20051032 Ver 1_Complete File_20050112

United States Department of the Interior (((,~~
~~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh-Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 1; 2005
Philip Harris, III, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 18, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the proposed intersection improvement at US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 in Randolph County
(TIP No. U-3401) may. affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered. Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no
effect on the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistochoias). These comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a plant survey was conducted on September 20,.2004. Several
specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed near the intersection of NC 42 and SR 2600.
However, these specimens were approximately 0.4 miles outside the project limits. Based on the
information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that
the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Schweinitz's sunflower. Also, based
on the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on
the Cape Fear shiner. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied.
We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected
by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
o~-~~~~
.n r_/~ ~

d~,aSWpy
aM
r.,.
{~ (~3Z.
~e
OS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY p ~7 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR (s ~~Q~ RY
December 13, 2004 SAN D
Mr. Richard Spencer ~ 2 205
Army Corps of Engineers ~ENR _ yyA~
P.O. Box 1890 ~'tavosAH~sr ~ ~
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
SUBJECT: Request for Jurisdictional Determination for the proposed improvements to
the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 and the proposed widening of NC
42, Randolph County, Division 8, State Project No. 8.1572101, WBS Element
34935.1.1; T.I.P. No. U-3401.
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Delineations have been completed for "Waters of the United States," for the above referenced
intersection improvement project for .the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). Squirrel Creek, a perennial stream, along with three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2
& UT3) were identified at this site. Also, two unnamed tributaries to Vestal Creek fall within the
project vicinity.
UT1 to Vestal Creek has a short segment (see map 1, boxed section of UT1 Vestal) that was
determined to be non-jurisdictional due to the loss of natural substrate (now rip-rap) and it's
banks are completely encompassed by the invasive plant species known as kudzu. The box
shown in the upper left side of the attached map 1, highlights a segment of stream determined
ephemeral. This portion of stream was determined ephemeral because it flows from a culvert
situated under a parking lot, which opens into a preformed scour hole then flows under SR 42.
After the this segment flows under the SR 42, it continues into a concrete lined ditch that travels
through a residential lawn for approximately 150' until it, once again, becomes a natural stream
(outside the project area).
The Office of Natural Environment would like to request a jurisdictional determination of the
tentative letting date is August 16, 2005. See attached supporting documents:
1) Project vicinity maps
2) Project summary
3) USACE stream quality assessment worksheets
4) DWQ stream classification forms
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEB$ITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604

_ -- -
v
' _ __
I ga00
/
~ 1•
~ /~ 7115 /
• ..~
.
I
~
_ 19 ~ : /
r_____
.1 ~
'1 r
~9 / ~
._ a i i ~°~
~'
I .~5
I
~ i ~
16N
1 IUe6
-
I
~ .a3 I tie. /---- ~ :~/
~
I

/ ~
~ ue I
..
el_061 / / / / alc
-
~
~~ I
j}(p~
1-~~ ~J 8 I
zles
.~ J /•'
/ /
I 2296 /
12 2713
1 8
I /
~
/ /
3L'i11 / / / !
a95
` /
23x5
•~
19 1
F 1 !

2p ~ / e ~4

91

' ala

zz6s

' ~~ ~
z72s
. n

I
/ / \ , ae - 2 eeo
17
k.~,,,. s.. 23an ~ 23a5 yi/2187 .Ia•
' ZJ45
~
~'
2916 23x7
„', ~ 2317 ~ ~
I
Oa
8 ~
1
I
Oac~ooa Park
~ ~I
•
.2
8
: _
1 ~
• F
~ 6optlet Church ,~
I
'
cry ~ti -
- ~ a13 ~
;~
o
rhos ~ I .. 10 1
e6
z z191 •
- ..
~ .7
z7ae
I!
i
~ ASHEBORO ~ ~s o3.~;k.•.
'W.19.1u a16 OM••
` /
~j <9
II
. Ia i I 21e9 ~r ~ Ma 1 I
\~B ! l ]
,1 s°` o
/ I ~ .19 2H)<
_
1 ' Far 33 I O° l 3 \ !
219a ~ i / \ \
r
' 1 O __
I I
i -1
/
i ~
/ ~
,'(~ / /
~~' a7
yy
'"i ~ _
• ~ a37 .0Sr J / ~ 2189
~ 1
I / I 7707
/ I
~ i ~ ; sr. I ~ 10 .21~ u i\ .
2327 '12 I .la ~ 21
- I •2B / I
a ~ I
~n
yi ~ / 2141 J~21' _.x•01
al
P
rk I_~• ~- ~?2
lN ~ ~~~
I I I
I I 2676
$, ~ I
-
eY
a
/
+
' W ' ~: EbmentOry 't~ ' ~3 /
~ / I I I ~
5, ~'' /
S 2203 Schaal / •OZlI 0 1
1
,96 i I I I
I 1 4 21
i, ~ ~! ~
z
~
~ ~ I I
I _ _ . ~
~ ~
~. =l .S
~~ ~ ~ 1
~ I
I _
I z7o5
-
, I
219] ~ ~ I
`
~
a 1 `sJ
~
f
` '~ /J ___-_
2683 2715
o
~ ~ ~
I ~ Q7 269]
'GOO

.
7719
/
~ .. 7203 2197 ~ 9 ~ ~
~ 2696 ~
ii
i'~' ~
~
~ '° ~
.
.
~ I
!
~, I
` ~ ! f l
~ I
2az5
O / ~ ~ ~
/ p .
z7o(~ /
~

/
~ '~
. 11 2P ~~ I
an m `~ j.~ ~ I I I
~ . I
C I 2675 2670 ~

' i '
~
~ ~ 2912 7J27 ', I 1.
•
~ ~ 2671 i
72 I `
' r~5 ,
,
• 29x0
o O I 1
• os ~
zeao I b ~ ~
~
/
~I /
1 ,021 11~ .09

2979
_ /

- g g- ~ I
I _
'
28~` `
/
261
[932 I ~
"
. „ I ~
I\ I 2~6 ~ 2602
~ Noa I. 00
. IO
~ .
I
-l '
~ ~ \
.
u
1.1
/ 11
_ /
/
1 ,
ti

~ \\`J\

291N /
.,
2e10 I ~ .g ~ ~
7/1a 2603
J _ 10
~ '
O~
a
~ 16 / ~ o Y` }
t ~ ly
/
~ , 2986
'~ 2812 ._.1
. .~_. ____~_ _~

1 1 1
n 1
~ U.nga I IM '1
~ ~`-, t.:e I~MI

_ . ..__~.~ -...-.:11
R A N 6 0"1 1 ~? /
;., =- ~ _
,~mM ,,•;
"UW ~ NRI ~~ N 1~.~- ~ I.
I~
~Y '~`~' North Carolina
Department of Transportation
-"`~ '' Division of Highways
,~` Project Development. &
Environmental Analysis Branch
ow
Randolph County
Asheboro- Intersection- of US 64
NC 49 And NC 42
U-3401
SCALE: not to scale Figure 1

2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Six streams; including Squirrel Creek, three unnamed tributaries (Ut) to Squirrel Creek
and two Ut to Vestal Creek, will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Squirrel Creek
and Vestal Creek are located in sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Table 2
describes the characteristics of the streams located within the project area.
Table 2: Characteristics of Streams Impacted
Ut l :to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 2 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 1.0-2.Oft 3.0-6.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Squirrel perennial 3.0-6.Oin 1.0-2.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7:6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
Ut~ 3 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2em) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 1 to Vestal perennial 4.0-8.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 5.0-1~O.Oft moderate
Creek (10.1-20.3cm) (0.6-0.9m) (1.5-3.Om)
Ut 2 to Vestal perennial 6.0-12:Oin 2.0-3.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-30.Scm) (0.6-0:9m) (0.6-1.2ni)
It should be noted, that heavy rains had occurred in the pmj ect region approximately 36-
48 hours prior to the site reconnaissance on 29 January 2002. Tliis caused higher than normal
water levels in all of the streams within the project azea.
Ut 1 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the US 64/NC 49 and
NC 42 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris. The channel
contained strong under-cut banks, had a~good rifle/pool sequence, an~°au sinuosity. Ut 2 to
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 320.0 ft (97.5 m) east of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand,_gravel, and woody debris.
- ---- -
Jllt-lilV1 t.+1a.4i11D~1V-+Gi.LGLL 4~J~J1V~~ iit'~Gl~ JJV.V 1L `L 0~7.V luj`wGSL Vl LLiG 111LG1 JGVLLVi1 V11YV 't.:..1LLll
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble.
Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1050.0 ft (320.0 m) east of the NC 42 and SR
2600 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with exposed bedrock
in numerous places. Several large rock outcroppings aze present within the floodplain,
approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) north of Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek. A natural spring was observed at
the head of an ephemeral stream feeding the stream on the northern side of NC 42. The spring
had a small rock. structure built around it and was covered with a small piece of metal. Ut 3 to
Squirrel Creek was determined to be ephemeral on the southern side of NC 42.

Utl to Vestal Creek is located approximately 850.0 ft (259.1 m) east of the NC 42 and
US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble,. with rip-rap
constituting the substrate of the channel within 30 feet of both sides of NC 42. Ut 1 to Vestal
Creek on the southern side of NC 42 has a wide well developed floodplain with good sinuosity;
however, the northern side had been straightened and is used as a roadside ditch along SR 2683.
An inordinate amount of household and construction debris was observed within the stream on
the northern side of NC 42. Ut 2 to Vestal Creek is located approximately 1550.0 ft (320.0 m)
west of the NC 42 and US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of silt, sand,
gravel, and woody debris. The floodplain surrounding Ut 2 to Vestal Creek has been severely
disturbed with development, and the channel appears to have been straightened on both sides of
Highway NC 42.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Stireams are assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
Squirrel Creek [Index no..17 22-6] and Vestal Creek [Index no. 17 22-4] are G Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Unnamed tributaries receive the same best usage classification as the named streams
into which they flow. Therefore, the classifications of the six streams within the project area are
C. Both Squirrel Creek and Vestal Creek are tributaries of Richland Creek which also maintains
a C classification.
Neither High Quality Waters (IiQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.5 km) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide .approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive sampling of
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebrates have proven-to be a good indicator of water quality because they are sensitive
to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to
fish) and are extremely diverse: The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms
help to assess the health of streams and rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit review: No biological sampling sites are located within 3.0 mi (4.8 lcm) of
the US 64LNC 49.and,NC 42 intersection_widenin~and NC_42 w3den~r,¢ nrn,~et The-nP~r~ct
_. - ~~.
- - -~- -
- a ~ ~.:: ~~ .~ _ ~ -
sampung site tom- i y J is iocatea approximately i l.u mi (i y:s ' ~) soutrieast and -downstream from
the project azea, near the confluence of Richland Creek and the Deep River. This. site received a
Good rating in 1993 and an Excellent rating in 1998. There aze no sampling sites upstream of
the project azea.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina aze permitted through the
NPDES Program. There are no permitted dischargers within the Richland Creek basin.

~~' E}-2
dV ~ S
~~~
;c~a~. sC~ ~ vet
~~~ ~ ~~~
"".~ - -
' ~~.:
~jBa~~ J
M1.!v ~~
~N ~1 v
r . ~.v vv -v rsrr cxsrrr c.ina~rar~+narsrr~i ~ ya srk
Pm txti~faate: t%'-" ~'`r~' ~ River Buin: Co 'r Evaluuor. ~i:~ n ~<~~~'~+ JGC~
DWQ Project Ntmmbec T3earest Named 5tteam: ~2S'f t~,~ l~tiatdc Sigma: ~y,.~~ ,
Date: ~ 2 -Ot _Cy ~{- uSGS QUAD: Iangimde: Lonaoo/Directioos: .b SC' ~ Ca ~ ~ ~Z
'tPLEASE NOTE: Jjeaelremr~/Jewdewwrrotrne rl~rtrlre jmnrrso wu.wededish. mar rase ojJiitjww rr warwaxaery.
AILW, ijin r6ebarAmlemsollad9a'enr ojthr erdvomr. the jeanrn is ow.n+uda ditch otrdnotmtwodifud nmrmimro~--this
ramrgs7ms shonidtrtu/rtrxssd'k
~cnr~ GYtoNtudterhrreist)
!. Gtromo hol Absent k Niot~erate Stron
1) is Tht:re A Rifrlo-Potil St:omtee? 0 2 3
I) is The USDA Taman In Strtartlbed ,,,,,,,
S~ !! Thele Ati Amvc tOt'
jrV'".~ TI. iivtirolonv Absent Weak K7oderste Strong .
~hn fy ~ I 1 Is Theta A faotmdaater
~~ r PRIMARYRYDROLOGY.INDICATOR POIN?.T _~
~~ Rl. Bio Absent Morleeete
G~ = s
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS;
Set:ondary Field ~adicators: (CirdeOseN,.rie.Per/irr)
31 Daet Topography halimre A
rtasearxnatrmee wtrv! ~ ~i.u
SECONDARY (sue O M L 1 RF1 lOL O G Y I ND I Cy l TOR P OI N TS:
II. Kvdroh~ev Absent Weak Modet:aitr Strone
/) 3s'fhrs Yar's (Or tstt'4) I.eafliaa ,.~~
4) Is Wttta M Chamtel Awd >48 Hrs. Since 0 S `f- !S
~` ~` ~ ~ ~ l setgnerrrt Ram? /NY07E' IfDllrh Jndimred !n M9 AM~rr Skin 7>,L Sren A'd rS 1)ehw.~l
5) is ThemVNatesln'Cbatmel During Dry 0 S ~~ 1.5
Condititstu.0-)n_Gmwina Seasonl? _.~--.
8i Are Weuaad rtancslnStreambed? SAV MtsstiyOBL Mostly FACW Mnsuy FAC Mostly FACU Most ~,
L*~"~°~~(' NOTE: lJTota/ Absence OJA71 Plants !n Srreambed 1 1 .75 S D ,~
~~ As Nmrd Aberr Skin Thu Srm t/NLFSS S.I V Prcsrnl'1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
f~
d f....
TOTAL POINTS (Prrrnars~ + Secnndarv )__h` ~/jGreracr Thon Or Bquaf Ta T y Pnirta The Stream Is A! Lest brrrrmltrenU
Un Taoo bfao ded/Dr itt Pia1dT Present? ~.Yes~3 ~~e~0
PRIJMARYGEOMORPXOLOGYINDIGITORPOINTS:
SECONDARYEYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ~ J
i. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: ~n e nn
3. Date of evaluation:~1 1~=~ - C~ ~ 4. Time of evaluation: t (=• C3 _:
5. Name of stream: /,(T. '1 des ~ ~`,f`as..l~ 6. River basin: (~ fu- '-a'a.~n
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1 w ~+ ~ 10. County:
I1. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. 77556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other GIS Other
13. LocationQOf`reach under evaluation~f(note nealr/by `ro/ads and land nmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
P- [) ®j Q~.§r~~+ ~+1 ~ ~ "~ ~ `"~ ~ _ _ ~..n RSA n e1 f1~
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15..Recent weather conditions: u
.,~ • t
16. Site conditions at time of visit:-
17.Identify any special waterway c}assifications known: -Section 10 -,Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? <YES N~ Ifyes,-estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ~._./ NO 20. Does.channel appear on USDA' Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial ._% Agricultural
_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: ~' ' ~
`24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (O.to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ~ traight -Occasional bends
_% Cleared /Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3
-;Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate .(4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander _V ery sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by.detennining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain,.vegetation, stream classification, etc: Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring 'box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): '~S 1 Comments: ~'- o ~a ~- e n .o.~ rr~~;,.
Evaluator's Signature ~~~(~.2-.~ ~~7'7~~p Date t.2'~b~~'~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

~C.. A Jr
STREAM QUAILITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
`~
~~~
~~ ~
characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Pmjat Name: L;%E .. '~ ~C% ~ River Hzsin: ~ ~ ComtN: b.eF+h U~~. ~ r I'L Evalmtor. ~td~-tr~.,(:~ ~~ ~ ~-c'j ,.:~ c; t .
'~"' ~~
DWQ Project Ntmtb~er.• Nearest Named Seream• ~(,~~.r~ a latintdc Sig~ttre: ~~..%. 1;L
/ _,. r e
Date: [~ -U! -L'I~ USGS QUAD: r i~ngimde: I.o~ioo/Directions: ~v''~~ , ~,~
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijarltremrwd /ewdwwer aara tfrttrie jmwe it o wa•wwfrdiaeh, tltar are ojrbrr jaw rs wawer.~ary. ~~ 4@/~:•'~` `,~% Y ly{ C.~
Afro, ijfe tleebeua~lem•••f jedgewmtojrfte ewfueter.WBjeemrc is swen•wede ditdt ewd wwa erodlfied aemmf meow--tk$
/adegsyseewslewddnerf~rared~' ~ ~~-...
Primary Field indicators: (corleta.eNewbe.iie.frse)
L Geom ho{ Absent Weak Mod to Stron
11 L, There A Riffio-Pool Seottentx? 0 I 2 `t 3
2) Is The USDA Taman ht Stttxtnbed °
.~ 0 2
0 '}
• 4 ' 0 1 )
5) fs Thae An Aam 10r Rdic)
i
i
P
?
a
rt
n~mt
Fktodc
0 Qi 2 3
6 s. I
t
• 0
2 3
3
9) Is A Caatmowrs.ffed•8 flank Prtxatt? , 0 I 2 3
~Q
f9V0ffi: J/Bed e6 Bwt Ca~eABe JNtriiev Asa rr)T/JOJJT Siwminr The S
r wt Is a zr order or crma• ex>,nne! t As irtart9oed mrr•• 0'1
On Tooo bfao AudiDr in FaelelY Preeenr~ e'Y.es~ ~ NeQO
PRIMARYGEOMQRPXOLOGYINDIG7YlR•POIMIS: ,;~
/I. fitrdrole~v Absent Wmk Moderate Strong
1) !s There A~Grotmdwatet
Eiow/Diseharee Pee~ertt? 0 I 2 3
PRJM.4RYH}DROLO rG'I'.INDIGI~TORPOIIVI~
PR/MARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR
Secondary Field indicators: (fedaFJreJJiwierAerHer~
" _.
~~ ~r:y
~~•
•l:; ~ %~M
:i~` r1~`'T ~.s.
s ~ k~~~~v
3). DBes Topography hrtiieam A
Nadtra!_ee Wn!- 0 5 t F
SEC011FDARYG80Ml~lil'FXOLOGYINDICATORPOIN7S: '~-
ii. Kvdroloev Absent Wmk Moderate Strnnr
1) fsThis Ytpr's (QtFas['e) lsatiiaer
4) Is Water in Chamd Mt6 >48 firs. Since
S
5) Ls There Wader friChame[ Druutg Dry
S
IS
- • • -- •• -•-•- • --• ••• .,....o.........: .•.. • mD.f•I) VDL mousy t•AGW Most N'AC MOitfy FACU IlSouiy UPL
f' NOTE: ljTcm/Ab^esae OjAU Pbnn !n Snmmbed 2 1 .7$ .$ ~1 ~ 0
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: t"" . `~
TOTAL POINTS (Primun• + Secondary f= ~''/(/jGremer ThDD Or Equal Tb 14 Pnraa The Snenm Is.tr Lca_rr Interm~nenu
SECONDARYEYDROLOGYINDIG4TOR Pt7IN7Sr~~, u ~~~

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Provide the following mformafaon for the stream reach under assessment.
1. Applicant's name: N~D~~..f.-
3. Date of evaluation: L A, - ~l -O'-t' ~ ~
5. Name of stream: ~ a .~ Y ~•t-a..l 1:.~'tlt,2>-'~
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ` ~Q
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex. -7755661 I):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Shee ' Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
i'L4~ ~-' `f' !YZ ,l~ OZ-t o~ tf-C~ ~Z ~ ~1rr- ~ G-4 fv-~Pit,[itzr.r"~
14. Proposed channel work (if any);
15. Recent weather conditions: ~'~~ ~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: (~r~;~ ~
17. Identify any special waterway c}assificarions known: -.Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential- Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient~Senysitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (~.:._:~" NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? t~ NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested
Z2. Bankfull width: ~ r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: w~t~'lat (O.to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight /Occasional bends
2: Evaluator's name: ~i n a~
4. Time of evaluation: ) 1 ` ~~
6. River basin: ~.~ "~"P~r./'
8. Stream order:
10, County: ~c~~
12. Subdivision name (if
Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
- r
23. Bank height (from bed to top'of bank):
_Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instruciions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain,.vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign"points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. ~ If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or• weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring 'box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~C Comments:
--_ -.~ _
-.-~-- ~ __._. _~~ - - - -- -,~ ~-~ ... ~--~~. ~-s- _.
1 i ~~_ ~,~
Evaluator's Signature ~~sl Date ~ ~'
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resultinb from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

n
r~ ~`.
7~'
r ~'`c''h
~~~U~ [)
4~ ~
.~~~
I
~r`i
..~,~
~` \. ''
t~.
.,
T~
i• !'\ .`
~~~
t ~~.~.. v uu esnt~ aranstaaaacnuvn rvr w
Project Namc: ~ '€ is f^~ River Basin: ^' Corm ~~ ° ! r:` Evaimtor•. gn" ~ ~ w •~- r
F
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: j~ i~ ~ S r~ Latmtdc 5i~azuct: ~' ~
)
Date: ~ ~' ~ ' a ~' USGS QUAD: ~ t
Longitudc: i.o~/DiteCUOnS: ~ j '1 ~~ C-~
*PLEASENOTE:Ifew4~al/ewd~wyenoarat~urrAejaareisawa+wadediarh.~raraseofrhisJorwirwnw~aesarq. t~~.
.uw,;jin N-ebarP++sj~alladAsirwraf rlre erdararor, drs jmarnit oaanwsrde dim,..d.a~ra.rodtfsd.smmtms..~.rhu f
raa+rgsraearrlroaldaorierasad} .~..~-.,~ - ~t-~-s-=T'~+:~et
Primary Field lndicatorss lGrcleone/Jnn~be,ParliurJ' '~ e~~
9) H A.['~.,,„e.Bedde BanltPreaent? .0 I y
I~NOT£: I/B&d B Bun! Cr.eA B~~ Dlrii.v dnd WllllO-7T 5inrwirv 77rn Senrr•. p•~
10) !s A 2'~ Otder Ur Groter Cbarmet (As indttated ~..~
PR I MA R Y GE OMO R PH O L EI G Y I ND I G 4 TO R• P O f N T S
IL Kvdroieev Absent Weak Moderate Stronn
1) is Thtue A Gtotmdarmer
Fiow/6ischa¢e Premlt? 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDIG4•TORPOWTS: ~ • __
Seeon~iarv Field indicators:ICr,erno.elv,.~n.rn.t;.e~
4) is W ater M Chaooei Avrd >48 Hrs. Since 0 S 1 1 S
.~
5) is These Watx 1n Channel Dtamg'Dry 0 1 1S
Condirions.t7r in lrtowin¢ 5easonl?
61 Are Iivdric Solis Pe~sent in Sides Of Channel fOr in Fieadcutl? Yts=1 S C^Np=O
SECONDARYXYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
~,
TOTAL POINTS (P,-imurs• + Secnndary ~~,~_' (I~Grenier Than Or Equal Tn l S' Pnins The Scream !s At Lcart 1 nrrrminenu

!. Georoo hol Absent Weak Moderate St
i) is There A R'ifffe-Poo! Seooencc? 0 1 2 3 i
2) is The USDA Ttaaae ht Streambed
rx~nnt+xr awauurrrruit.Aevx rvinrs;
3) Days Topograpiry htdinoe A -
Natmal Dtaittare Wad 0 _5 irj 1S
SECONDARY GEOMORFHOLt1GYI1VDIGTOR POINTS;
~~
tl.I~vdroMpv Absent Weak Moderate 3trone
1) is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
81 Are Wetland Piantc in Streambed? SA V Mouiy OBL Nosily FACW Mos~iy FAC MostiwFACU Mostly [II'L
(' NOTE: 1(Tom! Abrenae OJA!! Plants !n Srrrambed 1 I .7$ .$ {' ~ ' p
_,~: Notrd Abovr Skin 7hb Strn fMLEiS SAV Prrxnt`l
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~°: ~ }

~,~ v..
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~ O-~'~'~
3. Date of evaluation: j ~.-`I - O ~-
5. Name of stream: a?.nteeP~7 S n r ~ n.c~ ~t-ecY
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ ~ C1 t
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: ~ ~ ~~
4. Time of evaluation: ~ ° ~3 ~
6. River basin: ~' ~ ~ ~- `'~~
8. Stream order: ~.-

10. County: ~..~z ~~~'t
12. Subdivision name (if any):,
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77556611): t
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS t~ther~r>~ 1.}7~id~i.~ry
13. Locati_on~oif reach under evalu~atlion (fin/ote nearbyroads and landmarks and attach map identifying~js earn(s) location):
f/lk~ l~-~'~ C1-1 T ~~-- ! ~X ~ !./]~lil.,CSZfi~~ _
]4. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: ~ ~- <~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Cva Fn ----
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section IO -Tidal Waters ,-Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters ,-Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO~If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES O~ 2Q. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _%.Industrial _.% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( 1
22. Bankfull width: 3 E 23. BBank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (O.to 2%) =!Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) ,-Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -,Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by.determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain,.vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 ~in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~~ Comments:
1 '~ ~/ ~ Date ~ Z - ! - t:~ 4-
Evaluator's Signature `
This channel evaluation form is inten ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental rr•ofessionais in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resuftinh from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 a 26.

STREAM QUALITY' ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Provide the following rnformatron for the stream reach under assessment:
1. AppIicant's name: N C, ~ c~=
3. Date of evaluation: ~~ `'i -' C~'~
5. Name of stream: t/l i ~ S~.A ~ ~ 2ri L C'.R..~
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: v~O
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name:~~0
4. Time of evaluation: a = ~~~a
6. River basin: ~j-+~- ~~~"-'~
8. Stream order: ~--
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77556611):,
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: ('t~- ~sl
16. Site conditions at time of visit: r ~-~.~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _. Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation paint? -YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
,/ _% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( 1
22. Bankfull width: ~'"( 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (O.to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
,~'~
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends (Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located :on page 2):' Begin by.determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain,.vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the-range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~ ~ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~ ~ ~~~ Date ~ rx."'a1 "' ~ `~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resuiiing from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imps}~ a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change. -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactertsticsnre not assessed in coastal streams.

n~.~•• v uu cuur a..rn~tstat,:auvu rm m
Project Name: (~' 4 ~C-"~ '~ River Buin: ~ i~ Cotmty: '! ~,-ti *+(~- ~ ~~'~ fivalmtor: ~~,;r,~ ly,~. ~ ~', ~ ~~`,.,' y ~:.:r"~
DWQ Project Nttmbcr. ~~ Nearest Natned Strnrtt:Jc~ 1°~ ~"'{-Latitude: Sigrmnuz: ~(~ n _ _~O
wv _
~~J~~ ~ "~
:r
~,~x'1~.~- Amy
5.~. ~~
Date: S ~ ' ~ _ (^~t~ USGS QUAD: Longitude: Lonomt/Ditxtioar: eBsL~L~'ac2. (~~ p,r ;
*PI.EASENOTE:IJeMr4tamrdMtsdarrreroareerlrrrltejmtrnnaw~w.wndcdith.torteraseofdnsfor>•trrttrirwaranry. Q. , f ~
AIlsO, ijin d-ebarPrejs>zarsea!!•adaenmrnf Ike erdiutor, rkej~eatn is swan-t~wte dtdr andwor o wodfjud ~amml fir c~ °~•.~~i-~~+~,
tartrg>ptan tr/tottldaetltrwe~d'~•
Primary Field Indicators: (are~ateld..r,<r~rtw<~
I. Gmmoroitoit>QV Absent Weak Moderate StronP
11 is There A Rtftle-Pool Seouence? 0 i ~ 3
2) !s The USDA Tesaae in Strearnhed
5) is Them An
Refie)
91 ht A Coatitmats.8ed• do 8adc Ptetttxtt? .0 1 y
t`IV07X':1lBrdd BankC_l9pDlM~ws AnA R7TXOtr1'Siwuoifrv Tlrn Smrc•~D•1
ID) is A 2" Onkr Or Gtrater Channel (As htt3tcttted
PR I MA R Y GE OMO R PH O L D G Y I ND I CA TO R• P O f N TS : ~~
It.livdrok~v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is Thtxe A Gtatadwatet
f)ow/Qischarce PreaenF? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYBYDROLOfsY.INDICATOR POINTS• '
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Stacondary Field ~ndicators:lcn~on~x~.Petate/
3} Does Topography lodiewre A
Natural Drahta¢e Wtty? o !~`'~ t is
SECONDARY G80MORFXOLDGYINDICATOR POINTS., ~r . 5"
1)!st"I'his lfear~Laet's)
4) is Wata In Chatmei Aotd >48 Hts. Since 0 S 1 1S ~
• ~ f.
Sl !s Tht:te Water Ia'Chattoel Dtaittg Dry 0 S i ~" iS ~
~'~ J
Cottdititms Orin Grovvin¢ teastml?
6) Are Hvdrte Stnis Pttsent ht Stiles Of Channel fOr in fln_ ~.ttl? Yes=/.S _ i~`No=O..-'
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
,-
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary )= rte' (JjGreater Tnan Or Equa(Tn 1 y Pnrnts The Stream 1s AI Least LiterminenU
_.. _ _ .. _.._........." ....,....o........,: u.. r mosi~y unt, mostly YAC:W Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostty tJPL
(' NOTE: ljToa/ A6aenae [>fA!! P(antr !n Srrcnmbed 1 ~ ? j ~ p
.}s Nurrd AMrvcSkin Thu3tm !1N FcSS~V PrcxnP1 ~
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR PUINT3:

D ~~~~ V
d~~~ ~ D
~ w.m~, SAN 2 5 2005
s
~nrR.
TERB~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Ms. Beth Barnes
DENR-Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
December 13, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for Jurisdictional Determination for the proposed improvements to
the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 and the proposed widening of NC
42, Randolph County, Division 8, State Project No. 8.1572101, WBS Element
l ,
34935.1.1; T.I.P. No. U-3401. d~~ ~~
/
Dear Ms. Barnes: ~1~''"'~ /~- I°~
Delineations have been completed for "Waters of the United States," for the above referenced
intersection improvement project for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). Squirrel Creek, a perennial stream, along with three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2
& UT3) were identified at this site. Also, two unnamed tributaries to Vestal Creek fall within the
project vicinity.
UT1 to Vestal Creek has a short segment (see map 1, boxed section of UT1 Vestal) that was
determined to be non-jurisdictional due to the loss of natural substrate (now rip-rap) and it's
banks are completely encompassed by the invasive plant species known as kudzu. The box
shown in the upper left side of the attached map 1, highlights a segment of stream determined
ephemeral. This portion of stream was determined ephemeral because it flows from a culvert
situated under a parking lot, which opens into a preformed scour hole then flows under SR 42.
After the this segment flows under the SR 42, it continues into a concrete lined ditch that travels
through a residential lawn for approximately 150' until it, once again, becomes a natural stream
(outside the project area).
The Office of Natural Environment would like to request a jurisdictional determination of the
stream delineations. Please contact us before February 6, 2005 to schedule a field visit. The
tentative letting date is August 16, 2005. See attached supporting documents:
1) Project vicinity maps
2) Project summary
3) USACE stream quality assessment worksheets
4) DWQ stream classification forms
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604

0
'tn
0
0
C
w
0
O~
!"~`
~D

cD
~`~
x= x~cn z ~m
000'0~-~ ~, m"W
~m~~ps~o ~m
d ~, Am 3 'o
a a ., ~ m a
a~~°o~~ ~
a ~ s;
'm °m ~~
m ~ ~, o ~
~`.~ oC
~~
0
0
x
e-1~
N

o
J i
1.90 I yaeo alo /
-
I _ ~ /
__ 19 ~
9 % 1 /
_
~ •• -' __
. i ~
/i f' / J
,Q
1617 14400 1 ~ /'1 _
.03 ~ 2184
/'~-- i
:
/ - \ ~
/
/
/
17 - • p4 1407 I / / . •I ~ -
`~ ~ ~r I ~ / / 1 /~
16 ~ i
,
1ae6•~ 06 I •' 1 / / / / 0
~
~.~O.,y~.M~
- 1 $ 1 ~':~ ID~~ 2163
1~'~ / /' // ~ 096
/
1 \2 2]13
,1
•
/
.
/~
._
3L'L1 % - ~
/
~ agy • 2345 J 1
~
'~~~ l /
/ - 019 z7n

k~rr . 1 t~ /2107 41 . 19 230.7
'
/
/ '• +
~~ Y
2316 2347
~ %
1 .~./ 1 23-17 .~ F ~ I
• 2180 •: OOk ~a96 Pork p0
96
t1Jt Church 1
p
'

OrY .
fy ./ ~ 1 -
~ ~
~ 013 ~
~%' •~
~
Od s •.:a ~
~7 o-
.~ ~O 1 2191 ,
~ i7
2700
~
I

~ ASHEBORO ~
ro'
nw 2f86
~y o3.Cl.•.
016-.
oM:
/
.Q• 99
j ,
c
.
.
. IB , I .
~„esl NQ. .10 J I • z6o+
19 2706
-
(-~ ~ O
~ 2194 . ~ \ I I'°I I
- I ~ / / I ~

I
f ~ ,:~ \ III
sr.e,,. 97
m7 .oSrJ / .. \ zle9 ~1 I
' / I 2707
/ 1
2377 s
. 1? 1 ~ 10 :2192 ~' ~ ~ I .20 / I
~ ~
l
' I
_
~
~ I I 2676 1
/
~
W
• ` _ _
21 ~ .. • Q1
2199 Jn~
• ~- x.42 I
rk I:'
4
P I I $ (!'~
/
' W ' .' i ~ C
T
Wk1Y
L
Ekknenr0rY •~
l3 l
/ .
I
I
~~ ~~ 1. /
~+ , ° 2033
7 ° School .oiti
~
I
~ / ~ ' ~ ~ 2196 ~ I
~ I I-
I 1 26
I ~'4 zl
• ss
`
~ '' 1 z7w_
•,..
t 7 2197 I ~ •~} ~ I I

~

`
\ ~e l • ~ / J
~
'~
~
~ ~-----

2683
2715
-
~ \
~ Q7 2697
2600
1 - 2719
y_
I . .
. ~
s
M 03 2197 ~ 0 < ~ I
_
1
I / u
~~' ~
'J~ 2EW 2700 /'
•\
/ 1
I
/ ~
'' I~ / fl 2825
,/~
~
' O !•~ ~ ~' /
ZJ01~ ~
eu6 ~ I
~'
M'y I / . ~ ai ._.. ~ /
. 11 ' ~ -

" ~'~ I ! I ` • 26n 2670
o 1 ~
~ 1° 7327
~ I
4 / / l .f . I
I
'~ 2671 e ~ .
R
2912
8 ~ • 1-~s . a
I ~ -
zmo 1
.~

zeao I
I

~
~
~

it
~ I
f /
/ .
/
o
~ I . ozi . 11` . a9
2979 ,

- c $ ~ . J I
- ~
'
2026
~ . \
~ I /

~ 4oe
.10 _~ `
° 1.00
I
' -
`

11
/
/ /
•~ --
\I'1
1

ti \~.t\

~
N
/ .
1 2603
291 2810 7 I ` •$ 0 ~ \ 2720
\ ',
29 / ~•~~J ~ I.
3p 0 \b /
''~3 281J ~ 29Bfi
- _.1_..~
f [ ~ 1
cirri , Mfir '1 ~'
i~ ' t3 tii
• •~ •~ X77 NrM II~H Nro
R A . N 6 O' ~ 1•~P '/
•
1i^^ nNl
. • ~~
1 ~
_/ 1191 r,~~~~.~.,
~,~ North Carolina
Department of Transportation
N,~:* ' ",'`_' ' Division ofHighways
,~ Project Development. & •
Emnronmental Analysis Branch
a
Randolph County
Asheboro Intersection of US 64
NC 49 And NC 42
U-3401
SCALE: not to scale Figure 1

23.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Six streams; including Squirrel Creek, three unnamed tributaries (Ut) to Squirrel Creek
and two Ut to Vestal Creek, will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Squirrel Creek
and Vestal Creek are located in sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Feaz River Basin. Table 2
describes the characteristics of the streams located within the project area
Table 2: Characteristics of Streams Impacted
Ut l to Squiael intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 2 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 1.0-2.Oft 3.0-6.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0,9-1.8m)
Squirrel perennial 3.0-6.Oin 1.0 2:Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
- Creek (7:6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
Ut~3 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.U-3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0:9-1.8m)
Ut 1 to Vestal perennial 4.0-8.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 5.0-10.Oft moderate
Creek (10.1-20.3cm) (Oy6-0.9m) (1.5-3.Om)
Ut 2 to Vestal. perennial 6.0-12.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 2.0-4.Oft .slow
Creek (7.6-30.Scm) (0.6-0:9m) (0.6-1.Zm)
It should be noted, that heavy rains had occurred is the project-region approximately 36-
48 hours prior to the site reconnaissance on 29 January 2002. This caused higher than nomlal
water levels in all of the streams within the project area.
Ut 1 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the US 64/I~TC 49 and
NC 42 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris. The channel
contained strong under-cut banks, had a~good rifle/.pool sequence, and fair sinuosity. Ut 2 to
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 320.0 ft (97.5 m) east of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The. substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris.
Squirrel Creek. is located approximately 950.0 ft (289.6 m) west of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble.
Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1050.0 ft (320.0 m) east of the NC 42 and SR
2600 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with exposed bedrock
in numerous places. Several lazge rock outcroppings aze present within the floodplain,
approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) north of Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek. A natural spring was observed at
the head of an ephemeral stream feeding the stream on the- northern side of NC 42. The spring
had a small rock. structure built around it and was covered with a small piece of metal. Ut 3 to
Squirrel Creek was determined to be ephemeral on the southern side of NC 42.

Utl to Vestal Creek is located approximately 850.0 ft (259.1 m) east of the NC 42 and
US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble,. with rip-rap
constituting the substrate of the channel within 30 feet of both sides of NC 42. Ut 1 to Vestal
Creek on the southern side of NC 42 has a wide well developed floodplain with good sinuosity;
however, the northern side had been straightened and is used as a roadside ditch along SR 2683.
An inordinate amount of household and construction debris was observed within the stream on
the northern side of NC 42. Ut 2 to Vestal Creek is located approximately 1550.0 ft (320.0 m)
west of the NC 42 .and US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of silt, sand,
gravel, and woody debris. The floodplain surrounding Ut 2 to Vestal Creek has been severely
disturbed with development, and the channel appears to have been straightened on both-sides of
Highway NC 42.
2.23 Best Usage Classification
Streams are assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
Squirrel Creek [Index no. 17-22-6J and Vestal Creek [Index no. 17-22-4] are C. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Unnamed tributaries receive the same best usage classification as the named streams
into which they flow. Therefore, the classifications of the six streams within the project area are
C, -Both Squirrel Creek and Vestal Creek are tributaries of Richland Creek which also maintains
a C classification.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.61~)~ of project study area.
2.23 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive sampling of
biological, chemical and physical .data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water, quality because they are sensitive
to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to
fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms
help to assess the health of streams and rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit review. No biological sampling sites are located within 3.0 mi (4.8 ltm) of
the US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 intersection widening and- NC 42 widening project. The nearest
sampling site (B-19) is located approximately 12.0 mi (19.3 km) southeast and downstream from
the project. area, near the confluence of Richland Creek and the Deep River. This site received a
Good rating in 1993 and an Excellent rating in 1998. There aze no sampling sites upstream of
the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Cazolina are permitted through the
NPDES Program. There are no permitted dischargers within the Richland Creek basin.

r~a..a~.. v uu t;asrn waat~iiat+wauun •rua m
Cottaty. ~,:.•->ti~..7`~ r
PsojattJaote: f/••.~ ~'"1'~ ~ ,River Basin: . ~.1,' tivahmor. ~'i:~ci0o ~~~~~ jc:.c'~'~
~ L ~2 `/
DWQ Project tttober. 23earrst Named Strtnru:
7 CS'~'y~ i~dtudc
5i~trcz: -~rv~r ,
tom: ~ 2 -~ -o ~- uses QUAD: toagnnde: ~~: b sC' ~ ~ ~(j ~•z
!~, ~ S - *lLEASENOTE:1-lawrtmr..~~•per.amnarare~asw.....deo~fr.erta.wojrlrv~~••rwss~sy
Afw, fjin rbe beatptaJ~ef jadsewmr ojtks st+ti/namr. dtsJmarrr a s..n.uade difrlt swd wear a wodijied a
i
'1r amra! ms.+w-r1~rs
trld-tstf+sttsed
trmgs>Ateat dtt
'~~~. ~rr~.~ rimarv Field Indicators: ~c;,~a.eN..~.r~rl~el
~~~ ~.C~"ir~
t't'~' I. Grtotio ho Abaret k Mttdrrate Stron
r y
' I1 Is Tirc^+ a rriro..w..~t a.,,„,,,,,.~ 0 t~ , . 2 -- , 3
? ~. 2) k The USDA Ttetaae in 5trraathed
~ 0 i
3
2
Different From 5ttrtmtnd ne Tertain

~~ ~~ 0 I
a- to Tits cii 5itt~.~~ 0 2 3
3
5) B Time An Active IOr Relic)
'p 3

/ 1 3
s 3
9) Is A Contomtms.fkddt; i3aoicPreamt? .0 ) 2j ~ 3
t ,r}. lD) is A 2" Oaks' Oe ~iraater C6rmnel l As indieaned
. ~ On Toed Mao.ltrd/Dr Irr Fie1dY PresenY+ • Y~3 Ntr~M~
~~.J~• PRIMARY GEOMORPXOLOGYIJYDIGATOR• POINT.4: ~ .
~' iI Ift+droittQV Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) is Thete A'Cittitmdrratc
~ Fit>,v httree Prmmt~ 6 ~I G 2 3
~~ry~}~'- J PRJM~RYRYDROLOrsY.INDICA~TORPOINTS:_~ ._.
I h~ ~D nI. Bio Abaertt Mtrdeeate
_^=
PRIMARYBIOLOGYIli~Dlt..lTOR POINT.4;
Secondary Fitdd Iutiicstors: icr~ o.Qlt~.f~e.ft.d
3) Does Topography hrdinte A
.~~_~ .. nf_.»
SECOND~4RY
I1VDIt-,ITOR POINTS:
II. fivdt•oh>QV Absent Weak Moderate 3trone
1) Is This .Par's (Or t:aSt'8) Lesflitter ~ r.. ~
4) is Water to Chanttei Md>48 firs. Since 0 S T t 5
Y` eN.~ ~'` ~ t.ast Kamm Rin? rwarF.rrdna~ h,d~rd In M9 wb~,.~ sr:n n~a.ek,.:,t,~d,rs ~~ri
1 5) is There Water 1n~CTtanoet Drusng Dry 0 S ~~ 1S
Cortditiore~ th in C**~+.~.b Seasonl't -.~-~
81 Are Wetland Piattcs in Strsambed? SAV Monty OBL Mmtiy FACW Mostly FAC Mmtiy FACU Moslly.{(Pl,
~~,~' ~(' NOTE: ljToml Abrexx oJAll Pbnts !n Snmmbed Z 1 •75 .S 0 ~t
`~~ M Nored Abrwr Slin Tlfb Siev lMLSSAV Frrxnr'1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICfITOR PUINTS:
,..
~..
~: .;
TOTAL POINTS (Primurs• + Secondary )__~ ~, (~1jGremer Thart Dr Equal Tn 1 y Points The Scream Is At i.easr 6iterminenU
SECONDARYHI'DROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: S -•~~"~-

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~,~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
+i
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: rr'~ ~~ c -~7 ~~%'
3. Date of evaluation: ~ } ~-- ~z -- °.= ~"` 4. Time of evaluation: 1 l - ~-
~ lac, ,, ;^~- 6. Riverbasin• ~ ~'~-- ;~~-~~
5. Name of stream:Jj'o9, d' ~ F ( ~~ •~'.~ ~'
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ~Innru~
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ (~~~> P 10. County: l~t~=^~1,~-~"t
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if
'Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.55661 I)'.
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
l V a ~V~•J '^.'" i'~G~ 4.L~ P. 1~ E t,~y~ /il l..1 ~I ~~Z l'~ i[....r+3:s'fF9
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: u~-~'~`~~`"'
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ~ .+~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters .-Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
7
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N ~ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? E~ NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential -% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: ~ " ~ ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ~ Flat (O.to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
Z5. Channel sinuosity: ~ /Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
n:
Total Score (from reverse): . g 9 Comments: '2e~'t " ~'~ .~-~ s~°'~- ~' ~°i"u' `~ ~~-
,fr / ~ i9 ~ -, u`
Evaluator's Signature (a~ lys~:,c-1~~ ~ ~~ ~"~~~~ ~`r=>.; Date
This channel evaluation form. ~s intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/0. To Comment, please call 919-R76-8441 x 26.

