20210147 Ver 1_U-5813_Type_III_CE_Signed 4_05_2019_20201020

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Type Ill Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No. U-5813
WBS Element 44385.1.3
Federal Project No. NHP-0064(206)
A. Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in
coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to make
improvements to U.S. 64 from the Asheboro Bypass to east of I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 in
Asheboro, Randolph County. U.S. 64 is classified as a Principal Arterial in the North
Carolina Functional Classification System; this section is on the National Highway
System.
The proposed project w ill:
• widen U.S. 64 to a four-lane median divided roadway between the Asheboro
Bypass and the existing four-lane median divided section east of the S.R 1713
(Albemarle Road) bridge overpass;
• replace the Albemarle Road Bridge No. 171 and reconfigure the U.S. 64
interchange with N.C. 49/Albemarle Road;
• convert the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchanges with Albemarle Road and U.S. 64/
N.C. 49 to a split diamond interchange; and
• realign S.R 1446 (Lew allen Road) to the west.
See attached project location map.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
Project Need
Traffic capacity and operational improvements are needed to accommodate projected
traffic volumes. The base year (2016) no build annual average daily traffic (AADT)
estimates for U.S. 64 within the study area range from 10,700 to 31,000 vehicles per
day (vpd) from w est to east w ith an estimated 3 percent dual-axle trucks and 6 to 7
percent tractor trailer semi-trucks (TT-ST). The future year (2040) no build AADT
estimate shows an increase for U.S. 64 within the study area over the base year
estimates, ranging from 13,600 vpd to 34,100 vpd. Truck traffic is estimated to
decrease slightly over the base year estimate, w ith 2 to 3 percent dual-axle trucks and
4 to 5 percent TT-ST.
As part of the traffic analysis, existing crash patterns and rates along the U.S. 64,
N.C. 49, and I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 corridors were analyzed within the study area over the
five-year period from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2016. There were 207 crashes reported
along the U.S. 64 study area corridor between S.R 1424 (Westchapel Road)/S.R 1326
(Stutts Road), west of the Asheboro Bypass, to the Low es Foods driveway, on
U.S. 64/N.C. 49 east of the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchange. The crash rates along
U.S. 64 in the project study area are higher than statew ide averages for similar facilities
1

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
in all categories except for fatal crashes. The section of I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 at the
U.S. 64 ramp weave appears to have the highest concentration of crashes.
Project Purpose
The proposed project w ill increase the capacity and improve mobility and connectivity
within the study area. The project w ill also replace the functionally obsolete Albemarle
Road bridge. As a secondary benefit, the project w ill improve traffic safety by limiting
conflict points along the U.S. 64 corridor within the project limits.
The proposed improvements w ill increase the capacity of U.S. 64 and limit left turning
vehicles, allow ing for safer travel and improved traffic flow, w ithin the project limits.
Considering the rolling terrain and high frequency of intersections and driveways within
the study area, access management strategies are appropriate. Further, the
superstreet design is compatible with future plans for the U.S. 64 Corridor.
The project w ill also upgrade the N.C. 49/U.S. 64 interchange, including replacing the
Albemarle Road bridge, and the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchange with U.S. 64 and
Albemarle Road to meet current design standards and improve mobility, connectivity,
and safety in the study area. Conflicting traffic movements w ill be addressed at the
N.0 49 interchange with U.S. 64 improving safety and mobility at the interchange.
The proposed split diamond design for the 1-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchange w ill improve
network connectivity through the construction of paired connecting roadways between
U.S. 64 and Albemarle Road. Further, the U.S. 64 ramp weave w ill be eliminated by
the project, improving traffic safety.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III
D. Proposed Improvements:
The proposed project w ill widen approximately 1.1 miles of U.S. 64 from a three-lane
section to a four-lane median divided roadway between the Asheboro Bypass and the
existing four-lane median divided section east of the Albemarle Road Bridge No. 171.
The widening w ill occur to the south of the roadway, primarily within existing right of
way. The total project length is 2.26 miles.
The improved roadway w ill include two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction with a
variable-width raised median. Ten-foot shoulders, of which 4 feet w ill be paved, are
proposed between the Asheboro Bypass and S.R 1323 (Oak Leaf Drive); curb and
gutter are proposed east of Oak Leaf Drive to tie into the existing four-lane median
divided section east of Albemarle Road. The widening w ill occur to the south of the
existing alignment and tie into the Asheboro Bypass at the project's western limit. The
proposed design speed is 60 miles per hour (mph) west of Oak Leaf Drive and 50 mph
east of Oak Leaf Drive.
One major hydraulic structure w ill be extended or replaced by this project. The existing
8-ft by 7-ft reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) connected to a 96-inch corrugated
metal pipe (CMP) conveys an unnamed tributary to Cedar Fork Creek under U.S. 64,
approximately 450 feet southeast of Westside Circle. Based on the current design, the
2

