20160299 Ver 1_DWQ SEPA Coordinator Comments_19970820

� State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
u� u � : : ►I� lu
T'O:
FROM:
RE:
August 18, 1997
/� • � •
��� ��
�EHNF�
Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator /1/`�
Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0075; WQS# 11716
Asheboro Southem Bypass - US 64
TIP R-2536; Randolph County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the sueams potentially impacted by the project. The current streaa►
classificadons and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ tivough the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Cazol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channeli7ation/relocadons. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
nevegetated.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Number and locations of all proposed sveam crossings.
Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requesu that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
Identify the stortnwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wedands.
Wedand Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdicdonal
wedands.
ri) Have wedands been avoided as much as possible?
iu) Have wedand impacts been min'vnized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wedand impacts by plant communities affected.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 2762&0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Action Empbyer 50% recycledl 10% postconsumer peper

�-7=��7 DOT Scoping
��- August 18, 1997
Page 2
vi) Quality of wedands impacted.
vii) Total wedand impacts.
vui) List the 401 General Certif'ication numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Bonow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. ,
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wedand mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigadon plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wedand impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss (in detail) projeet alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without new road construction or road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic
congestion management techniques. , .
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation pro�ects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the lrnown
relationship between new roads, highways and intercfianges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential ind'uect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, sueh as turn lanes
and tr�c signs and signals? �
iri) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary roads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
v) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?

97-0717 DOT Scoping
`�° August 18, 1997
Page 3
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this new road serve as an inducement to additional urban development
in the project right of-way, given the provision of additional traffic handling
capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in the future), of
other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer, water and
electricity) in the area? To what degree will this new road encourage
further urbanization of this corridor? What are the projected impacts from
this bypass on the existing land uses in Asheboro?
viu) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
x) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be sign�cant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional developmen�
xi) What regulations are cuirently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that aze applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significandy impact the environment, including water quality. If
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and

9$-O�DOT Scoping
�' August 18, 1997
Page 4
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road and
interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currendy undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area and along
connector streets that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may aLso result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impaets
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and more efiicient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers,
pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters. These impacts
could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and
federally endangered species, or if the waters are high quality, nutrient sensitive, or
used for public water supply.
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certif'ication cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: O1C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the documen� It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department. �
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wedand impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wedand or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis:�980075 Asheboro Bypass- US64
cc: Cyndi Be11- DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group

�� Memorandum � � 3 0 l9B6
`" OROUP
SECTIE
July 28, 1998
To: REI File No. 200660
TIP No. R-2536 - US 64 Improvements - Randoiph County
Copy: Attendees
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
Jill Gurak, Rust Environment and Infrastructure (REI)
Meeting Minutes - Purpose and Need for Project
July 8, 1998 at 10:00 am
Meeting Lxation: NC Department of Transportation
Room 470 -Transportation Building
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attendees: Felix Davila -
Eric Alsmeyer -
Tom McCartney-
Cyndi Beil -
David Cox -
Richard Davis -
Gail Grimes -
Ron Elmore -
Jimmy Goodnight -
Cynthia Perry -
Randy Henegar-
Ron Hairr -
Jill Gurak -
Kilmeny Stephens -
Richard Stewart -
Minutes-
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wiidlife Resources Commission
NCDOT Pianning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT Pianning and EnvironmenTal Branch
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Hydraulics
REI
REI
REI
REI
Attached is the agenda handed out at the meeting.
Mr. Elmore opened the meeting with a brief introduction and discussion of the agenda. He restated
the purpose of the meeUng, which was to achieve concurrence on the draft Purpose and Need
Statement as required under the new NEPA/Section 404 merger process. Mr. Elmore stated Ms.
Debbie Bevin (SHPO) could not attend the meeting, but sent a letter siating she did not have any
comments on the document Mr. Elmore then inhoduced Ms. Jill Gurak, Project Manger, to conduct
the meeting.
Ms. Gurak reviewed the infortnation contained in the draft Purpose and Need Statement, including
a brief background on the project area, the needs for the project and the goais of the project. A
computer with Arcview GIS operated by Ms. Stephens was used to display project data.

Minutes
July 8, 1998 Meeting
Ms. Gurak noted the Planning and Environmental Branch had just received updated traffic data
from the Statewide Planning Branch on July 1, 1998. The City of Asheboro is in the process of
updating their thoroughfare plan and, consequently, the traffic model was being updated during the
preparation of the draft Purpose and Need document. The updated traffic data supplied by
Statewide Planning included virtually the same average daily traffic volumes along the roadway
segments. However, the turning movement volumes at NC 159 and NC 42 were different than
those reported in the draft Purpose and Need Statement. Ms. Gurak stated although the turning
volumes are different, the conclusions that the intersections are operating at unacceptable levels
of service are not expected to change. Ron Elmore stated the new traffic data would be analyzed
and incorporated into the purpose and need section of the environmental document.
The meeting was opened to comments and questions. No one voiced any major concerns
regarding the draft Purpose and Need Statement. Everyone agreed the document contained all the
necessary information in an acceptable format. Mr. Davila said he had a few minor comments,
primarily typographic, that he would pass on to Mr. Elmore. Mr. Davila also had a question
regarding the accident data and how the state breaks out their averages. Mr. Davis stated they did
not have the accident data broken out further than the statewide data reported in the document.
Mr. Alsmeyer and Mr. Davila requested that accident data for NC 159, if available, be provided in
the document. Mr. Elmore agreed to research this issue and obtain the data if available. REI will
incorporate the data into the Purpose and Need Statement prior to finalizing the environmental
document.
Mr. Alsmeyer asked if the agency representatives present had any further comments. Everyone was
satisfied with the document. Mr. Alsmeyer stated he would be able to provide a written concurrence
letter upon receiving the final version of the Purpose and Need Statement. The only changes
necessary were the addition of NC 159 accident data, if available, and minor typographic notes.
The meeting continued with a discussion of preliminary alternative corridors. The GIS system was
used to display land suitability mapping. Ms. Gurak described the natural and-human constraints
in the area and reviewed potential preliminary altematives. She stated a bypass to the north would
not be feasible because it would not provide access to the NC Zoo. A bypass to the north would
traverse highly developed areas of Asheboro and could impact water supply watersheds west of the
city. If a bypass to the north were construeted, access to the NC Zoo would still need to be
provided. The resulting impacts from these two projects would be greater than from one project that
provided improved conditions along the US 64 corridor as well as providing access to the NC Zoo.
Ms. Gurak also reviewed the reasons why improving the existing alignment through town was not
reasonable. A more detailed discussion of these reasons is provided on an attachment, entitled
"Non-Competitive Alternatives".
Preliminary corridors to the south of Asheboro were then displayed and discussed. The constraints
considered in the development of these corridors was described. The.primary constraints included
NWI wetlands, streams, developed areas, major industrial facilities, and areas of steep topography.
The group was asked whether any other corridors should be added or if any corridors should be
deleted. No one had any changes to the preliminary corridors as presented.

Minutes
July 8, 1998 Meeting
The above notes are REI's understanding of the proceedings and issues discussed at the meeting.
If these minutes are in error or if you would like to expand them, please contact Ms. Jill Gurak at
[phone], before August 14, 1998.

AGENDA
� PROJECT TEAM MEETING
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
July 8, 1998
lDS 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project Number R-2536
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Project Team
II. PURPOSE OF MEETING
A. Achieve concurrence from Project Team on the Purpose and Need for
Project R-2536
B. Present a map of preliminary corridors for discussion
III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Background Information on the Project Study Area
,1. Project Setting
2. Project History
B. Needs for Project
1. Traffic Conditions on existing US 64
2. Accident Rates on existing US 64
3. Traffic Conditions on fVC 159 created by NC Zoo-related traffic
4. US 64 as part of the Intrastate Highway System
C. Purposes of Project
1. Improve levels of service on US 64
2. Relieve congestion and improve safety on US 64
3. Improve access to the NC Zoo
4. Restore efficient regional travel along US 64
D. Concurrence
IV. PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
A. Constraints
B. US 220 Bypass Interchange Location
C. Preliminary Corridors

PROJECT STUDY TEAM CONTACTS
TIP R-2536
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
Randolph County
TIP Number: R-2536
State Project Number: 8.1571401
Federai Project Number: NHF-64(19)
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Ms. Gaii Grimes, P.E.
Mr. Ron Elmore, P.E.
FAX
Address
Unit Head 919-733-7844 Ext. 265
Project Engineer 919-733-7844 Ext. 267
919-733-9794
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Rust Environmental & Infrastructure (REI)
Mr. Ron Hairr Project Director
Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. Project �vlanager
FAX
Address
Rust Envirc�msnt & �nfrastructur�
5510 Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
Toll-Free Proiect Information Telephone Line
1-800-206-1373
919-676-5130
919-676-5107
919-676-5259
Callers to the toll-free line are directly connected to a voice-mail system. The message on the
voice mail system is periodically updated with information on the study's progress. Callers
have the op#ion of leaving messages of their own. The system is checked daily and
responses to callers are provided within two business days by a member of the project study
team.

NON-COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS NEAR ASHEBORO, RANDOLPH COUNTY
TI P R-2536
July 8, 1998 - Project Team Meeting
Introduction
This handout summarizes the purpose and need for the proposed action and discusses the
infeasibility of improving US 64 by working within the existing alignment or by constructing a bypass
alignment to the north. The infeasibility of providing access to the NC Zoo by widening NC 159 from
US 64 to the US 220 Bypass is also discussed.
Summary of Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
The pcimary purposes of the proposed action are:
• tmprove traffic flow and levels of service on the section of US 64 in the project study
area.
Needs Addressed: Existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service
along existing US 64 cause significant travel delay, increase the potential for
accidents, and contribute substantially to the inefficient operation of motor
vehicles.
�` Relieve congestion on US 64 in the City of Asheboro, thereby improving safety and
reducing the num6er of accidents. �
Needs Addressed: Accident rates along existing segments of US 64 in the
Asheboro area are currently above the statewide average accident rates for
similar facilities.
• Improve access to the NC Zoological Park.
Needs Aa'dressed: Congeszion and queues occur on NC 159 due to
NC Zoo-related traffic mixing with local users. Delays are experienced by
NC Zoo visitors. Zoo-related congestion makes it difficult for residents along
NC 159 to access their homes.
• Improve high-speed regional travel along the US 64 intrastate corridor.
NeedsAddresseaF. The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions
along existing US 64 through Asheboro diminish this segment's ability to
function as an intrastate corridor.

Project Team Meeting - July 8, 1998
Non-Competitive Alternatives �
1. Improve US 64 Within the Existing Alignment
As discussed below, improving US 64 within the existing alignment would not fulfill the following
project purposes, 1) improve traffic flow and. levels of service on US 64, 2) relieve congestion and
improve safety on US 64, and 3) improve high-speed regional travel on the US 64 intrastate corridor.
Improve Traffic Flow and Levels of Service on US 64. Existing US 64 is a two-lane rural roadway
west of Asheboro, a five-lane urban section through Asheboro, and a four-lane median-divided
roadway east of Asheboro. There is no control of access: However, there are few existing
driveways along the highway outside the Asheboro city limits. Within the City limits along the
five-lane section, there are numerous driveways to shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships,
and other businesses on both sides of the roadway. Existing and projecfed levels of service �re
LOS E or F along the tw�-lane segment west �f ihe ci'ry anG along portion� of the five-lane segment
through town.
Increasing the capacity and improving the levels of service along the two-lane segment of US 64
west of Asheboro could be accomplished by widening the existing roadway. The 1998-2004 TIP
includes a project, Project R-2220, that will widen existing US 64 to four lanes for 45.6 km
(28.5 miles) from east of I-85 Business in Lexington to the US 220 Bypass in Asheboro. The
westernmost section of Projeet R-2220 is under construction, The remaining sections are
scheduled for construction after 2004.
There are three ways a five-lane roadway segment could be upgraded to improve traffic flow and
levels of service; widen the roadway to seven lanes, widen the roadway to six lanes with a concrete
median, or change the roadway to a controlled-access facility. None of these methods are feasible
for the existing five-lane segment of US 64. �
Widening the existing five-lane section to seven lanes and maintaining access to all adjacent
properties would create hazacdous operational conditions. Drivers desiring to access properties
along the left side of the road would be required to cross three lanes of oncoming fraffic. Drivers
desiring to enter the road and turn left would be required to cross three lanes of traffic, avoid
left-tuming vehicles stored in the center tum lane, and merge into the traffic stream traveling in the
desired direction. This operation would become more hazardous for vehicles�turning left to enter
US 64, then attempting to turn right at the next intersection. This movement would require
nego±iating a.cross three lanes of traffic to reach the right-turn lane.
Widening the five-lane section to six basic lanes with a concrete median would result in degradatiori
of traffic levels of service and substantial impacts to the community. The median would eliminate
left tums except at major intersections. Eliminating left turns along the densely developed five-lane
segment would compromise emergency and medical rescue operations and make it inconvenient
and confusing for traffic circulating to and from businesses along US 64 senring the daily needs of
the local populace. The major intersections would need to be redesigned and traffic signals retimed
to allow for U-turns to offset the elimination of the center lane. The resulting increase in turning
movement volumes at the major intersections would inhibit traffic flow and further degrade levels
of service along US 64.
Creating a controlled-access roadway along the existing five-lane section of US 64 would.result in
substantial relocation and right-of-way impacts, degradation of traffic operations, and �increased
construction costs. Frontage roads would be required along both. sides of the controlled-access
facility to provide access to adjacent properties. The frontage roads would need additional� right of
way from the commercial properties, encroaching on parking areas and buildings and creating
substantial impacts to businesses.

Project Team Meeting - July 8, 1998
Turning movements would be concentrated at major intersections since all frontage road traffic
would travel through these intersections and turn left or right to access US 64. The intersections
would need to be redesigned and traffic signals retimed to allow local traffic access to the properties
served by the frontage roads. The concentration of additional traffic at fewer access points under
this scenario would degrade traffic operations and contribute to �ower levels of ser�ice.
If the intersections were improved to interchanges to further control access, more impacts would
occur. The number of residential and business relocations would likely increase since more right
of way is required to construct interchanges than intersections. A controlled-access roadway with
interchanges along the existing US 64 five-lane section would divide Asheboro by a barrier that
could be crossed only, at designated points. The local economy and community cohesion would
be adversely affected by this type of facility.
Relieve Congesfion and Improve Safe on L►S 64. Aecident rates on �he five-lane segment of
US 64 (365.6 ACC/100 MVM), from the US 220 Bypass to Presnell Streei, are currently above the
statewide average rate for this iype of road (354.5 ACC/100 MVM). Also, the five locations along
US 64 in the study area where accidents occur most frequently are on this five-lane segment.
Projected 2025 levels of seryice (which indicate level of congestion) along the five-lane segment
of US 64 are LOS E or LOS F between US 220 Bypass and NC 42 (eastbound and westbound),
beiween NC 42 and Presnell Street (eastbound), and at the US 64/NC 42 and US 64/NC 159
intersections.
As discussed previously, widening the five-lane section of US 64 through Asheboro would create
hazardous operational conditions, degrade levels. of service and increase turning movement
volumes at major intersections; thereby increasing the potential for accidents, including the most
common types, rear-end collisions and angle collisions. These types of accidents often occur at
intersections and are typically caused by the conflicting movements of drivers turning into.and out
of commercial driveways and drivers continuing through along US 64.
Congestion on existing roadways can be relieved by increasing capacity or reducing traffic volumes.
As discussed previously, increasing the capacity of existing US 64 is not feasible. Reducing traffic
volumes on existing US 64 can be achieved only by separating through traffic from local access
traffic.
Improve Hiah-Speed Regional Travel on the US 641ntrastate Corridor. The section of US 64 in the
st�dy area is designated as part of ihe North Carolina Intrastate System. i he fntrastate System was
created to provide high-speed, safe regional travel service. The existing and projected traffic and
land use conditions along existing US 64 through Asheboro diminish this segmenYs ability to
function as an intrastate corridor. As discussed previously, constructing improvernents along the
existing US 64 alignment would not improve levels of service or improve safety. High-speed, safe
travel, consistent with the goals of the Intrastate Corridor system, can be achieved only if through-
traffic on US 64 is separated from local traffic

�
Project Team Meeting - July 8, 1998
2. Improve US 64 With a Bypass Alignment to the North .
Improving US 64 with a bypass alignment to the north would not fulfiil the projecYs purpose of
improVing access to the NC Zoo.
The NC Zoo is located east of NC 159, about 7.1 kilometers [km] (4.5 miles) south of existing
US 64. A bypass to the north would need to be at least-3.2 km (2.0 miles) north to avoid the densely
developed urban area of Asheboro. A bypass in this location could not efficiently improve regional
access to the NC Zoo, which is located south of the city.
Additionally, water supply watersheds associated with Lake Lucas and Lake Bunch are located
north of existing US 64, west of Asheboro. The secondary watershed for Lake Bunch extends north
from NC 49, across US 64 to the critical watershed surrounding Lake Bunch. Lake Bunch is about
3.2 km (2.0 miles) north of US 64. Lake Lucas is about 1-2 km (about 1 n�ile) north ,of Lake Bun�h.
it's secondary �nd critica9 watersheds extend north from the lake.
3. Improve NC 159 Within the Existing Alignment from US 64 to US 220 Bypass
Improving existing NC 159 from #he US 220 Bypass to existing US 64 would not fulfill the purpose
of improving access to the NC Zoo. -
Existing NC.159 is a winding two-lane road that would need to be widened and straightened for
about 13.5 km (8.5 miles) from the US 220 Bypass to existing US 64. Access control along this
length of NC 159 would not be feasible since many driveways of rural residences and retirement
homes connect directly to NC 159 and the road is the only outlet for some residential subdivisions.
Without access control, NC Zoo-bound travelers would not be separated from local travelers driving
to and from their homes and the existing congestion, queues, and conflicts would continue for both
types of travelers.

��
;`�
�
q�1C�o'C -C 1�' �co� et�- '�' �_;.536
Project Name �S �4 ��''�Q�o� e^`e^�-5-'�5�-+e�ar'o Nearest Road �'+'���ef Rd4b
County � a�o��� ' Wetland Area. _a� acres Wetland Width 400-Sac feet
Name of evaluator ka�t�. 4au1�, - Date l�-�5-9�t
Wetland Locaiion
on pond or lake
►�on p�rennial stream
on intennittent stream
wittun interstream divide
other
Soil series ���"���`��
predominantly organic - humus, muck,
vr peat
✓ predominanxly mineral - non-sandy
predominantly sandy
HydrauIic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
✓' total wet�and width z 100 feet
Adjacent iand use • �
(witfun 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,_or radius)
✓ forested/natural vegetation � 5 °/a
✓ agricuiture, urban/suburban `� %
✓ impervious surface �_ %
Dominant vegetation
�1� L;��:�a�+�� s� `Y� c: �1�,
�2� � c$� ����u�+-�
�3� SG��x ►�;�,�a
Flooding anci w�tciess
'gc�To �l t.bx.�-fl
�}a�bv�tacsT�
dLl.oN� UT1'L�E �1�6�2
� WE��' c�rl
La{LR,tpD12
semipermanently to permanentiy
flvoded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated .
�' intemuttan�y flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetiand fype (select one)*
��Bottomland hardwood forest � Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest . Bog/fen .
Wet flat � ' Ephemeral wedand ,
Pocosin • Carolina Bay
Bog forest � . Other .
cannot be aoniied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
*the rati
weight
R Water storage � x 4.00 =
� BanklShoreline stabilization � x 4.00 =
Z' Pollutant removal � * x �.00 =
I Wildlife habitat S x 2.00 =
11T Aquatic Iife value 5 x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education � x 1.00 =
h=��:rs::r:{>���
;;:., r:_.;:; :
:>k�>�-��-:;�;;
>:�.�:=:s:�-�:
:.�..:: =::�:<�:;>:
tih:. � � f.
.:�:�=>: h�r:
«��'°"`..'���.'�.
�:w-:
:,f�.;�;>::�:
.:; ,•r.: }. :-
'�'^:
:;.�
:::���
Wetland
Ra.ting
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance witttin Il2 mite upstream,
-- u�slo�e, or radius --------------------------------------
�- --------------------------------------------------
�

�
:�'
�JC+Da� -
�T�P P�ostc�- � �-a�`36
Project Name � 4�oy �M��DJtnnen�� -Y�S�+e.looro I�Iearest Road S���e�s Fc,r�-, �ca.d
County ����ol�ti, ' Wetland Area � � acres Wetland Width aao feet
Name of evaluator ��� 1� Date 1�-3' 9�1
Wetland Location
on pond or lake .
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
witfun interstream divide
� othera�'a'� Pgcc.,i.;�.� s��
5oii series ���ar�; �
predominantly organic - humus, muc�
or peat
✓predorrunantly mineral - non-sandy
predominantiy sandy
$ydrauiic factors
� steep topography
ditched or channelized �
total wetland width z 100 feet
Weiland iype (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest .
Wet flat �
Pocosin
Bog forest .
to sal
*the ra
:
R
�
�stem cannot be a
Adjacent land use �
(witiiin 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
— forested/naturai vegetation � u °/a
i agriculture, urban/suburban � °Io
� impervious surface `� %
Dominant vegetation �pC,�F t-.1F�'1�.1�
(1) �.i�'o��,.dre.. ��1;� 74rU. � �� '���"
. �,�w�J
i ) Uacc.;n;�� ���ti,.,-►bcsa,n-. �t� a�kaRut'� �'
2 .�JS Fa�M'R'D
�3� � 12K Jer �-; c:11 �,� c� �n-� a�l ca�,e�v�s
Flooding anci we#ness
semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated .
intennittanly flooded o� temporazy
surface water
✓ no evidence of flooding or surface water
� Pine sa.vanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen .
' Ephemeral wedand R
Carolina Ba�
✓Other 1a;115: � SQ��
or brackish marshes or strearn channels
---------�----------- - yveig�t
Water storage ti x 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabiiization � x 4.00 =
� �` Pollutant remova� � * x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat � x 2.00 =
� Aquatic life value � x 4,00 =
G Recreation/Education � x 1.00 =
.>;�,;..�:<M.:A:K;
::>..;.
.:,. .A.: F.fE�:
:v;;.�w�,.:
{::,�.::;«��<:::
fy.:.;�.
; ;.`+¢!r;v�;:;.'
�i 5i� ,iti fi+�
:$VFI..r = 9i4Y.'
�::
'�f,:� i::;.
.,�
:; �`'"ti"''•�`
}:Y• i�•:
Wetland
R.ating
*Add 1 pc�int if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance witlun 1/2 mile upstreanl,
u slo e, or radius --------------------------
----------------------
----�- � - -- — --------------------------------------------

� j '� '�
� ���-r -��P P�b�«� �- �- ;L536
S Ey �p�c.�¢rn2n1�5- �Sl�eboro Nearest Road s��l��,� Fa<r, GLo�d
-- Project Name � So .to 350
County �an��1P� ' Wetland Area �� --= acres Wetland Width feet
� Name of evaluator._..� �G�� Date � I d.-3-�`i
� � Wetland Location
.Y�
fr,
:�
on pond or lake
✓ on perennial stream
on internuttent stream
witlun interstream divide
other �
S o il series � ��"O'��' �
predominantiy organic - humus, muck,
or peat�
'� predominan,tly mi.aeral - non-sandy
predominantly sandy
$ydrauiic factors
✓steep topography
ditched or channelized
✓ total wetland wid�li Z 100 feet
Adjacent iand use •
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
f forested/naturai vegetation � � %
✓ agriculture, urban/suburban $ %
✓ impervious surface '�-, %
Dom.inantvegetatioa ��M�'�`N� ���
�,gJ '�'b�-r�GHr- �a���
�1� (�c.it <kbr�.n-. ?�ys�i'r�E+�1
e+R�v r� ����+ e� �.
�2� Ve.�G',n;�.rr, Co��r�bo5�r,., �i��� �.QM'2b
u°wT�F c�l co2R�crxs2s
�3� 1�1a,,,,�.5 t�.bra, .
I
Flooding and wefness
semipennanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
✓ intermittanly flooded or temporary
surfac,e water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetiand i�►pe (select one)*
� Bottomland hardwood forest � P�e �v�a
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp %rest . Bog/feu .
Wet flat � � Ephemerai wedand a
Pocosin • Carol'ma Bay �
Bog forest � . Other .
1
*the ra
s
R
�
T
I
N
G
cannotbe
tied to salt or brackish marshes or strea.m channe s
-^Q_J--�-_-�_
-__-- _-___ ��ie.:�it
Water storage � x 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabiiization � x 4.00 =
Pol(utant removal a" * x 5.00 =
Wildl'efe habitat 5 x 2.00 =
Aquatic Iife value ��--- x 4.00 =
Recreation/Education v x 1.00 =
r.r"•.4� u.`:: i:
^':n}':�%ii :fi
�.��::
:,��_�:<=--.>::.,,.
. 4`�.• k'ii}"
;}�r_..��;,;;
;#�V;::;:..:
.,�....r_�A:;:
V"��=:`:>:;{<,
,t,_.,:M..$;��:::
<:;�:�fi:z:::;:.
` :iv^..�_rkj.":;
i•?` r.•:::=:
Wetland
�tlllg
*Add 1 p�int if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance witlun 1/2 miie upstream,
` ____ u slo e, or radius ----`---'-----�
-�----�--------------------------------------------------------------------------
�

Project Name US �'`{ �`�pws� � �a�`o ���� — Nearest Road ��-d C�k ��
County N�� �� " We�land Area CD 'r acres Wetland Width '�� feet
Name of evaluator �d ��'"^5��--- � Date Z�`��
-
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
�C on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
wittun interstream divide
other
SoiI series U w �'��w°"
predominantly organic - humus, muck,
or peat
� predorninantly mineral - non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic fac#ors
�, steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width z 100 feet
Adjaceiit land use �
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
�?� forestedlnatural vegetation �� %
?` agricuiture, urban/suburban 6 � %
�C, impervious surface � %
Dominant vegetation
�1� �Q� ('c.ior��
�2� �. r' f I (�
a h� oo'�P� d'�u... "tu��,�; -t P✓�
�3� L..: �:� ��5 �, s�-� �aC,���
FIooding aiad wetciess
serrupermanendy to pennanently .
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
� internuttanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type {select one)* � � ��an�t,od•1�v ��►�.roon
_.,� Bottomiand hardwood forest � Pine savanna �`�' �u�
� Headwater forest Freshwater marsh �� � �,�.p
Swamp forest Bog/fen .
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland ��� C����
Pocosin � Carolina Bay
Bog forest . Other .
_______ *the ratin� system cannot be ap�lied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channets
+ weighE
R Water storage � x 4.00 =
14 Bank/Shoreline stabilization � x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal s * x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat � x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value � x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education
x 1.00 =
Wetland
Rating
*Add 1 point if ia sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance wielun 1/2 mile upstrearii,
u slo e_ or radius -----
---------�--�-'-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ProjectNamel.b.S��P��en^� �5���e�e�n NearestKoad���5�4� �-�ol �oa�
County �A� � Wetland Area �-�• 5 acces Wetland WidthV��JO- ao� feet
Name of evaluator �' �.�� — Date 1;1- �• 9 9
Wetland Location
_ on pond or lake
� on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
witlun interstream divide
v other tJ��' �Q��
Soilseries C�e��scl�
_ predominantly organic - humus, muck,
or peat
'� predominantly mineral - non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
✓total wetland width z 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within I/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
� forested/natural vegetation � °/a
� agriculture, urban/suburban � � %
� impervious surface �_ %
Dominant vegetation FMERGENT' W�n-aNb
��
�1� 5�.�; ��r�, s�U ��a� �e�
�z� S��c.�.s eF��,sws � Ne�
. . . .� .. �
�3� CareX ��• -
Flooding and wetness
�semipermanen[(y to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface waYer
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottoailand hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp foresl Boglfen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wedand ,
_ Pocosin Carolina Bay
_ Bog forest � Other ir�«3e��
*the
R
A
T
I
N
G
cannot be applied to salt or_brackish mazshes or stream channels
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
Pollutant removal
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic li£e value
weight
_ x 4.00 =
_ x 4.00 =
* x 5.00 =
_ x 2.00 =
_ x 4.00 =
Recreation/Education n x I.00 = �
Wetland
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance witliin I/2 mile upstream,
�__ upslo�e, or radius _ _
_ -----------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM
TG: Richard Spencer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinaror
Habitat Conservation Program ���/��
DATE: February 7, 2003
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action ID No.
200201260, review of application for NoRh Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to discharge dredge or fill matenal mto waters
and wetlands to construct a four-lane, median divided, full access control
highway on new location from the current two-lane roadway west of
Asheboro at SR 1326 to the four-lane, median divided faciliry east of
Asheboro at SR 2713, and the construction of a new access to the North
Carolina Zoological Park, Randolph County, NoRh Carolina. T[P# R-2536
S[aff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our comments
are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, �s
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
This project is Collowing the NEPA/404 Merger Process. We anticipate providing
our comments as paR of this formal process.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application.
If we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
blailing Address: Dicision of Inland Fisheries • V? I\tail Sen ice Cenrer • Raleigh, NC 27699- V? I
Tcicphonr. j919j 733-3G33 rsc. ?51 • Fa�: (919) 71�-7G43

�A9
�
V
�
0
N
N
�
7
�ds sa
_
m
0
N
N
�
�
� ��
Randolph County
O�ce Building
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 17607-5074
�
Hennessy,John
NCDENR-DWQ
4401 Aeedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
2?40T—C445 __
Mark your calendars!
Citizens Informational Workshop
An open-house workshop to receive input
from citizens is scheciuled for June 17, 1999,
from 4:00 pm to 8:00 p.m. in the Randolph
County Office Building located on McDowell
Road at the US 220 Bypass. Come by at any
time during these hours.
I IJ%:=q:'!-�yy'-,-�14: �Y f�11.` i[�. ._:?r �"3.1
I I.iI��i1,II��IL�iL�iI•Il��iliil;L:L1�611iii�iilll�il�l
Mai[ing Lis1 lnformation
A computenzed mailing list of persons incerested in the proposed � Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E.,
project is continually updared for newsletters, informational workshuN�, ' Project Manager
and announcemen[s. If you are not on the mailing fist and would like to Earth Tech
receive newsletters and other informative notices for this project, call 701 Corporate Center Drive, Suire 475
the project hodine at 1-800-206-1373 or comple�e the fortn below. Clip Raleigh, NC 27607-5074
andmailrotheaddressonther�t_____________
r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
� (Please prinll �
� Name: �
� pddress: �
iCiry/State: Zip Code: I
� Telephone Number: Neighborhood Orgaoization/Affiliatioo: �
iComments: i
� �
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
1999
Nek�s[et7er pu6lished by:
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Cen[er Dnve, Suite 475
Raleiah, NC 27607-5074
Look inside for:
♦ Detailed Study Alternatives
♦ Citizens Informational Workshop- June 17
v SiiiTifdPy Oi � if5i iirOfrCjf'luP
♦ Planning Process
♦ Public Involvement
♦ Map of Detailed Study Alternatives
NCDOT Identifies Nine Detailed
Study Alternatives
Over the past several months, the North Carolina
Departrnent ofTransportation (NCDOT) evaluated many
options for improving US 64 through Asheboro, including
improving existing US 64 and a bypass on new location
north or south oFUS 64. The bypass altematives south of
US 64 were determined to best meet the purpose and need
for the project. The study area for the proposed project
was presented at the September 30, 1998 workshop (See
page 2).
Thirty-three (33) 1,000-foot wide preliminary bypass
corridors extending from US 64 west of Asheboro to US 64
east of Asheboro were developed. Each was evaluated and
compared based on engineering desi�n issues and impacu
on the human and natural environmen[s. Environmenta]
impacts were estimated based on aerial photography, field
studies, and exis[ing documented data. These impacts
iacluded: numbers of residences, businesses, historic
azchitectural properties, and weflands within the corridors;
the numbers of streams intersected by the corridors; and the
lengths of floodplains crossed by the corridors.
Based on the evaluation described above, the NCDOT
identified nine preliminary bypass corridors for more
detailed studies. These corridors are known as the Detailed
Study Altematives, and they are shown on the enclosed
map insert. These nine altematives will be presented to the
public for review and comment before being finalized (See
S 64 Improvements
Asheboro
Program No. R-2536)
Issue No. 2
North Carolina Deparhnent ofTranspor[ation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleieh, NC 27611-5201
next article). Once the Detailed Study Alternatives are
finalized, detailed engineering studies, field studies, and
environmenta] analyses will be performed on each
altemative. The res�lts ofthese studies will be summarized
iu e draR envirunmental impact statement.
Second Citizens lnformational
Workshop Scheduled for
June 17
The NCDOT is hosting a Citizens Informational Workshop
on Thursday, June 17, 1999 from 4:00 ro 8:00 pm in the
Randolph County Office Building located on McDowell
Road at the US 220 Bypass. A small map is provided on
the back of this newsletter.
The workshop will be an informal open-house with project
maps and information available for review. The nine
Detailed Study Altematives iden[ified by NCDOT will be
displayed. Project team members from the NCDOT and
Earth Tech will be present for one-on-one discussions about
the project.
Comments regarding the project are welcome. Comment
sheets wili be provided, and can be lefc a[ �he workshop or
mailed. Comments may also be left on the project toll-free
hotline[phone]).
�'„� i� .
f.:.-.
���
FOR PROJECT INFORMATION
AND UPDATES CALL
1-800-206-1373

Summary of First Workshop
Thc first citizens infi�rmational workshop was held September
30, 1998. More than 45p citizens attended the workshop at
[he Randolph County Oftice Building.
Attendees werc able to view a s]ide show explaining the purpose
and necd tor the project the environmental study process.
and the public involvement program.
Large maps of the project study area were displayed. The
maps showed the primary consVaints that led to the
establfshment ofthe preliminary corridor boundaries.
A black and white aerial photograph of the project study area
also was displayed. Attendees were able to locate streets, creeks
and other features on the maps and the aerial photograph.
NCDOT and Earth Tech team members discussed the project
with citizens one-on-one throughout the duration of the
workshop.
J'r�>t ;ll. l99�s ('i�i=c�r.c /n/i�rn�a�io�i It'urk.rluip
How Does the Planning
Process Work?
The proposed improvements to the US 64 corridor will
involve state and federal funds. Any agency that proposes
a projact involving federal funds must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NLPA). Under the
NEPA, an agency must study the adverse and beneficial
emironmental impacts of altematfves tha[ meet a project's
purpose and need and identify the least environmentally
damaging prac[icable altemative (LEDPA). This planni�g
process can be divided into six s[eps', as indicated in the
chart below. This project is in the last stages of Step 2.
Step 1 Data collection
Inventory ofplanningissues
Defini[ion of study area
Preliminary corridor development
Step 2 First Citizens Informational Workshop
Documentation of community
concerns
Field studies
Identification of relimina corridors
Second Citizens l�tormational
Workshop
Selection ofalternatives fordetailed
study
Step 3 Gngineerine studies
Detailed Yield studies
Emironmental analyses
Step 4 Draft environmental document
Third Ci[izens Informational Workshop
Step 5 Corridor Public Hearing
Step 6 Review commen[s on draft
environmental document
Review public hearing transcript
Select preferted altemative (LEDPA)
Step 7 Intensive studies on preferred
altemative
Preliminary engineering design plans
Final environmental document
Step 8 Design Public Hearing
Public Participation
Public participation is an important part of the planning
process for this project. Yroject newsletters, phone-in and
mail contact, citizen workshops, small group tneetings, and
local newspaper advertisements will inCorm the public about
the project and provide oppoRunities for input.
A mailing list has been developed for the project that
includes citizens, public officials, and civic and business
groups. The list will be updated throughout the study and
used to distribute periodic project newsle[ters. The
newsletters will discuss the project's progress and provide
information on upcoming events.
A toll-free telephone number (1-800-206-1373) has been
established for citizens to contact the project team about
project issues. You are encouraged E� use this [zlephone
number to ask general questions, receive project status
informatinn and to providc input. Comments may also bc
mailed to the poin[s' of contact given in this newsletter.
Citizens can participate in the project lhrough citizens
informational workshaps, small ��roup informational
meetings, and formal public hcarings. Small group meetines
for neighborhood associations, church groups, and other
civic groups to discuss the project in infornial question-and-
ans�i�er sessions can be arranged by contacting Ms. Jill
Gurak, Project Manager, EarthTech, at 1-800-20G-1373. or
Mr. Ron Elmore, Project Engineer, NCDOT, at 1-919-733-
7844, ext. 267.
For general information about NCDOT, visit our website at:
www.dot.state.nc.us
Contacts for US 64 Project Questions or Comments
Questions and comments regarding the US 64
Improvements (R-2536) may be directed to:
Mr. Ron Elmore, P.E.
Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone] Ext 267
or
Ms. Jill Gurak. P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, S
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
[phone]
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the public meetings held
for the R-2536 project to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Ac[ (ADA). To receive special services, contact
Mr. Carl Goode. P.F. at: NCDOT, Citizens Participation
Llnit, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27G 11 or call (919) 250-
4092 or fax [phone]. Please give adequate notice
prior to the date of the workshop.
Issue No. ?- Mm' / 999 /.csue Na 2- h�ny / 9)9

Detai/ed Study A/ternatives
The figure below shows the nine Detailed Study Altematives identified by NCDOT for further study in
the Draft Envuonmental Impact Statement for the US 64 Improvements in Asheboro.
-� ' � ��' END PROJECT ..•'••�••'
i •
� � � -� � ,..�
j _ r: . •' 1
� � If �� 4��/ ��• ����.
, �� i z��ysr. ���
Ash�o�o � - � �.�; :'\ .. o•� •
� � f� ,. c�° 6A.'
� ; �s $,
�H i - v.: � _. s
:: :
���� BEGIN PROJECT Asheboro t� `� � :
•
�1�� - . . � . � 5,9
i �O� - _ : � - � � � '� I � � � � �
• ••9•••• [�. ♦ . � ' � ���. ' .p`� � �a
.� - �i. �� -- - I
: O �Y
���: �V g . 4.�. ^
�
� {
SR 1 t 93 :2j'
� ��� LLfi� � � � �
� J �
� �.
- �. •' �G p0! f- .
9
; �
• ;� r
• j
:� �w'� � r� e-..
��d� ..� ^ ��
P" �'
_ ♦
�
: ' �.
Z��N
NLeFie
1_ n �
a�
�::
�'W
¢g
90
I CpY 4D '
� N , .��. ; ?, : N C Z OO 1
+.' _,, .. ;,. � CONNECTOR
-. �����. °" ;,� �� �� �. :6 _ ,.-__...,..,..,,�._
w�e ���� me , v� � He . �
� a ' �� . t6M � 90, �'
t e
s f �� ���� ����' • uuor .. 1 � } ( .. �i� �'v NC ZOO
i�
J � �, .
Kilometers �� : � ' �
1 0.5 0 1 2 '• %
� i . � s s'► � � � ! �� , nc i L
f i i R 2 � �- �me i Sp1Ip5•
�.5 �.Z�J � Q.rJ � .h�LEY" O�� �\'J 11• •1l1111\ ��
Miles
AI AI i 1 er� iv 2
+� +� +0
2 AI ern iv 2
+� +� +�
Alterna ive 4 � AI rn ' 14 +� r 3 +�
I +
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS TIP PROJECT NO. R-2536
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Issue Na. 2- May 1999

'� ' .:
��� :� :::�
'p% �"�'���. f`II
.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV�N'T OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
DATE: February 5, 2004
TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: John Conforti, REM
Lnv�o T�PErr
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Proposed Asheboro Bypass (US 64 Improvements), Asheboro, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project Number NHF-64(19), State Project Number 8.1571401, TIP
Project R-2536
The Federal Highway Administration (F�IWA) approved the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the subject project on July 23, 2002. The approved DEIS evaluated nine build
alternatives in detail. These nine alternatives follow two basic corridors, with varying cross-over
points to create nine combinations. All detailed study alternatives share the same corridor for the
NC Zoo Connector, as well as the easternmost segment from just south of SR 2604 (Luck Road)
to the eastern bypass terminus at existing US 64. The study area and corridors are shown on the
`Detailed Study Alternatives' figure and more comprehensive project area information can be
found on Figures 3.2 a through e. -
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) 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 (1.6 km) 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 (0.5
km) 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 I-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 (0.3 km) 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 (0.5 km) east of the NC 42Browers 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 (1 km) 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) (refer to Figure 2.6). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward the
east to cross NC 42 about 1 mile (1.6 km) east of the NC 42Browers 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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western bypass ternunus to between US 220
Business and NC 159. Just east of Crestview Church Road, this alternative curves slightly south
MAILING ADDRESS: Te�ePHorve: 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
154H MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC Z7FiJ9-1548

avoiding a wetland area on Tantraugh Branch. It then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves
north to cross NC 159 about 0.1 miles (0.2 km) 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.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) 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 (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.1 miles (0.2 km)
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 I-73/74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over US 220 Bypass. The corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5
mile (0.8 km) 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 (02 km) 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 (1.6 km) east of the NC 42Browers
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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Ashebaro, approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) 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 (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193
intersection. Altemative 14 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 (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) 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 29
Alternative 29 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western terminus to Mack Road. From this
point to the eastern ternunus, Altemative 29 follows the Alternative 10 corridor.

Alternative 33
Alternative 33 is the same as Alternative 13 from the western terminus to Mack Road. From this
point to the eastern ternunus, Alternative 33 is the same as Alternative 10.
Zoo Connector
The NC Zoo Connector is proposed to be a two-lane parkway-type, controlled-access roadway
(see Figure 2.1). A four-lane divided roadway was considered, but was not justified based on the
future traffic projected for the NC Zoo.
The Zoo Connector would provide a trumpet-type interchange connecting to the proposed US 64
bypass about 0.8 miles (1.2 km) west of NC 159 (Alternative 22), providing adequate weave
distance between interchanges; this spacing is slightly longer for Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14,
29, and 33. From the new bypass, the Zoo Connector would proceed southeast across Tantraugh
Branch and Staleys Farm Road (there would be no access between the Zoo Connector and Staleys
Farm Road). As it nears NC 159, the connector would 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 would cross under NC 159, which would create a
more aesthetic entrance into the North Carolina Zoological Park.
The approved DEIS was distributed to Federal and State environmental regulatory and resource
agencies and to the general public for comment in August 2002. A pre-hearing open house was
held at the National Guard Armory in Asheboro from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on May 8, 2003;
approximately 350 citizens attended the open house. A formal corridor public hearing was held
May 22, 2003 form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., also at the National Guard Armory; approximately
350 citizens attended the formal hearing including representatives from NCDOT and FHWA.
Citizens opposed Alternatives 1 and 13 in a petition because of impacts to residential
neighborhoods along NC 42 including Crystalwood and Kennedy Country Estates; the same
petition supported Alternative 2, and implies support for all alternatives other than 1 and 13.
Most citizens commenting generally supported the need for the facility but were opposed to the
impacts to the human environment overall and on all alternatives. The number of relocations,
residential and business, were re-assessed in November 2003; all alternatives relocate between
158 and 168 residences and between 23 and 27 businesses. Alternatives 4 and 10 displace the
least residents (158) while Alternative 14 displaces the most residences (168). Alternatives 29
and 33 impact the least wetland acreage (3.9 acres) while Alternative 4 impacts the largest
acreage (8.1 acres). Overall impacts to terrestrial communities were lowest with Alternative 1
and highest with Alternative 33.
Comments taken during and following the Pre-Hearing Open House and the Corridor Public
Hearing were summarized to identify common concerns. The suinmary led to the following
conclusions:
• Opposition greatest for Alternative 1(14 individual comments and 179 person petition)
and Alternative 13 (15 individual comments and petition implies opposition to
Alternative 13)
Support greatest for Alternative 2(2 individual comments and 179 person petition
[petition implies support for Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 14, 22, 29, 33]) and Alternative 13 (12
individual comments)
• Support for investigation into other alternatives including upgrading of existing facilities,
extension of Asheboro Bypass to outside the developed community (to west, to east
around Ramseur, to south, and new alternative to north).

The NCDOT held a post-hearing meeting on October 24, 2003. Citizens' comments were
reviewed and each alternative was discussed. The meeting attendees identified the following pros
and cons for each alternative. In addition, Asheboro local officials attending the post-hearing
meeting encouraged NCDOT to proceed with a selected alternative as quickly as possible.
Alternate Pros Cons
Public comments against orange section
1 Higher wetland impact
Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
2 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
4 Design: geometry through wetlands worse
Hi h wetland im act
Fewer public comments against
10 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC159
better
� 3 Lower number of stream crossings Public comments against the orange section
Lower linear ft. of stream im acted
14 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
22 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
Fewer public comments against
29 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
33 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159 Higher terrestrial impacts
better
The NCDOT submitted a permit application to the Department of the Army on November 25,
2002. On January 15, 2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice and
solicited comments on the nine build alternatives presented in the DEIS and at the Corridor
Public Hearing.
Concurrence Point 2A was added to the 404/NEPA Merger process after the agency visit in 2000,
requiring an additional field visit. Earth Tech and NCDOT biologists met in Asheboro on
February 25, 2003 to obtain information regarding Concurrence Point 2A. Meeting attendees
discussed the criteria for bridging potentially impacted streams and wetlands and visited Little
River, the only riverine system on the project. NCDOT biologist Randy Turner indicated this
wetland system did not meet the hydrologic requirements for bridging and that concurrence on
Point 2A might be addressed at the next interagency meeting, in conjunction with Concurrence
Point 3, based on this iinding.
Figures Hydro A through E show the area streams and wetlands along with the recommended
structure locations. Tables follow detailing impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds associated
with each alternative.

TABLE 4.1: ESTIMATED RELOCATION IMPACTS (UPDATED)
ESTMATED NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS
DISPLACEMENT TYPE ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 4 ALT. 10 ALT. 13 ALT. 14 ALT. 22 ALT. 29 ALT. 33
Residential Owners 121 122 113 138 128 129 145 138 144
Residential Tenants 40 41 45 20 38 39 20 22 20
Minorit Households 4 2.48% 4 2.45% 1 0.63% 16 10.13% 4 2.41% 4 2.38% 16 9.70% 16 10.0% 16 9.76%
Household Income Below $15,000 0(0%) 0(0%) 0 0%) 0 0% 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0% 0 0% 0(0%)
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Small Business < 8 em lo ees 26 27 26 23 26 27 23 24 23
Medium Business 8-12 em lo ees 1 � � � 1 � � � �
Lar e Businesses ( > 12 em loyees) � � � � � � - � �
Business Tenants 12 12 12 14 13 13 12 14 12
Minori Business 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
TOTAL BUSINESS RELOCATIOfVS 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23

TABLE 5.1: US 641MPROVEMENTS DRAFT EPlVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FACTORS ALT.1 ALT.2 ALT.4 ALT.10 ALT.13 ALT.14 ALT.22 ALT.29 ALT.33
Len th miles 13.6 13.8 13.8 14.2 13.9 14 14.4 14 14.3
Interchan es 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Railroad Crossin - - - - - - - - -
Construction Cost Includes E & C $176,100,000 $178,500,000 $180,100,000 $186,200,000 $170,400,000 $180,300,000 $188,900,000 $194,100,000 $192,000,000
Ri ht-of-Wa Cost $27,610,000 $27,250,000 $25,740,000 $24,630,000 $29,330,000 $27,400,000 $22,240,000 $24,390,000 $25,080,000
TotalCost $203,710,000 $205,750,000 $205,840,000 $210,830,000 $199,730,000 $207,700,000 $211,140,000 $218,490,000 $217,080,000
Residential Relocations 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Business Relocations 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23
Schools Im acted - - - - - - - - -
Parks Im acted 1 P� 1 P� 1 P� - 1 P� 1 P� - - -
Churches Im acted 100 1°° 1°° 1°° 1°O 1°0 1°° 1°° 1°°
Cemeteries Im acted - - - - - - - - -
Electric Transmisssion Lines Crossed 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
Water Lines Crossed 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Eli ible Historical Sites2 - - - - - - - - -
Recorded Historical Sites and Historic
DisVicts Im acted
Stream Crossin 18 22 24 26 18 20 25 23 25
USACE Mitigable Streams lmpacted 1 g�p30 21,627 23,566 23,265 15,695 18,114 20,866 23,292 19,961
linear feet
DWQ Mitigable Streams Impacted p6,246 27,618 31,383 30,647 23,012 24,410 28,778 30,817 27,848
linear feet
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Sites
Noise Receiver Im acts 3 136 137 151 143 132 132 133 135 129
Number of Exceedances of Carbon
Monoxide Ambient Standards �
Deciduous Forest acres 495.8 509.6 512.5 551.9 487.2 501.4 552.8 561.8 555.2
Ever reen Forest acres 34.5 26.3 30.3 31.3 39.0 30.9 35.9 31.4 35.9
Mixed Forest acres 33.7 52.4 58.6 53.0 32.6 51.2 47.6 49.0 48.0
Bare / Transitional acres 36.0 39.8 41.3 23.9 40.7 44.6 29.9 30.6 36.2
Cultivated acres 39.2 30.2 29.1 20.4 51.5 42.7 37.6 25.6 37.7
Pasture acres 113.0 100.0 88.4 113.5 102.8 89.9 89.5 98.6 87.0
Residential / Communi acres 162.3 167.0 178.8 188.9 168.7 172.8 193.7 187.8 194.2
Total Wetland Im acts ° acres 6.1 6.1 8.1 4.0 6.1 6.1 4.0 3.9 3.9
Percent Wetland Im act vs.Total Im act 0.67% 0.65% 0.86% 0.40% 0.66% 0.64% 0.40% 0.40% 0.39%
Federall Listed S ecies Habitat - - - - - - - - -
Flood lains acres 8.91 9.17 8.94 9.84 8.91 9.13 9.84 9.90 9.92
1 = Privately owned
2= This property Iocated outside righFof-way limits, with potential eNects to be determinec
3= Noise receiver fmpacts include Category B and Category C
4= Total wetland ImpacGs include Low Elevation Seep Wetlands, Forested Wetlands, and Emergent Wetland:
u� Under Constmction

Area of Wetland or Pond Impact
"' Bridging not feasible at these sites based on wetland configuration and ramp configuration. In addition, if bridges intended as wildlife crossings, would be providing access to the
mainline and ramps only, not open terrain.

March 22, 2004
To:
Copy:
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
MEMO
Meeting Attendees �
Project File
Yvonne G.G. Howell, P.E.
Meeting Minutes — Merger Team, Concurrence Points 2A and 3: US 64
Improvements, Asheboro, Randolph County; TIP No. R-2536
March 11, 2004 10:30 am
Meeting Location: NCDOT Board Room
1 S. Wilmington Street; Raleigh NC
Attendees: Emily Lawton —.FHWA
Felix Davila — FHWA
Richard Spencer — USACE
Chris Militscher — USEPA
Gary Jordan — USFWS
David Cox — NCW RC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele — NCDENR — DWQ
Sarah McBride — SHPO ,
Rex Badgett — NCDOT — Division 8
Art King — NCDOT — Division 8
Jimmy Goodnight — NCDOT — Roadway
Tim Goins — NCDOT — Roadway
David Wasserman — NCDOT — Transportation Planning Branch
Jerome Nix — NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Eric Adrignola — NCDOT — ONE
Deanna Riffey — NCDOT — ONE
Rachelle Beauregard — NCDOT — ONE
Cheryl Knepp — NCDOT — ONE
Carla Dagnino — NCDOT — ONE
Drew Joyner - NCDOT — TIP Program Manager
Brian Yamamoto - NCDOT — PD&EA ,
John Conforti - NCDOT — PD&EA
Pam Townsend - Earth Tech
Roger Lewis - Earth Tech
Ron Johnson — Earth Tech
Yvonne Howell — Earth Tech
Minutes:
Attached is the packet that was mailed to all meeting invitees (text only).
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Mr. John Conforti opened the meeting with introductions. Mr. Roger Lewis then gave a brief project
overview, including project history, purpose and need, and alternatives discussion.
Mr. Richard Spencer then asked about the ballpark (Scott Rush Ballfield), stating that he received a
letter from the properry owner's lawyer mentioning the document and questioning the omission of an
indirect and cumulative impact analysis. Mr. Spencer asked if the site is eligible for Section 4(f),
stating the letter described the field as `used by area high school and middle school teams.' This
site has been investigated and it is privately owned and used by a select group, making it ineligible
for Section 4(f) protection.
Mr. Gary Jordan mentioned Threatened and Endangered Species and the secondary impacts,
particularly on the Schweintz's Sunflower. He stated we will need to do a new survey prior to
Concurrence Point 4A, including larger areas around the interchanges to account for secondary
development. Mr. Jordan stated he would assist the project team in determining the appropriate
area at the interchanges.
Mr. Chris Militscher questioned which two alternatives were disliked by the public (included in a
petition received following the public hearing) — Alternatives 1 and 13. The low-income/minority
communities were mentioned — Crestview Manor subdivision has a concentration of Spanish-
speaking residents. In addition, Mr. Felix Davila requested that we discuss the `low-income' mobile
home communities including Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road. Ms. Howell explained that no
low-income communities were identified as part of the Community Impact Assessment for this
project. In addition, mobile homes do not necessarily indicate low income. W hile Twelve Tree Road
was not identified as low-income, the mobile homes appearto be older, single wide, and on smaller
lots. With these facts in mind, the project team would like to maintain awareness of the project's
impacts to the Twelve Tree Road community and minimize where possible. Alternatives 10, 22, 29,
and 33 impact both the Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road communities.
Ms. Yvonne Howell described general information in the meeting packet as well as the general
impacts associated witfi the detailed study corridors, focusing on the human and build environment.
Mr. Militscher asked if any consideration was given to eliminating the interchange at NC 159 (Zoo
Parkway). This interchange was described as the `local access' as opposed to the Zoo Connector
interchange which is intended to only access the NC Zoo. Mr. Militscher questioned the interchange
spacing between these two interchanges. The optimal spacing between interchanges is one mile,
which was not possible in this area due to existing residential development. An `urban design'
including a single point urban diamond was mentioned, to minimize impacts and maximize spacing
between interchanges; Mr. Lewis explained that the NC 159 interchange was designed to minimize
impacts to the assisted living facilities on either side and the nearby residences, and an urban
design would increase those impacts.
Mr. Richard Spencer stated that community disturbance is a concern.
Mr. Militscher explained that the nine alternatives are so close in quantified impacts that any
decisions will need to be based on detailed information. .
Mr. David Cox questioned the triple-barrel culverts proposed at Little River, North Prong Richland
Creek, Vestal Creek and whether bridges may be cheaper at these sites. Mr. Cox also mentioned
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 3 of 5
that bridges at these sites could serve as wildlife crossings, which are not currently proposed at any
sites. Mr. Jerome Nix stated that NCDOT determines bridge versus culvert based on channel
characteristics, on a case by case basis.
Mr. Militscher asked if bridging had been considered at any of the larger stream crossings including:
Little River, Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek. None of the
stream/wetland systems on the project were recommended for bridging based on wetland quality, as
determined by NCDOT and Earth Tech during a field meeting February 2003.
The team decided a field meeting will be required to further discuss bridging for Concurrence Point
2A. All those in attendance agreed that the field meeting should result in signatures for
Concurrence Point 2A. Mr. Drew Joyner suggested a half day in the field to see the stream crossing
sites and a half day at an area office to discuss Concurrence Point 2A and 3. All those in
attendance agreed to this scenario.
Mr. Militscher stated the USEPA would like to eliminate the following alternatives from further study:
Alternatives 4, 10, and 22. NCDOT, based on the post-hearing meeting and roadway design,
recognizes `less than ideal' design on Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 14. USEPA favors Alternatives 1 and
13 because of lower stream and wetland impacts; these alternatives have received organized
citizen opposition from the Crystalwood, Winnigham Estates, and Henleysubdivisions. Alternative
33 was eliminated because of agency concern over perceived potential for indirect and cumulative
impacts, associated with the distance (about 0.5 miles) from the established Asheboro ETJ at the
western project terminal.
Through discussion, the merger team agreed to move forward with Alternatives 13, 14, and 29.
Items requested for the field meeting include: aerial photography, DWQ ratings and stream
classifications, and cost estimates for culverts versus bridges at the identified crossings (Little River,
Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek).
Mr. Brian Yamamoto stated that all merger team members would be informed of the field meeting
and advised that the goal of this meeting would be to gain concurrence on bridging (Point 2A) and
LEDPA (Poinf 3). Ms. Sarah McBride of SHPO stated that she would concur with the group field
decision, provided the alternatives do not change from this point, though she did not plan to attend a
meeting in the field.
The field meeting was brieffy discussed. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Travis Wilson would return the
week of March 15, 2004. Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele of NCDWQ stated she would be leaving her
current position March 22, 2004, John Hennessy is on paternity leave indefinitely, and Beth Barnes
is on medical leave indefinitely. Ms. Howell suggested all meeting notifications go to John
Hennessy and Beth Barnes. Carla Dagnino will be the NCDOT — ONE contact for this project.
These minutes are the writers' interpretation of the events and discussions that took place during
the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing within seven (7)
days. ,
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 4 of 5
If you have any additions, deletions, or changes to this memorandum, please notify Yvonne Howell
at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 5 of 5
E-MAILING LIST
Emily Lawton — [e-mail]
Felix Davila — [e-mail]
Richard Spencer — Richard.K.Spencer@ usace.army.mil
Chris Militscher— [e-mail]
Gary Jordan — gary.�jordan @fws.gov
David Cox — david.cox@ ncwildlife.org
Cynthia Van Der Wiele — cynthia:[e-mail] (John Hennessy—
john.hennessy@ ncmail.net)
Sarah McBride — [e-mail]
Rex Badgett — [e-mail]
Art King — [e-mail]
Jimmy Goodnight — [e-mail]
Tim Goins—[e-mail]
David Wasserman — [e-mail]
Jerome Nix — [e-mail]
Eric Adrignola — [e-mail]
Deanna Riffey — [e-mail]
Rachelle Beauregard — [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp — [e-mail]
Carla Dagnino — [e-mail]
Drew Joyner — [e-mail]
Brian Yamamoto — [e-mail]
John Conforti — [e-mail]
Pam Townsend — [e-mail]
Roger Lewis — roger.lewis @ earthtech.com
Ron Johnson — [e-mail]
Yvonne Howell — [e-mail]
�

Conta�ts �or US b4 Asheboro Bype..
Questions nnd comments regardin; thc US 64 Improvements may be directe�l i�� cithrr nt thc I��IIn�� in�_:
M1tr. John Confurti
Consuhant Manacer
Project De�elopment & Gnvironmental Anahsis I3ranch
North Carolina Department ofTransportntion
I �a8 N1ail SErcice Center
Raleish. North Carolina �7699-I i48
[phone].e�r.208
jgcunforti�iY,dotstafe.nc.u.
Eani, r�d,
701 CorporatcCcnrerDrive.Suire 17�
Rtilei��h. NC ?7607->074
R1r. Rotier Lewis
Projcct Manug�r
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive. Suite 47�
Ralei��l�, North Carolina 27607-�074
<<� i e� ssa-�� ;o
roa�rJc�� is'Fi earthtech.cum
"i C>tiJ fC�i ��i I_.,-:� � c�v�;i ;i- ��.1 �:
RALEIC�H NC 2ifi91-158�
L�IJL: h4L�!,f��Li�,.�:p';,k�LLJ::�11.,:i;l.!L��:! I�!
Need More Pro ject Information?
Pro ject Website
�c�� ��.ncdot.or��roiccts�ashchorn'
DEIS Locntion
Asheboro-Randolph Chan�her ol
co,,,�„z��e
317 G Di�ie Drive
Project Hotline
1-800-?06-1373
NCDOT Website
����� �c.ncclot.om
Pr2SRT STD
U 5 Pa lage
PAID
ap � ,�,n��.4
„
.��� ���w
s\
�
'�ziI
ti
,
e""urn.usr°;
Mnp Locntion
NCDOT- Division 8, DiStrict 1 oi'�ce
300 Coanuy Club Drive
.4s-heboro
City of Asheboro
Website
�����cci.asheboro.nc.ic
Randolph Caunty Librar}'
201 VJorth Street
;�a
�( I�U7�-PUA-A.--t BrancPr ti\
71�<uacporlu�inra Lnproreu�rm I S ugran�
( J\ IlailSa��iie(�e�fter 1 I'r<iject \�u. lt 'i76
Hule igp. A�ur �h C m•oGnn '�C 9�i-1 j./ �' ��'/
Augusl 2/I04 ���.: ,: �..„,p="� /ssuc :Vn. i
Alfi�rn�cti�e �� ��I�ci��d a� Preferr�ed �I��r�ative
('he Noitll Carolina n�ptutment oi''TrNL,�xt��tion (NCDOT)
selecteci Altarnati� e 29 as thz prefzrred alternati�e for the
US 64 Asheboro Bypass on August 19. '_'004. Federal
I ligh�aa� Administration (1 11 WA � tmd NCDO T arproved
thc Draft �nvironmenta� Impact Stateincut (DL?IS) in July
'UUZ. 1 he �ornciur Yublic Hearui� ��as hcld on May _'Z.
�ha�'s N�xfi=
1�he project team ���ill now begin work on the final
enviromn�ntal imp�ct statement(1=LIS). "I�he ��IS ��-i11
include responses to public and environmental agency
canments; and indirectand cumulative impact analysis for
die prelerred �ilternati�e: � detailed description of the
preferred alternati� e: and 3 discussion of thc reasons for
���� jec� Schedul�
The tablc to the ri2ht show�s tar�et dates for upcoming
pro.ject milestones. The US 6�1 Improvement prqject is
planned Yi�r phased construction_ meaning it �ti ill b� built in
sectioiis. The sch�dule for these scctiuns �a�ill hc re�°ie��ed
as tl�c ��r�icct pr���resses ttvou�h tl�e planning process. i hc
right of �1�ay� acquisition �nd constructiun I�t i nlortnation
slio� s the � ear tiir the flrst section of the prqject.
Pro je�t Description
The �1CDOT pro�ioses to improve liS 6-1 in ��shrboru.
The Impro��ements indude a 13-14 mile ne�c lucation road
fblloti�ing the southern limits ofthe Citc of�Asheboro. l he
US 6a southem b�pass �cill provide an alternati��e to i IS 6�4
throu�*h n�sh�huro and u ne��� t��vo-la��e connector ti� lhe
2003. to present to the p�iblic the nine dctailed study
alfirnatives e��alu3fid in tlie DL-IS. The NCDOT_ in
constdtation �� ith federal vid statc em ironmental re,owce
agencies, recicw�ed thecomments received I?om lhe public
dw�ingthe hev�ing and the conmients recei�ed on the DfIS
and sciccted nitcrnali� e!'I as the prefcrre�l altcmzttice.
choosingthepreterredaltemntive. Prclimintuyengineering
studies Yor the preterred altemative �cill be reiined. A Record
of Decision QZOD) will be prcpared follo�ving appro��al o('
die FE1S. "I'he NCDOT �inticipates holding a Desi�n Public
Hcaring to present [he prefen�ed alternati�e to the �ublic in
late Z00�.
North Carofina Zoolo�ical Ptu�k. '[lie ne�� roaci �ill indude
t�vo u�acel lanes ii� each direction �vith interchan�es
proposed at: US 6=l �vest ofAsheboro. NC 49. US'_20
E3��pass (F uture I 7i/74). the proposed Zoo Connector_
NC 1�9. NC �F?, and l �S 6�l east uf Asheboro.
August 2004 • 1