~;
;_
. 3.:, ,,,
t, __~rt.~ , ,. ._
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
t_, _..
k ~rx..~-~_<

z t i`
z
r wt .~.'b *~l,

.r
~'~i
k ~,.~,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

t1~.1P .. ll Jlt cuff/ 4I7t1>t,It1G}a ti~U11 ~P Vt ill
Project Name: :+, .. ~ ~G ~ River Sasin: (~ ~ Cotmty, i~u+-~ Ge: € ~* ~ Evahntor. ~a~-c-(•/' ~` "` `~I
.~
DWQ Project Ntrmhcr. 13rarest Named Stteazti: ~ ~5.~.~? Latitttdc Sigttaara: ~._..-` . iY` „'i:Lro"".~
Date: ~ ,;) .C} "'. y) C.l. ; `=~ F-'-~
AA p USGS QUAD; I~ngitudc: Location/Direcnons: ~ ---~~--~ y.
*PLEASENOTE:/je~rdremra/JewdswneroarrcNret/ImjemweisaM~nodediodr.tLe~a:saofviisjarwirw~rwasanry- ~~-~:'~-' `'~% ~ fYf C.R
Also, if in the best Pmj j~etaeot ojthe etwbtttuer, the jcaatra is a taeo.wtnde ttfird/ trod not a wodffud women/ saeaw-this
rwewgsytretwtdmw/dwettktvsndtr J~ ~`'.~~.`
Primary Field indicators: (CuskOneNutabrrPer(inr)
L Geomornhoiotw Absent Weak Moderate Stl'DnP
I) Is There A Bifrle-Pool Semsence? 0 I f2'! 3
2) Is The USDA Texttse ht Streambed a
y
t tii ~ 0 ,L~..-~ 2 3
31 Are Natmai Levees Pte4ent'! 0 1 '~ 3
41 Is The Charnel Sitnrorts~ 0 I Z, 3
~r~r'w~'T''
9) !s A Commuous fieddc f3ataf:f'teaent? .0 1 2 ~ __
rwtrre: -r&,a ~ ~t r.~.re e~ LHtrii~. one wrr'rrorrrs;~N r>,rr~ ~s~,r•. oe
la) Is A 2" Order !7x Gantd' Channel (Aa lntiit9ted
bn Teoo h~tao Awd/Or in. ~ieldl' Present? NeQO __ _
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR• POINTS:- j„~
II. Kvdrolt/rv AbseaY Wesk Moderate StronP
I) Is-There A Ermttndtrarer
E)ow/Discharee Present? 0 I Z 3
PRIMARYIIYDROLOGY.WDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY I1 INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: ir~oe~~.~.ti
t) Is Thera elHrad~m Pnnent in.Chasetel? 0 `} -- I - --- - i.5 _
2) is Thero A GradeCtmrrol Ptsrsrt.fn Channel? 0 ~S F 1 t 5
3) Does Topography fodteate A
N_suaal Drdirnee Wtrv7 0 .5 r tS
SECONDARY GFOMORFFIOlOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~-
II. iivdroftrev Absent Weak Moderate Strnnv
1) fs This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Ptzsent MStreambed7 t_5 ~' S 0
21 is St:drmrnt On Plarne (Or Dtsbns) Present? /0 ~ 3 1 t 5
3) Are Wsack.Lmes Pnaerlt~ 0 5 I ~L.S~
4) IS Wp ate in Charnel Awd >4B firs. Stace 0 .5 I t S
i ae>• AIInr/n. Raln?_ I'N07E.• Ildech Mdimfed In M9Abor~ Cl :v 7LL. Rrm•And MS BeMw.+!
5) Is Tht:re Warer fa Charnel Dttttng Dry 0 S 1 ~1S ' /
Condititmtr.Or in Grovvi/t¢ Stusonl?. ~•~
Are . title Stri s t n Sides Of Channel Or in ea t ? es= Nn=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDIG4TORPOIN?5:~~
~,~
J~~ ~~
~.
pp !~ ~ ~'"' t3) Are AouaticTurtles Present?
` f 0 '+ ~ 1 1

:`i ~, ,.
i
!~4) Are Crayfish Preseot? i D~ 5 I l 5
y
~ ~1 Are Macrobrnthos Present? l 0! 5 1 I S
;
61 Are iron Oxidtzme Baesena/Fsmr~rc Pr esort? ' 0 ~ i I l 5
~
r 71 [s Fliammrous Aleae Present? 10.1 5 I - 1 5
y""~ BI Are Weuaad Plants in Stsrambed? SA V Mnatly OBL Mostly FACW Mostl~FvAC Mostly FACU Mostly IJPL
.lf~'~~R.~ (' NOTE: /jTaml A6rerr~ OjAl1 Pbnrs !n Srrrambed Z I •75 ! S ~ D 0
As Nuird AMvr Skin 1>r6 &m ftNl FCC SAV Prrxnr•1 ~,/
s„^•,~Ir~ SECONDARYBIOLOGYlNDICATOR POINTS: l - ~
,,.~.
- ,,.~
,,~ ~~.n TnTAL POINTis (Prinrars• + Secnndarv t= `'/(/jGreafcr Tnan Or Equa! TD 14 Pnina The Srrearn fs Af Le2st Ittkrrntnenn
..L~ --
5) fs '!here An Active 1Crc Relic)

USACE AID# _ DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~
.;r
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: da.D~:. e -~ ~:y ` e ~~ 2. Evaluator's name: r~ ~;~,~
3. Date of evaluation: 1 ~ - ~~t. - %~?''~ 4. Time of evaluation: t t ` ~~-='
5. Name of stream:t.~ ~ ~ ~'~ `~ k`r.~~ (fit"we_~~ 6. River basin: f y ~,..~- °`~t' ~=y.,.-,
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ° ~~
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ ~~% r 10. County: ~zc:w~~°~~~=~t?~
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude (ex.34.872312):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):.
Method location determined (circle): GPS `Top-o Shee ~ Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
e1.sl--(.~ ~ - ~,Yt ,. f~ ~~-- ~~i ~%~ %z <~•..: .~,,...w S~ ~Ce;~- ~~.~~.-..cry s:~:t
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: '<~* ~'~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: i" cup • ~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient~~S--ensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? (YES'!NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
/^~
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 'j~ ES') NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: --,~ ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ~-Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight .<' Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by.detennining the most appropriate ecoregion. based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
~L
Total Score (from reverse): ~ d Comments:

Evaluator's Signature t(1 ~/t(}/wry ~ Date ~~-~ ~ `~ - `~~ `~~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

twa~..v uu Dora wxasurc:auvu ror m .
Project Name: (~' ~ ~FC`~ ,~ Rives Basin: ~ ~ Canty. ~)~; ~~4,~=f`~ Ewwlu~tar. ~~~ ~, y •~ ~r~;..~• j ~''~-y'~
~ y r
DWQ Project Ntanbi~er. `" Nautst Named Stmrn:~G~ 1-~ ~ r•c,llatitudc :Sim: .,E/ _
~O
Date: S ~ ~ - (~ USC;S QUAD: l.oaatim/Dinctioas: . c~yL~~ lI , e
*PLEASENOTE:Ij ~rfrmr..t~wMretrra,r..r,r~ejrmR~a..+..~,dr~rtr.we.areejf~irjw.an.nw~o~,~. ~:~.~~.c~ ("fi'~1`'
.ILw, ijfa We best prejmi~of ja/~nrart njrGa erafrwror. rbe jcadrn u a w dicrh ~+rd wsr a wod(f+ed ammf.wea,w--thy
mrruug s,Rera+ rfwald yet Hs rr~'
Primary Field indicators: (cfrrrf~tN,rrrabe.fierfnr)
~ ~i~
~~~
9) Is AEaai~ts.Btd6r BaarPreseat7 .0 __ _ 1 2
rivnrFe frers a ae~r c~ an tHtrw.o wwd ahrrronr c~N >~. c,,...•. n•~
IDIIsA2"OrderOrGr~ta•ChamttllAsirah~ _ ~w.~:,.\
PR I MA R Y G E OMOR PH OL O G Y Il { FD I Cy !TOR • P O fN TS : ~
Seconciarv Field indicators: rc:~o.~,~,•f~..f~~
3) Dam Topography ladieam A _ _
tlatraal Wav? 0 [~~! 1 FS
SECOND~IRY GEObIORPFIOLOBYIIVDICATOR POINTS: ~ . j
t)
4) !s W tag M Chaaoei Aad >48 Hts. Since 0 S 1 !S ~
•~
i1.Ls There Warcr ln'Chaanel DtamB ~'Y 0 S t 3" 1S ~ ~=-"'
SECDNDARYIIYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
y'.
TnTAL POINT~s (Primam + Secondary 1= ,-,-,-`(IJGrea;er Tpan Ur 6qua! Tn 14 Pnina The Stream !s Al Lcasr Juurmitrenu
1. Geomorohoinrv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 fs Therc A Riffle-Pao! Seonenee? 0 I G2/ 3
2) ds The [1SDA Taman in Sttattnbed
I[: Kvdroh~v Absent Weak Mederatr Strong
I ! is There A Grarmd~rater
YIow/Clischaree Preadit? 0 I 2 3
PRli1fARYHYDROLOFiY.INDIGITOR POINTS:
or ruc ncue"u r•~^« in arrramoeu: JAV Mouly U6L Atmtiy FACW MostYy FAC Mmtty FACU RSoa~ly UPL
(' NOTE: IjTora! Ab~mae O/Af! P/antr !n Strrambed 2 1 .75 .5 D
0
ws Norrd Alxrvr Stio Thu ~Sren (RYI-FCC SAV Prexnr')
SECONDARYBIOLOGYlNDICATOR POINTS: ~~ •-5

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: f~ ~- ~'^ ~~ Q
3. Date of evaluation: ~ ~." ` € -' {-', ~`~
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:~~',
I1. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: ~'~'~ ~~ -~ C-'
4. Time of evaluation: ~~°- = Cam` ~ -
6. River basin: C~c -~-•
8. Stream order: ~1-
10. County: ~~x,L~~.~,=,1; --~'~ ~
12. Subdivision name (if any
Longitude (ex. -77.55661
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearbyroads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
4 ~ ~.F{`?~/,Y'. ~~~ .1'Yl. ~ y fifr..i('~~,.'~ f1G~ 'vT- ~ 4.= 'Y' c~
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
25. Recent weather conditions: (~ ~ "s~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: l' ~F-- ~~ >
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO ; If yes, estimate the water surface area:
..----c
19. Does channel-appear on USGS quad map? YES °~NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
~,
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
,e _% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: ~'" ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 io 2%) JGentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>I O%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends /' Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown. for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
-°a
Total Score (from reverse): ~' `"`~., Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~'~- f`~~''+.~-%~~ Date ~~``~ ~-<~'i~~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigafion ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
~~~~~ ,~

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

tva..L.. v uu tasnt waa~suicasuwt rvt to
Project Name: _ { v ~ ts` ~~~ )fiver Basin: ' Co ~- 2 E f Evalmtor. ~~~ ~ ~
.r . v ~ (..,. ~" noty. std 12 . fr'~"u;. -s E,t"z
a t
!V~'^f ~~
>~
~~ ~
~~ u
~~~ ~
f'~-
~ .,
-4
DWQProjectNmabcc: NeatestNamedS~arn: j~;,~46s~i;atip>dC .Sipawre: ./'
~'~`.
Date: ~ ~," ~ ' C? ~{' usGS QUAD: Lontion/Direaions: ~t ~' y ~--
*PLEASE NOTE:If.~,.~eett,..~~.a.wRerot;rntar,re~mne,«+..de~.aret.teeftsofr.a..tw.aao~. ~!~.
Atr,, IIi,t6ebestprefeabwgl j,Ile,rrutoftke eralamr. t4fsftannis,,u,ramsdra~eadaetew,dffudtmmml.+vte,~--rkb
ratutgslmaeeti,ald,etMsrt,di`.,'-.'..'iTo?~'- ~~:.~~
PrimarvField Indicators: /c;~rc~H,.a~~~~~ 1?ac-~.
2) Is The USDA Teneatrn !n Stttatnbed
5)1s Ti~ere Aa Active.IOr Beiic)
9) Is A•Coatmuous He&dc BaolcPteaent? .0 l 2
rnrrre: n~e~~,t_c..~e e~ Aw,r,.. ~~e wrrnnrrrs:.a~N r~.~rr•. r~ .
1D I is A2" Order On Gemater Chanel f As latismrrd
PRIMARY GEDM©RPHOLOGYINDIG4TOR• POINTS:
II. tivdroieQV Abseat Weak Motieratr StronlP
l) is'ihere A Gtotmdaater
Fluw/Oisctmree Pn~enf? 0 I 2
PRIMARYRYDROLOGY.INDIG4T0l!` POI1V?S: 3
Secontisry Field indicators: ~cryeteo„x~-r..t;~~
I. Geomorohoit>QV AiAeot Weak Moderate 3trmt4
0
s i
3) Does Topostaphy lodinte A
Naoe-r1 Draiaaee Wav? 0 .5 ~~ 1S
v
or me wcus~u rtanrs to anRamocu: inv mosuyun~ mosey rw~w Moslly PAC naosorkACU Mousy [IP(.
(• NOTE: /l7oml A6arnoe OjAp Pbnts !n Srnmmbed 2 ) ,?5 S ;' p ~ p
M Nnird Alwrr Skin 7bu Seen r!N) FCC SAV FrrxnPl
SECONDARY BIOLOGYlNDICATOR POINTS: ~°% ~ ~
II. Flvdroh-QV kbsettt _ Weak Moderate 3tmnP
1) fs'Thce Year's (Ot fast's) I.eafitner
4) !s W azet In Chatmei Awd >48 Hta. Since 0 S i 15
•~
5) !s There Water ta'Chaaael ~B ~'Y 0 ,. ! IS
Gorrdirions~.Or in Gtowin¢ Season)?
61Are Hvdrie Soils Present in Sides Of Channel (Or in Headeutl? .Yes=1.5 ('"No=O '~'
SECONDARYXYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
t
i
~clk. ~'~
.,;/; - r `
''ls'T
TOTAL POINTS r Prz~trz~ + Secnndarv )~_, (/~Gremcr Titan Or Equal Tn 7;' Pnrna The Stream is Al Lcast lntermtneno
PR/MARY6lllLUGYI/VDIL'ATOKP[llfY"lK:
SECD.NDARYGEOMORFIIOlO0YI1VDIGlTOR POINTS:
as .~

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSI3EET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

~ i /
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,,,~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ~ ;
•d7
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: t`.°. C-= i=.y `~ a 2. Evaluator's name: ~ ~ ~-''
3. Date of evaluation: j a. - `~ - C'~ °-~ 4. Time of evaluation: ~-~ = ~ L~'
5. Name of stream:_vC~2~:'ure'~ :% t ~•~ i3 '~-ccl 6. River basin:~,~ra~ ~`"`S1.k'~~~,-
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: .~
9. Length of reach evaluated: ) ~ ~--' ~ 10. County: ~', ~ fw..~k.. ~^~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex.-77.556611): ~`~'
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other 1 r ~'.,' I''. 1~-.-•-.:r ' %jt-~ ~ ;,-r y
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stteam(s) location):
„ , .. r`
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ti ~~
15. Recent weather conditions: r ~- i t~
16. Site conditions at time of visit: '-G'~ t ~-:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters .-Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
r=
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO .'If yes, estimate the water surface area:
~_~
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ~~ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: _~ ~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (O to 2%) ~entle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight / Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by.determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall: assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring 'box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~..e.i~7 Comments:
~,, s l
Evaluator's Signature ~~1?{tii ~ `~-~ ~~- ~' ~`N~'i='l-? Date i .- -~ `'t - t%
This channel evaluation form is intenlled to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental. professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not impl}> a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 a 26.

~` __ ~
.,Ty ~~v
~7 d ~a~
~ .,.a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~n
!~'
~ /G~ ~0
T ~
OsroPF~O UGS
DEPARTZVIEENT' OF TRANSPORTATION '~~,~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 24, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN:
Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
D51 fl32
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33. Randolph County, Intersection
Improvements to US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro, North Carolina, Federal
Aid Project No. NHF 64(58), State Project No. 8.1572101, Division 8, WBS
Element 34935.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3401. ' '
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document along with a PCN
form, project site map, permit drawings, and roadway design half size plans.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve the intersection
at US 64/NC 49 with NC 42. The cross-section for the new intersection consists of the
lengthening and adding of a left turn lane with the addition of a 4 foot concrete island making the
foot print of the roadway an 88 foot (F-F) curb and gutter section in the north bound approach to
the intersection on US 64/NC 49. In the south bound approach to the intersection on US 64/NC
49 a right turn lane with taper will be added while widening the east side of the roadway to line
up with the through lanes of the north bound direction. For NC 42 in the east bound approach to
the intersection there will be two right turn lanes added and a through lane. in the west bound
direction which will end after about 600 feet. On the west bound approach to the intersection on
NC 42 we will be adding two left turn lanes and a right turn lane in the west bound direction and
then transition back to a two lane section. Traffic will be maintained on existing roadway during
construction, with at least one lane open in all directions.
Waters of the U.S. potentially impacted by this project include two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Vestal Creek. There are no jurisdictional wetlands identified within the proposed project area.
Total permanent impacts to Waters of the US include 17 feet of existing channel impacted.
Temporary impacts include 0.007 acre of fill in surface waters (Figure 10 of 10).
~.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER ,~-~
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
~.
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SurrE 168
RALEIGH, NC 27604

IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: Water resources within the proposed project area are located within the
Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrological Cataloging Unit 03030003). UTl & UT2 to Vestal Creek
are the only jurisdictional water resources that will be impacted within the project area. Unnamed
tributaries receive the same classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification by
the Division of Water Quality for Vestal Creek (DEM Index No. 17-22-4) is C. Neither High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 Hole of the project area.
Wetland Impacts: There are no jurisdictional wetlands identified within the proposed project
area.
Stream Impacts: Stream impacts will consist of permanent and temporary impacts.
Permanent Impacts
Site 1: No permanent impacts are associated with Site 1.
Site 2: Permanent impacts will consist of approximately 17 linear feet of jurisdictional
stream at Site 2 (30+25-Y-RT). Permanent impacts associated with this site will be
associated with installation of a 7 x 7 reinforced concrete box culvert (see Figure 6 of
10). See culvert construction phasing below for details.
Temporary Impacts
Site 1: Temporary impacts consist of approximately 0.003 acre of temporary fill at Site 1
(5+36-Y-LT). Impacts associated with construction activities at Site 1 include placing
rip-rap on the embankment (see Detail B, Figure 4 of 10). NCDOT will not place any
rip-rap in the stream and there will be no fill or dewatering. NCDOT doesn't anticipate
any impacts to the stream, but to be conservative NCDOT showed temporary impacts in
the work area.
A temporary detour will be established at Lakecrest Road (Figure 4 of 10). The road will
have to be closed for construction and it is the only access for adjacent businesses. The
temporary detour will run beside -Y1- to maintain traffic to businesses during
construction. The temporary detour will be constructed along a paved ditch. If damaged
by the temporary detour, the paved ditch will be repaired or replaced (see note, Figure 4
of 10). This temporary detour will not permanently impact any jurisdictional sites.
Site 2: Temporary impacts consist of 0.004 acre of temporary fill at Site 2. Temporary
impacts associated with this site will be associated with installation of a 7 x 7 reinforced
concrete box culvert including temporary ditches, pipes and stilling basins. See culvert
construction phasing below for details.
Utility Impacts: There will be no permanent utility impacts associated with this project.
U-3401PermitApplication 2 May 2005

Culvert Construction Phasing: see attached Figure CS-1 & CS-2 for further details.
Phase I.
1. Construct sediment control devices.
2. Construct the on-site detour and temporary ditch on the left side of -Y-.
3. Install a temporary stilling basin (27 cubic yards min.) on the right side of -Y-.
4. Once traffic has been shifted to the on-site detour, install an 18" minimum corrugated
steel temporary diversion pipe with impervious dikes to carry flow from upstream of the
work area to an area beyond the construction area.
5. Construct required temporary shoring.
6. Remove 72" corrugated metal pipe 40'+~" of existing 5'x5' box culvert to allow for
construction of the proposed southern portion of the culvert, while pumping effluent into
stilling basin.
7. While traffic is maintained on the newly constructed on-site detour, construct as much of
the proposed southern (downstream) portion of the culvert as possible.
8. Remove Phase I.18" temporary diversion pipe and impervious dikes.
Phase II.
9. Construct proposed roadway right of -Y- over newly constructed culvert with required
temporary shoring.
10. Once traffic has been shifted to the newly constructed roadway, install 18" minimum
corrugated steel temporary diversion pipes with wye and impervious dikes to carry flow
from the existing private system and from the channel upstream of the work area to an
azea beyond the construction area.
11. Remove temporary pavement, as needed, from the no longer used on-site detour, to
construct the proposed ditch on the left side of -Y-. Install 18" minimum corrugated steel
temporary diversion pipe with elbow and impervious dike, to carry flow from the ditch to
upstream of the temporary diversion pipe. Construct impervious dike for the existing
private system.
12. Remove remaining 5'x5' box culvert, 60" concrete pipe, 2 manholes, 54" concrete Open
Throat Catch Basin (OTCB), and 12'+~" of 60" concrete from existing private system
while pumping effluent into stilling basin.
13. Construct the remaining northern (upstream) portion of the culvert.
14. Remove the temporary pipe that is carrying flow from the upstream channel and
construct the proposed junction box and 72" reinforced concrete open-end pipe. After
proposed junction box is complete, construct to graded inlet at STA. 29+90-Y- and tie it
to the proposed junction box at the culvert inlet. Remove temporary diversion pipe from
ditch. Collar and extend 60" concrete from private system to tie it to the proposed
junction box.
15. Upon permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas, remove all temporary sediment
control devices including temporary ditches, pipes, and stilling basins.
Restoration Plan•
Site 1: NCDOT will not place any rip-rap in the stream and there will be no fill or
dewatering. NCDOT doesn't anticipate any permanent impacts to the UT2 to Vestal
Creek. The temporary detour will be constructed along a paved ditch. If damaged by the
temporary detour, the paved ditch will be repaired or replaced.
Site 2. Should materials be used as temporary fill in the surface waters during the
construction, they will be removed. The temporary fill area will be graded back to the
U-3401Permit Application 3 May 2005

original contours. Re-vegetation will occur with native species (see attached Figure FR-
1). Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed construction are available from
field survey notes.
Schedule for Construction: It is assumed that the Contractor will begin construction of the
proposed improvements of the intersection at US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 shortly after the date of
availability for the project. The let date is August 16, 2006 with a date of availability on
September 27, 2006.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A copy of the Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study has been included in this application for
your review (see pp.16-17 in the Community Impact Assessment, Appendix C of the attached
CE). Indirect impacts are those impacts that occur because of an event such as the proposed
transportation improvements at the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42. As the proposed
project primarily entails the reconfiguration of and improvements to an existing intersection to
improve traffic flow and safety, the project should have minimal indirect and cumulative impacts
in the study area.
There are no 303(d) listed streams within one mile of the project azea. Furthermore, Vestal Creek
and Squirrel Creek are not registered as biologically impaired on the North Carolina Impaired
Waters List 303(d) Report (February 2003).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the project and is aware of no
properties of historic or azcheological importance within the proposed project area.
Consequently, no archaeological survey was recommended.
Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the project and is aware of no
historic azchitectural sites within the proposed project area.
AVOIDANCE, MINIlVIIZATION, AND MITIGATION
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimise jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design.
U-3401Permit Application 4 May 2005

Site 1: Minimization strategies employed at Site 1 avoided all permanent impacts to UT2 to
Vestal Creek.
Site 2: Despite the xrini_m»ation strategies employed for the proposed project, unavoidable
permanent stream impacts will occur at Site 2, UTl to Vestal Creek.
Although impacts do occur, UT 1 and UT 2 to Vestal Creek do not require mitigation due to both
streams being severely degraded as described by Mr. Richard Spencer of the US Army Corps of
Engineers. During an April 7, 2005 field visit, Mr. Spencer explained that UTl and UT 2 to
Vestal Creek require no mitigation due to their low aquatic function.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for Randolph County (Table
1).
Table 1. Federally protected species for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status .~ Biological Conclusion
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
E: Endangered species are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on April 19, 2005 revealed
one element occurrence of Schweinitz's sunflower within one mile of the project area and no
record of the Cape Fear shiner. During a September 26, 2004 field survey, approximately 50
plants were observed 0.4 mile outside the project area. In a letter dated February 1, 2005,
USFWS concurred with NCDOT's biological conclusions of "May Affect Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" for Helianthus schweinitzii and "No Effect" for Notropis mekistocholas (see
attached letter).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).~Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit 23 and a
Nationwide Permit 33.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the Water Quality
Certification. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing
U-3401Permit Application ~ May 2005

two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org//planning[pe/naturalunit/Pernut.html.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Knepp at cknepp(a~dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
~~
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ .
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIl'
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Stephanie Caudill, P.E., PDEA Project Planning
11-3401 Permit ADnlication b Mav 2005

;-
Office Use Only: ~ ~ '} ~ ~ /~ Form Version March o5
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. j /
(If any particular item is not appticanie to uus pro~ecr, please en-.er i~v~ t~ppii~aoic ~~ 1~~~-..~
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23/33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Ralei¢h_ NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-715-1500
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.}
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number: 919-715-1501
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Intersection Improvements to US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro, NC.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): U-3401
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Asheboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Intersection of US 64 and
NC 42 in Asheboro NC.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35°41'54.27" N 79°47' 15.75" W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Vestal Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:%i112o.enr.state.nc.us- admin:'maps-.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is comprised of commercial development,
residential development, and disturbed land in Randolph County. The project area is located
in the Piedmont physiographic province.
Page 6 of 13

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
proposed ~roiect will consist of improving the intersection at US 64/NC 49 and NC 42. The
cross section for the new intersection includes an additional southbound through lane and a
northbound left turn lane alongUS 64/NC 49 as well as a west bound right turn lane with a
taper and an east bound right turn lane along NC 42. Traffic will be maintained during
construction with at least one lane open in all directions. Construction equipment will
consist of heave duty trucks and earth moving equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Thepurpose of the proposed project is to allow
additional turning_movements along US 64/NC 49 and NC 42, thereby removing traffic from
through lanes in order to improve capacity, level of service, and more efficient traffic
operations at the intersection.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn.' Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable}. If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
V[. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g.. culvert installation should be listed separately fram
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure .to indicate i t an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable an an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be spawn an a delineation map, whether ar not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 7 of 13

e, y
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The project area contains no
jurisdictional wetlands. Stream impacts will consist of permanent and temporary impacts as
a result of project construction. Permanent impacts will consist of approximately 17.0 linear
ft of jurisdictional stream at Site 2. Temporary stream impacts will consist of approximately
18.0 linear ft of jurisdictional stream at Site 1 and approximately 26.0 linear ft of
jurisdictional stream at Site 2.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g.,.forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated} of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent`I Average
Stream Width
Before lm act Impact.
Length
linear feet) Area of.
Impact
(acres)
1 UT2 Vestal Creek Temporary fill Perennial 3~ 18' 0.003
2 UT1 to Vestal Temporary fill Perennial ~-5' 26' 0.004
3 UT1 to Vestal Permanent fill Perennial 4-5' 1?' 0.005

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 61 ~ 0.01?
Page 8 of 13

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody

(~ applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.012
Wetland Impact (acres}: 0
Open Water Im act (acres):
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.012
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 61'
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwacer requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
Vii. Impact Justification {Avoidance and Minim'uation)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Page 9 of 13

Despite the minimization strate 'egi s employed for the proposed project, 0.003 ac. of
temporary fill will impact UT 2 to Vestal Creek (Site 11. The proposed permanent and
temporary fill impacts to UT1 (Site 2) are 0.005 ac. and 0.004 ac. Although impacts do occur,
UT 1 and UT 2 to Vestal Creek do not require mitigation due to both streams being severely
impaired as explained by Mr. Richard Spencer of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Spencer
stated in a Apri17, 2005 field visit, that UT 1 and UT 2 are jurisdictional requiring no mitigation
because of their low aquatic function. Constructions sequencing and dewatering plans are
included in the permit application.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shalt be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http-'-h2o.enr.state. nc. usincwettands.%strmgide.hm~l.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or rnap> if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage%linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism .(e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement. etc.}, and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please: attach
a separate sheet if mare space is needed.
ALOE representative Mr. Richard Spencer stated, in an April 7, 2005 field visit, that UT 1
and UT 2 are jurisdictional requiring no mitigation due to their low actuatic function.
Page 10 of 13

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? ~ Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant-to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at (919} 733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the I~ufters_ Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Vb'itl the project impart protected riparian butter; idc:ntitied within l5A NCAC 2B _f)?33
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) l5A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )`? Yes ^ No
Page 11 of 13

A ~.
PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT LIST
Parcel # Last Name .First Name Address City/Town State Zip Code
17 ALLEN RUTH 231 INWOOD RD ASHEBORO NC 27205
NO
PARCEL BRAY RUTH 352 SHERWOOD OAKS #13 ASHEBORO NC 27205

10 THOMAS DANIEL 624 S FAYETTEVILLE ST ASHEBORO NC 27203
Project #34935.1.1
Tip # U-3401 Intersection at US 64 and NC 49 and NC 42
Randolph County in Asheboro
3/10/2005
Figure 2 of 10

ti

IIII MAR-2005 09 44
R:\Hydrauttcs\~ESMIT\U3401_VIGW TY_h1AR.d~
C0~1tTRACT: C011~TRACT .TIP PROJECT: U-341
0 0 o y
o ~ ~ ~ ~ a
0 0~ p c ~ w
2 O A b
H y $ ~ ~~~iii---
o ~ o o ~
~ ~ •~ -` /
D O
~ ~' b
~ o 0
<-+v~wg
~ u u n u u u ~
g ~o~oNa a
~ 3aaaRaRoa
-

~ o
_
-~ r
o m
--~ z
~ ~
r =
m ~
z o
c~ y
--~ o
x ~
~ n
o '~
° -+ '.`nti
a
.~ o y
'~ m
~ ~
~ ~
~ ,
~ ~ G1
m ~,,,
~ ~
-+ o
C
W n
A
O
c D
J
N ~ NN ~V'
~ ~ A.
:~ m
~m~ ~
=i
m

~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
O O
cD tD
~ ~
b
s
0
0
m
~ O~
max,
;$
~o
~~
q
a~ ~
~ ~ ~
as
o~

y
~~ 1
b .
S~ r
~~ ~~
~~ ~z
~~ ~ s,
~ro
~~ ~r
~y
H
`~,

~nswHs
R/W REVISIONr ADDED NOTEr DO NOT DISTURB SlGN'FOR PARCEL 3 8dJ WT8 3/7/05
RM1T\U3401_HYD_PERMIT_052404,
~~
Z
P
i `'C
1

~ (--~-'m
~ `'' ~ z
1 ?
$ 1 , $ rr
N 1 1 ~ ~~

~ ~j~~ '~
m
1 ~~ ~
'
1 ~_
~~
J , /

// ~
// //,
rn,'~~ g~
O~
if`" Q
J~j
~a

5
V , y
~~
1 1 O ~ ya~~
s y~n
c {?j'
o z
I ~
~ i
i
- > 1
N ~
p
,~~
r~
~~~
~~€
~~ ~ \\ '-/
1 "~ ~
a, \
$~ ~ \~ fir' a
11 ~~ n
\1, o .
\ \ ~ S 0 ~
\~~ \
\.S\1 1 1n
~~+ ~
j~ n
~/ I \ \~ ` r
1 \
1 ~,
~ \ \1 ~ 1 n~
~ \ ~ \~'
a \ ~~ 1 \!
x ~ I t ~,
,>: t
1 ~ ~ '\\` ~
tL~ , ;,~ 1
` ~ ~\I 1
i :1~,1
_ _._ ~ , ,
,~
~~. ~t
~ ~ ~, $ h~
11~ ~ e~ ' "'.~

~/ T
~ 1
2
a~~
a NH
~~
~'~~O
A
~'~
g$ ~'
~I i
~''~
O
b~
$ ~ !b`~
~~{{ e ~ ~
~y ~ ~
v rw
~~ ~ w
~8 ~.
~~ ~ ~'
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~_x o
\ ~ \ ..
I
\~..~ ~ \
,(~ ° /,~q~3p j~ ,
'fi~~~d ~ /~ ~
~~~~ ~
/'~ ~
Ir~I,i ,~
1 ~ ~~
1
~.®
I1
1~
~~ \
-1~\
~ - r
c
~~ ~
~~
0~8
~
~
_
~, ~
1 ~~
.~~
z~
~~

~g~~ _
~
~~
~~~
~s~

\ p
~' ~';o
N Y m
i ~~~
~ ~~
i
°~
o
~ ~~ ~_~ ~
q ~ ~~, .a
~ ~
p
-J\~ ~~
i
. _
„~.~. ~
r Y ~ORns
ASH ~ ~ l4
~ ~o
~~
Od
~ a a ~~

~a ~
~
~ "~
~- ~ ~
0i1
~
~ 4
r ~\
_-
~i
~ ~® a
g
~, o
r r ~
.7;
~ ~'
\
1 ~
1\
d ~ l
~1
~\
~`~•,
,1~ „
', `\i\~\ ~ ~~

L
O
O
T ~'
a r
s
go
a fpm
v yyyq~>
y A ~H~
° ; s~'rn
g
r 6 O
y + ~ •s;
Y }
~°
-~ ~
I~ ~m~i
~~ ~~~
fl OS'Wn.
s w• uex.
r^ y N
''
m i ~ tQi
IC y
00 °f- 7gs
y N ~~
$$ ~ ~gA
~~ -
~~ y
i
ti
~ d ~- ~~~
o ~gr
r
~°
y ~I aa~sysappa==
H •J~
~~
~'
~ ~ ~~~
y
O ~~
~ ~ a7~
C

i H
~

y
~ y
y
N

°m ~~m
° ~- a y

~ Z
O ge
~„~
_
r Q
r -I N
p
~n
m
~Z~ a~
k3
°
n ~ ~ ,
mcr"
~
~ ~ _
~
no
~~
mn

~~
y
~ --
r,*i y
o ~~.~
~ ~ 4,
°
~- ,
y
~
y
~
•

`
~ ~ 11
r
t

m
N „ r ~
~
~ I
1
€
m

r ~ ~
N y
."'
,A
O

S
\'
y.
o
~~
a7 0
R
~~
S
C~
~$
~~_
~~~
o ~
~$
0

k
t ~~m
1~ v g~-J z
~ a.
~ ~ ~ r
~ 1 ~ ~a~ ~
iMIT\U3401_HYD_PERM[T_052404
A
i ~ 1
1 ~ {{1`
~ ~ ~ i3p~
~ / ~ ~
~ ~ i'
/// /// Y
/~
~/

i a
~X~
.~x
~,
R/W REVISIONr ADDED NOTEr DO NOT DISTURB SiGN'FOR PARCEL 3 BdJ. Wl'B 3/7/05
D
t ~ ~~
~q 1 /~ ~~
` /\\ L
Y ~~ . ~//
~: I1~ ~
~ II~ r
II ~~ r
\11 0
III
\~I \
II$11 1
'Ln, \ II, ~ Y
I ,1 ~

V ,
-~ ~y~
m I-
° t~ yy~r
f }{ tQ
~~ g {g
o ~
I ~
1
~~
~~
~~1 '~ ~
d 1111
1 II
i 11~
~ I 1
~ I I I, ~~
fl I f~ 1
~ ~ ~ I,
~x ~ ~ S II I`
~ II III
1 ~% 1
~p 1 I1t
1~ I I1~
1 ~ L~\
1 - ~"
~? ~° ~1
g,~v ~ 1 ''n ~5
110 ' ~r ,~
~~
~ g,`~I
IV
{
age
S~N 1,;~.
7A~~^
~ ~~
ro
N ~~
g ~ 1~
m m
0
f ~'
~~„'"i ~ ~
~~ ~
!11 I
~j ~ ~~ ~ i
~~ ~/ ap ~,
/'~ ~~
?~ ~ ~/ ~ /
~'~~ I , i
.S
i \ n
\ !
\
I \
& ~~m
~t-
1-
~ /~ ~ .
~ r
i
s i
~~~
~ o ~
y~ N H
~1 P -+
N
H
~~~
po V
O

~ O
~~ a
,~-e
~~ ~~ !~i
11 . _ ~~ ; .. / ...~~
~1
r, 1 ,1
.r I ~,.
i h
~ 1 1
II
~ I
~1 -1'
1
Q ~1 ~
~1 ~ ~
~. I
o °, III ~. ,~.,
b
O
ec
_„o ~~
~~~
'S1 i

,4'S' r
'k 4
s 9 I
~"1 4 1
.~ I I , 'u~yt'4~
8I i
.D ~. ~ ~ , f.,~'
r ~ ~ yi`~ ~ I ` .l' S
~~~~ ~'~ ~
=~ ~~ 4I
~~ ~ ~ I
~ ~~ ~ 1 1
.~"' CHI.~IVE SEE SH
et R
n
L~°~
v~
N
D
~ m
~ ~ ~~
a
~ ; v ~~m
~?
~ *Y
N~ ~
~ III ~~~
N ~~
' ~ ~~s
~ -~~~~~
O.Y IAn.
v
~m
Z
~= O
r -I
m
~Z~
D N ...I
-+c m
m ~
~~"o
n~
~n
m~
g
d ~
>v
~v ~
~~r
s
i ~Qn
N ~
w~
N
~;
N .Nj N
~ > ~i
b[[
{(~ ti
o ~ o ~- ~~}~
HN l
v
r ~ ~$~
yy -
y
K
y
~~m
° ~.- a s
a ~~r
H Q
N
O
.y y ~~~
~~
S! 3v
~ ~ ~~i
~' a F
o ~~
~ ~ ~
:~
N
r
g a
~ °~ ~~
z
~ ~ ~~
~ ~
y : ' g
&' &' ? _ ~s
~f ~ s
Z „ ~1
~~' ~ I ~
~~* I ~~~
'+ ~ ...i
~~ ~~ ~~
~~
'v ~
~ ~
~ ~
(iS
~ o
15 ~
~O
ro
S ~ i W
~~ ~~$
~ ~~ ~ ~
Q ~~
~r
~ ~
r;~q ~, ~ ~
iy o

i ~ ~ ~
0

US REALTY
REYISA7Ni IIADFD

~ A
N SY
V ~ VVVV1111
O
~r v
~~
~~
~~
~ y
i
r
QQ
~f~^ ~A
~~s ~
w~
L '
A
3 ~ ~
~mm
`tip
~/ '~'
~~
. ---- `~ ~ .... r
~O
-~
.. j = ..
Q ~ ~ ~~
.. ~ T-
. , ~
~ ~
~> ~ ~ ~ ~
N n
~ f'
N"0 ~~` ~
y
a
0
a
~~
W .,
< ~ €~~ppi
~ nNNn~ r
V Q~~
~~ a
i
H
D f~~.~..~
v ~€Y
~ a ~ ~~~r
i ~Q~
`~ ~ x
g o
y y ~w
Y
D`
a
r ~
~ ~
r~ ~~ ••
EZ~ mN ~ / I
~
~ n~ /~~ ~ ~ ~
~
ono mr a
~ ~/ ~"`'
mn ~Z ,~
,
.. ..
,~ .~
.~
~ / . t

~~ ''
1
s ~ ~
~ ~

>s
~" O
i

~

~

I
-i
a~ I
s H° ~
N y ~ T p ~ SZ I

y
~ f/~
y
m
€~ u
Wyy
~ Y ~ S
s
a ?

I

~ ~~
~ O
r
a
„„
fn G ~a
1 I 1
NBC J
t `
8
O
' ~
4• z
,~.-
-~.-~- r
~ - _____-
.
~~...,_
~-
- rn
_
'...,

PNi~CEL N0.19 W7B 3/7/05
1
Q ~ m
O
X ~ y 'Yq A'9
h
O
'A
°.~
~~_~ " -
0
-:;~__
~ ~a ~
~~ ~~ ~
~~
i1 S p
^~
• O
~~ ~
~~
~ ~~ ~i
o a
a°~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ rn
~ ~ ~ ~~ N
/~I
e"~~ ~ I ~ I
ri, a ~ r~
s
g

s y
3
~t~i
m
1 1 ~
o ~
n
v ~- €8~
Zvi
~ ~4~
r
1 r
~ ~ ~
~ 4r
~
D ~ -
y

rn
,
N a
~
T
I ~n
i -°~
~ to
~
Z
~
„

o~ ~
m
1
a

T
~
~ ~
~
~
z o ~
P
y N
y

.;

s
y
H
3 v ~~m
~~
~
~r
s
~
~ ~~
8
s
~~ ~
4
~_ ~~
y
1
~ r
I
H ~~ ~~~
> .. m
~ ~ r
' ~ ~ ~i~
~ ~~
~_
~~~
1
i
1
O
n
~~
o
~ r
8~
~ ~K
~~ W
~
z
~
~~
~ ~
~~
y
_M~ ~
~
O

d ~~
US REALTY 87 A51E81
~ ra'
v ~
REVISlONr
F~
~~
~~

4
;~
i
N
D
w
~~ pp
~ ~ ~~f~l
~ ~~~
e y~
C;~ ~
0 N
~ Z C Z
r o 70 0
r m D ~-•~
~z~' mvmi
--i
mCm E~
~~"~O err"'
f")~ ~Z
mD
-c
~C
D
y ~ ~ o
~~~
~ o ~ a~~'
o ~~ ,
~~
~~
e
mrc J
PARCEL N0.19 WTB 3?/05

1 '`w•
a 'y
y 1-,~,,,._.~r
"~ O
~ rr~ X
O
tiL
~ ~~ ~ ~ - D
// ~ O T1 i
s ~ ~ ~ ~
1 I X ~..~~-......-
i. 1 ~x~ ~ ~ ~ Aro ~18~ ~_r
' ~

'
I f
.i~~1•
•
1 I I ~
~ ~~
~n•~~
L
F V ~ ^4••

'
'
I I ~,
~ 4•••
~a
~ ~``•~••
~
_ ~
r ( I ~ ~
a ~.~.~,
w~.
m~4
I I
,f ~ ~
..k fl 6r a

Y'
'S
-"'! I
1 ~''
N ~
Q~
~~ _ ~'`~
~ y ~~ O
K K

i> ~,
r
~ $ ~ €€m ~
I
~
p ~
~ ~]t yp~~ --gy~
yp

~
N G
y ~ N y
y ~ Yy
QZ
~~m y
~ m ~ ~ 1
za
2S
ar''
~ $
n u
yl ~
o ~ gam'

~ ~ _
_ ~~
3 ~
t ~ * ~
~
R ~
~ n o
N N SQ~
rt t b••fe'331{
0
~~
f ,~
° ~ ~ /~
K 9G1
a
H > O
I
~ q
$ e
~
o
N
'
I ~~
8
s~ ~
:.Qmaa
S ~
~ ~ N N N yrj
I ~ •~I~T +1 T T
•' H y y ±

j ~ ==N
Y~~
o ~-- ~~s
N
y
~
~ ?~
~~r
i e
D s
~ t
(^,
V I
m

N ~eee

O
y

s ~

r
N
-~
m

a

o
G
~~
N
ad ...f. ,~--~---_~--vs-
„~
®~
m
s; 1 ~
,Q
9
O
i y
y C
>~ ~ ~
N
V
v ~stQi
~ a
V / ~ ~ ~~s
m r-
P a
~ <<
a $ Q
rT'1 ~ ~ ~ ~
i '~ °)

~~°m
a~ a
~~~
~s

I ~~
~ ^~

~ ~,
~ ~
y ~ ~~

m / ~ ~
~~
~~
I
O
~~
" ~
~ r
~~

$~ i
~~ ~ $

w
y

J
1
b
~ ~

i
1
0~ MAd
r: by 2-2405 12:39
reu ics\ ermit\u3401_hyd_permtt_pfl.dgn
~
s/2
E/99

N
V

W Q'

~ V

N ~
O

~ 'O

N ~

W ~

N ~
A N

N -~
t7 W
1

N ~
O~

N
V N

N -+
~ p.

