20020630 Ver 1_Complete File_20020424

0 2 cx?'3
e M STATE'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH; N.C. 27611-5201
GoVERNOR
June 8, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3355, Montgomery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 26
on SR 1110 over Lake Tillery, State Project 8.2550401,
F. A. Project BRZ-1110(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on April 6, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
John Hennessy Division of Water Quality
Cyndi Bell Division of Water Quality
Ray. Moore Structure Design
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Bob May Roadway Design
David Woodie Hydraulics
Tim Johnson Division Eight Construction Engineer
Betty Yancy Right-of-Way Division
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Tim Johnson, Division Eight Construction Engineer, commented that no desirable
opportunity existed for an off-site detour. Tim recommended relocating the bridge to the north of
the existing bridge. During the discussion, the group discussed the need to pave SR 1111 in case
an off-site detour is considered. Tim agreed to approximate a cost per mile for paving an unpaved
road.
David Woodie of Hydraulics commented on the soundings that Dan Duffield took on Lake
Tillery along the two conceptual new alignments and the existing bridge. David said that
Alternate 3 (northern-most alignment) would require a 600-foot minimum bridge length. He said
that Alternate 2 (south of Alternate 3) would require a 500-foot minimum bridge length.
According to David, the water depths ranged from 15 to 20 feet.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) commented that the Division would
like to see both on-site and off-site detours evaluated in the document. Cyndi stated that DWQ
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
?4_
needs NCDOT to address stormwater on the bridge. Also, Cyndi commented that NCDOT should
;address hazardous spill intakes as well as water supply intakes. Cyndi added that DWQ would
'prefer a spanning structure rather than a new causeway.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission ()vVRC) researched the ownership of the
parking area and fishing pier on the northeast quadrant of the bridge. WRC's official comments
are not available at this time.
Ken Thomas, the Director of Public Works for Norwood, commented that Norwood's
water supply intake is located upstream from Bridge No. 26 (Lilly's Bridge). He also mentioned
that the Montgomery County water supply intake is located downstream from the bridge.
Harold Boles, Area Locating Engineer from Division Eight, commented that a water line is
attached to the south side of the bridge. No other utilities were located on the bridge. Harold
located overhead utilities on the south side of the bridge including power, telephone cables, and
cablevision lines. Harold found the telephone cables underground at approximately 250 feet
northwest of the bridge, then overhead to approximately 40 feet from the southeast end of the
bridge. Harold also located high-tension power wires with steel towers on the east side of the
bridge site.
Curtis Yates of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Division commented that SR 1110 corresponds
to a TIP request. Curtis stated that SR 1110 is also a designated bicycle route, North Carolina
Bicycling Highway in the Sandhills Sector. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division requested
bicycle accommodations, which include four-foot wide paved shoulders on both sides of the
roadway as well as a bridge rail height of 54 inches for bicycle safety.
Lisa Wilson, Town Administrator for Mount Gilead, commented that. the Town was in
favor of maintaining traffic on-site during construction due to the need of access along the route
for emergency vehicles.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office recommended an
evaluation of the potential historic district near the bridge. SHPO explained that given the age of
the bridge and it's location immediately downstream of the Tillery Dam, powerhouse, and Norfolk
Railroad Bridge, it may be part of a small historic district. SHPO recommended that no
archaeological surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 3, 1999 in Mount Gilead.
Approximately 12 citizens attending the meeting. No objection to the replacement of
Bridge No. 26 was expressed. The majority of the people that attended the meeting
preferred Alternate Two. The most significant concern of the residents was that road
closure be avoided/minimized. A third alternate, roughly 500 feet north of the existing
bridge, received no support and was dropped from further consideration.
.A -
PROJECT INFORMATION
Existing Bridge No. 26:
Bridge No. 26, built in 1935, is 213 feet long with an 18-foot wide deck. It has a
sufficiency rating of 22.1 with an estimated 16 years of useful remaining life. The bridge is
posted 18 tons for single vehicles and 23 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Traffic Information:
SR 1110 is a Rural Local Route with 35 mph in the vicinity. There is a 25-mph
speed limit across the bridge. The current ADT is 550 vpd and the projected 2025 ADT
is 1000 vpd. Approximately 4% of the traffic are dual trucks and 1 % of the traffic are
truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
One accident occurred during a recent three-year time period. The accident
involved a vehicle that ran off the road to the left just before the bridge while exceeding a
safe speed traveling south on SR 1110.
Bus Information:
There are four bus trips per day across the bridge.
New Cross Section:
The new bridge will include two 11-foot lanes with four-foot wide paved shoulders on
each side to accommodate for bicycles.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
After the meeting, we discussed the plan-design schedule with Ron Allen and Bob
May of Roadway Design. We anticipate the completion of the preliminary design and
cost estimates by December, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 26 with a bridge at approximately the same location
and elevation as the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 26 with abridge by realigning SR 1110 north of the
existing bridge. Construct the replacement bridge at approximately the same elevation as
the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using the existing alignment during construction.
E
9I
999
WETLANDSGROUI'
WATER UALITP SECT'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
March 8, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110 in
Montgomery County over Lake Tillery, B-3355
Attached for your review and comments is the scoping sheet and location map for the
subject project. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for
April 6, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room
470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheet, please call Karen Orthner, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844 Ext. 236.
WDG/ko
Attachment