�_ � i
r�� fv �-\ 7�� i_ i' I � I
f � 7 ' �. � � .
� . 1 r F •�•
d� ••
� 1 �- �•
� i
- r � _ �� 1 �I r" , `• ' — ---. , .
, � _��' _ � . � � � ' � [ ' � • . � � ' '- - �' �
• i
t � / �—� �i
f •
• "
, � � ; i c �:������d Alternative
i
.
, i , .
t ,
.
� � • � ���t � �� � � � ,, _ �_ - _ � ' • � ; Alternati��c �9 begins aC US 64 �ti•est oY Asheboro.
� oc ��� � � rj � -�- � � _ - � `�-j-��, i I � �� � ; �pproximaLely Q� miles east ofthe US 6�}/SR 1434 ( Shms
� c� ��� , _ � - ` i �� � i r- 'J�� i•-.-�� � �- �c� : � Road) intrrsection. "fhe corridor proceed5 south across -
�.F . , �_ p� 1 � � i � f�! '� � "' . Cablc Ciecl.. SR I 193 (Old H��ti �39). and NC -19 abuu� �
�_ , ,
Q-`� � � • � � � ,'�r �`� - T � �� � ' ' ��' � ' � ( ' , � � - � �� 1 mile �cest of the NC 49/SR 1 I 93 intersection. "Che
� ,� �
� .-. � , I _ Asheborc� . _ _�_
Y. ♦ ����►�� . � , i �' i y� _ � � � • j � � COfL'IC�OI'CUfVC1(Ol�]fSOLLt�leHtil(Ol'i'OSS Tdb�01' SLI'e2�
_ V � SR'�1326. i � � ��__ L � � i ' �� � �� �
� i �`�� � � � -' -� � i ,` ,� �� ,' �_ � - i � I'� � _ _ �� +, ;u�d 1�ack Road about 0.1 �4 miles north ofthe Nfack Roa�1/
m i ` �~'``� �- f ; I',� zzo szo �`�T ; i F, I , . ��i �-- i I Uanny Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road. the
S1uTts+� -_-- �.,� .- --_ v r u (��, ' � � �• � con idor turns east�erh� to cross the Little River and US
-�
� � Ro � � ��` �� I� `,''-( 1 � ��' � j � �, `��T� }.•�.•'� �d' q� � I '_'0 B�pasti (futur 174/7�) ��hEre Southmont Drive
�
; ^^ - j' �r li� _1_ -1 .,...:, __ �i. -�O, ��� c�o�xs ovu US 3?0 B� p ns. I hc corridur continues '
; � i �� �% � 1 eatit�a3rd auols US3'0 Busincs� 16out O.i nule s��uth
, . i � �_ � � �F , ;,. . —�f , i �� p � � / % �
i ;> � «� ��� • � � �,_ � z� ,�� - ot C resh�ie�r C hw�ch R�� id thcn ci�ntinuc� to the,outheast
_ -- - -I- "
� r � - - _
—� � � i i _1 ��'' unul about halh�a} b�t�����n U S�?0 Busine55 and NC
_ �
�
� _I SR �193 � � r � ; ,-z v'� � 1�9. At this oint. th� �oiiidor c �ines n���lhcast and
-- - � � - � 1 -- Y qgl�,,. �r•� .I._ � r- ) If� _ � � i..� y . � I •' �
� __o�D HW-, •� w � � j i' '�� W � c�osses Stale� ti harm Koad then NC 1�9 about 0.1 mile
— ' , , � f� �_,� �., , I—,: - �, 1 i � ,
- i ���;' 49 R � � I �/ 3 � south of thc NC I�9/Stalc� ti Faim Road intcrscction.
�
, -- -- � � � L.i'--•� � � � �� ,�. � , i � �� m �� ;' Contmuin�� ��ortheast, the corridor crosses Old Cot Road.
r � _ � STUTTS � + ` - � 159 � ' ` RichlandCreek.SR?8�alPinellillRoadl.midNC-42
� � Ro y� � � � I �j� � � aboutl.OmilezastofthcNC=1�/B�oti�crsChapelR��ud
� � � ;`��tUMNtW000�_- _ _ - i�' r"-- (� - �' � intc�section Itthencw��csnorLh����rd crussingSyuirrel
I � � p ��� � _ � � ; / '� � � ��� i�- - o � � Cieek vid SR ?604 ( Luck Road ), endin� it l IS l,-4 cast �
� � � �� ti
�\ zzo no I i S�pp• N' �_y � of �sheburo ahout 0.6 miles east of the l!S 64�Presnell
� � � �f ��`� Y u T� �, y �'2' N: i : Street interseclion.
' � � �Q- '�� � W .
.
-- _ I �I� - � � - Y p�J �-. O ya I
:R� ' - - - - - - � v . G•r /�i �� .l�C —
�� p� ,� _ � � � ` y !'�`� `` �-r RD. % ' ---
i '
� �QN � iMcDOWEIL- -J j `�. �� - � • I �
� � �_-J -J�- '�'YgF /� � Ro: - � / � = i=�� � i�, Ric% _ �- 1�
� �cRo _:� - T_ �- � ��. ��., LEGEND
'�� � � '�159 , �.�� � � � � ��_ I
� • r:
� l i ' �.� � .. � �'cc-� � .
_ �J � � _' IV�+ �. t� � SCI100I5
I � �
�' S oNS W� - O = ■
�■
Topographic Data Source: - -� - ! � ��UTHM � . � ��� ; � ' � . ChUrch PrOperty
Copyright1987-1997 , --- � DR. � � \��\, O �'`� • i . . - - ----
American Digital CaRography, Inc., �-- I J �� . : �
3003 W. College Ave., Apple[on, ' � . ' i- �; , ``\�.f � -I z � ; �� � - � � Fire Station
Wiscons�n 54914. . DINAH � Q :..` _ ' .. . ; ��
RD. a �„II Harve 's � n ; � I�' \/ NC Zoological Park
Source for all other data: p - o.� � y y • NO�th �i �i
North Carolina Department of Transportation � � N� Mountain � Q ~ �� � I .-----
and Rar,doipn counry cis Y -- _� � I � � Carolina ` � � Municipal Boundary
� V ' S � �---..:
�Q � — � N � 159
o a5 i � 7qLEVS' � sau Z� pa kica Asheboro Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Miles � � - � F�ARM RD. UWFI3��IB �s �� � ��
��r. r.
National
0 2,00o a,000 � � � ���- � Zoo Connector
� ,
� Fee� `�'- - -� .( I Forest �:4 I � ....�
i _. � � j Study Area
! �
-- �....�
August 2004 • 2 August 2004 • 3

MEMO
July 22, 2004
To: Nleeting Attendees
Copy: Project File
From: Yvonne G.G. Howell, P.E.
Subject: Meeting Minutes — Merger Team Field Meeting, Concurrence Points 2A and 3: US
64 Improvements, Asheboro, Randolph County; TIP No. R-2536 �
Meeting Date: May 12, 2004 10:00 am �
Meeting Location: Asheboro Field and Randolph County Office Building Training Room
Asheboro, NC
Attendees: Emily Lawton — FHWA
Richard Spencer — WSACE
Chris Militscher — USEPA
Gary Jordan — USFWS
Travis W ilson — NCW RC
Beth Barnes — NCDENR — DWQ
Sarah McBride — SHPO
Rex Badgett — NDDOT — Division 8
Art King — NCDOT — Division 8
Jerome Nix — NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Rachelle Beauregard — NCDOT — ONE
Carla Dagnino — NCDOT — ONE
Drew Joyner - NCDOT — TIP Program Manager
John Conforti = NCDOT --PD&EA
Roger Lewis - Earth Tech
Ron Johnson — Earth Tech
Yvonne Howell — Earth Tech
Minutes-
The team met at the Randolph County Office Building at 10:00 am to receive handouts and be
briefed on the sites to be visited during the day. Following brief introductions, it was agreed that
Little River, Tantraugh Branch, North Prong Richland Creek, and Vestal Creek would be visited.
A lunch break would happen between site visits, and the team would have a final meeting in the
First Floor Training Room at the Randolph County Office Building to discuss the sites and review
Concurrence Points 2A and 3.
Little River. A wildlife crossing was requested at this site based on the stream banks, surrounding
topography, and character of the entire area. In addition, fencing was mentioned as a means of
encouraging wildlife passage under the bridge and deterring wildlife from crossing the new road.
There would be no other opportunities for wildlife erossing between Mack Road and US 220
�

,
Merger Team Filed Meeting Minutes
May 12, 2004
Page 2 of 3
Bypass. US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resource Commission requested 30 feet
(from top of bank to toe of end bent slope) as a minimum width and 8 feet as the minimum vertical
clearance for a wildlife crossing. The team visited the Alt. 13/14 Little River sites but declined to visit
the Alt. 29 site after being informed that the vegetation and topography are typical along Little River.
The team agreed that the recommended wildlife crossing treatments would apply at the three
proposed Little River crossings (Alts. 13, 14, and 29).
Tantraugh Branch: Alternatives 13 and 14 were discussed prior to visiting this site. The proposed
culvert under the Zoo Connector passes below several ramps; a bridge or bridges are not feasible
at this site due to°the proximity of the ramps to each other. The team walked through the Alt. 29
Seepage Wetland confirming this to be a low quality wetland. The adjacent Forested Wetland was
identified as higher quality and more desirable for minimization efforts. The team continued across
Tantraugh Branch. It was determined that the Forested Wetland to this point was typical of that
found along Tantraugh Branch (on Alts. 13 and 14) and the team agreed to proceed to the next site.
The team determined a bridge would not be requested at this site.
North Prong Richland Creek. The team. walked to this site and in reviewing the preliminary cost
information, the bridge would be less expensive than the culvert, so a bridge was requested. The
bridge estimated did not include wildlife crossing width.
Vestal Creek. The team reviewed preliminary cost information for this crossing and determined
they would request a bridge at this site based on the closeness of costs. The team did not visit this
site.
Following the site visits, the team met at the Randolph County Office Building to review the project
study area aerial and discuss Concurrence Point #2A and #3. Fencing for the purpose of
encouraging wildlife to use the bridge rather than crossing the new roadway was further discussed.
Wildlife Resource Commission mentioned 1500 feet of fencing at all four quadrants of the Little
River crossing, including one-way gates and/or deer leaps to prevent animals being trapped on the
roadway side of the fence. This length (1500 feet) is flexible and should be further investigated
during final design. After brief discussion, the team concurred with Point #2A, agreeing to a bridge
at Little River, North Prong Richland Creek, and Vestal Creek, as detailed in the attached
concurrence form. The team also chose Alternative 29 based on Concurrence Point #2A bridges
and the quantities of stream impacts quoted in the meeting handout (attached), as detailed in the
attached concurrence form.
These minutes are the writers' interpretation of the events and discussions that fook p/ace during
fhe meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, p/ease respond in writing within seven
(7) days. �
If you have any addifions, deletions, or changes to this memorandum, please notify Yvonne Howell
at [phone] or by email at vvonne.howellQearthtech.com.
�

���#a�n ��4��1�i��
�l�r�er Rr��e��'I"e�rt� I�e�#it�� �4���rr���t
�on�c ut�r�r�ce �olr�t �I�. �A: ,��pr��ir�a#� i�r��tt� c�f b�dg�� �r� D�t�ifed
�#u�f�r Aft�rn�.fr��.
Rr�,��ct hl�rrw��TIF i�es���ption: �r�a�as�� Ash���r� ���#h�m �}����s, k�� �4 w�stt�a
. U� �4 �as�, Fo�r I�rt� ir��y an n�vw I�c�tP�n, fn
F�a.n�lor�l� ��ur�t,� .
TI� P'�je� �Io: , f�--��3�
��d�r�l �4id F'naje�t �lo: hJE�F-��(i ��
��a l�r�a���t I�r�: �,'15�7��7
W'6r� ��,= �44�0_ � ,'I
Alf �It�rna#iv� are ful! o�rit�`ol o� a��e� wfth ir�t�r�[rr�n��s �,t th� f�l��wir��: �J� �E wes#F
f���4�� l�� �20 ��pr��, hf� 7_�a� ��nn�r, N{G 1��, �I� �#�t and I�� �4 es���.
'i"hes� #�J�c�rin� �pprc�cu�r,�tt� Jeng�� �f bridg�s �y �ft�e�ma�tir� a�ad re�ur�e i�di�[ia #t�e
l�rfdge� r�n�tl7S pro�v�e�;
�11�rr�a.#i+�� �13: �� _ �� c�� '� ��+�� � �� �_��'� �+��� � ��� F�a� ����r��
�li� � � ��o��� 4+,1az��x�� �c��s�r.��� � ��€� �c�l�'��r+.1 F��
��7'i�.� �t�rsft '���r'x!� ��'f5'
� ��rz�'�J ���t
�iC��9� � ,��47G . '4 � ���� 15
�rl�arn�'��r� ��: � �+��a� �r��� �a�o-�a � � � o � ���h �a �� � � � ��� �s ia�� �, —
— ��� �s ��� ,_ �
�41�arnatiu�a ��:
���� �+s ��
�'F�� Pr��� i'earrM f�as aar��rr�d or� tF�P� ,�� �af Ma 2. ��104, with #�� a.��r�xlrrrat�
I�n�#h c�' br%dg�s �n e��l� �e�a�l�d �tu�d}r �I#�mati�re �� �#�rtf at��ov�e.
'1�
��
. �!/�,/�� � �� .
�.��1� FI�C �J'
� , �
1
` ` y� � ���
• \+Y�ti� �
�f.
, ��� �� �IJ! .
�

�� �ti �� 4��#�[E P'� �
M�r��r F"'rc�j��t T�am �f�e�t�n� �re�m�er��
�nc�rranae Pr�int �I+�. �t I..�as# En�ir�rrm��t�la� ��rn��itt� Pr��ti�l�a
�1Cf,�m�#i�r� �LE�P��
pr��e4t �f�r�efil� a�ri�1��; Pr�p���d }�sh�l��r� �uth�rr� �}p�s, U� t�l- �u��# �a
U� �� ��s�. Four lane free�rray vn new C��ati�n, Bn
R�n�d�fph �o�r�l�-
TJ P Pt���B�t I+��: R-2�3�
��d�ral �ic� Rr�j��# ��: IVHF-��1��
��f�e Rr�;�c1t t+lo; �.�5�'���I
1N�� i�l�: 3�4�€�. �i .1
Th�e L,east �n+tir�nm�r�#�Ily� Dam�gang Practi�a�le �Ita�tati�re f�ar #�� �rap�sed pro��ct•
I�:
���e#'i1�.�i�� � ��
'I'�e [�ro��� Zear�'c h�s� �:on�:urt�e! �r� #h'rs datia �f I�lav ��.. ��Q�, tha# #fi� abov�
rr5en#i�n�d a1Ger�a#iv� �s #h+� i_ea,st �arria�ie�� an� F�ra��a,t�� �It�rr��tiv� �i.����+�.
r
����. , r'' N ���T
�
IJ�EP ,�-"�'� � U�F� � ^�
P�� C�'� ' P1C� — �����_
�FfF'� ��� FHV'� � � �'�

S�i3�p g. �- 253G
.. h. �+%�` lianv a � Q .
._G4rq �G�a4o1 �SFIA.CS
_. �'�G1 v1 �' F� ��,�, �P� ���-}Pa
�w� �����o.,. I� C_W�C,
�'oNN �NFoa�; tic ooT
C, l-t 2 tis tn � ���7s C+��2. U S���-
d�-� J�y.w Nc�,r
Can,l,�- Da�:h,a �ucoo7 - ��� - �,v�
�ac�,�,1�2 C�eaur�ca�d ivcnor-Pn.� -o,��
� $.e�f . N�oa r - D; �.�
�2T /Sin� /��% ,�.✓• �
�-� �n3..... �G..�'� �P�-�
�o�e� L e,� �S C���c.� z� �-�c
�%� Gaw�.� ��f �//-�
�Yc�N� ��w /_=e,er�f��
�ero w+ e/�E1� /�'G Da I f� y(�ro
�►..�*9,.�• x.J. � a.»..u-N.� � C : w.�.�5� -�..�1--- - --
.,a►►� .,...ad 9:.J.�,►,c� �t 3) J;.,a.w .�, w..wb �.,e�, '�'k_'�--�_C-#— - ---
/
.1P�' �cs v _ _ _ _
�o� 1�.�..:N.�.aN.�=.�.�*^d ` � s%.c. �,�,�lV ls�,r,�3p ' �w�.�a,$i ��i �s+e� _
G _
-F�,+x ,.F_9t�, S�.�z��--

SENDING CONFIRMATION
DATE • MAY-18-2004 TUE 12:20
NAME • DWQ—WETLANDS
TEL • 9197336893
PHONE
PAGES
START TIME
ELAPSED TII�
MODE
RESULTS
: 98546259
: 2�2
: MAY-18 12:19
: 00' 37"
: ECM
� OK
FIRST PAGE OF RECENT DOCUMENT TRANSMTTTED...
. � rymm.��Qrm7ovNcm'aopyl�D'f�11Fbd9EFL'b16�(om4��9iLi-C(416SE7
, ' l�!Ab']7 09Zi.K99[Z JT: L%al�#'9�IHb�W�';?liEL
. 1�6W �10�39 DS9I�69LL�M'VaPRiI'�mJ �'+Ne51Rf'f OS91
'�71 �9?aJ �M SLM'AC� �MA w!s?'.fQ'J'N
fiT �, ' .. �nmD a,�lA .'r� a`�^'�y�
1
sT i. •.�'+zo�!- •':�? �+n�� � i y {�"-rS�rt awq .- --•«'S r�"':,^7,j .
• :suoy�nqeac �,rJad9 �0 Sa�ox
. Z :�qs.rJdo� �a�us sa8nd�o aaqrunK
�-Q � 8Pi S =aIEQ . ' �1"'vi '. ,�t t�iIECTII[O,'J
`'�4Z^. 'ir5rd '#'�.!j . F7-anofi -a....a rt� :OykB,�
E68946G-616 �7J �d
98LI-EEL-616 =il�4d :vogemao�»uyuo�
0591'6G9[.E �bI'�Igra� .
sq¢aJ e�(nra5 i}Hi�S OL9I :s�jPPV �QI6giM1[
� 09ZZ-609LE�t3'�[afeiI
OSZ�?RS`R��NoHwA9�rJSZ£i �FsazPPV7�1S , �
1?IIfl i0t/SPA�t3aAA
saamasa2i l�+�l�i Pnu �uau�uo�eu� 30 �uamyiedaQ
.��'Clla 33j8�;0 IIOi6IAiQ
ti1R�'D�'fo/dJe�PNW - .
mmNQ�fu^T�Q`m9Psam'+IOJ l 6
4R+rbmnMW°aFT"!� F]` <
b�!Q'3'd'�'IL9'MRIY ' 6 A!�
�'m��ll ImwV Vm �m�Onnvdle Iva�Jo�¢ co;P�9 �H U
+�m�o� Ra�a a r m¢a . '��ty 3D
1

Micheel F. Hea(ey. Govcaor
Wiltiem G. Rws 7r., S�y
Nath Cerolina Depertmm[ of Envitonmmt md Nenaal Resources
Alen W. Klim'k. P.E.. DinUor
co��x �
Divim�
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address:
Mailing Address:
2321 Crabtree Boulevazd, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 ,
I650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Informatlon: Phone #: [phone]
Faz #: 919-733-6893
FaxTo• Y� ��� _ ;�ow��t Faz#: �54- L25h
Company: ��+h �� h Date: 5 f 1 E�—at—
Number of pages including cover sheet: z
Notes or special instructions:
� ,
`�,�;,� � s� wrca -�ms�.�.�+ -„„ fti,,. mu�,.:u �lac�.wti h.:s
na.m a d.i � no � a F a... � ��svti iist
`^�i
;,,�,
N. C. Divisim of Waza Qmlity. 401 Walends CmiSari� Unit,
1650 Meil Service Cmter, ReleigL, NC 27699-1650 (Meilmg Address)
2321 (�abhee Bivd., REldgh, NC 27604-2260 (Locetlrm)
[phone] (ph�e). 919-733fi893 (fax). @ttp1/h2o.tnr.sret�nc.ue�ncweNenda

Section 404/NEPA
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Approximate lengths of bridges on Detailed
Study Alternatives .
Project Name/TIP Description: Proposed Asheboro Southern Bypass, US 64 west to
US 64 east. Four lane freeway on new I.ocation, in
Randolph County. �
TIP Project No: R-2536
Federal Aid Project No: NHF-64(19)
State Project No: 8.1571401
WBS No: 34450.1.1
All alternatives are full control of access with interchanges at the following: US 64 west,
NC 49, US 220 Bypass, NC Zoo Connector, NC 159, NC 42, and US 64 east.
These following approximate lengths of bridges by Alternative and resource indicate the
bridge lengths proposed:
Alternative 13: �f��06F5 v� � SPA^�� L� '�5 rFE� �r���► ( f�5 �EE� IUi�9L)
�.v�'TFI � � `�C� r�7 L'✓1Ll�Lf�E �.2USSi�lGS �" �AcH LOu/-lT�orJ �'tlR
�►TT�� Rlvr.(� , UFST�IL GKEEK
� lUastTH P�'�ti� 2�rNtw�u� �.vi�►t
30 ���� � s
Alternative 14: ���As�,�r�c� �FrwM iag o� 6ANk �ro -�a� �� FJ�t �toPE )
,
� S�►rtE �-5 i � �
Alternative 29:
� Sr�mt Rs �3 �
The Project Team has concurred on this date of May 12. 2004, with the approximate
length of bridges on each detailed study alternative as stated above.
USACE , �`� .
NCDOT
r
USEP � �� ' USFWS
NCWR�~-�i/ �—�
i �I��/
. �L`� �
�

Section 404/NEPA �
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3: Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)
Project Name7'TIP Description: Proposed Asheboro Southern Bypass, US 64 west to
US 64 east. Four lane freeway on new location, in
Randolph County.
TIP Project No: R-2536
Federal Aid Project No: NHF-64(19)
State ,Project No: 8.1571401
WBS No: 3445,0.1.1
The Least Environmentally Damaging Pracfiicable Alternative for the proposed project
is:
Alternative # 29
The Project Team has concurred on this date of May 12. 2004, that the above
mentioned alternative is the Least Damaging and Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).
-1
�
USACE . NCDOT
` r �
USEP!^����� . ��7f VVt7 "�.
NCDWQ ' NCWRC��✓
SHPO ' � . C22 �
. � � � ,. ;
/

� J �
--� v� gY } � r ;� �. , N ��.� .. . ,,.
kR T�f` .;t, � fitp f'i�r; � `j; �',.-�.t 4_,�
� � � � Z lf.
- '�': i' l - * ' � ' ♦ � ''� ,:. J �Y .
�� � f �r�7,.�- � 7 ,,,{
.'�1,� ��' +e . �i� � ��v , ^ . M � yw 4.r i�rFipl7 �
'�t'
13Fe � 5i�r��kf ,�$ .:t. > s�#�►
,..� �_ �e ���,� �v.
; � � `�t,ry�, � . Y � �
r �, �, p !`
� E t� `� `! f'��` � R y} � i I f ��
{
_.� � �.Si��9�j-O���s� ,'v'
6. �f.t �� �It t 1 ��r- .
.,,rj, � �, � r • ,�, ',� ��,rt� . '
�: y:
... _ � . X att r t �� �t� � ffi- � � ,
� , '+� � *
s',ah � z � � � Q #' �� Sr7"
'� � �� ..-r � 3�' � �!-�ti�? . '
' `� i . .+. • .-+ K c� ' � • •
� > �'+ f
.{?.�*� � . . �'id�! r"fj.i._ �'
S
�: �� ',c d �� � �"t� � ,
g r- a , k
� ,
�,'� t � : �� ��� �4 d � 4 � `;
ki � , � c
6
i����
A�`: �
A
••,-e_ - ���uc.', �'N�`k� ��.:r.,,.
r r�
� .'l
..r �,.,s,J:. �� ��.. � � .;'I 1 � ,'�
� `' 1-'� :.� `; `'���.eF� �d". g..� I
Legend
, _. ,�x „� . , i `: , f` '+.� . s ` � � • ' �� Culvert
� X�_� -! � i� � � I -, ; f �. . - r::i � 4?E�: r f � . �i� "., . . \ '� + ��. •. - --
{t � r�,, ,�5,��,:,�,�' , �' �, A ` t,, . �h�}� a w ,, � , ,� ` ,�� y : � . Construction Limits Alt. 13
Y� �°`'° t?• «� �dl� ; � � ' . ' .`'� � b � }� \� � ���•�}' �i + �' , �. L' .� � �� 3 - _. ".i �.. .� - - - Construction Limits Alt. 14
`1���i �� �4+'' * +a �"'�'' . �t ' + ' � 4 +.' "'�.; , _,�'
g� s �. - „ � �__,, r'� � W , 1 � � '• , ra; F _ �� w.� " r . "''�t` � � , � ,1.�l:' ��: ` Construction Limits Alt. 29
, �� �. c '-� ��i -` ? �� y , e , � . , _+,'� t : - - - - - - r� � �;, �, "' , ; •�'s*• .s, �,� :- .y . -.n,--�- Stream/'Water Feature
;.F : y.� �,�,.5�.,'a+T•,� �i,�'v, �T,��� wt .'7�d�'��ra'_, �1r�,•`' ��„�^! �S �,i1 �� ,ys�.]�� «.r. �'S` • .._...� W2��af1CiS
) ... y � , �i �. � K� �� 4 4 ; .�{ �`*/ �? .: .ka x _ .1� `� � .�.,�a�+, `_ . � �,-.�� Property Boundary
� �� � ,� � 4`, ��• , � f �t�� ��.•, � ���•1,. � � �� � r', a�' ImpactedWaterBody
4 •. �.k �' ' K ; r �w , ,� f U
��!` _c ,�. � �s.� � . 9.�� b 3� �M�[�v � ' t� a�s�. �'�� fi� �r:,, j � - • '�* .i, �i . � Y'v � ��µ' s. . tiv u � � � Emergent Wetiand
� ' `. °"- ' � a '�i �* , : . �"�'��' 'I
��'i'. - - �l..a�"' �_k r' ,� ,�',� ,�. •�. + c • �r r_ �;;'+r� ���;;� "��,� .`� Forested Wetland
" �� i ' ti - - �� � .�i�' � ''' '�! �
t � � `' � a.F �• +� vt � � ^� $.� -- - - - - ,_.?� ,�� xl�'� r : i a��s ` 4 ,'' •�,� �� � l �, ;� Low Elevation Seep
�y�"�t. !: - i ! . ��+` gs�a .e'�li•�'1�F {� � �,�.�'� 1 � F: �',� . �'t ��;�7�
�I t�.�. Y ,. J � 'l . �i,y.li -��aK �l `I� \i . T__ �, � � � 1 {. � T 1 ,r ` ,�_3`�CF"+!_ �i
f � � �
�,(��� +A w �s V , �'�� � s ' 3K � � �� ��i.: L�i � •�� Y i'. ti' 4 � 1 t � �ry; i � xhi . � : � ��ay ,�7' �'.
� A ' •. �1 � s. �'
r,T�' _��� � , �'�� ..�k� y� w�.� �;`', �R-"' ��`yF��x,��'r�.' •,..` .. t ��r�� a i� ", �! yr,,,*ij��:�. , <. . ��,�� ��"e�..�l
'4',_.t?�•'i '.le � �+� }: ♦ . s.. r�r`J �i i �'`":k''�'-�`�2'�w - ..,�i` -W;. . .� . � +;,?�� y {f�c. :; s � �c' v �'s
��'�'y � �Y'!'� , . - � � t� 't ��f. 'id.�, ,,,�. . ,�a, �:�� !y # ,..r' r'.� � fi�,� �� �. s . - ' ' 'y, , -��. `".— L���!
fp� } � �.1; � r y. �aa. '
� rg.� .yi�n'� ��ip�.�� �� _ -.le � �.. 1 � t . i i !'. ^'�.:'�F �h � +�� . ���(' �i'6 �' 1. � � �.'.�� � � . . ♦ > Yt�� � — -^...��;_�' � -
,. y� H.,'i �j ,1►i ' � ►' _. !• ,.�ta_ 1 N� ' �F R�. -�k t !, wil L ,� `i �- 3, � ♦ 1
:t ,.. �P+q.� �`.�- T`t� '�� .s ,'� '�� y��� � �'� ., i,. �r." � .
,: �
�r?� t ,:
'k`; i a. �
��.+�{.y :
� IS
�� � �, �
F � w ''� � ��.`ir'e-��' � iy� ��i ("�
� � � ' �-a 4 t ' . a � ,� ,� `- ���r i� �'
, �,
�- ,
; . �'y� � ,
i U '.M'i�.,
� h K k 5' � . � `� ��� �.
�i�"' ��;y+' d i °• +� fi '{ � � �
� ��'`�FY.�.�YF9+�.�.',f ���xy,�P;'
i i��
��'�` � ' : •t� ,� a � ,..� p .
� � ;_: . ys . . t; � S
,e . , h��,s ,, .� . ! Y � � �jR'
� �, :�
s=,,` : , 3 � �, r... r �. � ;t �� ,�.
.�
t ° Y'�;�t"`j '� ��� �,�.�
�'�"`°ft �' {�M-k �' �' �
t<. ,cJO'� ��; �'�.�� ` �; F�°�.
�'»�'� fT�e � �`�t � � � � �.
iF
r .
�.,����� , ��4yy i�� � , �.k'
. r � ,� 4-.'i� �.
f�� w ��- � '9�i,"7�. �'�S�
�.•��`t �T 4�.'�.� + .� � *'tT
V� �1.� � � � ��'��
r� yy�
+.l�' i �'^fl } ,P�',� � � �
�,•a ; ��, +�, �«=ti,'�� �
_' y r� w,., r� �' ' i �"�•�
'� R 1 1 � � ��� ��14 y
r��+�'I� T t��� � l
�• �1�.`!�a a�: �� �� �15�� �
�
J �� . ; � _��� A �i,�'� � �'
y� ...� �! � �11 ��y.
� i, "'M '�`, � "�f K�Lt 1tR�'� �i��
�s��' ;� �.Cy�� 'Y.�. � M � ,��
t �
�� �'tCtl ,�a��g.�� � `��; t '�
��., � , �, � � - n ,
�: �::�`�s:' �� a�'����si��
�:�s.r.� ti- ';;.F
-�0� U��
o Feet
, -- ,�
;
; ..
!'�,�� 6'��R.�£���
M - � ��F�.'a
ti \ t .
r� i �� .
1 �`
„}� � ' . •ti '� , , 1ti t ` � -r! a
��1 �?�: � 4� � , a3"�.i���r u. f � :`�. � � �* �� b�.�r�
a a � � M1 Ix- r } : ' fi � . ' �, R `�' « �' a
,F�'1'� � fi 1�_' ��{ l��g�'�F �� f �. i� ' r� '� �-.
\ �" • �` y, F�� t _ S. � t �M ,. . � � w a 4 : e .
` � .. a . � y � 3 i ��� � ery�����
�� \ 4 t ' > � ,, � , .
�
�.`��\� . . � t�''�1 ����;.�.` c ��. ���,. .i � � e�'i,����y�' 'j�` .
� g . , ! ie
� � , , �. �, �� � �;
,��','��.� � ,.._� 'r ` � a '�, 1:�� -! $ `�� � ��- a . L � �4 �� �� y ��� �
- s ! 1 � _ Y� ��. ' i� rF , �� , R � = +. i;. .� �. ' �
� - �� � �i� ,�' ,.fi4 y� `�;',". ¢Q, i'f, > �^�-_� i� � : ��'� �+ll��,
�.� � ` � . � �� 1 �3 ` Z _ ��
I . � v1�a - 1'S� t ►f � � � i . . "� y . 1� i � 1'r:j��. � '
. y 1� �: i � �°� w ., �Y ���+•. � ; : �� ,�e .�! 1 � �y �, 4 ��'. � , '
� �` ."'
1.. �i �'p ,�tikd" •���-� , ��. - �j � �r'+A � "�l )', . �� ��,' � 5�.� .
_ +.� . . ' .� ��i _ `. ti� , � �� � �� �.; �
`�'' ^N �' ,� �' "`� �' � ° � � i y, � _ �, ,� ... � , t •
�� j ti 1 . � ' �, � . � �l c � t _ 's '1 � a `'i' �ir'�Y.1i�
. , �i � � t�. ; ' . , � +y� '4
i' } � , �Y .�R a �� a � �_9tC F` • �.eFd�14� 41 'Ac�. i' �1 ^, 'd� � 4�,+� ti . ' 1 I ;..Y' 1�I�F�r�
'� �'- ' � r . i
'"� � �,� - � q �� � A� Q � '� � �: � .,� � t . �p► ;•
.;
` , x �` . , � . ,�,.� ., . � � , �%y . ;�s!� '�` aA' < - . � t, :+'-� _ a . ,.}; -, �' •�.
� i "' k • �� • • y� " � : � •i •y� �: , L ,�s �
�� 5 # y �R.. , Y r' 9 !�r f i � �
, �Is�.q �{ ��� �-. ���5 �.s ��.�} �� .� ���� iY��i�� �t A •* ..�-'' ��w t+s..
.s.i-�'y�����t,� �,�'t - i ��. t7 . t i . �,� �s .4 j_ � tt�k ��,�, i ,� � • - ry
tir' '�° taf ': t �Y'la�W. ' is a-,.' 1 rpi ` r
r '. L a ...� �t r .. '�s '4, �� + _ �i��"� �. \. � �I `�. ��,.. M, � rC .�+� �
�-' � t� �3 �,�1��3n �,w��`�" ' ~'�_ � {��! _ L:�'' ' � ±'�� �� i
� �,'t� ` p� ;,r . `-� ' � ";�r',�, � ' -- -. F`�..
�. ,
�y � v� ti.• S �� s- i.. {y}�' r ?� y' �
! Sie�I� -�i+�.� r �:4 1� � � ����� �} �l�f �~� ��� ��YY.: �� � i �':':.. �` . .`�1�$ � . Y' r�
�s' } .". �. �- �. .,� y'�y`2}� �- �y � ��* �. .. r, r� � t�`• � � � �{ .�E.P ` 2 �'_'• �1
• � . � � Fx Y i 'KT�M�w� �� i " � � . . � � .. •�� �'' ' .
i �v
J:'c��� ' X ,' �`�y L�a �'� _ � # °�� s• ' • `
� , tr � � j�� . � t '� F? 3'�� � � i L� .: j�` - �� � '.! �.:�� t� ��° r
�Y ,�` ..:��,�,'� ',i 'r+�a ` '•',' ,: -:� ��,".�.�, , � ;,,\ . •,,
�.,GR *_ - � . . _. � < Y� �'�. � .& ; .�s �y�- � :z• �� _ : � �'Sa
.� ;'a.�-r,"4� < �' �d`�` �9kf5 q',_tQ � ,. r ��� ey, , . �. ` � e� r .
7 ,' .� .��� N .
kp f� �� <� � ;�•,R i _�, a'' �
� �: �
�'�„�����,� , ° � �,��g.� , i, " ' �� Little River Culvert
t,� ''�`�'� ,,� � ; � J� � `�;.ay �� 4 ` ; , �I � � „' • Alternatives 13, 14 and 29
� S
�_ �, �` -� � ��' �� �� �,^��lW� '�. ��°y �4' � k'y�_ ' R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
�
� � _.� �. . r �`� A'"�' ' �kc r,, RANDOLPH COUNTY
i 'fi +iF,j�+Ai .' ' .1 5 ° h f" ��.�,,,i �j y-� � 1� �t t r' ��,
� � a '�. _ A . . �k s y � � '�
�µ � I
� ]1 4 •,,�. � `. �5' '. '�i

�i y �.�(�n �. �� cwc + T� b• i � . �� ` � � , i. _4 \,,.SM/ .i , i .1` r wl • , f . .. __ '�.
, '��. � � a�' � � b.� �,-� 1. : � •. Y y� �' . .4<< , .
9~-. �� �� . ; � • S � r �k, 4 rY ��� fy��rj- l� �i � tt r ` � i =r �� �r,; i �� ` � .
� _ �'i � ' �:�� - ��`4� � �k � � 3l `a ' f�� j,�„ t� �1 k*-�,-y�, �r.: Legend
'�, q� � � 1��.� ,'� ,� �
' P. , . `� ; ;, , � "*. � . � � * ,t'� ' b� � - Culvert
' i w .�' 'r'yR 0. 1� 4`� P w � , w . � , i ' h � a *; : �F. �,
_ �`t .-> ,- �� : . , � �:kf. � r �; `,,� � . � ,' ,♦ i�; , _ _ � �.�.�• -.' ��,�. ` �`'In. Construction Limits AIL 13
' - - � � �. � x- �' ` � ,' �v'� � �` < �i i'��" ,'' _ .�` :,, �` . ��i' . .. � '� . �*', 4 - - - Construction Limits Alt. 14
� � � � �` �'��` � � � 4 � ♦ � � '` Construction Limits Alt 29
_ ��♦ �� � . ':�, �~ 4 .��`'.i � �iN,♦ i -: 4 4�aC.�`,� �,"�i � ��1't '� ,� ���� �,A, r. ta' ..;, -�'a �
. , y.- . , , t �
..-� . . �: . r� • . a s'�F� �� • �y.` r 4 �` Y 9� � '
.� � . �. , . , �, ;� r�,,�• . „ � �+��Y ' t i`� ;��' •a `.,,��"�'S =� -�r-- StreamJWater Feature
�r �'=! �
.� .w`�:t-.� . { ,r F,,• A.,a,,s` � �' , ,; Z�i�•� ���`�'i. ;z b�.. ,,'"a*n;� �....�Wetlands
- � � �, � d . +'i � • -� `. �-- t � ��' .r ,' �'_; L � �. j ,� 1, �„ ,� , �. � . . .
� . . � �,; �, y: �.; v. �f�'`.`� � .. , .��- I ',R �y� �g �, ��� � s ^y•a J� Property Boundary
,, . , '}�
¢ � �L � � � , �� ,� I�S�. �E:Y> ��t. �,' ♦ .� �' �F ,;i' y� �a��'� .�,���. �,a�-,a � ��.� ImpactedWaterBody
�� i A e '.i n ��` y, �� R � . . - � s � R � �� M,�� �� + ♦. � i •1., i ��.
� if . I � . � ��L f �. �,
` �R. y'y� � • t .,� � �'• , . ' `' ;, }+i.� t � � ;� .w `� .;, � �iE , � , ��. r�; � . � Fy' Emergent Wetland
�, � � '1. � !f'" G � , � � L � `., �'' ��.V� �v�j, �� ' ,• ' \ �•.�� � S�' A�i • •��� � • 1 �J� �', . . �, . .
� �,� � �►. ; r.. ; � °,-� = " � ' ` , 1 `�� � + � r � � `'' Forested Wetland
� ' � i � � - �� �'� ' `'6y y�v� ;l cj �. . . " � � � � -:i � .\ �� v � �. d • � � �
" ' � � : . ♦ `�- fi . . � � • c i ' i '.� i � .I_. '�� i ' i ` i s +, t. te, . M. ,, z •. .�" � } � �:-..
� � �f `' , •' f � r � . , � a l�; . t. 4 .. ,A . �:. ' �, Low Elevation Seep
� . i _ r 'a + ��..bb
� , i �i . T a
B . � �. �, r.������'i 4T . LR � ,,�� .� ti sK .. ..fl II. ' _ . . . �..;� � - �,4�/�}y �'
� . r � "-.. � � � r �_. � . -?� t� � + � s � f i-�� • t .7 �-- � . = 11 s. . . � � � , ♦1 � 1 I 1 w�" ' � !�� .: � � ., • °. J.. � i
1� � '�, y � , ' .��� � �: �1 t , ��06 � w ���' \ •i ��
E r �
{ � ti�. +_ �� ��'i`. �(F� �.i�`��y : ny; , 4 � .i�., i � �'� r'kq. . , M ` ' a7 • , r,` • ° � 1`, •,� ,'� 9,' � � 1
1.!'. � ' � .- � . � �R o '4 �!I . A �j i{�� t �.� � .� ji'� .. . �. 2 . v,1' �i % ���� � � . Y' �'.��'r ..� �' � �� �p 1 � �� '� " �"
� • , .
�:� �:' �• . . �.� ••� �� �.� . , ,�y 'L ..� ,� � .� .r ,,c . y �' .�
•���L ' k '�. ., � ��� � � T �: ♦, . "F�: .i $. ... _ .; � a . 9 . i���,l�'�6,�/,i�Y�i °:.` �.'S - 'A ('� , �' ,c f" a { . �� * `�sL'� � /� '
��. I� �i.,J� ��♦ . #1. t S:' -�� i: 1� - .�, , ..� 1���.. t r� ��% . 'M l.� �'. � ���t . �t �'� C ; ' ��
-"x, 1 ' C i :� ' � .,, ` �. < � th .. 1
� ' W�, ��' � � I ��} � ; 1! 1 +[ � t� _ � ♦�r � � �A e a 7p�,a�.:14� A^_�1 :� t � dr . ! �ys � �•. ��� ( � " � A�i� : i �l
''��,` � � -- . � , ♦ tA �r ♦ 4 :,� .i' .'�� . , �� , • �+ , . , � 7���y��� ���s y� ��F f+ { .. Z � ..�g _ 1 4� �e -_ .+t : � n Z, � <M . '� �. ,. �t�,: r ` �, �:
•lt� r� � �. }�y }"1.R��`' •. �.�s � � • � -', 5 . � � �dfi. � "�.? y. �q. �� .*!•� � -�,.: 1 .k4'.� �. � *�'
�.,!;� � _ __ , �� �FY�."� .�: .*< _,i R4�7+(' �3 `�� �yJ1' ` ,'`y"i: s��� . ���'V1�'.!}. . A� � �te� ~'+�li �1� .� I � - �
f x` 16 ,t� � 'w � .. . _ � ' . y r. � : � '� 1
t:tn. -►'�� � .l.t T'f .► t!� G��`� � �R.����l��` J tit ��,F�4 � • ������ ��� � .4` 1�w �t f '+� � � � 'l .
... . ` ' . , a.�- :.1�� _ • .. ' l � •�. �.l ��ii! _� t4. � l. . `'�• �!'�� � r�..;l�' \� • •. 1�.i � y _ . ? � ' � � Tl �,� r r�'• � � . .
�_ ,, ,; {�` , , t y *` � a
♦ . ♦ . q ! � 3 S � � 7� '�. �}. �. `•. „ i "!il�
�',•r., . �' ♦ . ` , �!f ��" ..,��" � i `1e . � :�.� � . • . . .t' i',. '�< •"' ,�'n'+, , r��' IQ�;
- ♦ ". . i !. ' ♦ �r,�^- •�'R ` i .5��'t' :� t i � M1 - Y `�� J J'"t.' e r f q �� � .�� +r' ♦ � (.
. ' ' ♦ `, . ♦: ., * `,,` �+� ..'Sy �,��� ' 4 1 'T�t-y!'.� �� '�'' '3 ``. v f • i - 4�.'�* ��,y /���,.r. .-
�` . . �♦. �� .< I�. - �• e -� �� �i y� `S 1 . .��•- . . .� � �� � 1 .,'� {� �J .
�. - � �- ",- a •� � r - � • ' . '
1 ; � ` ti .• �" x , �',� � t �Y� � Y ; F `i�r� � ' `I �"
1. y e �•
�� ' fe. . ♦ . . '♦� • � - i���� 4`� a �}� . '�W? 9 �tiM I�� � � J rA! �� � : s��`�Y�� � 1' � � i��r
�. - r , � , ', . . - . . • .
� �` ;f,''� ' � .�.' • i ^_i ��',�+i[ .2 "�� . w 1w� \ . �1 � , �� a � . , r •t. � "` a� ,rs°��•. � :� � �• �� .
� ♦ ,y . ap�� !�. . �Ga-
t '4 � � - • � c`�•,� � �. a t � '" tr' a � � � ; � ' r��'. m k , ,.,. ' a 1, , �_ ; � :� �. -� � `+► �
� "� , , �'� ��'..I- .� e•� ..'�;'a. �.J d,i� • . � ` „ � .�d, , . �'�.; 1 i 1` �� „ -
4 i$ �� y '. . C' � ` � � 1 � , 3 `, s. Y e + 1,' � �. �1Yr,. �� . ; ` ; 4 (L 6 �1 ` � - . ..{, li 4 � � F. ' � . � �.
��� � ri� . � f' ��� i�:♦ 1 4 �.. � � � A ' i -4 'r f. � �tl �: Y � :i • � � . ' �':. i �,�,„�
� _�P i+� F `.✓� 'i�+,'" ,`` t y, ,�. Y' a �'+ ,�,:��L 4' 1�., 3 � �, �',��� i Y,.. ' �.��, 9"
� +r, �v�-. '� , �+'w'. �n�� �' -.,:J � '�`'-a , i .� •,. �- r ,.,;''r. ,�� i, . J�� � ,`��
� . '• ' . `4�. � � e 1ft s ' �k `' § �. , � .
- i t� ' ��. • A.�t . -� �, ., , �. .� �� e �`R �"'i ''� {. `A.+ ?� "�r tl r�.
�� � � �; .- 4� '.�• � . �� ♦;..r� ?e.� �L' _'. + �' ./� ' ♦ 'Fr�• �. � '. j - �i
?��� t. �. �'Y+ i•' �. �fr���.'` ,_ �7� f ' �;y`'. . � � '9 �7 R � �Nl..'��'1 ,_ � '�r } ��.' ' � *�. � � , �..�� �. , ~+���
x � .%i � y . ' � � � {7.. i �el � f . . �
' J � I � y � _ _ . ' � .
�` ' �. T 1; �' �. � 1 � ♦ • i . . ' r's . . � ' � � ��!� +..
s � ;i� r y. . F',
�. � .fi _'n ' � � � �. � i: ..f 4'. � ~�,!-� � .. � r� ���` ,�'`i �t�♦
4 � : �r, 1 r ' � . . w.,, e �. 1 �4 � ��f :� � .: y � � . �� � � +-`�' �-'-i ��n�„ - �r ` �
k'. � • .�. :a.- t . ti , : �♦ � � •. � � _ ' L ,�.'� � �
L ��i;'�.�.�° � . � S.• � ♦.� -_,' ''.e ♦_ � ` y ��:, 't�.P�r �'�. i fi � +�:.. � .. r � y� . �. . .� ���
�y .1L'-'� '. ��_� � � � -s. �Ir _ 9: 4 � -�:� / � r I e . � -
.. , " � � � . T ��� . 1'� .k��i 45 ��b. ~�dR,�.YR°i'1.� � 1' �yi. �. ,W� 1.•� y� �J' 1�1�4r«ay y .g 1 �, l
. s. ` ... -7 i ^�� ,L ,� � - .# �T'c.-'�..i•�. •1 . ,'l�d�'/ _7 .t �a' � •1 .+ ;_ ;�,
, ' ' ��; � ` y ' ( , .t s.
"�:' -. ��- � �i �. . �� .�i , . ' �,�- ' •, #. ��. �"'3 •s � � •��; ���;.�i: •` i 4��t ,+��� �����,.�;.� . �t .. . ' , � �1� C';��( . .�': �r•::;��.
! '�s , ,�, • a i.. ,�a`�.
�-x ��.��. ) ' '�. .`. _ �� `, . ��,.1 4�v�,+�l. 4 ,..1a�,;:� �1, "�\^ �r . �'�'�t t ,' ' ; e3� 1'� '1 e. , �� P. 1 j, �� � V��'.':4!). �� :i � M� A1� l i���•.atii'. � *;,;t�
.:� {� �5 � •i ; ��c _ i,� . .� 1. 1�,, �' �' `� .�ts�t � .� ' n.'� .� .'L� .., i- :si:��� ,� -��'�` �: y� r' 4'1�ti i 'b�� ,� }� Y - ,�Y�'�'+� i':R (' ('' �..t5 �'.'a �-S _''6
S �1 I 4 i •� 1' L� a 1. �,7 !
L �� i,lc'. `�� � � �.�L w( �.;�� lt . �e. � �':� � �� 4: Y' � � `�'� .+�R� , T ,'rj.' - ` ���� �,' t � ' � "l < '_t �� a� `�1.` "•�'"{ `i, y•. ` ;�' kl!F' � �yl.�i ��i..�" . �'•. ,� �",� � i!� t'��.'� .
'�, a',..� � . t4. � " I . .r ' .,,u •�{(�_� i K ; �i l y, � • . - ♦Y� « ,� �. ' � d{� s -l�. l� 1. y'' . .'g� , . . / ` � _ : ����. ' ' �`.' ''.TM���, �4'
t �f' �.�'I� f � . .tC �i' �� i_ .s�p... R .�,�a !� ! }'4• l n ' � � �c t, 1.
�.4'.'.�, . ti1�' �;dk�� R �' �^,Y. 4�..;'.�, ^ ., � � .�l 1�'��1��' ,.��' 6, tit�,�1,ih„� _�� �,` 7.�ti;�� •�t5�."�f�.•� '' �a p,� ��;5���.�� � ��� ��5. . � r•.�, "13jA�.,.,�
t � , . . `1 � ` ii .. , t� �. . :i, �-� ' . 'l �3 � a��, l .
•` � � � f+�� _�T � �. �. 11.� `: i. -! • 's u . � �� :, -9 r . � Yl:fi� � � � . �' • � S� . �;: '� � et� .!#I .�.. ' ': • � . .. �
�' � �1►i � > `f T ' � .. � � � A � � . . - - �'� ' � ♦ . , q z Y 1f ,+ � S 1 � 1' �
�, ,�J t 3 r N_ r� ,' - r a. 1 P _ „j._ . � ,, a % Tantrau h Branch Culvert
; � � . � { k.a., *� .,.'�y r� � � _, � � . , � "w ' [ �f� � � 1 ,+L`i 9
-.! ' � ` y�'f � , . � ' � i. �N ' �"- +" . _ I!'- � fy '_ - �,. .. �j n • �r Y �G %r'• '�� ' � �n�
��- : �, ' f , yr } �, � y �tr`�.�,�+ . /+ �'� � f►; a Alternatives 13, 14 and 29
��y7 �,• � �_ t �!, t�- �.� ( 1' �� � k �.�1 �jd,eii � ��! �j�. . ;�.�. .-� +�{ ���.�/ `� a v3 - `e�V L. i s+, _ '�'4� ,{r ,
`i . � t' � '-. k ,' � •� r ,� +Q - . i�.; '; 'i . S ` i _ ' ! ' y . , `r. j S � . •
. .� ,fY � � �.� y�j ��i.ttf�� . + ,. ,7 e � �a�,., ��� � � 1` � ��` .s,,rj?� �'+'[': i�� .1'�`� R-2536US641MPROVEMENT3
�' 6_ r . L:,d'�.7�� r r . . �� � �' . � r�'q4 Fl '',�. . � � l't �. � ; � 1� ! . ' a E? ° ` • ['`P• RANDOLPH COUNTY
�0 100 200 400 600 � � +�: � m ' • � ;, • � , �•. F�' _ �qy ���� _��+ . - �
/ Feetl,� t�;(�. ���l�, ,r -, a`-,�, �� , L� ��; ,�it;�� j � • .. ` �. �� -�.' � �,,`C 'id �,_ yl�•��
-- -��'l'� 1.�?f. �w:i . .' : • . _� _ . . . . . � .0 �� s � _ f . �� ���. �. _r_. ;��e �l �. :. . . __ _

— ' ' . � .' � ' `' ' ,� � _ . '
•� � . � '- - I,}'�+i. . . . r . �i �v1 a . �
r.. .
t r w, t,
, . ,� *, ��lt� �;�; '. , . � . - � ��� . '^t ' � '� �"' Legend
., . _ ,
"�,,����.i?��;� �'. rEy'•: �� ' ,� ���� ��"�� �. ' � �� !� Culvert
R ♦ ,�I'5���' .� ° . *� � ' . - __
:
, f t � '�* 1� � ` ,, r � . �p �ti .� � � -,*,,y � _ , Construction Limits Alt. 13
• ` � � � � ��p� ' � ' `"' '� � " � Construction Limits Alt. 14
� �' � . w. � �� � ' �' y ' - � ''� � �� �i�` .. � . . � �� ; . . � - � � � �
�• � � ��' ' �t .�., �� Fk � ^]P�; �; . � . � ._ . �� `�I�
`''„ � '•• • � � c � , ' ; Y� �±�� i�� �'t� ,, v y +,.� � '�' '' Construction Limits Alt. 29
� i 1� 'r � +A • fi ' _
1� ? i .{ �� t r .. � . i��.��� � �v R ��'. � ! � �� �� - � � ���' _ - �^- Stream/Water Feature
�;...� • •d ` .
:: A +� • , .`'��i`,�,; - � .4�y �..•X,.c 'o,t�� y �" . ��'`�y�' +'r' ;.� " . � � i., � _._ �� Wetlands
� ,� � , � ' � .� . t '� �, � �. � q � qti. � t i�1� t,i �� � � _
� M ��., r � f � ` i �a�� � K � � I� 7 . Q 't. �, p._ ; �+ � . L 1 f, , , � Property Boundary
i •� I f � , 7�? � � i
i47�i i �' `, �� � �• ` . "� J' �`," t �en y� �,� 1 1 � S�C'7 . �i� ,. t R s r � # �'� �� ..�,�.' . . ` � � � - Impacted Water Body
b 'y 3 ;'.�"� ;:. s,��'' `�f . { i��4�: S. � i ��. r1 . v ,� ' � ;�
��` �� i� �. ��� � � �'�.ti': + � � ,�'.�� t ,�l� t � �1 �� �Q' 'th. ! � . � �� . r d ' . • .� � Emergent Wetland
_�,�* � ,��A'�;��0 .�' i . .���'r. ` ��.;.�'.Y�' '�*?�..K��� �' .}��t'� � �., .-�`i!' � ,�.,��.�: ��'� , � , \ ; '��. , � � � � ��_ Forested Wetland
..' ��.a �' t��k. � �. �: �.. �� � `4.� "~f���,. �:�\ ��. ��+ �. �� � �, <<� h 't �,w al.
. . ;;, _ . v �y� • ► z,� �r . � �'.w�:� �2� . ,•,. '�,t°"t ?� *.' .� � ��� �. '� ,r��• � . . Low Elevation Seep
� .- 'p` •� � , s�� `.�• i ', t {,, '"�� ` � � ��.° * y � :� � � . � .,� "N `
� r.� � . ,� . � 1�.;� .�� � .iF } �. i� .�'i����� �'i �'t�' `..y' � . 1•�, t��t-- - � � �. . �c e�-... .
r. {�� '- ..1 � !�' `�f � � � } .4 � � .; 1� �' , � S.�r Rw� � 5 � � ��'�1 �.�. � �� L t� �����'��� � �� O �'V` - �'tiy,,� �'.`: V ' � .- .:�:R�;
��NA�i�` �� � ��'f���''' � . ' �. �4 � �� +'' - . . , c, a . .- , �� . _;, `. � � : � � � , �! � r.:
..�s � ` �. . �:Y I arr�� : �. e .. . � .�.,�1� -i�'' ���� 1f.' �'�.H-�� r..� �i.o V�K r . , � � �wr� . ,� �.,� . _ �lahr 1
. t�M�- �Tr� t��'�ef� �,���;?.'� 9� .1 � .� a. r i �;,. -' � 3 !' � �g��,.F.�s�� _�;� �a .�; ; }.a-' � 4. � y� �'�'���� � ,` . 'r�, -ky. i,,�T� .��
(� . . : " .. .� ,.� . .l s. ��� �i ` ,�.{.. '1 S�t I �. �^.F`�",� - �"v . +��� �.a
�._ � �["�. ! � � . w .�,. ,'i. �: � -. �. � '�' � _ � 'J 1�•�l2 c
c . . �` , _ . a r'r � 'li { • � ti,` � ,''`�� � t � � ,.F�` ��� �, r {�y � tC+ . .i �R„ .i . �.,. �, .. . . �`�.1,� ' e. � . ti:Y,-;
-`�_� • � . .'�'� !1 • � {`. i '� [ : . . 1 � }�' � - . �
��� " ` - _ ,_„ ,-�� * ♦*�� !f��t��-� � �S'��r�+.. = � `,�s :3�..c _ o� .'_• . O � ..S 5 `,� h'y'", .�� .�L, � . � M� "�. � ' - .
� "A�'�x'Is. 1 �,�lq •1 � `` ?��� a \ ` t�7��',•�4 • ' t�rF •n + �.�!{�j• . �, •"/q-� �'���,�'�`'� �`� •
_..Vi yy., ' .. �! ' ♦� i - . —i.—��. _ y-�---'<" � .a. � p���i � !i a��. - � ' L �``. . . s a, .�' � r� '. . � " �.�� ' - �. � �� e � � .
�"� "-0i- . _� a ' •` �T�„��1� .. .a� _ rt�i; y r'k i'\t������ � '�, i 1 i ,�,, ��:5 `L���� � ' .��a1• . .
� ,. .�•'�rfr� � - T`` ''%:..,,i a�f,�� =-.�.Yfx�t�'QE' }52 ��I.�Y� ` •, •, ';a 4'��.i4� ��. .:�.�^ .•��`� '_ 1 Y. _ �
$ T'�R
. ... .�� yr ,, ' , %j,: - _ 42 S� _.. _ - � t . .. 4 �C � Ti .e � . ����`�� � " .ie�' : ,. _ ,.
�i' - � , x :�A . �. ..�� � _ �.����'1�� �'• �i' •,`J�� ��� ��.��� t, s '�i-.*, S _ � �y,�!' S � i�, . . �•' . �. _ � � .
�9y. �..� . F r/• • • .x ' ��� .�F� i�i;•'F �.,. . �" � ,�' .r 1•' , ,� ^� t � �-y� ' � ;l ... . �.sk 4 �.�� r.`
� ti-. b . � Ie� - �' ��M���� � � .� J � i • �, ..�' \, � ' � a " 1f, , �� . ' � ��r �1. .p� . . t
���. � , i-..'. -.•-' ,11�'d �t' .�r.� "+� -�� ���.,,��' '� � • .i '�`� � � � � - } � _ ... y �
� ^}. 4j +-�Zr �. S ). �> .i �.'i �,,¢. 1_ - �/ �. ' , � ,e . ' 7'_ t . i�, �� �_ �� y� i
ti �1. . � ({ ' � '9i� - � � . t • .�.
•1 �e. _ ' i:' ,it�fy� i� � 1. �[. __''A � �:k�1 � • + I��� 'tii ' �� #� ` �. � � i�� - 4� � �: �'•� � L' . _ Iw.• '� w.' .. . �
y r }, . �F �i .; f a r � �+ • �, ♦ Q � . �.--�, TK
i .+}1 �� S. •`.�r�' _�r� H,;.�S�` : " l r. "��•• 'CZ:� :-}�'+;�,.ij��. � . �.c_4-,1 ��. .i 1 • �•t I' '.r ,i,� �'i �. ,y' ' Y- �' i��. ♦ - _ ���Qw 7�'a .. ♦ •" i
_ � ..
j� , y y ,/�
, .
� `i
7��1' ;�" :�'' �• ��r'6'F1.d i!� ���� ''j�.e .4*`,y ,�1i'�l :1[ ��1�� ��S- �� �c.�*4.:�.:, ,�' �. �_. -'i.r- e.� } � /Y-' DA -__ r '�_ ',» �'•,!ii
�� _ij�. � .'i fj�',�. .�t' -i. � 1 ♦ �� , l y.n �'V �{...i1 1 ' ,h` l. (d F .1� }�.' :�; � � ' :�, � �l" i'. . �R1.�,� .. `�
�:i' ti!y5k�4 Y � � . 7•�.Lt' �': ly �� � �' ♦�� S�` � t� '. � 1 �\ i � r �:t. ,y �g � ��lf t•-. ' :: .
t.�.. _,� � rt���. .�.� �••� �'�1..vr.� / :.:. , pr�T 7 y � � ,"'�:r� 1.1 � " i Y � i � �` �:, � �s " � "a .�[�si�
�L�' , ��,� s� ` S'_�, jj��',�S.yE �.�/'r tv��y.� ,.F.�(��ky `�y,.•�1��f .j `''�t� ,,�. .�aP� �� :.-� �"�..�Y+- �'. - -... . .
�` . . �_ . .�'� ��. iV 1,. `,���G ,�`4 f�� �F`•�0 � ' i 1 1. .�,�, � � �i'� �� �t� �.1 ti� IS .�1 � i 1 � . ,���' - " ' �1�i.1P'�. 'i � .' "`�+ . �L�w i.
� �] , +� � t . . �j . � � � 1.i . �. . � 1 1s� �. �.. � (t 1 r ( y�ys , �r �} . r' �< . _ � T . . F
:i ,{s!c'.M ��,C` 'r��-�`.lite•y�6 r �.i � �{ �.{1 � .,���,� �. 1 �a1�Y��� F �',..1�a''l \'�,...'e .� 7� ',�}1��:i'M.}�.`' ��tiy. ' '�i}I. � }�: �.�. .F ��1 .
� .�: _ � ': y I , � 1 ,� ; 5 �,f � .� ;�'
�e �<,1;..'.'•�.,�*vr`.�.-�W��l��i'. �'�y. ' '�:L,�t�}�,.�'� i���:i �•,i• � �.{} 'W ��� + � `� � .�1�.�j�..,�4L ����s� .i+V�l�� �t. r � i:ii�J• .L• � .� ' �•. �
,��,7r .� � � �� p � 11 �ft . �r. � ��,�'. 't t it'� :I+� 'Sp� r ,,� �!`_���- �� �. �'� .) j �- �' ��, �,r.._id. ��� � • '� �% �� i��_�.,��'' �'� .. .�,���.� � .
';'' r� _ , �: +i• 4 � .. . � �', � � '' � '�r �'�l 4.�Ea � � i� s `�" ���
- � sr ' . � s _Y;,�: - �5 �'d�.'�: i j� � . � _�.�. �� � 'ti '`. � • � i 1��'t ��� � i.. r 1 .� t.��, t 1. � �`R ° _ �� :�it {,� • � '� � � �� � , �'�'a. � � : �t� � � 4', �. .
. . `�, :,� .!�`� .�;�,k ' r�*:,r., �, ,li �} et� �' �k.:,.� ���..�,7�f `. �y •�[_y r� .f.-aC . s, �r,
e� :,,;�.^F� ;-�,•:tl� 4�1� i�`�:,�;��. . y � , ,{ \I��.,��ya�„ '�` '};ii"lia� � C`.! _a `.,a�i �SJ, �e'�y`:•l��"',af �17 (� _ �y� .� ��.p"� l��.e••z _ ..��ry i.' ..
. *�` ,�' . � � . ,�J + . � I.1. '1�1' \l � r�'L � � � '+\. i� i �y' , �'.��, =4 -� •*,.,� �� � ��;�, � +��+�j .;�4 _" -};`: .. . �S r *
� o .�('" ' . �.� '�t �,' e 1 � �� �r+' J � ■ `� � {.�y, N '",( F '1. � .
r ''� _� �.!' r s'« . :-r� .. _ hi'� ;'� �, .�� �4 1. 1 L i � le �{ .:� � . .i ' ��I .p�,i�j �.��` "•�-y�� �..� � ' ��rr."� ,�4. ' ,
.t . „�,`l��. il_.+' ik� Y�• :4 yiy ��. � �� � ; j� rl.- • st'2 ({ a �� s �'�5_�'' ; �� .�Y..b1 r'�� 1 J �'�.�1� ���' ';i�y-� _'�:� _ ' .
a:.R„- �P ' -. . .'".- �,13,. s�,-. ��. .;. �!-;� r•: , �, ,.` � - j! '� �a'. ,'r ,.T. � 'jfl�Tsh' �'�s;�::. '� •� `��'i ,^�.k �. � r-'* '�. � aA- � -�:+h�ly��Y , .i ',. . �i� ' � ••
� �}. ` . . ��ti � , � ,1 .,� � i,��� '�� ��� • ��� �, �� -,;i ' �'I��.. ♦�� �
t� : �'- ' i� i t . s '�. i � # _��,j � � ' :� q � iF F 7� j :.�,.` i�� x bs , �
� �''45, -,��+.� T' ,� � ��d����r - �' 'i •M�� . �� '5y {�+Y� ,���t�.j ��j.i��r. � �.7� t'�,i,ll? ;�.- �,.` ��,! - _ - _•:� ��� . ''ss. .Tw:e" ;.
S';.�,'k�.;b � y.• �.� .r 1' ' �a li, ✓� -.s. - a.51 s'r �y� �"{' �, tl{;. f t��+ 'Fy .r 1 1�-�� .��� '� i ;y`.. S.�yypp. _:a��' , 11 1s��, 4''� ,. �[ � �� ,fi.�' � �
�." I . . ' w` r .}^ `�,�`,t' }�� } . � �y�� 'A��1 � ����� ii��!`� x�tf�� ��,�'. �� �. � ``r{\'� .( �:.�1�\'1',. Y;�' I'�1��}i �a�'" i . �. �'����i•,. �:� tt`
♦'
�' ' �! t �'
� � ' A', , � '�; �. ,, ; :a 1 � ,Q-� �
X ,I c
[',,a , . `� °Y 'L•�� _+.i � R�Z�, � r'a�i��� ���i ..i` �:� •1 •.� •ir ;��5« \ �.� �� � r�,E'` �. ��.... � q a1
r y J
`r '�' � � l {',1'• � � , T
�.''�r. , ,�_� �, F ... y,�+i�+ � F� � ; ti .*'' � �� y`1 _ 1 �'�.,� � `�t � ��, , '. t5�� y, ��j' �� :i' �Y� ,11 1�` r�,Yy34b`4�. � �_.'�.,w✓'�� i
�': _ :,� a �f•��� ��,-�(;F}. �-` , ��+��. �;:i t'f�� y•�i.; ��� �``•t :, ,{�;''l F_'� 1; � 4 ��'����•� �s•, ,�
' � i � � ��' , ` r, s Q
� n �ti .• .'� .� w ��;c� c. , � q i 57 ' t`ii' � � y1 �'. .7 r , h .; �r • y
Ys .,� C. ' �' ,! �yS�L. ''♦ . • : i . �,��i � � �. ��l `'+ � � +{. , .� ' �'� . � ,'�: �{. LT � !� .� 1 _ s ! � `ti��, �,��,f4 y .
�,� :.�,r, � ,a ��:..Y,:,�t ° ;.�'tl. �3 � � i � �. � h- r � ,� �i� k'; :{1 �;,. V� •• t s4� r\ rt��'� 4 � �t�•� n' ���� i � . � �::
.' t , �*�� ;.�-� ,a I�, 1�, „ ; � ��, ���� , � North Prong Richland Creek Culvert
� 4
-r� � #1%'� ��' � yt . c � � + i�•j:� �i . , E� �C�. � ;T �' ' t � � � N ���1 , 1 ` �� td�j({ �� ��.t. ������ I,
y:. � a'� ��} % � "� ` uuiyy �', i C y � ;� 1 �1 �� (1 � , + j,# i ' Y" ,
f , av ; _ r .�.� r� l� � �', � .�4 i�'. � � ��'� A � � , �1 � � � p ; Alterna rv
•�b � � �, .. ; � � j ;�} >MJ v � �� Y�r�r � � r � � �� Y'�4 � ' :t� �a '� .T , " i:u; - 4� Y es 13, 74 and 29
�f � E. � � �� Y " ��' �.�1',� �1 � :�r % � 'i.� ` � � t% k ) � �� ` � 11;�� •� .X,=�
'!�'�y e � + �. '� f ��. a� ,..,J. '����t y '14�<'�� : � i � �. P� i.�� � �F� l� �'y.� � l�'T. ^ �� V� .� �� ♦� + i� � �a`.+ R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
s'�. .;;�•_ �, i' _ t ,�1', ,.i ��, 4^�} 4 �� ; � �j y �
H,.. � .-• 2k�r"� ����.� r..J _ ._ < < i �}� ! � ! e� d ��, t ^ � 5 � �j 7,� � � �� .��� �'.1�` � ���� � RANDOLPH COUNTY
0 100 200 400 600' _'w � ,. �'��;�` �'tL �� '�� � � ti k"4� r��: ��� ' � n i1� `� + � 4j t � e 3
Feet `�tk �?., , 1`� `� i l t i 1 i � J� r �� �- "f � y r�'R .� � � �i, i Vi �� � I 1�S °'1`.. . �
'1 i 7.1- � '�l'� �' �1 rtt.. .:1 � 7� i. ..\��' Sl�.�!'�'+ `.�r�,...�t � •,ryr1 •`��'�, �y.

