R-2220

US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
From Just East of the 1-85 Bypass Interchange
Near Lexington
To Just West of the US 220 Interchange
Near Asheboro
1 DAVIDSON AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES
State Project No. 6.609001T
TIP No. R-2220
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
In Compliance ;with the,
North Carolina Environmental Policy'Act
For Further Information, Contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
' P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
APPROVED:
Val
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

1
i
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

f
1
1
1
1
1
1

t
u

1

t

1
1

1

Vice President
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
From Just East of the 1-85 Bypass Interchange
Near Lexington
To Just West of the US 220 Interchange
Near Asheboro
DAVIDSON AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES
State Project No. 6.609001T
TIP No. R-2220
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
December 1991
Documentation Prepared By:
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
Raleigh, North Carolina
"-•; SEAL

t

1
1

1
11

I
n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary vii
Chapter 1: Basis for Proposed Action 1-1
Purpose and Need for Action 1-1
Characteristics of the Existing Roadway and Setting 1-3
Traffic Movement 1-4
Transportation Plan 1-9
' Historical Resume and Project Status 1-9
Chapter 2: Description of Proposed Action 2-1
' Design Criteria 2-1
Description of Roadway Improvements 2-1
Description of Interchange Improvements 2-6
1 Traffic Movement 2-7
Cost Estimates 2-10
Construction Procedures 2-11
Chapter 3: Alternatives 3-1
No-Action Alternative 3-1
Transit Alternative
Location Alternatives 3-1
3-1
Interchange Alternatives 3-4
Improvement of the Existing Two Lanes Alternatives 3-8
Use of Existing Right-of-Way Only Alternative 3-8
Five Lane Section Near Asheboro Alternative 3-8
Postponement of the Proposed Action 3-9
i Chapter 4: Land Use Planning 4-1
Existing Land Use 4-1
Land Use Plans and Zoning 4-2
' Community Services 4-3
Farmland 4-5
' Chapter 5: Environmental Considerations and the Probable Impact
of the Proposed Action 5-1
Community 5-1
Land Resources and Terrestrial Ecology 5-11
Water Resources and Aquatic Ecology 5-18
Protected Species 5-25
Air Quality 5-26
Noise 5-34
Cultural Resources 5-48
Construction 5-48
Chapter 6: Comments and Coordination 6-1
Public Involvement 6-1
Government Agency Involvement 6-1
Chapter 7: List of Preparers 7-1
' iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Appendix A: Proposed Action and Affected Environment A-1
Appendix B: Correspondence B-1
Appendix C: Relocation Report C-1
Appendix D: Farmland D-1
Appendix E: Potential Hazardous Waste and Underground
Storage Tank Sites E-1
Appendix F: Wildlife Species for Which Suitable Habitat May
Exist Within the US 64 Project Area F-1
Appendix G: Literature Cited G-1
iv

LIST OF TABLES

1 1990 and 2010 Levels of Service
1-7
2 Accident Rates 1-10
3 Key Roadway Design Criteria 2-2
4 2010 Levels of Service 2-8
5 Comparison of Location Alternatives 3-2
6 US 64/NC 49 Interchange Alternatives Comparison 3-6
7 Prime and Statewide Important Farmland Encroachment 4-6
8 Determination of Randolph County Soil Associations
as Prime or Statewide Important 4-8
9 Population 5-2
10 Population Characteristics 5-3
11 Employment By Industry 5-7
12 Plant Community and Habitat Encroachment Associated
with US 64 Improvements 5-15
13 Acres of Wetland Taken 5-21
14 Protected Species Recorded in the Vicinity of US 64 and Impact Potential 5-27
15 Worst-Case CO Concentrations at US 64/NC 49/US 220 Interchange 5-35
16 Hearing: Sounds That Bombard Us Daily 5-38
17 Noise Abatement Criteria 5-39
18 Noise Measurement Findings 5-41
19 Identified Land Uses Along US 64 Expected to
Experience Traffic Noise Levels Approaching or
Exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria 5-43
20 Number of Land Uses Expected to Experience
Traffic Noise Levels Approaching or Exceeding
the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria 5-46
' 21 Maximum Extent of 67 dBA for Five Roadway Sections Along US 64 5-47
22 List of Preparers 7-2

LIST OF FIGURES

1
2 Project Area
Traffic Volumes 1-2
1-5
3 Typical Section 2-3
4 Alternatives Comparison Road Segments 3-3
5 US 64/NC 49 Interchange Alternatives 3-5
6 Community Services 4-4
A-1 Proposed Action A-1
A-2 Affected Environment A-19

11

I

[i

5

Il
r

v,

C

1

11

SUMMARY
PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes that US 64 be widened to a
four lane divided highway from just east of the 1-85 Bypass interchange near Lexington to
just west of the US 220 interchange near Asheboro. The length of the project area is
21.5 miles. The two opposing sets of travel lanes would be divided by a 46-foot grassed
median. A 10-foot outside shoulder (2-foot paved) and a 6-foot inside shoulder (2-foot
paved) would be provided for both directions of travel. The existing two lanes would be
improved, where required, so that the entire roadway meets the project's 60 mph design
speed.
The interchanges at NC 49 and NC 109 would be improved. Two-way ramps would be
eliminated. Acceleration lanes would be provided or their length increased. The
weaving distance between ramps serving the NC 49 interchange and the US 220
interchange would be increased. Direct access to US 64 from adjoining land uses
between the NC 49 and the US 220 interchanges would be eliminated. The clearance of
the NC 49 bridge over US 64 would be increased. The capacity of the ramps serving
movements between NC 49 and US 64 would be increased.
The total cost of the proposed action, including right-of-way and construction is
estimated to be $51.9 million. The estimated cost in the 1991-1997 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) is $45.8. The proposed action would be funded using the
State of North Carolina Highway Trust Fund.
PURPOSE AND NEED
Within the US 64 corridor between Asheboro and Lexington, the following needs exist:
• Increased roadway and interchange capacity.
• Improved sight distance.
• Reduction of potentially conflicting traffic movements and provision of increased
acceleration lane length in the NC 49/US 220 and NC 109 interchange areas.
• Increased bridge clearance height at the NC 49 bridge over US 64.
Based on these needs the following purposes have been identified for the proposed
action:
Serve design year traffic (2010) at a level of service that permits efficient vehicle
operation and reduces user costs.
Improve roadway and interchange characteristics that increase the potential for
accidents.
vii

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed action would have an overall positive impact on traffic movement. The
proposed action would serve design year traffic (2010) along this segment of US 64 at a
level of service that permits efficient vehicle operation and reduces user costs. Roadway
and interchange characteristics that increase the potential for accidents would be
improved.
Principal environmental impacts would be:
• Relocation of 62 families and 20 businesses. ,
• A 29-acre loss of prime and statewide important farmland in Davidson County,
and the maximum loss of 47 acres in Randolph County, ,
• Loss of 497 acres of wildlife habitat, however none of the habitat types affected
are rare in the area, and the amount of loss would be small in relation to the total '
area of the habitat type along the corridor.
• Fifty-five wetlands areas would be affected. The average wetland encroachment
per site would be 0.18 acre. The largest encroachment at any one site would be
1.16 acres.
• Habitat of the type used by protected species occurs in the project area, however
it is not likely that any protected species would be adversely affected. No
threatened, endangered, significantly rare, or unique habitats were observed in
the project area. No new growth corridors would be opened which could ,
enhance public access to significant habitat areas.
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria would be
approached or exceeded at 70 residences. Forty-four of the 70 receptors would
have noise levels that approach or exceed the criteria with or without the
proposed action. Noise abatement would not be feasible since a non-access
control facility is proposed.
• There are no historic architecture or archaeological resources listed in the
National Register of Historic Places within the proposed action's area of potential
effect.
• Traffic along US 64 could experience brief periods of delay and disruption during
construction. Steps would need to be taken to ensure traffic delay is minimized,
air pollutants are controlled, waste materials are properly disposed, natural
resources are protected, and erosion is controlled.

MITIGATION COMMITMENTS
A relocation program for residents and businesses displaced by the proposed would be
conducted in accordance with the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5
through 133-17). Relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and if
appropriate, relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement would be ,
provided.

viii

L?

?L
J

L

At each wetland affected except one, the loss of wetlands would be less than one acre.
Thus, a specific wetland mitigation program is. not deemed necessary. During final
design, however, the design of the proposed action at affected wetland areas would be
re-assessed based on more detailed mapping. Best management practices would be
implemented to minimize wetland losses.
Best management practices and design would be used to minimize minor adverse water
quality impacts.
The construction contractor would be required to meet the requirements of NCDOTs
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures (January 1, 1990), including those
related to:
• Traffic maintenance.
• Burning debris and dust control.
• Disposal of excess excavated material outside the right-of-way, however
significant disposal activity is not expected.
Natural resource protection.
An Erosion Control Management and Maintenance Plan would be prepared during
design and carried out during construction. The plan should comply with the North
Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A variety of road and interchange improvement options were considered in developing
the proposed action. Alternatives considered were:
Widening Location Alternatives. The relative merits of widening to the north or
south of the existing two lanes were compared. Overall, it was concluded that a
combination. of northside and southside widening would involve fewer community
and environmental impacts.
Improvement of the Existing Two-Lane Road Alternatives. The proposed
action includes both the construction of two new lanes and the improvement of
the existing two lanes so that they meet the project design criteria. The options of
only improving the existing two lanes (no widening) or construction of new lanes
without improving the existing two lanes were considered. Adding two new
lanes and not improving the existing two lanes would have a positive effect on the
capacity of the highway but would not fully address the safety need resulting from
substandard sight distances. In addition, drainage and grade complications
result when the two directions of travel are not at the same elevation. Improving
only the existing two lanes would respond to the existing road's safety problems
but would have no positive effect on the capacity of the highway.
• Use of Existing Right-of-Way Only Alternative. The proposed action would
require the purchase of additional right-of-way on both sides of the existing right-
of-way. When the existing right-of-way was acquired in the late 40s and early 50s,
a future four lane road, with a narrower typical section than that now proposed,
was assumed; thus, the existing right-of-way is generally not wide enough to

ix

accommodate the proposed typical section (four lanes with a 46-foot median).
The proposed section is safer and better drained than the one planned in the 40s.
Its wider median accommodates two inner shoulders, additional drainage
capacity, and greater separation between the two opposing directions of travel.
Its greater outside shoulder width permits shallower drainage slopes.
Five-Lane Section Near Asheboro Alternative. The Asheboro Thoroughfare
Plan recommends that US 64 be widened to five lanes (four lanes with a
continuous left turn lane) for the 2.56 miles west of NC 49. Along this section of
road, the proposed action recommends a 46-foot median rather than a
continuous turn lane; thus, access across the highway generally would be limited
to state roads. Limiting turning opportunities to intersections with other roads is
considered essential if US 64 is to meet the speed, safety, and mobility objectives
of the North Carolina Intrastate System.
Interchange Alternatives. Several alternative interchange configurations were
examined for NC 109 and NC 49 during the alternatives study. The proposed
action is considered to be an economical design that would serve future traffic
needs in a safe manner.
Postponement was rejected because it would result in steadily worsening traffic flow and
accident conditions as traffic volumes continue to rise. Costs would rise and project
impacts on urban development would worsen. Transit is not considered to be a practical
alternative since the majority of the project area is rural and the project serves intrastate,
as well as local travelers. The No Action Alternative was rejected because, while it would
avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from this
project, there would be no positive effect on the capacity or safety of the highway.
COORDINATION
As a part of preparation of the Environmental Assessment, comments concerning effects
of the proposed action on the environment were requested from appropriate federal,
state, and local agencies and officials by a scoping letter. These agencies and officials
are:
Local
• City of Asheboro.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
Town Manager.
• Davidson County.
- Board of Education.
- Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
- County Manager.
- Director of Planning.
• City of Lexington.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
Town Manager*.
• Piedmont Triad Council of Governments.
• Randolph County.
Board of Education*.

1

Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
County Manager.
Director of Planning and Development*.
North Carolina
Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse.
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History*.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Division of Environmental Health*.
- Division of Forest Resources*.
Division of Land Resources*.
Division of Parks and Recreation*.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation*.
Division of Water Resources*.
Planning and Assessment*.
Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services.
Department of Public Instruction, Division of School Planning*.
Department of Transportation.
- Bicycle Coordinator*.
- Division of Aviation*.
- Division Engineer, Division 8*.
- Division Engineer, Division 9*.
- Geotechnical Unit.
- Hydrographics Unit.
- Landscape Unit.
- Location and Survey Unit*.
- Right of Way Branch*.
- Statewide Planning*.
- Traffic Engineering Branch.
Winston-Salem Regional Office*.
Wildlife Resources Commission*.
t Federal
• Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District*.
• Coast Guard, 5th Coast Guard District*.
• Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Review Branch.
• Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office*.
• Geological Survey, District Chief, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist*.
In the above list, an asterisk next to a name indicates that a response was received and
is included in Appendix B. No significant problems or objections were raised in the
comments.
Data pertaining to the definition of the affected environment were sought from local,
state, and federal agencies. Two information workshops were held to provide the public
an informal opportunity to discuss preliminary study findings with the study team and
provide their input.

I w

ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
It is anticipated that the conditions set forth in the US Army Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)] would need to be met.
BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in this document,
the North Carolina Department of Transportation has determined that no significant
adverse effects on the quality of the human environment would result from the proposed
action.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information concerning the proposed action and the assessment of
environmental impacts can be obtained by contacting:
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
xii

J

1

t Chapter 1
BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
US 64 was constructed in the early 1920s. It was rebuilt with a 22- to 24-foot pavement
width in the late 1940s and early 1950s. A 150-foot-wide right-of-way was purchased to
provide for its eventual improvement to four lanes with a 26-foot median. Since the
road's construction, no improvements other than resurfacing have been performed.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes the widening of US 64 from two to four lanes with a 46-foot median from just
east of the 1-85 Bypass interchange near Lexington to just west of the US 220
interchange near Asheboro. The existing lanes would be improved where they do not
meet project design criteria. The project area lies within Randolph and Davidson
Counties and is approximately 21.5 miles in length. The project area is shown in Figure
1. The proposed action would be funded using the State of North Carolina Highway
Trust Fund.
' PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The following road improvement needs exist along US 64 in the project area:
• Increased roadway and interchange capacity. Congestion presently occurs on
1 US 64 and at its interchanges during peak periods. Without improvements, the
level of service on this segment of US 64 would continue to worsen.
1 Improved sight distance. The existing vertical alignment does not provide sight
distances considered adequate by current design standards.
• Reduction of potentially conflicting traffic movements and provision of increased
acceleration lane length in. the NC 49/US 220 and NC 109 interchange areas.
The high frequency of accidents at these two interchanges is largely attributable
to turning and merging vehicles.
• Increased bridge clearance height at the NC 49 bridge over US 64. Accidents at
the NC 49 interchange have included trucks striking the bridge over US 64.
r The roadway, traffic and level of service, and accident characteristics that reflect these
needs are described in greater detail in the following sections. Base on these needs, the
following purposes have been identified for the proposed action:
• It should serve design year traffic (2010) along this segment of US 64 at a level of
service that permits efficient vehicle operation and reduces user costs.
( It should improve roadway and interchange characteristics that increase the
potential for accidents.

1-1

LEXINGTON
,2

ASHEBORO
SCALE IN MILES ASHEBORO
SOUTH
0 1 2 3 4
FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA
F
1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND SETTING
This section of US 64 is classified as a Minor Arterial in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System. It is a Federal-Aid Primary route (designated FAP 46-1) and is part
of the North Carolina Intrastate System.
L Roadway
The existing roadway consists of two lanes with 22 to 24 feet of pavement and eight- to
ten-foot unpaved shoulders. The right-of-way width is 150 feet. The existing roadway
centerline is approximately 25 feet from the northern edge of right-of-way.
The existing horizontal alignment is good with no curves. greater than three degrees.
The existing vertical alignment does not, however, meet the proposed action design
criteria in many places. The terrain is extremely rolling, with grades up to 6.5 percent.
' There is no control of access to abutting properties. - The speed limit along the majority
this section of US 64 is 55 mph. Near the Asheboro urban area, the speed limit is 35
mph.
' Intersections and Interchanges
Numerous roads intersect US 64. Intersections with two major roads are grade-
separated, NC 49/Albemarle Road (SR 1713) near Asheboro and NC 109 in Davidson
County. The NC 49 interchange consists of two bidirectional and two single-direction
ramps. The NC 109 interchange has four bidirectional ramps.
NC 109 is a two-lane road. NC 49 from the southwest is two lanes at the interchange,
and continues east combined with US 64. A short section (approximately 0.4 miles) of
NC 49 that is 0.4 miles west of the interchange is currently four lanes. Albemarle Road is
also two lanes at the interchange, but widens to four lanes less than 1,000 feet north of
the interchange. The four lanes continue into Asheboro.
At its eastern end, the proposed action would terminate just prior to US 220, which forms
a cloverleaf interchange with US 64.
There are no signalized intersections on this section of US 64. A flashing yellow light
operates at the SR 1418 intersection.
Drainage Structures
The following major drainage structures are along US 64 within the project area:
' Bridges.
Uwharrie River (at station 745+00 on Figure A-1 k).
- Caraway Creek (at station 880+30 on Figure A-11).
- Back Creek (at station 1005+00 on Figure A-1 n).
? ,a

Reinforced concrete box culverts. '
- 91x7' (at station 144+40 on Figure A-1f).
- Four 10'x10' for Brier Creek (at station 472+40 on Figure A-1 g).
- Two 8'x6' (at station 904+20 on Figure A-1 m). '
- 6'x6' (at station 931 +70 on Figure A-1 m).
- Two 6'x7' (at station 1052+80 on Figure A-1o). '
- 8'x7'(at station 1178+00 on Figure A-1 q).
• Reinforced concrete pipes with a diameter in excess of 72 inches.
Two 72" (at station 559+60 on Figure A-1 h).
78" (at station 571 +80 on Figure A-1 h).
Two 72" (at station 850+00 on Figure A-11).
Land Use
Land along the majority of the project is undeveloped and consists of open agriculture '
lands and woodland. Some commercial and industrial uses are dispersed along the
alignment. The greatest concentration occurs near Asheboro. Residential development
is found along the entire route, with small concentrations at Moheta, Walser, and in the ,
vicinity of Asheboro.
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
Traffic Volumes
Figure 2 shows existing and projected annual average daily traffic (ADT) for segments of
US 64 and for intersecting roads carrying more than 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projections were prepared by NCDOT. Existing ADTs range from 5,300 vehicles per day
(vpd) east of NC 109 to 17,300 vpd between NC 49 and US 220 at the eastern end of the
project. Peak hour volumes are 10 percent of the ADTs.
The projected design year (2010) ADTs range between 10,100 vpd and 32,600 vpd at
the corresponding locations. Peak hour volumes are projected to be between 1,010 and
3,260 vph.
NCDOT has determined that trucks comprise 10 percent of traffic.
In the peak hours, the direction of traffic is split approximately 60:40. East of the
Randolph/Davidson County line, 60 percent of the traffic travels east towards Asheboro
in the morning peak period and 40 percent travels west. This split is reversed in the
afternoon peak period. West of the county line, 60 percent of the traffic travels west
toward Lexington in the morning, with the reverse occurring in the afternoon.
All roads intersecting US 64 at-grade, with one exception, are projected to carry less
than 2,000 vpd in the design year. Traffic on SR 1424 is forecasted to be 2,400 vpd. '
The two major roads crossing US 64, NC.49 and NC 109, are grade-separated. Both
roads. currently carry and are projected to carry in the future much higher volumes than
any of the other intersecting roads.
1-4

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O C> C>
?
c? //,,
O C \T
C\F N T C'7 T CV) V
'fl
N LL
a cn ?
C
00 ? ??
T Cr =
LL
CD CD
d °orn °a°,_ d
Cc r O CO N
G T T
R Cn
u
a
?? _
T
CD ° N
N LL
*-? N
et
T
O
d
CD CD
T
m m ° O
tm o CV
d 'a C
i m
L-
A d O _ U_
ZD c p OT ? U C? C?
Z w Ln ° ydlcpusH 1= 1=
:D Z 2t-
0 uospln@Q 0 Q
V
co ?
? L° c a
O C3 Q Q
CD Lol O T C> CD a)
O? I(CMDD M 0 c
L
° T
T
V Q Q
Z O _°
O O
N
O
o LO 0 II it
T
O O
O
-W CD C:) Q
O d p O O V O O
d O N ?[ N LO
J ?
I
¦

Existing Level of Service ,
Existing peak hour levels of service for roadway segments, selected intersections, and
the interchanges are shown in Table 1.
"Level of service" defines the quality of traffic flow. Level of service A is defined as free
flowing traffic. A stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed is level of service B. ,
Level of service C is also considered a stable flow but with more restrictions on speed
and lane changing. Level of service D approaches unstable conditions and passing
becomes extremely difficult. Motorists are delayed an average 75 percent of the time,
and any turn movements cause major disruptions to through traffic. Average speeds, ,
however, can still exceed 50 mph. Level of service E defines the capacity of the
highway. Under level of service E conditions, passing is virtually impossible and speeds
can drop substantially below 50 mph. Heavily congested flow with traffic demand ,
exceeding road capacity is classified as level of service F.
New or upgraded facilities in rural areas in North Carolina are typically designed for level
of service C conditions in the design year. Urban facilities are designed to level of
service D. On rural facilities, interchange elements, with the exception of the lanes
carrying main line through traffic, are designed to level of service D. At unsignalized
intersections, level of service E is considered acceptable on side streets, provided '
adequate capacity exists to store waiting traffic.
The existing peak hour level of service on US 64 is E approaching Asheboro and

Lexington, and D on the rest of the road. Existing peak hour average speeds on US 64 ,
are estimated to be 45 to 50 mph. All intersections with US 64 currently operate at level
of service D or better. Level of service D represents long traffic delays to minor street
traffic; however, excess capacity still exists. Most turning movements at the two '
interchanges operate at an acceptable level of service. Two turning movements at the
NC 49/Albemarle Road interchange operate under level of service E conditions during
peak periods. Very long traffic delays can occur, however the capacity is not exceeded.
2010 Level of Service
Table 1 includes levels of service in 2010. The level of service will decrease on all
roadway segments to between E and F. Level of service F will occur towards the more
congested Asheboro and Lexington ends of the project area. Level of service F
Traffic
acit
d ca
di
d
ffi
h
d
y.
p
ng roa
excee
eman
tra
c
represents heavily congested flow wit ,
speeds in the peak period will typically be below 40 mph on these roadway segments,
and the average speed between Asheboro and Lexington will be below 45 mph.
The intersections will also operate at reduced levels of service. At several minor roads,
level of service F conditions will occur, and there will be insufficient gaps in the US 64
traffic stream to allow vehicles to enter in the peak periods. Extremely long queues and
delays will result, and some motorists may select smaller than usual gaps. This will
increase the risk of collisions. Vehicles waiting on US 64 to turn left into a side street
also will cause major disruptions to through traffic.
il '
y
The intersections of interchange ramps with NC 109 and NC 49 also will be heav
congested in the peak periods. Long queues will be common at the NC 49 interchange
where level of service F conditions will occur. ,

1-6

Table 1: 1990 AND 2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Page 1 of 2
1990 2010
ROADWAY SEGMENT
Segment 1 E F
(1-85 to NC 109)
Segment 2 D E
(NC 109 to County Line)
Segment 3 D E
(County Line to
Uwharrie River Bridge)
Segment 4 D E
(Uwharrie River Bridge to
Back Creek Bridge)
Segment 5 E F
(Back Creek Bridge to NC 49)
AT-GRADE
INTERSECTION OF
US64&:
SR 2229/2015/2012 D E
(Hill Mine Rd./Smith Rd.)
SR 2266 C E
(Hannerville Rd.)
SR 1344 B D
(Old US 64)
SR 1408 C F
(Hoover Hill Rd.)
SR 1328/1418 D F
(Sawyerville Church Rd./
Spencer Rd.)
SR 1424 D F
(Old Farmer Rd.)
1-7
Table 1: 1990 AND 2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Page 2 of 2
1990 2010
INTERCHANGE OF
US 64&NC109
Western Intersection A B
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 109 Ramps)
Eastern Intersection A B
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 109 Ramps)
Northern Intersection
(NC 109 Mainline and B E
US 64 Westbound Ramps)
Southern Intersection C E
(NC 109 Mainline and
US 64 Eastbound Ramps)
INTERCHANGE OF US 64 & NC 49
Western Intersection B F
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 49 Ramps)
Northern Intersection E F
(SR 1713 and
US 64 Westbound Ramps)
Southern Intersection E F
(NC 49 Mainline and
US 64 Eastbound Ramps)
US 64 Weave C D
(NC 49 to US 220)
NOTE: All analyses based on traffic volume data prepared by NCDOT.
1-S

The proposed widening of this segment of US 64 is included in the 1991 to 1997 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (December 1990). It is a North Carolina
Intrastate System project. Design work is scheduled to begin in 1995; right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in 1997; and construction will follow right-of-way
acquisition.

1
1

fl

1-11

E

1

11

1

11
u
Chapter 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes that US 64 be widened to a
four lane divided highway from just east of the 1-85 Bypass interchange near Lexington to
just west of the US 220 interchange near Asheboro. The length of the project area is
21.5 miles. The opposing travel lanes would be divided by a 46-foot grassed median. A
10-foot outside . shoulder (2-foot paved) and a 6-foot inside shoulder (2-foot paved)
would be provided for both directions of travel. The existing two lanes would be
improved, where required, so that the entire roadway meets the project's 60 mph design
speed.
The interchanges at NC 49 and NC 109 would be improved. Two-way ramps would be
eliminated. Acceleration lanes would be provided or their length increased. The
weaving distance between ramps serving the NC 49 interchange and the US 220
interchange would be increased. Direct access to US 64 from adjoining land uses
r between the NC 49 and the US 220 interchanges would be eliminated. The clearance of
the NC 49 bridge over US 64 would be increased. The capacity of the ramps serving
movements between NC 49 and US 64 would be increased.
' The proposed improvements are shown in Figure A-1. This figure can be found in
Appendix A.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 3 shows key project design criteria. The proposed action would be designed in
accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) standards. The recommended typical section is illustrated in Figure 3.
' DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
' Additional Lanes
The location of the proposed two additional 12-foot lanes are illustrated in Figure A-1 in
Appendix A. In general, it is proposed that the two new lanes be placed to the south of
the existing two lanes. For approximately 4.7 miles of the 21.5-mile project length (20
percent) it is proposed that the additional two lanes be placed to the north of the existing
lanes. A comparison between the proposed location for the additional two lanes and the
opposite location is presented below under "Other Alternatives Considered." In general,
the proposed location was found to be the most reasonable approach to minimizing
displacement, wetland loss, and utility relocation. In-addition, since the existing right-of-
way is wider to the south, the need for new right-of-way is reduced when widening to the
south.
Reconstruction of Existing Lanes
Sections of the existing roadway do not meet the stopping sight distance design criteria
' for the proposed action. This is of greatest concern at hill crests where turns are made
2-1
Table 3: KEY ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Element Design Criteria
Peak Hour
Level of Service
Design Speed
Lane Width
Shoulder Width
Minimum Median Width
Maximum Degree of
Horizontal Curve
Maximum Rate of Grade
Minimum Grade
Minimum Stopping
Sight Distance
C
60 mph (55 mph posted)
12'
6' graded (2" paved) inside
10' (2' paved) outside
46'
4°45'
4%
0.2%
525'
2-2
t
W
d
O
J
>V)

O C ? to C
ur 1MLL 1L3d=
I= YO! IN Dd MOM
c0

1M VDA Lmd DIM u
U

i a

O N21
Q
r
C

N ,
r
C u

<D NT
u

N
cD
3 ,

?r I
I
co
N
rr

Sz

N
r
C

N

Tu AIOA ?? C

Imad DIM
O C co
-
O .-

C U C m

3
E M
17 r !, a O
O
r
a
O
Im c
c- cc

W y 4)
.-
a N
.
O W

> sc N
V)
W O
t
onto and off the road. Based on a review of 1940s construction drawings, approximately ,
47 of the 74 curves do not meet the minimum design criteria for stopping sight distance.
The existing road would be reconstructed where necessary so that the entire road, both
the added lanes and the existing lanes meet at least the minimum stopping sight
distance design criteria.
Drainage Structures
New bridges would be built over the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek to
serve the two new lanes. At the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek, the existing bridges
would be retained to serve the existing two lanes. Both of these bridges are listed as
being in fair condition in the latest bridge inspection reports of the NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit. They have no posted weight limitations. Based on their sufficiency '
ratings of 44.0 (at Uwharrie River) and 62.5 (at Caraway Creek), they do not need to be
replaced at this time. At Back Creek, the existing bridge would be replaced so the
vertical road alignment meets minimum sight distance requirements. No additional fill
would be placed into the rivers.
The cross sections of the two bridges retained, with guard rail and no shoulders, would
not be changed. At the Uwharrie River, the embankment (an approximately 200-foot- ,
long fill into the river) serving the existing Uwharrie River bridge would be retained.
Roadway sag vertical curves at the Uwharrie River do not, however, meet minimum site
distance requirements. In order to meet this requirement, the elevation of the

embankment would be increased. Pavement overlays, minor retaining structures, or '
stabilized slopes would be used to avoid placing new fill in the Uwharrie River.
Other existing pipes and box culverts along the project will be extended to provide ,
continued cross-drainage.
Intersection Treatment '
Intersections with US 64 would remain at-grade, with the exception of the NC 49 and NC
109 interchanges. Stop signs would be placed on the cross streets. The angle of

intersection between US 64 and local roads would be improved at the following '
intersections:
• Hannerville Road (SR 2266).
• Bisher Road (SR 1311).
ith R
S
d
SR 1325 ,
m
•
oa
(
).
The following roads would be altered to provide for a four way intersection with US 64: '
• Health Church Road (SR 2012).
• Old US 64 (SR 1344) (at two locations). '
• Hoover Hill Road (SR 1408).
Cl
SR 1417
tr
b D
i
• C
oun
u
r
ve (
).
y
• SR 1346.
2-4

1]
77
u

1?

t
The following roads would be extended so they intersect with other local roads rather
than US 64:
• Smith Farm Road (SR 2015)
- Lee Black Road (SR 2113).
• Blackberry Road (SR 2099)
• Old Farmer Road (SR 1424)
• Fisher Circle
The intersection of Oak Grove Road (SR 1428 and SR 1323) and US 64 would be moved
so that it is outside the area of controlled access for NC 49. Left turn lanes would be
provided at all intersections that include a median crossover.
Median Crossovers
Median crossovers would be provided at all major State Route intersections. For those
intersection that are projected to carry less than 300 vehicles per day in the design year
and are within one-half mile of another intersection, no crossover would be provided.
Also, crossovers would be provided at the Tabernacle Fire Station and at two major
employers, Fletcher Machine Co., Inc. and Superior Wood Products, Inc. The location
of crossovers between intersections at nonresidential land uses that generate large truck
traffic or significant traffic volumes will be refined during preliminary design. Crossovers
would be typically provided. at one-half mile intervals. The crossovers would have a
minimum opening of 40 feet. Left turn lanes provided at crossovers would have a 150-
foot storage lane length and a 250-foot taper. Left turn lanes could be used for U-turns.
The preliminary locations of median crossovers are illustrated in Figure A-1.
Access Control
There would be no control of access except at the NC 109 interchange, the NC 49
interchange, and between the NC 49 and US 220 interchanges. Control of access would
extend 1,200 feet to 1,500 feet beyond the areas where the ramps separate from the
roadway.
Right-of-Way
Approximately 238.7 acres of additional right-of-way would be required for the project.
An approximate location for the new right-of-way is illustrated in Figure A-1. New right-
of-way would be purchased on the side of the road where the widening would occur.
New right-of-way would be purchased on both sides of the road at locations where the
existing road would be upgraded. Some new right-of-way would be required throughout
the project even though right-of-way for two additional lanes was purchased in the late
1940s. The wider right-of-way reflects an NCDOT commitment to build a road that meets
current design and safety standards.
2-5

Restoration of Driveways ,
All driveway connections would be restored with right-turn-in and right-turn-out
movements, except in areas with controlled access. In those areas, alternative access '
to local streets would be provided.
Relocation of Utilities '
No major utilities would need to be relocated.
Design Criteria Exceptions ,
Design criteria exceptions only occur in connection with the continued use of existing
bridges. Existing bridges retained would have approximately two-foot shoulder widths. ,
The embankment approach to the existing Uwharrie River bridge also would retain a
two-foot shoulder. At Caraway Creek, the 0 percent grade on the existing bridge would
be retained. The 0 percent grade on the roadway that is either side of the Caraway
Creek bridge also would be retained. The total distance of 0 percent grade would be
about 2,000 feet.
Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the State highway system would result from the proposed project.
Multiple Use of Space i
There are no plans to use the right-of-way for any purpose other than public utilities,
which would be allowed within certain limitations.
Bikeways
The need for bikeways along the project has not been identified. This section of US 64
does not correspond to a bicycle Transportation Improvement Program request. It is not
apart of NCDOTs Bicycling Highway system. NCDOT has no indication that there are '
unusual levels of bicycling on this roadway.
DESCRIPTION OF INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS I
Both the NC 109 and NC 49 interchanges would be rebuilt, including the demolition and
reconstruction of the existing bridges over US 64. Neither interchange currently meets ,
the project design criteria. Acceleration and deceleration lanes for the new interchanges
would be 600 and 400 feet, respectively. Lane tapers would be approximately 300 feet
long with controlled access extending 1,200 to 1,500 feet beyond the areas where the '
ramps separate from the roadway.
NC 109 Interchange
The existing NC 109 interchange would be replaced with a diamond interchange with '
extended ramps, acceleration/ deceleration lanes, and a new bridge. See Figure A-1 a in
Appendix A. NC 109 would be widened to five lanes through. the interchange to provide
adequate capacity for turning and through movements. Traffic signals would be placed '
at the intersections of the interchange ramps with NC 109. The intersection of US 64
2-6
J

L?

t
and SR 2099, east of the existing interchange, would be relocated to intersect with NC
109 to avoid intersection with a new longer interchange ramp.
NC 49 Interchange
The NC 49 interchange would be rebuilt as a modified diamond with loop ramps in the
northwest (or B) and southwest (or C) quadrants, and no ramp in the northeast (or A)
quadrant. See Figure A-1 r in Appendix A. Ramps would be provided for all movements.
US 64 would follow a new alignment through the interchange. Direct access to US 64
between the NC 49 and US 220 interchanges would be eliminated. Traffic signals would
be placed at the intersections of the interchange ramps with NC 49/Albemarle Road. A
stop sign would be placed at the intersection of the loop ramp in the southwest (or C)
quadrant with US 64.
A large loop (300-foot radius) would be used in the northwest (or B) quadrant to serve
what is forecast to be one of the largest movements through the interchange in the
design year (see "Traffic" in Chapter 5). It would have the capacity needed to keep
southbound US 64 to NC 49 design year traffic from backing up onto US 64. The
smaller loop (150-foot radius) in the southwest (or C) quadrant would serve a minor
movement.
The typical section for NC 49 would be a 5-lane curb and gutter section. The 12-foot
center lane would be a turning lane.
TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
2010 Level of Service
Levels of service in 2010. with the proposed action are shown in Table 4. A four-lane US
64 would serve traffic at level of service A in the peak periods with the exception of the
section nearest Asheboro. Level of service A allows motorists to drive at their desired
speed. Level of service B conditions are predicted for the peak direction of travel near
Asheboro, where drivers on average would be delayed by slower moving vehicles up to
45 percent of the time, but speeds of 55 mph could still be attained.
Existing at-grade intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service without
signalization. Crossing or turning left onto US 64 from a minor street where median
openings are provided would be facilitated by the 46-foot median. The median would
allow motorists to undertake the maneuver in two stages. The lowest expected level of
service for critical movements is E. Motorists would incur very long traffic delays in the
peak period but sufficient capacity would be available.
An acceptable level of service would be achieved at all interchange ramp intersections.
With separate left and right turn lanes (including a double right turn lane for the
westbound US 64 off ramp at NC 49), the signalized intersections with NC 109 and NC
49/Albemarle Road would operate at level of service B in the peak periods. Average
stop delays per vehicle would range between 5 and 15 seconds. The length of weaving
section between the on ramp from NC 49 northbound and the US 64 eastbound off ramp
to southbound US 220 would be approximately 700 feet in length and provide level of
service D operations.

2-7
Table 4: 2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Page 1 of 2
No Action Proposed Action
ROADWAY SEGMENT
Segment 1 F A/A
(1-85 to NC 109)
Segment 2 E A/A
(NC 109 to County Line)
Segment 3 E A/A
(County Line to
Uwharrie River Bridge)
Segment 4 E A/A
(Uwharrie River Bridge to
Back Creek Bridge)
Segment 5 F A/B
(Back Creek Bridge to NC 49)
AT-GRADE
INTERSECTION OF
US64&:
SR 2229/2015/2012 E E
(Hill Mine Rd./Smith Rd.)
SR 2266 E D
(Hannerville Rd.)
SR 1344 D D
(Old US 64)
SR 1408 F D
(Hoover Hill Rd.)
SR 132811418 F D
(Sawyerville Church Rd./
Spencer Rd.)
SR 1424 F E
(Old Farmer Rd.)
2-8
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4: 2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Page 2 of 2
No Action
INTERCHANGE OF
US64&NC109
Western Intersection B
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 109 Ramps)
Eastern Intersection B
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 109 Ramps)
Northern Intersection E
(NC 109 Mainline and
US 64 Westbound Ramps)
Southern Intersection E
(NC 109 Mainline and
US 64 Eastbound Ramps)
INTERCHANGE OF
US64&NC49
Western Intersection F
(US 64 Mainline and
NC 49 Ramps)
Northern Intersection F
(SR 1713 and
US 64 Westbound Ramps)
Southern Intersection F
(NC 49 Mainline and
US 64 Eastbound Ramps)
US 64 Weave D
(NC 49 to US 220)
NOTE: All analyses based on traffic volume data prepared by NCDOT.
*A/A Eastbound/Westbound (p.m. peak period)
* *With Signalization
2-9
Proposed Action
A
A
B**
B**
A
B**
B**
D
1
Accidents '
The proposed action would decrease the rate of accidents at these locations and along
US 64 in general by:
• Eliminating most vehicle turning onto US 64 at the interchange areas. Two-way
ramps would be eliminated. A merge and diverge access arrangement would be
used except for the movement from Albemarle Road to eastbound US 64. This is ,
a minor movement. A stop sign would be placed at the intersection of this ramp
with US 64. This arrangement was incorporated into the proposed action
because space is not available to accommodate an acceleration lane and lane
tapers.
• Increasing the clearance on the NC 49/Albemarle Road bridge.
• Connecting SR 2099 to US 109 and removing its intersection with US 64. The SR
2099 intersection is currently only 200 feet from the intersection of US 64 and a
NC 109 ramp.
• Providing left turn lanes at at-grade intersections, including the SR 1424
intersection, and other median crossovers. The proposed action would also '
make available a second lane on which motorists could pass vehicles turning
right.
• Increasing sight distances for persons turning onto, off, and crossing US 64. In
addition, the median would serve as a means to cross US 64 travel lanes in two
steps.
A decrease in the number of accidents can be expected simply because the road would ,
be widened from two to four lanes with a median. According to the accident data
provided by NCDOT, 41 percent fewer fatal accidents occur on four lane divided roads
than two lane roads. In addition, 29 percent fewer accidents occur in general.
COST ESTIMATES
The estimated costs for the proposed action are:
Construction $34,500,000
Right-of-Way 17.431.500
TOTAL $51,931,500
The construction cost estimate includes all major roadway items, bridges, traffic and
erosion control during construction, and engineering. The right-of-way cost estimate
includes property acquisition and residential, business, and utility relocation.

1
2-10
u
1
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
' Sequence
The following paragraphs briefly describe the general sequence that would be followed
when constructing the improved roadway and the two interchanges. The specific
sequence of events would be determined by the construction contractors.
Roadway
The new lanes would be constructed first. As they are completed, all traffic would be
shifted to the two new lanes and would remain there during re-construction of the vertical
alignment and shoulder improvements on the existing roadway. Temporary driveways
and crossroad connections would be provided as necessary to maintain access
throughout construction. Temporary crossovers between lanes would be used as
necessary to shift traffic between the new and old lanes as construction proceeds.
Construction would be completed with the construction of median crossovers and
permanent crossroad and driveway connections.
t NC 109
Reconstruction of the NC 109 interchange would likely be done in the following steps:
1. SR 2099 would be re-constructed to connect with NC 109. The new ramps would
be built to a point just short of the connection of the existing ramps to NC 109.
¦ 2. NC 109 traffic would be detoured around the bridge by diverting it the existing
ramps. Temporary signals at existing US 64/ramp intersections would be
provided, if warranted. The existing NC 109 bridge would be demolished. The
new bridge and the approach roadways between the bridge and ramp
intersections would be built. The existing ramps would be closed and the new
ramps would be opened. Temporary connections would be used at the NC
109/ramp intersections and westbound US 64/ramp junctures.
3. The new NC 109 bridge would be opened. The NC 109/ramp intersections and
NC 109 approaches to the bridge would be completed. The new US 64
westbound lanes would be completed.
NC 49
Reconstruction of the NC 49 interchange would likely be done in the following steps:
1 1. The new ramp in the northwest (or B) quadrant from NC 49/Albemarle Road to
westbound US 64, the new ramp in the southwest (or C) quadrant from
eastbound US 64 to NC 49/Albemarle. Road (with a temporary connector to
existing US 64), the new ramp in the southeast (or D) quadrant from northbound
1 NC 49/Albemarle Road to eastbound US 64 (with a temporary connector to US
64), the Sherwood Road extension, and the West Bend Church driveway would
' be built.
2. NC 49/Albemarle Road traffic would be detoured around the bridge by diverting it
to the new ramps and their temporary connectors. The new bridge, the loop
ramp in the southwest (or C) quadrant from southbound Albemarle Road to
1 2-11
eastbound US 64, and the new US 64 lanes would be built. Traffic would be
maintained on existing US 64. '
3. The new US 64 lanes would be opened to traffic. The existing NC 49/Albemarle
Road bridge would be demolished. The NC 49/Albemarle Road approaches to ,
the new bridge and the loop ram in the northwest (or B) quadrant from
westbound US 64 to NC 49/Albemarle Road would be built. The new bridge and
loop ramps would be opened to traffic and temporary connectors would be
removed.
Environmental Protection
Environmental protection-related specifications contained in the North Carolina ,
Department of Transportation's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures
(January 1, 1990 or latest revision) would be incorporated into construction contractor
contracts. They currently include:
• Observance of and compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances,
and regulations that affect the conduct of the construction work.
• Traffic maintenance within the limits of the project, including all existing roadways
that cross or intersect the project. The construction work would be conducted in
safe manner that would create a minimum amount of inconvenience to traffic.
Continuous and safe access would be provided to all properties, and operations
would be conducted such that the inconvenience to property owners would be
held to a minimum.
• Measures to allay the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
Construction contractors would take whatever measures necessary to minimize
air pollution. Dust control would not be considered effective where the amount of
dust creates a potential or actual unsafe condition, public nuisance, or condition
endangering the value, utility, or appearance of any property. Contractors would
take whatever measures necessary to minimize air pollution.
• Removal or burning of all materials resulting from clearing, grubbing. demolition, ,
and other operations. Any burning would be in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan for air quality and in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520, North Carolina
Administrative Code, Title 15, Chapter 2, "Environmental Management, Control
and Prohibition of Open Burning:" Care would be taken to ensure burning would
be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
would be performed under constant surveillance.
• Development by the contractor, for NCDOT approval, of a soil erosion schedule
that describes the time relationship between phases of the work which must be
coordinated to reduce erosion, construction practices, and temporary control
measures that would be used to minimize erosion, and a plan for the disposal of
waste materials. Contractors would take whatever measures are necessary to
minimize soil erosion and siltation.

2-12

1

• Incorporation of all permanent erosion control work into the project at the earliest
practicable time and coordination with temporary measures to ensure
economical, effective, and continuous erosion control.
• Seeding and mulching on all earth areas disturbed by construction on a section
by section basis,. immediately upon completion of each section.
• Disposal of waste and debris outside of the right-of-way unless required by the
construction plans. When public waste and disposal areas are not used, waste
would be covered with earth and shaped into contours that are comparable to
and blend in with the existing topography. The covered waste areas would be
seeded and mulched. Erosion would be controlled. Disposal in areas under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction would not be allowed
unless the contractor obtains the required permit.
• Taking of every reasonable precaution to prevent pollution of water bodies.
1

[J

t
17,
1 2-13

1

t

Chapter 3
ALTERNATIVES
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts anticipated to result from this
1 project. There would, however, be no improvement in the capacity or safety of the
highway.
TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
Transit is not considered to be a practical alternative since the majority of the project
area is rural and the project serves intrastate, as well as local travelers.
LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
The relative merits of widening to the north or south of the existing two lanes are
compared in Table 5. For this comparison, the roadway was divided into ten segments
for independent consideration. They are shown in Figure 4. The following environmental
characteristics were considered in developing the comparison:
• Major utility locations.
• Land use location and characteristics.
• Potential wetland location.
• Potential for hazardous materials use or disposal (past or present) at land uses
along the highway.
• Underground storage tank locations.
• Floodplain location.
The fact that right-of-way that could be used to support a wider cross section is already
owned by NCDOT to the south of the existing pavement was also taken into account.
There are no historic resources in the study area and prime and statewide important
farmlands are very common on both sides of the road, thus they were not included as
factors in the comparison.
Overall, in comparison to the proposed action, the alternate location would involve
greater residential and business displacements, greater potential wetland losses, and
other adverse impacts. When comparing two location alternatives from the wetlands
perspective the following was taken into account:
' Small, isolated potential wetland areas occur all along the project, generally
associated with existing streams and other drainages that pass under US 64. See
Figure A-2 in Appendix A.
1 3-1

Table 5: COMPARISON OF LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Advantages
Location` Distance Proposed Action Proposal Action Location Alternate Location ,
A to B 1.1 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement, including - Lower potential for
avoiding church and major wetland loss.
employer.
- Meets existing 1-85/US 64
interchange.
B to C 2.0 mi. Widen to the north. - Lower potential for wetland loss. - None. ,
- Reduces railroad impacts.
C to D 1.4 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement. - None. '
- Lower potential for wetland loss.
D to E 2.7 mi. Widen to the north. - Avoids displacement of furniture - Lower residential
factory and electric substation. displacement.
- Avoids Brier Creek and pond. - Lower potential for
wetland loss.
- Decreased impact
on utility lines.
,
E to F 0.7 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement, including - None.
avoiding church.
- Avoids pond.
F to G 0.9 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement. - Lower potential for
wetland loss.
- Avoids pond.
G to H 5.4 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement. - Lower potential for
- Avoids electric substation. wetland loss.
H to 1 2.1 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement. - None.
- Lower potential for wetland loss.
I to J 4.0 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement, including - Lower potential for
avoiding church. wetland loss.
- Avoids golf course. - Less potential for flood-
plain involvement. ,
- Avoids pond.
J to K 2.7 mi. Widen to the south. - Lower displacement. - None. '
- Lower potential for wetland loss.

3-2 '
t
t
OAS -,
52
e
LEXINGTON
--?• ,? 6 2
J
w 7 .?
pT? d14?? / I i
`-? ASHEBORO
N Kx
ASHEBORO !30
WEST
SCALE IN MILES
I T-1 ASHEBORO
0 , 2 3 a SOUTH
FIGURE 4. ALTERNATIVES
r`n11ADAomnm QnAn CGrlAA=AITC

In most cases, where potential wetlands occur, they are found on both sides of
the road.
• Wetland loss could be reduced at any given location by widening on the side of '
the road where the area of wetland is smallest.
In several study segments identified in Table 5, the proposed action is not located on the
side of the road that would have the lower potential wetland impact. This is because of
the need to avoid a major employer or a large number of residences or businesses. A
stream relocation was also avoided. In each case, the potential wetlands affected are
either directly across from the non-wetland feature being avoided or within the distance
required to safely transition the widening from one side of the road to the other. Thus, it
would not be practicable to avoid the greater potential wetland impact in those locations.
No consideration was given to a new alignment to avoid wetland displacement because:
• Of the added disruption and cost of a completely new right-of-way and road. ,
• The existing road is generally straight, thus a realignment would be longer in
length, increasing impacts.
• A totally new road would cross the same or similar streams and drainages as the
existing road.
INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES
The NC 109 and NC 49 interchanges would be reconstructed in accordance with the
design standards established for this project. Several alternative interchange
configurations were examined prior to selection of the ones included in the proposed
action.
NC 109 Interchange
For the NC 109 interchange, configurations considered included a simple diamond and
loop options. It was concluded that a simple diamond would provide adequate capacity
and safety improvements while minimizing the impacts and the costs.
NC 49 Interchange
The NC 49 interchange is subject to several more constraints than the NC 109
interchange. Foremost is the existing US 220 interchange, just east of the NC 49
interchange. The interchange serves complicated traffic patterns for both NC 49 south
to Charlotte and US 64 to Lexington. Finally, the area is developed at urban densities. A
variety of interchange concepts were considered during the development of alternatives,
including simple diamonds, various loops, and a trumpet. Four concepts were
compared in detail. '
The four compared were variations of the same types of interchange. Two were
diamonds; two included a loop serving the movement from westbound US 64 to
southbound NC 49 and a loop serving the movement from southbound Albemarle Road
to eastbound US 64; and two included relocation of a portion of US 64. They are
illustrated in Figure 5 and compared in Table 6. '
3-4 1

1

fl
1

t

t

t

'' I 1

IF
i===
d?\
\
C\j
Q

\\ /Af ;==A T
\\ ?t I \1 ii
i
i
1!
\
\
Q
w

\?\ ins \\?\' ?-. ?• //
AL

\

W, 1
rr - --?_-
-11 i?
-'\ \
1!
„i

Q
i
0
I?
o?
.1
ii
?I

t?
oU
J
i
\

`W
r
Q
z
w
J
Q
LLJ
cV
z
Q
W
z
V
z
coo
LA
0
LL

Table 6: US 64/NC 49 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Relative Traffic Safety Displacement
Alternative Cost and Operation Res. Bus. Ch.
1 Lowest Substandard weaving distance 3 11 1
US 220 to NC 49; peak hour
queuing on US 64 for US 64
west to NC 49 south movement
possible.
2 Low Good. 8 12 1
3 High Peak hour queuing on US 64 4 16 0
for US 64 west to NC 49
south movement possible.
4 Highest Good. 9 18 0
Res. =residential Note: No wetlands are in the
Bus.=business interchange area.
Ch.=church
3-6

l

Alternatives 1 and 2 would follow the existing US 64 alignment through the interchange
with a widening to the south. Alternatives 3 and 4 would follow a new alignment for US
64 approximately 300 feet south of the existing alignment. All four alternatives would
eliminate local access between the US 220 and NC 49 interchanges because of the short
distance between them. The retention of access would create an unacceptable weaving
pattern. Access to Albemarle Road could be readily provided to the homes on the north.
With alternatives 1 and 2, access would be provided to the land uses on the south via an
access road from NC 49. With Alternatives 3 and 4, the businesses and residence on
the south with direct access to US 64 would be displaced.
Alternative 4 is a part of the. proposed action. The principle differences between
alternatives relate to: 1) cost, 2) traffic safety and operations, and 3) displacement. They
are compared in Table 6 and in the following paragraphs. There are no wetlands in the
interchange area. '
Cost
Alternative 1 would be the lowest cost since it would have no loops and would not
involve relocation of a portion of US 64. Alternative 4 (the proposed action) would have
the greatest cost because it would involve both the use of loops and the relocation of a
portion of US 64.
Traff ic Safety and Operation
Alternative 1 would not provide the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommended minimum distance between exit ramps
for US 64 westbound traffic. The relocation south with alternative 3 would provide the
necessary distance. With both alternatives, however, queuing on the ramp from
westbound US 64 to southbound NC 49 could result in backups onto US 64. This ramp
would serve what is currently the greatest traffic movement between US 64 and NC 49
and backups could result during the pm peak hour because of: 1) high traffic volumes
using the ramp, 2) the a short ramp length used in order to maximize the weaving
distance between the NC 49 and US 220 exit ramps, 3) the inclusion of a left turn onto
NC 49, and 4) the high traffic volumes on NC 49/Albemarle Road. Use of the loop in the
northwest quadrant with alternatives 2 and 4 would permit adequate ramp separation
and generally eliminate queuing from the movement.
With alternatives 1 and 3, the movement from Albemarle Road to eastbound US 64
would be served by a ramp in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. Space is not
available, however, to accommodate both placing the movement in the southeast
quadrant and providing the required distance between the NC 49/US 64 ramp and the
US 220 ramp just to the east. Therefore, a loop in the southwest quadrant, as included
in alternatives 2 and 4, is a part of the proposed action.
Interchange traffic volumes are listed in Chapter 1 under "Traffic Movement."
Displacement
Alternative 4 would avoid displacement of a church and relocation of the congregation
away from its associated cemetery. Alternative 2 would, however, require six fewer
business displacements and one less residential displacement than alternative 4.
3-7

IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING TWO LANES ALTERNATIVES ,
The proposed action includes both the construction of two new lanes and the
improvement of the existing two lanes so that they meet the project design criteria.
Improvement of the existing two lanes only or construction of the two new lanes without
improving the existing two lanes is not proposed for the reasons described below.
Improvement of the Existing Two Lanes Only
This alternative would reduce the environmental impacts that would result from the
proposed action. New right-of-way would be required only on the north side of the road
d th
nl
l
a
i
h
an
en o
y at
oc
t
ons w
ere the road would be upgraded to meet the project design
criteria. In order to meet that criteria, approximately 60 percent of the road would need
to be reconstructed, primarily to improve sight distances at the top (crest) and bottoms
(sag) of hills. Approximately 47 of the existing road's 74 vertical curves do not meet the
project's minimum sight distance criteria. Improving only the existing two lanes would,
however, have no positive effect on the capacity of the highway. Therefore, this
alternative is not proposed.
Construction of Two Additional Lanes
With No Improvement to the Existing Two Lanes
This alternative would. have a positive effect on the capacity of the highway but would not
fully address the safety need. Undesirable sight distances would remain on the existing '
two travel lanes. In addition, drainage and grade complications would result because
the two directions of travel would not be at the same elevation.

USE OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ONLY ALTERNATIVE
Right-of-way was set aside for the addition of two lanes when the existing right-of-way '
was acquired in the 1940s and 1950s. The extra right-of-way is to the south of the
existing pavement. The overall right-of-way width is 150 feet. The typical section for this
right-of-way in the original design plans assumed a 26-foot median, four 12-foot lanes,
10-foot unpaved shoulders, and approximately 12 feet beyond the shoulder for drainage. ,
This is compared to the planned typical section that includes a 46-foot median, four 12-
foot lanes, 10-foot outer shoulders (2-foot paved), and approximately 30 feet beyond the
shoulder for drainage. The proposed section is safer and better drained than the one ,
planned in the 40s. The wider median accommodates two 6-foot inner shoulders (2-foot
paved), additional drainage capacity, and greater separation between the two opposing
directions of travel. The increased distance beyond the shoulders takes into account l
shallower drainage slopes.
FIVE LANE SECTION NEAR ASHEBORO ALTERNATIVE
A five lane urban typical section is recommended along US 64, beginning at NC 49 and
continuing west for 2.56 miles, in the Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan released by NCDOT
in August, 1988. Use of this cross section, however, is not included in the proposed
action because it would provide unlimited access across US 64. This could encourage
intensive strip commercial development and the traffic movement difficulties it brings. In
addition, the scoping letter received from NCDOT Statewide Planning (April 24, 1990)
indicates that access only at state roads is essential to US 64 meeting the speed, safety,
and mobility objectives of the North Carolina Intrastate System.

