159, NC 42, and US 04 east.
ThM fo lowving approximate lengths of bridges by AhmatIve and resource iridioat+e the
bridge lengths proposed;
Alternative
13:
Z
E5 05 3 SMU5 &
155
i;4'f'T
enz-'Y (1�6 RW
T oWL)
!�
'0 ,Pa7
4VR- L0PJ5
&AcA
LoeATIO 0, ,012
Atternative 14: ' f4sf5 W !•aaF1 70V QF 6hilk TO 76E tF PAL SHOP& .
Alternative 29:
The Project Team huts concurred on this state of May 2.2004, with the approximate
length of Mdges an each detailed study a ltemative ar. stated above.
NC
H
#Ir +
NCWR

Section 404INEPA
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. F Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alfemative (LECPA)
Project IVamWTIF D riptlen: Proposed AshebDro Southern Bypass, Us 84 west to
US 84 east. Four lane freeway on new 1ccaton, in
Randolph County.
TIP Project No:
R-2536
Federal Aid Project Igo:
NHF -64(19)
State P r-0; act No".
8.1571401
VMS Nom
3445n.9 A
The Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemative for the proposed project.
ls:
Alternative 9 29
The Project Team har, concurred on this date of Mgy 12, Z 4, than# this above
mentioned altemative is the Least Damaging and Pradcable Alternative (L5DPA).
USFWS
■ e 4" NCWR
FHWA _ 0 �;�?V-s,,

Section 404 /NEPA
Merger Project Team Meeting
Concurrence Point No. 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name / Description: Asheboro Bypass, from US 64 just east of
SR 1424 (Stotts Road) to US 64 0.6 miles
east of SR 2345 (Presnell Street), for a
distance of 13.68 miles, Randolph County
TIP Project No.: R -2536
Federal -aid Project No.: NHF- 64(19)
State Project No.: 8.1571401
WBS No.: 34450.1.1
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION EFFORTS TO DATE:
Bridges were added over Little River, Vestal Creek, and North Prong Richland
Creek (at the Zoo Connector) with minimum lengths totaling 165 feet over each
stream,
The NC 49 interchange design was modified to minimize impacts to Taylor Creek
and two unnamed tributaries in its vicinity. The modified design includes a
grade - separation with NC 49 crossing over the proposed Bypass. This change
resulted in a lower profile from just east of Old NC 49 to near Mack Road. As a
result, fewer overall embankments are needed along the streams in the
interchange area, resulting in less overall linear stream impacts.
Fill slopes were held at 2:1 streams and wetlands along the mainline and at
grade - separations.
Construction limits within and around interchanges were "tightened" to minimize
potential stream impacts.
A noise barrier will be constructed at Twelve Tree Road.
Perpendicular crossings at streams were designed where possible to minimize
stream impacts.
Additional minimization efforts will be considered in accordance with the meeting
minutes.

The Project Team has concurred on this date of MAY 25, 2006 that jurisdictional
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable based on
current design information.
USACE NCDOT
US
NCW RQ C=z
NCDCR
USFWS
I
NCDWQ �� ?
FHWA '"�%
0r

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

I OFFICIAL PUBLIC NEARING TRANSCRIPT
2 FOR THE ASHEBORO BYPASS (R- 2536)
3 National Guard Armory in Asheboro, NC
4 May 22, 2003
7 Okay. Thank you. We'll be beginning now.
8
9 Good evening and I'd like to welcome you to this evening's public hearing to consider
10 the location for the US 64 Bypass of Asheboro, starting west of Asheboro, somewhere
1 1 near Stutts Road, and going to east of Asheboro, somewhere near Rocky Knoll Road.
12 And to include a connector to the North Carolina Zoo as well.
13
14 My name is Carl Goode and I'm the Manager of the Office of Human Environment for
15 the Department of Transportation and I'll be your moderator for this evening's public
16 hearing.
17
18 Before I continue I'd like to introduce to you a number of other people who are with us
19 this evening: All of whom either have or will have a role to play in this project and here
20 to try to answer your questions. We'll be around when we finish the formal proceedings
21 if you have any additional questions that are easier to answer one on one, so we'll have
22 people still here.
23
24 First of all we have our Board of Transportation Member from this part of North Carolina
25 Mr. G. R. Kindley. Mr. Kindley's down here. From our division office in Aberdeen we
26 have our Division Construction Engineer Mr. Tim Johnson. Tim's in the back there. We
27 also have Mr. John McDonald here who's our Local Resident Engineer. From our
28 Project Development Branch, people who are overseeing the preparation of the
29 environmental document for this project, we have Mr. Brian Yamamoto and Brian's back
30 there and Mr. John Conforti. From our Roadway Design Unit we have Jimmy
31 Goodnight, Dean Noland, Tim Goins, and Mr. John Braxton. From our Right of Way
32 Branch, representing this area of right-of-way and these are the people that are actually
33 responsible for purchasing property later and I know some of you are looking for theln.
34 We have Mr. Brad Bass and Mr. Ted Rabens. From our Location and Surveys Unit,
35 people responsible or actually doing underground surveying, we have Mr. Harold Boles
36 and Mr. Pat Tuttle. From my office, the instrumental in setting all this up, we have Mr.
37 Ed Lewis, local guy from Asheboro. And from a private engineering firm, Earth Tech.
38 who are actually putting together the preliminary design and the environmental
39 document, we have Ms. Pam Townsend, Glenda Gibson, Mr. Roger Lewis, and )'vonne
40 Howell.
41
42 Okay, so these folks are around and be glad to answer questions later. Most of them were
43 here a couple of weeks ago when we had our all day session and so some of you have
44 seen them before. We're certainly glad for you to come out this evening. l know it's a
45 rainy night but in a way I'm glad because there's no air condition in this building. It
40 would've been a hoi day. NNIc - would've had a rough time tonight but I do appreciate you
-47 C0111i1W OL11 tonight and hnpe you Will participate in the pl'Ocredings.
4`
1'k • 25."h Pap. I

49 Now, did everyone; get a handout? Now, some of you I knew there was an extra ,sheet
50 that's separate from the handout and I know some of you did not get those when you
51 came in early. So if you need a handout or an extra summary sheet if you'd raise your
52 hand we'd be glad to get those out to you.
53
54 Okay, we normally include those with a handout but they were inadvertedly left out so
55 we just brought them along separately, but they are important and contain a lot of
56 important information for you.
57
58 Speaker: (Inaudible)
59
60 If you would, please turn to your handout. I need to go through some of the information
61 in there with you. Can't hear me?
62
63 Speaker: No.
64
65 Okay, this is about as loud as it'll go before it starts squealing. I don't think any of us
66 wants that to happen.
67
68 Okay, if you would turn to your handouts there's, again there's some information we
69 need to go through. Okay the primary purposes for this project are to reduce the
70 congestion on the current US 64 in the Asheboro area through Asheboro, improve safety,
71 reduce the number of accidents on US 64 in Asheboro, and to improve access to the
72 North Carolina Zoological Park. There's already congestion in this area and the
73 projected traffic for the next 20 years indicated that this will continue to increase and so
74 it's one of the primary needs for the project.
75
76 Now tonight's hearing is one step in our process for and it makes you, the public, a part
77 of our overall process. We've had several public meetings in the past. Last 4 to 5 years
78 there have been several. We had a large one a couple of weeks ago and these, as we
79 progress during a project or to get public input into our overall planning process.
8o Tonight's hearing is a formal session. It is recorded and so we'll be taking your
81 comments regarding the location of the project.
82
83 Right now we have nine possible alternatives that we're looking at. Reasonable and
84 feasible alternatives. actually it's two basic corridors with crossovers, it varies places and
85 gives nine potential alternatives from those two. And we're seeking your input to help us
86 select the corridor and the final location for this project. Now we certainly encourage
87 you to participate. That's our purpose for being here tonight and we hope you will take
88 part in these proceedings and you can do that in a couple of ways. First of all you can
89 speak here tonight. We have a sign -up sheet to register to speak. We'll take those people
go first in the order they signed up. After that list is through you may speak or ,%,e'll give
91 you the opportunity to speak again. At the rear of your handout there's a comment sheet.
92 You can submit wntten comments using that sheet or any ether letter fonrn that you wish.
93 You do that 30 days following tonight's hearing. My name and address arc there and you
04 can submit written comments. you can give spoken comments here tonight, or you can du
0� both. The written comments are considered exactly the same as these spoken. So feel
0(1 free to do either or loth. We eneourat c you to do so.

97
99 Now there are a couple little ground rules that we want to follow to make this hearing go
99 a little bit better. First of all this is a public hearing for you to speak. It's not a public
100 debate and I'm certainly not going to debate with you. I couldn't win that one anyway so
101 there's no need for me to try, but it's for you to speak and for us to hear what you have to
102 say. That we'll try to answer any questions, especially broad questions if we can. If'
103 they're property specific we'd probably prefer you meet with us after the hearing so that
104 we can go to the maps with you and show you individually. From the same token we ask
105 that you not debate among yourselves. I know some of you may have different opinions
106 and certainly with this many alternatives everybody's gonna want it somewhere else; and
107 that's fine. That's what we're here to hear, but please give the courtesy to those speaking
108 the same courtesy as you would like if you were speaking. And with that things will go
109 fine and we'll be okay.
110
111 Now once we get all the comments in and we prepare a transcript of tonight's hearing,
112 like I say this is being recorded and it will be transcribed, we will have an internal
113 meeting, where we'll go over each and every comment and try to incorporate those that
114 we can into the project and try to address any concerns, questions, or resolve any issues
115 that we can. After this, the project team will meet to recommend an alternative to be
116 built. This is called a LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative).
117 That's a mouth full for just choosing the best corridor or we think.
118
119 Now this is not a unilateral decision by the Department of Transportation. The team is
120 comprised of federal agencies, environmental agencies, regulatory agencies like the
121 Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife,
122 the State Division of Water Quality, the Air Quality people with state agencies, and local
123 officials. And they each have there own laws they have to look at in terms of the
124 wetlands, stream crossings, various plants and animals, and things like this that they have
125 to concern and there laws that protect these. And they will recommend the best
126 alternative that everybody agrees upon. That's sent to the Secretary for final approval,
127 the Secretary of Transportation, and then we'Il announce that with a news release and
128 probably a news letter to tell you what that was done, what came from that meeting.
129 That, we're saying right now, should happen before the end of the year. Hopefully it'll
130 happen before that, but with all those people involved it's difficult to know exactly how
131 everything will come out. Sometimes they go real quickly and smoothly, sometimes
132 there's additional information that we have to gather, but we're saying by the end of the
133 year. I know that's a question many of you have asked.
134
135 This is a federal aid project. 80% federal /20% state funds, and you can see the
136 relationship there and how that works. And again there's a little more information there
137 about the project needs. There is a lot of congestion that's expected to increase. The
1118 accident rates for this particular stretch of highway, existing stretch, is above the state
139 average now. There is a lot of congestion going to the zoo at certain times up NC 159
140 and this is a part of the North Carolina Intrastate System as adopted by the General
1.11 Assembly in 1989. -
142
143 Now. as i said, there are nine potential alternatives tot- this and we'll briefly go through
144 those on the maps. The b���ass is typically a flour -lane median - divided roadway. 12 trot