:~:; ~

V
~ C
~
~ W
.
'.
;
': .
's'
!
~ ~

t'•:!
~ ~
M
O g

0'.~ MA
r• by f?-2805 12:39
rau ics\ ermit\u3401_hyd_permtt_pf l.dgn
~j/2$/~

N

r
0

W

r
r

W
..~

~..~
N

W
N

W

~O

G~f

r
O

W
t7~

r
...~

W
O.

N
W

N
~O

O W
O

r r
-' O

..~
r

` ~
k ~M1

~. C
~`
~ W

. ~
$
_
?' •
.
N .
~
:#
,~
':

•[^_

~ 5
.~
Ib

T
0
0
6

C
O

z

d
~ro
~
~
ca0 Z~
~
~
W ,,
~
~
x
~[ ~~
w~ ~
O
s
C ~~
~ v
9
w
~ O
s
z
N
p
O

a ^' ~ ~ m
r
~

/''
O
1 ~ ~ ~

~ ~
n
n X
~ 9
9 n
~G
~ ~ m

m

O
O
O TI
n ~
a~
w
3
0 0 0 ~
~
m
T
`° Z ~
G m
~~ ~ ~
0 0 0 ~~~ ~ ~
w~ ~ m

~ ~
m ~~ ~

0
0
o s
~g
~
~
~.
$. ~
~ n

Z?~m C
0
° o
0 o c~ic~~ ~
o
o ~ ~~_
~~

~_

0
0
0 :D
~>>
g~

0 0 0 ~3
~
~ D

°v
°A
°w ~
p
~~
m

a
~ ~~m ~
J i O ~ ~ 7
V Q m m
7 n

~~ m
m ~ ~ 3
~
rn o ho
>
$
>
amm su
»~ m
O O o m
~~mc
~ ~ ~

n
O
~ `;`~~
~~
~~ ~F~-
~ `; A~/G X
-~ ~~ q
~ ~`~F` + Xv,~
ro ~~~~~ ' ip o
~~ ~
;o a m m ~ .°
O N o~ w ~C~
n ~O O ~~~
`~. X O N
X• RiW ~~ ~
TEMP ~~~~
'pyMT~ y
``
T p ~ SyEB~ `
~-.~ ~ RO
0

C
n

n
-1
,~'~~ 42
sr ~,
F ~ `~,
EEpES A TE
~BR~
~ ~
,~ -o
°°. F~
-~
-~
m
lci,
~c ~ ~H
~~
,~
~~ „
//
~~
li,,
/ /

~ ' .~

w

O "p /

/~
m
x
~~

-<
I ~
N
I
(n
~ ~f~7
~
D ;o
O
O 0
Zo
c-~ ~ Z
~ ~
Eip I ~F
~~ 1 ._
\1 ~
yoE T,
\ ~
m ~- \
i ~ ~
O
,,`_ m
`F
' `F
\ ~N~(n~
C/~ ~7 C
C~ D I

D
z .~
~
~ ~

~
O O
_
00 ~
- ~
II =

o ~
' o
C
z
-~
-~
Z
D
m Q ~
Z
~ 1-
'~ + -p O
.. ~ I ~ ~
p
~O
~ o v
m T
I ~ ~ o
.. -
--i I
.
• a o av
O OO ~ ~ ~
~
G7 Z

o ~
` W
~ I

O .}. ~p
O
C C
O
0
-
m
0
~~ o'
°
~
~ o
o
Zo ~

Q o
N +m
~
~ o ~ o
~ ~ W
~ ~ °
z
o
o ~ o
mi

(/~ D
~

~• Z
m
o
~~ r
- N~~'I
O -+ ~
~
~' N 3~
+
IV

u
C/~ ~7 C
n D ~ ,.
D z ~
~-- 0 -p
moo
00 ~ -
~o°m - -p
m~o~ ~ S
O~nN y O
~` z r
L° ~O
`•~ 70 ~ ~ ;; 6p~ k ~
• ••~'~ ~ rn ' ~ // z i C
~,
•••~ .O ~ O // ~~ z
\ f ~ ~ ~N~O ~ / I
N ~-J W ~KC~ ~ ,~ / O ~~ ~ N
v_ ° °o o° •• • ~, ~
~ ~ i • ~ / ~ ~
,
O N '~L' ~ ~ I ~ rn~ O
• Rid _ ~- i I ~ ~ O
`-~ ~ / o,
Tf,~ ~ . _ ~ ZI
`- r ~ Q CN nl tom"
1
Tp q SHEg p ~- ° ~ ~ Fip ~~ ~,
Rp ., F
- ~ _____ ~0 42 2O,BSr Z I I~ =3 , y pE \
____ r-
~~
~ x pA ~
~~~3 - r ~
_~
F ` - - ~ .~~ n? ~ Z ~
` ~ -~ a o~
F'
` ~ ~ Z ~~~~
~,\ n
EEpES q TE
N /BRUSH --.__
r=n ~ ~ 1, F '-- - --
~ ~ F
° ~ ~~~~~
~ ~, ~, z~a-~m
O Nr~ ~
n ~ ~ v zr-~ ~Q. p ~
I I ~ ~
~ O • ~O
~ N o c°r m -+ I I ~
r . ' TDE ~
a ~ 1 \
'O ~ W+ p
~ ~ ~ ~o
. ~J i m ` cD • p
pp ~ t.0 O O
r7 ` O p
i '`° p
• ~Q `~
N
~ ~ ~W
o ~
O f
~ A
N m
' ~'

K

e~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r
M
., ~ ~~ ~~~
~~ ~~ Rita ~,~.~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~~
:;~.. ..
~ .., ~ :F,,~=,~.,,.. ~R
•~~~
. • , e;;. ;
;~y~`s•..sr
., ~.; . h
r
~~ ~~~ d
~ sg ~ ~~ ,g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~g~~ ~ ~ ~ d
~. ~ ~, ~ z ~ ~ ~ d
~~ o ~ ~~
U1 R ~ ~~~
~ ~~ R~ ~,
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~.~ ~d
~~ ~
~~
~~~~
~a~~e~
bd ro ,p ~ y
~~
o~
d y
~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~o
~' o o ~ z c
z ~ x ~
z
~ ~ ~'
~d
~ ~ ~ ~ y
O ~ ~o ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ °z
o ~ 5~ x
oy ~ ~
~~ ~
o ~ ~ ~.
0
~ y ~a ~~ ~a .a ~ ~
C ~ O
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ 8~
~F

i
MAR-
_tsh.dpn
~ < y
*.
0 0

O "' "'

~ o

Z
7O

N N ~
Q O O

y
O

Dv
F
A
D D
vv v b
~ o o ~
< ~ v < w°,
N II II II II II 2'
i.-~cn-~w-~ b
~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 1~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
C
-i 'Osf
O~ 'n -+
O ~ ~
tOJ~ ~ ~
m
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ r
o ,~,
n Z
r ~
r =
m ~
z o
~ a
~ o
x ~
~ n
o ~
~ -o ~
~ ~
-I o y
~ m
~ ~
~ A
~ ,
~ C ~
m
~ a
O
C
i
a ~~
O
O O
tN0 tN0
g~ ~
8
o
°o
m
n
.~ o
0.x$
b ~ ~p
q M
~ !^ry^~ g
~ ~J
n
N
A
O u

H
~y~
y
~x
x
~~
~~
~y
S~
~~
~y
~~
~;
z y
i i
~n
o ~
3~
N
C~J]
~ 1~

` i

r
J
a
C
f A
N
~ (
~
'p`
O
~ ~ 3

m
hr
is~
~~

22-MAR- 005 11:48
r:\roe w \ o \u3401_rdy_tsh.dgn
,~

5/14/99

v ~~
rn
X ~®
~~

®

~ ~
~~
~~
N ~~
_ ~~
rn ~~
~®
rn
~ ~~
to ~

w

A

~ H N ~ ~i = N
~g3~~~a~
n o a g O
~ S ~ 3 ' o tr
o s ° ~ 0° ° u O
-,
= o ~
o ~ °
d
, ~ r;.
II
~~ ~ ( m
} I ~~
o s~~ s~~ 3 ~m;~ ~
3~ a a 3 g o=~ °' ,`L~
a~ n. ~ by
~' o a' O o ~ 3
~ 5. o ~ v
s ' •
o ;
r
~'
' I ~ o
I '°
~c
h
i
, ~ ,
~+. ~. --- D ~ .o ~o 0
~~~~~o a ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ s~o
3 ~ ? ~ m ~ ~ A a ~ ~ 9 ; o
n n oo ~ ~, g A~~ c o~~ c o
, ,
c 'a ~
p ~ A ~
o-c g ~ ~ ~ ;
Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
, ~ n ~ I
~ ;
i
I ;
, ? ,
, ,
IIII' I ~ ~
I I
s s~ e e i~ ao eo
.I
I X ,~ I ~ ~
n
O
Z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
II
~ ~
~0',
~ '^ o °o. o °' ~~ a a c o o n o~ a a a a a a ~ ~. +~
s o ° o n v ~ v '~ a. -a •n '1 :L ~ v v ~; v :L [7 -o ~. ~. o ~ 0 ~ N ~
q~ ~' ~ ~ a
S ~ ~ ~ ~N S ~ O ~ ~ ~ N N c ~ y •~ -o -~ -~ A o ~ zo ~ ~ zo m m a ~ ~ ~ O
°~ o o ~ r
O p c a o ~ n N v ~ ~ ° o o ~ ~ ~ G1 $. Q' $. $. ~ ~ .o I I ° ,
' v a a ~ ~ vvA4 a as'°33 ~~~';;e
A '° ~ m ono ° ~ ~ ~ b I
' 0• ' ' ~ m ° ° i i i ~~ ~ i i r i ' i
3 3 ~ ~ ~
v ~ I ~ ~ o $
I I ~ 3 ~ ~ ,
o
, ~ ~ ~
~° I I ~ ~ I I y III ~ ~ { ~;
I5~ r r I I I I -1I I I ~~
u I © `~ ~ I' N '~' CY I-n In I I ~ ~ m m m ~~ i D
q C~7 I I I I ~ `'~~~
~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ IIII ~ I
~ ~° u ~°i ~ ~° ~ o o s o ~ ~'. ~ ~ °s° ~ ' 0 0 0 ~,' a S', O c o ~° ~ ° ' = Z
• 0 0 0 o s o o •~ ~ .° ~ ~+ -ten ~ ~ ~ ~ •° '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S. a $. ~ $ O m m O ti
~ a_ ~ i3. ~ a_ -i T T ~- s ~ _ ° ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ n
g Q °. n o 0 0 0 0 ffi o O ~ °. 3 ~° -i ~~$ m o ~° ro o: c o ?•° o o ~° ~
n o 0
° w ~ ~ a
'-' s ~ A 'i ~. s o o n o s o~ o C~~ o ~ ~~ o ~ o$ ~
~ o T o s ~ $ o ~ ~ $ ~ o ~ 'o ° o ~ ° ~ - ~ A
•o ° v o o -o c ~ ~ . o s ~ r S C
Q -o T> >- ~ o o ~ C n ~ ~ o r
' ,
n n o n n °- ° m ~ o ~ o a.
A a. o a n~ S in ~ ~ I ~ n
o ~ ~ ~ ~ '-
Tn .~ ~ I ~ 0D ~ I m '
in N C ~ i I I i a
C C ~ i ~ i i i i i i i I i
111 111 .. ~ I I , Q ;
~ ~ I I I I I 1
~IIIII II (I II v
I I I I I I I
®m ®o ¢-~-o-f ~ o ^
~l;l~l ~) I I III
II
n- G ~ ~ (~ ~ rt ~ ~ •Ci, A !~ ~ ~ 47 3 7 ` ~ bl O ~ ~ ~!+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ S ~ g ~ ` `f11
.« ~ a 3 ~ n ~ a. ~ ~ a. $ ~°
n = ~ ~ 8 O m m ~ N ° n ~ ~ N a $. '~ ~ ~ A ~ p ~ a S. z' 7
n O O ,
~ C fl M ~ ~ $ p 7 ni q ~ i ~° ~ 7 i i , ~~ i i i
~ '^ ~ w ~ o rt ° °o- a C o o C ~ G ~ ~ ~ ' ~ n- I ~ $ ~ ~ I
.,. ~, K > ~~ 7 C~ O 7 lr.. 0 i i ~ p 0 ~= i ~ i C~ C i i
O O O 3 ? o O 7 I i ,Q ~ ~' m O r r r ~ C~ ~ i
- O I I '. ~ ~ s ~ nS n O ~ O i i I o p ~ i I i
r I ; 0 o C O ~ C i i i H i i i
o m i °- o i i i C i i i
m , i i i
a C I ..S I
r N , i , i ~ , , ~ , i i
b~ m ; C i i i i i i i
..~ i m i i i i i i i
' ~ i i i i i '
I
I I I I ~ I ; i I I " I
o~ 9 ~a ~ e o 0~ a a~~ o® ~ ~ ~ ®o ~ ~ ®®B !~ s i~® 0
~ I I~I ~I I~~ ~~I
s
Z
rn
rn
N
W
r
N
®~

~- IZ
o AO
I
Z
t
+ Z N
S~ ~ j
o~y
I
N
o~
o=
o _
_TYP.dgn
r~
Z
°
-'~
m
v
m
m
z
1
m
v
w
m
H
0
m
rA
a
m
C
z
r
m
to
m
m
x
f
z
O
x
m
f
i
m
m m N ~ W N A
w
N
~~ +
-im>-o
xm-ISl »
zs wv~v
elm 7o ~ -~
s way
-I~o SD~o a~o

> O
O
mv~o0
'o O m
O -1s
-C O 1a
O
z~o>v Dv >-Imv m -o ~
>~a m>
v »
>z• m• m=
• - ~~•
I
z• _
z z•
rn
~O>< a> ~
>o < i
> y
C!>< W
>> D>
m<> » -im> m ~ m<> <~ <~o
A A A m
rrn,~° mo >mo n o .
9y ~c 9
zzmm X
~ zm` m ~ X ,
zmm mX ~X
rr
mD31-~1 •
m
>
te-
;=
~
>1
~°
5

S
>
x a r
-
~I
1
> A ~~op-
i
>
x h~oow
a
D ~i
~
-
im-
i o r+c
i> > m
I .~ ~
xs
mD „y z
mz
> z> m> mD m
m
w w v
m Ci ~
w m
ov wv o >~o > -4 0~0 0.0 o>

z~nx
i+x
mw<x
< x
z~nx
mx m
~n
Oi ~
J ro~ ~zm~ m rD- ~i~ > 'v
i -i r -i x ~'~' -I -1 i -1 _
a -1 _
as
mA ° m oN °° °D
r
ta ~o mo
~ o O o .
i
taro o m o o ro ro r
wmz z ~osz 9 z mo~z az mo
mo ~c> m>o > o xmo mo coo T
-~• a m a -ia -I s n• a x z 1,,
' ~~~ sm zmm
o ~ m m
~ m m
-
~ m
~ n

zm
m .-~
mm
-iom
o m m
o -
omm o -1
mm v ao
mm
9 D T ~ 9 9 00
W m
=w> m
> M
r
m-~z M
A z ~
W
c W
we m
H
aao -cm m~~ rn -~ ~a
C m
~
z- m vm mA9 a m > m c
-c o -i
s s
r= w
c o > s
vvo n
~o r
xmm mm -
zvm vm c>

v- a
z
za1°
~
°
•
o H
a -~ r
• v
n m
Smm 1 > vmc NO
Dm Nv ~i
"o
z Z
y. ~ ~~m m
m =77 9 O
O _ A ~
-1 -i
m a m ~
m
° Tm zQ~ O ~ m T
oo
a
mm p
m
~ ~ ~/
N ~m
°N v<m
m
d` ~ m
°~ -
o
m 'one
m ~ ~
i
m=o
rn -
o - = v
s x m m
oo SA m c~ ° t
n

`
a x
°
° T
s ~ ~ . L
m~ _ ~

C

C rn
~ N j N i

a K m ~ N s 9
31 H 9 'W O
~ O
~
W w x 2

m
z
° J
i
c ~ r z o

O
-o
m w
-i
y
>
' w
~ m ~ ~' 1 p ° v,
-
1
x ~ C
f m ~
m o m

z

~
o n

c
_ ~ W m m

>
m TT
I,I
-rl m G D m

D
m
ai
p
~
m
o
m
o v

C

9 o c
'°
z ~ N
m r
-i m rn
~-
N
m ~
~ O
~ ~ -
t
o
+
~ ~
Z o
O
O J
t
0 m
i
I
S

r
C
t
m
N
m Z
~p0
~ Z
~+~Z
mp~ I
~+i Z
~ o ~ rn I
~ ;~~I
~o~ao
~~~ I
O ~ m ~
o Z
Z ~ Z
O
W
_RDY_TYP.dgn

30~ ~ Ov,O
pad ~
t 3~3
~
c0~ ~
+ + ~~~
~`
~ oyp Z
tip Z a + -~ +
~tllt7~ Z
N • O

i~ Q
~ o. p
~ZQO ~
p W OWO N
a +
~ N
+ a w
+ +
~ u
j ~
G W
~'
~
O
o ~
A Z

N m ~ N

ao < rn ~ w -~

D -I -1 -1
O -G -< -<
v v -o 'v ~o
m m m m m
-
o ~
-I oo H to m
2 N -+ ~C
-i Cn (O fA
m --~ cn m
~ 0 0 n
v v -
D m A °
~ ~
m co m
N r
~ ~ N
O ~
C O ~"~

v 2

m

.o
D

~ C -I N ~ ~
~ j ~
m
N
D X D ~ -'~

O
_ ° =
v ~ z

v ~ D ~ ~ v

~ z
_ 'v m -
i A r
< F° ~ m
a
U' v n
o ~ ~ c
~
a z o v
~'
~ a
z
. v
~

< vs ~
c
~ D

z v m
~°
-~

e

V!
m Z
m
., ; n ,
~00
~ Z
t/1 ~ Z
m~~ I
~+z Z I
ao~rnl
t ~ I
Q ~ ~ I
~?~ I
m ~~
N
~ O Z
Z ~ Z
_RDY_TYP.dgn

Oy0 m
;O# ~ r1T m
~y0
J ..~.
oOm m
+ ' f ~ tOt y
N J~
~ OfNp O
wZa Z -F ;it Q
Na+p 2
~Qg
Oi., O
o . O
No .
p W o
N
~
N
'+. ~ w
t t
r :„
O
C W
O~
~
N
1_
O
H
~
Z Q
Z
A

6/2/99
N rn a N n

OD < rn ++ w i
~ ~

D -1 -1 -i
~ ~ ~ ~
v
~ m m m m

~ m
2 N j m
~ Vl ~O N
m -~ [n m
-< o o c>
~ v -
D m n o
~ ~
m oo m
ro ~
~ ~ N
O ~
C O ~

a z
~
m

.D
D

~ C --I N ~ 3
j j ~
m
N z
a X D ~ -~

~ _ ° =
v z

° A
~ ~ v r ~ v
z
~ ~ m
"D ~ _

~ v n
o ~ ~ C
~

D z o 00
~
~ n D
z
. v
D
H
c~
C

m z
~
m
z v ao
„~

C
_TYP.dgn
-o
rn
O
Z
Z
O

r~
r
v
R
r
C
C

y
T m ~ m
~

t ~
p, t
+ Q
C Z o0 Z

$
O g Z
O
O O
~ "~
P P
N
o a
+
A
ff
w pp
O

N ° N ~
+
.a .p w s
~ ~

~
~ m m
m
m N m
i m

m o A
~
00 ~ ~
~
D m
N
m r

n ~
O ~
C Z
~ D
~

m ~

~
1 m

m
N z
D X D
~ M ~
~ ~

~ N _
n
~ D
-~ -
I Z C
= ~ m
y ~
< ~
A
~ ~ r C

D z °D
"'~
~ D
z
. v
D

~
m
~ 'a
'~
m "'
z
~ ~°
3

-MAR-2005 11.4
~r oadw A~\PR~2~2318501 _RDY _ T YP.dgn
m
1
d
t
N
V
Q
W
a
C
N
~_
m
Z
Z
V
•
Z
O
--I
m
x
c
n
0
D
r
r~

Ayy
F
{N~
-i
Z
Z
a
~C I
O 71 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
m~;~
v
~ p
V N
N
2 O t
~ a. .
~ N
Q 41
A Q O
5~~~
~tt~
1
1
Z + a
+ ;
tea.
b.
°° 0 1
i
~yl
m ~
' ~ I
~ ~
1~ N
o? T m
~' 3
W
+ p
w Z
Q
'~
~•
y P
N
v
~O
w

~ L
Q
N
C
N .-
N -+ ~P W -+
~
1 . . ~

~„' ~.
D -< -<

o ~ m m
o .
~ ~
z m N m m
~ m
D m ~

C m ~
n v' -
O
a
~ o
W D ~
v m
z "'
H
v n ~

~ C Z
~ ~ ~ ~
r (
/~
-+ m -<
m
~ -o

~ C -I N 3
j j ~
m
v z
a x a _
! ~

H = =
v z

~
--I -I H C
= m
y ~ =
D G N N
m m ~ n
r

D z o
~
~ n
'fl
<
v~
~
D
m z
z v

i - ~

dy_psh04.dgn
H~
~„' ~ ~ ~~
N a ~~~
~~~~~~~r~~~~
.;. ~
,~ ~Q~ ~ ~
~~'~~N'~~a~3~~
U N N ~

3
T

~~, bZb,OpBEN
•ZZ~ ,....~0~
M•~'~ g ,
~~ i
•re~
~~
~~
~~
1W ~e 96i1 eo O
11 Od ZZ 0d
5311~~055~ 08083HS~ 18 Al'1n3n Stl
~~
VAS
gm ~~
mp
~~ ~
V
gN
~22s
i"
S
r
m
z
y
0
`O
y
C
W
u
y+
s
~

3 $ s
~~N
. ; ~~ ~~
~~ '~
~~ o~
~g~ O ~
~~
~ ~,`~.~5 4~op
rnurari2
a ~ a~~~~o
~~~~
~~

i ~ i
_RDY_PSH05.dgn
-. ~ ~ ± 4
mm~ a
°: Q T %7 A
~ II~ r ~ ~.
K ~~9:JCI/$
W ~
8$~ ~ ~ N,
~~'~O ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~
~a~ A ~ ~ ~'~~ f
33' ~ II Ip o ~ ~"
+ A
c$ ~
m ~ ~ N~ ~ '
.,
N ~Yyld ' d ~ ° SgVIl9/ /L ~n
,~o~ f~'bf ; i
~~ y ~~ ~/
~n y a'o ~ l3~~ 0.5
~ ~ ~ /
d
pNlHyvd G3N of o ~ K ~ ~
93dr1 ~ / ~ ~~
o i 7 7Np~~~`~ rl / j0!~~~ ~~
~ 4
1~ i __
~ i 3~i
V 9MM~d 03N
~~
1
~s
o$
I~~
°' I
p
~~EisY='~1' ~'~
~ / ~

~ i
~ y~

1~ i ~ ° 3
~ 3
~
A
`7
S[aE +
~ o wo

Ny
~a

+
~ y~ om
a~ ~
~ K

~
~
•
O .
I
I
K
. Q rn

- ~ ~
~ •
~
~
~~
w
N ~ I~

~ ~~ 1n ~ YI '
~ ~~
R '0
~~~
9~
Me-•ozerN _
•~E'60f
~ +~
~~
yyy~>
' t
N~
O
T
~f
N
~ W~
ti pN
O
ti
~~ ti ~~
Q g ~~
~ ~~ ~
g
~~ 8r~ '
~~ ~~
~i~ ~i~
N
~ N ~`~:.
g~
I
J
Iy
~I ~
~a~
xr9
~~~
~~ y
A
N
0
0
y
197.59' Q
NC7W73'M
162.98' ,^• 1
5 N ` J
y
~~ C
W
O
~~ \ ti0 y iy OMB J i ~
~pg T V~ y ` C
A~ ~ ~ 't • ~
+ ~, + ~ ~
1 i~ A ' + 1
_i-- ' $ _
c+ ® ~ tl0m~r' ~ ~~
a ~ ~ ~~
~ s ~ - ~=
_ -~
'~,y` ,>.
~ ~~~
~~~ ,9~~ ~i ~ ' \ ~ 'x o q ~~ •5Z ~ n
w
.St
i ~./~ y M
$ ~~
A~ ~ t• Q i2
~ // ~ Y.;
,- ~
q•~~ °' ,Q
.D ~ • N
w J Q N i d ~ , •<
~I ~C ~T ~ o ~ 5~6~}i ~R ~ ~ gR ~L u/
I ~ I '/ 1~SS g~ Z` ~p ~y~~e~~' _
I ~ ~ i+1.3p CO O p ti - ~~ N~
yI 6 A ~~r~._ 1F y0 ~ ~p ~ ~ ~~ V
N -(
S 1
~ s~
E V E9
~~ ~ y~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - F ~ ~ ~~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ -
~ ~ H
~ i m
~ ~ ~ :. °'
4 ~
' N /
9' 'i:9,~13,BbA,p Y'0~~~
'~ I I I ~.+ ~., g~
o
'~ 2A'CCNC C A C O
~ -y ~-x ~
ry¢ A~ OLS
0` ~~-_
~~` O
0~'xo~y ~ ''A ~MxxND~ A~VrC~~
d4 $~~ ~~ ~~qqo x u x x u x o
n~
~, -•
'f
~ ~o~~oD~
~xxx~x~
(~ V `~ O
O ~M.9Y. 5~.9~N E~N~y 1~
,66'!91- ~y~~~~
~~,

8~ c
~~ ~~
~~ ~
z ~
~ ~
~e
~ z ~,

i.

1_RDY_PSH06.dgn
~~
2
O
y ~+
x 'c
~ ' U4 i3N~'
/ / ' ~ 7
R
/~
~/
/~

a~
Rg~
~~~~
av
r r
1Y `~~,
1t 1
1 ~ ~ ,.; ma
~~
~~
~ ~~ ~
°~
~~ 1 15
~-
y N
Q
if n ~ ~~>
n v
~ e ~ K
• S ~O
g +N ^ In
6~~.K~~ ~
g$ ~
. ~ ~~
aN
mN 2 a$r
w ~ / ~~~~ n
5
s
S
c
A
a
a
~~ ~
~ ~
g
:e
T
N ~ d
~
~ y~
~ ~ N
~

o ~>~
rm ro =
d ~ ~~m
g „
~
° " ~
~~ ; o o ~- a~-,
N
~
~SRf N
r s
? pa«
LSn
H _ ~ o ~
o=
o ~
P?
~
~1 n
A ~~
y
° °'3
• ±

N
' a
~ ~ ~~~
§ $ ° I" e
I 3 o
1 X'gr
~
y~
~ n D
r -.
` 0
i ~R
Ni m ,
Np O
~ g~~ y
~ ~
~
~ ~
~'
w~ ~
:4 ~i
~~~
• ~~-
G
7
:w~ ~
• I ~ S
.., . i z
'-mac Q~ 00 m ~ I
±~ Y y '~ I a
m~ I ~~OC
w~ I ~~
0
~ ~ ~^ ~f~'
A ~ ~~~
9
~ N "'~
~~ ~ ~
o ~
r~n~nYt
0
~~~;w~
~ ~~~
n~~~oD~
MMrrnn~
a ~~
~ ~~~~w
~~~
ti
n .~
8~
~~
~"z
,~
~~
z
y

~ e `
.dgn 8/l7/99

y~ K
'~( ~ ~ ~
~ la ~9 ry o + F
O
I ~
F X`" sya ~ ~li I 1 ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~To ~ I II ~ ~~
p e ~+ I C~
~~~ m ~s ~jj ~~ '(° ~ I h ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 0 ~
K ,I I ~
,~ ~ I ~,
~~ ~ I ~ II r 4 a-I~OD~
~~ ~ , i I~ ~ 202 ~ ~W~V1~0
r X- ~ 9 ~.0'8 W '4 ~ VI~ ;
I
I ~ I IIi~ ~ ~ ~ _ .~ 28t 00' ----~".~eeT
~~
Q ~ ~ O
~ ..
I
~ o Q a ~~ II II
N 'aF
N ~~ ~~~ a *~ ~I ~ ~
i y ~~~ ' ~ '
_ I ~
-Pi ~ ~ W ~ ;
o I
~~ ~ +
N ~ ~ ~ I
a
~~~' ~/ I i ~ p~
~ r.. r \
i~ a
.~ ~ ~
`s ~J I
O ~~ !~
I
I
v ~~
1
II
_~ o-+ ; 1
I"
H
s
`~
o°
0
H
y
e'~ o a p r

Gp9 ~i m
O J' Q•1 G m
~ a
po
o ~
os~
~- I
~ ~=r

E 3s
~= T
g; ~
r~ vauo
P~ Q
~ ~~ x w w
4
a 1 p O N U N

*H H H H ~I
• • ~~
~ m ~
~A i
~' V I
' '
a ^~C
i I
~ ~
I I.
I
~~
I~
I
y 1 1
R I

GGG ~
~ ~
K ~
~

~
s ~

~ N

N
~ N
r

~ ~
~ K
1~
y s

$

o

~G
~
`
U ` ~
m
~ o ~ $
0 ~
o
~
u
a QxQ~
LQCf °
-N. ~Q
~ ~~G ~ ~
' P ~Z
~ n
g ° ~ n o
Ft I~ ~ n o
• Y ~ ~ 11 11
~ ~s~$f w
~ •J'
~
~
~
~ H
.
. i rt
~
1 ~
:$ ~ H
~~jjWW'' ==H
b O, ~ 4~~
G ~ ~ ~~G
~ ~<r
~~~ ~r
O
0
y
~o
N m
M
y N
y ~ N
~ ~ ~€v
m ~m
o ° ~ °
,~ <r
°
~ ~ ~ ~;
s ~~
~.
~~K
1 'AV
I
r1 nZ `
O~
I
1 ~~~

~~ ~~
~

p
~• G
~ ~ ~yr
1
~ r ~~
y
n
9

I
I
~i
8 Ci7 ~ ~ .,
~~ ~~~
z ~
~~
~ ~
gX°r
2y ~ V

O
r `~..r
`r 7'E
_ 4
~~ ~
O
+ ~ ~
,n. • ~ ~ ~ A
~ m ~~w
N :~ oO
1
m
O '
~~ , ri~s• ao ~r° ~ s4p
pNe~I'S 73'E y •~ r~1 K p S
V~yl't~pl' ~ 8 W P iNp1 Zi~ -~1 ?ark' Iq
N ~ ~+ ~ y '1
~ ~~~ V A ~ .
o p ~~~ ~ ~ o ~s°
P °
~~ .- -?~
~ M ~ o 0
~ ' ~~
'A ® u+ -
a
~... `
~#
,; .~
r %.:
NCI'22
Fa
8~
~~
00'81aZf lOd

i i ~ t
RDY_PSH08.dgn ~ 8/ V/99
P _`-
Z
~ ~~_'J
1
~ 1 ~ ~"~
1 x ~~
~ \_-
~ _ m 8 ~~ g
~ i3
~ ' ~, .
~ ~ v
~~
~/
t~
g
$~ ~
~= K
~g~ ' ~
i~~~^
N
Q~
t~y'ZO./ 45
.• I ;
15
w~
a
9-p N
~~ ~Q ~ ~
A
n
f.1 ! ~' y
• c Q~
8 ~O
ID~~K ~~ ~~
' ~ '
~ a$~
/ ~~~~ n
5
~~~
~r~
~~
W ~yn
r ~ ~ ~
~~~

T
." 1
b
$~ ~~ C
~~ ~'
~~ ~~
z ~
~ ~
.~
~z ~~

i ,'
22-MAR
\prlo \U3401_RDY_PSH09.dgn
8/17/99
Y- 26+35.54
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5
- 15U,ND n
-~-_. ~~ ~
~ 1~~
N ~ /Z \\~'I ~ ~j9 r`y ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ oyf ~ ~ . ~ ~9
NII P ,~ ~ .~
a~~ ~ o i l ~ 1 ~ d
I~ \ ~ ~~
'a. ~ ; II ~ ~t~ II 1~ ~~
1 ~~ ~~1 ~~ ~ ~ z~~oD~
N I
~ I ~ p r M
1 I ~ ~ ~
~ zoz~U,~• ~
II \1'I II N T~='EX_ ~yQ~p~V~~1,~5 1
~~ ~ 1:'} II X~~ Y 9'IHJ ,O'9 ~ r' VV SAi`l
`W a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~° b w'Y~I
.LO I ~ ~ I yyy111 ~
N~
l5
.. ~ r Ilil I ~ 30 xetoo' "08D'631f5~"`~'~
~ ~ Ma i 'z~M
I{' 1
I m
1 ' ~ ~
i
ss~ 8 . can.. I L ~i d $___ ~_~-~
'q'26'N ~ ~ d.ti^~.r:' T~~~I ~"_ a3n+a,aa 3MN ._- ~ ~ 4 h oD
3Nnuls
case us ,~,nwou _ ~ ~
tt ~ '' I'~~I w tv~y°
:,
..
UI
~ ~ .~
~ ~ ~~ ~8~
.. - II II ` ~~ ~~noD~
~g u w p`i2
n
,4 . O
* II ~~ i a ~ ~~~~w~
~ I~ ~ I "p° o ~~~
+ /~ ~ I / ~ `4 ~ V ~ N4139'IS•E ~ ~ r~ 11 V _ ` O 1~
' " ~ ~~ I b N ~ ~i 888 ~g3~~ ~°~wgw
1 ~ e~~ ~/ I ~t,t ~ ~ ~ ;i ~ ~~~~ E~ ~~~~~c~J ~
-c ~ro ~p3 j/ 1 ~' -+cc ~ Q rOr -~c ~`~~g ° ~p2~
i ~ ~ N
I ~
/ ~ III ~ ~ _ ~I ~ ~ ~'~vwo~
II ' I M A ~~~~~~
I ~~ ~ ~~~
~ i I I /~,,) ~ r ~
I ~ ~~ oD
F I I, \~~ u u ~ 111
I ~~ W~~
I ~ :l ~ ~ ~~~~~
~ I I I ~'° 7 ° "' ~~V~
P ~ l i I _ m v ~-- ~~s
~ I ~-----'` ' $ ~L~
NA22'1' ~
I I a ~
I I ~;
$ ~
f.,p i ~ 3a
IiI i ~ ~ .
~~ I oo•sl~zr ioa ~~e-
II
k I I-A8
b
~
~
w
~ ~ ~

~~
~
` M
z ~
~ ~
-c
b
~z
~

~
~
y

~ ~
2?` MAR-2085 11:49
r• roodwo pro \u3401_rdy_pfl.dgn

.5/2

8/9

9

N -'
N G

~
W r

N ~
N
,~

r
W

A.

r

.~
O~

r
V

Oo

N
O

N
r

N
N

O ~

~.

~~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 1, 2005
Philip Hams, III, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raieigh, north Caroiina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
FEB ~ 2005
Q(V(SlGN Gr HIGi~Ih'hYS
RDEA-0F~iGE OF N4IU?J~l ENN(F
This letter is in response to your letter of January 18, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the proposed intersection improvement at US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 in Randolph County
(TIP No. U-3401) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no
effect on the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). These comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a plant survey was conducted on September 20, 2004. Several
specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed near the.intersection of NC 42 and SR 2600.
However, these specimens were approximately 0.4 miles outside the project limits. Based on the
information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that
the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Schweinitz's sunflower. Also, based
on the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on
the Cape Fear shiner. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied.
We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previuusly considered in this review; (2} t'us action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that maybe affected
by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-452 ,,,(Ext. 32).
Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