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
structure would need to be extended by approximately 70 feet. The preliminary
hydraulic recommendation determined the 8-ft by 7-ft RCBC was adequately sized for
the drainage area and the 96-inch CMP should be replaced by an 8-ft by 7-ft RCBC.
The project will also replace the Albemarle Road Bridge No. 171 and reconfigure the
U.S. 64 interchange with N.C. 49/Albemarle Road. The replacement bridge w ill be
constructed on new alignment adjacent to the northw est side of the existing bridge and
provide for three 12-foot travel lanes.
Due to the grade and the Albemarle Road alignment shift, the northbound N.C. 49 to
eastbound U.S. 64 slip ramp located southeast of the proposed bridge w ill be
realigned. The existing slip ramp, which also provides access to multiple business
(Shana Lane) w ill be removed. Individual access w ill be evaluated as the project
design is further developed. The slip ramp realignment w ill require the closure of the
existing S.R 1157 (Lambert Drive) intersection with U.S. 64 and conversion to a cul-
de-sac.
Lew alien Road w ill be realigned 0.8-mile to the west of its current location to maximize
the distance between this intersection with the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 southbound ramp
terminal. The existing Lew alien Road would terminate north of Albemarle Road in a
cul-de-sac.
The project also proposes to reconfigure the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchanges with
Albemarle Road and U.S. 64 to a split diamond configuration. A one-way road would
be constructed on either side of 1-73/1-74/U.S. 220 between Albemarle Road and
U.S. 64/N.C. 49 to connect the on- and off-ramps. New signalized intersections will be
installed at the on- and off-ramp intersections with Albemarle Road and U.S. 64/
N.C. 49. NCDOT intends to keep the existing Albemarle Road and U.S. 64 bridges
over I-73/1-74/U.S. 220.
E. Special Project Information:
The project is included in the current (2018-2027) State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) as Project U-5813 and is programmed for right of way acquisition to
begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2019. Construction is programmed to begin
FFY 2020. A current cost estimate for the project is included in Table 1:
Table 1. Project Cost Estimate
Item Cost Estimate
Construction Cost' $26,100,000
Right of Way Cost2 $11,178,871
Utility Relocation Cost3 $586,460
Total Cost $37,865,331
1 NCDOT, March 2019; 2 NCDOT, January 2019; 3 NCDOT,
January 2019
3

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Logical Termini and Independent Utility
The project's western terminus w ill be the Asheboro Bypass (R 2536), scheduled to
open to traffic in 2020. The Asheboro Bypass w ill be a four-lane, controlled access
highway and is 13.7 miles in length providing an alternate route around the south side
of Asheboro. The project's western terminus is also the Asheboro Bypass's western
terminus. The project's eastern terminus is the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 interchange with
Albemarle Road and U.S. 64/N.C. 49, providing connections to the north and south.
The project w ill implement a four-lane, median-divided facility within the project limits.
The project termini represent rational end points for a transportation improvement, and
the study area is sufficient for the evaluation of environmental impacts associated w ith
the project.
This project w ill address transportation needs related to capacity, mobility, connectivity,
and safety. This project w ill make improvements to increase capacity and mobility on
U.S. 64 and at major intersecting facilities, and address safety concerns, including
limiting left turn movements and replacing the Albemarle Road bridge. These needs
are specific to the project and w ill be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area.
There are no reasonably foreseeable transportation improvement projects adjacent to
the project. The Asheboro Bypass is expected to be open to traffic w hen this project is
let for construction.
Alternatives Analysis
NCDOT evaluated four interchange concept configurations early in project
development. The intent was to identify low-impact design options to improve the
connectivity of the two closely spaced exits for Albemarle Road and U.S. 64/N.C. 49 on
1-73/1-74/U.S. 220. Design concepts that retained the existing Albemarle Road and
U.S. 64/N.C. 49 bridges over I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 w ere preferred, as both bridges were
rehabilitated around 2013.
Alternate 1 proposed a modified split diamond interchange, the removal of the on-ramp
loops, and maintenance of the off-ramp loops at U.S. 64/N.C. 49. The modification to
the conventional split diamond form consisted of aligning the southbound one-way
connector road to the existing Lewallen Road alignment. This alternate was dismissed
due to the close proximity offset between the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 off-ramp and the
Lewallen Road/proposed southbound connector road on Albemarle Road.
Alternate 2 proposed a split diamond interchange that realigned Lewallen Road to the
west to provide adequate spacing with the southbound ramp terminal and the removal
of all loop ramps at U.S. 64/N.C. 49. This alternate was carried forward.
Alternate 3 proposed a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) on U.S. 64. It was
determined the concept was not appropriate for this location given traffic volumes.
Further, concerns about connectivity were raised. Therefore, this alternate was
dismissed.
4