145 travel lanes two in each direction, and 7t1 foot grassed median between them with 12 iiml
146 shoulders. And for the zoo connector that's suppose to be a two -lane roadway with 12
147 foot travel lanes and 8 foot shoulders.
148
149 Now the tentative schedule is to begin right -of -way acquisition in January 2007,
150 construction 2009. Now that's not necessarily for the entire project that `s just for the
151 first part of the project. That's subject to change. The final breakdown for this project
152 schedules have not been determined yet. This is, I think, for the southern part between
153 US 220 and the zoo connector.
154
155 Now the next sheet has a colored map and that's just like the map up here on the wall,
156 considerably smaller, but it does give you an idea of what we're looking at and I'll go
157 through the map on the wall in just a moment.
158
159 The next sheet show what we call a typical section and a typical section we just cut a
160 slice out of the road turn it on its side, that's sort of what it would look like, and you can
161 see the top is for the bypass and it's two 12 foot lanes with the shoulders, 70 foot medians
162 and the bottom is the picture of the zoo connector, which is a two -lane roadway, one lane
163 in each direction.
164
165 The extra little sheet you got there shows a comparison of the nine alternatives. We
166 started with 44 alternatives and by process of elimination we're down to nine. So that's
167 why the numbers are 1 -4 up to 33. They have no significance as according to their order.
168 Alternate I is not necessarily our preferred alternative. At this point sometimes we don't
169 have a preferred altemative. So there just numbers, you have to start with one and go up
170 and that's just how it fell out. But you can see the length. All of them are roughly 14
171 miles, give or take, all of them have 7 proposed interchanges. You can see the costs
172 going from S 199 million up to about S218 million. Everywhere in between, see the
173 residential relocations, for those about 110 to 156 and then business relocations. Shows - —
174 the number of stream crossings, number of acres of forest, shows the total wetland
175 impacts, and several other things, flood plains and things like that. But these are some of
176 the criteria that we use to evaluate these alternatives and these criteria along with safety.
177 traffic service, and added to that is public opinion, are primarily what we use to make a
178 determination to select an alternative.
179
180 Now on the last sheet of your comment sheet as I said before, of your handout, is a
181 comment sheet. It's got my name, address, and phone number and email and all the
182 information on there and we'll accept written comments for the next 30 days, a minimum
183 of 30 days.
184
185 With that I'd like to go to the map and briefly go through the project. Let me give you
186 some general information about the map and all of you have a smaller copy of this in
157 your handout. But o viously there is Asheboro. Here's the existing LIS 64. This is US
188 220 Bypass. That's 120 Business there. NC 159 through here. And NC 49 goes that
1,e9 direction towards Charlotte. The zoo is down here. Here we have Harvey's Mountain
1tr0 and then there are several other landmarks located on there. And this all goes to nine
101 alternatives. but 1 WOUld prab:lbly just hit the high spots here of the main alternatives and
102 then the crossovers there. Realize that these bands here are about 1200 lect pride and the
R -21111 I'agr 4

193 proposed right-of-way is about 300 feet. The preliminary design is what we have on the
194 wall here. There's just so many of them in this case it's difficult to go through them all
195 here tonight and that's one of the reasons we have the pre - hearing workshop a couple of'
196 weeks ago all day and gave you a chance to ask questions about your individual property
197 and things like that.
198
199 Once we select an alternative we'll begin the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
200 once that's completed we will come back with maps, like on the wall there, with the
201 selected alternative and have another hearing. This one is primarily to select the location.
202 We'll come back with the actual footprint later. It will be very, very similar to what's on
203 the wall now. It'd just be showing one instead of nine. So, that's where we'd go.
204
205 The project begins west of Asheboro near Stutts Road which is right there and both of
206 these alternatives head south. All of them are to the south of town. Both of them will
207 cross NC 49 and there will be an interchange there for NC 49. This bypass will be a
208 controlled access facility. That means there'll be no access to it. There'll be no
209 driveways or anything like that to it only the interchanges can get on it. Much the same
210 as an interstate would be. So there will be an interchange at NC 49. The project then
211 goes toward the southeast. Crosses the Little River here and here it crosses US 220
212 Bypass and there of course will be an interchange there, but that will be since US 220 is a
213 freeway like this is proposed to be it'll be a freeway interchange. So the only access will
214 be from one road to the other. It won't be any local access there. Continue east and here
215 this is Crestview Church Road here, but in this area here is where we start with the zoo
216 connector. There'll be an interchange there with regards to which alternative we have
217 and that will provide a new connector going into the zoo and that only has one
218 alternative. All we are looking there is exactly the same. One alternative is going to the
219 zoo. Then the project turns back toward the northeast. Each alternative will have an
220 interchange with 159. One here, one here. Head more northerly here they kind of split
221 out but the green one here has an interchange with NC 42 as will the orange one. Both of
222 them will have interchanges with NC 42 and right here near Luck Road all the
223 alternatives come back together so from there northward there is only one alternative and
224 that goes into US 64. East of town, just East Presnell Street and there'll be an
225 interchange there then interchange on both ends with US 64. So, with these you can go
226 there, you go can there, you can go that way, but there are nine different alternatives. We
227 tried to color code them. Then we tried to put them off to the side as to what each one of
228 them is. This was difficult. We've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to show
229 these so that it'd be fairly clear. So the colors Alternative 1 match up pink, green, blue,
230 whatever color that is purple or something magenta or something, orange, and then the
231 light blue and so on down the line. So, you can follow each one according to the colors
232 and you do have that color code in your handout along with the map. So, you can figure
233 each one.
234
235 Now 1 need to go over a little bit of right-of-way information with you. lust give you a
236 briefoutline. We do have some pamphlets at the back that you can get explains in a little
237 more detail and we do have the Right-of-Way Agents here with us. But once a route is
238 selected, approved, and the design is complete a Right-of-Way Agent the right-of-way
23() will be ,raked can the ground exactly where the proposed right -ol =way is to be. The
240 aff'cctrLl property owncrs will he contacted by .1 Righl- cif =Vlray Agent. He will explain the
f: �� - +n

241 plans to you. The property owner will be advised exactly how ]le will be affected. He
242 will inform you of your rights and our procedures and he'll ask you some questions about
243 your property and try to bet as much information as he can about it. He cooperates much
244 the same as a real estate agent would do in determining the value of your property. He
245 then will make a professional appraisal or will hire local fee appraisers to make an
246 appraisal of your property at the current market value at its highest and best use. Again
247 this is done much the same as a real estate transaction would be. It's not tax value but it's
248 the current market value. And that is the amount that will be offered in exchange for
249 compensation for the property. During this process the DOT likes to treat all owners and
250 tenants equally. We must fully explain the owners rights, must pay just compensation in
251 exchange for property rights, must furnish relocation advisory assistance if that's
252 required, and must initiate any legal action that the settlement cannot be reached.
253
254 Now if your relocatee, that is if your project is to be your home or your residence or
255 business is to be purchased as a part of this project, the agent will also give you
256 information regarding comparable housing if you so desire. He'll explain the procedures,
257 offer you moving aid. In this process your moving expenses may he paid. There are also
258 other payment that can be made for if you qualify for such things as closing costs,
259 increases in mortgage rates, additional value of a comparable house. Again at the next
260 hearing this will be explained again, but that's sort of a general overview.
261
262 Now with that I want to open the floor up to you for your comments. I would ask you to
263 use one of our microphones. We'll have this one set -up. We'll have this one here. We
264 encourage you to use our microphone because otherwise the tape recorder can't hear you
265 and the other people in here can't hear you as well. So if you would come up and use
266 that. Our first speaker is Lee Roberts. Is Mr. Roberts here? Emma Jean Jones?
267
268
269
270
271
272
Emma Jean Jones: I didn't want to talk until I heard something being told
about where it was going to be and just when do we find out these things.
Moderator:
Okay. What was your..?
2733 Emma Jean Jones: Is it on? I was just interested in knowing where these lines
274 are and who is going to pick them out. How we're going to know where they're coming
275 close to our land and when will this be decided and what say so will we have about it?
276
277 Moderator: Okay. The process I went over earlier is in your handout,
279 but there is a project team made up of federal and state agencies, environmental agencies,
279 and DOT, and Federal Highway who Iook at all the data, including public comments and
290 they try to, well, thev determine what is the best alternative for the environment, for cost,
281 for impact on the residents, and a number of things. So that could be any one of these
2,32 nine possible alternatives and they will meet sometime this summer. If they can make a
2s; decision then we'll have an answer, we'll announce that shortly thereafter. If they need
284 additional information we'll m• to get that and come back and meet a(Yain, but hopefu]IN
285 we'll know something by the end of the year. Hopefully before that, but certainly we
21"o anticipate no later than that.
R -2�_ P;wc o

288 Emma .lean .Jones: So we don't know anything about it until the meeting this
289 summer? We hear all these rumors about it's going this way and it's going that way, but
290 we won't know anything
291
292 Moderator: WeII, we don't know, but those are just ... (inaudible)
293
294 Emma Jean Jones: Does the landowners? Do they get a choice or is just a
295 definite official?
296
297 Moderator: Well, this, tonight is for you to give us your comments as to
298 what you might prefer or your comments of the project and that helps in us making a
299 choice.
300
301 Emma Jean Jones: WeII of course my comments will be that I don't want it on
302 my land and I think all the other land owners would think that. That's why we would like
303 to know.
304
305 Moderator: Okay. Well as soon as we find out we'll let you know, but
306 we don't know yet,
307
308 Emma Jean Jones: Alright. Thank you.
309
310 Moderator: Thank you. Mary Robinson?
311
312 Mary Robinson: Hi. I'm Mary Robinson. The residents and landowners on
313 Henley Drive and Forest Valley Road off of Highway 42 object to the Highway 64
314 coming through our back doors analysis. We are on the number one and thirteen route of
315 proposed highway. That's the orange path. We selected our property because it was
316 wooded, private, and quite. We enjoy watching the owls hunting from a small private
317 bridge and from treetops. Aren't owls on the protected species list? If so, what do you
318 plan to do for the owls loss of habitat? We also have white - tailed deer, raccoons,
319 possums, rabbits, blue birds, poisonous and nonpoisonous snakes that live on our
320 surrounding property. A creek runs through this area with an abundance of flora, fauna,
321 wild ferns, azaleas, geraniums, and much more grow freely in this small wetland
122 environment. We are concerned about our small children's safety, the environment, the
323 loss of animal habitat, noise pollution, and loss of property value.
324
325 We invite you to come to our eastside neighborhood for a
32_6 7:00 PM meeting at Eastside Fire Department to explain how the state is planning this
327 route. We'd like to see an enlargement of just how close this road would come to our
328 back doors. We want to know how little or how much land you're planning to take from
129 each of us and how you plan on protecting the environment. animal habitat, noise
330 pollution, and our children's safety. We encourage you to meet with us at 7:00 outside
? 31 on the lawn if it's not raining for an open discussion on this issue. We are willing to meet
with Vour group on any day but we suggest May 29. Thant: you very much.
► (Applause)