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3355
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ - 1110(2)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2550401
DIVISION: Eight
COUNTY: Montgomery
ROUTE: SR 1110
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110 over Lake Tillery
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Mount Gilead West Quad Map
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 743,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 55,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 110,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 908,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 550 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 1000 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 4 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 18 feet of
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE
LENGTH 65.0 METERS WIDTH 5.5 METERS
213.0 FEET 18.0 FEET
COMMENTS:
V
1406 N .
'' •
..............
i
i
1
N `.
.9
1 111 1150
SHELTER
O MOUN TAIN i
1 132
1 1

1.2 1 12 i • S
i `
S 1171
? i ,. 3i 1130 •? i 2
i i •8
' Lake

i
'•
%
Pee Dee
1
• 1112 1113
i
1 '
O
8
35°15' T111ery 6 - -•..
.
i ,
73
, `
? i 1111 •`_ i
.
i 1

? i

•
? i
` ?
?•?
? 1 1 14 '•? i
.
• CO Y

? 1188 i

1110 ,
'
1 109 %
.
Bridge No. 26 1188 .? 11 •8
dro 118
` -
??

9 ??i
•??
731
V g. 52 1103 A '°'•
/ .10 1 .
P

1 i
1 \' i
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Bra
h
nc
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110
Over Lake Tillery
B4355
Figure 1
•55v? ?/ ?L??, ?L ?' `' v ?/?? `?r-,r??, ?\11lII?lI \U--..?`?\ ?i n` ?Z` ?\ ?.f" \ \? .
?/? ` '1 ?? »3 ??? ? '? ? ?? 1?\\ I (
•;? y '?`'j/
)JA
01?'`.
?U z f ` ;
to i i =oo , ?IZ;
E3?
ELEV 278 350
J? .
V O V ° ?" `
I/ I 1 300
ors
AO ///I/P:FE(l? 30.)
let
"r'- `\ 135
V
Hyarcelectric Towe s;)o b
=:B\ l ?t Plant ?I,i?/
! 4 \' v \ ' -`t\ - t 1142 ,.` blWirt) 276\r p?
MOOG
Dam •>? \ 2'33
N N,
373,
I-X '? /?\? ___ _.?? i, i r - /'I / 11• ? ? I a??ll /?l'I f r1??% 19r.
\??? 335 _' \ I I ??iI1, ?1 .:7Z?' S.'?') ran ` .. ? '\ .
° r7 - -_ r-?) ? ` I vv?.?/ . _ _ \.l ' C_ ? .f ? , ? _ O\ , ? 1,
\ N
e"'swt°
-? U20630,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 25, 2002
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890 ? - .
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 All` APR
cU
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer WETLANpq G"Up
NCDOT Coordinator ym•• WA's Ei ¢UA TY SECTIo
SUBJECT: Montgomery County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR
1110 over Lake Tillery. Federal Aid Project No. BZP-1110 (2), State
Project No. 8.2550401, TIP No. B-3355.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 26 with anew bridge on a new alignment north of the existing structure. The new
alignment will include a new 565-foot long bridge as well as a new causeway
approximately 10 feet long, on the eastern approach. The cross section of the new bridge
will be 30 feet wide, including two 11-foot lanes with 4-foot offsets on each side of the
bridge to accommodate bicycles. In addition, 54-inch bicycled rails will be installed on
the new bridge for bicycle safety. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment
during construction of the new bridge
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The anticipated environmental impacts of the project will be minimal. No jurisdictional a.
wetlands occur with in the project area. Surface water impacts will include 0.36 acres of
permanent fill as depicted in sheets 3, 4,5 and 7 of the permit drawings. The
construction of the temporary causeway will result in 0.04 acres of surface water impacts
to Lake Tillery as depicted in sheets 4 and 6 of the permit drawings. NCDOT will be
using class B Rip Rap.
The existing bridge's unique construction for the time period in which it was built has
deemed it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and will therefore be
preserved for historic value and recreational usage. This bridge contains a timber and
steel superstructure supported by concrete abutments and bents, over which a timber and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
asphalt deck"gs laid: Since the bridge will remain, there will be no issues surrounding
demolition and removal.
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 February 26, 2001,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists five federally protected species for
Montgomery County (Table 1). The CE (dated December 15, 2000) rendered Biological
Conclusions of "No Effect" for each of these species due to lack of habitat in the project
study area. To date, habitat conditions have not changed within the study area.
Additionally, a review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of Rare and Unique
Habitats on March 26, 2002 revealed that no known occurrences of these species are
found within one mile of the project area. Therefore, the Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" remain valid for each of these species.
Table 1. Federallv-Protected Species for Monteomerev County
Common Name Scientific Name- Federal`
Status Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar E* No Effect
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T No Effect
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata E** No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction tnrougnoui an or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" denoted Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of it's range).
*HistoriWcord - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record the date and /or location of observation is uncertain.
Avoidance / Minimization
The following is a list of the project's jurisdictional wetland and stream
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT.
Avoidance: NCDOT has avoided additional impacts by choosing Alternate2 over
Alternate 1 As a result, no demolition will be required and no components of bridge
No. 26 will be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. Bridge
CWA §404 Nationwide 23 &33 Permit Application 2 of 4