3-8

POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
With this alternative, the proposed action would be implemented at some time in the
' future but not within the current schedule. There would be no immediate capital
investment required for right-of-way acquisition and the impacts described in Chapters 4
and 5 would be postponed, including the temporary disruption of construction and right-
of-way acquisition.
Postponement would, however, result in steadily worsening traffic flow and accident
conditions as traffic volumes continued to rise. Property acquisition and construction
costs could also rise. Project impacts could worsen in developed areas as new
development occurred along the existing right-of-way. Thus, altering the timeframe for
' implementation of the proposed action is not proposed.
11
t

I?J

1 3-9

t

7
u
J

L

I

Chapter 4
LAND USE PLANNING
Land use planning and zoning in the project area is conducted by the City of Asheboro
(from SR 1425 to US 220), Davidson County, and Randolph County. The project area is
outside the corporate limits of Asheboro but within its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction.
It is completely outside the jurisdiction of the City of Lexington. This chapter describes
the existing land use in the project area, and potential impacts to area land use plans,
zoning, community services, and farmland.
The proposed action would be compatible with area land use plans and zoning. It would
be a safer road for the operation of school buses, fire trucks, and rescue vehicles. No
other affects on community services would occur. Prime and state important farmland
would be taken. The loss, however, would be negligible in relation to the total farmland
acreage in Davidson and Randolph Counties and fields would not be divided.
EXISTING LAND USE
The majority of the project area is sparsely developed. Principal land uses are
agricultural and rural residential. The City of Lexington is four miles west of the project
area. It has a current population of 17,960. The City of Asheboro is two miles northeast
of the project area. It has a current population of 16,272. Existing land use is shown in
Figure A-2 (found in Appendix A).
I Dwellings

11
There are approximately 290 homes dispersed along the US 64 route. Setbacks vary
from 50 feet to 500 feet from the existing roadway. Principal residential communities in
the project area are Motleta, Walser, and the area around Asheboro. The majority of the
residential structures along US 64 are single family dwellings.
The core of the Walser community in Davidson County is to the north of the alignment.
Approximately 17 homes that are a part of this community are close to US 64. The
Motleta community in Randolph County has 28 residential structures along US 64. Near
Asheboro approximately 40 homes are near US 64.
Businesses
Approximately 60 commercial structures are along US 64. Smaller commercial
properties, including used car sales, auto repair, and gas stations, are dispersed along
the alignment. The commercial concentrations along US 64 include:
The intersection of US 64 and NC 109 in Davidson County. This area is one mile
to the east of Walser and has nine commercial buildings along US 64.
The crossing of US 64 and the Uwharrie River in. Randolph County. This area is
approximately 1.5 miles west of Motleta and there are five commercial structures
adjacent to the road.
Near Asheboro there are approximately 24 commercial structures along US 64.
1 4-1

Industrial structures dispersed along the project area are: '
• Fletcher Machine, Inc.
• Elizabeth Carbide of NC, Inc.
• Thomasville Furniture Industry
• Carolina Dry Kiln Co. ,
Furniture Plant
• Caraway Nursery Garden Center
Institutional '
The only school in the project area is the Tabernacle Elementary School in Randolph
County. This school is near the Motleta community and its location is shown on Figure '
A-2k.
Eleven churches and a cemetery are also along US 64. They are:
• Heath Church
• Original Church of God
• Level Land Baptist Church '
• Christian Life Center
• Melito Grove Baptist Church
• Sawerville Wesleyan Open Arms Church of God ,
• Amity Hills Baptist Church
• Back Creek Friends Meeting House (Quaker)
• Calvary Baptist Church
• West Bend United Church
• Clarksbury Church and Cemetery
The Asheboro Country. Club in Randolph County is on the north side of US 64. Part of
the golf course abuts the US 64 right-of-way.
LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING '
The City of Asheboro adopted its Land Development Plan in 1985. Specific problems
that the plan is designed to address are the deterioration of the Central Business District,
strip and spot commercial development on major arteries, the proliferation of fast food
restaurants along US 64 east of Asheboro, traffic congestion, and water and sewer
problems. The proposed action would be compatible with this plan. It would support
plan objectives related to:
• Implementation of the City thoroughfare plan (NCDOT, August 1988) which calls
for the widening of US 64.
• Clustering new commercial activities and discouraging strip development by the
inclusion of a median in the project typical section with openings only at '
intersections.
Randolph County does not have an adopted land development plan. Planning for the ,
County is reflected only by County zoning. Davidson County does have a plan. Land
Development Plan Davidson County (Davidson County, June 1978) focuses on
identifying sites best suited for industrial and commercial uses. It calls for mixed use
4-2 1

1

E
L

communities at 1-85 and NC 109, and industrial development along much of the rest of
US 64 in Davidson County. It indicates that the transportation system is to a large extent
responsible for the growth of Davidson County.
The zoning limits of the City of Asheboro along US 64 are at SR 1425. Properties
between SR 1425 and Oakgrove Road, which is the outer ring for city zoning, are
predominantly zoned residential. Zoning from Oakgrove Road to US 220 is for
commercial uses. Along US 64 in Randolph County, scattered zones for highway
commercial use have been established. Subdivisions are zoned restrictive residential.
Residential subdivisions are, however, set back from US 64. Davidson County is in the
process of establishing a new County-wide zoning ordinance. Presently the southwest
quadrant of the US 64/NC 109 interchange is zoned commercial. The southeast
quadrant of the US 64/1-85 interchange is also zoned commercial. Davidson County
exempts working farms from zoning regulations.
The proposed action is compatible with project area land use plans and zoning since:
They were established assuming that US 64 would serve as a Minor Arterial.
The proposed improvements would be along the existing US 64 alignment.
The project is proposed to meet the road capacity and traffic safety needs of
already anticipated growth. It is not expected to generate new traffic.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
The general location of community services and their service areas in the study corridor
are identified in Figure 6.
Schools

1

Tabernacle Elementary School in Davidson County is the only educational institution
along the project route. This elementary school is for grades one through three. US 64
is designated as a hazardous road by the school district and at no point do children
cross the road on foot. Five school buses for the Tabernacle School use US 64.
The South West Randolph Middle and High Schools are in the vicinity of US 64. Existing
school bus routes for nine buses involve the use of the US 64.
The three schools in Davidson County with bus routes using US 64 are Davis Townsend
Elementary, Central Senior High, and the Special Education Children Center. Eight
buses serving these institutions use US 64.
Improved sight distances, left turn lanes, the availability of a second lane on which to
pass vehicles turning right, and the usefulness of the median as a means to cross US 64
travel lanes in two steps would make US 64 a safer road for use by school buses. See
the accident analysis in the "Traffic" section in Chapter 5.
Recreation Areas
The only recreation area in along the project is the Asheboro Country Club. It is north of
US 64 and is identified on Figure A-2., It is privately owned. The widening of US 64
4-3
S LEXINGTON
'V
AREA

FIJVICE AEA c\"CY
CpU
P
ti: ? • F`A?pOL N C?o
FI E STATION
J?TA$ERNACLE
J FIRE SERVICWEA
? ASHEBORO
i CO,I MYCLUB
(PRIVATE)
SCALE IN MILES
I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4
ASHEBORO
WEST ^
ASHEBORO
SOUTH
ASHEBORO
FIGURE 6. COMMUNITY SERVICES

' would be to the south in this vicinity and therefore the proposed action would have no
impact on the country club.
Fire Protection and Rescue Squads
The fire departments serving the project area for Davidson County include Holly Grove,
with a service area up to New Cut Road (SR 2262), and Silver Valley, serving the area
from New Cut Road to the County border. Emergency Medical Services in Davidson
County are provided by Davidson Ambulance service out of Lexington.
' The Randolph County Fire Departments serving US 64 include West Side Fire Station,
with a service area extending from SR 1411 to NC 49, and Tabernacle Fire Station, with a
service area from SR 1411 to the County line. The Tabernacle Fire Station is on US 64,
' as shown on Figure A-2i. Randolph Emergency Medical Services from Asheboro serves
the project area in Randolph County.
A median crossover would be placed at the Tabernacle Fire Department to provide direct
access to both directions of travel. The additional lanes for passing, improved sight
distances, left turn lanes, and the usefulness of the median as a means to cross US 64
travel lanes in two steps would facilitate fire department and emergency medical service
response times.
Churches
The location of all the churches along US 64 are identified in Figure A-2. No churches
would be affected. As described in Chapter 2, the US 64/NC 49 interchange design was
' heavily influenced by the desire to avoid separating a church from its associated
cemetery. No noise impacts were identified, as indicated in the noise section of this
chapter.
' FARMLAND
' The proposed action is state-funded, however in accordance with the Governor of North
Carolina's Executive Order 96 that states that state construction projects should consider
farmland impacts. The US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was contacted to determine
the location of prime and important farmland in the project area. Correspondence
received from SCS is included in Appendix B.
Designation of Farmland Soils
' Soils that meet the criteria for prime and statewide important farmlands along US 64
have been identified by. the SCS in Davidson County. Such lands are adjacent to the
existing right-of-way for approximately 7.8 miles of the approximately 9.6 miles of project
in Davidson County, and the names of the relevant soil series by classification are given
in Table 7.
While certain soils in Randolph County also meet the criteria of prime and statewide
important farmland, detailed SCS soil mapping is not yet available for Randolph County.
Thus, the designation of prime and statewide important soil series in Randolph County
' had to be deduced from general Randolph County soils data and from the designation of
important soil series in Davidson County. The report "Resource Conservation Program
and Action Plan" (Randolph Soil Conservation District, July 1986) for Randolph County
? .s
Table 7: PRIME AND STATEWIDE IMPORTANT FARMLAND
ENCROACHMENT
County
Acreage of Encroachment
Davidson (1)
Prime Farmland 25.6
Statewide Important Farmland 37.2
County Total: 62.8 acres
Randolph (2)
Prime and/or Statewide
Important Farmland 47.5
County Total: 47.5 acres (3)
Notes:
1. The classification of state-important farmland in Davidson County is based on information obtained
from the Soil Conservation Service. Prime farmland soils in the project area include the following
soil series: Altavista, Appling, Cecil, Chewacia, Congaree, Davidson, Enon, Herndon, Kirksey,
Mecklenburg, Oakboro, Pacolet, Vance, Wadowee, and Wickham. Statewide important farmland
soils in the project area include the following soil series: Badlin, Cecil, Davidson, Enon, Herndon,
Iredell, Mecklenburg, Pacolet, Vance, Wahee, and Wedowee.
2. Randolph County prime farmland based on extrapolation of state-important farmland criteria to
"Resource Conservation Program and Action Plan" (Soil Conservation District, 1986)" (see text).
3. Highly conservative overestimate (see text).
4. County totals should not be added because of differences in methodology between the two
counties (see text).
46
u
was reviewed in conjunction with the soils series designated per 7 CFR 657.5
"Identification of Important Farmlands." This report defines and maps eight existing soil
associations in. Randolph County. Four of these associations are encountered along the
project alignment. Table 8 shows the subdivision of these associations into soil series,
and whether these soil series are designated as prime or statewide important. in
general, if an association's constituent soil series are predominantly designated as prime
' or statewide important farmland in Davidson County (such as associations 1 and 8), the
entire association was considered as potentially prime or statewide important farmland in
Randolph County (see Table 8). Otherwise, the associations are not regarded as prime
or statewide important soils (such as associations 2 and 4). Prime or statewide
important farmland is adjacent to the existing US 64 right-of-way for approximately five
miles of the approximately 14.3 miles of project alignment in Randolph County.
i The approach followed yields a conservative analysis, overestimating the area of prime
and statewide important associations in Randolph County because the prime farmland
screening described above was conducted on an association (and not a soil series)
' basis. Thus, the area of encroachment in Randolph County is not comparable to the
encroachment in Davidson County, and the encroachments described below for the two
counties should not be added.
Farmland Soils Encroachment
Acres of prime and statewide important farmland encroachment are shown in Table 7.
There would be a 62.8-acre loss of prime and statewide important farmland in Davidson
County, and a maximum loss a 47 acres in Randolph County. For the reasons stated
below, no alternatives to the proposed action are recommended.
' Prime and statewide important farmland is quite pervasive in the area. Thus, loss of
farmland is unavoidable. Where reasonable, however, the widening would be placed to
' the.south where the existing road right-of-way is the widest. The loss is not considered
excessive in a regional context for the following reasons:
• In both counties, the loss would be negligible in relation to the total acreage of the
resource.
• The loss stated for. Randolph County is likely to be overstated since the lack of
' detailed soil mapping meant that losses were calculated for entire soil
associations. Depending on the association, only some of the soil series within
the association would be considered prime or state important farmland.
• Since the farmland to be taken borders the existing US 64, the loss would not
divide existing fields.. Therefore, working the fields would not be made more
difficult.
' The US Department of Agriculture Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating)
has been completed for Davidson County and can be found in Appendix D. The total
points derived from the site assessment criteria are well below the maximum. The AD-
1006 form was not be completed for Randolph County because no soil survey is
available. Procedures in GS 106-739 and GS 106-740 would be followed where
necessary in acquiring farmland for the project in order to comply with North Carolina
Executive Order 92.
1
1 4-7
Table 8: DETERMINATION OF RANDOLPH COUNTY SOIL
ASSOCIATIONS AS PRIME OR STATEWIDE IMPORTANT
Designated as Prime or
Statewide Important Soils
Association Soil % of Davidson Randolph
Number Series Association Cty (1) Cly (2)
1 Georgeville 40 Yes
Herndon 30 Yes
Yes
2 Tatum 35 No
Nason 20 No
Goidston 15 No
No
4 Tatum 30 No
Nason 20 No
Enon 15 Yes
No
8 Chewacla 60 Yes
Wehadkee 20 No
Yes
Notes:
1. Prime farmland designations in Davidson County were performed by the SCS.
2. Deduction of whether to label entire association as prime or statewide important was performed by
the US 64 study analyst.
4$

' Chapter 5
' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
COMMUNITY
Social
Population Characteristics
The community data profiles for Randolph and Davidson Counties shown in Table 9
indicate that both Counties and the Cities of Lexington and Asheboro have experienced
an increase in population. The two Counties' population projections to the year 2000
' indicate a continued population growth. Statistics from the 1980 US Census for the
Townships abutting US 64 and the two Counties as a whole are shown in Table 10.
I Travel Patterns and Accessibility
Travel patterns and accessibility would remain essentially the same along US 64.
Opportunities for left and U-turns through the median would be provided along the
proposed. action at approximately one-half-mile intervals, principally at State Routes.
There would be no loss of direct access to US 64 except between the NC 49 and US
220 interchanges and for 1,200 feet to 1,500 feet from interchange merges. All
driveways would be restored, except in areas with controlled access. In those areas,
alternative access to local streets would be provided. Left turn lanes, the availability of a
second lane on which to pass vehicles turning right, and the usefulness of the median as
a means to cross US 64 travel lanes in two steps would make turning on, off, and across
US 64 safer.
' Community Cohesion
The proposed action would be a widening of the existing Minor Arterial. The
communities along US 64, including Motleta, Walser, and the area near Asheboro, would
not be divided by a new thoroughfare.
Social Groups
' As reflected in Table 10, no concentrations of minorities, elderly, or low-income people
are in the project area. Thus, no social groups would be disproportionately affected by
the proposed action.
Relocation
Relocation Requirements
Sixty-two families and 20 businesses would be displaced by the proposed action. Five
vacant business properties also would be displaced. No schools or churches would be
displaced. The relocation report is contained in Appendix C.

5-1
Table 9: POPULATION
Percent Projected
Area Recent Change Population
Characteristics 1980 Estimate From 1980 to 2000
Asheboro 15,252 16,272* 6.7%
Randolph County 913,000 100,489* 10.1% 121,100
Lexington 15,711 17,960* * 14.5%
Davidson County 133,162 123,794* * 9.4% 133,380
*1987 **1989
Sources: North Carolina Commu nity Profile 1989: Asheboro/Randolph County.
North Carol ina Community Profile 198 9: Lexington/Davidson County.
5-2
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Table 10: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Median % Below
41b Racial % Over Household Poverty
Jurisdiction Population Minorities 65 Income Level
Davidson County 113,162 10.0% 9.7% $15,238 10.6%
Randolph County 91,728 6.3% 10.0% $15,527 8.9%
Townships
Conrad Hill (D) 6,894 0.0% 8.1% $15,765 10.8%
Tabernacle (R) 2,433 0.4% 8.5% $14,841 8.6%
Cedar Grove (R) 6,058 2.9% 7.0% $17,801 5.4%
Back Creek (R) 2,799 1.0% 9.0% $16,390 11.5%
(D)=Davidson County; (R)=Randolph County
Source: 1980 US Census of Population and Housing
5-3

All homes that would be displaced are owner occupied. Their value is estimated to be:
less than $20,000 7
$20,000-40,000 13
$40,000-70,000 35
$70,000-100,000 7
$100,000 and above . 0
62
Relocation studies indicate that no relocation of minorities would be required. No large
families, elderly, disabled persons, or others who would have special problems
relocating were identified. The relocation study indicated that the current availability of
homes for sale in the same general area and in the same price range is:
less than $20,000 10
$20,000-40,000 60
$40,000-70,000 200
$70,000-100,000 155
$100,000 and above 1133
561
The relocation study concluded that the displacement and relocation would not cause a
housing shortage. Last resort housing would be considered if necessary.
Displaced businesses are owner occupied and none are minority owned. They employ
a total of 265 persons. Businesses similar to those displaced would remain in the area.
The relocation study found that there appears to be sufficient business properties and
sites available to relocate those that would be displaced.
Division of Highways Relocation Programs
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to the construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance,
Relocation Moving Payments, and
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to
assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments,
or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in
cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and quality.
5-4

I Li

t
t

1
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with
the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5
through 133-17). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons
in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of the displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations
and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT
purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and
sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced would receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement
housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also
supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to
displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to
minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Relocation Moving Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for
the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Housing Payments Program for owners, NCDOT will participate in
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings, such as attorney's
fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by NCDOTs state or federally-
assisted construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement
housing has been offered or provided each displacee within a reasonable period of time
prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for
the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
? ss

Last resort housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not ,
available or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
Economics
Business and Employment Characteristics
The North Carolina Employment Commission indicates that approximately 42,000
people comprise the Davidson County labor force. The majority of these are blue collar
workers in the manufacturing sector. Furniture and textile industries are the biggest
employers. Both industries dominated past economic growth. Most job opportunities
are in or near the incorporated cities. Approximately 39,000 people comprise Randolph
County's labor force. Randolph County's economic base is manufacturing, although
non-manufacturing sectors have seen growth.
Table 11 indicates that employment in Davidson and Randolph Counties for ,
manufacturing and non-manufacturing has seen a steady growth over the years
indicated. According to Employment Commission projections, this trend is expected to
continue.
Project Area Economy
The project is proposed to meet the road capacity and traffic safety needs of already ,
anticipated growth by providing for safer, less congested travel. It is not expected to
generate new development, employment opportunities (other than construction-related
employment), increase retail sales, or increase public expenditures for services. See the
"Traffic" section above.
During the alignment selection process, an alignment was selected that avoided the ,
dislocation of major employers along US 64.
Minor property tax revenue losses would occur as a result of new right-of-way
purchases. The total value of the right-of-way that would be purchased is estimated to
be $12.1 million. Of the total right-of-way purchased, 65.9 percent would be in Randolph
County and 34.1 percent would be in Davidson County. The total property tax revenue
collected in Randolph County was $14 million in 1990. It was $17 million in Davidson
County. Local 1990 tax rates were:
Randolph County .5324 Davidson County .44
School Rates School Rates
Asheboro .145 Lexington .095
Trinity .10 Holly Grove .06
Fire Rates Fire Rates
Westside .10 Holly Grove .06
Tabernacle .10 Silver Valley .08
,s ?
t
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 11: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
County
Projected
1970 1975 1986 2000
Davidson
Manufacturing 19,890 20,270 21,830 32,580
Non-Manufacturing 15,360 16,670 19,820 23,400
Agriculture 1,170 1,070 690 590
TOTAL 36,420 38,010 42,340 56,570
Randolph
Manufacturing 17,860 17,500 21,870 27,950
Non-Manufacturing 11,510 13,850 16,580 19,360
Agriculture 1,680 1,560 580 620
TOTAL 31,050 32,910 39,030 47,930
Source: North Carolina Employment Commission
57
Using average tax rates of 0.755 for Randolph County and 0.59 for Davidson County and
the value and percent of right-of-way to be purchased; approximately $60,200 in annual
tax revenue would be lost by Randolph County and $24,300 in Davidson County. This
would only be 0.4 and 0.1 percent of the total 1990 revenue for these counties,
respectively.
Highway-Related Businesses
As indicated in the relocation discussion above, 20 businesses would be displaced by
the project. Businesses similar to those displaced would remain in the area. The
relocation study found that there appears to be sufficient business properties and sites
available for those that would be displaced. Median crossovers would be provided at
most State Routes and approximately every one-half mile to provide for access to
businesses from both directions of travel. Access to US 64 would not be controlled
except in the vicinity of the NC 109 and NC 49 interchanges.
Established Business Districts
No established business districts are in the project area.
Visual
Visual Character
The project area passes primarily through a rural portion of Davidson and Randolph
Counties along the upper Piedmont plateau. The landforms that make up the US 64
area include deeply eroded rural valleys, low mountains, and rolling undulating land. All
are characteristic of the central Piedmont section of North Carolina. The predominant
landform is gently rolling hills. There is also the prominence of hills and mountains,
namely Three Hat Mountain, Shepherd Mountain, Caraway Mountain, Uwharrie
Mountains, and Ridge Mountains to the north and south in the background.
The existing road crosses three significant waterways. The widest (approximately 350
feet where it is crossed by US 64) and most substantial is the Uwharrie River, which has
an associated recreational use. The other two are Caraway Creek (40 feet wide) and
Back Creek (20 feet wide). The waterways are shown in Figures A-2k, A-21, and A-2n,
respectively (in Appendix A).
Vegetative elements along US 64 includes hardwood forest, mixed conifer/hardwood
forest, conifer forest, successional areas, agricultural areas, and wetlands.
Manmade development typical of rural areas occurs along most of the project area. The
majority of the residential structures are single family dwellings. Smaller commercial
properties, including used car sales, auto repair and gas stations, are dispersed along
the roadway. Concentrations occur at the NC 109 interchange, the Uwharrie River, and
near Asheboro. Industrial structures are. also dispersed along US 64. The Asheboro
Country Club is on the north side of US 64 in Randolph County. Part of the golf course
abuts the US 64 right-of-way. (See Figure A-2m.) This development is typical of rural
highways and none have features that indicate visual sensitivity or give them unique
visual importance.
5-8

Visual Quality
The components of the existing landscape do not combine to create striking
' characteristics that convey visual excellence. There are no officially designated scenic
areas in the project area.
Visually Sensitive Resources
At some locations along US 64, trees shield adjacent homes from views of the roadway.
Viewers
US 64 users are the only group that have a view from the road. Existing average annual
daily traffic (ADT) ranges from 5,300 vehicles per day (vpd) east of NC 109, to 17,300
vpd between NC 49 and US 220 at the eastern end of the project area. The projected
design year (2010) ADTs range between 10,100 vpd and 32,600 vpd at the
corresponding locations. Highway user views are limited in duration because of the
rolling terrain and steep road grades.
Groups who view the road include residents, businesses, members of the Asheboro
Country Club, and users of the Uwharrie River. There are approximately 290 homes
dispersed along the US 64 route. Setbacks vary from 50 feet to 500 feet from the
existing roadway. Approximately 60 commercial structures, six industries, 11 churches,
a school, and a cemetery are along the US 64. Views of the road are limited by the
area's rolling terrain and tree cover.
Impacts
The no action alternative would not alter any existing visual resources. Future traffic
growth would make it difficult for drivers to enjoy views from the highway.
The proposed action would increase the roadway width, including the addition of a 46-
foot median, two 12-foot lanes, and wider shoulders and ditches. The proposed action
would also flatten existing steep grades, resulting in higher fills and cuts. Sight distances
of drivers would thus be increased. Existing roadside vegetation would be lost,
consisting of forest, grass and brush, and agricultural land. In a few locations trees fully
or partially blocking the view of the road from residences would be removed. On the
side of the road where the new travel lanes be placed, these lanes would be 70 feet
closer to existing land uses than the existing two lanes. Cut and fill slopes also would be
moved closer and would in many cases be deeper or taller, respectively. Cut and fill
slopes would, however, also tend to be less steep than they are at present. The new
pavement location, edge of slope or slope stake line, and right-of-way line are shown in
Figure A-1. The significance of the negative aspects of this visual change described
above would be reduced by landscape planting and natural revegetation of cut and fill
slopes.
Views of waterway users would not be changed substantially. New bridges serving the
two new lanes would be immediately adjacent to the bridges serving the other two lanes.
There would be no filling into the waterways.
Ll

1 5

Utilities
No major utilities would need to be relocated. The following utilities occur in the project
area: '
• Duke Power Company (lines from the 1-85 Bypass Interchange to NC 109).
• Randolph Electric Membership Corporation (lines 50 to 100 feet off the existing
road).
• Davidson Electric Membership Corporation (lines along US 64 for most of the
distance between 1-85 Bypass and the Uwharrie River). r
• Carolina Power & Light Company (electric distribution lines about 1.5 miles west

of NC 49). ,
• City of Lexington (gas main near 1-85 Bypass interchange with an extension
planned to Cunningham Brick Road, SR 2115).
• Piedmont Natural Gas Company (line along US 64 between a location 200 feet
west of Fisher Circle and NC 49).
• City of Asheboro (water line across US 64 at SR 1328).
• Davidson Water, Inc. (lines along most of US 64 in the project area). ,
Summet Cable Services of Thom-a-Lex (lines in the NCDOT right-of-way from the
1-85 Bypass interchange to the Davidson/Randolph County line).
• Cablevision of Asheboro (lines that run with the telephone lines for about 2,000
feet from the eastern termini of the project area). j
• Lexington Telephone Company.
• Central Telephone Company.
Hazardous Wastes and Underground Storage Tanks
The location of likely underground storage tank sites and land uses that may use or have t
used hazardous materials is shown on Figure A-2. They are described in Table E-1 in
Appendix E. This preliminary study was aimed at identifying the potential for hazardous

waste use and tank sites along US 64 rather than locating and characterizing hazardous '
waste or petroleum spill sites. Even if hazardous wastes are used or an underground
tank is present at a site, that does not mean that a spill has occurred. An environmental
audit would be required prior to right-of-way purchase to determine if hazardous waste
or petroleum spills are present.
Potential hazardous waste use and underground tank locations were identified for the
US 64 area from:
• A field survey.
'
• The US Environmental Protection Agency
s (EPA) lists of hazardous waste sites
identified under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and

5-10 1
t

t

1

t
t
t

F1
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act
(CERCLA or superfund).
The EPA's FINDS index of hazardous waste sites.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources'
(Groundwater Section) fisting of underground petroleum-product storage tanks
registered under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986. This includes all tanks registered by owners irrespective of when they were
installed; however, not all tanks have necessarily been registered.
The study identified 38 potential sites that could impact the proposed action. Most sites
are partially or wholly within the proposed right-of-way, whereas others are just outside.
The latter category must still be considered as a potential source of hazardous material
or petroleum affecting the proposed right-of-way since spilled or leaked material can
seep considerable distances through the soil or be carried in runoff. Approximately 24 of
the sites are current or abandoned gas stations. At 15 of those 24 sites, the presence of
underground storage tanks was confirmed in the field. Tanks could still be present at the
other sites.
A review of the EPA records did not identify any hazardous waste sites or materials
within the right-of-way of the proposed action. However, site H-4 (Thomasville Furniture
Industries, Lexington) is listed as a CERCLA site. The proposed action would require the
purchase of only a thin strip of this property at least 300 feet from the factory building
and storage areas.
LAND RESOURCES AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Geology And Soils Resources
The proposed action is within the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
The terrain along the project corridor is typical of the Piedmont. Most of the ancient
mountains formed over 200 million years ago have eroded to the gently rolling hills
characteristic of Davidson and Randolph Counties. Maximum relief is 400 feet within the
project area. Standing above the hills are the remnants of more erosion-resistant rock,
or monadrocks. A prominent monadrock formation is the Uwharrie Mountains of
Randolph County.
The US 64 corridor is in the Carolina slate belt. The predominant rock is metamorphic,
metavolcanic rock (500-600 million years old), with interbedded felsic to maffic tufts and
flow rock. The predominant rock in Randolph County is metamudstone and metaorgillite
of the cid formation. Also, an outcrop of maffic metavolcanic rock exists along the US 64
corridor in Randolph County.
Soils within the project corridor have formed as a residual soil from largely igneous and
metamorphic rock materials. Along US 64 in Randolph County, the soils are somewhat
poorly drained with silty surface layers, underlain by weathered Carolina slate rock, on
nearly level to hilly uplands (Randolph Soil and Water Conservation District, July 1986).
Randolph County also has three smaller regions of soil that are wet and have moderately
permeable loamy subsoil on floodplains subject to overflow, such as the Chewacla and
Wehadkee series. They are found at the Uwharrie River, Plummer Creek, Caraway
Creek, and Back Creek crossings in the project area. The Wehadkee soil type found in
Randolph County is a listed hydric soil of North Carolina, which has developed under
5-11
Fi
conditions sufficiently wet to support growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation.
The Oakboro silt loam is a frequently flooded hydric soil found in most of the delineated
wetlands and along stream crossings in the Davidson County project area. Since it is
subject to flood overflow, it has hydric characteristics. However, hydric soils, including
the Oakboro silt loam, are uncommon along the Davidson County area of the project '
corridor (North Carolina Soil Surveys, 1982-1985).
Terrestrial Ecology
Botanical Resources And Plant Communities
In April 1990, a three-day trip was made along the US 64 corridor to identify plant ,
communities or habitat types in the project corridor. This trip was supplemented by a
one-day trip in September 1990. Plant communities were determined both in the field
and by a review of aerial photography.
The following plant communities can be recognized:
Hardwood Forest
Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest
Successional Areas
Urban Residential Commercial
Agricultural Areas
Wetland
Each of these communities is described below. The plant species composition of each
type vary in response to exposure and moisture gradients, soil type, history of
disturbance, and other factors.
Hardwood Forest. Throughout the project corridor, hardwood forest is the most
common forest type present. Most of the forest soils are thick enough to support well-
developed canopies composed of a variety of broad-leaf deciduous tree species. The
drier areas are dominated largely by oaks such as post oak (Quercus stellata), bur oak
(Quercus macrocarpa), white- oak July (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina),. and pin oak (Quercus palustris); hickories such as
shagback hickory (Carya ovata), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and bitternut hickory
(Carya cordiformis); tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera); red maple (Acer rubrum); and
black locust (R'obinia pseudo-acacia). Occasional red cedar trees (Juniperus
Virginiana), eastern white pine July (Pinus strobus), and pitch pine July (Pinus rigida)
also can be found.
Hardwood stands along streams, floodplains, and generally wetter areas are dominated
by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), Carolina
basswood (Tilia caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum) and boxelder maple (Acer negundo). Alder (41nus serrulata) is the most
abundant small tree or large shrub. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and willow
shrubs including black willow (Salix nigra) are also common. Soft rush (Juncus effusus),
a sedge (Scirpus atrovirens), and fall panic grass (Panicum dichotomiflorum) are
common graminoid species found in hydric soils.
Tulip poplar and black locust have become important, at least partially, as a result of past
logging, agriculture, and other disturbances to soils and forest canopies.
1
5-12 1
Imo,
LJ

1
1

t
A
I
All of the forest in the zone of influence is second-growth, having either been logged in
the past or developed from abandoned farmland.
Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest. Occasional eastern white pines (Pious strobus) and
pitch pines (Pious rigida) occur frequently enough so that in isolated areas, there is a
mixed conifer-hardwood canopy. Several species of pine grow with hardwoods, and
their presence usually indicates succession from pre-existing fields or other open
farmland toward dominance by hardwood forest species. Also, disturbances such as
logging and erosion can create open canopy conditions sufficient to promote the growth
of pines.
Successional Areas. Successional areas are sites that have been disturbed by some
(usually human) activity, but have since been abandoned or allowed to revert to more
natural influences. Examples are abandoned agricultural lands, logged sites,
abandoned road alignments, or other landscapes where the original vegetation and/or
soils have been disturbed. Their characteristics vary depending on whether they are
upland or wetland areas:
Uplands. Most successional areas along the corridor are abandoned agricultural
fields. Such areas support a variety of weedy species. In the upland areas, such
species as goldenrods (Solidago altissima, S. gigantea, S. rugosa) and sumac
(Rhus typhina, Rhus copallina) are very abundant. Asters (Aster spp.) is also a
dominant species in abandoned agricultural fields. Blackberry and raspberry
(Rubus spp.) are abundant at such fields.
Wetlands. Some abandoned fields along minor watercourses support a variety
of hydrophytic species. The most common wetland vegetation found along the
US 64 alignment include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and alder (Almus serrulata). More specific wetland
species are listed in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Determination
Forms. They are presented in the US 64 Improvements Natural Systems Report
(Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, April 1991).
Urban-Residential-Commercial Areas. Landscape parcels dominated by human
activity are considered urban-residential-commercial areas. Examples are homes and
yards, utility corridors, and roads. Such areas differ from successional areas in that they
will remain in their present state for an indefinite period, under direct human influence.
Urban-residential-commercial areas support a variety of vegetation types that frequently
mimic more natural habitats, orchards, and other agricultural areas. Power line corridors
are similar to abandoned fields and support many of the same species. In addition in the
project area, stump and root sprouts have developed into thickets of shrubby vegetation
in such areas.
Agricultural Areas. Agricultural areas are intended for maintenance as cropland,
pasture, orchard, hay fields, and other agricultural. uses. In addition to the intended crop
or usage, agricultural lands in the project area include peripheral weedy or shrubby
vegetation that is not regularly farmed or tilled. Such areas, along with weedy hay fields,
function as abandoned fields.
Wetlands. Wetlands are fairly common along the length of the corridor, but almost all of
them occur as small pockets, and most have been at least partially influenced by
previous road construction because of their close proximity to the existing US 64.

5-13

Wetland characteristics are discussed in detail in the Water Resources and Aquatic
Ecology section.
Botanical Resources And Plant Communities Impacts
Some plant community loss would occur along the entire proposed project (see Table
12). Loss was estimated as the area between the edge of the existing pavement and the
construction limits. Aerial photos were used to determine the proportion of each type of
habitat distributed along the US 64 corridor. A total of 497 acres of various communities
would be affected. The loss, however, would not be substantial in a regional context.
None of the communities affected are rare in the area, and the amount of loss would be
small in relation to the total area of each community type along the corridor.
All of the forest along US 64 is second growth. Timber to be harvested in association
with the proposed action would be disposed of in accordance with standard NCDOT
procedures. These procedures call for the contractor to take responsibility for disposal.
Disposal can either be accomplished by burning (under strict control and in compliance
with applicable laws and regulations) or by disposal at locations away from the project
area (with permission of the property owner).
Animal Resources `r
The mix of plant community patterns along US 64 provides opportunities for various
forms of wildlife. During the scoping process, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission identified the project area as an area that primarily contains upland
hardwood with some mixed woodlands and bottomland hardwood drainages, which
contain species such as deer, wild turkey, quail, rabbit, squirrel, numerous raptors, and
other non-game wildlife species. Forested pockets afford the necessary components t
(food, water, protective coverage) to support small mammals and birds. More than 80
species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported in the Piedmont area of North
Carolina (Martof et. al., 1980). Umited populations are expected to occur in the creek
and tributary systems along the alignment, although none were sighted during field
investigations.
Animal resources are described in general below. Thorough listings of animals
potentially present in the project area are presented in the US 64 Improvements Natural
Systems Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, April 1991)
Amphibians and Reptiles. Amphibians and reptiles for which suitable habitat may exist
within the US 64 project area are listed in Appendix F (Table F-1). Habitat for amphibians
and reptiles within the project area is uniform in character. The most suitable habitats
include: woodlands, pools, springs, and seeps. For amphibians, a landscape with a
greater diversity of wetland types would contribute to a greater diversity. Reptile
diversity, especially that of turtles, would be expected to be low because of the lack of
wetlands with lentic waters. '
The salamander fauna of the Carolinas and Virginia includes around 52 species (Martof,
et al. 1980). As many as nine species could occur within the project area (see Table F-
1), but none of the rare species have been reported seen in the vicinity of the project
corridor.
1
[J
5-14 1

Table 12: PLANT COMMUNITY AND
HABITAT ENCROACHMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS

Plant Community and
Habitat Type Acreage Affected

Hardwood Forest
Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest 70
64
Successional Areas 158
Urban Residential Commercial 104
Agricultural Areas 76
Wetland 12
TOTAL: 484
t
t
t
1
t
5-15
Birds. Birds for which suitable habitat may exist within the US 64 project area are listed in
Appendix F (Table F-2). Suitable terrestrial habitat for avifauna in the rolling country of
the Piedmont is abundant, with bird life typical of rural communities paralleling the
diversity of the habitat. The project corridor offers a variety of habitats. Small ponds
provide shelter for small numbers of waterfowl and shore birds. Fields along the corridor
provide habitat for ground birds. Common species include sparrows, American crows,
blue jays, warblers, red-eyed vireos, cardinals, mockingbirds, grackles, woodpeckers,
quail, red tailed hawks, and kestels. Mourning doves (Zanaidura macroura) and
bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) are game birds that also benefit from the edge effect
between forests and fields. The long and narrow shape of habitat in a highway corridor
is certainly a factor affecting local distribution; resident populations are anticipated in
areas away from the alignment where better coverage and protection is provided.
Species observed during field work included the American robin (Turdus migratorius),
which is widely distributed throughout North America, the wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), a common summer resident of the Piedmont area, the cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), a species very common throughout the Carolinas, and the red winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), an abundant permanent resident of fields, marshes
and other open habitat throughout the Carolinas. Songbirds and several raptors were
also observed. A more diverse population of birds would be expected to inhabit the
corridor than was actually seen.
Mammals. Mammals for which suitable habitat may exist within the US 64 project area
little
ld reconnaissance
fi
th
d
th
i
-
,
e
ree-
ay
ng
e
3). Dur
are listed in Appendix F (fable F
indication of mammal usage was noted. Mammals which were noted or suspected
include the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), shrew (Sorex spp.), and
fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cineareoargenteus). Beaver (Castor canadensis), mink
d
(Mustela vison), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) may occur around watercourses an
rivenne systems. Many of these species are considered cosmopolitan in nature, easily
adapting to human disturbances.
f
iti
or some
es
The edge effect between forests and fields provide ideal browse opportun
animals. Tracks of the white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were occasionally seen in
mesic draws and along forest fringes throughout the project corridor. The deer habitat
was mixed young forest.
Animal Resource Impact
impacts to wildlife may occur from loss or degradation of habitat, obstruction of normal
movements between habitats, and direct mortality from collisions with vehicles. Some
habitat loss would occur along the entire proposed action (see Table 12). A total of 497
acres of habitat would be affected. The habitat loss, however, would not be substantial
in a regional context. None of the habitat types affected are rare in the area, and the
amount of loss would be small in relation to the total, area of the habitat type along the '
corridor. Since the proposed action would not fragment existing habitat areas into small
parcels of little value, the impact would be limited to the reduction of habitat along its
perimeter. The proposed action in itself would not cause conversion of habitat types
which would border the widened road.
1

5-16

F1
n

t
I
In addition, since the affected habitat areas already border US 64, their habitat value has
already been somewhat compromised for sensitive species or species with narrow
tolerances. Much of the terrestrial area to be affected by the proposed action is already
disturbed by factors such as:
Human settlements or commercial activity.
Agricultural production, including second-growth forest.
Roadway drainage.
Based on field observations, infringement on contiguous communities would not affect
sensitive natural areas nor result in substantial loss or displacement of known animal
populations because the habitat areas affected by the widening are not rare in the
corridor, and generally border the same type of habitat as one proceeds away from the
highway.
The primary impact to animal life would result from direct removal of habitats by clearing,
grading, and paving. Mobile species, such as birds and most mammals, would be
displaced. Non-mobile or slow-moving animals, such as some amphibians and reptiles,
would be removed. Since immediately adjacent habitat areas of similar type would be
undisturbed, animals, such as rodents and other small mammals, many passerine birds,
and many reptiles and amphibians, would be able to reestablish in the adjacent,
undisturbed areas, but would compete with already established individuals of the same
species. Songbirds and small mammal populations in the area enjoy sufficient mobility
to find suitable habitats proximal to areas disturbed by the proposed action. Stream
culverts would continue to allow terrestrial and aquatic species to traverse the highway
corridor.
Although the displaced animals would likely survive, their reproductive success would
probably be reduced. Many species are highly territorial during the breeding season, so
displaced individuals would face stiff competition for breeding territories, especially
during the first year following displacement. Breeding territories of many species break
down when breeding is completed, which would allow displaced individuals to participate
in formation of new territories the following breeding season.
Mortality associated with the collision of animals with vehicles would be the same with or
without the proposed action, since future traffic levels are projected to be the same with
or without the project.
Rare or Unique Natural Areas
No rare or unique natural areas were identified in the project corridor, either through
contact with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program or through field observations.
Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources of an economic value are within the project
corridor.

1 5-17

WATER RESOURCES AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
There are at least 26 streams present in the project corridor. The rivers and streams
include the Uwharrie River, Back Creek, Plummer Creek, Brier Creek, Caraway Creek
and 21 small tributaries. The Uwharrie River, Back Creek, Caraway Creek, and Brier
Creek are the major streams. Plummer Creek joins Brier Creek just south of US 64.
Brier Creek runs parallel with US 64 for a short distance before merging with Plummer
Creek and crossing US 64.
In the project corridor, the Uwharrie River has a water quality classification of WS-III.
This is a water quality designation with no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or discharges, and is designated by the State as "suitable for all Class C
uses (EHNR, 1990). The Uwharrie River has good basic habitat in the form of long,
deep, rocky pools with interspersed rocky and gravel riffles (North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 1963). Caraway, Plummer, Brier, and Back Creeks, and the 21
small tributaries, also have a classification of WS-III. None of the waters within the
corridor have been classified as high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters
(ORW), or as trout waters. Several small ponds also occur in or just beyond the project
area.
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers (federal designation) in the project corridor. The
Uwharrie River was named as a potential candidate for designation as a Natural, Scenic
and Recreational River (North Carolina designation) in the late 1970s. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program representatives cannot be predict when or if the actual
designation will be made. (Personal communication, North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, June 25, 1991)
Aquatic Ecology t
Fish characteristically found in streams such as those in the project area include darters
(Etheostoma), chubs (Notropis), shiners (Notropis), suckers (Catastomidae), and dace
(Cyprinidae). Larger fish, such as small-mouthed bass and catfish (Ictaluous), are
common.
Bridging existing major watercourses (as opposed to filling), avoiding placement of fill in a
the floodplain, and extending existing culverts, would accommodate the needs of aquatic
wildlife.
Wetlands
Identification of Wetlands
Wetlands are defined as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas."
[33 CFR 328.3 (b), 1986]
The US Army Corps of Engineers serves as the principle permitting agency for wetland
activities as mandated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500; 33 U.S.C.
5-18 1

t

L

Sec. 1344). The Corps utilizes the following three criteria in determining what constitutes
a wetland for permit purposes: 1) hydric soils; 2) hydrophytic vegetation; and 3)
hydrology (regular flooding or inundation). These criteria were recently formalized by
interagency agreement (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989)
and adopted by the federal signatory agencies. The National Wetland Inventory records
wetland areas nationwide, but the inventory has not yet been done for the project area.
In addition, there are no fresh water wetlands maps that have been prepared by the
North Carolina State agencies.
During the months of April, September, and November 1990, three separate
reconnaissance trips were made along the project area to identify wetlands in
accordance with the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands", January 10, 1989. Floral and faunal species encountered were identified and
classified by dominance and wildlife composition. Results of the wetlands inventory are
presented in the US 64 Improvements Natural Systems Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, April 1991), which contains the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Determination Forms for the wetlands affected by the project. The locations of wetlands
are shown in Figure A-1 (Appendix A).
Small and mostly isolated wetland areas occur along the project, generally associated
with existing watercourses and other drainages that pass under or parallel to US 64. In
most cases, the wetlands occur on both sides of the road. Thus, it is impossible to
wholly avoid the loss of wetlands. Wetland loss can be reduced at any given location,
however, by widening on the side of the road where the wetland encroachment would be
smallest. In general, the side of the road selected for placing the two new lanes is the
one that would have the least wetland involvement. The overall wetlands involvement for
the project is less than what would occur if the new lanes were placed on the opposite
side of the existing lanes from that proposed.
In a few locations, however, the project is not on the side of the road that would have the
least wetlands involvements. This was generally done to avoid displacement of a major
employer or a substantial number of residences or businesses. A stream relocation was
also avoided. In each case where this occurs, the wetlands affected are either directly
across from the non-wetland feature being avoided or within the distance required to
safely transition the widening from one side of the road to another. Thus, it would not be
practicable to avoid both the wetland impact and the non-wetland impact at these
locations.
No consideration was given to seeking a new alignment to avoid wetland displacement
because:
• Of the added disruption and cost of a relocated right-of-way and roadway.
• The existing road is generally straight, thus a realignment would be longer in
length, increasing impacts.
• A roadway on new alignment would cross the same or similar streams and
drainages as the existing road.
At wetlands, 2:1 cut and fill slopes, the maximum permitted by the project design criteria,
would be used as necessary to minimize wetland encroachment. During final design,
the design of the proposed action at affected wetland areas would be re-assessed
based on more detailed mapping. The encroachment areas provided in this assessment

5-19

are considered to be worst-case. The final design encroachment areas could be
smaller.
Wetlands Impacts
Fifty-five wetlands areas would be affected by widening the roadway embankment. The
acres affected are shown in Table 13. The average wetland encroachment per site
would be 0.18 acre. The largest encroachment at any one site would be 1.16 acre. This
wetland is an impeded drainage ditch on the north side of US 64, with sycamore and
slippery elm. The second largest encroachment would be 0.89 acre, and this wetland is
also a drainage channel with sedge or cordgrass. Total wetland losses would be 11.7
acres.
At each site except one, loss of wetlands along US 64 would be less than one acre and
fall under the thresholds established for Nationwide Permit 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. In
the case of the one area where the encroachment would be slightly greater than one
acre, a pre-discharge notification to the Corps of Engineers District Engineer would be
made in accordance with 33 CFR 330.7 (Notification procedures). Based on that
notification, the Corps of Engineers will determine if Nationwide Permit 26 applies or an
individual permit must be obtained.
Since an individual Corps of Engineers permit is not required for the wetlands affected by
the proposed action, the requirements of the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines" do
not apply to the proposed. action. The requirements of the memorandum would apply if
the Corps of Engineers determines that an individual permit is required for the wetland
where 1.16 acres would be affected.
In view of the low level of impact, a specific wetland mitigation program is not deemed
necessary. Although a formal wetlands mitigation program is not proposed, minimizing
wetlands losses was one of the primary evaluation criteria used to determine whether the
road would be widened to the north or south in a particular section and in developing the
preliminary design, as previously discussed: During final design, the design of the
proposed action at affected wetland areas would be re-assessed based on more
detailed mapping. Several of the affected wetlands are existing drainage ditches along
the roadside. While these ditches would be filled as a consequence of embankment
widening, new drainage ditches would be established outwards of the new construction
limits. It is expected that the same type of wetland would be reestablished in these
relocated ditches.
Best management practices also would be implemented to further reduce wetland
losses. These practices would include the following:
• Minimizing wetland disturbances through careful geometric design to avoid
clearing and fill at stream crossings.
• Prohibiting construction staging areas in wetlands.
• Restricting vegetative removal within adjacent natural communities.
• Initiation of an erosion and sedimentation control program during construction.
5-20
r

Table 13: ACRES OF WETLA ND TAKEN
Acres of Acres of
Wetland Wetland
Acres of within 200' Acres of within 200'
Wetland Wetland of US 64 Wetland Wetland of US 64
No. Taken Centerline No. Taken Centerline
1 0.17 0.61 34 0.24 0.29
2 0.00 0.43 35 0.01 0.20
3 0.00 0.53 36 0.00 0.00
4 0.50 0.97 37 0.12 0.12
5 0.42 0.87 38 0.14 0.25
6 0.00 0.00 39 0.10 0.10
7 0.06 0.40 40 0.19 0.22
8 0.00 2.28 41 0.23 0.74
9 0.05 0.57 42 0.00 0.29
10 0.00 0.16 43 1.16 1.89
11 0.89 2.22 44 0.04 0.07
12 0.16 0.66 45 0.19 0.44
13 0.08 0.08 46 0.20 0.43
14 0.05 0.05 47 0.38 0.52
15 0.13 0.58 48 0.47 0.66
16 0.04 0.08 49 0.50 1.21
17 0.12 0.21 50 0.18 0.54
18 0.06 0.13 51 0.05 0.14
19 0.11 0.29 52 0.05 0.20
20 0.41 0.48 53 0.23 0.36
21 0.00 0.00 54 0.29 0.52
22 0.00 0.01 55 0.03 0.50
23 0.12 0.12 56 0.00 0.43
24 0.17 0.37 57 0.00 0.08
25 0.03 0.08 58 0.58 0.92
26 0.00 0.00 59 0.03 0.38
27 0.20 0.33 60 0.15 0.15
28 0.05 0.13 61 0.51 0.84
29 0.07 0.15 62 0.19 0.47
30 0.01 0.06 63 0.24 0.66
31 0.36 0.42 64 0.18 0.25
32 0.14 0.23 65 0.11 0.25
33 0.39 0.62 66 0.12 0.21
TOTAL 1
1.69 28.47
'Number correspond to those shown in Fig ure A-1 in Appendix A.

' 5-21

Water Quality
Surface Water
Roadway Runoff. The pollutant loadings in the surface water runoff from the proposed '
action were analyzed based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) "Predictive
Procedure for Determining Pollutant Characteristics in Highway Runoff" (FHWA, April
1990). This procedure is based on an extensive study, research, and development
program by FHWA to analyze water quality impacts caused by highway stormwater
runoff. With the proposed action, estimated in-stream. pollutant concentrations are
expected to meet State Water. Quality Standards, except in those instances where
existing in-stream pollutant concentrations are currently exceeded from other sources.
The FHWA study has shown that highway facilities with low to medium traffic volumes
i
l
(approx
mate
y 30,000 average daily traffic or less) exert minimal to no impact on
receiving waters. Almost all of US 64 within the project area will have peak annual
average daily traffic volumes of 17,700 or less in the design year. Thus, minimal impact
from stormwater discharges on receiving waters is expected. Moreover, the same traffic
volumes are forecast for future no action as well as the future proposed action
conditions. With the project, the road would be widened and the paved area would be
expanded. Consequently, the pollutant loadings would be constant, but the volume of
roadway stormwater would increase. As a result, the pollutant concentrations with the
project would be smaller than that for the no action alternative.
There is one section of US 64, the segment between US 220 and NC 64, just west of
Asheboro, where peak annual average daily traffic in the design year will be 30,400.
Since this is only slightly above the threshold in the FHWA study of 30,000, the
conclusion of minimal stormwater impact is still justified. Drainage in this segment will be
discharged to a box culvert over a minor stream west, of Asheboro.
Stream Access. There would be no adverse impact on existing fishing and recreational
access to the major streams crossed by the proposed action, because the existing
access points to the streams would remain after the completion of road widening.
Erosion and Sedimentation. The effects of erosion on aquatic habitats and organisms
are potentially more severe than terrestrial habitat loss. Most riverine species are
adapted to a level of sedimentation that occurs naturally. When excessive erosion
occurs, there is potential for impact.. Clear cutting and grading for road construction
expose areas of soil that, if not properly controlled, could be washed into aquatic
habitats, causing turbidity and unfavorable changes in dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels,
and other water quality characteristics. Erosion can affect downstream populations
because the turbidity is transported by the watercourse. Some species have specific
requirements for sandy or rocky substrata; high levels of sedimentation can smother
them.
As suggested by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, particular care
would be taken to avoid silt loads in the Uwharrie River during the spring white bass
runs. Erosion control would be required of contractors during project construction (see
the "Construction" discussion).
J

5-22

Mitigation. The project would result in no major adverse impact on water bodies in the
area of influence. Mitigation measures for minor adverse water quality impacts would be
best management practices and design. Roadway drainage would be provided by
lateral ditches on both sides of the road. Current, cost-effective mitigation techniques for
pollutant removal include:
• Adequate right-of-way to allow sediment control and siltation control devices.
• Flush shoulders and grass-lined drainage channels.
• Curb elimination.
• Wet detention and retention basins.
• Wide separation of drainage inlet structures.
• Prevent bridge drainage from directly entering receiving waters.
• Litter and pesticide control.
• Infiltration systems.
• Using wetlands for chemical and biological pollutant removal.
• Reducing direct discharge to receiving streams.
• Reducing runoff velocity.
• Allowing overland sheet flow.
• Vegetation establishment and maintenance.
Specific management practices to be used would be determined during final design.
Groundwater
The proposed action would occur immediately next to the existing road with minor
changes to the existing profile. Thus, no impacts to local groundwater tables are
expected.
Drainage. Stream Modification or Impoundment
The proposed action would not have a major impact on existing drainage systems.
There would be minor stream modifications in connection with some culvert and pipe
extensions and no impoundments.
US 64 bridges currently span the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek. A
four barrel 10-foot by 10-foot box culvert is used at Brier Creek. Area flood studies
indicate that there are no severe flooding problems at major streams. At stream
crossings, proposed action waterway openings would be the same size as those of the
existing crossings. The new roadway would be placed on bridges that fully span the
stream or extensions of existing culverts. When paired with an existing bridge, new
bridges would be supported on piers to be placed in register with existing piers. No
5-23

piers would be placed in the area of main channel flow. No fill would be placed in
streams as a part of bridge construction.
Where box culverts and concrete pipes penetrate the existing embankment, these
structures would be lengthened so that the existing drainage function would be '
preserved. The appropriate sizes for culverts and pipes would be determined during
final design. Channel relocations of from 15 to 150 feet would be required in connection
with the extension of three culverts and four pipes over 60 inches in diameter. NCDOT r
would coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission during the design of these relocations. The channel relocations
would be required because the existing channel bends at or near the mouth of the
existing structures. The disposition of drainage structures less than 60 inches in
diameter would be determined during final design based on more detailed mapping.
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 under 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) would be sought
and obtained. It is intended for permitting minor road crossing fills that involve the
discharges of less than 200 cubic yards of fill material below the plane of ordinary high
water, provided that the crossing is culverted or bridged and that the discharges into any
wetlands adjacent to the waterbody do not extend beyond 100 feet on either side of the
ordinary. high water mark of that waterbody. Based on field observations, fills at culverts
and bridges required for the proposed action would be within these limits. This would be
confirmed during final design.
The new impermeable surface of the additional two lanes would be a fraction of the total
area of the watershed, so the additional storm runoff volume would not affect nearby
properties and streams. Project ditches would be adequate to carry storm water to
nearby streams and drainages.
With th
d
i
h
e propose
act
on, t
ere would be no qualitative difference in effluents from the
roadway than exist at present,. and future pollutant loadings in the stormwater would
have negligible effects, as discussed under "Water Quality" above. Currently, the
roadway drainage flows to vegetated, unlined ditches on both sides of the road.
Pollutant burdens to date have not been sufficient to adversely affect the vegetation.
Much of the drainage percolates into the soil, and if the rainfall intensity is sufficient, there
is open channel flow in the ditch to its discharge to a stream. While traffic volume, and '
therefore pollutant burdens, will increase in the future, increases in pollutant burdens
would be well within the assimilative capacity of the relocated vegetated drainage ditch
system.
Flooding
Stream crossings are identified on Figure A-1 (Appendix A). The Uwharrie River,
Caraway Creek, and Back Creek, are designated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as Zone A (100-year) floodways. Their corresponding
floodway widths across the US 64 alignment are 300 feet, 750 feet, and 500 feet,
respectively. The rest of the project corridor, including Brier Creek, is within Zone C
(minimal) floodplains. Bridge inspection reports and field reconnaissance gave no
evidence of road overtopping at major drainage structures. No flooding problems

requiring detailed study were identified during FEMA flood studies. Preliminary design L
studies indicate that existing bridge openings, box culverts, and concrete pipes are
sufficient for discharge.

5-24 1

I Floodin9 impacts by the proposed action would be minimal for the following reasons:
• The placement of fill material for roadway embankments in the 100 year floodway
would not be of sufficient quantity to affect floodway flows.
• Existing bridges over the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek would be
maintained. To accommodate the new lanes, two additional bridges would be
constructed to completely span the streams. The existing bridge over Back
Creek would be replaced by two new bridges. When paired with an existing
bridge, piers for the new bridges would be in register with existing piers in order to
streamline flows and maintain navigation in_ navigable waters. Waterway
openings for project crossings would be the same size as those of the existing
crossings. No piers would be placed in the main area of channel flow.
• Where the roadway embankment must be widened in proximity to a floodplain,
minor regrading or fill in the floodplain could be required. Modeling would be
done during detailed design to ensure that any increases in backwater levels
would be less than that permitted by federal law and local ordinances. If required,
retaining walls would be used so that the limits of the widened embankment would
be pulled inboard of the 100-year flood elevation.
• Where culverts penetrate the existing embankment, they would be lengthened so
that the existing drainage function would be preserved. Therefore, there would be
no additional flooding upstream of the existing berm. Additional culvert
improvements would be made during final design, if necessary, based on a
hydraulic capacity analysis.
1 In conclusion, no substantial constraints to flow would be laced in floodwa s and the
flood stage elevation upstream of the project would not be affected. Y
PROTECTED SPECIES
' Under federal law, any federal action, which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally-protected plants or animals, is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. In the case of a state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to
be required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the
proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened, or proposed species.
Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, . through the
provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant
or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in
this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). North Carolina laws are also designed to
protect certain plants and animals, where statewide populations are in decline.
Federal-Listed Species
Plants and animals with federal protection statuses of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS Raleigh Field Office was
consulted in early 1990 for a list of endangered and threatened species that might occur
in the project area. The letter received from the field office is contained in Appendix B.
1 5-25

The letter also includes a listing of species in Randolph and Davidson Counties whose ,
status is currently under review by the USFWS. Federal-listed species that may occur in
the project area are shown in Table 14.
State-Listed Species r
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special
Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act (G. S. 113-
331 to 113-337) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979
(G. S. 196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19), administered and enforced by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA), respectively. t
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. were contacted for their listings of state-protected species that may occur
in the project area. The letters received from both agencies are contained in Appendix
B. State-listed species that may occur in the project area are also shown in Table 14.
Impact Potential
As indicated in Table 14, five protected species, three birds, a bat, and a fish, potentially
could be present within project construction limits. It is unlikely that any would be
adversely affected by the proposed action. Nests are unlikely to be close to an existing
highway corridor and individuals would be able to relocate. Stream beds would be
affected by the proposed action only to the degree of the cross sectional areas of new
piers and culvert extensions. Sediment and erosion control plans would mitigate
potential construction phase water pollution.
In addition, no threatened, endangered, significantly rare, or unique habitats were
observed in the project area, and sufficient forest plant populations exist outside the
project area, therefore, no adverse or unacceptably large losses to species habitats are
expected because of the project. Since the proposed action would widen an existing
road, no new growth corridors would be opened which could enhance public access to
important habitat areas.
No further field investigations for protected species are considered necessary. I
AIR QUALITY I
An air quality analysis was undertaken for the proposed action and the no action
alternative to determine if National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) would be
exceeded with the proposed action. The analysis was conducted for year 2010 and year
2000 (10 years prior to 2010). It was found that NAAQS would not be exceeded.
Fundamental Concepts of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
and Impact Assessment Assumptions
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions from internal combustion
engines. The impact resulting from the construction of a new highway or the
improvement of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air quality conditions. Motor vehicles emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide (SOO, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Different
assessment procedures and NAAQS apply to each of these pollutants.
5-26 1

F- c o cd c as co
z a,:fit S c o
W c 3 0
co v o a o
E cc% W

F-
O

O
:5 wo

pp co

N to

N

CL C C
O
O
p y

p N O. N

U N

V
.
.
y
«+ p O
E .p N y
a
o ca O
CL
<n O
cn
U
Q ?
a o co 3 y c
.
:L- P
p Q
x 0 cd .