336 Moderator: Thank you Main. Charlie Browne?
337
338 Charlie Browne: Mr. Goode I'm gonna yield the majority of my time to Steven
339 Schmidly as I believe our comments will be substantially similar. I think he's the next
340 speaker on your list.
341
342 Steven Schmidly: Good evening. My name is Steven Schmidly. I'm an attorney
343 from here is Asheboro and I represent at least several property owners that have property
344 affected by this proposed project. Specifically I represent Charlie Browne, who just
345 referred to me; as it relates to the impact of this project on his property and on what can
346 only be described as the community resource that is privately owned by Mr. Browne. 1
347 am speaking about Scott Rush Baseball Field, which is located off of Mack Road, off of
348 level on Mr. Browne's property. And while it's privately owned it's truly a community
349 resource. There are so very few baseball fields for us baseball lovers to ever think about
350 finding a place to play or practice. They're resourced to the young folks in this
351 community, both boys and girls, but in this case boys to have an opportunity to play the
352 game that is important to them and to their lives and if you take those and choose
353 alternatives that will take those kind of resources without getting an appropriate weight to
354 the value of that resource, I think you're making a terrible mistake. This is not just a
355 practice field. You read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this
356 project and you would think this is some practice field of a baseball field. It is a full
357 pledged facility. It is a grass infield with underground watering and irrigation. It
358 measures 330 to left field, 385 to center field, and 310 to right field with about a 25 -30
359 foot wall. It has brick backside along with the screen and brick dugouts. It is truly a
360 beautiful place surrounded by beautiful property in a community that will forever be
361 changed if this project is built. It is used, not just by Mr. Browne, but it's used by two
362 separate baseball teams on a full -time basis that play from May through November. It's
363 used by the Asheboro Adult league for it's practices and games and it's available to our
364 schools for their use for practice in connection with school ball. It has been identified
365 and will be listed as a recreational facility in the joint Randolph County Commissioners
366 Randolph Tourism Development listing as it relates to recreational facilities in the
367 county.
368
369 Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 13 and 14 directly impact the facility and cannot be justified
370 under any imagination. The other alternatives impact the rest of the property and also in
371 my opinion it cannot be justified. As it relates specifically to issues that I would like to
_,72 see addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement there are several and 11l try
373 to be as brief as 1 can. I will also submit these in NNriting. First of all I would encourage
374 DOT to break from their standard and seriously look at what are the true economic
375 benefits and decrements of the construction of highways. Look at indirect impact and
•76 effects and don't just say "well everybody's going to be benefited by this because there's
377 going to be an increase in property values on the benefits side" and then say, as DOT has
378 on so many environmental documents "we can't estimate the economic costs because that
379 economic cost is just to hard to put our fingers around." Objective studies ofecullomic
380 benefits of highways simply have not been done by NCDOT and they should be done in
;81 connection ��•ith this project because this project is very short sided and the reason it's
%S 2 short sided is denion\trated by North'Kilkesboro, North Carolina. Wlicre NC'DOT went
,83
and built a bypass around North Wilkesboro and iiow. folks. they're building another
I: -153 (, Page s

384 bypass around the bypass because they created such growth with the first bypass that was
385 built. (Applause) I would urge NCDOT to do a comprehensive, long -teen look. If your
386 traffic projections are right the proposed alternatives that you submit to these folks are
387 not going to be adequate in 7 or 9 years when this project will be built. And if it's not,
388 then NCDOT is cheating all these folks and cheating the tax payers and the citizens of
389 Randolph County.
390
391 I would also urge NCDOT to break with what I have seen in the past about it's
392 environmental documents and actually tell these folks the truth, both about the benefits
393 and the costs of those projects. Use accurate, average, daily traffic counts. They're
394 available to you. They don't have to be projected. Looking at the Draft EIS. in this case,
395 it appears that projections based on a map 5 years ago. But in the Final EIS you can
396 address appropriate levels.
397
398 Cumulative Impacts of this project are going to affect, not just the corridor, but the entire
399 area surrounding this project. Both cumulative impacts are going to also be involved
400 with other projects at NCDOT are constructing in this area. They're identified in the
401 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the effect of all of those cumulative impacts
402 on the environment and on the nature of why and the conditions of the folks of Randolph
403 County should be studied in this Environmental Impact Statement. That's what the law
404 requires and that's what NCDOT should do.
405
406 Finally, as you talk about a cost benefit analysis I ask you to seriously consider the total
407 cost of this project, not only to the environment, but to the community facilities. To a
408 change in the nature of this community as you apply it to the benefits of this project. 1
409 ask that the NCDOT look at the true impact on local county and municipal governments
410 as it relates to this project. There have been studies throughout South Carolina, Virginia,
413 and the New England state's that show that highway construction projects actually costs
412 municipalities and counties money because of having to provide services to areas where
413 thy do not make those numbers up in tax evaluation increases. I would ask that NCDOT
414 analyze the project effects on net tax revenues on this county based upon the projected
415 induced growth issues as well as the projected income revenue issues that may come. 1
416 ask that this project be reevaluated quite honestly and that any alternative chose be one
417 that one does not impact the Browne property. Although I think all of the corridors do,
418 but secondly that truly and accurately reflect what the cost of this project is for this entire
419 community, both by way of the environment and by way of community resources. Thank
420 you.
421
422 (Applause)
423
424 Charlie Browne: Adding to what Steve has said Scott Rush Park truly, after I built
425 it, took on an identity of its own. The park is famous throughout the east coast of the
426 United States; teams from South Carolina, Massachuttes, New Jersey have played there.
427 There's about $500,000 invested in that park and not one cent of that money is public
428 money. What an irony it would be if the public and public money is responsible for
429 destrovino it. Thank vou.
43 0
431 (Applause)
I: �3(I Puke t)

432
433 Moderator: William Liest?
434
435 William Liest: My name is William Liest and I live off of Highway 42. I'm 1.4
436 miles south of that infamous intersection of Dixie Drive and Highway 42. I live in
437 Winningham Forest in a new development there and I stand to speak, I've asked the
438 moderator to point to the places which I speak and he's occupied for the moment so I'll
439 continue. I rise to speak against Alternative 1, as it's shown on the map here. Alternative
440 1 is shown on your maps in red but up here it's in orange. And I stand to speak against
441 that alternative and in favor of Alternative 2, which is that area there. My objection to
442 the entire red section of Alternative 1 is that it lurches so far northward toward the
443 existing Highway 64 or Dixie Drive, that it loses it's character as a bypass. Now if
444 you're gonna bypass something, bypass it. Don't come back within a mile of it. And this
445 does that. (Applause)
446
447 The purpose of the proposed bypass is to get traffic with all of its negative impacts of
448 collisions, and hazards, and pollutions, and noise away from Dixie Drive and out into the
449 country where it won't be so noticeable. While most of the proposed bypass on the map I
450 think makes it somewhat graceful arch that is logical around Asheboro. When you get to
451 the Alternative 1 that comes up here what you see is something that looks like an angry
452 snake that suddenly lurches in towards Dixie Drive in a logical pattern and ceases to be
453 quite so much a bypass. In fact, Alternative 1 moves the bypass '/ of a mile closer to
454 Dixie Drive than does Alternative 2 which is represented in the green. That's'/ mile of
455 green space, of quite residential streets, of open fields and over hanging pine trees that
456 make up the character of Highway 42. When you leave Dixie Drive and turn down 42
457 south you know that you have entered back into North Carolina, which is home. And it
458 feels good, it looks beautiful, and it's worthy of being preserved. Bring the bypass'/
459 mile closer into town you might as well pave everything between that point and Wal-
460 Mart because it's all going to be commercial and business and the beautiful nature side of
461 it's not going to be there. Alternative 1 may be called the bypass, but I'm a retired
462 preacher and what some people see as a bypass I see as a trespass, well. almost. It's not
463 quite that bad. (Applause)
464
465 As for the residents who Iive in Winningham Forest and I'll ask Mr. Goode if he will
466 point to Winningham Forest. Winningham Forest is the development right at that
467 interchange on Alternative 1 and that interchange really impacts the one and the only
468 entrance into that lovely development of Winningham Forest. The only entrance there is
469 within feet of that interchange. How are the people living on those two streets in
410 Winningham Forest ever going to have safe access to Highway 42 if Alternative I would
471 be adoptted? As for the residents living in Winningham Forest Alternative I proposes
4'2 that interchange, as eve said, at Kennedy Country and Graceland Drive, that would
473 ne4gatively impact our access to our property from Highway 42 and needless to say it
474 would impact our property value significantly as Nvell.
475
4 -0 In summary 1 would say Alternative I and it's orange or red is an unnecessary 'S .111ilc
477 intrusion into the established lives of a l7rnup ofcitizens who's quality ui lilc clans not
4',S need to he disturbed by a marauding highway. This bypass can. as is proposed can this
4-0 nuip tio clearly illustrated, this b\'l)ass can lust as cosily and morc logically lie located
_'�_;h 11n -r to

480 farther south as set forth in the state's plan as Alternative 2. 1 speak against Alternative 1
481 and favor of Alternative 2. Thank you.
482
483 (Applause)
484
485 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Liest. Could we keep the secondary conversation
486 down a little bit? It's hard enough to hear in here as it is and with everybody talking it's
487 even more difficult. Okay, we've got some vehicles outside that are not in parking
488 spaces and they're blocking some people in so they're asking to be moved. Apparently
489 some people need to leave but the only information I got is a Buick Century, a Ford
490 Excursion, a Honda Accord, and a Chrysler Sebring. So if you recognize any of those, if
491 you would move those. There are some people out there waiting to go somewhere. Mr.
492 John Ogburn?
493
494 John Ogburn: Thank you Mr. Goode and on behalf of Mayor Gerrell and the
495 Asheboro City Council, including Thomas Baker, who's our representative on the Rural
496 Transportation Organization and Mr. Kindley, welcome and also welcome to DOT staff
497 and thanks all ya'11 for coming out tonight. I have a proclamation that I'm going to read
498 into the record please.
499
500 "Where as the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
501 the Federal Highway Administration has approved the Draft Environmental Impact
502 Statement for US 64 Bypass. And whereas the highway project is a vital economic
503 interest to Asheboro and central Randolph County and where as the project includes the
504 North Carolina Zoo connector making the proposed highway with North Carolina world
505 renown Zoological Park. And whereas it is crucial that North Carolina Department of
506 Transportation quickly select a corridor so both Asheboro and Randolph County can
507 begin to implement land use regulations will protect the corridor and say this is a North
508 Carolina badly needed resources. And whereas a quick selection of a corridor will help
509 alleviate the worries of those citizens affected by the project as well as those not affected.
510 Now therefore be it proclaim of the expert City Council fully supports the US 64 Bypass
511 and urges the North Carolina Department of Transportation to move with deliberate
512 speed and select a final corridor for this much needed project and begin. This the 22nd
513 day of May 2003, David_ Gerreli, Mayor and I'll leave that Mr. Goode for the record."
514 Thank you.
515
516 (Applause)
517
518 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Ogburn. Cynthia Pierce?
519
520 Cynthia Pearce: Okay. I live on Old 49 west of Asheboro. This is area that would
521 be effected by, as shown on the map by the red and the pink, coming from 64 going to
522 new 49. I live on the area that is shown by the pink part of that corridor. I live on a tarin.
523 1 am the fourth generation on that farm. So this is pretty personal to me because we're
524 directly in that corridor. This is our heritage and our inheritance. My brother and illy
5�5 sister and my parents feel that way and the fifth generation coming behind lrs feel that
526 way also ?. And through the years we've seen across our state farmland after tar-nlland
517 that's been taken up and made Into development and highways and you know this
R-25 1(1 11.1ge 11