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Alternate 4 proposed the removal of the Albemarle Road interchange, extending the
ramps to intersect U.S. 64/N.C. 49. This alternate would have required the
replacement of the Albemarle Road bridge and multiple re-routing paths and was, for
these reasons, dismissed.
The Alternate 2 concept was carried forward. Upon further review, a fifth concept
alternative was introduced to assume the traditional split diamond configuration but
retain the U.S. 64/N.C. 49 off-ramp loops. The maintenance of the off-ramp loops
would provide operational benefits by allowing continuous directional travel and also
address the dangerous weave under the U.S. 64/N.C. 49 bridge by removing the on-
ramp loops. Further, it was decided that the relocation of Lew alien Road would
improve traffic operations on Albemarle Road; thus, NCDOT dropped the modified split
diamond interchange from further consideration.
Following conceptual development, Alternate 2 and Alternate 5 were designated
Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively: Alternative 1 — split diamond interchange without the
loops and Alternative 2 — split diamond interchange with off-ramp loops. Both
alternatives were presented at the August 16, 2018 public meeting (see Public
Involvement section below).
Both alternatives include paired one-way connecting roads constructed between
U.S. 64/N.C. 49 and Albemarle Road to extend the I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 on- and off-
ramps to a split diamond interchange configuration. New signalized intersections
would be installed at the on- and off-ramp terminals with Albemarle Road and
U.S. 64/N.C. 49. Both alternatives would:
• remove the on-ramp loops to improve traffic safety by eliminating the short weave
conflict under the U.S. 64 bridge, and
• realign Lew allen Road to the west to increase the separation between the
intersection with Albemarle Road and the 1-73/1-74/U.S. 220 southbound off-ramp
intersection.
The interchange alternatives have similar footprints, particularly as they relate to
jurisdictional features. As a result, potential impacts to jurisdictional resources
associated with each alternative are exactly the same. Maintenance of the northbound
-73/1-74/U.S. 220 off-ramp loop to westbound U.S. 64 in Alternative 2 requires that the
one-way connecting road east of the interstate be located further to the east, resulting
in direct impacts to the Quality Inn (901 Albemarle Road). Alternative 1 would not have
this direct impact.
Following the Local Officials' Informational Meeting and Public Meeting, Alternative 2 —
split diamond interchange with off-ramp loops was selected as the Preferred Alternative
due to the operational benefits realized by maintaining the off-ramp loops (see attached
figure).
Interchange Access Request
An Interstate Access Request (IAR) will be required for the proposed modification of
the U.S. 64 and Albemarle Road interchanges with I-73/1-74/U.S. 220. A Draft IAR is
currently under review with FMNA; it is expected to be approved in April 2019.
5

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Agency Involvement
The follow ing agencies have been consulted over the course of project development:
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
- U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
- N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
- Riedmont-Triad Rural Planning Organization (PTRPO)
- City of Asheboro
Public Involvement
A local officials' informational meeting was held prior to the public meeting on
August 16, 2018. The open-house format public meeting was held for the public from
4:00 pm. to 7:00 p.m. A total of 104 people signed in during the meeting. Attendees
were invited to take a handout, review maps of the alternatives, speak with the project
team, and provide comments on the project. Forty-two (42) w ritten comments were
received either during the meeting or by mail or email after the meeting. The comment
period ended August 31, 2018.
Of the 42 written comments collected during the comment period, 12 indicated a
preference for an interchange design alternative. Three indicated a preference for
Alternative 1 and nine indicated a preference for Alternative 2. One indicated a
preference for neither alternative. The remainder did not note a specific preference.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate w ith stakeholders to communicate any changes to
the design after the public meeting.
6

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
Type III Actions Yes No
If the proposed improvement is identified as a Type III Class of Action answer all questions.
• The Categorical Exclusion will require FHWA approval.
• If any questions are marked "yes" then additional information will be required forthose question in
Section G.
1 Does the project involve potential effects on species listed with the US FishEl
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)or National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)?
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and U
Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGPA)?
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any n n
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to X
low-income and/or minority populations?
5 Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements X
or right of way acquisition?
6 Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)? n ❑X
7 Is a project-level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required U ❑X
based on the NCDOT community studies screening tool?
8 Has Mobile Source Air Toxics been considered for this project? X
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? U ❑X
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
10 (ORW), High Quality Water(HOW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, El
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
11 Does the project impactwaters of the United States in any of the designatedEl
mountain trout streams?
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE) Individual n n
Section 404 Permit?
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory X
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
14 (NHPA) effects determination other than a no effect, including archaeological n n
remains? Are there project commitments identified?
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? ❑X n
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a
16 regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA)county and
17 substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental n ❑X
Concern (AEC)?
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? n ❑X
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
7

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Type III Actions (continued) Yes No
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act(CBRA) resources? U ❑X
21 Does the project impactfederal lands (e.g. USFS, USFWS, etc.) or Tribal X
Lands?
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? X
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? U
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP and where applicable,the
25 Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's)Transportation Improvement X
Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f)of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
26 Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley X
Authority(TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were
acquired in fee or easementwith public-use money and have deed restrictions
or covenants on the property?
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) n
El
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP)?
Is the project in an Air Quality Non-attainment or Maintenance Area for a
28 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Ozone or any other applicable U ❑X
standard)?
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? 0 U
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by X
the Farmland Protection Policy Act(FPPA)?
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that U ❑X
effected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F
Question 1 — Schweinitz's sunflower is listed as an endangered federally protected
species with USFWS' optimal survey window between late August and October.
Biologists conducted surveys for Schw einitz's sunflower in areas of suitable habitat on
September 27, 2018. No individuals were identified. A review of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database records (updated October 2018) indicates no
known occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflow er w ithin 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to
the lack of observed individuals and the lack of known occurrences, it has been
determined that the proposed project w ill have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Design refinements in November 2018 resulted in proposed improvements extending
beyond the project's study area. In consultation with NCDOT-ECAP, these additional
areas w ill be surveyed for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower during the
USFWS' optimal survey window and prior to construction let.
The USFWS has developed a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) in conjunction
with the FHWA, the USACE, and NCDOT for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB)
(Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina. The PBO covers the entire NCDOT
8