O .r

O
?r
N U p O
a
Q w w
a+ a?+
C C
> 0 0
O o
O> d
m Q U d
P V C=
t G
t
z
Q O C-
C. .V
H s
n c N d
d
d
yQ, C

p V N

a m H d ca
h N V
O

, N

' N
?' (A a a? £ ca C0 a (1) ° a Q 'v

LL c
O O

C U
f_- C O • h .h
z z z z z
U a a U

W
2 46 cf) 0 C
F- o c ?- o

Z
E
vs C0
3 ? 0
3 co Clots
"

4)
N E
r v; c a (D
cd r
' C @ 0 ? c?
' U co ca
CD
m U
co N cc$
0
c d
c`
0 rn w as co p0 co s
i
?
O
o
co a
y c ?'
c o w
0
c o "? ?

U :r coo pa>> oa
2 oco0

W
v
cd o. U E c6 1
a) E N 3 Q,
cu a:
LL ^ c
w
O E N o
O p a? c O
O p c
c?
C Z 'D t: -0 > tC p "a
> O
U U° a a o a Q cr Cd a 0 0-
W
0 c c c

O
Lv, (D
o to a)
o C
o cctl
w Q LL LL a LL d tL CL
F-
U
W o Cc
Q o w r w
0 cu y
w «
o U o V n
-? Cl) «
(D
L c?
V/ Q
w
0,= r cr
[?
Li CD
~
co
`
cn `? 2

Z J co CO
CL
v
i
?
? ?
c
r V J _
. c?4 0 co J N .C C
w O
LL
S C Cd Fw- RS
s N

cz O
a a
CL
"
cis
v
H c
o w
n
E
I"- as O? w
LL n
RSZU t
U`Z J ?
N?U
=?.ZJ co ?U 3U t
?`U EZJ AU
C7`ZJ

5-27

J
Q
Z
F-
O
I-
Q
Z
CD
LL
O
_U
Z
w
Ir
O
w
U)
U
w
a.
0
w
F-
W
I--
O
a
o
N
cis 0)
F- a
V C
4m
0
E a
C
0
U
U O k
+. O w_ C
aa3CU
O
V
O
r
c
c?
Q
E E
o
O .U
V y.
c
L 'p

vs d •._
.G y •0 ? ?

0 G L O y
3 v
a) '0
? m ? N
c
a c
c E

N a
i
C cc •°
.
>. ay ?.
cd
e
U
E a CIS
m m
N
O - ?- C >
o0
s ~
7 O m
.
C Y

o 0 0
'
s
o m 3 a
Z
a?
L
C
X
CD
O
c
0
v
cis
O
Cd
N
O ca
`l1$
m
Cl) °a
Z
rn
S
c
a? cts
O o
3 °
c? ?.

c
3 0 ?° `c% co

ct%
O C cc 'd
p) 0 ° Y

a? 3
r-
c
its (D rn t ` 0
c

cc C :3
cm
N
cts .-
N
C
a) O
_
C d
cts
E '?'
C C
C
9) o
>
V
co
U ? ?_ O

0
°
o
a (Oj 3

°
a)
cn
3 T
CO
w
}
a?
c
C
m O
:2 0 0
3
C13 0
0 ..

c
3 0 ,° 0
cis
. r
cc% «
O c M
0 p
N U 0 0 Y

Co O CC y
C m O
c
a?
- N
C
O 'E O
w
C O
C
co 0
t >
O ' 0
- O w 0
(D 0 - cis
0
.O ? 3
Q O
cn 3 N
> E
?
s
U
w
}
rn 0 1 L
Co a
o- c o> o c o c
° 'EEoc? Ea?, Ern
a v m a? n 0 cc c. ? 10 Q. ?c-
° a? a ?s '3 E c a:
0) co
Cts
YQo0 y N 0 Rf C O Q N C
O` 0 c cAA 3-0 0 C C 0 '0 y
Co ,N co 3 N N co CO) N 'O C 0
C 0 C 0L Q 0 O _O C CO N
w L E L C p N C 0 0 C o C O
cc 0
i E O to
C 0 "- O 0 0' C
m> E CM o a E c E.0 O CC
CO C
c `a 4) 0 o A v o 'a 0 C. C? cm
c
Ec* E (D33vi E°'"° E?'n?
co co
10 a) D o o M `N 'a co ?
°? °o Cl) L
n Co
a 3D a a o crL Ca n..0 o cr a. 0 So
rn c
c ca
m
3 C a
o O E °
u. a a m co
•E
a?
c4 ` N U h y
CNU CCU cu CO 3 ocNU
J h«'? CO U ? cc co U)
w = U
` t m V Z Z Z
O Z Y O RS .1C , Y
E ca c i cc C U to a) Q co if
Z-1 LL=U y OVU O V(? to
?-Z -i co Z U ` Z
5-28
e
i
J
f•-
W
0
I--
Q
G
z
CD
U/
U-
0
z
U
2
F-
z
W
Ir
0
cc
W
W
A
CL
UI
W
F-
W
0
d' cA
o
Cl)
co
F a
V ?
Ea°
,oo
? v o •
? H C 4

a y
N
a3
v?
0
v
0
J
TO
c
0
C'3
Q
ca
UU..
0)
c

0 m
o c
m
o 0
c cots
c
O C •O m .: C o a0i O O N
ca
o
°c
3 ? >. 0 .0
oc mo

N v co

'- w

m m

= E

m ° x

m
m
c v
0 cc
c? m
3
w-
0
m
ca
E
wo
'
0
0
.
oc0•0 `a cc r.
cRS'a 0 ?
N '-' _ NV a c
O N O
ai 0 c? o
Y 0 0
'- N 5
at 3 >'
o m +
-'
E N
o
•o
c
0 N
0
3 0 CL 75 'ra
m
Im cis o c m 0) ca c n m ur 3 c„ 0
m CC c
m
°'
° y co Z E- m - O y X c
mc° co
Ev, ?, ?
o mE N° «- o ? a a
Ew
E c v
c Co •E
E D c t: c >0 o N m

cc 0°
c
o
cc m
o
c 0 o
a
m
?
0
0
«.
ca
•.
_
CO (D ctl a) c 0
ca 0 A `O2 'o
o?0 0
r
o
$
?? ??
om
m 0)
m
m
Ca
i'v? o
o
?
a
m
to 3 e?
't .o
cn 3
cc$ L
> m mY a
to c
C's .r a? o .. m m
} Z
} } Z
c ? m
3
c
,Y cc
3 N v

E
, 0)
«.
D o m
t- c E m
c c
c
?° Y
N c M N :5 .0 cis
O
O
Vj U

N
m 0) U
N c
c?a m a a
?.0
, CIS «.
c o c
-0 0
5 c
Q a. c 0
3
E m m E N 0 m •° £ 0
vi
E
o¢ 4) CC E ?
ca
ca LL

E N?
1
'
E 3...0
'
' co
E
a
0 v
>
co o ° c
>
m c o cc a z

co
ai

a? m
a. ;.. O a c E p U° cn a. 3

E
E
ca a

m
m 2 u, ii ¢
m
h U
Y C CO
L `f D
U 3 U
c c U
m . Z
c
e i cm
S
m n
ili- ZJ
.0
d
e?
I m CO -, cm
U
(A
C Y •? Y Z
z ? ? E
p? mU v1
Z` v?ZJ
5-29
y
L
o
•C
V -? a U
C

? O

=34 Cl)

? coiu U ?

a?
ocCi)=
Cl) H ca U F-
U
ca
y Z
p Z
o
y y
Z
LL o cm 0'
a~ L Z c o o 6
O N c F c Ec o
C C
C "
ciZzm -Uvs
W UWzm o- Uco
mVZ:5
•x
J
?V via a?
F- as c a c Cd c crj c co
c
z04-4) • m m o. o
.. a?
c..?
W E4) &.2 E0 &.2 E$'o E00 a?iE0.0
E N-0? E y.0? E N.0 a a E co to
4) CO 0 W 0 CA 4)
v O- 0 .0 O 0 v O- 0 v O- 0 v O- 0
U 0 00 3 = 'co c 3 = 'w c 3 = 'U, o. 3 5 'gin =0 3
Q 3 aci 3 y 3 a) 3 N 3 :: 3? 3 °: 3 y ° aci 3 a)
3 0
gym`-can. ?m a 0axi CL 0d a ?m CL
4) CL - CL 0) CL 4) CL CL
0 >
o o 0> o o> 2.2 o o o 0
75 - (D CD
.0 ts
V V 0
Q E .0 .0 4) 0 0 :3 CD 0
c E Cs C E c E c c E c=
co v? m y V a)cd vi U y i t!) 0 i to 0 N V
(A a° ca c. a CO c. as .° co o. a w c. 4")
c. a? o
O o
U
e
'Rf V 3 :
F- ? h ? C w
Z OL ?S U v Z Z Z Z Z
U
w
r
F-
Z c
E
w
Q N N w w
C N 'O > H > >
° ca Cd E >
> cc > Ct%
U V CO .0 4)
.0
fl
p N
?t C U mac.. a a?..?..
LL 0 ? ca
as ? L 3 ° 3 3
0
W cci o 0 (D
U C'3 li a. !L LL.
W
,^^
vJ ? N N N
CL > > >
D
w Q
F-
U
w
0 (D a 'RS -. v
y O 3
4. o : `o cn
N m NU cm Q 0 cc co asN N r> 30i
C C N °?NW
r 22 06% U °'? U c? e U i e U h U
co
m y 9L o 0 0 3
o C Al CZ cQ?CZ LL ??tZ c? pSCZ o ?.YZ
a) Q m. ` C C ycd c y C C p C
CZ (M 0 CU O O V O .G U N 9 , U H 0 -44 as
U t"n cis
a3 U v? O w U v
F- C. V? W Q R.z:3 Q ZJ m`ZJ U ZJ (n`ZJ
5-30

1

1

J

a _
c ?

Z o ? o
.•c«-c
w o
I--
O ..000
E
0
N a
O N L
d
F- C .o ...

U ?
H
O
3
a 3r
C ?y.. N O L
a
Q
or- m O _
v
a ?cEN
C E ° o
cc

CD 4 0
e? 0
o
a
fA a cn 'o
. a? 0

O

}, _

•? U
U
t
O t
Q) I
Z aa? U? Z
U_

W

~ ow
z '0 c
c

L ?

0 a:
C O E

O N
U c ?
w Z
J +r
c
E
E

w
aCi go
a? > N
U C'3 a a[ u
w

Q? Y
Q O
w Q

U

F-

cc (D
.1 Y to
°
E to U.
cn

Ca
2
Cl)
U
_
cd %Z
O C y 3 y Z
Q1 LO ° c cu
c 'V c ca
y C

H (

a A)

U C
p
«+
y
?? S Z'
U
._
3
.

O
Z
> y
ct;
c o
o p
_
o
y m
- >
'0 ca
cc 4)
Z c
t d co
O
t: C
v C td
U
Z > ct

C
O N
E
3 3 Z c
E a
i o

E o 0 o w
o
U
vrn y c
0 °o
N n
V Y
O as °
N
i
0 - E 0 v
y E y N V a?
Q
m p
U N 0 p V "?
v
.
d RS a
0 N
ctj
0
O
?O
'd y

E
CO .0 r
CO
C0
W ?N `>? E a
vwUcn

d cts
v O
Z' O
=
c?
a o> C 3 '
U
c
ci ¢
a) W U Cl)
tcn E c°i ? 0 = a LL
o w
° - O
cc tSf 0 Y Co
c o cu U "O
cts

v ?
U
• -0 E
U
3 = y clf C '
co
v ad
Z? 0
U ? p Z >+
?
0 0

y
' ?i
E-
o
0
r
?
°)
U. >
>, U w
a
Z
° _
c c
ca
rnU
Y
d
E o E E
v,
cOi J
Q a?
'a 12
N p w Z 00 0 N U O C° N
cu E o c >..? O c 0 U «-
E o E ca d y .- 0- c ca
r 'U
O t C elf 4) p O O
0 L f? C
d
a

,,..a
3 .
t of
L
wHCD UU
`
m UUr? ai
d Ewa: a?
? c
o
U
cu r o co
QX Z? N U) Cl)a Z W Hcnco U
«
« «
5-31

Carbon Monoxide Emissions I
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide. Automobiles are

considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For these reasons, most of '
the analyses presented in this report concern expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the proposed action.
The State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are as follows:
• 1-hour - 35 parts per million (ppm) or 40 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3); not
t
b
c
d
r
h
d '
e ex
o
ee
mo
e
e t
an once per year;
• 8-hour - 9 ppm or 10 mg/m3; not to be exceeded more than once per year.
An 1-hour concentration above 35 Ppm or 8-hour concentration above 9 m is
pp
considered a violation of the standards
In order to determine potential CO concentrations at receptors near a highway, two
concentration components must be used: local and. background. The local component
takes into account CO emitted by cars operating on highways near (i.e., within 300 feet)

receptors. The background component takes into account CO emitted by cars ,
operating on streets further from receptor locations.
In this assessment, the local component was determined using line source computer '
modelling and the background component was determined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (EHNR). These two
concentration components were determined separately, then added together to '
determine potential CO concentrations for comparison to the NAAQS.
Other Emissions '
Automobiles also are sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides emitted from cars in an urban area are mixed together in the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical r
oxidants. It is the photochemical oxidants that are of concern and not the precursor
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Th
h
t
h
i
l
ti
th
t f
i
di
d
i
i
em
e p
o
oc
ca
reac
ons
a
orm ozone an
n
trogen
ox
de requ
re several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers
downwind of the source of pollutant emissions and urban areas as a whole are regarded
as sources of photochemical oxidants, not individual streets and highways. The best
example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California.
Area-wide automotive emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are expected to '
decrease in the future because of.the continued installation and maintenance of pollution
control devices on new cars. No appreciable changes in these emissions are expected
with or without the proposed action. The proposed improvement project would improve ,
the existing road's level of service and is not expected to generate new traffic.
Automobiles are not significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nation-
wide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g.,
5-32

industrial, commercial, and agricultural activities). Because emissions of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on US 64 would cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic
converters burn unleaded gasoline and emit no lead. Also, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
' gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon.
By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels
and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. Because of these reasons, the
traffic on the proposed project would not cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
Carbon Monoxide Concentration Modeling
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to forecast future CO concentrations
with the proposed action. "CAL30HC - A Modelling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant
Concentrations Near Roadway intersections" was used to predict CO concentrations at
the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed action. CAL30HC can be used to
' estimate CO concentrations for free flow roadways and for queued traffic at
intersections. For this assessment only the free flow algorithms were applied. Queued
traffic should not occur.
' A review of land uses, roadway plans, and projected annual average daily traffic (ADT)
within the project area found that worst-case concentrations at adjoining land uses
would occur in the vicinity of the NC 49 and US 220 interchanges near Asheboro. The
largest traffic volumes will occur in this area and receptors are within 300 feet of the
roadway.. A range of receptors at this location was analyzed to determine receptors with
the greatest CO concentrations.
Input into the CAL30HC model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of level
roadway segments, with forecast peak hour traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes were based on the
' forecast design year (2010) annual average daily traffic (ADT) projections prepared. by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). They are presented in the
"Traffic" section of this chapter.
' The initial modelling analysis was conducted for all wind angles (0 to 360 degrees) at 10-
degree increments. The worst-case receptors were then remodelled at 1-degree
increments for 10 degrees either side of the wind angle from the initial analysis with the
worst concentrations in order to determine the maximum CO concentration.
Roadway segments used in the model included all major roads within 4,000 feet of any
' receptor along US 64. A wind speed of one meter/second was utilized along with
stability class of F. Other input parameters are presented in the US 64 Improvements Air
Quality Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, October 1990).
' CO emission factors were calculated for the years 2000 and 2010 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source
emissions computer model. Input for the model was developed' through consultation
with NCDOT and from the "Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Complex
' 5-33
1
Sources" (EHNR, October 1989). Average vehicle speeds used in the model reflected
typical driving conditions in.the peak hour, and included 35 mph for US 64 for the no
action alternative and 55 mph for the proposed action.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.9 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality. Section, Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), EHNR, indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
Findings
CO assessment model results are presented for two worst-case locations for the
proposed action and no action alternative in Table 15. The four locations are shown in
Figure A-2r. For the four-lane proposed action, the worst-case location would be
between the US 64 and NC 49 mainline and the northbound NC 49 entry ramp (Receptor
4). This location is ten feet from the edge of roadway. The. CO concentration would be
5.9 and 5.6 ppm for 2000 and 2010, respectively. For the no action alternative the worst-
case location would be just north of the crossing of US 64 and NC 49 (Receptor 2). The
CO concentration would be 6.7 and 6.4 ppm for 2000 and 2010, respectively. The two
worst-case locations do not represent developed or developable land or a location
where people might congregate, but do provide an indication of the maximum CO
concentration adjacent to the interchange.
For the proposed action, the developed property with highest CO concentration would
be a motel in the southeast quadrant of the US 64/US 220 interchange (Receptor 20).
The CO concentrations would be 5.3 and 5.2 ppm for the years 2000 and 2010,
respectively. For the no action alternative, the worst-case location would be a business
on the north side of US 64 that is directly east of the westbound entry ramp to US 64
(Receptor 10a). The CO concentrations would be 5.9 and 5.7 ppm for the years 2000
and 2010, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with NAAQS (maximum 1-hour - 35
ppm; 8-hour average - 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards would occur.
Since the "worst case" 1-hour CO level would be less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level would not exceed the standard.
The project area is within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Randolph and Davidson Counties is in compliance with National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is therefore in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
procedures of 23 CFR 770 "Air Quality Conformity and Priority Procedures for Use in
Federal-Aid Highway and Federally Funded Transit Programs" do not apply to this
project.
NOISE
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed action on noise levels
at sensitive land uses along US 64. Field measurements, noise level modelling, and an
abatement analysis for US 64 indicate that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) would be exceeded with the proposed action, but no
traffic noise abatement is reasonable or feasible.
5-34

r

1

J

t

0
r

1

Table 15: WORST-CASE CO CONCENTRATIONS AT
US 64/NC 49/US 220 INTERCHANGE
1
Receptor Location

F1
Total One-Hour CO Conc. (ppm)
with Background
2000 2010
PROPOSED ACTION:
#4 (between US 64/NC 49 mainline crossing 5.9 5.6
and northbound NC 49 entry ramp) (wind angle 247 degrees)
#20 (motel in southeast quadrant of 5.3 5.2
US 64/US 220 interchange) (wind angle 254 degrees)
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE:
2
(just north of US 64/NC 49
#
mainline crossing)
#10a (business on north side of US 64
east of westbound entry ramp to US 64)

5-35
6.7 6.4
(wind angle 109 degrees)
5.9 5.7
(wind angle 111 degrees)

The noise analysis was initiated with a field survey to determine ambient noise levels in
the project corridor. Ambient noise levels and predicted noise levels, with and without
the proposed action, were compared to determine traffic noise impacts. Where traffic
noise impacts were predicted, abatement measures for reducing or eliminating noise '
impacts were examined. and evaluated. This section presents the findings of the US 64
Improvements Noise Report (December 1990).
Traffic noise impacts were determined using the current procedures for the abatement of '
highway traffic noise that appear as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Fundamental Concepts of Roadwav Noise
Generation of Sound '
Sounds exist in our environment at all times. Some sounds are necessary or desirable
for our communication or pleasure, some are unnoticed, and some are unwanted or
disturbing. By definition, unwanted sounds are called noise. The following subsections '
provide a background for some of the concepts and terminology of sound and noise.
Sound is a disturbance that propagates as a wave through air, causing air particles to
vibrate. Although the generating motion
and the resultant motion of the air particles are
,
very small, a sound wave can propagate over several miles.
Three basic parameters of environmental noise play major roles in determining human ,
subjective response. These parameters are:
• Intensity or level
• Frequency spectrum
• Time-varying character. '
The first parameter of environmental noise, intensity, or level is quantified in decibels
(dB). The range of pressure variations that the human ear can detect is tremendous; '
however, to describe sound in terms of pressure variations would be very cumbersome
because of the great range of amplitudes that is involved. Therefore, a compressed
scale was devised. The decibel or dB is the unit of this compressed scale. By using ,
these units, the range of normally encountered sounds can be expressed as 20 to 140
dB rather than as 1 to 1,000,000.
Frequency '
The second parameter of environmental noise that can be quantified is frequency. As a
sound wave passes a point, the air pressure alternately rises and falls. Each time the '
pressure rises and falls, it completes one cycle. The number of cycles per second
(called Hertz, Hz) is the unit in which frequency is expressed.
Frequency is observed subjectively as the tone or pitch of a sound. The human ear can '
detect a wide range of frequencies: from about 20 to 17,000 Hz. The low frequencies
(20 to 500 Hz) have a low-pitched, or bass, sound. The mid-frequencies range from

roughly 500 to 3,000 Hz, where most speech information is carried. High frequencies '
are from 3,000 to 17,000 Hz.

5-36

' A-Weighted Sound Level
The most commonly used measure of noise level is the A-weighted sound level (dBA).
' From many experiments with human listeners, scientists have found that the human ear
is more sensitive to midrange frequencies than it is to either low or very high frequencies.
At the same sound level, midrange frequencies are therefore heard as louder than low or
very high frequencies. This characteristic of the human ear is taken into account by
adjusting or weighting the spectrum of the measured sound level for the sensitivity of
human hearing. The A-weighted sound level is a measure of sound intensity with
weighted frequency characteristics that correspond to human subjective response to
noise. The A-weighted sound level is accepted by acousticians as a proper noise impact
unit for traffic noise.
' An understanding of the following relationships is helpful in providing a subjective
impression of changes in the A-weighted sound level:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, an increase of only 1 dB in
A-weighted level cannot be perceived.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB increase in A-weighted level is considered a just-
noticeable difference.
• A change in A-weighted level of at least 5 dB is required before any significant
change in the noise level in a community would be perceived.
• A 10 dB increase in A-weighted level is subjectively heard as approximately a
doubling in loudness, independent of the existing noise level.
Table 16 illustrates the relationship of decibels and common ever yday sounds. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends on the amount of
' intruding noise, the relationship to background noise and the type of activity occurring
when the noise is heard.
Sound Level Descriptors
' The third basic parameter of environmental noise is its time-varying character. The
sound level from any roadway fluctuates from moment to moment as time passes.
' These fluctuations constitute the time-varying properties of roadway noise.
The sound level descriptor used in this study is Le L? is defined as the continuous A-
weighted sound level that in a given time period contain the same energy as the actual
time-varying sound during that period. Le has been shown to be a particularly stable
descriptor for roadways with low traffic Ames. For traffic noise assessment, Leq is
typically evaluated over a one-hour period, and is denoted as Leq(h). All noise levels
' determined in this study are Leq(h).
Noise Abatement Criteria
' In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various
land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. A
summary of the NAC for various land uses is presented in Table 17.

5-37

Table 16: HEARING: SOUNDS THAT BOMBARD US DAILY '
140 ( Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft. away at takeoff Pain
Motor test chamber Human ear pain threshold '
130 -
120 ( Firecrackers

I Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer '
I Hockey crowd

110 - I Amplified rock music Uncomfortably loud
I ------------ ,

100 I
I Textile loom
I Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor '
I Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory Loud

D go i - -----

,
E 80 ( Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
C
I I Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
I Average factory, vacuum cleaner
B I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away Moderately loud
E 70 - I ____-------------
L I

S
60
(Quiet typewriter '
Singing birds, window air conditioner
Quiet automobile

Normal conversation, average office Quiet '
50 -------------------------
(
i Household refrigerator
I Quiet office Very Quiet
40 -- I - -------------
30 I Average home ,
Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 I Whisper Just audible
10 ---- I - _--_____ ---------------
0 I Threshold for acute hearing
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial ,
Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford (Researched by N.
Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.) '
t
5-38

Table 17: NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
H l
W
i
h
our
y A-
g
e
ted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities Is essential If the area is to continue to serve its
Intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
(Exterior) residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.
C 72
(Exterior) Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Categories A
or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
(Interior) libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.

Source: Fede ral-Aid Highway Program Manual -7 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Nois
e
and Construction Noise, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Aug ust 9, 1982, revise d November 20, 1986.

r

5-39
i

Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: a) approach or '
exceed the FHWA NAC, or b) substantially exceed the existing noise levels. NCDOT
Noise Abatement Guidelines (May 1990) define approaching or exceeding as any activity
category land use with a predicted noise level within 1 dBA of its criteria. Substantial
increases are defined as 15 dBA or more where the existing Leq is 50 dBA or less, or 10
dBA or more where the existing Leq is greater than 50 dBA.
Ambient Noise Measurements '
A noise measurement survey was conducted in the project area on January 5, 1990 to
document existing (ambient) noise levels. Ten measurement sites were selected that
were representative of noise sensitive receptors within the project area. Table 18 lists
the land use, distance from the roadway, the date and times of the measurement, and
the Le for each site. The sites' locations are shown in Figure A-2; the specific sheet
b
d f
h
it
i
i
l
i
T
Th
de
num
e
or eac
s
e
s
nc
n
u
d
able 18.
e noise meter used for this study was a
Noise Level Analyzer B&K/4427. Traffic counts were taken at each measurement site
during the sampling periods and differences in the measured noise levels are attributed
to variations in site conditions and traffic volumes.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions during the field measurements were used
with a traffic noise prediction model (described below) to calculate existing noise levels
for comparison with noise levels actually measured. Table 18 shows the field
measurement and the modelled (computed) noise levels. The calculated noise levels
ranged within 0.0 to 5.4 dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for
which noise measurements were. obtained. It was concluded that traffic on US 64 is the
dominant source of noise in the project area. Differences between measured and
calculated levels are small enough that they can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles,
stop-and-go traffic movements, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly
spaced" vehicles and single vehicle speed.
Prediction of Future Noise Levels
Model
The procedure used to predict future traffic noise levels was the noise Barrier Cost '
Reduction (BCR) procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March 1983). This
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-
77-108). Model results take into account the number and type of vehicles on the
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation and barrier top elevation.
,
Screening Process to Determine Impact Location
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine the number of land uses '
(by type) that would be exposed, with the proposed action, to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA NAC during the peak hour and in the design year. Those land
uses where a substantial noise increase would occur were also determined.
Assumptions. The proposed action was modeled assuming no special noise
abatement measures would be incorporated into the roadway design. Only significant
existing natural or manmade barriers were modeled. The roadway sections and '
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. These assumptions
represent "worst case" topographic conditions.
5-40 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
i
1
U)
z
O
U-
F--
5W
L
W
D
Q
2
O
Z
66

m
H
v
C
.C U
U
E
0 a
m ?
a
ti
a
co o N
Q
U 0 0
10 m
Z
r N cD N O Ci O Ci c0
CV) r-
r- co to P?
w co ? c^0 c0 co cCDD (DD co co
c0 N N Qf c0 O r O Cp c0
V- c0 N le N O N co O N
c0 co LO t0 1A cD co cD co co
O
C
'
a Cd
N co N N N > U) N

co ca m ca 0 0 cis co cts C13

0 y (9 0 N c7
cis
cd
C7 0
0
rn
T
T
O
0
N
N
M
cO9
M
v
?
C

ao 0
Q1 T T r r T cD r O O
E
a

t?
O
O
O
O
O
c0
N U
co
N CO r N m v LO co C9 O co
?••
r T T r T r T C
? co
L
r O Q?
O r.
O O

E
+-
N ?
N d
N a
N ?c
N
N vs
N U
N U
N ca
N ,.,
RS '-
c
a a a a a a a a a a c
E 'a
O V
p !D

ca
is
is
is
ca
Ta
is
is
is
is O
?
o C
.2 C o r C w C C ca 3

N mo
O 0MO
O 0
=Q
6 O
E
O ro
O mO
O Mo vO mO °' v
O v
:
g

E N

r
N

r
0 0
r
0
C-
r
? 0
r
U

01 -
v 5 m O ¢ Q ¢ ¢
cts
3
O
U
C
•
ca
N
r

r
N
co
v
cA
c0
I-
CD
Cn
O a.
.-
N :+
r 6 D
r N
5-41
Where applicable, noise attenuation resulting from the type of surface or other physical
characteristics of the area between the roadway and receptor was taken into account.
The attenuation factor for a soft surface between the receptor and noise source was
assumed in the noise analysis.
Highway-related noise predictions were made for years 1990 and 2010 worst case traffic
conditions. For the proposed action, forecast peak hour traffic volumes were used in the
noise analysis. With a peak hour level of service A, B, or C, this represents worst case
noise conditions. For the existing and no action noise analysis, it was assumed that the
combination of traffic volumes and speed that would produce maximum noise levels or
the worst case would occur under level of service C conditions, during which, traffic
volumes would be less than in the peak hour but traffic speeds would be higher. Thus,
the maximum traffic volume possible under level of service C conditions was used in the
existing and no action noise modeling.
The estimated existing and projected traffic composition is 90 percent automobiles, 7
percent heavy trucks and 3 percent medium trucks. These percentages were assumed
when modeling proposed action noise levels. When modelling level of service C
conditions for the existing and no action analysis, however, actual or forecast peak-hour
truck volumes were utilized. Automobile traffic was estimated by subtracting the truck
traffic from maximum volume possible under level of service C conditions.
Process. A screening procedure was applied to determine worst-case noise levels at
sensitive land use within the project area for existing, no action, and proposed action
conditions. General 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise contours (distance from the edge of
pavement where these noise levels would occur) were determined. Different contours
were developed for the five sections of roadway along US 64 that will have substantially
different traffic volumes. These general contours were used to identify land uses where
noise levels with the proposed action would approach or exceed the FHWA NAC.
Analysis Findings
Proposed Action Impact
Table 19, indicates that the NAC for activity category B would be approached (within 1
dBA) or. exceeded at 70 residences with the proposed action. The NAC for activity
category C would not be approached or exceeded at commercial properties or other
developed land for which this criterion applies. The NAC for activity category E, which
applies to the churches along US 64, would not be approached or exceeded at land
uses for which this criterion applies.
Table 19 also includes the modeled ambient noise level for existing traffic and the
predicted 2010 noise level without the proposed. action, at sensitive receptors where the
NAC would be exceeded with the proposed action. The expected noise level increase
from ambient to 2010 with the proposed action is included. Noise level increases range
would range from 0.5 to 11.7 dBA. One receptor with existing levels greater than 50 dBA
were predicted to experience traffic noise level increases exceeding 10 dBA.
5-42
Table 19: IDENTIFIED LAND USES ALONG US 64 EXPECTED
TO EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS APPROACHING OR
' EXCEEDING THE FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Page 1 of 2

Land Use Predicted
Ambient Predicted
Noise Level Predicted
Future Noise Predicted
Noise Level
FHWA NAC Noise Level No Action with Level with Change Existing
Activity Category
'
' Location with Existing Future Traffic Proposed Action to Future with
B Along US 64 Roadway 2010 2010 Proposed Action
#1 Residential (N)s 112+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
#2 Residential (N)s 121+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
#3 Residential (S)s 155+00 62.0 64.1 73.7 11.7
#4 Residential (N)n 163+00 62.0 64.1 69.8 7.8
#5 Residential (N)n 185+00 67.6 69.7 73.7 6.1
#6 Residential Trailer (N)n 187+00 67.6 69.7 73.7 6.1
#7 Residential (N)n 200+00 65.0 66.1 72.0 7.0
#8 Residential (N)n 206+00 65.0 66.1 72.0 7.0
#9 Residential (S)n 235+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
#10 Residential (S)n 268+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
' #11 Residential (N)n 269+00 67.6 69.7 70.0 2.4
#12 Residential Trailer (N)s 272+00 67.6 69.7 70.0 2.4

' #13 Residential (N)s
#14 Residential (N)s 297+00
312+00 67.6
71.7 69.7
73.8 70.0
73.7 2.4
2.0
#15 Residential (N)s 335+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
#16 Residential (S)s 336+00 60.6 62.9 69.8 9.2
#17 Residential (S)n 374+00 66.2 68.5 69.8 3.6
#18 Residential (N)n 383+00 60.6 62.9 69.8 9.2
#19 Residential (N)n 424+00 60.6 62.9 69.8 9.2
' #20 Residential (N)n 443+00 66.2 68.5 69.8 3.6
#21 Residential Trailer (S)n 466+00 66.6 68.5 69.8 3.2
#22 Residential (N)n 469+00 60.6 62.9 69.8 9.2
#23 Residential (N)n 481+00 60.6 62.9 69.8 9.2
#24 Residential Trailer (S)s 487+00 66.2 68.5 75.7 9.5
#25 Residential Trailer (N)s 497+00 66.2 68.5 68.4 2.2
#26 Residential Trailer (N)s 503+00 66.2 68.5 68.4 2.2
#27 Residential (S)s 534+00 60.6 62.7 67.7 7.1
#28 Residential (N)s 544+00 66.2 68.3 67.7 1.5
#29 Residential (N)s
#30 Residential Trailer (N)s 549+00
551+00 66.2
66.2 68.3
68.3 67.7
67.7 1.5
1.5
#31 Residential (S)s 556+00 60.6 62.7 67.7 7.1
#32 Residential (N)s
#33 Residential (N)s 564+00
586+00 66.2
66.2 68.3
68.3 67.7
67.7 1.5
1.5
#34 Residential (S)s 600+00 61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
#35 Residential (S)s 650+00 61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
#36 Residential (N)s 783+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#37 Residential (S)s 797+00 61.3 63.7 68.8 7.5
5-43
Table 19: IDENTIFIED LAND USES ALONG US 64 EXPECTED '
TO EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS APPROACHING OR
EXCEEDING THE FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA t
Page 2 of 2

Land Use
FHWA NAC
Activity Category
'B'

ocation
Along US 64 Predicted
Ambient
Noise Level
with Existing
Roadway Predicted
Noise Level
No Action with
Future Traffic
2010 Predicted
Future Noise
Level with
Proposed Action
2010 Predicted
Noise Level
Change Existing
to Future with
Proposed Action r
#38 Residential (N)s 818+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#39 Residential (N)s 819+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#40 Residential Trailer (N)s 825+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#41 Residential (N)s 826+00 67.1 69.3 68.5 1.4
#42 Residential (N)s 831+00 67.1 69.3 68.5 1.4
#43 Residential (N)s 837+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#44 Residential (N)s 840+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#45 Residential (N)s 843+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#46 Residential (N)s 844+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#47 Residential (N)s 845+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#48 Residential (N)s 871+00 67.1 69.3 68.8 1.7
#49 Residential (S)s 870+00 61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
#50 Residential (S)s 965+00 61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
#51 Residential (S)s 972+00 61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
#52 Residential (N)s 984+00 68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
#53 Residential (S)s 1103+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#54 Residential (N)s 1106+00 72.4 74.6 72.9 0.5
#55 Residential (N)s 1157+00 72.4 74.6 72.9 0.5
#56 Residential Trailer (N)s 1158+00 68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
#57 Residential (N)s 1169+00 67.3 69.4 68.2 0.9
#58 Residential (S)s 1171+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5

#59 Residential (S)s
1174+00
62.7
64.8
69.2
6.5 ,
#60 Residential (S)s 1175+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#61 Residential Trailer (S)s 1176+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#62 Residential Trailer (S)s 1177+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5 '
#63 Residential (N)s 1184+00 68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
#64 Residential (N)s
#65 Residential (S)s 1186+00
1185+00 68.3
57.0 70.4
59.0 69.2
66.0 0.9
9.0
#66 Residential (S)s 1187+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#67 Residential (S)s 1188+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#68 Residential (S)s 1193+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5 '
#69 Residential (S)s 12001+00 62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
#70 Residential (N)s 12001+00 68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9

(N) Located on north side of r oad
(S) Located on south side of road
n Widening of US 64 to the north '
s Widening of US 64 to the south
• Proposed action station numbers. See Figure A-1.

5-44
Table 20 presents a summary of Table 19 findings. The following can be observed from
' Table 20:
44 of the 70 receptors would have noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC
in 2010 with or without the proposed action.
• The greatest increases above the existing noise level occur at receptors on the
same side of the road as the widening. For these receptors, a portion of US 64
traffic would be moved as much as 74 feet closer.
• At receptors on the opposite side of the new travel lanes (approximately 50
' percent of the receptors) increases over existing levels would be small and would
be primarily attributable to forecast increases in traffic volumes that would occur
with or without the proposed action.
Table 21 identifies the 67 dBA distance by roadway segment. This information is
provided to assist local authorities in preventing or discouraging future development of
noise sensitive activities within this area of affect.
Proposed Action Noise Abatement
Noise abatement was considered at receptors with predicted noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA NAC. It is not, however, feasible for this project.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with a
measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable
measures may include earth berms or abatement walls.
The existing road and proposed action contain minimal control of access and future
development would continue to have direct driveway connections. For a noise barrier to
provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough, continuous enough, and long
enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Openings for
access (e.g. at driveways, crossing streets) in a barrier severely reduces the amount of
noise level reduction provided and makes the barrier cost unreasonable compared to
the.benefits gained. In addition, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would
normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long.
An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA. Safety at openings, because of restricted sight distance, is also a
concern. Finally, businesses, churches, and other nonresidential establishments
normally require both accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable noise
' abatement measures tend to disallow these two qualities and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures.
North Carolina State Noise Abatement Guidelines, (May 1990) indicate that it is not
prudent or reasonable to consider noise abatement measures for the land uses in Table
19 for the following reasons:
• For approximately 50 percent of the receptors, the change in existing and design
year noise levels would not exceed 3 dBA (a just noticeable change).
• Most of the remaining 50 percent require direct driveway access to US 64. Thus,
an effective reduction in noise levels could not be achieved with a barrier.
5-45

J
W
W Q
J
W W
OU
z
U z
LL W
W :j;
Q W
Q
W co
U Q
W (c jj
Z
w0
X Q
W
O=
LL
W W
F=-
U C7
W
_Z
X
W W
U) W
W U
x
W
0
z0
J Z
LL y
O
cc Q
W 0
C13
CL
=a
Z
O
C\l
.Q
cri
F-
o,
c
z
J Q c
Z ? Q
0 9y
y 4
CL
V
a
w
0
V w
k
y ?
m
v?
H
? h
O
L ?
?J
.y
Z Z
co 0
a
o ?
?- o
c
Q
M ?
mW m
M o
0
Q
w ?
3
0
c°v a
0
U
Q
Z
O
N 3
C
.y
W
h
O .? y
m ?
? 3 a
O O O .-1
O O N 4 C)
r M N 01 co
.T- ? NI t-
cc ? v •-i
cf) ) tt r-1 IV
st CV
Z CO Z CD
H

U
w ? ? Q

CO Q Q Z co
5-46

' Table 21: MAXIMUM EXTENT OF 67 dBA FOR FIVE
ROADWAY SECTIONS ALONG US 64

Information to assist local authorities in land-use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent US 64.
Roadway Sections on US 64 Maximum Extent of 67 dBA

Section #1 Just east of 1-85 to NC 109 145 feet
Section #2 NC 109 to county line 120 feet
Section #3 County line to Uwharrie River Bridge 110 feet
Section #4 Uwharrie River Bridge east to
1 Back Creek Bridge 125 feet
Section #5 Back Creek Bridge to NC 49 Asheboro 130 feet

w

L

5-47

There are 10 affected receptors that do not have driveway access onto US 64. '
They are, however, isolated residences and not grouped with others. It is
considered unreasonable to provide abatement for isolated residences because
the cost of abatement would be greater than the benefits provided.
Based on these factors, no physical abatement measures are considered feasible and I
none are recommended for the proposed action.
CULTURAL RESOURCES I
State funded transportation projects must comply with General Statute 121-12(a),
"Protection of Properties on the National Register," which requires that if a state action
would adversely affect a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the
North Carolina Historic Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
Historic Architecture Resources r
There are no historic resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places or in the
State Study List that are within the proposed action's area of potential effect. This
conclusion is documented in the "Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation Report for
Proposed Widening of US 64 from Just East of 1-85 Bypass Interchange Near Lexington
to Just West of US 64/US 220 Interchange in Asheboro" (Stephenson, March 22, 1990).
In reaching this conclusion, the files of the State Historic Preservation Officer's SHPO
Survey and Planning Branch were researched in mid-March 1990. Two secondary
sources were also reviewed. They were Paul Baker Touart's Building the BackcountU:
An Architectural History of Davidson County. North Carolina (1987) and The
Architectural History of Randolph County (1985), written by Lowell McKay Whatley, Jr.,
compiled by Dawn McLaughlin Snotherly, essays edited by Dr. Jerry L. Cross. These
resources included architectural surveys of both Davidson and Randolph Counties.
Archaeological Resources I
There are no archaeological sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the
project area. As recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office, a limited
reconnaissance level survey to determine the nature, extent, condition, and significance
of archaeological resources that might be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
action will be conducted by NCDOT prior to construction. Correspondence with the
State Historic Preservation Office regarding the potential for archaeological resources in
the project area is included in Appendix B.
CONSTRUCTION I
Traffic
Traffic along US 64 could experience brief periods of delay and disruption during
construction. The construction contractor would be required to meet the traffic
maintenance requirements of NCDOTs Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures (January 1, 1990). These requirements are summarized in Chapter 2 in the

5-48
"Construction Scenario" section. NCDOT and the contractor would coordinate
construction activities with representatives of the Tabernacle Fire Department to ensure
that the access maintenance program at its fire station fully meets their needs.
Utilities
Water, sewer, gas, telephone, cable television and electric lines exist in the project area.
Most of the utilities in the project area are on the north side of US 64. Much of the
proposed widening would occur on the south side of US 64, however some relocation of
utilities would be required. The location of utilities will be included in final design plans.
NCDOT would coordinate construction activities with the appropriate officials to minimize
damage or disruption of existing service.
Air Quality
' All materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations would
need to be removed from the project area, and burned or otherwise disposed. Dust
would be raised by construction operations.
Burning of waste and control of dust would be the responsibility of the construction
contractor. The contractor would meet the burning and dust control requirements of
NCDOTs Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures (January 1, 1990). These
requirements are summarized in Chapter 2 under "Construction Scenario." Any burning
also would be in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances, regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality and in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520, North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, Chapter 2, "Environmental
Management, Control and Prohibition of Open Burning."
Noise
Road construction noise varies greatly with the type of equipment in use and the phase
of construction activity. Noise levels near a construction project therefore fluctuate
greatly from day to day and hour to hour. High noise levels of combustion-engine-
powered equipment are usually the main contributor to the higher noise levels. Earth
removal, hauling, grading, and paving are construction elements adding to noise levels
in the vicinity of construction projects.
Overall, construction noise impacts along US 64 would be minimal since the project
S corridor is in a low density rural area, and construction noise would be short in duration
and generally restricted to daytime hours. For those structures closest to the proposed
action, transmission loss characteristics over distance would be sufficient to moderate
t the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Waste Disposal
The disposal of excess excavated material outside the right-of-way would be the
responsibility of the contractor, who would be contractually required to handle and
dispose of the material in accordance with NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures (NCDOT, January 1, 1990) and local, state, and federal laws. NCDOT
specifications require that the waste be covered with earth and shaped into contours that
are comparable to and blend in with the existing topography, when public waste or
disposal areas are not used. The covered waste areas must be seeded and mulched.
Erosion must be controlled. Disposal in areas under the Corps of Engineers regulatory
jurisdiction is not allowed unless the contractor obtains the required permit.
5-49

Natural Resource Protection
Standard procedures contained in Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures
(NCDOT, January 1, 1990) that pertain to natural resource protection would be followed.
The established procedures that relate to this type of highway improvements include:
• Legal relations and responsibilities to public (Section 107).
Protection and restoration of property (section 107-12).
Control of erosion, siltation, and pollution (section 107-13).
Hazardous, contaminated, and/or toxic material (section 107-27).
• Clearing and grubbing (Section 200).
• Roadway excavation (Section 225)
• Borrow excavation (Section 230)
• Disposal of waste and debris (Section 802).
• Seeding and mulching (Section 880)
• Temporary seeding (Section 881)
• Matting for erosion control (Section 885).
• Wooded area cleanup (Section 887).
• Selective vegetation removal (Section 888).
• Temporary slope drains (Section 890).
• Brush barriers (Section 891).
• Silt check dams (Section 892).
• Temporary sift fence (Section 893).
• Stone for erosion control (Section 545).
These procedures would be incorporated as General Conditions in the construction
contract documents, and the construction manager would be responsible for enforcing
compliance.
Erosion Control
Impacts to aquatic habitats and wildlife during construction of the proposed action would
result primarily from erosion of adjacent upland areas. Sensitive areas would include
streams, ponds, and wetlands. An Erosion Control Management and Maintenance Plan
would be prepared during design and carried out during construction. The plan would
5-50

J

0

' comply with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
Requirements of the plan would include:
' Minimize the areas of exposed earth.
• Provide temporary and permanent seeding and landscaping as soon as possible.
t Provide silt fences at the base of all fill slopes.
• Provide storm drain inlet protection at all catch basins or other areas where
sediment may enter storm drainage systems.
• Provide rock silt check dams and/or sediment basins on the downstream side of
all stream crossings and at large cross drain locations.
• Provide check dams in US 64 ditches.
• Install temporary slope drains to protect cut and fill slopes.
• Stage construction.
• Schedule construction operations so that work in critical erosion hazard areas is
conducted during periods when rainfall is characteristically low.
• Provide coverage of hauled material.
• Provide designated and controlled wash down areas for construction equipment.
' Geodetic Survey Markers
i There are 37 geodetic survey markers in the project area. NCDOT would work with the
¦, North Carolina Geodetic Survey to ensure that its geodetic markers within the
construction limits are protected.

P

' 5-51
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

' Chapter 6
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
I PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement was encouraged during the US 64 improvements study through the
study's Public Involvement Program. The program was designed to make sure the
general public was fully informed and able to contribute to project decision-making. It
included the following components:
' Public Workshoos. Two workshops were held to provide the public an informal
opportunity to discuss preliminary study findings with the study team and provide
their input. The first was held on May 24, 1990 at Tabernacle School at the
beginning of the study. Its purpose was to introduce for discussion the U.S. 64
improvements study, possible alternatives, and issues to be addressed in the
environmental impact assessment. The second workshop was held on March 12,
1 1991 at Tabernacle School. Its purpose was to present for discussion the
improvements study findings and a proposed preliminary design.
• Newsletters and Mailing List. Two newsletters describing the items to be
' discussed at the two workshops were sent to persons on a project mailing list
approximately three weeks prior to each public meeting. Persons on the list
initially included government officials and local civic organizations. Individuals
1 were invited to add their names to the mailing list at each workshop. The
newsletters were also made available at the workshops. A third newsletter will be
prepared prior to a public hearing.
• Calling or Writing the Study Team. Persons were invited to call the study team
with individual questions or requests for more information.
Group Meetings. Community groups and civic organizations were invited via the
newsletter to arrange a meeting with study staff throughout most of the study
process. No groups requested such meetings.
• Official Public Hearing. A combined location/design public hearing on the
preliminary design and the findings of this State Environmental Assessment will be
held.
Most people came to the public workshops seeking information on how the proposed
action would affect their property. Local volunteer fire departments, a Randolph County
¦ School District representative, a major employer, and individual citizens expressed
s interest in the location of median crossovers and how their location would affect their
accessibility to and from US 64. Improvement of the safety of turning movements
through better sight distances and additional turning lanes was the principal need
described by the public.
' GOVERNMENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
A scoping letter was sent to local, state, and federal agencies in April 1990. It described
the proposed action, project need and purpose, and principal characteristics of the
1 6-1
affected environment. Input related to proposed action location, issues to be addressed
and their significance, and the degree of analysis required in the State Environmental
Assessment was requested. Correspondence in response to the scoping letter and
other correspondence was received from:
City of Lexington (Town Manager) May 4, 1990
Randolph County Board of Education May 7, 1990
Randolph County Director of
Planning and Development April 24, 1990
NC Department of Cultural Resources -
Division of Archives and History May 8, 1990
May 31, 1990
August 1, 1990
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
• Division of Environmental Health May 14, 1990
• Division of Forest Resources May 1, 1990
• Division of Land Resources May 2, 1990
• Division of Parks and Recreation March 12, 1990
May 22, 1990
• Division of Soil and Water
Conservation May 16, 1990
• Division of Water Resources April 27, 1990
• Planning and Assessment May 24, 1990
NC Department of Public Instruction May 14, 1990
NC Department of Transportation
• Bicycle Coordinator April 20, 1990
• Division of Aviation May 7, 1990
• Division Engineer, Division 8 April 23, 1990
• Division Engineer, Division 9 March 7, 1990
• Location and Survey Unit May 7, 1990
• Right of Way Branch May 8, 1990
• Statewide Planning April 24, 1990
6-2

L

E

• Winston-Salem Regional Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Soil Conservation Service
May 24, 1990
February 28, 1990
May 21, 1990
May 10, 1990
May 22, 1990
April 20, 1990
February 23, 1990
May 3, 1990
The above correspondence appears in Appendix B. Scoping letters also were sent to:
Local
• City of Asheboro.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
Town Manager.
• Davidson County.
- Board of Education.
- Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
- County Manager.
- Director of Planning.
• City of Lexington.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
• Piedmont Triad Council of Governments.
• Randolph County.
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
County Manager.
North Carolina
• Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse.
• Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services.
• Department of Transportation.
- Geotechnical Unit.
Hydrographics Unit.
- Landscape Unit.
- Traffic Engineering Branch.
Federal
• Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Review Branch.
• Geological Survey, District Chief, Raleigh, North Carolina.
In addition to the scoping process, data pertaining to the definition of the affected
environment was sought from local, state, and federal agencies.
6-3

fl

1

1

1
r
' Chapter 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
Table 22 lists the persons who contributed to the content of this Environmental
' Assessment and their role and qualifications.
0

n

1 7-1
m
a c
W W p
2 a a a
L 6 C
C
C C ?
W W N
a
Co '> > cca U
U C? F= Q

L c
p

c m o

C
p c

.O c.
to
C
U R1 .
.
UL C C
O O
?
O
i E
m C
cc cc C
c"o

m a
LU LU °
L
U
c
css
in
Z 'p
O E a
c E
a c o
- co

U) 0
IL m` C

a)- 2 c

W

C
Lr Z m ? w c co
W Q Q 2 d U C ca w
E rn c? v>
Q O LL N p C C U
CL O N .> a?
O
W cc z c?
a w a Rf
U a
. . a.
a 2
cr
a
O
a
W
? U

m Z
J O> J
O C !n
C\i m EL > co
Y
N N a a
U E
C V
GC
a m _ c7 a
p
CZ 0 E ¢ LL U (? U a
c a
cz
a 0 CD CD
Z Z =m ?m i-m?
a
U
_
a
a
a
a
O
C Q ?.
? S C
_
a v)
w cm
w
w w
'> > > >
? U U U U
• «,
c
a? c
a? c
e,
d
C o c cm
co 0)
ca
a
(m
a? ° c? m
a? s E E c
O G. 4) C C C cm 12
U

c_ca C
c C
co CD _
'
Q ` ai
aW O O
O ... H C •U Q.
CD
O CC cC a 4)
0) 4) W
'D

N C
C
d
O O
>` C
>`
_
O .>
>?
to >
d L
a O
* v CL co O N U M V cn L
C U ?

a? o,
C n

ca C N
O
a E
Z ? h a?
c a? =
co
Q a` ca `?
•o
_
U cc
o c E c ? rn
p :.= aci c
W > > U
ad O E o

W O
O

d"
> U

O
C

O
C

O

V
O
Q 0 t > N O
`
O a.c,? a a a a

LL
LL
O

W
U m d
z
O o L
C
cc
m d
CM CL L
-. W
C
) E
w
0 N

U
CO acis
? .
=CD
U .
p
cn a
rw E
Dui

m
Q c
L
D U U
L U
a °m am co 3 -,,m m
7-2

Cc
cc
LL
0
J
N
N a
O
N
a)
I- w
c
4
v
y
C
,O
h
S"
0
a
U
n
W
C
4
Q
ni
0
C
Cts
O
E
2
m
m
c
w
CL c

m w

` O
m c

c c

O ul p L
LU U c
y
c C
cis m
U t= 1= a
v
c
c c m

m H m
E
T C
m M
c a m E m

C
co
m C U
21) cc

> cts
r
cc .0

o
4f C
`
m _
b ?..
N r m co

N M
U
ca
c cc
(5. cts >?

v T m f M co
N
m
1
? N C
c0 i O

c0 t

a +m'
h p
a
c
E H m
c 3 c` m tS
_O
`r "
c 3 ca
a
O c0 'C
c E
C N
y
ma
- V 0
E

cm
m >,

o
m
m E'D CL
c E y c ?

U
?. c
V O
W•
> V c
2 c

O U m m c
0 c
y
Cc •O O
° c
CL He H? Zv
? m
CL a
u: cc
Ma O
O Z
X
mL
'a
o

CL LiJ 0
Q
m V) .: CC

Q

Lj
02 ca

m CO

2
U
CO c E
U (gin -5m om
m
c
c
W
C
m
E
O e
iro W
Cd
CL
E_
m '? d
C C
O
O ? O
m c m
fA 'c cA
0 cc
V
9-cm 9 a
O c T E
T m T
ts V
cc cd
CL CL
E E
H co
m m
? yy+
N co 2 w
cis Cd
Z ca Z cts
cm
c

c CO

C m C
W
0
Y C
E
va N E
mc
- 10 0)
CO
O m a
U
7-3
H h
O c
O
C
c?
w w a
N N
E o
C C
O U
m
•mc c
co
I y
,g c
m
0.5
c
O
C
N
C
co
m
3
N
c
m
c
m
?cl)
¢°m
0
CL
E
ccis c
c rn =°- E
E O m
c ?°, E
CD
O` m C N
> ?; ?• cc
m E aci E
m N a
?c ('
O cc >% c
a E a m

L O
E N
Q t
co
U
U
L Q
? y C
Rf C O
i c cc
c0 >
? o y
T N 5D
r a
V

O ca
CL
E
cn
w
a)

'C t!f

m ~Q U
N
' U

N

N CD cc

C
O U_
m c O
CIS
Z ca
Q
2 u?