528 concerns me. I knew we need good transportation, but it does concern me that all of
529 these farms seem to be being made into other things. If children who own this land
530 decide to do that 1 still think it's sad, but when children want to keep this land I do think
531 it's a real shame if they aren't able to do that.
532
533 The part of land that I own is a hay field. It's rectangular in shape
534 and the drawing that's on the wall shown by the engineer drawing would make this
535 bypass loop to go smack dab right down the middle of it length wise. So that would
536 completely wipe away that entire portion of the land. It also comes through other parts of
537 that family farm.
538
539 Part of what has made our state in Randolph County a good place
540 to live has been the farm land and the rural area and so as more and more highways come
541 into this area. You know some see it as progress and we do want to make sure that we
542 don't go backwards, but at the same time as we change, and change so rapidly, it's no
543 longer the place that we think is such a good place to live. Something else another point
544 that I would like to make of course is that 64 comes into Asheboro and goes straight
545 through it. This is suppose to be a loop to bypass Asheboro to take supposedly a lot of
546 traffic off of Dixie Drive, but the part that this corridor was supposedly alive doesn't even
547 affect Dixie Drive. If 64 were widened, made better, which I understand might be plans
548 for later on down the road, and I do agree with your comment that it's all a little bit close
549 and I've seen that happen before. You bypass and then you have to bypass the bypass.
550 But this corridor truly seems to be unnecessary because 64 traffic going around Asheboro
551 or to the zoo would go straight into Asheboro, hit 220 Bypass, and then be able to
552 connect onto that loop at that point without ever being on Dixie Drive. So that seems to
553 be a more practical and cost efficient way to take care of traffic as it pertains to the west
554 part of Asheboro. It certainly would take less land, which is one of our precious natural
555 resources and less life would be disrupted because of it. Thank you.
556
557 Moderator: Thank you Ms. Pierce. Yeah please, please be quite back there so
558 other people can hear. Jerry Brookshire?
559
560 Jerry Brookshire: I have quite a bit prepared to say but Ms. Robinson came up earlier
561 than I did and she's a neighbor of mine so I'll just add a couple of things to what site's
562 already said. I'm a home owner like many of you here and the area that we're concerned
563 about ourselves is this area I call Sun Valley Acres, which is about 9 of a mile south of
564 64 and just east of 42. The points I'd like to add to Ms. Robinson's comments are that
565 current plans, as we understand them, would indicate that some of the home rnti,ners in
566 this area would lose either their entire properties or, in some cases. corner sections of'
567 their properties by the bypass right-of-way. In the latter case the property values and the
568 quality of life would be seriously reduced and to our understanding there is no provision
569 by the state to fairly address this loss. Many of the home owners who find themselves in
570 this predicament would rather have their entire properties in compass and have to relocate
571 and they believe that relocation is the lesser of the evils when it comes to that type of
572 situation.
57?
574 From our perspective it would appear. its some othcrs have already
575 stated, that the suu111CHY route tier the hypass would me a most desirable option.
R-15 "o
Page 12

576 Basically as far south as we can get it the better off we are as a community, as a county.
577 So I'm in opposition to Alternative I and 13 specifically and I'm sure a number of you
578 are in opposition to others as well. And believe that a more southerly route would better
579 provide for future commercial and industrial expansion, again before the new bypass is as
580 congested as the old one, would provide better for the retention of the natural habitat for
581 wildlife. And Ms. Robinson mentioned the wetlands, the barn owls, the pileated
582 woodpeckers, the things I haven't seen until I moved here in 1990 for 30 years. When I
583 came here they were here. Our concern is that they will not be if either Alternative 1 or
584 13 is taken. In other words we believe there are better, longer, range alternatives than
585 either 1 or 13. We would also encourage the DOT to consider all of the variables in their
586 decision making process and not just the least cost opportunity. Thank you.
587
588 (Applause)
589
590 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Brookshire. Jim Holloway? Sim Holloway?
591 Okay.
592
593 Jon Holloway: Thank you Carl. My name is Jon Holloway. My family and I live
594 on Emerald Rock Road which is the western part of 64 that will be taken. Unfortunately
595 we're on all the papers here. They're going to take us no matter what it would assume to
596 be. My comments would be that I chose to live where I live for two reasons. Beside my
597 father, who is 75 years old and built a home with his own two hands who passed on his
598 skills to me to do the same. This, where you have this beginning on 64 to me would
599 appear best to be farther west. You get away from a 7 degree grade of going up 64.
600 You're also going to miss a lot of houses from this proud homeowners I am sitting with.
601 And also I feel that a farther, most southern route we can take would be the best way to
602 go. But for me personally, if you would please consider the, Department of
603 Transportation ,beginning this farther west 64, away from Emerald Rock Road, farther
604 west to reduce the 7 degree grade which of course would also reduce costs and begin this
605 where we're going to take less people's homes. Also, I would like to urge you to keep in
606 mind of the Carrington Hills area, which is approximately % mile east of Emerald Rock
607 Road. And the way you have this direction it would effect this severely as well. Thank
608 you.
609
610 (Applause)
611
612 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Holloway. Gary McBride?
613
614 Gary McBride: Hello I'm Gary McBride. My sister spoke earlier, Cynthia Pierce,
615 and I'm part of the family that she spoke of and we are in the corridor that is shown on
616 the map as the pink section. This is a farm that has been handed down for quite
r17 sometime from family to family and it's something that we've really look forward to
61S having ourselves and passing it on to our other family members. And I know that that's
o l Q something that each and every one of you are concerned about tonight as far as your
620 property. Su, I won't dwell on that toil much-
021
622 One thing that I have heard though, and it has been a reoccurring
02.1 thin,.:. I havr not heard vet some person say tills corridor needs to be closer into the city.
R -2�3o Page 1?

624 Everyone who has made mention ofany alternative route has made mention to the iac;t
625 that the corridor needs to further out away from the city. Now I know that the property
626 they were speaking of would affect me, but I have the same opinion. If you look on the
b27 west side of Asheboro it appears that the corridor in the pink sector is closer to Asheboro
628 than any other corridor they have chosen. Now the section that's in the red also has some
629 of my family and friends and I don't want it to go that way either but I'd go on them than
630 me. So, but anyway I think that the western sector should be move further out.
631
632 Also if you'll think in terms businesses and relocation of
633 businesses that farm is something that is a business to me. l was a business owner in
634 Asheboro for several years and I have sold that business and now the farm out there is
635 producing the majority of my income for me. So if you're talking about relocation of
636 businesses it would have to be relocated also because if you cut through that farmland the
637 acreage that it takes leaves me with only a small amount of acreage that I can use for
638 income producing acreage and that would not be sufficient for income. So it would
639 require relocation of another business.
640
641 Also on the corridor, in the pink sector, I think they have shown a
642 bridge that would be passing over the bypass and it appears to me like the excavation and
643 granite they would have to do in the cost of that bridge would be significant and would
644 merit studying moving this road further out. So thank you very much.
645
646 (Applause)
647
648 Moderator: Thank you Mr. McBride. Elizabeth Nixon?
649
650 Elizabeth Nixon: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Nixon. Six years ago my
651 husband and I sunk our whole savings in a house. And according to the map, it's going
652 right through our living room and we have reached the age of retirement we can count on
653 our hands. He recently lost his job of 22 years. He has no income and the way job
654 situations are I don't know if he can get one and like I said we've put years into this
655 house. We sunk our love in it, we've planted flowers in it, and so people -
656 don't ... (inaudible) we have to give up all that and we have no promise of having further
657 income except social security. And everybody knows how that might run. So I know
658 there's going to be a lot of people that's going to lose their house, but these people are
659 not looking about the people that they're going to take their houses. They're whole life is
660 sunk into it. I just wanted to base my opinion on that. Thank you.
661
662 (Applause)
663
664 Moderator: Thank you Ms. Nixon. Ron Hyler?
665
666 Ron Hyler: Thank you. My name is Ron Hyler. I live on the east end of
607 Trogdon Hill Road. If you look at the map it's pretty much a done deal. All my
oo8 neighbors over here are gone pretty much. We're not. we don't have a choice. There's
609 no alternatives. The only thing 1 have a problem -with is I'm like everybody else. Thor
(170 is no doubt that you need to bn)ass Dixie Drive. 1 mean there's no doubt about that. But
6,71 ifvc,u'rc goinsg, to bypass, why not go pass Ramseur because it's aircady built tip right
11 -' 136 Page 14