-1 :~
Randolph Couaty
Intersection
QS 64/NC 49 and NC 42
Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-64 (58)
State Project No. 8.1572101
WBS #34935.1.1 .
T.I.P. No. U-3401
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Approved:
.~ ~ o ~
DAT
~~~~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
V
D TE 9~' John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
Intersection
US 64/HC 49 and NC 42
Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-64 (58)
State Project No. 8.1572101
WBS #: 34935.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-3401
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
February, 2004

Ste{~hanie Ledbetter Caudill, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Teresa Hart, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
............................................................................................
I. PROJECT DESCRIPT'ION ..............................................................1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................... 2
A. General ...............................................................................2
B. Transportation Plan ............................................................2
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................................. 3
D. Safety ............................:................:....................................4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................... 5
A. Length of Project .................................................................6
B. Typical Section .................................................................... 6
C. Right of Way ........................................................................6
D. Design Speed ......................................................................6
E. Access Control ....................................................................6
F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..........................................6
G. Structures ...........................................................................7
H. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................7
I. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ...............................7
J. Utility Conflicts ................................................................... 7
K. Traffic Control ....................................................................7
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................?
A. Design Alternatives .............................................................7
1. Alignment .................................................................. 7
2. Typical Section ........................................................... ?
B. Public Transportation Alternative ........................................8
C. "No-Build" Alternative .........................................................g
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............... 8

• r
A. Land Use Planning .............................................................. 8
B Community and Relocation Impacts .................................. 10
C. Cultural Resources ............................................................ l0
D. Section 4(fl Resources ...................................................... 11
E.
F. Natural Resources .............................................................
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................... 11
12
G. Air Quality Analysis ........................................................... 12
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement ...................................... 12
I. Flood Hazard.Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns ............. 14
J. Geodetic Markers .............................................................. 14
VI. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................15
Figures
Appendix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -Project Location Map
Figure 2 - USGS Quad Map
Figure 3 -Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 4 -Preliminary Designs
Figure 5a- 2001 Traffic Projections
Figure 5b- 2025 Traffic Projections
Figure 6 -Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan

Project Commitments
Randolph County
Intersection
US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42
Federal Aid Project NHF-64(58)
State Project No. 8.1572101
TIP No. U-3401
WBS# :34935.1.1
Highway Division 8, NCDOT Right of Way Branch, NCDOT
Geotechnical Unit
Any unregulated Underground Storage Tanks (UST's) will be identified by
the Right of Way Branch during initial contacts and the NCDOT
Geotechnical Unit, will be notified of their presence prior to acquisition in
order to determine if the tanks have leaked.
PD8sEA O.N.E, Highway Division 8, NCDOT Geotechnical Unit
Groundwater resources will be evaluated in the final design stage in
order to ensure that measures are taken, if necessary, to avoid
groundwater contamination.
NCDOT Utilities Branch, Highway Division 8, NCDOT Right of Way
Branch
NCDOT Utilities Branch will coordinate with Highway Division 8, and the
NCDOT Right of Way Branch concerning any effects to permanent
lighting outside existing ROW and belonging to the Asheboro Honda-
Mazda dealership.
PD8aEA, Highway Divisioa 8
The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction, due to
the presence of five Geodetic Markers within the vicinity of the project.
PDSaEA, O.N.E.
Complete surveys for both Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear
shiner will be conducted prior to beginning construction activities.
February, 2004
ii

..
Randolph County
Intersection
US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42
Federal Aid Project NHF-64(58)
.State Project No. 8.1572101
WBS#: 34935.1.1
TIP No. U-3401
Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action -The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes mal~ig intersection
improvements to US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro (please see figure
1). This project has an estimated cost of $900,000 for right of way
acquisition and $825,000 for construction according to the 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
2. Froiect Benefits -The proposed project will have a positive impact
to the region by improving the level of service along US 64 / NC 49 and NC
42. The intersection of US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42 is a multi-lane section,
with NC 42 operating as a basic two lane with turn lanes in the project
vicinity. The addition of a southbound right turn lane and a north bound
left turn lane along US 64/NC 49 will serve to enhance the traffic safety
and operation of the intersection by allowing a higher number of turning
movements along US 64/ NC 49. The addition of a west bound right turn
lane with taper, and an east bound right turn lane along NC 42 will
promote efficiency by removing right turns from through traffic along NC
42. The project proposes a median island that will eliminate two
conflicting left turn lane movements, as well as the addition of site
distance triangles in the intersection quadrants which will serve to
reduce traffic delays:
3. Environmental Effects- The proposed project is not expected to
substantially impact the natural environment. No businesses will be
relocated as a result of this project; however, some permanent lighting
belonging to one business adjacent to the intersection may be
temporarily affected. There will be no effect to architectural and historical
resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
iii

Randolph County
Intersection
US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42
Federal Aid Project NHF-64(58)
State Project No. 8.1572101
WBS#: 34935.1.1
TIP No. U-3401
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes making intersection improvements to US 64/ NC 49
and NC 42 in Asheboro. Please refer to figure 3 for an aerial view of the
project. The Asheboro Southern Bypass project is currently projected for
post year build and will be located to the south of the project. The
addition of a southbound through lane and a north bound left turn lane
along US 64/NC 49 will serve to enhance the traffic safety and operation
of the intersection by allowing a higher number of turning movements
along US 64/ NC 49. The addition of a west bound right turn lane with
taper, and an east bound right turn lane along NC 42 will promote
efficiency by removing right turns from through traffic along NC 42. US
64 and NC 49 will be widened to include a southbound through lane and
a northbound left turn lane and NC 42 will be.widened to include a west
bound right turn lane with a taper, and an east bound right turn lane. In
addition the project proposes a median island that will eliminate two
conflicting left turn lane movements, as well as site distance triangles in
the intersection quadrants which will serve to reduce traffic delays. This
project has an estimated cost of $1,865,000 including $365,000 for right
of way acquisition and $1,500,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to
begin in federal fiscal year 2004 and construction in federal fiscal year
2005. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $1,725,000. This
estimate includes $ 900,000 for right of way and $ 825,000 for
construction.
A southbound through lane and a north bound left turn lane along
US 64/NC 49 as well as a west bound right turn lane with taper, and an
east bound right turn lane along NC 42 are proposed for the intersection
(please see figure 4). The dimensions of the improvements include 12
foot turning lanes, with 2.5-foot curb and gutter section and a 4-foot
concrete median. The proposed improvements are anticipated to occur
predominantly within existing right of way (ROVE; however, the project

will require the purchase ~of approximately 12 feet of additional ROW
along NC 42.
~. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General
The purpose of the project is to allow additional turning
movements along.US 64/NC 49 and NC 42, thereby removing traffic from
through-lanes in order to improve the capacity, and level of service of the
intersection. This will be accomplished by adding a southbound through
lane and a north bound left turn lane along US 64/NC 49 as well as a
west bound right turn lane with taper, and an east bound right turn lane
along.. NC 42. Additionally, ?00 feet of queue length will be added in the
eastbound direction as well as 200 feet of queue length in the
southbound direction in order to enhance through traffic movement at
the intersection. In addition the project proposes a median island that
will eliminate two conflicting left turn lane movements, as well as adding
site distance triangles in the intersection quadrants which will serve to
reduce traffic delays. The completion of the proposed Asheboro Southern
Bypass, R-2536B, scheduled for ROW in 2007 and Let in 2009 ancording
to the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program, will further
serve to remove traffic from this intersection. Asheboro's Thoroughfare
Plan refers to NC 42 as being near or over capacity by 2025 and
establishes NC 42 as needing additional lanes. The proposed
intersection-widening project is consistent with these transportation
system plans, as TIP U-3401 will improve capacity, and Level of Service
at this intersection.
B. Transportation Plan
. ,The mutually adopted August, 1998 Asheboro Thoroughfare plan
designates both US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 as major thoroughfares. Also,
in the project vicinity, the proposed Asheboro. Southern Bypass, R-2536,
according to the thoroughfare plan will be designated as a Freeway. The
proposed project U-3401, along with the adjacent project, TIP No. R-
2536, was added to the TIP after the Thoroughfare plan was adopted (see
figure 6).
When completed, this project will improve capacity along US
64/NC 49 and will improve the level of service in the vicinity of this
intersection. In addition, the proposed improvements associated with
2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in
the central portion of Randolph County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of improvements to the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and
NC 42. The proposed intersection improvements involve widening US 64/N 49 fr m a five-
lane curb and gutter roadway to a seven-lane shoulder facility, and widenin from afour-
lane shoulder facility to afive-lane shoulder f 'ty. The existing right-o - e
intersection is a variable 60 foot (18.3 m) t. There are no p 'time to acquire
additional right-of-way for the intersection. 'tion, the pr ' 'codes widening of
NC 42 from a two-lane roadway to 4-lane ro fro 1 oad (SR 2189) to
Crystal Wood Road (SR 2670); approximate ' es , with a ROW of 200 ft (60.1
m).
This report covers potential impacts to natural orman-disturbed resources along
approximately 800 feet of roadway northeast and 800 feet of roadway southwest on US 64/NC
49 beginning at the center of the intersection. _ In addition, this report discusses potential impacts
along NC 42 from Old Salisbury Road (SR 2189) to Crystal Wood Road (SR 2670).
The purpose and need of this project is to increase the capacity and impmve safety along
this section of NC 42 and US 64/NC 49. The projected traffic in the design year 2025 is
expected to nearly double from 2000.
1.2 Environmental Commitments
At this time, there are not any site specific environmental commitments, except for
several stream crossings that will require culvert extensions The NCDOT should use appropriate
sediment and erosion control measures to prevent non-point source pollution. All standard
guidelines and recommendations apply.
1.3 Parpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and descn'be the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the content of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need
to be conducted.
1.4 Methodology
R:eseatch was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
maps for Randolph County (Asheboro, NC,1994), Geographical Infon~nation Systems (NC
Center for Geographical Information & Analysis), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
-2-

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil
maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1"=100'). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Resources (NCDENR 1996, 2001), NCDENR Internet Page 2001 and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Randolph
County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was gathered from the USFWS list of protected species and species of concern,
and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologist
Matt Haney and NCDOT contract biologist Harold M. Brady on 29 January 2002. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria presen'bed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Enviromnental Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed
using guidance provided by NC Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the
Division of Enviromnental Management (DEM)],"Field Location of Stc~eams, Ditches, and
Ponding" (NCDENR-DWQ,1997).
1.5 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator. Harold M. Brady, biologist,,ARCADIS G&M
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, NC State University, 1998
Experience: ARCADIS G&M, January 2000.present
2) Investigator. Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: NC Dept. of Transportation Oct.1999-present
NC Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
US Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research
May 1997-August 1997
1.6 Definitions
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Stady Area
denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area
extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent .
to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the
central position.
-3-

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any
biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region in the central part of
North Carolina. The topography in this section of Randolph County is gently rolling with some
steeper inclines throughout. Commercial and residential uses are the major land uses in this area.
Project elevation sages between 730.0 and 890.0 ft (222.5 and. 271.3 m) above mean sea level.
2.1 Sods
There are two general soil series mapped by the Randolph County NRCS within the
project area, Georgeville and Uwharrie. The two soil series are represented by six distinct soil
mapping units. None of these soils are listed as either hydric or containing h:~dric inclusions.
Descriptions of the six individual soil mapping units are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptions of soil mapping units within the project study area
Georgeville silty clay loam 2-8% None Well-drained eroded soil with moderate
permeability, a loamy surface layer, and a clayey
subsoil.
Georgeville silty clay loam 8-15% None .Well-drained eroded soil with moderate
permeability, and a low shrink swell potential.
Georgeville silt loam 2-8% None Well-drained soil with moderate permeability and
located on gently sloping uplands.
Georgeville-Urban Complex 2-10'/o None The majority of the land within this mapping unit
has been disturbed to the extent that a soil type
can no longer be recognized.
Uwharrie silt loam, 15-45% None Well-drained soil witli moderate permeability,
extremely bouldery .and containing many stones and boulders
scattered over the surface.
wharrie silt loam, 2-15% None Well-drained soil with moderate permeability,
extremely stony and containing many stones scattered
throughout the surface.
Soil core samples were taken throughout the project area primarily searching for
areas containing hydric soils; however, no hydric soils were observed within the project
area
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources, if present, likely to
be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
-5-

resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to m;n;m;~E
impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Six streams, including Squirrel Creek, three unnamed tributaries (Ut) to Squirrel Creek
and two Ut to Vestal Creek, will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Squirrel Creek
and Vestal Creek are looted in sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Table 2
describes the characteristics of the streams located within the project area.
Table 2: Characteristics of Streams Impacted
Ut 1 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0.3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 2 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 1.0.2.Oft 3.0-6.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Squirrel perennial 3.0-6.Oin 1.0.2.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
Ut 3 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0.3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 1 to Vestal perennial 4.0.8.Oin 2.0.3.Oft 5.0.10.Oft moderate
Creek (10.1-20.3cm) (0.6-0.9m) (1.5-3.Om)
Ut 2 to Vestal perennial 6.0.12.Oin 2.0.3.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-30.Scm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
It should be noted, that heavy rains had occurred in the project region approximately 36-
48 hours prior to the site reconnaissance on 29 January 2002. This caused higher than normal
water levels in all of the streams within the project area.
Ut 1 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the US 64/NC 49 and
NC 42 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris. The channel
contained strong under-cut banks, had agoodriffle/pool sequence, and fair sinuosity. Ut 2 to
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 320.0 ft (97.5 m) east of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris.
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 950.0 ft (289.6 m) west of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble.
Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1050.0 ft (320.0 m) east of the NC 42 and SR
2600 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with exposed bedrock
innumerous places. Several large rock outcroppings are present within the floodplain,
approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) north of Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek. A natural spring was observed at
the head of an ephemeral stream feeding the stream on the northern side of NC 42. The spring
had a small rock structure built around it and was covered with a small piece of metal. Ut 3 to
Squirrel Creek was determined to be ephemeral on the southern side of NC 42.
-6-

Utl to Vestal Creek is located approximately 850.0 ft (259.1 m) east of the NC 42 and
US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with rip-rap
constituting the substrate of the channel within 30 feet of both sides of NC 42. Ut 1 to Vestal
Creek on the southern side of NC 42 has a wide well developed floodplain with good sinuosity;
however, thenorthern side had been straightened and is used as a roadside ditch along SR 2683.
An inordinate amount of household and construction debris was observed within the stream on
the northern side of NC 42. Ut 2 to Vestal Creek is located approximately 1550.0 ft (320.0 m)
west of the NC 42 and US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of silt, sand,
gravel, and woody debris. The floodplain surrounding Ut 2 to Vestal Creek has been severely
disturbed with development, and the channel appears to have been straightened on both sides of
Highway NC 42.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams are assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
Squirrel Creek [Index no. 17 22-6] and Vestal Creek [Index no. 17-22-4] are C. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Unnamed tributaries receive the same best usage classification as the named streams
into which they flow. Therefore, the classifications of the six streams within the project area are
C. Both Squirrel Creek and Vestal Creek are tributaries of Richland Creek which also maintains
a C classification.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQV~, Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Qnality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive sampling of
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebratesbave proven to be a good indicator of water quality because they are sensitive
to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to
fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organrsrns
help to assess the health of streams and rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit review. No biological sampling sites are located within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of
the US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 intersection widening and NC 42 widening project. The nearest
sampling site (B-19) is located approximately 12.0 mi (19.3 km) southeast and downstream from
the project area, near the confluence of Richland Creek and the Deep River. This site received a
Good rating in 1993 and an Ezcellent rating in 1998. There are no sampling sites upstream of
the project area. -
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
NPDES Program. There are no permitted dischargers within the Richland Creek basin.
-7-

The nearest discharger is the City of Asheboro Waste Water Treatment Plant located
approximately S.0 mi (8.0 km) north of the project area. The waste water treatment facility
discharges into Hasketts Creek.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or saowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source
pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of
nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal wastes can be transported via runoffto receiving streams and may
potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be
a source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand. Drainage ditches
in poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of stormwater into s~face waters
(NCDEHNR DEM,1993).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present lead uses in
the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or lOcely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980) and
Webster, et ai. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*}..Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna. expected to be present within
the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Three communities are found in the project study area: Maintained/DL~turbed, Mixed
Pine/Hardwood Forest, and Alluvial Forest. Community boundazies within the study areas are
often not well defined and include a transition zone between them. Terrestrial faunal species
likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging
oppoztimities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Distnrbed Community
This is the most common community type found within the project boundaries, occurring
on the shoulder and in the maintained residential, commercial, and agricultural areas adjacent to
NC 42 and US 64/NC 49. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent
mowing or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional state.
-8-

Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering stormwater runoff and reducing runoff velocities. The width of the road shoulder is
approximately 5.0 ft (1.5 m), with somewhat wider shoulders near intersections. Vegetation
occurring along the road shoulder includes various grasses, clover (Trifolium sp.), wild
strawberry (Fragaria virgi»iana), fescue (Festuca spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum o,~`icinale),
chickweed (Stellaria sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), vetch (~cia sp.), thistle (Carduus sp.),
geranium (Geranium caroliniam~m), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
and corn salad (Yalerianella radiates).
Only one agricultural area was observed within the pmject area, approximately 1 mile
southeast of the US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 intersection: The agricultural field has been left fallow
for approximately five to ten years. Vegetation within this area includes .sweet gum
(Liquidambar styrac~ua), black cherry (Prum~s serotina), winged elm (Ulmus alata), eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Ater rubrum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
juncos (Juncos spp.), and foxtail grass (Setaria spp.).
Medium to large sized trees within the commercial and residential areas are comprised
primarily of northern red oak (Quartos rubra), willow oak (Q. phellos), white oak (Q. alba), red
maple, Virginia pine (Pines virginiana), white pine (P. strobes), eastern red cedar, yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), bradford pear (Pyres calleryana), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indices),
southern magnolia (Magnolia grand~ora), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and flowering
dogwood (Corpus jlorida). Smaller vegetation include elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americans), boxwoods (Bozos sempervirens), tulip (Tutipa sp.), daffodil
(Narcissus pseudo-»arcissus), and daylilly (Hemerocallis sp.).
3.1.2 Mined PinelSardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine/flardwood Forest community is interspersed within the maintained
residential areas along NC 42. This community includes areas that are steeper and rockier than
the other two communities, and range in age from 20 to 60 plus years. The forest understory is
relatively open which wildlife can use as corridors between streams within the alluvial forest
communities and the grasses and herbaceous plants within the maintained/disttnbed
communities.
The forest canopy primarily includes white oak, scarlet oak (Quartos coccinea), black
oak (Q. velutina), rock chestnut oak (Q. prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), loblolly
pine (Pines taeda), Virginia pine, red maple, eastern red cedar, white ash (Fraxinus americans),
sweetgum, black cherry, American holly (Ilex opaca), southern magnolia, sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). The understory is primarily
composed of Chinese privet, flowering dogwood, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
multiflora rose (Rosa multi, flora), blackberry (Rebus argutus), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lopicera japonica).
-9-

M
Randolph County to the north, with Alamance and Chatham Counties to
the east, Moore and Montgomery Counties to the south, and Davidson
County to the west. Existing land uses include gas stations/convenience
stores, a car dealership and a mixture of strip malls, eating
establishments and other commercial land uses.
3.
Land development surrounding the interse tion of US 64/ NC 49 and NC
42 is predominantly high-density and urb nature. Commercial land
uses dominate all four quadrants of the int 'on and the majority of
the study area. Acco g to the appro d sheboro Thoroughfare Plan,
the dominant land u e is low de sidential, which is concentrated
mostly in the outlyin ea C rcial development is located
predominantly in n b ess area and in strip developments
along major NC an ro e . dustry land use is located
predominantly along western Railroad to the north and south of the
central business dis t.
ABP gas station is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection;
Asheboro Mazda 8s Honda is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection; Blockbuster Video and Papa John's are located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection and the Crossroads Center is
located in the northwest quadrant. Curb and gutter exists at all four
corners of the intersection and on Dixie Drive, but not on NC 42 past the
intersection. In addition, no pedestrian crosswalks or sidewalks, and no
bicycle lanes exist at the intersection. Furthermore, these facilities are
virtually non-existent throughout the study area.
Although NC 42 consists of four lanes at the intersection, it quickly
narrows~to two lanes north of Dixie Drive. The businesses north of the
project site on NC 42 include a Ryan's Steakhouse, Staples, and Best
Western on the east side of~the road, and Specialty Shops on 42, The
Family Sports Center and the YMCA on the west side of the road.
Randolph Mall, located behind Ryan's Steakhouse and Staples, can be
accessed from this portion of NC 42 as well.
Klaussner Furniture, the largest employer.in Asheboro, owns a 100-acre
site on US 64/NC 49 (Dixie Drive) approximately one mile east of NC 42.
The City's planning staff believes that this site may eventually be
developed as an industrial or retail center; however, it appears that
development on the site may be hindered by the presence of soils with
9

severe limitations for development (as shown on the "Physical
Development Limitations" map in the 2020 Land Development Ploxc). In
addition, a small parcel that was previously owned by Randolph Electric
is for sale near Staples and Randolph Mall. This parcel is currently
zoned as general commercial, and is proposed to remain commercial in
the 2020 Land Development Plan.
4: Future Land Use
The US 64~NC49 and NC 42 intersection improvement project is
located within the City of Asheboro, which has an adopted Thoroughfare Plan,
however this Thoroughfare Plan does not adequately address
.recommendations for future development patterns. The 2020 Land
Development-Plan serves as Asheboro's guide in making decisions related to
land development and growth.. This document presents a vision for growth
with policies that will help the City of Asheboro to meet its goals for
development over the next two decades. More specifically, the Plan
introduces a "toolkit" of land development categories designed to build the
"Proposed Land Uses Map" for the City. This resource proposes commercial
uses for the area immediately surrounding the intersection of Dixie Drive and
NC 42. For a more complete listing of dwelling unit, employment by category,
and census tract information, please refer the complete Community Impact
Assessment included in the appendix section of this document.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to m;,,;*r,»p the
degree to which federally sponsored programs contribute to the
"unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
uses," and ensure that these programs are consistent with state, local
and private programs to protect farmland(US Department of Agriculture,
"Farmland Protection Policy Act", US Department of Agriculture on-Iine:
Available from http://www.info.usda.gov/nres/fpcp/fppa.htm; Internet).
The study area is almost completely urbanized and farming uses are not
prevalent in the area; therefore, the proposed improvements should not
negatively impact any current commercial agricultural operations.
B. Community .and Relocation Impacts ,
No residences or businesses will be relocated a~s a result of this
project. For a complete Community Impact Assessment (CIA) report,
please refer to the appendix of this document.
10

C. Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the
project and is aware of no properties of historic or archeological
importance within the proposed project area (See Appendix). No
archaeological survey was recommended.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the
project and is aware of no historic architectural sites within the proposed
project area (See Appendix).
D. Section 4(fl Resources
Section 4(fl of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 .
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area,
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of national, state,
or local significance may be used for federal projects only if: a) there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and b) the project
includes all possible planning to m;n;m;~.P harm to 4(fl lands resulting
from such use.
No resources within the project area were identified as protected by
Section 4(fl of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended.
E. Natural Resources
Summary
No wetlands have been identified within the project vicinity. There
are no High Quality Waters (HQW), water supplies, nor outstanding
resource waters occurring within the project area. No biological sampling
sites are located within 3.0 miles of the intersection pmject. In addition,
there are no permitted dischargers within the Richland Creek basin.
11

Minimal impacts are expected to occur during construction activities.
Therefore, a Nations=:-ide Permit 14 will apply as well as a NC Division of
Water Quality (DW'Q) Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to the
issuance of a Section 404 permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of
the US.
Soil core samples were taken throughout the project area primarily
searching for areas containing hydric soils; however, no hydric soils were
observed within the project area:
The project is located within an area of the state known for the
presence of an endangered plant species, $chweinitz's Sux~~'~ower, as well
as an endangered animal species, the Cape Fear shiner. A~ no
endangered species will are likely to be effected by construction within
the project area, a finding of "No Adverse Effect' is sufficient for both the
Cape Fear shiner and a finding of "No Affect-Not Likely to Adversely
Affect is sufficient for Schweinitz's Sunflower. Surveys will be completed
for both species prior to construction. Please see the appendix of this
document for a full Natural Resources Technical Report.
F. Hiahwav Traffic Noise Analysis
The project proposes improvements such as the construction of
additional turn lanes to the intersection of'US 64/NC 49 and NC 42. The
project will not increase traffic volumes. Generally, the project's impact
on noise will not be significant.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirement for highway .
traffic noise (Title 23 CFR Part ?72). Please refer to the appendix of this
document for a complete Noise Analysis report
G. Air Quality Analvsis
The proposed project is located in Randolph County, which has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Past 51 is not applicable,_ because this
pmject is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated
to create any adverse effect on air quality in this attainment area. If any
vegetation is disposed of by burning during construction, the burning
12

x
shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of
.the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Representatives of the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit -Environmental
Section performed a field reconnaissance along the project corridor and
found three UST (Underground Storage Tank) sites within the project
area. The Geotechnical Unit performed a field reconnaissance survey and
found three (4) UST sites within the project area. The first of the three
UST sites is the BP Shop: This active gas station is located in the
northeast quadrant of the US 64/NC 42 intersection. The registry shows
that four (4) USTs are currently in use. These tanks are about 130 feet
from the edge-of-pavement at US 64, while the pump island is about 51
feet away. No monitoring wells were noted and it does not appear the
site is under remediation at this time. This site will probably have a
miaiiaum impact to the project. The next site, Asheboro Mazda/Honda
is an active car dealership and is located in the southeast quadrant of
the US 64/NC 42 intersection. The UST Section's registry shows a waste
oil UST was removed from the site in 1994. It does not appear that the
tank had leaked. The facility still does service work and produces waste
fluids that are place in an aboveground storage tank (AST). The waste
disposal company routinely pumps out the tank and disposes of the
material. The waste oil AST is behind the building and is over 150 feet
from NC 42. This appears to be the only remaining potential source of
contamination at the site (there are no underground tanks, oil/water
separators or in-ground hydraulic lifts. This site will probably have a~
minimum impact to our project. The third site is Tank and 'hlmmy #4
and is an active gas station located on the south side of US 64;
approximately 0.1 miles west of NC 42. The UST Section's registry shows
that a total of eight (8j USTs (1 diesel, 6 gasoline and 1 kerosene) were
removed from the site in 1980. :There are currently five (5) USTs in use
at the site, in two separate tank fields. The closest UST field is about 97
feet from the edge-of-pavement at US 64, while the closest pump island
is approximately 137 feet from US 64. About 12 monitoring wells were
noted on the site indicating there has been a release (GWI # 14879).
.Given the number of monitoring wells oa the property, our project
could potentially impact contamination from this. site. The final site
is Cox Groceryand is a former gas station located on the west side of NC
42 about 100 feet west of SR 2825 (Inwood Road). The UST Section's
registry shows that a total of two (2) gasoline USTs were removed from
13

the site in 1993. No soil contamination above state action levels was
identified during the removal work. The former tank field was about 50
feet from the centerline of NC 42, while the pump island was about ?5
feet from NC 42. This site will probably have a minimum impact to
the project. Should the project limits change, please inform this office as
soon as possible. Please note that our evaluation mainly covers regulated
(commercial) USTs and that there is still the possibility of unregulated
USTs (farm tanks or home heating oil tanks) being impacted by the
project. These unregulated USTs should be identified by Right-of--Way
during initial contacts and our office should be notified of their presence
prior to acquisition so that we can determine if the tanks have leaked.
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should be
no otY~er contamination concerns for this project. If any unregulated
USTs (or any potential source of contam~.~ation) ~ is discovered by Right-
of-Way during their initial contacts with nmpacted property owners, our
office should be notified of their presence prior to acquisition. This is so
an assessment can be conducted to determine the extent of any
contamination. This assessment will also serve to estimate the
associated clean up costs and allow us to make right-of-way
recommendations. Please see the Appendix fora ,full Ger.~environmental
evaluation.
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns
Randolph County is currently participating in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Of the stream crossings within the project
limits, none were found to have flood insurance study (flood hazard)
involvement. The intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 is not located
in a section of Randolph County in which flood hazards have been
identified. There are no major rivers or creeks within the study area.
According to the Division of Water Quality, the entire roadway project is
not located within either a critical or protected watershed area.
Therefore, no impacts upon watersheds or water supply are anticipated.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the best extent
practicable. Groundwater resources will be evaluated in the final design
to ensure that measures are~taken, if necessary, to avoid groundwater
contamination.
J. Geodetic Markers
There are five Geodetic markers located within the project's general
vicinity (see Appendix). Since it is anticipated that this project will impact
14

the markers, as at least one marker is located within the project limits,
the NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
VI. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On August 15, 2001 a letter was mailed to the following state and
local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input
concerning the proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those
agencies which responded to this letter):
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*Army Corps of Engineers
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Env. Health and Natural Resources
*NC Division of Water Quality
*N. C. Department of .Cultural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Community comments .and concerns have been taken into
consideration during the planning stage"of this project. Businesses in-the
project vicinity were sent a newsletter in February of 2002 to inform
them of the proposal and a workshop was held February 26, 2002 (see
Appendix). The newsletter generated several responses from adjacent
businesses concerning driveway access during the construction phase of
the project.
A follow up letter will be sent to individual property owners, in
place of a public hearing, to allow further public comment on the project
once a preliminary design is available.
15

1 '~ I °2ao
1 -. a.e J
I •~ .oe .~fe ~ ,:~ i I
- - 1le7 /~ 1
1 _ Lea + eo / I. • _ ~
.~
/ ~^2_i6
Leal. - ~~.~.1.~
1 ieaz '25 ~1~~' ~_ .~ J / /' / / $le3 3as ` 1. zr13
1 / /
31~ /' / /
I ~
g
~7 a~a .~ '~ / /
1 /
\

~
'a :a+s P~ ~

,.
\ . b ~ ~
BBD
~~ . 11' ~ r
'Y i~ 1 i ';I'~ . L
~ zsle .~ ~ 1 ~
~ .
/
~
1
~ .M les Oak~ooa Park
Oapflst ~Iklrpl ~ .~
~arY 1 \ ~ 2213 ^ y
~
~ ~
~
~
f~ ASFIEBORO j
roP
w L :ki
le ~ z;ae
. ».
j lao ~°
l
p, ~ 1 ~~~ I--. ~~
e
l .1
/
a ~
J 1 ? ~
1 J
C
.z /
Id
1 1 ~ II
I
I 1
;J
~
~
I '
~ .cer~ \ tsa
1 1
1 i
I ~
i , ~'
1 I / la \ •' 1 a~

1 ~ ~ f
-.ol
IW 4a
~' I
~~-
i I
, 2e0a
zsre 1
uwar Park
1 ~
1 E!~
7
~ 1 1 ~ ~
t a...,,.,r„
W
j , Sa,aul
~ . ,
,
•~i, , ~ I ,
, I
~
i • I
a ~ ~' I
I 1 ~ ~ 1 !
`~ -- ---
I ~ ~ ~
a~
'
~s
~j

J_ 1 ~ ~
1~ ~ , l' I ~~ ~_ ~,.
.
./1 ~
°A i /i -; . ~~ iii i

~ zalz ~
~ r
I ~-
1

o ,(.~..
~% I
I t'
I
'z
. ~ I
I ~

~ ~I
. 1 . ozl n` 1
/
~

2a.9

\
~ .I-~ /: ~
2a3z -I
-Ir! a - , I
~ ~s
+.. 1, aD
.lo _I ~ 1
n
/ - ~ ~.
// ~1
/ ~ '
2a1 zalo ~ ~ 1 \ '$` ~ ~\ 2r2t
o \,
t / ,' `,
,~
~ 2= - / -~-~ ~ I:
_. . _. ...
~selz ~- ~ ~ '---- ... -- --- --
1.
' •1G.r.
~ ; •.4 .
,i s..u.
R A N ti :~
North Carolina
De~artmeat of Transportation
' Div>tsion of Highways
Project Developme~ &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Randolph County
Asheboro Intersection of US 64
i~TC 49 And NC 42
U~401
SCALE: not to scale Figure 1

,:. I
Ara' .

~~ ~ O
z v_,
a a ~1 ~ ~~~
0.$ .... //c/ F
z . • ~ //
~ ~ a~ z~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ 8
~ ~ o~ a~ w _d
S j ~ z 8 a g ~ V v i ~ PNEO P~FItaG ~
a ,~ ~,
B/
r,
I
•. g
<'~~
~~8
Wp~~
W ~
~ ~ ~~"~
$ Pweo
~~
i
sg
a _
I
'!
ig
~~

v l
~
~~
0
~
~ rr
~Q~v~/'S60~'19'L
'/
1
o~
a
o I p
I
pycBxo%° B I
1 .
'll
}}}}(~~~ i 'J /
n~ N I '/ '
• ~~Vl~/
a
~, ~ , ~ s~
r I ~ ~ /
a° i - ~t ~
~~~
8
I ~l
1 `I
1 it
I
I
~" US REALTY B7 ASHEBORO ASSOCIATES
'" PB Yt PO IT
oe oec Pc ror
/ ~ / it P~EO PNIKIB~
~~
~~m
O
~~
~~ ~~o ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ >~8
~~~
p ,. - ~ ~~
4 N 4
N ~ 186.8<'
T~ -~ ~crou
JB '2J ~ 61.6C
!~ 218.09' W ~eje•~CW
11422•
NN B
~;
~I ~ ~~ ~ •
~~ -
~ ~ ~
~~

yS S
\BFtr•
"B99ps~S

q
~ ~ .~
~ .o
oa
ffi~~~aa~o
~~~ ~~~~~~~3
W Q ~~~~ $
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ :~ ~ ~
'~ ~~ ~ ~

h
~y ~ a ~
a~
a~ z~
~~
~~ W$
'7a' $ a
~~
\d
~ ,
{N~N~ ~
m~~~~/pP~, 167.59• .
N p~~~ ~ N+6 3•+6•w- ~ ~
OM.~^nl"7 W
N a a a U a
a.QOJha;
I J
$ ~~$~. I
~ I
~~~ ~ ~a~ ~ a '~ sz~ I
~ ~ I
o~ ~
v'3 a a a r a wbbGz'°~°~ o~~ H ..S N.
tna r a s a ~~~ s ~ I
aLQO~31~ar ~QOJF. ~ ~~ I
N1^c ~~ I I
~~ ,. 11r4
a$ , ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~I
S ~ `~ ~ +8'E ~ bq ~ ~ PNEp pppRIIW • \ ~,I I b I
G~ 5e+~
U
p ~ ,c~ /I
Q - ~ ~ .. 6 I I .S
~ `~~ ~ !
~" !t; wW ~ I
~, ag<p, o~ ~ 'r- I I I ~ (t I
~Tp~ q~' Ep R1N0 /fr ~ t li
_ ¢ n~ v ~ G ! I I r
~ ~ WI , I
~~ K ~ g$ ~
Q $ ~ ~~ES. a ~ ~ 5 ~
i g ~ ~~ ~ 32C c#T o . I
~ g ~~ T~ PO ~~ CQ;101 ~ ~ 1--• W - I • I ~ j
~ ~ 1 ' ®C~o; ~, I I ~ I
P
~ ~ ~ I
N ~p °~ 1 e~ (I I
}. 10 i
2 0• CONG 6 yd >3~a PN D ~
((//=jj q y~ o
k~ ~h 8 ~ ~ o ~~/ .m / I
PMED v • r - I
'~ PMU1'N6 ' ~ 1 ~ >~3 7 - I
6~pS5 I ~ j $ g ' ~~ °~' ~
w
~~ .~ I ~ a pal E %'~ 8 ~
/i .a a .we c!i~,_ ~ i
r ~_~ ~ 1
~,-; ~'
.~ - I
' t` E g I
I III n
~~ I .
!s R ~' ~ $ \+\ \~ ~ ~ I I I~
+ ~ I 1 I~
SNOISIA9i1
r
w
l.o4ope.s
.B6'ZA
M.C1,04l VN
.65'e61

~~i
j~~
~qIE
~a~
e~ •?'~
'I I o,
I ~e~.
I ~I +eia•o
III
~, I J u
` I~ ~` ~ ~ L
QII ~ 4
O
I °~ i
11
II~ g
u },
y ,`{ W
~i
4 O 4
PNEO
309.31'
N+e7o•++•w
PwEp PT,pRl116
N
~
~
~
N~R .
~~
'F' TT 1
15 6~F 905

.lt
POpRING
pE0
i~E
GRp55
o ~ ~ ~, ~
iti ~
.~.~ ~~~
°~ PlyED PppRiw6
~~
~i~' PMIEU PpwRING
4,
•
N C~
~>r~
~", ~~~
"g8

z
z ~
a a~
w• ~

S
/ ~ .
4
t

~ ~
~a~
~ o~"c
aQ z
~~ ~8
~_

`^~~~~
y ^ ~ M N
QQ J~~
a ~ ^~`4~t
~' ~ ~'~~~
N
m .
~ ~ ~ ~~-=
~~ o
dr 3 ~ W ~ 4
W
I ~ ~ ~
C
p ~ I~
N ~
I: i.14i-S'
~OIY~
~ Q
~. N ~~ 32
I I' O
~/
~~ //
~~~ ~/
5
~~
~Y
~~
~~ ~~
/ /~~
N
N
~'
et
~~
r
W ~V
m .
~ ti ~
m m8
ryu ~ ~
..
ti~
>a NN~
J ~ 7
W

-,
_
, -- -
" = ~aa
a a
,, i
a a

'^7
N
^
' ~
9
~a

I
• i
C-T.
~ ~ T '~~
7 ~
~ V
7
7
'S
1 ~ O =
- .
•
zn~w
~'O sy_;~
°r
~~'yz~~''o
„
O 'Zy
~~
~~
~-
__ y
e -v:o-%v ~:o:n.z

r.~~~ v! J -
~~ .=Z
.r W a ~0
a
.. ~
. '~
O .
Z w.. JS Tr
~ ~
O ~ e „~~
C ^ II
~ Z
.
.
V
O
7 ~

C
w
.A
0
I~
_
m
v~
C
00

e„
'~
e~
N
0
z
H
K
m
_
CL
O_
r -~
w
A O
.~
n C`-7
o A
~ ~
3 ~~
0
e
A
7
w
~ C
A C
Z ~
n
A r
~D
m ~
0
~ ..
Z
A
A
N
U1
as
~A
n
~i ~
~"
_ _. ~ ~
`, N
N
~,
.-. o

• a •p •~
P ~ W
w
~/
M

O

.` ~ ~
W N

W
V 4) N
~~
~ ~
o ~ Z ~--- ,~ 1 ~ ,~ ~ -- Z
rn \ ~ ~
C
N N ~
~
~ ~ N
,~ ~ -. ~ 1 -. -~

N
~
~ N
^' ~
~'
o

H
~
~
N ~ ~,
yr c
o
O -i "' cz•s~ N

v PM

10 ~---- 60
~3
2~

09~- 01
Wd

_
~ . _N
it
n v
~
~
--~ o
~
d
-R ~- •
- ~
~- B

3~~
6'
` ~ ^,
• ~ N tt
` ~ ~ v
N
O!
.. ~
_. Z
~_ n
•P
t0
J
...

~ ~
- ~ - - ~
v . - ~ a a
a a
"' < !

z
~ws:
^^ ~ ov.
'LO~~
fi7 •~ p
'~
~QZn[27 t*. ! n
a
w
..j ~ 0 . > o Z o ~=te

fnpyZS-^ ?tn~
~
~
<
.... IT:T~
~~ C ==zrr.y
r,_ay~
_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O
- ~
y
Z T.~ ~0
p ~
-~ a
C ~ u
C z
w O

H
...
b
C
W
is
0

3
A~
I~
d
C
co
d
f9
.a
~-.
tt)
C'
t9
"'S
N
O
O
O
A
C
y
p
G
o_
.T
~_ ~
" O
'o C~
3
0
e
3
A
3
c ~
a n
n ~
~a ~+
~ Q
°° z
a
Z
n
A
N

Z
n

__``
,v
g N
~
~

Oo

_'"\
e
a
q
3 r r
,. ~
~ ~ N

C
N
o
f37
.~ fC
N ~ N
~ w
fNp
N
f31
.,

~ ~g .AV
N
~
~
~ v~
~ ~
~
N ~ `,
~~
A - ~~
~ OD
N ~~ f31 ~
fit. -~
CJ1
i w w~ c D
3
o '~') ~
m
,o...~ ~ ~ (Z'E)
~f--a, . CR
Q 0 (7.2) ., M Wd s

~
v .a 1~ .~
a ; -~
~ -i

~
~ ~
0 ..
i
N
N
N
1
~ ~ /
,` ,z ~~
('~
•, ,"
X

~ ~
R~
C vt
~~5:-
> 7~~OU ~
..=yam
7_C.r..7
F7 7 p ;~
~
C~ Y
Z :~7 ~ n
= a
o
~
o
~
- <
no~ % ~
~C'"
~
r
-~
~
~
~>~=C e
~
C~7
~v
~
dr
Yr
C
~ ~
~
te-
n~,~
~e =arc '' !a
~
;n0>c~•Z
r rn< =_ZrC,
n =
A
~ T.
~ -:-
~ ~ =. p ~ 's
~
i
;*~ ~ t*f
Q ^ =

="
r ~ a
~a
e

~
~- % .
~
I ~ v= Z
-w
~= e
o

N
n
~P
Cfl
0
cc
s
a ~ N N
a ~
t0 O
-~
W
.ia
.o

"3
N
0
r.
C
r~
A
"~
A
l9
'T
N
O
O
O
C
..j
o_
~~
"'S
" O
~ LI
~ ~
~ n
3 y
a
3
A
7
.~-
c r"
y O
A f'1
a y
~D 0
3 z
Z ..
N

•'t
N
C
C N
~ O
~ N
.A ~
a -~
y
N D
o rn
~v
~a
~v
v
0
Z ,~-
n
N o
--
0
V
N ~O ? ~ r
co -~ ~_ w
~l~ ~m
w
~~~T('
~ o
~ ~
~o ~ ~
(3, 2) N
a s
°' ; O O
e
0
N
C
Z
~'
c~
w
~- Z
~
~
N

N
(Z'E)
094 wd o-
`~

a ~ ~ ~ ~ a a
. [_%
... ~ a a
~ i

r r ;*~ ~ 11
~QZf~t*7
=~ c~ ~ .~ E
~ ~ a
w
-~<~.yoz ~ S
-
C..
Q~
~ y'
~
y
-=ate
"~ nn "
7 ==
~ ~ Ay
~ ~ ^ /~
~~
v I M
P7~j
1
^~
e ..
T t ~~
Z
~ O
~1
a ~, ,.; r
~ ~ _ ^ a
z . a
-~ ~
Q '
R ~ Ri ~ :T
V ~ H
Z ~^ ~

O ° >
T ~ .... ~
i 11
v z
~ W

i. C O
to

C
01
^~
~P
N
J
W
0
n
a ~+ ~ r
'_ W O
H
~.
w
~.
0
Q
.'~
~d
~.,
C
00
~~
A
f~
Q'
~D
'T
N
O
O
O
n
C
y
~C
z
G
O_
",
"S
~_ ~
`° O
~ ~
•.
-v
0
A
O
r
c ~
a n
n ~
A r.r
~D O
°° z
a ••
Z
A
A
N
O CO w ~ O ~ v t0
~ ~ .wt w o ~
~ ~ -' v V ~
(~ ~~t ~ ? ~ ~ '~
C -7 W ( Z'E )
m 10 ~- PM 60 09~ Wa 01
~D 0 c3. z)
~ ~~
~; W ~
v
0
v
C
z
n
~ ~

o•
~~ 6
D
d9
( ( 1~
LJ

Q
._ ~
e
_ ~
~ ''~~~
-___ _ ..e_,.. .... _. ._
~~~1~•'
'~_
v
r Q ,`~
B ~
4S'
NC ZOO
LE~ Figa `6 L1J1L~lJO~O
THOROUGHFARE
'
Existing Frcpcaea x couxzy
nANnol..l
~ PLAN NORTH CAROLINA
Freeway tam nnm
~ -,.ao~a Er ~.
Major Thoroughfare ~~ ^^^^^^^ j Horlh carolinD o.parnn.mofrron.pononon
Dhdsbn of Highwayb~lotewids Planning Bronth
Minor Thoroughfare ------- ADOPTED BY:.. wilh aasblanu from tha Randolph

Interchange ~
;~~ OTY OF ASHEBORO lanmW 7,_1999
:nR~
6Y Count' Plarcling OsparlmaM
m,d sn mop.rwkn -xh
f T
'l
H
IIKOMMfNDEO
~~, 13 1999
STATlWIDE FIANMNa On
a
U.$. DepartmaM o
~anEpOl
Fedsml FHghway AaminisfmNon
TRANS-ORTARi~ OF ~ Marth ~. 1999 Erin mn0 daM
' AM~'3, 1996
PU6l1C MEA^NG6 Dwmba 10,199!
November 16,199$ ' .

HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS OF TIP PROJECT U-3401
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON US C4-NC 49 AND NC 42
ASHEBORO, RANDOLPH COUNTY
Document Prepared By
Safety Planning Section
Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit
" , Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
North Carolina Departmerrt of Transportation
February 10, 2004

HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS OF TIP PROJECT U-3401
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON US 64-NC 49 AND NC 42
ASHEBORO, RANDOLPH COUNTY
WBS Element 3x935.1.1
Docume-~t Prepared By
Safety Planning Section
Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportafion
Project Managec
.•---~
. Kevin Lacy, P.E., CP
raffic Safety Systems gineer
Traffic Safety Engineer

R r
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
• Intersection Analysis Report -
Yearly Totals Summary

Year
Total
Accidents Acxident
Fatal
Accidents Totals
Injury
Accidents
Property Damage
Only Acddents
2000 10 0 1 9
2001 13 0 7 6
2002 8 0 0 8
2003 4 0 1 3
Total 3s 0 9 26
Iniuro Totals
Class A, B, .
Year Fatal injuries or C Injuries
Zooo 0 2
zool .o to
2ooz o 0
2003 0 1
Total 0 13

Year Miscellaneous Totals
Property Damage EPDO Index
2000 $ 29900 17.40
2001 $ 43300 64.80
2002 $ 16000 8.00
2003 $ 15700 11.40
Total $ 104900 101.60
^~

Year
Left Tum Tvoe
Right Turn of Accident
Rear End Totals
Run Off Road
Angle
Side Swipe
Other
aooo 1 o s o 2 i 1
2001 1 1 8 0 3 0 0
2002 1 1 3 0 3 0 0
2003 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
Total 4 2 17 0 9 2 1
All dm Pna~d h UAs npoR ~s Uem tlN Tnllic En~weYq AeeW~nt MYyNs
12/16/2003 ~" ~ a» ~~~N~~•, *~» ~ ~"~°" -11-

x
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report ..
J,jght and Rosd Conditions Summary
Condition Dry Wet Other Total
Day 20 3 0 23
Dark B 3 0 11
Other 1 0 O 1
Total 29 6 0 35
V~hicie Tyne Summa
Vehicle Type
Number Percent
Involved of Total
LIGHT TRIICR (M3STI-VAN, PANEL) 6 B.11
PASSffiJGSR CAR 42 56.76
PICItIIP 15 20.27
SPORT DTILITY 5 6.76
TRIICK/TRAILSR 1 1.35
UHIQVOWN 1 1.35
DNIOAQWN HEAVY TRIICIC 1 .1.35
VAN . 3 4.05
.: ,~
12/16J2003 ~~ ~~»~ ~ ~a»~+~ -10-
Ib. w.rer ur. upordo ~ac«dM a» dil~ rN«~y ana auHwr ap..w~mq uw aw.