b
'�"`k 1 :.�; F � � ; i. .��{�� 4'' �t �R�,,;� '4 aA `"`�,oq�, u � t `� ,� ' , , �a •r - y
�i�.� �., s � y ��;' `' S ' � �'�k�i i"'� � �"�l. 1 l,\ �n i j� i ,{ .. � •' .}t« � �� � � �` �t .'}',y
. . .� ," �� '. .� '�;,. � S�4 � �, �y a � 1 �+i�5.1';;t�'' � '4� .���, �i' �. 'y. s� 1n '��
� ' � a � � ' , i, ,� �- �=—
. �. � � ��..� * �� ,w � , � i� �r�;, ; ;�1 �.��i � � �*tl ` �y �'r'1 ,, ` „
,: �4'• . 4 ti,��., r1$ � � r � N1 �� `�1 � ,- ` .
.?�! , � � � �, � .
� - Q. _ :�1 ��� 1 ''( 1 +4�t� 1 Y\ ` � 5P Y + �"N' a^` � ✓j I �,�� wN � � i! �I
� r�� . �' a. � �'�" �� .
i. � � :., s � 4 tiy�'� � th�' . � � ' �'�-. .. + ' �I "S.
�
� :L .'S� f �� } � .� ���. I
� �°��;; . � �.�,r �q.-: ,.
�� . .G , ,' �-t �. �i. �L` .
.�, }} JI[ � i p � yi�. . -- w�n� `t ��lf i' , . :,� �� � '�:�t r�t
.� ��. �i' y � ' �. ' � 4 . ,:� ` � �, � . � ., � ' .. rr r- L.F
..�.. g�� � ' - a U z K 4 ' , ��
� "�� ?�' � 5�� ' �, y.f r�,ij��'.� �`�:'`'r��� ��� ' 1 + a
�'� � � e1�' � � R � T' �� . .
4:. 3 . �`� �;$1 K ;_ �'�i ,a��irt ��;..iT �,�'�w �,�i' ;,�t �� � 4.
� j i�v �%� •s �
� 4 '� ", � , . ` 4q, s,j�' i � �� � ..� u �y � ,� „� � ,� �.
t,��`�. �� i��# �-�t gi '�� . �a 1 �� t � � ;1 '..,�i, .r � �.�.� ��'� f � �� � .� � � � � t��'s
� !
� . . � ,. . �`. �/ , � .
�1�+� �, " ,,1'r� � 1 .y,��}��.�i�.J �f���'.� �; �,�'�,:�� �yt � .� li ��A.�� ♦�:�,- , � t I
T `�`'�. �+ ' 4 5 � � 1�� i , �fi. ` . �- x�� �• �1 R d .�, 'F. � 1 - • � � �� � .
• i �i, .� ' 1 � � � , 1,y�.,� +w � ° '� S � � " �i � � �<p .!�t .. ���
�Y � �f > �� ����"� -t�t " � •1 . .. � a.TF�` ,5.�1� ��:�\ � � d y`�����'� ���_' � � � �
.! �r � � �
� ' . i1 ` � �_ �: � � �� 1, '`,t - �� �1 '� . ,�r" t �. .�' � 1
i
� + ` �.� f'C,�� , �,. _ . � , , � �n 'r—���.- �„ .', �
�y�, y ��
� �. + .
'•y '. t�, .� t_ w i °�. a..�,..��x.��� i 1 t C..A' • .�'�� ds,`�: ♦�4;'' la'M�;�,
i6a l
' �(7Z !4
. 1` ('1 � ay, : �� Yw � i ` 1 -� i.. , � �� � •�k �. ,,/ p �;1�y ' ; I� ��� � �_ � 4 ��.� � -
� 4� ' �f ` � y . � i � � •I
,•�r f n .�. � �r � , s'9 M �l . :� � , . �� f
� ►',�•� . r `, �� � �^ � . -r� ` •�" ._ � y
� �n1 Si � k + M k"a : i•� ` �� ,� � '`� �� �I�� 4 > �_' T� ' \� �C� e���� 4
�� � k, y � � ! �-. e.r
*41 ,. �����" - A q �,. � - . ¢ .: �^ i. i '�� i'' l l` ����'��s`'tirit � �y�! �� � �'�Ay��y�`� � -
� ,F ^ ' ' ' . . "
T�� 'Y !� .� t:, n i' ,, � , !'�i� 1,�! �1 � 4�( M' � yF�I� r `n' • � m�' '��1'�'{ `1
� , � ' � 1 � id 1 i k :\ � � 5y '� ,`; cccrrr ' g- � .�a,. .
� � ��� r„ .�y�� I..���'D•�♦ 1 4yr .. � A 5 4.�1 p ^!�'• � \�� �n,i � �f� . .i } , ��i - • •E �� ����'�_
i �r e�as- � �'� ..; �.;` ,' ` � �. . ', ': .•� , ti' ! ' �
,�, � 4.\f . L'. ( r ('' ' «t ���A, 1[ r{'r i�..� � � � �t ty R�1 ..� k� �z. � VS � t ` i�.'k:-� � '. �f�� •
���, �� � �3� � �,.�1�,� t �.. . . e�l. ..2.�. Wt-' w`f.' �f 1 , : i�i;.�i,y,,�,{E� ��1.%;�` .d.� .
'� + ,�� . 1b'Z�� � ,k�1� < < ; : � �,�.*
�,�£�� r,�� � � c" ��( �'�, -'� 1� � •.4 ' � ` . `' _
� j { �. ` S � {���4 �d 1 � �j' a .a � � . i ., „ � �, .� .. 4 �� ..i -� �; +� �
�� k � �.'! "'Vy .,iA � � j v �•�" I, • .�� ��. � � � S .'.. �ti 1�. ;}l� —i, .I'
.! � �,. � � TZ�� .b .i. r w f ,. � �F t � � �� � % t , � elt� �' - � . .. i 1�': � ��
l �� i.yi ..'� , . � ' . � �' �..1 , r: + 7 ��, �. � �'' " � }
���- k�. . 1 , `� ��;�� .� },'; �; a'. �0 4 't �;,..- 1 • � �� ` � �`1k �s+ �i } ��,_+�.i`� Y � '!"✓`+i�9f ��M��`rE{��
., ��.�����C,� ' � ��,.C.y�ia • R1 t�. ��el� ; • ��� � � 1`��'�. � L` :i�c � ��. -i „'' •�" • � �., ♦ � ;' 4...+, !�s
�,, ,� �� 1�_ 't `` ���; ,':'. .M. :.�, � � _. * s_.��.1 � � �y `i. ���' •
� ��L -�.t. �, ,�i ti� l� d '(. � t� �� � �.�.. , L a.} c,►., Y�, a.
1���=,.;�a,1,;�t�.,�',������������.4 � t��'�P+y F.r� .'7 r �_t�r�.���Y:+ ._ �`�r *�.Jµ � •�� . :.-p 1 . .'�', . .'.`,y'� �t'�
� �', �r,+ � �.r },� ;' � �; '� }S� ;�'�:i �.�.� h ��� - ;.r' • ' �.. Y� -'i
' i: 3�,{ ,1 I 1 �* ° ��j�'�1 �..:' � � : f-�• �� ., •� �s . � � +;� t�'f 'tir�
i `( �� �� � .k�" S � �" � ��,'i - �t� ��:.� i '. �. � ��4ed I�1 :l�r���� �� � �
� s �1 t. 1n ` n e 4..' �� j1 f `D .y}�.: �.
,`L��A1"��'�-����y'�.���I?`�� L��`1�,�7y��11�'.�._�r� .,.y. .� '`f.. _ - _4��'�`��z���rv 3. �� ��`����.�y� -.��,:
�` A .S `�(Pi�.���, r�..-.� �f� . A ti _; •.�. �q� •� � - ��i ,�� ,l:
�r-_ � 6p�,'.� �"C �' •�.' �» '.� � ��� . �� "�� t • '�,u � +1�''. r� • yllf „ � �"- . • � • � •� ' ► �
� �t� '��� � •. � , � 1��� � .. � 4, � . ' d ' �• � � ��. � ,� �� � � a:� � .� � L.
�,,�n �� �g,,y � ` � i '� , + �! , '�:. � �,� ' �:. �';, r �� r�. �- � .�:.
�� i � 7'` ' r��`' - !''';',' ��yj. . �R- "�:�r� e�' � '� .'� - e y t. ,�T +
�i�.j � .!,a,� 4 � Y' � 'i �� a ,r.M# _� �-'-� �y .�� � � , 1, �' ^' 2 _
� { 4 � F � . � •i � r� � � � �
. 1� # d,T��� r i�" 1�. �. `� e � �,9 . ' i. �6� • �: -.��' : F� � ♦ � ' � ����. .,�.. �s` , r ��.� � � �- �•'. .
�.+.riX �ny..� +�;-��•+ qi'. � _a� � ��• :ti',r�( j :#,,�Q v �r�t yk� -;i�:
4 {', � ` � �,. 1 , �, t� �� � S , ' !�f ��_ •�. � � � 4 � -..�, 7L'� ' s s � • « j�; � � �-, �% '�F �� €.a � ,4 f` _ 'S �rly : � '4 .i'l� .
` '�` 4 1 4 � �' � . i . ! S � � � n.. . . ♦ i�
` "�' � , �•; f, ��� '. � sr t' • � � y / t` y�s�G ��. �► � �i►A '� � �S� �i~ �.'.
.�ji S 1 + r � ? � �_ �_�'.i . y.
�'stii/o� ' � a `w� � . �; �.A � 'C'. `. '+ Y .�.�1S�i. _•t� .,� K,s '�i � ,::_►i�'�.
''� 1�7� 4 .V,+�,�t�-. f. * ��,�� �e a a. .i r .�e " ��'�' �.- ��' �i� .d ..-lR
�' L .(1 ' �14 �I �.� . ` 3 � C + TA .�, � �. e ��• :.I _fLi� :�ic".- . i�' ,�'R'.
'�1�1� t �{'�' ���Y ' l � r . �, . ' � � � �iy{.t' / � 1 c. - ��•�l� �.,.��� � � �:',I°�, � 1r �� r ..f�' {� , # , � fj. i y�j :
' �.I t :S'. `i s ,� � 1 .,iV � .i�.' .���_ "�td {�r- �''r� ' '�1 � � , y�G� a! .? ; �..f� t �4�' f�%��
; � f: ,�� ,�\`�� 1t �' "��� r *� �',� 'i. ,� '�'. � � .
r � i p,� , �'�� ` ��-►r' � � , �� • , . :yk�
�� �� �' � '� 1'�� •~ � , 'i ^ . i `, � •irl• �� ? _ . i �.. t_ ��� a � � : ..'��; , •- #� � - i � ~ 1y �4 � . , �i
�. 1°. .', ra � �.:,� - �� v , _r �: �t=�w''� w � - �j'• �t' �'r.1� ��- �s.; a :,. � ! , • yy � ►rt'� -
��0 100 200 400 � 600 r'+�1 + �"„ �w►*�j1+ ��c; *•.,�.. " �yr ;3 � � z . `" ". ,�.�
ML Feet»�y��_�`- �`1��.1 �'�`'<:,•���{ " ,�'• y, a � ' �.+�"#:
."'�Y�%�,Z'7.�.'�i'i�'��i�-_�E...wlii'1.'_�'11.1'�74'lit.7lfJ!. . 'Y. 4 L S�� •�_' i«.Y=�` �`�.�-'!.� 1 ' . _. �.:_�.L' ' �� ����'��J. � 1M,ye. . ��
:' �
�
F
�' Legend
�` � � CUIV@It
y� -• Construction Limits Alt. 13
r --- Construction Limits Alt. 14
'� ---• Construction Limits Alt. 29
��--�- Stream/Water Feature
'° Wetlands
E Property Boundary
Impacted Water Body
_"�l Emergent Wetland
Forested Wetland
Low Elevation Seep
`�.�� . , i. � l�_��
ds _ I
� � �
�r, �
•� __ : _.�, '�,:.�
y
R- L ��\ �� .
p�r �;. �� �
E i ��.�., �,
� 4- �, '�� �
E`2��G.sLE�+�L�. a .•.� ..
-� �_ . �� �
r ��,��
r �.. �
t �. � — ,
�_���N�� �
• `�1 '� �
�• �?
�, `� � a
ti �,. � �
' ' � `_
� �
l'�ei4�. � a � . C .
w �
��' �� �
Vestal Creek Culvert
Alternatives 13, 74 and 29
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY

A
B
E
�
�
FIGURE HYDRO A
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
U 5UU 1,UUU 1,UUU :i,U U
eet
Legend
OEmergent Wetland
- Forested Wetland
- Low Elevation Seep
O Pond
Existing RW
CUIV@I t
- - - - Construction Limits Alt. 13
Construction Limits Alt. 14
Construction Limits Alt. 29
-�-�- Stream/Water Feature
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
�
�
0
_� � , `�
� �G
� �\ �
��` \��-. y Oc�
!� N
\ �\ \ � _ 7
� � z
� � o
�- o
9-< \ � ��--^ --
� �
� o ����` "�,\\� �.
�
a �:, ��
��
�� � � �'-
� � . 'i
d� . . /
^/' ✓ .
.
m�.` i - =__ -_"
� �
i
�
e'�i �
�La��e� ��y
ROaa <
m
O
C
O
}
_
W
Z
J
i
u
�
a
�
49
�

Are� of Wetland or Pond Impact
Alt 13 Alt 14 Alt 29
Stream DWQ FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP
Rating (acres) (acres) (acres)
LITTLE RIVER 72 2.64 2.64 1.55
TANTRAUGH 68 0.33 0.33
TANTRAUGH 68 2.05 2.05
TANTRAUGH 68 1.03 1.03
TANT UT05 68/19* 0.02 0.2
TANT UT05 68/19` 0.62 0.94
VEST UT11 58 0.58
SQUI UT03 41 0.03
SQ U I UT03 41 0.05
TOTAL 6.05 0.08 0 6.05 0 0 2.77 0 1.14
'*' this represents ForesUSeep wetland ratings
Alt 13 Alt 14 Alt 29
Pond Pond Pond
CABLE 1.11 1.11 1.11
LITR UT04 0.63
VESTAL 0.13 0.13
VESTAL 0.14 0.14
VESTAL 0.74
VESTAL 0.43
TANT 0.05
TANT 0.18
SQUI UT11 01 0.07
SQUI UT04 0.18
SQUI UT03 0.63
SQUI UT06 0.17 0.17
SQUI UT06 0.001 0.001
TOTAL 3.36 1.38 2.04
Assumptions
'FOREST' refers to Forested Wetlands
'EMERGENT' refers to Emergent Wetlands
'SEEP' refers to Low Elevation Seep

Alternative 13
inciuding wetland
stream only
Alternative 14
including wetland
stream only
Alternative 29
including wetland
stream only
Vestal Creek
Alternative 13
stream only
Alternative 14
stream only
Aiternative 29
stream only
North Prong Ric
Alternative 13
stream only
Alternative 14
stream only
Alternative 29
stream only
Culvert Scenario
Culvert Length Culvert and
or Stream Wetland Impact Pavement Pavement
Impact Area Culvert Cost Pavement Cost Cost
°� �, Z � $�os,2oa"� �j ���o'2qo;
2 64 ft� �� $924s0A0"� 6960 yd �r � � � �' � � "-
337.5 ft �';�$92�,ODQ:� 1800 ydz ��$79,200� ;$i;4Q3;200;
2 64 ft2 "$924 (?D4 � 6960 yd2 �s'�, �30fi'200 ;�$1 2 0�200`,
t s ���,. . �� ��,, � �'� � �sw���,�.�
337.5 ft ,;: _, $�24,QQ„Q:3 1800 YdZ ��� k,�79,2Q��; ?�$�,�043;20Q;:
1 55 ftZ �s~' $91 OOxd 4920 yd2 '��„�218�5�00� $1;�3�,500'
�* � `�` � 2 r��+l' `� ���"� c„ ��t �.;
272.7 ft ��,�'�g,918;QQ0r; 2040 yd �, `;��89,$OQ,,� �$��OQ7;800:
s �� 2 �'
364 ft N/A ��$1;416.Q(10;� 2613 yd �;� r�1,,15,00Q�
�z �z : -� ; �-v��.: �'�
388.4 ft N/A �$1;404;000;, 2333 yd2 '� �i.03;00Q 3
244.6 ft N/A k�$820;(?Oa � 1773 yd2 �,L�;�78 000�
180.2 ft N/A �v �g29�;Q00;` 587 yd2 4€,�;;�26,OOQ�
180.2 ft N/A ;;���429aQ00� 587 yd2 ��?.,$26,00_0,„�
227.2 ft N/A ��*$590,000��� 831 yd2 ��$��`000�;
Bridge Scenario
Cost per
Bridge Number of linear foot
Length Bridges Bridge Cost Cost Difference stream impact
Brid e - Culvert
580 ft 2 � '�$4`°�64,80pi $3,154,60R
150 ft 2 ��'$1�Q�5,OQQ,
;; $11800: $35
r�-""�-"i.�-�'
580 ft 2 '� � $4fi3$4 $0� $3154 600
��`�a� �t� `���+ S,� .. .
150 ft 2 �,,�.$'1,015,000. , . .. . $11 800: $35
�;�� r t� r - .
a7o fc 2 ��$a�ass,�a0� $� ss5 ioo
170 ft 2 E �°�$�'1377;QU�0 ,. . , . $369 200; $1,354
�� �a ,c-e'�"' $640
280 ft 2 �;$1�,�64,OQ0. _ ... .. .. $233 000;
250 ft 2 � ��,�1,5��,76;OOQ . $68 000� $175
190 ft 2 �'�'�,;$1 i9�.000 _ $299,000: $1,222
� - s�- *� � �
120 ft 1 �.��„,��396,�000, _.... $59 000! -$327
120 ft 1 �?'�5� $386��0 �Q „ .. '$59 000: -$327
ig� „,r �.�-�.� � •
170 ft 1 �_,�,;;,$5�1�000�. ;.$66 000i -$290

Length of Stream Impact
Assumptions
Streams that exit and enter on the same side of Const. Limits are labeled 'Longitudinal'
Small streams with crossings that have not been sized are labeled'Minor'
Streams in interior triangles of interchanges are not counted as impacted
"" Denotes a culvert to be retained and extended

STATE OF NORTH CAROLIlVA
DEPARTN�NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERIJOR
DATE: February 19, 2004
TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: John Conforti, REM
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Proposed Asheboro Bypass (US 64 Improvements), Asheboro, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project Number NHF-64(19), State Project Number 8.1571401, TIP
Project R-2536
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the subject project on July 23, 2002. The approved DEIS evaluated nine build
alternatives in detail. These nine alternatives follow two basic corridors, with varying cross-over
points to create nine combinations. All detailed study alternatives share the same corridor for the
NC Zoo Connector, as well as the easternmost segment from just south of SR 2604 (Luck Road)
to the eastern bypass terminus at existing US 64. The study area and con-idors are shown on the
`Detailed Study Alternatives' fib re and more comprehensive project area information can be
found on Figures 32 a through e.
Alter�eative 1
Altemative 1 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) 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 (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor curves to the southeast to cross Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 03 miles (0.5
km) 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 I-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 (03 km) 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 (0.5 km) east of the NC 42Browers 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 (1 km) 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) (refer to Figure 2.6). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward the
east to cross NC 42 about 1 mile (1.6 km) 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 (1 km) 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
MAILING ADDRESS: TELePHONe: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAILSERVICECENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

avoiding a weUand area on Tantraugh Branch. It then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves
north to cross NC 159 about 0.1 miles (0.2 km) 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 F7eta Brown Road. Alternative 4 crosses NC 42 at the same
location as Alternative 2 and follows the same corridor as Altemative 2 from this point to its
terminus at US 64 east of Asheboro.
Alternative 10
Altemative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Smtts Road) intersection. The wrridor proceeds south across Cable Creek, SR
1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49, about 1 mile (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.1 miles (0.2 km)
north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor tums
eastetly to cross the Little River and US 220 Bypass (future I-73/74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over US 220 Bypass. The corridor continues eastwazd across US 220 Business about 0.5
mile (0.8 km) south of Crestview Church Road, then continues to the southeast until about
halfway between US 220 Business and NC 159. At this point, the comdor curves northeast and
crosses Staleys Fazm Road then NC 159 about 0.1 mile (0.2 km) 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 (1.6 km) 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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Smtts Road) intersection. The corridor proceeds south, crossing Cable Creek,
SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 13 mile (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193
intersection. From this point, Alternative 13 curves to the southeast using the same corridor as
Altemative I.
Alternative 14
AI[ema[ive 14 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) east of the
US 64/SR 1424 (Stutts Road) intersection. The corridor prceeeds south, crossing Cable Creek,
SR 1193 (Old Hwy 49), and NC 49 about 1.3 mile (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193
intersection. Alternative 14 curves to the southeast using the same coaidor as Alternative 2.
Alternative 22
Altemative 22 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) 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 13 mile (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 (Old
Hwy 49) intersec[ion. The corridor continues south across Taylors Creek, then southeast using
the same corridor as Altemative 10.
Alternative 29
Alternative 29 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western terminus to Mack Road. From this
point to the eastem ternunus, Alternative 29 follows the Alternative 10 corridor.

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.
Zoo Connector
The NC Zoo Connector is proposed to be a two-lane parkway-type, controlled-access roadway
(see Figure 2.1). A four-lane divided roadway was considered, but was not justified based on the
future traffic projected for the NC Zoo.
The Zoo Connector would provide a trumpet-type interchange connecting to the proposed US 64
bypass about 0.8 miles (1.2 km) west of NC 159 (Alternative 22), providing adequate weave
distance between interchanges; this spacing is slightly longer for Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14,
29, and 33. From the new bypass, the Zoo Connector would proceed southeast across Tantraugh
Branch and Staleys Farm Road (there would be no access between the Zoo Connector and Staleys
Farm Road). As it nears NC 159, the connector would 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 would cross under NC 159, which would create a
more aesthetic entrance into the North Carolina Zoological Park.
The approved DEIS was distributed to Federal and State environmental regulatory and resource
agencies and to the general public for comment in August 2002. A pre-hearing open house was
held at the National Guard Armory in Asheboro from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on May 8, 2003;
approximately 350 citizens attended the open house. A formal coiridor public hearing was held
May 22, 2003 form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., also at the National Guard Armory; approximately
350 citizens attended the formal hearing including representatives from NCDOT and FHWA.
Citizens opposed Alternatives 1 and 13 in a petition because of impacts to residential
neighborhoods along NC 42 including Crystalwood and Kennedy Country Estates; the same
petition supported Alternative 2, and implies support for all alternatives other than 1 and 13.
Most citizens commenting generally supported the need for the facility but were opposed to the
impacts to the human environment overall and on all alternatives. The number of relocations,
residential and business, were re-assessed in November 2003; all alternatives relocate between
158 and 168 residences and between 23 and 27 businesses. Alternatives 4 and 10 displace the
least residents (158) while Alternative 14 displaces the most residences (168). Alternatives 29
and 33 impact the least wetland acreage (3.9 acres) while Alternative 4 impacts the largest
acreage (8.1 acres). Overall impacts to terrestrial communities were lowest with Alternative 1
and highest with Alternative 33.
Comments taken during and following the Pre-Hearing Open House and the Corridor Public
Hearing were summarized to identify common concerns. The summary led to the following
conclusions:
• Opposition greatest for Alternative 1(14 individual comments and 179 person petition)
and Alternative 13 (15 individual comments and petition implies opposition to
Alternative 13)
• Support greatest for Alternative 2(2 individual comments and 179 person petition
[petition implies support for Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 14, 22, 29, 33]) and Alternative 13 (12
individual comments)
• Support for investigation into other alternatives including upgrading of existing facilities,
extension of Asheboro Bypass to outside the developed community (to west, to east
around Ramseur, to south, and new alternative to north).

The NCDOT held a post-hearing meeting on October 24, 2003. Citizens' comments were
reviewed and each alternative was discussed. The meeting attendees identified the following pros
and cons for each alternative. In addition, Asheboro local officials attending the post-hearing
meeting encouraged NCDOT to proceed with a selected alternative as quickly as possible.
Alternate Pros Cons
Public comments against orange section
1 Higher wetland impact
Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
2 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
4 Design: geometry through wetlands worse
Hi h wetland im act
Fewer public comments against
10 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC159
bette r
13 Lower number of stream crossings Public comments against the orange section
Lower linear ft. of stream im acted
14 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
22 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
Fevuer public comments against
29 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
33 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159 Higher terrestrial impacts
better
The NCDOT submitted
2002. On January 15,
solicited comments on
Public Hearing.
a pernut application to the Department of the Army on November 25,
2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice and
the nine build alternatives presented in the DEIS and at the Corridor
Concurrence Point 2A was added to the 404/NEPA Merger process after the agency visit in 2000,
requiring an additional field visit. Earth Tech and NCDOT biologists met in Asheboro on
February 25, 2003 to obtain information regarding Concurrence Point 2A. Meeting attendees
discussed the criteria for bridging potentially impacted streams and wetlands and visited Little
River, the only riverine system on the project. NCDOT biologist Randy Turner indicated this
wetland system did not meet the hydrologic requirements for bridging and that concurrence on
Point 2A might be addressed at the next interagency meeting, in conjunction with Concurrence
Point 3, based on this finding.
Figures Hydro A through E show the area streams and wetlands along with the recommended
structure locations. Tables follow detailing impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds associated
with each alternative.

TABLE 4.1: ESTIMATED RELOCATION IMPACTS (UPDATED)
ESTMATED NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS .
DISPLACEMENT TYPE ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT: 4 ALT. 10 ALT. 13 ALT. 14 ALT. 22 ALT. 29 ALT. 33
Residential Owners 121 122 113 138 128 129 145 138 144
Residential Tenants 40 41 45 20 38 39 20 � 22 20
Minorit Households 4 2.48% 4 2.45% 1 0.63% 16 10.13% 4 2.41 % 4 2.38% 16 9.70% 16 10.0% 16 9.76%
Household Income Below $15,000 0(o°io) o�o��o) o�o�ia) o�o°io) o�o°io) o(o%) o�o°�o) o(o°�o o(o°�o)
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Small Business < 8 em lo ees 26 27 26 23 26 27 23 24 23
Medium Business 8-12 em lo ees 1 � � 1 � � - -
Lar e Businesses ( > 12 emplo ees) � � � � � � � �
Business Tenants 12 12 12 14 13 13 12 14 12
Minorit Business 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
TOTAL BUSINESS RELOCATIONS 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23

TABLE S.1: US 64 IMPROVEMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAI. IMNA� i 5 i A i tmtrv i
FACTORS ALT.1 ALT.2 ALT.4 ALT.10 ALT.13 ALT.14 ALT.22 ALT.29 ALT.33
Len th miles 13.6 13.8 13.8 14.2 13.9 14 14.4 14 14.3
Interchan es � � � � � � � � �
Raiiroad Crossin - - ' " " -
Construction Cost Includes E & C) $176,100,000 $178,500,000 $180,100,000 $186,200,000 $170,400,000 $180,300,000 $188,900,000 $194,100,000 $192,000,000
Ri ht-of-Wa Cost $27,610,000 $27,250,000 $25,740,000 $24,630,000 $29,330,000 $27,400,000 $22,240,000 $24,390,000 $25,080,000
Total Cost $203,710,000 $205,750,000 $205,840,000 $210,830,000 $199,730,000 $207,700,000 $211,140,000 $218,490,000 $217,080,000
Residential Relocations 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Business Relocations 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23
Schools Im acted - - - " - -
Parks Im acted 1 P� 1 P� 1 P' ' 1 P� 1 F� "
ChufChes Im acted 1uc �uc iuc iuc 1uc iuc iuc 1uc iuc
Cemeteries Im acted - - ' " " -
Electric Transmisssion Lines Crossed 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
Water Lines Crossed 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Eii ible Historical Sites Z - � ' ' " -
Recorded Historical Sites and Historic _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
Districts Im acted
Stream Crossin 18 22 24 26 18 20 25 23 25
USACE Mitigable Streams Impacted �g,230 21,627 23,566 23,265 15,695 18,114 20,866 23,292 19,961
(linear feet
DW� Mitigabie Streams Impacted 26,246 27,618 31,383 30,647 23,012 24,410 28,778 30,817 27,848
(linear feet)
Leaking Underground Storage Tank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Sites
Noise Receiver Im acts 3 136 137 151 143 132 132 133 135 129
Number of Exceedances of Carbon _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Monoxide Ambient Standards
Deciduous Forest (acres) 495.8 509.6 512.5 551.9 487.2 501.4 552.8 561.8 555.2
Ever reen Forest acres 34.5 26.3 30.3 31.3 39.0 30.9 35.9 31.4 35.9
Mixed Forest acres) 33.7 52.4 58.6 53.0 32.6 51.2 47.6 49.0 48.0
Bare / Transitional (acres 36.0 39.8 41.3 23.9 40.7 44.6 29.9 30.6 36.2
Cultivated (acres 39.2 30.2 29.1 20.4 51.5 42.7 37.6 25.6 37.7
Pasture (acres 113.0 100.0 88.4 113.5 102.8 89.9 89.5 98.6 87.0
Residential / Commw�it (acres 162.3 167.0 178.8 188.9 168.7 172.8 193.7 187.8 194.2
Total Wetland Im acts ° acres) 6.1 6.1 8.1 4.0 6.1 6.1 4.0 3.9 3.9
Percent Wetland Im act vs.Total Im act 0.67% 0.65% 0.86% 0.40% 0.66% 0.64% 0.40% 0.40% 0.39%
Federall Listed S ecies Habitat - - - � ' -
Flood lains acres 8.91 9.17 8.94 9.84 8.91 9.13 9.84 9.90 9.92
1 = Priva�ely owned
2= This properry located outside righhobway limits, with potential eflects to be delarminec
3= Noise recaiver impacts Include Category B and Calegory C
4=Tolal welland iinpacts include Low Elevation Seep Wetlands, Forested Wetlands, and Emergenl Wetlands
uc= Under Consirucfion

Area of Pond or Wetland acres
Alt 01 Alt 02 Alt 04 Alt 10 Alt 13 Alt 14 Alt 22 Alt 29 Alt 33
FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP FOREST EMERGENT SEEP
TAYL UT03 0.05 0.05
LITR_UT04
LITTLE RIVER 2.64 2.64 2.64 1.59 2.64 2.64 1.59 1.55 1.55
TANTRAUGH 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
TANTRAUGH 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05
TANTAAUGH 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
TANTRAUGH �•99
TANT UT05 0.03 0.2 0.02 02 0.02 02 0.02 02 0.02 0.2
TANT UTOS 0.02 0.94 0.62 0.94 0.62 0.94 0.62 0.94 0.62 0.94
TANT UTO5 0.04
TANT_UTOS 0.63
VEST UTti 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
SQUI_UT03 0.03 0.03
SQUI_UT03 0.05 0.05
TOTAL 6.05 0.08 0 6.05 0 0 6.98 0 1.14 2.81 0 1.14 6.05 0.08 0 6.05 0 0 2.81 0 1.14 2.77 0 1.14 2.77 0 1.14
AIt 01 Alt 02 Alt 04 Alt 10 Alt 13 Alt 14 Alt 22 Alt 29 Alt 33
Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond Pond
CABLE 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
TAYL_UT03_07 0.6 0.06
0.63 0.63
LITR_UT04
V ESTAL 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
VESTAL 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
VESTAL 0.74 0.74
V ESTAL 0.43 0.43
TANT 0.05 0.05 0.05
TANT 0.1 S 0.1 S 0.18 0.18 0.18
SQUI_UT11_01 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
S QU I_UT04 0.18 0.18
SQUI_UT03 0.63 0.63
SQUI UT06 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
SQUI_UT06 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
TOTAL 3.36 1.38 1.68 1.96 3.36 1.38 1.42 2.04 2.04
Assumptions
'FOREST refers to Forested Wetlands
'EMERGENT' refers to Emergent Wetlands
'SEEP' refers to Low Elevation Seep

PROJECT LOCATION
��;,,. � NORTH CAROLINA US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
+�u ��
�,vsr�i^�.,.' DEPARTMENT TIP Project No. R-2536
M � OF RANDOLPH COUNTY
TttANSPORTATION
FIGURE 1.7

� j� ' � �-_ � / � -� � END � .... i
� Q � �� PROJECT �.� `' , �l,.t
BEGIN �a J��� -- i � �sa
PROJECT I 1 � �,�' ��ekT�"sr �
ASHEBORO;� u ���� � ae, �� ��' ,
_ � �e i.
j d ,� ,
�t -_` ,
��zz � � � � � � ��� i � � � ., .� 64� / Alternative
\ % " � --�— .l. ,� __ � 1
.� :
� a �� i - � C
o �� i
���� � . � � � � � � � ` ''���� -
'�� ' � �+ —`' �/ Altemative
� �q . � � � , ' ASHEBORO :' ' _ � � � 1 � z
\ _ o'' - u� �� �a
� —
� � '`i - .
� r. �V
\_
`.� - -
>• � :�'
� � _ ,
� I a 64 �_�j �i � � ,�� 4 �� �
I � • I Sw _� � \ n�se...�.�.,..
�
�
''� � � � � ` a�;' %
�� SR 1197 � � \ `�- i
h •..••
j • �_ � �-.� � . . ..
� ' � '� � , m`r��� ..' '$,
� a
9� �P
�� � I / �� Q
�� 1�, � ' � � 1 �� � � � ' ."
�i - / URE �,.v
J �' � ,¢ _: , ,a �'' �
� �—y� y� \
f� .i '� - Qu�"� �iT� � f Meov,F��n+�,p , _� `
4J �J I � _qUP� � p> `� � 4t�� _ � � ��
�_ �_ . .yP ' 2 i �e, � ��
/ / I� o - GQ' � _ Q �.
/ �� M1 ` I,�� - - ` _. �0�� 1 �l`� � � � u.
h �
� i \ j I '�n � /
j � "' a�=J � %
�/ �VPFNN� � � ♦ R0. � . H,T
� � . . � � � � 'i i
i'h..�c
._�OBE `c � �' /. i i eru Tr .,G\ —_ ; µ .� � �
�Y�� . -MM N�R� � � � I�l��� � � / ."�
/ � �]e��,:y,� ��,_.. _ ._Ii i � CO d �`l'� \ ��--
% \ � � `��� �R � � B� � � � y . �. � �.
�� c� � �� • y • nl
� � Ry � p � � o ; �.
y, /�,( " a NC ZOO
/' / �h• . ..�� Harveys
,. ��� f /C! / � � � I �� Mounla�n .. � .�.• .
D 0.5 1 2 /� v• •• •• ' �' -
Miles � : - •'
15P 9 59 ,_
Kilometers �� �r' �"Pe�° ��'- - .� uwnarc�e � -
0 0.5 1 2 3 iaier5� NationaP. •i•••' ..�jP:R.'�
� � � � � Forest � `
Detailed Study Alternatives
The figure above shows the nine Detailed Study Alternatives identified by NCDOT for further
study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US 64 Improvements in Asheboro.

i i, vY • \' % �� �/ j
i .' , � (
`.�•�.�
• ��.....�• . . �
/�/ ��'••.... , /.
. . •��� � �
.�
. � . •�
. � • �. � � . ..
• ' j�
. o ..r �' .�� �
• � � l�
•
• •i�, (
• �
�� ��� ��
�, . . , . � .
. •
� �i . � � �r¢ A� � � //�""
\ � . , •'�`'� '" �� `� •, .
• • � . �\ ��� i�
. : \ i r-.� �� � �
• � � \� �
. �
,• . ' G�� �' l /f � � �j/• \. . I /
• m . ✓ ' � �
� �
�.— — . . �
. �� � • C' ' � I (/ ,
r �
.. , . ;�_-� � �
_ , . ,
i .• . ` . I
• � ��' � � � y
, � • �
. j - I
• ;
' ' '� I : ��" '
. � /
\_ �-� • -_'--/ ..�
•� • � ��� � � ��
• � 1 _ .� — ' � � • / �
\ . /
� — : � ` f
% • �` � � SR 11�93
� • � � � � ' � ��T. •m�� �
, � :' . � . � , �-�—
/' •
'_ •'�: 'i . ., � / `-.� r'
� J • � • . �'. f ,� '�;��' I
� •�' �9'�' I ��$� ,Q9
.�' . � • t, •• � / . `� .
� _y: � � ♦Hl
• ��� • �i� � / . ./ 1 �:��
�• . •' . . � . . � 1 /
. p ��`` .
• ' ' ' j � : /' �,. / G� ; � _
�. \ � i � MATCH LWE FIGURE 3.4
� � /� i � '�. \ ,�/ .
� �
... . . ' �' : g � E � : 'y �� � ��� .
. ���
�� I � � � ' � 'r 'a _� ,- � �. i
'��
� NORTN CAROLINA
` DEPARTMENT
� OF
� TRANSPORTATION
<�,� y
DATASOURCES
TopograaMf
�PY^9ht 198]-0997
Ameripn Digital Cartography, Inc.,
2002 W. Callege Ave., Appleton,
Wisconsln 54914.
NC Zooiogical Park:
USGS Quatlrangle: tvshebom, N.C.
1970, PhotoreWsed 7981.
All Other oata:
North Carolina DOT, 1997 - 2001;
Randolph County, 2000.
Legend
� Detailed 34udy Corridon
Primary Road
Secondary Road
— — — Major Stream
a'.� �- ' � NC Zoologieal Park
� _ �;� Uwharria Natfonal Forest
... ».. �
: � .• Projeet 8ludy Area
•••• • Munlelpal Boundary
��—• Limit ot Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
_____________ Maie Eleetrieal Transmission Line
Easement
� Eleetrical Substation
--�-- Sur(ace Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
�— Other Watlands (National
Watiand InveMory)
� —� -� Pronounced Topography
�---'
�� �00-Year Flood Plain
� Gritieal Area Water
Supply Watarshad
� Protected Area Water
Suppiy Walershed
����� `��� Superfund Sita
,_ � Major Industries
Subdiviaion
Flre Station
� Church
� Sehool (Under Cons4ructlon)
Q Potenlial Historie Property
• Resldenee or Businass
� Private Ballpark
� Underground Storage Tank
N
0 750 1500 2250 Feet w E
0 250 500 750 Meters
S
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - WEST
U8B61MPROVEMENTE
TIP Project No. R•2578
pANDOLPN COUNTY
FIGURE 3.2a

r � i... . — � , � �� � /�
:�/ ��' _ � O�r--%�� w i/ i/.,� �-
/ , ''� / � � /� •
N •,• •I .��• U� � I /� � � ... ✓ "'.�W.4.6uR➢� �
� LL L
.5 � �i ,,�' Z �-� 159 ^��'<� '�
�: � • \ �� ' • � i p.: � � � / �`�.g , �l
� � : .�� �'� � � ��� � ° � �� % � ��
�' ' • � '' `
� . � �� � Y� /� / �\
� � .�' � /' ��i
� � • �/�..\ '� �sx�' � • '+�%.•\! � ) �
� a� j �� .�\� � ; /
��-- � '. � /I • � � �.�
= fw� rnui_ .. � --' � � � /! ���/�\ • .
� � . � � - +dcn&E7� '� � ' � ✓/` , �,
A ` � /• � ` , �• � ` �'`. / � � _ _, • ��� 3' {�'1'� //�� �
i� j ..` 1 _•�� �f'�a � . �. -' �, � , � • • I✓'_ ' • �� �G,d4� ��' '�'� -
�•�. . � I �RAOE' = ' • � �e•v.,"e ��� � � o r � ��A� '� •,
� �' .�` Y� �
{I',. ., — 'CreSNievy, •'•• • e� �—� /�'. � !��` O � ••�
T'OIWNELLSLOCR � •
� .�i a � Mano� . '��R: . /�. � �, ��/ .�.��' � �A .'�:
�� \ eus ��, "a ;Su6diws�oh -. �/ � � � ' �n"' • �`\\ '0 � '
• �j. � , . , ' i� � � �
.� ._ ; � , �.
�; ; : . `°. : .�/ ,I � �'" ,� , \ � . �-
\ �� • I �cr '. ' � • �. • . \ ' �
• g ., ' . / . ' Alsrro�rY , , �`.... 'ta.�+j_-..� `� yu.ow
� �\` • � R / / � � • � � ` • . _ . ° •'• ••'• � r. ` --��`� .�
-\ • r' � � ' . : • .. \ � ` �
� � � % �I ' '�- _ ': - i' �, [� - Etr
� �' i - %�� t ' • -�.
S•� --- j [a '� , � '�... � •' ' � j �� ,
� i � • � �� . . . t� �. . /,`_ I
� � .a .'�•.�� . • .�• . � . �� .,J,� � ',i—�. '��� /�l\ � .
' �� � � �1$+0„ � � �s.� .\' � • � � • �� � � 1 ` - i I � / '
'� �.
' �� •,o ��--•�_���� . `� : !� � �' , , / . � � I , {
� ,� •�� . �j�. I . . . - .. �
. `• � ' � • • . �u : �� ; � •
� � Vk' • , / � DATA60URCE5
' �/ i ��'. � •� '�I �� � � /
�� • .. . ': •��.:r ; � ,---��-" HARVEYS J , � • T�h�;�,_,��
� �'-- '• • .�• . 4 � � �• � NrenpnDi9��ICertagrap�ylnc.
' /'ri�7 . • Ih •�� ��: ,(� Q + ( n MOUNTAIN �r;.� / ' �2W-Coll eAve
eg Fppletan,
� ' . � � � � � ' • � • • .. � • I � � � W �sconsN 54914
.. I, t • � , � • � ` NCZoologlcalPark.
� I � • USGS �uadrangle. Avhebwv, N.0
—r • •.�� ������������•••• •�� � � 19]O.P�alorevised19B1.
...... r _ �:
� . .�� AIIOtherOate:
\ � • �• N J (\ ( � � ..i.�.' • t� �� NorthCarolireD0T,1897-2001:
• � • � ' • � 1 •• N ' n\ �\ ��i� � � { .� • �' - Rantlolph CauntY.2W0.
� ee�� � e 1 : • �
� . � �— 1 � \ . - �._ �
• f.i-, � � �. � � I � �' �- • C'
N .. i ..' • 151 ' � U
� � ' � � � � • 9PUN L
�� .
, •• � �• • ` • • � . ' '� .. ' :__..—.._ V _ _ �
.' •• • • • �
� r ' , ' �'�.' • UWHARRIE ! • 7 �
' �� / 4
� ��
- " , � � NATIONAL �' f� $
, , � ,,i ;` FOREST � . •�� •.......... ! �,
...
— Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Primary Road
Seeondary Road
-- �-- MajorStream
� - ` NC Zooiogical Park
� �J Uwharrie National Forea!
���w.�•
:�������. ProjectStudy Area
Munieipal Boundary
���• Limit oi En4ra Tertito�ial Jurfadiction
-=== -- -== Main Eleetrieal Transmission Line
EasemeM
�� Eleetrieal Substation
�— Surfaea Water (Nationat
Wetisnd Inventory)
--�— Other Wetlands (National
Wetland Inventory)
Pronouneed Topography
�� 100.Year Flood Plain
�� Cdtfcal Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Proteeted Area Water
Supply Watershed
��1\1\\.��".- SupeAund Slte
� .� Major Industries
$Ybd1V131011
Fire Station
�'� Churoh
�` Sehool (Under Construction)
Q Potential Historlc Property
■ Rasidence or Busineas
� Private Ballpark
• Undarground Storaga Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w E
0 300 600 900 Meters
�
��\ NORTH GAROLINA DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - SOUTI
` UEPARTMENT US NIMPRovEMENI
. • � pF TIP ProjM No. R-25]
� � TRANSPORTATION 1uNDOLPNCOUNI
� FIGURE 3.2

:•
.•
•'" �t '�
•
✓'� • � ` 'T
� +-a
. r
' : I
l I
� � `� '
:� ,- ;
:. L . % .
: -:
� : /:
�. - F
• I� : • . . �e�� : . -. � L � / .
I '�f���� ' •�",�� �.� � ��-� /�rihm��� � � � � J �—
•,�I'i�/ \ • . �� � �: , � •• ! �� � .
'' �� ' � � � � • I � Mq�trtti � � �/, . �
. I/ ; ,
r
� � � � � �r ! �: �' �• �� , �� � � �' �� .
, � �
1 1 !\ •
I
� � • yc,.' � �MATCHLWE FIGURE32e �
C1/1�� � / J �• •/ J(y � � � I�r� / i
I 5 �-- .-'= Uh11AV •( . gf • � •
. /� �� �����I :
i�� I ' �• � ,�� ����-' �
( r � � . .,. � �� � . .
,� �. � .� .
�Y� �. 42 ,y�� / .
/. \\' 1 . ` �F �v � m •
�✓ ` �.� � ,�.; � / / , •
� � � � / ' � �`. �� / � �� i ���
� ��/_�, � � � ,� ���� � � � � '. � _
.
4l a \ � 1 �' SOP .-�' / / / • � �'9` '
� 1 � � � � j ,.' ' �
1
•��� � • • I I' / ��� \'•� //� �•• •
: � i : •
,��' . .\ .a � .
. 'l. .�' , � ! � • ' ; '
� ��— •
\ � • ,� •• ••
• ' . . � • ��. ', � '� . �✓/ i .�' �� . .
��,. � ':�`�: �� ` �/�,/ ' i � j��,�: " ' _ r' � . .
� \ \ / ( '� •.
" � � � ' � j , ����tE� . «
o �{ �� _ �i�� ' . � ..\
� � ! � • ..
,J: , . 1;— j : . e �
`� �: � .-';, i t/ � . � � , �.
_ ,, / ' � • � '" �' • • I
` '�' ; C _ ��, j % ; •
.d', �1 � j � f �\
<i+; i �/ I :�� • ' . ' `�
' 'd�r U?} / y / i
'� � � � /I � • � . �
��/ • ..�:� *{; /�---- I�' �../�� � • ' DATASOURCES
• .. � � .."� � ���'' • � � �, � � • �� �
�� � I �� '� : E' \ ro an
. 159• �`� ; ' F S -r� � � : ¢ . Copyright 19074997
/ , � I-�`\ /.'� � ' ; � 3+ � � � Ameripn �ig'Ral Carto9raPhY� Inc.
�'._r'4'[ �/ `t
/ . / ��-I B N • • y , : / ^ �.. \ 2002 W. College Ave., ApPletm,
/ f � r , 'zS �IN � s _ �: � 1 w�m sos�a.
�h' �.. � � ♦ .. � NC Zoological Park:
/ ��, • f' � � USGS Duadrangle: Ashebom, N.C.
� • � • � � _. . � I y � \ ' 19]Q PhWoreWsetl 1981.
. , I a� anar oa�:
' ' - ' �� • � • � NortA Camllne DOT, 199] - 2001;
.OX-gfOWI1 j.�� � i'r N ee*ri .• �� / � RandoiphCounry,2000.
Farm � j /: ' j : , . I \ / .
' � I
i / / c� : �..
' � �.._.
-'- ,� /N'NmuPp u' r
� ' W ,( ` �
� �� �� � ( �� �
� I J C %
�} `_ �. S �" . �'. /
i �� � F#
I ` i �' • 1 � � , �
I � � ' � �� � �`��� � , y-� , � �
• /� � I
� I f �1 \ #�� , \, . �.
,� ��� • ,/ �/ • �\,r� 1 1 1 1\'� e d��t�E;�.�� ��� � • -- \� •
��_
\ NORTN CAROLINA
1 DEPARTMENT
� OF
•� TRANSPORTATION
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Primary Road
Seeondary Road
— — �—�- Major Stream
- � _ NC Zoological Park
� _� ..> Uwharrie National Forest
»..
: � � � � � � �. Projaet Study Area
Municipal Boundary
�� c-� � Limit oi Eztra Territorial Jurisdietion
----------- Maln Elactdcal Transmission Line
Easement
� Eleetrieal Substation
� Surfaee Water (National
Watland Inventory)
�— Other WeUands (National
Wetland Inventory)
� � ��'�� Pronounesd Topography
�� 100-Year Fiood Plain
�;.;'� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
��� Protaeted Area Water
Supply Watershed
:`\\���- Supedued Site
� � � Major Industries
Subdivision
Fire Station
�' Chureh
� Sehool (Under Conatruction)
O Potential Historic Property
• Residence orBusiness
� Private Ballpark
@5 Undarground 5toraga Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w e
0 300 600 900 Metere
s
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
-SOUTHEAST
US641MPqOVEMENTE
T► Iroj�e< No. N�33]6
R�NOOLPHCOUNT'
FIGURE 3.2d

� , , _
'j � / j ' � 1 �
,j .. / �' ......� • 1 , 1 .I..
,. .
' / '.9 � � %'"� ��.�"� �•••" � ':•' .�y,i..».»... ..
/ %.�'` ' -__"" 4''�•••I� ���.�—'e�M�K• � .. •..
� �'� I
= ' ���/ �='"" � '7: nl � , � . 'i 1' .
.
�" �� • '� � �`� r.� j' '� ...•�� . � . . .� . . � . . . :
• '�
�� S� � . � ,.' � • �. ; . . . .
i; 1 • � • . �` �" ��i' ' �'� ' •I: i . � . .. .
:=• •• \
� . ; : . +� �\ � • . . .
/� � � ��' � � � f �..� ��� � .
�� ' ��.� '�/ .I• .•� • � , ���• �: � • � ,� l \ .
• ' F�Sry� / 'y' • ��� � •• \ � \ \ �
� •
% �
�, _ �� •:� :/� � �
' / • . ,
J : � ' . . :_: , � -- --- `
� . r � � :_------- •
. .
' � � �:;;:: __ •
1 : , .
r� ./� �•�ri. ' ; --- -- - - -- --- --
��:� • : /G '� ' � --- ' --
, fj,,' r '�, . -__ ---- ---
� .
� `�\�`� , � : ----
. •�. �. • •�% � �' :
,I y. . .� �` .
� � � • �� ���� � � • � � � �
� +� — // �.\ ! i \ ,
S � / �.� �'\ .. � � • —_) \`y : � �
ti% / . I . � ' `- � , �'�� ' �`{
. � ', I � i���' - �.
, � 'i / ' . . . ,�. �� .
� . � �� -' � � � � � :
/ � � ; � � . I � : \ , �
�V . � , . �� ' � .
• � ... � �'1�'� I � • � \
• �• •�N 1 • � •�
• ' �� r—=—, �
�t � �. ' I . �\
..
��, • ' � 1
• ' \
. , � • MATCH LINE FIGURE 3.2d
�.,m�. �-
r;••• . i"�' �
� .,.-- :;::����� } ; p
as/ _ � �j -, — \
� •� � / � ��
� 42 � ���M�„r� � � �� � � ,,,:
. /• � , �'� .
, �� . ��� , .
..• . — � -�1t
. �� � / •
�\._\ I� �•I DATASOURCES
. ''� ' _..�..�..\.,-� f / TW�9�aVhY
. —.. —.. covr�em tea�-ise�
/� nme�iwn ofgita� cenoeaahy� �nc..
zoos w. cou�a n�e., MWa��.
W iswnain 50914.
\N . % � • NC Zodogical Park:
��'+ USGS �uedrengle: Asbebom, N.C.
' 19�0, PhMoravieeA 1981.
.` �� i AIl Olher�ala:
j% Norlh Cerolina DOT, 1997 - 2001;
� Rar�ddpn counry.2000.
• j// /
• � �
. . ,:
' , i iJ�
� /
;� �= ' I
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Primary Road
Secondary Road
- - Major Stream
� � ,.. NC 2oologieal Park
<�...... _� Uwharrle National Forest
�,......�
.������,. Projeet Study Area
Municipal Boundary
���• Limit of Extra Territorial Jurisdletion
_=_________.. Main Eleetdeal Transmission Line
Eaaemant
� Elactrical Subatation
�— Surfaee Water (National
Welland Inventory)
—�— Other Wetlanda (National
Wetland Inventory)
� -� Pronouncad Topogrephy
d-]��it 700-Year Flood Plaln
�• Y �- Cdtieal Area Watar
Supply Waterahad
�; Proteeted Area Water
8uppiy Watsrshed
`��� \< Su edund Site
�.��\� \ P
,. � _ Major IndusMes
Subdlvision
Fire Station
� Church
�*• Sehool (Undar Construction)
Q Pote�tial Historie Propertyr
• Residenee or Business
� Privata Ballpark
� Underground Storage Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w e
0 300 600 900 Meters
S
��.� NORTH CAROLINA DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - EAS'
� DEPARTMENT uae41MPROVEMENI
OF TIP Projeet No. R33i
� TRANSPORTATION RANnoLPM coUN7
�-�y FIGURE 3.2

�� \�/ � ��1'I„si'�/P�(�. �' �� __ ��; `i�\��� • •
�•�% ^' � /' �o� �� /, '�'. k� J� � � I .r.�smuic,.w
49 � MATCH LI E FIGURE 32a ''/ / \•• '
� ; e :� / . � '� ��� j� �
i I 1 •�• �roir�eaw •; _� � i I
� �j . �`�� '�� ,.�M �� � �-_ ` .., ,�0�','-�,.1--___7. � `
t��; ; '�a=µ �s� , / '
. a �_ _,'/� i.
• � !' ' � w � � , � I . � �'� 1 ,�� . : : ��
� ��/ / - _���: °��%� �• ,
�III ' � �'�mer1�E§•'—� '��:/ /' • / �,�' .
/ �. . � �• aC\ '
� `� / I ��� � yC .
�• / \ / � � � � � • /�^� �• _,y5L00P� � � /
. �+ �. �ya•
L /� / �•��t'S . � y� �
: / �';� ,' . � • ' � . / r
��' , mnhzw \ / _ � •� • •;�� • I_� \ . \ � � �
� �j \ � /� ' .\ '
i•y�;1 ';+, �` . .'-�.� �� ♦.L��� .�ro� . /.i � `' �. �:
: . �`.. ����- :� �\ .. \ ,�� .,.. \ �� /; .
• ` � •'�
' .��. .\ ` . :
: . �, - � \ \ � `' � � /,
� ' � �� � � �� � � ,� � �\�� �/ �' .
_ — ;` � . � . ' : � � J�� � -�. \ � . w
�� •I• �" ,1 � . � • Haa�nk'
�� ' � , �% .A�. � . ' �, � /�. � ,
�� • ��.� '•� •• � \ . • • ��� ' ' �� � �'1 �Y� --- --->--�j
� . • � �,"/.N\• � .� \ � 'sw �nyo
..\ �' . �\ • . . I . \ . a ��y . � • v1
' ��, � � • • � 6 (
�` •� .._u' `�� %�_'_-_, � .� � ��" � �
� � � � h . //
'I •��� , ,�;�' • ..��� . ..\ .,� . S' � , , �N/% I� �ATASOURCES
� ��� � " � � � � �� / < � � \L TOPuBrsPh)"-
� --
�' �� . . . /' � ��( � - Copyn9ht798�49W
J • �� ...' .. �/ .I � l i Ametlpn D"gibl Carto9�phy. Inu.
�� j ; : . . . /. . a ! �'� 2002 W. Callege Ave.. ApPletoq
W lxonsln 54974.
� � � �!�� '! ` � ' ' j � / I '_T _� . Nc zoaioyi�i Pa.�:
f . � � . ,i � � I ` � USGS duetlrongle: Ashebom, N.C.
�, 19]0, PhMoravLsetl 7987.
,� ��;' �yo _'�' . -�\�`'���. �'�� ..\� FJIOIherDafa:
f � . •� ' �' .� —� / j � � rwm, ca�ime oor, > > -
• � 99 200t;
•� �� . • 1 . _- � �.�—1 I N � FentlalphCourrty.2000.
I . ' '•� • ti" • T � � ` � / �
��� • \ i I � \ � 'I ¢
I . . . . � .�., � LL • . ,
i•,',.. vuie�r,xwEw � i �� � . � .
�� BYP r Z I..Iy'
� ` a� , � � I V
� \ . � U • •
'''�• , - � BU9
--�- •.� •
V �• ' • , � � �G�.,f � � � nwrlw�. '/.
n
/� I I � •. . i-r a � ' L�. -_ '
NORTH CAROIINA
/� CEPARTMENT
:�� OF
` TRANSPORTATION
�i .3�
-- Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Primary Road
Secondary Road
-- — — Major Stream
C � ,.. NC Zoologieal Park
�;:-' Uwharrie National Forest
�..»...
:�����,.• ProjeotStudyArea
Munieipal Boundary
��� a Limit o( Extra Territorial Jurisdielion
-------- Main Eleetdeal Transmlasion Line
Easement
� Eleetrieal Subs4ation
—� Su�faoe Water (Nattonal
Wetland Inventory)
—� Other Watlanda (National
Wetland Inventory)
: Pronounced Topography
�k��� 100-Year Flood Plain
� �� Critical Area Water
Supply Waterahed .
�:� Protacted Area Water
Supply Watershed
�����>� Superfund Slte
Major Industries
Subdivision
FIfO $t8t1011
�' Church
�i'� Sehool (Under Coestruetion)
Q Potential Historie Property
■ Residanee orBusiness
� Private Ballpark
� Underground Storaga Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w E
0 300 600 900 Meters
s
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
-SOUTHWEST
w eairrRoveMerm
TI/ ►roJ�ct No. N-3338
xu�oouH couxrr
FIGURE 3.2b