W
CO 0
Z c
O m
U L

Q (1)
C
CO) 0 W J
.+
ca cn ?cn
cng ?g = c

°
m
m U L
M
i
- in ¢ m

11

1

1
' Appendix A
PROPOSED ACTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
r
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
LEXINGTON
E
0
0
o m/
cu
0o SHEET 1
U?
SHEET 2

0
0
ROSE. AUSTIN
L DORIS C.
i. HUGH \\
ALAS Y
`LA 0.
POT STA 109.90-
E.B.L. POT STA 10990.47 (35' RT)
x
Z
a
I?
NATHANIEL

FLETCHER
MACHINE CO. INC
C"Zar ``
s•aK-w?
2? Q CF?Nf r,
ttn•tt• •• ?,/\
ROSE. I 7
ANDY NATHANIEL
? za
1 L
•i\BROOS. RUTH o
r L THOMAS
BAILEY. JOE
L ERMA G.
_ Proposed Pavement
r' L BfN
ROY SON.
`1` ? M, i BETT
s` ? Y
N90?
?D
FIGURE A -la
-PROPOSED ACTION -J
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ww ww ww w ww w w ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww wr ?w
Po \ ," 0
O ohaytiY wfq ! I Ell r i ? ? \ nX ? ? • p ?
i Ill • I
CA Cl) (1)
?X, m 1
m m om 6T
C
111 '• I ' ^m? -m-? _ MATG i
In nl r
I I ? (a 1 ,
Z I ? -~
O m , • ! t? m n, «
T ? I 1 ? K 1 1!
1T', ,} I In I nl 1
1 1 1
W ? 1 1 ? I »
y
1 195000
2
• ^I
m 1^ 1
I 1 , 1 ?
moo
0 I i? .OO • S
r 1.
NO ?? 60.00
O 1 1 I n
"o
1
I ? 1 \
N
in m 1° 1 Ac
;v
r 1 \ fTl
r??•T?rr77 __?______ ..PC' 1 = 1
1
,
Q I I 1 ? 1
r_ I I 1
a r 1 \1' 1
', « m 1 \ 1 s
1 m I , ? 1 \
m
'a E 1 ' b 1 0.00
0 , 1 b S
Q) I I I I
1 • 1 ?4Q
1 1
(D 1
I 1
?. I , m H • 1 ?"
5.00
.x
CD
1 1
" X%
IJ • I !? I^ I
I C
alms ? I+ ?? ? aC - '/ ?• ' ?O
1 T ?? L 1 f
KN a N_ ? Fz",
o =? '?j 1^ 1
0
1 I
girl ? • '?. • ? I _
^I m
n, •4 205.00
m 1 ; m •o x 1 ?
1 , mm ?
I
?m 170•.010
' I 9 1
' nl O 1 1 \
' ^ 1 1 !(Wti
' 1 ? 1 I
I• y i ' '
N y Iti wl
I N I I ; ; ? .'7
.1 I 1 .Z1 %
r ? Z11
I 1
I 1D..1 -0 C 1 1
-0 ? 1 J 1
" ) m«;
S 210.00 D '
m I '
$ Q '? I r?QQ '? i i m
Q 1 im /: I I
1 '
'00
I x
175.00
I I D
,•? I m I I ? r
1 ? I 1 m
• ? I ; Iw
I« - C6 I 1
i - PT 176.8.1' mo
m o
I
Q T ! y / I 1
Q 215.00
m
q ey_ I I ` ??
GE JARRETT 1
• ' i v. T .'1 NE. d NANO tJ• ry pp
' I n I« nl « 3y
1
JARRETT. GENE i SON ' e7
LUMBER COMPANY X , r><
1
o I a ( 5 _z ,i P I n 180'00
1
I" •• MEDLIN. BARRY W.
1 L RHONDA G. ,
I • , F, I o
I
LEONARD. WANDA LEIGH •
I ' Q
/ t -v 1 w? I T
I ^ qfl' YOUNG. THERE4ZB. I"e4 I I ?
`. 1 S
?_ ''yam ?}"•,' `
P
M , o54
• °+' 4!•^^ MOROV I
+ CH. ` 1 IRf i1 p C'?
YY EDWARD
;n Q Q V MARG R. ?---- -? ^? x I
n,
185.00
W O ?`: ?; b r d I b'
T
• ¦ ..4 I• on I? 0D 41 r
D i m
m 1^
C D • ; I- m •P?•. 1 it ?I .aa
/??
O o 1
o
1? _ '• a?•., 225.00 - 1
m . / ma sMD a I 1 In
v? 1-I ti _ i I I m'?
'r m i7 _ i r
m ,
190.00
1
, 'I 1 1 m
O ,, ' •/ f I I rg
Z T H I{ E EET No. 5 S
N? ? n
L n . n NE - To. 4 ?m
i z
m m m m m r w m =1n= it m m m m m m m
F
0
v
0
N
CD
a
V
CD
O
O
O
O
! 1rD
wo
?m
m
m
eo
?'?
`2922
I
00
Om
M>
00
0
O
Z
L

!`(p
S

m / N

r No. 265 X00
X /
? 2
M
-m-I
IX rn
.I
o ?R ?g
'o p
(h LZ is)
133211S Oa09HStl
270.00
i
(D
00ii
xp
9
i
S r
PT •
r V ? (`
pQ 1u
295.00 g

?.--4-0
\300.00
W ^
_ ? n 1
m
J ? I
0 ItlD ?,I ?•
1
T -?
1
I
1
.? 1
HARRIS ROAD
"°'?---
(SR 2464)x-- ---------- _ _,-
-n'
I..J I
5r Q 1
l??C I
m MM
sa t:f
+ I
I _l
N p '
• y 1
I
._ 1
KE R EY R0 4D (S 2260) 0 - .._i
Er
1
I ?I
1
1
1
1
----===CSI
I
X90.00 1 "
l?R0
may, a??
ri
?7y
m
1
I
mS Q 1
0 1
m
Q '
1
3 I
1
et? -? 1
1
Pc es7.0o
X?
i
T
230.00
C2 o?' y
0a , oa
?'S40 *,;
tt ?v

S
7.1E.23

240.00
4 S ?d\ ?F
c
<
C
8 so???
X11
'!y
0
"4

?
I
'9
0 !

x

245.00

250.00
s 255.00
I $
01.6446,, W
?EEKER ROAD (SR 2112)
.
260.00
!
p j65.00
m m m r m m it m m m r w m m r m m m m

0
-a
0
m
a
m
CD
0
O
?&l
O
Oc
Om
rn>
.!.L
n
4
O
Z
L
try
I I MATC
m
m
I
I 1
I I ?
D
I f
I I m
CT
Z
I I Zm
1")
0
I I
M
1 C
CO)
DR
Z

ti a
r
S m /
y g
g ?C
N G
m ,
m
A
No E ?i
mo
\ o
m°
315.00
Qfl
• D
0
am
m
a
32Qc-00
- J e'Dy D+
uJiJ _ S D m G
' O
:Z
Z ?.
m r 325.00
N
a
v
0
:v
i

C3, a g30•OO
? a
a Z,
335.00
m
1 ? D y'
v. D
F
?1 mD
?1j x C
_ ?Du
D
3 •00
PO
me
Q m-
p xOn
F7 <
o
Q? r
m
j

rr ?r r r r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr ?r r rr rr
` HL1 Sg
NO. 7
m \
_I
00
%
I. '
:'i?' \ I• r' 0
^ ' 1
? \ • g I
F 0 -0
• • I uw[w?K [.[[Kwi
Z N
C) 0 CD \ •
17. C. ^1
0. ? I I
345.00
O
'
CD
1
CA PT 345 03.15
m
, r
% N / 1 <
S 1
fit
' 350.00
t 1 m=
0.5. 3 t ' PT 2Q9 9y
z-
\ I ar
\ 1 ' p
I ' n
y 1 )/ ??
gm ?i 1 I 1
?m
10
I' ? 1
m=
V
0
,
CIO
' _? 31mn 0? ?'+-?'I•'`??', ??Sp' 90S1a olnpD _--.-'$?•
24•St41 • w??°o ???`? /' '° 1 "t1, a
424J E ? nl t. O a ? p ?. n
TO DENTON PT 9"12.gp° 1+ ^ a ,,, ?/ m
4YQQ' 4.
29• Z23yf3 ^ PC 1 ?1 0 %01@0
cc)
v' ? N 32'28• ' m
.•t $, ?2.2g4 cn
b ',• i 9.1
To r/10
& 10
`____.
I N ??'''' ?p sc n =
m
V mn
°DI " SC370.00
'" ' 1 Obi 'Sm
C m 1 v ???jjjjj =
I 1 my
0? 1 m
O Im
o
1\ ?o" OI.Bg.S Od
p.5
J Opp
n t .'
I 11
It \\114
y ?? I 1
` ? = I _j aan i
m ? I I Mx?
I' I or
0 y ( _I 75.00-
Z MAT HL E Si ET No.9 1
L
M M M M M = M M M M = M M M M M M M M
O
0
O
O
N
Fn
z
iR
"1
?a
mi
x
ma
D
a
\ N \\
!
0 q
N
O
Q. ~
CD m
? \ c,r
r? < N
T =
m
a
m
\ D
c
/ /111
r
m
?i
\ i I \ 1
, 0 11 ?' I
I $ ;11 i;?i
,' 1 1 1
`1 II '
11 :?
i?? ? ? Ili
j 1 I 1';I
II I
/ / 1 1
I 1
1 ?1 , 1 ? 1 1
1 1 , 1?1
1 1 ? I 1
y, 1 1 / \ 1
I D fi l ,° I"
T p 1
• ¦ O \I - 1
D 1 1
O ? 1
C N
O??M
V)
I
° -k ?.
D 1
12 I
• a I
?? D 1
1
- - \ I 1
O ?\\ 1
11 1
11 I
11 '
FIAT IN
L
?n
mN
m
CD N
2
M
D
? p
Cl)
m
M
J
O
-tom
xaKK
?J41500 ?-
420.00
!ma
a Z
Z
m 2
m
to O-i
N ,
/mo
! mm
??
m
\ r C1 I T
D Z
i ?1 v a c
r•a
m?
•o
x
I
I N I
Z
L
S
c
C
2
V+
T
A
A m
08
S
s
w .. r 435.00
E? ?
00
m
F

b

• 40
- DS
M Oy
?CC
NZ?
f
ram
'N; 445.00
0
aim
Z!D
O
m
a
m
D
r
C
N /
C?2
J

I
qqI??
1
1
1
1
i
N
Cy8
r
!^
NA
mi
?m
r?
.n
I ?7-
•o?
38 Z
00?
385.00
390.00
m
D
cN
D
m
395.00
Q
400.00
1 A
n
m
3
N
O
o
0
405.00
410.00
NA
K JC
rm
ao
a
r
r
x
S ? m m/ m m m ? m m ? m m? m m m m

O
O
0)
a
0)
(
CD
7
O
0
N
O
0
9 485.00
U ---_---= --- I a
? _
m -_<!?`.'MATCHLI xm m
1 1.
t-7 €
1
r I ?
2- 1¦ 1 ? } _
cl)
0
b
F
z
90 `% oo.r
7 N?SOIr/
00 ISO
1.O'l
? :`?90?00
m
CZ
N Y
9ti z

r O oo
r

r A

?
a m•
?v

. 1 \' m
,
2 y
q
4'y?• P
?
, ., 495.00
. `"HAP
I? m
mK
vm
41
1?1 N
-1500.00
'..? ~
Z.?
f? K 9
c -vlo
I v DypY,
co Z ?gl
?. ? X604 soti?
505.00
m?
cl)
I ,
2
LIN
•, I I
j 50.25.16
4 I
Fes,
7
Ji
I
.1
c?
r;
1}
a ? ? h j3 J 1 ;
y ? fib I,
D n ?" I
(I
1 I?>
` 1 1
1••4r?? 1 1?
N ? 1
I } , 1 ?, ? I 1
s . = 5
44
m I
450.00
Ez>
t
A
-' 455.00
460.00
?y
465.00
D?N
m
3 ?
Io 0?
::9:?p:__:._.4°b•00
y %MK CREEK
m i
z
v
475.00
I
T? mn
N
0C
0m
rn?
v?
0
0
Z
L
m
a
O
p?:pl
A -
r? !
T Z •
m
N 9 \
I
1
` m ATCh
mom
o=
O ,
520.00
?Oz
g
m ?
0
K
SPA
r ,.
480.00
485.00
r g

I m • rn
I 1? U) V, m
^ ,"'-\ _ = m?? g MATCHLIN S N . 12 :
m m zoo
m m
o ,
I ,r GJ - I -[ r
nr I
0 Nm O
560.00 (19£6 as) OVOa "SIW
_Z
O : p O N
CD i i n m r t i ?' D
525-00
N
CL ; 0 rz N
m N? Dw
ox, ism L V V
G r
N A O I .??
L/I
D Dm ' ' Q
N ? •1 ?? oq ? ys? odo'? i .I i; •
5.00
` j
tT ? N D , I ?
O 1 N D Z ? I `
0 1 4? mN i.• ,,
l ' S 0-00
1? '1
•• 1 m 1 ? ••? D<
', 1r!ti r m
?gl Od I.5 a t? --
C?Oq? •65
r m
? x
m
0
m p
N
;D
YI
qott SS)
OVOa Hosmio 01313 1S3 i?%
?j
I
00
-o M
Om
m?
v=r
n
O
Z
L
1
575.00
I
li
r
Q Q?Q o
wo-oo
Q
O
0
./` s?. O
Fje, 0
U
`SR 's?3? icy "0440
09
m?
m

1

? Q I r
• i i 1 \I

N ;
; w

I II
535.00

04 ,
mI 1 i 1 ?N

1
1
r
1
, -

/

1 1
^}
,
40.00
ax

- pyp / 1
Zc /

ln I^
zcm '
1
^'

' mz
rIn
ax

P -? 1
I
I w
D
Di , I
rx
i ,
'
1 , z

j ® nn
r
=? I
az
I. ?JF3 545.00
D
z
b =
m
I
1
1 ,
I
Z

I
1
1

m 1000
I '?
/

I D
? rD DN

p p 'M
C-
Z= .r.,?
D
z
r

',T

rv `
D ?
OZ 1^

=m '

Q x o ^
'
'
m
O Z o m
D
r.
0 a
_ D
y O
"
ot
a-
I
I^
1 !50.00
o I -
i W
\RI
I
I I „
,
1 -
I t

I I ,
",
1
y 9
/ I
?- i PC 552.77.92 m
' - ?1 x
1
I
1 1
1
?
1
^

?- 555.00
for
I
1
1
1*
1
SIN S
A7 E I b° 14 f3
/ D
Z
m
• F'an•oo
i ? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
1 icy v? I . -
m M LIN N 14
c I ^r a
?mc? TC 1N 5 m m 1
%
9s rnA ` -I I I ?_
Cil
I_
1 I
CIL
S 4
635.00
CD
CD Q o
1
1 I r ?.
II ? ,
• Q Q I I 1 ?, in
'? CA ¢ I
PIE I ?? m m
mm N I ?? ?? r
zi? s
• 00 g 1 ?;
F, O p
TI I ??? /? ? rw ? I ? I 1 \\
O I
605.00
1
1 I_
I? I 1
_ , Tm I
1 I + - I
V 1 ?' z
V• /w = I• 1
m ?: 1 1 x Q
m?? a In Q
O D I 1
n LI 1 , 1
A 1
• .I < I[r
1 i1
645.00 _ ?.
I 1 'r-? b q? v?+ i 1610.00
I ,n p
^n I nV I _ /
I O I
\ In I ?Z I O
1 - - •• - aff ? , a..
1` 1 • mm r ? 1
°+ 1 I I om O ? O
•806 6
I 00
1 1 I
1 i
Iw
1 1
i
In
I 1 1 O
N 1 1
ob I :ll pT I
N 1 1 ?
1 2rr / 1 __ _-____
+ 1 1 I ._________.
____ _ ________
II'1 m 1
r VI I , 1 ? ? I
m 1 ' t ?' I ac
I
00
m
Om
mIL
v -•
0
z
L
iy
MA'
nn
a°
m
IN
4m,cr /
? 1 /
A
''
J

0.00

? Gs

EN '20
665.00 oim

?
deg„ E
II
?o
mi
D N

?$;?• me
1\' a€
a
EP.
Q.
' ,, • (8071. 8S?
•00 adoa ??iw
1.5 N
N, „BIOt•6ti'
¢
a?
fi30.00
Z
m m m m? m m r m r m m r m r m= m
/?/?? ?IATCHL IN SE T No. 16
ri m R a CD `nc
n gm ^X^
MAT j ;?Y.P , F
nyy n ^ 1
Z` nD m m Sr 1 ; k
17, f3 a/ m
wl ?^ _? 1 I ? ? r ? ? ? I ^ ( 1
?i O /
CID -4
p ' 1 000 m A I 10.00
I
CID c
C
? + o
'\) \ o r ' i Kls 12
ym 0 1
O , / pT
n 1 1
.41
/ ----------
--------------
: yCAO ,
710.00
pZ1 675.00
r o
1
^ i s l? -60 N 33.57'28.1889"
k
1 1 Iw
r 1 1 1
I -. 1 ! I (ji ? I
m00 / 1 -CZi Oo ?w
1 ?
m / [7.
m 1 D R O N 1 '.\
1 = \`
O ?> ?^ 1 •••\ F
+ IIITTTiii
C;, 1 r N 1?? i
1 1p O +^
a 1
+ I CO)
n m
715.00
O I '
b N 680.00
F a o?
ZOO.
Z /' s
r 1 0
1
1 O r# i \
+- Y
1 1 ' 1
1 1 ? m j I I
? 1 ? LLj 1
flf 1 /
1 1 = '^ 1
1 I 1 Cil I I
o
0 1
/ II m 1
/ , r 1 Q
PC 719'80.74 ?? +^
/ I
.i •00 1 j
y? '?^ I 685.00
1 ,
t ? 1
VA It
r?

?r
m
r$ /
N
N
O
Z

r '4 4 , 1
m?
?F 5'00,
5 1
r / 1
1^

\
Oz ,

0 • 1
O
r" I
\
Cl)
a
m>
4
v?. a
0
1
?
O 0
r 0
f

? op

5.00
• r
A,
r? a
30.00
O Z
N
o/
ff
\ ? yy
•1
+ n
1^
I
1
I m
I
1
1
yn , !
ZD 1 c
m '^I D
I N
? I
690.00
1 1
a 1 +
Vl , •,
1 1
1 1
1^ I
1 /
, I
I r
I
1 1
I +
I
1
I
r A
%
i 1 O
0
o
;:1 1 C
695.00
I 1
€ I , N
I ' D
+ r
? ? \ a r
i 1^
F, o• ^ t
I J ? D
I I q-
1 '
F- /
1 v
I ?
1
1 _
2 m ri
x
1 :1
o I '
o \`.
Ali.
• 700.00
/
1 ?}
I
I T¢s
1 1 ? o
, " D=R
1 1
m$g ? w !
?? ng MA H : S No. Q i
rcm ? -, ,
N p
m I? ?
A w m= m m m m ? m m m m m m m m m
I 775.00 Cl) I Cf)
MOCHLINE E No. 19 9- m • 4a+ •00
IN 1 fiC w` -1 D \ ? • -
104 M TC N •.8
-v CID
O O S ' 509.0800" W Q
/•
r=
0 0 _ (55LE as) 3AIaq 1000 mr
Q
CA 0)
CD CID
CL a
C ® I mD
1 1 °
W j '_ i 1 O Ln'i. • 1^ PT 7 •92. `•'c
co 0
CID
780.00
A \
, i
x --4 14
\.. \
g n _ r CS`??p,? ?sopp ao m •00
v '.I ;= mN pd0? 00 m
o O I n :' 1
m z
UWHARRIE
O UWHARRIE z RIVER
r ] © RIVER H G)
I MVER I?
Acri
I AI.x.. Vii .?
D
In I mm_JDt ? ..?...?? ?<
Fn T
X In In •00? Q -
0 I m m v `
A ll 1 ,,,,-- •00
1
> 1 D r
0
1 rr YQQy
' " r5m ,,1 1 1 ? x
1
' 9.00
1^ i I 'S
l; ?+1
j9 g ? ? ' 1 rov, Itl` ? as
scy ?F,p r 1 J , 5.00 .
?3 09 r I I n• i Dm
I
4J I / \
1 r 1 , \_ D
.+ p
1-
Con° 1 ; ANN `, I N I Q
y I , m11- , Q
M 1 pyi rD
0 I
z IT
_?o ? r ?p? I • Q, n
795.,00 {nm $ h? ??rp smm
\'x•00
m CCC ? 0 1. f V 1 _ D _ s?'9 F
I . r ^. '"I r ?S,pN y
O 3 ,n °?' ' n X i 14p9090
N '"J I O J
:u
1
r ? o
1.
h I ? D
1 ,
C I
-40
1 OqK 'po
oy co <0 800.0090 ` n
D 'I a
N I
/
N > a I ' 1 vim, 65.00
V 1 If 1 ,
V • 1" ' ?? In a
1
? 1 I
1 ? 1
1 ? I
1 • rm I
1 1
m ' ?N
1
It I
1 1 c x , x
1 Z ' rN
ZZ
805.00 0 0
r 1
I- -00n,
' _ ' ror ri1, S ? ' ice= as
1 '1J y I o
D 1 Q 1 m Z
I m? i ? s
\moDz ' ?1 rmo '? ?
-A ?N I 1 c\ Lam ?' Zo
`, ' _ G mC2 I I ?pn,? m
I
rn 1 @ i rmo
' ? 1 gs it • ? mar.
.I i c \ I 9zz
' I r
' •00 In I I n
^ 1 1
' I 1 1 1
rns ? 1 I I
1 75.00
? ? moz
?- i i , 1 inz
O S E No. 21 8? T MATCHLIN E No. 20
Z ? °' C ru'y zr
S ' 54'19.0800" W
3155
m m s m m m m r m r r m r m r m m m m
VIP
,F DL
mDZn
.2 ?' m m MATCHLINE JJ3 No. 20 -
+ Q 5' E r?r
p°m N1A7?NU d I ' a
m 1^ F . 850.00 N N ai w" ai$ I i mrA
/ I' ym I I
N
O O
O O 1? I'i i •
0) cn '
CD CD '
Ca, CL m
co ? A, . mn 1 •00
^ ag
Nx I° I 'xm - ?A2
El "M
CD - '1
v0 A
.-? A I I 1 O , a
? i• ? ? I r ? I I ann •. ?.?; ??.a0
1_ I I ? 00? '
1 '
I s _
? O
' 855.00 "m 1
I Om I,
or 1 ? ?
' • s
I I I
? ? I I ? I I _ D A=1
I N 72-4"16.38
b11 -? O
NS ("d
O "" C O
C \ I_ I L Q ?S*6
am
All
a ? 1 j 1,
'' ...? ? m c N I
'A n -
I . 156.0
I a I I
1 n
1 I
VI m
Z ? _ I 860.00
O I I , ? ? ? z
I I , ? I I
' I NJ •1
m PT 861.25.5 r_? f?
J' I x ?0 p
I
o p I » 825.00
I, , ? ?^ 1 I p
I N >m p p \
CA ND i 4 -
O "?- I,T 1 , n -4
O DNS
^
0
, 1 1 r.
, I 1
,n I
t
' n '^ ? N
I_ 1 865.00
1 '
' I I n? a I
• x $ ' 830.00
I•?
O r O -- ' W .
D ' ? p I V
J -- I
© I -
.? 070.00
?• , e ti I
1 I-
f 835.00
If/ ''? I ry I
I ,
1 i
1 ,
?? 1 1
1
, 1 • m
1 „o
I I. z .
\ b
I I
I . ?' • PC 8 .49 ' p <
1 »
1 N Q a
1 K
875.00
? r 1
I x -
'nl ? Q
I ? H z'
N ' ^ O tl -
' I I r mr 8 m?'
m I mii'i • `? 40• myvai
a In ? m rm. ,? ••? uv. OO z?-
e E9, ? I^ C? ?V 1 DD
. -eE?P
g# c? , ?< mo
? I min pp '^ _ ? m` 3?
V •, 0 ?^ I 1?7?1 880.00 Dg
• ?1 o a » ?'•Y , rZF m
?TI? 0 0
;a z
m ' I JC _ / I ' z m
G7 1 o v
m
0 Z m a
! 845.00
mk?
rn ; ° • z
1 Oa ' m
rn n H33a? ?a ? I ? z
v N33a° 4 - - dMvwO '
_?------..._ I Zl
1 dMd2fd? ?? I O
?. m r X
I a A /
? ?m t * vvS•OO N
1 +e"+......+..- yy.. m Q .. ..
N S
Z
MATCHLI' 22
N S E^ ; ; o. 23 x
sr +?r ? . r ?r ?r r i? ?r r .r r ?r r rr r? ?r ?r
?r
im MATCHLINEI H R T
•'?, ,
CD cn 885-00
O I DTI m y I ¢ r.
= 4 ° Z x , D
o m
m a MATCHLI 'E H E 22 r`
N 18'43'51.07 p xx
I^ , i
SR ?. N N
13 .---• --? `.? P W I i
0 ,
(n r I I I ; 1
°0 I i^I I
CL i / _. 0
.4 0
0 ;u
-0 1? ry1 O? I
(? y O -4 1; i 1 1 s / r I ,
tit _ J
r+ v D 890.00
?N>~? j ; 1{ ?iJ e I + I l
m
I ,_I m -I p I
' f m
PT 929.71.6 930+00
1 1 m ' ' C 0?
1 M
/ ' r I^ I ? MIS
i\ -; ?? ; ; \ MFR RCgp
' 1 1 r I^ I ^? (SR
{rte 1 ?/ m I 4
corn
1
Z Nm 'i 1' ? I ? ? ?^) I' I 895•00
° Oz
I I It
I^
m1XI , ; f I
I- 1 i ? I
I
I'1 1^ I III
U1' 9 `x•00 1
p / I •I
° ?.?
I
? • ? I 1 ?? \''ti. ; ^ ? ?I• ?; 900000
!c 1 1 Oom
OM '
/ I Ox '
X-A
m ' I
OZ <P
1 ,
co ,^I I
?• ?? f m
,
.Z700
1 1
1 l a , I
j 9_-b•00
1
' I N nl
In
1 1
It
1 ;? • 1, 1
1 ,
1 ' I y
I
1 1 , m
1\ I .rvJ i 1 I ,,` \ v i I
m I 05.00
1 1 M
•?` 1 1
1 `r; R'i?g1 ? V 1
c ^, 1 , u 1
1 ? ? I m \
1
r ,? 1 I
_ I I
1
45.00 m 1
1
1
1
nl , I I
l? l It
90-00
I \l
w ^I •r WW
I
ik ; f Nm i^I .>i ? ??
1 1u " 0
I^ ? 1 .y., I I .Z7 D
1 i 1 I
I j ? '? f I ^ IL
PC 950-0
0.57 ' no 3 ; 50.00
'
I 1
1 ? i I^ ( 1
I ' I Q
1 ?
\ 915.00
I ;? InI I ;I
1 , \\
1-I '1, I I
\ 1 ` ' PC 916.01.56
I . h
1 ? v p I I
IL"A'-43 74
??II I I ^ I 1
55.00
/V \ 1 1 .. ?f y: ''rn I
1 1 I I
V T I , ? I
d?. , \ I 1
O
I Q . F•! 1 t
1 1 t \ 1
;, ?J t 1
I
0 N. E 920 00
MLL
'? /J i 1 S I I 1
1 U'1 '
y 11. awl ?* ''•F'. I `
[?\] D C I S Cnr/
1 1 yy
HL EIS .', y r .n
E I No.2 H? ?< o
r zm m
O £ C1LIN _ E
o
r960#00
'
L
w m m = r m m m r = m m s m m m m = ?
our cn _
C/) cn
m LINE H o. 25 5.00 m m
E o. 24
m
N N ro m _.
960.00
-0 T
i
O O a i i X
O O i°
N N
CD CD
O. CL ::E
uo -0 O
i
CD N P ?• OdO?? ?" •?
CD D Sl
'
-4 j S `bNn
e
yqt 65 0.00
t
x33'80 N0d6
r
m
n
0
m
TI
V n
0 0
V T
Om
m?
v?
n
O
Z
L
.Z1
O
0
zm
r•
oD
M.
?4.M??O x0V 8
"05.00
o
tT? m
O? m
O n
p
Q?
C
T1015-00
1020.00
.10
25-00
a
c
?m
v•
1030.00
?Q
ar
24-
E? p ?mt \
am '
m
a?
g?
ZD
m<
m
?? N 23'31'34
???
DN
2<
?m
n
x
O
N
b
`
0 Z a
a
m

Z
O `
O ,.

aim ~
o-
zj
nm
ATf
z
965.00?,-?
ma
< N
' r? 70!00
`o
0
.. ..-?ceti?? asp
4v 0.6
b3?N3dS
3?. 12.015-70" E
rg •? p
p
mD
H H
y
-12
n ?
2r
C N
9
n
I
,boo
980.00
Q
00
c
i mz
.? mz
az
m
- ? m N
m
D
G•
C
Z
985. 0 n=
o
0
m
n
990.00
m
O
X
m?00
0
a
i
A A A ? A A A A A A ? A A A ? A ? A ?
Cl) CD
e mm
00
HLINE H 27 (m m MATCHLIN S H E N. M a?
• ,1 r
F N
1 1 i z
T i 1 p m r"l 1 n n 1 ?? ? m rl
V w` 1 1 o x
1 I 1 N N I ' m
O 111- +? m M -4
0) 1111 I 'I ' •
;u :•
11 I ' I..
g 1035.00
m 1 ,
1!
v ; - v mm
z M ?D
O 1 ?? I n ' 1 (] D
1 1 I •D? Z x
N N?
? ; 1 na i i ? am
1 , t. 1 U) mac
I ? z I n I -? -1
1 1 N'' 1 D O
1 1I I m I i
CD
V?
\1t / 1
1 , In I O?Q
I 1 ?1 ? o
1
1075.00 0
1 I / 1
' i U2£6 HS)
/ i avoN HO2nn JI33SO NOVE 40.00 (0271 H)
avoS MOINVA
' I I
?• ,i 30.43'02.339 E`` 1 N 27.28'39.6952" E
I om
I11
1., I a a
1 ?
m ,1 I j •? m m
?? 1 I ? , n 1 1/19 /
7 \ 1 ? , 1
?^ 1
? I ?' (n m m I j CZi
D I T Tx 1 f ?'
I ll ' .r?
1" I \ I?i \ N S I n '
N ! ,1 ., m m i ? I f? r
\ m
I ; 1080.00 ?-
I • 1 o Ir > _
? 1 \ 1 1 m
T = D 1045.00
I I \
N^ p
1 1 \ /
U i b /
F
1 N 1 /
p I IJ 1 *63
m 1 I I
x ,n + Y o In 1
1 1
to j ??•, 1 1
1 ? Sm 1 1 /
p
r 1^ ? M m• 1
1 2J7 1^
oD 1 D .- 1
Z I Z 5?[ I I
1
1005-0
0; .
I mc.• In 1 m?
Jr N I n•
=m 1050.00
G I1 ? ;
• 1 \ I
I" 1
'
is
m O 1 \ ? !1"oZ m<
m am
C Q .by iDC m9
Z Q• ? r?4O po• ? 1X
'lam \ S7•se
X51 Qdoyio of 04'D RHOS"
1
oziN , 1" I I 90.00 yF,p ( SR
Dy 1 ' '+C
4241 Z Ii, I 1055.00
?? N m C: '1 0
m < N • _
1 1
1 1 tm ?"I 1,. .? ? 01 1
c / 1
0?
I JI 1
O?
N D
A? ;. I 1 r A
\\ I
' 109500
FID
1 om Z
l m 1060.00
nnwW 1^ ? m py D 1^ ( ?, `
y _ 1 1
N? \ n ; x 1 ? I
? , ? .1 , 0 1 m m 1
1?\ \ 1 m 1 I
' ' I \
I ? 1 1 1 I
ow -4> t loyjl , II
r
.J11/
it I ^I1
D PC 10.3 ; ? 0
42
A O Ix ' S 1 \ C :n I II
VI • 8 ' 7 I 1
O .I > 1
14
M 1065.00
0 ? ± 1 TY _
1 ;' ' I r I I
D jp 1 1? I ??? I I
\ N I '1 1 -1 N D , I i II
1 m-IS /
0 T 7.7
D 4 1 I? 1
!c ? 1 1 I •? ? cz I 1\
Lr? ? / ,o GZ ?• 1
DU 0 •' lC, 1 1
fn2D / ?? ' '.. `r V 1 1
E MATCHL SE .28
O S l „4?a Q • mD
15ZAN 1 •00
L Qdp?

i / I I ? ?g n Irm
a MATCHLIN S i --r .29 1140.00r N n? zo
?\\ Q ?--• '?• 2 = nay ? OtP '-. ""'.:'' •? ?s
mxi ?' •' o-
Q m m amp
N l / \
. I 1 1 I IIILLL..deee!!.."'...,,,111 `/
Q,• 1 In I
CD MP
3 r i ?. ?yD
CD I" ` mD
% a
1145.00 ;
a,
. 1 ? 1 i I
m 1 \ 1? 1
ml I '
? I^
tR L I ...?'1110.0?
\ i I 1 1 \`. / 9 0
------------
V • 1 4 ? N
I '
2 ` 0 • /
O
y 1 1 •' I \
_ 9 f ` Y^,
m ? „/ '- rd 1 0.00 • ; .. °
?\1 \ \I / ?r h S4 ?
! I. o? I I \ e 1115.OCE'
gx? ?-L
Pl'op. \
aA
STA. 9.78'5
6. 5
m
z ?
ma
a?
In ???N
-bS
LxIZ?? ? N
x
?I
m ?
11
OZD oi•
FARMF m • `
R ROAD

0 N +s• ASR
0336. ??8>424?,?
0
o
N
x
ca
?rn
rn
!A
v -
D
O

q ?

G
-4
D

D
> J m
v
?a
Ul ?,, "
Z N ax

L x•
f
?ck?gNE'
0RwilF
55.00
D =
t ? ` O^O
0.00

I •` m
l0 qDN
0!
n
° m 11¢5.00
J
• c 'uTi
?D©
i•
r7? Q
o H
v $?
a
z
n?
z
i?
0
O
CA
O
O
%
??o
kp
P Fqp
ROq
D
asp
'4?4J

.m
m?
H
mg
r
m•
A
w
l
;o
m
?
I
o(A

D;N
0
v .
Irn
N
O
O
>
Fn ?Ir

Z 000

?? PC
A
*-\ mi
N S
/ z
l
C52? ?? ?d5 ?
g65 ?4 ° r
m?
x?
• r
D r
11
0 •0
\900
1135.00
A O
Q 1140.00
No. 30 Q =
Q 0-
.I ?
mn y
O S
mN ?
`f
O N
m
!n
ao
D z
,?'$• mzo
Y?mr-
V m t? 5
_ ? M r`g9?5,,6? • ??d??
5
i???11 N?
----::?
00
a?
?o ?
U)
m g=• 4io:o
m °m 'm<
W
O j4 v ?? • p 1
N N ta. ?? R
Q X336 .? '
3
CD QJ
.. i -I IN E S o• Yi
i00
2A
a g
1
m? , 1
WM ' A
QQ 1
Om Dr
D
CO
<02 I -u
MX ?l •.. m '... ! 1 0
???y I \
' I
I
v Q ? 1 I
^' p •' •00
1 ,
z
I ,
m 1 ? I >71 ? i
n
I
O ?? 1 I I m
I
ZZ 1?
yDr 1
rCN ? 1. tT`il • ? O /
1 _ S
111
}^,?l! ,C{?'`f? ?^ I 1 ?••Od?? 1
O mug 1 f• ?. y=
mT
DO• I I ,, 5-00
n I \ y?
Cil
O '
O ma D '. 1
? ? 1 1
r9m .D tp f__ 1 d./
r°m ( 1
y 1 1
' uii 1 1
mm H
DgC D I? "1 m
p°Zl/l I=qi
m$ ? 1
I
° 3 „t 9£'y£.£?. ~ \1190.00
1
1 `
Z6£L 21S
1 1 ?_
!N ?
mm
1 # r?mg 2
1 1 1
N O 1 I T ?•
? ? In 1 ?
1^ °I
t0 1 l z m ? 00
p' •-
icv
00,0 -x?
0 N.. 'l
'D = m Z A 1 ?: r
n m C
mmx°
\ 00z
of \ Zro
V 1 ? Z
m co V
Cb
mz°
x o
m z 'gy m ,' r
an _-. mm
fl min --? cam
a tT a mm D-
<? .D ' y ? z F
J s. ? I ° 1 po
T _ i
• ¦ I ? m
Qdo ? N ? ; 1 is
O rn C42`?? ?s 3 „8 °.
T p t j / L'IPSS
1205.0 .
i WN O= (?y° Y^ I
N 2 ? ` I 1
q9N ! N ? I 1 i
I
F TCHLIN $ 10
NO. 10. . 3 2.
Z9
s \
m ? °
;0, o? ?o fit.
m ?»o wx
CA)
N\\ p?.p / ;? ` J r do N / '
W 4 r3 a< < X
pa- ` x N? E
?» m Zo 9 No 'Z°
;o X
cD o '; /r c g
o ma , aN
.Z\1 9¢V ? x = / ? .
9 D" s
? m O
y /
i / / /' We • , ^ ?` ry/ 4
Cil
a0 - 5.4 •?
n ? 1
1 1 aW ? / 1
M SR 1144 ?, ar 16•62.00
ACK R ,° • o li a
C??
N s o._ Y?
ii
COT
m
o
ulo •q -? II .-? ° -mm
0
rnN ., n. D ?? S ?'c'• rm? as z
?J? \ O rm ?m r
°m <vl
°
Ov • one o ls• ?r
6- A
D r oC 6 -I \ amt Cn
C()
l7 0? I? 1V '?- 1m
xr 6L I mm\ p Q 9j?
Nm '
3 1 _ .rte e g y 0,40010 ' d0
Ca
azn ;61"' •
?r9.1 I / ay
\
rz
N? - ? ll
-Z7 z m
O?_ y 1^ ro O y?
CO)
a
(n T c? nl - l/? ,-- (n -1?"•• _. C} oAml aS C 2
-aN ? 'tii ?? ,,. y ? •• ,?0?7 ?. w? Ica
N i• H m i ` 1 C7 ?:i o
O w 1^ ? ?
P
1 n \
1 '
?-zix M L` 1
Or,
curt as> avow iaaewvi
Q 1 ,1
O ,? 1 m? R 1450 ` c\
(n 28.53.3 _
1?,? 1 \ r rn
Q - ?\ z r o ..
.?. r~'B • 1 ------
- - -------------------
O 1111 ^11 {"?` - ?-J _ • N
nj m 1n L• ? f • ? / 7
+Pc 31.19.9 2 \ /S' / v?
In
I \ 1_
A o ? 4 ?
O i •
Q r LS
y \ v 2 ?
Q n 9c, D 100
I o
V -n 9?y Sip Q O
^ 2 N ??O Ol z
o c: 0?p9
0 rn ss °ZZ Sn?
U) ZZ S a`=
a
M
D c- E>z
n °u
T?
0 oy
Z?QQ/ \ a ?I
L y

I
I
Qo
om
D x
G) D
mK
Ch C/)
5r-ij 16
< ` \
MA . O PANEL t
<<<
IS Z'
v. ?
-0 z
m Z > -
/'-
'? -
0) 0
Z
a
D _
M-? mm Cl)
(7 = W p
C c C
C S2 m
m Cl) Z r
t
r
2 m tmn
G)
m-j
Do 0Z m 0, OR 4 ` 0
mLD MG) G) m Oki 1129 W > M O rn f l
r m
m x
C: _ --lo ?Q
x? ?v
v
o
C
0 0
D Z
lo? mDN
?? cncnm
mq m
CO D M
cf) K
Ill m
z
i

k
I
m?
n?
?m
vD
z iw
C
Z
m
z
-i
L
< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <
«<<<<
<<<
k
z O
i
I j
?j -
L \\

. Y5
O! <
N Al
y.
< < t
<<<<<<<<<< «
<<<«

0

c
a
u
P
k f
i
J? P
?I !
,
PA 3
Ptk ?l?
D
GQ
f
1
Z
m
r
N

Iri eo
?2FRs9
O?s9
?l
I i

0

O
R
0
0
0

i
ly?T c?\
ti9 f
o(S9?
7?/
i
< < < < c c < < < < < <
• c «
a
<
t?<
<<
<
<
u
-n
mm
MATCH 4
EL 2: ._ x=M

<<<
<< z
v
0
v z

mm C o
Dcp
cn
D m 70

OD m
D
Co ((n
a + m-mi nccn:u

n =
a W
se v
m
c c
m cn z
c
a
r
m

O O Eli

-u
D 0
cn
-1 z
CD
0
0
m
.1 co Ov = 9
7m0 co m m O R
-i
D W
rm 00
mm m
m
?= D?
m Z ;rs0
?
v cA
O
C
CD
0 0
D Z
00 m D ?
?cn ?cm
c
cn D m
co
rn
m z
I
I
a -n
-n G)
me
n M
-4 m
vD
N
Za
z
m
z
L
I
D >
U Z U
,N L 3 r r % p
Ip A? J
x

x
? pQ (ll
1
s
x
x
1
D
? 7 II
/ ? x\ +
x ? s
s
C
Q;

}

\I ry \ .
i
a %+
/Ov I
MAT ANEL 5
? r
a
O
0
Cq
0
0

0

x?
g
? ? U ICI _
cn x
z

4
v
x
x
x
m m r = r = m m = = = = m = = = = m m
--i
v0
v r"
D i
O D
mK
U) cn
m
<• \ ? rn
v
z
m z K
z cn v
v ?
m
D

a+ mm nccwn: D
_.

o ?
c I
c
M c
o
m z I
_ ??
D
m

ED t
g
Dp mZ n m
.
:
m co
0o m m O m
O

c O O m
<
m ?o
m? Zz
v
C/)
O
c

• •
D z
00 m>
mcn ?cm
cn D m
C
m m
z
I
141
?11I ?
I ?
it
F
t
s
`t S S y4 _
co
c
rol
JI.
41 G., on
Ma
«
F ? \
Z
m
EL 5 r-
0')

I r? -
x
4
I GO ?
4-0
7?NN/ (SR 2774)
P,SH6?Y
`'

k

I .p, '\ I
0
X51

M zr -
o
--q rn . t
r
0 I
m I

m ?
Z
z I
MA CFA : {
"EL
L
x
O
N
cn
0
cn
0
0
-v

m

;g
t
x ?
c
I o N
x
HIR'FIS RD (SR 2464) ; J
02
a
G- -? 2260)
c
? w
x
<
< <
[] on
?I
C
F,
x
?i
I
R? ?S 2172)

x

EL 6
ANEL 4
Y
d
O\
KO X
v
a
X
x
x
x
m = r = = = = m m = = = r m

<<< so
NN
i <<<
< I rn
< z
v
ZO Z
2 Z
K
om
m
c°n
v
D? C) cn

m> m
D
W N

*+ N

= o a]

U) z
r-
? G)
D
r=
m
m
O O ., L'+]
?' ?c cn n
mo m
m o m
D W
rm G) G m

ci,=
c ?O

Zc

v cn
o
c
U)
0 0
D z
00 rnD?
?cn ??
? c m
cn D m
m m
z
-I
T
Z
m
r-
-4
]
I

MATCH TO PANEL 6
f
2
m
0
I'
I(
?.z
x
D -n
m a5
M C
? ?
M
va
z rx
C
O
m
m
z
-1
L
O
N
O
r_n
0
0
cl)
D
F,
z
-n
m
q
? tl? 11
4
s?
d
I ?
? a
?3 p
I
I D
a
Qom. a
a a „€?
.0own a
0
la
1 I so
Ip
x
i ANEL 8
x

D O ?E -u z
2 Z
v ? r.
? 0
m z
O
m
>m m
D
C/) U)
*+ N 0

n m
O W
c v
c c Ln m
n m m + r
2 ? cn
C/) Z
O
D
m
m
O O ¦ v LEE

cn co c co 0
-{ Op m
mLnn
Z! W Mm
> m O
0
m
<
c= ?p
D c
(n D
m Z
v v
(
O
c
Cj)
. .
D z
Como mD(,)
:q(n C/) Nm
m c
cn D m
Cl)
m m
z
i
0
a
0
04
,
w
-0
z H. O
00
?r 1
KD
kti? O +'
Z
,
r?
,r
. ,r
n' „
p ? d
+t r + <</?
«<< «<<
,; t ,44 -C < <
< <
C.C
\ < < 4 t 44
CA
K. I
• ¦
mM
n
--I m
v >
N
M CD
z
?o
O
z
m
m
z
O
U)
D ?j
N
c z
0
m
q
cn
O
O
k
L
Its fy Y
l o
Jr-
?a
h
goo
d „
+
a
k NC log
J \
?,..!p x
A-
A-

r
almh
m
>0 m z
0 2 zz K
0 m F
c D
D c n z0 cn
Z m co
0 D m
m K D
0 co V//c^?
!
mm N cccmo:
F

c C m
c c L-n
m
_ m
m z
m
-, c n n
Co z

r
m

O C) ., ?J

-0 cn - ( ?
m O O 0 m
70 03 n
m -
D m 0 -I
> m M M r
m
ccn> --4
Dc-
Z
m
? Q
T
N
0
v
0
c

• •
D z
cn
m m m O
m co cnm
m m
cn 0 m
c
m m
z
i
?T
-n C
m?
0
--j m
v D
N
M -?
c
O
z
L

9
co)
a
Y
rT-
Fol
\O
i
k
Fol
A 2
.c
i
1
b?
l° mcm: a
1 Ile ??--Q_
?? O 4b
l ?o ) Q
J ,l
o
MATCH TO PANEL 11
TCH
7--ZZZ

D D
Z
m
r
z
m MA-
r .?

o
EL 8
< <<<< <<<<<
I
? J
© 4

J
k

0
Ql?
n
F,
o Z
cn
0
O
i*
t
< nos ?
c
no
r
d
k
1(
11
10

m m m == = m ? ? m m != m m m m ?
I L7 z
ern MATCH rn
Z ATCH TO PANEL 11 r
N
g
pO m z
m
z ? °
D ?m;o
D m m k O D D
mK F. cn cn U)
y}

W+ Fil I,-
C,
cn v r
;01
- - -
,
C)
= z
0 s
?

c
c a
m
m
c) cn
m Z
m r

0
-D
mo
?2 W
> m
cf)_
m
Io D
°
O
c
V'
TI C
M
C-)
--I
vD
m cC
C
z
m
m
z
-I
L
D
r
m
?Zz
0-j
D
O 7
M
z^
? Z
•
D
n*
Oo
??
m?
? D
cn
m

? LJ z

n m W
m
O

Ny

cn z S I <V
,
m>°
c m
m N
m
z
?

.
r
\ i 1
D`
I
?- n. ? A

t
1
k
MATCH TO PANEL 13
0
N
cn
0
z
m
r
N
?IC
I
z
T
m
q
..T?u TO PANEL 10
.. C o
k, a
O
V
I
rn
0

i
<y
N
F
,a
7 7
t
\? p
k
r ?
?? Cl
MATCH TO PA

,NEL 12

MAT T
CH
T PAN z z
EL Y3
<i<<<<<
<<< << m
r m
r
<

W
<
IN {,

v

z O m Oz >

D 0 4
D m v: 70
m
O D D
K
m
•? = N a

n

J: =

o
c p
C: c S2 m

n
m
m r
r
2 CO G)
m
D
r
m
m
O Cc) 1IFT

O D 17, n m
co m O m
m
?g W m
D M O -i
D r
r- m O O
0 r m
<
?
O
C
cn D
M Z
D ?!`p
m
0 cn
O
c
cn
• •
D Z

00
m D
?cn (ncm
m
cn D m
U
m
m
z
q
., I -n
rna5
m
C-)
--q
v >
N
rn=r
O
Z
m
rn
z
r
11
1
4 ?
cZn 4`? ? ? `

N -
00
,dN
/.-
S?? p
o
+`
II1 --
TCH
I?
`1 \
I
R
0
0
N
Cyl
0
Cn
0
0
F
Z
m
q

'f

12
k
-11 i
?I
F
11 F
1 < <
< < <
JJ N
(.l
11
11
51
11 Q
? k
?yy ? a
n
0

S
a
4
If
i
PRA
m 7:
L
m m m m m m m m m m m m i m r m m m m
<<
"S
100 3 rn
I N:,
v
Dp g -v z
o= ? z
om
Z
D m Cl)
m
G) D D
m? K
(? Cl)
¦+ ? v?
C13 0
C cC C LI) m
m cn z
_ n z
G
D
m
m
O O F ?J
K -0 to C Cl) 0
m o z m 0 m
2W D? 0 --1
r- m m m r m
D
MD zz
C
D C/)
0
C
CO
• •
D z
00 ?rn0
co
C/) in
m
cn D m
rn
cn m
m z
i
D n
m
M C
M
? M
M
v D
m r-"•
Z
z
m
m
L

C,N I

<
x
1
a
l;
7 -io

<'O a
n
I1 CI
I
----------
b _p
r ?o p
o
k
,b
]r(c:n:
of i - U) 0I i
z '
o' ? rn
o?.
k
1
k:

1
?
y ? k
I
W <`<<<
W

MArcH r? P
ANEL 17
Z
m
r
0)
O
N
0
cn
0
0
cr)
F
Z
m
m
q
z
m
r
CTI

J /
0
f ?.
s:.
PANEL 14
< N
c0
l4
1

F
t
c

?y

W
N

a
2
a 0 a
I
i
r
a
MArcH r0
PANEL 16
ww w? w w w w wi w w w w w w w w w w w w

` MATCH TO P

<
\
F° ANEL 1
R1
<
N>r Z
D 0 Z
Z -i
m -4 O Z ?
?3 z (n
D? o cn
\? a
Z M cn
cn K , Q C3J
N-+ MM ND

= O c ?E

7o
C7 cn
m z
m r
C
2
--j
W z
ccn
D
M
M
O O ¦v ?J

?-p cnc co n
O o
M
ao °°
O m

m O
m =
r M
c z -+ O
D
Z
? D ? p
(n
O
c
co
0 0
D Z
0O 0 m D 0
wM(
M c
? am
cn D M
U) K
M M
Z
I
Me
0
?rn
vD
M ?'•
z
C
z
M
f
S
aT
<. J j k
?f
'I
l
0
c
k
a
c
NCO
MPG
Z
M
r
W
O
Dr
N fn
cn z
0
M
q
O -'
0
Z
M
r
MATCH TO PANEL 16
cIlf,

r J-j
J/?t,
r
t'
9

S

?Jy

t /
l 1
F
S
IJ
I ?
L
= m m m m m i m i m m m m m m m
0 0
D Z
8 CD Z
c/) :13 m>? 79eF
=i co cn m 4 c m 9??cC
D Fscti
m m
z
-t
fl ?
1
1

O xi
D
Q
fl
me
?m
vD
m?
O
Z
rn
L
4 ?
?cl

MATCH
21
0
N
LA
0
cn
0
0
cl)
b
n
z
m
q

Q
fir,
(Sq

i
Z O?
vm
v?
D?
G) D
mK
(D (n
z:
wls
* O z I' ! ;;i
z 9
D v
z v
Cl)
C0
0
D
F
m
m
S C
2 O ?
m v LO m
n
( z
m
m
--I c
n z
33 C/) G)
O O L
K ' ? C CI
) O
O M
ACA Op S

mcn
mm
O r.
70 0o D m O

r-m O
mm
r m

S

D -G
m ZZ
; v
v N
O

• •
D z
00 mD?
?cn yam
m
Cl) D m
co
m m
z
I
T
M
0?
,? m
vD_
N
Z
a0
Z
m
L
< v
<< e
k

j
i_ *
C a ca

K ?x
?a
I
} i k
1
I
l
m m m
Z
m
r
N
N
LSI
Z
m
r
N
-?
S jil,
o-7
/ l 0
v
? f
1.
1

MATCHM I P4NEL 20
?- S
GARREN 4 1 7332)
Q

N
to
0
cn
0
0
Cl)
D
F
"n
m
q

-a-n'
I i rl?i
L
®I ?`` `J
F
MATCH Pq
NBC 22
m = = m = m = m = = r m m m m m lom m

v
D O :* -u z
v

moo
m
cA
0
v
m
Zm C/)
m
m D D
mK
0) 9
cl)
m-+ Am' Pccwn- ?a

m p c 03 a
m m

2 CA)
m z r
-
r
--I
j W
cf) Z
O
D
r
m
m
0 0 IT L'T
K-0 cpc co 0
rno m O m
7o W m
D M 0 -?
r-m MM m
0
D
Z
m ?p
m
v
O
c
cl)
0 0
D Z
0 * 0 K Z
cl)Om rnDFn
=i C/) CO cnm
m? m
co 0 m
cj)
m m
z
I
1
I,
5
I
5 I
1
, j
1
c°
Y
a
/?ao
a
?v
k
t
<
4LT<
f
<' c
s<
I ? <
d
11?
11
/? II
Il
II
1
I+
,l
k

k
z
m
r
N
zt
m l?
MA
N
co - 00

x

F'
S?
«
a
7 \l
I \1
I l\
I ?
11
"11
II
11
11
II
•1/
1!
'VI
+n
n
u
Iu
I?1
a
x0

I
n en
m
M
0:0
--I
v >
N
m
z
O
z
q
L
k?
a
MATC
NE<
< <
MATCH T
4? Dd F1'5????
0
N
Ut
O
c
0
0

1
if
11
II
?f
If
fl

I
N
D
F \
z
?
-n
m .

MATCH
<T( ANEL 22
< t : l ,
<<t,l
< < < f I
? < < 1 1
y<<11
< < < 1 I
< ,5
i< u
< < f5
<<if I5
I- <`•??
?j1 I (SR ?4 r rl
< it
< <
y < <col
s < <

K <

fis _< r
ii
l
of
.t

?3 rJ G ,1
11
„
11
¢3 „
n
15
l\
11
„
10
x
A
r m r m m r m m m m m m m m m m m m m
r
<<< \ m
i <<
v
D Q
0 m
Z z
-.1 9
?M v ,
v v
D vz
co !4
D m 70
G) D D
Q) ? cn
E
Fa?
N

0
z _
o co v
C c
r
_ m ?
D
m
m
O O ¦T ED

? co c co
2 0
-4 00 9
mLo
2l :0 m
>? O
O

r-m
MM m
m
?= zo
m A0
m
v -
s'-0
C
U)
0 0
D z
?0 m Dco
-cam ?cm
m
cl) D m
U
m m
z
A
MATCH
k
< ` ` <

-v
z
25 ~D
N
CY)
x .?
? oa
=ode
y
x
1
I r
rr
rr
r
r
r
,
,
,
,
t
t
t?
t,
t,
t,
r ?.
k
-o
z
m ...
r .
N
cn

Y
Y Y
<<
C
CO)
,
I
.,..?^?""'""" l
SAWYERVILLE CH (SR 132 1

k
1?74Z

` O
,Y
r?
,J v

N
<
-«i

1*4
10

'
„

r
p
.
ll Fa
tSP (SR 1418)

p p 00

! 0
cn
r
v

I
m
n
IM
v>
m?
z
m
z
L

k
? r
;t
k
O
N
O
0
O
O
D
z
m
q

r
`t r
MATCH
IN L26
k
k
m = m = m m r m m = m m m m = m = m
I < b
m
I <
Z
v
DO g z
o= -i z K
?M ° o
D Z
0 to
Dm m
mD m
D
?mm Na
o ca 0
m
cn z ?_
0 m
2 -{ cmn z
m cn G)
r
m
O O ED,
K-V cnc cn 0
.-I (D Op m
m cn m m O
70 0o >m O
O m
r-rn MM
r -?
ccn> DO
Z
O
c
U)
0 0
D Z
o* cngz
33 m D 5
=j a) co cnm
m? c
co D m
(i)
m rn
z
I
MATCH

27

k
k

'I Lx
I
a -n
-?
Me
n
-4 m
v >
m0
Z
m
A
L
L 9
V V
m
Z Z

r r- MA

t?
4c
c<
O
ro
c.n
O
0
i
1
it
.?k
co
i

k
i
k
k
z
m
m ? <
r
k<
MATCH TO PANEL 28
UZE,aS) Qa HO NUO >
k

C?' `?d
m = = = m m m m m m r m m = = = = m
<<<

m
z

D 0 'o Z

m
p
? o m
?? cn v
>?
z o
c U)
n
m
G) D
D
C/) N
m+ ME;

0
J: z
o c: v

m U) z r-
i ? W
W Z
G)
D
r
m

O O '' ED
K -0 ? C W 0
rno m O m
70 W m
D m 0 -I
r- m m M :mo
c m
ZO -G
m

0
C

0 0
D Z
0:* Lo K z
m
D
.?v) cncm
m
cn D m
CO
m m
z
q
MATCH
k
I' r+
a j
r?
? ,r J
1
1
'0
a
Z
rn
0
a
=1:
IL
-:
N k
Ic
dt , ro 1 \v,
la
1

k

w? O
O

IEI?

n?
me
0?
?rn
v ='
N
M-0
z
z
m
z
q
c _ J
J
C
1 '
't
I '
1 ? M
L'
mcco:
2'Afl-Ago AN
mccn
-0
a 'r
Z rA
co
k

< <

< y`
PANE B
Y v it
r
N
< y„
ME
rs/'i
?. ccn
I Of ''
+< W ,', k
=+ x
v
`
v '
?1 b ?
2 .
{ ? dSl ?d
2b

o, III
W
D
k
0 z
n :.?.
m
00 ?
MATC T NEIL 306
L

41.X IV-IV
? r. ? M ?? ? ? \ Cti f •.\
Z p m z N {- flp - 7r' q a
-4 z
cn v .?' .
r i \
{ y ,
Cj)
W CD
o/
M-mi00 t
L t ,
m0c
y CO) O
m \ I.,
MIT L'T
.4 co 00 m
22 > \ ?u •
O
D r p r
r m M V -
C ? 1
! w
M D ;K, z N , b;tl •_-
v
O? .?
cn N O \ -
D z + ?- - • a
co
I q fJ
0 0 z
00 --1 m 0
cn?o tocnM ( 1
m? c"'
cn 0 rn t
m Z +---=- _) a
an
1
1157
co
CA ro
C V + N9
CA)
1
.,, n 0-
n
me co
nI m Fn
m m N Z
m m

z 0
0
m
z
I
L
,.::

00-

' F
?_4 ?a
THE CITY OF LEXINGTON
NORTH CAROLINA
C?ov
' "GROWING WITH THE PIEDMONT" 4<1G
OFFICE OF THE May 4, 1990 Q` Q
CITY MANAGER '
Mr. L. Ward, Manager -d MAY 8
Planning and Research Branch v
Z? UNISiON O
N.C. Dept. of Transportation F Q2V
P. O. Box 25201 HIGHWAYS 0Q
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
' Dear Mr. Ward:
' Thank you for your letter of April 3rd, permitting the City an
opportunity to comment on the proposed widening of U.S. 64
between Lexington and Asheboro. I have attached comments from
the City's natural gas, public works, electric and planning
departments. i would ask that all of these comments be included
in the official records of this planning/environmental assessment
phase of the project.
Our comments include:
The City of Lexington is in strong support of widening U.S.
' 64 to four lanes, not only between Lexington and Asheboro
but all the way to Raleigh.
' - Our major utility investment would be our natural gas line,
an important service to area employers. We ask that this
line remain as an encroachment within your right-of-way.
' As you can see from our gas superintendent's comments,
forced relocation of that line would have a devastating
financial impact on our City and our customers.
' - Obviously, the closer the widening of U.S. 64 comes to our
present City Limits, the greater the potential impact.
Since their appears to be some confusion on the status of
widening between Business Loop 85 and I-85, please have the
appropriate person within your organization contact our
planning director John Gray to clarify this matter.
' - Please note the existence of our water, sewer and electric
lines in relation to U.S. 64.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We plan to have
staff members present at the May 24th public meeting at
Tabernacle School.
Sincerely,
' R. Duke Whisenant
City Manager
RDW/ns
' Attachments
22 WEST CENTER STREET 9 LEXINGTONB 10RTH CAROLINA 27292 • PH. 704-243-2489
EIUNDOLPH RAN
DOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
2222-C South Fayetteville Street
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203 GEORGE FLEETWOOD
Telephone: [phone]
Superintendent
Facilities, Planning
and Construction
May 7, 1990
Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
Department of Public Instruction
116 W. Edenton Street, Education Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1712
Bob Trogdon
Assistant Superintendent

REC?ive?
MAY 11 1990 '
t>lvcuJ:y OF
SCHOOL PLANKINg
Subject: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed
Improvement of US 64 from just east of the I-85
Bypass Interchange, near Lexington, to just
West of the 64/US 220 interchange, in Asheboro,
State Project No. 6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220,
Davidson-Randolph Counties
Dear Mr. Weaver:
We have received the information that was included in
your letter dated April 25, 1990 and we wish to provide
our comments concerning the effect that the project may
have on Tabernacle School.
Tabernacle School
of Asheboro at th
1333. The present
Elementary School
are planning site
construction that
students.
is located approximately 10 miles West
e junction of US 64 and NC State Road
enrollment for the Tabernacle K-5
is approximately 325 students and we
expansion, renovation and new
will allow an enrollment of up to 500
We wish to continue to operate this school and we would
continue to need access from US 64 to the school.
If you need further information, please contact me.
Sincerely
X?
ob L. ogdon,
Assistant Superintendent
ELT/jps
cc. George Fleetwood
B-2
r-
i

1

n

L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning & Research Branch
N.C.D.O.T.
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
April 24, 1990
REFERENCE: Proposed Improvement of U.S. 64
State Project No. 6609001T
TIP No. r-220 - Davidson - Randolph Counties
Dear Mr. Ward:
I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment of the proposed widening
of U.S. 64 to a four lane divided highway (as it relates to Randolph County)
and concur with the information presented.
This proposed project is a much needed improvement to U.S. 64 and will
help meet the needs of a rapidly growing section of the State. As the yearly
number of tourist visiting the N.C. Zoo continues to increase, and local
economic gowth expands the need for highway improvements in this area will
continue to grow.
If this office can be of assistance to you in any way please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Hal Johnson, Director
Planning & Development
County of Randolph
HJ/jw
?o?Ntr. Nosi
.t ?? `L`'
f ai
»n i 410,
RANDOLPH COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
'`fi?`?,? ?
Randolph County Office Building • 707 McDowell Road • P.O. B 1
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0771 1?0 ?.•''?`'
Phone: [phone] •iiN
- TOLL FREEBA&MBERS -
Greensboro Area: 274-7961 / Archdale-Ti rea: 884-1722 / Liberty Area: 622-4855

North Carolina
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 8, 1990

,a
artm&?of Cultul
I
? u?vN
0

Division of Archives and History
'
William S. Price, Jr., Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager ,
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 64 Improvements, R-2220, #6.609001T,
Davidson and Randolph Counties, ER 90-8132 ,
Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1990, concerning the above project.