,.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
~

Hour ~ Summary
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
0000-0059 0 0.00
0100-0159 0 0.00
0200-0259 0 0.00
0300-0359 1 2.86
0400-0459 0 0.00
0500-0559 1 2.86
0600-0659 0 0.00
0700-0759 1 2.86
0800-0859 0 0.00
0900-0959 1 2.86
1000-1059 1 2.86
1100-1159 1 2.86
1200-1259 5 14.29
1300-1359 2 5.71
1400-1459 2 5.71
1500-1559 6 17.14
1600-1659 1 2.86
1700-1759 4 11.43
1800-1859 3 8.57
1900-1959 3 8.57
2000-2059 2 5.71
2100-2159 1 2.86
2200-2259 0 0.00
2300-2359 0 0.00
N d~ prpMbd in Urs sport Doors Uom tM TraAe 6glnw~Ng Aunt Anryab
12/16/2003 ~a~ Y°~i waa1ui'~~°in~~'aa°~0ftaro;..~~aw~P01 '9'

« s
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
• Intersection Analysis Report
M

Month onth Summ
Number of
Crashes ary
Percent
of Total
Jan 3 8.57
Peb 7 20.00
Mar 1 2.66
Apr 0 0.00
May 3 8.57
Jua 4 11.43
Jul 1 2.66
Aug 2 5.71
Sep 3 8.57
Oct 2 5.71
Nov 4 11.43
Dec 5 14.29
~ih- Summary
Number of Percent
Day Crashes of Total
Maze 5 14.29
Tue 6 17.14
Wed ~ 22.86
Thu 3 8.57
Pri 3 8.57
Sat 6 17.14
Sun 4 11.43
AN dW p~nbd in tl~ opal mars flan tlN TwIRe EnphraNip Aadd~ntAn~
12/16/2003 ~ ~ ~ a°'e~» a~~~n~ r"~.aa~ ate" "8'

~ R
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Miscellaneous Statistics
Severity Index 2.90
EPDO Crash Index 101.60
Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 104900.00
Number of Peroerrt
Accidenrt Type Crashes of Total
ANGLg 9 25.71
FIXED OBJECT 1 2.86
LEFT TORN, DIFFERffi~T RDADWAYS 3 -8.57
LEFT TORN, SA148 ROADF0IY 1 2.86
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 16 45.71
REAR END, TARN 1 2.86
RIGiAT TORN, SAt+lB ROADWAY 2 5:71
SIDESWIPE, SAID DIRECTION 2 5.71
Number of Percent
Injury Type Injuries of Total
Fatal Injuries O 0.00
Class A Injuries 0 0.00
class B Injuries o o.oo
Class C Iajuries 13 100.00
Total Non-Fatal Injuries 13 100.00
Total Injuries 13 100.00
AN dW pNNMSd N Ws npott Doors r6~youmrUr Twllk 6~pWwrinp AoddoetAmlyNs
12/96/2003 ~ a..a woe v.bus tope «tdna~ ~w~w~•vo~rs onsrr. 71r Dons is saietly woe .7•
1M nssreftlrsrporttosrsrclssd:s In rdf~rlhornPnMtrMNOINsdMS.

r
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis Systsm
Intersection Malysis Report _
Hiah Level Crash Su mmary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 35 100.00
Fatal Crashes 0 0.00
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 9 25.71
Total injury Crashes 9 25.71
Property Damage Only Crashes 26 74.29
Night Crashes 11 31.43
Wet Crashes 6 17.14
Alcohol/Drugs Im-olvemeat Crashes 0 0.00
Y
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 35 100.00
Fatal Crashes 0 0.00
Class A Crashes 0 0.00
Class B Crashes 0 0.00
q.ass C Crashes 9 25.71
Property Damage Only Crashes 26 74.29
Vehicle EYSesure S*s*isncs
Annual ADT =37500
Total Vehicle Exposure =41.06 (MEV)
Crashes Per 100 Million
Crash Rate -
., Vehicles Entered
Total Crash Rate 85.24
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00
NoA Fatal Crash Rate 23.92
Night Crash Rate 26.79
Wet Crash Rate 14.61
EPDO Rate 247.43
AB data pwoM~bd En UFO sport ooma Uom sr TeM6c EnphMOrtns Aseld~ntAnalyais
11J16/2003 .w~ eeaws~~brrw«ty~rn,~~vpeo -6-

~ k
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
• intersection Analysis Report
Acc
Total.
injuries
Condition
Road
Trfc Ctl
No Crash m Date Accident Type Damage• F A B C R L W Ch Ci Ov Op
33 100822784 02 3b4 06003 SID83WIPB, SAME DIRECTION S 5300 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 i u o
Unit Z : 1 A1ch1/Dzga:O Speed: 20 MPH Dis: B Veh Mavz /Ped Actn:S Obj Strk:
Uait 2 :2 •Alchl/Drga:O Speed: 40 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Mnvr /Fed ACtlt:4 Obj Strk:
34 2 03
2
4/
100837238 02/ QSN, DIFF8R8[Pf $
T 7200 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
2
5
1 Y
Dh1t 1 :4 AICh1/Drgs:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:
DY1i.t 2 : 2 A1c7:1/Dzga: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh MAVr /Ped Attn: B Obj Strk:
Unit 3 : 1 Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr /Ped ACtn:l Obj Strk:
35 100839095 02146 52003 REAR SND, SLOW OR STOP $ 1800 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0
Unit 2 :1 AICb2/Drga: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 :2 AZCb1/Dsga:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Muvr /Ped ACta:12 Obj 3trk:
Legend for Acc No -Accident Number
Report Details• ' R ~ ~. ~B A~~B
itd cn -Road cnarecter
Rd a - Roadway conbbu~r-g c~wrnstarwes
Trfc Ctl - Tndfic Contrponi~:gD~v - sD~evke. Op - meting
Veh/P Aetrt - Veitids~ IMaeriPedestrian Anion
Obj Strk -Object Struck
i
l1r dea pnn~nhd b tlis sport eam~sa p~ bom ur TeNie F~gi~rMiq Aceid~nt MNyais
12/16/2003 ~o<~ wa`"~w W +~~~~~~~ -5-

k ~
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Acc Total
Injuries
Condition
Road
Trfc Ctl
No Crash ID Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op
Unit 1 :1 A2ch1/DZge: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: SW Veb Mnvr./ Ped Acta:7 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 :1 AIcb1/Dzga:O Speed: 20 MPH Dir: NW Veh Maur /Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:
25 100545940 01186Z~002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 3600 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0
Unit 1 :2 Alchl/Dsga:O Speed: 20 MPH Dir: W Veh Mavr /Ped Arta:1 Obf Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 AIcbI/Drrfe: 0 Speed: 20 MPH Dir: W Veb Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:
26 100555918 02/09/2002 ANGLB $ 1200 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0
20:27
Wait 2 :2 A1cbI/Drga: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: S Veb Mavr /Ped ACta:4 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 A2cIzI/Drpe: 0 Speed: 10 .MPH Dir: S Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:
27 300631002 05 148/15 02 LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY $ 1000 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Unit 1 :2 Alchl/Drga:O Speed: 30 MPH Dir: Nw veh Maur /Ped Acts:e obj strk:
IIait 2 : 5 Alcbl/Drga:O Speed: 35 MPH -Dir: S Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
28 200687602 OB/i8 /122002 REAR END, SLAW OR STOP $ 2500 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 3 1
Unit I : 1, Alcbl/Drga: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veb Maur /Ped Acta:1 Obj Strk:
bait 2 : 1 A2eb2/Dsge: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped ACta:4 Obj Strk:
29 100716060 09/05 26002 ANGLE S 1000 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 0 3 1
bait 1 : 1 Alcb1/Dzge:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj 3trk:
Unft 2 :3 A1eb1/Dzga: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: E Veb Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj 3trk:
30 100761810 11/17/2002 ANGLE $ 3300 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 3 1
19:50
Unit 1 :5 A1chZ/Drgs:O Speed: 20 MPH Dir: N Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj 3trk:
Unit 2~ :4. A1cbZ/Drga: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj 3trk:
..,
31 100795307 12/15805002 REAR END' SLOW OR STOP $ 1900 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Unit I :4 AIchI/Dzga: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veb Mnvr /Ped Actn:1 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 :1 Alchl/Dsga:O Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Actn:l Obj Strk:
32 100820731 0221 29 03 ANGLE $ 1400 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 3 1
DDit 1 :1 A1cbZ/DzgB: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:4 Obj 3trk:
Dnit 2 :4 Alchl/Dz~s:O Speed: 45 MPH Dir: S Veh iNavr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Aw dNa pnpsnbd in tlYs opal Doors fiom tlr'fw16s 6gwrab~p Aeddr~tAnd~rsis
1?J16/2003 ~"ti,.'" o<~ ~a°~,.a~~i~~a,°~a.urr~~o:•~w~~ "'4'

~ r
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
intersection Analysis Report
Acc Total
Injuries
Condition
Road
Trtc CU
No Crash ID Date Accidentrt Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op
16 100357659 2
001
OS/
2 / ~
TYRN, DIFFERENT $ 5500 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 3 1
2
1
4 ~
Unit 2 : 5 A1c1tI/Dzgs:O Speed: 35 MPH Dir: E Veh Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj Stzk:
Unit 2 : 1 A2chI/Drgs:O Speed: 35 MPH Dir: N Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

17 10037?I63 06/12 5001 REAR ffi~ID, SLOW OR STOP $ 300 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 3 1

IInit 1 : 3 Alch2/DrHs:O Speed: 10 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Actn:4 obj Strk:
Unit ? : 1 Alc2tl/Drga:l Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:i Obj Strk:

18 200378??4 06/15/2001 REAR ~, SLOW OR STOP $ 300 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
11:33
Uait 1 : 1 A2chI/Drge:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr /Ped Acta:i Obj 3trk:
Unit ? : 1 AIch2/Drgs:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
19 1004??005 08/
0 Ol
3 ~ RBAR BND, TURN $ 800 0 0 0 l l 1 2 1 0 3 1
1
5
Unit 1 : 2 A1ch1/Drgs:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Actn:l Obj 3trk:
Unit 2 : 3 Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 25 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

20 100499139 it/15 O1 01 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY $ 10000 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 1

Unit 1 : 12 A2cH2/Drga:O Speed: 20 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Actn:7 Qbj 3trk:
Unit ? : 1 Alch1/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: 3 Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:6 Obj Strk:

21 10051?403 12/17 44001 RBAR BND, SLOW OR STOP $ 7100 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 0 0

Unit 1 :3 AIchI/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 A1chZ/Drga:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acta:1 Obj Strk:
Unit 3 : 1 Alch2/Drga:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Mnvr /Ped Acta:l Obj Strk:
22 100495155 6 Ol
12/15 / RBAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 3300 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
-K 3
Unit 1 :2 A1chI/Dzga:O Speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Acta:i Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 AIchI/Drr3s: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: W Vel: Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:

23 100495848 6 O1
12/10 / ANGLB $ 1300 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
3
Unit 1 : 4 Alclil/Dzga: 0 Speed: 20 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr /Ped Actn:4 Obj 3trk:
Uait ? : 1 A1cI~2/Drgs: 0 Speed: 5 MPH air: S Veh Maur /Ped Acts: 5 Obj Strk:

24 100545986 01/
3 02
8 / RIOT TURN, SAMB ROADWAY $ 1500 0 0 .0 0 1 4• 1 1 0 3 1
1
1
12116!2003 sr~~ ~« M a•~ -3-
uu v..etua. ~m ~..4u.a~~~in o naann.rww ua. du.

~ ~
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report _
Acc Total
Injuries
Condition
Road
Trfc Ctl
No Crash ID Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op
Oait 3 : 1 A1CI31/Drga: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acts:1 Obj Strk:

B 100240369 11/07 11000 I
+8~
1 S2N, DIFFERENT $ 4100 0 0 0 0 l 1 1 1 0 3 1
~
R
bait I : 2 AIcbI/Drga: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: NW Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:
Obit ? : 1 Alcltl/Drga: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: S Veh Afivr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

9 100?4?468 11/
9 17000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 750 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
0
Obit I :3 A1c1:1/Dzga: 0 Speed: 4 MPH Dir: W Veh Mawr /Ped Acta:i Obj Strk:
o0aft 2 : 2 A1chi/Dz+ga: 0 Speed: O MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Acts:4 Obj 3trk:

10 100?58927 12/
2000
3 ANGLE $ 1800 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
1
5
Obit 1 :2 Alcb2/Drga: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped ACta:4 Obj Strk:
IDiit ? : 1 A1chI/Drge: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Mmrr /Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:
11 100?8342? 01/17/2001 ANGLE $ 2600 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0
19:29
Oaft 1 :1 Alch2/Drga: 0 speed: 0 MPH Dir: W Veh Mavr /Pea Acta:12 Obj Strk:
Oait 2 :2 A1ch2/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dix: 3 Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

12 100?89993 02/07/2001 ANGLE $ 7500 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 1
17:44
Omit Z :2 A1cIs2/Drgs: 0 Speed: 40 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Omit ? : 1 AScb.I/Drga: 0 Speed: 20 MPH Dir: N Veh Maur /Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:

13 100337958 02/15 /30 Ol REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 1000 0 D 0 0 1 1 1 7 0 3 1

Oast 'I : 1 AIcHl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Maur /Ped Acta:i Obj Strk:
bait ? : 1 Alchl/Drga: 0 Speed: 5 MPH Dir: N Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

14 10031??44 2
001
03/
12/ REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 100 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 1 0 3 1
6
1
2
Oast I : 1 Alcbl/Digs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Omit 2 : i Alcb2/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Manz' /Ped Acta:1 Obj Strk:

15 100357014 05/
6 ~27 01 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 3500 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
1
Dnft 2 : 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 ~ Speed: 0 MPH Dix: S Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:i obj Strk:
Daft ? : 16 AIcItI/Dzgs: 0 Speed: 15 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
All dMo Pfd in tli sport colas f:an /M TMe EnpYrnYq Aedd~ntAnaiysis
12/16!2003 ~~ r ~."°w.~.~w. a`"~~. ~°'~` '" ~ a.u"p°" "2'

`~ s
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
• Intersection Analysis Report
5t~t y crrcer~a ~umma~c
COUnty: RANDOLPH City: All aad Rural
Dat@: 05/01/2000 t0 04/30/2003 Study: HNS200312125
LOCatiOn: IIS 64 (NC 49/Dixie Drive) and NC 42
Acc
Total
Injuries
Condition
Road
Trk Ctl
No Crash ID Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op
1 ZOOZ17564 ue/03 19 uu xseue iSNL, sww vx a-avr ..... ~ avvu u u u u i R 1 o u a t
Unit I :1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: N Veh Maur /Ped Acta:i Obj Strk:
Unit 2 :2' Alchl/Dsga: 0 Speed: 45 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

2 100119230 06/12~
6 00 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 4500 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
5
Unit I : 1 AIc7:1/Dzgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: W Veh Mavr /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 AIchI/Dzge: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: W Veh Mavr /Ped Acta:il Obj Strk:

3 100141461 07158/54 00 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP $ 1850 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 1

Unit 1 : 3 AIcItI/Dz'ga: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: S Veh Maur /Ped Actnc l Obj Strk:
Dlnit 2 : 1 AICIt1/Digs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 3 Veh Mnor /Ped Arta: i Obj Strk:
Unit 3 :32 AIcbZ/Digs: 7 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:

4 100176972 09/20 10000 FIXED OBJECT $ 2000 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 3

Unit 1 : 1 AZclil/Drgs: 0 Speed: 47 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Acta:4 Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 Alclsl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 20 MPH Dir: E Veh Mme f Ped Acta:B Obj Strk:

5 100186083 09/19/2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION $ 2700 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
12:03
Unit I : 1 Alchl/Digs: 0 Speed: 32 MPH Dir: W VeH Maur /Ped Acta:S Obj Strk:
Dnit 2 :1 ~ Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 35 MPH Dir: W Veh Maur /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:

6 10020639? 10i~532
000 REAR END, SLOW OR. STOP $ 1700 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
~
Unit I :i AZchl/Ds+gs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Actn:i Obj Strk:
Unit 2 : 1 Alchl/Dsgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: 8 Veh Maur /Ped Acts:4 Obj Strk:
7 20021005? 10/18/2000 ANCiLB
12:55
Unit I : 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 10 MPH Dir: NE
bait 2 :2 Alchl/Dzgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPB Dir: B
$ 8500 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1
Veh Mhvr /Ped Acta:S Obj Strk:
veH Mnvr /Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk:
Atl dnb Pn~nbd In Ws wport eonNS iron iM TMIe ErpYenYq AaidMt
12H612003 ~ a a°~„~~~°y"°°'r',,,a t+"~~ ~~~

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index
Alchl/Dras - Driver AlcohoUDruas Suseected ~~= c~e=
0=N0
1 =YES -ALCOHOL, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
2 =YES -ALCOHOL, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
3 =YES -OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
4 =YES -OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
5 =YES -ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
6 =YES -ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
7 =UNKNOWN
Obi Strk - Obiect Struck Codes
14 =PEDESTRIAN
15 = PEDALCYCLIST
17 =ANIMAL
18 =MOVABLE OBJECT
20 =PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
33 =TREE
34 =UTILITY POLE
35 = LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY
36 = LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY
37 =OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY
38 =OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY
39 =OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT
40 =COMMERCIAL SIGN
41 =GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER
42 = GUARDRAJL FACE ON SHOULDER
43 =GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN
44 =GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN
45 =SHOULDER BARRIER END
46 =SHOULDER BARRIER FACE
47 =MEDIAN BARRIER END
48 =MEDIAN BARRIER FACE
49 =BRIDGE RAIL END
50 =BRIDGE RAIL FACE
51 =OVERHEAD PART UNDERPASS
52 = PIER ON SHOULDER OF UNDERPASS
53 =PIER IN MEDIAN OF UNDERPASS
54 =ABUTMENT OF UNDERPASS
55 =TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN
56 =CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER
57 =CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN
58 =DITCH
59 =EMBANKMENT
60 =MAILBOX
61 =FENCE OR FENCE POST
62 = CONTRUCTION BARRIER
63 =CRASH CUSHION
64 =OTHER FIXED OBJECT
:„
iJnit # -Vehicle Stvle C des
1 =PASSENGER CAR
2 =PICKUP
3 =LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL)
4 =SPORT UTILITY
5 =VAN
6 =COMMERCIAL BUS
7 =SCHOOL BUS
8 = ACTI1/ITY BUS
9 =OTHER BUS
10 =SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 2-AXLE, 6-TI
11 =SINGLE UNIT TRUCK f 3 OR MORE AXLES)
12 = TRUCK/TRAILER
13 = TRUCK/TRACTOR
14 = TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER
15 = TRACTOR/DOULBES
16 =UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK
17 =TAXICAB
18 =FARM EQUIPMENT
19 =FARM TRACTOR
20 =MOTORCYCLE
21 =MOPED
22 =MOTOR SCOOTER OR MOTOR BIKE
23 = PEDALCYCLE
24 =PEDESTRIAN
25 =MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEWCLE
26 =OTHER
27 = ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (AT1n
28 = FIRETRUCK
29 =EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD
30 =MILITARY
31 =POLICE
32 =UNKNOWN
01/15J2004 Page 2 of 2

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index
T - Tune of Accidenrt Codes
0 =UNKNOWN
1 =RAN OFF ROAD -RIGHT
2 =RAN OFF ROAD -LEFT
3 =RAN OFF ROAD -STRAIGHT
4 =JACKKNIFE
5 = OVERTURN/ROLLOVER
13 =OTHER NON-COLLISION
14 =PEDESTRIAN
15 = PEDALCYCLIST
16 = RR TRAIN. ENGINE
17 =ANIMAL
18 =MOVABLE OBJECT
19 =FIXED OBJECT
20 =PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
21 =REAR END, SLOW OR STOP
22 =REAR END, TURN
23 = LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
24 = LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
25 =RIGHT TURN. SAME ROADWAY
26 = RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
27 =HEAD ON
28 =SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION
29 =SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION
30 =ANGLE
31 =BACKING UP
32 =OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE
C -Road Condition Codes
1 =DRY
2 =WET
3 =WATER (STANDING, MOVING)
4 =ICE
5 =SNOW
6 =SLUSH
7 =SAND, MUD, DIRT, GRAVEL
8 =FUEL, OIL
s = oTHER
10 =UNKNOWN
F -Road Feature Codes
0 = NO SPECIAL FEATURE
1 =BRIDGE
2 =BRIDGE APPROACH
3 =UNDERPASS
4 = DRM=INAY, PUBLIC
5 = DRNEWAY, PRNATE
6 =ALLEY INTERSECTION
7 =FOUR WAY INTERSECTION
8 = T INTERSECTION
9 = Y INTERSECTION
10 =TRAFFIC CIRCLE/ROUNDABOUT
11 =FIVE-POINT, OR MORE
12 = RELATED TO INTERSECTION
13 =NON-INTERSECTION MEDIAN CROSSING
14 =END OR BEGINNING -~DMDED HIGHWAY
15 =OFF RAMP ENTRY
16 =OFF RAMP PROPER
17 =OFF RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD
18 =MERGE LANE BETWEEN ON AND OFF RAMP
19 = ON RAMP ENTRY
20 = ON RAMP PROPER
21 = ON RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD
22 =RAILROAD CROSSING
23 =TUNNEL
24 =SHARED-USE PATHS OR TRAILS
25 =OTHER
Ught Cndtn - Liaht Condition Codes
1 =DAYLIGHT
2 =DUSK
3 =DAWN
4 =DARK -LIGHTED ROADWAY
5 =DARK -ROADWAY NOT LIGHTED
6 =DARK- UNKNOWN LIGHTING
7 =OTHER
8 =UNKNOWN •
Ped Actn - PedesMan Action Codes
1 =ENTERING OR CROSSING SPECIFIED LOCATION
2 =WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING WITH TRAFFIC
3 =WALKING, RIDING, RUNNINGJJOGGINGAGMNST TRAFFIC
4 =WORKING
5 =PUSHING VEHICLE
6 =APPROACHING OR LEAVING VEHICLE
7 =PLAYING
8 =STANDING
9 =OTHER
S -Accident Severity Codes
K =FATAL
A = A LEVEL INJURY
B = B-LEVEL INJURY
C = C-LEVEL INJURY
O =PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY
Veh Mnvr -Vehicle Maneuver Codes
1 =STOPPED IN TRAVEL LANE
2 =PARKED OUT OF TRAVEL LANES
3 =PARKED IN TRAVEL LANES
4 =GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD
5 =CHANGING LANES OR MERGING
6 =PASSING
7 =MAKING RIGHT TURN .
8 =MAKING LEFT TURN
9 =MAKING U-TURN
10 =BACKING
11 =SLOWING OR STOPPING
12 =STARTING IN ROADWAY
13 =PARKING
14 =LEAVING PARKED POSITION
15 =AVOIDING OBJECT IN ROAD
01/15/2004 Page 1 of 2

Revisions
A-s per proposed design specifications, the following ievision was completed February .10, 2004:
"The~ddtio~s_~of~:soutlibound through lane~~ti:a:saorthboimd~left tum laae.are proposed.~for U
Has been revised to read:
-~
`-`~'~e: ' -"~edditio~-o~a~southboundright tum lame and a northbound i~ft tern lanie-is proj~osed: for--US
.~,
- - - ..
These changes did not change any of our findings or recommendations. There are no fiather
commems or recommendations at thistime. - .

We r«~mmend changing the verbiage in the safety section to reflect the findings of this
~~
We recommend that the design of the right turn lanes on NC 42 consider using charmelized
right tum lanes rather than continuous right tum lanes. This would serve the purpose of
removing the turning vehicle frrom the through lane without increasing the distance that
vehicles turning left would have to cross. With the lengths of the segments oa NC 42, some
motorists will likely use continuous right turn lanes as through lanes or passing lases.
Channelized right turn lanes would reduce this unintended use:

Section Analysis
The section length of NC 42, not including 150 feet on either side of the intersection with US 64,
is approximately OS7 miles (3000 feet). The section length of US 64-NC 49, not including 150
feet on either side of the intersection with NC 42, is approximately 0.27 miles (1400 feet). A
crash rate analysis was not conducted on these segments due to the short segment lengths. Short
segment lengths tend to inflate crash rates. A crash pattern analysis was conducted instead.
The proposed improvemett of adding right turn Lanes along NC 42 would be expected to reduce
the frequency of rear end crashes where vehicles are slowing down to.make a right turn. Within
the project limits along NC 42 there were 31 crashes reported during the study period. None of
the reports of rear end crashes indicated that the vehicle that was rear-ended had stopped to make
a right fora. The reports of rear end crashes typically involved stopped vehicles making a left
foal or vehicles that had slowed down for a vehicle turning left across traffic from a driveway. A
right tom lane would not be expected to affect these crashes. The project description does not
indicate if the tu=n lanes will be continuous or chaanelized. The addition of continuous right turn
lanes would increase the width of roadway that vehicles fuming left would have to cross. This
has the potential of increasing the frequency of crashes involving vehicles turning left. There
were 14 crashes im-olving vehicles either turning left out, turning left ia, or crossing the street.
These crashes were dispersed across the sections with a few small clusters at a couple of
driveways on NC 42.
The addition of a southbound right fora Zane and a northlwund left tom lane is proposed for US
64-NC 49. A median island is also proposed. The section on US 64-NC 49, not including the
150-foot segments on either side of the intersection with NC 42, reported 57 crashes doting the
study period: There were 30 frontal impact collisions (angle and left turning crashes) that made
up nearly 53 percent of the reported crashes. Many of these crashes were reported at driveways
with a traffic signal The median island, depending upon its length and location, could reduce the
frequency of these crashes, since some of them im-olved a vehicle fuming left into or out of a
minor driveway.
Comments and Recommendations
The proposed improvements for this project will not have a significant impact on the} number or
types of crashes reported within the project limits. The only exception to this determination
would be the consbrnction of the median island if it were looted to prole'bit left turns into and
out of minor driveways along US 64-NC 49. The proposed project is not expected m diminish
the overall safety of the mtas~on or the scgme~s withan the project limits. The improved
operations created as a result of the proposed improvements could have some small impact on
the overall safety of the location, but meat is unhycely.
Below are bur recommendations and considerations for this projecx.
• ~ We recommend changing the purpose of the project to improving capacity and congestion
mitigation. The overall safety improvemesrts created, as a result of the P~~ Proj~
would be difficult to quantify because the proposed improvements are unl~ely to change the
outcome of reported crashes From a safety perspective, the project does not change the
traffic patterns and we do not expect there would be significant changes in the reported crash
P•

The Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit has conducted a safety analysis for TIP Project
U-3401, the construction of intersection improvements at the intersection of US 64-NC49 azid
NC 42 in the city of Asheboro in Randolph County. This safety analysis includes a project level
analysis sad a pattern analysis review within the project limits. Recommendations are presented
to improve the overall safety of the roadway where applicable.
Secondary Route numbers, such as SR 1129, and con~esponding street names will be designated
for all streets on the state highway system for the remainder of this report. If the strect is not on
the State Highway System, only the street name will be designated.
Background
The purpose of the project is to increase the level of service by allowing additional turning
movements along US 64-NC 49 and NC 42. It is expected that these arterials will receive some
relief with the construction of the Asheboro Southern Bypass. However, that project is not
fimded in the cement TIP. Project U-3401 proposes: the addition of a. southbound right turn lane
and a northbound left turn lane along US 64-NC 49; the additioa of as westbormd right turn lane
with taper along NC 42; and the addition of an eastbound right turn lane along NC 42. The
project description is uaclear about the length of a proposed concrete median island on US 64-
NC 49.
The project limits on US 64 shall extend to approximately 1000 feet south of the intersection to
approximately 700 feet north of the motion. The project limits on NC 42 are approximately
2200 feet west of the intersection to approximately 1100 east of the intersection.
Intersection Safety Analysis
The study period for this report was the threo-yeas period beginning May 1, 2000 through Apn'I
30, 2003. All crashes that were reported within 150 feet of the intersection were included in the
study. The intersection had a total of 35 reported crashes (9 non-fatal injury sashes and 26
property damage only crashes). The average daily traffic entering the intersection is 37.,500
vehicles per day for the median year of the study period. Table (1) shows a summary of reported
crashes by crash type. A copy of the crash analysis and con~sponding code sheet are provided in
Appendix A of this report. Based upon a review of the collision reports, the proposed
improvements world not have greatly affected the number or severity of reported crashes at the
intersection.

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report •
Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route
HNS200312125 200312125 tJ3401 76.8 8.4 37500
Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No. .
12/15/2003 919 733 7844
Courrty Municipality
Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years
RANDOLPH 75 8 Ail aad Rural 150 05/01/2000 04/30/2003 3.00
Location Text Requestor
IIS 64 (NC 49/Dixie Drive) and NC 42 .~ephanie Caudill
N
C
ansportation Bldg.
T
r
y
4
included Accidents
100337958
100495155
100555918
100839095
Excluded Accidenrts
100098429
Fiche Roads
Name Code
IIS 64 20000064
NC 49 30000049
DIXIE 50008504
NC 42 30000042
.Intersection Road Combinations
Name Code Code Name
IIS 64 20000064 30000042 NC 42
NC 49 30000049 30000042 NC 42
Dig 50008504 30000042 NC 42
All ~ pmMbd in tllit import soma opYdtly from tlr TrMlle EnpinwiYg AaidaitAnYysb
12/16/2003 sr~ ~.a w~ ~. ~ ~• ~' "• spar, o..mr. Tlr °~' l.'alay"wo" -12-
w. uia duYs spat to aneeiM aw ~N tnarp~tlny aal ua. data

lov-X10-03 01:07P North Carolina Geodetic S [phone]
a
North Caro na Geodetic Survey
~ww.ncgss te.nc.us/ •

• Digital Corrttr ,.
Maps ~ w
• Database S h (NCGS & NGS}
• GPS Base Sta on Files ~ `
• ~ County & Sta Boundary Information
• - • NC Floodpla' Mapping - .. ,
• EDM Calib on Baseline Data.
• Geodetic Too it
Division of Land Resources
forth Carolina Geodetic Survey
Nlsiling Address: G~ce Location:
NCGS - NCGS
20323 Mail Servi Center Elks Building/12 W. Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 276 -0323 Raleigh, NC 27 -1334
Phone: {919} 733-3 6 Fax: (919} 733-4407 Email: gary.thomp [e-mail]
To: ~ • Number of pages:

From: ~ Fax#:

~~_
d 33- ~l ~~
~
• ~ Phone #: "'" 3 ~ `~
Comments: l ~" U5 .~ ~vC ~ ~(
S v~
v p ~~
`~ ~iV c-

~,,,j; VIR. L ~ n
u ~e~ k, G~,r+-~,a
~
5 ~ ~~-V ~e'~'" i
c
v sue
KVL
' ..L C~ =
S i Tom
...
, „
.
~+c
a -
l 23 t t ~ ~ ~- _ .Z.~{C' ~~ ~3
P.Ol

~ s
.. j ~ g
~ __ ~~ .... .a6
ii+J
-- ° + S ~ ~
'~ a` N _ .. ..a ~ ... ~ .
-aU
. ,.. e • a.•' '~
.. 4.•.0 .
,O ,
. .1b V _
~ S1
~.
.,, _ :-,
i..
` 2525
•.'o .
•~ •.
' ~«
-' - 26a~
'~
~ 2601 ,
r
Q
._ ~•
r

m
.o'
r
t

.per results
atio!-,: SERVICE
NAD 83 => LATITI:Je. = s5 41 9y.7`•' 65 LCXGITt;DE = C79 97 1Q.9c':OE
SPC 83 => NORTHIN^ _~ 216283.879 Meters BAST=NG = 538234.994 e.eters
NRD 27 => LATITL'0- = 35 41 49.25994 :~01?GITUDE = 79 47 19.84969
SPC 27 => NORTH (Y) = 709522.564 Feet EAST (X) = 1765780.362 Feet
GRID SHIFT lrAD27 A;A~83) NOR^.'r. _ -68 .796 °eet EAST = -78.783 feet
NRD83 CONVERGENCE _ -0 27 16.56 NAC83 SCALE FACTOR = 0.9999027
ELEVATION (NGVD :iSE GEOID99 GEOID PROGRAv1
290.074 meters ;3M) TO COMPUTE GEOID uEIGi?^
PID = EZ16~5
SERVICE IS LOCA -.^~ APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ?TILES SOUTHEAST OF
ia£'BORO. TO REACI: AT_C:V PROCr.7 =ROM THE IItiT ERS=C.'ION OF
.S. 69 A?1D J.S. 220 ;iSINESS IN ASHEBORO. CO EAST ON U.S.
~ FOR ..-r IdILES TO r".TION ON RIGf:T ~SOUTI~) SIDE .^.F ::.5. 69.
;.15 !,~:,E +niEST OF I ERSECTICh OF U.S. E9 A\G NC 42. IN A
ZAF'FIC ISLAND. AND 'T AN ARCO SER~J,CE STi?TION.
STATION tf.AccFC ~~ STA.NDARD N. C. BRASS TRAVERSE DESK, STAMPED
iR~'ICE 1971, SET IN ^: HE TOP OF A CONCRE'T'E CYL1:V^ER, TfiE TOP
*nHT_C:i .S F=,::SH 'hI H THE AROUND.
M.~iRK I S
84.3 FT SE OF C L OF.U.S. 64
119.0 FT SW OF L*JMINUtf REF. TAG ON rP
69.0 FT Lr OF 114+ CORtiF.R OF SERVICE S':ATION 3;J=LOINS
i6.9 FT ti;h OF 5E 0= A :~7ETAL LAMP P03T
90.7 F^ ENE OF OP CF A CATCH 3ASIN COV.R
Page 1 of 1
.*~.**++*,.++++..++.,..~_+.++~x~*++ K£CCVERY TEXT *+**+#*++++++++.+++,..~...+..~x«..+
R= COVEF:ED 3Y NC~VR i'~ 1975. SERVICE :9' i GOOD
CFANGE--ARCO 5E VICE STATION TO EXXOP]
MARK IS NO'S: 4 I CfiES BELOid Ti?E GROUND INS^_EAD OF FLUSH
ADC. RE.. 32.4 :' S? OF S? C:1RB OF HIGHbyAY (t~E CC;RB OF
SLAhD)
17.0 Fl' N~ni CF C:1R5 OF T_S`,.~~D
34.0 FT S OF EI E`r+e~Y SIGN ?OST Titi:'H ALUyIINUN R_F. TAG
*«++~,.,~~«~_*...+,.*+,. +++++++++++ :SEC^vVER`_' ^.X"' ~~*w=+++«*++*++++++*++++++
past Recovery: 75 O
.++,.:
ittp:/hwvvv.ncgs.state.nc~us:'cgi-bin/ncgsdata.pl?pid=_EZ 1655&cnty=d:incgsweb/search/da~randol... 11/10103

' ;,er results
atior.: Pf~ONE
NAD 63 => LATITUri = 33 42 9.FC26G iC\,G.^:iDE = 079 9b 58.27395
SPC 83 => NORTEIN = 2:6897.663 Meters FASTING = 538759.842 veters
NAD 27 => yATT_:':JD = 35 42 9.31042 :.ONGITUDE = 79 96 59.15905
SPC 27 => NORTH (Y = 711536.231 Feet EAS~(X} = 1767502.388 Feet
GRID SHIFT (NAD2~ 1vAD83) NORTH -68.852 feet EAST = -78.860 feet
A:AD83 CONVERGENCE ) _ -C 27 6.62 NAD83 SCPJ;E FACTOR 0.99990"s5
ELEVATION (NGVD 9) USE GEOID99 GEOID PROGRF.P,
269.838 meters ~gp9) ^_C CONFUTE GEOID HEIGHT
?ID = EZi65$
PHONE IS LOCAiE A??ROXI:K~TE:.Y 1.? ~I.L.S ESE OF kS'r.ESORO.
'O RE.nCH S':'ATIO` PR CEE£ FROM TH° IN'I_FtSECTIOV CF' U. S. 64 AIVD
42 IN ASHEBORO. O EAST ON U . S . 64 G . 9 N .:.:E TO STP.T ION ON
CFI' (NCRTFi) S-: DE OF U . S . 69 . v . 3 N:=:.E A'E5T OF INTERSECTION
U . S . 69 AyD SR 2Z ? . A\D ACROSS U . S . 64 = RO~1 A 'T'ELEPHONE
>M°A\'Y BUILDING P14D tnTEEKS CONSTRUCTION BU=LING.
STATION M.~,RK iS A STANDARD N. C. 3RASS '~RF:CERSE DISK, STAMPED
TONE 1971, SET IN ':' = ^CF GF A CONC3?T~ CYLI::DER, THE TOP OF
?ICH IS '_ INCI? ABOJ rTF:E GR^vUN%.
MARK IS
91.8 FT NW OF C L Or U.S. E9
1C.8 FT E OF A' ~N.INU}1 REF. TRC CN ~0 =XC?: PINE TREE
26.7 FT NE CF U~1=NUt: :cEF. I'+aS ^:4 iC INCH ^_:tiI\ PI*JE
i3.8 FT SSW OF LU:1INUv1 REF. ^AG ON 6 I\CH OAK TREE
176.6 FT SW OF /L OF DRIVE TO A RESIDENCE
Page 1 of 1
r++.+++*++.+.~+t.+~,~.+++~+++++.. RECOVERY iEX^_ ++x,.+.+++*+,..xR+..,.++r*+*~**+~+.~++++
RECOVERED BY N NR in ;9?5. PE:ONE :911 GOOD
ADDITIONAL FcF- ENCES--25.0 FT NT~i OF `4J CGRb OP HIGHWAY
S 3.3 FT t4 OF CE~JTER O?r. STOR:N DRAIN

art Recovery: 75 G .D
tttp://www.ncgs.state.n us/cgi-bin,~ncgsdata.pl?pid=_EZ 1
t«++++
11/10!03

.,er results
ation: JUNCTION
NAD 83 => iATITU.~. = 35 42 15.59526 :~0\GITLTDE = O?9 46.49.503:._
SPC 83 => NORTHIN = 217079.936 !deters FASTING = 538981.709 Meters
NAD 27 => LATITUD 35 42 15.10306 LONGITLTDE = 79 46 50.38886
SPC 27 => NORT,y'(Y} 7 121i6.~7E Feet EAST(X) = 1?68230.261 Feet
GRID SfiIsT (NAD27 t;AD83) NOR^H = -68.869 feet EAST = -78.896 feet
NAD83 CONVERGENCE ) _ -0 27 1.56 NAD83 SCALE 1'ACTOR = 0.9999037
ELEVATION (NGVD ) USE GECID99 GEOID PROGRAM
266.459 meters (B~1} TO COMPUTE GEOID HEI~~IiT
P=~ = EZ1E53
~'L*:~C':IOA IS Z.CC ED APPROXTM.n.':°ELY. 1.9 MILES ESE OF ASHEBORO.
'O REACH STATION F ..FED FROM TFE INTERSF.CTiOti OF J.S. 64 AND _
42 Itv ASHEHCRO. EAS'" CN J.S. 69 FOR 0.6 MILE TO STATION
) R_3HT (SOUTH} SID OF U.S. 64. 0.1 MILE NEST OF INTERSECTION
? U . S . 64 AND SR 22 ? . At6D ON BAtiK t3EAR °ND GF A EEDGEROiti .
STATION MARK IS A STANDARD N. C. 3RASS TRFVERSE RISK, STAMPED
INCTI01~ 197:, SET I SHE TOP OF A CONCRETE CYLINDER, THE TOP
WHICH IS 3 iNCiiES A30VE THE GROU.]D.
MARK ~S
57.9 FT SE OF ~ L CF E BCCiN~ LANE OF T.T.S. 64
11 . E FT Svc OF' A UMINUM REF. TAG CN P
13. 8 FT SW• OF R W N.AFc:~~'K
2 . C F T is OF AL }tINU~! REF. TAG O:~ 6 ItCH °INE TPsE
3i . 8 Fl' '4 OF AL NINUM REF. TAG OX 6 INCH PIl`E TREE
11 . 9 F^_ NE OF H SE OF G:7Y 'ri _RE C.~BLE F OR : ?
~://www.ncgs.state.nc~us/cgi-bin/ncgsdata.pl?pid=_EZ 1553&cnty=d:
Page 1 of 1
11/10/03

` ~,ier result
.atioa: GRANT
NAD 83 => LATITUD = 35 41 42.70379 LCNG:^.U1E = 079 .46 55.44596
SPC 83 => NORTHIN 216062.011 Meters EAS:~NG = 536829.335 Meyers
NAD 27 => LATITUD = 35 41 42.21169 LONGITUDE = 79 46 56.33200
SPC 27 => NORTH(Y 708794.683 Feet EAST{X) = 1767713.940 Feet
6RI~ S !?IF'i (NAD27 NAD83) NORTH -6? .765 feet EAST = -78.899 feet
'NAD83 CONVERGENCE y = -C 27 4.99 i~AD83 SCALE FACTOR = 0.9999C25
ELEVATION {NGVC y ;JSE GEOID99 GEOID PRCGRA~!
257.6 meters ;+0.3 r~) TO COMPL`TE GEOID HEIG:iT
PID = EZ394C
GRANT IS LOCATE APPROXiN,ATE:.Y 2. G MILES ESE OF ASF:EBORO
`D 1C.1 MILES WNW O CO;,ERIDGE. TO RE.~.CH STATION FROM THE -
NTERSECTION OF U.S. 64 WITH NC 92 EAST CF AS4E30R0, PROCEED
JU'.'HEAST ALONG NC S FOR G.4 MILE TO SR 2600 (Ey AND STATION
V LEF", IN NGRTF.W=S ~RNMOST QUA:~RANi OF T I'~^ERSECTION AT A
:,CK OUTCROP .
STATION MARK IS A STANDARD 1. C. fiR~SS TFcAVERSE DISK, STAMPED
RANT 1975, S=T IN T E TCP OF A ^.ONCRE'2E CYLINDER, TiiE TOP OF
3ICi{ IS '_ INC'r. BELO ^_:~E GROUND, AIC% AB0::1' 20 FEET ABOVE HIGHWAY
EVES.
MARK IS {SLOPE IST.; 37.9 FT NE OF CIL O. t~C 42
158.7 ~T NYe OF /:. CF SR 2600 -
167.7 FT I~I~W OF C/L CF II~TERSEC:'ION OF NC y2 WITI: SR 26CC
.ND DRIVEWAY {S) TO RANDS 3EAUTY SALON
18 . E F': S OF 2 .NCI: tdHITE OAK WI'2H ALUMIivUM RE.. TAG
2$. E FT S!R OF 9 INCA S:IORT LEAF PINE WITH A1:UMINL'M REF.
AG
63.3 FT WNW OF RIPyE TRJNK H;CKORY WI^_H ALtiMINUM REF.
AG
Page 1 of 1
'v:l/www.ncgs.state.n~us/cgi-binlncgsdata.pl?pid=_EZ3940&cnty=d:/ncgsvveb/search/da~lrandol... 11 ! 10/03

.r resuits+ Page 1 of 1
ition: COXGRO
NAD 83 => LA_iTUD = 35 5~ 47.22671 LONGITUDE = 079 47 3.u5475
5PC 83 => NORTHING = 216202.909 Meters EAS':'ING = 536634.177 t4ete.s
NAD 27 => LATITL'D= = 35 41 96.73439 LO:vGITUDE = 79 47 3.939y3
SPC 27 => NCRTH{Y) = 709256.384 Feet EASTtK) = 1767090.119 Feet
GRID SHIFT lNAD27 hAD83) NORTH = -68.810 Feet EAST = -78.843 feet
NAD83 CONVERGENCE ( ) _ -0 27 9.38 NAD83 SCALE FACTOR = 0.9999026
ELEVATION (NGVD ) USE GEOID99 GEOID PROGRAM
245.2 meters 't0.3 m). TO COMPUTE GEOID HEIGHT
PAD = %23941
COXGRO IS LCCATI
~ R%ACH STA':ION F~(
ASHEBORO, PROCEED
25 (S) AND STAT~Oti
SLOPE OF BA:'~K, ANI
GHtn'AY FROM COX GROi
F_PPRCXiMA^_'ELY 1.8 N.ILES ESE OF ASHEBORC.
T_-NTERSEC?ION OF U.S. E4 `~~ITr: NC 42 EAS'.'
OUTHEAST ALONG NC 42 FOR G.2 NILE TO SR
N ':HE :,EFT, IN SOUT3EA5I' Q:IAJRANT OF ItiTERSECT:.ON
APPROXT_MATELY 125 FEET SOUTH OF AND ACROSS
RY AND SERVICE S"_`A"_'ION.
S.A':'T_ON N:AR.{ IS S'IP.!JDARD N. C. BRASS TRAVERSE DISK, S^AMPED
XGRO 1975, SET Ir. E TOP OF ?, CONCREmE CYLINiER, TiiE TOP
WHICH IS 9 INCFES ELCY7 T:~1 G<OUN.~,.
MARK IS 4~.E FT Sw OF C/L OF NC 42
'_O1 .4 F^ S= OF !:~ OF SR 2825 i Ii3;t002. R^. )
14 . i FT NNE OF . INCH MAPLE .tiITfi ALU:~2INUM REF. TAG
24.3 FT E OF 6• NCE :.03LOLLY PINE "r~I^_3 P.I,JN.I UM REF. TAG
59.1 FT N OF TP WITF: ALUMINUN, RE^. TAG
43. G FT !V4u OF 4 I\CH LOBLO:~:,Y PINE WIT'r' ALU^STNUM REF. ^_AG
~://w-vvu~.ncgs.state.n us/cgi-bin/ncgsdata.pl?pid=_EZ3941&cnty=d:/ncgsweb/search/d ~randol... 11'10103

e~~s~
-
~}
~~o.r~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMIIVT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EnsLEY
GovExNOe
MEMORANDUM TO: Stephanie L. Caudill
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Stephen Wallcer
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Section
SUBJECT: Intersection Improvements of US 64-NC 49 and NC 42 in
Asheboro, Randolph County, State Project # 8.1572101,
WBS # 3.4935.1.1, TIP # U-3401
The project is -located in Randolph County, which has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51
and 93 is -not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
The project proposes improvements such as the construction.ofadditiomlturn
lanes to the intersection of US 64-NC 49 and NC 42. The project will not increase traffic
volumes and no additional through lanes are planned for the intersection. Based on past
project experience, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.
August 11, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTIu~NTOFTRANSPORTATKNI
OFFICE OF HuYaN ENVIRDNNENT
1563 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHDNE: 919-715-1500
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE: WWN!NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LpaCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPRA; BLVD
RALEIGH NC

y
~.~~.~,
w+
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
November 30, 2001
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis
Transportation Bldg. -1548 MSC
SFr

D~C 4 [
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 r ~m n
Deaz Mr. Gilmore: `'~~ ~ r ~ :z,,- ''`'~,,<,~~.~. _~
~'~7.f :. ~ 4- ~iv-.i
Re: SCH File # 02-E-4220-0092; Scoping Proposed Improvements to Intersection of US 64 NC 49
and NC 42 in Asheboro, NC; TIP #U-3401
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter aze comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Attachments
cc: Region G
Sincerely,
~`~-~"~
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity ~ Affirmative Action Employs