672 there on Trogdon Hill with bloom is with a new church, a trailer sale place, and more
673 industry will come out that way. So what you're going to end up having; is a bypass fior a
674 bypass and it's going to cost us all later on down the road. Personally I'm the young
675 person in our neighborhood. I've only been there 15 years. I mean that's the rest of them
676 have been there a lot longer. It's probably more tied to them to not want to move. I just
677 remodeled my house, spent a lot of money. They can take it, I don't, you know but I just
678 don't see the point in spending Iots of money, building a road and it's already going to
679 come back into a commercial area. And that's just what I wanted to say. Thank you.
680
681 (Applause)
682
683 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Hyler. Charles Delk?
684
685 Charles Delk: Hi. I'm Charles Delk. My family and I live on Crystal Wood
686 Road which is, we're in the orange section of Alternative 1 and 13. 1 didn't really have
687 any specific thing to talk about when I came here tonight. I had a few ideas running
688 through my head, but most of them have been covered by some very eloquent neighbors
689 of mine who I didn't see were on the list. Basically all I've got to say is that 1 stand in
690 support of them and I opposition the Alternates 1 and 13 because they impact the Crystal
691 Wood Road and Sun Valley area. In my case, they do not take my house but it looks to
692 me like the right -of- -way comes right up on my back porch. So, I would much rather
693 them take my home than to be in the position I'm in. So we've still got questions about
694 that as far as how that impacts us and our property values and what the state will do for
695 us. And I'm sort of like the retired Reverend here I think the, that orange splitter there
696 looks a little out of place on this map myself. It doesn't look like the part of the natural
697 progression of the loop to me. So, that's all I got to say and I'm just supporting the
698 people on Crystal Wood Road and the ones impacted by the 1 and 13 Alternative. Thank
699 you.
700
701 (Applause)
702
703 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Delk. Okay, that concludes the list of those who
704 signed up prior to the meeting, those who preregistered. At this time I open the floor up
705 to anyone else who would like to make comments for the record. Yes Sir? If you would
706 please use the microphone and state your name for the record.
707
708 Frank Gibbs: Good evening. My name is Frank Gibbs and I'm one of those
709 people who live up there in Winningham Forest. We just built a home up there and it's
710 not even two years old. But you know that doesn't bother me so much as just looking at
711 this snap. I'm kind of curious about something. What do you notice about all of those
712 loops? What do they really center on? They center really on getting around Asheboro or
713 do they center on that zoo? Now Asheboro has the zoo. But we are not the zoo. The
714 people of Asheboro are Asheboro not that zoo. And 1 really wonder why through all of
715 ' this there has never been any kind of a plan to go to the north of Asheboro and around.
710 Take a look at what's up in there with the housing etc., compared to what is sOuth of 04.
717 Nmv what I'm saying to you is I think we ought to take a look at this a little bit harder
"18 look and think about, well how about let's have a cast effective, what it would take to go
h- _'53(, Pip, 15

719 to the north rather than bring it all the way down in the south with all these homes dowry
720 there just to accommodate the zoo. Thank you.
721
722 (Applause)
723
724 Moderator: Do we have any others? Yes Mam?
725
726 Jackie (Inaudible): Hi. My name is Jackie (Inaudible). We live right off of 42 on Fleta
727 Brown Road. We're pretty much getting run over. There aren't any other options. I just
728 want to say that I wish you wouldn't run us over, get that on record since no one else did
729 from our area. I also want to say that many of us in here take it very personally. The
730 property that we live on is our home. Nobody wants it to run any of us over. We all say
731 go that way, go that way, don't run me over but we are all victims here. I think the
732 problem started long ago when the City Council took no, had a very short sight, had a
733 vision for what was good for Asheboro and allowed a lot of businesses to build on 64
734 putting in new intersections and new lights just to make it a dangerous thoroughfare. So
735 we're victims of short sightedness or greed, maybe is another word. I also think that a
736 loop, any loop is really not the only option. I feel that if we work together with the
737 businesses along 64 we could figure out a way to widen 64. The people on 64 built their
738 businesses there and impacted that whole zone, turned it into a commercial area. I feel
739 that it's their fault that it's congested and dangerous at this point, so I feel like I don't
740 want to have to pay for their Iack of planning. So just for the record. Thank you.
741
742 (Applause)
743
744 Moderator: Thank you Mam. Do we have others? Okay, come ahead and then
745 you come after her.
746
747 Ann (Inaudible): My name is Ann (Inaudible) and we happen to be living right
748 where the zoo connector road is coming through. So I tend to agree with the gentleman
749 who said that the loop is being made for the convenience of the zoo. We have also been
750 told right out of Raleigh that it has been a political thing to get this connector road to the
751 zoo and that they're going to put it through no matter what because that's what the zoo
752 wants. I also understand the zoo has an aerial photo where they have flown over and they
753 want this gorgeous, beautiful scenic route into the zoo at the expense of our wildlife and I
754 just don't think it's right. I think Highway 64 should be widened. Also the state's going
755 to spend a lot of money to build the zoo connector road over that mountain when they
756 only have a one mile stretch from where the loop is going through over Zoo Parkway.
757 They can widen Zoo Parkway for a whole lot less tax payer's money than that connector
758 over that mountain. (Applause)
759
760 Timmy (Inaudible): Hello. My name is Timmy (Inaudible). 1 apologize for me
761 missing the first public meeting here. My house is actually on Luck Road where it comes
762 in right there that last carolina blue right there. So I know that my house is going to he
763 taken. My biggest concern for me, 1 don't mind selling the house. l don't mind. My
7c,4 biggest concern for me is I've got a 2 year old daughter, I've g01 a 4 year old son and 1
7c,5 know by the time this thing takes place they're going to be in school somewhere. So 1
loo know that once they buy my house or whatever then here 1 am got to try to find another

767 place to relocate and try to get my kids in the same school. And another thing that
768 worries me is my house is not paid for so the interest rates right now are real low so 1
769 thinking I'm worried 5 years from now or 9 years from now the interest rate is not going
770 to be 5.5 or 4.73 so I'm going to have to buy another house. So, and I know they're not
771 going to do it for one person, but I mean I would love if I know my property's going to
772 be taken somewhere down the road in the next year or two that where I can relocate
773 before I get my kids in school. (Applause) And that's my biggest concern about the
774 whole project. Like I say I don't mind selling the house. So that's just what I wanted to
775 say.
776
777 (Applause)
778
779 Moderator: Thank you Sir. Do we have others? Sure. Come right here.
780
781 Dwight Hall: My name is Dwight Hall and I live on Trogdon Hill Road. Mr.
782 Hyler is one of my neighbors and like he said he's the youngest one. He's just been there
783 15 years. I'm one of the youngest. I've just been there 35 years. There's people that's
784 on that road that's been there for over 60 years and it's their home. But this is not the
785 first time they've had there home questioned because a few years back they were going to
786 widen 64 Highway. In the mean time, my home burnt down. So we built it back because
787 they said they were going to go behind our house to put 64 in and take Trogdon Hill off
788 of 64. This is a proposal to take more traffic to Asheboro more efficiently. So they
789 started blasting my house and they blowed my house up building the road. So we built it
790 back again. Now they're saying we're in the light blue and they going to blow it up.
791 They're going to take it and if there's no alternative that one is in stone everybody on that
792 end, on the end that goes out and the end that starts has lost their property. I raised my
793 children there. My mother has an apartment on my home. She's lived in that apartment
794 for 10 years and she's 83 years old. My neighbor across the street is been living where
795 she's been living over 50 years. These are people's homes. Which is more important?
796 The zoo, the traffic, the commercial business, or what people's considered a home for
797 over half a century? The state says that they're going to do this to benefit Asheboro. So
798 far I've not seen that much benefit from widening 64. Soon as they widen 64 they moved
79,9 everything out to the mall. All the car dealerships started building on 64. They're
800 moving out toward Ram Sewer. Now Ramseur is a commercial town. It's on 64.
Sol They're not going to bypass Ramseur. Why? That traffic's coming from Raleigh, it's
802 coming through Ram Sewer just like it's coming to Asheboro.
803
804 Audience Member: The zoo.
805
806 Dwight Hall: The zoo. Thank you.
807
808 (Applause)
804
,s10 Moderator: Okay. Thank you Sir. Do we have others? Any other comments
Nil ibr the record?
N12
e 1? Okay again remember all of us will be around. Yes Sir'? Sure
S 14 collie n iflht here.
R -25 1h 11:1ge 17

815
816 Tony (Inaudible): Thank you. My name is Tony (Inaudible). I moved to Asheboro
817 about 12 years ago. I use to be a Coca -Cola deliveryman. I recognize a lot of laces in
818 here from business. You probably remember me delivering; Coca - Cola's to your place. It
819 was at that time that I fell in love with Asheboro. I decided to move my 2 children down
820 here to raise them here because Asheboro is a lovely place full of good people and that's
821 why I'm here and it was one of the best decisions I've ever made. And I just wanted you
822 to know that.
823
824 But as far as this bypass goes it's very complicated. But
825 what disturbs me is we got a 14 mile stretch of highway here that's approximately going
826 to cost $200 million dollars. And I'm with Frank. Why couldn't they go north? if they
827 would have went north, that is like about 7 miles of highway. Now my map is not that
828 good but if you divide that in half we probably could've did it for about $100 million
829 dollars. Maybe we could save $100 million dollars if we would've went north. I know
830 it's probably out of the question to go north now because of the zoo. The zoo is a
831 beautiful, wonderful place and it's a great attraction and the bypass we do need. I agree.
832 5 -9 routes is going to take my home and I'm willing to sacrifice that. I'm willing, to
833 sacrifice the memories that I have raised my children up in this home for the bypass. But
834 we have to make a rash decision. I live at Kenly Court, which is in the green section on
835 the eastside. I've heard a lot of people come up here talking about routes 1 and 13. 1
836 agree with you. The owls and the woodpeckers, they are things that are nice to sit out on
837 the back porch and listen to at night. We also have those in the green section at Kenly
838 Court off of Fl eta Brown there. I speak out for Kenly Court and the green section that we
834 would like to say that. The reason I'd like to say that now after looking at this total cost
840 sheet, routes I and 13 are the least expensive. By going those two routes we can save
841 anywhere from $8 million to $1 S million dollars. I just ask that we may take that extra
842 money we save and build that new ball field or even give the money to the people that are
843 all around routes I and 13. Give them extra money for their homes. And that's all I have
844 to say.
845
846 (Applause)
847
848 Moderator: Thank you Sir. Anyone else like to offer comments to the spoken
849 record? Yes Sir?
850
851 Chuck (Inaudible): My name is Chuck (Inaudible). I've been listening tonight and it's
852 quite obvious that all of you folks are going to be inconvenienced, lose money. As
953 Charlie Brown says a community resource is going to be gone. All because of one thing
854 and that is the political power of the North Carolina Zoo. It is not being done for any
955 other reason, period. Now as the gentleman spoke right before I did talking about the
856 money situation, the state is hurting for money right now, but when it comes to politics
S157 your money is their money, your land is their land. Sep, you have to realize when you're
85,` fighting a political entity, you haw a very, eery hard fight. So remember the zoo is the
S 5 9 primary reason for this bypass, period. Thank you.
860
Sal (Applause)
Sot
R -233h P Ige Is