, „ E
A
� Bl �
�c
i I Alternatives 1, 2, 13 8 14
Y
W
V�
� vES,�Pti _
, � /
I .
' �oad
I ��r
Gr�
� : � �'e
°'a,.
�ead c c
r�
Le
o�
4
1
G
n
Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 13 8� 14
�G
\a
�
a c��
��
oG
��`''o
Or`
„ _ P
�' � �
_� —i
0 500 1,000
0
m
0
rc
0
Y
x
W
z
J
x
u
¢
f
—, — -- � — —
. �; 9
/ _1`"'�v� . SouthH%ood Drive
/ NTRAUGH BRqNc�
� � ��
�DRO D _ /'aepe�o,e'ce � :
��e�` 15
� � e
Al�..�....a:...... A AIl �f�f nn o nn
G�'
/
;'
\\
a
�
E
m
�
�
0
�
n
O�
Legend
Construction Limits Alt. 1
- Construction Limits Alt. 2
Construction Limits Alt. 4
Construction Limits Alt. 10
Construction Limits Alt. 13
Construr.tion L. imits Alt. 14
� Alt. 22
� Alt. 29
� Alt. 33
Alternatives 10, 22, 29 & 33
7 �.
c
�
0
N � �
00 eet
�
�
Legend
�� Emergent Wetland
OForested Wetland
� Low Elevation Seep
O Pond
Existing RW
� Culvert
^'�-�— Stream
FIGURE HYDRO C
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY

Legend
Construction Limits Alt. 1
Construction Limits Alt. 2
Construction Limits Alt. 4
Construction Limits Alt. 10
Construction Limits Alt. 13
Construction Limits Alt. 14
Construction Limits Alt. 22
Construction Limits Alt. 29
Construction Limits Alt. 33
S�a�eySFarm Ro � I
O
z
0
!
x
W
Z
J
S
t�
a
f
15
Alternatives 1, 2, 13 8 14
� �
� � \ --��
VEST.
a
Alternatives 4, 10, 22, 29 & 33
�
0
JI
� �i
��1
m � _�
�\
� I J�' /
Da
�``�°�
e�°�
�^
0
�P� Chapel Roaa
.
T�
�Or
d a
_` _ ��bwn.—_'__'_..
Road
Alternatives 1, 13 8 14
�
1
az
a
0
�
D
�
0
�
�
m
D
�
0
Legend
� Emergent Wetland
� Forested Wetland
� Low Elevation Seep
� Pond
Existing RW
Culvert
�r^- Stream
.
rR EL 4%"
�ystal
d Road
/ ttehnedy Country prive
SQ�� Ujp2
G�d�
�dhd Drive
Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 22, 29 & 33
�
C
E
ti
�
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,O�eet
FIGURE HYDRO D
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY

�,�a NORTH CAROLINA
�TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO BUILD) 1997/2025
�+�";a�k. � DEPARTMENT US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
�.:. �,�., �
� OF TIP Project No. R-2536
TRANSPORTATION RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 7.7

T, � �
�,1►
��
�O
�O
��
'AO
ssoo
�7 2osoo
24900
60700
8600
14200
0
x
�
8400
13800
9900
17100
2300
3300 3000 1300 1000
9200 1700 2900 22000 18000 4900 4200 14900 13700 3700 3300
800 �1 3000 4700 21800 21100 23500 22700
5500 17200 18500 2100 6300 �yp� 20000 5800 7300 �0� 3700 35100 27300 i
100 � 29900 36000 S00 i 5200
� 1800 32200 460� 72000 42500 28300 2000 1700 3400 600 3500 � 14700
� 4400 1300
2100� 2300 1700 1800 5300 2900 6000 /�
� 900 7200 4100 7000 2800 2600 1820s
17300 16300
� �o0 49
200 400
11200 2900 � . 20900 440
�� 55200 680
29000 \ 100 �
4000
10300 � 100 �
\ v
\ � ,
\
. szo
v? \ 220 BUS �
Q � BYP
��� �
\
JtL'� \ 13200
J'� 35700
P �
� �000
� azoo
� � � 13200 20000 � �
�
� � �
v � �
� � 100 �
� 480D 4700 � � 600 2g00 � �
9800 14400 �— — � � �
800 2200 700
1800 52 � 2300
SOUTHMONT DR. -- �
1200
3900 5�00
1600•
, NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: NCDOT, ApN 7, 2000.
7600
13700, /
7500 �
16100 �
A /
��'�. 8900 /
�5•� �asoo �
159 �t.p� / �vC
'Q 100 / p�� KRO,
6400 900 200 � � •fl°� �o•
�� 13400 2000 �y3��y ,�
00 �
� � S00 7000 � 1000 3000 ����
2200 20600� � � 3600
., . 400 � — <100
I � v 1400 � � <700
N � 6200
� � — _ 18300 � � 400 4000
�� 2500 1600
39 � ' � 9600
� ! ���200 �4 C 19000
1000i �000 ��oo soo o,r
2700 � 4200 700 �PQ
� 600 4300 42
\ S'f �'�S 700 9400
\ FA�NI R��
�� 2500
\� �AI 5100
•�Z
� 1100 159 2500
�� j� z�oo sPu saoo
♦
� � 200
4000 � � 1000
12500 � \ 1200 � �� 1600
�700 — — — o GoNN�Gt� a000
Z�
Legend
17800
33500
1997 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
2025 Estimated Average Daily Traffic Volumes
��� �''° NortTH cARo��Na ALTERNATIVE 1
�` �s'��� � oePaernneNT � TRAFFIC VOLUMES (BUILD) 1997/2025
��,���.,.� •,
� I US 641MPROVEMENT3
_`��>' �F f TIP ProJec4 No. R-2536
TRANSPORTATION � RANDOLPH COUNTY
� �� FIGURE 2.7

March 22, 2004
To:
Copy:
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
MEMO
Meeting Attendees
Project File
Yvonne G.G. Howell, P.E.
Meeting Minutes — Merger Team, Concurrence Points 2A and 3: US 64
Improvemenfs, Aslieboro, Randolph County; TIP No. R-2536
March 11, 2004 10:30 am
Meeting Location: NCDOT Board Room
1 S. Wilmington Street; Raleigh NC
Attendees: Emily Lawton — FHWA
Felix Davila — FHWA
Richard Spencer — USACE
Chris Militscher — USEPA
Gary Jordan — USFWS
David Cox — NCW RC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele — iVCDENR — DWQ
Sarah McBride — SHPO
Rex Badgett — NCDOT — Division 8 �
Art King — NCDOT — Division 8
Jimmy Goodnight — NCDOT — Roadway
Tim Goins — NCDOT — Roadway
David Wasserman — NCDOT — Transportation Planning Branch
Jerome Nix — NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Eric Adrignola — NCDOT — ONE
Deanna Riffey — NCDOT — ONE
Rachelle Beauregard — NCDOT — ONE
Cheryl Knepp — NCDOT — ONE .
Carla Dagnino — NCDOT — ONE
Drew Joyner - NCDOT — TIP Program Manager
Brian Yamamoto - NCDOT — PD&EA
John Conforti - NCDOT — PD&EA
Pam Townsend - Earth Tech
Roger Lewis - Earth Tech
Ron Johnson — Earth Tech
Yvonne Howell — Earth Tech
Minutes:
Attached is the packet that was mailed to all meeting invitees (text only).
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Mr. John Conforti opened the meeting with introductions. Mr. Roger Lewis then gave a brief project
overview, including project history, purpose and need, and alternatives discussion.
Mr. Richard Spencer then asked about the ballpark (Scott Rush Ballfield), stating that he received
a letter from the properry owner's lawyer mentioning the document and questioning the omission
of an indirect and cumulative impact analysis. Mr. Spencer asked if the site is eligible for Section
4(f), stating the letter described the field as `used by area high school and middle school teams.'
This site has been investigated and it is privately owned and used by a select group, making it
ineligible for Section 4(f) protection.
Mr. Gary Jordan mentioned Threatened and Endangered Species and the secondary impacts,
particularly on the Schweintz's Sunflower. He stated we will need to do a new survey prior to
Concurrence Point 4A, including larger areas around the interchanges to account for secondary
development. Mr. Jordan stated he would assist the project team in determining the appropriate
area at the interchanges.
Mr. Chris Militscher questioned which two alternatives were disliked by the public (included in a
petition received following the public hearing) — Alternatives 1 and 13. The low-income/minority
communities were mentioned — Crestview Manor subdivision has a concentration of Spanish-
speaking residents. Mr. Felix Davila requested that the team discuss potential low-income mobile
home communities including Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road. Ms. Howell stated no low-
income communities were identified as part of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) for this
project. In addition, based on the CIA, mobile homes do not necessarily indicate low-income in the
Asheboro/Randolph County area. However, while Twelve Tree Road was not identified as low-
income, the mobile homes appear to be older, single wide, and on smaller lots. With these facts
in mind, the project team would like to maintain awareness of the project's impacts to the Twelve
Tree Road cornmunity and minimize where possible. Alternatives 10, 22, 29, and 33 impact both
the Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road communities.
Ms. Yvonne Howell described general information in the meeting packet as well as the general
impacts associated with the detailed study corridors, focusing on the human and build environment.
Mr. Militscher asked if any consideration was given to eliminating the interchange at NC 159 (Zoo
Parkway). This interchange was described as the `local access' as opposed to the Zoo Connector
interchange which is intended to only access the NC Zoo. Mr. Militscher questioned the interchange
spacing between these two interchanges. The optimal spacing between interchanges is one mile,
which was not possible in this area due to existing residential development. An `urban design'
including a single point urban diamond was mentioned, to minimize impacts and maximize spacing
between interchanges; Mr. Lewis explained that the NC 159 interchange was designed to minimize
impacts to the assisted living facilities on either side and the nearby residences, and an urban
design would increase those impacts.
Mr. Richard Spencer stated that community disturbance is a concern.
Mr. Militscher explained that the nine alternatives are so close in quantified impacts that any
decisions will need to be based on detailed information. �
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 3 of 5
Mr. David Cox questioned the triple-barrel culverts proposed at Little River, North Prong Richland
Creek, Vestal Creek and whether bridges may be cheaper at these sites. Mr. Cox also mentioned
that bridges at these sites could serve as wildlife crossings, which are not currently proposed at any
sites. Mr. Jerome Nix stated that NCDOT determines bridge versus culvert based on channel
characteristics, on a case by case basis. �
Mr. Militscher asked if bridging had been considered at any of the larger stream crossings including:
Little River, Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek. None of the
stream/wetland systems on the project were recommended for bridging based on wetland quality,
as determined by NCDOT and Earth Tech during a field meeting February 2003.
The team decided a field meeting will be required to further discuss bridging for Concurrence Po.int
2A. All those in attendance agreed that the field meeting should result in signatures for
Concurrence Point 2A. Mr. Drew Joyner suggested a half day in the field to see the stream crossing
sites and a half day at an area office to discuss Concurrence Point 2A and 3. All those in
attendance agreed to this scenario. ,
Mr. Militscher stated the USEPA would like to eliminate the following alternatives from further study:
Alternatives 4, 10, and 22. NCDOT, based on the post-hearing meeting and roadway design,
recognizes `less than ideal' design on Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 14. USEPA favors Alternatives 1 and
13 because of lower stream and wetland impacts; these alternatives have received organized
citizen opposition from the Crystalwood, Winnigham Estates, and Henley subdivisions. Alternative
33 was eliminated because of ageney concern over perceived potential for indirect and cumulative
impacts, associated with the distance (about 0.5 miles) from the established Asheboro ETJ at the
westerri project terminal.
Through discussion, fhe merger team agreed to move forward with Alternatives 13, 14, and 29.
Items requested for the field meeting include: aerial photography, DWQ ratings and stream
classifications, and cost estimates for culverts versus bridges at the identified crossings (Little River,
Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek).
Mr. Brian Yamamoto stated that all merger team members would be informed of the field meeting
and advised that the goal of this meeting would be to gain concurrence on bridging (Point 2A) and
LEDPA (Point 3). Ms. Sarah McBride of SHPO stated that she would concur with the group field
decision, provided the alternatives do not change from this point, though she did not plan to attend
a meeting in the field.
The field meeting was briefly discussed. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Travis Wilson would return the
week of March 15, 2004. Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele of NCDWQ stated she would be leaving her
current position March 22, 2004, John Hennessy is on paternity leave indefinitely, and Beth Barnes
is on medical leave indefinitely. Ms. Howell suggested all meeting notifications go to John
Hennessy and Beth Barnes. Carla Dagnino will be the NCDOT — ONE contact for this project.
These minutes are the writers' interpretation of the events and discussions that took place during
the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing within seven
(7) days. ,
0

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 4 of 5
If you have any additions, deletions, or changes to this memorandum, please notify Yvonne Howell
at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 5 of 5
E-MAILING LIST
Emily Lawton — [e-mail]
Felix Davila — [e-mail]
Richard Spencer — [e-mail]
Chris Militscher—[e-mail]
Gary Jordan — gary.,[e-mail]
David Cox — [e-mail]
Cynthia Van Der Wiele — [e-mail] (John Hennessy—
john.hennessy@ ncmail.net)
Sarah NlcBride — [e-mail]
Rex Badgett — [e-mail]
Art King — [e-mail]
Jimmy Goodnight — [e-mail]
Tim Goins—[e-mail]
David Wasserman — [e-mail]
Jerome Nix—[e-mail]
Eric Adrignola — [e-mail]
Deanna Riffey—[e-mail]
Rachelle Beauregard — [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp — [e-mail]
Carla Dagnino — [e-mail]
Drew Joyner — [e-mail]
Brian Yamamoto — [e-mail]
John Conforti — [e-mail]
Pam Townsend — pam.townsend @ earthtech.com
Roger Lewis — [e-mail]
Ron Johnson — [e-mail]
Yvonne Howell — yvonne.howell @ earthtech.com
0

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV�NT OF TI�ANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
DATE: February 5, 2004
TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: John Conforti, REM
LYivDo TrnPET'r
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Proposed Asheboro Bypass (US 64 Irnprovements), Asheboro, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project Number NHF-64(19), State Project Number 8.1571401, TIP
Project R-2536
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the subject project on July 23, 2002. The approved DEIS evaluated nine build
alternatives in detail. These nine alternatives follow two basic corridors, with varying cross-over
points to create nine combinations. All detailed study alternatives share the same corridor for the
NC Zoo Connector, as well as the easternmost segment from just south of SR 2604 (Luck Road)
to the eastern bypass ternunus at existing US 64. The study area and corridors are shown on the
`Detailed Study Alternatives' figure and more comprehensive project area information can be
found on Figures 3.2 a through e.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) 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 (1.6 km) 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 (0.5
km) north of the Mack RoadlDanny Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns
easterly to cross the Little River, the US 220 Bypass (Future I-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 (0.3 km) 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 (0.5 km) east of the NC 42Browers 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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 between the western bypass ternunus and SR 2824
(Pine Hill Road) (refer to Figure 2.6). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward the
east to cross NC 42 about 1 mile (1.6 km) east of the NC 42Browers 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 (1 km) 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
MAILING ADDRESS: Te�ePHONe: 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548MAILSERVICECErrrER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGHNC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

�
avoiding a wetland area on Tantraugh Branch. It then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves
north to cross NC 159 about 0.1 miles (0.2 km) 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.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile (0,8 km) 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 (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.1 miles (0.2 km)
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 I-73/74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over US 220 Bypass. The corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5
mile (0.8 km) 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 (0.2 km) 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 (1.6 km) east of the NC 42Browers
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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 13 � �
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Ashebaro, approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) 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 (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193
intersection. Alternative 14 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 (0.2 km) 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 (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 (Old
Hwy 49) intersection. The corridar continues south across Taylors Creek, then southeast using
the same corridar as Alternative 10. �
Alternative 29
Alternative 29 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western terminus to Mack Road. From this
point to the eastern terminus, Altemative 29 follows the Alternative 10 corridor.

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.
Zoo Connector
The NC Zoo Connector is proposed to be a two-lane parkway-type, controlled-access roadway
(see Figure 2.1). A four-lane divided roadway was considered, but was not justified based on the
future traffic projected for the NC Zoo.
The Zoo Connector would provide a trumpet-type interchange connecting to the proposed US 64
bypass about 0.8 miles (1.2 km) west of NC 159 (Alternative 22), providing adequate weave
distance between interchanges; this spacing is slightly longer for Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14,
29, and 33. From the new bypass, the Zoo Connector would proceed southeast across Tantraugh
Branch and Staleys Farm Road (there would be no access between the Zoo Connector and Staleys
Farm Road). As it nears NC 159, the connector would 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 would cross under NC 159, which would create a
more aesthetic entrance into the North Carolina Zoological Park.
The approved DEIS was distributed to Federal and State environmental regulatory and resource
agencies and to the general public for comment in August 2002. A pre-hearing open house was
held at the National Guard Armory in Asheboro from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on May 8, 2003;
approximately 350 citizens attended the open house. A formal corridor public hearing was held
May 22, 2003 form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., also at the National Guard Armory; approximately
350 citizens attended the formal hearing including representatives from NCDOT and FHWA.
Citizens opposed Alternatives 1 and 13 in a petition because of impacts to residential
neighborhoods along NC 42 including Crystalwood and Kennedy Country Estates; the same
petition supported Alternative 2, and implies support for all alternatives other than � 1 and 13.
Most citizens commenting generally supported the need for the facility but were opposed to the
impacts to the human environment overall and on all alternatives. The number of relocations,
residential and business, were re-assessed in November 2003; all alternatives relocate between
158 and 168 residences and between 23 and 27 businesses. Alternatives 4 and 10 displace the
least residents (158) while Alternative 14 displaces the most residences (168). Alternatives 29
and 33 impact the least wetland acreage (3.9 acres) while Alternative 4 impacts the largest
acreage (8.1 acres). Overall impacts to terrestrial communities were lowest with Alternative 1
and highest with Alternative 33.
Comments taken during and following the Pre-Hearing Open House and the Corridor Public
Hearing were summarized to identify common concerns. The summary led to the following
conclusions:
Opposition greatest for Alternative 1(14 individual comments and 179 person petition)
and Alternative 13 (15 individual comments and petition implies opposition to
Alternative 13) .
Support greatest for Alternative 2(2 individual comments and 179 person petition
[petition implies support for Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 14, 22, 29, 33]) and Alternative 13 (12
individual comments)
• Support for investigation into other alternatives including upgrading of existing facilities,
extension of Asheboro Bypass to outside the developed community (to west, to east
around Ramseur, to south, and new alternative to north).

The NCDOT held a post-hearing meeting on October 24, 2003. Citizens' comments were
reviewed and each alternative was discussed. The meeting attendees identified the following pros
and cons for each alternative. In addition, Asheboro local off'icials attending the post-hearing
meeting encouraged NCDOT to proceed with a selected alternative as quickly as possible.
Alternate Pros Cons
Public comments against orange section
1 Higher wetland impact
Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
2 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
4 Design: geometry through wetlands worse
Hi h wetland impact
Fewer public comments against
10 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC159
better
13 Lower number of stream crossings Public comments against the orange section
Lower linear ft. of stream im acted
14 Desi n: interchan es at NC 42 & NC 159 worse
22 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
Fewer public comments against
29 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159
better
33 Design: interchanges at NC 42 & NC 159 Higher terrestrial impacts
better
The NCDOT submitted a pernut application to the Department of the Army on November 25,
2002. On January 15, 2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice and
solicited comments on the nine build alternatives presented in the DEIS and at the Corridor
Public Hearing.
Concurrence Point 2A was added to the 404/NEPA Merger process after the agency visit in 2000,
requiring an additional field visit. Earth Tech and NCDOT biologists met in Asheboro on
February 25, 2003 to obtain information regarding Concurrence Point 2A. Meeting attendees
discussed the criteria for bridging potentially impacted streams and wetlands and visited Little
River, the only riverine system on the project. NCDOT biologist Randy Turner indicated this
wetland system did not meet the hydrologic requirements for bridging and that concurrence on
Point 2A might be addressed at the next interagency meeting, in conjunction with Concurrence
Point 3, based on this finding.
Figures Hydro A through E show the area streams and wetlands along with the recommended
structure locations. Tables follow detailing impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds associated
with each alternative.

TABLE 4.1: ESTIMATED RELOCATION IMPACTS (UPDATED)
ESTMATED NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS
DISPLACEMENT TYPE ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 4 ALT. 10 ALT. 13 ALT. 14 ALT. 22 ALT. 29 ALT. 33
Residential Owners 121 122 113 138 128 129 145 138 144
Residential Tenants 40 41 45 20 38 39 20 22 20
Minorit Households 4 2.48% 4 2.45% 1 0.63% 16 10.13% 4 2.41 % 4 2.38% 16 9.70% 16 10.0% 16 9.76%
Household Income Below $15,000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0(0% 0 0% 0(0%)
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Small Business < 8 em lo ees 26 27 26 23 26 27 23 24 23
Medium Business 8-12 em lo ees 1 � � � 1 � � � �
Lar e Businesses > 12 em lo ees � � � � � -- � � �
Business Tenants 12 12 12 14 13 13 12 14 12
Minorit Business 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
TOTAL BUSINESS RELOCATIONS 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23

TABLE S.1: US 64 IMPROVEMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FACTORS ALT.1 ALT.2 ALT.4 ALT.10 ALT.13 ALT.14 ALT.22 ALT.29 ALT.33
Len th miles 13.6 13.8 13.8 14.2 13.9 14 14.4 14 14.3
Interchan es 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Railroad Crossin - - - - - - - - '
Construction Cost Includes E & C $176,100,000 $178,500,000 $180,100,000 $186,200,000 $170,400,000 $180,300,000 $188,900,000 $194,100,000 $192,000,000
Ri ht-of-Wa Cost $27,610,000 $27,250,000 $25,740,000 $24,630,000 $29,330,000 $27,400,000 $22,240,000 $24,390,000 $25,080,000
Total Cost $203,710,000 $205,750,000 $205,840,000 $210,830,000 $199,730,000 $207,700,000 $211,140,000 $218,490,000 $217,080,000
Residential Relocations 161 163 158 158 166 168 165 160 164
Business Relocations 27 27 26 23 27 27 23 24 23
Schools Im acted - - - - - - ' ' '
Parks Im acted 1 P� 1 P� 1 P� - 1 P� 1 P� - ' '
ChurChes Im aCted 1 uc � uc 1 uc 1 uc � uc 1 uc 1 uc � uc � uc
Cemeteries Im acted - - - - - - - ' "
Electric Transmisssion Lines Crossed 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
Water Lines Crossed 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Eli ible Historical Sites2 - - - - ' ' ' ' -
Recorded Historical Sites and Historic _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Districts Im acted
Stream Crossin 18 22 24 26 18 20 25 23 25
USACEMitigableStreamslmpacted ig�230 21,627 23,566 23,265 15,695 18,114 20,866 23,292 19,961
linear feet
DWo Mitigable Streams Impacted p6,246 27,618 31,383 30,647 23,012 24,410 28,778 30,817 27,848
linear feet
Leaking Underground Storage Tank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sites
Noise Receiver Im acts 3 136 137 151 143 132 132 133 135 129
Number of Exceedances of Carbon _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
Monoxide Ambient Standards
Deciduous Forest acres 495.8 509.6 512.5 551.9 487.2 501.4 552.8 561.8 555.2
Ever reen Forest acres 34.5 26.3 30.3 31.3 39.0 30.9 35.9 31.4 35.9
Mixed Forest acres 33.7 52.4 58.6 53.0 32.6 51.2 47.6 49.0 48.0
Bare / Transitional acres 36.0 39.8 41.3 23.9 40.7 44.6 29.9 30.6 36.2
Cultivated acres 39.2 30.2 29.1 20.4 51.5 42.7 37.6 25.6 37.7
Pasture acres 113.0 100.0 88.4 113.5 102.8 89.9 89.5 98.6 87.0
Residential / Communi acres 162.3 167.0 178.8 188.9 168.7 172.8 193.7 187.8 1942
Total Wettand Im acts ° acres 6.1 6.1 8.1 4.0 6.1 6.1 4.0 3.9 3.9
Percent Wetland Im act vs.Total Im act 0.67% 0.65% 0.86% 0.40% 0.66°/a 0.64% 0.40% 0.40°/a 0.39%
Federall Listed S ecies Habitat - - - - ' - ' " "
Flood lains acres 8.91 9.17 8.94 9.84 8.91 9.13 9.84 9.90 9.92
1 = Privately owned
2= This property located outsfde right-o(-way limits, with potential etfects to be determinec
3= Noise receiver impacts include Category B and Category C
4= Total wetland impacts include Low Elevation Seep Wetlands, Forested WeUands, and Emergent Wetland:
uc= Under Constructlon

Area of Wetland or Pond Impact
*" Bridging not feasible at these sites based on wetland configuration and ramp configuration. In addition, if bridges intended as wildlife crossings, would be providing access to the
mainline and ramps only, not open terrain.

March 22, 2004
To:
Copy:
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
MEMO
Meeting Attendees �
Project File ,
Yvonne G.G. Howell, P.E. �
Meeting Minutes — Merger Team, Concurrence Points 2A and 3: US 64
Improvements, Asheboro, Randolph County; TIP No. R-2536
March 11, 2004 10:30 am
Meeting Location: NCDOT Board Room
1 S. Wilmington Street; Raleigh NC `
Attendees: Emily Lawton — FHWA '
Felix Davila — FHWA '
Richard Spencer — USACE
� Chris Militscher — USEPA -
Gary Jordan — USFWS ' �
David Cox — NCW RC • �
Cynthia Van Der Wiele — NCDENR — DWQ �
Sarah McBride — SHPO
Rex Badgett — NCDOT — Division 8 " '
Art King — NCDOT — Division 8
Jimmy Goodnight — NCDOT — Roadway
Tim Goins — NCDOT — Roadway
David Wasserman — NCDOT — Transportation Planning Branch
, Jerome Nix — NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Eric Adrignola — NCDOT — ONE
• Deanna Riffey — NCDOT — ONE �
Rachelle Beauregard — NCDOT — ONE
Cheryl Knepp — NCDOT — ONE
Carla Dagnino — NCDOT — ONE
' , Drew Joyner - NCDOT — TIP Program Manager
Brian Yamamoto - NCDOT —' PD&EA �
John Conforti - NCDOT — PD&EA `
Pam Townsend - Earth Tech
Roger Lewis - Earth Tech '
Ron Johnson — Earth Tech
Yvonne Howell — Earth Tech -
Minutes:
Attached is the packet that was mailed to all meeting invitees (text only).
'�

Merger Team Meefing Minufes
March 11, 2004
Page 2 of 5
Mr. John Conforti opened the meeting with introductions. Mr. Roger Lewis then gave a brief project
overview, including project history, purpose and need, and alternatives discussion.
Mr. Richard Spencer then asked about the ballpark (Scott Rush Ballfield), stating that he received a
letter from the properry owner's lawyer mentioning the document and questioning the omission of an
indirect and cumulative impact analysis. Mr. Spencer asked if the site is eligible for Section 4(f),
stating the letter described the field as `used by area high school and middle school teams.' This
site has been investigated and it is privately owned and used by a select group, making it ineligible
for Section 4(f) protection.
Mr. Gary Jordan mentioned Threatened and Endangered Species and the secondary impacts,
particularly on the Schweintz's Sunflower. He stated we will need to do a new survey prior to
Concurrence Point 4A, including larger areas around the interchanges to account for secondary
development. Mr. Jordan stated he would assist the project team in determining the appropriate
area at the interchanges.
Mr. Chris Militscher questioned which two alternatives were disliked by the public (included in a
petition received following the public hearing) — Alternatives 1 and 13. The low-income/minority
communities were mentioned — Crestview Manor subdivision has a concentration of • Spanish-
speaking residents. In addition, Mr. Felix Davila requested that we discuss the `low-income' mobile
home communities including Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road. Ms. Howell explained that no
low-income communities were identified as part of the Community Impact Assessment for this
project. In addition, mobile homes do not necessarily indicate low income. While Twelve Tree Road
was not identified as low-income, the mobile homes appear to be older, single wide, and on smaller
lots. With these facts in mind, the project team would like to maintain awareness of the project's
impacts to the Twelve Tree Road community and minimize where possible. Alternatives 10, 22, 29,
and 33 impact both the Crestview Manor and Twelve Tree Road communities.
Ms. Yvonne Howell described general information in the meeting packet as well as the general
impacts associated with the detailed sfudy corridors, focusing on the human and build environment.
Mr. Militscher asked if any consideration was given to eliminating the interchange at NC 159 (Zoo
Parkway). This interchange was described as the `local access' as opposed to the Zoo Connector
interchange which is intended to only access the NC Zoo. Mr. Militscher questioned the interchange
spacing between these two interchanges. The optimal spacing between interchanges is one mile,
which was not possible in this area due to existing residential development. An `urban design'
including a single point urban diamond was mentioned, to minimize impacts and maximize spacing
between interchanges; Mr. Lewis explained that the NC 159 interchange was designed to minimize
impacts to the assisted living facilities on either side and the nearby residences, and an urban
design would increase those impacts.
Mr. Richard Spencer stated that community disturbance is a concern.
Mr. Militscher explained that the nine alternatives are so close in quantified impacts that any
decisions will need to be based on detailed information. �
Mr. David Cox questioned the triple-barrel culverts proposed at Little River, North Prong Richland
Creek, Vestal Creek and whether bridges may be cheaper at these sites. Mr. Cox also mentioned
�

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 3 of 5
that bridges at these sites could serve as wildlife crossings, which are riot currently proposed at any
sites. Mr. Jerome Nix stated that NCDOT determines bridge versus culvert based on channel
characteristics, on a case by case basis.
Mr. Militscher asked if bridging had been considered at any of the larger stream crossings including:
Little River, Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek. None of the
stream/wetland systems on the project were recommended for bridging based on wetland quality, as
determined by NCDOT and Earth Tech during a field meeting February 2003.
The team decided a field meeting will be required to further discuss bridging for Concurrence Point
2A. All those in attendance agreed that the field meeting should result in signatures for
Concurrence Point 2A. Mr. Drew Joyner suggested a half day in the field to see the stream crossing
sites and a half day at an area office to discuss Concurrence Point 2A and 3. All those in
attendance agreed to this scenario.
Mr. Militscher stated the USEPA would like to eliminate the following alternatives from further study:
Alternatives 4, 10, and 22. NCDOT, based on the post-hearing meeting and roadway design,
recognizes `less than ideal' design on Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 14. USEPA favors Alternatives 1 and
13 because of lower stream and wetland impacts; these alternatives have received organized
citizen opposition from the Crystalwood, Winnigham Estates, and Henley subdivisions. Alternative
33 was eliminated because of agency concern over perceived potential for indirect and cumulative
impacts, associated with the distance (about 0.5 miles) from the established Asheboro ETJ at the
western project terminal.
Through discussion, the merger team agreed to move .forward with Alternatives 13, 14, and 29.
Items requested for the field meeting include: aerial photography, DWQ ratings and stream
classifications, and cost estimates for culverts versus bridges at the identified crossings (Little River,
Vestal Creek, Tantraugh Branch, and North Prong Richland Creek).
Mr. Brian Yamamoto stated that all merger team members would be informed of the field meeting
and advised that the goal of this meeting would be to gain concurrence on bridging (Point 2A) and
LEDPA (Point 3). Ms. Sarah McBride of SHPO stated that she would concur with the group field
decision, provided the alternatives do not change from this point, though she did not plan to attend a
meeting in the field. �
The field meeting was briefly discussed. Mr. Cox stated that Mr. Travis Wilson would return the
week of March 15, 2004. Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele of NCDWQ stated she would be leaving her
current position March 22, 2004, John Hennessy is on paternity leave indefinitely, and Beth Barnes
is on medical leave indefinitely. Ms. Howell suggested all meeting notifications go to John
Hennessy and Beth Barnes. Carla Dagnino will be the NCDOT — ONE contact for this project.
These minutes are the writers' interpretation of the events and discussions that took place during
the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing within seven (7)
days.
0

Merger Team Meefing Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 4 of 5
If you have any additions, deletions, or changes to this memorandum, please notify Yvonne Howell
at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].
�IL

Merger Team Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2004
Page 5 of 5
E-MAILING LIST
Emily Lawton — emily.lawton @fhwa.dot.gov
Felix Davila — [e-mail]
Richard Spencer— [e-mail]
Chris Militscher—[e-mail]
Gary Jordan — gary,jordan @fws.gov
David Cox — david.cox@ ncwildlife.org
Cynthia Van Der W iele — cynthia.vanderwiele @ ncmail.net (John Hennessy —
john.hennessy@ ncmail.net)
Sarah McBride — sarah.mcbride @ ncmail.net
Rex Badgett — [e-mail]
Art King — [e-mail]
Jimmy Goodnight— [e-mail]
Tim Goins—[e-mail]
David Wasserman — [e-mail]
Jerome Nix — [e-mail]
Eric Adrignola — [e-mail]
Deanna Riffey — [e-mail] .
Rachelle Beauregard — [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp — [e-mail]
Carla Dagnino — [e-mail]
Drew Joyner — [e-mail] �
Brian Yamamoto — [e-mail]
John Conforti — [e-mail] �
Pam Townsend — pam.townsend @ earthtech.com
Roger Lewis — [e-mail]
Ron Johnson — [e-mail]
Yvonne Howell — yvonne.howell @ earthtech.com
�

■
I
� 'S'""d,� � "l �CFk f2, 2oa `i
�� - � '�n�cu,�r rJc.� /1�1�'�._.
�aa.:.o: � ,
rr
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVER':OR
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
�.�t �-��-.,._ .o,:_i'i���� � -.,',C.f
February 19, 2004 ,�� �,� /U �. �' � r���
Merger Team Members '"� � 44�•
John Conforti, REM
SUBJECT: Proposed Asheboro Bypass (US 64 Improvements), Asheboro, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project Number NHF-64(19), State Project Number 8.1571401, TIP
Project R-2536
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the Draft Environmenta] Impact
Statement for the subject project on July 23, 2002. The approved DEIS evaluated nine build
altematives in detaiL These nine altematives follow two basic corridors, with varying cross-over
points to create nine combinations. Atl detailed study altematives share the same corridor for the
NC Zoo Co�necror, as well as the eastemmost segment from just south of SR 2604 (Luck Road)
to the eastem bypass terminus at existing US 64. The study area and conidors are shown on the
`Detailed Study Altematives' figure and more comprehensive project area information can be
found on Figures 3.2 a through e.
Alternative 1
Altemative 1 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately OS miles (0$ km) 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 (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor curves [o the southeast ro cross Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 03 miles (0.5
km) north of the Mack Road/Danny Bell Road intersection. From Mack Road, the corridor turns
easterly to cross the Litde River, the US 220 Bypass (Future I-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 (03 km) north of the NC 159/SR 2839 (Staleys Farm Road)
intersection. Continoing northeast, the corridor crosses Richland Ci�ek, SR 2824 (Pine Hill
Road), and NC 42 abou[ 0.3 mile (0.5 km) eas[ of the NC 427Browers Chapel Road intersection.
The al[ernative [hen crosses Squirrel Creek, SR 2604 (Luck Road), and a tributary to Gabriels
Creek to end at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6 miles (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 2
Altemative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 between the western bypass terminus and SR 382A
(Pine Hill Road) (reFer to Figure 2.6). At Pine Hill Road, Alternative 2 turns more toward the
east to cross NC 42 about 1 mile (1.6 km) east of the NC 42/Browers Chapel Road intersection.
This eorridor then curves northward, crossi�g Squirrel Creek and SR 2604 (Luck Road) and ends
at US 64 east of Asheboro, 0.6 miles (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street intersection.
Alternative 4
Altemative 4 is the same as Altemative 1 from the westem bypass terminus to between US 220
Business and NC 159. Just east of Cres[view Church Road, this altemative curves sli�hdy sou[h
MAILING ADORESS: TE�EVHONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
�`1C �EPARTMENT QF TRPNSPORTATION FAX: 919�733-9794 TRANSPOATATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALY515 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548MniLSeRvicECer�rea WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.007.STATE.NC.US Rn�EiG�+NC
Rn�EiGH NC 27699-1548

avoiding a wetland area on Tantraugh Branch. It then crosses Staleys Farm Road and curves
north to cross NC 159 about 0.1 miles (0.2 km) 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
ternunus at US 64 east of Asheboro.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) 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 (1.6 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 intersection.
The corridor continues south across Taylor's Creek and Mack Road about 0.1 miles (0.2 km)
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 I-73/74) where Southmont Drive
crosses over US 220 Bypass. The corridor continues eastward across US 220 Business about 0.5
mile (0.8 km) 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 (0.2 km) 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 (1.6 km) 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 (1 km) east of the US 64/Presnell Street
intersection.
Alternative 13
Alternative 13 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile (02 km) 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 13 mile (2 km) 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 (0.2 km) 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 13 mile (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193
intersection. Alternative 14 curves to the southeast using the same conidor as Alternative 2.
Alternative 22
Alternative 22 begins at US 64 west of Asheboro, approximately 0.1 mile (02 km) 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 (2 km) west of the NC 49/SR 1193 (Old
Hwy 49) intersection. The corridor continues south across Taylors Creek, then southeast using
the same comdor as Alternative 10.
Alternative 29
Alternative 29 is the same as Alternative 1 from the western terminus to Mack Road. From this
point to the eastern ternunus, Alternative 29 follows the Alternative 10 corridor.

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.
Zoo Connector
The NC Zoo Connector is proposed to be a two-lane parkway-type, controlled-access roadway
(see Fib re 2.1). A four-lane divided roadway was considered, but was not justified based on the
future traffic projected for the NC Zoo.
The Zoo Connector would provide a trumpet-type interchange connecting to the proposed US 64
bypass about 0.8 miles (1.2 km) west of NC 1.59 (Alternative 22), providing adequate weave
distance between interchanges; this spacing is slightly longer for Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14,
29, and 33. From the new bypass, the Zoo Connector would proceed southeast across Tantraugh
Branch and Staleys Farm Road (there would be no access between the Zoo Connector and Staleys
Farm Road). As it nears NC 159, the connector would 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 wouId cross under NC 159, which would create a
more aesthetic entrance into the North Carolina Zoological Park.
The approved DEIS was distributed to Federal and State environmental regulatory and resource
agencies and to the general public for comment in Aub st 2002. A pre-hearing open house was
held at the National Guard Armory in Asheboro from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on May 8, 2003;
approximately 350 citizens attended the open house. A formal corridor public hearing was held
May 22, 2003 form 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., also at the National Guard Armory; approximately
350 citizens attended the formal hearing including representatives from NCDOT and FHWA.
Citizens opposed Alternatives 1 and 13 in a petition because of impacts to residential
neighborhoods along NC 42 including Crystalwood and Kennedy Country Estates; the same
petition supported Alternative 2, and implies support for all alternatives other than 1 and 13.
Most citizens commenting generally supported the need for the facility but were opposed to the
impacts to the human environment overall and on all alternatives. The number of relocations,
residential and business, were re-assessed in November 2003; all alternatives relocate between
158 and 168 residences and between 23 and 27 businesses. Altematives 4 and 10 displace the
least residents (158) while Alternative 14 displaces the most residences (168). Alternatives 29
and 33 impact the least wetland acreage (3.9 acres) while Alternative 4 impacts the largest
acreage (8.1 acres). Overall impacts to terrestrial communities were lowest with Alternative 1
and highest with Alternative 33.
Comments taken durina and following the Pre-Hearing Open House and the Corridor Public
Hearing were summarized to identify common concerns. The summary led to the following
conclusions:
Opposition greatest for Alternative 1(14 individual comments and 179 person petition)
and Alternative 13 (15 individual comments and petition implies opposition to
Alternative 13)
Support greatest for Alternative 2(2 individual comments and 179 person petition
[petition implies support for Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 14, 22, 29, 33]) and Altemative 13 (12
individual comments) . ,
• Support for investigation into other alternatives including upgrading of existin� facilities,
extension of Asheboro Bypass to outside the developed community (to west, to east
around Ramseur, to south, and new alternative to north).

The NCDOT held a post-hearing meeting on October 24, 2003. Citizens' comments were
reviewed and each alternative was discussed. The meeting attendees identified the following pros
and cons for each alternative. In addition, Asheboro local officials attending the post-hearing
meeting encouraged NCDOT to proceed with a selected altemative as quickly as possible.
The NCDOT submitted a permit application to the Department of the Army on November 25,
2002. On 7anuary 15, 2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice and
solicited comments on the nine build alternatives presented in the DEIS and at the Corridor
Public Hearing.
ConcuTrence Point 2A was added to the 404/NEPA Merger process after the agency visit in 2000,
requiring an additional field visit. Fzrth Tech and NCDOT biologists met in Asheboro on
Februazy ?5, 2003 to obtain information regazding Concurrence Point 2A. Meeting attendees
discussed the criteria for bridging potentially impacted streams and wetlands and visited Little
River, the only riverine system on the project. NCDOT biologist Randy Tumer indicated this
wetland sy�,tem did not meer rhP h���oloo;c reauirements for bridQinQ and that concurrence on
Point 2A might be addressed at the next interagency meeting, in conjunction with Concurrence
Point 3, based on this finding.
Figures Hydro A through E show the area streams and wetlands along with the recommended
structure locations. Tables follow detailing impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds associated
with each alternative.
. -I�(d ,�• ' �
.o, i'f'`.-� c
�� � a �
°6 `_ .
a �o
an.�ar�
a ne�
C6�
� c�.�� 3 � h�
�1Cpo7 n�
� (�a�re aNzeun�.a
�,. d� �
vs. Gw�,u(.t�l-�
�� i�. ot2 a� �3-
/y rn�
� � ��3
��,.�.�-�.�,��. �, fi�-
♦� ., �
� i . .
�.-�' 72�
� �' �� ,�„�;� ,�s ,,�� .
�
�f�l
^�✓GJla�p,

TABLE 4.1: ESTIMATED RELOCATION IMPACTS (UPDATED)
ESTMATED NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS
Owners
�Id Income Beiow $15,000
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS
LT.1 ALT.2 A.4 A.10 ALT.73 ALT.14 ALT.22 ALT.29 ALT.33
121 122 113 138 128 129 145 138 144
LI(Y�� LICi'�� /.ICYDI/ Li� � tICYa� tI(3'�� ti(i'�� tICY�� tI(3'[
���,�������
�dium Business 8-12 em lo ees 1 - - 1
r e Businesses > 12 em lo ees - - - -
siness Tenants 12 12 12 14 13
�ori Business 4 3 3 3
�TAL BUSINESS RELOCATIONS 27 27 23 27
� �►a.¢�d- Fr'El ' {�',� �.�' Zi4.
e��,n.e. n��G��, w� 3. 6a�.�.e! ,6� cu,G�.vi,�
L�� � �
ves-f r,J (d�.
7u.-,�
�•c�� � �
a� . �������.e�ao�c�
�jdtia,w�r� � �i�tiu:� � .
GvQ ��� ',' ,��""' G',�,�-Q .
13 12 14
2 3 3
27 23 24
:�
0
�
3
23

and HlstoAc
�
�y�,.ren�'�
ONMENTALIMPACT
163
27
19,230 21.627
26246 27,618
.Fa�::S3
512.5
158
FZi
T�+am«qi«,wo�n.wrqma-wrxm�....m� wwre•i.�cawwa.w�+ox
NaW raceMx Yipech IMib Cala{pry B ud Catrypy C
Talel weW W M�V�b MUJa lwv ENveYan Saai VlatleMe. FaroapE We4M�. rtl EmxY� W�tleM
lhtlarCaiuYucYan
,b�c � ��w�cz�.�- ,c�.� �hot �o�o � �
d,2�e.d : �ma�ivrs �, 2, �F, � o, ZL ,� 33.
���� �4-I�ler►�a--h'ves: l3, ��f, .f- z9.
f
166
18 20
15.695 18,114
23,012 24,410
132 132
4872 501.4
39.0 30.9
32.8 512
�
S
�T�7
5
3
23
23292
30.877
135
� 193] 187.8
4.0 3.9
0.4096 0.4096
%�t, �-�p{en,fia(
fvr IC�
��
ALT
3
7
129

Aesumptlons
'FOREST refers to Forested WeUands
'EMERGENT refers to Emeryent Wetlends
'SEEP' refers ro Lax Elevation Seep

PROJECT LOCATION
� NORTH CAROLINA US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
��`� ;;
,„+,;�� ��, DEPARTMENT TIP Project No. R-2536
_��''' �F
RANDOLPH COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 1.7

y �, i> — � � --- eNo - ..,...
' I a��- PROJECT ,� .;,•t
� ryl ��
BEGIN �o � �� �'=,
PROJECT I , I; �� �Qe�2��5j ;� �
�' `LASHEBORO � �
� � i � �� ;i— � ..
( m \�
SR i, � i 64, Alternative
r �
� ae 1 -. � �- � /
�z
�
y
✓ _ „� � .
�� A �- --- ' i-- � : 1
( j � � � � � i ' �:
� � � S9
... °� ' i � � � - • . �sW
, ��;., I_ ASHEBORO � � ♦i � I � Altemative
�
2
I F
� I I' p
_ �� �� �� h ) � � o
, `�
1 �-: - �
"� I /
�� I l
♦ i 1 _
c_ L.V 1 I
1 I A _ `r/ 1 1
� � 64'� _ �i � � _ 4 �
� _ — - � 'a' � f � Alternative
' ' i 8 �- ' 4
. • � �p1 j �
�
s �
�;
i
9
1
1 'i �
1 SP — i _ _
I ! : . (jl� HYi � � \ � U� � ` �"S
�% ' � i � � � I—r; � �� � �V Alternative
��� � � URE -{J ; a""�' /'`�'` 10
,
� � :/ � Y Q '� 15 � � � � _
� : �e- �� � F�Moows�a�, � ���� �
49 . ���:,000�° �a - S ' � �-. � j Alternative
� i,� � a� % 13
� �ye / 2 � � �� �� � � i
� . I � f I o �1 u�' �
j ' , _ j�� ( � � % - t'� �+ '
� � - _ ��a's°�� � i � �_
1 pJ / Il �A1�.....-.ti....
�(OC�N �
� •'�ANry � � / ROv�� . '��
fneF p .. � ✓ I ' , f ,
� r�_ r,�, .. BELL- '.L.—'__ - ,- `It ...1 : e
.�'LO �iMrn Ro � �— �y�,2 ._ „`� , «
, l .f: ; . //� � � ��... I I i'� '. '" �O n. ��_ l \. �
� � � `i—'�:b4,Q (_ � � ��l,�. ... � ' � �
� �_ 4!y �'� — %� - � ��
�, i RY � � 2 � p� .o
�kI � //,� '•q � . •�� HarLeYs • A %ii. Z00
�Y r .'Q / / � • '• Mountam. � •�� '.J
0 0.5 1 2 �;._ J�•. .. .. • . .
Miles : �� . '
/ \BZ8-
Kilometers '�\ � � � '�p�n Ro�'� - . -. uwhartie 59
0 0.5 1 2 3 '��' Ta�er " � �Natianab � � '� �`•. � ..$PUH� �
� / . �.Foresl�
Detailed Study Alternatives
The figure above shows the nine Detailed Study Alternatives identified by NCDOT for further
study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US 64 Improvements in Asheboro.

' \�� �• � `3 f /� •� ..�/
\_
• �� :� �.
' •/��� • �. �� • ��
•
• �� � , l
. ',� l � `�\ � � !/f/s
� ..-,� , �. ,� %
� • �
, , • . , `� �� �° , .. .
-= • \�� i
; � \ i �� . .
� . \� � �'4s-
. � \ .
• : t'� � e�'1� ��• .
' • � l
� : ��`' •
m •
�."— �. • • � � �
/� • � �� >� •� _ ` :'�
� �
, f .. \ �
, l .
•
•
� ' � I i
. �
;�__ ' � . �
'i I � :
l :
� ' �\ � , ,- _ ' -___.
. I; , . . 1
• / ,� • I
7• , 1 • •
,� .
, � .
. � ;�.J, • .
• j
. / •
i � � ll. •/� • : ��/ �
. . • . �
� • . •
��• 'i
•,
.. � %i
. . . .
.
� i.
. � �, . /
•
. • ' •
. , f � . . . �,
. _ �-•' r
\� NORTXCAROLINA
1 DEPARTMENT
�" / OF
��y TRANSPORTATION
�G.
�_._: 9v
. % .
�, �' ��w� � � : �
�- ' /
�_ � � i e
�'(/� ,;; � i � i
, �/ '
�- � l
�_ . �
��, ='
oara sourtces
TCo�pyrigPhti 987-1997
nnren�� ore�mi canaeaanr, i�G,
2002 W. Collape Ave.. Appleton,
W lsconsin 51914.
NC 2oological Park:
USGS quedrangle: Asheham, N.C.
7970. Photarevised 198'1.
NI Otlier Oata:
Norih Cerollne DOT, 1997 - 200t;
RanEolph Comrty, 2000.
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
---- Major Stream
`� ` � � ' _ NC Zoologieal Park
�.__ � Uwharrio National Forest
.���N���
•......•
• Projeet Study Aroa
Munielpal Boundary
���• Limit of Extra Territoriai Jurisdiction
=_====_==__-� Main Electrieal Transmission Line
Easament
� Electrieal SubsWtion
--�— Surfaea Watar (National
Wetland Inventory)
--�— Other Wetlands (National
WeUand Inventory)
r �': Pronouneed Topography
��} 100-Year Flood Plain
�� Critieai Area Water
Supply Watershed
�� Protaeted Area Water
Supply Watarshad
ti�y���t.� Superfund Sita
_ � ���� Majorindustries
8ubdivision
FIfB $tBtlOfl
_ Church
� Sehool(UnderConstruetion)
O Potenliai Nistorlc Property
• Residence or Business
� Private Ballpark
� Underground Storage Tank
N
0 750 1500 2250 Feet w e
0 250 500 750 Meters
' S
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - WEST
U8841MPROVEMENTI
TIP Profeel Ne. R-2538
RANDOLPX COUNTY
FIGURE 3.2a

�"• � �:�����i���� - � l, ����� ••�I:
��� �� • �' �� ��� ��� /�� �� ,,�l�'
,•
49 � MATCH LI E FIGURE 32a � � /� •�' � I; ,g
\'
_ ' � i � I �1 � � � rn''a�oir%+�Srto � �� , • � , �
• i � . � . _
• �� � rs�ma+TM �� •` • 'O '• t'1 �7.
• I. I�\ • _ 'v�woa_ •'wteNe�".icgs� �. 0
. � � ' �� � : � � ���� ���.� � � J/ �
a' , � � ,
� � _�� � �� /' ��•. \ . . � .
��• � "�rm• ' �� ;�, ' ��
� v / � � I �;' ' ��
/ �' �.--'� � �,
� •
• i� � L UMANNFGpsOR . �y A
• ` /� /� / ��:i�•/�C� • y`�•• ,\
� � \ . . ���� �... : ;, / �.,I � �
' / / �
� �,�� � .
� � � - �.. �• .�� �
� � � ' •� _. �� . / \�� , �'m
� ��� � __ � ������ � ,
i'$ • ��'�.`� \ .. . . �:
• �'\1 . �' � , � . ` . �
` " \
• , �, :`
� � � �.� ♦
' • .�: , • ��I \
; • \ � R
. • .. • `� . � \
— —..% '.• . • � _ I • � —
`..1 � • • .
w i'
1• • I � '• •� , � •
� ' ;•. . ��� . � 11
' • \ \� • �• • •' ��� � • �•�•,1. . . ' � � ��
• �� . � . �
.,� ��� � � � �� � �� �
. . � :�.
�� �� . �� �V III�I 8
• �%y�f . A' ` . '?� �'%
/` •
• ��
'�� . • i
,.J � ��� � � � � �i
i ' f� �•/ fi
�� .� �,. � � y
( . �..�; .
�' '� � • �9°. / � --�
�� • ,• �� �\ - . >N '�'��.�-
I � ' . • .. . •'•'�•�. •• � • I
� � � �ii
•
� •.� (_v�rcaurem �
\ \
__ •
� � ��• • .� �1
•� `.
. �- '�� � �� '�
\ . . µ
�
�� NORTN CAROLINA
1 DEPARTMENT
;�• OF
� TRANSPORTATION
��
� �� � ��
/ ' . . Mcoansi
� :OOp� �
r
i �--- `� ff .. .
. •� .. � .
\�\.�1.—• �-�-
. �n
Hat+in�
.r , — �
� � �.
•r— i j_
�� �
/ i 1
i
i r
/ DATASOURCES
� I TopogrephY:
��—'-" �PY�9hti987-099]
I Amenwn DigiGl Certography, Inc.,
�-� �. 2002 W. Callege Ave., Applelon,
�'-�� Wisconsin54974.
� � _� . NC Zooloqical Pad:
� ` USGS �uadrangle: Asheboro, N.C.
� � � '�/� 19]0, PhNorevaeE 1981.
� � AIIOtherData�
/� � J North Camlina DOT, 1997 - 2007;
-� � � N � Randolph Counry, 2000.
• � �
I
� � I �
. �
c�
uo ./-l. . w � -.
BYP Z I
� � � ���..v . IYt
�� .
(: U
Q
` . . � BUS
- y�j� prutitm' •��•
� —_ __ •
_.. .
Sii � '
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Primary Road
Secondary Road
— �� Major Stream
� �' _. NC Zoologieal Park
�_; -. Uwharrie National Forest
�.. «...
: �• Projeet Study Area
• • •• Municipal Boundary
���• Limit of Extra Territorial Jurisdietion
-------_-- Main Eleetrieal Tranamission Line
Easement
� Eleetrieal Substation
�— Surfaee Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
--�— Other We4lands (National
Wetland Inventory)
Pronounead Topography
��y 100-Year Flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Proteeted Area Water
Supply Watershed
�����:�- Superfund Site
' �� Major Industries
Subdivision
Fire Station �
� Church
� Sehool (Under Construction)
Q Potentiai Nistoric Property
• Residence or Buainess
Private Ballpark
� Underground Storage Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w E
0 300 600 900 Meters
s
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
- SOUTHWEST
YS661MPROVENENT3
n� r.o�«e Ho. a�zsae
�uxoo�rx cou�rr
FIGURE 3.2b

.� f . . � - �\-'1 -- )` , n , �
� I: � ✓ N :j Y /�.
./ n � •.� ) . . .�,. � $ /_� � , / ? `� . / / `� .. �
N � — . V� b �/� � LL / M1 \� �/ ' �Npp �,
.w' . . .5 t�^��I� j� Z J'�. 159 -- �� ���' -
OG . • N
�D
���
0 ��
�
• �' 1 � , 1 � -� / '4%
t� . ' T N/�� z I �• _�m . �,
� : :��..� �?� j. ��� � i ,.� • / ,��
x ' . � •�' � j � �`
� � � �.. \ � �„� �w�`�' '�/ . • \ j � % J •
� � �� � � � �` ' '� � L/ /
i . ��� �
, 7 ��; / . . \ �� � • j �
" - _ r_„__ �'� / � / ��
_ �hV FfP: �� . /: �' � ` �' • •
�• • � •J •. ll �/•��Ib ��� \�'\ � ___ _ 1 •/ �`���I/'
� � . � _ '� o I � • . . s�-�'�-_�— �� � /%) • i � ---i �,�� .� 3.' � t��/,.
� � � 1 • '��aR �-------�;�� : \ �_� ��\ I '�� . ` __ �` .� � ✓
A�� �. ,� �• / i �� � �� .� ,
� .--� � �-- - —.� ,, �
�l�,�,�_� / �nr� / ��'�m� � �"°� ���. :�
�. ..�'�� . ,,. . e'vO " �i \�` —� � � - � �
s',. ,, . Cr stvi v ' . ,
�i� :. �,._�,.�C ; •rvrecr � . / +S�iiw¢s� �-�.` j ���� ! ���. •. � �•� '
�
eus H i ;' '�°' ;p
\\ �. ; I � Su�T'.In Ofl , �' � / � ?T^�' . �� ` - �j�,
. . � I � � . . • . % �1 i �i��- � ��.,` i .
-: .. • .� % . • '/Y:-. • � • �.
�,� . '�P, . ' l' � L_ �� • \ • t
'. \
� ty`� I • � '•.�',� � • i • �� \ ��
\ \ /• \ . "µ'w"' .. •' / /// . Wsry Y • . i� --� 1 � ; 3'�J-��1:1 � •4nuow
�' �` ., �I. q , .� T � c�
� \�\� • �M -,; / . �' / ' ----_.. . : . � - ���'+
� r• �, �/ �I• .i � �\ ` � �r-
i�� .
' • � � � �'MVn / • �• - ' . - i \ `�I . �.. � _
s . `\ ;�' % : 1, ' l�� � ,••..: .. ; i �' -�
� , �� � •• .��—, . . . ��--.: \'�•' • . � �-- ..i 1 r . � �.
• �a$ �s.• . : , I, .��`�, � �� ; ; _� , .�' �
•�'�. � "�gtv � . ti i^� �// /��Y,� � ' � � � \ � � .� }.
� i% • /I�I,\ \l • � � l �� � — �
� • � 'y ���re_��_ Jsi � � :\ � 'p ' 1 ` � i / . � / / , 1
'�-� — � .�. . �i ._ . . .-- _ � • 1 .
( � � � • / DATASOURCES
/ � / : �� \��49t}. � . .• •�: • '�o�-� � • �` � . � •
� j ,' HARVEYS • ' /// .i� Too��PhY
• - f: - "'°va�l' • . = �. �• _ .� ' . � . - _, �. \ -�- . / / ' com�+em isa�-�s9�
. '� �-. ` .••'". ' MOUNTAW •I �nCenDigilalCartoprePhy,lna,
/ T � � • . . .. ��(' • � � � � �� @ � . � . • � 2002 W. Colle9e Ave.� f+PWeton.
�� � • �� � • • � �� � � � `. , � i t !� � � � �� Wisconsin 51914.
•.������., . . � I NCZooloqlralPark:
� =�- . I ''�� ' � � ' • � USGS Ouatlrangle, Asheboro, N.C.
• � . . � 1910, PhotorevieeE 1981.
..r...�.J,............• . aiana,oa�:
\ � N� . , i q� ' North Camiire DOT, 1997 - 200t:
, ' � �'� � � �• � m ' `` I,� ! � � � i�-� � _ _ a'" r��aoion cw,�ry. z000.
��, f� � � �- � N � �' l
' ,
i' ' • �_, ' C Q� 1��,';' # .�l 'u i � — �`.
. �`: • N • • i� � � U
. � i'� . -..,\ . . . . .. • 8WR C
• � �• : � j • • '_'\_ 1 �� . • ' .. . \ _ �'
�I ; _• �%. ' '� 1---' � UWHARRIE � �' . � a
�— ) •
� � . NATIONAL �• � �
• , �� ,�� - � � �.� FOREST � � '���''•--•�'.�.. � y
��r
�� NORTN CAROLINA
!• DEPARTMENT
�'�, OF
<, . TRANSPORTATION
�.�� s'
Legend
� Detaited Study Corridors
Primary Road
Secondary Road
------�� MajorStream
<�' � � NC Zoological Park
�_____ ;> Uwharrie National Fmest
���N��
:�,���,: ProJectStudyArea
Munieipal Boundary
�� F• Limit of Extra Territorial Jurisdietion
---= - =_- Main Eleetrieal Transmission Line
Easemant
��, Electdcai 5ubstation
—�— Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
—� Other Wetlands (National
Wetland Invantory)
Pronouneed Topography
��-��� 100-Year Flood PIaIn
i.�,_ �;�.,`�-, ._'� CritiealAreaWater
Supply Watenhed
�s Protec4ed Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Supar(und Sita
Major Industries
Subdivislon
Fire Station
� Church
r� Sehool (Under Conatruetion)
Q Potential Nistoric Property
• Reaidenee or Busineas
� Private Ballpark
� Underground Storege Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w E
0 300 600 900 Meters
s
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - SOUTH
US d11MPROVEMENTS
TIP ProJeet Ne. R-2536
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 3.2c

: ! ° • �a�a�m . � / � � / •
•/•/�•, '• R,q, —.` --'..�/ ��_% �� � `� :—
; �:� �s� �• . _
� �.i . /_ : i . i� ,i .
� `, ,, �_ r � ��,.J■ :
• � E � i � ;�• ,.�n. r � ;, :
� � � �WC�,moyK_� •���� '� � �9/' . ��� ,'J� i
I FQ�
8�\l � � � � . �/�� , ', '`/ k j' / �{j � � MATCH LINE FIGURE 32e �
.� � ��/ �� . �. � - / � f � '�Jjy � � i
� � USlIAV - � � I•I 1
; ). r -- . � \ �g�.�,�i � / :
� � � . � , ....\ / �' . :
� • ��� e� •' � �ry�l�l •I i
� <, 42 �
�7 i1 `� . v� ,� ',�J I .
\\ � � `� - �/ /{ � •
�`/ / • \' \ \ � • ,yr =�r}' � \.�\ \ ..��) ���� / �I � !`; / / ° ••
, � ) \1 �I � 5pe.: \�,•• //�/� ia '�OjAi
1 � -. � �: �--�. � � � �. � � � • �
i � � ' ' ; �� '/ � ' .
� �� • � / ` ! . �� �_. :� :
.:...'\ � J .' . l' I ! ,:.i i.• i . ; . .
. . '/'. '1 � �`-, . � % i� . �' ' � .
•�.. ��� `✓ � � �% ' ' f' • �
�;/• � ._,.fr , _r �� / I 4s j ( �• • '
ti;�—�-`� � \ } / � ./ /." .—�'a�.c�C=Y`,' • • •
% �
\ � . � ;Si' _/ l� / , � `�
. • � � � . �� - , � � � • ._� '.
r , � ' ` • `• . / , , `_ /
.$ �•, �� I � • .
�: � .
.�� � �7�� . � � �� � /�' ' •'•�� �
- . ,
�-.-,—,'-F �1 i / / : /• \ �\
.
• �r �� n �� / . •1� 'i/ �' ; • / ' �
� �• a " / �---I � / I i' � ; • • . � \
� .
_F �� �j� �. �., O + 1 \ DATASOURCES
' y ��` F� / ' ao I : � ' \ rapograpny:
.159• / �` ' h��-7_ :. � ": . � � . . '�\ Cppyrght 198]-199]
/ \ -� � Ametican �igital Cartography, Ina,
* �� •
1 f / / � i � � i �y � � � � / � � I 2002 W. Cdlege Ave . MPiatan.
/ � m ; .�� '\ wisconsmsas,a.
/' .'-�ti $'IN ��.� .� � � ..� i NCZodo9iwlPark:
, . . � / . �� c 7 � USGS �uaArongle: Ashebom, N.C.
M � 1970. Photoreviaetl 1981.
•\ .
� . � NI Othar �a�a:
.OX•BfOWII �•�, � � � • � • � . NOMCamI1na00T,199]-2007:
�" _>>.�� � N BBiql : � I RanEolphCounry.2000-
Farm � � � y;: . w : � \ /. '
� -� � � • I
/ � � �,': � '� � ; \..\
�/ � � � �... �/ :� ."+v�uw LL ..—
" \ ! / / i4p�aF,2 (`� _ ,Oc- �hW \ \ �
' � ! � � • � ' � � ' a � , ���% . . �t
� � . , , , �� i t
, / ,, � � � �' ,, ' �� . � ' , : . : ., ' i
�' �/".�� � ;I � . �a��
.� , i
�.r_..
� �'\ NORTN CAROLINA
� DEPARTMENT
•I OF
�'� TRAHSPORTATION
�..
�__ •':
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridors
Prfmary Road
Seeondary Road
— - MaJor Stream
� � NC Zoological Park
�-� .�� Uwharrle Na4lonal Forest
��IN��'
:,�����.• Projeet Study Area
Munieipal Boundary
e��.� ^ Llmit o( Extra Territorial Jurisdietion
--------- Main Eleetdeal Trensmisaion Ltne
Easement
�� Electrieal Substation
�— SuAsce Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
—�— Other Wettands (National
Wetland Inventory)
-- � Pronouncad Topography
�-El- 100-Ysar Flood Plain
�i Critieal Area WHter
Supply Waterahed
�'� Protected Naa Water
Supply Watershed
�\����, Superfund Site
� � � Major Industdes
Su6division
Fire Station
� Chureh
� Sehool (Undar Construetion)
Q Potential Historie Prope�ty
• Residenee or Business
� Private Balipark
� Underground 8toroge Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w e
0 300 600 900 Meters
S
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
-souTHeasr
US641MPqOVEMENTb
TtP Pro��et No. P�35]B
R�NDOVM COUMTY
FIGURE 3.2d