TIP No. B-3355 March 25, 2002
No. 26 has been included in the National Register of Historic places because of its
unique construction and will remain in place and be used as for recreation.
¦ Minimization: Best Management Practices will be strictly enforced for sedimentation
and erosion control for the protection of surface waters.
Project Commitments
NCDOT will commit to revegetating the area with appropriate plant species once
construction of the new bridge is complete, and the temporary structure and approaches
have been removed.
¦ NCDOT will consider the use of hazardous spill catch basins as part of the proposed
bridge replacement project during the hydraulic analysis in the final roadway design
phase of the project.
NCDOT will include 4-foot bridge offsets, 54-inch bicycle safety rails, and 4-foot
paved shoulders on the roadway approaches to the new bridge to accommodate the
N.C. Bicycling Highway located on SR 1110.
¦ NCDOT will preserve the existing Bridge No, 26 in place for use as a pedestrian
bridge.and fishing pier. Barricades will be installed to prevent vehicular traffic from
crossing the bridge after the new bridge is complete.
NCDOT will coordinate with Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) Company regarding
any requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding
permits. Requirements from the FERC regarding permits will be net prior to the
right-of-way acquisition (May 18, 2001).
Summary
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.1.15(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities. be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (61
FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). NCDOT is also applying for a Nationwide
Permit 33 for the'perman6i t surface impacts from fill (0.36 acres) as"well as the
temporary surface water impact from the causeway (0.04 acres).
Written notification is provided to the N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for
this project per 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) General Certification under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and 33. However, notification is not required from
DWQ for 401 WQC General Certification for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and 33.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mr. Tom Dickinson at [phone] ext. 329.
CWA §404 Nationwide 23 &33 Permit Application 3 of 4
TIP No. B-3355 March 25, 2002
Sincerely,
William D: Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/jsg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh Office
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennet, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., 8 Division Engineer
Mr. Art King, DEO, Division 8
Ms. Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
CWA §404 Nationwide 23 &33 Permit Application 4 of 4
TIP No. B-3355 March 25, 2002
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
No, DWQ No.o 2 063 o'
USACE Action ID
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
L Processing
L Check all of the approval(s) requested for this. project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 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 Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
IL Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
--
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
17 _-n;l A iMroee
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 may be 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 l 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: Replacement of Bridge No. 26 On S R I 110 over Lake Tillery
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3355
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Montgomery Nearest Town: Mt. Gillead
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 26 over Lake Tillery
on SR 1110 Approximately, 2 2.2 miles west of Mt. Gilead. Take SR 11 l l into SR 1110
south off 73 and follow approximately 4miles to location of project.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): see attached application
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
.,- Rural
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Lake Tillery
9. River Basin: Yadkin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
Page 2 of 10
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Replacement of existing bridge with a two 117
lane brige with 4 foot offsets to accommodate bicycles Bridge will have five spans at a
lenth of 110 feet.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural
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.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No
VI. 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. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or 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 wetland or stream
Page 3 of 10
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. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Ao fa

Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

r I

List each impact separately ana taennty temporary impacts. impacts mctuuc, vut arc IIVt uuurcu LU. 311%1 ?1 1 41 l1 ?.? .++...g> ..5, __••,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.aov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)

* List each impact separately ana wentily temporary impacts. impacts mantle, DUE are m)t IIIIntGU W. cwvciraP auu aZ3Va Ia- 11F-F,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, 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.
** Stream names can. be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream -named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.p-ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.toi)ozone.com,
www.mai)quest.com, etc.).
Page 4. of 10
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate' on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres) Name of Waterbody

-
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.).
see pgs3, 4, 5 and 6 permanent fill 0.36 Lake Tillery lake
see pgs. 4, and 6 temporary fill 0.04 Lake Tillery lake