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
program in Divisions 1-8, including all NCDOT projects and activities. The
programmatic determination for NLEB for the NCDOT program is May Affect, Likely to
Adversely Affect. The PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and w ill ensure
compliance w ith Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five years for all NCDOT
projects with a federal nexus in Divisions 1-8, which includes Randolph County, w here
STIP U-5813 is located. This level of incidental take is authorized from the effective
date of a final listing determination through April 30, 2020.
Question 10 — Four sections of the unnamed tributary (UT) to Cedar Fork Creek in the
study area (SH, SI-intermittent and SI-perennial, SJ, and SK) are designated as High
Quality Waters (WS-II). See the attached Environmental Features Map.
Question 15 — The NCDOT GeoEnviron mental Section performed a Phase I field
investigation on January 8, 2019 for the project to identify geoenvironmental sites of
concern. Ten (10) sites of concern w ere identified within the proposed study area which
are expected to have low monetary and scheduling impacts (Table 2).
Table 2. GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concern
Property Name Property Address Anticipated Impacts
Lyda's Towing Co. 217 NC HWY 49 S Low
Asheboro, NC 27205
Han-Dee Hugo's#211 (Former 176 NC HWY 49 S Low
Harvey's Tank and Tummy 14) Asheboro, NC 27205
Thomas Tires &Automotive 1191 US HWY 64 W Low
Asheboro, NC 27205
CITGO Econo Mart#2 1140 US 64 W Low
Asheboro, NC 27205
Glazed King Donuts (Possible 6 Albemarle Rd, Low
Former Wiley Minute Market) Asheboro, NC 27205
Asheboro Towing Co. (Former 1085 W. Dixie Drive Low
Asheboro Well Co.) Asheboro, NC 27205
Future Truckers of America 1095 W Dixie Drive Low
(Former Whitley Property) Asheboro, NC 27205
Master BP 925 Albemarle Rd, Low
Asheboro, NC 27203
B rds BP 776 W Dixie Drive Low
Y
Asheboro, NC 27203
Brueilly Auto Repair Center 1388 Skeen View Road Low
Asheboro, NC 27205
Soil and groundwater assessments will be conducted at each of the impacted
geoenvironmental sites of concern prior to right of way acquisition.
Question 22 — N.C. 49/Albemarle Road has no control of access at the interchange
w ith U.S. 64; this project w ill convert this interchange to full control of access. Shana
Lane w ill be removed by the project, severing access to three commercial properties
9

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
between Mack Road and U.S. 64 along Albemarle Road and Shana Lane. Individual
access to these businesses w ill be evaluated as project design is further developed.
The Draft IAR that evaluates the proposed modifications to the U.S. 64 and Albemarle
Road interchanges with I-73/1-74/U.S. 220 is currently under review with FHWA. The
IAR is expected to be approved in April 2019.
Question 29 — The source of this traffic noise information is the STIP Project U-5813
Traffic Noise Report, US 64 Widening from the Asheboro Bypass to East of the NC 49
Interchange /Replacement of Existing NC 49 Bridge /Reconstruction of the NC 49 &
US 64 Interchange / US 64 & 1-73/1-74/US 220 Interchange Improvements, Randolph
County prepared by HNTB in March 2019.
Traffic Noise Impacts
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 3 below. The table includes those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy.
Table 3. Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts for Build Alternative*
Traffic Noise Impacts
Alternative Residential Places of Worship/Schools, Businesses Total
(NACB) Parks, etc. (NAC C& D) (NACE)
Build 89 0 0 89
*Per TNM 2.5 and in accordance w ith 23 CFR Part 772
Noise Barriers
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise
Model (TNM 2.5) software developed by the FI-IWA. A total of five potential noise walls
w ere evaluated for the Build Alternative. Three of these noise walls presently meet
feasibility and reasonableness criteria (NW3.1, NW 3.2, and NW4). Table 4 (next
page) summarizes the results of the evaluation.
Summary
A preliminary noise evaluation was performed that identified three noise barriers that
preliminarily meet feasibility and reasonableness criteria found in the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Policy. A more detailed analysis w ill be completed during project final design.
Noise barriers preliminarily found to be feasible and reasonable during the preliminary
noise analysis may not be found to be feasible and reasonable during the final design
noise analysis due to changes in proposed project alignment and other design
considerations, surrounding land use development, or utility conflicts, among other
factors. Conversely, noise barriers that preliminarily w ere not considered feasible and
reasonable may meet the established criteria and be recommended for construction.
The evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part
772.
In accordance w ith NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are
not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for
10