�' �/ � / �� � �-�'.- 0� � � �
�; .. � ' ' o .�:.
/ ; ,., ,,....., `�
; . . �,
- �' • /�. _ � , . -,:��••'"-�.-_�� •' -~".' � . . .
�/ -- �•I _�" / «r%�''..-.�y ".r•
•• � ��
�� �--- - 1�=�--ii l •
/ • I ' ; �,. �, �� . L.
� j �=% 64 , ♦ .
i �� � �/ �: �1 � r:-. • /�����i, � • . .F \ .. . :
�� . � i . � 0.. : .,� . .� .I:� . '� . . ..
/ � .�' • / • .. ,
�� ✓� � �iii:' �, •���� : , I \ • . . . .
� �; i ••�\�.'r� �\ `
./� ' �� /, � • � � � , �,= � � �� ."� �•
�� ::'"' ,� , : �/ � ,• � )a , \
: � �..• �
. � "�f�SN � �,. ���. �;- �. � `� \
� � � �
T ~ ,
. � 1. S / � �• � �� • • _
� • / �/ �
: �_• �
. I/ �� • • ' . '�..__ •
��•' .I,�. �� i � - --- :i---- _ �
� � �` . . ---- - - -
: • , �
•
r� ./ ��� � • � ---� -- �
.'�. "`��� • _-
• �h ' �
� �
�, 'f . f� / '��� � N� : - -__- -- - -
1 � '� j � • - --
' yJ• �\ � ./ i � �: i
• �• • \ .��� , � ( i
s~• � /� ^\ -- � ' `�
I L 1'\ i
; / � � •
� �: �\�,, �� � � �
� y�• :�.I. \". �' .. •�• _..) __!w' � ..
•� /� I ,I.. . .�� � ��� , , . . � \ � —
. �j ` .'• �' �« .
� �. � � � . � . � � � � � � � � �.
� b; . � 0 .
. . ` I • \ , � • / .
• / � � � \.
' { _ / �i ' / • • / • • ��\ I�/� DATASOURCES
� : •� •• \ , �..� _ �..—..� / rw�e�v�r
' •• I • •J �----� • j Cap�igh1198"/-1997
• I ..\ • �---�--�' . .�\ �I 1 PmerirenDigitalCartograPhY.lnn.
'.I � N � 2002 W. Callege Ave., ApPleton.
Q�� Wbconsin 56914.
'" . • � ��. �N � • /• NCZoologicalPark:
1 I 1 GI � �'I � . � USGS Ouadrangle: Ashe�om, N.C.
` / 19'70. Photorevisetl 7981.
---� • . i � ��. � � / a��,�,oa�:
1 / NOM Cemllne DOT, 1997 - 2001:
� ; • / �� . �.`' /� ' \ . �
/ Rentlolph County�200o.
j � / � .\ �
�: � j �
� • MATCH LINE FIGURE 32d ' �! I �� � - �� /
�eu7ndssea�J. �_ '� � j i � �.�� �
. . � ,.. � � 'S9ui��C • /�� . .
,�'rp � —: �`�• ' �' ��''a ���� � � / �`�/ , .� 1 i � . �.
`�?/ ��� g: / •. . '\ ` I \� � /' � �
��_• az • '��'�� ;' � : , � f . r e ��► �� ,� ; ' , � i
%: a� k3ns �.�; � � � � � � ! I l i
"�.., = i . ��� � )� '.1,
/�\ NORTN CAROLINA
DEPANTMENT
OF
�� � TRANSPORTATION
��_ J; .''
Legend
� Detailed Study Corridoro
Primary Road
Sacondary Road
T - MaJor Stream
4 � �.. NC Zoological Park
���� .-.�.�-� Uwharria National Forest
�.. «..
:�����,�• Projeet3tudyArea
Munielpal Boundary
���� Limit of Extra TerritoAal Jurisdietion
--_____=::_. Maln Electrical Tranamission Llne
Easement
� Electrical Substation
--•— Surtace Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
--�— Other Wetlands (Natlonal
Wetiand Inventory)
�� . Pronouneed Topography
������ 100.Year Flood Plain
�; Cdtical Area Water
Supply WaYershed
�'`�,; Protected Area Water
Supply Watarshed
,����1��- SupeAund Site
. �� _ � MaJor Industdes
Subdivlsion
FII9 $Z8Z1011
�+ Church
�` Sehool (Undar Construetion)
Q Potential Historie Property
• Reaidenee or Business
� Privale Ballpark
� Undarground Slorage Tank
N
0 800 1600 2400 Feet w e
0 300 600 900 Meters
s
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES - EAST
US841MPROVEMENTE
TIP ProJset No. R3538
IiANDOLPN COUNTY
FIGURE 3.2e

- E
A
D
-Br� .!�✓
_�
� Alternatives 1, 2, 13 8 14
VE
" �oaa
J��r
Gr
� G
��
0
�
I, � a�`���a�oaa c^���
I�GG� �oG
. �fd'o
C �"iL
Pad^ �, _ e
�ed c^�
d� G �e
�o� O
e� �
o �D
F
°'o, t�
2 '
.
�, o
- %
0 500 1,000
G
Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 13 8� 14
m
ol
z
p
Y
x
W
z
J
x
�
a
f
7
c
0
N
� Feet
�p
__f"'-ooL . Southwood Drive
�PNtRqUGN BRqNC.y�
D _ /�aepe�O�ei!-Pq —
` �en� 15
`� e
�Al�n...n�:...... A �fl �fo en O 99
J�
G°
a�
�
�
NRP� i
I
�
O(
1
Legend
Construction Limits Alt. 1
- Construction Limits Alt. 2
Construction Limits Alt. 4
Construction Limits Alt. 10
Construction Limits Alt. 13
Construction Limits Alt. 14
� Alt. 22
� Alt. 29
� Alt. 33
�
Alternatives 10, 22, 29 8� 33
2
�
Legend
O Emergent Wetland
0 Forested Wetland
� Low Elevation Seep
� Pond
Existing RW
Culvert
^'�� Stream
FIGURE HYDRO C
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPIi COUNTY

Legend
Construction Limits Alt. 1
Construction Limits Alt. 2
Construction Limits Alt. 4
Construction Limits Alt. 10
Construction Limits Alt. 13
Construction Limits Alt. 14
Construction Limits Alt. 22
Construction Limits Alt. 29
Construction Limits Alt. 33
5`a\e`15Farm R� �
C
n
a
x
W
_
J
S
V
Q
f
�a
�����a
Q`ce
AI
v ,�
_ °�a o
� _ e"bw_
, _ � Roatl
vFST UT13_05
Qa
Legend
OEmergent Wetland
.�� Forested Wetland
� Low Elevation Seep
0 Pond
Existing RW
Culvert
^�r-- Stream
� G+ystal l� �—�
d Road
i Kehnedy Country prive
SQ�� U7p2
Crace�ahd Drive ,
Alternatives 2, 4, 10, 22, 29 & 33
n
T11 n �
s4
�s
LINE
ti
�
) 500 1,000 2,000 3,OQ0
reet
FIGURE HYDRO D
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY

:'`�.�� � NORTHCAROLINA TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO BUILD) 1997/2025
'��"`^ DEPARTMENT US 641MPROVEMENTS
::�F;;�ra; •.
OF TIP Projeet No. R-2536
TRANSPORTATION RANDOLPH COUNTY
. FIGURE 1.7

}, I
��
��
�Q
�O
��
'pC
9soo
64 zosoo
24900
60700
8600
14200
0
k
�O
8400
13800
�
9900
17100. ;
�
2300
3300 3000 1300 1000
9200 1700 2900 22000 18000 4900 4200 �4900 13700 3700 3300
800 I 3000 4700 21800 21100 �pp 1 3700 23500 22700
5500 100 17200 18500 2��0 � 6300 �900 20000 5800 ? t7300 pgg00 36000 � 35100 27300 � 5200
1 4600 12000 28300 � ► 800 i
1800 32200 � . 42500 2000 1700 3400 600 3500 � 14700
� , 1300
2300 1700 1800 5300 2900 ��� 6000 �
� 900 7200 410� 2800 26U0 1820g
7000 �
�7300 16300 '
� �o0 49
200 400
11200 290� 20900 �Q
29000 55200 68C
4000 � �00 �
10300 � 100 �
� v
1 �
1
\ zso
v�. �o eus
� � av�
�O� . �
\
Jtt`� \ 13200
J'� 35700
P �
o � � � 4200 �000
� � �azoo 20000� �
. �
� � �
�i
a \�� so �oao ���
� 4800 4700 � � 2800 � `
� � � 9800 14400 �— — " `
800 2200 700
1800 52 � 2300
SOUTHMONT DR. —�
1200 �
3900 500
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: NCDOT, April 7, 2000.
7600
13700 /
7500 �
16100 �
A /
�'t'�. 8900 /
yj 14600 � _
159 �t / �uC
� �oo �i ov�`O' kRD,
6400 900 2�� i �°
�� 13400 2000 y3�� ��
c�'
00 G� �Oy
� � 7000 � � 1000 3000 �d�
S00 20600� � ' 360D
= 400 �00 — � <100
� 1400 � " � <100
u�j K� 6200
� � — _ 18300 � � � 400 4 00
� — 2500 1600
39 � � p 9600
�� <Q 19000
��000� �o°oo , �70o ioo c�+Rp
2700 � 4200
� 600 4300 42
� SSN��S �oo saoo
\ FA�NI R��
�� 2500
\� AI 5100
•r�
1100 t5s 2500
\\ �� 2100 SPU 6800
♦
� i 200
4000 i �
12500� \ � 1200 � �
�700 — — — Z�p G���� O
17800
33500
'°" ' ALTERNATIVE 1
� NORTH CAROLINA , TRAFFIC VOLUMES (BUILD) 1997/2025
`�� DEPARTMENT
����� •• OF US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
�,tw. ,
TIP FroJect No. R•2536
TRANSPORTATION w►N�o�P„ couNrr
. FIGURE 2.7

Contncts for US 64 Pro ject Questions or Comments
Questions and comments regarding the US 64 fmprovements may be directed to either of the following:
Mr. John Conforti
Consultant Manager
Project Development and Gnvironmental Analysis
North Carolina Department ofTransportation
1 �48 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-�074
Check out the project website and hotline for the latest project information:
www.ncdot.org/projects/asheboro/
1-800-206-1373
C-arth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Ralei�h, NC 27607-�074
��ti
O
s
1i9y /�pjn
o , ''�O
li�, ,� . (/�
John Henne��
NCDENR-D /
4401 REEDY CF2� RL,
RALEIGH i�C 27707-6aa';
I,I.I!,,ti� �� � ,� i,.
� � �_ �� � :I � �''I.J,!
Presorted
First-Class Mail
U.S. Postage
PAID
AlphaGraphics
Mailing List Information
A computerized mailing list of persons interestcd in ihe proposed project is Mr. Roger Lewis
coillinually updated for newsletters, informational workshops, and PrqjectManager
announeements. If you are not on �he mailine list and would like ro receive Earth Tzch
newslettelsandotherinfortnativenoticesfurthisprojec�.calltheprojecthotline 701CorporateCenterDrive.Suite475
at1-900-206-1373orcompletethefonnbelu�r. Clipandmailtotheaddresson Raleigh.NC 27607-5074
[he right.
r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
� (Please print/ �
I Name: �
� Address: �
ICiN/State: "Lip Code: i
� Telephone Number: Neighborhood OrganizationiAfliliation: �
� Comments: I
� �
� �
L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J
V! DO7�- PD&! A(irmvch �� Tri�nspor(auon lmproremen� Pro,yram
! Sl8 Mui! Sen ic� ('en(er- Project No. R-2596
Ralei h. NarthCarolinu?7699-1J48 �
8 ��j
May Z003 `��,.�,'.'-`' Issue No. 4
The DEIS is approved!
A drafr em�ironmental impact statement (DEIS) for the
US 64 Asheboro I3ypass was appruved by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
the Federal Highway Administration in July 2002. The
DEIS presents the nine detailed sYudy alternatives for
the proposed bypass along with the proposed North
Carolina 7_0o Connector.
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 altematives and calculate their impacts
on the hutnan and natural environments. The findings in
the DEIS, along with public commen[, will aid local,
The DEIS includes residential;business relocations. state, and federal officials in choosing a preferred
alternative.
traffic, land use, air qttality, noisz, na[ural resources,
We're coming to Asheboro!
The NCDOT will host a Pre-Hearing Open I�ouse and Corridor Public Hearine for the US 64 Asheboro Qypass this
mo�ti�!
Pre-Heuring Open House
Nationnl Guard Armory, Asheboro
Thursdny, Mny 8, 2003
50:00 n.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Corridor Public Hearing
Nntional Guard Armory, Asheboro
Thursday, Mny 22, 2003
7:00 p.m. to 50:00 p.m.
llie Pre-Hearing Open House will be an iniormal, drop-in style workshop. Citizens are invited to stop by at any time
during open house hours to discuss die project with NCDOT representatives. The Corridor Hearing Map will be displayed
a��d copies ofthe DEIS will be available for review. Additional maps showing the preliminary roadway designs for each
altemative ��ill be available also.
�; map oi fl�c Opeu-i iuuse anu He�uing locaiion (iva[ional Guard fu-morvj is inciuded on page %.
What will happen at the hearing?
The NCDOT will present the corridor public hearing map be presented before and after the hearing, or a public
at the public hearing. The heazing map will i Ilustrate the statement may be made during the hearing. A sign-up sheet
location of the nine detailed study corridors and the Zoo will be available for those who wish to speak at the formal
Connector in relationship to regional landmarks, local hearing and wriuen comments will be accepted in person or
roadways, residentia] communities and commercial a��d by mail. The hearing will be recorded and made part ofthe
indusVial areas (see page 3). public record.
A fonnal presentation ofthe projecY will be given at the
corridor public hearing on May 22, 2003. Comments may
May 2003 • 1

Where are the meetings?
�irectionsto Meetings al
National Guaftl AfmOry, 1 430 S F ayetteoille St.
E Dorsett H�e.
wDorsettA�e. a "y: FromWes[(Lexington)'
AShEb07D Take US 64 (W Daie Dr) to S Park St
� � Turn RigM onto S Park Sl
N7 h Turn Left orrto Caurrtry Club Dr
a SChO�! LL S�Zg�z Turn Left irrto Arrno .
N co E D+x'.e DT �� R'
�Dut�B D�,;,r��e. sq �y � F lom NOrtYI:
Oo Sauth on US 220 Bus (S fayetteville St)
1-M� f Natlonal v n.�ny Cross under US 64 (Docie Dr) Overpass
� Turn RigM irRo .4rmory.
Guartl -1 �
� Armory par..rry �� � '.�: From Ea51 (Raletgh)�.
wunt�Club Dr ��✓ �� Take US fi4 (E then W Daie Dr) tu S Park St
"/ Turn LPft ordo S Park St
eus Turn Left orrto CourRry Club Dr
♦ Zo Tum Left iMo Armory.
,�,
�j.� TelephoneA.,e. �a,, From South (Seagt�ve)
0 25o su � Go Norlh on US 22U Bus (S Fayetteville St)
T �eFt s Cross untler US 64 (Daie Dq Overpass
Take immetliate exitto Riglrt oMo US 64 (Dlxle Dr)
Followtlirectionsior'.�, (iromEast)
How does the Planning Process work?
The Nationa( Enviromnental PoficyAct (NEPr1) requires agencies undertaking an action using federal funds to
evaluate the adverse and beneficial impacts of that action on t11c human and natural environments. T he NI;PA
process is divided into eight steps, as indicated in the chart below.
Step 1 Step 5
Data Collection and inventory of planning issues Hold a Pre-Heari�g Open House
Stud area/ relimina corridor develo ment Hold a Formal Corridor Public Hearing
Step 2 Step 6
FirstCitizens Informational Workshop Review comments on DEIS
Identify community concems and perform field studies Review public comment and hearing transcript
Second Citizens Informational Workshop Select the preferred altemative
Selection of alternatives for detailed study _, _
Engineering and detailed field studies
Environmental analyses
Step 4
Draft environmental document (DEIS)
Complete preliminary engineering designs
Final environmental document
Step 8
Design Public Hearing
T he Asheboro Bypnss is in Step 5.
How else cnn the Public participate?
In ad�lition to the coming pre-liearing open house and project schedule, past mecting activities, past newsleriers,
corridor public hearing, there aze several ways for the answers to frequently asked questions, and general
public to participate. Phone-in and mail contact, project intonnation about the process and the NCDO"C.
website, and small group meetings inform the public
about the project and provide opportunities for input. Citizens can also p�uticipate in the project through small
group meetings desiyied to give neighborhood associations,
71te toll-t�ee telephone number (1-800-206-1373) was church gzoups. and other c;ivic groups a chance to address
established Yor citizens to contact the project team. A theirspecific projectconcemsin infomial question-and-
message is provided in English and Spanish. answer sessions. .4 small group meeting can be arranged
The webpage (www.nedot.org/projects/asheboro) was by contacting Mc Roger Lewis, Project Manager, Earth
setup to provide current project information such as: Tech,atl-R00-206-1373.orMr.,lohnConti>rti,Constdtant
Manager, NCI)OT, at 1-919-733-7844, ext. 208.
May 2003 • 2
> �
c�
N �
a ,
i ',
���• �
y
> ;i
A r �
C N � �t
Y d .�
a �
,'1%cKRQ.. _.
ij..:..-. ...5m' ner...
C°µ
`', _.- -
m�
a
.�
c�
Cl ti,
a�
} i�
A i �
c � c N
41 N r,
a a .
a�
��
L N
N `
a .
`. f r
/ . �, '_""_ ---' �,
_ . `1
m�
7
c�
d `
a,
� +{ - �� I4 tiD �� O $"i p
I eF��� � I N � �
�t°: U _ .O
��'•. � a-�: Z --- c� a
\- \ �
�'�^�,�� L
. ,•rl�.�y p �
�-"'._'�, � -� �/J
'�m=.�,
� 1< < 7 �
� �' L� �
�.�J �v
- ` il_
`r j'. r�� - _..i
�.� . y�� i ��-... 1��`r
.^S"`-" � ''- - �- �
—.�:
— rly
� - 7
.� 0�- '��i —J-�� �..�
�j -+� � -- � �o
���,�. �"t.' - �
.'�s'm��'_ . ',!/i'—
_ F -
V ' ry� ,'
1^ �
w O ��
_ CI 6 �i'...
-,-
� ,
�
,f. _: :! y
� �T -� �;_
r �S, ��
_�, ._ -
�'�W 'boa,_.
� '--f'v.mti4J
� a
� . . �u � y�t,Ur�.�
� r" �� "Y(�
_( . r _ ,Q_~��/ ��
t �� '7 "' a�y�
� `, `��. y�'av ,
d
�� S __"�. d�[, . _ i .
it 1 06 , Y_� I i
�,' i
A �`
�.���.
.�,...•�. � � I.. .'� �-`1-r_l S.
� \�1� � \
�� 'ag �,� - - - _1 �
- -- � . ��� ---
�� ..., ,�
�( ..�..•.._ �s �
C ` �I"" � �
.�' ' oaxo�oio ,�, p •�
o �-� � Q a+
h � �ia� p�.a �, . ' � � N
� � „ �e1N.,� � k .I : '° '� y� �
�
�.� �' . � . .� o
-1ftC7 �: ..---- a�i CC.
I � �� � . �� �� �4
I ' '� .. m Q . � K� � � �
s.f a . �
i.�i �
` �\ � �
� I x� �1..� c4 > �
i i� ��v JI � �G' V �
n 2 . i •�
� f
; � �-:� _ � s
_ ! � Q ¢ ...
! : � � a[i
F y � 8
� `` � � � �
_ "", `n vi
c _n. o : � �a �.
a�
� � �
ca R.
. I y �
� �
� � � � �"' Q '�
'�' o �� �
� " C.
" �J�� -_ °' U'' ' °> �
t'�'• � � N� O �
�� � Y Ul i-i
" 3 'S
s PQ': .. � r' -- o❑
JG. I,.I,J , �W
— .- a�
__ _—r� -O ry� O �
� Q
� � a�
-_ '_' ,?� �n � C
----�� �
. .- - .. � -�-i �n
0 0
,. , . {' - _ ----_.
May 2003 • 3

Date: February 27, 2003
To: File
From: Glenda Gibson �p.,�y_ �ibYil�
Subject: Hearing Map Review for R-2536
M E M O
cc: Attendees
Richazd Spencer
A meeting was held on February 27, 2003 in the Roadway Design Conference Room at the
Century Center to review the hearing maps for the US 64 Asheboro Bypass. The following
people werein attendance:
Cazl Goode
John Conforti
Crail Grimes
Brian Yamamoto
W. M. Petit
Tim Johnson
Kirby Wazrick
Regina Page
Benjetta Johnson
Mary Joan Pugh
David Smith
Reynolds Neely
Michae] Rhoney
John Ogbum
Talmadge S. Baker
Debbie Bazbour
Art McMillan
Jay Bennett
Jimmy Goodnight
Tim Goins
Dean Noland
David Wasserman
Andre Williams
Felix Davila
Ann Steedly
Beth Barnes
Roger Lewis
Glenda Gibson
Mike Pekarek
Human Environment Office
Project Development and Environmenta] Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Division S Construction Engineer
Right of Way
Tmffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
NC Zoo
Asheboro City Council
Asheboro Planning
Asheboro Engineering W��pNDS 1401 GROUP
Asheboro Ciry Manager
Asheboro City Council MAR 1 4 2003
Highway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design WATER QUALITY SECTION
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Statewide Planning
Human Environment Office
Federal Highway Administration
Human Environment Office
NCDWQ
Earth Tech
Earth Tech
Earth Tech
The meeting opened with general overview of the hearing maps. Roadway Design offered the
following comments:
Access at all ramp terminals shall be controlled for 1000' where possible.
A vicinity map shall be shown for all off site detour routes. These routes should be
E A R T N— J T ! C N
`�
<tyco wrruurroxai uo ca.wwv

approved by the division personnel.
All diamond interchanges should be reviewed to ensure loops can be added inside of the
ramps.
English should be added to the scales.
The Corridor Outlines should be darker.
Representatives from the City of Asheboro expressed concern about pending zoning cases within
the corridor and requested that the hearing be held as quickly as possible. They indicated
potential for holding the hearing are the National Guard Amory and the High School Gymnasium.
Also, they offered the City's Public Works Facility as a place to hold the pre-hearing workshop.
Mary Joan Pugh expressed concern over the planned phasing of construction. She indicated that
construction of R-2536B would dump traffic onto NC 159 and cause congestion for the zoo
visitors.
The meeting ended with a discussion of whether it is appropriate on this project to hold a
combined hearing. This project has nine alternatives. There is much concern that the quantity of
information that would need to be presented to the public would be overwhelming. City of
Asheboro voiced their concerns in this area. Although the current NCDOT procedure is to hold a
combined hearing at this time, it was decided that. Gail Grimes, Carl Goode and Jay Bennett
would meet with Debbie Barbour to decide which type of hearing should be held to best serve the
public for this project.
Debbie, Carl, Gail, Jay and Roy Shelton discussed the issue later the same day and decided a
corridor public hearing should be held. After the hearing and one corridor is selected, a design
public hearing will be held. The map showing the nine corridors on one map that was presented
at the hearing map review will be used as the corridor map. The additiona145 maps showing the
design will be taken to the pre-hearing workshop and to the hearing to show individual property
owners how they are to be affected by each corridor. After a corridor has been selected, the
selected alternate will be refined as stated in the above comments.
At this time, no changes are to be made to the design maps.
.Furthermore, on February 3, 2003, Mr. Richard Spencer of the US Atmy Corp of Engineers called
Glenda Gibson to state that he would agree a corridor hearing followed by a design hearing at a
later date is an acceptable plan of action. The designs are to be available at the corridor hearing.
He also stated the corridor map should show existing data and corridor lines.
The above notes are a brief representation of the content of the meeting and subsequent
conversations. If you would like to add to the minutes or make corrections to them, please contact
Glenda Gibson at [phone].
E A R T H� T E C H
v
A tl fC0 INTERNAAONAC [TD. COMPANY

�����. �
� , i. �.. �-.1.,
HEARING MAP INFORMATION
PRGPARED 13I' ROADWAY DESIGN
�xscieirnuv: US 64, New Location Southern l3ypass, Ii�om East of Presnell St. to West of Stutts Road
on�n:: Februarv 27, 3003 ria�ur.cT: 8.15�1401 r°'' R-2536
rveeEu:nRwc: Combined cnuNrv: Randulph
accesscoNnzou Full «"�'�� US 64 Bypass
�r:NCTri: See Attached Sheet i>�zaecr r�,��iz� Jimmy Goodnight
oesicN s�r_e�: 70 M PH r h a Heview:
Tenrnrrvr u.a�re ro a,w: 2007 to PY r�Hwn ae��irrw:
T[NTATIV[ LETTING UATI': �009 i0 PY
GSTIMATGD COST: 17P. ROAUN��.nY UI_SIGF Ull16R
ROADW:4Y COST S0C AII�IC�'1Cd SI10Ci
sTaucruae cosT See Attached Sheet
TOT1L 14R.2 ** See Attached Shcet
wwcosr 14.0 ** See Attached Sheet
rorn�cosT 162.2 ** See Auached Sheet **Costs in Millions
TRAPPIC �(�t)� �(��� li'l4': RELOCAT[FS:
i3_'uo-3',noo z4=aoo-'�.iuo See Attacl�ed Sheet
rvricn�sr:cnoN: 4 Lane — 70' Median Dividcd
AUUITIONALINfORMATION: (STAGWQIi.WULMGOFTRAFPIC,F,TC.)
A�r 1
i,.......r �,..a 5+ •i:i ...�.w r»e �+ . .L.l e.l I..0 a..._
ses�N j` t r"� 4l�CNr, eNo 64 v+A:�a�i:.,,o e�. -ll..�
PROJlCT J ti-y r, �L;+'�, l PRQIlG +�� 6�{
� , � t r r �
64 I--S 'yt Z � l,�
� ,, . �', :
�`�''a' ut 22 � ; � �
�,� A _.;ASHEBORO..-_�`
orF r `. ^ ` -..
t,. ,�,'.,
J�,�;�, ,i. .� �
.1 �, $ � � �
r-^—,�� r��,..: 59 4[]
G�1 ' ��
,�.. -��,�
� ..,�r_ ....,,�
.�� •,"`�
� � _ - ', �_ � �
� � �

►
4 t!
HEARING MAP INFORMATION ATTACHMENT
� LENGTH, ESTIMATED COST, AND RELOCATEES
DESCRIPTION: US 64, New Location Southern Bypass, from East of Presnell Street to West of Stutts Road
DATE: February 27, 2003 PROJECT:, 8.1571401 TIP: R-2536
LENGTH: " Alt.l Alt.2 Alt.4 A1t.10 A1t.13 A1t.14 A1t.22 A1t.29 A1t.33
MILES 13.6 13.8 13.8 14.2 13.9 14.0 . 14.4 14.0 14.3
ESTIMATED COST: T.I.P. Alt. l Alt.2 Alt.4 A1t.10 A1t.13 A1t.14 A1t.22 A1t.29 AIt.33 .
ROADWAY COST $150.78 $152.70 $153.79 $160;91 $146.72 $156.51 $164.29 $167.67 $165.48
STRUCTURE COST _ $25.32 $25.80 $26.31 $25.29 $23.68 $23.79 $24.61 $26.43 $26.52
TOTAL , $148.20 $176.10 $178�.50 $180.10 $186.20 $170.40 $180.30 $188.90 $194.10 $192.00
R/W COST $14.00 $27.61 $27.25 � $25.74 $24:63 . $29.33 $27.40 $22.24 $24.39 $25.08 .
TOTAL COST $162.20 $203.71 $205.75 $205.84 $210.83 $199.73 $207.70 $211.14 $218.49 $217.08 .
� . � ' � NOTE: costs in millions
RELOCATEES: Alt.l Alt.2 Alt.4 A1t.10 A1t.13 A1t.14 A1t.22 A1t.29 A1t.33
BUSINESS 14 14 14 14 13. 13 14 14 ' 13
RESIDENTIAL 138 111 126 � 144 110 131 136 145 156

4 l� � •P• 2 �w: �. ._ �� �-^�►� � _ -
� ��r°:r , i:,.
'1 u' o�n,�.. a-�l rr.L.�- �< �� k� a � o..� C� r+....,e ��
�. ,.: .1��... . ...ii ��:. ,;�...i._ ,
. � , � , , ,. _ . �, �a :�
- ,�lw.> lha�.,J. ,yH.,�pt�o ? � ,Do f+�'� il+t Wr.Zyn,l'Ew,..J�'� -
21Zz�o3
- l..� ao �.,,..,.aur , 2 du..,.w
�, �} 1n �. ,A�s< i. A1S 22 �
�4i �3 �
A� � 4 � ��
4LT 4: A�n«y� an d. a.} I,._,,,__- _ �w,,,,,�, oy 22 w.i- .�....%-
_ d""'.....'
2 _� . .. ..
�vy �..�,.,� M-r-o�.6
(J �
' �Dl�t. . tw vn+.�- Aw�.
o�.x.,�s �
_ e„ _ ;,t,, �` ,�
49 �
� ,oD�,r �C..�..p . dJGn.�t
. �+-+e b. '�k r'_�__
- 5..� �... R�r.-Je ?� l�..lb.� Pi"^.6.�.^') z> pn ° i
- �►k �.,..1 �.,,,�,,.,� w- -1+� E is
-+1'. e�rN a ur..se o.l�..�J..� � D'..d .
-, I 0 e o� � '(.Er�-�'Evu� atun'c �".�o Y L,.... ' "
4 w��,_.+....�..a�
0
� � - ;��. a,..
e+� r.....F.�
z..s uo w.,U� ;�,.,�. �;._ a
��
ru.-.1�� ,o..rn,«,., t-q�J,.o M.�,�sT
�. ,,, �_ � �R
� c�,,,,"�,,,, / �.-u:�,, � �.�.. +�,-�
- �s+ � kk, p.�.�, i�.-.�.-��. ,�- ,.� -�.-� c�....z,� - „�-t psi,.,6�
- I..�....,;,.� d..�t�. '. ca�.k - .1- L�� 2w.e.��lvi
_ 1 C1 w�� b� �
?
_ �u�aw-' �.:b Iw�...t •�-q► u.,,t,V.,n� ,w �u _. dw,t e`.Tw.s C
- L; k-61a. S�n.,.-U( �-+ � i.D a�w.Q 1�i..yi, �. - W�'•o I�rkn klwt�. �vu�v. �I v.i'('�?
(� u
I� �, 'hiv o t�i �
' LOn'&W�+�I�.' �� ' Q�-�,,•�n'•1 $ ,�,n,�' .•�,�.--��.�,_.
b"-
�—► �,.,,�;._7 ,,;,,�.�-c,�►- � -4-� �„ D a — � �.�,_._ l�.w. q,.�..,.:�,.. .�►.�.
�� � tia � .

Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
May 5, 1998
Attendees and Interagency Advisory Committee
Jill Gurak, P.E., Project Manager, Eatth Tech �L/c`7�'
U
Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting
US 64 Improvements, Randolph County
TIP R-2536
Meeting Date: Apri19, 1999 10:00 am
MeeHng Location: NC Department of Transportauon
Room 470 -Transportation Building
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attendees: Felix Davila -
Eric Alsmeyer -
Tom McCartney -
Alan Pugh -
John Hennessy -
Renee Gledhill-Eazly -
Richard Davis -
Bill Gilmore -
Gail Cttimes -
Ron Elmore -
Debbie Bazbour -
Jimmy Goodnight -
Cynthia Perry -
Dan Thomas -
Tim Johnson -
Phil Kemp -
Hal Johnson -
Talmadge Baker -
John McGlohon -
David Leonazd -
Dumont Bunker -
Reynolds Neely -
Lyn Adams-
Mary Joan Pugh -
George Gusler -
Bill Batten -
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Boazd of Transportation
NC Division of Water Quality
State Historic Preservation Office
NCDOT Project Development and
Env'uonmental Analysis (PDEA)
NCDOT—PDEA
NCDOT—PDEA
NCDOT—PDEA
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Statewide Planning
NCDOT — Division 8
Randolph Co. Commissioner
Randolph Co. Planning Director
City of Asheboro — Councilman
City of Asheboro Councilman
City of Asheboro — City Manager
City of Asheboro — City Engineer
City of Asheboro — Planning Director
NC Zoological Pazk
NC Zoological Pazk
Randolph-Asheboro Chamber of Commerce
Thermaco, Inc.

Interagency Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1999
Page 2 of 4
Attendees:
Continued
Ron Hairr - Earth Tech, Inc.
Jill Gurak - Earth Tech, Inc.
Kilmeny Stephens - Earth Tech, Inc.
Karen Ha11- Earth Tech, Inc.
Interagency Advisory Committee Members Not in Attendance:
Ted Bisterfeld -
David Cox -
Bill Rosser -
3oseph Trogdon-
NYinutes•
US Environmental Protection Agency
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NCDOT — Division 8
City of Asheboro — Mayor
Attached is the agenda handed out at the meeting.
Mr. Ron Elmore opened the meeting with a brief introduction and a discussion of the meeting
agenda and objectives. The objective of the meeting was to receive input and comment
regarding the 24 preliminary corridors developed for the project, and the subsequent nine
detailed study alternatives recommended for further study in the draft environmental impact
statement.
Ms. Jill Gurak followed with a presentation on the methods and results of the alternatives
evaluation. Ms. Gurak reviewed the six options for improving the US 64 corridor (see
agenda item IIn; concluding that a new build alternative to the south of existing US 64 would
best meet the purpose and need for the project.
Land suitability mapping was prepared for the area south of US 64 to identify major features
of the human and natural environments. These features were taken into account in the
development of corridor segments. The segments were evaluated in more detail to identify
those segments with substantially greater impacts or design constraints compared to other
segments in the vicinity. Geographic information system (GIS) databases were used to
quantify impacts. The 34 segments remaining after this first screening evaluation were
combined to form 24 preliminary corridors extendina from the beginning to the end of the
project.
The impacts within the twenty-four 1,000-foot wide preliminary corridors were quantified
using GIS. The total impacts of each corridor, and the design constraints along each corridor,
were evaluated, resulting in the recommendation that nine preliminary corridors (known as
the detailed study alternatives) be studied further in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
A R T H`■) T E C
`J
A'tl/CO INTERNATlONAL LTD. COMP.4NY

Interagency Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1999
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Gurak and Mr. Elmore distributed a handout which included a graphic showing the nine
detailed study alternatives and text describing the reasons why preliminary corridors were�
eliminated.
The following concerns and comments were raised at the meeting.
Segment G4; why was it eliminated from consideration and were there significant
environmental impacts associated with it? Segment G4 was eliminated primarily due
to the presence of a historic site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Gurak explained the historical significa.nce of Cox Farm, located within the G4
segment. There were minor wetland impacts associated with the segment, however the
historical site was the main reason the segment was eliminated. Ms. Grimes and Mr.
Elmore described how federal law pertains to the site. Under federal law, a project
using federal funding can not impact a historic site on or eli�ible for the National
Register of Historic Places unless there aze no feasible and practicable alternatives that
would avoid the historic site. In the case of Segment G4, there are three other segments
that appear to be feasible that avoid Cox Farm.
• Timeline for determination of a Preferred Alternative. Phase 2 of the study process,
which includes pzeparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a
Corridor Public Hearing, typically takes 18 to 24 months. A Preferred Alternative will
be selected after the Corridor Public Hearing.
Use of preliminary corridor maps and maps showing the nine detailed study
alternatives. Mr. Elmore stressed that these were preliminary maps and were subject to
change. He stated that officials were free to use them as they need, but to please
refrain from showing them to the public since they are not iinalized. A citizen's
workshop will be held in 4 to 6 weeks at which time the detailed study alternatives will
be shown.
Location of corridors between NC 49 and US 220 Bypass. Mr. Alsmeyer was
concerned about the two basic corridors shown between NC 49 and US 220 Bypass.
He requested that two additional cross-overs be evaluated between NC 49 and US 220
Bypass. Mr. Elmore and Ms. Grimes agreed to evaluate additional cross-overs and to
communicate the results as soon as possible.
Was widening NC 159 considered? Ms. Gurak stated widening NC 159 was studied,
but eliminated from further consideration as described in the Preliminary Corridor
Report.
A R T H`) T E C H
�
A'iY/CD IMERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY

Interagency Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1999
Page 4 of 4
Provision of access from a new bypass road to NC 159. Zoo representatives expressed .
concern about limited access from a new zoo connector road to NC 159. Ms. Pugh
explained the zoo may become a multiple-day park, and users would need access to
hotels. Cunently, hotels are located along existing US 64. They can be reached from
the NC Zoo via NC 159. With a new bypass and NC Zoo Connector in place, visitors
leaving the NC Zoo can travel back to the bypass on the NC Zoo Connector, exit the
Bypass at NC 159, then travel north on NC 159 to reach hotels along existing US 64.
Access to NC 159 directly from the NC Zoo Connector was not proposed in order to
separate NC Zoo traffic from local traffic on NC 159. NCDOT representatives will
work with the NC Zoo in Phase 2 of the project to address park access issues, including
maintaining access to NC 159 from the NC Zoo.
Will access to Old Cox Road be maintained? The NC Zoo representatives expressed
concern regarding access to Old Cox Road at the NC 159 intersection. Some of the
proposed detailed study alternatives pass over the Old Cox Road/NC 159 intersection.
They pointed out that many NC Zoo employees use Old Cox Road to commute to and
from work. Ms. Gurak stated since Old Cox Road was a regional road, access would
be maintained. How access would be maintained would be studied in more detail in
later phases of the project.
Corridor protection. The City and County expressed concerns about identifying a
viable corridor as early as possible to protect the corridor from development.
Ms. Grimes noted that the State could only protect the corridor after a Record of
Decision had been made on the project. There were questions asked about city and
county zoning ordinances that could protect the corridor. Ms. Grimes stated Durham
County may have been involved with corridor protection. The NCDOT will provide
the City of Asheboro and Randolph County with applicable contact names in other
areas of the state.
The above notes are Earth Tech's understanding of what was discussed at the meeting. If the
minutes are in error, or if you would like to clarify or expand them please contact Ms. Jill
Gurak at [phone] or Mr. Ron Elmore at [phone] ext. 267 before May 14,
1999.
E A R T H`] T E C H
�
q YY/CO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMP.4NY

�
AGENDA
INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Apri19,1999
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project Number R-2536 .
PURPOSE OF MEETING IV. PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
To review the twenty-four preliminary corridors
developed for the project.
To receive input and comments regarding the
alternatives to be studied in detail in the draft
environmental document.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Meeting Attendees
II. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROCESS
A. Role of the Interagency Advisory
Corrunittee
B. Steps in the Environmental Study
Process
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Transportation System Management
and Multi-Modal Alternatives
B. No-Build Alternative
C. Alternatives Along Existing US 64
and NC 159
D. Build Alternatives to the North of
Asheboro
E. Build Alternatives to the South of
Asheboro
V
A. Land Suitability Mapping
l. NWI wetlands
2. Streams
3. Developed areas
4. Major industrial facilities
5. Areas of steep topography
6. US 220 Bypass Interchange
Location
B. Preliminary Corridor Segments
1. Forty-two segments developed
and evaluated
2. Eight segments eliminated
C. Preliminary Corridors
1. Twenty-four preliminary
corridors developed from
segments
2. GIS used to estimate impacts of
preliminary corridors
DETAII,ED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
A. Impacts of the 24 preliminary
corridors evaluated and compaxed
B. Nine detailed study alternatives
recommended by NCDOT
VI. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
A Public Officials Meeting and a Citizens
Informational Workshop are being planned for
May. The Preliminary Corridors and Detailed
Study Alternatives will be presented at these
meetings. It is expected they will both be held
at the Randolph County Office Building.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27G11-5201
GOVERNOR
Mazch 26, 1999
Mr. John Hennessy
N. C. Department of Env. & Natural Resowces
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NoRh Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
E. NORRIS TOLSON /
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: US 64 Improvements, From US 64 East of Asheboro to US 64 West of Asheboro,
Randolph County, TIP No. R-2536, State Project No. 8.1571401, Federal Project
No. NHF-64(19).
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of Highways,
North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation (NCDOT) is prepazing an environmental study for
the subject improvements to US 64 in Randolph County, Transportation Improvement Program
Project R-2536.
An Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting has been scheduled to discuss the twenty-four
1,000-foot wide preliminary corridors that have been developed for the project and to identify
those corridors to be studied in detail in the draft environmental document. The meeting will be
held on Friday, Apri19, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 470 of the Transportation Building in
downtown Raleigh, 1 South Wilmington Street.
A Project Team Meeting with the resource agencies will be held immediately after the
Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting to obtain concurrence on the Detailed Study
Altematives. If concurrence can not be reached at this meeting, then the project will be
discussed again at the monthly Agency Coordination Meeting scheduled for April 15, 1999.
A Preliminary Corridor Report is being prepazed and will be transmitted to you sepazately prior
to the meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone] Extension 267, or
Ms. Jill Gurak of Earth Tech at [phone].
Sincerely,
�U)1. ����
Ron Elmore, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc: Interagency Advisory Committee Mailing List
File
/

7oi Corpnra[e Cen[er Drive, $uite q75, Ralcigh, Nur[h Carolina a76o7-go�p:
Mazch 30, 1999
Mr. John Hennessy
NC Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Water Quality
4410 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
y�
Subject: US 64 Improvements, from US 64 east of Asheboro to US 64 west of
Asheboro, Randolph County. TIP No. R-2536, State Project No.
8.1571401, Federal Project No. NHF-64(19).
Deaz Mr. Hennessy:
Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Corridor Report for your review prior to the
Interagency Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for April 9, 1999. You should
have recendy received a letter from the North Cazolina Deparunent of Transportation
inviting you to this meeting.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], or Mr. Ron Elmore, P.E.
of NCDOT at [phone] ext 267.
Sincerely,
�-�C_�G�
Jill Gurak, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Interagency Advisory Committee Mailing List (maillab.doc)
File 31882
E A R T H`) T E C H
�
A� MTERNATIONN IIIJ COMYANY
Telephone'
qiq.8gp.6zoo'
Facsimile�
9�9.8gq.6�gg1

�� Rust Environment & Ir�astructure Inc. :; -�� �
+i L�
ARustlmemationalCompany Poone 91g6165100 /1nr �' �
5510 Six Forks Road, Suire 200 Fax [phone] V�+!
Raleigh, NC 27609 j
�
September 28, 1997 ` wa� �'�R►'�Pei
To: REI File No. 200660
TIP No. R-2536 - US 64 Improvements — Asheboro, Randolph County
Copy:
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
Attendees and Project Team
Jill Gurak, P.E., Project Manager, Earth Tech (formerly Rust Environment &
Infrastructure)
Meeting Minutes — Interagency Advisory Committee MeeGng
Meeting Lxation:
September 21, 1998 2:00 pm
NC Zoological Park
Stedman Educatlon Center
Asheboro, NC
Attendees: Gyndi Bell - NC Division of Water Qualiry
Phil Kemp - Randolph County Commissioners - Chairman
Joe Trogdon - City of Asheboro - Mayor
John McGlohon - City of Asheboro — Councilman
David Smith - City of Asheboro — Councilman
Talmadge Baker - City of Asheboro — Councilman
David Leonard - City of Asheboro — City Manager
Dumont Bunker - City of Asheboro — City Engineer
Reynolds Neely - City of Asheboro — Planning Director
George Gusler - Asheboro/Randolph Chamber of Commerce
Lyn Adams - NC Zoo
Mary Joan Pugh - NC Zoo
Jeff Picklesimer - NCDOT — District Engineer
Ron Elmore - NCDOT — Planning and Environmental Branch
Ron Hairr - Earth Tech
Jill Gurak - Earth Tech
Kilmeny Stephens - EarthTech
Minutes•
Attached is the agenda handed out at the meeting.
Ms. Gurak opened ihe meeting with a brief introduction and discussion of the agenda. Mr. Elmore
stated the function of the Interagency Advisory Committee is to provide input and advice to the
project team at certain points in the environmental study process. The Interagency Advisory
Committee repiaces the Steering Committee, and is comprised of the same members as the fortner
Steering Committee with the same general functions. The NCDOT thinks the new name is a more
appropriate descriptor of the group.
The upcoming Citizens Information Wotkshop and Local Officials Meeting, scheduled for
S�ptember Q0, .ry9989 weme announced.
Yr.

Minutes
September2l, 1998Meeting
Ms. Gurak briefly reviewed the.purpose and need for the project. She explained the eight-step
environmental study process. The US 64 Improvement Project is currently in Step 2 of the process.
The project study area was presented using Geographic Information System (GIS) software and
database. Ms. Gurak stated the study area includes existing US 64 and areas south. Areas to the
north of existing US 64 were excluded because they would not facilitate improving access to the
NC Zoo (a major purpose of the project). The area to the north also includes the more urbanized
portions of Asheboro and critical water supply watersheds. Ms. Gurak noted the study area included
existing US 64 since improving existing US 64 will be an alternative addressed in the environmental
document.
The preliminary corridors were presented using the GIS. Ms. Gurak and Mr. Hairr described the
land suitability mapping created for the project and how it was used to develop the preliminary
corridors. Data was collected on features of the human and natural environments within the study
area. This data was plotted in the GIS system and used to identify features that would constrain
development of a roadway. The human environment features included interchange spacing
requirements along US 220 Bypass (future I-73/74), 8uperfund hazardous waste sites, floodplains,
historic properties, and major industrial complexes. The natural environment features included
wetlands, streams, and areas of steep topography.
Ms. Gurak asked for input regarding the corridors developed to date. She noted these corridors
would be presented to the public at the September 30�' workshop.
The following concerns and comments were raised at the meeting.
Incorporation of a new bronze elephant sculpture at the NC i59/NC i59 Spur info the
project design. The NC Zoo was concerned about the design of the NC 159/NC 159
Spur/NG Zoo Connector intersection (entrance intersection). A large bronze sculpture of
elephants is scheduled to be installed at the existing NC 159/NC 159 Spur intersection in
October 1998. The NC Zoo would like to ineorporate the elephants in any new project design.
The type of NC Zoo entrance intersection; whether it would be a signalized intersection
or a grade-separated inferchange. Mr. Hairr noted the traffic demand at this location would
be studied to determine the type of intersection needed to c,arry_t�e projected traffic. The
NC Zoo expressed a desire to have NC 159 pass over the NC Zoo Connector on a stylized
bridge similar to those along the Blue Ridge Parkway. The NC Zoo Connector would pass
under the bridge, creating an entrance statement.
Provision of access from a new bypass road to NC 159. Along the new bypass road, an
.interchange would be provided for the new NC Zoo Connector. In some cases, the location
of the bypass2oo Connector interchange may be too close to the bypass/NC 159 crossing
to allow for an interchange at NC 159. Access to NG 159 would be provided where the Zoo
Connector ties into the NC 159 Spur. Traffic studies will be conducted as part of the
environmental study process to determine the needs for interchanges along the length of a
new bypass road.

Minutes
Sepfember2l, 1998 Meeting
• Designs for interchanges at NC 49 and NC 42. Conceptual designs were created for
interchanges at US 64 west of Asheboro, US 220 Bypass, and US 64 east of Asheboro to
address size and location issues. Conceptual designs of other interchange will be developed
prior to completion of the draft environmental document. Preliminary engineering designs of
interchanges will be prepared during Step 7 of the study process.
• Location of corridors further soufh. According to the regional traffic model for the area,
�corridors further south than the study area would not attract sufficient traffic volumes to justify
a bypass alignment.
Connecting a new bypass to Presnell Street. Presnell Street is a non-access controlled
major thoroughfare in Asheboro. A free-flowing interchange between existing US 64 and a
new bypass road is currently proposed. Connecting a new bypass road at Presnell Street
would likely require a signalized intersection. The area around Presnell Street/existing US 64
is more developed than areas further east and has substantial topographic relief along the
south side.
• The location of the current T/P bypass alignment in relation to the proposed preliminary
corridors, The bypass alignment shown in the Transportation Improvement Program is
similar to the locations of the preliminary corridors.
• Project schedule and determination of a Preferred Alternative. The project is scheduled
in the Transportation Improvement Program for construction after 2004 and right-of-way
acquisition in 2002. A Preferred Alternative is expected to be identified by mid-2000.
• Corridor protection. The City and County expressed concerns about identifying a viable
corridor as early as possible to protect the corridor from development. Developmental
pressures are ongoing and expected to intensify in the study area in the coming years. It was
noted the City and County can enact corridor preservation measures only after a Preferred
Alternative is identified by the NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
The above notes are Earth Tech's understanding of what was discussed at the meeting. If the
minutes are in error or if you would like to clarify or expand them, please contact Ms. Jill Gurak.at -. �
[phone] before October 9, 1998.

���C :�
DRAFT
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 64 Improvements
City of Asheboro Area
Randolph County
TIP Project No. R-2536
State Project No. 8.1571401
Federal Project No. NHF-64(19)
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperating Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
June 9, 1998

t ,�4 �� ;I:i.
�
� i
DRAFT
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 64 Improvements
City of Asheboro Area
Randolph County
TIP Project No. R-2536
State Project No. 8.1571401
Federal Project No. NHF-64(19)
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperating Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
June 9, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
US 64 Improvements
Draft Purpose and Need Statement
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-2536
Randolph County
List of Tables
List of Figures
Paae
�
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1-1
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . e . . . . 1-1
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.5.1 Project Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.5.2 History of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.6.1 Existing Road Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.6.2 Modei Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.6.2.1 Railways 1 _g
1.6.2.2 Airports 1_g
1.6.2.3 Mass Transit 1-yp
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
- 1.7.1 Demographics .................................. 1-10
1.7.2 Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
1.7.3 NC Zoo Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
. 1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
1.8.2 Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15
, ;

TABLE OF CONTENTS
� (Continued)
Paae
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15
1.9.2 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18
� 1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1-1 g
1.9.22 Types of Travel on US 64 1-21
1.9.2.3 Existing Levels of Service 1-21
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes 1-23
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service 1-24
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25
2.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
LIST OF TABLES
Paae
1-1 Levels of Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22
1-2 Roadway Segment Levels of Service (No Build Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23
1-3 Intersection Levels of Service (No Build Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24
1-4 AccidentData ............................................... 1-27
1-5 Accident Rate Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Paae
1-1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1-2 ProjectStudy Area ............................................ 1-6
1-3 TIP Conceptual Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1-4 TIP Projects in Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14
1-5 1990 Asheboro Thoroughfare.Flan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16
1-6 Existing US 64 Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17
1-7 Traffic Volumes (No-Build Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19
- 1-8 1997 Turning Movements (No-Build Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20
1-9 2025 Turning Movements (No-Build Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26
iii

��
�- �� � - � �
1.1 INTRODUCTION '�
�
, An environmental document is being prepared for this project in accordance with the
' requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
This is an informational document intended for use by both the decision makers and the public.
As such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the
proposed action.
The content of this document conforms with the requirements of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) guidelines, which provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural
provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration's Guidance for Preparing and
� Processing Environmental and Section 4(� Documents (Technical Advisory T66430.8.A,
October 1987).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead agencies for this project. The US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) is a cooperating agency. .
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT proposes to improve the existing United States Route (US) 64 corridor in the area
of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County. As part of this action, the NCDOT also proposes
to improve the access to the North Carolina Zoological Park (NC Zoo).
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The need to improve the US 64 corridor in the Asheboro area and to provide improved access
to the NC Zoo are demonstrated by the following summary of existing and projected conditions:
• Existing levels of service (LOS) are LOS E on eastbound US 64 between NC 159
and NC 42 and on the two-lane segment west of Asheboro.
The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F. LOS A is the best
operating conditions along a roadway or at an intersection, and LOS F is the
worst. In urban areas, LOS D is generally considered acceptable, while in
rural areas, LOS C is considered acceptable. LOS E and F conditions cause
significant travel delay, increase the potential for accidents, and contribute
substantially to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
�-r

The existing and projected poor levels of service described in the first four
bullet items 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 177%, up to 54,100 VPD, on the five-lane segment by 2025. The finro-
� lane segment is projected to carry twice (212%) as much traffic, up to 25,900
- VPD, by 2025.
� The existing level of service at the US 64/NC 159 intersection is LOS E.
• Projected 2025 levels of senrice are LOS E or LOS F on: 1) the 2-lane segment of
US 64 west of Asheboro, 2) the 5-lane segment (eastbound and westbound)
between US 220 Bypass and NC 42, 3) the 5-lane segment (eastbound) between
NC 42 and Presnell Street, and 4) NC 159 south of town.
• Projected 2025 levels of service are LOS F" for the US 64/NC 42 and US 64/NC 159
intersections, meaning the volume to capacity ratios greatly exceed capacity. At
these locations, LOS F will be reached prior to the year 2025.
• Visitors to the NC Zoo (one of the State's largest tourist attractions) must travel a
circuitous two-lane non-access controlled route to reach the zoo from the intrastate
system. This creates confusion and delays for zoo visitors, most of whom (83%)
come from outside the seven-county region surrounding the NC Zoo. Traffic
entering the NC Zoo has been reported to back up on NC 159 about 0.6 km (0.4
miles) north of the NC 159 Spur. When traffic leaves the NC Zoo, the NC 159/US
64 intersection is reported to become extremely congested, with queues on NC 159
sometimes extending about 3.5 km (2.2 miles) south to Old Cox Road. The
driveways of rural residences connect directly to NC 159 and the road is the only
outlet for some residential subdivisions. Zoo-related congestion makes it difficult for
these residents to access their homes.
• Accident rates on the five-lane segment of US 64 from the US 220 Bypass to
Presnell Street (365.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles [ACC/100 MVM]) are
currently above the statewide average rate for this type of road (354.5 ACC/100
MVM). Also, the five locations along US 64 in the Asheboro area where accidents
occur most frequently are on this five-lane segment.
• This section of US 64 is designated as part of the North Carolina Intrastate System.
The Intrastate System was created to provide high-speed, safe regional travel
service. The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions along existing
US 64 through Asheboro diminish this segmenYs ability to function as an intrastate
corridor.
r-2

' The purpose of the Intrastate Highway System is to "provide high-speed,
safe travel service throughout the State. It connects major population
centers both inside and outside the State and provides a safe, convenient,
j�; through-travel for motorists. It is designed to support statewide growth and
'._ ,� development objectives and to connect to major highways of adjoining
states. All segments of the routes in the Intrastate System shall have at least
�; four travel lanes and, when warranted, shall have vertical separation or
-' interchanges at crossings, more than four travel lanes, or bypasses"
(GS 136-178).
Detailed discussions of the existing and projected conditions and the needs for the proposed
action are presented in Sections 1.5 through 1.10.
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The primary purposes of the proposed action are:
• Improve traffic flow and levels of service on the section of US 64 in the project study
area.
Needs Addressed: Existing and projected deficiencies in levels of service along
existing US 64 cause significant travel delay, increase the potential for accidents,
and contribute substantially to the ineffieient operation of motor vehicles.
• Relieve congestion on US 64 in the City of Asheboro, thereby improving safety and
reducing the number of accidents.
Needs Addressed: Accident rates along existing segments of US 64 in the
Asheboro area are currently above the statewide average accident rates for
similar facilities.
• Improve access to the NC Zoological Park.
Needs Addressed: Congestion and queues occur on NC 159 due to
NC Zoo-related traffic mixing with local users. Delays are experienced by
NC Zoo visitors. Zoo-related congestion makes it difficult for residents along
NC 159 to access their homes.
• Improve high-speed regional travel along the US 64 intrastate corridor.
Needs Addressed: The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions
along existing US 64 through Asheboro diminish this segmenYs ability to function
as an intrastate corridor.
1-3

1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.5.1 Project Setting
As shown in Figure 1.1, the proposed project is located in and near the City of Asheboro in
Randolph County. Randolph County is in the geographic center of North Carolina. The nearest
major metropolitan area is Greensboro, which is 48 km (30 miles) to the north. Charlotte is
121 km (75 miles) to the southwest and Raleigh is 113 km (70 miles) to the northeast.
Randolph County has a land area of 2,039 square km (787.3 square miles) and a total area of
2,046 square km (790.1 square miles) (NC Office of State Planning 1998a). Randolph County
is one of the twelve counties that comprise the Piedmont Triad Region in the north central part
of the state. Other counties in this region include Guilford County (Greensboro area) and
Forsyth County (Winston-Salem area).
The county is in the Central Piedmont physiographic region, in the foothills of the Uwharrie
Mountains. The terrain is characterized by rolling hills, with an average elevation across the
county of 265 meters (870 feet) above mean sea level (MSL). The climate is mild, with an
annual average temperature of about 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) and an
annual average rainfall of about 114 centimeters (cm)(45 inches) per year (Asheboro Chamber
of Commerce 1998).
As shown in Figure 12, the project study area is south of the City of Asheboro and entirely within
Randolph County. The project study area is bounded on the north by existing US 64. It extends
as far south as the NC Zoo, as far west as Secondary Route (SR) 1326/SR 1424, and as far
east as SR 2713. -
The northern end of the study area is within the Asheboro city limits, where the land uses are
urban and suburban. The remaining portions of the study area are within the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction or other unincorporated areas of the county. Outside the City limits,
the land uses are predominantly rural, with residential subdivisions scattered among large tracts
of undeveloped land. Businesses and industries are concentrated within the City limits and
outside the city along US 220 Business and NC 159 where water and sewer services are
provided.
As shown in Figure 1.2, a portion of the Uwharrie National Forest is near the southeastern edge
of the project study area. Harvey's Mountain (elevation 948 feet MSL) is near the northern end
of the National Forest property. Other mountains of similar elevation are scattered through the
eastern half of the study area. The Little River runs south through the study area, west of the
US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74). Streams within the study area generally drain south, except
those near existing US 64 west of Asheboro, which drain north.
1-4

�-�
':
IIIORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
r i
PROJECT LOCATION
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 1-1

'
� - � _��` �� , � �- r ' 7� � r � �
� , ' ( _ l _! � � r-_ �' i ' ��
�-, � > �_ � � � � � ,_,_ 1 ' j ( � �
�� � i_II _, r % �f�,' � �
�� � � �����- ��� : � ' � �;. i� � � t � � I. �� � .
i;
� - � ' � ' .
! � � � " ��LI ���' � � I � ��� - �� �- 'i��� � � '�� �' �'�� �
� , ' � s,"-, i L- � , r. . � ' —% ' �,
I �,�� ��'— +
�
. I �. � � ' - R �� _ � �-y �� � � _ � , � ;- ��t . ��RFSryELL St` / � - .
�� - , j ' � � � � � � r �� � �_ � � . ..
_ i
�
s . �
_
� "t - " .. 1 �; , � � ` ' � f,; I , td- '
9 =� f
���r� -- ��E�OI`� _ � t , � -I //�� � �. b
i I � i . ,I ., � i �AMiefs Creek �R ��Da �' �
, ;' � �
9fl1326'. � � � , � � t . .. i I � -C._ .
- , � �
, � i - � i� � � I � � ' � ._ _ � i�
: _ � , �' �r � � ia9}le'b01'6. � :7-�I � �,�e� � ��I
: � - � � �� -, ,-, � � � I �, � � � 1� � ' � �� _
���e�� r �-- `i� . �� i �;C � � _ _ J' ����; i� :
�
_ � _ . , '�'�
,,— I r
�
�
I i o _��
i q ,
'� �
i � 2
I � �l � -
- _, . _. i d
(� , o •
1 - � , � . p . . �_
� � , i �� � ,� � o�� ;' �� .
- ).
i'
�
_ �+ ,
. � .
, � N
\
.
r/_-`1 S °` �w�r �� i ' .�--- I n / ��' rl' � \ ' if ��� ' eR � \ � I ��`"�
3 _ ( �
_
H q� . � I
�. � �
; �� � � � �� w � ' � �' ' � �F Q � � , � � �.
�' r-' � o' "s r ;�
� � _ c
� . � � i , � 2r � 1� .Cr - � . . �� ' ,
� �� ��-
. � / . i _ � � , .. � � � �_� �� �
(
E
T 8
m ,:fC - A
� ai 1
� i � ` �
i o �� {
� i �
� Q � , � r'o �✓,'� r
�, � ,.. .^" ' � , `d. o . � — .
. ., 2 �� � n�muweu.ao N / � ' � �'� _
� � � �� �y.l �Y � Q � � '� _. �—� n � i �� --
� A�E$'OOD �AG�.- ��Q. �< �1 . � I '' _ �
.
� I /
`. i ' i N n _ ..
� � 0 � � �J
Q � ��, r
i I` A I` �' . .�g" �¢ � 1/�' N_ i' .- �
/ 1 M
¢' � � � �l
.`�% .:�•��� � �� y a' � ' � _ �c. - �. y+Z' '�'� —'� `
( a" , � r �'� o ,� �` � . � �a� � o � °; ( ( �_ 1
� .r - � �, (..� ,�a`� ' ��-;�.i �`�� /� �Oc � � ,• � . � 7 - '.�-.
i � i
`�'" �r D r �� `��_ � /� o- �- 4i� � �B�D. ) ' �, '1' -�. .
. �� '• A gf�[ d6� � ' /J ' �� m.s m�ioxs n i i,' .. �' ,. - / ,-'. �,'t yu ,. I : �ndCn�f � I I j
N'�/V j �iY e
.N ) `,oJ � I I � Topographlc Data Souree:
�'� i y�0.,. i �� . - / r cD � _, �') �. " � ' Copyright 1987-1997
l � . � . -' c � I � , � �` American Digital Cartography, Inc.,
, i M
�y J i � � - i � ' N RD ,�hC � (� • - � �<' - � 3003 W.College Ave.. Appleton.
°�t � � T3. ��' 1 �-` �. � -Sy .-- . -� Wisconsin54914.
� � ( �� �l • �� °tir � i � ` ; � . h ¢Q �� �
(,1 /• ''+ �� I�(� C _ i . ' Source for State 2oologiwl Park:
!
� 1 � ��, 1 � ,f` � ' . . � . ��F�' � :� � o ..: { . f �'.:..�. : • ..� USGS Quadrangle: Asheboro. N.C.
s �+ ,.
). f ��— \ ', � �" � !� -� ;�m��� Q �' � . 0 1 � �-� � �� Source for all other data:
F
� ) � �� ��-` f�: , "� �'�• �� DINRH � ; ; �� °1 I �`��; ��� . . ( . North Carolina Department af Transportation
� �.� �/ .� . , � q�_; � � • � mo', - .. and Randolph County GIS
i
�_.n�.-� �" � ' � � E . . . . . . . ' �� ,- � NC 200 �
���{{{ ui
� .!�� � j � � � � . �arvey si � 5� •. 'e �
�# � � � � � � Ili7ountaiiq '� ' — -_ t ' ..
j t _ _ ._ / . 'e /
I, \ •`l T --`
4 � i � i �� � � (� �wharne. �' �- � � ���R " � � � ,,�
, ,� s� _ - illational� . � � '.'Rr � . a . f. , �
,
i I . �� .. � � . .. �O�BSi ,,.,� � . / ..,�.. z .1 - �
'uwr' -��h.
� NOHTli �CAAOLINA
DEPARTMENT
�`r��� TRANSPORTATION
>�_ �,
�� �?l
iLI�sL7END
U.S. Route
Primary Road
Secondary Road
' ' Railroad
Index Contour 50' Interval
Intermediate Contour
Major Stream
� `, r"'�^""'"` }: NC Zoological Park
�
� �.' '' Uwharrie National Forest
: Project Study Area
I—� Municipal Boundary
Kilometers �
i �5 0 1
� -
� �, n ��s o o.s t
�-liles
PROJECT STUDY AFtEA
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTV
FIGURE 1-2