Although most of the proposed expansion of US 64 west of Asheboro may
traverse only areas of low to moderate likelihood for the presence of
potentially significant archaeological resources, there are exceptions

which prevent us from agreeing with your assessment. Specifically, your '
letter does not identify the Keyauwee site (31Rdl) which is the birthplace
of modern archaeology in North Carolina. The site lies adjacent to
Caraway Creek just south of the existing US 64 alignment. Although it ,
probably will not be affected by the proposed project, its historical and
scientific importance require consideration. Avoidance of secondary
effects would be a concern to this office. Additionally, information has

been received that a historic mill site lies near US 64 at Back Creek and '
that several well-collected sites lie north of US 64 above Three Hat
Mountain.

In general, our assessment of the proposed project area is that small
Archaic and Woodland period sites may be present in the upland areas, but
that larger, and potentially significant sites, may be situated at major

stream crossings, first terraces, and in proximity to monadnocks found '
near the Randolph and Davidson County line. We recommend a limited
reconnaissance level survey to determine the nature, extent, condition,
and significance of resources which might be damaged or destroyed by the ,
proposed project. Such a survey could be effectively performed by existing
professional staff of the Department of Transportation.

109 East Jones Street 0 RaleiRh4North Carolina 27601-2807 1

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Page Two
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
B-5

V 1
•?« : 994
?y2 DIVISION ut= '
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour HIGHWAYS G??QQ
4 AES
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
'
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
May 31, 1990
MEMORANDUM 1
TO:. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State ?' L? `^nr??/?) //?
Historic Preservation Officer L?' V KY !? ,
SUBJECT: US 64 from just east of I-85 bypass interchange near

Lexington to US 64/US 220 interchange in Asheboro, '
Davidson and Randolph Counties, R-2220,
CH 90-E-4220-0842
i
We have received notification from the state clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project: ,
Mount Shepherd Kiln Site. Eight miles west of Asheboro between the
Uwharrie River and Little Caraway Creek in Randolph County.
Beck's Reformed Church and Cemetery. East side of SR 2250, 0.6
mile south of the junction with SR 2251 in Davidson County. ,
Both of these sites are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places.

Please set our letter of May 8, 1990, to L. J. Ward (copy attached)
which contains our comments relating to archaeological resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive '
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.

DB:slw
Enclosure 1
cc: Clearingho?&East Jones Street 0 Raleiprf North Carolina 27601-2807
CE IV
4Z. 4a,
`AUG '0 8 1990' _ s
r ?
DIVISION OF z ?? • „M •
HIGHWAYS
RESEARG??
rt Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
' Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 1, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: V. Charles Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation /
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 64 from just east of I-85 bypass interchange
near Lexington to US 64/US 220 interchange in
Asheboro, Davidson and Randolph Counties, R-2220,
CH 90-E-4220-0842, GS 91-0012
Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1990, which we received on July 30,
1990. We have reviewed the project papers and documentation and concur
that there are no National Register-listed historic structures within the
area of potential effect.
' While a finding of no National Register properties is sufficient for
NCDOT's compliance with North Carolina General Statute 12-12(a), we would
I remind you that compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act will be necessary if any federal permits or approvals are
required for the project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Barbara Church

1
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleiorfilorth Carolina 27601-2807
Project Number
pro -d84z_
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, unty
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1111JJJJ
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name lc S (n? ?, ?i T-0,; Pc?S5 Type of Project c? S
4-a 44/(A-5 ZZd ?,, 1I-I L,
_ Several water lines are located in the path of and adjacent to the
f- proposed project. Due to a possible rupture during construction, the
contractor should contact the appropriate water system officials to
specify a work schedule.
This project will be classified as a non-community public water
supply and must comply with state and federal drinking water moni-
F-1 requirements. For more information the applicant should con-
tact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure
of feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For
? informationregarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant
should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a
mosquito breeding problem. For information concerning appropriate
? mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public
Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demo-
lition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program
may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to
? adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact
the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management
Section, [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health depart-
ment regarding their requirements for septic tank installations (as
required under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. seq.). For information con-
cerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact
the On-Site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the
? County Health Department regarding the sanitary facilities required
for this project.
Reviewer
Ek 4,-u t'riua? S-4-i?'kn
,
Branch/Unit Ate'
DEHNR 3198 (Revised 2/90) B-8
Division of Environmental Health
Review 2/91

I

1
t

I -]

it

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 21520
May 1, 1990
MEMORANDUM c-`` .
Ar p
TO: Melba McGee ru;-f a
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins
/?G?
Staff Forester A?K 6?u <<ilE`
SUBJECT: EA of the Proposed US 64 Improvement from I-85 Bypass near Lexington
to Asheboro in Davidson and Randolph Counties, N. C.
PROJECT 490-0842
DUE DATE May 11, 1990
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the combined Environmental Assessment and project planning
report should contain the following information concerning the possible
right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be
production as a result of n
i
h
f taken out of timber
ew r
g
t-o
-way purcha ses.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
' 3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
' productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North C B-9 17611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Formal Onnortunitv Affirmative Action Emnlnvrr
Melba McGee
PROJECT 4190-0842
Page 2
May 1, 1990
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA' that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
DHR: gm
cc: Fred White
File
B-10

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' James G. Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
1
' MEMORANDUM
Date: May 2, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cotten?U
Thru: Gary Thompson
Subject: Davidson-Randolph Counties, Proposed Improvement
of US 64 just East of the I-85 Bypass Interchange,
near Lexington, to just West of the US 64/US 220
interchange, in Asheboro. State Project No.
6.609001T, TIP No. R-2220
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 37 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
' Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NonA-'1,1- is 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A.. 1--'A (l--in. AFB-..,a Ate.,,,., F..,..I.. _

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 12, 1990
David A. Holdstock
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas Inc.
4000 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Holdstock:

Ll
Dr. William W. Davis
Director
We have records of three rare plant species in the vicinity of
U.S. 64 between Asheboro and Lexington. That of greatest concern
is the piedmont leadplant (Amorpha schwerinii), which is reported
along the highway several miles west of Asheboro. This is a
candidate species for state listing. Its primary habitat is
rocky upland woods, but it sometimes occurs along stream banks.
If the project will disturb either of these two habitats in this
area, a survey should be conducted for this plant in the
appropriate season. The other plants recorded for the quads
listed are divided-leaf toothwort (Cardamine dissecta=Dentaria
multifida: significantly rare) and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius:
special concern). They should be sought as possibilities in any
field survey done at the site.
Sincerely,

Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
t
I

1

t

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Canawl2611-7687 Telephone [phone]
t

1
1

fl

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
May 22, 1990
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Carol Tingley
SUBJECT: 90-0842 - Widening of US 64, Lexington to Asheboro
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the proposal to
widen US 64 in Davidson and Randolph Counties. The Uwharrie
River from the SR 1193 bridge downstream to Lake Tillery has been
mentioned and given some consideration as a potential state
natural and scenic river. The proposed widening of US 64 from
Asheboro to Lexington would occur upstream from this segment.
Local need for recreational access to the river at US 64 should
be determined. If the location offers good recreation potential,
DOT should consider planning for river access along with the
highway improvements.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
CT/sk
cc: Kim Hubband
3121
B-13
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
May 16, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Larry Sink /12?5
SUBJECT: A-95 EIS - U.S. 64 Improvement Between Lexington and
Asheboro, N.C. Davidson and Randolph Counties.
Project No. 90-0842
The Prime and State Important Farmlands have been addressed for
the affected area in Davidson County but not in Randolph County.
There is a progressive soil survey being conducted in Randolph
County, but this area has not been soils mapped. Therefore, the
prime and statewide important farmland cannot be determined until
a soils map has been made. This information can be requested
through the Randolph Soil and Water Conservation District but
this would take time to complete. Another alternative would be
for the firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas to obtain
a soils consultant to prepare the soils information. The impact
on prime and statewide important farmlands should be kept to a
minimum. The hydric soils informations, used to determine
wetlands, would also need to be gathered in the same manner.
Impact on wetlands should be kept to a minimum, and all measures
should be taken to preserve and protect them.

1
LS/tl
B-14
PO. Boa 27687. Raleigh. i\orth Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
t
1
i
i
t
i
1
t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
April 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM
L AFn

TO: Melba McGee
6l . ?J
FROM: John Sutherlan ?l??ylSlbl??i'``
SUBJECT: 90-0842, EA on U.S. 64, Davidson and Randolph Counties
we have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway passes close to
residential areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on impacts; be
flexible on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet
local concerns.
B-15
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Ca 7611.7687 Telephone [phone]
n YAA/ro ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
O'l??"v s?? ?9a
`L
MAY 1990

MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
Lr- SECRETARY S
OFFICE ^'
BOA

a????
m
a
` l! p(6 L
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeljN--
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-0842 - Widening of US64
I-85 to US 220
DATE: May 24, 1990
Our
ri
i '
p
mary
nterest is the impacts this project would have
on wetland3, state and federally listed rare, threatened and
endangered species and major streams in the area.
I have attached a list and description of information that
will need to be addressed early on by the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This information is necessary for a
thorough review.
I encouraged DOT to discuss these issues with our divisions
and that they also advise us of any potential problem, prior to
making final project decisions.
MM:bb
Attachments I
1
EI-16
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
k.r t - . .
W ?` a n
NORTH CAROLINA T?Atff INSTRUCTION
116 West Edenton Street • Education Building Z A' l+ Bob Etheridge
Raleigh. NC 27603-1712 Superintendent
F May 14, 1990
\N
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
Highway Building
/
FROM: Charles H. Weave*??
Assistant State ndent of Auxiliary Services
nstruction
NC Department of I
217 W. Jones St., Ed. Annex I
RE: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Improvement of US 64 from just
east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange, near Lexington, to just west of the
US 64/US 220 interchange, in Asheboro, State Project No. 6.6090017; TIP
No. R-2220, Davidson-Randolph Counties
Please find attached communication from Bob L. Trogdon, Assistant Superinten-
dent of Randolph County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment

t

B-17
an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
sswto?
MEMORANDUM TO:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
April 20, 1990
s
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager R; t
Plan ' g and Research ? ??
FROM: ss, Bicycle Coordinator
Bicycle Program

AS J. HARRELSON
M SECRETARY
M
0
SUBJECT. US 64, east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange near Lexington to west of
the US 64/220 Interchange in Asheboro, State Project No.
6.609001T, TIP R-2220 in Davidson and Randolph Counties.
In your memorandum of April 3, 1990, you requested our comments regarding the proposed
improvements to the above mentioned project.
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for bicycles on this project.
This section of US 64 in Davidson and Randolph Counties does not correspond to a bicycle TIP
request, nor is it part of our Bicycling Highway system. We have no indication that there are
unusual levels of bicycling on this roadway.
As with any of our roads and highways (except, of course, for those which have limited
access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the overall traffic mix.
Even though this project has no special bicycle element, reasonable efforts should be made to
accommodate existing bicycle traffic within the overall project design.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. Please feel free to
contact us again regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/jc

r
t

fl

B-18
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer

r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
JAMES G. MARTIN RALEIGH 27611-5201 DIVISION OF AVIATION
GOVERNOR AVIATION PARKWAY
THOMAS J. HARRELSON RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT
[phone]
SECRETARY May 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Gail Grimes, Planning and Research Branch
FROM: Bruce Matthews, Manager of Aviation Development
SUBJECT: R-2220, Widening of US 64 in Randolph County
We have reviewed the potential aeronautical impacts of the referenced
project currently under study by the Division of Highways. We are not
aware of any airports or other aviation facilities which would be
impacted by highway construction along the corridor for this project,
provided the current right-of-way is not exceeded. If we can provide
any further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to let
us know.
BEM

1

' B-19
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
'b
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Aberdeen, North Carolina 2831!
April 23, 1990
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward
.qpR? S1
9FSFA?- -::.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
P?,anni and Research
FROM: F. E. Whitesell, P.E.
Division Engineer
SUBJECT: US 64 From I-85 at Lexington To US 64/US 220
Interchange at Asheboro
This is in response to your April 3, 1990 memorandum
concerning the proposed widening of the above section of
US 64 in Randolph and Chatham Counties. This is a badly
needed improvement which, when completed from I-85 at
Lexington to US 1 at Apex-Cary should relieve some of the
heavy travel on I-85 between Charlotte and Raleigh.
B-20
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer

1

u ?'` S-Att o
,r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
March 7, 1990
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
GEORGE E. WELLS. P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. D. B. Waters
Division Engineer G(J
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E.X-9'
Manager of Planning and Research

t
1
SUBJECT: US 64, From I-85 Business in Lexington to
I-85 Bypass, Davidson County (FS 890022)
At your request, our staff has made a review to determine the appropriate
cross section for the improvement of the subject highway. Location of the
studied segment of US 64 is shown on the attached map. Our comments are as
follows:
1. The subject two-lane facility extends for approximately 3 miles
between existing 4-lane divided shoulder sections at interchanges at
I-85 Business and I-85 Bypass. It has a 24-foot pavement with 10-foot
grassed shoulders constructed on new location in 1953. A 150-foot
right-of-way without control of access was. acquired to accommodate
future widening to a 4-lane divided roadway with a 26-foot median.
The right-of-way is offset 50 feet to the north and 100 feet to the
south of the existing road centerline. '
Two concrete bridges are in place along this section of road. The
structures, one spanning Norfolk-Southern Railroad and the other
spanning Abbotts Creek, were constructed in the early 1950's with
clear roadway widths of : 28 feet and lengths of 121 and 288 feet,
respectively. Although their respective sufficiency ratings are 63
and 50 out of a possible 100 for new bridges, these bridqes are in
reasonably good condition.
2. Average daily traffic volumes during 1988 ranged from 6300 vpd near
I-85 bypass to 10,300 vpd near I-85 Business. Approximately 12 per-
cent of the total traffic volumes constitute heavy trycks. Estimated
traffic volumes for year 2010 are 12,000 to 20,000 vpd, respectively.

An Equal Opportunity B-213tive Action Emplo
er
y

Page 2
March 7, 1990

The posted speed limit on the subject facility 'is 55 mph. With the
exception of flashing light control at one intersection, no other

traffic control devices exist. - '
Roadside development is primarily residential and industrial with some
s
all
m
commercial uses. The density of development is medium.
Cross Section Recommendation
Logical cross section alternatives for improvement of US 64 between I-85
Business and I-85 Bypass are: a) 4-lane divided roadway as originally planned in
1953, and b) 5-lane undivided roadway. Provision of a 4-lane divided section is
a desirable design feature in keeping with the function of US 64 as an intrastate
highway. However, in this case, it is not considered to be a prudent proposal.
This section of road passes through a developed area having industri
l
d
a
an
commercial uses and numerous street and driveway intersections. Where it is
impractical to limit left turns, a divided facility would create U-turn problems
at median openings, especially for heavy trucks. Also, a median width of 26 feet
as originally planned is not wide enough to keep trucks from stopping in the
through lane of a roadway carrying high volumes of traffic at high speeds.
Although a divided facility generally is noted for increased safety, comfort, and
ease of operation, it is not considered to be a workable plan in an area that has
a high potential for industrial and commercial growth due to the influence of
nearby interstate highways.
Therefore, it is recommended a five-lane undivided pavement with shoulders
be used for the subject facility. Provision of a continuous center lane for
left turns is a more practical use in an area generating significant left turning
movements, especially those made by trucks associated with adjacent industrial
development. Because all left turns are thus protected, the interference to
through traffic lanes is minimized.
Construction of the additional lanes can be accomplished without requiring
additional right-of-way by widening on the south side of the existing pavement.
The recommended cross section is 60-foot pavement (5 @ 12-foot lanes) with
10-foot shoulders including 2-foot paved. It is also recommended the existing ¦
bridges across Norfolk-Southern Railroad and Abbotts Creek be retained as they
are but with minor improvements, and new 38-foot wide bridges be constructed on
the immediate south side of the existing bridges. By converting the existing
bridges to one-way operation with minor improvements such as retrofitting the
rails, sealing-the expansion joints, and replacing the asphalt wearing surface,
these bridges should last up to approximately 20 years.
If you need additional information or further assistance on this matter,
please let us know.
RGD/rm -
Attachment
cc: Mr. George E. Wells, P. E.
Dr. Larry R. Goode, P. E.
Mr. Tommy Peacock, P. E.
B-22
1
E
i
1 =
. i€
I
2
? s
'O
s
I ? II:

a 1r
v
;I
i
?d
i

x
S = ? ?d
STUDIED
SECTION • -

z

I.- Olt
02
X
W

1$?
NORTH CAROLINA DTYART.%IE.\T OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLASHING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
US 64
FROM 1-85 BUSINESS TO 1.55 BYPASS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
1190 ° mid... tl_ Fla 1

r.
9, MAY 1,7,
?
:
JAMES G. MARTIN .ti
` iVia(O{? OF
GOVERNOR "WAYS
JAMES E. HARRINGTON R?ggC,`
SECRETARY
?t t
OF NORTH CAROLINA
uIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
May 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Horace Jernigan
i'A

DIVTSION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
State Location and Surveys Engineer
FROM: D. P. ?Jilson, P.E., R.L.:;.
Area Locating Engineer
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Improvement of
US 64 from just east of the I-F5 Bypass Interchange, near
Lexington, to just west of the US 64/US 220 Interchange,
in Asheboro. State Project No. 6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220,
Davidson-Randolph Counties.
I have reviewed the above project and offer the following comments.
Development is light and scattered throughout this project. Utilities
are located primarily along the north side of US 64. Utility conflicts
could be held to a minimum by widening on the south side.
In Randolph County, turmmnP lanes should be provided west of SR 1408
for school traffic, and at the intersection of US 64 and SR 1424.
Horizontal alignment is good throughout the project.
1

B-994 I
An Equal Opportunity, maiirmative Action Employer

I

1

0

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
I: )Q-
'L .IAM vUPSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
May 8, 1990
r 0 <; ; l
;f-Q, s, ;- Z7
."hptw%,ON OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
STATE PROJECT: 6.609001T
I. D. NUMBER: R-2220
COUNTY: Davidson - Randolph
DESCRIPTION: US 64 from east of I-85 Bypass Interchange
near Lexington to west of US 64-220
Interchange in Asheboro
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
FROM: D. M. Sellers
FOR: Cecil R. McLamb
State Right of Way Negotiator
SUBJECT: Comments regarding US 64
We have reviewed your request for comments. Based on
the material that was presented, we have no additional
comments to make at this time.
If we can be of further assistance in regard to this
matter, please contact us.
DMS/mem
I B-25
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
:. W ? 1 irD`V4n
'Mr. r
.?rY W?u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA '
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201 '
JAMES G. MARTIN April 24, 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON GEORGE E. WELLS. P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Gail Grimes. P.E. '
FROM: Susan A. Klemmywft_ #Allf*t
Project Engineer, Statewide Planning
SUBJECT: Comments on US 64 Widening From I-85 Bypass
near Lexington to US 220 in Asheboro, R-2220
As a link in the Intrastate System, US 64 is designated to provide
a high level of travel service (measured by speed, safety, and
mobility) and serve to connect major population centers both
inside and outside the State. To fulfill this role, a four-lane
divided road with access allowed only at state roads is essential. ,
In addition, an area's sense of community and character is usually
adversely affected by the strip development resulting from
uncontrolled access. This memorandum is based upon the findings
of a Corridor Study on US 64 which will be available in late May.
An origin-destination survey conducted in April, 1989 revealed
that 70 percent of all trips on this section of US 64 are for
grips over 1.00 miles and for town--to-town travel (in the rural
areas where the survey stations were located). In addition to the
longer-distance trips there are many local trips in and around the
urban areas which also are expected to increase. To provide a
high level of travel service, local and through trips need to be
separated as much as possible.
The distance between signals is the single most important factor ,
affecting capacity (which directly affects speed and mobility).
Limiting the amount of access given to high traffic generating
development such as fast-food establishments and retail will
reduce the number of signals needed. A five-lane section along
any part of the road encourages additional signalization and thus
should not be considered. A volume of 9,600 vehicles per day is
projected to occur between Lexington and Asheboro in future year
2010.

B-26 I
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
I

t A. SECTION OF US 64 BETWEEN LEXINGTON AND ASHEBORO
1
1

1 B. SECTION OF US 64 IN SILER CITY
AESTHETIC EFFECT OF
STRIP DEVELOPMENT
B-27 US 64 CORRIDOR STUDY
I (LEXINGTONTO RALEIGH)

Access also directly impacts safety. For example, US 70 from
Raleigh to Morehead City is densely developed in many locations.
In Smithfield alone, over 350 accidents occurred on US 70 in the
last 3 years. on US 64 no one location has had more than 56
accidents in the past 3 years. This is due in part to greater
volumes on US 70, but also to the dense strip development with
unlimited access which plagues much of US 70. This uncontrolled
growth has contributed to the premature functional obsolescence of
the road. The severity of the situation on US 70 is leading NCDOT
to begin controlling access by constructing bypasses and in some
areas moving US 70 to new alignment. US 64 also has bypasses
planned (Asheboro and Pittsboro). Prudent planning now can
minimize this exorbitantly costly process.
Another fundamental consideration is the effect uncontrolled
access has on an area's character and sense of individuality.

Strip development almost always follows an uncontrolled access ,
facility. As illustrated by the photographs on the following
page, access control is needed to prevent the detrimental
aesthetic effects of strip development from occurring on this
section of US 64.
A benefit analysis was conducted to compare the benefits of a '
freeway to the benefits of a four-lane uncontrolled access
facility. The freeway alternative shows greater benefit although
it is not significant enough to warrant a freeway. Thus, a four
lane divided road with access allowed. only at state roads is
recommended for this section.
To reiterate, based on US 64's role as a link in the Intrastate
System it should provide a high level of travel service. A four-
lane divided road with access allowed only at state roads is
essential. Right-of-way is a significant expense but without some '
control of access the project's ability to efficiently carry
longer distance trips is greatly diminished. Finally, control of
access can enhance and preserve an area's sense of community.
Please call me at 3-4705 if I can be of assistance.
cc: L. J. Ward, P.E.

I

B-28
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEMORANDUM
410199
L r£C P£C?i; ?.
r R?gRr I ?J
TO: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
FROM: Winston Salem Regional Office
RE: 90-0842/Widening of US64 I-85 to US220
DATE: May 24, 1990

Because of steep grades in some sections of road, adequate
right-of-way must be provided to allow properly designed and
constructed sediment control devices. Recent history has found
that adequate right-of-way is not being obtained resulting in
inadequate or improper devices being utilized. Offsite
sedimentation has occurred in these instances.
B-29
1

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
February 28, 1990
David A. Holdstock
Parsons Brinckerhoff
4000 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 250
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Dear Mr. Holdstock:
The following listed and proposed state endangered,
threatened, and special concern animal species are expected
in Randolph and Davidson counties:
SPECIES
HEMIDACTYLIUM SCUTATUM
CORAGYPS ATRATUS
ACCIPITER COOPERII
LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS
MYOTIS KEENII SEPTENTRIONALIS
NOTROPIS MEKISTOCHOLAS
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS
CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII
TRIONYX SPINIFERUS
FUSCONAIA MASONI
ALASMIDONTA VARICOSA
LASMIGONA DECORATA
STROPHITUS UNDULATUS
LAMPSILIS RADIATA CONSPICUA
COMMON NAME
FOUR-TOED SALAMANDER
BLACK VULTURE
COOPER'S HAWK
LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE
NORTHERN LONG-EARED
BAT
CAPE FEAR SHINER
(Cape Fear Drainage)
CAROLINA DARTER
BOB TURTLE
SPINY SOFTSHELL
ATLANTIC PIGTOE
BROOK FLOATER
CAR. HEELSPLITTER
SQUAWFOOT
CAR. FATMUCKET
I would appreciate a copy of your suggested conservation
practices necessary to protect these species. My address is
Rt. 1, Box 518, Pittsboro, N. C. 27312.
Sincerely,
John M. Alderman
ell
Piedmont Project Leader
Nongame & Endangered Wildlife
B-30 Program

F

u

n

r
r-.
J

n

L

it

y..
MAY 1990
RECEIVED
iECRETARTS OFFICE
00A
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: W. Don Baker, Program Manage
Division of Boating and Inland fisheries
DATE: May 21, 1990
SUBJECT: Proposed four-lane expansion of US 64 from I-85 to US
220 in Davidson and Randolph counties, State Project No.
6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220.
The proposed project area primarily contains upland hardwood
with some mixed woodlands and bottomland hardwood drainages,
which contain an abundance of wildlife species including deer,
wild turkey, quail, rabbit, squirrel, numerous raptors and other
nongame wildlife species. Development is sparse and the proposed
project would result in the loss of many acres of this high
quality habitat.
Several cuts and fills will be required and soil movement
will be difficult to control in the rolling terrain throughout
the project area. Fish and furbearer populations could be
impacted by siltation in the-many streams within the project
area. The Uwharrie River (Lake Reese) is the largest body of
water to be crossed; several other major streams and unnamed
tributaries may be impacted. Particular care should be taken to
avoid silt loads in the Uwharrie River during the spring white
bass runs. Siltation control measures should be addressed in the
initial Environmental Assessment. `
Impacts to wetlands are of particular concern with highway
construction. Bridging of streams and wetlands is, in all cases,
preferable to installation of culverts or filling. Specifically,
a rip-rap causeway across Lake Reese would be unacceptable.
Also, no structures should be placed in stream beds. All
wetlands within the project area should be identified and mapped
in the initial Environmental Assessment.
Potential impacts to state and federally-listed rare,
threatened and endangered species should be addressed. Field
B-31
Memo Page 2 May 21, 1990
studies by qualified personnel should be conducted if any of '
these species are expected in or near the project area. Results
of these studies and expected project impacts should be included
in the initial Environmental Assessment. '
Potential loss of fishing and other recreational access to
the major streams should be addressed. Creation of new public '
access in the form of boat ramps, bank fishing space and/or
access trails would be acceptable compensation for such losses.
It is the opinion of the Commission that this project will '
have major impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. Efforts to
minimize these impacts should be addressed in the Project
Planning Report and in the Environmental Assessment. In the '
event of unavoidable wetland losses, proposed mitigation for
these losses should be addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity for input during the pre-
planning stage of this project. We will be glad to assist in any
manner feasible during all phases of the project.
WDB/lp
cc: Ken Knight

1

1
B-32

u

1
?`? ,;/??• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I P.O. BOX 1890
3k ???I WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 10, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO goo
Planning Division y
cn 7NC? OJ
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

t

7
11
We have reviewed your letter of April 3, 1990, requesting information
for "Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Improvement of US 64
from just east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange, near Lexington, to
just west of the US 64/US 220 interchange, in Asheboro. State Project
No. 6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220, Davidson?--Randolph Counties" and offer the
following comments.
Any adverse effects on the flood plain of new or lengthened hydraulic
structures should be evaluated, recognized, and mitigated.
The proposed work may involve the discharge of fill material into the
waters of the United States and wetlands. Affected waterbodies include
Uwharrie River, Back Creek, Caraway Creek, Plummer (Brier) Creek, and
at least 21 unnamed tributaries. Prior Department of the Army permit
authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as
amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction debris.
Due to the size and scope of this project, we recommend that the wetland
limits within the construction corridor be delineated pursuant to the
January 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. Once delineated, a representative of the Regulatory Branch will
verify the survey in the field.
On November 15, 1989, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures
to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean
Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA, which became effective on
February 7, 1990, provides for: first, avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative;
second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and
B-33

-2- 1
1
wetlands; and third, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts to
the extent appropriate and practical. To enable the Regulatory Branch to
process your application in full compliance with this MOA, we request that
you provide the following information:
a. Permits are available only for work dependent upon being located
within an aquatic site and being the least environmentally damaging,
practical alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other '
practical alternatives, inoluding upland alternatives, to the work for
which you have applied and provide justification that your selected plan
is the least damaging to waters and/or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and
practical steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that
you have done, especially regarding development and modification of ,
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
c. Appropriate and practical mitigation will be required for all
unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practical
minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to mitigate
for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical ,
measures.
Final Department of the Army permit requirements will depend on the '
final project design, area of waters and/or wetlands filled, construction
methods, etc. Accordingly, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the
opportunity to review the plans, when they become available, for a project-
specific determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. ,
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. David Lekson at the
Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can '
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
s?n"ce W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division

B-34

US. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard

commanagrp,,
Fifth Coast Gu
s
I
T.
k4i
Mr. L. J. Ward; P. E.
Manager Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Federal Building
District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23705-5004
Staff Symbol: ( o b )
Phone:
[phone]
16590
May 22; 1990
1 Subj: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Improvement of US 64
from just east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange near Lexington,
to just west of the.US 64/US 220 interchange in Asheboro.
State Project No. 6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220; Davidson-Randolph
Counties
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your letter dated April 3; 1990 requesting
information on potential impacts as a result of the proposed
' widening of US 64 in Davidson and Randolph Counties of North
Carolina.
The Coast Guard's main concern with any project crossing
navigable waterways of the United States is the social and
economic impact it will have on navigation. In order for my
Bridge Staff to make a determination as to whether bridge permits
' will be required for any of proposed crossings, navigational use
of the Uwharrie River, Back Creek, Caraway Creek, Plummer (Brier)
Creek, and 21 unnamed tributaries needs to be addressed. This
' information should include the types and sizes of vessels along
with their mast height, drafts and beams, that transit each
waterway. Characteristics of the waterway, such as width, depth
and tidal influence also should be addressed in the Environmental
Assessment. Further, once a decision has been made on your part
for specific crossings, include whether any structures will be
constructed in the waterways for the benefit of widening US 64.
' Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposal. Please
contact my Bridge Staff at [phone] should you have any
i questions concerning Coast Guard jurisdiction or requirements.
Sincerely,
;hef pt n U. S. Coast Guard
TON & Waterways
Management Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
1 B-35
NT f ? United States Department of the Interior ¦
•??~? FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office ?¦¦
Post Office Box 33726 ?¦?¦???
,?• Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 20, 1990
`Ir. L J. Ward,
:`tanager i
Planning and Research Branch f
Division of Highways s
N.C. Department of Transportation,
Post Office Box 25201 'S'A?C,?,?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 9'aicP
Dear Mr. Ward :
Subject: Scoping Comments for US 64 From East of the I-85 Interchange near
Lexington to West of the US 64/US 220 Interchange in Asheboro,
Randolph/Davidson Counties, State Project No. 6.609001T; TIP No.
R-2220.
This responds to your letter of April 3, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. At least 25 stream and/or
wetland crossings are present in the study corridor. Special care should be '
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures.
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) species I
which may occur in the proposed project corridor.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be ,
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be. mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. '
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be ,
eliminated.
B-36

r-,

I

1

I Attachments

fl
t
1

5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminated,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
B-37
REVISED SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
Randolph County
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) - E
B-38

r
t

1

1
t
t

t
1

REVISED SMEMER 11, 1989
Davidson County
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of status review species which may occur
within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification.
These species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be
protected under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do for them.
Heart-leaved plantain (Plantago cordata) - SR
B-39
s United States Soil
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
Mr. David A. Holdstock
Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas Inc.
4000 West Chase Boulevard
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland that is of Statewide
or Local Importance (US-321)
Dear Mr. Holdstock:
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
February 23, 1990
This is in response to your request for important farmland information
along U.S. 64 corridor in Davidson and Randolph Counties. We have soils
survey data for Davidson County, but we lack data for Randolph County. The
data for Davidson County is enclosed.
Because of other priority work, we did not identify the important farmland
soils on the base map that you provided. Instead, we have enclosed copies
of soil maps, soil identification legend and a code legend to identify the
different important farmland soils in Davidson County. This information
will provide the data to identify each soil area within the corridor
outlined on your base map, as to their important farmland class. If there
are questions, please contact Ernest Hayhurst, phone [phone].
Sincerely,
Oe-
15-
Bobby J. Jones
State Conservationist
cc: David B. Key, DC
Joe M. Kenyon, Jr., DC

1

I

fl

The Sod Conservation Service B'Q
4-j is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture

[i

1
t

1
f t United States Soil
f Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
r?
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
May 1, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Research
N. C. Dept. of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: 1. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Improvement of US 64 from
just east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange, near Lexington, to just
west of the US 64/US 220 interchange, in Asheboro. State Project
No. 6.609001T; TIP No. R-2220, Davidson-Randolph Counties
2. US 64 from NC 22 in Ramseur to The Existing Five Lane Secti
of Siler City, State Project No. 6.529002T R?,
Randolph/Chatham Counties.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information for
the above two projects. We do not have soils information for these
proposed projects. Thus, we are unable to provide the information
requested.
Sincerely,
ob pYnservaa e
Sta ionist
cc: David B. Key
Joe M. Kenyon, Jr.
Larry S. Stephenson
L

1
1
0 The Soi Conservation Service
`J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
B-41
t

1
t

fl

t
11

t

1
1
1
t

t

R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. ,_ CORRIDOR -. DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.609001T COUNTY: Davidson-Randolph Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT: N/A -L- of -L Alternate
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 64 Improvements From I-85 to US 220 (23 miles)
(PAGE 1 OF 2)
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
TT
Displac i
?
ee Owners Tenants Total ti
es 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M
35?-50M
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Families 62 0
62 0 6 38 18 0 0
Businesses 25 0 25 0

Fa VA LE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
rms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 7 S 0-150 0 0-213M 10 IS 0-150 0
AN3AR ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 13 150-250 .0 20-40M 60 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 35 250-400 0 40-70M 200' 250-400 0
I x 1. Will special relocation 7103-100 7 400-600 0 70-100 155 400-600 0
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be f
00 U' 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 136 600 UP 0
affected by displacement
X 3. l
JiII burin ss rvices.still
? TOTAL . 62 0
b
L avai ab
e a er project 561 0
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. It so, indicate size 3. OTHER BUSINESSES SIMILAR TO AFFECTED PROPERTY WILL-
X type, estimated number of BE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES ARE OWNER OCCUPIED AND NONE
housing shortage ARE MINORITY OWNED.
X 6. Source for available hous- (A) BRILES GARAGE - 5 EMPLOYEES
ing (.list) (B) ARNOLD JONES PROPANE - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 7. Will additional housing (C) JEWELL MFG. - 7.EMPLOYEES
programs be needed (0) JERRY'S MART - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing (E) FRANCIE L ODIE USED CARS - (OUT OF BUSINESS)
be considered (F) HICK'S GROCERY - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 9. Are there laree,•disabled, (G) JAY'S AUCTION - 4 EMPLOYEES
?
elderly, etc. families (
H) WEST 64 GROCERY L
E -
2
EMPLOYEES
PROOD-IC

10. u c ausOn9-6e
?I? (I
(
CE
p
F
R RENT)
j BLACK L
(J
Di
V
'
.
NG - Z
EMf
LOY
EE
needed for project (K) ALTON J. DCLK CONST. - 15 EMPLOYEES
11. Is public housing avail- (L) PARRISH FRAMES INC. - 25 EMPLOYEES
able (M) THOMAS TIRE CO. - 35 EMPLOYEES
12. Is it felt there will be ad- (N) TAW L TOMMY GAS STATION - 5 EMPLOYEES
equate DOS housing available (0) HIGHWAY 49 (SLETH GAS STATION) - 5 EMPLOYEES
during relocation period (P) FACTORY MODEL CENTER MODULAR HOMES - 25 EMPLOYEES
13. Will there be a problem of (0) STOP L SHOP GAS STATION - (VACANT)
housing within financial (R) SHANA CLOTHING OUTLET - 25 EMPLOYEES
means (S) EUNICE HANCOCK ACCOUNTANT - 5 EMPLOYEES
14. Are suitable business sites (T) B L S SOCKS - 5 EMPLOYEES
available (list source) (U) TATOOES - 5 EMPLOYEES
15. Number months estimated to (V) VACANT BUILDING
complete RELOCATION
CORY FOREMAN 1 u
Relocatio gent
Form 15.4 Revis d 5/90
Approved Date
Original L 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
I C-1
R E L O C A T I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. I CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.60900 1 1T COUNTY: Davidson-Randolph Alternate _L of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 64 Improvements From 1-85 to US 220 (23 miles)
(PAGE -2 OF 2)
(W) GAS STATION - VACANT
(X) A94MMO WELL q0. - 30 EMPLOYEES
(Y) VERNON POOLE & CO. INC. SERVICE STATION - ECONO OIL CO. - 50 EMPLOYEES
6. ASFEBORO MS AND LEXINGTON MLS.
8. TO BE IN-EMDYTED AS NECESSARY.
COMMENT : THERE API
SURVEYED
THERE APF
TO BE DIE
Relocation dent
Form 15.4 Revise 5/9

TO BE NO TENANTS ON THIS PROJECT, THEREFORE, RENTAL DWELLING WERE NOT

TO BE SUFFICIENT REPLACEMENT BUSINESS PROPERTY AND SITES FOR THOSE PROPOSED

02-13-91 L -/,p
Date Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

G2
p

U.S. Department of Agricstiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART i I ro 7e calnoteres by, -earn/ Agent/I O+tS ° 9 'rsne^ 04+ow+st
Name f '1g: t . v v.?
V ? (o t (vin 1o,r'ov a w.-+-,
Prooosea Lana use (? Ana State
tf/?(?W µ.??n? ?.- +N?nQ y00.?W?y I m%jrasgp-. CO. ? NC
PART II ITo be completed by SCSJ am Reeest Aeeetvee 3y, SCS

memo For S*wcaan:

Ooes the site contain pri me, unique, statewide w iod important fsenslarfd? Yes No
(If no. clfe FPPA does nor apply, - do nor cairWere additions/ parts of ? fwm). CZ Q Aa'+ ir^g"M A"'teee Farm S"
Mew Cracow a LWO in CWWL Jurtaucattt
Asa: % Anwant Of FOCIMMIS AS time to A
Awes: %
Nense at tam Erawsu an Svstem Uses Novae Of Loot Site Atatnewt Svltww Low GVE"Aaw Returnee a1/ 5=
PART III (T
l
d b
F
b
d .attemsene ce aw
e comp
ete
e
o
y
eral Agwwvj Site A Ste a Sh C Site O
A. Total Aces To Be Converted Oireetly , co
-TT
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirwdv C '
C. Total Aces in Site % 1. (b
PART IV (To be eoiMleted bV SCSI Land Evaiusdon infan"adw '
A. Total Acss Priori And Unique Farmland .9
S. Total Aces Satswids And Local Important Farmland 5,
C. Percents Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit Togo Converted
0. Pas m am Of FerwMww in Gevt. iwiumcbm Whft Smw Or Hlow Relative Vskm
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evelumoft Cdcom n
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Convott dI&WeofOty f00Pohm)
?ART VI (To be Mmolated try Fedetai Agency/
Saw AmommatrCdo in(Maw=Omisareaasrej dJn7dewe9"th) IAasiwttrrw
?eim
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2 Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Beira Farmed
4. Pi cta?tian Provided By Sate And Lod Gov?ntnt m
6. 04tance From Urban Buiitun Area
6. Oistana To Urban Suoaort Services
7. Sue Of Present Farm Unit Cambered To Average
& Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Sucoort Services
10. On-Farm Invesumma
11. Effects Of Conversion On Form Suboort Services
12 Comostibiii With Existin Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
ART VII (To be comp/ecsd by Fedd&W AgorwVj
Relative Value Of Farmland (From, Put V) 100
Total Site Assessment ( tom arr W above ora law

are assessma"r)
1
TOTAL POINTS (Tool of above 2lkw) ZIP

to Sleeted:

Oats Of Selection Wee A Low Site Aweerrtewt Uww

Yea CZ No CI
1 D-1

r

t

I

1

11

F1
?L??

I

L?

Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES
Number* Land Use Description
H-1
(A-2a) Fletcher Machine, Inc.
North of US 64 No storage in front of building.
Reportedly no underground tanks.
(manufacturer of Possible hazardous material user.
woodworking machines)
H-2 Elizabeth Carbide of NC, Inc. No sign of drums or chemicals on
outside of building. Possible hazardous
(A-2b) North of US 64 material user.
(unidentified use)
U-1
A
2b Abandoned building
N
h
f =
rs station previously, within
(
-
) ort
US 64
o C
ght-of-way. No sign of tanks
or removal.
U-2 Abandoned gas station No sign of underground tanks or
(A-2b) North of US 64 removal. 200 gallon and 55-gallon fuel
tank near building 100 feet from road
and within proposed right-of-way.
H-3 Unidentified woodwork shop Possible hazardous material user.
1 (A-2c) South of US 64 Several rusted 5-gallon drums, oil spills
120 feet from existing road and 40 feet
from proposed right-of-way.
H-4 Thomasville Furniture Industries Main plant south of railway line (300 feet
U-3 South of US 64 south of road). Oil spills near equipment
(A-2c) (furniture manufacturing) on north side of line, 200 feet from road.
Possible hazardous material user. (1 x
20,000-gallon, 1 x 5,000-gallon, 1 x 560-
gallon UGT, EHNR ID #0-030174.)
Listed as CERCLA site in EPA files
under name of United Globe-Lumber
Plant and Burlington Furniture/Lumber
Plant 91, EPA ID No.: NCD
9911278581.
H-5 Briles Garage Seven to eight 55-gallon fuel drums at
(A-2e) North of U'S 64 rear, 130 feet from existing US 64. All
(auto repairs) within proposed right-of-way.

*Refer to Fi gure A-2 in Appendix A for locations. Sheet number in
parentheses.
UGT = Underground Tank
EHNR = Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources

E-1
11
Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES (continued)
Number* I Land Use
Description
t

H-6
Trotter's Marine
Scattered 55-gallon fuel drums outside s
(A-2e) South of US 64 proposed right-of-way.
(boat sales and repairs)
U-4
(A-2e Mobil Gas Station
th
S
f US 64 Underground tanks 40 feet east of
ildi
b
0 f
f
) ou
o u
n (5
eet
rom proposed right-of-
wa
?1 x 8
)
1 x 5
000
000
1
3
000
y
.
,
,
,
,
x
,
UGT,
EHNR ID #0-012511.)
H-7 Unidentified use Twelve-foot fuel storage tank south of
(A 2e) North of US 64 large garage, near proposed right-of-
way line.
U-5 Gerry's Mart Underground tanks on west side of
(A-2e) North of US 64 building, 100 feet from existing road and
(convenience store/gas station) within proposed right-of-way.
U-6 Unidentified auto repair/storage Pump and underground tank on west
(A-2e) North of US 64 side of building, 100 feet from existing
road and within proposed right-of-way.
H-8 Superior Wood Products Possible hazardous material user.
(A-2f) South of US 64 Several 5- and 55-gallon drums at rear of
buildin
(wood
rki
f
t
150 f
t
g
wo
ng
ac
ory) (
ee
from existing road). Some labeled
"Paint" or "Butyrate Lac,", DOT R-1181.
U-7 Hicks Grocery Underground tanks on east side of
(A-2g) North of US 64 building, 70 feet from existing road. 200-
(convenience store/gas station) gallon tank on east side of building. All
within proposed right-of-way.
U-8 Vacant site with slab foundations Previous gas station. No sign of tanks
(A-2g) of previous buildings remaining or removal. Proposed right-of-way may
North of US 64 include any UGTs.
U-9 Lazy's Western Outfitters Previously gas station. No sign of tanks
(A-2h) North of US 64 or removal. Proposed right-of-way may
include any UGTs.
*Refer to Figure - in p en 1x or locations. ee number in parentheses.
UGT = Un erground Tank
EHNR = DIpt. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
E-2 I

Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES (continued)
*
Number Land Use Description

U-10 Bill's Electric, Heating and Air Previously gas station. Underground
(A-2k) South of US 64 tanks on east side of building, 100 feet
(electrical repairs and installation) from existing road. No sign of removal
and within proposed right-of-way.
(1 x 7,500 gal., 1 x 4,000 gal., 3 x 3,000
gal., 2 x 1,000 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-
000376.)
U-11 Hilltop Grocery Underground tanks on west side of
(A-2k) North of US 64 building, 70 feet from existing road and
(convenience store/gas station) 15 feet from proposed right-of-way.
(2 x 10,000 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-

' 018945.)
H-9 Delk
s Army and Navy Surplus 55-gallon drums scattered over site, but
(A-2m) South of US 64 outside proposed right-of-way.
(miscellaneous junk yard) Hazardous materialsl possibly
stored on site.
' U-12 Abandoned gas station
(A-2n) North of US 64

The EHNR data base also
'
identifies Bowman
s Grocery,
Route 2, Asheboro, NC 27203.
The property owner is listed as
David R. Walker, Sr. and is
vacant. This may be the same
location as U-12.
H-10 Fire Extinguisher Sales and
U-13 Service
(A-2p) North of US 64
One large aboveground tank on east
side of building, three at rear of building,
100 feet from road. Two underground
tank covers near front of building, 70 feet
from road and 20 feet from proposed
right-of-way. Signs of oil spillage. (1 x
4,000 gal., 1 x 2,000 gal., 2 x 1,000 gal.
UGT. EHNR ID #0-019631 but removed
in 1988.)
UGTs: 2 x 10,000 gal., 2 x 1,000 gal.
EHNR ID #0-000699.
Pump and underground tank on west
side of building, 70 feet from road and 20
feet from proposed right-of-way.
Chemicals likely to be stored in building.
*Refer to Figure A-2 in Appendix A for locations. Sheet number in parentheses.
UGT = Underground Tank
EHNR = Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
E-3

Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES (continued)
Number* ! Land Use
U-14
(A-2p)
H-11
(A-2p)
H-12
(A-2p)
H-13
(A-2p)
U-15
(A-2p)
U-16
(A-2p)
Description
Alton J. Delk Construction
North of US 64
(heavy construction)
Parris Frames
North of US 64
(woodworking factory)
Barker Furniture Leg Co., Inc.
North of US 64
(furniture manufacturing)
Two large fuel tanks partially submerged
(on slope), 100 feet from road. Two
aboveground fuel tanks (200 gal. and 12
feet long) on western side of building
nearest road. Both locations are on
proposed right-of-way line. (1 x 5,000
gal., 5 x 1,000 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-
018975.)
proposed right-of-way, but may have
n dumped.
No sign of drums/tanks, but
chemicals may be stored in building.
Old gas pump at rear of property, 200
feet from existing road and 100 feet from
Possible hazardous material user. 20 to
30 55-gallon drums at rear of building at
top of a slope, 200 feet from existing
road and 100 feet from proposed right-
of-way. Labeled "Stain," "Paint", DOT R-
1118, DOT R-1199.
Undeveloped land Dumped fill in old borrow pit. Appears
South of US 64 to be clean (concrete, etc.) but within
proposed right-of-way.
Hurley's Construction
South of US 64
(building construction)
Underground tank on eastern edge of
property, 170 feet from existing road and
30 feet outside proposed right-of-way.
(1 x 500 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-
001106.)
Coys Service Center
North of US 64
(retail gas)
Underground tanks on east side of
building, 100 feet from existing road and
50 feet outside proposed right-of-way.
(1 x 3,000 gal., 1 x 2,000 gal., 2 x 1,000
9 a], 1 x 550 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-
3141.)

t

1

11

a
*Refer to F' re A-2 in Appendix A for locations. Sheet number in parentheses.
UGT = Un erground Tank
EHNR = D pt. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
E-4

1

Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES (continued)

Number* Land Use Description

U-17 Econo Oil Co. Operating gas station. Six large
(A-2r) North of US 64 aboveground fuel tanks at rear, 200 feet
(retail gas) from existing road and within proposed
right-of-way. Pumps and underground
tanks 50 feet west of building, 100 feet
from road. Two disused pumps and
underground tanks 20 feet west of
aboveground tanks. Signs of oil
spillage. (1 x 4,000 gal., 1 x 2,000 gal.,1
1 x 550 gal. UGT. EHNR ID #0-018606.)
U-18 Asheboro Oil Co. Gas pump and underground tank
(A-2r) North of US 64 approximately 250 feet from existing US
(business unidentified) 64 and within proposed right-of-way.
Several 55-gallon fuel drums nearby.
Approximately 20 55-gallon lubricant/
' fuel drums at rear of site (some full,
mainly empty).
H-14 Vacant land 10-foot diameter surface oil spill, 60 feet
(A-2r) North of US 64 from existing roadway and on proposed
right-of-way line (directly opposite
western perimeter of Thomas Tire
building). Appears to be oil leakage
from parked vehicles.
H-15 Thomas Tire
(A-2r) South of US 64
(tire sales/repairs)

Previous underground tank behind
building on western perimeter reportedly
filled with concrete. Several 55-gallon
drums labeled "Methanol." Signs of oil
spillage. All outside proposed right-of-
way, but any leakage could seep to
right-of-way.
H-16 J&S Rentals Several 55-gallon drums at rear
(A-2r) South of US 64 (adjoining rear of Thomas Tire)
(miscellaneous rentals, junkyard) within 50 feet of proposed right-of-way.
Some full, one labeled "Hazardous
waste," mainly rusted. Most likely
transported and dumped. Any leakage
could seep into right-of-way.
*Refer to Figure A-2 in Appendix A for locations. Sheet number in parentheses.
UGT = Underground Tank
EHNR = Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
E-5

Table E-1: POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES (concluded)
Number* I Land Use
U-19
(A-2r)
U-20
(A-2r)
U-21
(A-2r)
U-22
(A-2r)
U-23
(A-2r)
U-24
(A-2r)
Description

Exxon Gas Station Underground tanks on northwest side of
South of US 64 building. 12-foot-long aboveground
kerosine tank on southeast side of
building. Signs of oil spillage. All within
proposed right-of-way. (8 x 10,000 gal.
UGT. (EHNR ID #019697.)
Shell Gas Station
South of US 64
Underground tanks within proposed
right-of-way (near canopy).

Abandoned Stop N Shop
South of US 64
(convenience store/gas station)
B&S Socks
South of US 64
(retail clothing)
Almost entire parcel within proposed
right-of-way. Store included gas sales.
No sign of underground tanks.
At rear of property, five underground
tanks stored aboveground. According
to owner (Briles Oil Company), all tanks
removed.
Possibly a previous gas station within
proposed right-of-way.
Abandoned gas station Three underground tank covers in
South of US 64 eastern driveway approximately 50 feet
from existing roadway, one adjacent
east side of building. All within proposed
right-of-way. No sign of tank removal.
Abandoned convenience store/ No sign of underground tanks or
gas station removal, but likely to be outside
North of US 64 proposed right-of-way.

1

*Refer to F gure A-2 in Appendix A for locations. Sheet number in parentheses. '
UGT = Un erground Tank
EHNR = D pt. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
E-6

Table F-1: AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT
MAY EXIST WITHIN THE US 64 PROJECT AREA*
Common Name Scientific Name Generalized
Habitat
Eastern Newt
Spotted Salamander
' Marbled Salamander
Northern Dusky Salamander
'
Two-lined Salamander
' Four-toed Salamander
Three-lined Salamander

t
11

Slimy Salamander
Mud Salamander
Red Salamander
American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Gray Treefrogs
Northern Cricket Frog
Spring Peeper
Upland Chorus Frog
Bullfrog
Green Frog
Pickeral Frog
Snapping Turtle
Painted Turtle
Eastern Box Turtle
Eastern Fence Lizard
Five-lined Skink
Worm Snake
Black Racer
Ringneck Snake
Corn Snake
Rat Snake
Eastern Kingsnake
Scarlet Kiingsnake
Northern Water Snake
Rough Green Snake
(Notophthalmus vindescens)
(Ambystoma maculatum)
(Ambystoma opacum)
(Desmognathus fuscus)
(Erycea bislineata)
(Hemidactylium scutatum)
(Erycea guttonlineata)
(Plethodon glutinosus)
(Pseudotriton montanus)
(Pseudotriton ruber)
(Bufo amencanus)
(Bufo woodhousei)
(Hyla chrysoscelis,
Hyla versicolor)
( cris crepitans)
(Hyla crucifer)
(Pseudacris trisenata)
(Rana catesbeiana)
(Rana clamitans)
(Rana palustris)
(Chelydra serpentina)
(Chrysemys picta)
(Terrapene carolina)
(Sceloporus undulatus)
ss fasciatus)
phis amoenus)
r constrictor)
?s?pu?n? tatus)
obsoleta)
Veins getulus)
ipeltis triangulum)
it sipidon)
irys aestrvus)
Pools and
woodlands
Woodlands
Moist woods
Streams,
seepage,
springs
Seeps, wet
woods
Seeps
Stream
bottomlands
Woodlands
Seeps,
swamps
Woodlands
Woodlands,
etc.
Woodlands,
etc.
Woods
Ponds,
ditches
Woodlands
Woodlands
Ponds
Streams,
ponds
Streams,
ponds
Streams,
ponds
Ponds
Woods
Open woods,
rocks
Woods
Woods
Throughout
Woods
Throughout
Throughout
Throughout
Fields, farms
Streams
Woodlands
F-1
Common,' Name Scientific Name Generalized
Habitat
Queen Shake
Brown S ake
Redbelly Snake
Eastern I arter Snake
Copperhead
Timber Rattlesnake
Eastern Hoanose
Southeastern Crowned Snake
Eastern Ribbon Snake
(Regina septemvittata)
(Storeda dekayi)
(Storeda occipitomaculata)
(Thamnophis sirtalis)
(Agk. trodon contortrix)
(Crotalus horridus)
(Meterodon platyshinos)
(Tandua coronata)
(Thamnophis sauritus)
Streams
Urban debris
Woods
Woods, fields
Woods
Rocky woods
Sandy soils
Wooded
slopes
Damp
meadows
al. 1980
F-2

Table F-2: SPECIES OF BIRDS FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT MAY
EXIST ALONG THE US 64 PROJECT AREA
'
Common Name* Residence Status** Generalized Habitat

'
Pied-billed Grebe P Streams and ponds
Green-backed Heron S Streams and ponds
Wood Duck P Streams and ponds
' Ringed-necked Duck W-T Ponds
Black Vulture P All habitats
Turkey Vulture P All habitats
Sharp-shinned Hawk P Woodlands
Cooper's Hawk P Woodlands
Red-shouldered Hawk P Woodlands and
' fields
Broad-winged Hawk S Woodlands
Red-tailed Hawk P Woodlands and
fields
' American Kestrel P Fields
Merlin T Fields and edges
Ruffed Grouse P Woodlands
Wild Turkey P Woodlands
Northern Bobwhite P Fields and edges
King Rail T Marshes
Virginia Rail T Marshes
Killdeer S Fields
Greater Yellowlegs T Pond and stream
shores
Spotted Sandpiper T Pond and stream
shores
Solitary Sandpiper T Pond and stream
' shores
Common Snipe W Wet fields
American Woodcock S Wooded wetlands
Rock Dove P Urban
' Mourning Dove P Fields
Black-billed Cuckoo S Woodlands
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Common Barn Owl S
P Woodlands
Fields
Eastern Screech Owl P Woodlands
Great Horned Owl P Woodlands
Barred Owl P Woodlands
Long-eared Owl W Woodlands (very
rare)
Northern Saw-whet Owl W Woodlands (rare)
Common Nighthawk S to T Throughout
* Common Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's
Checklist of North Americ an Birds.
** S - Summer; W -Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
' F,3

Name* Residence Status** Generalized Habitat
Chuck-will's-widow S Woodlands
Whip-poor-will S Woodlands
Chimney Swift S Throughout
Ruby-throated Hummingbird S Woodlands and
fields
Belted IG gfisher P Water edges
Red-headed Woodpecker P Woodlands
Red-bellied Woodpecker P Woodlands
Yellow-
liied Sapsucker W Woodlands

Downy odpecker
00
P
Woodlands
Hairy W dpecker P Woodlands
Norther Flicker P Woodlands
Pileated oodpecker P Woodlands
Eastern ood-pewee S Woodlands, edges
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher T Thickets
Acadian lycatcher S Wooded stream
corridors
Willow Fl catcher S and T Wet woodlands
Least Flycatcher S Woodlands, edges
Eastern hoebe P Woodlands
Great Cr sted Flycatcher S Woodlands
Eastern ngbird S Woodlands, edges
Horned k P Fields
Purple IV ?artin S Urban
Norther Rough-winged Swallow S Throughout
Cliff Swa low S Throughout
(uncommon)
Barn Sw Ilow S Throughout (over
water)
Blue Jay P Throughout
America Crow P Throughout
Commo Raven P Throughout (higher
elev.)
Carolina Chickadee P Woodlands
Tufted tmouse P Woodlands
Red-breasted Nuthatch W or P Woodlands
White-breasted Nuthatch P Woodlands
Brown dreeper W Woodlands
Carolina Wren P Woodlands and
1 fields
Bewicks Wren S or W Urban (rare)
House Wren S Thickets
Winter ren W Thickets
Golden- rowned Kinglet W Woodlands
Ruby-cr l wned Kinglet T or W Woodlands
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher S Woodlands
* Common Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's
Checklist of North American Birds.
F-4

Common Name* Residence Status** Generalized Habitat
Eastern Bluebird P Woodlands
Hermit Thrush S Woodlands
Wood Thrush S Woodlands
American Robin P Variable
' Gray Catbird S Thickets
Northern Mockingbird P Variable
Brown Thrasher S Woodlands
' Cedar Waxwing P Woodlands
Loggerhead Shrike P or S Fields
European Starling P Urban
White-eyed Vireo S Woodlands
Solitary Vireo S Woodlands
Warbling Vireo S Woodlands
Red-eyed Vireo S Woodlands
' Golden-winged Warbler S Thickets
Yellow Warbler S Moist thickets
Chestnut-sided Warbler S Thickets, shrubs
Magnolia Warbler T Woodlands
Cape May Warbler T Woodlands
Black-throated Warbler S Woodlands
Yellow-rumped Warbler T or W Thickets
Black-throated Green Warbler S Conifers
Yellow-throated Vireo S Woodlands
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler S
S Pinelands
Thickets
Blackpoll Warbler T Woodlands
Black-and-white Warbler S Woodlands
' American Redstart S Woodlands
Worm-eating Warbler S Woodlands
Swainson's Warbler S Thick woodlands
(rare)
Ovenbird S Woodlands
Louisiana Waterthrush S Wooded streams
Kentucky Warbler S Wet woods
Mourning Warbler T Woodlands
Common Yellow-throat S Thickets
Hooded Warbler . S Thickets
Yellow-breasted Chat S Thickets
Summer Tanager S Woodlands
Scarlet Tanager S Woodlands
Northern Cardinal P Throughout
Rose-breasted Grosbeak S Woodlands, edges
Blue Grosbeak S Woodland edges
Indigo Bunting S Woodland edges
Rufous-sided Towhee P Woodlands
** S - Summer; W -Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
Common Names follow those used in the American Ornithologists Union's
Checklist of North American Bi rds.