~ s
~,, • '
~~~
. NCDENR~
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
~Iliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
SUBJECT: 02-E-0092 Scoping Improvements to Intersection of US 64-NC 49
and NC 42 in Asheboro, Randolph County
DATE: September 20, 2001
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
,,.... _
~.
SEP 2 a 2001
s~.C. STA I•E CtEgR1~,~uH~,~,~~
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: wuvw.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
sE:u~Omo.wwr~~K~'ba'Enw.e~-SP: 9eacr tt:. Po~-owwero~r.

- - - - ~- - . .. - r ~ v v ~ , u . v v a ~ . v v
® North Carolina~i~c~life Resources Commission
Charles A Fnilaa~od, Fxeauive Dueaor
MEMORANI)UN[
TO: Melba McGee
Office or Legislative and Intergovermnental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cax, Highway Project _
Habitat Conservation Program ~/
DATE: September 13.2001 ~~~wwwsss~~~~""
STJBJECT: itcqucsi for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
{NGDOT) regarding fiBh acrd wildlife concems for intersection
improvements, intersection of U5 64-NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro,
Razidolph County. North Carolina 1"~ No. U 3401, SCH Project No.
OZ-E-0092.

This memorandum responds to a t'oS}ucst from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDUT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subjcctprojcct. Biologists on tht staffafthe N. C. Wildlife Resources Comrnlssion
{NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed iiAprovemants. Guar comments arc provided in
accordar-ce with ecrtain provisions of the National Euvironincntal Policy Act {42 U.S.C.
4332(Z)(c)} and the Fish and Wildlife Caordinstion Act {48 Slat. 401, as amended; l6
U.S.C, b61-667d).
We have no specific caneems regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document proparation and the review process, our general informational needs arc
outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resourcxs within the project area,
including a listing of federally ar state designated threatened, endangered,
or special wncern speaies: Pot~tial borrow areas to be used for pro~cct
construction should be included is the inventories. A listing of designatod
plant species can be developed through Cancuttation with:
The Natural Heritage Progr~u
N. C. plvipion of Parks and Recreation
ib15 Mail Service Centec
Raleigh, N. C. 2'7699-1615
(91g) 733-7795
Mailin~Addresm. Uivisian of Lsla:td Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Ceatc7 • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
TcicphontA (919} 733-3633 act. 281 • Fas+ [phone]

Memo
and,
NCpA Plant C;oosavation Program
P. O; eox 27847
Rala~, N. G. 27b11
(919j 733-3610
September.l3, 2QQ1
2. J)escription of any at:+esma or wedaads ai'fecttA by the project. 1'he need for
chaiwelizing 4r relocating portions of sh+omna crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type snaps showing wotls~nd acren~ impacted by the project,
W etland acttagcs el~vld iaclude ~ project related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change u a result of ditcdting, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. wetlaad idcrttification may be accomplished through
coordination with tlu U. S. Army CBrpB Of Ettginet~rs (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person dellneatiag wetlaads should be identified and
crileiya listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acr+cages of ~lsad wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed pro)eet. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to arhich the joct will result is loss, dtgradabon, or
fragmentation of ~e habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or coatpensatittg for direct and indirect
degradation in halntat quality as weU as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact asst sxtion wbicdt analyzes the environmental
effects of highway eanoceLCtion imd quanti5es the wntn'btrtion of this
individual pro~zct to environmental degrndatior.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
fiom sccondaTy development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If Construction of this fa+~ity is to be eoot+dinated with other state, municipal,
or private dcvcloptYtegt pso~ects, a dsscciption of these projects should be
included in the eaviroAmattai document, sad all pr+ojc4t sponsors should
be identified. '
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist yotQ office, pleasa contact tae at [phone].
cc: USFW5, Raleigh

a ^ ~,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES - d2f- dd f
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Couf}~ /
~~
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name ~dL~ O ?'"" ~ ~~ t ~ Type of Project i~s~~/~~i y9' ~' ~Z
^ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
• 733-2321.
^ This project wilt be classified as anon-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact 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 information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
^ The soil 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 demolition of dilapidated
structures. a 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 at
[phone].
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
^ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone]. -
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
/ ~
....-e .~ ~ ~ •.
ti ~~
Reviewer ~"Sectio ranch
%/- o/
Date

~, wuliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
ti• ~ '~'~ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
=~ ~ : -~ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
~• . ;::.:t • Acting Director
,~`. ..• .~~ Division of Water Quality
August 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM
T0: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: John R. Dorsey, NC Division of Water Quality
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the Intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42, Randolph
County, F.A. Project No. NHF-64(58), State Project No. 8.172101, TIP Project U-
3401.
In reply to your correspondence dated June 19, 2001 (received June 25, 2001) in which you requested
comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct
impacts to perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project azea. However, in the event that
the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send notification
of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
MaryEllen Haggazd, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 276042260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJfi2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

NLDEPlR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: b-2 E OD f.2 Due Date: 9 r 17, o .
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RE1/lEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this projett
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permiu should be addressed to the Regional Office indipted on the reverse of this form.
All appiiptions, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
pFR(,A)'f5 SPEUAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(StatutoryTime LimiU
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Appligtion 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-appliption technical conference usual. (9p da )
~
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES•permit to discharge into surface water andlor Applimtian 180 days before begin atZiviry. On site inspector preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usuaLAdditionally,obtain permtteo construct wastewatertreatment 90-120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facTrcy-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permh-whichever is later.
Water Use Pemtit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be recennred and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Appliption copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner SS days
On-site inspection.Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement

to Fil! from N.GDepartment of Admin'atration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (gp days)
Permit to conmuct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC WA 60 days
QQA100,2Q.0300,2H.Ofi00)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)'
and removal priorto demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820. •
I Complex Source Perms required under 1 S A NCAC

20A800 -
Tne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erasion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres io be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
00 ~
)
® days before beginning activity. A fee of 540 for the fire acre or any part of an acre. ~
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respell to the referenced Local Ordinance 30 days
Mining Permit On-she inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
(~ North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds a days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Gearance 9uming Permit-22 counties Onsite inspection by N.GD'+vision of Forest Resources required'if more than five 1 day
in coastal N.Gwith organic soils. acres of ground clearing aCtivhies are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual bum is planned'
^ Oil Refining Facilities WA 90 -120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit if permit required application 60days before begin construction. AppGont
must hireN.C.qual~edengineerto: preparepians,inspectwnstruction,certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessaryto verify Hazard Gassifiption. A minimum (fi0 days)
fee of 5200.00 must accompanythe application. An additional processing fee
based on a. percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.

PERMITS SPEGAL APPUCA710N PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS P:omat ^^xess Time
(Statutory +tme limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well Fie surety bond of SS.000 with DENR mm~ing to State of N.G conditional that any 10 days
well opened by drill operator shall,upon abandonment.be plugged according (N~lq
to DENR toles snd regulations.
Geophysinl Exploration Permit AppGntion fded with DENR at least 10 rior to issue of
p penntt. APPhnuon 10 da
• by letter. No standard applintion form. (WA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure sae is charged Must include desaiptions 15 _ 20 days
& drawings of structure b proof of ownership of riparian property. IN/A)
401 YYater Quality Certifintion WA 55 days
• (13o days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must atxo
mpanYaPAlication ~ ~
(130 days)
LAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany appiintion 22 ~
Qs day:)
Several geodetic monumems arc located in or near the project area. tl arry monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C Geodetic Survey, Box 27667 Raleigh,N.C27611
Abandonment of any we1Ls,If regained must be in accordance whh Title 15A.Subchapter X0100.
Notifintion of the proper regional offue is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any exnvation operation.
Compliance with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
fN/A)
~• her Comm (attach additional pa es as necessary, being certaia to cite comment authority)

x~+~~rrtit: lt~~~- 'tea 6iJ ~cf?y+- 9~ ~° r ,
S: Ow LLTI~ lO~ ~fD~C~N"'`
,
~
.
d
~ S Q
t1
~
~
t'~..d1J6~ S ~ 0.
o/ /
~
a
~ `/~
/
/
`~
~f
~ ~/
~` \ , -
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Ofice marked below.
^ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.G28801
[phone]
^ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.G28115
(704j 663-1699
^ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
D Fayetteville Regional Office ^ Raleigh Regional Office ^ Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 7i4 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
• Fayettevi{le, N.G28301 Raleigh, N.G27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
O Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.G 27889
[phone]

a~vr.au ~..s'~itVL1a9A -7iCa1L' 4""'~"~11VL7AVU~L''
•' DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERCO -- REVIEW
.. ~ .,
~', ~ , ~
~:--• 't/~ -.;.~:.~ STATE NUMBER: 02-E-4220-0092
AUG .,:. LdL~
DATE RECEIVED: 08/20/2001
AGENCY RESPONSE: 11/22/2001
~':~ C': uv r; ~.~~ ~ k:~ ~:::.
REVIEW CLOSED: 11/27/2001
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD ~ -
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CUL'RESOURCES
PIEDMONT TRIAD COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
~o(PI.G.
DESC: Proposed Improvements to Intersection of US 64-NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro, NC;
TIP ~U-3401 '
1'he attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
a*_ [phone].
F02
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: '" G ~ ~ ~'~"~'~`
NO COMMENT ~~
COMMENTS ATTACHED ~ ~ ~!~'~~
r- r~ -- .. ~,,, ,,.,
SIGNED BY: ~~ w`'~~
~~~ ~ ,~ ~~t0i
DATE: lC..~l_i~ V ( .v.'SIAfF r .__
SEP 0 ~ 2001

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE .
Raleigh Field OfFice
Post Offue Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
December 4, 2001 r
C:,~,
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed intersection improvements, intersection of Routes 64-NC49 and NC 42, at
Asheboro, Randolph County, North Cazolina (TIP No. U-3401). This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for
this project.
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to add additional lanes at
the US 64 NC 49, NC 42 intersection. The following recommendations are provided to assist
you in your planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b}(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill azeas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Asheboro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle does not
indicate the presence of wetland and/or stream resources in the specific work azea. However,
while the NWI maps are useful for providing. an overview of a given area, they should not be
relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable
wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur eazly in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives.being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that aze to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental ,impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. ,The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6.. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,

8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Randolph County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you~have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Jl~
~0~-- / I
°~~ Dr. Garlan~ .Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/03/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3401.tip

_"
COMMON NAME ~ SCIENTIFIC NA1~IE STATUS
PITT COUNTY
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southem hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-copkaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Invertebrates
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus needialis FSC*
Vascular Plants
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Cazolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
POLK COUNTY
Vertebrates
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Invertebrates
Wyandot (=grizzled) skipper Pyrgus wyandot FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhornbiformis FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiflora FSC*
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Bigleaf scurfpea Orbexilurn macrophyllum FSC*
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Cape Fear shiner, Netropis mekistocholas -Approximately 1 S miles of Fork Creek, from
a point 0.1 river mile upstream of Randolph County Road 2873 Bridge downstream to the
Deep River then downstream approximately 4.1 river miles of the Deep River in Randolph
and Moore Counties, North Carolina, to a point 2.5 river miles below Moore County Road
1456 Bridge. Constituent elements iriclude clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder
t
January 1 S. 1999 Page 37 of 49

,..
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and
side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively low silt loads.
Vertebrates.
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina creekshell Vllosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflowez Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
RICHMOND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eazed bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC**
Southern hogaose snake Heterodon simus ~ FSC*
Robust redhorse Moxostroma robustum FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC**
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Rough-leaved. loosestrife Lysimachia asperulae, folio Endangered
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii vaz. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel . Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
ROBESON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC
January 1 S, 1999 Page 38 of 49

Federal Aid #NHF-64(58) TIP # U-3401 Cou»ty: Randolph
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Adding additional turn lanes to the intersection of US 64/NC49 and NC 42, Asheboro, Randolph
County
On January 8, 2002 ,representatives of the
•~ North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
^ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
/^'' North Cazolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
Historic azchitectural resources photograph review session/consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
D
Signed:
Representative,-NCDOT 'Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
/-'
Representati a HPO ate
~'~ ! -a23-~ ~
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
There are no properties less than fifty yeazs old which aze considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's azea of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach a~ay notes or documents as needed)

FEASIBILITY STUDY
Asheboro
intersection Revisions at
US 64/NC 49 and NC 42
Randolph County
U-3401
Prepared by
Program Development Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
David W. Conner
Highway Planning Engineer
\ 8 6
David G. Modiin, Jr., P ., P.E. Date
Head of Feasibility Studies

U~401
Asheboro
Intersection Revisions at
US 64/ NC 49 and NC 42
Randolph County
I. General Description
This feasibility study describes proposed improvements at the intersection
of US 64MC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro. The improvements include widening all
approaches to add additional lanes. The project location is shown on Figure 1.
The existing intersection configuration is shown on Figure 2. The proposed
configuration. is shown on Figure 3.
,Additional right-of-way will be required for this project; however, it is not
anticipated that any residences or businesses will be relocated if the acquisition is
asymmetrical to the north side of NC 42.
The total project cost, including construction and right-of--way, is estimated
to be $1,500,000 as follows:
Construction ............... $ 600,000
Right-of-Way ............... 900,000
Total Cost ............... $ 1,500,000
This study is the initial step in the planning and design process for this
project and is not the product of exhaustive environmental or design
investigations. The purpose of this study is to describe the proposed project
including costs, and identify potential problems that may require consideration in
the planning and design phases.
11. Existing Conditions
The purpose of this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the subject intersection. .
In the North Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System,
US 64/NC 49 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial. NC 42 is classified as
an Urban Principal Arterial northwest of US 64/NC 49 and as an Urban Minor

• t
Arterial on the southeast side of US 64/NC 49. On the Asheboro Thoroughfare
Plan, ks~:~~h roadways are classified as major thoroughfares.
All four quadrants of the intersection are heavily developed commercially.
Development includes automok~ile dealerships, gas .stations/convenience marts,
shopping centers, and retail outlets.
US 64/NC 49 is a 5-lane, curb-and-gutter roadway with a width of 64 feet
(19.5 m) ftom face to-face of curbs. At the intersection, the approaches include
one left tum lane, one through lane, one combination right-tumlthrough lane and
two lanes exiting the intersection.
NC 42 is a two-lane roadway.. At the intersection, i+ has been widened to
facilitate fuming movements. Each approach includes one left tum Pane, one
co*:.bination right tum/through lane, and one lane exiting the intersection.
n is estimated that the current (1995) traffic volumes on US 64/NC 49, in
the area of the intersection, are in the range of 21,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day
(vpd). NC 42 has current volumes ranging from approximately 9,000 to 11,000
vpd. It is also estimated that in the year 2020, the volumes will be only slightly
higher than current volumes. This is due to the proposed construction of the
Asheboro Southern Loop which is scheduled in the TIP for right-of-way acquisition
to begin in 2001. With the Asheboro Southern Loop in place, the estimated 2020
traffic volumes will be approximately 26,400 vpd on US 64-NC 49 and
approximately 11,200 vpd on NC 42.
Currently, at the intersection, NC 42 left and right turns are approximately
1796 of the intersection entering volume. Assuming that this percent remains
constant, the design year (2020) left and right turns ftom NC 42 will be
approximately 550 vehicles during the peak hour. Without the addition of
exclusive left turn and right-turn lanes, the intersection delay will be substantial
causing the intersection to operate a low Level of Service (Level D and possibly
Level E). It is estimated that the intersection is currently operating at Level of
Service D. With the addition of the lanes as proposed, the Level of Service should
improve to Level C which should prevail through the design year.
During the period from May 1,1992, through April 30,1995, there were 61
accidents reported at this intersection. None of the accidents resulted in fatal
injuries: however, 23 of the accidents resulted in 39 non-fatal injuries. The most
prevalent type accidents were Rear-End (34°~), Left-Turn (26°~), and Angle
(25°~). The pro~rosed improvements should lessen the congestion at this
intersection, and reduce the potential for these types of accidents.

Ili. Recommendations
It is recommended to construct improvements at the intersection of
US 64MC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro. The improvements should include
widening all approaches to add additional lanes. The project location is shown on
Figure 1. The existing intersection configuration is shown on Figure 2. The
proposed intersection configuration is shown on Figure 3.
-Both approaches of US 64/NC 49 should be widened to include one left-
tum lane, two through lanes, .one right-tum lane, and two lanes exiting the
intersection.
Both approaches of NC 42 should be widened to include two left turn
lanes, one through lane, one right turn lane, and one lane exiting the intersection.
The existing traffic signal will need to be upgraded.
Additional right-of--way will be required for this project; however, it is not
anticipated that any residences or businesses will be relocated.if the acquisition is
asymmetrical to the north side of NC 42.
The total project, cost including construction and right of-way, is estimated
to be $ 1,500,000 as follows:
Construction ............... $ 600,000
Right-of-Way ............... 900,000
Total Cost ............... $ 1,500,000
IV. Other Comments
An environmental screening was not conducted for this study.

+~ r
f11~
°,.w ~
lW
.~0
ORO WEST
tNG.)
. 1,a91
3
.u,`''O i1ll.
~ l,,~u
~ 'as .la ,,o s,~3
1B! .~ Rr., ,~ e E 1J~ y .ti o ~\ t~ ,
C7'( w .Id ~a ~ ~ y4
-~ ~ ~~ 2~ d!:ryV 3~ :i ~~ ,d
% ~Y,F. 4 ~ .07 ~ .IS .y.St IO
o' ..c.: .e ,~S ~ C.: xip'
~ F3Siky<,h. ~£~
i,'+;~
y~ ~ .... ~_ ~ _ ,_.:~.~~ ~ NORiH
1.10 A. wk• : AD QOtAi. a ed: 41
1 Aa " I.yq~ M ~ AlllL°.~' ~ rt fiY'2•'f ::.~~'« ... i
{~ ~Ya.OO ~ r,`y > 2 721
• ,,, ,~.] ~^i:r. .1w fv".i ~:{}~i'.a }iF?iiY:32i+::. ~ {.~ ~ \
W.\~•' .~
~¢` S~YR ~e:1 ~ ~ / Od, ~ 32l1
;;. ~£:;
l1~ :ems' ~. ~> ~~~ ?y 22tS
p~ a gy'+o ss ~ 2!¢ ~` ~ 'r .s
.1N7 S. ~! ~ :~ ~~o
,~ ~ : POP. 15,252 t_ ,. `o k lit:: `a
i .s t ~ 69>
. sewew sl. ~ :O
' ~ ~ .1~ J] - f pAJ S~sYb,My ed. .10 2:`.:ry I .(S ~s
.tom .76 ~ ~ 1 ~ E!a • dz .' ~~ ;'3#.ynj. 'JJ ~ ~,N ~
~~ J ' 11i~ .le. 'ywv' 17 -• ~--~ t ~
w
{ la}.. ` ,t \ 778 :ifl~ 0j~0 .Sl
~ _ ~~ ~.:.
v t~0 V tl'~DSI F ~// 1~
_~ PROJECT -~~ ~
jj$ o .75
S ~{~ ~~~,~ ~ .I! Zdtd,
:~:j .~
S.~ !4L' N~ ~ ~ 3111 t~tr :'~;..~'•*•? 2LT! ~ ~7 dZ 7~ .Ip ~
~a•7Z ~ S° :•:'~:•a •
:I
~...y~, ~ e~ 4~ o .~ .' ,y ~i E. t-t Y;:I ins /~ 0
o r• ~
°`°' ~ o t ~ e -0> ~ t .f a a! 6 ~ ..5 ; j ~ ~ t'!¢ a `4t
N1 de fM ~ 77_x. .~:5
•~~, ~~o. ~! s` .IS .u .ISO ., a
.w. dV N ~~wiw~ eve. 4.21!41 ~ x'Z3 / ~o
,.`'+ ' A7 227.7, ..?: _i
. ..
A k+, F. M1;? .'».r:::~."~~"i .ill!
... -
. • :.
Sd-
,~~ ~ ~8 E~ 3 Cl~ma "~ ~c ~I t
~_Glenota 1 evN Goss'; ;
. yd. ~^s-: S ?I04 'u7 Lleert. 1.
~•~ -=: ° Randleman
Sooniay~ Grays Cnaxl f` ,R
Staley
,~ R~ A " ° -°•W`~`~lll F~•,~1eN~",< • FEASIBILITY STU©IES UNIT
) J FEa 1s,6 '-~~ --~'~
1 l~ 6\;_ Ramseur I.
I ~+.< x-'49'
i :~ "~. ~ 1 ishe6or~ '
~ f,r~ . - __ t ~~ ? ° ~t~, FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION
- ~\\* ~ 'l a Coleddl
Ikon u 1 \~r :,.,~_,« I
does UWEIARRIE`' 1 f,., 2271
~ intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42
~. ~ rY
ll , ~ i ~, 5 E
s° t 0 •..
' ~ ! NA7. ~ we of ASHEBORO
Randolph County Div 8 U-3401'

i ~ ~
i i i
, ~
i ~

~ ~
ii z

i
ii
i~ ~
,
ii
ii
~~, ~` ,
,
_.~
z
0
0
n
D
(_'
m
,~
~.
N

c~
O ~+. ~
rn ~
? ~ A N Vf
o^ a ~, Z x
c
~
~ to
_ C
~ A
~ N
.~
o ~ ~ ~ ~
c
c o ~ ~ z o
00 ~ Z ~ m
,o N C
Z
~
O Z
A ~
Z
A
N

I I
_ ~ i
I I
I
I
i
~I I
. I
I ~
,_
I ..... ~I I I I
z ~~ z ~• ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ I _
~ o ~^ ~ :: ~
z z '~ I. ~ ~
o ~ ~ I ''I ( I
T c
~ a i i ( I
~ n I ': i ~
N n ~ ''III i L
.i
`1 i I n
I ~
l I i ~ ~b
I I i .S>
i ~_
I I ... _ / '
;:III
'lam .,,
.. .:~~'•~'.' ~Y.' ,•/~I'''' ~ ~ .._ ~ ~ Qom. ~~~
.•. •:.: .. .• : n. ~~~ ~ ..: ~
.___-__ ..__._____.....___ ~~~~~ I I' ~ .
• ~ ~ i III
~ I I I I
i :~:
I
;; ,
::.
z I
~ I I i i`
-~
I :: ,
I ~~~
~ ~~ I I~~
. O I I ~~~ ; ~ o~
~ a
i ~ ~ ~y
C!~ ~ I
D ~ I
~ I I '
t- I
~o rt ,
~ ~ ~ ITl i ;
~ ~ .~+ ; ~
c ~ "' ~ I
~ ~ ~~
:~
n o,p ~ oo ., ; I;,,
~_ ~ ~~ ~
°c vDi C--Z'~ ~ i l I~~
~ = cn ~ ~
0 `~ ~ ~ -~
o ~ .I I
< O
~Z~ N I
~ c
~ ~- ~ Z I i
o ~ p ~
~ Z ~ I ~