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Know ledge. The Date of
Public Know ledge of the proposed highway project w ill be the approval date of the
Categorical Exclusion. NCDOT strongly advocates the planning, design and
construction of noise-compatible development and encourage its practice among
planners, building officials, developers and others.
Table 4. Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results
Square Feet per Preliminarily
Noise Length / Number of Benefited Feasible and
Noise Barrier 2 Square ReceBenefitedptor/
StudyA Location He(t)t Footage AlReceptors Feet (Likely)Reasonable
Receptor Construction1
NW1 along US 64
NSA 1 westbound west of 630/ 15 9,264 2 4,632/ 1,500 No
Westchapel Road
NW2 along southbound
Lewallen Road
between proposed
NSA 2 West Bend United 450/ 15 6,318 2 3,159/2,000 No
Methodist Church
driveway and proposed
cul-de-sac
NW3.1 from
approximately halfway
up the I-73/1-74/U.S.
NSA 3 220 southbound on 1,980/ 17 33,183 28 1,185/ 1,500 Yes
ramp from US 64 and
continues along
southbound
1-73/1-74/U.S. 220
NW3.2 along
northbound I-73/1-
74/U.S. 220 from just
NSA 3 south of Dennis Street 2,340/ 17 39,571 35 1,131 / 1,500 Yes
cul-de-sac and
continuing along the
northbound off ramp to
US 64
NW4 along I-73/I-
74/U.S. 220 northbound
on ramp from
NSA 4 Albemarle Road and 2,400/ 14 33,136 46 720/ 1,500 Yes
continuing along
northbound I-73/1-74/
U.S. 220
1 The recommendation for barrier construction is preliminary and subject to change, pending completion of final design
and the public involvement process.
2 Average wall height. Actual wall height at any given location may be higher or lower.
11

DocuSi.n Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
H. Project Commitments
Randolph County
U.S. 64 Widening
Federal Project No. NHPP-0095(007)73
WBS No. 44385.1.3
STIP No. U-5813
Division 8 Construction - High Quality Water
An Unnamed Tributary to Cedar Fork Creek SIN [13-2-3-3-2-2-(1)] and its tributaries
are designated as High Quality Waters. The NCDOT w ill implement Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds as appropriate.
Project Management Unit - Municipal Agreement - Sidewalks
NCDOT w ill continue to coordinate with the City of Asheboro for the inclusion of
sidewalks in the proposed project's design. Should sidewalks be pursued, NCDOT
w ill develop a Municipal Agreement (MA) to cost-share with the local municipality.
Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT will provide a depressed island at the western intersection of Westside
Drive and U.S. 64 for emergency vehicle access originating from Westside Fire
Department (225 Westside Drive). The depressed island w ill allow left turns for
emergency vehicles only from the western intersection of Westside Drive with
U.S. 64.
Environmental Analysis Unit
NCDOT w ill complete a survey for the federally endangered Schw einitz's sunflower
one year prior to construction let.
Traffic Noise Analysis
A comprehensive traffic noise abatement design review, in the form of a Design
Noise Report, w ill be conducted as part of the project's final design.
GeoEnvironmental Section
Soil and groundwater assessments w ill be conducted at each of the impacted
geoenvironmental sites of concern prior to right of way acquisition.
STIP Project U-5813 Randolph County Page 1 of 1

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Categorical Exclusion Approval
STIP Project No. U-5813
WBS Element 44385.1.3
Federal Project No. N H P-0064(206)
Prepared By:
4/3/2019
Date Ad Archual, Tra sportation Planning
HN North Carolina, P.C.
Prepared For: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reviewed By:
p—DocuSigned
NGlMvfv M
4/4/2019 �727011 FC17FE494
Date Allison White, Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation—Project Management Unit
NCDOT certifies that the proposed action qualifies as a Type III Categorical
Exclusion.
p—DocuSigned by:
Pad mums
4/4/2019 �48B1AAF4334D463.
Date Pamela Williams
North Carolina Department of Transportation—Project Management Unit
FHWA Approval:
p—DocuSigned by:
blittA l,s
4/5/2 019 7707B71 B714A4F1..
Date Ron Lucas forJohn F. Sullivan, Ill, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

DocuSi.n Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884 � ' . -Y- ' F�
P'� • .. ', ` , mil•• 4-L6:••=11 . tr ' g,Ajd . P•r JJ
A 4.14k, -(% :V, -," -tE .. , “: A . 6.
eli
\•! , .� 1-1 r i ►. J!I� i S!, �i W1 Q�fVMArNA,E_ r.. i
Ds �` 4.-L �; / t r: F 14
I
Start
_. ` STIP U-5813 4- � moo• * 1`� g• ' ; aii4 �';
J 9 Y O a ' '• m xear Jr.
::, 701„..,: ,,„, _•,- '."-
I
c m' ' •0. Eal
- „fig ,# AF a. ¢ 4� }' 1
.` - 8 ..* —, ' "'_ -� •`' - 5+ ;.. a End a ��
011*C. s/, ,� r ►_ Exit 721j4001. o
_ � _ �_ ' � II.STIP U-5813 _ • Si
R-2536 { "
il Asheboro Bypass N. ). .,_ } , �_� . - ,..i �5s
`'j 4am e- ,A _ I - .k _ �" �. 9�
Exit 72A P _ -. - ,. •' a .-
1 ,,r -e v\IN(421 , , • :- I.-.-.1 * a 1.' .- ,a, 4: 1/ILI'' . 'hi: - ' - '14.'
9 iv--VN.."-- r-- : de ,,:i ....,,,, .._• j—. .--I,
49 jII. e 4 y_ /
+4,5 9111 4' ...46 ,,, .
NA AV- 1 95, I = a } i < �''� ASHEBORO ASHEBORO
ie
,� COL 4 .,��' I --J:1_�— ,g _ / /
�� L_r o -off .. .� .•� /
.r
_ / .INDUSJTRIALPARK AVE ''� ASHEBORO
i
`. 111:.;
ram' "1. 7 ..� l +,R �_ • /r,
Source: NCDOT, Esri, NC OneMap, Randolph County GIS, HNTB. Credit: HNTB North Carolina, PC 12018.
- TH AASUILiE '''__-' "r JLFORD
,ARc'rDAI RANDOLPH LIBERTY U-5813 Study Area PROJECT LOCATION MAP
�, 311 STIP U-5813
85 Mpg 1 TRINITY t �qg IISTALEY US 64 Widening
,A•p za�origrat+�'� 1 RANDLEMAN J1 WIDEN US 64, ASHEBORO BYPASS
#�► � ��� +�* iM � RAMSEUrs O US 64/NC 49 Interchange TO NC 49 & RECONSTRUCT THE
-lilaa�t�r V>r��"�l ����� pNllO fi4 1FtQNKLINVILLE SILERFITY;_lij US 64/NC 49 INTERCHANGE
�r�N�TM >� #`1 � �q;`QII� ASHEBORO 4 `2 `2 mil 1 U 173/I 74/US 220 Interchange RANDOLPH COUNTY
u Future Asheboro Bypass(R-2536)
DENT
Q
�� i STIP U-5813 SEAGROVE so F --- Feet -
s RANDOLP ANDOLPH _� i—__-I Municipal Boundary 0 1,000 2,000
ronnrrnnm RY I GORE NORTH