1.5.2 History of Project
The 1974 Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan included two bypasses around the south side of
Asheboro. The bypass farthest from the center of the city was designated the NC 49 bypass.
This NC 49 bypass was access-controlled and extended from existing NC 49 west of Asheboro
to beyond NC 42 east of Asheboro. A new access road connected the NC 49 Bypass to the
NC Zoo. The second bypass was part of a non access-controlled loop road shown closer to the
City. The southern part of this loop extended from US 64 west of Asheboro to US 64 east of
Asheboro. �
The Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan was updated in August 1988. Several changes were made
to the 1974 plan. Only one bypass around the south side of Asheboro was shown in the 1988
plan. This non access-controlled bypass, designated the NC 49 Bypass and Outer Loop,
extended from US 64 west of Asheboro to US 64 east of Asheboro on a conceptual alignment
generally between the two southern bypass alignments shown in the 1974 Thoroughfare Plan.
The 1988 Thoroughfare Plan did not include a new access road connecting the bypass with the
,- NC Zoo.
In 1990, the NCDOT prepared a feasibility study for an Asheboro Southern Bypass. Based on
the results of that study, the City of Asheboro modified the Thoroughfare Plan in October 1990.
The modifications reclassified the Asheboro Southern Bypass as a limited access facility,
moved the bypass' conceptual alignment further south to avoid development in the southern part
of Asheboro, and added a NC Zoo Connector. The NCDOT formally approved these changes
in December 1990. This revised Asheboro Southern Bypass with NC Zoo Connector was
included in the NCDOT's 1990-1996 Transportation lmprovement Program (TIP) as Project
Number R-2536.
Figure 1.3 shows the conceptual alignment for the Asheboro Southem Bypass contained in the
feasibility study and included on the 1990 Asheboro Thoroughfare plan and in the 1998-
2004 TIP.
The NCDOT and the City of Asheboro are in the process of updating the Asheboro
Thoroughfare Plan. The Asheboro Southern Bypass will remain an integral part of the plan.
Section 1.5.2 includes more information on the Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan.
1-7

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
, OF
TRANSPORTATION
a f,
T.I.P. CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 1-3

i ' 1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.6.1 Existing Road Network
Randolph County has 339.7 km (211.1 miles) of primary roads and 2,349.5 km (1,460.2 miles)
of secondary roads (NC Office of State Planning 1998a). There is one existing interstate
highway in the county, I-85, which traverses the extreme northwestern corner of the county.
Segments of six US routes and eight NC routes are in the county (Refer to Figure 1-1). The US
routes are: US 64, US 220 Bypass, US 220 Business, US 421, US 311, and US 29-70. The
NC routes are: NC 22, NC 42, NC 62, NC 49, NC 134, NC 705, NC 47, and NC 159/NC 159
Spur. The US 220 Bypass is planned as a portion of the future I-73/74 interstate highway, and
is signed accordingly. This future interstate highway will connect Detroit, Michigan to
Charleston, South Carolina.
The main north/south routes in Randolph County are US 220 Bypass and US 311. US 220
Bypass connects Asheboro with Rockingham to the south and Greensboro to the north. US 311
begins at US 220 Bypass north of Asheboro and heads northwest towards I-85 and High Point.
The primary easbwest routes through Randolph County are US 64 and NC 49. US 64 connects
Asheboro with Raleigh to the northeast and Lexington to the west. NC 49 connects Asheboro
with Burlington to the northeast and Charlotte to the southwest. Travelers driving between
Charlotte and Raleigh or Charlotte and Burlington use NC 49 and US 64 through Asheboro as
an alternative to using I-85 and I-40 through Greensboro.
1.6.2 Modallnterrelationships
1.6.2.1 Railways
Norfolk Southern Railway owns tracks in the project study area parallel to the west side of
US 220 Business within a developed industrial area. These"tracks extend north from a stub end
near the US 220 Business/Hawthorn Drive/Southmont Drive intersection. Within the study area,
these tracks carry an average of one train per day traveling at a speed of 16 kilometers per hour
(kph)(10 miles per hour) (NCDOT Rail Division 1997). The tracks are grade-separated from
existing US 64.
I 1.6.2.2 Airports
The Asheboro Municipal Airport is the airport nearest the project study area. This general
aviation airport is adjacent to the south side of NC 49, approximately 2 km (] .3 miles) southwest
of the study area. Access to the airport is from NC 49 via SR 1163 (Tot Hill Farm Road) and
SR 1197 (Pilot View Road). This airport accommodates corporate aircraft and other
non-passenger services. The closest major commercial airport is the Piedmonf Triad
International Airport, 45 km (28 miles) north in Greensboro.
1-9

1.6.2.3 Mass Transit
There are no regular bus or passenger rail routes serving the City of Asheboro or Randolph
County, nor are there current plans for such services (Randolph County 1998).
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1.7.1 Demographics
Randolph County was founded in 1779 from a portion of Guilford County. There are seven
municipalities entirely within the county and two partially within the county. Asheboro, centrally
located in the county, is the county's largest city and its seat.
The project study area contains the southern portion of Asheboro and its extraterritorial
jurisdiction, but no other municipalities.
Randolph County has been growing at a steady rate of 1.0-2.7 percent per year since 1990. In
1990, the population of Randolph County was 106,546. In 1996, the County population rose to
118,722. That same year, Asheboro had a population of 18,510, which is about 15 percent of
-- the total county population (NC Office of State Planning 1998b). About 29 percent of the
County's population lives within the nine incorporated municipalities.
The County is projected to have 123,900 people by 2000, 138,357 people by 2010, and
152,662 people by 2020. These population projections reflect a growth rate of about 1.0-1.5
percent per year (NC Office of State Planning 1998b). Future growth is expected within the City
of Asheboro and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, including the project study area (City of Asheboro
1997). _
1.7.2 Economic Data
Randolph County's reputation as an industrial center began more than a century ago with the
advent of the textile and furniture industries. Today, Randolph County is home to a diverse set
of industries, including furniture, fabrics, batteries, appliances, roller bearings, polyester chips,
medical devices, tire wire, and molded plastics (Randolph County Economic Development
Corporation 1998).
Randolph County has enjoyed strong economic growth and success in attracting new business.
According to the Asheboro Chamber of Commerce, Randolph County attracted more new
industry in four of the five past years than any other county in North Carolina (1998). Retail
sales increased an average of 7 percent per year between 1991 and 1995 (NC Office of State
Planning 1998a).
1-10

� —�
i
� � The unemployment rate in Randolph County was 2.9 percent in 1995, which was lower than the
'_ J statewide unemployment rate of 4.3 percent. Randolph County ranked 23 out of 100 counties
in 1995 per capita income with the per capita income averaging $19,829 (NC Office of State
Planning 1998a).
In 1994, manufacturing comprised 56.8 percent of Randolph County's employment. The next
� two largest employment sectors were retail trade (15.2 percent) and services (14.2 percent)
(NC Office of State Planning 1998a). Major employers in Randolph County include Klaussner
Furniture, Eveready Battery Company, Black and Decker (appliances), Ramtex (woven fabrics),
___ Acme-McCrary (hosiery), US Furniture lndustries, Arrow Intemational (medical devices), Sara
Lee Knit Products (t-shirts), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (tire wire), and The Timken
Company (roller bearings) (Randolph County Economic Development Corporation 1998). Of
these ten companies, Klaussner Furniture and Black and Decker have facilities in the study
area, both on US 220 Business.
Within the project study area, industries primarily are located along US 220 Business and NC 49
and within Asheboro city limits. Assisted living facilities, the NC Zoo, other commercial activities,
and residences are located along NC 159. Maek Road (SR 1144) and NC 42 are primarily
residential.
1.7.3 NC Zoo Development Plan
The NC Zoo, in the southeastem portion of Randolph County, is one of the state's major tourist
attractions. In 1995, the 1,450-acre zoo attracted 840,410 visitors (NCZoo 1997a). Zoo visitors
nwmbered 764,286 in 1996 and 764,720 in 1997 (NC Zoo 1998a). The greater numbers in 1995
are likely due to the grand opening of the North America Exhibit in August 1994. With planned
improvements to the NC Zoo, described later in this section, visitor attendance is expected to
reach 900,000 to 1 million by 2002 (NC Zoo 1998a).
Approximately 17% of the zoo's visitors come from the seven counties surrounding the zoo
(Randolph, Guilford, Alamance, Chatham, Moore, Montgomery, and Davidson). The remaining
83% of the visitors travel from further points (NC Zoo, 1997a).
The NC Zoo is administered under the auspices of the NC Department of Natural Resources.
The total budget for fiscal year 1995/1996 was $11.9 million. Approximately half of the NC Zoo's
budget is derived from admissions, sales, and donations. The other half comes from State
appropriations (NC Zoo 1997a). The zoo currently has about 280 permanent employees and
120 seasonal employees. In addition, there are approximately 80 food services workers at the
zoo employed by a private contractor (NC Zoo, 1997b).
� � 1-11
,�

The NC Zoo first opened to the public in 1974 with an interim zoo facilify. Over the next nine
years, the permanent habitats for the Africa Exhibit were completed one-by-one and opened to
the public. On October 3, 1983, the zoo became a totally natural habitat facility and the interim
facilities were closed. The 300-acre Africa Exhibitlwas completed on October 25, 1984. The
North America Exhibit first opened on September 23, 1993 with the "Sonoran Desert" display.
Several other displays were constructed in the North America Exhibit and a grand opening was
held on August 4, 1994. The 200-acre North America Exhibit was completed on June 21, 1996
(NC Zoo 1998b).
The NC Zoo intends to add several facilities and displays in the next eight years. Within two
years, the zoo plans to open a catering/banquet facility and two new displays. The two displays,
Semi-Arid Region and Exterior Forest, will be "infill" development within the existing boundaries
of the Africa Exhibit area. The catering/banquet facility will be located near the North America
Exhibit and will operate as a separate facility from the main zoo. An IMAX theatre is proposed
within the next three years at a location near the North America Exhibit and the catering/banquet
facility (NC.Zoo 1998a).
An Earth Resources Center and a hotel/conference center are envisioned within 5 to 8 years.
The Earth Resources Center is proposed for an 18-acre site on zoo property south of the
NC 159 Spur, just south of the existing zoo entrance (NC Zoo 1998a). The Earth Resources
Center will be an indoor facility with educational galleries, theatres, auditoriums, workshops and
displays that explore the interconnections of the human and natural worlds. The Earth
Resources Center facilities will be available for use in conjunction with the hotel conference
facilities (NC Zoo 1997a). The hoteUconference center site has not been identified, but may be
on zoo property or on a 120-acre privately-owned tract off Lion's Rest Road, near the southwest
corner of the zoo property (NC Zoo 1998a).
The main visitor entrance to the NC Zoo is the NC 159 Spur off NC 159. Employees use both
the NC 159 Spur main entrance and Old Cox Road. The NC 159 Spur is a 1.1-km (0.7-mile)
#wo-lane highway that begins at an unsignalized T-intersection with NC 159 and ends at the NC
Zoo's North America Exhibit parking area. Old Cox Road is a two-lane uncontrolled access
roadway that begins at NC 159, parallels NC 159 to the east and borders the western boundary
of the NC Zoo (Refer to Figure 1-2). Old Cox Road passes under the NC 159 Spur with no
access to the spur. There is one public access to the NC Zoo off Old Cox Road at the Africa
Exhibit, south of fhe zoo's main entrance off of the NC 159 Spur.
� NC 159 is a winding rural two-lane highway that can be accessed from existing US 64 and
__ US 220 Bypass (via a short segment of US 220 Business). The distance from existing US 64
to the NC 159 Spur south along NC 159 is 7.1 km (4.5 miles). The distance from the US 220
-- Bypass to the NC 159 Spur north along NC 159 is 6.4 km (4.0 miles).
�, Vehicles entering and leaving the zoo often experience delays on NC 159, particularly on
weekends between May and September. Traffic is heaviest entering the NC Zoo between
� 10:00 am and 1:00 pm and leaving the zoo between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm (NC Zoo 1998a).
'_ Traffic entering the NC Zoo has queued on NC 159 for about 0.6 km (0.4 miles) north of the
1-12

NC 159 Spur. When traffic leaves the NC Zoo, the US 64/NC 159 intersection becomes
extremely congested with queues on NC 159 sometimes extending about 3.5 km (2.2 miles)
south to Old Cox Road (NC Zoo 1998a).
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS �
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program
The proposed action is included as Project R-2536� in the NCDOT's 1998 2004 TIP. Five other
projects in the TIP are in the general vicinity of the proposed action: R-2217, R-2220, R-2535,
U-2200, and U-2401. Figure 1:4 shows the general locations of these projects in relation to
R-2536 (US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass). ;
Project R-2217 is on US 64 east of the project study area. Project R-2217 will widen existing
US 64 to four lanes from Ramseur east to the existing 5-lane section in Siler City. In Ramseur,
the project will widen US 64 to five lanes. The total project length is 16.8 km (10.5 miles), and
construction is scheduled to begin in 1999. ;
Project R-2220 is on US 64 within and west of the project study area. Project R-2220 will widen
existing US 64 to four lanes for 45.6 km (28.5 miles) from east of I-85 Business in Lexington to
US 220 Bypass in Asheboro. The westernmost section is under construction. The remaining
sections are scheduled for construction after 2004.
Project R-2535 is on NC 49 within and west of the project study area. Project R-2535 will widen
existing NC 49 to four lanes for 15.5 km (9.7 miles) from SR 1174 west of Farmer to SR 1193
(Old NC 49) in Asheboro. Planning is scheduled to begin in 1998, and construction is scheduled
to begin in 2003. � j
Projeet U-2200 is on US 220 Business north of the project study area. Project U-2200 will widen
US 220 Business to a five-lane curb and gutter facility for 2.1 km (1.3 miles) from Pritchard
Street to SR 2261. (Old Liberty Road). Construction is scheduled to begin in 2001.
Project U-2401 will make improvements to the US 64/NC 42 intersection. Planning is scheduled
to begin in 1999, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2004.
r-ys

� '
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
a OF
TRANSPORTATION
,
T.I.P. PROJECTS IN VICINITY
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 1-4

� 1.8.2 Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 1-5 shows the currently approved Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan (last revised in 1990).
As discussed in Section 1.2.3, the 1990 revisions included reclassifying the proposed Asheboro
Southern Bypass as a four-lane divided, limited-access facility; moving the bypass' conceptual
alignment further south to avoid development in southem Asheboro; and adding the NC Zoo
Connector. A bypass around the southern part of the city was included on a priority list of
twenty-one major thoroughfare projects recommended in the plan (NCDOT 1990).
Other new major thoroughfares recommended in the Thoroughfare Plan include completing
Presnell Street on new alignment from Farr Street to US 64 and constructing an "Outer Loop"
segment on new alignment from US 64 west of Asheboro north to Lexington Street. The
Presnell Street project has been constructed and is open for service.
The Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan is being updated by the NCDOT's Statewide Planning Branch,
in cooperation with the City of Asheboro and Randolph County. The update process is expected
to be completed by the fall of 1998. A US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass and NC Zoo
Connector will be a part of the new plan.
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics
Existing US 64 has three cross-seetions through the project study area; US 64 is a two-lane
undivided rural highway west of Asheboro (west of NC 49), a five-lane urban roadway through
Asheboro, and a four-lane divided rural highway east of Asheboro (east of Presnell Street).
Figure 1-6 shows photographs of the three different configurations along existing US 64.
There is no control of access along US 64 in the study area. However, there are few existing
driveways along the highway outside the Asheboro city limits. Within the City limits, there are
numerous driveways to shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, and other businesses
on both sides of the five-lane section.
Speed limits on US 64 are 45 mph on the two-lane segment just west of Asheboro and on the
five-lane segment through Asheboro. The speed limit on the four-lane divided segment of
US 64 east of Asheboro is 55 mph.
There are traffic signals on existing US 64 at South Rark Street, NC 159, Cliff Road, Arrowood
Road, SR 2826 (Browers Chapel Road), NC 42, Randolph MaIlNillage Marketplace, Salisbury
Street, and East Presnell Street. There is an interchange where US 64 crosses over
US 220 Bypass. Existing US 64 is grade-separated above US 220 Business and the adjacent
Norfolk and Southern Railroad track.
1-15

"'�:a uma�ns Oi7
:==S:Cgwrnw.�a
nE:_c". �neeo9esi�i 9F
-- i� : ���R.�; r
—=—�;1 i3
� ::i �e
i:; =:a::
�:9 :�: :s; B
'�:
,� �
�;:�'
•'�a �i�:,'r:e;ir;
��iil�:i:�.� 1i�'ii
jCS��Ci':�[�'=iC:nY'��:
atc ::.Hrs���a,.:
�:3e: e:e��ag:€•,
� �^ :S I�it
' 1�i� �uiii;ii�1� �i I
��e'��u��i�=�� =ii
� a r,, ai i:�:
eeli��!!Y�N' :3 �s.
I � i:a ua:•
ci: �6 � ::s:7 e...�.
Y.:C:J ,� '
: "i".'. d �
'�'"''�1 I ft:CL 17 G�
jl��'w::�:r C�nj
��., 1•; »�,� :
;_�,� ;� `_;� ,`;�;_"�::� -=�::��
i3;,._ la"Dea_•;es�iicu,e�e;:;•_;.
:��� :CYC��"1i�a ...�
!� :�B iig2•: seee�l iv �A �SCT.
I` g:9:1.�81:. �-. ci' �8 �a:�"il
�Si�t��'�itL�1i�,�yy!���: �j
� �E4! ti•r � N � x.'��;
`f �`e'78� i�G81 tfii S;g � •
� /1 Ce., �.�.. �'!�f s��
uH wiw ti._ 'L." ypr
f��,�� �� �i E�'� �a�EP,� ����°;
;����"��'u:�s �it�is.
� �'iiC�i'� Q`9 iYT � �
».a�j'�Y.�."C..�I [ ] (:�,w:st[rlid
I�ir :i�e'}�3�� ers�;�
N E alli � 1s'��i ii.7
y�i'llr �3 11p��F'���.��il�j�'.1
i�..j^���'It:=i:�i:ii�� �u`��t�i
��7 i""� ^.s'.. ":� ...... �i::{ 6.:
... ! ::��::�i iiciia
Ci:� _ " w�G :
P' ra.:.it:C^ '~ C..�'�n'�is.:
Iz '��•.-c�::...,..i; i'seE��. .....
11_F.`i:l�:i�l:{�i�:[�l:��llfN:ly�\:

Existing US 64
Five-lane segment
through Asheboro
' M
y NORTH CAROLINA
� ' DEPARTMENT
"� OF
9„ ' TRANSPORTATION
Nr
T
Existing US �4
Two-lane segment
west of Asheboro
Existing US 64
Four-lane divided segment
east of Asheboro
EXISTING 1JS64 PHOTOGRAPHS
R-2536 11S 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 7-G

� ;
; Existing NC 159 is a two-lane rural route from existing US 64 south past the NC 159 Spur to
-' existing US 220 Business. This winding road has no access control. The driveways of rural
__ residences connect directly to NC 159. Also, NC 159 is the only outlet for some residential
� subdivisions along this road. The speed limit on NC 159 is 45 mph. The only traffic signal on
.NC 159 in the study area is at US 64. The intersection of NC 159 and NC 159 Spur is an
��
at-grade intersection with right-turn yield lanes.
There are no sidewalks along existing US 64 or NC 159. Neither road is a designated bicycle
route on the State system.
1.9.2 Existing Conditions
1.9.2, i Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 1-7 shows the existing (1997) average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) for major roadways
in the projeet study area, and Figure 1-8 shows the existing peak hour turning movement
volumes at selected US 64 intersections. As shown in Figure 1-7, ADTs on US 64 range from
12,200 vehicles per day (vpd) west of the NC 49 intersection to 30,500 vpd between NC 159
and NC 42. Traffic west of town is approximately evenly split between US 64 to/from Lexington
and NC 49 to/from Charlotte. NC 159 carries ADTs of about 9,500 vpd north of Old Cox Road
and 5,200 vpd south of Old Cox Road.
The peak hour factor (percent of ADT in the peak hour) for US 64 and other major roads in the
study area is estimated to be 10 percent. During the evening peak hours, about 55 percent of
the traffic on US 64 travels eastbound east of US 220 Bypass and 60 percent travels westbound
west of US 220 Bypass. On the north/south routes through the study area, the traffic is heaviest
southbound during the evening peak hours (55-60 percent of the hourly traffic volumes).
Traffic on US 64 is estimated to include a large percentage of trucks. On US 64 east of US 220
Bypass, truck traffic is estimated to comprise 10 percent of the total traffic volumes, with
4 percent being dual-axle trucks (medium-sized trucks) and 6 percent being tractor-trailer trucks
(heavy trucks). Truck volumes on US 64 west of the US 220 Bypass are 3 percent medium
trucks and 15 percent heavy trucks. These percentages reflect the road's use as a
through-route for trucks delivering goods across Randolph County.
NC 159 is estimated to carry little truck traffic (1 percent medium trucks and no heavy trucks)
because it serves primarily residential areas and the NC Zoo. However, due to the presence.
of the NC Zoo, buses were estimated as comprising 0.5 percent of the existing average daily
traffic volumes on NC 159.
� r-�8

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR�'MEWT
, OF
, TRANSPORTATION
Nl
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO �UILD CASE)
R-2536 US 641MPR09/EMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 1-7

9 NORTH C/AROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
, TRANSPORTATION
H
i
1997 TURNING 11AOVEMENTS (NO BUILD CASE)
R-2536 US 641MPROVEflAENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 7-8

; 1. .. ypes o rave on US 64
_ An origin-destination survey was conducted in April 1989 as part of a corridor study of US 64
I from Lexington to Raleigh (NCDOT Planning and Research Branch, 1990). For this survey,
- vehicles were stopped at four locations in rural areas between towns, and drivers were asked
� the origin and destination of their trip and the purpose of their trip (business, pleasure, shopping,
� etc.). The four locations were; 1) east of Lexington, 2) east of Franklinville/Ramseur, 3) east of
Siler City, and 4) west of Pittsboro. East of Asheboro (locations 2, 3, and 4), the survey showed
37% of the trips are long-distance travel (trips greater than 100 miles), 56% are town-to-town
_, travel, and 7% are local travel. West of Asheboro (location 1), the survey showed 35% of the
trips are long-distance travel, 35% town-to-town travel, and 30% local travel.
It can be concluded from the origin-destination survey results that a substantial proportion of
travelers using the US 64 corridor are through-travelers passing through Asheboro on
long-distance travel. It is estimated at least 35-37% of the traffic on US 64 coming into
Asheboro from outside the city are through-travelers. A portion of the town-to-town travelers are
also likely passing through Asheboro, destined for another town or for the NC Zoo.
Considering the current conditions along the US 64 corridor, the origin-destination survey results
regarding percentage of long-distance travelers on US 64 are likely still valid. Since 1989, Cary
and other towns along the corridor have experienced growth, which has increased town-to-town
traffic and local traffic on US 64. However, long-distance traffic also has likely increased.
Several segments of US 64 between Raleigh and Asheboro have been widened from two lanes
to four lanes since the sunrey, making the corridor a more attractive alternative route to I-85 for
drivers traveling long distance between Raleigh and Charlotte.
1.9.2.3 Existing Levels of Service
The level of service (LOS) is a"qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a
traffic stream, and their perception by motorists" (Transportation Research Board 1994:1-4).
The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F that can be applied to both roadway
segments and intersections. LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F the
worst. Table 1-1 describes the traffic conditions along roadway segments and intersections
generally associated with each LOS designation. In urban areas, LOS D is generally considered
acceptable, while in rural areas LOS C is considered acceptable.
The methodologies and procedures documented in the Transportation Research Board's
Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 Third Edition (1994) were used to calculate
roadway segment and intersection levels of service.
. 7-21

TABLE 1-1
LEVELS OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LEVEL OF I SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
SERVICE
ROADWAY SEGMENT
A Very low delay (<5.0 sec. per Free flow. Individuals are unaffected by others in traffic stream.
vehicle). Most vehicles do not Freedom to select speed and maneuver is extremely high.
have to stop at all.
B 5.1-15.0 sec. delay. Good Free flow, but the presence of other vehicles begins to be
progression and short cycle noticeable. Slight decline in freedom to maneuver.
length.
C 15.1-25.0 sec. delay. Fair Stable flow, but the beginning of the range in which the influence
progression and/or longer of traffic densiry on operations becomes marked. Manewering
cycles. The number of vehicles requires substantial vigilance. Average travel speeds may begin
stopping is significant. to show some reduction.
D 25.1-40.0 sec. delay. Many High density flow in which abiliry to maneuver is severely restricted
vehicles stop. Individual cycle by increasing volumes. Only minor traffic discuptions can be
failures noticeable. absorbed without effect.
E 40.1-60.0 sec. delay. The limit Flow at or near capacity. Unstable. Most traffic disruptions will
of acceptable delay. cause queues to form and service to deteriorate.
F I>60.0 sec. delay. Considered
unacceptable to most drivers.
Transportation Research Board 1994.
Breakdown flow. Traffic exceeds capacity. Queues form behind
such locations, which are characterized by extremely unstable
waves.
Table 1-2 lists the existing 1997 levels of service for segments of US 64 and NC 159. During
the evening (PM) peak hours, the two-lane segment of US 64 west of Asheboro is operating at
LOS E. Along the five-lane segment between US 220 Bypass (Future I-73R4) and Presnell
Street, westbound US 64 is operating at LOS C and B.. Eastbound US 64 is operating at LOS D
near the US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74), LOS E between NC 159 and NC 42, and LOS B from
NC 42 to Presnell Street. The four-lane divided segment of US 64 east of Asheboro is operating
at LOS A(westbound) and LOS B(eastbound).
During the PM peak hours, NC 159 is operating at LOS D north of Old Cox Road and LOS C
south of Old Cox Road.
Where signalized intersections are located closer than 3.2 km (2 miles), as they are on the
five-lane segment of US 64, the level of service is typically better described by the LOS of the
intersection. Existing PM peak hour turning movements for two major intersections along US 64
are shown in Figure 1-8. These intersections, US 64/NC 42 and US 64/NC 159, were analyzed
to determine the existing evening (PM) peak hour LOS.
1-22

TABLE 1-2
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE (NO BUILD CASE)
ROADWAY SEGMENT CONFIGURATION EXISTING FUTURE
1997 LOS 2025 LOS
PM PEAK PM PEAK
US 64 West of Asheboro
US 220 Bypass to NC
159
NC 159 to IVC 42
NC 42 to Fresnell St
East of Presnell St
NC 159 US 64 to Old Cox Rd
South of Old Cox Rd
2-lane undivided, no
access control
5-lanes,
no access control
5-lanes,
no access control
5-lanes,
no access control
4-lane divided,
no acce'ss control
E
C (westbound)
D (eastbound)
C (westbound)
E (eastbound)
B (westbound)
B (eastbound)
A (westbound)
B (eastbound)
2-lane undivided, no D
access control
2-lane undivided, C
no access control
F
E (westbound)
F (eastbound)
F (westbound)
F (eastbound)
C (westbound)
F (eastbound)
C (westbound)
D (eastbound)
F
E
LOS = Level of Service
Note: The methodologies and procedures documented in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity
Manua! Special Report 209 Third Edition (1994) were used to calculate roadway segment levels of service.
As shown in Table 1-3, the US 64/NC 42 intersection is currently operating at LOS D and the
US 64/NC 159 intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the PM peak hours.
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build)
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes
Figure 1-7 shows the projected design year (2025) average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) that
would occur on major roadways in the project study area without the proposed project. As
shown in the figure, ADTs on US 64 would range from 25,900 vehicles per day (vpd) west of the
NC 49 intersection to 54,100 vpd between NC 159 and NC 42. Traffic west of town would split
approximately evenly between US 64 to/from Lexington and NC 49 to/from Charlotte. NC 159
would carry ADTs of about 21,900 vpd north of Old Cox Road and 14,200 vpd south of Old Cox
Road. The future peak hour factor, directional splits, and traffic mixes were assumed to be the
same as they are for existing conditions.
1-23

TABLE 1-3
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (NO BUILD CASE)
1997' 2025'
Intersection Roadway Turn Approach Intersection Tum Approach Intersectio
Movement PM Peak PM Peak Movement PM Peak n PM Peak
PM Peak LOS LOS LOS PM Peak LOSZ LOS LOS
US 64/ US 64 EB Left D p Left C F�
NC 42 Thru/Right D Thru/Right F'
US 64 WB. Left D C Left C F,
Thru/Right C Thru/Right F'
F'
NC 42 NB Left D p � Left F E
ThrWRight D Thru/Right C
NC 42 SB Left D Left D
Thru D D Thru F E
Right E Right B
US 64/ US 64 EB Left E Left F F'
NC 159 Thru E E Thru F`
Right A Right C
US 64 WB Left E Left D F'
Thru E E Thru F'
Right A Right B
F'
NC 759 NB Left Q E Left D D
Thru E D Thru F
Right C Right C
NC 159 SB Left F Left F• F'
Thni E Thru D
Right C F Right B
Note: LOS = Level of Service, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound, NB = northbound, SB = southbound.
1. The methodologies and procedures documented in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capaciry
Manual Special Report209 Third Edition (1994) were used to calculate intersection levels of service.
2. F' - A Level of Senrice could not be calculated because the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) exceeds the limits of
the delay model.
1.9.3.2 Design Year Leve/s of Service
--• Table 1-2 lists the projected levels of service that would occur on segments of US 64 and
NC 159 without the proposed project. During the 2025 evening (PM) peak hours, the two-lane
segment of US 64 west of Asheboro would operate at LOS F. Through town, westbound US 64
would operate at LOS E and F. Near the US 220 Bypass, eastbound US 64 would operate at
LOS F, improving to LOS C near Presnell Street. The four-lane segment of US 64 east of
Asheboro would operate at LOS C(westbound) and LOS D(eastbound).
During the 2025 PM peak hours, NC 159 would operate at LOS F north of Old Cox Road and
LOS E south of Old Cox Road.
1-24

Where signalized intersections are located closer than 3.2 km (2 miles), the level of service is
typically better described by the LOS of the intersection. Design year 2025 estimated PM peak
hour turning movements for the US 64/NC 42 and US 64/NC 159 intersections are shown in
Figure 1-9. Levels of services for these intersections are presented in Table 1-3. As shown in
the table, future levels of service for some turning movements and approaches, and overall
levels of service for both intersections, could not be calculated because volume to capacity
ratios exceeded the limits of the delay models. At these locations, projected traffic volumes
greatly exceed the ability of the intersections to handle the traffic, therefore the levels of service
are considered worse than LOS F(F*).
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
A review of accident data for US 64 from SR 1327 west of Asheboro to SR 2221 east of
Asheboro for the period April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1997 showed a total of 669 accidents
along this 15.7-km (9.8-mile) stretch of roadway. Of this total, 3 accidents caused fatalities and
285 accidents caused injuries. Most accidents (94%) involved more than one vehicle, and most
(85%) occurred during the day. About 81 percent of the accidents happened in dry conditions.
The most common types of accidents were rear-end collisions (36%) and angle collisions (26%),
which typically occur at intersections and driveways.
The evaluated length of US 64 includes three different segments; 5.1 km (3.2 miles) of two-lane
undivided roadway west of Asheboro, 8.0 km (5.0 miles) of five-lane urban roadway through
Asheboro, and 2.6 km (1.6 miles) of four-lane divided roadway east of Asheboro. Table 1-4
provides detailed data by accident type for the three different segments and for the total
15.7 kilometers (9.8 miles). As shown in the table, the majority of accidents (86%) occurred on
the five-lane section through Asheboro. This roadway segment has no access control and it has
numerous driveways to shopping centers, car dealerships, restaurants, and other businesses
on both sides of the roadway.
The five locations along US 64 where accidents occur most frequently are: SR 2197 (Browers
Chapel Road) (98 accidents), US 220 Bypass interchange area (50 accidents), NC 159 (30
accidents), the restaurant/commercial area east of US 220 Bypass (27 accidents), and the
restaurant/commercial area west of SR 1451 (South Park Street )(27 accidents).
- Accident rates (accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [ACC/100 MVM]) were
_ calculated for the total 15.7-km (9.8-mile) length, the two-lane undivided section, five-lane urban
section, and the four-lane divided section. Table 1-5 lists the calculated accident rates for
US 64 in comparison to statewide average accident rates for similar roadways.
As shown in Table 1-5, the total accident rates for the overall roadway (322.0 ACC/100MVM),
the five-lane section (365.6 ACC/100MVM), and the four-lane section (119.0 ACC/100MVM)
were higher than the corresponding statewide accident rates of 200.0 ACC/100MVM for all
US routes, 354.5 ACC/100MVM for urban US routes with four or more undivided lanes, and
r-25

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEIIIT
OF
�„ TRANSPORTATION
Nl
2025 TURNIIVG MO\/EMEIVTS (NO BUILD C�1SE)
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEtVSENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGUFtE 1-9

99.5 ACC/100MVM for rural US routes with four or more divided lanes and partial access
control. Accident rates for the two-lane segment (126.8 ACC/100MVM) were lower than the
statewide average rate for two-lane undivided rural US routes (184.1 ACC/100MVM).
Accident Data`
Length (miles)
Total # of
Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Non-Fatal Injury
Accidents
Single-Vehicle ,
Accidents
Multi-Vehicle
Accidents
Daytime Accidents
incl. dusk and
dawn
Nighttime
Accidents
Accidents in
Wet Conditions
Accidents in
Dry Conditions
"' Accident Data is
SR 1327 to
SR 2713
2-Lane Undiv. Hwy
West of
Asheboro
3.2
53
2
26 •
15
38
38
TABLE 1-4
ACCIDENT DATA
SEGMENT ALONG US 64
SR 2713 to
SR 1323
5-Lane Urban Rd
Through Asheboro
5.0
578
15
7
46
3-year period April 1,
0
242
16
562
505
73
107
471
SR 1323 to
SR 2221
4Lane Div. Hwy
East of
Asheboro
1.6
38
1
17
11
27
28
March 31, 1997.
10
11
27
ALL
SEGMENTS
SR 1327 to
SR 2221
9.8
669
3
285
42
627
571
98
125
544
1-27

Segment
Along US 64
TABLE 1-5
ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
US 64 Accident Rates'a
(AccidentsM00 million vehicle miles)
April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1997
Totai Fatal - Injury Nighttime Wet
Accidents Acc(dents Accidents Accidents Surface
Statewide Accident Rates for US Routes'
(Accidents/100 million vehicle miles)
1994-1996
Total Fatel Injury Nighttime Wet Surface
Accidents Accldents Accidents Accidenis Accidents
SR 1327 to
SR 2713
2-Lane 126.8 4_8 62.2 35.9 16.7 184.1 2.6 86.3 53.0 42.9
Undivided
West of �
Asheboro
SR 2713 to
SR 1323 365.6 0 153J 46.2 67J 354.5 0.94 149.5 63.1 79.8
5-1ane Urban Rd
In Asheboro
SR 1323 to
SR 2221
4-Lane Divided 119.0 3_1 53.2 31.3 34.4 99.5 1.1 47.8 29.0 222
East of -
Asheboro
All Se ments 322.0 1.4 137.2 47.2 60.2 200.0 1.5 89J 46.4 45.0
xxx.x - Indicates local accident rate higher than the statewide accident rate.
1. The 2-lane segment of US 64 is compared to the statewide rates for 2-lane undivided rural US Routes. The 5-lane segment of US 64 is compared to the
statewide rates for an urban US route with 4 or more undivided lanes. The 4-1ane divided segment of US 64 is compared to the statewide rates for rural
US routes with 4 or more divided lanes with partial access control. The "all segments" rates for US 64 are compared to the statewide rates for all US
routes of all types.
2. Accident Rates for "all segments" of US 64 calculated assuming an average daily traffic volume (AD'� of 19,400 vehicles per day (vpd), as indicated in
;` the accident report (August 26, 1997). Accident rates for the individual segments were calculated using 1996 ADTs. These ADTs were 12,000 vpd for
� the 2-lane segment, 29,000 vpd for the 5-lane segment, and 18,000 vpd for the 4-lane segment.

FER
Asheboro Chamber of Commerce
1998 "Area Demographics fl <http://chamber.asheboro.com/Pages/areastats.htm>.
(January 7, 1998).
Asheboro. City of
1997 "US 64 Asheboro Southem Bypass." Meeting with Reynolds Neely, Asheboro
Planning Director, Dumont Bunker, Asheboro City Engineer, and Talmadge
Baker, Asheboro City Council member. August 14, 1997.
Federal Highway Administration
1987 Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(fl
Documenfs. FHWA Technical Advisory T66430.8.A. October 1987.
North Carolina Department of Transportation - Highway Division
1990 Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan. December.
North Carolina Department of Transportation - Planning, and Research Branch
1990 US 64 Corridor Study from Lexington to Raleigh. Prepared by the Statewide
Planning Group, Systems Planning Unit. May.
North Carolina Department of Transportation - Rail Division
1997 "Asheboro Southem Bypass:' Memorandum from Michael Shumsky, Rail
Project Engineer, to James Buck, Project Engineer, NCDOT Highway
Division. September 2, 1997.
North Carolina Office of State Plannina
1998a "LINC County Profile - Randolph."
<http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/sdn/LINCprof/rando.html>. (January 7, 1998).
1998b "State Demographics:'
<http://www.ospl.state,nc.us/demog/>.(January 13, 1998).
North Carolina Zoological Park
1997a `The Earth Resources Center Information Package." 1997.
1997b Telephone conversation with Mary Joan Pugh, NC Zoo Business Director.
January 14, 1998.
- 1997c Meeting with Mary Joan Pugh, NC Zoo Business Director and Len Adams,
NC Zoo Facilities Director. August 14, 1997.
1998a "Zoo Attendance.° Fax from Mary Joan Pugh, Business Director. January 15,
1998.
1998b "Zoo History." <http://www.nczoo.org/learnabout/>. (January 13, 1998).
Randolph. County of
1998 Meeting with Hal Johnson, Randolph County Planning Director. January 16,
1998.
Randolph County Economic Development Corporation
1998 `The Randolph County Economic Development Corporation Website."
<http://www.rcedc.com/introduc.htm> (January 7, 1998j.
Transportation Research Board
1994 Highway CapacityManual. Special Report 209. Third Edition.
2-1

US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
ASHEBORO, RANDOLPH COUNTY
NAME
�awt �� CA/�'��
0��,� ��,�
��'i G ( � �J�e �r
Y
/� N� y /`t �'� e � �
�
R-2 53 6
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
AGENCY
�w S
�t/C�/�G
� ��
�2�s-�
niC�oT- ���
��4�n1 � -�P.Ie,�S �,
�G�T ��� �.
��Ic,����r- �Z��dw�,�
2v,�ac,va� ��s��
�/��ar� ��`�_
TELPHONE NO.
�Z � S- c4 5-� -`/ S zU �l< 7�" �3 2.
C�i�) S2g- 9s'�G
Go� �����
�C1� �j�—�y���/,� �
�=�`�-�� ��
Cn�(�— � �3c�
�-��-.�,�� _�
��� �- 5� � �
b��--5���
73 3- 7n �4 ��-� 26 7
��6-�f35 0 �� _ � ��
�33��g�� ��--�2��
2S� -�(�1 �
ZSb -�+-C.71 �o
876�`ilfl xa3
� �v -� �-� � �

�
AGENDA
PROJECT TEAM MEETING
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
July 8, 1998
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project IVumber R-2536
I. INTRODUCTION ��� � I�,,,� � � �ST� E�-�E�7�
`� � °�,,�f- �� ,�� � -�.-,�
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Project Team
��5-r � .00-� 1c�� �W Q� ����
II. PURPOSE OF MEETING
A. Achieve concurrence from Project Team on the Purpose and Need for
Project R-2536 -
B. Present a map of preliminary corridors for discussion
III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Background Information on the Project Study Area
1. Project Setting
2. Project History
B. Needs for Project
1. Traffic Conditions on existing US 64
2. Accident Rates on existing US 64
3. Traffic Conditions on NC 159 created by NC Zoo-related traffic
4. US 64 as part of the Intrastate Highway System
C. Purposes of Project
1. Improve levels of service on US 64
2. Relieve congestion and improve safety on US 64
3. Improve access to the NC Zoo
4. Restore efficient regional travel along US 64
D. Concurrence
IV. PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
A. Constraints
B. US 220 Bypass Interchange Location
C. Preliminary Corridors

c
`�� .� �- ����� ���- `� ��
0� ���` �
'��
� '
�' �i.4� �y �"��� ��—� v`' / G.l � _
.�i:��j c � r
�
� f% �
�` (Nl/u s(�`.
�/�l'�-�-� 1
_ U� �`i ` - � �2��.�'�' - . "
.� ,
- �- ���.
,
�- �-�� � C��°��-
�. �s � �� - �� �
_� -

PROJECT STUDY TEAM CONTACTS
TIP R-2536
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
Randolph County
TIP Number: R-2536
State Project Number: 8.1571401
Federal Project Number: NHF-64(19)
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Mr. Ron Elmore, P.E.
FAX
Address
Unit Head 919-733-7844 Ext. 265
Project Engineer 919-733-7844 Ext. 267
919-733-9794 .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Rust Environmental & Infrastructure (REI)
Mr. Ron Hairr Project Director
Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. Project Manager
FAX
Address
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
5510 Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
Toll-Free Proiect Information Telephone Line
1-800-206-1373
919-676-5130
919-676-5107
919-676-5259
Callers to the toll-free line are directly connected to a voice-mail system. The message on the
voice mail system is periodically updated with information on the study's progress. Callers
have the option of leaving messages of their own. The system is checked daily and
responses to callers are provided within two business days by a member of the project study
team.

STATE oF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HiJNT JR. r.o. sox zszo�, an[.e�cH, N.C. 276165201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR ._
�.�__.� Ir S
June 11, 1998 �� f' L� ,�
� � � �_. .
�� �, JU,� I 5 �
Ms. Cyndi Bell (,,,__ J
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources WATWEfi 0! i�u ��� ` i
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27607
Subject: US 64 Improvements From US 64 East of Asheboro to US 64 West of
Asheboro, Randolph County, TIP ID. No. R-2536, State Project No.
8.1571401, Federal Project No. NHF-64(19)
l�u�:3a1F
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the North Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing an environmental document which will discuss
improvements to the US 64 corridor in the Asheboro azea of Randolph County, TIP
Project R-2536.
Enclosed is a draft Purpose and Need Statement for your review and comments.
The draft Purpose and Need Statement describes the e�cisting and projected conditions
that are creating the need for improvements to US 64. The purposes of the improvements
are listed, and background information is provided about the project azea.
In accordance with the NEPA/404 merger agreement, a Project Team meeting has
been scheduled to discuss the draft Purpose and Need Statement. The Project Team
meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 10:00 AM in Room 445 of the
Transportation Building, located at 1 South Wilmington Street in downtown Raleigh.
T'he objective of the meeting is to receive concurrence from the reviewing agencies on the
draft Purpose and Need Statement. Written confirmation of concurrence will be required
under the merger process.

Page 2
June 11, 1998
For discussion purposes only, several potential alternatives based on preliminary
evaluations by the private engineering firm and NCDOT's Planning�and Environmental
Branch and Statewide Planning Branch will be presented to the Project Team at the
meeting. The Project Team will be encouraged to offer comments and suggestions on
these alternatives or other alternatives which meet the purpose and need for the project.
If you cannot attend the Project Team meeting, please provide your input on the
draft Purpose and Need Statement in writing to me by July 8, 1998. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please call me at �[phone] Extension
229.
Sincerely,
4Y�,
Ron Elmore, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
�
Enclosure: Draft Purpose and Need Statement
cc: Mr. Ron Hairr, Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Ms. Jill Gurak, Rust Environment & Infrastructure
File

AGENDA
INTERAGE1vCY ADVISORY COMIVIITTEE
September 21,1998
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project Number R-2536
I. INTRODUCiION
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Meeting Attendees
II. THE ENVIRONIVI�NTAL STUDY
PROCESS
A. Role of the Interagency Advisory
Committee
B. Steps in the Environmental Study
Process
III. OVERVIEW OF TFIE PURPOSE
AND NEED FOFi iHE PROJECT
r:�
�:3
Needs for Project
1. Traffic Conditions on existing
US 64
2. Traffic Conditions on NC 159
created by NC Zoo-related
traffic
3. US 64 as part of the Intrastate
Highway System
Purposes of Project
1. Improve levels of service on
US 64
2. Relieve congestion and improve
safety on US 64
3. Improve access to the NC Zoo
4. Restore efficient regional travel
along US 64
IV. PREL,IfVII1VARY CORRIDORS
A. General Location
1. Preliminary corridors aze being
developed on the south side of
Asheboro.
2. Corridors north of Asheboro
would not fully meet the purpose
and need of the project.
The northern bypass...
a. Does not provide any benefits to
the North Carolina Zoo
b. Crosses through highly
developed areas
c. Impacts water supplies on the
west side of Asheboro
�
C�
Constraints Used to Develop
Preliminary Corridors
1. NWI wetlands
2. Streams
3. Developed areas
4. Major industrial facilities
5. Areas of steep topography
6. US 220 Bypass Interchange
Location
Preliminary Corridors
V. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
A. Public Officials Workshop
September 30, 1998
2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Randolph County Office Building
�. Citizens Informational Workshop
September 30, 1998
4:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Randolph County Office Building

/� ! +C-�' l`�% � _
r ' j (I%1 '1.
LXI
_ �
� � � �
�
. �] "`� � � �
� �%%�/J�

STATE oF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'
JAMES B. HUNT JR. r.o. eox zszoi, RALEIGH, N.C. 276ll-5201
Govexr�ox
April 19, 1999
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, NCDOT Coordinator
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Cotps of Engineers
6508 Falls ofthe Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27615-6814
I
)
J
r
�
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARI-
Subject: US 64 Improvements, from US 64 East of Asheboro to US 64 West of Asheboro,
Randolph Counry, TIP No. R-2536, State Project No. 8.1571401, Federal Project
No. NHF-64(19).
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
As requested by the US Amry Corps of Engineers at the April 9, 1999 Interagency
Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
t�as evaluated the preliminary corridors created by two additional crossover segments located
between NC 49 and US 220 Bypass just west of the Little River. These crossover segmenu,
labeled Segment C3 and Segment C4, aze shown on the attached figure. Segment C3 connects
Segmenu Bl and B2 with Segment D3. Segment C4 connects Segmenu B3 and B4 with Segment
D1.
At the April 9'" meeting, nine preliminary corridors were recommended as Detailed Study
Altematives by the NCDOT. Each of these corridors was created by using crossover Segnents C 1
and C2. The objective of the evaluation described in this letter was to deteimine if the new
preliminary corridors created by using Segments C3 and C4 would result in lesser impacts than
those created by using Segments C 1 and C2. The twenry-four preliminary corridors created using
Segmenu Cl and C2, including the nine originally recommended as Detailed Study Altematives,
are listed by segmenu in Table 3-2 on page 3-7 of the Preliminary Corridor Report. The nine
preliminary corridors created by using Segmenu C3 and C4 aze listed by segnent in Table 1 on the
following page.
In the handout distributed at the IAC meeting, the nine preliminary corridors recommended
as the Detailed Study Altematives (Preliminary Corridors 1,2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, and 22) were
renumbered as Alternatives 1-9. Please disregard this renumbering. The detailed study
alternatives will retain their original preliminary corridor numbers in all subsequent
correspondence and studies.

Page 2
The evaluation focused on quantifying the impacts to streams, wetlands, properiy owners
and community facilities anticipated to occur with the nine preliminary corridors created using
Segments C3 and C4. The methods used to calculate the impacts of the new corridors were the
same as those used to calculate the impacts of the ttiventti--four ori�nal preliminary corridors. The
results of the evaluation are shown in the Table .2 (attached), along �vith the impact_ of the ninz
corridors recommended as Detailed Study Alternatives at the IAC meeting.
Based on a comparison of the anticipated impacts as shown in Table 2. �he NCDOT
recommends Corridors 9, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30; 31 and 32 be eliminated from further
consideration. Comdors 2�, 26, 27, 30 and 31 have the highest number of stream crossings and
the greatest impact on communiTy facilities. Corridors 27, 30 and 31 also have the highe�t
numbers of relocations. Corridors 9, 21, 28, and 32 have the greatest amount of �vetlands impact�.
In summary, it is recommended that seven of the comdors originally recommended as
Detailed Study Alternatives (Corridors 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, and 22) be retained, and that new
Corridors 29 and 33 be studied in detail in place of Corridors 9 and 21.
The NCDOT is requesting concurrence from the Asheboro Bypass VEPAJ404
Project Team with the selection of Corridors 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 22, 29 and 33 as Detailed
Study Alternatives. Please poll the other members of the Project Team and provide

Page 3
concurrence, in writing, by May 19, 1999. If you have any questions, or aeed additional
information, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone], Ext. 267. Thank �ou for
your continued cooperation.
Sincerely
;� 'n�
�r/�%L0�2J
Ron Elmore, P.E.
Project Mana¢er
Attachmenu
cc: Felix Davila — Project Team Member, w/attachment
Tom McCartney — Project Team Member, w/attachment
Ted Bisterfeld — Project Team Member, w/attachme�
rJ'ohn Hennessey — Project Team Member, w/attachment
David Cox — Project Team Member, w/attachment
Renee Gledhill-Eazly — Project Team Member, w/attachment
Imeragency Committee Members, w/attachment
Cmil Grimes — NCDOT
Jill Gurak — Earth Tech

TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF THE NINE ORIGINAL DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
WITH THE NINE ALTERNATIVES USING NEW SEGMENTS C3 AND C4
Apri114,1999
relimina Length # of Ints2 # of Minor # of Res3 # of Bus3
Corridor (km�l Road
Number Crossings
1
2
4
��9
10
13
14
� 21
22
25
26
27
28
�
30
31
32
21.9
22.2
22.2
22.6
22.9
22.3
22.6
23.0
23.2
22.3
22.6
22.6
22.3
22.6
22.6
22.9
22.8
23.0
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-S
11
12
14
17
17
13
14
19
19
10
11
13
18
18
12
13
20
20
194
185
209
189
173
215
206
206
193
201
192
216
181
165 `
221
212
199
186 .
5
5
5
2
2
5
5
2
2
5
5
5
2
.. 2
5
5
2
2
Other # of Power # of Stream Length of Wetlands in Floodplains
Community Easement Crossings Stream in Corridor Crossed by
Facilities4 Crossings (centerline) Corridor (hectares Corridor
(m)1 (acres))1 Centerline
(lin m)1
lnh, lch
lnh, �lch
lnh, lch
lnh, lbp
lnh, 1bp
lnh, lch
lnh, lch
lnh, lbp
lnh, lbp
lnh, lch,lbp
lnh, lch,lbp
lnh, lch,lbp
lnh, lbp
lnh, lbp
lnh, lch,lbp
lnh, lch,lbp
lnh, lbp
lnh, lbp
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
24
24
24
22
23
23
24
22
23
26
26
26
19
�
25
26
19
10872 3.53 (8.7) 453
11428 2.68 (6.6) 453
12094 3.78 (�_._.3) 422
C1080� 31 (10.6) 401
11535 3.45 (8.5) 422
10269 3.53 (8.7) 453
10823 2.68 (6.6) 453
10299 4.31 (10.6) �q.L
�
11034 3.45 (8.5) �422e
12098 3.66 (9.04)
12654 2.81 (6.94)
13320 3.91 (9.66)
9521 4.28 (10.6)
10256 3.42 (8.4)
11483 3.66 (9.04)
12037 2.81 (6.94)
9022 4.28 (10.6)
���_ ��_
453
453
422
401
422
453
453
1. 1 km = 0.62 miles 1 m= 3.28 ft 1 hectare = 2.47 acres
2. x-x =# of interchanges without Mack Rd interchange -# with Mack Rd interchange.
3. Res = Residences, Bus = Businesses
4, nh = nursing home, ch = church, bp = privately-owned baseball field. There were no hospitals, schools, libraries, fire stations, or publicly-owned parks in the corridors.
Floodplains in
Corridor
(hectares
(acres))1
12.58 (31.1)
12.58 (31.1)
12.83 (31.7)
12.21 (30.1)
12.83 (31.7)
12.58 (31.1)
12.58 (31.1)
12.21 (30.1)
12.83 (31.7)
12.58 (31.1)
12.58 (31.1)
12.83 (31.7)
12.21 (30.1)
12.83 (31.7)
12.58 (31.1)
12.58 (31.1)
12.21 (30.1)
12.83 (31.7)

I•I � o
• �
,N
•
. °
• ❑
� N
•
�f' , • o ❑ ,' �'n
�o ❑ ❑ c : ° `� o°,
�� �,�� �o��o� �
❑� � � �❑ ,o ❑ .
� �
•
❑ el� ❑
•
❑- o
• I ❑ .
L � �
� � �
I❑
ii ,� °�o'�❑ �
❑ • � �
� � ❑ � � O \
� � oo ;
� ;
rF° � I
;
� � ��
�
1°
o. �i
_ •
❑� �
co
��° °
� u •,,
8 �.. �
UI� � •
p.l ❑�.❑ I� :�• ❑.--.
❑ ❑�
p �� .. ❑ ❑ �� r' � , �{
n�° ❑� � � • gl
° ❑ nl • � ❑
° ❑ � � • �
• ❑ ._ . ,
❑I
�,
�
�R��g�r�
� OLD HW� �9
, !
' �� \ o `,'
• �1
�
n
0
..,� o
� � ❑
❑ �
❑ ` �,� •. ���
B ��
� �c
❑:
a' =
�J ❑
�
� , 8
`� r ' 'f\����
� CI
UG
� ❑ L �:
� �.1`❑� ❑ . ��; ..,L ._
� �� ; �I
\ I!`' pu �� "�Q �.:
� �c ❑ ❑ � �p ",� rtr ❑ �-�
� _� -_-r_, cL_ .i'�. ♦ t
� s
„ � �, ��� � ' �`�
r �:/ � �.i °' I
KWOp'p AC� , �Q ,.
�� � " �
❑ �W ����p � �� L v
a�
� � _ :: n
� � �4]
��° _ �
i � A `, � \�
❑ ❑
❑
, , � n1�
� u� � ❑ � ❑ _
� p ❑�❑
� ❑ , n�� .'\.
u " �
jo� O ...... r�,
� � ���
. . � � . ��, e ,� �,
� � o � . , ,r ? --
; � � �� . , o F�;� RoF �v�C3
;
' o p' t°� .� r - �;� �.'-- -----
❑ • • � ° �� ,
❑ •
.
• � ;, SQ d
o v__ G d'
fi • o, ❑ o ,,-.
• ❑,W� U �
�° ' 4��o,.p'�YS Z
e � � • ❑ _, � � /�O,
� ° o—�;�.� � ._ _� �
� lo�'�o!❑ n: �'� ' � r'�
�
,�s,� t
'� NOHTH CAROLINA
� DEPARTMENT
� OF
�y TXANSPOHTATION
�C_PI�lM�"
0
��
.
.•
,.,,
. ,'
.
' ::
.. . � i
�: . . ,
.
': .: .
: .. ...
.�
n
•
-_�: ��y.
��F
• � J
I � C
�' 1CS
i ,o�
�"
°
❑
❑_o
❑
�
o � cbOWELI
� � �
❑
❑
_' -YD �
�
� � � �o�
` � _
0
Q°
❑
� Topographic Date Sourca:
Copyright1987-1997
a C Americen Dfgitnl Certo9�aphy, Inc..
- �` � - - - 3003 W.Collage Aue., Appleton,
W" 914
����y�
1 ❑ �/:
� � � SfM ON
4,
` ^ r., '❑
a' o
�
�_�1
_ ° " � ' � _
0
�
�scons�n 54 .
:ource for ell other dete:
NoRh Ceroline
Oeparbnant of Trensporfntion
NOTE: Segments C3 & C4 suggested bythe Project Team, April 9, 1999.
LEGEND
�300m 11000')
Preliminary Co�ridor
Primary Road
Secondary Road
-- MajorStream
� NC Zoologicel Park
• • • • • •
� � � � � � Project Study Area
0 Municipal Boundary
� � �� Federal Land Ownerahip
and Wildlife Resource
Commission Gameland
Utility Easement
!— Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
�— Othe� Wetlands (National
Wetland Inventory)
� Pronounced Topography
�; 100-Year Flood Plain
Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Protected Area Water
Supply Wetershed
— Superfund Site
— Major Industries
Subdivision
��-� Fire Station
— Church
0 Potential Historic Property
� Residence or Business
.�.
300 150 0 Meters300 600
—,T��., . _ i
750 375 0 750 1500
Feet
ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS C3 & C4
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
NANDOLPH COUNTV

� b • ! • `
. /
o � ,
�""� ,
. -:_' ,
. . . ���:�M °� •� � •
� , • • �
. c�"v�„KC, �,�
'� O C'IMSG �.
n�'��� C��t MiH1, � I•
„
I �
({� �� �Ins � en�� �i
//��l �/ �1 � �jjyqq 41'� /^� �
/ k ��U`Y , us � C v y/��1�'� •
y G. C. . �� C{A� �KA,L
^ Y
�, + - '� , . ... _ L �`e � •
� ' � _ ' �, � ► � � �� � �
� fi � J �aV
��i� � �yt n v � * � \^� ` �� � .
y �O �
} • 1.�� , , Y � l � � � ^ � S'� :<, �
d 0� � � "e� v
4 �L, • ��`' � , �`,� i �'� �� �`v ,� e o
. v � ..y �r C \ � -z �
• �� C..� `O N � � : �'� .
- ' ��. � v _ � N `� .
'a k � � . t '^ e .
.
� �' tiv `� � .
i �a� L t � " �� C(`} I � � �\ -
� d� a �� �� L�i ��� • •
1 a� D
. � °�� �� �� � .
,5 0 .
,�r a .
� ,; .
. v �� � , . ` � a' .
i ��� � �
.a. �� Y ° o � � � .aN� , fi�
J,�� � J. � �� p �,
, '' � ( �` I � J'" ; � •
� � ��' � i
,, , o =�� _ �.__.� --
y� �,
. �;t
��� � � �
C"� , • � ��r.
• , � �, - ., � _
. - e � _ .
'�� • - - I � � `-a -
i ;.�� � .. � • • I '�� . .
O 1 ,� J I �'
2�Q�i �,
; ,,� .,� � , e d
� o � �

AGENDA
INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Apri19,1999
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project Number R-2536
PURPOSE OF MEE'TING IV. PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
To review the twenty-four preliminary corridors
developed for the project.
To receive input and comments regarding the
alternatives to be studied in detail in the draft
environmental document.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Meeting Attendees
II. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROCESS
A. Role of the Interagency Advisory
Committee
B. Steps in the Environmental Study
Process
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Transportation System Management
and Multi-Modal Alternatives
B. No-Build Alternative
C. Alternatives Along Existing US 64
and NC 159
D. Build Alternatives to the North of
Asheboro
E. Build Alternatives to the South of
Asheboro
`i�
A. Land Suitability Mapping
1. NWI wetlands
2. Streams
3. Developed areas
4. Major industrial facilities
5. Areas of steep topography
6. US 220 Bypass Interchange
Location
B. Preliminary Corridor Segments
1. Forty-two segments developed
and evaluated
2. Eight segments eliminated
C. Preliminary Corridors
1. Twenty-four preliminary
corridors developed from
segments
2. GIS used to estimate impacts of
preliminary corridors
DETAII.,ED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
A. Impacts of the 24 preliminary
corridors evaluated and compared
B. Nine detailed study alternatives
recommended by NCDOT
VI. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
A Public Officials Meeting and a Citizens
Inforniational Workshop are being planned for
May. The Preliminary Corridors and Detailed
Study Alternatives will be presented at these
meetings. It is expected they will both be held
at the Randolph County Office Building.