F-5
Name*
Residence Status** Generalized Habitat
Chipping S
arro S
p Woodland edges
Field Spprrow P Fields, edges
Vesper sparrow S or P Fields, edges
Grassh pper S Fields
Fox Sp row W Fields, edges
Song S arrow P Fields, edges
Swamp parrow W Fields, edges
White-th oated Sparrow W Fields, edges
White-c owned Sparrow W Fields, edges
Dark-ey d Junco W Fields, edges
Bobolin T Fields
Red-win ed Blackbird P Wetlands
Eastern Meadowlark P Fields
Rusty BI ckbird T Wetlands
Commo Grackle P Fields
Brown- eaded Cowbird P Throughout
Orchar Oriole S Woodland edges
Norther Oriole S Woodland edges
Purple Finch W Fields
House inch W or P Fields, edges
Red Cr ssbill P Conifers
Pine Sis in W or T Fields, edges
American Goldfinch P Fields, edges
Evening Grosbeak T Woodlands, edges
House Sparrow P Urban
** S. uer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
Co follow those used in the American Ornithologists Union's
** S - Summer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
F-6

Table F-3: MAMMALS FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT MAY EXIST WITHIN
THE US 64 PROJECT AREA*
Common Name (Sclentific Name) Generalized
Habitat
w
Virginia Opossum (Dide/phis virginiana) Throughout
Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Woodlands
' Southeastern Shrew (Sorex longirostris) Moist
thickets
' Smokey Shrew
R
k Sh (Sorex fumeus)
i Woodlands
rew
oc spar)
(Sorer d Rocky woods
Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) Woodlands
Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Woods and
fields
Least Shrew (Cryptods parva) Fields and

H
i
t
il
d M
l
P
l
b
i edges
a
ry-
a
e
o
e (
arasca
ops
rewer
) Fields,
woodlands
Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) Fields
Star-nosed Mole (Condylura cristata) Moist
Ns
Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) Wo ds,
buildings
Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) Moist woods
Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subf/avus) Rocky woods
Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Woods,
buildings
' Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) Woodlands
Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Woods
Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis keenii septentrionalis) Dwellings,
Woods
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat (Plecotus rafinesquii) Dwellings
Eastern Cottontail (S)Wtlagus flondanus) Fields,
thickets
Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Woods
Woodchuck (Marmota monax) Fields, edges
Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Woods
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Woods
Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) Woods
Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) Woods
White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus /eucopus) Woods,
edges
Golden Mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) Woods,
thickets
Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon hispidus) Old fields
Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma floridana) Woods
Meadow Vole
Woodland Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)
(Microtus pinetorum) Fields
Woods, fields
Southern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys cooped) Wet fields
Black Rat (Raitus rattus) Buildings
' Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) Buildings
F-7
Common Name
Habitat
I
House Mouse
Meadow jumpir
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Least Weasel
Mouse
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink i
d Sku
nk
Eastern Eontlte
Striped Bobcat
Deer

(Scientific Name)
Generalized
(Mus musculus) Fields,
buildings
(Zapus hudsonius) Fields, edges
(Vulpes vulpes) Throughout
(Urocyon cineareoargenteus) Throughout
(Procyon lotor) Throughout
(Mustela nivalis) Woodlands,
fields
(Mustela frenata) Woods, fields
(Mustela vison) Streams,
woods
(Spiloga/e putodus) Woodlands
(Mephitis mephitis) Throughout
(Felis rufus) Woods,
edges
(Odocoileus virginianus) Throughout
F-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
From Just East of the 1-85 Bypass Interchange
Near Lexington
To Just West of the US 220 Interchange
Near Asheboro
DAVIDSON AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES
State Project No. 6.609001T
TIP No. R-2220
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
In Compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
APPROVED:
`? 93
e ran in is ,
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A14YI
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary c = "N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornl?p
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA/FONSI NC 64 Improvements
Davidson and Randolph Counties
State Project DOT No. 6.609001T, TIP #R-2220
EHNR # 94-0451, DEM # 10479
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA/FONSi prepared
for this project which will impact 14.4 acres of wetlands.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
2. DEM appreciates DOT's commitment to plant swales with wetland vegetation.
3. DOT should refer to DOT's Stream Relocation/Channelization guidelines to
minimize environmental damage
4. DOT should coordinate wetland mitigation with DEM if required by the COE.
5. Endorsement of the EA/FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in D€ KA's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
u64r2220.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer papsr

' US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
From Just East of the 1-85 Bypass Interchange
Near Lexington
To Just West of the US 220 Interchange
Near Asheboro
DAVIDSON AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES
1

1

L
r

State Project No. 6.609001 T
TIP No. R-2220
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
November 1993
Documentation Prepared By:
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
Raleigh, Norgl,Qg rolina
CARo, f^`q
D
?? p ? •
SEAL m
S
L2 uz
W. D. Gilmore, s -? 6809 E
Vice President '°%?GI NEE
??, °?? °b•s••°°° ??/ woe
For the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- (1' Z e r ae, e'?' 0 ?7
issett, r., Unit e d
Consulting Engineering Unit
l
mas . en ig,
Project Manager
1

11

11

1

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
TYPE OF ACTION 1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 2
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY 5
WETLANDS - ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING 7
FLOODPLAINS - ONLY PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE FINDING 9
CIRCULATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 10
COMMENTS 12
Agency 12
Public 18
REVISIONS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 29
BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 30
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS 30
APPENDICES
A: Agency Correspondence A-1
B. Amended State EA Natural Systems Impact Assessment B-1
C. Amended List of Wildlife Species for Which
Suitable Habitat May Exist in the US 64 Project Area C-1
D. Other Amended Impact Findings D-1

LIST OF TABLES
1 Com rison of US 64 Improvement Alternatives
Stati ns 160+00 to 275+00 and 395+00 to 495+00
B-1 Plant Community and Habitat Encroachment
Asso iated with US 64 Improvements
B-2 Acre of Wetland Taken
B-3 Prote ted and Rare Species Recorded in the
Vicini y of US 64 and Impact Potential
C-1 Amph ibians and Reptiles for Which Suitable Habitat
May xist in the US 64 Project Area
C-2 Spec es of Birds for Which Suitable Habitat
May xist in the US 64 Project Area
C-3 Mam als for Which Suitable Habitat
May xist in the US 64 Project Area
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Proji
2 Typi
Area
Section
page
20
B-5
B-11
B-17
C-1
C-3
C-7
3
4
iv

11
1

STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
US 64 IMPROVEMENTS
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action,
Finding of No Significant Impact.
The NCDOT has determined that the recommended alternative for this proposed action
will have no significant impact on the human environment. This finding of no significant
impact is based on:
The State Environmental Assessment (State EA) prepared for the proposed
improvement of US 64 (from just east of the 1-85 Bypass Interchange near
Lexington to just west of the US 220 interchange near Asheboro) in Davidson
and Randolph Counties (TIP No. R-2220), which was approved on December 4,
1991.
Consideration of public hearing and review agency comments (as documented in
this FONSI).
Based on public hearing comments and comments at a subsequent public
information workshop, shifting of the new lanes from the north side of the existing
travel lanes (as proposed in the State EA) to the south side for a distance of 4.1
miles between Smith Farm Road and New Cut Road (Stations 160+00 and
275+00) and between a point 0.6 mile east of NC 109 and the
Randolph/Davidson County line (Stations 395+00 and 495+00). The station
numbers are depicted in Figure A-1 of the State EA.
The State EA and the information contained in this document provide sufficient evidence
and analysis for determining that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not required for this project. The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope and content of the State EA and the response to comments contained
in this document.

ADDITION
Additional
INFORMATION
ation concerning the proposed action can be obtained by contacting:
Mr. H Franklin Vick, PE
Man er, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phon : 919/733-3141
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes that US 64 be widened to a
four lane di ided highway from just east of the 1-85 Bypass interchange near Lexington
to just west of the US 220 interchange near Asheboro. The length of the project area is
21.5 miles. Its location is shown in Figure 1. The new lanes will be constructed parallel
to the existi g two lanes.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The two °op osing sets of travel lanes will be divided by a 46-foot grassed median. A
ten-foot ou side shoulder (four-foot paved) and a six-foot inside shoulder (four-foot
paved) will be provided for both directions of travel. The existing two lanes will be
improved, here required, so that the entire roadway meets the project's 60 mph design
speed and meets at least the minimum stopping sight distance design criteria. The
planned typ cal section is shown in Figure 2. In general, it is proposed that the two new
lanes be pl ced to the south of the existing two lanes. For approximately one mile of
the 21.5-mil project length (in the vicinity of the NC 109 interchange) it is proposed that
the addition I two lanes be placed to the north of the existing lanes.
New bridges will be built over the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek to
serve the tWo new lanes. At the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek, the existing
bridges will be retained to serve the existing two lanes. At Back Creek, the existing
bridge will be replaced so the vertical road alignment meets minimum sight distance
requiremens. No additional fill will be placed into the rivers or the creeks.
Intersection with US 64 will remain at-grade, with the exception of the NC 49 and NC
109 interc anges. There will be no control of access except at the NC 109
interchange, the NC 49 interchange, and between the NC 49 and US 220 interchanges.
The angle f intersection between US 64 and local roads will be improved at three
locations ( R 2266, SR 1311 and SR 1325); five local roads will be altered to provide
fora four ay intersection with US 64 (SR 2012, SR 1344 at two locations, SR 1408,
SR 1417, nd SR 1346); and five local roads will be extended so they intersect with
other local oads rather than US 64 (SR 2015, SR 2113, SR 2099, SR 1424, and Fisher
Circle). Th intersection of Oak Grove Road (SR 1428 and SR 1323) and US 64 will be
moved so t at it is outside the area of controlled access for NC 49.
Median crossovers will be provided at all major secondary road intersections. Also,
crossovers will be provided at the Tabernacle Fire Station and at two major employers.
Crossovers will be typically provided at one-half mile intervals. Left turn lanes will be
provided at all intersections that include a median crossover.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SCALE IN MILES
0 1 2 3 4
ASHEBORO
WEST ^
ASHEBORO
SOUTH
OZ
ASHEBORO
CIr11DC i DDn11GP'_T AREA

LEXINGTON
+py?
LLI
?o
J
>V)
d
!?o
> N
i
1
O
?v
i i
O
.o
nc
i?
. a?
y
W D
m
t?
T C
v o
? V
c v
d ?-
E -
d C
a. c
a,
c c
- H
w
h 'C
._ y
x h
WD
The interchanges at NC 49 and NC 109 will be improved. Two-way ramps will be
eliminated. Acceleration lanes will be provided or their length increased. The weaving
distance between ramps serving the NC 49, interchange and the US 220 interchange will
' be increased. Direct access to US 64 from adjoining land uses between the NC 49 and
the US 220 interchanges will be eliminated. The clearance of the NC 49 bridge over US
64 will be increased. The capacity of the ramps serving movements between NC 49
and US 64 will be increased.

I

Approximately 237.9 acres of additional right-of-way will be required for the project. The
wider right-of-way reflects an NCDOT commitment to build a road that meets current
design and safety standards.
The estimated costs for the proposed action are:
Construction $34,500,000
Right-of-Way 17,431,500
TOTAL $51,931,500
The construction cost estimate includes all major roadway items, bridges, traffic and
erosion control during construction, and engineering. The right-of-way cost estimate
includes property acquisition and residential, business, and utility relocation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUMMARY
The proposed action will have an overall positive impact on traffic movement. The
proposed action will serve design year traffic (2010) along this segment of US 64 at a
level of service that permits efficient vehicle operation and reduces user costs.
Roadway and interchange characteristics that increase the potential for accidents will be
improved. The proposed action will be different from the widening project originally
planned in the early 1950s. The change reflects the increased right-of-way
requirements of current design standards, including those related to median width, sight
distance, and shoulder slopes.
In some cases, the environmental impacts listed here are different from those presented
in the State EA. These differences reflect the decision following the public hearing to
shift the proposed new lanes from the north side of existing US 64 to the south side for
a distance of 4.1 miles. This change decreased relocation impacts but increased noise,
stream and wetland impacts. Amended impact findings are identified in the "Revisions
to the State Environmental Assessment" section of this document.
Principal environmental impacts will be:
Relocation of 47 families and 23 businesses. Adequate relocation opportunities
are available. Appendix D presents the relocation report as it appeared in the
State EA, as well as reports that compare the original proposal to widen on the
north side for 4.1 miles with the final decision to widen on the south side.
A 63-acre loss of prime and statewide important farmland in Davidson County,
and the maximum loss of 47 acres in Randolph County. The loss will be
unavoidable because of the pervasiveness of farmland in the area and will be
negligible in relation to the total acreage of the resource. Existing fields will not
be divided. (See Appendix D.)
11
Loss of 473 acres of wildlife habitat, however none of the habitat types affected
are r re in the area, and the amount of loss will be small in relation to the total
area if the habitat type along the corridor. (See Appendix B.)
rFifty- our wetlands areas will be affected. The total area of wetlands affected will
be 1 .4 acres. The average wetland encroachment per site will be 0.27 acre.
The argest encroachment at any one site will be 2.05 acres. The next largest
will a 1.16 acres. The rest will be less than one acre each. The total
encr achment will be slightly larger than was presented in the State EA and
refle s the modification of the alignment in response to public comment. (See
the "Wetlands - Only Practicable Alternative Finding" below and Appendix B.)
Ther? will be minor stream modifications in connection with some culvert and
stream
pipe extensions and no impoundments. There will be two short
rech nnelizations on Brier Creek associated with roadway fill.
The Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) is the only Federal-listed
prot cted species (listed as endangered) that is expected to occur in the project
are Because this species is reported to be limited in range to a small area
outs de of the project area, its presence in the project area is, however, unlikely.
The Schweinitz sunflower (Helinthus schweinitzh) was recently federal-listed as
end ngered in Davidson County. Prior to construction, it will be determined if this
plan, would be affected by the proposed project. (See Appendix B.)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria will be
app oached or exceeded at 94 residences. Sixty-one of the 94 receptors will
hav noise levels that approach or exceed the criteria with or without the
pro osed action. The difference between existing noise levels and noise levels
wit?the proposed action in 2010 will be greater than 10 dBA at one home. Noise
aba ement will not be feasible since no control of access is proposed. (See
Ap?endix D.)
There are no historic architecture or archaeological resources listed in the
Nat onal Register of Historic Places within the proposed action's area of potential
Traffic along US 64 could experience brief periods of delay and disruption during
co ?struction. Steps will need to be taken to ensure traffic delay is minimized, air
pol utants are controlled, waste materials are properly disposed, natural
res urces are protected, and erosion is controlled.
Th re are 24 potential or known underground storage tank sites and 16 potential
ha ardous waste users in the project area. An environmental audit will be
re uired prior to right-of-way purchase to determine if hazardous waste or
pe roleum spills are present. Studies have revealed that an underground storage
to k (or tanks) has leaked in the NC 49 interchange area. Petroleum
co tamination is now known to exist in the soil and water under much of that
exi ting interchange. The NCDOT is in contact with those responsible for
id ntifying the source of the contamination and developing a corrective action
pl n to remediate the contamination. It is likely that the problem will have been
co rected priorto reconstruction of the interchange.
6

WETLANDS - ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established a national policy "to avoid
to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative."
' Impact
Fifty-four wetlands areas will be affected by the proposed action. The total area of
wetlands affected will be 14.4 acres. All but 0.2 acres of the affected wetlands is
' forested. The average wetland encroachment per site will be 0.27 acre. The largest
encroachment at any one site will be 2.05 acres. This wetland is to the south of US 64
with hickory, northern red oak, and alder. The second largest encroachment at one site
will be 1.16 acres. This wetland is an impeded drainage ditch on the north side of US
64, with sycamore and slippery elm. Less than one acre will be affected at the rest of
the wetlands, ranging from 0.1 to 0.89 acre. (See Appendix B under "Wetlands.")
Permits Required
At 36 of the sites, the loss of wetlands along US 64 will be less than one-third acre. At
all but two sites the loss will be less than an acre. Thus, it is expected that most, if not
all, of this wetland encroachment will fall under the requirements of one of the following
Corps of Engineers permits:
t Nationwide Permit 26. At the wetlands where less than one acre is filled and the
wetland is above headwaters (with a flow of less than five cubic feet per second)
Nationwide Permit 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)] will apply. In the case of an area
where the encroachment will be greater than one acre but less than 10 acres), a
pre-discharge notification to the Corps of Engineers District Engineer must be
made in accordance with 33 CFR 330.7 (Notification procedures). Based on that
notification, the Corps of Engineers determines if Nationwide Permit 26 applies or
an individual permit must be obtained.
• Nationwide Permit 14. This permit is applicable to road crossing fills associated
with crossing a special aquatic site (including a wetland or a riffle pool complex)
by a culvert or bridge. The fill must be less than one-third acre and less than 200
linear feet. In addition, fill in any special aquatic site requires a 30-day
predischarge notification and a jurisdictional determination.
• General Permit 031. This permit is applicable to the upgrading of a roadway's
shoulders. The Corps of Engineers determines the applicability of this permit
' based on a review of a project's plans and profiles.
Where an individual Corps of Engineers permit is required for the wetlands affected by
the proposed action, the requirements of the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the
Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines"
will apply to the proposed action.
' Avoidance
Small and mostly isolated wetland areas occur along the entire project, generally
associated with existing watercourses and other drainages that pass under or parallel to

US 64. In most cases, the wetlands occur on both sides of the road.
impossible tc wholly avoid the loss of wetlands when widening US 64.
Thus, it is

Wetland los can be reduced at any given location, however, by widening on the side of
the road wh re the wetland encroachment would be smallest. In general, the side of the
road select d for the proposed action is the one that will have the least wetland
At several I cations, however, the project will not be on the side of the road that will
have the le st wetlands involvement. This was generally done to avoid displacement of
a major employer or a substantial number of residences or businesses. In each case
where this occurs, the wetlands affected are either directly across from the non-wetland
feature bein1g avoided or within the distance required to safely transition the widening
from one siA of the road to another. Thus, it would not be practicable to avoid both the
wetland impact and the non-wetland impact at these locations.
The State OA defined a preferred alternative with 11.7 acres of wetland impact. Based
on public h aring comment and comments at a subsequent public information workshop
(see the discussion under "Comments" later in this document), the location of the new
lanes was changed from the north side of the existing travel lanes to the south side for a
distance of 4.1 miles between Smith Farm Road and New Cut Road (Stations 160+00
and 275+0 Ttate and between a point 0.6 mile east of NC 109 and the Randolph/Davidson
County line Stations 395+00 and 495+00). The station numbers are depicted in Figure
A-1 of the EA.
• Although, not wholly adequate to
meet todays highway design standards, the State of North Carolina did acquire extra
right-of-wa? to the south of the existing lanes when those lanes were built in the late 40s
and 50s.
No consideiation was given to a new alignment to avoid wetland displacement because:
• Of t e added disruption and cost of a completely new right-of-way and road. '
• The existing road is generally straight, thus a realignment would be longer in '
leng h, increasing impacts.
• A to ally new road would cross the same or similar streams and drainages as the
exis-ing road. '
During final design, the design of the proposed action at affected wetland areas will be
re-assess6d based on more detailed mapping. ,
Compens story mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits or General permits ,
are autho 'zed, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environm ntal Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the Corps of Engineers. Although '
8 1

14.4 acres of wetlands were "identified" during this planning phase of the proposed
action, it is important to recognize that wetland delineations will not be conducted until
the design phase. Quite often, wetland acreage values that result from delineations
made after final designs are approved are less than those "identified" in the planning
document. During design, serious attempts will be made by the NCDOT to minimize
wetlands impacts through a variety of techniques. The NCO will fully comply with
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Whatever the final area of wetland and
the number of sites affected, The NCDOT will strictly conform to permit(s) and mitigation
requirements.
The existing drainage ditches or swales function primarily as a conveyance for
stormwater run-off from the road and adjacent areas. Several of the affected wetlands
are existing drainage ditches along the roadside. While these ditches will be filled as a
consequence of embankment widening, new drainage ditches will be established
outwards of the new construction limits. New swales can be planted with wetland
vegetation to improve water quality and to improve freshwater habitats over what exists
today.
Best management practices also will be implemented to further reduce wetland losses.
These practices will include the following:
• Minimizing wetland disturbances through careful geometric design to avoid
clearing and fill at stream crossings.
• Spanning wetlands associated with streams crossed by new or replacement
bridges.
• Prohibiting the use of wetlands for construction activities, including construction
staging, or as a source of borrow and disposal of excess excavated material.
• Restricting vegetative removal within adjacent natural communities.
• Initiation of an erosion and sedimentation control program during construction to
prevent the water quality degradation that is associated with erosion.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined there is no practicable alternative to
t construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures
to minimize harm.
FLOODPLAINS - ONLY PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE FINDING
At their crossing by US 64, the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek, are
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA as Zone A (100-
year) floodways. Their corresponding floodway widths across the US 64 alignment are
300 feet, 750 feet, and 500 feet, respectively. The creeks within the rest of the project
' corridor, including Brier Creek, is within Zone C (minimal) floodplains. Bridge inspection
reports and field reconnaissance gave no evidence of road overtopping at major
drainage structures. No flooding problems requiring detailed study were identified
' during FEMA flood studies. Preliminary design studies indicate that existing bridge
openings, box culverts, and concrete pipes are sufficient for discharge.

1 9
Pursuant to xecutive Order 11988 "Floodplain Management," flooding impacts by the
proposed act on will be minimal for the following reasons:
• At str am crossings, the placement of fill material for roadway embankments in
the 1 0 year floodway will not be of sufficient quantity to affect floodway flows.
The fl odway flow will be accommodated at the two short stream channelizations
on B er Creek that resulted from design changes made in response to public
heart g comments. The NCDOT will coordinate vAth the local community
regar ing possible revisions to their flood insurance maps and reports where
chanes to the floodway or profiles occur.
Existi g bridges over the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek will be maintained.
To a commodate the new lanes, two additional bridges will be constructed to
comp etely span the streams. The existing bridge over Back Creek will be
repla ed by two new bridges. When paired with an existing bridge, piers for the
new ridges will be in register with existing piers in order to streamline flows and
main ain navigation in navigable waters. Waterway openings for project
cross ngs will be the same size as those of the existing crossings. No piers will
be ol?ced in the main area of channel flow.
• Whe?le the roadway embankment must be widened in proximity to a base
flood lain, minor regrading or fill in the base floodplain could be required.
Mod ling will be done during detailed design to ensure that any increases in
bac ater levels will be less than that permitted by federal law and local
ordi ances. If required, retaining walls will be used so that the limits of the
wide led embankment will be pulled inboard of the 100-year flood elevation.
• Whelre culverts penetrate the existing embankment, they will be lengthened so
that the existing drainage function will be preserved. Therefore, there will be no
addi ional flooding upstream of the existing berm. Additional culvert
imp vements will be made during final design, if necessary, based on a
hyd aulic capacity analysis.
In conclusi, n, no substantial constraints to flow will be placed in floodways and the flood
stage elev tion upstream of the project will not be affected. Therefore, the proposed
action will of constitute a significant encroachment.
CIRCULATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The approved State EA was circulated for comment to the local, state, and federal
agencies dr individuals listed below:
Local
City of Asheboro.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
Town Manager.
Da idson County.*
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
County Manager.
i Director of Planning.
10

1

City of Lexington.
Mayor.
Planning Director.
Town Manager.
Piedmont Triad Council of
Randolph County.*
Chairman, Board of
County Manager.
Director of Planning
North Carolina
Governments.
County Commissioners.
and Zoning.
Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse.*
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Division of Environmental Management.*
- Division of Forest Resources.
- Division of Land Resources.
- Division of Parks and Recreation.*
- Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
- Division of Water Resources.
Planning and Assessment.*
Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services.
Department of Public Instruction, Division of School Planning.
Wildlife Resources Commission.*
Federal
• Army Corps of Engineers, District Engineer, Wilmington District, Wilmington,
North Carolina.*
• Coast Guard, Commander, 5th Coast Guard District, Portsmouth, Virginia.
• Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Review Branch, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia.
• Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Regional Director, Atlanta Georgia.
• Geological Survey, District Chief, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Director, St. Petersburg, Florida.*
• Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist, Raleigh, North Carolina.
An asterisk (*) indicates that a response was received. Copies of the correspondence
received are presented in Appendix A of this report. Copies of the State EA were also
made available for public review at the NCDOT District Office on Country Club Drive in
Asheboro and at the NCDOT Maintenance Facility on Raleigh Road (Old US 64) in
Lexington.
11
COMMENT
Agency
Davidson C?oun
ty
Comment: "I would encourage favorable consideration be given this project in its
expediency.
Response: Design and initiation of right-of-way acquisition for this project is
programmed in the Department's Transportation Improvement Program 1994-2000.
Randolph ?ounty
Comment: "Page 4-2 under 'Land Use Plans & Zoning' states that Randolph County
does not h ve an adopted land development plan and that planning for the County is
reflected o ly by County Zoning. The Randolph County Board of Commissioners
adopted a ountywide Land Development Plan on July 6, 1987. Zoning Districts along
US 64 are stablished based on the land use for the area. This plan projects scattered
Highway C mmerciaVlndustrial areas along selected intersections while attempting to
preserve t e rural Residential-Agricultural integrity of most lands adjoining US 64 in
Randolph ounty."
Response: The Randolph County plan calls for development in the area of US 64 to be:
• At urban densities east of the Old Farmer Road (SR 1424).
• At low densities between Old Farmer Road and Farlow Road (SR 1420).
• Limited within a land management area between Farlow Road (SR 1420) and
Ga?ublic en Road (SR 1333) and along Back and Caraway Creeks in order to protect
the water supply.
The plan I Iso calls for commercial development to be concentrated in neighborhood
and com ercial centers and city central business districts. None of these centers or
industrial reas are proposed along US 64. It is a major intent of the plan to discourage
the uncon rolled expansion of local and highway commercial activity and to promote the
developm nt of new commercial uses only near or at the intersections of major
thoroughf res.
The propo ed action is compatible with the Randolph County plan because:
• Th proposed improvements will be along the existing US 64 alignment.
• Th project is proposed to meet the road capacity and traffic safety needs of
alr ady anticipated growth. It is not expected to generate new traffic.
• Th use of a median will help reinforce the county's objective of focusing
co mercial development at intersections of major thoroughfares.
North Ca olina Department of Administration
Commen : "The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
requested that certain biological field reports be circulated to the Natural Heritage
12

Program and Wildlife Resources Commission for their review prior to submittal of the
' FONSI."
Response: An amended version of the State EA's natural systems impact assessment
' was provided to the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and
other state and federal resource agencies in October of 1992. This revised
assessment, with additional changes made to reflect the alignment revisions made in
response to public hearing comments, is presented in this document as Appendices B
and C.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
' 1. Comment: "We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) and
determined that we need additional information to complete our review. We
would like a copy of the project's 'Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation
t Report...' which was mentioned in the EA on page 5-48." "Since it appears
federal permits may be necessary, we are concerned about National Register-
eligible properties, and the report may determine if National Register-eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect. As stated in the EA and
our August 1, 1990 letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, no
National Register-listed properties are located within the area of potential effect."
' Response: The requested report is the same report that was sent to the
Department of Cultural Resources on July 2, 1990 and referenced in the
Department of Cultural Resources' letter of August 1, 1990. No structures are
' associated with the wetlands that will be filled as a part of this project.
2. "We note on page 5-48 of the EA that a 'limited reconnaissance level survey' as
per our May 8, 1990 recommendations will be conducted by Department of
Transportation staff prior to construction. As stated in our letter, such a survey
should determine the nature, extent, condition, and significance of resources
which might be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. We look forward
to receiving and reviewing the archaeological survey report for this project."
Response: The NCDOT reaffirms its commitment to prepare a limited
reconnaissance level survey prior to construction.
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
' 1. Division of Environmental Management
I a. Comment: "NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated spoil material,
as a source of borrow material or other construction related activities."
' Response: All NCDOT contractors are required to meet wetland permit
requirements.
' b. Comment: "... a 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project." "Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of
the 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable." "DOT is urged
i to offer mitigation for all significant wetland losses. These are usually
13
2.
associated with streams or rivers rather than being hydrologically
isolated."
Response: A 401 Water Ouality Certification will be sought in connection
with the NCDOT's applications for Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill
permits. See the discussion of mitigation presented under "Wetlands -
Only Practicable Alternative Finding."
Divis}on of Parks and Recreation
a. Comment: "Although a field survey was conducted, and no significant
natural area or rare species purportedly found (p. 5-27), this survey
appears to have been extremely cursory (only three days in length -- p. 5-
16) and lacks credibility, owing to a number of misidentifications. Bur oak,
for instance, is not found in North Carolina but is mentioned as a
component of the hardwoods observed in the project area (p. 5-12). White
pme and pitch pine, both of which are widespread in the mountains of
North Carolina, are not known to occur naturally in this part of piedmont,
yet the document states that they occur frequently enough in the project
corridor to form stands of Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest (p. 5-13). The
document makes no mention whatsoever, on the other hand, of loblolly,
short-leaf and virginia pine, all of which do commonly forms mixed stands
j in this part of the piedmont."
Response: An amended discussion of natural systems impacts is
presented in this document as Appendices B and C.
b. Comment: "Only five species of animals (or their sign) were actually
observed in the field: American robin, cardinal, red-winged blackbird,
woodthrush, and white-tailed deer (p. 5-16), all of which are extremely
common and take little effort to observe. In place of more intensive field
work to determine the presence of truly sensitive animals that could be
affected by the project, the consultants provide a list of species potentially
present in the project area JAppendix F) that is apparently derived
completely from field guides. ven here there are mistakes. Despite the
good range descriptions and maps provided in the field guides cited in the
appendix, this list includes many species, that like the white pine and pitch
pine, do not inhabit the central piedmont. Red squirrel, rock shrew, hairy-
tailed mole, and least weasel, for instance, are all restricted to the
mountains."
Response: An amended discussion of natural systems impacts is
presented in this document as Appendices B and C.
C. Comment: "Before an EA can be approved, more biological field work
needs to be done. This survey should be conducted by qualified biologists
working during the appropriate seasons of the year."
Response: An amended discussion of natural systems impacts is
presented in this document as Appendices B and C.
14

3. Planning and Assessment
Comment: "Our agencies have expressed concern about the credibility of the
biological survey work provided for this document based on discrepancies within
' the document. In order to avoid potential future delays, we ask that the
supporting biological field reports be circulated to the Natural Heritage Program
and the Wildlife Resources Commission for review and clarification before the
' FONSI is circulated."
Response: An amended version of the State EA's natural systems impact
assessment was provided to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and
Wildlife Resources Commission. The Natural Heritage Program provided no
additional comments so it has been assumed that the revisions were satisfactory.
The Wildlife Resources Commission provided comments that are in a letter
' presented in Appendix A. This revised assessment is presented in this document
as Appendices B and C. It has been altered since its review by the Natural
Heritage Program and Wildlife Resources Commission in response to the
comments received from the Wildlife Resources Commission and to reflect the
' revisions made to the alignment in response to public hearing comments.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
' 1. Comment: "Of primary concern to this agency is the expected loss of
approximately 11.7 acres of wetlands as a result of this project. The document
lists 66 sites, varying in size, with the largest being 1.16 acres. Since only a
single site is larger than one acre, DOT maintains that compensatory mitigation is
not necessary, except, possibly for the one site. WRC cannot support this notion
and proposes that compensatory mitigation be required for cumulative wetland
' losses on a 2:1 basis. While each individual wetland impact may seem
"insignificant", the end result of the project is a major loss of wetland habitat.
WRC acknowledges that the Nationwide Permit system allows such cumulative
impacts to occur, however, we feel that the environmental conscience of NCDOT
' . should be sensitive to, and mitigate for, these losses."
Response: Although 11.7 acres of wetlands were "identified" during this planning
' phase of the proposed action (now increased to 14.4 acres as a result of design
changes made in response to public concern that the level of impact to their
community was unacceptably severe), it is important to recognize that wetland
delineations will not be conducted until the design phase. Quite often, wetland
' acreage values that result from delineations made after final designs are
approved are less than those "identified" in the planning document. During
design, serious attempts will be made by the NOT to minimize wetlands
impacts through a variety of techniques. The NCDOT will fully comply with
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Final discretionary authority in
these matters rests with the Corps of Engineers. Whatever the final area of
' wetlands and the number of sites affected, the NCDOT will strictly conform to
permit(s) and mitigation requirements.
2. Comment: 'WRC must also question the treatment of rare, threatened, and
endangered species. For example, correspondence from the Natural Heritage
' Program (p. B-12) expresses particular concern for the Piedmont leadplant
(Amorpha schwerinii), citing a record from along US 64 several miles west of
' Asheboro. Yet the Environmental Assessment lists the potential presence for
this species within the construction limits of the project as "no" (Table 14, P. 5-
15
28). Oow was this resolved? Similarly, there are records for Lampsilis radiata
from both the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek and for Strophitus undulatus
from he Uwharrie River. While their presence within the construction corridor
may a doubtful, these and other freshwater mussels are particularly sensitive to
stream sedimentation and siltation, which are inevitable consequences of road
and bridge construction near streams. To simply state that these species are not
found within the construction limits ignores the extreme environmental sensitivity
of fr shwater mussels and the potential secondary impacts for the planned
proje . Additionally, it should be noted that the state status of Strophitus
undu atus has been changed from Special Concern to Threatened. Finally, the
state ents (p. 5-28 & 29, respectively) that neither Cooper's hawks nor
logg rhead shrikes would be likely to nest adjacent to a highway corridor
illust ate a lack of understanding of these species' behavior and biology. The
auth rs seem to imply in these and other remarks that protected species are not
likely to be found in disturbed habitats. For many rare species this is not the
case Comments under the heading "Impact Potential" (Table 14) ignore the fact
that he greatest impact of the planned project will not be the displacement of
indiv dual animals, but rather the direct loss and fragmentation of habitat,
-cont ibuting to an overall long-term decline in wildlife populations."
3.
Resdonse: An amended discussion of natural systems impacts is presented in
this 6ocument as Appendices B and C. The Wildlife Resources Commission was
give 61 an opportunity to review the revised text and their comments are in a letter
presented in Appendix A.. The revised discussion has been altered since its
review by the Wildlife Resources Commission in response to their additional
comments and to reflect the revisions made to the alignment in response to
publ c hearing comments.
Co ment: "NCWRC is not prepared to set state listed species precedent by
con urring with the idea that the burden of proof for presence or absence of
these species is up to the reviewing agencies , or that such species may be
rout:nely 'relocated' if found to occur along project corridors. Perhaps some of
our nxiety concerning potential impacts to state species can be lessened by our
review of the Natural Systems Report on the project (Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade and Douglas, April 1991)." "...the lack of detailed survey technique
des nptions in the subject document limited our ability to evaluate the
appropriateness of field surveys and subsequent comments made in the
document."
Re ponse: The natural systems text has been reexamined and revised to delete
me; tion of species relocation. NCDOT believes it has fully met its state
proected species obligations under current law by:
Widening US 64 adjacent to the existing alignment and for the most part
within the existing right-of-way.
Indicating its intent to incorporate its standard natural resource protection
practices into construction contract documents.
Identifying area habitat types and determining that none are rare in the
area.
16

• Determining the potential for impact on state listed species based on their
t habitat preferences and range, general habitat characteristics in the study
area, and past siting records.
• Agreeing to keep the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the North
' Carolina Botanical Gardens, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and/or other interested agencies informed regarding the
status of the project.
' Encouraging these agencies to conduct additional studies they may feel
are necessary.
' Indicating a willingness to participate in the efforts of these agencies to
design and implement a program to reduce potential effects.
' The entire Natural Systems Report was contained in the State EA with the sole
exception of the Wetlands Determination forms.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
1. Comment: "The roadway and structures within the flood plains should be
designed so as not to cause a significant increase in the upstream flooding or
' cause greater than a 1.0-foot floodway surcharge. Any changes made to the
floodway or profiles should be coordinated with the local community for possible
revisions to their flood insurance maps and reports. Proper consideration should
' be given to the modifications to the drainage structures on the streams without
mapped flood plains."
Response: As indicated in the State EA, at stream crossings, proposed action
waterway openings will be the same size as those of the existing crossings,
bridges will fully span the stream, new bridges will be supported on piers to be
placed in register with existing piers, no piers will be placed in the area of main
channel flow, and no fill will be placed in streams as a part of bridge
construction. Existing box culverts and concrete pipes will be lengthened.
Where the roadway embankment must be widened in proximity to a floodplain,
modeling will be done during detailed design to ensure that any increases in
' backwater levels will be less than that permitted by federal law and local
ordinances. The floodway flow will be accommodated at the two short stream
channelizations that resulted from design changes made in response to Public
Hearing comments. The NCDOT will coordinate with the local community
regarding possible revisions to their flood insurance maps and reports where
changes to the floodway or profiles occur.
t 2. Comment: "Pursuant to guidance from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of
Civil Works, wetland delineations made subsequent to August 17, 1991, must be
made utilizing the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" and
' those made prior to August 17, 1991, must be reviewed. Since this action has
not been finalized, the areas could be redelineated using the 1987 manual."
' Response: Final wetland delineations made in connection with early permit
coordinations will be made using the 1987 manual or the manual that is current at
the time the delineations are made.
17
Com ent: "A Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section
404 Of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any
adja ent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including
disp sal of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands
shou d first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation or
mitig tion for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including
the xtent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetl nds, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review
thes plans for a project-specific determination of Department of Army permit
reaui'rements."
Res onse: As noted in the State EA, wetland avoidance is impossible because
of th pervasiveness of wetlands in the project area. Efforts were made during
the esign studies associated with State EA and FONSI preparation to minimize
wetl nd involvement. During final design, serious attempts will be made by the
NC OT to minimize wetlands impacts through a variety of techniques. The
NC OT will fully comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Comment: 'We have reviewed the EA and have determined that no resources for which
we are res onsible are found in the project area. Therefore, we have no comments."
Response:) None required.
Public
A public h
at 7:30 p
people at
hearing w
current pi
procedure
and ques
Thursday,
based on
and infori
following i
Design
1.
a.
aring was held for the proposed action on Tuesday, April 28, 1992 beginning
i in the Tabernacle Elementary School gymnasium. Approximately 225
,nded the hearing, which was advertised in the local news media. The
is conducted by department staff and consisted of an explanation of the
?ject status, proposed design, right-of-way requirements, and acquisition
Interested citizens were invited to provide written and/or oral comments
ons during the hearing. A follow-up information workshop was held
September 17, 1992 to discuss revisions made to the preliminary design
public hearing comments. The comments made by the public at the hearing
ation workshop and responses to those comments are presented in the
iraaraohs.
between the proposed action and the design planned in the early
Comment: In the early 50s, the Highway Department made a commitment
to add two lanes in a specific manner. NCDOT is not living up to that
commitment. The project should be built as originally planned. Why are
the design (including the median width) and right-of-way requirements
planned in the early 50s no longer adequate?
Response: The design criteria considered acceptable for a four lane
divided highway has changed in the last forty years. The overall right-of-
way width reserved in early 50s was 150 feet. The typical section for this
18

right-of-way in the original design plans assumed a 26-foot median, four
' 12-foot lanes, ten-foot unpaved shoulders, and approximately 12 feet
beyond the shoulder for drainage. This is compared to the planned typical
section that includes a 46-foot median, four 12-foot lanes, ten-foot outer
shoulders (four-foot paved), and approximately 30 feet beyond the
' shoulder for drainage. The planned improvement also assumes a
minimum stopping sight distance of 525 feet, longer than the sight
distance incorporated into the 50s design plans.
t These design criteria changes reflect:
• Changes in automobile characteristics. Automobiles are lower and
many are smaller.
• Increased knowledge on the causes and characteristics of
accidents. Eighty-eight percent of all accidents involve hitting fixed
objects within 30 feet of the road. Shallower drainage ditch slopes
can reduce the severity of accidents.
' In addition, the NCDOT must now take into account environmental laws
passed during the last 20 years that place a high priority on protecting
many natural resources.
h
e
b. Comment: The greatest deviation from the early 50s plan is at t
locations where widening to the north of the existing lanes, rather than to
the south, is proposed. Since the early 50s, residents and businesses
' have been making decisions based on where they had been told the
additional two lanes would be placed. Location of the new lanes to the
south of the existing lanes for the full length of the project would reduce
' right-of-way cost, utility relocation, and the displacement of homes and
businesses.
' Response: The NCDOT has conducted a new, more detailed comparison
of widening to the south versus widening to the north. The design
presented at the public hearing has been changed. The widening will
' occur to the south of the existing two lanes except in the NC 10.9
interchange area. A comparison of the two alternatives is presented as
Table 1. The public's long-held expectation that the two new lanes would
be built to the south strongly influenced the NCDOT's decision to alter the
project. The two new lanes were left on the north in the interchange area
in order to avoid displacement of an electric substation. The effect of the
interchange improvement on other land uses would be similar whether the
' two new lanes are to the south or to the north since: 1) the interchange
ramps will be lengthened and Blackberry Road (SR 2099) will be
relocated, creating a wide area of effect on both sides of the road and 2)
access rights would be purchased throughout the interchange area.

? 19
Table 1: C MPARISON OF US 64 IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
S ATIONS 160+00 TO 275+00 AND 395+00 TO 495+00 (1)
Stations Stations
160+00 to 275+00 395+00 to 495+00
Impact North Side South Side North Side South Side
I
Relocation
• Residential
• Business
Wetlands Used
(acres) (4)
• #8
• #9
• #12
• #13
• #14
• #15
• #16
• #17
• #18
Total
Stream
Rechannelizat
(feet)
Potential Utiliti
Involvement R
Construction C
Right-of-Way 4
11
0 (2)
0.00
0.05
0
0 (3)
2.05
0.57
0.05 2.62
0 0
Phone/TV on poles; Powerline tower (in
electric 160+00 to existing
249+00 right-of-way); 4"
gas to 218+00;
electric beginning
249+00
No significant differences in construction
cost anticipated.
$2,022,000 $945,000
7
2
0.16
0.08
0.05
0.13
0.04
0.12
0.06
0.64
0
Phone/TV on poles;
electric
2
0
0.37
0.02
0.05
0.37
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.82

Limited electric
Widening to the south will require the
construction of a retaining wall at a
major industrial building adjacent to
the existing right-of-way at a cost of
$450,000 and a channel relocation at a
cost of $53,600. No other significant
differences in construction cost are
anticipated.
$959,000 $594,000
(1) See Figur?xpansion e A-1 in the Environmental Assessment for stationing location.
(2) Planned of Peterson Enterprises affected.
(3) Displacestwo out-buildings of a larger business.
(4) Wetland ?roximlty umbers correspond to those used in Table 13 and Figure A-1 of the Environmental Assessment
and Tabl B-2 in Appendix B of this document.
(5) Reflects to each alternative. Precise location will be determined during design. Station
numbers fare shown on Figure A-1 of the Environmental Assessment.
20
? z.
I
1
1
? 3.

The need for median crossovers.
a. Comment: There are no median crossings shown from NC 109 to the
Randolph/Davidson County line. Additional median crossings would be
appropriate.
Response: The appropriate location for median crossovers that are in
addition to those presented on the hearing map will be determined during
final project design. Public hearing comments will be taken into account.
b. Comment: The need to make U-turns at median crossovers to reach
some homes and businesses would increase emergency response times
(fire and medical) by an unacceptable amount.
Response: The addition of a median will increase the travel distance from
fire stations and emergency medical service (EMS) facilities to some
properties along US 64. Increased peak period travel speeds, the second
travel lane in each direction, and improved sight distances on US 64
should result, however, in generally better overall emergency response
times; although they could increase at some specific locations. The final
locations for median openings will be determined during final project
design, but almost all state-maintained roads, which serve the majority of
the land uses immediately adjacent to US 64, will be provided a median
opening. A median opening will be provided at the Tabernacle Fire
Station. Comments from emergency service providers have already been
taken into account in selecting the median openings shown in the hearing
map. Further input during final project design will be welcome. If the
situation warrants it, the median (grass without curb and gutter) could be
crossed by emergency vehicles, although this is not suggested as a
regular practice.
C. Comment: Median crossovers are needed at businesses in order to
attract customers from both directions of travel.
Response: The practice of managing the location, number and spacing of
driveway connections, median openings, and traffic signals on the state
highway system is a key element in maintaining a safe and efficient
transportation system for the public. It is not possible, or desirable, to
provide a median opening for every business along US 64 because
research and practical experience has conclusively shown that median
openings create traffic conflicts that reduce road safety and capacity.
Reasonable access, however, will be provided to all property owners
whose rights of access have not been purchased by the state. The final
location of median openings for this project have not yet been determined.
Requests for median openings will be considered further during the final
design phase of this project.
NC 49 interchange.
a. Comment: Would the new NC 49 interchange become obsolete once the
NC 49 bypass included in the Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan is complete?
Response: An NC 49 bypass and widening US 64 to four lanes are both
proposed in the Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan (August 1988). In the
21
current statewide Transportation Improvement Program, right-of-way
acquisition for the US 64 project is programmed to begin in 1997.
Planning for the NO 49 bypass (TIP project R-2536) is programmed to
begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 1995. Right-of-way is programmed to
begin in FY 1999.
The traffic volumes used to plan the proposed NO 49 interchange
presented in the State EA did not take into account the NC 49 bypass.
Thus, in response to this question, new forecasts that did take into
account the NO 49 bypass were prepared. It was found that with the
bypass, projected traffic through the interchange would be less for some
movements and similar for others. The changes were as follows:
Through movements on US 64 and volumes on NO 49 south of US
64 would be less with the bypass. Traffic on Albemarle Road north
of US 64 would be similar with or without the bypass.
Traffic moving from eastbound US 64 to southbound NO 49, from
northbound NO 49 to westbound US 64, and from Albemarle Road
to eastbound US 64 would not change.
Movements from northbound NO 49 to eastbound US 64 and
westbound US 64 to southbound NO 49 would be less with the
bypass. These two movements were the greatest movements from
one road to another in the original forecasts and with a bypass will
remain the greatest movements.
b.
The interchange configuration proposed in the State EA was reevaluated
based on the traffic forecasts that assumed an NO 49 bypass, in
particular, an interchange with no loops (diamond) was considered. A
diamond configuration would reduce the area required for an improved
interchange and some of the impact on surrounding land uses. It was
concluded, however, that the loops were still essential, even with some
traffic being diverted to the NC 49 bypass because of the close proximity
of the NO 49 interchange to the US 220 interchange.
With the lower volumes projected for the movement from westbound US
64 to southbound NO 49, it may be possible, however, to accept a lower
design speed for the loop in the northwest quadrant of the interchange.
This would decrease its radius and thus the area of new right-of-way in
that quadrant. A loop with radius of approximately 250 feet and a design
speed 30 mph was presented in the State EA. By reducing the design
speed to 25 mph, the radius would be reduced to 200 feet. This option will
be considered during final design.
Comment: Would the use of traffic signals be an appropriate alternative to
rebuilding the NO 49 interchange?
Response: No, because the interchange would still not meet American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
safety standards. The following undesirable characteristics would remain:
Two-way ramps.
Left turns onto ramps.
22
11
1
• Lack of access control between the NO 49 and US 220
interchanges.
• Poor sight distances.
C. Comment: In the northwest quadrant of the proposed NC 49 interchange,
35 homes would have only one access point to US 64. Some homes will
have to use private streets (including Fisher Circle) to reach US 64

' because SR 1448 will be closed to accommodate new NO 49 interchange
ramps.
Response: A single access point to US 64 is adequate to support the
traffic demand (35 peak hour/350 daily) typically created by 35 single
hborhood should benefit from the revised access
This nei
f
mil
h
m
g
y
o
es.
a
because the use of neighborhood streets for non-neighborhood-related
' through traffic will be eliminated, providing a safer and quieter
ill
f
i
id
Th
fi
l
d
prov
or a
gn w
e
e
na
project
es
neighborhood environment.
publicly maintained route to US 64. Use of a frontage road or the transfer
of private streets into the public domain could be considered. None of the
1 residents in this area will find that their only route to a public thoroughfare
is via a private street to which they do not contribute to the cost of
maintenance.
4. Traffic operations.
a. Comment: What is the cause of US 64 traffic growth?
'
Response: Continued statewide population growth and development in
the area.
b. Comment: In what way are accident rates expected to change?
Response: The proposed action will decrease the rate of accidents along
' US 64 by:
• Controlling access to US 64 in interchange areas. Two-way ramps
l
d di
li
i
I

1 , a merge an
verge access
nated.
n genera
will be e
m
arrangement will be used.
• Increasing the vertical clearance on the NC 49/Albemarie Road
brid
e
g
.
• Connecting SR 2099 to NO 109 and removing its intersection with
' US 64. The SR 2099 intersection is currently only 200 feet from the
intersection of US 64 and a NO 109 ramp.
• Providing left turn lanes at at-grade intersections, including the SR
' 1424 intersection, and other median crossovers. The proposed
action will also make available a second lane on which motorists
could pass vehicles turning right.
1 i
i
i
ng s
ght d
Increas
stances for persons turning onto, off and crossing
US 64. In addition, the median will serve as a means to cross US
64 travel lanes in two steps.
1 23
A decrease in the number of accidents can be expected simply because
the road will be widened from two to four lanes with a median. According
to the accident data provided by the NCDOT, 41 percent fewer fatal
accidents occur on four lane divided roads than two lane roads. In
addition, 29 percent fewer accidents occur in general.
5
C.
Co
Comment: What would be the speed limit on the widened road?
Response: The maximum legal speed limit on roads of its type is 55 mph.
When will the design be final and not just a proposal?
1.
2.
3.
Res onse: With the release of this document, the preliminary design is
cons dered final. The preliminary design is the design presented at the public
hearing, as refined based on consideration of public hearing. comments. Minor
refin ments to the design will occur during the preparation of right-of-way plans.
?nmental Impact
Comment: The road would displace elderly and disabled persons and the
Envi onmental Assessment says that it would not.
Response: It is recognized that any highway improvement that involves the
displacement of homes may affect elderly and disabled persons, as well as
min noes, large families, and others who may have special problems relocating.
This is why a relocation agent of the NCDOT will personally contact all
hou eholds displaced to offer assistance. A part of that agent's responsibilities is
to o tain information on each households needs and desires and provide listings
of c mparable and affordable replacement housing. Although the conceptual
stagt?--,e relocation studies indicated that elderly and disabled persons would not be
dispced, when they are identified as the project progresses, their special needs
will taken into account by the relocation agent.
Coniment: The Environmental Assessment says that no major utilities would be
relocated, yet many utilities would be relocated. This appears to be a
con radiction.
Re ponse: It is true that many utilities will be relocated. This is acknowledged
on age 5-49 of the State EA and in this document. Major utilities are defined as
incl ding high tension electrical transmission towers, pipelines, and electrical
sub tations. No utilities that fall within this definition of major will be affected by
the roposed action.
Co ment: Would the Tabernacle Fire Department still have enough length on
thei, driveway to wash their fire trucks?
rise: The length of the Tabernacle fire Department driveway will not be
ed by the proposed action.
24

I

4. Comment: If the NCDOT purchases a portion of a one acre lot, the land left
would be too small to meet county requirements for a septic system. How would
this be handled?
Response: The county health department will be consulted regarding effects on
both wells and septic systems serving small properties. The county could grant
an exception based on a finding that both the well and septic system can work
effectively on the smaller property. If regrading, which does not affect the well or
septic field, is required, the NCDOT may choose to purchase only a construction
easement so that the property size is unchanged. If the project affects the well or
septic system or the remaining area of the property can not support these
systems, the portion of the property that is not needed for the project could be
classified as an uneconomical remnant. The NCDOT will offer to acquire
uneconomical remnants along with the portion of the property needed for the
project.
Right-of-way Purchase/Construction
Interim between completion of planning and the start of right-of-way acquisition.
a. Comment: Five years between the hearing and right-of-way acquisition is
a long time of uncertainty for residents and businesses. it will be
impossible to sell homes and businesses planned for displacement during
that time period. Is early acquisition possible?
' Response: In cases of hardship, the NCDOT can acquire property
needed for a highway right-of-way prior to the scheduled period for right-
of-way acquisition. Decisions to acquire property early are made on a
case-by-case basis. Owners of residential or business properties should
' submit any requests for early acquisition based on hardship to the
NCDOT's Agent at the Division Right-of-Way Office.
b. Comment: Should residents repair their homes if they know they will be
purchased? If they do have repairs done, will the NCDOT pay the cost of
the repairs?
t Response: The NCDOT will pay the full fair market value of the property
acquired. The physical condition of home is one aspect taken into account
when determining the fair market value.
l
t
d di
acemen
.
sp
2. Criteria for land purchase an
The responses to these comments are based in part on the North Carolina
' Department of Transportation, Division of Highway's booklets entitled Right of
Way Acquisition and Relocation Assistance.
a. Comment: Displacement of homes should be avoided. Homes are
personal, factories are just buildings.
Response: Any relocation, whether a home or business (including local
' jobs) is disruptive and can be distressing to those involved, thus the
hwa
lannin
a hi
ment when
ossible
l
When
NCDOT
id
di
g
g
y
p
.
p
avo
ace
s
sp

' project, however, many other factors enter into the decision-making
safety
and natural and cultural
travel need
cost
rocess
includin
:
,
,
,
p
,
g
.
25
b.
c.
d.
resource impacts. The NCDOT seeks to find a design solution that
appears to best balance these often competing objectives.
Comment: How would the loss of business access be handled in the NC
49 interchange area?
Response: The fair market value paid to owners of commercial properties
will take into account, as appropriate, loss or change of access. Access
needs for both customers and deliveries will be considered. If the
acquisition of only a portion of a property will leave the property owner with
an uneconomic remnant, the NCDOT will offer to acquire the uneconomic
remnant along with the portion of the property needed for the project.
Comment: How close can the right-of-way be to a home before
displacement is considered appropriate?
Response: The NCDOT must only purchase the property they need.
Thus, a home or business is not displaced unless the body of the structure
is within the proposed right-of-way: If, however, the Department needs
only a part of a property, the proximity of the new road to the home or
business is considered when determining the amount paid to the property
owner. The amount paid for a partial property purchase will reflect the
difference between the fair market value of the entire property immediately
before the acquisition and the fair market value of the remaining property
immediately after acquisition. The change in the proximity of structure(s)
to the highway is one factor in determining the change in fair market value.
Comment: If the NCDOT pays only for the land they need, some land
owners would have to continue paying taxes on an unusable and
unmarketable remnant.
Response: If acquisition of only a portion of a property will leave the
owner with an uneconomic remnant, the NCDOT will offer to acquire the
uneconomic remnant along with the portion needed for the project. An
uneconomic remnant is a remaining part of a property in which the
property owner is left with an interest the NCDOT determines to have little
or no utility or value to the owner.
3. Compensation paid for right-of-way purchase.
Th responses to these comments are based on the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highway's booklets entitled Right of Way
Ac uisition and Relocation Assistance.
a.
Comment: The original right-of-way was obtained in a manner that
caused financial hardship. The Highway Department did not pay fair
compensation. How would the amount of fair compensation paid for land,
homes and businesses taken for the new right-of-way be determined?
Response: The NCDOT is required by state law to pay just compensation
in exchange for property rights. The NCDOT pays fair market value for all
property it acquires. That value is determined by an appraisal or
evaluation made by Department staff appraisers or fee appraisers who are
qualified to make appraisals.
26

' b. Comment: Would the NCDOT help out with costs such as: higher interest
rates and replacement housing costs that are higher than the market value
of one's home?
' Response: Property owners who have lived in their home for 180 days or
more before the first written offer for the purchase of their property, may
ment when added to the
This
a
ment
l
h
ibl
f
li
b
y
p
.
e
or a purc
ase supp
e
g
e e
fair market value of a home is intended to meet all reasonable costs
necessary to purchase a comparable decent, safe and sanitary
replacement home. The NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings, such as attorney's fees,
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a
payment for increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments,
r increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not
exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
' Last resort housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program will
be necessary on the project, since there appears to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
C. Comment: Who does the appraisals? How long after the appraisal does
' Property purchase take place? What if the market value changes in the
interim between appraisal and purchase?
Response: The fair market value of a property to be purchased is
determined by an appraisal or evaluation made by Department staff
appraisers or fee appraisers who are qualified to make appraisals. Written
' offers to purchase are made within 60 days of the each appraisal or a new
appraisal is made.
d. Comment: On what basis is the value of commercial buildings
' determined? Would the NCDOT pay for lost business?
Response: Again the fair market value of a property to be purchased is
determined by an appraisal or evaluation made by Department staff
appraisers or fee appraisers who are qualified to make appraisals. The
appraisal is based in part on the building's highest and best use. The
' NCDOT pays actual reasonable business moving expenses, including
certain losses of tangible personal property or substitution of personal
property and searching expenses for replacement property (up to $1,000).
It also pays certain reestablishment expenses (up to $10,000). The
NCDOT does not pay for lost business.