863 Moderator: Anyone else for the record? Yes, yeas Sir?
864
865 Glenn Craven: Bello. My name is Glenn Craven. Oh, I'm sorry. I had the wrong
866 one. My name is Glenn Craven. I live down on 643 (Inaudible) Country Drive. I'm in
867 the orange section where the preacher talked about awhile ago and the other man did to
868 down on Grace Land right below being the next new development. We're in the
869 Winningham Estates settlement and after I drive a truck everyday, 5 days a week
870 throughout Asheboro, Randolph County. As I was driving out to the road I got to
871 thinking the other day about how they're wanting to build this 14 mile stretch to go
872 through people's housing developments, farmlands, and mess all that kind of stuff up that
873 everybody has been use to here in Randolph County for all these years. What I think,
874 like they say, has boiled down to is to make a highway that is convenient to access to the
875 North Carolina Zoo. And I haven't got anything against the zoo. I think the zoo is a
876 good thing for Randolph County. It can bring in tourists and help the money, economy,
877 and myself. I'm effected by this just like you are. Well they say they might want to take
878 my house too. But I did think, the other day, as I was driving down the road how we
879 might be able to change this to where it wouldn't effect the 14 mile stretch like they have
880 proposed right now. I had looked at this and thought about it and wrote it down on a
881 piece of paper last night on the comment/question section thing. Instead of building a
882 new bypass on the east side of Highway 64 and taking away valuable farmland and
883 housing developments use another route to Highway 64 east, but come in from the west
884 side. From the bridge on Albemarle Road, near Days Inn over 220 Bypass is 2.5 miles to,
885 Iet me get back to where I wrote this down at, 2.5 miles to go north on 220 Bypass to
886 Presnell Street. Albermarle Road now runs into the 64 and 49 interchange on the west
887 side of town. From Presnell Street, widen this to a five lane road to Highway 64 East, it
888 comes out at the intersection of Brady Dodge from the west side. This is a state road SR
889 2345. It is 3.8 miles long from the bridge over the 220 Bypass out to the Presnell Street
890 interstate to Highway 64 there at Brady Dodge. And instead of using the 14 miles road of
891 stretch it can be eliminated down to 3.8 miles, which would ... (inaudible). An example of
892 this would be like the highway in Winston up the 52, where they have built the highway,
893 we might say through the main part of town and it's taken away a lot of the excess traffic.
894 The businesses can still go on but traffic can go through Winston on that Highway 52 at
895 65 MPH and by doing this also. Another route could be, they might put a road in down
896 around the Seagrove area to come into the zoo for the zoo purposes to help the zoo out.
897 That way everybody here tonight like myself wouldn't be affected by their land being
898 taken away or looking at a new interstate out there in your front yard. Thank you.
899
900 (Applause)
901
902 Glenn Craven: Also one more comment I had as I was filling out this paper last
903 night I just happened to glance. There was a Courier Tribune laying on my dining room
904 table, I guess where my wife had laid it down, and the NC Zoo has upcoming Australian
905 exhibit that's plannin�o to go in down at the zoo and this is going to cast $6.5 million
906 dollars and it's to brings in more elephants, rhinos, and kangaroos too. if I was spending
907 $6.5 million dollars I'd want a munch of people to come down to see it at the zoo too and
U08 I can see why they want the traffic to come in to it. And I just thought I'd mention this
000 too. Thank vou.
u10
R �o Page 11)

911 {Applause}
912
913 Moderator: Okay. Do we have any other comments? Yes, yes Mum'?
914
915 Penny Robins: My name is Penny Robins and 1 live on Virgil Hill Road. It's
916 going take, there's 5 out of the 9, that is going to take our house. Which is fine I guess. 1
917 really don't want it to, but I guess if it's going to it's going to. My point in turn and what
918 I want to say for the record is we came up here the other night and asked what the reason
919 was why they couldn't do the blue instead of the purple taking the Virgil Hill Road the
920 Bell Simmons Road. And they said it was because there was a new development, or a
921 well established, that has developed over on Pastureview Road. Pastureview Road's fine
922 I don't have nothing against anybody who lives there, but my family or my husband's
923 family has been in this community for 80 -90 years. We got people sitting here that's
924 been there just as longer. People that's been right there with them longer than that
925 probably. But when you take a new development, that's only been there 7 -8 years, Terry
926 and I have been married 15 years, so we've been there 15 years on Virgil Hill Road. I
927 can't see taking something like that for a community that's only been there 5 -7 years.
928 That's all I've got to say.
929
930 (Applause)
931
932 Moderator: Okay, anymore continents? Again you have a comment sheet to
933 submit written comments for the next 30 days. Those will be the same as spoken
934 comments. I see none. If we have no others, thank you very much for your participation
935 and we'll close this hearing. Thank you.
936
937 Hearing Adjourned
938
939
940
941 Carl B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Moderator
942 Office of Human Environment
943
944 CBGljrc
945 May 22, 2003
K- 21S3(I Page 21)

NCDOT- PD &EA Branch *` °` Transportation Improvement Program
1548 Mail Service Center *� * Project No. R -2536
Raleigh, worth Carolina 27699 -1548
4.
August 2004 ���roF xwy5 ° °� Issue No. J
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
selected Alternative 29 as the preferred alternative for the
US 64 Asheboro Bypass on August 10, 2004. Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and NCDOT approved
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in July
2002. The Corridor Public Hearing was held on May 22,
Whair's Next?
The project team will now begin work on the final
environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS will
include responses to public and environmental agency
continents; and indirect and cumulative impact analysis for
the preferred alternative; a detailed description of the
preferred alternative; and a discussion of the reasons for
2003, to present to the public the nine detailed study
alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. The NCDOT, in
consultation with federal and state environmental resource
agencies, reviewed the comments received from the public
during the hearing and the comments received on the DEIS
and selected Alternative 29 as the preterred alternative.
choosing the preferred alternative. Preliminary engineering
studies for the preferred alternative will be refined. A Record
of Decision (ROD) will be prepared following approval of
the FEIS. The NCDOT anticipates holding a Design Public
Hearing to present the preferred alternative to the public in
late 2005.
The table to the right shows target dates for upcoming
project milestones. The US 64 Improvement project is
planned for phased construction, meaning it will be built in
sections. The schedule for these sections will be reviewed
as the project progresses through the planning process. The
right of way acquisition and construction let information
shows the year for the first section of the project.
Project rbescription
The NCDOT proposes to improve US 64 in Asheboro.
The Improvements include a 13 -14 mile new location road
following the southern limits of the City ofAsheboro. The
US 64 southern bypass will provide an alternative to US 64
through Asheboro and a new two -lane connector to the
North Carolina Zoological Park. The new road will include
two travel lanes in each direction with interchanges
proposed at: US 64 west of Asheboro, NC 49, US 220
Bypass (Future 1 73/74), the proposed Zoo Connector,
NC 159, NC 42, and US 64 east of Asheboro.
August 2004 • 1

August 2004 - 2

—
crest
rr
v
1591 •
�y r
� e
159
sPu
"w�Arms`f
1
>{ s•
/ r
schools
ng
Church Property
�r 4
fo
Preferred Alternative
I
NC Zoological Park
Alternative 29 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro,
v�
approximately 0.5 miles east ofthe US 64 /SR 1424 (Stutts
a c�,
f
Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south across
Cable Creek, SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about
J
I mile west of the NC 49 /SR 1193 intersection. The
r
corridor curves to the southeast to cross Taylor's Creek
and Mack Road about 0.14 miles north of the Mack Road/
Danny Bell. Road intersection. From Mack Road, the
`
corridor turns easterly to cross the Little River and US
220 Bypass (future I73/74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over LAS 220 Bvpass. The corridor continues
cn
eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5 mile south
of Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast
until about halfway between US 220 Business and NC `
159. At this point, the corridor curves northeast and
crosses Staleys Farm Road then NC 1.59 about 0.1 mile
south of the NC 159 /Staleys Farah Road intersection.
rContinuing northeast, the coridor crosses Old Cox Road,
Richland Creek, SR 2824 (fine Hill Road), and NC 42
about 1.0 Haile east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road
intersection. It then curves northward, crossing Squirrel
Creek and SR 2604 (Luck Road), ending at US 64 east
ofAsheboro about 0.6 miles cast of the US 64/Presnell
Street intersection.
VA
= aro na
LEGEND
schools
ng
Church Property
�r 4
Fire Station
NC Zoological Park
Municipal Boundary
Asheboro Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Zoo Connector
-0
�i1fq
Study Area
maar
August 2004 • 3

Coa?acl'-s for LA,"5- 64 Asheboro Bypass
Questions and comments regarding the US 64 Improvements may be directed to either of the following:
Mr. John Conforti
Consultant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
(919) 733 -7844, ext. 208
jgconforti@dot. state. 11C. LIS
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607-5074
r',,JeP.c,! N"wre Pm,"LecT
Project Website
vytivw.nrdot.org /prof cc ts/asheboro/
OEIS Location
Asheboro-Randolph Chamber of
Commerce
317 E. Dixie Drive
Randolph County Library
201 Worth Street
Mr. Roger Lewis
Project Manager
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Caro[ina 27607-5074
C�
[phone]
roger. [e-mail]
Project Hotline
1- 800 -206 -1373
NCOOT Website
,,vw,,v.ncdot,o
PRSRTSTD
or
"ago
U.S. "P. go
'S Postage
PAID
F
AlphaGraphics
27511
cr
101
Map Location
NCDOT - Division 8, District I office
300 Country Club Drive
Asheboro
City of Asheboro
Website
'w-vv,,v,ci.ashcboro,nc.us

NCDOT - PD&EA Branch Transportation Improvement Program
1548 Mail Service Center Project No. R-2536
Raleigh, North Carolina 276991548
May 2003 Issue No. 4
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the
US 64 Asheboro Bypass was approved by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
the Federal Highway Administration in July 2002. The
DEIS presents the nine detailed study alternatives for
the proposed bypass along with the proposed North
Carolina Zoo Connector.
The DEIS includes residential/business relocations,
hydraulics, archaeological resources, historic resources,
visual impacts, and construction impacts. This
information provided a thorough overview of the
existing environment, which was used to develop the
nine detailed study alternatives and calculate their impacts
on the human and natural environments. The findings in
the DEIS, along with public comment, will aid local,
state, and federal officials in choosing a preferred
traffic, land use, air quality, noise, natural resources, alternative
We're co ming to Asheboro!
The NCDOT will host a Pre-Hearing Open House and Corridor Public Hearing for the US 64 Asheboro Bypass this
month!
Pre-Hearing Open House
National Guard Armory, Asheboro
Thursday, May 8, 2003
10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Corridor Public Hearing
National Guard Armory, Asheboro
Thursday, May 22, 2003
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The Pre-Hearing Open House will be an informal, drop-in style workshop. Citizens are invited to stop by at any time
during open house hours to discuss the project with NCDOT representatives. The Corridor Hearing Map will be displayed
and copies of the DEIS will be available for review. Additional maps showing the preliminary roadway designs for each
alternative will be available also.
A map of the Open-House and Hearing location (National Guard Armory) is included on page 2.
What will happen at the hearin!g?
The NCDOT will present the corridor public hearing map
at the public hearing. The hearing map will illustrate the
location of the nine detailed study corridors and the Zoo
Connector in relationship to regional landmarks, local
roadways, residential communities and commercial and
industrial areas (see page 3).
A formal presentation of the project will be given at the
corridor public heating on May 22, 2003. Comments may
be presented before and after the hearing, or a public
statement may be made during the hearing. A sign-up sheet
will be available for those who wish to speak at the fort-nal
hearing and written comments will be accepted in person or
by mail. The hearing will be recorded and made part of the
public record.
May 2003 • I