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
. MARK E MARK E 1 JAIMEAsf 7 / PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
5 DAVIDSON \DAVIDSON� / + �'
•
is. r+ STIP U-5813
® ��._ S !' ? -Y1B-SR.
�� GH55 LLC _ _� NNwHAR
b o I I 6 END CONS WIDEN US 64, ASHEBORO BYPASS
I q II. TO NC 49 & RECONSTRUCTTHE
* •
\- °`� . _ US 64 NC 49 INTERCHANGE
�s.ro i t '^ H55'LLC p'• .-- . sa /
tea■
Y 1 �" •53� 1.�, = /2k. l RANDOLPH COUNTY
1 1
✓1 I 1 h ti: j ..
'..)fli:L 1 I
riivio,...,-....,-:lz-,:-.:::::....0,,...:,',:..r .,. -
-RP8 �, l ,-1'hvf .q r .
+ 4�� L1T .rT-.. r�.-'
i `1 1 00 WM 1
1 , _
' k;_ �L y \ 4a1AS
\ IN..'.
4_ \i% • i►/ �°
_ Y20-POT St.25+33- '�'t�Ps�.•. AP
y ,r
1 % w'.`o
®-
'�d451:1 ��4 -IPA-S 21+76.84 V+
_ I .
l
21+ 17 !.kaa, y
d+6 ;l 20+00 ?:�
• -- a• r - R40
me -a .1,�1 1 -t ,c, Stu.Hdi62.22= .,
t ,''1L Yk0.P47 Sra.31+87.aa .,
w... .Z yF y ,3t,. I t
,l
/ g5+'�.7J
Yza.
-L--Sta.113+54.80� a rj
.e`?+•�.,°Cr�s -L -20+63.82 �.�f°
1.
` i\. I
NORTH
CAROLINA ,.� W�, RPo
s t .oDEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION J
71
LARRY ig
T • ;1'
W 1'} ',
MCKENZIE S' '11t 1'1
AND �1
WIFE ---.., �1``CHRISTY grin JOHN111111� l
MCKENZIE q `l JOSEPH 7'� `
LARRY l k e LOU1� \ 1- ��1;yl
w 1 , , RICKEY E \ ; .'y ti ec1N CQNIT.R
MCKENZIE SPENCER AND ....... 11 1111 It n-srA ra+
GRANTOR �L ARFE, \1,,1 l't14
TRUST LARISSA
PEN ER e, \A\
\ _RYC T 17l+2.5.62 �'' 1
' , „