�
Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting — April 9, 1999
US 64 Improvements �
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-2536
Randolph County
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Table 1 is an impact matrix of the preliminary corridors. The information contained in Table 1
was used to identify the preliminary corridors having impact values in the bottom third (most
impacts) and top third (least impact) for wetlands, streams, floodplains, residential/business, and
eommunity facility impacts. These impacts are summarized in Table 2.
Based on the information in Tables 1 and 2, fifteen preliminary corridors were eliminated from
further consideration: Preliminary Corridors 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23,
and 24. The reasons for their elimination are described below.
Preliminarv Corridor 3. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetlands impacts and relocations. There are 4.63 hectares (11.4 acres) of wetlands within this
corridor, compared to 2.68 hectares (6.6 acres) for the corridors with the least area of wetlands.
This corridor has 52 more residential/business relocations than the corridor with the least
number of relocations (175).
Preliminarv Corridor 5. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetlands impacts, stream crossings, and impacts to community facilities. There are
4.44 hectares (11.0 acres) of wetlands within this corridor and the second highest number of
stream crossings (5). This corridor has three community facilities within its boundaries; a
nursing home, a church, and a privately-owned baseball field. Other:.corridors impact two of
these three facilities.
PreliminarV Corridor 6. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to the high
number of stream crossings and impacts to community facilities. This corridor has the highest
number of stream crossings (26) and the third longest length of streams within its boundaries.
This corridor impacts three community facilities.
Preliminary Corridor 7. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetlands impacts, stream crossings, and relocations. There are 5.54 hectares (13.7 acres) of
wetlands within this corridor, the highest impact of any corridor. This corridor has the second
highest number of stream crossings (25) and 62 more residential/business relocations than the
corridor with the least number of relocations (175).

TABLE 1
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR IMPACT MATRIX
Prelim Length # of # of Minor # of # of Other # of Power Potential # of Stream Length of Wetlands Floodplains Floodplains
Corridor (km)1 Ints2 Road Res3 Bus3 Community Easement Historic Crossings Stream in in Corridor Crossed by in Corridor
Number � Crossings Facilities4 Crossings Properties in (centerline) Corridor (hectares Corridor (hectares
Corridor (m)' (acres))' Centerline (acres))'
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
222
21.9
22.2
22.4
22.7
22.5
22.7
22.6
22.9
22.7
22.7
22.3
22.6
22.4
22.6
23.1
23.1
22.8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
6-7
6-7
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
7-8
12
14
14
11
12
14
14
17
17
18
18
13
14
16
16
13
14
16
194 5
185 5
222 5
209 5
� 202 7
193 7
230 7
217 7
189 2
173 2
194 3
183 3
215 5
206 5
243 5
230 5
222 7
213 7
1 nh,1 ch
1 nh,1 ch
1 nh,i ch
1 nh,1 ch
1 nh,1 ch,i bp
1 nh,i ch,1 bp
1 nh,i ch,1 bp
1 nh,1 ch,1 bp
1 nh,i bp
1 nh,i bp
1 nh,i bp
1 nh,1 bp
1 nh,i ch
1 nh,1 ch
1nh,ich �
1 nh,1 ch
1 nh,i ch,i bp
1 nh,1 ch,1 bp
1 nh,1 ch,1 bp
3 0 24 10872 3.53 8.7 453 12.58 (31.1)
3 0 24 11428 2.68 6.6 453 12.58 31.1
3 1- land only 23 11359 4.63 (11.4) 401 12.21 30.1
3 1- land only 24 12094 3.78 (9.3) 422 12.83 (31.7)
3 0 25 11932 4.44 (11.0) 453 12.58 (31.1)
x��`°'�26::�f:�.� 12489 3.59 8.8 453 12.58 31.1
3 0 ,,
3 1- land only 25 1241�9 5`54t � 13:'7�� 401 12.21 30.1
3 1- land only `� ��:26� ��,� 131,54`���� 4.69 (11.6) 422 12.83 (31.7)
3 1- land only 22 10800 4.31 (10.6) 401 12.21 (30.1)
3 1- land only 23 11535 3.45 (8.5) 422 12 83 31 7
3 1-.bldgs & land 20 10936 4.13 (10.2) �;;573s� ;� 26k91u4:� 66 4�:
�` � F � : �3 � �;, � r, �.>
3 1- bldgs & land 21 11129 328 (8.1) ,., �.,�573�., ,.' 26 91 :� 66 4'
3 0 23 10269 3.53 8.7 453 12.58 (31.1)
3 0 24 10823 2.68 6.6 453 12.58 31.1
3 1- land only 23 10754 4.63 (11.4) 401 12.21 30.1
3 1- land only 24 11489 3.78 (9.3) 422 12.83 (31.7)
3 0 25 11431 4.44 (11.0) 453 12.58 (31.1)
3 0 ��26 11988 3.59 8.8 453 12.58 31.1
�;r = � .:;,
3 1- land only 25 11918 5.54 �, 13c7 401 12.21 30.1
� �� �
20 23.1 7-8 16 237 7 1nh,ich,ibp 3 1-landonly , ����:26�,� :t- 12653 4.69 (11.6) 422 12.83 31.7
21 23.0 7-8 19 206 2 1 nh, i bp 3 1- land only 22 10299 4.31 (10.6) 401 12.21 30.1
-�a> �<
22 � 23:2 � 7-8 19 193 2 1 nh, i bp 3 1- land only 23 11034 3.45 (8.5) 422 12 83 31 7
� � 3 x��
23 23A 6-7 ^�� '�20'��.;�' 214 3 1 nh,i bp 3 1- bldgs & land 20 10434 4.13 (1�0.2) ��;�573 ��r ��. 26�9t � 66 4';
24 23.0 6-7 �:' 20 ��`` 203 3 1 nh,i bp 3 1- bldgs & land 21 10628 3.28 (8.1) ���573�; „�; 26'91�'_'(66 4):
�,>�; �� � F; - highest value �= lowest value
1. 1 km = 0.62 miles 1 m= 3.28 ft 1 hectare = 2.47 acres
2. x-x =# of interchanges without Mack Rd interchange -# with Mack Rd interchange.
3. Res = Residences, Bus = Businesses
4, nh = nursing home, ch = church, bp = privately-owned baseball field. There were no hospitals, schools, libraries, fire stations, or publicly-owned parks in the corridors.

TABLE 2
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR IMPACT SUMMARY
Issue
Wetlands
(hectares within corridor)
Stream Crossings
(# within corridor)
Floodplains
(linear meters within corridor)
Residential/Business Impacts
Community Facility Impacts
Preliminary Corridors with Preliminary Corridors with
Most Impacts Least Impacts
3, 5, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 20
5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20
11, 12, 23, 24
3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20
5; 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20
1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24
11, 12, 23, 24
All preliminary corridors except.
11, 12, 23, 24
1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22
All preliminary corridors except
5,' 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20
Preliminarv Corridor 8. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to impacts
to wetlands, streams, and community facilities. There are 4.69 hectares (11.6 acres) of
wetlands within this corridor. This corridor has the highest number of stream crossings (26) and
the longest length of streams within its boundaries. This corridor impacts three community
facilities.
Preliminarv Corridor 11. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration �due to
wetland and floodplain impacts. There are 4.13 hectares (10.2) acres of wetlands within this
corridor. This corridor crosses the longest length of floodplains (573 meters) compared to the
other corridors, and has�the largest area of floodplains within its boundaries (26.91 hectares or
66.4 acres), primarily associated with Tantraugh Branch. This area of floodplains is twice as
large as the corridors with the second largest areas (12.83 hectares or 31.7 acres). �
Preliminarv Corridor 12. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
floodplain impacts. Like Preliminary Corridor 11, this corridor has the largest area of floodplains
within its boundaries, primarily associated with Tantraugh Branch.
Preliminarv Corridor 15. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetlands impacts and relocations. There are 4.63 hectares (11.4 acres) of wetlands within this
corridor. This corridor has 73 more residential/business relocations than the corridor with the
least number of relocations (175).
lnteragency Advisory Committee Meeting � April 9, 1999

Preliminarv Corridor 16. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
relocation impacts. This corridor has 60 more residential/business relocations than the corridor
with the least number of relocations (175).
Preliminarv Corridor ,17. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetland, stream, relocation, and community facility impacts. There are 4.44 hectares
(11.0 acres) of wetlands and 25 stream crossings within this corridor. This. corridor would impaci
three community facilities and 54 more residential/business relocations than the corridor with
the least number of relocations.
Preliminarv Corridor 18. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
impacts to streams and community facilities. This corridor has the highest number of stream
crossings (26) and would impact three community facilities.
Preliminarv Corridor 19. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetland, stream, relocation, and community facility impacts. There are 5.54 hectares
(13.7 acres) of wetlands within this corridor, the highest impacts of any corridor. The corridor
crosses 25 streams and would impact three community facilities. This corridor has the highest
number of relocations (257) compared to the other corridors.
Preliminarv Corridor 20. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
wetland, stream, relocation, and community facility impacts. There are 4.69 hectares
(11.6 acres) of wetlands within this corridor, the highest number of stream crossings (26), and
the second longest length of streams (12.6 km). This corridor would impact three community
facilities and 69 more residential/business relocations than the corridor with the least number
of relocations (175). .
Preliminarv Corridor 23: This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
floodplain impacts and minor road crossings. This corridor crosses the longest length of
floodplains (573 meters) compared to the other corridors, and has the largest area of floodplains
within its boundaries (26.91 hectares or 66.4 acres), primarily associated with Tantraugh
Branch. This corridor also has the highest number of minor road crossings (20).
Preliminarv Corridor 24. This corridor was eliminated from further consideration due to
floodplain impacts and minor road crossings. This corridor crosses the longest length of
floodplains (573 meters) compared to the other corridors, and has the largest area of floodplains
within its boundaries (26.91 hectares or 66.4 acres), primarily associated with Tantraugh
Branch. This corridor also has the highest number of minor road crossings (20).
The nine preliminary corridors remaining after the first screening evaluation are Preliminary
Corridors 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21 and 22. The impacts of these corridors are summarized in
Table 3. These nine preliminary corridors are recommended as the Detailed Study Alternatives.
Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting April 9, f 999

TABLE 3
PRELIMINARY COFtRIDORS REMAIiVING AFTER SCREENING EVALUATIONS
Prelim Length # of # of Minor # of # of Other # of Power Potential # of Stream Length of Wetlands Floodplains Floodplains
Corridor (km)� Ints2 Road Res3 Bus3 Community Easement Historic Crossings Stream in in Corridor Crossed by in Corridor
Number � Crossings Facilities4 Crossings Properties in (centerline) Corridor (hectares Corridor (hectares
Corridor (m)' (acres))' Centerline (acres))'
(lin m)'
1
2
4
9
10
13
14
21
22
21.9
22.2
222
22.6
22.9
22.3
22.6
23.0
23.2
7-8 11 194 5 1 nh,1 ch 3 0 24 10872 3.53 (8.7) 453 12.58 (31.1)
7-8 12 185 5 1 nh,1 ch 3 0 24 11428 2.68 (6.6) 453 12.58 (31.1)
7-8 14 209 5 1nh,lch 3 1- land only 24 12094 3.78 (9.3) 422 12.83 (31.7)
7-8 17 189 2 1 nh,1 bp 3 1- land only 22 10800 4.31 (10.6) 401 12.21 (30.1)
7-8 17 173 2 1 nh,i bp 3 1- land only 23 11535 3.45 (8.5) 422 12.83 (31.7)
7-8 13 215 5 1 nh, i ch 3 0 23 10269 3.53 (8.7) 453 12.58 (31.1)
7-8 14 206 5 1 nh,1 ch 3 0 24 10823 2.68 (6.6) 453 12.58 (31.1)
7-8 19 206 2 1 nh,i bp 3 1- land only 22 10299 4.31 (10.6) 401 12.21 (30.1)
7-8 19 193 2 1 nh.1 b� 3 1- land onlv 7:� 11 ��4 3.45 (8.5) 499 12.83 (31.71
1. 1 km = 0.62 miles 1 m= 3.28 ft 1 hectare = 2.47 acres .
2. x-x =# of interchanges without Mack Rd interchange -# with Mack Rd interchange.
3. Res = Residences, Bus = Businesses
4. nh = nursing home, ch = church, bp = privately-owned baseball field. There were no hospitals, schools, libraries, fire stations, or publicly-owned parks in the corridors.
�

DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
The Preliminary Corridors recommended for detailed study were relabeled as follows
• Alternative 1 (Preliminary Corridor 1)
• Alternative 2 (Preliminary Corridor 2)
• Alternative 3 (Preliminary Corridor 4)
• Alternative 4 (Preliminary Corridor 9)
• Alternative 5 (Preliminary Corridor 10)
• Alternative 6 (Preliminary Corridor 13)
• Alternative 7 (Preliminary Corridor 14) �
� Alternative 8 (Preliminary Corridor 21)
• Alternative 9 (Preliminary Corridor 22)
�
Figure 1 shows the detailed study alternatives combined on one map. Figure 2 shows each
detailed study alternative separately.
lnteragencyAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting April9, i999

, /��� \ �~ � , V ' � . �s • • z- •
,, , 4 ) 1�,� - � � � , � � �
, I ;;�.t � n �i i � _" � • �
��—. _.' � � !�F � I ( i -�./ =' � • ,�„� 14�te�IlatlV@ �
r �..I T'A' �.__i,J - �. P"• � -�-�
_ �� ' il.l _ �•
� _ •
\ - .
r'i •
I "� - -
�--- � � '` � �_ __
� ' _ ' -;t \ f PR�S E"'�� � ' • � -- Alternative 2
� '- r^� ' ' -� ' \� ` �
�- --' •
� s _ _ `- .�'_' �, i '_IJ�� � � � „ . +�
\9 q2� ; , ��OF _ `—r -' : . ^� "' �� � _ •
1
. — - -. - _ � � �\ , ,� `Cabr . 80 •
. � _. rrl ��..�.
• �� � � - r � °; ' '� -'" �
� ',��,��� � �-, �; ;_ , ��; ,� , �— �� A • Alternative 3
a � ,,_�
. � � i
. . _,-�,. � , + ; /.
� . � - i A h�bori6r _ � �
� �.. --
,
� I
• (/S'_ s� �l � ' � �_�-- I
�' - 4 , �'� ` , _ �� _ � � y • � Alternative 4
• c,� ' . � i _ . -
� ��� I I �r - CQ � �
• ? • + i
• � - . - � - - .. � ❑ _ .
. . �� .. , r . •
� _. . - .� , _ �.., � � Qv � ..
• � i I
; 1 � I ° • Alternative 5
r If �.
- -Y � i � J `" �v�- �
R 114�- �._(�_ �� �- _; J %a -1- �.�;;
� . �
• o�o H �; `in J: . ' °� � - °
��
. � � __, �' - =-�'.' � ) / -..-eRo L : • ' .f
� �r+ > .... 4 �
.. . � ; " ''�U � � • ..
�, m a
_ _.,� � �' _ - - . J • ' ;4,�1 ', 's z . - Alternative 6
' � � ' ; �, s�_
_ j j , s� ° � . �-'. + !i
• f,. , . � r .;
= .a_._ ,1�c �m- � �,. �
. . -- 'o i �� : i N ' � '
• � '�y. .: ¢ ' Y�oovreu no. N • .
� KK'OODAGP�y �� "�` �� j � - , � \ �• � Alternative 7
e
�`� �� O -_ _ _._ . __ L'�' � �� • +:;i�s
, � � . � aE� 3 �ry . :, y.o: � � N = •
� v �r ¢ �
•. r vi o� � c��e� rn �
� r ��,� �o � _ Alternative 8
� 4 �� �0'Yk0 � + �%
� _ _ , � 4NNp . . - � �4��hlaq ,. _ _ �
i . .._..BF�C RO� : SIM ONS N � ' • �P�
'°r
�. ' ""'� f Alternative 9
,l �
� _ _.
� �� � . . ' � RD � , 'F' /�;
, � � .., ,. � F � ,., �- ` ..
�_--_.. . � r �Nr . �`P � � ♦ . 1
•
�. ' 's �� �� � � � o
i — --- � • � � . - ��Di -�� � G�OaIVeY's. r i � • �
- ' .n �NTountair»/
__ ' � DINAH � - - . � � Qr� � . • p �._ Topographic Date Source:
�-� � . • RD. f � � � . � O ' CoPYri ht 1987-1997
� � • • • •. � • � � N , . i ., '.' � � " • . ..'. N C Z�� Ameri en �i9ital CartagraPhY, Inc..
. . � � �. �� � :i • 3003 W.College Ave., Appleton,
0.� I i �
— - � H"� I���� �• -� 9 Source tor ell other date:
. - �� �yhgT�rg., ' p �/R NOrthCerOlinB
,
� �-----� �� ationai . • � -' R OepartmentofTransportetion
- Farest � ' �� �J ' • • ••
� j �i rt
(�� NORTH CAROLINA
jo�� DEPARTMENT
t OF
' TRANSPORTATION
���
LEGEND
Multicolor 300m (1000')
Preliminary Corridor
� ��/j� 300m{�000')
� NC Zoo Connector Corridor
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Major Stream
��M��,��� NC 2oological Park
• • • • • •
: . . � . . Project Study Area
J Municipal Boundary
.�� Federal Land Ownership
and Wildlife Resource
Commission Gemeland
Utility Easement
�
1 0.5 0 Kilometers �
oS 0.z5 0 0�.5
Miles
2
t
DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVES
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPHCOUNTV
FIGURE 7

NOHTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
Topographic Data Source:
Copyright 1987-7 997
American Digitsl CartogrepM1y, Inc.,
3003 W.College Ave., Applaton,
Source for all other deta:
North Caroline
Dapertmant of Trenspartation
LEGEND
Multicolor 300m (1000')
Preliminary Corridor
%"�/� j�: 300m (1000')
� � NC Zoo Connector Corridor
���
•
• • • . . .
• • • • • .
�
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Major Stream
NC Zoological Park
Project Study Area
Municipel Boundary
Federal Land Ownership
and Wildlife Resource
Commission Gameland
Utility Easement
N
�
�'�
W � �E
1�
IQCilometers 5 4
2 1 C
—���
i oso i z
Miles
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
- SHOWN SEPARATELY
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPHCOUNTY
FIGURE 2

�
�RAFT COPY
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 64 Improvements
Asheboro, Randolph County
TIP Project No. R-2536
State Project No. 8.1571401
Federal Project No. NHF-64(19)
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperatinq Aqencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
March 30, 1999

.i I i1'� ~� � ' .. �... i'� .
`' Li v'J %-i /
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 64 Improvements
Asheboro, Randolph County
TIP Project No. R-2536
State Project No. 8.1571401
Federal Project No. NHF-64(19)
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperatinq Aqencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
March 30,1999

�
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
US 6.4 Improvements
Preliminary Corridor Report
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-2536
Randolph County
List of Tables
List of Figures
Paae
ii
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................1-1
� 1.1 Proposed Action ...............................................................................1-1
1.2 Report Organization .........................................................................1-1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................2-1
2.1 No-Build Alternative .........................................................................2-1
2.2 Transportation System Management Alternatives .......................2-1
2.3 Multi-Modal Alternatives ..................................................................2-2
2.4 Improve Existing US 64 and NC 159 ..............................................2-2
2.4.1 Improve Existing US 64 ..........................................................2-2
2.4.2 Improve Existing Access to the NC Zoo ................................2-5
2.5 Build Alternatives .............................................................................2-5
2.5.1 Design Criteria ........................................................................2-5
2.52 Logical Termini .......................................................................2-9
2.5.3 New Corridors North of US 64 .............................................2-10
2.5.4 New Corridors South of US 64 .............................................2-11
3.0 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS .........................................3-1
3.1 Analysis Methodology and Criteria ................................................3-1
3.1.1 Analysis Methodology .............................................................3-1
3.1.2 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................3-1
3.2 Study Area .........................................................................................3-4
t
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
� Paqe
3.3 Preliminary Corridor Segments ......................................................3-5
,
3.4 Preliminary Corridors .......................................................................3-6
`� 4.0 REFERENCES a ..............................................................................................4-1
�
LIST OF TABLES
Paqe
2-1 Design Criteria ................................................................................................2-6
3-1 Evaluation Factors ..........................................................................................3-2
3-2 Twenty-Four Preliminary Corridors ................................................................3-7
3-3 Preliminary Corridor Impact Matrix .................................................................3-8
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures follow text)
- � 1-1 Project Location
, 2-1 Typical Sections
� 2-2 Asheboro Region
, , 3-1 Project Study Area
3-2 Preliminary Corridor Segments
3-3 Preliminary Corridors
�
APPENDICES
-' A Impacts by Corridor Segment
�
4

a��
�- 1.1 PFtOPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve the existing
United States Route (US) 64 corridor in the area of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County.
The NCDOT further proposes to improve the access to the North Carolina Zoological Park
(NC Zoo) as part of this action. The proposed project is included in the NC Department of
Transportation's draft 1998 2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project R-2536.
Figure 1-1 shows the project vicinity.
The primary purposes of the proposed action are to:
• Improve traffic flow and levels of service on the section of US 64 in the project study
area.
• Relieve congestion on US 64 in the City of Asheboro, thereby improving safety and
reducing the number of accidents.
• Improve access to the NC Zoological Park.
• Enhance high-speed regional travel along the US 64 intrastate corridor.
1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this report is to identify the preliminary corridors that best meet the purpose of
and need for the project. Six options for improving the US 64 corridor and access to the NC Zoo
were considered. They included:
• Transportation system management alternatives
, � • Multi-modal alternatives
• Improving existing US 64 and existing NC 159
� • Build alternatives north of existing US 64
• Build alternatives south of existing US 64
• The No-Build Alternative
Each option was evaluated to determine whether it would meet the project's purpose and need
and whether it would be feasible to implement. Those options that could not fulfill the purpose
of and need for the project, had excessive undesirable impacts, or were considered impractical
were eliminated from further consideration. Factors considered for each option included; the
ability to reduce congestion and improve levels of service along existing US 64, the ability to
- enhance the function of US 64 corridor as an Intrastate Corridor, and the ability to provide
improved access to the NC Zoo. Adverse environmental impacts considered included impacts
1-r

to residences, businesses, community cohesion, water supply watersheds, streams, wetlands,
and natural areas.
The evaluation of each option is included in Chapter 2. Of the six options considered, only the
- build alternatives south of existing US 64 meet all the goals of the proposed project. For this
option, several preliminary corridors were developed and analyzed using the land suitability
� method.
�
i-2

2.1 NO-BUIL.D ALTERNi4TIVE
The No-Build Alternative assumes that in the year 2025, the transportation system for the
'- Asheboro area would evolve as currently planned, but without any improvements to the existing
, US 64 corridor or the access to the NC Zoo. With the exception of routine maintenance, no
other changes would take place to the facility by year 2025. -
Several roadway segments and intersections are projected to operate at LOS F during future
,Y� peak hours under the No-Build Altemative. In addition to degraded levels of service, the number
of hours of congestion during the morning and evening peak periods would increase. Visitors
� to the NC Zoo would continue to experience delays and congestion along NC 159. The existing
. above average accident rates along US 64 would continue, and likely would increase, in the
� future due to the projected increase in traffic volumes along US 64.
For these reasons, the No-Build Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
However, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (FHWA, 1987:p.16), the No-Build Alternative will be
given full consideration to provide a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternatives.
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Transportation system management (TSM) altematives involve increasing the available capacity
� of an existing facility basically within its right of way and with minimum capital expenditures.
.- TSM-related activities may include improving signals and signal progression, prohibiting turn
movements, installing a computerized signal system, adding high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or
adding turn lanes.
TSM methods would not improve existing US 64 adequately to facilitate through-traffic
movement in the Asheboro area. While computerized traffic signals and additional turn lanes
would improve capacity, through traffic would continue to travel through the dense commercial
development along US 64 in Asheboro. Prohibiting turn movements to increase capacity would
not be practical on existing US 64 due to the need to provide access to the dense commercial
development and numerous driveways along this segment. Levels of service would remain
unsatisfactory and the road would continue to function inadequately as an intrastate corridor.
2-1

TSM alternatives are generally found to be relevant only for major projects proposed in urban
areas with populations over 200,000 (FHWA, 1987:15). Randolph County's 1997 population
was 121,550 people and Asheboro's population was 18,899 people. Randolph County is
projected to grow to 162,969 people by 2019 (NC Office of State Planning, 1998). Based on this
population data, TSM alternatives are not considered viable for this project.
2.3 MULTI-MODAL ALTERNATIVES
Multi-modal, or mass transit, options include expanding bus and passenger rail services.
Currently, there are no public mass transit facilities in the Asheboro area, and the advantages
of these forms of mass transit are not applicable to the needs associated with this project.
The goals of this project are to improve traffic flow and levels of service on US 64 through
Asheboro, to improve access to the NC Zoo, and to enhance high-speed regional travel along
the US 64 intrastate corridor. Niuch of the traffic (about 65-70%) traveling along US 64 is
through traffic originating outside the Asheboro area. A mass-transit system in the Asheboro
�
area would not serve these types of travelers.
The FHWA considers urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000 as areas where
mass transit alternatives should be considered (FHWA 1987: 15). As discussed in Section 2.2,
Randolph County's existing and projected 2019 populations are below 200,000 people.
Therefore, multi-modal alternatives are not considered viable for this project.
2.4 IMPROVE EXISTIfVG US 64 AND NC 159
Improvements to existing US 64 and the existing access to the NC Zoo (NC 159) are discussed
below.
2.4.1 Improve Existing US 64
Improving US 64 within the existing alignment is discussed below in relation to the following
three project purposes: 1) improve traffic flow and levels of service on US 64, 2) improve safety
on US 64, and 3) enhance high-speed regional travel on the US 64 intrastate corridor.
Improve Traffic Flow and Levels of Service on US 64. Existing US 64 is a five-lane urban
section through Asheboro. The five-lane segment is about 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles) long, the
speed limit is 72 kilometer per hour (kph) (45 mph), and there is no control of access. Within
the City limits there are numerous driveways to shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships,
and other businesses on both sides of the roadway. Along the 8-kilometer (five-mile) five-lane
segment there are nine traffic signals at major roadway intersections and at entrances to some
shopping centers.
2-2

Without improvements, traffic volumes along the five-lane segment of US 64 are projected to
increase 170-195 percent between 1997 and 2025. Projected 2025 levels of service (which
indicate level of congestion) along the five-lane segment of US 64 are predicted to be LOS E
or LOS F between US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) and NC 42 (eastbound and westbound),
between NC 42 and Presnell Street (westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening),
and at the US 64/Park St, US 64/NC 159, and US 64/NC 42 intersections.
The LOS is a letter designation from A to F, with LOS A being the best operating conditions and
LOS F being the worst operating conditions. A LOS D generally is considered acceptable in
urban areas.
Congestion on existing roadways can be relieved by reducing traffic volumes or by increasing
capacity. Reducing traffic volumes on existing US 64 can be achieved only by separating
through traffic from local access traffic. There are three ways the capacity of the five-lane
section through Asheboro could be upgraded to improve traffic flow and levels of service:
1) widen the roadway to seven lanes, 2) widen the roadway to six lanes with a concrete median,
or 3) control the access.
Widening the existing five-lane section to seven lanes and maintaining access to all adjacent
properties would create hazardous operational conditions and result in relocation and
right-of-way impacts. Drivers desiring to access properties along the left side of the road would
be required to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic. Drivers desiring to turn left onto US 64
would be required to cross three lanes of traffic, avoid left-turning vehicles stored in the center
turn lane, and merge into the traffic stream traveling in the desired direction. This operation
would become more hazardous for vehicles turning left to enter US 64, then attempting to turn
right at the next intersection. This movement would require negotiating across three lanes of
traffic to reach the right-turn lane. The additional right of way required to widen US 64 to seven
lanes could result in relocation of some of the adjacent businesses and would substantially
reduce parking areas for some of the remaining businesses.
Widening the five-lane section to six basic lanes with a concrete median would result in
degradation of traffic levels of service and substantial impacts to the community. The median
� would eliminate left turns except at major intersections. Eliminating left turns along the densely
developed five-lane segment would compromise emergency and medical rescue operations and
, would be inconvenient and confusing for traffic circulating to and from businesses serving the
daily needs of the local populace. The major intersections would need to be redesigned and
traffic signals retimed to allow for U-turns to offset the elimination of the center lane. The
resulting increase in turning movement volumes at the major intersections would inhibit traffic
flow and further degrade levels of service along US 64. The additional right of way required to
widen US 64 to six lanes could result in relocation of some of the adjacent businesses and
would substantially reduce parking areas for the remaining businesses.
2-3

Creating a controlled-access roadway along the existing five-lane section of US 64 would result
in substantial relocation and right-of-way impacts, degradation of traffic operations, and
increased construction costs. Frontage roads would be needed along both sides of the
controlled-access facility to maintain access to adjacent properties. These frontage roads.would
require additional right of way from the adjacent businesses and residences, thereby impacting
structures and encroaching into parking areas. ,
Since turning.movements would be concentrated at major intersections, all frontage road traffic
would be required to travel through these intersections and turn left or right onto US 64. The
intersections would need to be redesigned and traffic signals retimed to accommodate local
traffic accessing the properties served by the frontage roads. The concentration of additional
traffic at fewer access points would degrade traffic operations and contribute to lower levels of
T- seroice.
, If the intersections were improved to interchanges, more impacts would occur. The number of
residential and business relocations would increase since more right of way is required to
� construct interchanges than intersections. A controlled-access roadway with interchanges along
the existing US 64 corridor would erect a barrier through Asheboro that could be crossed only
at designated points. The local economy and community cohesion would be adversely affected
� by this type of facility.
Improve Safetv on US 64. Accident rates on the five-lane segment of US 64 from the
US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) to Presnell Street are 365.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (365.6 ACC/100 MVM). This rate is above the statewide average for this type of road
(354.5 ACC/100 MVM). The five locations along US 64 in the study area where accidents occur
most frequently are on this five-lane segment.
Widening the existing five-lane section of US 64 through Asheboro would increase the potential
for accidents, including the most common types, rear-end collisions and angle collisions. These
-, types of accidents often occur at intersections and are typically caused by the conflicting
movements of drivers turning into and out of commercial driveways and drivers continuing
through along US 64.
Improve Hiqh-Speed Reqional Travel on the US 64 Intrastate Corridor. The section of
US 64 through the study area is designated as part of the North Carolina Intrastate System. The
� Intrastate System was created to provide high-speed, safe, and efficient regional travel service.
' The existing and projected traffic and land use conditions along existing US 64 through
-- Asheboro diminish this segment's ability to function as an intrastate corridor. As discussed
i_; previously, upgrading the existing US 64 roadway would not improve levels of service or improve
safety. High-speed safe travel, consistent with the goals of the Intrastate Corridor system, can
,� � be achieved only by separating through traffic on US 64 from local traffic.
2-4

2.4.2 Improve Existing NC 159
The current access to the NC Zoo is via NC 159 from US 64 and US 220 Bypass (Future
I-73/74). Improving existing NC 159 from the US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) to existing US 64
would not fulfill the purpose of improving access to the NC Zoo.
, Existing NC 159 is a winding two-lane road that would need to be widened and straightened for
about 13.5 km .(8.5 miles) north from the US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74), past the NC Zoo, to
existing US 64. Access control along this length of NC 159 would not be reasonable and
feasible because of the single-family rural residences, retirement homes, and residential
subdivisions that connect directly to NC 159. NC 159 is the only outlet for these land uses.
Without access control, NC Zoo-bound travelers would not be separated from local traffic, and
v the existing congestion, queues, and conflicts would continue for both groups.
2.5 BUILD Q►LTERNATIVES
Build alternatives on new alignments to the north or south, bypassing the most densely
developed portions of US 64 through Asheboro, are addressed in this section.
2.5.1 Design Griteria
Table 2-1 presents the design criteria used to develop the preliminary build corridors. These
criteria are based on the projecYs function, classification, and design speed. They conform to
the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO).
The design criteria and typical roadway cross-section are influenced by the type of facility
required to fulfill the project's purpose and need. For the proposed project, a four-lane
median-divided facility with controlled access is needed to adequately carry projected traffic
volumes and to enhance the ability of the US 64 Intrastate Corridor to provide high-speed
efficient regional travel.
The proposed design speed is 110 kilometers per hour (kph) (65 mph) for the main lines.
Figure 2-1 presents a typical mainline cross-section applicable to all the preliminary build
. corridors. Two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes are proposed for each direction of travel, separated
by a 21.0-meter (70-foot) median. The total right of way is proposed to be a minimum of
91 meters (300 feet). Right-of-way requirements would be greater around interchanges. The
median width and right of way may be reduced in wetland areas to minimize environmental
impacts. The median width in wetland areas would be finalized during the preliminary design
process in consultation with federal and state environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.
2-5

Design Element I Roadway
Element'
Speeds
Travel Lane W idths
Shoulder Widths
Median Widths
Horizontal Alignment
Radius of Curve
Vertical Alignment
TABLE 2-1
DESIGN CRITERIA
Recommended Standard'
-L- Line 110 km/hr DESIRABLE •
Ramps 80 km/hr DESIRABLE
Loops 50 km/hr DESIRABLE, 40 km/hr MINIMUM
-Y- Lines 80 km/hr MINIMUM
-L- Line 3.6 m STANDARD LANE WIDTH
Ramps SINGLE LANE 4.2 m MINIMUM
Loops 4.2 m STANDARD WITH WIDENING FOR CURVATURE
-Y- Lines 3.6 m MINIMUM STANDARD LANE WIDTH
Freeway MEDIAN SHOULDER = 3.6 m
MEDIAN PAVED SHOULDER =1.2 m
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS IN CUT = 3.0 m
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS IN FILLS = 3.0 m
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS IN FILLS
REQUIRING GUARDRAIL = 4.0 m
OUTSIDE PAVED SHOULDERS =1.2 m
Loops INSIDE SHOULDER = Typically C&G
OUTSIDE SHOULDER = 3.6 m Desirable
Ramps INSIDE SHOULDER = 3.6 m Desirable
OUTSIDE SHOULDER = 3.6 m Minimum
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS IN FILLS
REQUIRING GUARDRAIL = 4.6 m Minimum
PAVED SHOULDER = 1.2 m
Bridge -L- LINE =1.2 m MEDIAN SHOULDER
3.0 m OUTSIDE SHOULDER
LOCAL AND COLLECTOR STREET =1.0 m SHOULDERS
-L- Line 21 m MEDIAN (DESIRABLE)
-L- Line 455 m Radius Minimum
Ramps 230 m Radius Minimum
on Loop 45 m to 75 m Radius
DISTANCE BETWEEN REVERSE CURVES SHOULD BE
ADEQUATE TO ACCOMPLISH SUPERELEVEATION RUN
OUTS
Grades -L- LINE = 4% MAXIMUM
RAMPS = 5% MAXIMUM
LOOPS = 6% MAXIMUM
-Y- tINES = 6% MAXIMUM
2-6

Design Element Roadway
- Element'
Ramp Design
Vertical Clearances
Cross Slopes
Curb & Gutter
Berms
Ditches
Design Year
Level of Service
TABLE 2-1
DESIGN CRITERIA
Recommended Standard'
Vertical Curve DESIGN PER NCDOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL AND
Lengths 1994 AASHTO "A POLICY.ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF
HIGHWAYS AND STREETS"
Exits ANGULAR DESIGN
Entrances. PARALLEL DESIGN
D.ESIGN PER NCDOT ROADWAY STANDARD
DRAW INGS AND 1994 AASHTO "A POLICY ON
GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS"
Freeway Over Local Collector Street 4.5 m to 4.7 m
Local/Collector Over Freeway 5.0 m to 5.2 m
Freeway Over Major ArteriaVlnterstate 5.0 m to 5.2 m
Freeway Over Railroads 7.0 m to 7.2 m
Freeway TANGENTS = 2%
CURVES =10% MAXIMUM
Ramps/Loops TANGENTS = 2%
CURVES = 8% MAXIMUM
Local and TANGENTS = 2%
Collectors CURVES = 8% MAXIMUM
(Secondary
Roads)
Embankment DESIGN PER NCDOT ROADWAY STANDARD
and Shoulder DRAWINGS AND TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR POSITIVE
Slopes PAVEMENT DRAINAGE
INSIDE LOOPS 750 mm NCDOT STANDARD
3.0 m
-L- Line 5.4 m STANDARD METHOD
Ramps 5.4 m STANDARD METHOD
Loops 5.4 m STANDARD METHOD
-Y- Lines 5.4 m DESIRABLE for Arterials, Collectors and
Locals > 4,000 ADT
-Y- Lines 3.6 m DESIRABLE for Locals < 4,000 ADT
_ _ � . . ._.. , . . 2-7

Design Element I Roadway
Element'
Hydrology
Drainage Studies
Hydraulics
TABLE 2-1
DESIGIV CRITERIA
Recommended Standard'
Based on "Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic
Design" dated January 1995 and prepared by A.L. Hankins,
Jr., P.E.
Design CROSS DRAINAGE -L-
Frequencies CROSS DRAINAGE -Y-
Major Secondary & City Thoroughfare
Minor Secondary & City Streets
Cross Drainage
and Storm
Sewer
Gutter Spread
STORM SEWER SYSTEM
CURB & GUTTER
DITCHES
SUMP AREAS -L-
SUMP AREAS -Y-
Hydraulic Design Series No. 5
= 50 Year
= 50 Year
= 25 Year
= 10 Year
= 100 mm/hour
= 5 Year
= 50 Year
= 50 Year
Hec-12
Culvert survey reports will be required for structures
requiring a total crossing conveyance greater than a single
1800 mm pipe.
1. -L- Line = The main roadway, which includes fhe new bypass and NC Zoo Connector.
-Y- Line = The roadways crossing the -L- Lines that have interchanges with ihe -L- Lines.
C&G = curb and gutter
ADT = Average Daily Tratfic
The access to the NC Zoo (NC Zoo Connector) is proposed ultimately to be a four-lane divided,
controlled-access roadway with a typical cross-section as shown in Figure 2-1. However, an
interim two-lane facility may be constructed until traffic volumes warrant widening to four lanes.
._ . 2-8

2.5.2 Logical Termini
The Federal Highway Administration regulations (23 CFR 771.111(f)) outline three general
principles to determine project limits. The regulations state:
In order to ensure meaningfu/ eva/uafion of a/ternatives and to avoid
commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the
action eva/uated in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:
1) Connect logica/ termini and be of sufficient /ength to address environmental
matters on a broad scope;
-- ' 2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e.; be usable and be
a reasonab/e expenditure even if no additiona/ transportation improvements
in the area are made; and
� 3) Not restrict consideration of a/fernatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements.
The termini and other elements of the proposed US 64 project meet these three principles, and
are discussed below.
The proposed improvements to US 64 begin west of Asheboro, outside the city limits, where
existing US 64 currently is a two-lane roadway, and end east of Asheboro where existing US 64
has recently been widened to a four-lane median-divided facility. The two-lane section west of
Asheboro is planned to be widened to four lanes from Lexington to the US 220 Bypass (Future
I-73/74) as TIP Project R-2220. The proposed project (TIP Project R-2536) would provide for
continuous travel along US 64, and would address existing and projected deficiencies along the
five-lane segment of US 64 through Asheboro. Along the five-lane segment, accident rates are
above the statewide average rate, the ability of US 64 to function as an Intrastate Corridor in the
region is compromised, and levels of service are projected to be LOS E and F in 2025.
The proposed improvements for access to the NC Zoo would connect the proposed US 64
improvements with the main entrance to the NC Zoo. The NC Zoo has oriented its existing and
proposed development toward the main entrance. Providing improved access to the main
entrance would avoid the impacts and costs that would occur if facilities and traffic circulation
within the NC Zoo property had to be re-oriented toward a new access point.
Factors considered in the selection of project termini included:
• Avoidance of as many environmental constraints as practicable.
• Ability to accommodate interchange connections with existing US 64.
, - .. . . . 2-9

` • Ability to provide an interchange with US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) within desirable
__' design standards.
, • Achievement of a balance between the costs of impacts of additional project length (for
'— termini further from Asheboro) and the costs of greater impacts to existing development
along US 64 (for termini closer to Asheboro).
The project would have independent utility even if no additional transportation improvements
were made in the area. Independent of other projects, the proposed project would improve
access to the NC Zoo and levels of service and safety along the US 64 corridor. It would also
enhance the corridor's ability to function as part of the Intrastate system.
The proposed project would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements contained in the NC Department of Transportation's
draft 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
' 2.5.3 Build Alternatives North of US 64
Build alternatives north of US 64 would extend from US 64 west of Asheboro, north of downtown
Asheboro, to US 64 east of Asheboro. Figure 2-2 shows US 64 in relation to the Asheboro
region, including the NC Zoo.
As shown by the gray shaded areas in Figure 2-2, there are densely developed urban areas in
Asheboro and North Asheboro north of US 64. In the less densely developed area between
Asheboro and North Asheboro, there is pronounced fopography on either side of the US 220
Bypass (Future I-73/74). Existing interchanges along US 220 Bypass (Future I-73l74) north of
US 64 are spaced about 1.5 miles apart.
.
Water supply watersheds associated with Lake Lucas and Lake Bunch are located north of
; existing US 64, west of Asheboro (Refer to Figure 2-2). The secondary watershed for Lake
` Bunch extends north from NC 49, across US 64 to the critical watershed surrounding Lake
Bunch. Lake Bunch is about 3.2 km (2.0 miles) north of US 64. Lake Lucas is about 1-2 km
(about 1 mile) north of Lake Bunch. Lake Lucas' secondary and critical watersheds extend north
from the lake.
- Regional access to the NC Zoo, which is located 7.1 km (4.5 miles) south of US 64, would not
be improved by a new build alternative to the north.
`J A new build alternative to the north could not include an interchange with US 220 Bypass
(Future I-73r/4) due to the spacing of existing interchanges. AASHTO recommends a minimum
spacing for urban interchanges of 1.5 km (1 mile). The existing interchanges are spaced about
2.4 km (1.5 miles) apart, therefore a new interchange halfinray between the existing interchanges
would be spaced 12 km (0.75 mile) from the existing interchanges, which is less than the
- recommended 2.4 km .(1 mile) spacing. Lack of an interchange at US 220 Bypass
. .. � - . - - 2-i0

(Future I-73/74), the major north/south roadway in the area, would severely detract from a new
roadway's ability to enharice regional access through Asheboro.
To avoid the steep topography in the less densely developed area between Asheboro and North
Asheboro (Refer to Figure 2-2), a new build alternative to the north would cross one of the
densely developed areas. Relocation impacts to residences and businesses likely would occur.
The watershed areas of Lake Lucas or Lake Bunch also likely would be encroached upon.
The build alternatives to the north of US 64 were eliminated from further consideration because
they would not improve access to the NC Zoo, nor could they include an interchange with
US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) due to spacing requirements. These alternatives would
generate impacts to residences and businesses in the densely developed urban areas of
Asheboro or North Asheboro, and they likely would encroach on the watershed area of Lake
Lucas or Lake Bunch.
2.5.4 New Corridors South of US 64
A new corridor south of existing US 64 would best meet the purpose of and need for the
proposed project. A new roadway south of existing US 64 would separate through traffic from
local traffic accessing development along existing US 64, thereby decreasing congestion and
improving levels of service and high-speed regional travel along the US 64 intrastate corridor.
A new corridor to the south would allow for a new direct connector to the NC Zoo. Several
preliminary corridors south of US 64 were developed and evaluated, and are described in
Chapter 3.
-. _ . ._. .. 2-11

UATION OF PRELIMINARY_ CORRIDO
3.1 ANALYSIS CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1.1 Methodology
The development and evaluation of the preliminary corridors south of US 64 were conducted
in five steps, as listed below:
1. A refined study area for the proposed project was identified based on land
suitability mapping.
2. Several 300-meter (1,000-foot) wide corridor segments were developed within
the refined study area.
3. Segment designs and locations were reviewed to determine if any could be
eliminated based on "fatal flaws" or high levels of impacts compared to other
segments.
4. The remaining corridor segments were connected to form preliminary corridors.
5. Impacts to the natural and human environments along the preliminary corridors
were estimated and tabulated.
3.1.2 Evaluation Criteria
Eighteen factors, listed in Table 3-1, were considered in the evaluation of corridor segments and
preliminary corridors. The estimates of impacts were based on information obtained from
NCDOT and Randolph County GIS databases, State resource agency files, aerial photography,
and preliminary field studies. The preliminary segments and corridors evaluated were
300 meters (1,000 feet) wide. The actual roadway would require approximately 100 meters
(300 feet) of right of way within the 300-meter (1,000-foot) corridor. The additional width is
evaluated to allow for roadway centerline shifts based on design requirements or the need to
avoid environmental impacts during design.

�
�
Factor
Length
Number of Interchanges
Number of Minor Road
Crossings
Number of Power
Easement Crossings
Residential Relocations
Business Relocations
Nursing Homes
Parks/Recreation Sites
Schools/Libraries/ Fire
Stations
Churches/ Cemeteries
Hospitals
National Historic Register
Sites
Sites Potentially Eligible for
National Register
Hazardous Materials Sites
Streams
Wetlands
Floodplains
Recorded Protected
Species Sites
Watersheds/
Water Resources
TABLE 3-1
EVALUATION FACTORS
Measurement
Kilometers
Number along Corridor
Number along Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor•
Linear Feet within Corridor
and Number of Crossings
Hectares within Corridor
Linear Feet Crossed by Corridor
Centerline and
Hectares within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Number within Corridor
Source
Calculated
Based on proposed project and
design constraints
GIS databases
GIS databases,, aerial photography
GIS databases, aerial photography
GIS databases and aerial
photography
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
NC State Historic Preservation
Office
Historic Architectural Survey of the
Refined Study Area
GIS databases
GIS databases
USFWS National Wetland Inventory
Maps, preliminary field surveys
GIS databases
NC Natural Heritage Program
GIS databases
3-2

, '�
-�i
� 1� The criteria listed in Table 3-1 are discussed below:
�i
� _�
Desiqn Criteria. The design criteria described in Section 2.5.1 were used to develop the
;� preliminary corridors. Length, nurriber of interchanges, number of minor road crossings, and
'- = number of power easement crossings affect the design and construction costs of an altemative.
,
Longer corridors with greater numbers of interchanges and road/easement crossings generally
" , have higher costs.
�-. Socioeconomic Criteria. Socioeconomic criteria include residential and business relocations
__ and impacts to community facilities (churches, nursing homes, parks, etc.). Corridor locations
contributing to excessive community disruption or isolation were avoided where possible. A
��� higher number of minor road crossings can indicate more disruptions to neighborhoods.
�' Relocations of residences and businesses, and associated social or economic impacts, are
, often of greatest concern to the public and local officials. A higher number of residential and
business relocations also represents increases in right-of-way costs.
. Historic Resource Criteria. Known and potential historic architectural properties were
� identified through a review of county and State Historic Preservation Office files and inventories
and a field investigation of the study area. Identified properties were avoided in the
development of preliminary segments and corridors whenever practicable.
Hazardous Materials Sites. Known sites of hazardous materials or waste were obtained from
Randolph County's GIS database. Remediation and acquisition activities associated with
hazardous materials/waste sites can increase project costs and delay construction schedules.
These types of sites were avoided in the development of preliminary segments and corridors
whenever practicable.
Natural Resource Criteria. Natural resource criteria included number of stream crossings,
length of stream in segment or corridor, areas of wetlands and floodplains, known protected
species sites, and locations of watersheds and public water resources. Preliminary field surveys
were conducted to determine the types of streams and habitats in the study area. Field
observations were compared to the wetland areas shown on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps. No large wetland areas were observed in the field
surveys that were not shown on the NWI maps.
� Construction in wetlands requires a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
.. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a permit from the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers and
� the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) require a permit applicant to demonstrate that all
� practical measures have been taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Under Section 401
, of the Clean Water Act, the NC DWQ also requires mitigation for all stream impacts greater than
150 linear feet.
�
3-3

Impacts to floodplains and streams indicate areas where culverts or bridges may be required,
which represent increases in construction costs. Higher values for total areas of streams and
floodplains within a corridor can indicate there will be less flexibility in designing roadway
alignments within these corridors that avoid or minimize impacts to streams and floodplains.
None of the preliminary segments or corridors encroached upon recorded protected species
sites or watersheds/public water resources. Therefore, these two factors are not discussed in
the evaluations described below.
3.2 STUDY AREA
Land suitability mapping was developed for the study area by identifying constraints presented
by major features of the natural and human environments. Data sources included aerial
photography, Geographical Information System (GIS) databases from the NCDOT and
Randolph County, State resource agency files, and preliminary field studies. The refined study
area shown on the land suitability map in Figure 3-1 defines the large areas that could be
connected to provide paths for 300-meter (1,000-foot) wide roadway corridors.
A primary constraint in establishing the northern boundary of the refined study area was the
need for an interchange with US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74). The spacing of interchanges can
have a pronounced effect on the operation of a freeway. The 1994 "Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets" (AASHTO) recommends a minimum spacing between interchanges
of 3.0 km (about 2 miles) in rural areas and 1.5 km (about 1 mile) in urban areas.
There are two interchanges on US 220 Bypass within the study area; one at existing US 64 and
one at McDowrell Road. The McDowell Road interchange is about one mile south of the existing
US 64 interchange. Due to spacing requirements, a new interchange on US 220 Bypass (Future
I-73/74) can not be located between the existing US 64 and McDowell Road interchanges.
Therefore, the boundary of the refined study area was established south of the McDowell Road
interchange to allow a one-mile distance between the new interchange and the McDowell Road
interchange.
The southern refined study area boundary across US 220 Bypass was selected to avoid and
minimize project-related impacts. Beiween US 220 Bypass and NC 159 just south of the refined
study area are: a major industrial complex operated by Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc.
(between US 220 Bypass and US 220 Business), a recorded Superfund hazardous waste site
(near Klaussner), Farlow's Lake (just west of Staley's Farm Road), steep topography around
Harvey's Mountain (just west of NC 159), and a portion of the Uwharrie National Forest (just
west of NC 159). A freeway through this area would result in increased environmental impacts
and increased costs associated with acquisition and remediation activities at the Superfund site.
3-4

��_
I
i� About 1.3 miles (2 km) south of Dinah Road (off the map shown in Figure 3-1) is an existing
�-�� US 220 Bypass (Future I-73/74) interchange with US 220 Business. To comply with interchange
spacing requirements, the new freeway would have to be located at least one mile further south
of this interchange. A location one mile further south would no longer serve as an effective
bypass of Asheboro for through traffic traveling along US 64. East and west of Asheboro, US 64
runs northeast/northwest. A new road crossing US 220 Bypass south of the US 220
•-- Bypass/US 220 Business interchange would be approximately 26-27 km (16-17 miles) in length.
Most traffic traveling on US 64 would not be attracted to a new roadway this far out of direction
, and would continue to use existing US 64 through town.
' 3.3 PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
Forty-two preliminary 300-meter (1,000-foot) wide corridor segments were identified within the
refined study area. Thirty-four were US 64 segments and eight were NC Zoo Connector
segments. Figure 3-2 shows the centerlines of these preliminary corridor segments.
The corridor segments were reviewed and compared to determine if any could be eliminated
based on land suitability mapping constraints and the established design criteria. Based on this
review, six of the preliminary US 64 corridor segments and two of the NC Zoo Connector
corridor segments were eliminated. These segments are labeled A3, E3, G4, K2, K3, K4, S7,
and S8 on Figure 3-2. Appendix A tabulates the impacts of each segment.
__ Seament A3. Segment A3 was eliminated because it would result in more stream impacts than
�� Segments A1 or A2. Cable Creek runs adjacent to existing US 64 at Segment A3's terminus.
�" Numerous culverts would be required to cross this creek along the ramps of the new
��i interchange with existing US 64. Cable Creek is farther from US 64 at the termini of Segments
' A1 and A2.
Seqments E3 and S8. Segment E3 was eliminated because it would have greater impacts to
residences neighborhoods than Segments E1 and E2. The average residential density along
, Segment E3 is higher than for the other two segments. The densities are 28.8 residences per
; kilometer (28.8 res/km) for Segment E1, 18.6 res/km for Segment E2 and 33.2 res/km for
Segment E3. Segment E3 would create social impacts by dividing the extensive residential
-� neighborhood located east of US 220 Business between Crestview Church Road and Staleys
_, Farm Road. Segments E1 and E3 are located to the north and south of this neighborhood.
Segment S8 was eliminated because it connected only to Segment E3.
Seqment G4. Segment G4 was eliminated because it runs through the middle of the potentially
eligible historic Cox farm located on the west side of NC 159. The preliminary boundaries of this
site encompass approximately 30 acres. Segment G4 would pass through the main portion of
the site containing the farmhouse and outbuildings.
, 3-5

� I
;� ' SeQments K2, K3, and K4. Segment K2 was eliminated because this interchange location with
�i
�� existing US 64 is less desirable than the Segment K1 interchange location. As shown in
�� Figure 3-2, Segment K2 interchanges with existing US 64 near the US 64/Presnell Street
{ j intersection. An interchange at this location would need to include access to Presnell Street,
L and would impact more commercial development along existing US 64 than an interchange at
Segment K1. More structures and right-of-way area would be required to construct an
' interchange at Segment K2, which would significantly increase its cost. Segments K3 and K4
were eliminated because they connected only to Segment K2.
--� Seqment S7. Segment S7 was eliminated because of less desirable design configurations and
greater impacts to residences, floodplains, and streams than Segment S3. From a design
' perspective, a NC Zoo Connector vsing Segment S7 would not be as desirable as one using
� Segment S3 due to the greater number and smaller radii of the curves along Segment S7. A
greater number of tighter curves affects the safety and cost of a facility. Segment S7 would
_ impact 25 residences (at an average density of 12.8 res/km), while Segment S3 would impact
9 residences (at an average density of 6.5 res/km). There are 32,299 square meters of
' floodplains within Segment S7 and 2,841 square meters of floodplain within Segment S3. A
-' tributary to South Prong of Richland Creek runs parallel within Segment S7. Stream crossings
- within Segment S3 are generally perpendicular, which minimizes impacts.
3.4 PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
The remaining thirty-four corridor segments were linked together to form twenty-four preliminary
corridors. These corridors are listed by segment in Table 3-2 and shown at an enlarged scale
in Figures 3-3a through 3-3e.
Table 3-3 is an impact matrix of the twenty-four preliminary corridors shown in Figures 3-3a
through 3-3e.
� 3-6
�

TABLE 3-2
TWENTY-FOUR PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
Corridor US 64 Corr' or Segments Zoo Connector Segments
Ai, B1, Ci, D1, 1 G1, 11, J1�K1 Si, S2, S3 S4, S r�9u'Z"
2 Ai, B1, C1, D1, E1, G1, 13, J2 1 S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
3 A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G2, H1, 11, J1, K1 S1, S2, S3, S4
4 A1, B1, Ci, D1, Ei, F1, G2, 14, 2, 1 S1, S2, S3, S4
5 A1, B3, C2, D2, E1, G1, li, J1, K1 S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
6 A1, B3, C2, D2, Ei, G1, 13, J2, K1 Si, S2, S3, S4, S5
7 Ai, 63, C2, D2, E1, Fi, G2, H1, 11, J1, Ki Si, S2, S3, S4
8 A1, B3, C2, D2, E1, F1, G2, 14, J2, K1 Si, S2, S3, S4
9 A1, 63, C2, D3, E2, F2, G2, HI, 11, JI, K1 S1, S2, S3
10 Ai, B3, C2, D3, E2, F2, G2, 14, J2 K1 Si, S2, S3
11 A1, B3, C2, D3, E2, G3, 12, J 1, K1 Si , S6
12 A1, B3, C2, D3, E2, G3, 15, J2, K1 S1, S6
"3 A2, 62, C1, D1, E1, G1, 11, J1 K1 S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
14 A2, B2, Ci, D1, E1, G1, 13, 2 K1 S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
15 A2,B2,C1,D1,E1,F1,G2,H1,11,J1,K1 S1,S2,S3,S4
16 A2, B2, Ci, D1, E1, F1, G2, 14, J2, K1 Si, S2, S3, S4
17 A2, 64, C2, D2, E1, G1, 11, J1, Ki S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
18 A2, 64, C2, D2, E1, G1, 13, J2, K1 S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
19 A2, 64, C2, D2, E1, F1, G2, H1, 11, J1, K1 S1, S2, S3, S4
20 A2,.B4, C2, D2, E1, F1, G2, 14, J2, K1 S1, S2, S3, S4
21 A2, 64, C2, D3, E2, F2, G2, HI, 11, JI, K1 Si, S2, S3
22 A2, B4, C2, D3, E2, F2, G2, 14 2 K1 S1, S2, S3
23 A2, 64, C2, D3, E2, G3, 12, J1, K1 S1, S6
24 A2, B4, C2, D3, E2, G3, 15, J2, K1 S1, S6
3-7

TABLE 3-3
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR IMPACT MATRIX
Prelim Length # of # of Minor # of # of Other # of Power Potential # of Stream Length of Wetlands Floodplains Floodplains
Corridor (km)� IntsZ Road Res3 Bus3 Community Easement Historic Crossings Stream in in Corridor Crossed by in Corridor
Number Crossings • Facilities° Crossings Properties in (centerline) Corridor (hectares Corridor (hectares
Corridor (m)' (acres))' Centerline (acres))'
. 1
1
2
3
4
21•9 I 7-8 � 11 �
22.2 7-8 12
21.9 7-8 14
22.2 7-8 14
194 5 inh,ich
185 5 inh,ich
222 5 inh,lch
209 5 1 nh,1 ch
3 0 24 10872 3.53 8.7 453 12.58 (31.1)
3 0 24 11428 2.68 6.6 453 12.58 31.1
3 1- land only 23 11359 4.63 (11.4) 401 12.21 30.1
3 1- land only 24 12094 3.78 (9.3) 422 12.83 (31.7)
5 22.4 7-8 11 202 7 1 nh,1 ch,i bp 3 0 25 11932 4.44 (11.0) 453 12.58 (31.1)
� �- � � �<
6 22.7 7-8 12 193 7 inh,ich,ibp 3 0 �`��26t 12489 3.59 8.8 453 12.58 31.1
7 22.5 7-8 14 230 7 1nh,1ch,lbp 3 1-landonly 25 12419 ��54� i�: r�' 401 12.21 30.1
� �� ��- :�
8 22.7 7-8 14 217 7 inh,ich,ibp 3 1-landonly ����26 ,.� �..��31.5`4� ,r 4.69 (11.6) 422 12.83 (31.7)
9 22.6 7-8 17 189 2 1 nh,i bp 3 1- land only 22 10800 4.31 (10.6) 401 12 21 (30 1)
10 22.9 7-S 17 173 2 1 nh,i bp 3 1- land only 23 11535 3.45 (8.5) 422 12 83 31 7
11 22.7 6-7 18 194 3 1 nh,1 bp 3 1- bidgs & land 20 10936 4.13 (10.2) ���573 �"� ��6�951 � 6B�4'
12 22J 6-7 18 183 3 1 nh,i bp 3 1- bldgs & land 21 11129 3.28 (8.1) ���573 �N��� 28 91��: 66 4�
13 22.3 7-8 13 215 5 1 nh, i ch 3 0 23 10269 3.53 8.7 453 12.58 (31.1)
14 22.6 7-8 14 206 5 inh,ich 3 0 24 10823 2.68 6.6 453 12.58 31.1
15 22.4 7-8 16 243 5 1 nh,i ch 3 1- land only 23 10754 4.63 (11.4) 401 12.21 30.1
16 22.6 7-S 16 230 5 1 nh,i ch 3 1- land oniy 24 11489 3.78 (9.3) 422 12.83 (31.7)
17 23.1 7-8 13 222 7 1 nh,1 ch,1 bp 3 0 25 11431 4.44 (11.0) 453 12.58 (31.1)
K �,� � � ��
1 S 23.1 7-8 14 213 7 1 nh,1 ch,1 bp 3 0 h� r26 ��' 11988 3.59 8.8 453 12.58 31.1
���� � � ���f ; � :;. � ��
19 22.8 7-8 16 �„,25U .s��°��'�-� 1nh,lch,ibp 3 1-landoniy 25 11918 5:54��: 1c�:�� 401 1221 30.1
� � �� �� ��
20 23.1 7-8 16 237 7 1nh,ich,ibp 3 1-landonly �, ,�..�6 ���� 12653 4.69 (11.6) 422 12.83 31J
21 23.0 7-8 19 206 2 1 nh,i bp 3 1- land only 22 10299 4.31 (10.6) 401 12.21 30.1
������.;
22 ��23:2� , 7-8 19 193 2 1 nh, i bp 3 1- land only 23 11034 3.45 (8.5) 422 12 83 31 7
>� �� �
23 23.0 6-7 ��' �0� ,�� 214 3 1 nh,1 bp 3 1- bldgs & land 20 10434 4.13 (10.2) �� ,5�3�� �'��� �B 91� 66 ��
24 23.0 6-7 ���, � - �� � � { x f� �::
��, �2U �.�� = 203 3 1 nh,1 bp 3 1- bldgs & land 21 10628 3.28 (8.1) `���,;573;�„�;�� 28 91� (68 4.)
�;,;��_.� ���� = highest value �= lowest value
1. 1 km = 0.62 miles 1 m= 3.28 ft 1 hectare = 2.47 acres
2. x-x =# of interchanges without Mack Rd interchange -# with Mack Rd interchange.
3. Res = Residences, Bus = Businesses
4. nh = nursing home, ch = church, bp = privately-owned baseball field. There were no hospitals, schools, libraries, fire stations, or publicly-owned parks in the corridors.