Where are the meetings?
Directionsto Meetings at
National Guard Armory, 1430 S Fayetteville St:
(D From West (Lexington):
Take US 64 (VV Dixie Dr) to S Park St
Turn Right onto S Park St
Turn Left onto Country Club Dr
Turn Left into Armory.
CZ) From North:
Go South on US 220 Bus (8 Fayetteville St)
Cross under US 64 (Db<ie Dr) Overpass
Turn Right irdo Armory.
(�) From East (Raleigh):
Take US 64 (E then W Dixie Dr) to 8 Park St
Turn Left onto 8 Park St
Turn Left onto Country Club Dr
Turn Left into Armory.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies undertaking an action using federal funds to
evaluate the adverse and beneficial impacts of that action on the human and natural environments. The NEPA
process is divided into eight steps, as indicated in the chart below.
Step 5
Hold a Pre-Hearing Open House
Hold a Formal Corridor Public Hearing 4:00
Step ,6
Review comments on DEIS'
Review public comment and hearing transcript
Select the preferred alternative
Step 7
'Complete preliminary engineering designs
Final environmental document
Step 8
Design Public Hearing
The Asheboro plyDass is in 5teP
How else can the Public participate?
In addition to the coming pre-hearing open house and
corridor public hearing, there are several ways for the
public to participate. Phone-in and mail contact, project
website, and small group meetings inform the public
about the project and provide opportunities for input.
The toll-free telephone number (1-800-206-1373) was
established for citizens to contact the project team. A
message is provided in English and Spanish.
The webpage (www.ncdot.org/projects/asheboro) was
setup to provide current project information such as:
May 20003 - 2
project schedule, past meeting activities, past newsletters,
answers to frequently asked questions, and general
information about the process and the NCDOT.
Citizens can also participate in the project through small
group meetings designed to give neighborhood associations,
church groups, and other civic groups a chance to address
their specific project concerns in informal question-and-
answer sessions, A small group meeting can be arranged
by contacting Mr. Roger Lewis, Project Manager, Earth
Tech, at 1-800-206-1373, or Mr. John Conforti, Consultant
Manager, NCDOT, at 1-919-733-7844, ext. 208.

41 41 G?
-;4,4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
010 0
Qt-
Lw
ivy
S7:
71 W-7
rA
.61i
if MM
M Ij I X11-
-hObd(O
0.4
LU 0 Wi
44 <�
0
U
Z
>
20
Yf
ku 0
A9 Kry'i
Z
May 2003 • 3

Contacts for US 64 Project Questions or Comments
(questions and comments regarding the US 64 Improvements may be directed to either of the following:
Mr. Jahn Conforti
Consultant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Mr. Roger Lewis
Project Manager
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 -5074
Check out the project website and hotline for the latest project information:
QS www.ncdot.org /projects /asheboro/ .s
1- 800 -206 -1373
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607 -5074
A computerized mailing list of persons interested in the proposed project is Mr. Roger Lewis
continually updated for newsletters, informational workshops, and Project Manager
announcements. If you are not on the mailing list and would like to receive Earth Tech
newsletters and other informative notices for this project, call the project hotline 701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
at 1- 844206 -1373 or complete the form below. Clip and mail to the address on Raleigh, NC 27607 -5074
the right.
I (Please print)
Name:
Address:
City /State: Zip Code:
Telephone Number: Neighborhood Organization /Affiliation:
Comments:
L--------------------------------------- I

�tt I 16
If you do, we can explain whats going on near
your neighborhood!
ash ' �.wt � ���:� {h i` ��'� �'� hti ��ila ��r�. � �'r, �'t ��� � { �' �i Y'S °
�', 37rt,'� �!( 1 1 � m go 1 r and � t y`r �h � ,�
Contact Yvonne Howell at 1 [phone] for more information.
Meeting sponsored by NCDOT.

I L
if you do, the project team wants to hear what you
think, and explain how the Asheboro Bypass (US 64,
Improvements) could effect your n�eighborhood.
.Of MINOR%

t� 1
VI a
_ � ;�� 2t 'k �� t� E tt` itk�} � � A
� � � l �i � I � � i al f � � � �
"I "4',.k", r,,, .«�1.,:u "�. k.' ?t?_.
If you do, we can explain what"s going on near
your neighborhood!
:� a a�f �i� �!^� €t' �! ��., a as r. � �� n€ 1 �t �^ �( `�€ � �• � 5 {; i�S"
tr �;�tt
r$}�=
t>•s1 `�a i�z� ;' �. �t�� � "�,a' �AIRII
Contact Yvonne Howell at 1 (800) 205 -1373 for more information.
Meeting n0 sponsored by NC©OT. ""

q� H +r m. r s''j6 rr 'S i I Y ~:•a r a `�,,
r-.-," t ;et+ ".� a'Yit ;.wAt 6 ""
Y�i'� �'! aS � 2t ��� i l i'� � If ( `� d�l �.. �
a ��.
nt$
i r$
r at,rft rt t1S lytt fi t, t rt,, i rk ( -
t )
( a Y,�V t,, 111111
�� ?X�n�,a. �'fl�s5u' tii. teE\ F�?- M 1 '�,� "41:a 4� 'mlmt � :-"� .3t�'Efr �� ➢` �Y.K "�a�.
ik��rM1
{ "£ ijv �r rS rt �' arz r. t ��: �t Y� - t 3� r } �'at f >•� £� t} r#
Para ma's informacion contacte a Yvonne Howell al 1 (800) 200 -1373.
Patrocinado par el Departamento de Transporte de NC (NCQOT), .
}

q, lilt
If you do, the project team wants to hear what you
think, and explain how the Asheboro Bypass (US 64,
Improvements) could effect your neighborhood.
all
A Willi
Contact Yvonne Howell at 1 [phone] for more information.
Meeting sponsored by NCDOT.
uWa

C'N
f
Si responclio' que si, el equipo del proyecto quiere
saber lo que uste• piensa y explicarle como ]a
Carretera de circunvalacio'n cle Asheboro (mejoras,?
la US64) puede afectar su barrio.
U
. . . . . . ..
Nos centraremos en las partes del proyecto cerca de
Crestview Manor y Crestview Church Road.
Para ma's informado'n contacte a Yvonne Howell al 1 [phone].
Patrocinado por el Departamento de Transporte de NC (NCDOT).

Of
FT you do, we can explain what's going on near
your neighborhood!
f , V
Contact Yvonne Howell at 1 [phone] for more information.
Meeting sponsored by NCDOT.

4 ! E MI
��
�'� �` r� � �+ �r Ja r ?� � � �+ � 2 � ,� � N „• � r� �l � � fir+, i =t+ �a `mac �� � �r � >"se�
I° ,�s T a , ' 4 'a i � �R” 11111
S. t
i i respondio que s% nosotros le podemos explicar
que esta pasando cerca de su barrio!
�::�� V { ,yp i t,� s- has � �� Uu k✓ �} ,st�i'� AT, �' ? � �'� ^� " }1 ✓s ��e+ 3� d ° k }7 t! ( t ,1 tr E � s e,
�����
trYl
9§ !r
�F 1 4`
r7sav
V1,
sy rSr w!, r r i+ t� fS 1; r�r 't i f fief A�tl i kYt f�
Para ma's in ormado'n contacte a Yvonne Howell al 1 (800) 206 -1373.
Patrocinado por el aepartamento de Transporte de NC (NCaoT),yww
4

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

MOA for R -2536
Randolph County
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
TIP R -2536, Proposed Corridor for the Asheboro Southern Bypass
State Project No. 8.1571401 Federal Aid Project No. NHF- 64(19)
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
proposed corridor for the Asheboro Southern Bypass (the Undertaking) will affect
archaeological sites 31RD1398, 31RD1399 and 31RD1426/1426 * *, properties
determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places;and
WHEREAS, FHWA has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4701); and
Whereas, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (hereafter NCDOT) acknowledges and accepts the advice and conditions
outlined in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (hereafter Council)
"Recommended Approach for Consultation on the Recovery of Significant Information
from Archaeological Sites," published in the Federal Register (FR Doc. 99- 12055) on
May t7, 1999; and
Whereas, the consulting parties agree that the recovery of significant information from
the archaeological sites listed above may be done in accordance with the published
guidance. and
Whereas, the consulting parties agree that it is in the public interest to expend funds for
the recovery of significant information from these archaeological sites to mitigate the
adverse effects of the project; and
Whereas, the consulting parties concur, to the best of the their knowledge and belief, that
no Native American Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations attach religious or cultural
importance to the affected property, and that no objections from such groups have been
raised to the work proposed; and
Whereas, to the best of our knowledge and belief, no human remains, associated or
unassociated funerary objects or sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony as
Page 1 of.t

MOA for R -2536
Randolph County
defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001),
are expected to be encountered in the archaeological work;
Now, therefore, PHWA and NCDOT shall ensure that the following terms and conditions
will be implemented in a timely manner and with adequate resources in compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1466, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).
Page 2 of a

MOA for R -2536
Randolph County
STIPULATIONS
The NCDOT will develop Data Recovery Plans (hereafter DRPs) for Sites
31Rdl398, 31 Rdl399, and 31Rdl426/1426 * *, all of which will be affected by the
subject project, in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (hereafter HPO).
2. The NCDOT will ensure that each DRP is implemented after Right -of -Way is
acquired or once Right-of-Entry is secured from the property owners and prior to
construction activities within the site location as shown in the DRP.
As they are developed, each individual DRP will be forwarded for review by the
HPO.
4. Upon completion of each Data Recovery effort, the NCDOT will prepare and
forward a Management Summary to the HPO detailing the results of the Data
Recovery field investigations. The Management Summary will contain sufficient
information to demonstrate that the field investigation portion of the DRP has
been implemented.
a. Upon receipt of the Management Summary, the HPO will respond within ten (10)
days to the recommendations contained within the document.
6 Upon acceptance of the recommendations contained in the Management
Summary, the HPO will issue the NCDOT documentation that the Data Recovery
field investigations have been completed.
7. The analysis and report preparation;, detailing Sites 31 Rd1398, 31Rdl399, and
31 Rd 142611426 ** will be completed by the NCDOT, or their consultants, within
twelve (12) months after completion of each site's fieldwork schedule.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Modification, amendment, or termination of this agreement as necessary shall be
accomplished by the signatories in the same manner as the original agreement. Disputes
regarding the completion of the terms of this agreement shall be resolved by the
signatories. If the signatories cannot agree regarding a dispute, any one of the signatories
may request the participation of the Council to assist in resolving the dispute.
Pa_e 3 of -1

MOA For R -2536
Randolph County
This agreement shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within five (5) years
from the date of its execution, unless the signatories agree in writing to an extension for
carrying out its terms.
Federal Highway Administration:
r
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
State Historic Preservation Office:
V UU
Jeffrey J. Crow
Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation:
I 167� 9
Carl B. Goode, P.E.
Manager, Human Environment Unit
Date: 0 /t �O k.
Date: Db
Date f0/a &'
F'uS ."C -L of-1