DocuSi•n Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884 ----I ,
,,c,„„,.,,,,itAt
N
— t� �Ce ! — -- ig
elip:iN :Rixerm. i�G�NCE'R`^AVE
y+ Y� l r I I f,
to
4X
":4
- &IL oW ooI L oD" Y ! UWHARRIE - . o• `" 5 ' hMll-M +1G o
.r r. ARMG� '� 4I E .I 1541 , CHARTERiti, .° IRY4
C1\ 0 DI
ACADEMY k Z
�j I. ® v o DRY. •
. sWESTSIDE VOLUNTEER �- ! j '
FIRE AND RESCUE - � 0 S I [:mil BRADYa,E .gdi
DEPARTMENT STATION _ ct .
• Q . —Q `I • v
}, • Y � r--- INS TRIG ,�, ��-
Zi
�° c w, ` ENE' IZE BATTY W I -�- r -- J04
MANUFACTURI @IBC .- ,'`
g
Calvary -- w j i c
Baptist °� ,-
Baptist j I Exit 72B , . L Or-
, . '�
• Church �Q� Ryy�G— --:----- } r �
RHO SST '' 'II\PI ••• lir- - .,• ' \ .. •c2,S) ' . . 1.iii '
4•i .
�u�
�., ` M ..E ASHEBOROJ
- -411114r)4•- r./ . -ce.' •< , p; Or “ A
$ \..PaN
'- .. 4,`-,',%*
-i0 t-.*\..t•.
t o . :- -t
ri
\O.) ' c . - .4_,
-7.3 -
.= "--° '
.17_-_,-,,_..
o . L1511
,-p_i-&..
.._:
ts ;
- '
ar ', o o Gy - °e HAv•EA _ Y SA Little River
— ' ---- r ,"f Np G
Z ! .MP
, co c--\--::it - , .
- ' y - kg Y = •r s 5 ` SD
w i U
jw — — — — — ; /- `� -- / #,• j I z w Exit 72A z •
O.
Sources: NCDOT, Randolph Co. GIS, NC OneMap, Esri. Credit: HNTB North Carolina, PC, 2019.
Legend ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE MAP
����, STIP U-5813
��AVI�MMIPII tik r. ". . "-1 WIDEN US 64, ASHEBORO BYPASS
����� ��� � U-5813 Study Area J Water Supply Watershed Church TO NC 49 & RECONSTRUCT THE
�� A Ali �Ael W�*� �WW Field Delineated Stream-Perennial Parcel ttt Cemetery 11
US 64/NC 49 INTERCHANGE
>r1t1.-#441- '' � L
RANDOLPH COUNTY
10�** Field Delineated Stream-Intermittent j Asheboro City Limit .L School
Irie Feet
jA Field Delineated Wetland Row Firestation 0 1,000 2,000 NORTH

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
WP 4, • • , .
.. • .
- '. qo l.r ► Z
'� � or.yo,., y• m ar �'',
St > yi6�-`"- --� +� - Fairway Rd• " _ o
i\ III WA 1: M Q ' i O
N c
m �.- ° yak Dr
= _ - :13 DennissSSt '''s�
44 + � At • a i • i;WA a � _ti1R
p �,. O S r Itf 0 225 e- S, Q� _ { �I.
If'sIL.Farmer Rd �' • , T6 ,; r.
Q Harvell3
^P.1 . • •-. , Sunny Sri' ;
Russell i ::R,• - • , Y k _Ra. #
0 ..." FM I
. ., - . .,
., _ . . . . T >4.. - . or "6 Cr, 63 _ii. t' ,
• a Cl� 0�1 ° r 4• ��► 4
Ill:lf A... '.-•. , , 46* vl --.•
•
Illikke
.") Jov' '. '
r r• Westbury Dr
. . r-liti- his 4.
;. t 0. �. 4 " A +7 \. ,
\ .
,it, ' ' 1 .._ ,
' ' Legend
a
•
. ;. � am- Intermittent Streams
11
—,,, ` • r Perennial Streams
1.� e. r "� - ' ` C 3 Wetlands
_- 2018 Additional Area
„1 *- - . S. f .,/ ^ ___ • Project Study Area i-
, 14117'`vt ,\'q- 1/A4y c=, ik....—
t �°rah '�� 0 1,250 2,500
�' �ea
'' Feet -
o f
��xanm el' Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
,,,,t
TIP#U-5813:Additional Area 2018
Widening of US-64 from Asheboro bypass to NC-49
OF TRF �
_po Asheboro, Randolph County, NC