27
4.
The responses to these comments are based in part on the North Carolina
Depa touisition ent of Transportation, Division of Highway's booklets entitled Right of
Wa and Relocation Assistance.
a. Comment: After a property is purchased, how long would residents or
businesses have until they must move?
Response: Displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after the
NCDOT purchases the property. It is a policy of the state that no person
will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction
projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been
offered or provided each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. A relocation officer will assist displaced households and
owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
b. Comment: How would residents find a place to move when 70 percent of
i the county will not perk?
Response: Properties with public water and sewer are available. The
NCDOT will assist displaced residents in finding a suitable replacement
dwelling.
5. Con 'truction sequence and schedule.
a. Comment: Construction should start at NC 49, the location with the most
accidents.
Response: The sequence of construction has not yet been established.
b. Comment: When the NCDOT says that right-of-way work begins in 1997,
what is meant?
Response: Right-of-way acquisition will begin in the first half of federal
fiscal year 1997 (early in calender year 1997) according to the current
Transportation Improvement Program.
Public Information and Involvement
1. Co ? ment: All property owners along US 64 should have been personally
info med of the project, the workshops and the hearing. Not everyone subscribes
to paper and not everyone can read. Lack of participation at the early
wor shops can be attributed to many not being aware that they had been
sch duled and the assumption that the improvement would be what was planned
in t e early 50s.
Re ponse: Throughout the state, newspapers are used by the NCDOT to notify
interested parties of its information workshops and hearings. Until early 1991,
pre s releases were used to notify newspapers of planned information
wo Ikshops. Now both press releases and paid advertising are used for both
wo shops and hearings. Newsletters are also sent to organizations and groups.
The initial mailing list for the US 64 included local governments, civic
28

organizations and churches. Individuals were offered the opportunity to be
' included in the mailing list at the two information workshops. It is regrettable that
a segment of the community along US 64 was unaware of the project and its
design until the public hearing. Their comments, however, have been given full
' consideration and the project has been altered in response to those comments.
2. Comment: How can those affected by the proposed project and the general
public learn of final preliminary design decisions?
' Response: A press release will be provided to project area newspapers. Those
who left their name and address with the hearing officer at the public hearing or
' the September 17 follow-up meeting will be notified personally. The follow-up
meeting was held because design changes resulting from public hearing
comments affected properties unaffected by the design presented at the hearing.
' REVISIONS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
' This Finding of No Significant Impact presents several revisions to the impact
assessment findings contained in the State EA. These revisions reflect the decision to
shift the proposed new lanes from the north side of existing US 64 to the south side for
a distance of 4.1 miles and the identification, by natural resource agencies, of several
errors in the natural resources section of the State EA. The decision to alter the
proposed project changed the findings of the following analyses:
Location in FONSI
Analysis of Revised Analysis
' Plant communities impacts Appendix B
Animal resource impacts Appendix B
Wetlands impacts Appendix B
Stream modification Appendix B
Flooding Appendix B
Noise Appendix D
' Relocation Appendix D
No other impact findings were changed by the decision to alter the project.
' In response to comments by natural resource agencies, corrections or clarifications
were made to the following natural systems discussions:
' Botanical resources and plant communities
Animal resources
Animal resource impacts
Aquatic ecology
Wetlands
Protected species
A complete natural systems discussion that incorporates these revisions is presented in
Appendices B and C. The revised protected species section also acknowledges that a
recent addition to the federal listing of protected species could be in the project area and
' commits the NCDOT to conducting a survey for that species prior to project
construction.
29

Appendix D also contains the correct farmland report.
inadvertent) included in Appendix D of the State EA.
BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
A preliminary version was
Based os teh assessment of potential environmental impacts contained in the State EA
and conide and of the comments received from federal, state and local agencies and
the general public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that the pro osed action will not have a significant impact upon the human and natural
environmen . Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental
assessment is not required for this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
There are
the North
constructior
Resident ai
The use of
interchange
This could r
geodetic survey markers in the project area. The NCDOT will work with
arolina Geodetic Survey to ensure that its geodetic markers within the
limits are protected or relocated.
d Business Relocation
a 200-foot radius loop ramp in the northwest quadrant of the NC 49
instead of a 250-foot radius loop, will be considered during final design.
educe the number of relocations slightly.
Stream Cr ssin s and Modifications
Bridges will be provided over the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek that
U span these streams and associated wetlands. Where box culverts and concrete pipes
penetrate t e existing embankment, these structures will be lengthened so that the
existing dr inage function will be preserved.
Channel r locations of from 15 t t will be required in connection with the
extension f three culverts and four pipes over 60 inches in diameter. The channel
relocations will be required because the existing channel bends at or near the mouth of
the existin structures. The disposition of drainage structures less than 60 inches in
diameter w 11 be determined during final design based on more detailed mapping. There
will be two tream channelizations on Brier Creek, one approximately 100 feet long and
one appro imately 130 feet long.
"Mmaw
Stream ba
facilitate rE
to minimiz,
two reloca
coordinate
Commissic
relocation;
associated
CFR 330.E
built simi ar inn- eFeva?ion ands o `tHat which now exists to
of natural vegetation. Strict erosion control measures will be used
increased turbidity levels during construction. Use of retaining
ons of Brier Creek will be considered during final design. The
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Wildlife
n, and the US Army Corps of Engineers during the design
associated with culverts and the two short relocations of
with side slope fill. The Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit
(a) (14) will be sought and obtained.
will be
eration
walls at the
NCDOT will
Resources
of both the
Brier Creek
14 under 33
30
ii

' Where the roadway embankment must be widened in proximity to a floodplain, minor
regrading or fill in the floodplain could be required. Modeling will be done during
detailed design to ensure that any increases in backwater levels will be less than that
permitted by federal law and local ordinances. If required, retaining walls will be used
so that the limits of the widened embankment will be pulled inboard of the 100-year
flood elevation. The floodway flow will be accommodated at the two short stream
channelizations discussed in the previous section. Where changes are made to the
' floodway or profiles, the NCDOT will coordinate with the local community regarding
possible revisions to their flood insurance maps and reports.
' Cultural Resources
There are no historic resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places or in the
State Study List that are within the proposed action's area of potential effect. Prior to
the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the contractor will
obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources that certifies that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site building, structure, or object
listed in the National Register of Historic Places or in the State Study List. A copy of this
certification will be furnished to the NCDOT Resident Engineer prior to performing any
work on the proposed borrow source.
As recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office, a limited reconnaissance
level survey to determine the nature, extent, condition, and significance of
archaeological resources that might be damaged or destroyed by the proposed action
' will be conducted by the NCDOT prior to construction.

1

31

I Appendix A
' AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
1 page
LOCAL
Davidson County (through Piedmont Triad COG) A-1
' Randolph County (through Piedmont Triad COG) A-2
STATE
' Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse A-4
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History A-5
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
•- Division of Environmental Management A-6
• Division of Parks and Recreation A-7
• Planning and Assessment A-9
Wildlife Resources Commission A-10
FEDERAL
Army Corps of Engineers, District Engineer,
Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina A-14
National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Director,
St. Petersburg, Florida A-16
Note: The brackets and numbers added to the letters delineate the
sections of each letter that correspond to the agency comments and
NCDOT responses contained in the body of this FONSI.

11

.PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Intergovernmental Revl•w Process
2216 W. Meadowview Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] j
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM
( JA Pao The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe need to b*e'
informed. /

If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification of Intent".
If you wish to comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it
to the PTCOG office by February 8, 1992
We will send your comments to the State Clearinghouse to be included in a
recommendation to the proposed funding agency.
State Application Identifier # 92-E-4220-0461
Commenter's Name & Title L. Norman Shronce
Representing Davidson County Phone #7d??o? •-?i?d /
Mailing Address

(sighat
Date
COMMENTS: (You may attach additional she
r GUOaxi'a ?,?Cd?/•G??r,E?" ??(/GL?/f??? G??/r'l/?CT.IC?fjU.?
?' ? G?/?.t/ T??r ?,?cv?c?" /? ice' ,?.??/?.i''>?•

.PIEDMONT T
Interg.ovarnment
2216 W. Meadowview Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 2
Telephone: [phone]
RIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
if Review Process
407-3480
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM
The State CIE
could affect y
informed.
inghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
r jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe need to be
If you need m re information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The name an phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification o Intent".
If you wish t comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it
to the PTCO office by February 8, 1992
We will send our comments to the State Clearinghouse to be included in a KC 111112
recommendat on to the proposed funding agency.
d FEB 1992
MHFIVED

State Applica SE60 Q Y SS OFrICE ,
ion Identifier # 92-E-4220-0461

Commenter's Name & Title W. Frank Willis `

Representin Randolph County Phone # 4?9- 21.3,1
Mailing Addr ss -, , e9 46D_Av Jl ,jai /U ??a0 -d 97

Date Signed
( gnature) ,
COMMENT (You may attach additional sheets.)
REFERENCE: State Environmental Assessment ,
U.S. 64 Improvements
Page -2 under "LAND USE PLANS & ZONING" states that Randolph County does not '
have an ado ted land development plan and that planning for the County is reflected
only by Co r ty Zoning. The'Randolph County Board of Commissioners adopted a
Countywide L and Development Plan on July 6, 1987. Zoning Districts along U.S. 64
are establ's hed based on the land use plan for the area. This plan projects
scattered i ghway Commercial/Industrial areas along selected intersections while
attempting t o preserve the rural Residential-Agricultural integrity of most lands
adjoining S. 64 in Randolph County. ,
FQr u ture reference, it should be noted that in North Carolina zoning districts
and regula i ons must be based on a over all Land Development Plan.

A-2

t

Industrial structures dispersed along the project area are:
• Fletcher Machine, Inc.
• Elizabeth Carbide of NC, Inc.
• Thomasville Furniture Industry
• Carolina Dry Kiln Co.
• Furniture Plant
• Caraway Nursery Garden Center
Institutional
The only school in the project area is the Tabernacle Elementary School in Randolph
County. This school is near the Motleta community and its location is shown on Figure
A-2k.
Eleven churches and a cemetery are also along US 64. They are:
a??1? 12131q?J.

• Heath Church i
• Original Church of God
• Level Land Baptist Church
• Christian Life Center
• Melito Grove Baptist Church
• Sawerville Wesleyan Open Arms Church of God
tist Church
Hills Ba
• Amit
y
p
• Back Creek Friends Meeting House (Quaker)
• Calvary Baptist Church °
• West Bend United Church
• Clarksbury Church and Cemetery
The Asheboro Country Club in Randolph County is on the north side of US 64. Part of
the golf course abuts the US 64 right-of-way.
LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING

The City of Asheboro adopted its Land Development Plan in 1985. Specific problems
that the plan is designed to address are the deterioration of the Central Business District,
strip and spot commercial development on major arteries, the proliferation of fast food
restaurants along US 64 east of Asheboro, traffic congestion, and water and sewer
problems. The proposed action would be compatible with this plan. It would support
plan objectives related to:
Implementation of the City thoroughfare plan (NCDOT, August 1988) which calls
for the widening of US 64.
Clustering new commercial activities and discouraging strip development by the
inclusion of a median in the project typical section with openings only at
intersections.
Randolph County does not have an adopted land development plan. Planning for the
County is reflected only by County zoning. Davidson County does have a plan. Land
Development Plan Davidson County (Davidson County, June 1978) focuses on
identifying sites best suited for industrial and commercial uses. It calls for mixed use
4-2
' A-3

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin,
February 21, 1992
Mr. Calvith Leggett
N.C. Depa tment of Transportation
Program D velopment Branch
Highway B ilding
Raleigh, orth Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. ?,eggett :

7 ,
F EE P
E.

'
James S. Lofton, Secretary

RE: SCH file 492-E-4220-0461; Environmental Assessment for the
Prop sed Improvements of US 64 (TIP# R-2220)
The abov referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through he State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Ca olina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. The Department of
Environm nt, Health, and Natural Resources has requested that
certain iological field reports be circulated to the Natural
Heritage Program and the Wildlife Resources Commission for their
review p for to the submittal of the FONSI.
Best recglaras.
Si c Vel?,
I James. Lofton
U
JSL:jcf
Attachm nt
cc: Re ion G
A-4
.16 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01-00
A., F-nl OnnnrnmirV / Affirmative Action Emnlover
5TA7F' a

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 14, 1992
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
' Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
c..
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State 1 ? 1l
Historic Preservation Officer L/
G
1 SUBJECT: US 64 from just east of I-85 Bypass
Interchange near Lexington to just west
of US 64/US 220 Interchange in Asheboro,
Davidson/Randolph Counties, R-2220,
CH 92-E-4220-0461
t We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) and determined that
we need additional information to complete our review: We would like a
copy of the project's "Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation Report
. ." which was mentioned in the EA on page 5-48.
(1) Since it appears federal permits may be necessary, we are concerned
about National Register-eligible properties, and the report may determine
if National Register-eligible properties are located within the area of
potential effect. As stated in the EA and our August 1, 1990 letter to
the North Carolina Department of Transportation, no National Register-
listed properties are located within the area of potential effect.
We note on page 5-48 of the EA that a "limited reconnaissance level
1 survey" as per our May 8, 1990 recommendations will be conducted by
Department of Transportation staff prior to construction. As stated in
(2) our letter, such a survey should determine the nature, extent, condition,
1 and significance of resources which might be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project. We look forward to receiving and reviewing the
L archaeological survey report for this project.
1 These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
1
DB:slw 109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-5

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL M.A.Ni AGEMEN`?'' Q'

February 3, 1992 -
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Me ba McGee
V
d
FROM: B ane
De
SUBJECT: F 'nal EA - US 64 from Lexington to Asheboro ,
E # 92-0461, DEM# 4440
D vidson.and Randolph Counties
'
The su
t document has been reviewed by this office. The
jec
Division o Environmental management is responsible for the
issuance o the Section 401 Water-Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
FONSI prep red for this project.
1. N CDOT should require that the contractor not impact
dditional wetland areas due to the disposal of

(1a)
xcavated spoil material, as a source of borrow material '
r other construction related activities.
2. s stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will '
e required for this project.
3. ndorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the

enial of the 401 Certification upon application if '
etland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
(1 b) he maximum extent practicable.
4. OT is urged to offer mitigation for all significant
etland losses. These are usually associated with
streams or rivers rather than being hydrologically ,
isolated.
5. We congratulate DOT on its intent to improve the

existing corridor rather than locate a new alignment. '
Ques ions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to John orney in DEM'S Water Quality Planning Branch.
BD/kls
MMcGee.m m/D-5
CC: Jo n Dorney

A-6 ,
r
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
February 3, 1992
Memorandum

TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program ?• ?.
SUBJECT: EA -- US 64 Improvements, Davidson and Randolph Counties
REFERENCE: 92-0461
As mentioned in our correspondence to the consultants for this
project (p. B-12), the Natural Heritage Program database contains
records for three rare plant species from the vicinity of the
project, one of which, piedmont leadplant (Amorpha schwerinii),
has been recorded from a rocky ravine along US 64, approximately 2
miles west of Asheboro.
'Although a field survey was conducted, and no significant natural
areas or rare species purportedly found (p. 5-27), this survey
appears to have been extremely cursory (only three days in length
-- p. 5-16) and lacks credibility, owing to a number of
misidentifications. Bur oak, for instance, is not found in North
Carolina but is mentioned as a component of the hardwoods observed
in the project area (p. 5-12). White pine and pitch pine, both of
which are widespread in the mountains of North Carolina, are not
known to occur naturally in this part of piedmont, yet the
document states that they occur frequently enough in the project
corridor to form stands of Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest (p. 5-
13). The document makes no mention whatsoever, on the other hand,
of-loblolly, short-leaf and virginia pine, all of which do
-commonly forms mixed stands in this part of the piedmont.
I Only five species of animals (or their sign) were actually
observed in the fiald: American robin, cardinal, red-winged
blackbird, woodthrush, and white-tailed deer (p. 5-16), all of
which are extremely common and take little effort to observe. In
place of more intensive field work to determine the presence of
truly sensitive animals that could be.affected.by the project, the
(2b) consultants provide a list of species potentially present in the
project area (Appendix F) that is apparently derived completely
from field guides. Even here there are mistakes. Despite the
good range descriptions and maps provided in the field guides
cited in the appendix, this list includes many species, that like
the white pine and pitch pine, do not inhabit the central
' piedmont. Red squirrel, rock shrew, hairy-tailed mole, and least
weasel, for instance, are all restricted to the mountains.
A-7
Based on this inadequate biological survey, no assessment can
safely be ade concerning the possible environmental impacts of
the projec . Before an EA can be approved, more biological field
?2c) work needs to be done. This survey should be conducted by
qualified ologists working during the appropriate seasons of the
year.
C.
A-8

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
' TO: ChrYs Baggett
State Clearinghouse
t FROM: Melba McGeeV-
Project Review Coordinator
' RE: 92-0461 Environmental Assessment for
US 64 Improvements, Davidson County
DATE: February 19, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
reviewed the State Environmental Assessment for improvements to
US 64 from Lexington to Asheboro, TIP# R-2220.
Our agencies have expressed concern about the credibility of the
biological survey work provided for this document based on
discrepancies within the document. In order to avoid potential
(3) future delays, we ask that the supporting biological field
reports be circulated to the Natural Heritage Program and the
Wildlife Resources Commission for review and clarification before
the FONSI is circulated.
We also ask for your continued efforts to utilize all reasonable
' and feasible means to minimize wetland impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
MM:bb
Attachments
CC: David Foster
1
' A-9
fu
t.
K2
Carolina Wildlife Resources
1
:j
Commission K2
5?2 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The
biologis
field in
are prov
Environm
25).
The
21.5 mil
highway
directly
wetlands
forested
lands in
Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
February 6, 1992
State Environmental Assessment for US 64 Improvements
from just east of the I-85 Bypass Interchange near
Lexington to just west of the US 220 Interchange near
Asheboro, Davidson and Randolph counties. State
Project No. 6.609001T. TIP No. R-2220. Project #
92-0461.
subject document has been reviewed by professional
s on the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) staff. A
estigation was conducted in May of 1990. Our comments
ded in accordance with certain provisions of the N.C.
ntal Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC
N.C. Department of Transportation proposes to widen a
long section of US 64 from 2 lanes to a 4 lane divided
ith a 46 foot wide grassed median. The project would
impact 497 acres of land, including 11.7 acres of
Other habitat types to be lost include 134 acres of
lands, 76 acres of agricultural lands, and 158 acres of
various stages of successional growth.
Of rimary concern to this agency is the expected loss of
approxim tely 11.7 acres of wetlands as a result of this project.
The docu ent lists 66 sites, varying in size, with the largest
being 1.16 acres. Since only a single site is larger than one
acre, DOT maintains that compensatory mitigation is not
(y? necessa y, except, possibly for the one site. WRC cannot support
this no ion and proposes that compensatory mitigation be required
for cum lative wetland losses on a 2:1 basis. While each
individ al wetland impact may seem "insignificant", the end
result f the project is a major loss of wetland habitat. WRC
acknowl dges that the Nationwide Permit system allows such
A-10

' Memo

Page 2
February 6, 1992
L cumulative impacts to occur, however, we feel that the
environmental conscience of NCDOT should be sensitive to, and
mitigate for, these losses.
a.
WRC must also question the treatment of rare, threatened,
and endangered species. For example, correspondence from the
Natural Heritage Program (p. B-12) expresses particular concern
for the Piedmont leadplant (Amorpha schwerinii), citing a record
from along US 64 several miles west of Asheboro. Yet the
Environmental Assessment lists the potential presence for this
species within the construction limits of the project as "no"
(Table 14, p. 5-28). How was this resolved? Similarly, there
are records for Lampsilis radiata from both the Uwharrie River
and Caraway Creek and for Strophitus undulatus from the Uwharrie
River. While their presence within the construction corridor may
be doubtful, these and other freshwater mussels are particularly
sensitive to stream sedimentation and siltation, which are
inevitable consequences of road and bridge construction near
streams. To simply state that these species are not found within
the construction limits ignores the extreme environmental
sensitivity of freshwater mussels and the potential secondary
impacts for the planned project. Additionally, it should be
noted that the state status of Strophitus undulatus has been
changed from Special Concern to Threatened. Finally, the
statements (p. 5-28 & 29, respectively) that neither Cooper's
hawks nor loggerhead shrikes would be likely to nest adjacent to
a highway corridor illustrate a lack of understanding of these
species' behavior and biology. The authors seem to imply in
these and other remarks that protected species are not likely to
be found in disturbed habitats. For many rare species this is
not the case. Comments under the heading "Impact Potential"
(Table 14) ignore the fact that the greatest impact of the
planned project will not be the displacement of individual
animals, but rather the direct loss and fragmentation of habitat,
contributing to an overall long-term decline in wildlife
populations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
Environmental Assessment. WRC requests a written EA revision
specifically addressing the above-mentioned conflicts. This will
be necessary before we can support the findings of the
environmental document. If we can provide further assistance
please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
A-11
• r
l1 '
0

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
12 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919.733-339
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director.,
MEMORAND : ;. .
TO: L. J. Ward, Manager
p?.anning ar}d E viron mental Branch, NCDQ?.,-. 3 1992
FROM: Dennis Stew rt, Manager'
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: November 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Modifications to State Environmental Assessment (EA),
US 64 Improvements from East of 1-85 Bypass near
Lexington to West of US 220 near Asheboro, Randolph and
Davidson Counties, North Carolina, TIP Project R-2220.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
complete a review of the subject project and its possible
impacts n existing wildlife and fishery resources in the area.
Our Comm nts are provided in accordance with provisions of the
North Ca olina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 at seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC 25), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project involves widening of a 21.5 mile section of US
64 from lanes to.a 4 lane divided highway with a 46 foot wide
grassed edian. The project would directly impact 484 acres of
land, in luding 11.7 acres of wetlands. Other habitat types to
be lost 'nclude 134 acres of forest lands, 76 acres of
agricult ral lands and 158 acres of lands in various stages of
successi n.
While the modified EA contained improvements from the
original reviewed by NCWRC on February 6, 1992, concerns remain
regardi the treatment of cumulative wetland impacts, status of
state listed species along the project corridor, and proposed
measure to avoid or minimize construction impacts on these
species and their habitats.
Th? majority of projected wetland loss involves hydrologic
crossin s which would not require an individual 404 permit.
However,) recent cooperative understandings between US Army Corps
of Engi eers and N. C. Department of Transportation (WCDOT)
9

A-12
Memo Page 2 November 9, 1992
outline procedures which would provide for review of the entire
project under a single individual 404 permit. Therefore, a
' mutually acceptable mitigation plan for the cumulative loss of
all involved wetlands should be developed prior to permit
application, and the intent of NCDOT to proceed with such a plan
should be explicitly stated within the environmental document.
NCWRC Concurrence with an ensuing FONSI would be contingent upon
such a commitment to mitigate unavoidable project impacts.
NCWRC acknowledges that funds used to determine the status
of rare, threatened and endangered species are committed to
surveying federally listed individuals. State listed species are
' generally surveyed "incidentally" while conducting faderal
searches. However, we are concerned that state listed species
were generally dismissed from Consideration. Comments pertaining
to state listed species found on pages 5-17 and 5-23 of the
' modified EA were particularly disturbing. NCWRC is not prepared
to set state listed species precedent by concurring with the idea
that the burden of proof for presence or absence of these species
is up to reviewing agencies, or that such species may be
routinely "relocated" if found to occur along project: corridors.
Perhaps some of our anxiety concerning potential' impacts to state
' species can be lessened by our review of the Natural Systems
(3) Report on the project (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and. Douglas,
April 1991). This report was not submitted to NCWRC for review,
and while we appreciate that this deficiency has been corrected
' on more recent project documents, the lack of detailed survey
technique descriptions in the subject document: limited our
ability to evaluate the appropriateness of field surveys and
subsequent comments made in the document.
We recognize that the concerns outlined above represent
' substantial changes in the environmental document, and we would
welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with NCDOT toward
their prompt resolution. Thank you for the ongoing opportunity
to provide input and review of environmental, assessments. If we
' can further assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
DLSf SAP
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator

1 A-13
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
J REPLY REFER TO January 21, 1992
Planing Division
Mr. . J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Pla ing and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Nor h Carolina Department
o Transportation
PCs Office Box 25201
Ralgigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

,, JANN )992
ate...
We have reviewed the "State Environmental Assessment for
US 4, from I-85 near Lexington to US 220 near Asheboro, Davidson
and Randolph Counties, R-2220, State Project No. 6.609001T" and
off r the following comments.
The roadway and structures within the flood plains should be
de igned so as not to cause a significant increase in the upstream
floIoding or cause greater than a 1.0-foot floodway surcharge. Any
(1?; changes made to the floodway or profiles should be coordinated with
th local community for possible revisions to their flood insurance
ma s and reports. Proper consideration should be given to the
mo ifications to the drainage structures on the streams without
ma ped flood plains.
Since our letter of May 10, 1990, there has been a change in
th procedure for delineation of wetlands. On August 17, 1991,
th 1992 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act became
la, and invalidated jurisdictional determinations made pursuant to
th January 1989 "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
J isdictional Wetlands." Pursuant to guidance from the Chief of
E gineers, Directorate of Civil Works, wetland delineations made
s sequent to August 17, 1991, must be made utilizing the 1987
(2) " orps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" and those made
p for to August 17, 1991, must be reviewed. Since this action
h s not been finalized, the areas could be redelineated using the
1 87 manual.
A Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
(3) S ction 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
r quired for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
A-14

1
0

0

-2-
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. john Thomas, Regulatory Branch, Raleigh, North Carolina,
at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
YLawren4c?
Chief, I,la
Lunders
ing Division
I A-15
1
'a4M?µT os co"
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration '
•: Q NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
=l =?''?? Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard '
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
February 3, 1992
Mr. L. J.
Planning
N. C. Dep
P. 0. Box
Raleigh,
Ward, P.E., Manager
nd Environmental Branch
rtment of Transportation
25201
orth Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your January 7, 1992, letter requesting our
comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed
improveme is to US 64, from I-85 near Lexington to US 220 near
Asheboro, Davidson, and Randolph Counties, R-2220, State Project
No. 6.609,01T.
We have r
which we
we have n
viewed the EA and have determined that no resources for
re responsible are found in the project area. Therefore,
comments.
Sincere-i yo rs,
Andr as Mager, Jr
Ass stant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
A-16
F/SE021/RSS '
919/728-5090
PLC ?????
dif

L

Appendix B
I AMENDED EA NATURAL SYSTEMS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

C

(original text presented in Chapter 5 of the
December 4, 1991 State Environmental Assessment)

Appendix B
AMENDED NATURAL SYSTEMS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
LAND RESOURCES AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Geology And Soils Resources
The proposed action is within the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
The terrain along the project corridor is typical of the Piedmont. Most of the ancient
mountains formed over 200 million years ago have eroded to the gently rolling hills
characteristic of Davidson and Randolph Counties. Maximum relief is 400 feet within
' the project area. Standing above the hills are the remnants of more erosion-resistant
rock, or monadrocks. A prominent monadrock formation is the Uwharrie Mountains of
Randolph County.
The US 64 corridor is in the Carolina slate belt. The predominant rock is metamorphic,
metavolcanic rock (500-600 million years old), with interbedded felsic to maffic tufts and
flow rock. The predominant rock in Randolph County is metamudstone and
metaorgillite of the cid formation. Also, an outcrop of maffic metavolcanic rock exists
along the US 64 corridor in Randolph County.
' Soils within the project corridor have formed as a residual soil from largely igneous and
metamorphic rock materials. Along US 64 in Randolph County, the soils are somewhat
poorly drained with silty surface layers, underlain by weathered Carolina slate rock, on
nearly level to hilly uplands (Randolph Soil and Water Conservation District, July 1986).
Randolph County also has three smaller regions of soil that are wet and have
moderately permeable loamy subsoil on floodplains subject to overflow, such as the
Chewacla and Wehadkee series. They are found at the Uwharrie River, Plummer
' Creek, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek crossings in the project area. The Wehadkee
soil type found in Randolph County is a listed hydric soil of North Carolina, which has
developed under conditions sufficiently wet to support growth and regeneration of
1 hydrophytic vegetation. The Oakboro silt loam is a frequently flooded hydric soil found
in most of the delineated wetlands and along stream crossings in the Davidson County
project area. Since it is subject to flood overflow, it has hydric characteristics. However,
hydric soils, including the Oakboro sift loam, are uncommon along the Davidson County
' area of the project corridor (North Carolina Soil Surveys, 1982-1985).
Terrestrial Ecology
Botanical Resources And Plant Communities
The natural communities were observed and surveyed during three separate field
' reviews (April, September and November 1990) totaling 10 days. Plant communities
were determined both in the field and by a review of aerial photography.

B-1

The followin plant communities can be recognized:
Hard ood Forest '
Mixe Conifer-Hardwood Forest
Succ ssional Areas
Urba Residential Commercial '
Agric Itural Areas
Wetl nd
The vegeta ion within the project corridor can be characterized as part of the deciduous
or mixed d ciduous forest found throughout some mid-Atlantic and southern states and ,
the Piedmo t region of the Carolinas. This community is primarily comprised of broad-
leaved tre s, pines and other evergreens. Unlike other forest communities, the '
deciduous rest has a diverse understory and herbaceous understory. Each of these
communitie is described below. The plant species composition of each type vary in
f di
b
d
h
t
di
il
t
i
ur
ance, an
is
ory o
s
sture gra
ents, so
type,
response t exposure and mo '
other factor .
Hardwood Forest. Hardwood forest is the most common forest type present in the
corridor. The project corridor is near the split between two different '
geographic I/ecological regions (Braun, 1950; Walter, 1979; and Barbour and Billings,
1991): T ese two regions are the oak-chestnut (OC) and oak-pine-hickory (OPH)
association . There are areas of overlap and transition between the regions of these '
two associ tions. These areas are characterized by stand compositions that include the
dominant egetation of both regions or a mix of stands typical of the two adjacent
associatio s.
The oak-c estnut (OC) and oak-pine-hickory (OPH) associations are defined by major
latitudinal limate belts and the related differences in soils and vegetation. The OC
region or ssociation is found further west than the OPH region and includes parts of
the Blued ge region and Appalachian Plateau (Braun, 1950; Barbour and Billings,
1991). T e OPH region begins in the coastal plain of Maryland and Virginia and
stretches outhwesterly into North Carolina's Piedmont region (Braun, 1950; Barbour
and Billing , 1991).
Most of th forest soils are thick enough to support well-developed canopies composed
of a variet of broad-leaf deciduous tree species. The drier areas are dominated largely
by oaks s ch as post oak (Quercus stellata), white oak (Q. alba), northern red oak (Q.
rubra), bla k oak (Q. velutina), pin oak (Q. palustris), and black jack oak (Q. marilanala).
Not all sp cies occur together. The species composition of the site depends on site-
specific c nditions. Other species present include: shagbark hickory (Carya ovata),
pignut hi kory (Carya glabra), bitternut hicko (Carya cordiformis), tulip poplar
(Liriodend on tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum , and black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia). ed cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Loblol y pine (Pinus taeda) and Virginia pine
(P. virgini na) also can be found.
Hardwood stands along streams, floodplains, and generally wetter areas are dominated
by syca ore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), Carolina
basswood (Tilia caroliniana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum) nd boxelder maple (Acer negundo). Alder (Alms serrulata) is the most
abundant small tree or large shrub. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and willow
shrubs in luding black willow (Salix nigra) are also common. Soft rush (Juncus
effusus), sedge (Scirpus atrovirens), and fall panic grass (Panicum dichotomiflorum)
are corn on graminoid species found in hydric soils.
B-2

Tulip poplar and black locust have become important, at least partially, as a result of
past logging, agriculture, and other disturbances to soils and forest canopies.
All of the forest in the zone of influence is second-growth, having either been logged in
the past or developed from abandoned farmland.
Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest. Pines are common enough in some isolated areas
to form a mixed conifer-hardwood forest canopy. The pines include Virginia pine (P.
virginiana), short-leaf pine (P. echinata) and Loblolly pine (P. taeda). The presence of
mixed stands of pine and hardwoods indicates succession from pre-existing fields or
open farmland towards dominance by hardwood forest species. Man-made
disturbances such as logging, farming and related impacts (erosion, sediment transport,
regular maintenance) can create open canopy conditions sufficient to allow the growth
of pines.
Successional Areas. Successional areas are sites that have been disturbed by some
(usually human) activity, but have since been abandoned or allowed to revert to more
natural influences. Examples are abandoned agricultural lands, logged sites,
abandoned road alignments, or other landscapes where the original vegetation and/or
soils have been disturbed. Their characteristics vary depending on whether they are
upland or wetland areas:
Uplands. Most successional areas along the corridor are abandoned agricultural
fields. Such areas support a variety of weedy species. In the upland areas, such
species as goldenrods (Solidago altissima, S. gigantea, S. rugosa) and sumac
(Rhus typhina, Rhus copallina) are very abundant. Asters (Aster spp.) is also a
dominant species in abandoned agricultural fields. Blackberry and raspberry
(Rubus spp.) are abundant at such fields.
Wetlands. Some abandoned fields along minor watercourses support a variety
of hydrophytic species. The most common wetland vegetation found along the
US 64 alignment include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and alder (Alnus serrulata). More specific wetland
species are listed in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Determination
Forms. They are presented in the US 64 Improvements Natural Systems Report
(Parsons B(nckerhoff Quade & Douglas, April 1991).
Urban-Residential-Commercial Areas. Landscape parcels dominated by human
activity are considered urban-residential-commercial areas. Examples are homes and
yards, utility corridors, and roads. Such areas differ from successional areas in that
they will remain in their present state for an indefinite period, under direct human
influence.
Urban-residential-commercial areas support a variety of vegetation types that frequently
mimic more natural habitats, orchards, and other agricultural areas. Power line
corridors are similar to abandoned fields and support many of the same species. In
addition in the project area, stump and root sprouts have developed into thickets of
shrubby vegetation in such areas.
Agricultural Areas. Agricultural areas are intended for maintenance as cropland,
pasture, orchard, hay fields, and other agricultural uses. In addition to the intended crop
or usage, agricultural lands in the project area include peripheral weedy or shrubby
B-3
vegetation
fields, funs
Wetlands.
of them o(
previous r
Wetland c
Ecology se
Botanical
Some plant
1). Loss w;
constructioi
habitat disti
would be a
None of the
small in relc,
All of the
with the F
procedure
Disposal c
with applii
area (with
is not regularly farmed or tilled.. Such areas, along with weedy hay
as abandoned fields.
etlands are fairly common along the length of the corridor, but almost all
as small pockets, and most have been at least partially influenced by
construction because of their close proximity to the existing US 64.
ictedstics are discussed in detail in the Water Resources and Aquatic
rces And Plant Communities Impacts
:ommunity loss would occur along the entire proposed project (see Table B-
s estimated as the area between the edge of the existing pavement and the
limits. Aerial photos were used to determine the proportion of each type of
buted along the US 64 corridor. A total of 473 acres of various communities
:ected. The loss, however, would not be substantial in a regional context.
communities affected are rare in the area, and the amount of loss would be
;ion to the total area of each community type along the corridor.
;st along US 64 is second growth. Timber to be harvested in association
)osed action would be disposed of in accordance with standard NCDOT
These procedures call for the contractor to take responsibility for disposal.
either be accomplished by burning (under strict control and in compliance
le laws and regulations) or by disposal at locations away from the project
rmission of the property owner).
Animal Resources
The mix o plant community patterns along US 64 provides opportunities for various
forms of ildI fe. During the scoping process, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commissi n identified the project area as an area that primanly contains upland
hardwood with some mixed woodlands and bottomland hardwood drainages, which
contain sp cies such as deer, wild turkey, quail, rabbit, squirrel, numerous raptors, and
other non-game wildlife species. The project corridor, though rural in nature, is not
pristine o undeveloped. There are areas that have been altered through man's
activities. Some forested pockets afford the necessary components (food, water,
protective coverage) to support small mammals and birds. More than 80 species of
reptiles a d amphibians have been reported in the Piedmont area of North Carolina
(Martof et. al., 1980). Animal species whose range lies within the project area are listed
in Appen ix C. These lists were developed to be inclusive of all species that may
potentially occur within the area affected by the proposed action. It is, however, unlikely
that all of these species actually occur within the project area.
Amphibi ns and Reptiles. Amphibians and reptiles whose range lies within the project
corridor a e listed in Appendix C (Table C-1). Habitat for amphibians and reptiles within
the proje area is uniform in character. The most suitable habitats include: woodlands,
pools, sp ings, and seeps. For amphibians, a landscape with a greater diversity of
wetland t pes would contribute to a greater diversity. Reptile diversity: especially that of
turtles, w uld be expected to be low because of the lack of wetlands with lentic waters.
The sala ander fauna of the Carolinas and Virginia includes around 52 species (Martof,
et al. 198 ). As many as nine species could occur within the project area (see Table C-
1), but n ne of the rare species have been reported seen in the vicinity of the project
corridor.
B-4

Table B-1: HABITAT ENCROACHMENT ASSOCIATED WITH US 64
IMPROVEMENTS
Habitat Type
Acreage Affected
Hardwood Forest 70
Mixed Conffer-Hardwood Forest 63
Successional Areas 155
Urban Residential Commercial 98
Agricultural Areas 73
Wetland
TOTAL: 473
B-5
Birds. Bird
(Table C-2).
group of avi
shore birds
species in
cardinals,
Mourning d
game birds
and narrow
distribution;
where bette
species whose range lies within the project corridor are listed in Appendix C
The heterogeneous terrain surrounding the project area supports a diverse
in species. Small ponds provide shelter for small numbers of waterfowl and
Fields along the corridor provide habitat for ground birds. Common
ude sparrows, American crows, blue jays, warblers, red-eyed vireos,
ockin birds, grackles, woodpeckers, quail, red tailed hawks, and kestels.
wes (2anaidura macroura) and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) are
hat also benefit from the edge effect between forests and fields. The long
shape of habitat in a highway corridor is certainly a factor affecting local
resident populations are anticipated in areas away from the alignment
coverage and protection is provided.
Species ob erved during field work included the American robin (Turdus migratorius ,
which is dely distributed throughout North America, the wood thrush (Hyylocich a
mustelina), a common summer resident of the Piedmont area, the cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), a species very common throughout the Carolinas, and the red winged
blackbird ( gelaius phoeniceus), an abundant permanent resident of fields, marshes
and other pen habitat throughout the Carolinas. Songbirds and several raptors were
also obse ed. A more diverse population of birds would be expected to inhabit the
corridor tha; was actually seen.
Mammals. Mammals whose range lies within the project corridor are listed in Appendix
C (Table -3). Few mammal species were sighted during field surveys of the project
corridor. ammals which were noted or suspected include the gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensi opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
f/oddanus), raccoon (Procyon 1otor), shrew ( orex spp.), and fox (Vulpes vu11pes and
Urocyon ci eareoargenteus). Beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Musfe/a vison), and
muskrat ( ndatra zibethicus) may occur around watercourses and riverine systems.
Many of th se species are considered cosmopolitan in nature, easily adapting to human
disturbanc s.
The edge ta ec t between forests and fields provide ideal browse opportunities for some
animals. cks of the white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were occasionally seen
in mesic Iraws and along forest fringes throughout the project corridor. The deer
habitat wa mixed young forest.
Animal Resource Impact
Impacts to wildlife may occur from loss or degradation of habitat, obstruction of normal
movement between habitats, and direct mortality from collisions with vehicles. Some
habitat los would occur along the entire proposed action (see Table B-1). A total of
473 acres of habitat would be affected. The habitat loss, however, would not be
substantia in a regional context. In addition, over one-third (36 percent) of the plant
communiti s and habitat encroachments are in the urban/residential/commercial or
agricultur I groups (see Table B-1). These areas are periodically mowed, filled,
sprayed, r otherwise altered as a part of their regular use or maintenance. These
iti
commun s are not in a pristine or natural state. None of the habitat types affected are
rare in the area, and the amount of loss would be small in relation to the total area of the
habitat ty a along the corridor. Since the proposed action would not fragment existing
habitat ar as into small, parcels of little value, the impact would be limited to the
reduction f habitat along its perimeter. The proposed action in itself would not cause
conversio of habitat types which would border the widened road.
B-6

In addition, since Ahe affected habitat areas already border US 64, their habitat value
has already been somewhat compromised for sensitive species or species with narrow
tolerances. Much of the terrestrial area to be affected by the proposed action is already
disturbed by factors such as:
' Human settlements or commercial activity.
• Agricultural production, including second-growth forest.
• Roadway drainage.
' Based on field observations, infringement on contiguous communities would not affect
sensitive natural areas nor result in substantial loss or displacement of known animal
populations because the habitat areas affected by the widening are not rare in the
corridor, and generally border the same type of habitat as one proceeds away from the
highway.
The primary impact to animal life would result from direct removal of habitats by
' clearing, grading, and paving. Mobile species, such as birds and most mammals, would
be displaced. Non-mobile or slow-moving animals, such as some amphibians and
reptiles, would be removed. Since immediately adjacent habitat areas of similar type
would be undisturbed, animals, such as rodents and other small mammals, many
' passerine birds, and many reptiles and amphibians, would be able to reestablish in the
adjacent, undisturbed areas, but would compete with already established individuals of
the same species. Songbirds and small mammal populations in the area enjoy
sufficient mobility to find suitable habitats proximal to areas disturbed by the proposed
action. Stream culverts would continue to allow terrestrial and aquatic species to
traverse the highway corridor.
' The animals that would be displaced by the proposed action would survive, although
they would be forced to find new habitats and home ranges. This would add more
animals to a potentially limited environment. If the surrounding habitats can
' accommodate the displaced individuals, the effect on both the displaced and resident
animals would be minimal when compared to construction in a new location. The
habitats and animals that would be disturbed by the proposed action are, however,
1 generally common and are not unique or rare.
Mortality associated with the collision of animals with vehicles would be the same with
or without the proposed action, since future traffic levels are projected to be the same
1 with or without the project.
Rare or Unique Natural Areas
No rare or unique natural areas were identified in the project corridor, either through
contact with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program or through field observations.
Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources of an economic value are within the project
' corridor.

B-7
WATER RESOURCES AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
There are a least 26 streams present in the project corridor. The rivers and streams
include the wharrie River, Back Creek, Plummer Creek, Brier Creek, Caraway Creek
and 21 sm I tributaries. The Uwharrie River, Back Creek, Caraway Creek, and Brier
Creek are t e major streams. Plummer Creek joins Brier Creek just south of US 64.
Brier Creek runs parallel with US 64 for a short distance before merging with Plummer
Creek and rossing US 64.
In the projet corridor, the Uwharrie River has a best usage classification of WS-III. This
is a best usage designation with no categorical restrictions on watershed development
or discharg s, and is designated by the State as "suitable for all Class C uses" (EHNR,
1990): The Uwharrie River has good basic habitat in the form of long, deep, rocky pools
with inters ersed rocky and gravel riffles (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commissio , 1963). Caraway, Plummer, Brier, and Back Creeks, and the 21 small
tributaries, Iso have a classification of WS-III. None of the waters within the corridor
have been classified as high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters
(ORW), or s trout waters. Several small ponds also occur in or just beyond the project
area.
There are o Wild and Scenic Rivers (federal designation) in the project corridor. The
Uwharrie R ver was named as a potential candidate for designation as a Natural, Scenic
and Recre tional River (North Carolina designation) in the late 1970s. North Carolina
Natural H ritage Program representatives cannot be predict when or if the actual
designatio will be made. (Personal communication, North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, J ne 25, 1991)
Fish chara eristically found in streams such as those in the project area include darters
Etheosto a), chubs (Notropis), shiners (Notropis), suckers (Catastomidae), and dace
?Cyprinida ). Larger fish, such as small-mouthed bass and catfish (Ictaluous), are
common.
Bridging a isting major watercourses (as opposed to filling), avoiding placement of fill in
the flood lain, and extending existing culverts, would accommodate the needs of
aquatic wildlife. The movements of aquatic species through those stream reaches
would not a disrupted.
of Wetlands
Wetlands are defined as:
'th? se areas that are inundated or saturated by ground water at a
uency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
cir umstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
m rshes, bogs, and similar areas."
[33 CFR 328.3 (b), 1986]
The US Army Corps of Engineers serves as the principal permitting agency for wetland
activities as mandated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500; 33
B-8

U.S.C. Sec. 1344) The Corps utilizes the following three criteria in determining what
constitutes a wetland for permit purposes: 1) hydric soils; 2) hydrophytic vegetation; and
3) hydrology (regular flooding or inundation). These criteria were recently formalized by
interagency agreement (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989)
and adopted by the federal signatory agencies. The National Wetland Inventory records
wetland areas nationwide, but the inventory has not yet been done for the project area.
In addition, there are no fresh water wetlands maps that have been prepared by the
North Carolina State agencies.
During the months of April, September, and November 1990, three separate
reconnaissance trips were made along the project area to identify wetlands in
accordance with the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands", January 10, f Floral and faunal species encountered were identified
and classified by dominance and wildlife composition. Results of the wetlands inventory
are ppresented in the US 64 Improvements Natural Systems Report Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, April 1991), which contains the Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Determination Forms for the wetlands affected by the project. The
locations of wetlands are shown in Figure A-2 of the December 4, 1991 State
Environmental Assessment (Appendix A).
Project area wetlands are generally small and can be placed into two categories: those
associated with existing streams, creeks or drainage systems crossing the roadway and
isolated drainage ditches, swales or ponds adjacent to the existing road. Those of the
first type are channelized, linear and perpendicular to the road. The second type tend to
be larger than the first and those associated with drainage ditches parallel the road. In
both cases, these wetlands drain the highway and surrounding properties. Field
surveys found few of these wetlands to be of high quality, in part because of human
activity on US 64 and adjoining parcels and sparse surrounding vegetation.
In most cases, the wetlands occur on both sides of the road. Thus, it is impossible to
wholly avoid the loss of wetlands. Wetland loss can be reduced at any given location,
however, by widening on the side of the road where the wetland encroachment would
' be smallest. In general, the side of the road selected for placing the two new lanes is
the one that would have the least wetland involvement.
In several locations, however, the project is not on the side of the road that would have
the least wetlands involvements. This was generally done to avoid displacement of a
major employer or a substantial number of residences or businesses. In each case
where this occurs, the wetlands affected are either directly across from the non-wetland
1 feature being avoided or within the distance required to safely transition the widening
from one side of the road to another. Thus, it would not be practicable to avoid both the
wetland impact and the non-wetland impact at these locations.
No consideration was given to seeking a new alignment to avoid wetland displacement
because:
' Of the added disruption and cost of a relocated right-of-way and roadway.
• The existing road is generally straight, thus a realignment would be longer in
length, increasing impacts.
• A roadway on new alignment would cross the same or similar streams and
1 drainages as the existing road.
B-9
At wetlands
criteria, wou
design, the
assessed bc,
assessment
could be sm
Wetlands I
Fifty-four we
acres affech
14.4 acres.
encroachme
would be 2.(
oak, and al(
This wetlanc
and slippery
ranging from
2:1 cut and fill slopes, the maximum permitted by the protect design
i be used as necessary to minimize wetland encroachment. During final
iesign of the proposed action at affected wetland areas would be re-
ed on more detailed mapping. The encroachment areas provided in this
are considered to be worst-case. The final design encroachment areas
Her.
lands areas would be affected by widening the roadway embankment. The
d are shown in Table B-2. The total area of wetlands affected would be
All but 0.2 acres of the affected wetlands is forested. The average wetland
it per site would be 0.27 acre. The largest encroachment at any one site
5 acres. This wetland is to the south of US 64 with hickory, northern red
er. The second largest encroachment at one site would be 1.16 acres.
is an impeded drainage ditch on the north side of US 64, with sycamore
elm. Less than one acre would be affected at the rest of the wetlands,
0.1 to 0.89 acre.
At 36 of the sites, the loss of wetlands along US 64 would be less than one-third acre.
At all but tw sites the loss would be less than an acre. Thus, it is expected that most, if
not all, oft is wetland encroachment would fall under the requirements of one of the
following C rps of Engineers permits:
Nationwide Permit 26. At the wetlands where less than one acre is filled and the
wetl nd is above headwaters (with a flow of less than five cubic feet per second)
Nati nwide Permit 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)] would apply. In the case of an
area where the encroachment would be greater than one acre (but less than 10
acre ), a pre-discharge notification to the Corps of Engineers District Engineer
must be made in accordance with 33 CFR 330.7 (Notification procedures).
Bas d on that notification, the Corps of Engineers determines if Nationwide
Per it 26 applies or an individual permit must be obtained.
Nati nwide Permit 14. This permit is applicable to minor road crossing fills
associated with crossing a special aquatic site (including a wetland or a riffle pool
com lex) by a culvert or bridge. The fill must be less than one-third acre and less
than 200 linear feet. In addition, fill in any special aquatic site requires a 30-day
pred scharge notification and a jurisdictional determination.
Gen ral Permit 031. This permit is applicable to the upgrading of a roadway's
sho Iders. The Corps of Engineers determines the applicability of this permit
bas d on a review of a project's plans and profiles.
Where an individual Corps of Engineers permit is required for the wetlands affected by
the propos d action, the requirements of the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Environme tal Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the
Determina ion of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines"
would appl to the proposed action.
Compens tory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits or General permits
are autho 'zed, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environm ntal Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers. Final
discretion ry authority in these matters rests with the Corps of Engineers. Although
14.4 acres of wetlands were "identified" during this planning phase of the proposed
B-10

Table B-2: ACRES OF WETLAND TAKEN

etland
No. *

Acres of
Wetland
Taken Acres of
Wetland
Within 200'
of US 64
Centerline
1 0.17 0.61
2 0.00 0.43
3 0.00 0.53
4 0.50 0.97
5 0.42 4.87
6 0.00 0.00
7 0.06 0.40
2.05 2.28
9 0.57 0.57
10 0.00 0.16
11 0.89 2.22
12 0.37 0.66
13 0.02 0.08
14 0.05 0.05
15 0.37 0.58
16 0.01 0.08
17 0.00 0.21
18 0.00 0.13
19 0.11 0.29
20 0.41 0.48
21 0.00 0.00
22 0.00 0.01
23 0.12 0.12
24 0.17 0.37
25 0.03 0.08
26 0.00 0.00
27 0.20 0.33
28 0.05 0.13
29 0.07 0.15
30 0.01 0.06
31 0.36 0.42
32 0.14 0.23
33 0.39 0.62
Acres of
Wetland
Acres of Within 200'
Wetland Wetland of US 64
No. * Taken Centerline
34 0.24 0.29
35 0.01 0.20
36 0.00 0.00
37 0.12 0.12
38 0.14 0.25
39 0.10 0.10
40 0.19 0.22
41 0.23 0.74
42 0.00 0.29
,43 1.16 1.89
44 0.04 0.07
45 0.19 0.44
46 0.20 0.43
47 0.38 0.52
48 0.47 0.66
49 0.50 1.21
50 0.18 0.54
51 0.05 0.14
52 0.05 0.20
53 0.23 0.36
54 0.29 0.52
55 0.03 0.50
56 0.00 0.43
57 0.00 0.08
58 0.58 0.92
59 0.03 0.38
60 0.15 0.15
61 0.51 0.84
62 0.19 0.47
63 0.24 0.66
64 0.18 0.25
65 0.11 0.25
66 0.12 0.21
TOTAL 14.44 28.47
*Numbers correspond to those shown in Figure A-2 in Appendix A
of the Environmental Assessment.
B-11

action, it is important to recognize that wetland delineations would not be conducted
until the d sign phase. Quite often, wetland acreage values that result from '
delineations made after final designs are approved are less than those "identified" in the
planning do ument. During design, serious attempts would be made by the NCDOT to
minimize w tlands impacts through a variety of techniques. The NCDOT would fully '
comply with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Whatever the final area of
wetland an the number of sites affected, the NCDOT would strictly conform to permit(s)
and mitigati n requirements.
The existin drainage ditches or swales function primarily as a conveyance for
stormwater n-off from the road and adjacent areas. Some of the roadside ditches and
swales wo Id be filled as a result of the road widening. They would, however be ,
replaced b new drainage ditches. New swales could be planted with wetland
vegetation o improve water quality and to improve freshwater habitats over what exists
today.
Best mana ement practices also would be implemented to further reduce wetland
losses. Th se practices would include the following:
• Mini izing wetland disturbances through careful geometric design to avoid '
clea 'ng and fill at stream crossings.
• Spa ning wetlands associated with streams crossed by new or replacement '
brid es.
• Pro ibiting the use of wetlands for construction activities, including construction '
stag ng, as a source of borrow and disposal of excess excavated material.
• Res ricting vegetative removal within adjacent natural communities.
• Initi tion of an erosion and sedimentation control program during construction to '
pre ent the water quality degradation that is associated with erosin. _
Surface
Roadway Runoff. The pollutant loadings in the surface water runoff from the proposed
vel
analyzed based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) "Predictive
action %
Procedure for Determining Pollutant Characteristics in Highway Runoff" (FHWA, April
1990). T is procedure is based on an extensive study, research, and development
program FHWA to analyze water quality impacts caused by highway stormwater
runoff. ith the proposed action, estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations are
expected to meet State Water Quality Standards, except in those instances where
existing in stream pollutant concentrations are currently exceeded from other sources.
The FHW study has shown that highway facilities with low to medium traffic volumes
(approximately 30,000 average daily traffic or less) exert minimal to no impact on
receiving ?nraters. Almost all of US 64 within the project area will have peak annual
average daily traffic volumes of 17,700 or less in the design year. Thus, minimal impact
from stor water discharges on receiving waters is expected. Moreover, the same traffic
volumes are forecast for future no action as well as the future proposed action
conditions. With the project, the road would be widened and the paved area would be
expande . Consequently, the pollutant loadings would be constant, but the volume of
B-12

roadway stormwater would increase. As a result, the pollutant concentrations with the
' project would be smaller than that for the no action alternative.
There is one section of US 64, the segment between US 220 and NC 64, just west of
Asheboro, where peak annual average daily traffic in the design year will be 30,400.
' Since this is only slightly above the threshold in the FHWA study of 30,000, the
conclusion of minimal stormwater impact is still justified. Drainage in this segment
would be discharged to a box culvert over a minor stream west of Asheboro.
' Stream Access. There would be no adverse impact on existing fishing and recreational
access to the major streams crossed by the proposed action, because the existing
access points to the streams would remain after the completion of road widening.
' Erosion and Sedimentation. The effects of erosion on aquatic habitats and organisms
are potentially more severe than terrestrial habitat loss. Most riverine species are
adapted to a level of sedimentation that occurs naturally. When excessive erosion
occurs, there is potential for impact. Clear cutting and grading for road construction
expose areas of soil that, if not properly controlled, could be washed into aquatic
habitats, causing turbidity and unfavorable changes in dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels,
and other water quality characteristics. Erosion can affect downstream populations
because the turbidity is transported by the watercourse. Some species have specific
requirements for sandy or rocky substrata; high levels of sedimentation can smother
them.
As suggested by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, particular care
would be taken to avoid silt loads in the Uwharrie River during the spring white bass
runs. Erosion control would be required of contractors during project construction (see
the "Construction" discussion).
1 Mitigation. The project would result in no major adverse impact on water bodies in the
area of influence. Mitigation measures for minor adverse water quality impacts would
be best management practices and design. Roadway drainage would be provided by
lateral ditches on both sides of the road. Current, cost-effective mitigation techniques
for pollutant removal include:
• Adequate right-of-way to allow sediment control and siltation control devices.
• Flush shoulders and grass-lined drainage channels.
• Curb elimination.
• Wet detention and retention basins.
• Wide separation of drainage inlet structures.
• Prevent bridge drainage from directly entering receiving waters.
• Litter and pesticide control.
• Infiltration systems.
1 Using wetlands for chemical and biological pollutant removal.
' Reducing direct discharge to receiving streams.
B-13
• Redul ing runoff velocity.
• Allow ng overland sheet flow.
• Vege ation establishment and maintenance.
Specific ma agement practices to be used would be determined during final design.
Groundwat r
The proposed action would occur immediately next to the existing road with minor
changes tol the existing profile. Thus, no impacts to local groundwater tables are
expected.
The proposed action would not have a major impact on existing drainage systems.
There woul be minor stream modifications in connection with some culvert and pipe
extensions and no impoundments. There also would be two short stream
channelizat ons on Brier Creek associated with roadway fill.
US 64 brid es currently span the Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek. A
four barrel 10-foot by 10-foot box culvert is used at Brier Creek. Area flood studies
indicate th t there are no severe flooding problems at major streams. At stream
crossings, he proposed action's waterway openings would be the same size as those of
the existin crossings. The new roadway would be placed on bridges that fully span the
stream or-. xtensions of existing culverts. When paired with an existing bridge, new
bridges w ld be supported on piers to be placed in register with existing piers. No
piers wou? be placed in the area of main channel flow. No fill would be placed in
streams as, a part of bridge construction.
Where box culverts and concrete pipes penetrate the existing embankment, these
structures would be lengthened so that the existing drainage function would be
preserved. The appropriate sizes for culverts and pipes would be determined during
final desig . Channel relocations of from 15 to 150 feet would be required in connection
with the a ension of three culverts and four pipes over 60 inches in diameter. The
channel r locations would be required because the existing channel bends at or near
the mouth of the existing structures. The disposition of drainage structures less than 60
inches in iameter would be determined during final design based on more detailed
mapping.
The Corp of Engineers' Nationwide Permit 14 under 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) would be
sought an, obtained for the impacts described above. This permit is applicable to road
crossing fills associated with crossing a special aquatic site (including a wetland or a
riffle pool omplex) by a culvert or bridge. The fill must be less than one-third acre and
less than 00 linear feet. Based on field observations, fills required for the proposed
action wo Id be within these limits. This would be confirmed during final design. Fill in
any speci 1 aquatic site requires a 30-day predischarge notification and a jurisdictional
determina ion.
There wo Id be two stream channelizations on Brier Creek, one approximately 130 feet
long at st tion 421+00 and one approximately 100 feet long at station 426+00. Both
would be associated with roadway fill and they would be approximately 500 feet apart.
B-14

The creek is approximately eight feet wide at both locations. They are at a location
where Brier Creek parallels the existing road approximately 100 to 150 feet from the
existing pavement. Fill associated with the side slopes of the two new lanes would
encroach into the stream at the two points where it is closest to the existing road. At
each location a bend in the stream would be straightened. At both these locations, the
' proposed action assumes the steepest side slope permitted by the project's design
criteria (2:1).
' Mea vyQuld be included in the channelized,-seeffans NR-Streamikban w-a-uld be
wortat rl QtreaFabnRs w ' -in-etevation-and-sh-apeto-that-which
now exists to facilitate regeneration of natural vegetation. Strict erosion control
measures would be used to minimize increased turbidity levels during construction. Use
of retaining walls at the two relocations of Brier Creek would be considered during final
design. The Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)] will
probably apply since the area affected would be less than one acre and is above
headwaters.
The NCDOT would coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the US Army Corps of Engineers during the design
of both the relocations associated with culverts and the two relocations associated with
side slope fill.
' The new impermeable surface of the additional two lanes would be a fraction of the total
area of the watershed, so the additional storm runoff volume would not affect nearby
properties and streams. Project ditches would be adequate to carry storm water to
' nearby streams and drainages.
With the proposed action, there would be no qualitative difference in effluents from the
roadway than exist at present, and future pollutant loadings in the stormwater would
have negligible effects, as discussed under "Water Quality" above. Currently, the
roadway drainage flows to vegetated, unlined ditches on both sides of the road.
Pollutant burdens to date have not been sufficient to adversely affect the vegetation.
Much of the drainage percolates into the soil, and if the rainfall intensity is sufficient,
there is open channel flow in the ditch to its discharge to a stream. While traffic volume,
and therefore pollutant burdens, will increase in the future, increases in pollutant
burdens would be well within the assimilative capacity of the relocated vegetated
d
i
' ra
nage ditch system.
Flooding
' Stream crossings are identified on Figure A-2 of the December 4, 1991 State
Environmental Assessment (Appendix A). The Uwharrie River, Caraway Creek, and
Back Creek, are designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
' as Zone A (100-year) floodways. Their corresponding floodway widths across the US
64 alignment are 300 feet, 750 feet, and 500 feet, respectively. The rest of the project
corridor, including Brier Creek, is within Zone C (minimal) floodplains. Bridge inspection
reports and field reconnaissance gave no evidence of road overtopping at major
drainage structures. No flooding problems requiring detailed study were identified
during FEMA flood studies. Preliminary design studies indicate that existing bridge
' openings, box culverts, and concrete pipes are sufficient for discharge.
r
B-15
Flooding i
The
the
acts by the proposed action would be. minimal for the following reasons:
acement of fill material for roadway embankments in the 100 year floodway
not be of sufficient quantity to affect floodway flows. The floodway flow
be accommodated at the two short stream channelizations discussed in
vious section.
Exist ng bridges over the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek would be
main ained. To accommodate the new lanes, two additional bridges would be
cons ructed to completely span the streams. The existing bridge over Back
Cree would be replaced by two new bridges. When paired with an existing
bride, piers for the new bridges would be in register with existing piers in order
to st eamline flows and maintain navigation in navigable waters. Waterway
ope ings for project crossings would be the same size as those of the existing
cros ings. No piers would be placed in the main area of channel flow.
Where the roadway embankment must be widened in proxi=ing a floodplain,
min r regrading or fill in the floodplain could be required. would be
don during detailed design to ensure that any increases in backwater levels
wou d be less than that permitted by federal law and local ordinances. If
req ired, retaining walls would be used so that the limits of the widened
emb nkment would be pulled inboard of the 100-year flood elevation.
Wh re culverts penetrate the existing embankment, they would be lengthened so
that the existing drainage function would be preserved. Therefore, there would
be o additional flooding upstream of the existing berm. Additional culvert
imp ovements would be made during final design, if necessary, based on a
hyd aulic capacity analysis.
In conclusion, no substantial constraints to flow would be placed in floodways and the
flood stag elevation upstream of the project would not be affected.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Under fed ral law, any federal action, which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally- rotected plants or animals, is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service ( SFWS), under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. 1 the case of a state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to
be required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the
proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened, or proposed species.
Even in t e absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through the
provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant
or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in
this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). North Carolina laws are also designed to
protect ce lain plants and animals, where statewide populations are in decline.
Plants an animals with federal protection statuses of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provision of the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS Raleigh Field Office was
consulted in early 1990 for a list of endangered and threatened species that might occur
B-16

J
Q
t-
Z
w
O
0-
z
(D
U
LL
O
Z
U_
w
2
H
Z
0
w
0
cc
O
w
cc:
w_
U
w
CL
U
w
cc
Q
cr-
0
Z
w
w
L-
M w
m o
T
m
H d
its
? m
QO
a a
3 0
R.:
.a: h C
m
? at
0
O
J
m
?a
Q
m
Rs 2
Z V
? c
?a
0
H
CA
Q
w
0
w
s1.
O
vo
U cc
m
m
m
U L
L m V
3 r.. C
c
-O O cc cu

C N C ?. m
m _
•t3 V j
E m
N
N
N .c
*c d ° m m
m m m
c N m m
a
o
H
E c ,± c
iE 3.. ?
.a
-3 -M to
CD
? 'o
3°'
°m W
m
7
p E a0
.r m m ti c cc
m O CL C .p
CD d
L
?Q m y C
fl. C
m> O

o

u
t5 t L
m o
p Q C U y m m m
N
m
.
) m N
E
O p
cc
-2 (D
-2
a
m p e
co cc C fq 'Q m Q 'C Q `a
co
co
z z } }

?
ttf N a?
H O
'C
C N
U
'
m
C ? m C O =
cr CL
CD V N N C N (n
O
c CL
m
0
p
c
Cc m CL
c > a N
c
cc C m C 0
^ E E C g vi E c
'o 0

0Z -0 0
>
a
8 o

a
pc0
3$°
vo .