TIP PROJECT R -2536
ABBREVIATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Z.
TIR R-2220.k-
\ T.I.P. 1-4407
Z
0
U)
0 0 5
> u
< z
0 < :%
z
0
u)
z
<
TI.P. R-253
4
T.I.P. [ R 2536
R-2536
RANDOLPH
MONTGOMERY
Legend
2007-2013
T.I.P. Projects
GUILFORD
RA
0 L P H
Liberty
r-,
Randleman
TIR U-3600 4
Staley
Franklin" e
AsheboroZ4 Raleigh*►
mseur
X
2
<
TIP U-3401 0
<
4% <
C)
NC
zoo
Seagrove
RANDOLPH
M 0 0 R E
0 2.5 5 7.5
1 1 Miles
0 3 6 9 12
Kilometers
T.I.P. PROJECTS IN VICINITY
US641MPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No. R-2536
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 1.1

9N"
w C CHATPAM
Staley
f�VBE
r�nw
I�
r
� I1
N
0 8 10 15 Milos
e
W S
0 8 18 24 Kilomorefs
S
r�
lr
p�
PROJECT LOCATION
US 641MPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No, R-2336
UNOOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2.1
t,�'`e
�
5 N �+
.non
Grp
STUDY
z� ZOO
AREA
Seagrove
R�H
MOJTOOMERY
RAN 0' _
OHATHA
IMOORE MOORR
r
r
�
I�
r
I
r'
r�
Pnehui
I
I�
r
� I1
N
0 8 10 15 Milos
e
W S
0 8 18 24 Kilomorefs
S
r�
lr
p�
PROJECT LOCATION
US 641MPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No, R-2336
UNOOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2.1

,
V J .r�
LJ,
I IL II
Z
Asheborp ( L
1 r! 1 f B V
�
''1
It
r
� �
Y�
SR 1193 l l � I i � �-� ; � ,
a
i
I'
/ I S NN
7 I Y f —
''� tpN�N
l =° w9 WDQWELL R ,
I
,
r ti g�
j�? � I I
44 4
i y
rI r® r"M r� i��, h
t I
lot
OR
N,6
r ,
I
DINAH
IF l 1 �J
r RM D
" ff "'1 ,
inna
i
To
Legend
I fit )l, I Alternative 79 (Preferred)
NC Zoo Connector Corridor
Primary Road
l A
Secondary Road
____ Major Stream
NC Zoological Park
ljwharrie National Park
\
4),
j ,;� ''is too to Projed hdy Area
�.
Municipal Boundary
Limit of Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
Pronounced Topography
I � � Main Electrical Transmission Line
Easement
Electrical Substation
If
i
5
,L
i
V/ ,
I
W
z
+ ,
19
1
1lATASQURCES "
Topography, Mips
i'�
tl,, Copyil# 19811991
%NC "OO' Amodcan Cigilal Caitopphy, loo., 0 2,000 4,OOD 4; NNWCollegoAva,,Applofoo, W
r Wseoosio 54914, I eel
NC Zoolcgld Park:
sru 0 H 1.6
k JSGS 0 a6aogle;Ashehvo, N,C,
f ' , 1910, kloievised 1981, Kllomelers g
`, All01heiU8:
ALTERNATIVE 29 (PREFERRED)
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No, R -2536
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2.2

1m, 1 7 1011
7fl SHOULDER i� 10% 7N MEDIAN 0% 2% KU0€R DITCH 6h 1Dfl
2 2
SHOULDER SHOULDER P,
ca
ro
i
tx
4flPA'! €D Ipfl
i. Ipry 4 %PAVED
a OWE SH6UlgER POINT AVEDSHPTH
fUL,D €iH roln SHOULDER PRVEDSHIDR
PAVEbSHIOR.
KOH
BI B�
ki 6.
fi� Et
WRpuW
30fP
TYPICAL SECTION NO, I
' 1ffl0UTSIDESHOULOER
WITHGUARDRAII
TYPICAL -L-
PPICAL SIDESIOPE IN flll TYPCAI SIDEStOPE IN CUT
BW 0%' 01 I 0 %' SN 6fl fi
D
u
.1
0
a"
t%
z; RDLE fDll
s
DEPT, DEPTH
PAVED X0
SHIOR SHIDR
bBVC VARAM
NpRE
V� t
VAR IRE 61
80E&
TYPICAL SECTION NO, 2
TYPICAL NC 159 & 2 LANE
ZOO CONNECTOR
'1111 OUTSIDE SHOULDER WITH
GUARDRAIL, I ?l (36m) PAVED
TYPICAL SECTIONS
US 641MPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No, R -2536
UNDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2.3

m 24900
10500
M
8600
t d 1520(
N p
� f1
64 d x
A
9900
25400 800 3000 4100 21800
6100 � 1 18500 2100 ..8300 22000 20000 6200 1100 32300
12200 9200 35500 5200 .133 4100q 30200
20900 1100 18N
0I 2100 2300 0100 NO
I 4600 NN
1200
100 49 20100
600
AGO Ag 3500 s0o�
4000 200
\ uu
11200 125 \
35300
� �zo
BYP
13200
43400 4200
Q 00
�4 1000 163
100 3400 ..�
4100
116(0 — 2200 110
2900
Y
U
Q
F
NOT TOSCALE
SOURCE; NCDOT, April T, 2000, Updaled by firlh T%h, September, 2005
800 ON
2200 1200
4400 f500
4000
15100
15100
ON
21100 1100 2900 22000
39300 2400 4000 380(0
2000 1100
8200 3200
6400
13400
24500
11 111 11900 N 1 iii .11
JL +11 111 11 ' J 11 ��11
BN f
011500
00 0 1
1600
QR 1560o
RQ 1114 6000
100 go 21900
13N No /
1600 1000 2200
3900 2400 51 00 100
zoo ► 300
900°
2300 00 1000 250 80 1100 1100
5500 11W 53(10 25000 r 1000 3600
6200 330 . r 4500
1000 22300 r �"
24300 - ' �' � 800 1000
.� -^
3400 3900 960)
1000 120 Q . ► 21100
3200 ' 158
G
4300
10300 A� 42
' 1200
4400 !4
0 5600 �Q
2500
4Q0 CQNNE�rDR 2300 ;ss 19g0
N r DII
p, NO
1200
16)0
CO
link
Legend
1991 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
2030 Estimated Average Daily Traffic Volumes
ALTERNATIVE B
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (BUILDS 199712030
US 114 IMPROVEMENTS
TIP ProjW No, R•2$36
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2,4
N
0
m 24900
10500
M
8600
t d 1520(
N p
� f1
64 d x
A
9900
25400 800 3000 4100 21800
6100 � 1 18500 2100 ..8300 22000 20000 6200 1100 32300
12200 9200 35500 5200 .133 4100q 30200
20900 1100 18N
0I 2100 2300 0100 NO
I 4600 NN
1200
100 49 20100
600
AGO Ag 3500 s0o�
4000 200
\ uu
11200 125 \
35300
� �zo
BYP
13200
43400 4200
Q 00
�4 1000 163
100 3400 ..�
4100
116(0 — 2200 110
2900
Y
U
Q
F
NOT TOSCALE
SOURCE; NCDOT, April T, 2000, Updaled by firlh T%h, September, 2005
800 ON
2200 1200
4400 f500
4000
15100
15100
ON
21100 1100 2900 22000
39300 2400 4000 380(0
2000 1100
8200 3200
6400
13400
24500
11 111 11900 N 1 iii .11
JL +11 111 11 ' J 11 ��11
BN f
011500
00 0 1
1600
QR 1560o
RQ 1114 6000
100 go 21900
13N No /
1600 1000 2200
3900 2400 51 00 100
zoo ► 300
900°
2300 00 1000 250 80 1100 1100
5500 11W 53(10 25000 r 1000 3600
6200 330 . r 4500
1000 22300 r �"
24300 - ' �' � 800 1000
.� -^
3400 3900 960)
1000 120 Q . ► 21100
3200 ' 158
G
4300
10300 A� 42
' 1200
4400 !4
0 5600 �Q
2500
4Q0 CQNNE�rDR 2300 ;ss 19g0
N r DII
p, NO
1200
16)0
CO
link
Legend
1991 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
2030 Estimated Average Daily Traffic Volumes
ALTERNATIVE B
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (BUILDS 199712030
US 114 IMPROVEMENTS
TIP ProjW No, R•2$36
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2,4

- ! Legend
00 �
J v �- w 1� Multi�alar Detailed Sfudy Alternative
44 All �� 1
r
NC Zoo Connector Corridor
iQ�
,
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Ashebar
l a Major Stream
NC Zoological Park
z
� i •- 1
� Wavle National Park
SR1j ,i ', ` �� `•`j �l� 1�— — '`-�"f �� �.,m I I '� � I � ti '�� 111111111
Project Study Area
Municipal Boundary
Limit Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
L
1 o nor
X11' °\ � � i�� ��� �_< --�- -�
II '
� 1 1
1 Y err' �' 1 r1
'r °�� � 4 � ,' �.. topography
� - Pronounced
1 f
;. i;.a� - °� �, �ti!' Main Electrical Transmission Line
1 �� a � ����� � ! ~ i �� � � ,,� � � a � �y, �' � "V
r � � ! � Easement
Electrical Substation
i
�rh Alternative 1
Alternative 2
iii" � ��� � I i � � � � � J 7 �,� —...i Q � ) r S � 1 sr �i r }
(y I 1
1 I °4 7 f. 1 \ 1 = �1 1 1 f
e m J+m
�� _ ! -�
' r Alternative 4
+m
�, 1
a w
¢ A
V
Alternative 10
r 1 ru N
,-
1 McDOWELL
1 Alternative 13
r
1 w` r tF
,+
l'y� Alternative 14
„1
�.� rr�v•�
1 — � +
Alternative 22
i Alternative 29
°
is
',,,, ! II li i ' ,,,'ttsJ1�ti r-t =•- ',. Alternative 33...
iu 11! 1
, J
� I
soo4f�ia��
Ds �j 1 ►1- r ■ {ru ,i u�l' �r rl ':�'�,��,
DATA SOURCES
„ 1
'111A
N
T
lot
+ ERp H 1.�� 11 l ' O Copytighl X9811991 MiIS
11111 1 ' '` ! '� , f� American Digital Catyghy, Inc,' 0 000 4 000
lN M , M2 K Collep ke,, Applalaa, 0e�t W E
NC 20010#8I Palk;
S I USGSQuadw Ie :tebyo,N,C,
- - Kilom�t2rs
RM D 1910 Photoreuiaad 1981,
.,� ` ,� i�� � � � r �• `' "� ._ � � 1 i1i11j � rd F. !. All
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
US 641MPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No, R -2536
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2.6