_~ ~
~ltp Df ~~~JC~0~0
146 ,~nrt~j ~~jurtt~ ffitreet
~ ®~ox 1106
• ~gfje6aro. ~. ~. 27204-1 106
~Gei: 336-626-1200
fax: [phone]
July 27, 2001
Ms. Stephanie Ledbetter
Project Development Engineer
Project Development ~ Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 Intersection Improvements
Dear Ms. Ledbetter:
As discussed during our meeting on July 26, 2001., the City of Asheboro
would like the NCDOT to proceed with the referenced project using the funds
available.
During the preliminary engineering phase of this project, we believe it
would be desirable to also evaluate the following alternatives and related
projects mentioned at the meeting:
- The East Dixie Drive (US 64) connector to NC 42 as shown on the City of
Asheboro Thoroughfare Plan approved by the City of Asheboro and the NCDOT in
1999. (Copy attached)
- Widening NC 42 between East Dixie Drive (US 64) and East Salisbury Street
(SR 2237)
- Widening NC 42 in front of the F-Mart entrance ,
Although the above alternatives are beyond the scope of this project, an
evaluation of the capacity and cost benefit will be desirable to coordinate
these projects and determine when additional funding should be appropriated.
We appreciate your cooperation.
Si cerely,
~~~
Dumont Bunker, P. E. -
City Engineer
DB/ahs
Enclosure
cc w/enc: Will Garner, Jr., P. E., Division Traffic Engineer, NCDOT
Wayae.Whorton, NCDOT
~ of ~ C~ ~rmi~g~~i ~ttr~

O <

a

•
~~
~•
„'. , ~
~~
~ .

s
~~.
.~
~~
~~
....,.~
~•~
~~
•
~.
s
~ ~ ~ ~
~ a ~
3 -
ee ~
° ~ ~
~•.
~~ .\t
~ •.
,~
r.
® ~~,
~'' .~,
. ~ ', . /
', • ~~ /

Nc

r
.~4"'t~
.~,•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
vr~gory ~. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Attention: Stephanie Caudill
PDEA
Transportation Budding
MSC # 1548
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR S
January 30, 2003 ~~C E!~
O
TIP Project: U-3401
County: Randolph FFB g ~~
Description: Improvements at the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC p ~ ~
z'O
MEMORANDUM ~.apo aL.,v~stons{o~f
TO: W. D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager ~~~~~~~EtCip~s<
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch •~~
Attention: Stephanie Caudill, Project Planning Engineer /,
FROM: Nathan K. Phillips, P.E., Plan Review Engineer /~ ~ ~ ~~~~~'I "
Congestion Management Section / y
SUBJECT: Preliminary Review of TIP Project U-3401
The Plan Review Squad of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch has completed a
preliminary review of this project. This project involves improvements to the intersection of US
64/NC 49 and NC 42 in Asheboro. As requested, we performed an intersection analysis using the
2002 and 2025 design year traffic projections provided by the Statewide Planning Branch to
determine the levels of service (LOS) for this project. These traffic projections included volumes
with and without the proposed Asheboro Southern Bypass (TIP R 2536) which is currently
projected for post year build. Based on our analysis, we offer the following comments and
recommendations that should enhance the traffic safety and operation in this area.
intersection Analysis
Although this intersection currently operates within aclosed-loop signal system including seven
other intersections, we _ were requested to analyze this intersection as an isolated intersection.
Based on improvements made to this intersection, it should be noted that the signal timing for the
entire closed-loop system may need to be adjusted with this project. It should also be noted that
the operations of the other signals in the closed loop system could dictate the cycle length of this
intersection as well as influence the phasing order and splits. Therefore, the actual operations
may differ somewhat from these presented in this memorandum. The recommended geometry
for this intersection is shown in Figure 1. Where storage length does not govern, NCDOT's
guidelines for left and right-taro lane lengths (including tapers) should be adhered.
US 64/NC 49 & NC 42 - SiQttalized
Given the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in 2002 and LOS F
in the 2025 design year. With the proposed improvements, the intersection is expected to operate
at LOS F in the 2025 design year with and without the completion of R-2536. •
In addition to the proposed improvements, we recommend dual eastbound right-turns and dual
left-turn lanes for the northbound approach of US 64/NC 49. In order to accommodate the
.MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPItO\E: 919-?SO~ISi LOCATION:
TRAFFic ENGINEERING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BRANCH FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX BUILDL~G B
1592 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROUNA27599-1593 iIEBSITE: II~'IYIi:DO!/.DOT.ST.ITEKC.l1S RALEIGH, NORTH C:AROLI\A 37610

u-•~~ 1 _ ws ~ ucg-2 ~. ,~
G. J. Thorpe, PhD. /~` W -
northbound dual left-turns, the west Ieg of NC 42 will need to be widened for a minirrum of 900
feet from the intersection to provide appropriate acceleration and taper distances. Based on the
recommended geometry shown in Figure 1, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in
the 2025 design -year with the completion of R-2536.
Capacity limitations along NC 42 in this area prevent the intersection from operating above LOS E
m the design year. NC 42 is a basic two-lane facility with turn lanes in the project area. With
design year projections approaching 24,000 vehicles per day, NC 42 will warrant multi-lanes in
the future. With an additional through lane along NC 42 and with the completion of R 2536, this
intersection should operate at a LOS D with the recommended geometry in the 2025 design year.
We also recommend efforts be taken to protect the integrity of the intersection by
removing/limiting access to NC 42 and US 64 in the intersection influence area as much as
possible.
ff you have any questions, please contact Regina Page, Plan Review Project Engineer, or me at
250-4151.
NKP/rep
cc: W. F. Rosser, P. E. (Attention: W. C. Garner Jr., P.E.)
J. A. Bennett, P.E.
M. Pate Butler
R E. Mullinax, P.E.
T. M. Hopkins, P.E. (Attention: J. H. Dunlop, P.E.)
C. L. Evans (Attention: Jo Ann Oerter)
J. S. Bourne, P.E.
R W. King, P.E.

s

I r

l.i..
N
w~
OM
~pN
M ~
L1')~
N+
~o
r.c
~~
~~
NN
NN
U
Z ------------------~
~ _ c.S1Z) .Sll
lQ ~~
c'~
~~
mN
-F- ~
L~
O,f,.
a~
O
L.L
N ±
}3
~~
CM
m~
N
m ~
LL
O~
~~
Nu
•• +
'~'~ m
~ m
Z ~"'
N
Q'
U
Z
W

Q
~ U
Q ~
O

C O
~
-~ a F-
N O
~ Q
'
O
'- U
+
Z
U
~ -0
~~
~ O
O
'~ ~
~ ~-
~
~-
~~
,;:. ~_
~o~o°
-_ ~I~
o~ oho
of M~~o
~;~ ~a
000
', v'~
~
- ~
-
~ ----
- __ ----- U z
vP c.SlB)_001 _
z
(.518) .001
\ ~~
----------------- ~
~ C
~_ CC~
~
I (~ C

~ ~~~ ~ O
~n I in
sip U ~
°i

N
~ ~o
o - N O
M
~
~ C
I
~ ~''""
I
I
1
N
Q-
U
z
_o
W
.~
LL
O
I`~7
a
0
ri
L7
O
c'o
O
O
0
c~
z
~~
~~
G
G
G
i

i~
•~p~ ~~~
~n4"r..
S'€'.~-TE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART1ViENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
covewoR
December 1, 2003
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1 South Wilmington St
Raleigh, NC 27611
WBS Element: 34935.1.1
State Project: 8.1572101
TiP #: U-3401
Federal Project: NHF-64 (58) .
County: Randolph .
Description: Asheboro, Intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42
Sabjeet: GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation
Parpose
LYNDO T>PPETT
SL~CRETARY
This report presents the results of a "GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation" conducted
along the above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify
properties within the project study area that may contain hazardous materials and result in
firture environmental liability if acquired. These hazards may include, but are not limited
to: USTs, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites.
Methodology
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to
the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to
identify any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. The identified
sites are discussed below.
w
IAAIIJMG ADDRESS: TEL~110lIE 919-250.4088 LOCATION:
NC DEPART4EIiT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENnIRtr CENret COIrPI.Ex
GEOTea+NICA~ FN91k11T BtNLDING B
G~ENVIRONIS=MALSECfgN HV~BS~TE WNNV.OOFLDOT.STA7ENC.llS 102081apIRIOOEDRrvE
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RM&c~1 NC 2T810
RA~eciN NC 27699-1589

U 3401
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
December 1, 2003
Page 2 of 4
The Geotechnical Unit performed a field reconnaissance survey and found three (3) UST
sites within the project area. Should the project limits change, please inform this office
as soon as possible. Please note that our evaluation mainly covers regulated
(commercial) tIS'Ts and that there is still the possibility of unregulated IIS'Ts (farm tanks
or home heating oil tanks) being impacted by the project. These unregulated IISTs
should be identified by Right-of-N'ay during initial contacts and our o,,~`ice should be
not:;fied of their presence prior to acquisition so that we can determine if the tanks have
leaked
1) BP Shop Property Owner. Unknown
1407 East Dixie Dr. UST Owner. Randolph Oil Company
Asheboro, NC 1715 S. Fayetteville St.
27203 Asheboro, NC 27203
Facility I.D. #: 0-018120
This active gas station is located in the northeast quadrant of the US 64/NC 42
intersection. The registry shows that four (4) USTs are currently in use. These tanks
are about 130 feet from the edge-of-pavement at US 64, while the pump island is about
51 feet away. No monitoring wells were noted and it does not appear the site is under
remediation at this time. This site will probably have a minimum impact to our
P~j~
2) Asheboro Honda Property Owner. Honda Cars of
Mazda Asheboro
1400 E. Dixie Drive UST Owner. Same
Asheboro, NC
27203
Facility I.D. #: 0-026201
This active car dealership is located in the southeast quadrant of the US 64/NC 42
intersection. The UST Section's registry shows a waste oil UST was removed from the
site in 1994. It does not appear that the tank had leaked. The facility still does service
work and produces waste fluids that are place in an aboveground storage tank (AST).
The waste disposal company routinely pumps out the tank and disposes of the material.
The waste oil AST is behind the building and is over 150 feet from NC 42. This
appears to be the only rema~n~ng potential source of contamination at the site (there are
no underground tanks, oil/water separators or in-ground hydraulic lifts. This site will
probably have a minimum impact to oar project.

U 3401 Dr. Cmgory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
. December 1, 2003
Page 3 of4
3) Tank & Tummy #4 Property Owner. Unknown
1310 E. Dixie Dr. UST Owner. Pugh Oil Company
Asheboro, NC PO Box 4006
27203 Asheboro, NC 27203,
Facility LD. #: 0.019697
This active gas station is located on the south side of US 64, approximately 0.1 miles
west of NC 42. The UST Section's registry shows that a total of eight (8) USTs (1
diesel, 6 gasoline and 1 kerosene) were removed from the site in 1980. There are
currently five (5) USTs in use at the site, in two separate tank fields. The closest UST
field is about 97 feet from the edge-of-pavement at US 64, while the closest pump
island is approximately 137 feet from US 64. About 12 monitoring wells were noted
on the site indicating there has been a release (GWI # 14879). Given the number of
monitoring wells on the property, our project could potentially impact
contamination from this site.
4) Cox Grocery Property Owner. Wayne Cox
319 NC 42 South UST Owner. Same
Asheboro, NC Route 10, Box 450
27203 Asheboro, NC 27203
Facility LD. #: 0-019661
This former gas station is located on the west side NC 42 about 100 feet west of SR
2825 (Inwood Road). The UST Section's registry shows that a total of two (2) gasoline
USTs were removed from the site in 1993. No soil contamination above state action
levels was identified during the removal work. The former tank field was about 50 feet
from the centerline of NC 42, while the pump island was about 75 feet from NC 42.
This site will probably have a minimam impact to onr project.
Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project corridor. The
research shows that no apparent regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur
within the project limits.
RCRA/CERCLA
Based on the GIS search and the field reconnaissance, no potential RCRA or CERCLA
sites were identified within the project limits.

U-3401 Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
December 1, 2003
Page 4 of 4
Snmmsry
Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should be no other
contamination concerns for this project. If any unregulated USTs (or any potential source
of contamination) is discovered by Right-of-Way during their initial contacts with
impacted property owners, our office should be notified of their presence prior to
acquisition. This is so an assessment can be conducted to determine the extent of any
contamination. This assessment will also serve to estimate the associated clean up costs
and allow us to make right-of-way recommendations.
sincerely,
Eugene Tatascio
GeoEnvironmental Project Manager
Geotechnical Engineering Unit
Enclosure (Site Location Map)
cc: Greg Brew, PE, Roadway Desiga
Dean Argenbright, PG, Geotechnical Engineering Unit, Raleigh Area Office
Bill Rosser, PE, Division 8
L.D. Caddell, Division 8 Right-of-Way
File

r ~
,..~~.~
*_
'~
•..:; ~
STATE OF NO='-:"1'H CAROLINA '
DEPART~V~N'I' OF ~~t,ANSPORTATTON
MICw~EL F. Enst.~r
GovERNOR
Mr. Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Subject: Biological Conclusion for the Schweinitz'. ~imflower ~~-~ the proposed
improvements to the intersection of US 64;`''~~~ 49 and NC 42 and
proposed widening of NC 42, Randolph County, TIl' No. U-3401; State
Project No. 8.1572101; Federal Aid Project No. NHF-64(58).
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The Natural Heritage Program documented one occurrence of Schweinitz's sunflower
within 0.4 mile of the project study area. This occurrence is in Randolph County near the
intersection of NC 42 and SR 2600. - ~ ~~ ` " `
A systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat was conducted on January 29, 2002.
Approximately 4 man-hours were spent surveying for Schweinitz's sunflower. No
members of the genus Helianthus were observed. Therefore, a biological conclusion of
"May Affect Not Lflcely to Adversely Affect" was given. Since the survey was conducted
outside of the flowering season, an additional survey will be conducted during the
flowering season.
January 16, 2004
LYtvno TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Gives the findings, we are seeking your concurrence with our biological conclusion of
May A, f~ect Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTNE:M OF TRANSPDRTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EOMROfMiENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGFI NC 27699.1548
TELEPraNE: 919-733-3141
FAX [phone]
WE'BSlTE: VVWW.OOH.DOT.STATENC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPpRTATbIJ BUL01N6
1 SOUTH WILNNC,TON STREET
RALEIGr+ NC

o +
This information is being provided to your Agency on behalf of the Federal Highway
Administration in order to coordinate Section 7 issues with your agency. Should you
have aay questions or need additional information, please contact Matt Haney at (919)
715-1428. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
~ ~
~,
. ~~ Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D. .
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Envimnmental Analysis Branch
cc: Stephanie Caudill, NCDOT Planning Engineer
File

~ ~
Qualifications of Investigators
Investigator. Harold M. Brady, Biologist, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, NC State University, 1998
Experience: ARCADIS G&M, January ?000-November 2003
Investigator. Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, NC State University,
1998
Experience: NC Dept. of Transportation, October 1999-present
:}-~, .

r +r
1 a~ /~ ~
f I ~
f 1 •.a /I ~
1 1 1 •~e ~ ~y
• ~ 1 / /1
• 1 / / 1 u /:
~ ~ / / •
r
t
~ • ,• .~ .
/
~ ~ \'
/
~ . '
/ ~ \ /
\
e• ~a ~
jy
~
ae~o
1
/
~" .
pls
i
' '~
J
~
1_w ~ ~ R ae....a -a'.
~rlar dwren ~ ~ %

aI ASHEH~RO 1 •~~
Ia .`~ oy: ~/O e
` ~

loll ~ ... 1
O as >~ ~ /
1 /
\ f.l f
7 1 ~ // 1
• 1 ~r
A 1
~ >!~
l v' /
.• ~ J ~~w ~--.OI
Lod Imo- ~ I
I I
1 1
>yM
d
/
~tirr ranl
~ ~ ~ 6alrme*7 / ! ~ I 1 1
Y
~ / _ ~~ ~ , 1 , .,,
I
~ rl
'~^ -~
`~
~

~ ~ ~, 1

` ~ 1 ~ ,

I ;'~
r.. >'~ I
•~
M ~ Y ~f

/ •~ `

n ~
. ~
• /I
~ ;~=
I `. -1

=
~
,

o
~%
t.
I ,
• ae ~ ~
~° 1 ~
1 ~
~ ~1
rs . oaJ . n`~
c rl ~
I
~L
~ .
`

/
.,.r - I
_. 1 ;~ 1. ~
M
10 1 ~ (
11 ~ -
/ 11 1
// ft
1 / 1 \ ~ \ \
~ ` ",
1] / I ~ 1
_.t:.
t '
,/ i
A N
~... 1
... •
NOrth CiarOllIIa
Depastmeat of Transportation
"' ~ Division of Highways
Project Development &
Frnviroameatal Analysis Branch
a
Raadoipb County
Asl>teboro Intersection of US 64
NC 49 Aad NC 42
. iJ~401 .
SCALE: aot co scale Figure 1

r !.
^'ry' ~.
e~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIEI~IT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EA.SI.EY 1501 MAII, SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GovSwoR
March 12, 2002
Updated: December 16~ 2003 per Matt Haney
LYNDO TIPPETT
s~r~x
MEMORANDUM TO: • Stephanie Ledbetter, Project Development Engineer
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Tim Bassette, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Proposed
Improvements to the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC
42 and Proposed Widening of NC 42, Randolph County,
TIP No. U-3401; State Project No. 8.1572101; Federal Aid
No. NHF-64 (58)
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimations of impacts likely
to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent infomnation on
Waters of the United States aad federally-protected species is also provided.
I would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Categorical Exclusion for
this project. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto
disk format (ext. 28~.
cc: Randy Turner, Natural Systems Unit Bead
File: U-3401

Improvements to the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC~ 42 and widening of NC 42
Asheboro, Randolph County
TIP No. U-3401
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-64 (58)
State Project No. 8.1572101
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-3401
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
Harold M. Brady, A. Lynn Smith
March 5, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................2
1.2 Environmental Commitments ...............................................................................2
1.3 Purpose ..................................................................................................................2
1.4 Methodology .........................................................................................................2
1.5 Qualifications of Investigators ..............................................................................3
1.6 Definitions .............................................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...........................................................:...............................5
2.1 Soils ..............................................................................................................:.......5
2.2 Water Resources ....................................................................................:..............5
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Chsracteristics .............................................................6
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ..............................................................................7
2.2.3 water Quality .................... ...............7
.......:......................................................
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .................................................................................................8
3.1 Biotic Communities ..............................................................................................8
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community ......................:.........................................8
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest .........................................................................9
3.1.3 'Alluvial forest ..............................................................................................10
3.2 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................10
33 Swnmary of Anticipated Impacts .......................................................................10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .............................:.......................................................11
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................................................................1 l
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .........................................12
4.1.2 Permits .........................................................................................................12
4.1.3 Mitigation ................................................:....................................................12
4.1.3.1 Avoidance ...............:.............................................................................12
4.1.3.2 Minimization ................................................................................:........13
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation .....................................................................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................:........................................................13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................................16
5.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Table 1. Descriptions of soil mapping units within the project study area .................................... 6
Table 2. Characteristics of Streams Impacted ................................................................................ 7
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .................................................................. l l
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Stream .............:....................................................12
Table 5. Federal and State Protected Species for Randolph Co .......................................17
Figure 1. Vicinity Map for U-3401 ................................................................:...............:................ 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION _
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in
the central portion of Randolph County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of improvements to the intersection of US 64/NC 49 and
NC 42. The proposed intersection improvements involve widening US 64/NC 49 from afive-
lane curb and gutter roadway to a seven-lane shoulder facility, and widening NC 42 from afour-
lane shoulder facility to afive-lane shoulder facility. The existing right-of-way at the
intersection is a variable 60 foot (18.3 m) easement. There are no plans at this time to acquire
additional right-of-way for the intersection. In addition, the project also includes widening of
NC 42 from atwo-lie roadway to 4-lane roadway from Old Salisbury Road (SR 2189) to
Crystal Wood Road (SR 2670); approximately 2 miles (3.22 km), with a ROW of 200 ft (60.1
m).
This report covers potential impacts to natural Orman-disturbed resources along
approximately 800 feet of roadway northeast and 800 feet of roadway southwest on US 64/NC
49 beginning ax the center of the intersection.. In addition, this report discusses potential impacts
along NC 42 from Old Salisbury Road (SR 2189) to Crystal Wood Road (SR 2670).
The purpose and need of this project is to increase the capacity and improve safety along
this section of NC 42 and US 64/NC 49. The projected traffic in the design year 2025 is
expected to nearly double from 2000.
1.2 Environmental Commitments
At this time, there are not any site specific environmental commitments, except for
several stream crossings that will require culvert extensions The NCDOT should use appropriate
sediment and erosion control measures to prevent non point source pollution. All standard
guidelines and recommendations apply.
1.3 Purpose -
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measln~es which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the contezt of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need
to be conducted.
1.4 Methodology -
R;esearch was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
maps for Randolph County (Asheboro, NC,1994), Geographical Information Systems (NC
Center for Geographical Information & Analysis), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
-2-

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil
maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1"=100'). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Resources (NCDENR 1996, 2001), NCDENR Internet Page 2001 and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Randolph
County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was gathered from the USFWS list of protected species and species of concern,
and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment. by NCDOT biologist
Matt Haney and NCDOT contract biologist Harold M. Brady on 29 January 2002. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
aelineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed
using guidance provided by NC Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)],"Fie1d Location of Streams, Ditches, and
Ponding" (NCDENR DWQ,1997).
1.5 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigaxor: Harold M. Brady, biologist, ARCADIS G&M
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, NC State University, 1998
Experience: ARCADIS G&M, January 2000-present
2) Investigator: Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina.
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: NC Dept. of Transportation Oct.1999-present
NC Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
US Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research
May 1997 August 1997
1.6 Definitions
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Stady Area
denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area
extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent .
to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the
central position.
-3-

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any
biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region in the central part of
North Carolina. The topography in this section of Randolph Couny is gently rolling with some
steeper inclines throughout. Commercial and residential uses are the major land uses in this area.
Project elevation ranges between 730.0 and 890.0 ft (222.5 and 271.3 m) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
There are two general soil series mapped by the Randolph County NRCS within the
project area, Georgeville and Uwharrie. The two soil series are represented by six distinct soil
mapping units. None of these soils are listed as either hydric or containing h~~dric inclusions.
Descriptions of the six individual soil mapping units are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptions of soil mapping units within the project study area.
Georgeville silty clay loam 2-8% None Well-drained eroded soil with moderate
permeability, a loamy surface layer, and a clayey
subsoil.
Georgeville silty clay loam 8-15% None Well-drained eroded soil with moderate
permeability, and a low shrink swell potential.
Georgeville silt loam 2-8% None Well-drained soil with moderate permeability and
located on gently. sloping uplands.
Georgeville-Urban Complex 2-10% None The majority of the land within this mapping unit
has been disturbed to the extent that a soil type
can no longer be recognized.
Uwharrie silt loam, 15-45% None Well-drained soil with moderate permeability,
extremely bouldery and containing many stones and boulders
scattered over the surface.
Uwharrie silt loam, 2-15% None Well-drained soil with moderate permeability,
extremely stony and containing many stones scattered
throughout the surface.
Soil core samples were taken throughout the project area primarily searching for
areas containing hydric soils; however, no hydric soils were observed within the project
area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources, if present, likely to
be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
-5-

resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize
impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Six streams, including Squirrel Creek, three unnamed tributaries (Ut) to Squirrel Creek
and two Ut to Vestal Creek, will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Squirrel Creek
and Vestal Creek are located insub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Table 2
describes the characteristics of the streams located within the project area.
Table 2: Characteristics of Streams Impacted
Ut 1 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 3.0-6.Oft moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 2 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 1.0-2.Oft 3.0-6.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Squirrel perennial 3.0-6.Oin 1.0-2.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.3-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
Ut 3 to Squirrel intermittent 3.0-6.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 3.0-6.Of1 moderate
Creek (7.6-15.2cm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.9-1.8m)
Ut 1 to Vestal perennial 4.0-8.Oin 2.0-3.Oft 5.0-10.Oft moderate
Creek (10.1-20.3cm) (0.6-0.9m) (1.5-3.Om)
Ut 2 to Vestal perennial 6.0-12.Oin . 2.0-3.Oft 2.0-4.Oft slow
Creek (7.6-30.Scm) (0.6-0.9m) (0.6-1.2m)
It should be noted, that heavy rains had occurred in the project region approximately 36-
48 hours prior to the site reconnaissance on 29 January 2002. This caused higher than normal
water levels in all of the streams within the project area.
Ut 1 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the US 64/NC 49 and
NC 42 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris. The channel
contained strong under-cut banks, had agoodriffle/pool sequence, and fair sinuosity. Ut 2 to
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 320.0 ft (97.5 m) east of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and woody debris.
Squirrel Creek is located approximately 950.0 ft (289.6 m) west of the intersection of NC 42 and
Browers Chapel Road (SR 2826). The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble.
Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek is located approximately 1050.0 ft (320:0 m) east of the NC 42 and SR
2600 intersection. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with exposed bedrock
innumerous places. Several large rock outcroppings are present within the floodplain,
approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) north of Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek. A natural spring was observed at
the head of an ephemeral stream feeding the stream on the northern side ofNC 42. The spring
had a small rock structure built around it and was covered with a small piece of metal. Ut 3 to
Squirrel Creek was determined to be ephemeral on the southern side of NC 42.
-6-

Utl to vestal Creek is located approximately 850.0 ft (259.1 m) east of the NC 42 and
US 64/NC 49 intersection. The sub~~:rate is cc:~ .: ,posed of sand, gravel, and cobble, with rip-rap
constituting the substrate of the chap xel witha= . ~ feet of both sides of NC 42. Ut 1 to Vestal
Creek on the southern side of NC 42 .has a wine well developed floodplain with good sinuosity;
however, the northern side had been straightened and is used as a roadside ditch along SR 2683.
An inordinate amount of household and construction debris was .observed within the stream on
the northern side of NC 42. Ut 2 to Vestal Creek is located approximately 1550.0 ft (320.0 m)
west of the NC 42 and US 64/NC 49 intersection. The substrate is composed of silt, sand,
gravel, and woody debris. The floodplain surrounding Ut 2 to Vestal Creek has been severely
dishn~ed with development, and the channel appears to have been straightened on both sides of
Highway NC 42.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Stz+eams are assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
Squirrel Creek [Index no. 17 22-6] and Vestal Creek [Index no.17-22-4 are C. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Unnamed tributaries receive the same best usage classification as the named streams
into which they flow. Therefore, the classifications of the six streams within the project area are
C. Both Squirrel Creek and Vestal Creek are tributaries of Richland Creek which also maintains
a C classification.
Neither HigL Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Oatstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive sampling of
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebrateshnve proven to be a good indicator of water quality because they are sensitive
to su~atle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to
fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms
help to assess the health of streams and rivers. All basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit review. No biological sampling sites are located within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of
the US 64/NC 49 snd NC 42 intersection widening and NC 42 widening project. The nearest
sampling site (B-19) is located approximately 12.0 mi (19.3 km) southeast and dovvnstrea=n from
the project area, near the confluence of Richland Creek and the Deep River. This site received a
Good rating in 1993 and an Ezcellent rating in 1998:, There are no sampling sites upstream of
the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
NPDES Program. There are no permitted dischargers within the Richland Creek basin.
-7-

The nearest discharger is the City of Asheboro Waste Water Treatment Plant located
approximately 5.0 mi (8.0 km) north of the project area. The waste water treatment facility
discharges into I3asketts Creek.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source
pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of
nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal wastes can be t~ranssported via runoff to receiving streams and may
potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be
a source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand. Drainage ditches
in poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of stonawater into surface waters
(NCDEHNR DEM,1993).
3.0 BIOTIC
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in
the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
descn'bed and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980) and
Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within
the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Three communities are found in the project study area: Maintained/Disturbed, Mixed
Pine/Hardwood Forest, and Alluvial Forest. Community boundaries within the study areas are
often not well defined and include a transition zone between them. Terrestrial faunal species
likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging
opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Distnrbed Community .
This is the most common community type found within the project boundaries, occurring
on the shoulder and in the maintained residential, commercial, and agricultural areas adjacent to
NC 42 and US 641NC 49. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent
mowing or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional state.
-8-

Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surr+cx.ry~~ding communities by
filtering stormwater runoff and reducing runoff velocities: ° The wig. ,. of the mad shoulder is
approximately 5.0 ft (1.5 m), with somewhat wider shoulders near intersections. Vegetation
occurring along the mad shoulder includes various grasses, clover (Trifolium sp.), wild
strawberry (Fragoria virginiana), fescue (Festuca spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum o,,~icinale),
chickweed (SYellaria sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), vetch (~cia sp.), thistle (Carduus sp.),
geranium (Geranium caroli»ianum), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
and corn salad (Yslerianella radiata).
Only one agricultural area was observed within the project area, approximately 1 mile
southeast of the US 64/NC 49 and NC 42 intersection. The agricultural field has been left fallow
for approximately five to ten years. Vegetation within this area includes sweet gum
(Liquidambar styroc~ua), black cherry. (Prunes seroti»a), winged elm (Ulmus slats), eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
juncos (Juncos spp.), and foxtail grass (Setaria spp.).
Medium to large sized trees within the commercial and residential areas are comprised
primarily of northern red oak (Quercus rubra), willow oak (Q. phellos), white oak (Q. albs), red
maple, Virginia pine (Pines virginiana), white pine (P. strobes), eastern red ~, yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), bradford pear (Pyres calleryana), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica),
southern magnolia (Magnolia gr~~rd~ora), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and flowering
dogwood (Corms Florida). Smaller vegetation include elderberrs- (Sombucus carradensis),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americans), boxwoods (Boxes sempervirens), tulip (Tulips sp.), daffodil
(Narcissus pseudo-narcissus), and daylilly (Hemerocallis sp.).
3.1.2 Mizell Piae/Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community is interspersed within the maintained
residential areas along NC 42. This community includes areas that are steeper and rockier than
the other two communities, and range in age from 20 to 60 plus years. The forest understory is
relatively open which wildlife can use as corridors between streams within the alluvial forest
communities and the grasses and herbaceous plants within the maintained/disturbed
communities.
The forest canopy primarily includes white oak, scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), black
oak (Q. velutina), rock chestnut oak (Q. prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), loblolly
pine (Pines taeda), Virginia pine, red maple, eastern red cedar, white ash (Fraximrs americans),
sweetgum;-black cherry, American holly (Ilex opaca), southern magnolia, sourwood
(Oxydenilrum arboreum), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). The understory is primarily
composed of Chinese privet, flowering dogwood, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
multiflora Lose (Rosa multiFlora), blackberry (Rebus argutc~.r), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
-9-

3.13 'Alluvial forest
This community is located along the corridor of all of the streams within the project area,
except for Ut 2 to Vestal Creek. Due to its location along floodplains, this community maintains
a flatter topography and generally a denser understory. The rich soils and readily available water
help make for an abundance of species diversity and richness. As topography increases this
community naturally transitions into the mixed pine/hardwood community.
Dominant species in this community include red maple, eastern red cedar, persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), flowering dogwood, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), river birch (Betula
nigra), black cherry, sweet gum, yellow poplar, and tag alder (Alms serrulata). The understory
is primarily composed of Chinese privet, American holly, Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), greenbrier (Smilax rotwrdrfolia), panic grass (Dicantheliu-n sp.),
mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), foam flower (Tiarella
cordifolia), bellflower (Uvularia sessilifolia), and muscadine grape (Yids rotundifolia).
3.2 Wildlife
Mammal species associated with the communities present within the project vicinity
include: eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Avian species utilizing the project vicinity include: northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), red bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes
carolinus) , tufted titmouse* (Pares bicolor), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey
vulture* (Catharses aura), mourning dove* (Zerutida macroura) and house 5nch* (Carpodacus
mexicanus).
33 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestirial resources reflect the relative abundance of the
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of this community. The project area consists of maintained/distutbed
areas including residential and commercial areas as well as paved areas and forested areas. Table
3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Table 4 lists impacts to individual streams within the project limits. Estimated
impacts are derived using symmetrical widening for the entire length of the project utilizing a
ROW width of 200.0 ft (61.0 m). Estimated impacts associated with improvements to US 64/NC
49 as it intersects NC 42 are based on existing ROW widths of 60.0 ft (18.3 m).
-10-

~-
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
tained/Dishirbed 49.0 (19.8)
1 Pine/Hardwood Forest 6.3 (2.5)
ial Forest 5.3 (2.1)
Community Impacts: 60.6 (24.5)
Values cited are in acres (hectares).
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Streams
Ut 1 to Squirrel Creek Intermittent 200.0 (61.0),
Ut 2 to Squirrel Creek Intermittent 200.0 (61.0)
Squirrel Creek Perennial 200.0 (61.0)
Ut 3 to Squirrel Creek Intermittent 120.0 (36.~
Ut 1 to Vestal Creek Perennial 200.0 (61.0)
Ut 2 to Vestal Creek Perennial 200.0 (61.0)
Total Stream Impacts: 620.0 (189.0)
Note: Values cited are is linear feet
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat. for various wildlife. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated
that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become mad shoulders and early
successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while
attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues-Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.1344).
-11-

4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual": The three-parameter approach is used where hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an
area to be considered a wetland. No wetlands were identified within the project area
Wetland investigations were taken at or near the locations within the project area which
appeared to be located at the lowest elevations. Soil core samples taken in these areas revealed
soils in the B horizon with Mansell color notations ranging from 7.SYR 5/4 to 2.SY 5/4.
Vegetation in these areas included river birch, black cherry, sweet gum, yellow poplar, tag alder,
Chinese privet, Americas holly, 3apanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern, and greenbrier.
Three unnamed tributaries to Squirrel Creek, Squirrel Creek, and two unnamed tributaries
to Vestal Creek are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of these streams
are presented in Section 2.2.1 of this report.
4.1.2 Permits
Encroachment into jurisdictional surface water because of project construction is often
times inevitable. Factors that determine Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) applicability
include hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource, whether the impacts occur as part of the
widening of an existing facility, or as the result of new location construction. Although an
individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts from a single
and complete project may require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP). Due to the
scope of this project, minimal impacts are expected to occur. Therefore, a Nationwide Permit 14
will most likely be applicable for the proposed project.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S.
4.13 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts overtime and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
~1~~Y• .
4.13.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
-12-

(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" meas<n~es to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should b~
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. It may not be possible to avoid
stream impacts due to the likelihood of culvert extensions along NC 42.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimisation typically focuses oII
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minim;~p imps
to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the
project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge
into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris
control. All efforts will be made to minimize environmental impacts.
4.1.33 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable .adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous
to the discharge site. Due to the minimal impacts associated with this widening project,
compensatory mitigation is not likely to be required; however, the final decision lies with the
COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the USFWS.
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January
2002, the USFWS lists two federally-protected species for Randolph County (table 5). A brief
description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
-13-

Name: Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
Family: Cyprinidae
Federal States: Endangered
Date Listed: September 25,1987
Characteristics:
The Cape Fear shiner is approximately 2-inches long, spawns in late spring and early
summer, and typically associates with schools of other related species (LISFWS 1987). The Cape
Fear shiner is a highly specialized detritus- and plant-eating species, and does not migrate. This
fish typically has a black stripe along the side of the body and side of snout, with black lips, and
olive scales outlined in black. The most striking characteristic is the long coiled dark gut visible
through the belly wall.
Distribution and Habitat:
The Cape Fear shiner is found only along a 30-mile wide stretch of the Cape Fear River near the
Fall Line of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces. The fish has been reported
in the upper reaches of the Cape Fear River and medium to large creeks within the Cape Fear
basin. The counties which the fish is known to occur are Moore, Randolph, Chatham, Lee, and
Harnett.
The fish prefers water bodies with a moderate gradient and riffies alternating with long deep
pools, and substrate a mixture ofsand-gravel, rubble, and bouldeis. It is believed that the Cape
Fear Shiner has never occupied a broad range and has never been a common fish.
Threats to Species:
The Cape Fear shiner has undergone a large population decline due primarily to
continued dam construction within its small range. Other threats to the Cape Fear shiner include
mad construction, channel modification, waste-water discharges, increasing development, and
other activities which result in heavy sediment loads within the water bodies.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat consisting of sandy and rocky pools and ems of medium to large creeks
within the Cape Fear River basin are present within the project area. Streams within the project
vicinity are small to medium sized creeks with primarily sand, gravel, and cobble substrate.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 6 February 2002
revealed no record for the presence of the Cape Fear shiner within the project vicinity. However,
a survey for the Cape Fear shiner will be conducted prior to beginning construction activities to
determine its presence or absence within the project area.
Name: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzil')
Family: Aster (Asteraceae)
Federal States: Endangered
Date Listed: May 7,1991
Best Search Time: late summer through frost (August -November)
-14-

Characteristics: - - .
Schweinitz's sunflower is along-lived perennial, flowering from late August to .frost. The
yellow disk and ray flowers are formed on small heads (involucre less than 0.6 in (1.5 cm)
across). The leaves are rather thick and stiff in texture. The upper leaf surface is scabrous
(rough) while the lower surface is covered with distinctive dense, soft white hairs. The leaves
are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. Lower stem leaves average 3.9 -
7.9 in (10-20 cm) long and 0.6 -1.0 in (1.5 to 2.5 cm) wide while upper leaves are half this size.
The leaves are typically five to ten times as long as wide: and sessile to short petiolate. The
plants have purple stems that grow to an average height of 6.6 ft (2.0 m) with the top one-third of
the stem branching. The stems are at least sparsely strigose or hirsute below the inflorescence.
Reproduction is accomplished both sexually (by seed) and asexually (by tuberous rhizome).
Distribution and Habitat:
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina and South Carolina. Charlotte, NC is considered to be the center of this species'
distribution.
It is believed that this species formerly occupiedprairie-like habitats or post oak
blackjack oak savannas that were maintained by fire. Current habitats for this species includes
roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings and other sunny or semi-sunny
situations. Schweinitz's -sunflower is known from a variety of soil types but is generally found
growing on shallow, poor, clayey and/or rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks.
In the few sites where Schweinit~'s sunf~~wer occurs in relatively natural vegetation, the natural
commuaity would be considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Threats to Species:
This species is threatened by fire suppression, iabanization such as residential and
industrial development, highway construction and roadside and utility right of way maintenance.
Roadside populations:
In 1988 the NC Natural Heritage Program initiated a cooperative effort with NCDOT and
the USFWS to prevent the mowing of H. schweinitzii populations during the flowering and
fruiting period of August through October. Additionally, these populations should not be mowed
during any part of the growing season extending from April through October.
Distinctive characteristics:
Purple stem, scabrous upper leaf surface, dense; soft, white hairs on the lower leaf
surface, small less than 0.6 in (1.5 cm) flower head (not counting petal width), yellow disk and
ray flowers.
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT-NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSLY AFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower consisting of open woods and roadsides
are present within the project area. The project vicinity primarily consists of
maintained/disbrrbed areas, agricultural lands, and forested lands. A review of the NCNHP
database of rare species and unique habitats on 6 February 2002 depicts one element occurrence
-15-

of Schweinitz's sunflower within the project area, at the intersection of NC 42 and SR 2600. A
single dormant plant was observed during site reconnaissance on 29 January 2002. An additional
population is mapped by NCNHP along an unnamed tributary of Vestal Creek, approximately
0.62 miles (1.0 km) southwest of the NC 42 and SR 2826 intersection. Due to the appropriate
habitat along nearly the entire length of the project and the two element occurrences within the
project vicinity aplant-by-plant survey for the Schweinitz's sunflower will be conducted during
the flowering season and prior to beginning construction activities.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Randolph County. Federal
Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be
listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T'), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 19'79.
Table S lists Federal. and State Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Species of Concern. In addition, table S lists the potential availability of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
Purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Randolph County
-16-~
"*" Historic record (Last observed in Randoph County more than twenty years ago.)
"T'--- "Any native or once native species of wild animal which is ldcely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened
species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes;198T).
"C"--- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species

is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or the world.
"SR"--- "Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by
the NC Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring "
"SC"-- "Any species of wild animal native or once native to NC which is determined by wRC to require
monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article." (Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; l98'n.
"(PE)"-Species has been proposed by a Scientific Council as a status (Endangered) that is different from the
current status, but the status has not yet been adopted by the wRC and by the General Assembly as law.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 06 February 2002
revealed two element occurances of Schweinitz's sunflower within the project vicinity. Surveys
for these species were not conducted during the site visit; however, a population of Schweinitz's
sunflower mapped by NCNHP was observed. The plants were dormant at the time of the
observation. Therefore, a survey during the flowering season will need to be conducted to
determine the size and health of the population, and to determine if any additional populations
exist within the project study area. No other records of any North Carolina rare and/or protected
species are located. in or near the project study area.
5.0 RFFE,RFNCES
Amoroso, Jame L. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina". Raleigh: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Godfrey, Michael A., 1997. Field Guide to the Piedmont Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina". Raleigh: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Waxer Quality Standards for North Carolina
River Basins." Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDENR DWQ. 1997. "Field location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (Environmental
Lab). Raleigh, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR DWQ. 2000. "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan". Raleigh,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
-17-

NCDENlt DWQ. 2001. Internet Web Pages:
http J/h2o.enr.state.ncus/NPDES/documents.html
http://www.esb.e~.state.nc.usJBAU.html
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and RP. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, Fred C., RG. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Page, Lawrence M. and Brooks M. Burr. Peterson Field Guides: Freshwater Fishes. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR
U.S. Department of Agriculture,1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, Soil Conservation
Service. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
-18-

rh~~- ~~~ _ `~ .
~t~'+~~ f ~~ - ~ f~ ~r -
~ ~ ~ E s k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, _ ~ ~
ISSVE NO. i ~ February 2002
I1ze purpose of this aewsktter is to inform the local
community about additional p]aaaing studies ~tYa~~.t w111
~e perfomned for Transportation Impro~ ~ ~~ment
?rogram (IZP) Project U-3401 in Randolph C;<~aty.
lanes may aced to .be added and approaches °~~~idared
is order tD improve capacity, level of s~ ~ and
safety of the intersection. US 64- NC 49 is cL:~ ~~.:.ar.~ as
a Principal Arterial and NC 42 is c]assifted as a Minor
Urban ArbetiaL Laced use along both roads is
considered to be residartial and commercial.
Project Desch ~tion
:fie 2002-2008 TIP proposes widening all
pppoaches to add additional lanes to the intersection
•f US-64/NC-49 and NC-42 in Asheboro. The
~urpose of this project is to alleviate congestion from
ze ongoing and aatiu3pated development is the area,
nd improve the Level of Service and safety of this
itersectioa.
A Brief Project History
The planning document, a Categorical Exclusion
(CE), will be completed is July, 2002. A public
informational workshop for this project w~l be held
February 26, 2002 in the .City of Asheboro
Municipal Building from 130 pm to 3:00 pm. At
the workshop, citizens and businesses are invited to
ssk questions and get information oa this project.
The workshop is also an opportunity for the public to
share comanarts of concern or support for the
project
he 2002 2008 TIP recommards intersection
nprovemarts at US 64- NC 49 and NC 42.
onstruction of the intersection improvemarts is
:heduled for September 2002. The Scopiag meeting
~r this project, held on July 26, 2001, suggests that
Project Schedu/e
U-3401 includes widening all approaches to add
additional lanes to the intersection of US-64/NC-49
and NC-42. Right-of-way acgttisition for this project
is scheduled to begin in 5scal year 2004 and
construction is scheduled to begin is 2005.

~~~~
~•.,..~•
a
~ ~ ~c
~~
Questions and Comments
To ask questions, give comments, request additional iafonnation, or be added to the mtiliag list, plrise write to:
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Ettvironmmtal Analysis Broach
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O Boa 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone], NC
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

_ _ ..;:.
~~~`':
" .~~
.., ... ,~
'.}.w '
.' `r t.- -
~ ~. t • - .,
~/ • . -
- •" '~
µ :~yT~`~ =~''' Community impact Assessment
~--~ .~~:~=~-"~Ra~ndoiph County, North Carolina
-.
.,.. .. _ .
~w=
- - ~ ~ Intersection :Improvement - ".
. ..
. 1!S 64/NC 49 "and NC 42=
- -..»•= _
r ~il.y...y.'.~ ~
-:r~. •
. _ ~;~~ ~.
_ -:~,.
-' 4 •T.'L~'. .~
`T'r'" Y ~.~i
.: y''
~. o
~~ ~j....' . -•
.s .. .. .,a+t
TIP U-341
Prepared for
North Carolina .Department of Transportation
. ,,;.Office of Human Environment
Prepared by:
HNTB North Carollna, PC
29U8 South Boulevard
Suite 108
Charlotte, North ~ Carolina 28203
March 74, 2003
~.

Table Of Contents
E~Q~~J i i - i, Sly NN.......N.....N.NN...NNN.NNN.N.N.NNNN.N.NNN..N. .N.N...NN. i
ND DEMOGRAPffiC AREA DESCRIPTION NNN.N.
A
R
E
A
II. STUDY A NN».NNN.2
/~N
/~^
~~
^~~
~
III• OY VLV VY NNNNNNN.NNN. NNN.NN.NN.NN......N.NN /~
.N.NN.NN.
~
1
~. COMMUNITY PROFILEN..N.N.N...NN...MMM..MNNNNNNNNN.....N...N.N.M..N /
{
.NN.N..NNY
Field Visit ............................................................................................................................................3
GeographiclPolitical Description and Demographics ............................................................................. 5
Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment .............................................:...»...................................».. 6
Housing C,hanu~aistics.....»..»»..» ...........................»..».....»......»....»........»......»....................».....».. 8
Business Activity and Employment Centers ............................................................................:............. 9
Public Facilities and Servioes ................................................................................................................ 9
Public Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 9
Public Services ............................................................................................................................... l0
Land Use and Development Plans............: .....................».......»...............».......................... »....»....». 10
Community Description.»........» .........................................».»..........................................» ..........»». 10
V. PROJECT IINIPACT ASSESSMENT NN.NN.N.NN.N.NNN.N..N.N...N..NNN.N. .NNNNN. 11
Social and Psychological Impacts » .....................................................................................................11
Physical and V~suai Impacts ............................................................................................................... l 1
Land Use Patterns and Compatibility with Local Plans .....................................................................». 12
Economic Impacts........» .................................................................................................................». 12
Mobility and Access .........»........» .....................:.........».--•--......................................»....................... 13
Ccy with Thoroughfare Plans ......................................................................................»...». 13
Change in Commuting Patterns ..................................»....»............................................................. 13
Neighborhood Aocess ...: ................................................................................................................. 13
Commercial Aocess .................................................»..................................................................... 13
Effects on Parking Availab~7ity.» ..................».............»................».»............................................. 14
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access ....»..........»...».» ............................»».»....»...................».........»»... 14
Public Ti~sportation ...................................................................................................................... 14
Tianspartatian Safety Impacts .............................................................................................:..............
.
Provisions ofPublic Services ............................................................................................................. 15
Displacem mts .....................................................................................................:.............................. 15
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ...................................»............»...........».............................».»:.»». 16
Envirmmental Justice Impads .............................»:.............»».........»..................».........».......»....».. 18
Farmland hnpacts ............................................................................................................................... 19
Scenic Rivas ..................................................................................................................:................... 19
Water Supply/Watersheds ................................................................................................................... 19

U 34oi US-6q/NC-49 & NC-42 Randolph
County
Cornrnunity I»ipau~Assess~hent
- March l4, 2003
North Carolina Department of ~ ~:~'ransportation
Office of Human Environment
Community Impact Assessment
TTP II-3401
Intersection Improvement, US 64/NC 49 and NC 42
Randolph County, North Carolina
L EXECL7TIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to improve the
intersection at US 64JNC 49 (Dixie Drive) and NC 42 in Asheboro, North Carolina in
order to improve capacity, level of service and safety at this congested intersection.
Existing Dixie Drive is a five-lane undivided highway with curb and gutter facilities.
Just west of the irnersection, the road is six lanes and 72 feet wide from curb to curb.
Existing NC 42 is a two-lane highway, except at the intersection of Dixie Drive where. it
widens to four lanes with a width of 48 feet from curb to curb. The existing right-of--way
on both highways is approximately 60 feet; however, there is additional variable right-of-
way at the intersection. Level of service information and design plans are not complete at
this time. Therefore, the proposed intersection improvements are based on a Feasibility
Study that was completed in 1998 (approximately). The proposed improvements based
on the Feasibility Study are as follows:
-~ A seven-lane shoulder facility for Dixie Drive; approximate 84-foot travel way
-~ A five-lane shoulder facility for NC 42; approximate 60-foot travel way
The imersection is located in an urban area, and additional right-of-way may be required.
The types and distribution of land uses should not be impacted by TIP U-3401, but those
businesses located at the intersection of Dixie Drive aad NC 42 may experience changes
in access, especially during construction of the project. The following is a brief summary
of the findings and conclusions of this report.
Community Profile
• The project site is located in a congested, urban area with predominantly commercial
land uses.
• The City of Asheboro experienced a relatively high rate of population growth
. (3?. S%) between 1990 and 2000, as compared to the rate of growth in the State
(2 ~ .4%). Asheboro also has a relatively high percentage of Hispanics (19.9'/0) as
compared to North Carolina (4.7%).
• Thy unemployme~rt rates in Asheboro and Randolph County are relatively low, and
all ;major industry sectors in Randolph Courrty experien~;d growth between 1990 and
2000.

U-g4oi US-64/NG49 & NG42 Randolph
_ _ Coaaly
Community Impact ~Jlssessment
Mm~h 14, 2003
Proiect Impacts
• TIP U-3401 would not cause a substantial change in land use near the project site.
• Very little vegetation would be removed as a resuh of the widened highways.
• Businesses located in the immediate vicinity of the project site may be negatively
affected by access limitations during the construction phase.
• Pedestrian and bicycle amenities are not included as part of TIP U-3401. The lack of
a pedestrian system in the demographic area is detrimental to the entire community.
• TIP U 3401 may cause the relocation of public utilities such as telephone poles and
fiber optic lines.
• At the time of this report, no relocations are expected as a result of the proposed
improvements. The NCDOT anticipates the acquisition of additional right-of--way at
the urtersection, but existing commercial structures should not be displaced.
Recommendations
• Planting of decorative trees or landscaping is recommended for inclusion in the TIP
proposal.
• Sidewalks, crosswalks and pedesdian signals are recommended for inclusion in final
design plans.
• Final design plans should minimize the impact to off-street parking available at the
Mazda/Honda Dealership in the southeast quadrant of the intersection.
II. STUDY AREA AND DEMOGRAPHIC AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area encompasses those communities and populations that are most directly
affected by the improvemems proposed under TIP U 3401. It is idernified as a thin green
circle in Figure 1, and represents the area within %rmile of the inersection at Dixie Drive
and NC 42.
The larger area, outlined in purple, includes Census Tract 302.01 (Block Groups 1-3),
Tract 302.02 (Block Group 1), Tract 303.02 (Block Group 1) and Tract 308.01 (Block
Group 1). These Block Groups make up the demographic area, and serve to illustrate the
demographic characteristics of the local population. The boundaries of the demographic
area are roughly formed by East Pritchard Street, Allred Street, Randolph Tabernacle
Road, Henley Country Road and US 64 East in the north, Iron Mountain Road, NC 42
and Old Humble Nfill Road in the east, Richland Creek, Vestal Creek, and Zoo Parkway
in the south, and Fayetteville Street in the west.
III. METHODOLOGY
The community profile is generally shaped by information gathered during a personal
visit to the site and interviews with City of Asheboro staff. Demographic data was
collected from the US Census Bweau. Income, poverty and housing figures, and
2

... _ -
.. __..,
...
.~.....~
-.. ... 1
_..
... .. ~ 1..1...,...
,, ~~. ..
..
_..
_.
;.
.._
.. ~...
.~.._
.. ~: -_
..__..,
_.
~ .~
...~
_ .~ , ,,.
__I
.. _.__... l _~- _. -
_ __, _ __
._.... , N
_~ ~ - --
......
.,.
{ ~ _...
.._„ -,
~.
.. ,- ~ ..
s ~ .;`. ~ ~ ~- .w.
~,
o
~~..
i. _.
~,~....._~:._.. ~ .. _...lrv L
..... _.. Vtp . _ -~_I~.. .
J _._'
III ,_ rYe "*~.~~.
.,..
1 .~.. ~ ~ ~, ,. 1
~ ~
,.. ~ .__.
rl
~....... i ~'~ .. .. .
,:
_ .... L...._.._., :.
_._ ...
S
_~.
~~ ~ r.~--- ~ \
~~ ~ ~ -.r'
i
-, ~ I ~.
C ~.__' __ O/y
y~~b'e 1. ~~'
_ i
~ i ~---~~t ._.
-~
~....~-.
~. _f_..~.:~~\...
-; - ~,.
1 ~
- ~ ....~.
f "1
i -._ ..r
4yo~ ~ -I fi7
SAAB ~
oz~o - __ C
~ m ~ ~ _ S.:s..: .,...~_ _...___... m
v
w< ~ ~ _ ~ C Z cD,_ C ~
m~ b rn --1 m O v O O ~ p
~ ~ cn ai n y p0D O D ~ 70 ~ m
m
~ o ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ N~
m s IT1 D fil
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -o
N ~ ~ m y 2
~ o n
N ° ~
D
~z
. _ _~
ay ~ ..
I ~ - - evllra gt ~:~ _
w N..__ C~,o- -- -
tit ._a .....~__~-__=^~-' ~" `
I ' _...c,._.. .
\ i..., ~
~ ~ ~
~`~j w --
0
00
~ /
' J
.~ '~~
-'l
,. _.
~c
~w
b~
~~~
ao
~y~
~~ ~
~y ~
0
~~
w ~ '~

A~
U-34oi ITS-64/NG49 & NG42 Randolph
Connty
Community ImpactAssessment
. ~ March 14, 2003
employmentlunemployment data were also obtained from the Census Bureau.
Information about public facilities and services was obtained from the field visit, the City
of Asheboro 2020 Land Development Plan and City of Asheboro staff. Information
regarding land use was primarily acquved from the 2020 Land Development Plan, the
field visit and. aerial photos from the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
In assessing project impacts, it was necessary to use data gathered for the community
profile as a basis for evaluating the direct. effects of the project on the community in
terms of social impacts, physical and visual impacts, land use, economic conditions,
mobility, access and safety, public services and displacements. In addition, any indirect
or cumulative impacts were addressed. ECONorthwest and Portland State Utiversity's
report entitled A Guidebook for Evaluating the I>~irect Land Use and Growth Impacts of
Highwaylmprovemerits, the Louis Berger Group's Guidance forAssessinglndirectahd
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina ([volumes I & II), and
Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation, published by the
US Department of Transportation, were helpful guides in assessing indvect and
cumulative impacts. In addition, the Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic
E„~`ects of Transportation Projects (National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 456) was consulted.
IV. CO _ __ PROFILE
Field Visit
The intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42 is in a congested and pedestrian-unfriendly
area. Commercial land uses dominate all four quadrants of the urtersection and the
majority of the study area ABP gas station is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection; Asheboro Mazda & Honda is located in the southeast quadrarn of the
intersection; Blockbuster Video and Papa John's are located in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection and the Crossroads Center is located in the northwest quadram. There are
curb and gutter facilities at all four corners of the intersection and on Dixie Drive, but not
on NC 42 past the intersection. In addition, no pedestrian crosswalks or sidewalks, and
no bicycle lanes exist at the intersection. Furthermore, these facilities are virtually non-
existent throughout the study area
Although NC 42 consists of four lanes at the intersection, it quickly. narrows to two lanes
north of Dixie Drive. The businesses north of the project site on NC 42 include a Ryan's
Steakhouse, Staples, and Best Western. on the east side of the road, and Specialty Shops
on 42, The Family Sports Center and the YMCA on the west side of the road. Randolph
Mall, looted behind Ryan's Steakhouse and Staples, can be accessed from this portion of
NC 42 as well.
There are residential areas on both sides of NC 42, approximately'/smile from the
intersection at Dixie Drive. Just north of the Best Western, on the east side of NC 42, are
3

,~
U-S4oi US-64/NG-49 & NG4z Randolph
County
C'omnnutiiylmpactAssess-nent .
March 14, 2003
some modest single-family homes. These homes are located outside of the Asheboro
City limits. The single-family neighborhoods on the west side of NC 42 appear to be
afrluem and are located within the City limits. In addition, there is a small apartment
complex on Coleridge Road just south of East Salisbury Street, and a subsidized housing
developmern (Coleridge Road Apartmems) on the north side of East Salisbury Street.
The only sidewalks in the study area are Located along Coleridge Road north of East
Salisbury Street and adjacent to the Coleridge Road Apartments. This is also the only
place in the study area where pedestrians were observed.
Gemara Bank, Wachovia Bank, Sagebrush Restaurant, Wendy's and Rex Audio~deo
are located on the north side of Dixie Drive east of the project site. There are two
em~ances to Randolph Mall along this stretch of Dixie Drive. The village Marketplace is
located on the south side of Dixie Drive east of the project site (see Figure 2). A Wal-
Mart used to anchor this strip center, but most of the. units are now vacam. The land
slopes steeply from Dixie Drive to the parking lot of the Village Marketplace.
~: ~ _.
_.--.~ ~ -
~~~
Figure i Vacant O~rtparrde at Village Marketplace
Like the northern portion of NC 42, the road narrows from four lanes at the intersection
to two lanes further south. NC 42 south of the project site is primarily middle-income
residential with some pastureland. However, it does not appear that there are any active
commercial farms along this part of NC 42.
An empty K--Mart building, an Amoco and an Aldi grocery store exist on the south side
of Dixie Drive west of the project site. Just past the Amoco on Dixie Drive is another
large strip cemer that houses, among other things, a Wal--Mart Supercenter. On the north
side of Dixie Drive is the Crossroads Cemer, which is anchored by a Food Lion and also
includes CiCi's Pizza, Washington Mutual Finance and Pizza Hut.
4

f
U-g4oi US-64/NC-49 & NG42 RandolpL
~~~,
- Community ImpadAssessntent
March J4, 2003
Geo~raphic/Political Description and Demographics
The intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42 is located in Asheboro, NC, while the larger
demographic area encompasses portions of both the City of Asheboro and the
unincorporated area of Randolph County. Asheboro and Randolph Coumy are
approximately located in the geographic center of North Carolina with the City of
Asheboro being located approximately 25 miles from the second largest Metropolitan
Statistical Area in North Carolina (Greensboro/High Point~nston-Salem). Randolph
County shares borders with six other North Carolina Coumies. Guilford County borders
Randolph County to the north, with Alamance and Chatham Counties to the east, Moore
and Montgomery Coumies to the south, and Davidson County to the west:
North Carolina and Randolph County experienced population growth rates just over 20'/0
between 1990 and 2000. These rates were higher than the average growth rate that
occurred in the United States (13.1%). The City of Asheboro had the highest rate of
growth (32:5%) of the four geographies. However, it appears that the demographic area
experienced slower population growth than the rest of the City and Coumy. This is most
likely due to the commercial nature of Dixie Drive, and the rural nature of the
unincorporated portion of the demographic area (see Table 1).
Table 1. Po aiatiop Growth, 1990-2000
el ation Gro wth
1990 2000 Dili •/.
' Atea 998 10 3 1098 11.8•/
' of Asiubom .16 362 21672 5 10 32.5°/
106 546 130 454 23 908 22.4°/
orth Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4°/
Source: US Census Bureau,1990 & 2000
Based on data from the 2000 Census, only 5.6% of the County's population and 11.8% of
the City's population was Black or African American. Ahhough the corresponding
percentage of Blacks or African Americans in the demographic area was less than the
State (21.4%), the percentage (17.6%) was higher than that of the City and County. 'The
opposite was true for Iispanics. The City of Asheboro and the demographic area had
particularly high percentages of Hispanics (19.9'/o and 12.0% respectively) as compared
to North Carolina (4.7'/0). On the whole, the populations within both the demographic
area and the City of Asheboro were more minority-oriented than the County and State
(see Table 2).

1
_ U-34oi US-641NG49 & NG42 Randolph
©~ C I county
amnrnuntty rnpa-d
March 14, 2003
Table 2. Population by Race, 2000
cAea olAs heboro Ran Corm North Carolina
'Y. '/. ddion ~/. alalian `/.
7145 68. 14 19 65. 11 86. 5647155 70
lack arAfrican
1826
l7.
2
11.
7 59
5.
1723 1
21.4°/
lndiaa a
Native
22
0
85
0.
543
0.4
95 33
1.29
60 0. 294 1. 0. 112 416 1.4°/
alive Hawaiian and
' c lslaadc
0
0.
2
0.09'
12
0.
3165
0.
' orI.atiao 1 1 12. 4,319 19. 8646 6. 378 %3 4.
Oti~a~ Race 11 0.1 21 0.1 57 0.09 9,015 0.1
wa cc More Races 81 0: 168 0. 880 0. 79,%S 1.0'/
atal 1 leas-ti zl sn loae°ti 13o as4 ioaa 049 13 looe°ti
souroe: us Census Bureau, 2000
The age distribution in Randolph County was very similar to that of North Carolina. In
contrast, the City of Asheboro and the demographic area had a greater percentage of
people over the age of 65 and a lower percentage between the ages of 45 and 64. The
demographic area also had the lowest percentage of people between the years of 20 and
44 (see Table 3).
Table 3. Po ulatioa A e, 2000
hic Area of As heboro North Carolina
•
19 and ~ 2852 27.4°/ 5783 26. 35 85 27. 2193 27
0~4 3 5 34.1°/ 878 38. 48 5 37.1 3078 043 38
5.64 2,152 20.7°/ 4,240 19. 30,692 23 1,808,862 22.
5 or more 1847 17. 3,271 15.1° 15,802 12.1 %9,048 12.
otal 1 100.0`/. 21672 leQO'/. 454 lOQe'/• 049 13 100.M
Swa+ce: US Census Bureau, 2000
Income. Poverty Status and Unemployment
The median household incomes for Randolph County and the demographic area were
higher than the average median household income for North Carolina in both 1989 and
1999. In 1989, the City of Asheboro had a median household income that was
approximately $2400-$29001ess than the demographic area and the County. Incomes
grew by more than 30'/o in aU fow geographies; however, the median household income
in the state grew more dramatically than the demographic area, Asheboro and Randolph
County (see Table 4).
6

_ U-3401 US~G~/NC-49 & NC-42 Randolph
County
Community ImpactAssessment
• March 14, 2003
Table 4. Median Household Income, 1989-1999
Househol d lncome 89-99
1989 1999 Dlffer+eaoe •/.
Area 526,669 536,584 59,915 37.2°/
of Asheboro 524,294 531676 S7 382 30.4°/
527,130 538,348 511,218 41.3°/
orth Carolina 526,647 539,184 512,537 47.0'/
Soutoe: US l.eosus Bureau, 1990 &2000
In 1989, the percentage of the population that lived below the poverty level in North
Carolina was 13.0'/0. The demographic area, the City of Asheboro, and Randolph Courny
had lower percentages than the State (12.4%, 12.8% and 8.3% respectively). It is
important to note that in 1990, Census Tract 303.02 Block Group 1 had a very high
percentage of persons below the poverty level (27.8%)t. This Block Group was included
in the demographic area. Between 1989 and 1999, poverty levels decreased in both the
demographic area and the State, while they increased in the City and County (see Table
5).
Table 5. Population below Poverty I.eve1,1989-1999
•.6 llktav 89A9
1989 1999 Differeaee '/.
Area 12.4% 11.7°/ -0.7% 5.69/
of Asheboro 12.8% 15.89/ 3.0'/0 23.4°/

orth Carolina 13.0% 12.3°/ -0.7•/ -5.4°/
Source: US Census Bureau,1990 & 2000
The US Census Bweau employs a set of income thresholds that vary by the size and
composition of a family to determine poverty status. These thresholds are not based on
geographic boundaries but are adjusted for inflation. The thresholds are also based on
income before taxes, and do not include any capital gains or non-cash beneSts such as
public assistance. In addition, those people living in military barracks or institutional
group homes'are not included in the poverty statistics.
While the unemployment rate for North Carolina increased from 4.8% to 5.3% between
1990 and 2000, the unemploymern rate remained fairly consistent in the demographic
area and Randolph County. The 1990 and 2000 unemployment rates in Randolph County
(3.3% and 3.1%~ the City of Asheboro (3.9'/o and 4.8%) and the demographic area (3.5%
and 3.4%) were lower than that of North Carolina (see Table 6).
~ City of Asheboro, City of.4sheboro 2020 Land Development Plan, 2000, p. 20.
s US Census Bureau, "C~t Population Reports, Series P60-210", US CeaSUS Bureau on-line; Available
fr+oa~ hip;//WrRrw.census.gov; Internet; accessed 16 October 2001.