American Association of State Hiqhway and Transportation Officiais
1994 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
Federal Highwav Administration
1987 Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f)
Documents. FHWA Technical Advisory T66430.8.A. October 1987.
North Carolina Office of State Planninq
1998 "State Demographics."
Internet site http://www.ospl.sfate.nc.us/demog/.(November 30, 1998).
4-1

FIGURES

N H
, � WORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT
OF
;, � TR/lNSPORTATION
ti,
F T
PROJECT LOCATION
R-2536 US 64 INlPROVEMENTS
RANDALPH COUNTY
FIGURE 7-7

7.2m
DEPTH
PAVED
SHLDR.
�
Y�RIABLE
SIOPE
• NOTE: 3.6m OF OUTSIDE SHOt1LDER TO BE
PAVED AT CUARDRAfL �OCATIONS.
' Noarx cnQouru
DEPARTMElR
OP
m�wsromanoN
a:�
.6m SHOUI
1.2m PAV D
SNOUL
I a.`oe
es+ _
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
TYPICAL -L-
t .2m
EPTH
PAVED
SHLDR.
PR�6IYIB�ARv ��ANS
�0 �OT pE F0� �/.� ACOwpTIOM
00 rOT ME F0� gOpTMC110M
;
� t.8m_�� 3.Om
USE TYPICAL 5ECTION N0. 1
FRaM -L- STA + TO -L- STA •
TYPICAL SECTIONS
� R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
wwoo�PH couNn
FIGURE 2 1

��� NORTH CAHOIINA
DEPARTMENT
oF
THANSPORTATION
ASHEBORO REGION
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 2-2

/ I i� �"� ty- o:.
�_�% - - t _ - . r° � . . ��• .
6% �e
�) \
� �L/'� � 'J / /�1 _._ 0 � S �
,
� � r . � , � � • _ �y
�� �1 , i,� _ �;
i� � � �
J� .
i � � �� p . � `;, .s=' � '� •
��_' G � i � —
. � . � I r;i ' fP'�ES i��"� . � •� "__
�, t I� ��_-� 1�`1 �'� \ ��� , J +� �
' � s 1; , � I � � �, � � / �� �
.. `� r � / / - --�� T_I� �_T-j ;� 'T' � �- jj�`` � IJJ �b ..i. e •
♦ / % �' ' �i . I .._. L� + ,�_ ' � � � __ 1s� t �. ti
, me
, t
z � / � ��— � � - ��l�a �►
�;. � � � -,_,� , .
�l - - - 4 �
P
� ! ��/ �� � / ��� �b0fb � .
�
--- i�� � � � � �i— � n _ �
L-� 1i� ' �
� �c / ' /�i�:�_, � .
i
Ie C � ; � — �' r I � ` � � � ��--' .
�_ , `� .
- 7
a , �: .
: __,_
,
— � �
L� � �, � � --�- A - -,;^ •
�I �
/ -,��/ � r � �� � ��j.,' � -
� 4 I
r-1 � (/ � .
Q�ji � • .i , 1 ' - r � I �`�,� � � •
ilfL � I \ 1 � � ..�1 I I J �. P
SR_ H ra - ,� �- � � J - . �
� y O i
�.
i �
O .
� ,/ � � �� -___ � � �i ��� � � � � �� � � ��
� ' �" / I BRO w
.-.. �1 / J' �� �9S ¢ • • �
- � R . , � . �__ „ , _
•
., l � —. - - —� __ i � siS` `� ; ,t� �+•
� � i .� _I I I I� � _ ..� � LEt'AB �•. ♦ _
� I � � Q ' r�l ,.� •
( o� ��
� I _1
♦ • � � -" � .'y • '� � " M�ooweu no. N� r �� r� - -
4. U Q ``�/�
� v Kw00D AGP ,FQ �i� � I � � � • - � � •
�, 1 ¢ i
_ � v� �- � J O 1 � .
.: � � 'ab � _ I -� i O � � :/ w
� � .- - �� .. �� 46 Z �
� • � � o'� �l r � �,xid�l �� _ _ � :
� • 1 — `� �
i� � � � � �� � • ' fl- � �%�
� c
�_.. :qN -�_-' �-. io � ` r � i . ___ .
....�BF \ �'� _ � ~- V2
�` �[ RP.- � ♦ / �M ON�p �� � ',� ' / ,' � y. •
� �
. �,' so _ " � � �� � � �-; J- � _ � �� j ' 7—
•� ■1� :� � � .� :' I � ��1._ I � Cl�n� ,�.._.. ..��-,
• _ � •� � p�' _�•I Ili Q. �� _ � .
.. _. _ A1 i , �—' _,.�_,____ _.,,_'_ ...�
i� � _ �
� �
. o
-- � �� �i �0�� '�a H$)�ey����\ ��� •
. � � � ' • 1 Y�' � '.� A /ir• i�1 1) � O . . . ..,.
� _, � � � DINAH - - - � )1 Qj� � ' ll/ x.p �. Topogrephic Dete Source:
��� '- . RD. M I �J �a ! Copyright1987-1997
�- • � , � • • • • • • % �` � ,. ♦ �. �11C ZOO 3003,W.College'A e~ APP� ton,nc..
• I I �" ". - J� I �I • a
, , i ej'e� �/►i ', SNarth Ceroli ethe :
r date
� - - + � • R Department of Trensportation
. . ' ___ i , ¢p� • ':
. - r .,' f�f �r°� .;�� � � � � •e,.
� + - - -�� �/A Fr - � �
%�� NORTH CAROLINA
�I��� DEPARTMENT
b � OF
TRANSPORTATION
Vf�
LEGEND
� Refined Study Area
Primary Road
- Secondary Road
- - - - - - - Potential Interchange
Design
Mejor Streem
�� NC Zoological Park
• • • • • �
: . � � � . Project Study Area
� —� Municipal Boundary
0 Federat Land Ownership
end Wildlife Resource
Commission Gamelend
Utility Easement
� Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventoryl
� Other Wetlands (National
Wetland Inventory)
� Pronounced Topography
� 100-Yeer flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
' � ' �'� �' Protected Area Water
Supply Watershed
— Superfund Site
� Major Industries
I� Subdivision
� Fire Station
� Church
0 Potential Historic Property
Y ,
1 0.5 0 Kilometers � 2
T�
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1
Miles
PROJECT STUDY AREA
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPHCOUNTV
FIGURE 3-1

n
I � ����1 I
L� '_. y•_ 5� � ' ,e.
•
- � t 5 , ��,� o� . • .
��_� L� ��� .
� � �
_ � • _ .
r', ' • ti;` •
' • ;� •
• •
� w �' 1'1 _ �. •
f � '-
P '
✓��� hE9 �'Lt�-- �__ --� _
_�;j I , + Y �
- ,�_ `` � \ ` Y
• � i !/ %% � i .� I i I—J �� � � f i --- _- i Ca6 e/s� eek � 4•
• ' zqr /, , ' , /i ; � ��� 1 — i ; � � � �Q� � .
�, �
--, �
• � � � " ,, _ �—�'r (�r � ,� , �
� ,_. �� i _� i�_��r ; ��.
� � � � ��� j� I �� �%� 81�Ofb� - � —� � d � �
;
. -_ '} • % �� � � `�� 1 �^' �'
.. �• le C�e¢ 0 i _ + � ��, �� ` f _ �C� lL �' I ���� • —�1t � `�- � � �.
__ ;
� � �
, � � y �
� � � �T -_L� - � ��� o �.1 '�� �� .. a i., � � � .
� �
, � r i � � 7;1' ,�
, D > D �� : _ �_—�'�� �� •
� � / '/, ; 1 �" i � v' � �ZNa '. .
� 13�-- � � � R-I � ' i- � : � i -;. I i` �. � � a, - �_ ; - v � "i�
• �- OLP� �� ��I �� I i ����. 6R �� � ,. �y,� ��
• . j i ' � ; �77p�� i ' i ;o,� a _ •
I �
� ///����,,, �.� ., .m � � .
_ �� �� � � --- � %� � �9�, ,t' � � � � . _
• � � ; � �f--? c , �; �' � 1
� � �S �i I ;�a�-,-��
� � � � !� --' � � �y � �
� 14/IS
� o'� � , . � , �'
I r�, �1 ' °P � � f� ' H1
♦ • -_ � �- -'y. ..e• � � MmowEuao. � ..r� ��a 15 ..
��1 �A K'K 000a,ce�y •F� a� � I �° vi��� � 1 �•I14�
W o_ -L- i � G,ti ._. �� +
� W --.` �pP .>� ry. .. � _ � � �
, ��� � �'�� ,� - y .. Q�. - � _�:�� �IJ�P
-__ � _ _ � . a � � E�
� � — 'vi t�� � � ��� .
C r �� Q
-�� ��� H� � �� D �E11+, y IS5 ��
4
B �
� �� �F�no� D2 ` Hq;� ? ��E � � S4 �F'L
i__ /
• � � - ,
s � ,
o� 4!J i i--
�' , S�
,� ' � �� D I� � — ��aOS3
� '��� � ' � , _F .�
oH � �' � 4 � •
(J� s. �
� � A 'l" �, c�s� ��I$% 1,-;.�
r � � a H �
. : � -_ � • • � �e • ���vpi � �� ��
\ I BD AH -.-..—.� • ��l1 �' � ^�L
�
I
��I � . • • • • • • • r '�.�� % � $
� " '�r -
V�
♦ ' 1 � . _ � - . ��, �� )
_ _I, � �
� - -- " . ati� �
i
" �" Fot�at �
� �
a
�� .. � ---`, �
a� � � � �
.__ - �
�� ti
_
'��� '�� �� _ _. _ , _ _ ...
� � ,,i� � � �s o
o �
Pi'�, ,}ti� p
y O�
/ p -� Topogreph�c Deta Source:
.� � •� NC ZOO Copyright 1987 1997
American Digital Cartography, Inc.,
�� � ♦ 3003 W.College Ave., Appleton,
� e
Source for ell other date:
UR 9 � rvonh CaroNne
• Y Depertment of Trensportetlon
� � • • • •`.
� t
LEGEND
��� Preliminary Corridor
Segment Centerline
� Eliminated Corridor
Segment Centerline
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Major Stream
�� NC 2oological Park
......
� � � � � � Project Study Area
0 Municipal Boundary
0 Federal Land Ownership
end Wildlife Resource
Commission Gameland
--- - Utility Easement
� Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
� Other Wetlands (Netional
Wetland Inventory)
� Pronounced Topography
� � 100-Year Flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Protected Area Water
Supply Wetershed
— Superfund Site
� Major Industries
�� Subdivision
� Fire Stetion
� Church
0 Potential Historic Property
�,
1 0.5 0 Kilometers � 2
� ; i
os o.2s o os ,
Miles
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
HANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 3-2

,,
E
❑
� ❑ °
❑J�
O
❑ ❑
� JJ
� ❑
❑ �,,� a
o -o� �
� ❑.��❑
� ❑ ❑ : OJ O
G �
❑'� ,
❑ ❑
n''''•
❑
4G •
❑
❑
- c
• OL'
C:'
•
� e
• v a
• ❑ °
• i� ❑
:`
_ • ;
�" � �
♦
�
� :
O �
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
� � •
o� .1
,o �
ou no J .
� a° P ° _ �
�'❑ �o}� •
00 ❑ ❑ ' ❑ •
�.� � a e � o u•C� O
❑ � � G p ❑.
❑
�o a ❑ ❑ �i po;
�� � 00000� ❑ .� - � ❑ : ,..
c'°
� � ..� .❑ �° �o-�_- � �❑ � •
� ❑ � � •
� ...❑�o ��❑ ❑. •
0
❑� �r� • �// j
o� ° �j';,,�i�
_ _ ❑ �. j
. o � ;.
❑ c.
� ,
�� � r
c° �
C `
.,
► ; � �
���
�1
❑ � I
❑o � c,- • I ❑
I ° ❑ • ��
� , . ❑
� - ��� i ❑
�° °o
c
❑ o
¢
„
� ��
�o
❑
�
/J
❑
�]
❑
� � . ,�
_ � `�
� r
� o
❑ � ❑'
❑ G /° n
� �;❑
0
a
° c �/
N
���1 NORTNCAHOLINA
��� UEPARTMENT
� OF
THANSPORTATION
a
❑ la ❑�❑'❑
� • o ,, o.
� • � � L�
� ❑ ❑I
�
. _
• oi
]
. `
•
❑
❑
�
♦ —
• ❑ �
❑ R 119�—__�
- = OLD HVV� ��'
i
,�a��.... _�
\ ` ❑ � ` �.. -m � •.: -.-
•�
a
❑
LEGEND
�300m (1000')
Preliminary Corridor
� Primary Road
i�� — Secondary Road
Major Streem
% ° ❑
`_x o °
�
❑
�'6 ° °,a
���
�
�y 0
vf ❑Cv C�C C
�y
a, �s � = a
;v, ':o ���
� e • i �
, ❑
/ � �
3 ° ❑ _
a�o/ ❑ �❑
ad'/ �...
o s� °_ b'� � ❑
a Q�i� �'
� ��j �3 -�0
,J;r/y •�
�n a�,`�` �J�
_����.� �� ���'� � �
l���G� � � � ��
v
.. � �,�
,,
� � ��
❑ � ° r� 1
V
0 0 �� � ° S
� _ � �
� °� -:�- �� V �:i �� ..
Topographic Data Saurce:
Copyright 1987-1997
American Digitel Cartography, Inc.,
3003 W.College Ava., Appleton,
Source for ell other deta:
North Ceroline
Oepartment of Trenaportation
wesr
F'Z�Ir
� � NC Zoological Park
• • • • • �
� � � � � � Project Study Area
0 Municipal Boundary
� Federal Land Ownership
end Wildlife Resource
Commission Gamelend
– -- Utility Easement
� Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
�— Other Wetlands (National
Wetland Inventoryl
� Pronounced Topography
� � 100-Year Flood Plain
�' Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
' � '!'` Protected Area Water
Supply Wetershed
— Superfund Site
� Mejor Industries
0 Subdivision
� Fire Stetion
� Church
0 Potential Historic Property
° Residence or Business
�,
Meters
300 750 0 300 600
��T� i
750 375 0 750 1500
Feet
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS -
WEST
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPH COUNTV
FIGURE 3-3a

an
: �
• ❑ �\�w
i° �
• � \ �/
. »�
s
'• ❑ -
� • �� • � °E
� � 44
• °
7
�
�•
�
o❑
�a�oo
a
� _. ❑
9 � °%�N
� n,o
,�o � �
\� �
c � � .. .... -��, � � \ ° Q�
° ��•� � ❑�� � o �
_ � ❑4..° °j ❑ o ❑
� �
.. �� L'�,'� q
� . � ] ,: � � � i a
° � ° •°x�� �eFE� R�� � o
. o � �b ❑
❑ , � � -❑
� •�° °,
-....0 �.� � .
• -
• �r,°
• , R
• � ° G�
� a_
a- i �o - ❑ e ���
•�,,��. .�❑ ❑:LI o �
�, � ���, 8'� ��
p ' ❑� • ❑`.❑ ❑
`�'❑ ❑ '� . �j''�.•4�.
% � �'�
^ �pOo'❑ ❑�°�� •�° e �
�o 0 0 ❑ � �;o _o;� � ° ❑ m ❑
uo � �.�ae❑ ❑j S; ��
� • `,.
_ - •".
— — a�•
•
•
- -' - -- .. � • i
r
�. NOHTH CAHOLINA
� � DEPARTMENT
b a oF
� TRANSPORiATION
��e
❑ 6
c
� of
❑❑ ❑o❑ o
❑ � �
❑❑qp o '
❑❑❑ ❑ ,�
� !/�3
�C
• °
- � ❑
� � cD'rbWELL�i
1 � �� � Bb , y � c
�`•�Q� ❑ J r p ' ia
` i�
.1. °��p �� � ❑° �_ B ❑ o�la mo
�J��'�j�. .`\,�' O -. c� y � o i° mO 4,f o❑ ❑c
�OcV° `'\ o N ° o��J �°a��_�, 5�°
� n [e , �� Il oo ❑`. r� o
�❑ ❑ �/� q- ❑ �
\\ _ 2� � r// � � ° do ° "- .. �
�t-, LEGEND
�" � 300m 11000')
�' � � � Preliminary Corridor
711 ° J
a� -� Primary Road
� � Secondary Road
�
� ; o ° Major Stream
��
❑
i ❑ ��� �
�� �
'�
� ❑
� ' � .
� �i
❑ ` o� B ❑ o
� ❑ �S �o
� ' ° c
� �
� °o o ❑
�=¢ � D1' �
r
�;�no n °
p
��
E1
� � - �yw_��
�u� " .�'
r � ❑ ' �P,� �o �
` ❑ o�iaia�o��
� 4 0 �o° �
�� � ❑I o o°
❑ !„ �
- �,�' I}j' . ❑� TapagraphicDetaSource:
`w ❑ � GoPYright 1987-1997
��� , ` / 3003�W.Co11e9e1A ert App� ton,�c.•
o �� O Source far ell offier date:
o North Caroflns
� Depertment of Trenaponation
7 �
°a ❑
❑ a �,y_ � o
� ��� �� S��
,p a
�� `b a
❑ -
DINAkf ° � ��°° � ��°
'! RD. 2 ° � : - o- ��L,�� -
o �J
• -
� • ••• ••••• -, ••°j ••••••�
WEST
��- NC Zoological Park
• • • • • �
: . . � � � Project Study Aree
0 Municipal Boundary
�—� Federal Land Ownership
end Wildlife Resource
Commission Gameland
Utility Easement
� Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
`— Other Wetlends (National
Wetland Inventory)
� Pronounced Topog�aphy
� 100-Year Flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
���� ���� �` Protected Area Water
Supply Watarshed
— Superfund Site
� Mejor Industries
� —� Subdivision
� Fire Station
— Church
� Potentiel Historic Property
° Residence or Bueines3
�
Meters
300 150 0 300 600
�`I � �
750 375 0 750 1500
Feet
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS -
SOUTH WEST
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
HANDOLPHCOUNTV
FIGURE 3-3b

�
'� �c =
/�-; ��
. :1.- [
O � t"
❑ -� �
�' �1 'v
` ,c�
❑ n !,
��
•
C
�� ��,� � _ � �
�� � � _ ��
� -^
� p �
, � 0 �� n ❑ ._ , �
: ,�
F1
��',�' V T�� -� � � c I
�\ a o9� c � � r� ❑,�
o °v °° c �� ° ❑°�
e U% I �
❑�° o ❑� ❑ ❑ � ° °' Q r,
00 � A
�ni °_G I❑ � n VV�
n❑
❑ n � ��T �� ❑
❑❑ �� �G oo� � a �°` ❑
— �r,
��� � � � � � q�p � /� n❑ ��
� � � �,; 8� �
�
;' ., '�' p /� �� r-r1�
� � __ n.J-�,� �� � . °f� ������
o '
] ❑ .� .� G � �, � •
� �3�. �
❑
G• •c. • • • • • • � �
� o �' ❑
a ,; �
�,
�n
� � I�
❑ 2
❑O ❑��ao c� ❑ ❑_Q..00i4l'o_. o!'a�,� ,
o � ��o�� ` -
��,o �o
u A�
� ° ❑
( °--_ ❑ ° �
� _ � ❑ /
❑ �
° a
��� NOHTH CAROUNA
DEPARTMENT
� � OF
�, � TRANSPOHTATION
`���ae�
'N�'
�' W
�
. a � �.
� o� �
� �c ti
0
a', „ J '
� � ��� ��
o ❑ °
y- 9 ❑
_I '�, ° e � ��:"�� „
� a \
° t�_�ic
� ,,�-��, _
� � '4 �0��-...._ i] p] • � ��•
•
L Jle ] .�� ❑ _ •
� � ��� �^� � • � V
����� ' �' _
c �, y� � � � � �. .
' �°�� �wa'�� �s�
- �- ° �'
a �
� ❑ ° �a ❑
�
I�'� F:,���0
m
� �
� ��.�fl��❑
°o � ❑
0
r �' ����
�j' �_/
�
L
7
S2
i --�c " ;�
I . �
� �
l ��� � � • � ��
� c • �
) � � O
� _. ., G .. � ,' �
_ ❑
9
' LEGEND
-- Z
� � 300m (7000')
�Preliminary Corridor
-� Primary Road
�' - Secondary Road
� Mejor Stream
N• o �
�Y • O °
� •
� ro
, v
� �o.^,
• O
• ���/''� N Topographic Date Sourca:
i � CoPYright19871997
�> � �„y AmeNcan DiO��el Canogrephy, lnc.,
` ��J 3003 W.College Ava., Appleton,
Kj� c � Source for ell other dete:
• ""� North Ceroline
• Department of Transportetion
�
• �
f �
c
� °
U�
R
• � � � � • • • •
❑
�Y��� NC Zoological Park
• • • • • �
: � . . � � Project Study Area
0 Municipal Bounda�y
0 Federal Land Ownership
and Wildlife Resource
Commission Gamelend
Utility Easement
� Surface Water (Netional
Wetland Inventory)
� Other WMlands (National
WMland Inventoryl
� Pronounced Topography
i���� '100-Vear Flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Watershed
� Protected Area Water
Supply Weterahed
— Superfund Site
� Major Industries
0 Subdivision
� Fire Station
— Church
0 Potential Historic Proper[y
° Residence or Business
�'
Meters
300 150 0 300 600
750 37 0 750 1500
Feet
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS -
SOUTH
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
HANDOLPH COUNTY
FIGURE 3-3c

• "- �r - • � i i �� e � �
• i • • i � � i i �!�• il . � • •
• • •
� • • � � /�'J • �
• • � • • i I ��I �
• a:a:'+ � � i • i i � � � I �1 •
• a •� •• i i���i"u'i �JIt fil �r� •
•�v�� •����u��••• �77 � � n,
I� .I .
..... ; . � , . . p � :
. '
� �� �� ; ; �� � • ,.
..,., i . .� .
LEGEND
300m (1000')
❑o, j ❑, ; p � (� - � ❑ ,� ❑ i, � /� Preliminary Corridor
000q� o� oi� � o o �t! �•- ���9 r�, � 7
❑ ' ° p%q �❑ J ��.
,�$[�,q ; � �, q., ❑ ,� � �f,� Primary Road
�'w4mO. p����° o9��tf �- _/ \�i _
m�po oa. H � I�q ❑ ❑ � � \ , �
o nL�317 0�❑ opp�.. ,,�� � • ���; Secondary Road
� ���So ; � �� ❑ � _ %� � iO '� ��� � � � r'�o�� Msjor Stream
I . °
� ��p � ��� J�o � . �� •� o
ds�� ❑ ❑ o„ � ���`.,� W , � �� •�c °❑ . ��� NC Zoological Park
° ° o ol � �- �—� o a /� � ❑'... ❑ • • • • • •
�—� � J° _._ •� ❑ • Pro ect Stud Area
o❑ ' o�°le o' ❑ � �/ooI �� a I r� `✓ • ❑ �'-.. • • • • • • 1 Y
��000�1.° o°�o° � `.Cr C�� , •� ❑ ❑--- 0 MonicipalBoundary
❑. � ------ ' ° �
1 °°o� ;o-- ° v o ° ,'� ° ,' � � _❑ o - -�
' ,.Q� � � � C°�❑ o� , ;� , � � �d� I �� °❑ � 0 FederalLandOwnerahip
�T ❑I� mou_�a o � — ' ,... � ' v ��o ���❑ _ � °�°:� �J and Wildlife Resource
�"
❑ �o �o° � � � o_ \ ' ��o Commission Gameland
�,��� � �❑ � p - ° � ..= i� B �O� �� , c - - - - - - - - Utility Easement
° ° ; � o ' ��i � G �— Surface Water (National
0 14/15
W I n Inventor
�J ❑ et a d y)
;� o
�� P � ' .. �— Other WMlands (National
' �I�� ° ��o� � � " — �i ; �� � � � �a � �.� � Wetlend Inventory)
/ ma JI
❑ � Pronounced Topography
❑ �
� � ° •
� �� � ' • i' A° o �i 100-Year Flood Plain
° '; � ° � � ��
o ,� � �' • ❑ � Critical Area Water
� � �� Q �� � .�.. �— ° j° r-0 ;o SupplyWetershed
�/^ � �/ � � � ° � � 0 Protected Area Water
O �"� J -" '� _ , `' • g, Supply Wetershed
; ..
❑ 9• , '� �� W � _ — Superfund Slte
� z ,� . ' Topographic Data Source:
- � —�� � Copyright1987-1997 � Mejorindustries
/��/ � ��`� �� ❑ Americen Digitel Certogrephy, Inc.,
j G o � � � - -� � � 3003 W.College Ave., Appleton,
o�� � � 1 � ] � ❑ 0 Subdivision
, Source for ell other data:
b 1�j� � i �- �❑ ❑ o p���° NorthCeroline � FireStation
� � ❑ �-� O ' M� �� ° OeperbnantofTrensportetion
i � � �� � � - r � e� � , ❑ � � � Church
o � ❑ ❑
F� ° 1
' e,
� ❑s
� c, .
❑ o -� J
� ❑ 1
I
u' —
„ ❑ �r,
a I .�
' � ° o R-j� �
❑,
rt�
�,.
.
NOHTH CAROLINA
I�' DEPARTMENT
r��� OF
TRANSPORTATION
r_ �
❑ � - � ❑ •
_o ❑ _,� A�, � ° °' `i .
- � \ ❑i •
9'j�� n ' _ � �" w% � � •
❑ '��
a �po i
� ° e ��J� <�:'3 _, � �
�
� �_m �-��_ ❑ � Potentiel Historic Property
— � c ❑
Residence or Business
° EAST
❑ , W�ST �
o° '� SOUT
❑ T:
�
� Meters
❑��� -'- UT{ 300 150 0 300 600
W T i�.
� SOU7M � 750375 0 750 1500
� � . � _, Feet
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS -
SOUTHEAST
R-2536 US 641MPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPHCOUNTY
FIGURE 3-3d

.- _ . __ ,_ .. � _ ` o - „�u �� a
� vo.
°.r' ❑ ' . ' '_ J <'� • -,° ��� • r ° `u _ ,�c' ❑ ❑
•
q-�� � y � u � �'.TJ .'� _ � � ❑ �� � ❑ �-'C
i
' �i ,� O . � •O „ � ❑ C �-.�L' ❑C
a �� � � . �r.:��❑ � a�c �p❑ �o�
;a � . � : � • a . '�nj !� a c o0
4/ �� ' " � oc' • . /� �'� � � � ❑ � c 5
8.' d� �.. _ •
. �� �"� ' � � , � � � �
� � = �� ,, • � ��'� s • � � 4�
. 8;�� ���' o '� o� ❑� � � _-�oo\/� � �
❑ q� ❑ i v�, , "- _ � � ° oo �/�. , ' • �
�� �om � � `'� ' ^ o, _ � � ° o 'r - �
P ° � , �� ❑'a � � ' - - '-_-= ___ �
� �' .
m��S �4'�S'-��� ��� � ° '' • � � -�-- __----
� ;,�G� .n �' �� '"=- '---
•
.o ❑ o '� -",-"-
.;❑ _ ] � o�.;� ��� _ �� � __'
o. � �.. � .. o � •
� a . C�. ��� o _ � � •
r� �' i �� �. � � i
� ❑ � ❑ �
'; � ;�o I ' '� 1j �
o � � �
• ❑
�;' °❑ d� °a '�.. p❑ °�° ` �
�r-.0 ' U m� �- O O � �� �' .... •
❑, o� o 0
'�� - ° � : � Ga �� -� �E . �+
o �
❑ ❑ � � - � , c a ° o a
H •e_,
❑❑�❑ — �. - . � ^,.� � C%i �._� .._..�- � ❑❑ � � -n-.
� i • ° � � D o• ° �
. � ,
q.� � ',o�/o❑ �l ❑ � �• �
o � ❑ � lY"� � �
�1❑ c � o� ❑ .
� ��' o� o,' I
r � o m ❑m0000' ❑ ❑ ° -
' ° o � �h �4 ❑ �� I 1 _ ..c ..,
a �� ❑ �
❑o� � a � �, a� �1 , �� •
�s o�oo
a � �� o �� ° ;, •
� ❑ ❑ fl+. O � � � � 0 0 � ,;.� -__ ❑ ❑ ,_�
❑ ❑ �QO , � '..
� ❑O�N �, ❑
� . r
❑ ❑ ❑ o _-..� r��OO� ❑,I� i • q
� � ^�O � ��� �Op� p—�❑
❑. n ❑o � • �,�u. ❑
❑ _ °- ❑ ❑ ❑ ,`• .
� 1 � a °�." �� • -,�
° ° o �
� � � _� °�o u , �.a° ° � ❑° . �o.,, • „
� Q � ��� �,�� � � �� d"aq' '�. •
Q� � -_. : �� a � � . �
� �c��� � j o N,� _ , .
� �/ � !
` �' Ca � �� �� ..�• ' .
1 /��
t pd ❑ ,� ' G �/
���� i
� ❑ ���
`/ �� -� , 'v\ ° �i
\.�"� ❑ � �� • _
� -� �' • � • �'F �
�� NOHTH CAROLINA
I�P�� DEPARTMENT
OF
r ^�y TRANSPORTATION
`Pu _
•�nt_iw'"
w>
LEGEND
�300m 11000')
Preliminary Corridor
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Major Stream
��� NC Zoological Park
. . . . . �
� � � � � � Project Study A�ea
0 Municipal Boundary
��� - �=�a��-- �� Federal Land Ownership
end Wildlife Resource
Commission Gameland
- - - - - - Utility Easemeot
�— Surface Water (National
Wetland Inventory)
�— Other Wetlands (National
Wetland I�vento�y)
� Pronounced Topography
� 100-Year Flood Plain
� Critical Area Water
Supply Wetershed
' '��' P�otected Area Water
Supply Watershed
— Superfund Site
Topogrephic Data Sourca:
Copyright 1987-1997 � Major Industries
Americen Digital Certography, Inc.,
3003 W.College Ave., Appleton,
0 Subdivision
Source for ell other deta:
NonA Caroline � Fi�e Station
Depertrnent of Trenaportation
� Church
0 Potential Historic Property
° Residence or Business
EA6T n
W EST .�`�.
a'OUT �V
T,%�
MeterS
UT 300 150 0 300 600
T � �T=r� •, �
SOUT 750375 0 750 1500
Feet
PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS -
EAST
R-2536 US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
RANDOLPHGOUNTY
FIGURE 3-3e

APPERIDIX

APPENDIX A
IMPACTS BY CORRIDOR SEGMENT
Number of Length of
Minor Potential stream Stream in Linear Total
Segment Length Road Easement Historic crossings Corridor Wetlands Meters of Floodplain
ID (m) Crossings Residences Businesses Other Crossings Property (centerline) (m) area (m2) Floodplain Area (m2)
A1 2740.8 1 5 0 0 3 1987
A2 3111.2 3 27 0 0 2 953
A3 2653.4 2 19 0 0 2 1089
Bi 1148.0 1 4 0 0 2 621
B2 1242.1 1 3 0 0 3 1165
B3 1343.0 1 6 0 0 3 916
B4 1330.5 1 4 0 0 4 1448
Ci 2064.8 2 10 0 0 3 1423 23690.4
C2 2372.2 1 19 0 1 ballfield 0 4 2022 32769.6
Di 1749.5 2 60 2 0 2 539
D2 1806.6 3 53 4 0 2 443
D3 1530.4 3 14 1 0 1 442
D4 1039.0 1 8 0 0 1 433
Ei 1039.8 1 28 2 1 church 1 1 544
E2 2307.5 3 43 0 1 0 0
E3 2410.0 4 80 0 1 1 449
F1 1405.8 1 30 0 0 1 990 14111.6
F2 818.3 2 11 0 0 0 0 1815.1
G1 3319.1 0 25 0 1 nursin home 0 3 1489 3117.3 246.8 80822.0
G2 1613.5 1 17 0 1 nursin home 0 land 2 1143 133302
G3 4307.1 5 54 1 0 land & bld s 3 2236 464.5 234843.0
G4 7436.8 0 13 0 0 land & bld s 3 872 127.0 374.8 67851.0
H1 619.6 1 6 0 0 1 443 195.1 63104.0
l i 1208.0 1 9 0 0 2 642
12 1205.3 1 4 0 0 0 563
13 1585.8 2 24 0 1 3 1085
14 1121.1 1 10 0 0 3 1281 216.3 70991.0
145 1052.3 1 16 0 1 1 391
15 268.9 0 1 0 0 0 147
J 1 3095.2 0 28 0 1 3 1397 8537.9
J2 3004.2 0 4 0 0 3 1593
Ki 1871.7 2 7 0 1 1 351
K2 1295.4 1 13 0 0 1 804
K3 993.1 0 8 1 0 0 271
K4 1188.8 0 1 0 1 0 434
Si 665.8 0 3 1 0 1 509
S2 1032.9 0 4 0 0 1 785 206.3 42119.4
S3 1383.1 1 9 0 0 0 137 2840.9
S4 282.9 0 2 0 0 0 83
S5 278.8 0 0 0 0 1 545
S6 1215.8 0 3 0 0 1 512 108.9 34247.7
S7 1942.8 2 25 0 0 0 1259 39298.5
S8 388.2 0 7 0. 0 1 321

US 64 IMPROVEMENTS - ENVIRONMENiAL STUDY PROCESS
� ���
. , ���1�--.�L9Z', v„Q.
z
k %011�ti�tlC
'� P�eferr,e�
�
/�iternatrve� �'
��

�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T�tAI�1SPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 11, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
Subject: US 64 Asheboro Bypass from US 64 East of Asheboro to US 64 West of Asheboro,
Randolph County, TIP No. R-2536, State Project No. 8.1571401, Federal Project
No. NHF-64(19)
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways, North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing an environmental study for the US 64
Asheboro Bypass in Randolph County, Transportation Improvement Program Project R-2536.
As a part of the planning process, an Interagency Advisory Committee has been
established to ensure that the concerns of interested agencies are fully considered. An
Interageney Advisory Committee meeting will be held on September 21, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. to
discuss preliminary alternative corridors and the upcoming Public Officials Meeting and Citizens
Informational Workshop. The Interagency Advisory Committee meeting will be held at the
North Carolina Zoo, on the second floor of the Stedman Education Center. Meeting participants
should use NC 159 to access the zoo and park in the North American lot.
The agenda for the meeting is attached. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss
the preliminary alternative corridors that have been developed to date. Issues constraining the
locations of potential corridors, such as steep topography, wetlands, major industrial facilities,
and watersheds will be described.
�

Ms. Cyndi Bell
September 11, 1998
Page 2
The preliminary corridors will be presented for comment at the Public Officials Meeting
and Citizens Informational Workshop. Both the meeting and the workshop will be held on
September 30, 1998 at the Randolph County Office Building on McDowell Road at the US 220
Bypass. The schedule is below:
• Public Officials Meeting: 2:00 - 3:00 p.m.
(for city and county officials and other government agencies)
• Citizens Informational Workshop: 4:00 - 8:00 p.m.
To RSVP for the Interagency Advisory Committee Meeting, please call the project
hotline [phone]) or Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. of Rust Environment and Infrastructure
(919-676-5107) by September 16, 1998.
Sincerely,
�d�1. (��i9YLd1�
Ron Elmore, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc: Interagency Advisory Committee Mailing List
File
Attachment: Meeting Agenda

AGENDA
INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COMNIITTEE
September 21,1998
US 64 Improvements Near Asheboro
TIP Project Number R-2536
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agenda
B. Introduction of Meeting Attendees
II. T'HE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROCESS
A. Role of the Interagency Advisory Committee
B. Steps in the Environmental Study Process
III. OVERVIEW OF Tf-� PUR.POSE AND NEED FOR TI� PROJECT
A. Needs for Project
1. Traffic Conditions on existing US 64
2. Traffic Conditions on NC 159 created by NC Zoo-related traffic
3. US 64 as part of the Intrastate Highway System
B. Purposes of Project �
1. Improve levels of service on US 64
2. Relieve congestion and improve safety on US 64
3. Improve access to the NC Zoo
4. Restore efficient regional travel along US 64
N. PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS "
A. General Location
1. Preliminary corridors are being developed on the south side of Asheboro. .
2. Comdors north of Asheboro would not fully meet the purpose and need of the project.
The northern bypass...
�a. Does not provide any benefits to the North Carolina zoo �
b. Crosses through highly developed areas
c. Impacts water supplies on the west side of Asheboro
B. Constraints Used to Develop Preliminary Corridors
1. NWI wetiands
2. Streams
3. Developed areas �
4. Major industrial facilities
5. Areas of steep� topography �
6. US 220 Bypass Interchange Location
C. Preliminary Corridors

.�
V. UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
A. Public Officials Workshop
September 30, 1998 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Randolph County Office Building
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
September 30, 1998 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Randolph County Office Building

STATE oF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI()N
JAMES B. Hi1NT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMOR.ANDUM TO:
FILE:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-�201
July 7, 1998
File
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
US 64, Asheboro Southern Bypass, Randolph County, TIP
ID. No. R-2536
FROM: Ron Elmore �
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT:
Project Team Meeting - Purpose and Need Stateffient
Debbie Bevin, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), called today to inform
me she would not be able to attend the Project Team Meeting tomorrow for the above
project. She indicated she had no comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Statement
and the comments previously submitted by SHPO on the project are still valid. An
architectural historian survey of the project's area of potential effect is still recommended
by SHPO.
Ms. Bevin indicated she would like to receive a copy of the minutes of the Project
Team Meeting and would like to be informed of future meetings.
RE/ �

��� Memorandum �cEivm
SEP 1 91991.
September 3, 1997 �r'u-�
To: REI File No. 200660
TIP No. R-2536 - US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass - Randolph County
Copy: Attendees
From:
Subject:
Meeting Date:
Jill Gurak, Rust Environment and Infrastructure (REI)
Meeting Minutes - Scoping Meeting
August 28, 1997 at 10:00 am
Meeting Location: NC Department of Transportation
Room 150 -Transportation Building
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attendees: Felix Davila -
Eric Alsmeyer -
Cyndi Bell -
Debbie Bevin -
Lyn Adams -
Mary Joan Pugh -
Phil Kemp -
Talmadge Baker -
Dumont Bunker -
Reynolds Neely -
David Leonard -
George Gusler -
Norman Hines -
Gail Grimes -
Jim Buck -
Frank Vick -
Jimmy Goodnight -
Debbie Barbour -
Cynthia Joyner -
John Taylor -
Harold Boles -
Bill Rosser -
Tim Johnson -
Michael Shumsky -
Ron Hairr -
Jill Gurak -
Kevin Haughey -
Ron Johnson -
Lynn Woerner -
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Zoological Park
NC Zoological Park
Randolph County Commissioner
Ciry of Asheboro - City Council Member
City of Asheboro - City Engineer
City of Asheboro - Planning Director
City of Asheboro
Asheboro/Randolph Chamber of Commerce
The Courier Tribune
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Location and Survey
NCDOT Location and Survey
NCDOT - Division Engineer - Division 8
NCDOT - Division 8
NCDOT Rail Division
REI
REI
REI
REI
REI

Minutes
August 28, 1997 Meeting
Minutes:
Attached is the agenda handed out at the meeting.
Jim Buck opened the meeting with a brief introduction and discussion of the agenda. Ron Hairr
discussed the objectives of the meeting. Jill Gurak provided an overview of the environmental
process and information regarding the proposed project (See attached agenda)..
Phil Kemp stated that from Randolph County's perspective, the sooner a corridor can be
established, the better for them. They recognize that growth is occurring in the area. With a corridor
selected, the County would be better able to "protect" the corridor from new development. The
County fully supports a bypass on new alignment as shown in their Thorougfifare Plan.
Frank Vick stated that it takes 12 to 18 months to develop the alternatives. He recognizes that
people want to know much sooner. The NCDOT will do its best to complete the study in a timely
manner. �
Eric Alsmeyer asked that the NEPA1404 process and the recent agreement between the NCDOT
and US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) be explained to the group.
Frank Vick responded by noting the NCDOT and the COE have signed a NEPA/404 agreement.
The agreement details the steps needed to obtain concurrence from the COE on the selection of
a Preferred Alternative. Two of these steps are consensus on the purpose and need for the project
and consensus on the alternatives to be studied in an environmental document (reasonable and
feasible alternatives).
Jim Buck and Frank Vick explained there is a project team which will meet to reach concurrence on
the above issues and to resolve disagreements early in the study process. The team will include
individuals from agencies which have permitting authority for the project. Mr. Vick also stated there
are some issues which can "drive" the location of a highway alignment because of federal laws:
Wetlands, historic properties, parks, and endangered species are protected by federal laws. All
practicable measures must be taken to avoid these types of resources.
Eric Alsmeyer asked if communities in the area will also have input into the purpose and need
statements and the alternatives analysis.
Jim Buck stated that there will be a citizens informational meeting to receive input and comment on
the preliminary corridors and the purpose and need for the project. Jim Buck also indicated that the
NCDOT is waiting for the traffic projections for the project before proceeding with the purpose and
need statement. The Asheboro area is currently undergoing an update of their thoroughfare plan
and a new traffic model for the area is being developed by NCDOT's Statewide Planning Branch.
Their work is scheduled to be completed in October.
Lyn Adams and Mary Joan Rugh explained that the NC Zoological Park strongly supports the
Asheboro Southern Bypass. The Zoo has one of the strongest tourism potentials in the State, with
strong support from Governor Hunt. The Zoo currently has 800,000 visitors per year generating
$5 million in revenue per year on-site, with an estimated $150 million per year impact on the State.
There are currently 260 permanent and 120 part-time employees. Within the next 6 to 10 years,
the Earth Resources Center for environmental education as well as an Environmental Conference
facility will be opened. With these additions, it is anticipated that the attendance will increase to

Minutes
August 28, 1997 Meeting
1.5 million visitors per year; the number of employees will likely double, and service traffic will
increase.
There is no currently no major direct access to the Zoo and the entrance along NC 159 can not
accommodate the visitor traffic during peak times. NC 159 was intended as a temporary solution
to fix access problems to the Zoo, but it has become the main access to the Zoo. Traffic often
backs up 0.5 miles, and occasionally 3 miles, along NC 159. Ms. Pugh said that the Zoo requested
an interchange and access when US 220 was improved. However, this request was denied and the
Zoo was told that the solution to their access problem would be the Asheboro Bypass. The Zoo
hopes that the Asheboro Bypass will open at about the same time as the Earth Resources Center
to alleviate the congestion problems.
Ms. Pugh also said that the Zoo is a conservation organization and it is concerned about the natural
resources impacts of the project. The Zoo has conducted a Natural Heritage inventory of the Zoo
properry, and the Zoo is currently assisting Randolph County with a similar county-wide inventory.
The Zoo is very concerned about the appearance of the Zoo entrance. Four bronze elephants have
been donated to the Zoo to be installed at the entrance in late 1998. Mr. Adams said that views of
natural, undeveloped areas near the entrance, including views of Harvey's Mountain, should be
maintained.
Ron Hairr said the placement of the elephants and the appearance of the entrance will need to be
coordinated with the Zoo during design of the interchange and Zoo access.
Cyndi Bell asked if there are currently plans to continue a loop road all the way around the City of
Asheboro. She pointed out that the water supply watershed northwest of Asheboro should be
avoided by future transportation improvement projects.
Jim Buck replied that there are no plans for a full loop. Reynolds Neely said that there is a
watershed protection ordinance and that a northern loop is not included in the Thoroughfare Plan
because of this watershed.
Eric Alsmeyer said that the purpose and need should be developed early so that alternatives could
be eliminated that don't meet the purpose and need, such as a northern bypass. He also has some
concerns about longitudinal impacts on creeks and impacts to creeks, particularly at the east end
of the project study area. He stated if there is any potential for a bypass to continue around to the
north of US 64, the conditions and resources north of US 64 should be considered to ensure that
the project termini are in the overall most suitable location. Mr. Alsmeyer further noted the use
and/or improvement of NC 159 as access to the Zoo needs to be investigated as an alternative.
Lyn Adams noted that there are other improvements planned in the area, such as new
interchange/intersection configurations around existing US 64, US 220 Bypass, and NC 49 on the
west end of the study area. Mr. Adams asked if NCDOT could investigate the need for these
improvements if the bypass were built. Jim Buck replied that the traffic model currently being
developed by Statewide Planning will enable the evaluation of many roadway network scenarios.
Michael Shumsky said that there is a stub-end railroad within the study area which should be
avoided. Although it does not appear that this railroad will be crossed due to its proximity to
Asheboro, he expressed concern about the affects to this railroad and asked that this issue be
addressed.

Minutes
August 28, 1997 Meeting
Jill Gurak pointed out that Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc. is planning a major facility expansion
just north of Dinah Road, between US 220 Bypass and US 220 Business, in a location which may
conflict with a proposed interchange. The location of an interchange with the US 220 Bypass, which
is identified as the future I-73/74 corridor, will be an important issue considered during the
environmental study process.
Talmadge Baker said that the bypass has been a City priority for a number of years and that the
area around the Zoo needs traffic relief. The City of Asheboro is eager to see the Asheboro
Southern Bypass move forward.
The above notes are Rust's understanding of what was discussed at the meeting. If these minutes
are in error or if you would like to expand them, please contact Jill Gurak at [phone].

AGENDA
SCOPING MEETING
August 28, 1997
US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass
TIP Project Number R-2536
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Agenda
B. Project Study Team Members
II. PURPOSE Of MEETING
A. Discuss TIP Project R-2536 (Asheboro Southern Bypass)
B. Receive input from agencies and officials
C. Answer questions about the proposed project and the study process
III. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROCESS
A. Scoping �
B. Develop Purpose and Need Statement
C. Develop preliminary alternatives
D. Select reasonable and feasible alternatives
E. Determine environmental impacts and benefits for the reasonable and feasible
alternatives _ .
F. Prepare environmental document
G. Select preferred alternative
H. Prepare final environmental document
IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT AND COMMENT
A. Meetings:
Project "Team" meetings, Project Steering Committee, Officials Meetings,
Citizens Informational Workshops, Public Hearing
B. Document review
C. Toll-free information "hotline"
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. History
B. Study Area
C. Project schedule
VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS IN STUDY AREA
A. Information sources
B. Land use and hazardous materials
C. Wetlands, hydrology, and water resources
D. Federally protected species
E: Other available information

.
�,
PROJECT STUDY TEAM CONTACTS
US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass
Randolph County
TIP Number:
State Project Number:
Federal Project Number:
R-2536
8.1571401
N H F-64.(19)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Mr. James Buck, P.E.
FAX
Address:
Unit Head 919-733-7844 Ext. 265
Project Engineer 919-733-7844 Ext. 266
919-733-9794
Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611.
Rust Environment & Infrastructure (REI)
Me. Ron Hairr Project Manager
Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. Assistant Project Manager
FAX
Address:
Rust Environment & Infrastructure .
5510 Six Forks Road
Suite 200 �
Raleigh, NC 27609
Toll-Free Proiect Information Te
1-800-206-1373
Line
919-676-5130
919-676-5107
919-676-5259
Callers to the toll-free line will be directly connected to a voice-mail system. The message on the
voice mail system will be.periodically updated with information on the study's progress. Callers
will have the option of leaving messages of their own. The system will be checked daily and
responses to callers will be provided within two business days by a member of the project team.

��«����7_�
SCOPING MEETING
August.28, 1997
US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass
TIP Project Number R-2536
I. INTRODUCTION �� �Uc�
A. Agenda
B. Project Study Team Members
II. PURPOSE OF MEfTING
�i UST � s c� s�l��-,-f-
A. Discuss TIP Project R-2536 (Asheboro Southern Bypass)
B. Receive input from agencies and officials
C. Answer questions about the proposed project and the study process
III. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STl1DY PROCESS
A. Scoping
B. Develop Purpose and Need Statement
C. Develop preliminary alternatives
D. Select reasonable and feasible alternatives
E. Determine environmental impacts and benefits for the reasonable and feasible
alternatives
F. Prepare environmental document
G. Select preferred alternative
H. Prepare final environmental document
IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT AND COMMENT
A. Meetings:
Project "Team" meetings, Project Steering Committee, Officials Meetings,
.- Citizens Informational Workshops, Public Hearing
B. Document review
C. Toll-free inforrnation "hotline"
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. History
B. Study Area
C. Project schedule
VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS IN STUDY AREA
A. Information sources
B. Land use and hazardous materials
C. Wetlands, hydrology, and water resources
D. Federally protected species
E. Other available information

,�
PROJECT STUDY TEAM CONTACTS
US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass
Randolph County
TIP Number:
State Project Number:
Federal Project Number:
R-2536
8.1571401
NHF-64(19)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Mr. James Buck, P.E.
FAX
Address:
Unit Head �919-733-7844 Ext. 265
Project Engineer 919-733-7844 Ext. 266
919-733-9794
Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Rust Environment & Infrastructure (REI)
Mr. Ron Hairr Project Manager
Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. Assistant Project Manager
FAX
Address:
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
5510 Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
Toil-Free Project Information Telephone Line
1-800-206-1373
919-676-5130
919-676-5107
919-676-5259
Callers to the toll-free line will be directly connected ,to a voice-mail system. The message on the
voice mail system will be periodically updated with information on the study's progress. Callers
will have the option of leaving messages of their own. The system will be checked daily and
responses to callers will be provided within two business days by a member of the project team.

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT' OF T�tANSPORT'ATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 2520t. RALEIGH. N.C. 27G11-5201
July 21, 1997
REC�IVED
J!I( p � 1997
�'''�u�"ru ���s
GnwnN� B. Gnaaerr Ja.
SECRFTARY
�(J,�T -,.s co�-,sv��'-,-f
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab —�^ 'a ��
4401 Reedy Creek Road J�%"� �� �
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager � ����'%(�
Planning and Environmental Bran�7li� �
SUBJECT: Asheboro Southern Bypass from US 64 east of Asheboro to US 64
west of Asheboro, Randolph County. TIP No. R-2536, State
Project No. 8.1571401, Federal Project No. NHF-64(19).
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways, North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is beginning planning and environmental studies for the
US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass in Randolph County, TIP Project R-2536. Your input is
needed in this eazly stage of the process so that we may fully evaluate the beneficial and adverse
impacts of the proposed improvements.
A meeting to discuss the scope of the study has been scheduled. Details about this meeting and a
project description are provided below. Some background information about the project study
area is also included to assist in your review.
Scopin� Meeting
A meeting to receive input from state and federal reviewing agencies and local officials has been
scheduled for Thursday, August 28, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. in the Transportation Building located at
1 South Wilmington Street in downtown Raleigh.
The meeting is tentatively scheduled for the Boazd Room (Room 150) on the first floor. Please
R.S.V.P. by Wednesday, July 30 by calling the toll-free telephone number (1-800-206-1373)
which has been established for this project. Check the hotline after July 30 for updated
information on the meeting.
��
■r

�a
Project Descriptfion
The proposed project is located south of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County in the western
piedmont region. E�ibit 1 sliows the project study area on the Randolph USGS Quadrangle
map.
The Asheboro Southern Bypass will be a four-lane, divided, controlled-access freeway extending
on new location from US 64 east of Asheboro to US 64 west of Asheboro. The project also
includes a new access road to the North Carolina Zoological Park. This access road will be a
four-lane, divided, controlled-access freeway on new location connecting the Asheboro Southern
Bypass with the existing NC 159 Spur leading into the zoo.
Potential interchange locations which will be evaluated include, from east to west, NC 42,
NC 159, the new zoo access road, US 220 Business, US 220 Bypass, SR 1144 (Mack Road),
and NC 49. Traffic studies will be conducted to determine where access to the Asheboro
Southern Bypass should be provided.
The proposed project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program as
Project No. R-2536. As stated in the TIP, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2002 and construction is scheduled after fiscal year 2004.
Background Information
The following information was collected from currently available maps, plans, and Geographical
Information System (GIS) databases. This information is subject to change based on the results
of project-related studies.
Mappin�. As shown on Exhibit 1, the project study area is located entirely within the Randolph
USGS Quadrangle. Exhibit 2 shows the project location relative to GIS data currently available
in the NCDOT's database. GIS data is on order from Randolph County.
Existin� US 64 Corridor. US 64 is part of the Intrastate System established by the General
Assembly. US 64 connects Asheboro with Pittsboro and Raleigh to the east and Lexington to the
west. Just east of Asheboro, US 64 is a four-lane, divided, controlled-access freeway. Land
outside the city limits is generally undeveloped. Through Asheboro, US 64 is an undivided
roadway with no access control. Within the city, the road is lined with businesses such as
retail/commercial shops, car dealerships, gas stations, and restaurants. West of Asheboro, US 64
is a two-lane rural highway. and the land is generally undeveloped.
Land Use. Land uses in the project study area are generally suburban/rural residential. During a
recent site visit, many new residential subdivisions were observed under construction in the
study area. Portions of Uwharrie National Forest are located near the project study area, as
shown in E�ibit 2. Encroachment onto these National Forest lands are not anticipated. A

prominent feature in the study area is Harvey's Mountain, located just west of the existing zoo
access road intersection with NC 159. The steep slopes of this mountain are expected to be
a�oided by all studied build alternatives.
Wetlands. Wetlands as defined on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps are shown in Exhibit 2. Wetlands are primarily confined to stream banks
and relatively narrow floodplain areas.
Streams and Rivers. The Little River and several streams are located in the project study area.
These watercourses are listed below, generally from east to west in the project study area.
Streams in the Project Study Area
Stream Name
Gabriels Creek
Squirrel Creek
North Prong Richland Creek
Vestal Creek
Tantraugh Branch
Little River
Taylors Creek
Cable Creek
Primary System
Deep River
Richland Creek - Deep River
Richland Creek - Deep River
Richland Creek - Deep River
Richland Creek - Deep River
Little River
Uwharrie River
Uwharrie River
Water Resources. The study area spans portions of the Yadkin River Basin (Subbasins 9 and
15) and the Cape Fear River Basin (Subbasin 9). The boundary between these two river basins
runs north/south through the middle of Asheboro. There is one water supply watershed in the
vicinity whose upper reaches are south of US 64 (See E�chibit 2).
Endangered and Threatened Species. There are two Endangered species and three federal
Species of Special Concern listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Randolph County as
of May 2, 1997. These species are listed below.

4
Protected Species I.isted for Randolph County
Common Name
Cape Fear shiner
Schweinitz's sunflower
.....................�--...................--�--.................
Brook floater
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod
Atlantic pigtoe
Scientific Name
Notropis mekistocholas
Helianthus schweinitzii
.....................................................................
Alasmidonta varicosa
Dactyloctythere peedeensis
Fusconaia masoni
Status
Endangered
Endangered
.....................................................................
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern
According to the Natural Heritage Program files, there are no recorded occurrences of these
species within the project study area.
Hazardous Materials. There is one Superfund site in the project area. This site, Ulah Battery
Lead Reclaiming, is located just west of the US 220 Bypass and north of SR 1114.
Summarv
The scoping meeting for the US 64 Asheboro Southern Bypass has been scheduled for Thursday,
August 28, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. Please R.S.V.P. by calling 1-800-206-1373 by Wednesday,
July 30.
If you cannot attend the scoping meeting, please provide your input in writing by August �,
1997 to:
Mr. James Buck, P.E.,
Project Engineer
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611.
HFV/plr
Attachments: Exhibits 1 and 2
cc: NCDOT Distribution List
Mr. Ronald Hairr, Rusf Environment & Infrastructure
File

1 al
��,. � �.� � �n� � � � �'.. ' � ��
� � _ _ 'F � --� �— � '� .� / � �
��� � ��. � � . � ��� �� � � � f � .. � � �1.. � C���A
;, "; �� � �`� � � � �` , ` � � � � � � Prellminary T.I.P. Alignmant
� " % I � � ~ f� `�,. 1 � ; . . . . . . . . . Project Study Area
, � �'`
. : , ;;� � �
' � � A ' ti i I F- " � % � i � �� • • • • • •
f J � �
/� �. �---. . ,
��,,� �` � � � �: a f , � " � �a � Potentiallnterchangel.ocation
�,i. � � -._ , �, Y'��'. � L, � • 1 : � Patentfei �irade Separation
� �� .� � i � •
, .
�� � a ` , �°r. '�`--� � r'-� � � �� 2ep4 : �°°°°°°�`�° NC Zoological Park
� ;; , ,- � �'
� � ; �� % � i r , � 1 � I P�imary Road
� _ �, � �p �... _ i wi% ... .� ... ��� a � , r
,�fl7 I
_� �` l8'heboro , � �
�� ��� /,��' j �, � �t ;���� e,1 :
4; � / , # "� _ , �' N� �} � � Hfisboricai Structures
' 1 � �'1,- '/ � � ' " �� ?� �"�i � ���_ / :� �` ����i � ; = Netural Heritege ElemeMs
� _� __ � �� � � � � � ' 7�; , ��� � ��
, ml{ I , / .r i + ��,', . � `/ � r` `�� � � ' ,� Surfece Wetor Intekes
; `� ' � � Solid Wast� Fecilitiss
; �I � /�,-� „_.xss=*�- ,, , � _ � � ! � � -�'
� .-� �� ♦ \ t � Netional Pollution Diaohargs
NI � �� � '� � r� ' , . �� :�
��. ¢I ` � �� � ,� �z � � i � ��� Elimination Sftes
8R1193 '�t _ . - i J Yr "
� � t ,.i � �n � . I � / �, � � HHle�OUs WeSt@ S��
,--
�� � � �� i� ; ��' � V�'�;�� � t �-�� ' � �� � � :• ��: Groundwatsr Ineide�s
} �� : _� ,�� _�� � V �� � ,v : ..-.,�-�.-�.-
i � _i � , - � ,� � � � ♦ � � . Railroeds
� i ' ,� � ` ���- ,°� - �-'-,� � - � a � ` � Major Stresms
�/ � • `�Q _ . , m _ - � �� � , g , � • '�' National Wetland Inventory
� :. � d�];_ � � I_ A�� ��- � � ♦ .. � :
" -- .�.. ;' - .,
: _ ��"- �t � � _ ,. eo �` 'H _ ,� _ �-" �i � ��r ' ' ; . � Municfpal Boundaries
� �� h , ��'ti ,,a� ;` r . _ _ , _ � �p'��,v _ O� � i Fedaral Lend Ownership
•`=-� ,� ,�.�r�,� . ` r 1/ . �����' '�'„'a . � � Historical Di�tricb
. !
, :• �-� /�-��way , -s�,� , � 4 �` ; � — Superfimd Skes
c�
,� �
� � � m ( : � � � `�; ' : r � _ := VYildiffe Resouree
' Commisslon �iamelands
L-' �;. �e � / -- v c � l„� _ . .
���� ,�_"�, r 0 ' k - 'g,{� ♦ �' : ' � Water Supply Weteraheds
•� �: . ♦ : �,yta�.il i y : � ti` � '. _ �'.�"'"��"r� Yadkin Subbasin 9
�•�� ��� , ^ .Aw � .��, ♦ —`__ r � , �� _ \ p _ . . — Yadkin Subbasln 16 —N
�_ _. ��'. ' a� �rI 0 •�;����� '. 1• c... .. .. ._-
__ •,�� �� ,. `,�9 � . � - } . �"� Cape Fsar 8�bbssin 8
_ �/ �- . � . ; . ... . .... ..
\ y'k `i . — ••�� , l•' ,_ .._ � _ . _. _ _. � � � �
�u- i � • j'� F .�� � � � �C • � i XI
. e,yA�` T J
%Y i •�� � ���� ��, � � #� i. n(�d��)V .,��J�9 TOpOpnphbD�LiWroK
� � � �
� '����• •���• •�e����N�• �,� ��, �� 2NCZOO •�@,%` CepyripM1667-19Y7
sev s, ~ � �� A�nrlaan DiOftal Grmyraphy. Ine.,
; �� � _:>; eY' � � � • vu .",C . ol Ars.. APPMton�
i . 4 , ouMeln ;. � 1`1 � w�I�aaWiunBa t4.
.• ' / ... � - . . ... � .: : ' : -� �� 8 j Bouro� fer 6uu Zooloyfed PMc tnu�
�� �1vYharrie i '� � R � UBG6 Cuedra�gb: Ash�boro, N.C. 0.6 0 0.6 1 1.6 2 2.8 �
i___ _ ,, N6tiOne� I . � •o�a'���••.•�• , �� Nur�e�ioGplothvd�ts:
� � Forest , i � � Pfotted July 76.�w� 98� ot inmpwutbn.
\Y� �. – - e �;�� �i: r'� —
�_ PROJECT 8TUDY AREA
NORTH CAROlINA R-26S6 US 64 (ASHEBORO SOUTHERN BYPASS►
�' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RANDOLPH COUNTY
�
EXHIBIT 2

I' �
i I;
,�-as3�
;:. �? �r-�- ��� -
:. 1_ S-,� ` _
;,: �� _ _
. �� � y� �T
� ,,
��a��9 �
;�,.
;�;��� �.u:�� �� �'�,1�T,�� _ i
,
� _ a ��r.�.�,� �-0-�-
;;: -E�� ✓�US� 4.,� /�n�
��
:;; � � � � - � `�`x��
D�' �' �T
;. �
,,:
�
�.
,
,,,
';: � oT �. �e- � � vs � v � � 1�..�.-
i;:� � .� �..,/��C��-e- 1999— aoo�
:'::�' � �� �� �� _
;
%� �
,�'(�dw ac�a
;;,
:;�.�� � y
� a�
�,., �,, � � --.P�.,�/ � �c.�-�d ���
�i:Gl/'-�a,��Z�- G_,¢.,�e_ � /G� c�rvr,c.�
i' ���,.2� ���.c.�.o � Ge
;
ii! c� �e a.�,,� �� �- -�ea,s ; b% G/�-en-,a--��.s

i�
'�'
�,
�,:
��:
� �
,,; _
��, i � r,�e,�-� ��,.� �e4 � � 1��
;;�
i't� 6� �� n,,a�Jl G�� _�_ CE�
;;
�','
ii;
.���� �������-�v�e. c�-���� �
,�!i D��-�
;
�,i � � �
ii{:��y� r
��; � -��.�� -
4Gj
;i; �
n
, �
;'; �
���z�e��x��
� ���� ���� �
�.�� - _ � ��n�
� ( - S 36-� _
;.-,� � � �� -- C�-�,�
,, �-�-� a o oY
;;
' ��� N� �� �.� �
;; �-�
� _ __ _
' `� �-�- ��-
Y� � �"���-- �i �
,, �
� � �� � .. � � � � � .. . . _ . _ _
!! c� ll� / S-9, '
.', � .�2c�.�i � �� `'��-�
�
� � . � � � , � �� �- , ,
.� ' i � • , � / �. �, � /
� � , � ; / /• ' <,� • � , � •.
r..-� /V`uo P-1Q_eL. �l GtT s�,�t,.q� �C/U %%� `Y�� _
L��' O v�9 �''i2/��f/I�P
��� ���� vL
/���� '

-- ---- -------- --- - ---- -- - ----- -- -- -- -- --
-- --_ - - -
-- - -
' �-�T_�--� � ` �.-�-� -� --
__ --�-� � �-- - __ --_ _
- -- - - ��- - ��� , ���`'
- ---; -- . _ �� � �,� ��-�_o_ c�. - - _.
_- - ---
-- --- _ _--' --- - - _ � _� � -- �f- �-�-------
--
, , �-------- --- �- �'�- - - --- --- ---
�
,_
-_- �- __ -;��- - - -_ _ ___
�i��� �,�.., o J
-
.
__ _ - _ � - -� _� ��-_,� ._ _ - - -�1�� �.--- - -
�
=-- - - -- - t _-- -- - -- -- -
i
-�- __ - -- _ _ __ ----- ----- - - - - -
-- - - - -- --
-
- - __ __ � _ _ - - -- __ _
_ - - - -- -_ _ _---
� -- - ---
- - _- ---- - - - - --
, -- - _ _ _- --- -
, .
�
- - --- --___ _--- -
�- - -- - ---- --_ _
-- - -- � --- --- -------
_-- -- - - -
--- -- -- _ _ - -
_
;
-- i - --_ - -- - - -- --.
' ---- -- ----- - - --.__ _.
-- - -- - - ---- --------- --
-- - -- ------
,
- - -- - -- -- --
--- --___----- -- ---
--
__ -- - ---__ - - --
- - -- � -- -- ---- -_ --- - - ---- -- --
, - --
--_ _- - --- � -- - ---
- --- -- -- - -
______ __.__ _ ____ __-_
_
ii
___. _ _ "_ ._..."'_ '1_ __. _.._'__"__ _..-__ .-"'-______. _. _"__ -.-__ ____ _______ .. .
i
�
I
_ ___ ___. ._". __- �- __..___.._."_____- - .
_. __'.__'- _ - __. __-__ _.'".-_-_".'.__.-__'____ __
_. __ . _.._. .__. .
�
�
_-_ _..___"....__ . ___._'_-_-_ __.-_ _. .._. _. _._
._-.- . _ _ .. ___.._--_. __._. . _..'__"__..
.___ _. _... _ . . _
_ .____' -__.._ _ _. _ _..._"" .__ . . _ . .