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Project Tracking No.(Internal Use)
17-04-0020
tar, , l HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
„ NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED FORM
'5 4 f- This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-5813 County: Randolph
WBSNo.: 44385.1.3 Document CE
Type:
Fed.Aid No: Funding: n State ® Federal
Federal ® Yes n No Permit NWP
Permit(s): Type(s):
Project Description:
Widen 1.3 miles of US 64 from the future Asheboro Bypass to the existing US 64 4-lane section.
Reconstruct interchange at NC 49, replace NC 49 Bridge over US 64 (Bridge No. 750171).
Reconfiguration of the US 64 and Albemarle ramps and loops.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
• There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of
potential effects.
• There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
❑ There are no properties within the project's area of potential effects.
• There are properties over fifty years old within the area of potential effects, but they do not
meet the criteria for listing on the National Register.
• There are no historic properties present or affected by this project. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed.)
Date of field visit:
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on April 11, 2017. Based on this review, there are survey sites and properties over
fifty years of age within the APE and a survey was required. In June 2017, architectural
historians conducted a preliminary investigation of the APE and completed a building inventory
identifying 91 resources over fifty years of age. One property, the West Bend United Methodist
Church, (RD0931, 1080 Albemarle Road) warranted further study and all other properties were
determined not eligible for National Register listing. An evaluation report was written on the
church in November 2017 and it was determined that the church is not eligible for National
Register listing. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding on December
18, 2017. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties present. If design plans
change, additional review will be required.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007
Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
141 .1
Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic hitecture and Landsca es—NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OF AFFECTED
(If I ql 2a --
N DOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT OR AFFECTED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007
Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Project Tracking No.:
17-04-0020
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
p E�HNcY PRESENT FORM _ ::
cf° This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
`. valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the 3�''a''
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-5813 County: RANDOLPH
WBS No: 44385.1.3 Document: C E
P.A. No: NHP-0095(045) Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: TBD
Project Description:
NCDOT proposes US 64 and interchange improvements in western Asheboro,widening the highway from
the new US 64 Bypass to the NC 49 interchange which will be reconstructed. This work may include
replacement of bridge structures at the interchange. Widening would increase the roadway cross section to
include four lanes with a divided median. Design for the improvements is still being finalized, however,
preliminary plans were used to establish an archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) which was
refined during the study. A large portion of considered APE is already NCDOT ROW for the existing
roadway facility which includes constructed highways and ramps(see Figures 1 and 2).
This will be a federally funded undertaking, though funding for environmental studies and planning are
currently state funded, so there is no Federal Aid Number now. Federal USACE permits are expected, and
since the project involves a federal action, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act applied
for this archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
From October 23 to 31, 2018, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted an archaeological
survey and evaluation for the proposed US 64 Widening and Interchange Redesign project in Randolph
County,North Carolina. The proposed project entails improvements to widen an approximately 1.97-mile
(10,400-foot)segment of US 64 west of Asheboro from near Rockland Drive to east of the US 64/NC 49/I-
73/I-74/US 220 interchange. The interchange would also be reconfigured as part of the project. The
proposed area of potential effects(APE)is currently based on provided designs that demarcate the proposed
right-of-way (ROW) and 25-foot buffered slope stake (cut and fill) lines, and include revisions from
December 2018. The APE generally follows the existing centerline of US 64 with a shift toward the south
for most of the roadway widening,varies in width, especially near the intersection and the interchange,but
generally measures less than 350 feet for the project. The interchange work includes a broader area as well
as approximately 1,000 feet of ramps and approaches from all directions. The project APE encompasses
approximately 84 acres; however, a large portion of the APE contains the existing roadway facility,
highway intersections, urban development, and infrastructure. As a result, much of the total acreage has
already been modified by massive earthmoving and construction, compromising chances for intact,
significant archaeological sites at those disturbed soils. This is especially the case at the large, complex
intersections on the east half of the APE. An estimated 42 acres (approximately half of the APE) was
considered disturbed or otherwise lacking enough integrity of soil to yield intact,significant archaeological
sites and was excluded from the survey unless otherwise merited as discovered through background
research or pedestrian inspection. The remaining approximately 42 acres was subject to intensive
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Project Tracking No.:
17-04-0020
archaeological survey and evaluation,with an emphasis on the southern side of the APE,unless identified
as disturbed during the field effort. The survey was conducted on behalf of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation(NCDOT).
The archaeological investigation was designed to locate and identify cultural resources within the defined
project area and to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations regarding their potential
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). During the survey, Stantec
conducted pedestrian survey of the entire APE and systematic subsurface testing in those portions of the
APE that appeared intact. Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter(98.4-foot)intervals in most areas,with
a reduction to 15-meter(49.2-foot)intervals in areas exhibiting a greater potential for cultural resources. A
total of 128 shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals along one to two transects spaced 30 meters
(98.4 feet) apart wherever the ground was accessible and free from disturbance. The entire project area
was subject to pedestrian survey. A total of three shovel tests were not excavated, in areas otherwise
subjected to survey, due to a concrete lot, standing water, and a fenced in yard with a large dog. Areas
subject to pedestrian survey with no systematic subsurface testing were not shovel tested due to slope,
drainage, wetlands, road surfaces, underground utilities, concrete parking lots, landscaping, standing
structures, subsoil on the surface, and prior disturbance. Fourteen shovel tests were positive for cultural
material and 13 radial shovel tests were excavated to determine the bounds of the newly identified cultural
resources. Six radial shovel tests were positive for additional cultural material. In addition,surface artifacts
were observed and sampled.
Further, NCDOT archaeologists also investigated several minor refinements to the APE. For these,
fieldwork was conducted that included pedestrian survey and mapping of three locations that were larger
or,in one case,appeared to encroach upon the West Bend United Methodist Church cemetery. Engineering
is currently studying opportunities for avoidance of the cemetery.
No previously identified archaeological sites were located within the project area. Six new archaeological
sites (31RD1586, 31RD1587, 31RD1588, 31RD1589, 31RD1590, and 31RD1591)were identified during
this survey. Sites 31RD1589 and 31RD1591 are both multi-component sites featuring prehistoric lithic
scatters of indeterminate temporal affiliation and twentieth century artifact scatters. Site 31RD1587 is a
prehistoric lithic scatter dating to the Archaic period. The remaining three sites (31RD1586, 31RD1588,
and 31RD1590)represent prehistoric lithic scatters of indeterminate temporal affiliation. Several of these
sites appear to be related to quarry activity throughout the APE. No surface or subsurface features were
noted. The artifacts were recovered from survey,top soil, and transitional deposits. Stantec recommends
Sites 31RD1586, 31RD1587,31RD1588,31RD1589, 31RD1590, and 31RD1591 as not eligible for listing
to the NRHP under Criterion D; Criteria A through C were not considered applicable to the evaluation of
these resources. See report (Sadler and Stewart 2019) for more specific information. No additional
archaeological work is recommended for this undertaking.
Since there are no previously recorded or newly documented archaeological sites eligible for listing on the
NRHP is known within the APE, a finding of no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible sites
is appropriate.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
• There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES present
within the project's area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
7 Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
• All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6

DocuSign Envelope ID:445B3D52-5F6A-4D06-846B-D599FBC9E884
Project Tracking No.:
17-04-0020
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Signed:
01/23/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 6