U g4oi US-64fNG49 & NC-42 Randolph
+~• = County
fbtramniity Is~act
' ~ March 14, 2003
Table 6. Unemployment Rate, 1990-2000
II Rate Clan 90.00
1990 2000 DiRet+enoe °X°
' Ages 3.5% 3.4°/ -0.1°/ 2.9°/
' of Asheboro 3.9% 4.8°/ 0.9°/ 23.1°

Carolina 4.8% 5.3°/ 0.5% 10.4°/
Souioe: IJS Census Bnnrau, 1990 Bt 2000
It is also important to note that the boundaries of the City of Asheboro changed slightly
between 1990 and 2000. This is most likely a result of annexation. Therefore, the
comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data preserted in the tables is somewhat skewed.
~•~! ~ TIP project U-3401 is in an urban
area with predominantly
~ ~. r .. ~ ~ - ~ commercial uses. There are two
y ~~ ~~ apartment. complexes north of the
project area on Coleridge Road.
- A nop-profit organization or a
,e, . , - private company owns one of
- _ these apartment complexes, and
the units are subsidized. The low-
~ ~ - density, single-family homes are
. - ~ ~ - _ ~ concentrated to the west and south
J ~.. of the project site. As seen in
'-...: ~-,`~.:.- '.` ~ ~'' Table 7, both the demographic
Fignt+e 3. Residential Uses on NC 42 north of Dine Drive ~.~ and the City of Asheboro had
homeownership rates below the
State average of 69.4% in 2000. In addition, the homeownership rates for all three areas
(demographic area, Asheboro and Randolph Couiriy) decreased between 1990 and 2000,
suggesting a shift in the stability of local communities.
Table 7. Homeownership Rate,1990-2000
H Rabe 90.00
1990 Ditfet+eaoe 'X.
'c Ater 67.0% 64.5°/ 2.5% -3.'7°/
' of Asheboro 57.6% 54.0°/ 3.6% -6.2°/
1 77.0% 76.6°/ -0.4% -0.5°
otth Camliffi 68.0% 69.4°/ 1.4% 2.1°/
Souzre: US Caisus Bia+eau, 1990 dt 2000
8

Housing Characteristics

U-3t01 US~6~ING49 ~ NG42 Randolph
j' - County
Comnwnity ImpactAssess~nt '.
- March 14.2003
Business Activity and Em~lovment Centers
The commercial uses along Dixie Drive and NC 42 in eastern Asheboro generate most of
the employme~ near the project site. The largest employers in Asheboro are Klaussner
Furniture with nine plants and 3,200 employees, Energizer Battery with two plants and
1,120 employees and Randolph Hospital with 770 employees3. Table 8 shows that
although the manufacturing industry did not grow substantially between 1990. and 2000,
it still represems the largest employment share of the County. Over half of the 22,566
manufachuing jobs in Randolph County in 2000 were related to textiles or furniture and
fixtures. In addition, every one of the employment sectors experienced job growth
between 1990 and 2000.
Table 8. Emalovment by Sector, .Randolph County, 1990-2000
E 1 e~ Chan
Sator 1990 Difference
Canstrudion 1,644 2,772 1,128 68.6°
30 46 16 53.3°/
22,223 22,566 343 1.5°/
T 'on/ Public Utilities 976 1533 557 57.1°/
olesale Trade 1,203 2,528 1,325 110.1°/
Retail Trade 5,276 7 244 1,968 37.3°/
FIRE " 740 932 192 25.9`/
Services 3,937 7 1 3 94 83.7•/
Government 4,553 5,887 1,334 29.3°/
Total: 40,582 50,739 10,157 25.0•/.
Souroe: North C~oline Employment Seauity Cammissicm, 2002
Public Facilities and Services
Public Facilities
Asheboro Senior High School and South Asheboro Middle School are located just
outside of the study area and demographic area, but only a few miles west of the project
site on Dixie Drive. There does not appear to be any other schools located near the
project site, but other community facilities located in study area are The Family Sports
Center and the YMCA (both on NC 42), the County Farm Bureau and the Children's
Center daycare facility (both on E. Salisbury Street). The United Pentecostal Church (on
NC 42), The Rose of Sharon Baptist Church (on E. Salisbury Street), Covenam Christian
Church (on E. Salisbury Street) and East Side Baptist Church (on Dixie Drive) are all
located within the study area as well.
s City of Asheboro, City ofAsheboro 2020 Lard Development Plan, 2000, p. 23.
9

I~3401 US~6~INC-49 ds NC-42 Randolph
~~y
Comnaariiy ImpactAssessment
. March 14, 2003
Public Services
The City of Asheboro provides water and sewer service to citizens within.;. the City Limits,
which includes those residences and businesses near the imersection of Dixie Drive and
NC 42. The City of Asheboro Fue Department and the Police Department are located in
downtown Asheboro. There are no fixed-route transportation services in Asheboro or the
demographic area; however, a regional non-profit organization provides on-call services
and transportation to several select locations.
Land Use sad Development Plans
The 2020 Land D~e-aelopment Plan serves as Asheboro's guide in making decisions related to
land developme~ and growth. This document preserrts a vision for growth with policies that
will help the City of Asheboro meet its goals for development over the next two decades.
More specifically, the Plan introduces a "toolkit" of land development categories designed to
build the "Proposed Land Uses Map" for the City. This map proposes commercial uses for the
area immediately surrounding the alter section of Dixie Drive and NC 42.
Klaussner Furniture, the largest employer in Asheboro, owns a 100-acre site on US 64/NC 49
(Dixie Drive} approximately one mite east of NC 42. The City's planning staff believes that
this site may eventually be developed as an industrial or retail center; however, it appears that
development on the site maybe hindered by the presence of soils with severe limitations for
development (as shown on the "Physical Development Limitations" map in the 2020 Land
Development Plan). In addition, a small parcel that was previously owned by Randolph
Electric is for sale near Staples aad Randolph Mall. This parcel is currently zoned as general
commercial, and is proposed to remain commercial in the 2020 Land Deveelopment Plan.
Community Description
Asheboro is the seat of the Randolph County government, and is located in the rolling
hills just north of the Uwharrie National Forest and west of the Deep River. The
manufacturing industry (furniture and textiles) dominates the local economy. Asheboro
is also home to the North Carolina State Zoological Park, which is the largest pedestrian-
oriemed, natural-habitat zoo in the country.
The population surrounding the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42 has relatively high
incomes, low unemployment and low poverty levels. In addition, there is a substantially
high percentage of Hispanics and Latinos in the demographic area and the City of
Asheboro. This is most likely due to the opportunity for work and job growth in the area.
to

_ U-84oi US-64/NG49 & NG42 Randolph
~Y ~~~
Cam~mureity Impact
March !4, 2003
V. PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Social and Psychological
Impacts
The addition of turn lanes
and the widening of Dixie
Drive and NC.42 as
proposed under TIP U 3401
may create some social and
psychological impacts on
the local population.
Pedestrian/bicycle facilities
do not exist at this
imersection and are not
auremly proposed as part of
this TIP project. The gi~m 4. Intersection of Dine Drive and NC 42 in Asheboiv, NC
number of automobile lanes
and high traffic vohumes caurently make it intimidating for non-vehicular traffic. Tl~
addition of turn lanes would further widen the cross-section of this intersection, making it
even less pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. For this reason, the cohesion and interaction
of neighborhoods and businesses in the study area would be negatively impacted by the
proposed widening project, and this could resuh in minor social and psychological
effects.
TIP U-3401 is not expected to generate any redistribution of the local population. There
are no residential uses immediately adjacent to the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC
42, and no influx or loss of reside~ial population is anticipated. Businesses in the study
area may experience temporary nuisances (such as noise and limited access) during the
construction period, but the quality of life should not be impacted in the long term.
Physical and Visual Impacts
The widening of Dixie Drive and NC 42 and the addition of turning lanes as proposed
under TIP U-3401 should not create substantial physical intrusions. Construction
activities may generate more noise, vibration and odor, but in the long-term, the effects
from this project will be minimal.
At this stage of the design process, it appears that the proposed intersection
improvements should not dramatically impact the appearance of the intersection.
Vegetation and landscaping is scarce at the project site, and the widening of the highways
should not disrupt the existing vegetation. The 2020 Lamd Developmern Plan encourages
11

_ LH3~101 US-6~/NC~9 6L NC~2 Randolph
Commrarity ImpactAssessment
• March 14, 2003
the playing of trees and planted medians near commercial uses4. While the current
NCDOT design plans do not include medians, it is recommended that some decorative
trees or vegetation be included alongside the highways in order to make the imersection
more aesthetically pleasing.
Land Use Patterns and Compatibility with Local Plans
The 2020 Land L1e-+ielopmertt Plan promotes a new vision of growth for the City of
Asheboro based on four key principles. One of these principles relates to the "move from
strip development toward commercial centers." The "strip developmem" that amently
exists at the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42 is characteristic of other commercial
areas in Asheboro. These developmerns are typicallyautomobile-oriented, with
numerous aub arts, little connection between uses, visual clutter and poorly functioning
thomer~lafares. The proposed ahennative to "strip developmem" is the "commercial
enter;'" which tends to be more pedestrian friendly, has fewer aub cuts, a mixture of
uses th~~==~~ ~~.~e interconnected, and provides a human scales. The proposed TIP project is
not cor~w=~ able with the aim of this principle. The widening of the intersection at Dixie
Drive an~~ ~z~C 42 will not make the surrounding areas more pedestrian-friendly, nor will.
it create a mixture of uses or a smaller sense of scale.
The other key principles listed in the 2020 Land L)evelopmem Plan are:
• Moving from "Unconnected Roads" to a "Road Network"
• Moving from "Separation of Uses" to ")mixed-Use Developme~"
• Moving from "Conventional Development" to "Cluster Development"
TIP U-3401 is compatible with several of the Transportation System Goals that are listed
in the 2020 Land Development Plan. These goals relate to the provision of a safe and
efficiem transportation system that promotes economic development and livability, and at
the same time reduces traffic congestion and improves aaressibility and mobility for
people and goods6. The proposal to add turn lanes at the intersection of Dixie Drive and
NC 42 should improve capacity, level of servie and automobile safety at this congested
intersectioq thus helping to meet the goals set forth in the City's Transportation plan.
Economic Imuacts
In the short term, businesses in the immediate project area will experience a temporary
reduction in aayess and visibility due to construction activities. Those businesses at the
four corners of the intersection will be most affected. In partiailar, aistomers will have a
difficult time accessing the BP gas station, the Mazda & Honda dealership, the
Blockbuster and the Crossroads Center during the constnic~ion period. Customers
'~ Ciiy of Ashebo% City oJAslnboro 2020 Land Development Plan, 2000, p. 84.
s lbid, p. 91.
e City of Asheboro, City ofAs~ieboro 2020 Land Development Plan, 2000, p. ?7.

12

+~
I~3401 US~G~/NC~9 & NC-42 Randolph
Coanty
Community ImpactAssessment
March 14, 2003
visiting other businesses in the area may also experience some delays, and frustration
caused by these delays could negatively impact business.
The proposed improvements may provide some additional construction-related jobs in the
short term, but the project will not necessarily encourage businesses to move into. or out
of the study area. While the additional turn-lanes and wider roads should relieve
congestion and improve safety at the intersectioq these improvements will not make the
inrtersection more attractive to businesses.
Mobility and Access
Consistency with Thoroughfare Plans
The City of Asheboro 2020 Land Development Plan and 1986 Thoroughfare Plan
Deficiency Anarlysis Map refer to both Dixie Drive and NC 42 as being near or over
capacity by 2025, and they establish the project intersection as needing widening
improvements. The proposed widening project is consisteirt with these transportation
system thoroughfare plans, as TIP U-3401 should improve capacity, level of service, and
automobile safety at this intersection.
Change in Commuting Patterns
Because the proposed improvements are confined to the imersection of Dixie Drive and
NC 42, few changes in area wide commuting are expected. Some shifting of traffic at
individual commercial property driveways is anticipated, but system-wide changes are
not expected. System-wide changes in commuting patterns tend to occur when large-
scale widening projects are made for the length of a particular roadway, or if.a facility is
constructed at a new location. This TIP improvement does not fit either criterion.
However, there are potemial long range plans to improve the US 64 corridor from
Raleigh to Charlotte, to construct a "Southern Loop" or US 64 Bypass around Asheboro,
and to complete a minor thoroughfare from Exewtive Way west of the project site to NC
42 north. of the project site. The cumulative effects of such projects would impact
system-wide commuting patterns.
Neighborhood Access
Existing neighborhoods and the associated local and collector street facilities have access
to both NC 42 and Dixie Drive, but residential uses are situated away from the immediate
vicinity of the proposed improvements. The turning lane improvements on both roads are
expected to have limited impact on the existing access points for residential
neighborhoods in the study area.
Commercial Access
Lengthy vehicular queues often block commercial driveway entrances/exits at the
irnersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42. Intersection improvements that add.capacity to
critical lanes will likely decrease delays and excessive queuing thus, improving vehicular
access to businesses adjacent to the intersection. The improvements are predicted to
13

., •~
,~ i~3401 US-69~/NG49 ~ NC-42 Ramdolph
;/-'~ - County
Comnaaiiiy ImpactAssessntdtt
March 14.2003
help overall intersection operations in the future, but the short-term construction activities
will make accessing those businesses near. the irrtersection more difficuh.
Effects on Pariung Availabfiity
The proposed improvements will not impact on-street parking availability, as this type of
parking is not currently permitted, and the proposed improvemenrts are not designed to
accommodate this feature. Depending on the final design plans, some parking areas may
be disturbed by the improvements. Particular concern has been expressed about the lack
of available parking along NC 42 near the Mazda/Honda Dealership. Final design plans
should minimize the impact to off-street parking available at the dealership after the
completion of TIP U-3401.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
No pedestrian or bicycle facilities currently exist at the intersection of Dixie Drive and
NC, and T1P U 3401 does not include provisions for bicycle or pedestrian facility
improvements since the project is geared toward improving traffic flow at this
intersection. Furthermore, this project increases the overall width of the intersection by
adding lanes and creating an even more unfavorable condition for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Public Transportation
Currently, there is no fixed-route public transportation service in the TIP study area.
According to the Governmental Services website'the Randolph Coordinated Agency
Transportation System provides pre-scheduled t<ansportation service for residents of
Randolph County. This System operates from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Also, Ridesharing Services and Vanpooling of the Piedmont (RSVP) options are
available in this area. RSVP is a coordinated commuter transporta#ion service for the
Piedmont triad area. It is predicted the proposed project will have minimal impacts to
public transportation services.
Transportation Safetv Impacts
The proposed improvements will likely provide safety benefits for both study area drivers
and users of the facility from the entire region. The main safety concern in this
irnersection is the left-turn lane from Dixie Drive onto NC 42. Traffic volumes are too
high for the single turn lane, and the addition of another lane should relieve some
congestion in this area and heighten capacity and vehicular safety.
The proposed project will not have a beneficial safety impact on non-motorized
transportation. TIP U 3401 includes no provision for sidewalks along any part of the
new facility, and no additional shoulder or pavement width is proposed to be added for
bicycles. There is currently little pedestrian or bicycle activity along this corridor, but the
close proximity of residential neighborhoods and retail uses would merit such provisions.
City of Asheboro, Gty ofAsheboro 2020 Lmrd De-+elopment Plan, 2000, p. 21.
14

r
L~3401 US~6~/NC-49 & NC-42 Randolph
Connty
C~ ImpactAssessmuct
March 14, 2003
It is recommended that sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads be included in
design plans.
Provisions of Public Services
TIP U-3401 should not help nor hinder the function of or service to public facilities in the
study area. Because the proposed improvements will not have an impact on population,
the impact on public facilities such as schools, recreational facilities and churches will be
negligible.
There may be substantial impacts to public utilities. The telephone poles near Asheboro
Mazda and Honda will most likely be relocated to allow for the widening of NC 42 and
Dixie Drive. There are also fiber optic lines (both above and below ground) on the north
side of Dixie Drive. It will be necessary to avoid these lines or relocate them during
construction of the proposed improvements.
In addition, the City ~of Asheboro recently installed clay pipes along Dixie Drive in order
to provide water and sewer service to residences and businesses in the area. City staff
has expressed concern over the increased costs associated with conshucting roads over
existing clay pipe, but they do not expect impacts to water and sewer services as a resuh
of the proposed improvemems.
Displacements
It is the policy of the NCDOT to provide assistance and counseling to those affected by
transportation improvements as required under the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation offers programs that address relocation assistance,
moving payments and replacement housing payments or rent subsidies for residents and
businesses that are impacted by transportation improvements.
At this time, no
displacements or relocations m`=
of residences or businesses ~ 1' ~~:
are expected as a resuh of ~-~_
TIP U-3401; however, the _ ..,,~,` _ _
NCDOT anticipates the ~ " " r
need to acquire some ' ~~ ~'
~-
additional right-of--way at ;.~`i-. '- 64 ~r !~ .: ~,
the intersection, but it ir:r•~ _-.--- ~"
should not be so much as to ~ ~ ~ _ ~"~'~-- ,
displace any existing ~ ~.~~:::: -~.~~ - .
commercial structures. The `
field study and minutes
from the affected property "
Figure 5. Asheboro Mazda & Honda frnm NC 42
15

.. ~,
u3R01 US~64/NC-49 & NG42 Randolph
~~Y
' Commrarity ImpactAssessmmt
- March 14, 2003
owners' meeting (held on February 26, 2002) revealed that because there is limited space
between the existing roads and the dealership parking lot, Asheboro Mazda & Honda
dealership may suffer the greatest impacts from widening Dixie Drive. and NC 42.
Indirect and Cumnlative Impacts
Indirect impacts are those impacts that may come about because of an event such as the
proposed transportation improvements at the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42.
Indirect impacts tend to occur over a longer period of time and can take place away from
the immediate project area. Closely related is the concept of cumulative impacts, which
are the collective effects of events such as this project.
A checklist of existing conditions often helps to determine the magnitude of potential
indirect and cumulative impacts that could occur as a result of a transportation
improvement. Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina recommends using the following factors to
determine if further indirect and cumulative analysis is warranted:
Conflict with local plan
This project is not in conflict with the City of Asheborn 2020 Lard Diev~elopmem Pkm
and the 1986 Thoroughfare Plan.
Explicit economic development purpose
The purpose of this project is to increase capacity, level of service and safety. The
project is not expected to serve specifically as an economic development tool, and
should not generate any substantial development momentum.
Planned to serve specific developmenrt
TIP U-3401 will not be constructed to meet the needs of any specific planned
development at the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42.
Likely to stimulate land development having_complementary functions
• Distance to major urban area or regional center
• Traffic volume on intersecting roadways
• Presence of frontage road
• Availability of water and sewer
The project site is located in an urban corridor in the City of Asheboro, and is
approximately 25 miles from the second largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in
North Carolina. Traffic volumes are high, particularly on Dixie Drive, and water and
sewer are available in the study area On the other hand, no frontage roads exist along
either Dixie Drive or NC 42, and the current levels of congestion and lack of
undeveloped land may make the intersection unattractive to potential tenants.
16

.d J /~..
_ L]-34Q1 US-64/NC~9 ai NC-42 Randolph
~Y
Community ImpactAssessnunt
March 14, 2003
Likely to influence intrare~ional land development location decisions
Typically, if the conditions for developme~ are favorable, and a community is
undergoing urbanization, transportation improvements influence where developmerrt
will occur. Because TIP U-3401 includes only intersection improvements,
intraregional land development decisions are not expected to be impacted.
Notable feature presezrt in impact area
Notable features may relate to the natural environment, historic and cultural
properties, wildlife habitat, etc. Based on the site visit and local plans, it does not
appear that there are any historic or cailtural properties in the immediate vicinity of
the project site. According to NCDOT documentation, Schweinitz's sunflower, an
endangered species, is known to be in this part of the State, but it has not been
confirmed that this sunflower exists at this project site.
Theproject-will increase the pavement width but is not anticipated to cause a change in
the existing land uses, char traffic circulation patterns or provide new access to adjacent
parcels or undeveloped areas. Very little, if any, developmem should be induced by the
proposed TIP U 3401. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in substantial
indirect and cumulative effects on the existing resources, including downstream water
9~Y- .
To further support the assumption that indirect and cumulative impacts are unlikely to
occur as a resuh of TIP U-3401, there is another set of factors included in A Guidebook
for Evaluating the Indirect Lcrrrd Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements,
written for the Oregon DOT. Analysis of these factors helps to determine the magnitude
of indirect and cumulative impacts. The following table offers a type of rating analysis
based on those factors:
Table 9. Potential For Lead Uee Chance, 2000-2020

~ ~+. Pr..t.~e Ptopeey Foeo~lei Iauseppbr~a weoeti8eeesr Mt+~tti4r
wax.rew~s a~.a va1NS Gnwtr U.an~...a w.m.a~ a..ie.ee PaereP~
TiaMel toffee

gneafertlba
l0 nem.
Rnporsd
dangen6x
e+oiriab-

Cnralertliart
30%incrrose Geratertlavn
3liannerd
PaP~~+
Lastlrmel0yr
~J'~
arnlla8k load

voilobk now

rar~st Nograetlr
seanr~anent
P~~S:~

X X
• x x x

• x x x

Wei Tioerl lane
tarin~s ka
thmi2nane.

None

Nodeomge
Las tJna !ff
maaralgrowth Gisatsr tAmt ~
yrs~ t~
aeioilabkland Nd avafkbk,
and~dt to
pew+de

iYeak~earlatt pdoq oeplawr,
+~
a~arr,+anent
In terms of positive indicators, the only factors that rank high for potential land use
change are the water/sewer availability and lack of growth management policy. The
17

~ Y..
L>•3401 iTS~6~INCr49 ds NG42 Rand~o~lp~h
~'` Comnaaaty Impact Assessmnrt
March 14, 2003
infrastructure is in place for some development; however, all ref the other indicators have
a low to medium ranking with respect to the magnitude of potential land use change.
Because the proposed project is an intersection improvement and will serve to improve
traffic flow through the intersection, it will not provide new access to land and does not
appear to be of sufficient magnitude to change the nature of the land use in the area.
Travel timesavings are not expected to increase substantially, frontage roads are not
included in the proposal, property values will remain fairly stable, and the demographic
area is experiencing less growth than the City of Asheboro, Randolph County and North
Carolina. Additionally, there is a minimal amount of available land immediately adjacent
to the irnersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42, but there are large tracts of vacant land on
US 64 east of the project site. The regional market is about average, and the 202D Land
Devrelopment Plan encourages commercial growth in the study area.
In an effort to counteract the lack of investment and the decline of neighborhoods and
commercial areas in some economically depressed center cities, the North Carolina
Department of Commerce has created State Development Zones in which economic
incentives are used to stimulate investment and jobs in areas with a population over 1,000
and an average poverty rate of over 20%. One such area is Census Tract 303.02, Block
Group 1(part of the demographic area). Companies that invest more than $150 million
in real property, equipment or central administrative offices within a State Developmem
Zone would be eligible for certain tax credits. These tax credits may serve to promote
growth in the northern portion of the demographic area, and east of the project site on US
64/NC 49.
It is unlikely this area wiU experience any measurable amount of development as a resuh
of the proposed TIP project. Therefore, it is not necessary to forecast induced
development in the demographic area.
Environmental Justice Impacts
Federal programs, under the statutes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, have
requiremems to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, disability, and religion. Furthermore, Facecutive Order 12898
"directs that programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on minority and low income
populations"g.
The northwestern portion of the demographic area has historically had a predominantly
minority population and high poverty levels. This particular area is located about a mile
north of the Dixie Drive and NC 42 intersection. While the intersection improvements
s US Department of Agricailture, "Farmland Protection Policy Act", US Department of Agriailture on-line;
Available from hupJ/www.i~'o.nsda.gov/mtis/fpcpJfppa•htm; Interne; aid 2 October 2001.
18

.~
~a
_ i~3401 US-6~/NC-49 & NC-42 Randolph
~~' - County
Community ImpactAssessment
March 14, 2003
proposed under TIP U 3401 are not expected to cause substantial adverse or
disproportionate impacts on minority and low income groups, the lack of a pedestrian
system in the area is detrimental to the entire community. The TIP proposal does not
ctnrently address the need for a continuous pedestrian/bike network; however, sidewalks,
crosswalks and pedestrian signals are recommended for inclusion in final design plans.
Farmland Impacts ,
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to minimize the degree to which
federally sponsored programs contribute to the "unnecessary and irreversible conversion
of farmland to non-agricultural uses," and ensure that these programs are consistent with
state, local and private programs to protect farniland9.
The study area is almost completely urbanized and farming uses were not apparetrt during
the site visit; however, the proposed improvements should not negatively impact any
current commercial agricultural operations.
Scenic Rivers
The United States government regulates certain selected rivers and their immediate
environmerns because they possess "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values". Legislation
dictates that these rivers "shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and
their immediate environmems shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations"10. This TIP project will not encroach on any wild and scenic
rivers as designated by the United States government.
Water Sunoh-/Watersheds
Both of Asheboro's water supply reservoirs are located in the northwestern section of the
City. The watershed areas for the two reservoirs are several miles away from the TIP
project site and are not located v~rithin the boundaries of the demographic area or study
area; therefore, the watershed regulations imposed by the City of Asheboro will not limit
development near the intersection of Dixie Drive and NC 42. Any highway
improvemems at the intersection are not expected to impact either water supply reservoir.
Vestal Creek, a tributary of Richland Creek, flows south from a location approximately
~/rmile west of the project site at Dixie Drive and NC 42. The City of Asheboro allows
only 50% of a FEMA 100-year flood zone area (such as Vestal Creek) to be developed.
9 US Department of Agriculture, "Farmland Protection Policy Act", US Depa<tmem of Agiiailhme on-line:
Available fram httpJ/www.i~o.usda.gov/rocs/fpcp/fppa.htm; Imernet, accessed 2 October 2001.
10 National Park Service, "Wild and Soemc River's Act", National Park Service on-line; Available from
httpJ/www.npc.gov/rivers/wsract.hm~l; Internet; accessed 2 October 2001.
19

.~,
L~3401 US-I~NC~9 dL NG42 Randolph
~~
Comnaaaiy ImpactAssessmait
Mm~h 14.2003
The 303 D list is a product of the Clean ~Jater Act, which requires states to idemify those
waters that do not meet water quality standards or which have impaired uses. If control
strategies for point and nonpoim source pollution exist for impaired waters, they -may be
excluded from the 303 D list. There are no 303 D streams located within the
demographic area.
The study area is also part of the Cape Fear River Basin, a Class IV NSW watershed.
This class of watershed is typically located in moderately to highly developed areas. This
watershed should not be substarnially impacted by TIP U-3401 or the limited
development that occurs because of this project.
zo

r~ u
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asheboro/Randolph Chamber of Commerce. Available from
httpJ/chamber.asheboro.com: Internet; accessed 18 June 2002.
City of Asheboro. "2020 Land Development Plan: Final Draft " June 2000.
ECONorthwest and Portland State University for Oregon Department of Transportation
and Federal Highway Administration. SPR Project 327. "A Guidebook for
Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements." Mazch 2001.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Reseazch Boazd.
National Research Council. "Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic
Effects of Transportation Projects (NCHRP Report 456}." 2001.
National Pazk Service. "Wild and Scenic River's Act " Available from
http:/lwww.nps.~ov/rivers/wsract.html. Internet; accessed 2 October 2001.
Randolph County: North Carolina's Industrial Center on-line. Available from
ht~:uwww.rcedc.com. Internet; accessed 15 August 2002.
Randolph County on-line. Available-from http://www.co.randolph.nc.us. Internet; accessed
18 June 2002.
The Louis Berger Group for State of North Cazolina Department of Transportation.
Project Number 81777722. "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume I: Guidance Policy
Report." November 2001.
The Louis Berger Group for State of North Cazolina Department of Transportation.
Project Number 81777722. "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Cazolina, Volume II: Practitioner's
Handbook." November 2001.
United States Census Bureau. Available from http://www.census.~ov. Internet; accessed
June 2002 and February 2003.
United States Department of Agriculture. "Farmland Protection Policy Act " Available
from httpJ/www.info.usda.gov/nres/fpcp/fppa.htm: Internet; accessed 2 October 2001.
United States Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water
Quality. "Chapter 9 -Cape Feaz River Subbasin 03-06-09." Available from
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Capefeaz/capefearindex.htm. Internet;
accessed 26 June 2002.

,^
`~ U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ~ a 0~~ 1 ~ Cllr '"`;~~i'
WILMINGTON DISTRICT r~~DSA as ORMw q~~~Y I ~
'irFR
Action ID: 200101259 TIP No: U-3401 State Project No: 8.1572101 County: Randolph ~~4ryGh
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699' 1548
Telephone Number: [phone], extension 307
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.): 17 linear feet of 7-foot by 7-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert and 201inear feet of Class Irip-rap in an unnamed tributary to Vestal Creek at
centerline station 30+25-Y-RT on NC 42 in Randolph County, North Carolina.
Description of Activity: To replace the existing 5-foot by 5-foot box culvert, 72-inch CMP and 60-inch RCP with a
7-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert and extend the culvert 17 additional feet. Approximately 201inear
feet of class I rip-rap is to be placed at the downstream end of the culvert for scour protection. Temporary diversion
will be accomplished by the use of a 24-inch pipe placed inside the existing structure and phased construction. Two
interior impervious dikes will be used as pipe supports and as sediment reduction baffles. Construction phasing shall
be in accordance with the attached construction sequence plan dated 2 August 2005.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344)
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899)
Authorization: 23&33 Nationwide Permit Number
Regional General Permit Number
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide (NWP) Permit provided it is accomplished in
strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity is subject to Section 404 (if
Section 404 block above is checked), before beguming work you must also receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, telephone [phone]
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the conditions of
the RGP or NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or
appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain
any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and
local agencies before beginning work.
This verification will remain valid until 18 March 2007 unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or
revoked. If, prior to 18 March 2007 the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification
will remain valid until 18 March 2007, provided it complies with all modifications. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the
terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is

. ~e+5on ID: 200101259 TIP No: U-3401 State Project No: 8.1572101 County: Randolph
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the RGP or NWP, please contact the
Corps Regulatory Official specified below.
Date 5 October 2005 ~ . ~~`~~
Corps Regulatory Official Richard K. S encer Telephone No. (910 251-4172
CF: Art King, NCDOT Div 8 /
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
2

i
+L m } I
CVa ~ , I
O~ O W
LLiON -
II
W
z
z
J U
a
_.. o
z N d O
°- ~tA ~
~+ ~ ° - in
W ~ ~ O I .
>Z ~ o
o .. a• o ~-
~ OOZ U •
m
~ 00 O~ ~ (J
+ I dS
zu 000 ~
OO
p ~ 3p~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~, ~ ~ ~
o~ ~~ o I - r
r
+ ~ ~ wear-Z , I o
F-1n00N~ '~ p
W ems Q
~ ~~ 1 N
L~J `~'e. O n
-~ ` E
n ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ p ~'~ 8iW
_ x a~ ,
_ _~ ~ 1S O
s
-~
~ -
~~ i dig I ~ o °= CHs
/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.
I//~\I ~.(Z I ~ / ~ R 1M~d ~3C
LJ~ }wJ N
Z O U / ~ n ` ~ ' ~ -~-
~ O / 1 p \\ M'(ia~k3
= O ~ IH `~, N O W _______
n: Q b / Qd ~ '\~ OOk
S N. \~ ~1 p
F to /Z I ~ ~\\ ~ O 00 V
N ~ ~ /O ~ \\~ /~ OOH v' 0
'/ v ~~ P + r
/ I ~ I \ \ N
~ N m N as ~' ` ~ ~\ ~
1 / ONX ~ ~S~\\ ~
•: / \
\
z 2 ~ ..3 ~ ~~\\\
O x ,09 !~~ ~o\\~,
w - a ~y
U 0 ~ O
oo U
oow
~ 0 J
~zQ ,..
i• Q U
~~~

r-~
,~~
`
O
`
`
~
\
~~~~+
/~ \ ~. A

~-9T
~ ~
``\~~/G x
~J 1 `
o
F` +
\
~ ~
\
`; ~
~
`
~~
~~ ~
m ~ i
`
~ ` `~ ~
a ~ m
:o cn n m ~
n ~ ~
i~ ,
~~
is
ire
~.
-~na
ppo +~
m~0~
Z
O~nN
n
(/~ ~J C
C7 D i
D z ~
f ~ -p
~ ~ O
o~~-
~~ _
o n
O
z
-~
I lO
F.
D
~,
roE~ ( n
~_ \J
as~~ m
~~~~ I ~

J
U-3401
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1 @ 7' x 7' RCB.C-UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO VESTAL CREEK
3 0+24.5 -Y-
~ 493 5. I . l RANDOLPH
PHASE I
1. Construct sediment control devices.
2. Construct the on-site detour and temporary ditch on left side of Y-.
3. Install a temporary stilling basin (27 cubic yards min.) on right side of -Y-.
4. Once traffic has been shifted to the on-site detour, install an 24" min. CS temporary
diversion pipe with impervious dikes to carry flow from upstream of work area to an
area beyond construction area. _ _
5. Construct required temporary shoring.
6. Remove 72" CMP and 40' +~" of existing 5'x5' ~ box culvert to allow for construction
of the proposed southern portion of the culvert, while pumping effluent into stilling
basin.
7. While traffic is maintained on the newly constructed on-site detour, construct as
much of the proposed southern (downstream) portion of the culvert as possible.
8. Remove Phase I 24" temporary diversion pipe and impervious dikes.
~~~o~,~~
U6 2on5
OFFICE OF NATUF;;'~~ E~~d!"^t"'ANT
Rev. 08/02/05
Page 1 of 2

PHASE II
9. Construct proposed roadway right of -Y- over newly constructed culvert with
required temporary shoring.
l0.Once traffic has been shifted to the newly constructed roadway, install 24" min. CS
temporary diversion pipes with wye and impel vious dikes to carry flow from the
existing private system and from the channel upstream of the work area to an area
beyond the construction area. Impervious dikes will include two interior impervious
dikes to serve as pipe support and as sediment reduction baffles.
11. Remove temporary pavement, as needed, from the no-longer used on-site detour, to
constrict the proposed ditch on the left side of Y-. Install 18" min. CS temporary
diversion pipe with elbow and impervious dike, to carry flow from ditch to upstream
of the temporary diversion pipe. Construct impervious dike for the existing private
system.
12. Remove remaining 5'x5' box culvert, 60" conc. pipe, 2 manholes, 54" conc., OTCB,
and 12'+~" of 60" conc. from existing private system while pumping effluent into
stilling basin.
I3. Construct the remaining northern (upstream) portion of the culvert.
14. Remove the temp. pipe that is carrying flow from the upstream channel and construct
the proposed JB and 72" RCP open-end pipe. After proposed JB is complete,
construct 2GI at STA. 29+90 -Y- and tie to proposed JB at culvert inlet. Remove
temporary diversion pipe from ditch. Collar and extend 60" conc. from private
system to tie to proposed JB.
15. Upon permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas, remove all temporary sediment
control devices including temporary ditches, pipes and stilling basins.
Rev. 08!02/05
Page 2 of 2

.f

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 4, 2001
' DEC ~ 7 200
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001 requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed intersection improvements, intersection of Routes 64-NC49 and NC 42, at
Asheboro, Randolph County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3401). This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for
this project.
The-North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to add additional lanes at
the US 64-NC 49, NC 42 intersection. The following recommendations are provided to assist
you in your planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility comdors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.

,.
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Randolph County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for these federally-listed species be compared with the
available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be conducted. Environmental
documentation should include survey methodologies and results.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
``02-- / I
d~ Dr. Garlan~B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) ~
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfeld)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/03/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3401.tip

O~O~ W AT ~RpG
~ _ ` ~ -!
o ~
MEMORANDUM
May 31, 2001
TO: Stephanie J. Ledbetter, Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
THROUGH: John R. Dorney, NC Division of Water Qualit~
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinato `~j-(C~
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the Intersection of US 64/NC 49 and NC 42, Randolph
County, F.A. Project No. NHF-64(58), State Project No. 8.1572101, TIP Project U-
3401.
In reply to your correspondence dated June 19, 2001 (received June 25, 2001) in which you requested
comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct
impacts to perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. However, in the event that
the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send notification
of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any ,
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715. ~ -
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Central Files
le£opy ~ -:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

~° .N=-,
µ~~~
'' _ s
~ ...:~ ~~
'e~,~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DFPART7VIENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN:
August 8, 2005
Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
0~`/^'~
V / ~v n,,
qU v~l/
y "'NO~~HR. '0
SA/yo ~~~U~/~yvJ
N q~R
eq~~~
LYNDO TIPPETT~y
SECRETARY
Subject: Supplementary Information for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33
Application. Randolph County, Intersection Improvements to US 64/NC
49 and NC 42 in Asheboro, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project No. NHF
64(58), State Project No. 8.1572101, Division 8, WBS Element 34935.1.1,
TIP Project No. U-3401.
Reference: May 24, 2005 Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33.
Dear Sir:
Please find the enclosed revised copies of the construction sequences and accompanied
drawings. The following amendments are included:
1. Increasing diversion pipe size from 18" to 24" in case of a major storm event. Using
our design procedures with an urban discharge, the minimum required pipe size is
15". Due to the concerns, we feel that a 24" pipe would be appropriate. This has
almost twice the cross-sectional area of an 18" (see drawings).
2. Impervious dikes will include two interior impervious dikes to serve as pipe support
and as sediment reduction baffles (see drawings).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMEN7OFTRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPP~NT AND ENVIRONh£NTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH, NC 27604

Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Gregory at cl~regory(u~dot.state.nc.us
or [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Stephanie Caudill, P.E., PDEA Project Planning
U-3401 Supplementary Info 2
Permit Application August 2005

U-3401
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1 @ 7' x T RCBC-UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO VESTAL CREEK
3 0+24.5 -Y-
34935.1.1 RANDOLPI?
PHASE I
1. Construct sediment control devices.
2. Construct the on-site detour and temporary ditch on left side of -Y-.
3. Install a temporary stilling basin (27 cubic yards min.) on right side of -Y-.
4. Once traffic has been shifted to the on-site detour, install an 24" min. CS temporary
diversion pipe with impervious dikes to carry flow from upstream of work area to an
area beyond construction area.
5. Construct required temporary shoring.
6. Remove 72" CMP and 40' +~- of existing 5'x5' box culvert to allow for construction
of the proposed southern portion of the culvert, while pumping effluent into stilling
basin.
7. While traffic is maintained on the newly constructed on-site detour, construct as
much of the proposed southern (downstream) portion of the culvert as possible.
8. Remove Phase I 24" temporary diversion pipe and impervious dikes.

OFFICE OF NAiUf','~~ ~i~;""~''"'ANT
Rev. 08/02/05
Page 1 of 2

PHASE II
9. Construct proposed roadway right of -Y- over newly constructed culvert with
required temporary shoring.
l0. Once traffic has been shifted to the newly constructed roadway, instal124" min. CS
temporary diversion pipes witri wye and impervious dikes to carry flow from the
existing private system and from the channel upstream of the work area to an area
beyond the construction area. Impervious dikes will include two interior impervious
dikes to serve as pipe support and as sediment reduction baffles.
11. Remove temporary pavement, as needed, from the no-longer used on-site detour, to
construct the proposed ditch on the left side of -Y-. Install 18" min. CS temporary
diversion pipe with elbow and impervious dike, to carry flow from ditch to upstream
of the temporazy diversion pipe. Construct impervious dike for the existing private
system.
12. Remove remaining 5'x5' box culvert, 60" conc. pipe, 2 manholes, 54" conc., OTCB,
and 12'+~~ of 60" conc. from existing private system while pumping effluent into
stilling basin.
13. Construct the remaining northern (upstream) portion of the culvert.
14. Remove the temp. pipe that is carrying flow from the upstream channel and construct
the proposed JB and 72" RCP open-end pipe. After proposed JB is complete,
construct 2GI at STA. 29+90 -Y- and tie to proposed JB at culvert inlet. Remove
temporary diversion pipe from ditch. Collar and extend 60" conc. from private
system to tie to proposed JB.
15. Upon permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas, remove all temporary sediment
control devices including temporary ditches, pipes and stilling basins.
Rev. 08/02/05
Page 2 of 2

Cl~ ~7 C
n D I
D z ~
r-- ~ -p
m Q ~
00 ~ -
- ~
II =
m ~
=` O n
,~
`~ y C
~ A / ~ ~
~```,~'~G X I/ / ~ ~
~ ` `~ + X ~ /
~ • ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~NC
D .p ~ Tj I ~
'~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~y ~ / ~
m O ~.i W j/ -~
n
~ s
~ ~ ~~ ` ~/
X o0 ~' ~'~ pD ° D H
N
~i~ ~ -
`` " /
-_-_ _ ~ / fV / ~ O 2
~~ ~ ~ C.r) ~I + Q
E ~ 'U,' '-~ ~ O ' O ~
._~ X. Riw , , '~ ' ~ n O Z
_~ ` u C3
ti
1E~ p~MT~ ~ / ~ r . j
~ ` O ~
T p SNE ~ ~ o I
B pRp ` ~ ' Eip F,
~-
~~ ~ cn \-
- -..~_ ° C q2 x
___ to \\
M~~ o ~ ~
r
F ` ~ 3 ~ m ~.~, \
IJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F~ ~ O ~~~~
MppE -v \ ~ m
v WEED RQBRE " - _ _ /P
m ~ USN F ~ - - - -
_ F
~ \ ~NW~m
o j ,, z~cnr=~ ~
r, ~ ~ I zr-~ ~Q O ~
~ _
~ ~ I ~ o ~o
' G7 Z
~ 00 O _
~ 1 W + ' O ~-
O .{.. C C
0
' ~' . X00 000 ~
. ~ Zoo O v
~~ ~ ~o
• .~, o ~
~ O ~ p <
Q o ~m
~ o ~ +~
~ ~ ~ N O
O ~ ~ z
O ~ ~
O ~ _
~ D
~ Z
~ m
o r
~~
- cno~,
o =+~
~ ~ ~O
~ +

C/~~C
C~ D i
D ~ ~
r- 0 ~
f r-I ~ O
QAC o o ~T
0 ~~ - V
m~o~
Z
o~~N ~ o ~
~/ /
~ ~ ~ 70 ~ ~ 60' >c ~ O
~ ~ ~ ~+ //
~`~ ~ ,-Qom ~ ;; z~ C
~ ~ x /l ~,
~v ~~ ~ x~o - I' ,`
s ~N~o 3 ~
° ~ . ~ ~i
NC
m ~~ -< Q ~ Q° N rn ~ ~ T CM ~ ,
-vim +~ ~ ~ Z~ ~ ' ~ ^~
~ D O~ O~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~
O m ~~w ~ ~ O ~ i ~ I ~ ~
~ N
;v cn ~O O ~~ ~ ; O ~ i
/ ~ ~
~ O O O ~~ I`N ~ ~/ ~
` 1 ~ ~
e ~ - n i
~= X p~ ~' ~ ~ p OD i D
O N ~ ~ ,i I ~ I O
• Ri~y _ ~ • i .tai p
r '.
~ o
~~_ _ ~ 1 0;
1E'Mp Mi ~ ~ n ~
Ul ~'V 1
~ ~ ~ .A ~ ~
l~ _
~ ~
SNEBpR~~ ° ~ Eip ~ F
_ ~ ~.
o ~ Wy ~ \\\~~.
- .,~- ~ C 42 20~ BSl ~ X 7O
~ ~ E r~
o ~ N \
x ~ ~ \
ao v~cn -~ -
Mig~j~. ~ ~r°n rn C ~ Z ~z~~ (~ \
rC~QH~o <
F ~ rn. ~p ~ (7 _ \
Z~~,m ~ -' Z` ~ Z
WEEaER BR ~,~ F ~ _ _
~ USN y 3 _ _ _ _ R
v
~' F
O
~N~(n--~
p ~ Z-~lN~~ ~D
...i
n ~ ~ Zr,~ ~Q O'.J
~ ~ -~ + ~ O
. ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ICJ O
O oo ~
• OO a ~
w O -+-
~ i m ~o Oo
•' `~ o
~- ~ ~Q o
0
~ ~ ~W
o
o ,
0