CL d
m
c m
c

N O O
LL LL lL
h
Cc
0
m o;
c HT.
L cI) W
Cl)
.- Z co
? Q Y
C
m ? ? c
CL o »-
U 2 z
w
c ° z
u)oC w
a N
cri
rn
=3
t
b :3

c
a
c
•.. O
c
L
W
cu _(a Q
N
_ Z :J

L cts ro
O
~ y
T
m Rt co
ami c Y Z
'a to E c
E
ov v Ez
. :5
B-17
C6
T5 E oO L V ?
c ? ? c
c ? m m ?
Q m ? t p
E O O N
a 0
° a
p
Cl) O
•c ??C7g
m 'ca c`ts c/) co
ir a L :3 cr
ig
a
m
c
.c
3
O
U.
o cr.
a CO °1
.c ?
z
C
U) C :.
c!) z J
J
Q
H
z
W
O
IL
CL
G
D
Z
c?
D
LL
O
Z
U
w
z
0
w
0
CC
O
W
W
W
CL
U)
W
Q
D
Z
O
w
F-
U
w
O
CC
a-
4
E
? o
U
C C w
.Q? ? G
aat?
M ?n
m o
N
m
F- a
0
J
a?
m
Q
m
Q
Q)
2
A)
c
r ?
3 m N
m

N
'm N `5 a c
E -0
_ ? N C m
0 CL .0
3Lm E•ao

m c c
CL
.. E m
cr)
E m c >
0 co c m
m ?
t 0 i
; .0
O
2 >. m3
m
l1 ? N
0 N Y
r C C O
23)
°1
e
> c
a 3 a
Cl)
w
Yom' Y ?
U ? >
E o ca o
N m cfl
d CO
w H ? ?
a
c O c
C 3 •0 N
E c N
d 0 m E
CO
CL
c
•c
3
0
U.
c ,c
3 CO Cl)
y ? U
J H Z
m U N
a z
d
s
c
N
g
m
m
ca
N
'O
Cc
m cc
m
t y
CO m
O
z
sic
cc 3: '0
o m 0
Q,0
m
m
N t >
C N 8 > m,
: m

cv
c o N
m
3
` Z
?
5
) S
Q$ o m
E
f w -a
m e
E E ° o m
v
OL
. N c C
m 0
N
E
aQg. a3 ro
c
m
:n
t
E
a
E
c"
v
3
Z
0F-Lak
t0i=z:3
0)
S
C
m
m
'a 00
>.

m c
79
m 0 O 0
m m
c m

C
Q CD cc N
a ca
E
Im. 1 N

i

ca
e N
c
c
m
t E c
o

O. O
CO 3 0.2 m

m r
>
CO
r
-(a ?_1
8?8.z
C w C O
m N
m vi
moo m
N m 01 m
m 0 c = CY) C.
•° C
E
•o c- c
m 'cis m L m
0. C. c 0 Q
'a
'm
y
? M
T co
? ca
75 ? ?7Y Z
U t!
OD 4zJ
0
c
c m
m
? r $
m
M
c m o
Y
cc cc (g
m
,m E
at c c -5_a m c
r '0
N E O C '0 E
z >+H m 8
m m
•3 32 9_ 3
C. O .m m m 0)
co 3 >v c I
Cl)
w
ca
m m
? N
ca c ca
t
C1f 8 m .2-
o
r 3 C C
C Cm
m m O
N
? C m
0,2
E C
c
a aw° 0
10.
rn-?
m
3 Ocoo
q CO
_
U
1 m Y z
C
Q
0 z:3
B-18
t
`c m c
$ "O w C m 0 C r .+
>, 'd m 3 m m L c C m o N
°o mcv cc -°°o a TO c0 w E m
m m f6 cv m m c C a V r
¢ eu c m v g m m c cc E N g
f- Q c cc cc co c cv •' v m m N
Z C N> >` o O N O '2 c •' m C ~_ ym m
w W (D Tv 3 Y m ?' 3 c c Lo N c 3 N
O O m
= CL r- ca N rpp g? m N CD O m; m m
U en c m •? m o °° `c m S m° m m m r° c cti
CL mN m o c E m o '? c $.: E15 r ea
t > w N tC t > V1 CO RJ p 2 p
a "- m
N C C N
N V m t N U m V
cu cc A? E cc = m
32 M c
32 M c c° ?' m cc m L vi N 8 a
+cm. v
Z
Q a 0 o> N 4 p? d O N m Q C .`-, m L i m m
< CL m3cu.mmr m3cama coca ?o.mo 2
to
U c
M r
}0 3 0
m vmi ?' .??
co co Cf)
z a CL U Z } Z Z
U_
w
s
as
z M C
Q N N U) m CM
N
D O N C
w O>
U C C m
`Cfs L C N m Y
c n c g c m V c
CC iro Qo
0 ° C C t O N 3 O m 7 3
g _ m
w V as t? C N m r
cr- cis cc
W O o m o m .3 D. N N
E" c N E 3 E N -°a m V cc cc
U a°i m m° e`o c Z' m
w C'3 a c. cr`° m,- a oc 3 E m U.0. cn a 3
CL
w
cc
o m E m
z E y
o Q m ii ii Q
w
H
U
w m ro o,
I- ti U •a O m
O me cn ?' ?v v V
CO -4 Cf)
CL -M cli Cj q)
CV) 71
co b :43
c ccj Cl) cr) a) I- c ?s V) F-
m 0 c m?? Z J Y Z CO Z O Z Z
a? M E c c m c m ii a c s c o c a> E c c?
13 CM Q. C) cc 060 go
IL V
Cl) 9 -3 Z Z coil Z:3 U Z Z J U W Z J to
z m
(-
B-19
J
F -
z
w
O
CL
F-
a
D
Z
cc
D
O
Z_
U_
w
2
F-
Z
0
w
0
cc
O
w
Er
U
w
w
a
U)
w
cr-
a
0
Z
w
F-
U
w
O
EL
M Lo
60
N ?
m
F- CL
13
E
c
3 0 .a? y c
a a U
r
Q
m
Z
m c? C G
O C" C Q G C w C "' C Q C "' C O
C
C" m 2
S. Eyv? EN?$. Ey?S.
D
Ey?? Eni-GO
m N m L m f/1 m m (ff ` m f/1 ` ?. m N m m
or- '0 3 o r- oo 3 75 r- 0 3 75 r-'0 3 73 1 0 3
3m3y 3030 3(D 3y 34) 30 3m3H
N m _w t H m ca t y m c? t H m co t N m t0 t
m m °. m- a m m a m m° is m c c
m> o o m> o o m> o o m> o o m> o 0
agc°? CD.S8 2 2 4)
°?2 ?S?
E G C co E cv c p cp E ccs c cp E cc c c E m c c
cts N N U C13 N 'r t) to H to U co N N? ? H S! 8
r O- N O L O- `m O m O
(A 'a m ,2 fn 'a m . 65 'a m w 65 'a m w V) 'a m O
Z
Z Z Z Z
c

? aNi m m
m o > cc > >

m m
L
-
O m
M = u. a
m N Yn tYn N
Q 7 2 3
Q
? H m ?

h
() m .-
H .-
Rf 'CZ
N
C
U
Q r
N
3 N
-6
c ?fn o El i- m?criw 3yCO)
Q N -? U
C?YZ
°;
CY U
Z U
19 = C U
SbYZ "' y U
o It

?? ??M
C
C Q
Cc p?
C U
p p?
N? C
p y? C a
c?6
? C
,
ca ''Q U N :? y
L2 U T; 2 U N

Q cc U N p
j U vs
5-
Q u,ZJ
w Q ?-Z ? m Z? 0 Z J co Z.J
B-20

fl

J
H
Z
W
O
CL
U
CL
Z
co
co
D
LL
O
Z
U_
w
H
Z
0
W
m
O
W
w
w
CL
N
w
Q
0
Z
D
w
U
w
O
m
a.
M to
m o
a? W)
N
F- a.
cts
E a°
c
3 0
O U
c aci ? ?
.a? N C w
aa3
0
J
O
aci
Q
?Z
c
cc E
o
W $, o
Y
m
E y
_ .a
(/1 m L
N
•p p 'd O
7
75 'ra 3:
3 m 3 N
N m z L
m > 2.2
c N
E ca c c
b d 2
c
Q. N 0
Cl)
w
C ND
c
C1 'C
w L
C
y cc
m %
N Z
O
E .. E
N
.92
CL Q N
Y
E m c U
M j v C Z
I To
c? c
C.) z :3
L.
z o
.? O ? C C
c o S >
o ? C "c m
co U
Z > E = v
c o m c a>
m
3 Z a?
ai y m m E L
E o
E O m p ?-
to N C O
`i O o O
N O T
O d N
U 6 i CL
m p
m E 3v T c ? m
?
0 Q)
E Cc
N
Q o` O~ C ? w
p N m O co l0
,4? m t5 p Q m p C cQ r
(o L-
32 O y
a? O C cL0
(D C
C O y •C Y m W U C0
N •? ?. C ._, LL
7,5
ca m ' m . G Rf
U C co 2Im O G
?C m E m V C E
Z_ U o E = co
N p N C y p V-
>.
t Z O 2 O C Z Y N
8 N C 8 ?i C N
d U. ?+? > U U .0 Cgg m C m E 'V
vs co Y. c z o f§ n fl.
D 'e a? m E z o E 0 ?. c CO
N C C_ N 8 N N U cc O m
e Q C C C O C >. 0 Z t- C V
E o c ->' E' m y o m a c T 5 e
2 L "5 4" mm CL
e 'D
L Co W ?-
U U m m E ate[
c r .. *6 r Sm U Cl)
=z C) ( CL Z w cnU
B-21
in the proje area. The letter received from the field office is contained in Appendix B of
the Decem er 4, 1991 State Environmental Assessment. The letter also includes a
listing of s ecies in Randolph and Davidson Counties whose status is currently under
review by t e USFWS. Federal-listed protected and status review species that may
occur in t4 project area and their characteristics are shown in Table B-3. The Cape
Fear Shine (Notropis mekistocholas) is the only Federal-listed protected species (listed
as endang red) included in the early 1990 list that may occur in the project area. This
small fish i endemic to the Cape Fear River basin in North Carolina and is limited to a
small area near the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
watershed. The species is particularly susceptible to sedimentation and water quality
degradatio , which may be responsible for its limited distribution. Because this species
is reported o be limited in range to a small area outside of the project area, its presence
in the proje area is unlikely.
The Schw initz sunflower (Helinthus schweinitzii) was recently listed as endangered in
Davidson ounty. Prior to construction, it will be determined if this plant would be
affected b the proposed project.
Plants or nimals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special
Concern ( C) are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act (G. S. 113-
331 to 11 -337) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979
(G. S. 190:106-202.12 to 106-202.19), administered and enforced by the NC Wildlife
Resource Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.(NCDA), respectively.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commissi n were contacted for their listings of state-protected species that may occur
in the proj ct area. The letters received from both agencies are contained in Appendix
B of the ecember 4, 1991 State Environmental Assessment. State-listed species that
may occur in the project area are also shown in Table B-3.
The Nort Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
specificall indicated that they have records of three rare plant species in the vicinity of
US 64 be weep Asheboro and Lexington: the piedmont leadplant (Amorph schwenn ),
candidate species for state listing; the divided-leaf toothwort (Cardamine dissecta or
Dentaria multifida), significantly rare; and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), special
concern. None of these three species were sighted during the field surveys. According
to Wilber (1975) and Isley (1990), the A. schwerinii is one of the more distinctive and
clearcut pecies within the genus. Due to its morphological characteristics, the
identification is facilitated when the shrub is in flower (April through June). Radford et all
(1987) a d Foote and Jones (1989) indicate that this species of leadplant is found on
rocky river bluffs and woods within Piedmont. This type of habitat would be found near
bridge an stream crossings on the highway.
As indica ed in Table B-3, nine (9) state-listed protected species could potentially occur
within th project corridor. No federal-listed species are expected to occur (as
describe above). Since the Environmental Assessment's endangered species studies,
the Sch initz sunflower was federal-listed as endangered in Davidson County. Prior to
construct on, it will be determined if this plant would be affected by the proposed project.
The nine state-listed species include three birds, a bat, a fish, a freshwater clam and
three pla t species.
B-22

' The NCDOT would keep the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the North
Carolina Botanical Gardens, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and/or
other interested agencies informed regarding the status of the project. The NCDOT
' would encourage these agencies to conduct field surveys during project design to
determine whether state-listed species are present. If any of these species is found to
occur within the project area, the NCDOT would participate in the efforts of these
agencies to design and implement a program to reduce potential effects.

F

B-23
REFERENCES
Barbour, M.O. and Billings, W.D. 1988. North American terrestrial vegetation. New
York, New York.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forest of eastern North America. Blakiston, Philadelphia. ¦
Brockman, . Frank. 1968. A guide to field identification of trees of North America. '
Gold n Press, New York.
Clark, M.K. 1987. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part I.

Nort ' '
I Carolina Biological Survey.
Conant. 19 8. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts.
t
'
i
d S
U
Duncan, W. es.
n
te
ta
H. and Duncan, M.B. 1988. Trees of Southeastern
Foote, L.E. Native shrubs and woody vines of the Southeast. Portland, Oregon. '
Isley, Dane . 1990. Vascular Flora of the S.E. U.S. volume 3, part 2: Leguminosae
(fab ceae). UNC Press.
t
Knopf, A.A ern
1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees eas
regi n. New York, New York.
Lee, D.S. 990. Endangered and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part III. North Carolina
Biol gical Survey.
Martof, B. , W.H. Palmer, J.R. Riley, J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles '
of It ? e Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hilt,
264 pp.
North Car lina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (EHNR). '
199 . Classification and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yad in-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management (15 NCAC
2B- 309).
North Car lina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1963. Survey and classification of the '
Ya kin River and tributaries, North Carolina.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A field guide to the birds east of the Rockies. Boston,
Ma sachusetts. ,
Potter, E. . , Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R.P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
No h Carolina. '
Radford, . E., H.E. Ahles, C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Ca o linas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 1183 pp. '
Ross, S. ., Rohde, F.C. and Lindquist, D.G. 1988. Endangered and rare fauna of
No h Carolina. Part II. North Carolina Biological Survey.

B-24

Sutton, A. and Sutton, M. 1987. The Audubon Society nature guides, eastern forests.
New York, New York.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS-79/31).
Webster, Wm. D., J.F. Parnell, W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolina,
Virginia and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 255 pp.
Whitaker, J.O. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals.
New York, New York.
' Wilbur, R.L. 1975. A revision of the North American Genus Amorpha (Leguminosae
Psoraleae). New England Botanical Club, 77: 337-384.

0

B-25

I

11

Appendix C
AMENDED LIST OF
WILDLIFE SPECIES FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT
MAY EXIST WITHIN THE US 64 PROJECT AREA
(original tables presented as Appendix F in
December 4, 1991 State Environmental Assessment)

Table C-1: AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT MAY
t EXIST WITHIN THE US 64 PROJECT AREA*

Common Name
Scientific Name
Generalized Habitat

Eastern Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) Pools and
woodlands
Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) Woodlands
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum) Moist woods
Northern Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) Streams,
seepage,

Two-lined Salamander
(Eurycea bislineata) springs
Seeps, wet
woods
Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) Seeps
Three-lined Salamander (Eurycea guttonlineata) Stream
bottomlands
Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) Woodlands
Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus) Seeps,

Red Salamander
(Pseudotriton ruber) swamps
Woodlands
American Toad (Bufo americanus) Woodlands,
etc.
Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei) Woodlands,
etc.
Gray Treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis, Woods
Hyla versicolor)
Northern Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) Ponds,
ditches
Spring Peeper (Hyla crucifer) Woodlands
Upland Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata) Woodlands
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Ponds
Green Frog (Rana clamitans) Streams,
ponds
Pickeral Frog (Rana palustris) Streams,
ponds
Southern Lepard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) Ponds,
ditches,

Snapping Turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) swamps
Streams,
ponds
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Ponds
Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina) Woods
Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) Ponds,
streams
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) Grassy fields,
marshes
Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) Open woods,
rocks
Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) Woods
Broadhead Skink (Eumeces laticeps) Various
areas
C-1
Common Name Scientific Name Generalized Habitat
Ground Ski 'k
Southeaster
Worm Snake
Black Race
Ringneck S I
Corn Snake
Rat Snake
Eastern Kin c
Scarlet Kin si
Northern W tit,
Rough Gre n
Queen Sna e
Brown Sna e
Redbelly S a
Eastern Ga E
Copperhead
Timber Ra le
Eastern Ho r
Southeastern
Eastern Ribbi
Six Lined Rac
Five Lined Skink
nake
sake
?r Snake
Snake
or Snake
snake
lose
Crowned Snake
m Snake
;e Runner
(Scincella lateralis)
(Eumeces inexpectatus)
?Carphophis amoenus)
!Coluber constrictor)
(Diadophis punctatus)
(Elaphe guttata)
(Elaphe obsoleta)
(Lampropeltis getulus)
(Lampropeltis triangullum)
(Nerodia sipidon)
(Opheodrys aestivus)
(Regina septemvittata)
(Storeria dekayi)
(Storeria occipitomaculata)
(Thamnophis sirtalis)
(Agkistrodon contortnx)
(Crotalus horridus)
(Meterodon platyshinos)
(Tantiua coronata)
(Thamnophis sauritus)
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus)
(Lampropeltis calligaster)
Open
woodlands
Various
areas
Woods
Throughout
Woods
Throughout
Throughout
Throughout
Fields, farms
Streams
Woodlands
Streams
Urban debris
Woods
Woods, fields
Woods
Rocky woods
Sandy soils
Wooded
slopes
Damp
meadows
Outerbanks
to mountains
Openhills,
hardwood
forest
Sawdust
plies, old
buildings.
Open
woodlands,
forests
Pine, grass
flatwoods
Mole King nake
Eastern Ki gsnake
Smooth E rth Snake
Rough Ea h Snake

*Adaoted rom Martof et al. 1980
(Lampropeltis getulus)
(Virginia valeriae)
(Virginia striatula)
C-2

Table C-2: SPECIES OF BIRDS FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT MAY EXIST
I ALONG THE US 64 PROJECT AREA

Common Name*
Residence Status" Generalized Habitat

Pied-billed Grebe P Streams and ponds
Green-backed Heron S Streams and ponds
Wood Duck P Streams and ponds
Ringed-necked Duck W-T Ponds
Black Vulture P All habitats
Turkey Vulture P All habitats
Sharp-shinned Hawk P Woodlands
Cooper's Hawk P Woodlands
Red-shouldered Hawk P Woodlands and
fields
Broad-winged Hawk S Woodlands
Red-tailed Hawk P Woodlands and
fields
American Kestrel P Fields
Merlin T Fields and edges
Ruffed Grouse P Woodlands
Wild Turkey P Woodlands
Northern Bobwhite P Fields and edges
King Rail T Marshes
Virginia Rail T Marshes
Killdeer S Fields
Greater Yellowlegs T Pond and stream
shores
Spotted Sandpiper T Pond and stream
shores
Solitary Sandpiper T Pond and stream
shores
Common Snipe W Wet fields
American Woodcock S Wooded wetlands
Rock Dove P Urban
Mourning Dove P Fields
Black-billed Cuckoo S Woodlands
Yellow-billed Cuckoo S Woodlands
Common Barn Owl P Fields
Eastern Screech Owl P Woodlands
Great Horned Owl P Woodlands
Barred Owl P Woodlands
Long-eared Owl W Woodlands (very
rare)
Northern Saw-whet Owl W Woodlands (rare)
Common Nighthawk S to T Throughout
Common Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's Checklist
of North American Birds.
1 ** S - Summer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
I C-3
Common Name*
Residence Status** Generalized Habitat
Chuck-will' -widow S Woodlands
Whip-poor - ill S Woodlands
Chimney S ift S Throughout
Ruby-throa ed Hummingbird S Woodlands and
fields
Belted Kin fisher P Water edges
Red-heade Woodpecker P Woodlands
Red-be lie Woodpecker P Woodlands
Yellow-bell ed Sapsucker W Woodlands
Downy Wo dpecker P Woodlands
Hairy Woo pecker P Woodlands
Northern F icker P Woodlands
Pileated W odpecker P Woodlands
Eastern W od-pewee S Woodlands, edges
Yellow-bell ed Flycatcher T Thickets
Acadian Fl catcher S Wooded stream
corridors
Willow Fly atcher S and T Wet woodlands
Least Flyc tcher S Woodlands, edges
Eastern P oebe P Woodlands
Great Cre ted Flycatcher S Woodlands
Eastern Ki gbird S Woodlands, edges
Horned La P Fields
Purple Ma in S Urban
Northern ough-winged Swallow S Throughout
Cliff Swallo w S Throughout
(
uncommon
Barn Swal ow S Throughout (over
water)
Blue Jay P Throughout
American row P Throughout
Common aven P Throughout (higher
elev.)
Carolina hickadee P Woodlands
Tufted Tit ouse P Woodlands
Red-brea ed Nuthatch W or P Woodlands
White-bre sted Nuthatch P Woodlands
Brown Cr eper W Woodlands
Carolina ren P Woodlands and
fields
Bewicks ren S or W Urban (rare)
House Wr n S Thickets
Winter Wr n W Thickets
Golden-cr wned Kinglet W Woodlands
Ruby-cro ned Kinglet T or W Woodlands

* Com on Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's Checklist
of No h American Birds.
S - S mmer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
C-4

I

Common Name*
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Eastern Bluebird
Hermit Thrush
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
Brown Thrasher
Cedar Waxwing
Loggerhead Shrike
European Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Golden-winged Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Black-throated Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Yellow-throated Vireo
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
American Redstart
Worm-eating Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Common Yellow-throat
' Hooded Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Summer Tanager
Scarlet Tanager
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
' Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting

Residence Status" Generalized Habitat
P
S
P
S
S
P
P or S
P
S
S
S
S
T
S
TorW
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
S
S
S
S
S
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Variable
Thickets
Variable
Woodlands
Woodlands
Fields
Urban
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Thickets
Moist thickets
Thickets, shrubs
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Thickets
Conifers
Woodlands
Pinelands
Thickets
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Woodlands
Thick woodlands
(rare)
Woodlands
Wooded streams
Wet woods
Woodlands
Thickets
Thickets
Thickets
Woodlands
Woodlands
Throughout
Woodlands, edges
Woodland edges
Woodland edges
Common Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's Checklist
of North American Birds.
1 ..
S - Summer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
I C-5
Common N?me* Residence Status" Generalized Habitat
Rufous-sid ed Towhee P Woodlands
Chipping S pRarro S Woodland edges
Field Sparr dw P Fields, edges
Vesper Spa row S or P Fields, edges
Grasshopp r S Fields
Fox Sparro W Fields, edges
Song Sparr w P Fields, edges
Swamp p rrow W Fields, edges
White-throa
d Sparrow
e
W
Fields, edges
w
White-cro
ed Sparrow
W
Fields, edges
Dark-eyed unco W Fields, edges
Bobolink T Fields
Red-winge Blackbird P Wetlands
Eastern Me dowlark P Fields
Rusty Blac bird
g T Wetlands
Common rackle P Fields
Brown-hea ed Cowbird P Throughout
Orchard O ole S Woodland edges
Northern O iole S Woodland edges
Purple Fin h W Fields
House Fin h W or P Fields, edges
Red Cross ill P Conifers
Pine Siskin W or T Fields, edges
American oldfinch p Fields, edges
Evening G I
House SID osbeak
rrow T
P Woodlands, edges
Urban
* Comn* Names follow those used in the American Ornithologist's Union's Checklist
** S - Sommer; W - Winter; T - Transient; P - Permanent Resident
C-6

Table C-3: MAMMALS FOR WHICH SUITABLE HABITAT MAY EXIST WITHIN THE
US 64 PROJECT AREA*

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Generalized Habitat
Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) Throughout
' Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Woodlands
Southeastern Shrew (Sorex longirostrns) Moist
thickets
Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Woods and
fields
Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) Fields and
edges
Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) Fields
Little Brown Myotis (1) (Myotis lucifugus) Buildings
Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) Moist woods
Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Rocky woods
' Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Woods,
buildings
Red Bat
Hoary Bat (Lasiurus borealis)
(Lasiurus cinereus) Woodlands
Woods
Keen's Myotis (2) (Myotis keenii) Caves and
mines
Evening Bat (Nycticeius humeralis) Woods,
buildings
Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus f/oridanus) Fields,
1
Eastern Chipmunk
(Tamias striatus) thickets
Woods

Woodchuck (Marmota monax) Fields, edges
Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Woods
Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Woods
Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) Woods
White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) Woods,
edges
' Golden Mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) Woods,
thickets
Hispid Cotton Rat (Si9modon hispidus) Old fields
Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Fields
Woodland Vole (Microtus pinetorum) Woods, fields
Black Rat (Rattus rattus) Buildings
Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) Buildings
House Mouse (Mus musculus) Fields,
buildings
Meadow-jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) Fields, edges
Eastern Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomy humulis) Fields,
meadows
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Throughout
Gray Fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus) Throughout

1 C-7
Common Naine (Scientific Name) Generalized Habitat
Raccoon
Long-tailed eas
Mink
Striped Sku k
Bobcat
White-tailed Deer
Beaver
River Otter
(Procyon lotor)
(Mustela frenata)
(Mustela vison)
(Mephitis mephitis)
(Fells rufus)
(Odocoileus virginianus)
(Castor canadensis)
(Luthra canadensis)
*Adapted fr m Webster et al.
1) Little Br wn Bat
?2) Norther Long Eared Bat
Throughout
Woods, fields
Streams,
woods
Throughout
Woods,
edges
Throughout
Wooded
streams
Rivers and
lakes
C-8

Li

Appendix D
OTHER AMENDED IMPACT FINDINGS
Relocation Reports
Entire Pre-Hearing Proposed Action (As Presented
in the 12/4/91 Environmental Assessment)
Station 147+00 to Station 287+00
Pre-Hearing Proposed Action (Original)
Post-Hearing Proposed Action (Revised)
Station 400+00 to Station 485+00
Pre-Hearing Proposed Action (Original)
Post-Hearing Proposed Action (Revised)
NOTE: The relocation numbers presented in the text of this Finding of No Significant
Impact for the final proposed action (post-hearing) can be derived by:
1. Subtracting the pre-hearing relocation numbers for Stations 147+00 to 287+00
and Stations 400+00 to 485+00 from the relocation numbers for the entire pre-
hearing proposed action.
2. Adding the post-hearing relocation numbers for Stations 147+00 to 287+00 and
Stations 400+00 to 485+00 to the result of first calculation.
Farmland Report
Land Uses Along US 64 Expected to Experience Traffic
Noise Levels Approaching or Exceeding the FHWA
Noise Abatement Criteria
page
D-1
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8

t

R E L O C A T I ON R E :F= OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.609001T COUNTY: Davidson-Randolph Alternate _L of _L Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 64 Improvements From I-85 to US 220 (23 miles)
(PAGE 1 OF 2)
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
sties
0-15M
15-25M
25-3SM 35-56M
50 LP
Individuals D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 62 0 62 0 6 38 18 0 0
Businesses 25 0 25 0 VALUE OF DAn-LING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 ? 0 0-20M 7 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 10 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL Q TIONS 20-40M 13 . 150-250 .D 20-40M 60 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSLIERS 40-70M 35 250-400 0 40-70M 200' 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation 70-IDO 7 400-600 0
70-1001 155 400-600 0
services be necessary _
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 LP 136 600 UP 0
affected by displacement
x 3, Will bug in as 5 rvices.stiII
g
f TOTAL 62 0 561 0
be availab
e of
er project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. It so, indicate size 3. OTHER BUSINESSES SIMILAR TO AFFECTED PROPERTY WILL
X type, estimated number of BE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES ARE OWNER OCCUPIED AND NONE

housing shortage ARE MINORITY OWNED.
X 6. Source for available hous- (A) BRILES GARAGE - 5 EMPLOYEES
ins (,list) (B) ARNOLD JONES PROPANE - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 7. Will additional housing (C) JEWELL MFG. - 7.EMPLOYEES
programs be needed (0) JERRY'S MART - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing (E) FRANKIE & 001E USED CARS - (OUT OF BUSINESS)
be considered (F) HICK'S GROCERY - 5 EMPLOYEES
X 9. Are there large,•disabled, (G) JAY'S AUCTION - 4 EMPLOYEES
elderly, etc, families (H) WEST 64 GROCERY & PRODUCE - 2 EMPLOYEES
?IE41ER THESE ALou5 SO FOR DESIGN
10
1 pu is
n
a N SER
FOR RENT)
VICE ILffe (VACANT
BLACKBIJI DING Z
.
9 MPLOYEES
E
needed for project (K) ALTON J. OCLK CONST. - 15 EMPLOYEES
11. Is public housing avail-
l (L) PARRISH FRAMES INC. - 25 EMPLOYEES
ab
e (M) THOMAS TIRE CO. - 35 EMPLOYEES
12. Is it felt there will be ad- (N) TANH & TOMMY GAS STATION - 5 EMPLOYEES
equate DOS housing available (0) HIGHWAY 49 (SLETH GAS STATION) - 5 EMPLOYEES
during relocation period (P) FACTORY MODEL CENTER MODULAR HOMES - 25 EMPLOYEES
13. Will there be a problem of (0) STOP & SHOP GAS STATION - (VACANT)
housing within financial (R) SHANA CLOTHING OUTLET - 25 EMPLOYEES
means (S) EUNICE HANCOCK ACCOUNTANT - 5 EMPLOYEES
14, Are suitable business sites (T) B & S SOCKS - 5 EMPLOYEES
available (list source) (U) TATOOES - 5 EMPLOYEES
15. Number months estimated to (V) VACANT BUILDING
complete RELOCATION
t COBY FOREMAN yl.
ReIocatio gent
Form 15.4 Revis d 5/90
I
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
D-1

R E L O C A T I O N R a R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation ,
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.609001T COUNTY: Davidson-Rand6lph Alternate _L of _L Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT; N/A '
DESCRIPTION OF PR JECT: US 64 Improvements From I-85 to US 220 (23 miles)
(PAGE 2 OF 2) '
(W) GAS STATION - VACANT ,
(X) ASHEBORO WELL Cb. - 30 EMPLOYEES
(Y) VERNON POOLE & ?O. INC. SERVICE STATION - ECONO OIL CO. - 50 EMPLOYEES
6. ASHEBORO MLS ANQ LEXINGTON MLS.
8. TO BE 1
COMMENT: THERE APP
SURVEYED.
THERE AF
TO BE D

AS NECESSARY.

!S TO BE NO TENANTS ON THIS PROJECT, THEREFORE, RENTAL DWELLING WERE NOT

?S TO BE SLFFICIENT REPLACEMENT BUSINESS PROPERTY AND SITES FOR THOSE PROPOSED '
ACED.

r
P
02-13-91
A d Date
Kelocation rbpent Date pprove
Form 15.4 Revisgb 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy; Area Relocation File
D-2 '

' R E IL O C A T I O" R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.609001T COUNTY- Davidson-Randofph Alternate A of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT: N/A "ORIGINAL"
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of LIS 64 from East of I-85 in Davidson Co, to LIS 220 in
1 Randolph Co., from SS 147+00 to SS 287+00
i
i
ALAN ROTHROCK ! ?0 07-29-92
j
Relocation Age t Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
D-3
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total
_ ities
_ 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 F 0 0 0 0
0 0
Families 11 0 11 2 0 3 7 0 1
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms a 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M ? $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 3 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 1
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 7. 250-400 0 40-70M 51 250-400 7
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 1 400-600 0 70-100 41 400-600 1
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be
f 100 U' 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 3 600 UP 0
a
fected by displacement
X 3. Will bw, in ss ervices.sti I I
s
?
l TOTAL it 0 96
q
be ava t l
ab
e a
ter project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
x type, estimated number of 3. NONE WILL BE DISPLACED.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
H 6. AVAILABLE HOUSING WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ASI-EBORO &
ousing shortage LEXINGTON MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICES & THE "COURIER-
X 6. Source for available hous-
i
( TRIBLIf\E".
ng
list)
X 7. Will additional housing 8. LAST RESORT HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED BUT WILL BI
programs be needed IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY

X
I
8. Should Last Resort Housing .

k J be considered 9. AS WITH ALL LARGE PROJECTS THERE WILL BE SOME ELDERI
X 9. Are there large, disabled, & POSSIBLE DISABLED PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH IT IS FELT THA'
elderly, etc. families THERE WILL NOT BE A LARGE NUMBER. ANY THAT ARE
II
X AN34ER USE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10
i LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED R/W WILL BE GIVEN
.
public ousing a ASSISTANCE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.
needed for project
x 11. Is public housing avail-
bl 11. PUBLIC HOUSING IS AVAILABLE, BUT IT IS FELT THAT NOf
a
e WILL BE NEEDED.
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
X equate DDS housing available
during relocation period 12. THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE HOUSING, HOWEVER) ON PROJECT;
13. Will there be a problem of IN RURAL AREAS SUCH AS THIS IT HAS BEEN OUR
X housing within financial EXPERIENCE THAT MANY OF THE DISPLACEES WILL REBUILD
means OR MOVE BACK ON REMAINING LAND.
X 14. Are suitable business sites

available (fist source)
N/A
ri 15. Number months estimated to 14. NOME WILL BE DISPLACED.

A comp I ete RELOCATION 12 - 18
R
R E L O C
X E.I.S.
PROJECT: 6.60
I.D. NO.: R-22
DESCRIPTION OF
T L ON R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
11T COUNTY: Davidson-Randolph Alternate A of Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: N/A "REVISED"
!OJECT: Widening of U5 64 from East of I-65 in Davidson Co., to LIS 220 in
fandolph Co., from SS 147+00 to SS 287+00
ES TIML4 DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owner
,
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M 15-25M -
25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING i DSS OLELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 `>5 0-150 0
ANSWER I_--
ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 1
YES NO EXPLAI ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 51 250-400 7
N/A 1. Will s
i pecial relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 41 400-600 1

N/A serv
2. Will
affect es be necessary
chools or churches be
ed by displacement t.
100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 3 600 UP 0
N/A 3. dill
,F
in ssrvices.still.
bg TOTAL 0 0 96 9

/A e av
4. Will
place
type, 1
a
e a er protect
ny business be dis-
If so, indicate size
estimated number of
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
l
emp
o. ees, minorities, etc.
N/A 5. Will elocation cause a NO RELOCATION
h
i h
- ous g s
ortage
N/A 6. Sourc
i
( I for available hous-
i
)
ns st
N/A 7. Will a dditional housing
- b
progr ms
e needed
N/A 8. Shoul Last Resort Housing
b i
e co s
dered
N/A IF. Are t ere large, disabled,
ld
'
er
e y, etc. families
11`T ? ANSWE
- THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
N/A 10. Will uis ousing be
d
nee
e for project
N/A 11. Is pub lic housing avail-
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
N/A equat DDS housing available
d
i l
i
ur
n re
ocat
on period
13. Will here be a problem of
N/A housi g within financial
means
N/A 14. Are s itable business sites
- avail ble (list source)
N/A 15. Numbe months estimated to
comp) to RELOCATION .

ALAN ROTHROCK 07-29-92 /?%?NC-==L
Relocation A ent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
D-4

L?
1

R E L_ O C A T I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 6.609001T COUNTY= Davidson-Randolph Alternate B of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2220 F.A. PROJECT: N/A "ORIGINAL"
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of US 64 from East of I-85 in Davidson Co., to LIS 220 in
Randolph Co., from SS 400+00 to SS 485+00
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL.
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-ism
15-25M
25-35M,
35-SOM
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 5 2 7 1 0 2 5 0 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALLE OF DWELLING', DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 $ ?-150 0
ANSWER ALL CLESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 1 20-40M ? 150-250 1
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 4. 250-400 1 40-70M 51 250-400 7
X 1. Will special relocation
i
b 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 41 40D-600 1

X serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
d b
di
l
100 UP
0
600 UP 0
100 LF 3
600 LP
?
a
ecte
y
sp
acement
X 3. Will bu in ss ervices.still
b
?
b g TOTAL 5 2 96 9

X e ava i
a
e ater project 4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of REMARKS (Respond by Number)
3. THERE ARE SIMILAR BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN THE
GENERAL AREA OFFERING THE SAFE SERVICES.
l
i
i

I emp
oyees, m
nor
ties, etc. 4. (A) HICKS BOOKKEEPING & TAX SERVICES LOCATED AT
5. Will relocation cause a APPROX. SS 428+00 LEFT OF SURVEY LINE L. ONE
h
H
i
ous
ng s
ortage FULL TIME & ONE PARTIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
X 6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
) (B) HICKS GROCERY LOCATED AT APPROX. SS 466+0D LEFT
ng
st OF SURVEY LINE L. TWO FULL TIME & ONE PART TIME
X 7. Will additional housing EMPLOYEES. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
b
programs
e needed 6. AVAILABLE HOUSING WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ASI-EBORO &
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b LEXINGTON MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICES & THE "COURIER-
"
e considered TRIBUNE
.
FX 9. Are there large, disabled, S. LAST RESORT HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED BUT WILL B
ld
l
f
l
e
er
y, etc.
ami
ies IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.

X ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. i public housing e 9. AS WITH ALL LARGE PROJECTS THERE WILL BE SOME ELDER
& POSSIBLE DISABLED PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH IT IS FELT THA
d
d f
nee
e
or project THERE WILL NOT BE A LARGE NUMBER. ANY THAT ARE
X 11. Is public housing avail- LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED R/W WILL BE GIVEN
bl
a
e ASSISTANCE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.

X 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available 11. PUBLIC HOUSING IS AVAILABLE, BUT IT IS FELT THAT NO
WILL BE NEEDED.
d
i
ur
ng relocation period 12. TI-ERE WILL BE ADEQUATE HOUSING, HOWEVER, ON PROJECT
13. Will there be a problem of IN RURAL AREAS SUCH AS THIS IT HAS BEEN OUR
X housing within financial EXPERIENCE THAT MANY OF THE DISPLACEES WILL REBUILD
means OR MOVE BACK ON REMAINING LAND.
X 14. Are suitable business sites 14. SITES WERE LISTED IN THE "COURIER TRIBUNE".
available (list source)
N/A 15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION •12 18
_7 f
ALAN ROTHROCK CGl ,Av 07-29-92
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
D-5

REL_OCAY I ON REPORT
V r t c rroo t rVID MCZ t MI
North Carolina Department of Transportation '
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.609 061T COUNTY= Davidson-Randolph Alternate B of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-222 01 F.A. PROJECT= N/A "REVISED"
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT= Widening of US 64 from East of I-65 in Davidson Co., to US 220 in
Randolph Co.) from SS 400+00 to SS 465+00
ESTIMAT F? DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owne
r
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-2_5M
i
25-35M 35-50M
50 UP
Individuals 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 0 I 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 15D-250 1
YES NO EXPLAI ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 2 250-400 0 40-70M 51 250-400 7
X 1. Will. $pecial relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 41
1 400-600 1

X serve
2. Will es be necessary
chooIs or churches be
100 UP
0 600 UP 0 100 UP 3

1 600 UP 0
'
- affec ted by displacement
X 3. Will services.still
bw in ss
? TOTAL 2 0 96
be av f
e a ter project
P ab
4. Will ny business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
place ) If so, indicate size
X type, estimated number of 3. NONE WILL BE DISPLACED.
l
e minorities, etc
ee%

X mp
5. Will .
Y
,
relocation cause a
6. AVAILABLE HOUSING WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ASI-EBORO &
Housi
l shortage
n LEXINGTON MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICES & THE "COURIER-
X 6. Sour g
e for available hous- TRIBUNE".
(
in list)
X g
7. Will additional housing B. LAST RESORT HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED BUT WILL BE
ro ams be needed IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
p
s
X B. Shou d Last Resort Housing
be c nsidered 9. AS WITH ALL LARGE PROJECTS THERE WILL BE SOME ELDER(
1X
--- I
?- 0 9. Are
? elde here large) disaW J?
families
'Iy, etc & POSSIBLE DISABLED PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH IT IS FELT THA'
THERE WILL NOT BE A LARGE NUMBER. ANY THAT ARE
.
-- 1
ANSWIi
R THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED R/W WILL BE GIVEN
X 10. 1 public ousing e ASSISTANCE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.
need d for project
Ix 11. Is p blic housing avail- 11. PUBLIC HOUSING IS AVAILABLE, BUT IT IS FELT THAT NOI
able WILL BE NEEDED.
12. Is i felt there will be ad-
X eaua a DDS housing available
duri g relocation period 12. THERE WILL BE ADEIDUATE HOUSING, HOWEVER, ON PROJECT!
13. Will there be a problem of IN RURAL AREAS SUCH AS THIS IT HAS BEEN OUR
yX housi ng within financial EXPERIENCE THAT MANI' OF THE DISPLACEES WILL REBUILD
-
--?- - mea s OR MOVE BACK ON REMAINING LAND.
X 14. Are s uitable business sites
- avail able (list source)
N/A 15. Num e r months estimated to 14. NONE WILL BE DISPLACED.
com l ete RELOCATION.12 - 18
Lam/ -
" l 1
ALAN ROTHROCK 07- ?
7
29-92
Relocation Agent' Date Approved Date
Form I5.4 Kevlseo z)/7u
Original & 1 Copy State Relocation Agent -
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
D-6
t
U.S. Deoartment of agncuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be comoterea by -edeml Agency) I Oaa Ot {?Rd Eva tton rieoweet
J -
Name f arot ? Fe0ersl Ageney?otved?
V ?? `C ' H'\ 1C\tCiy f w r ..,' ( ?'? ?•.''KK .w.? p :: • tic t
Prottotea Vn0 Utt
`\.. Co{{?)ty_ And State
(r \ ` N C
?.NI \ t,/t \^ H^ I . Cl C-CA1 I J '?\ V i t?. Ss
PART It (To be completed by SCSI a oats Request Reeaaed By SCS
Does the site contain primer unique. statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres imostad Average Fenn Su•
(if no, rho FPPA does nor sop/y - do nor complete additional parts of this form). 2' (3 t4 ohg, °l4
Major Croow Feemaete Land in Govt. Juntorcuon Amount Of FamustW As OeNnad in MA
Co,,-v% Aces: T 5, X 3 %78.'1- Acres: Z.5 0 411 » 71.4
None Or Land Evaluation System Uses Mann Or Loot Sits, Aweiment Swam pate and u-w RoavmO By SCS
'Da'-? :a6-u-, LG .noY,?
PA nT Ill fr w .... -?--r .. ?_ ?..

Site A
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Sj (, to
B- Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly p - - -
Site a
b
O - ---- - ------
Site C
Site O
C. Total Acres In Site 1
PART IV (ro be cOmp/eted by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland -Y'
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Pereantage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Awiadietion With Same Or Nioher Relative Value

*ART V
r
O.O

• '?
9 '-N

I
(
o be completed by SCS1 Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Swleofoto fi70Poims)

,
'ART VI fro be completed bV Federal Agency) Meximwn
Mile Aoaunentcriterianwester+aWsame:p/ainad/n7CSRditslb/ Points
1. Area In Non urban Use 15 1 S
2 Perimeter in Nonurban Use to
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed -2-0 11j
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 2 O
5. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area IV J.\ V N A
e. Distance To Urban Support Services N -al-
7. A
Sise Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Averap 10
5
& Cr
i
Of N
eat
on
onfarmable Farmland 1115 p
4. Availability Of Farm Sue rt Services S c,
10. On-Farm ItIvan. ants 2 O 10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 O
12 Comoatibili With Existing Agricultural Use 10
5
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 L} ct
ART VII fro be compered by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 5 2.3
T
Wtv om site Aesssre/ssment (From Parr W above ora local 160
TOTAL POINTS (rata/ of above 2llnes) 460 c7 I r'S

a Selected:
Oaa Of Selection War A Loos Site Anatsmatt Wtd?
Yes ? No ?
i'?JA - rNoa Arpt:.. by
D-7

LAND USES AL NG US 64 EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC
NOISE LEVELS APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING THE FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

o.
Land ?se
FHWA NAC
Activity 1B tegory

ocation
Along US 64* Predicted
Ambient
Noise Level
with Existing
Roadway Predicted
Noise Level
No-Build with
Future Traffic
2010 Predicted
Future Noise
Level with
New-Alignment
2010 Predicted
Noise Level
Change Existing
to Future with
New Alignment '
1 Residential (N?s 112+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
2 Residential ( )s 121+00 67.6 69.7 69.8 2.2
3 Residential (s 155+00 62.0 64.1 73.7 11.7
4 Residential (l )s 163+00 62.0 64.1 68.7 6.7
5 Residential ( )s 166+00 63.0 65.1 69.1 6.1
6 Residential T ailer (N)s 178+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2
7 Residential ( )s 181+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2 '
8 Residential ( )s 182+00 63.5 65.6 69.8 6.3
9 Residential ( )s 183+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2
10 Residential ( )s 183+00 63.5 65.6 69.8 6.3
11 Residential ( )s 184+00 62.4 64.5 68.0 5.6
12 Residential ( )s 187+00 68.9 71.0 71.1 2.2
13 Residential (N)s 189+00 69.2 71.3 71.4 2.2
14 Residential (N)s 190+00 67.2 69.3 69.4 2.2
15 Residential ( )s 198+00 63.2 65.3 69.4 6.2
16 Residential ( )s 202+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
17 Residential Trailer (S)s 203+00 62.0 64.1 67.4 5.4
18 Residential ( )s 204+00 64.7 66.8 71.4 6.7
19 Residential (? )s 213+00 67.8 69.9 70.0 2.2 '
20 Residential railer (S)s 215+00 64.2 66.3 70.7 6.5
21 Residential ( )s 220+00 68.9 71.0 71.1 2.2
22 Residential ( )s 224+00 65.8 67.9 68.0 2.2 '
23 Residential ( )s 225+00 68.2 70.3 70.4 2.2
24 Residential ( )s 231+00 63.7 65.8 70.0 6.3
25 Residential ( )s 241+00 64.5 66.6 71.1 6.6
26 Residential 6)s 242+00 64.2 66.3 70.7 6.5
27 Residential railer (S)s 243+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
28 Residential S)s 245+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
29 Residential S)s 246+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
30 Residential S)s 247+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
31 Residential S)s 249+00 64.5 66.6 71.1 6.6 ,
32 Residential S)s 252+00 62.6 64.7 68.4 5.8
33 Residential S)s 255+00 63.9 66.0 70.4 6.5
34 Residential N)s 268+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2 ,
35 Residential N)s 269+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2
36 Residential railer (N)s 272+00 66.2 68.3 68.4 2.2

D-8

1-
LAND USES ALONG US 64 EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC
NOISE LEVELS APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING THE FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
(continued)
Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted
Land Use Ambient Noise Level Future Noise Noise Level
FHWA NAC Noise Level No-Build with Level with Change Existing
Activity Category Location with Existing Future Traffic New-Alignment to Future with
No. B' Along US 64' Roadway 2010 2010 New Alignment

37 Residential (N)s 297+00 67.6 69.7 70.0
38 Residential (N)s 312+00 71.7 73.8 73.7
39 Residential (N)s 335+00 67.6 69.7 69.8
40 Residential (S)s 336+00 60.6 62.9 69.8
41 Residential (S)n 374+00 66.2 68.5 69.8
42 Residential (N)n 383+00 60.6 62.9 69.8
44 Residential (N)s 398+00 67.3 69.6 69.7
45 Residential (N)s 428+00 64.9 67.2 67.3
48 Residential (N)s 458+00 66.3 68.6 68.7
52 Residential (S)s 481+00 62.1 64.4 68.7
54 Residential (S)s 489+00 63.4 65.7 70.4
55 Residential (N)s 493+00 66.6 68.9 69.0
56 Residential Trailer (N)s 497+00 66.2 68.5 68.4
57 Residential Trailer (N)s 503+00 66.2 68.5 68.4
58 Residential (S)s 534+00 60.6 62.7 67.7
59 Residential (N)s 544+00 66.2 68.3 67.7
60 Residential (N)s 549+00 66.2 68.3 67.7
61 Residential Trailer (N)s 551+00 66.2 68.3 67.7
62 Residential (S)s 556+00 60.6 62.7 67.7
63 Residential Trailer (N)s 564+00 66.2 68.3 67.7
64 Residential Trailer (N)s 586+00 66.2 68.3 67.7
65 Residential (S)s 600+00 61.5 63.7 68.8
66 Residential (S)s 650+00 61.5 63.7 68.8
67 Residential (N)s 783+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
68 Residential (S)s 797+00 61.3 63.7 68.8
69 Residential (N)s 818+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
70 Residential (N)s 819+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
71 Residential Trailer (N)s 825+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
72 Residential (N)s 826+00 67.1 69.3 68.5
73 Residential (N)s 831+00 67.1 69.3 68.5
74 Residential (N)s 837+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
75 Residential (N)s 840+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
76 Residential (N)s 843+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
77 Residential (N)s 844+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
78 Residential (N)s 845+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
79 Residential (N)s 870+00 67.1 69.3 68.8
D-9
LAND USES AL
NOISE LEVELS
(concluded)
Land
FHWA
Activity Q
No. 'B'
G US 64 EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC
PROACHING OR EXCEEDING THE FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted
Ambient Noise Level Future Noise Noise Level
Noise Level No-Build with Level with Change Existing
Location with Existing Future Traffic New-Alignment to Future with
Along US 64' Roadway 2010 2010 New Alignment
80 Residential (S)
81 Residential (S)
82 Residential (S)
83 Residential (N)s
84 Residential (S?ls
85 Residential (N)s
86 Residential (N s
r
87 Residential Tr
88 Residential (N s
89 Residential (S s
90 Residential (SI s
91 Residential ( s
92 Residential T ail
93 Residential T ail
94 Residential (I?)s
95 Residential (N)s
96 Residential ( )s
97 Residential ( )s
98 Residential ( )s
99 Residential ( )s
100 Residential )s
101 Residential (N)s
(N)s
r (S)s
r (S)s
870+00
965+00
972+00
984+00
1103+00
1106+00
1157+00
1158+00
1169+00
1171+00
1174+00
1175+00
1176+00
1177+00
1184+00
1185+00
1185+00
1187+00
1188+00
1193+00
1201+00
1201+00
61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
61.5 63.7 68.8 7.3
68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
72.4 74.6 72.9 0.5
72.4 74.6 72.9 0.5
68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
67.3 69.4 68.2 0.9
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
57.0 59.0 66.0 9.0
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
62.7 64.8 69.2 6.5
68.3 70.4 69.2 0.9
(N) Located on ni
(S) Located on sc
n Widening of U
s Widening of U
h side of road
th side of road
64 to the north
64 to the south
D-10
t

r

r

i
r

Appendix G
LITERATURE CITED
Brockman, C. Frank. 1968. A guide to field identification of trees of North America.
Golden Press, New York.
Davidson County. June 1978. Land development plan Davidson County
Federal Highway Administration. November 20,1986. Federal-aid highway program
manual 7-7-3, procedures for abatement of highway traffic noisand construction
noise.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). April 1990. Pollutant loadings and impacts
from highway stormwater runoff, vol. III: analytical investigation and research
report. FHWA-RD-88-008.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). August 29, 1990. Visual quality guidance
material.
Martof, B.S., W.H. Palmer, J.R. Riley, J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, 264
PP-
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (EHNR).
.1990. Classification and water quali standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North arolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management (15 NCAC
2B-0309).
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (EHNR).
' October 1989. Guidelines for evaluating the air quality impacts of complex
sources.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). August 1987. US 64 from 1-85
business, in Lexington, to the US 1-US 64 interchange, near Cary; Projects R-
2220, R-2217, R-2218, R-2219, and R-2219X; Davidson, Randolph, Chatham, and
Wake Counties Feasibility Study.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). August 1988. Asheboro
thoroughfare plan.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). May 1990. Noise abatement
guidelines.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). January 1, 1990. Standard
specifications for roads and structures.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). December 1990.
Transportation improvement program 1991-1997.
North Carolina Soil Surveys, 1982-1985. Davidson County soil series information.
G-1

North C
li a Wildlif
R
'
aro n
e
esources Commission. 1963. Survey and classification of the
Yadk i River and tributaries, North Carolina.
Parsons Bri n kerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. October 1990. Air quality report. Prepared '
for th e North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Parsons Bri n kerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. November 28, 1990. Noise report.
Prep a ed for the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Parsons Bri n kerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. April 1991. Natural systems report.
Prep a?ed for the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Radford, A.
Unive E., H.E. Ahles, C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. '

rsity of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

Randolph
C
unty Soil and Water Conservation District. July, 1986. Resource
cons rvation program and action plan.
Stephenson M.L. March 22, 1990. Historic structures survey and evaluation report for
prop
Lexin sed widening of US 64 from just east of 1-85 bypass interchange near 1
on to just west of US 64/US 220 interchan
i
A
h
b
P
o
d f
ge
n
s
e
or
.
repare
or
Pars ns Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Touart, Paul Baker. 1987. Building the backcountry: an architectural history of Davidson
Cou , North Carolina. Davidson County Historical Association.
U.S. Depart
l ment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979. Classification of
hd
wet
a s and deepwater habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS-79/31).
Webster, 4 D., J.F. Parnell, W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolina, Virginia
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 255 pp. I
Whatley, Lo
, y
ell McKay, Jr., Dawn McLaughlin Snotherly
Dr. Jerry L. Cross
The
1985
arch ,
.
.
ectural history of Randolph County. City of Asheboro, County of Randolph

and ? ,
lorth Carolina Division of Archives and History with assistance from the
Rand olph County Historical Society and the Randolph County Arts Guild.
1

t
1
G-2
1

i '