G. .,ito.i t- im -Yrnvatinn-
dredging- List each impact separatery U11U Iuciuuy 6c11Py1a.y .... F---
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. 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 E wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
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.
Alternative 2 was found to be most reasonable and feasible for several reasons. Alternate 1
(existing bridge replacement) would have required demolition which would have increased costs
and impacts as well as the additional cost of upgrading secondary roads for use as a detour route.
While Alternative 3 was found as a less expensive proposal the NCDOT Geotechmcal Unit
found that the soft stream bed material associated with # 3 would have greatly increased costs
and impacts by strengthening the lake bottom around the area of the project.
Page 5 of 10
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 March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
}ncluding 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 NCWRP concurrence shall 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
httg://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmizide.html.
1. 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 map, 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 more space is needed.
No _proposed mitigation
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. ` Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at httv://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrn/index.htm. If
Page 6 of 10
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): zero
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): zero
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes Z No ?
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 [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
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 (DWQ Only)
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 buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCA? 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 7 of 10
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation.is proposed (i.e, Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Not required
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both 'existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. ,
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction. dates to allow processing time for these permits.. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
Page 8 of 10
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues, outside of the applicant's control).

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell Union
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones Pitt
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir Tyrrell
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin Washington
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico Wayne
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans *Croatan National Forest Only
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
US Fish and Wildlife Service /National M arine Fishe ries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Fie ld Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160. Zillicoa Street Pivers Island .
Page 9 of 10

DENNIS
MOUNTAIN 27
N A` T`1O A{
HORSE
TROUGH
a:?e MOUNTAIN
27
r JEC? SITE
SHELTER
MOUNTAIN
J
1 10

1114 L -
TI
1O 1188
109

??°
I 111 3 m

N
vc?
ST 18+1432
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MONTGOMERY.. COUNTY
VICINITY
PROJECT: 8.2550401 (B-5555)
MAPS REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 26
OVER LAKE TILLERY ON
SR 1110, LILLY'S BRIDGE ROAD
SHEET 1 OF 9 Sept. I , 2001
LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

CL WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
?11!? WETLAND 12•_48•

®
DENOTES FILL (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES

EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES .
SURFACE WATER R & ABOVE

® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER

SINGLE TREE
tiJ
(POND)
,
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
A
D
T

WOODS LINE
N
L
FILL IN WE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE

ROOTWAD
WATER
• = DENOTES MECHANIZED
.' •' •' _ CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB TOP OF BANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
WE
- - - EDGE OF WATER 5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
-C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
-PJ- - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
AIMALBOUNDARY, -
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY \
- _ 0- - - - WATER SURFACE
x x
x x LIVE STAKES
x
X
X N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
BOULDER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT- 8.2550401 (B-3355)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 26
OVER LAKE TILLERY ON
SR 1110, LILLY'S BRIDGE' ROAD
SHEET 2 OF' 9 Sepb.10, 2001

z
0 p A
3NIl H?lbW ?. H Z 0 0
°N1 W _ o a 5 A'go
;loZ m o CIO O tl`^ol zV)?a ?Q w E" O W o w?- 0
Ey p
I (2, op ;'$31 ?U?Q
z w lLl LU
??Q z z o x a
V) w
o?bU- O mo A A a >? w
zz 1-? w'
V) Wm a v w0?
CL L)
;1 ; a 3 Qm z x
`1 moo-
'
W
? z
? 1 ? E o o?
r ? Qw
•I
n? Z
W v ?a
v1m ? ? Jw
Low
Ca ? F a
1 N °"
z
PTSta. 17+91.33 0 Lo
J
LL, LLJ
t \ \ LL LLi L.LJ
I
LZ
J I Q-- m
W::? V) V) a,>\
W 2 N o
0- m N
-J. LLJ
N Q o
LLJ
SLR , ? ? `t1A3' / ? N
z ? $
5Z l j F p F o zz
o-j ?
0 0
0
Ea z .. M C?7 a
N w
0°. ? 090 r
V) 'A
z ?" V CQ?a
V ' w
I J ? x ?" ? (~ O+
l x
a j a X00 mad
\ I SIN f z w o
a
m l , Z? A a ?>? w
} 8 } o0 0 0 °oo°o
1?? i1 0 0 p P 0O°
1? to o N b o°o°O ?
I t' Ln
t' '} UN
,n. II W ? a
?W cr-
w a
E ?a
Lu W?
a1 '}} ?N`O ?? ?i Wv WN
Z_ Q) ?Ll-? 3 ??? U ? .0 LL
} r ?
}' '1 cv?m o O vo W? W-
m Q a ?:z Q O~ Qz ow
ou LLJ ~ }' '} ? I- LL- o (n m CD ?- W cV 11
= }? '} Q? kWW Q pZN
CIO CZ Q- Iq -?
zz
CL -Li L-Li LLJ
\? 11 w U.J ?m
z ?D N
2.2QZ a 0o
oaWYo _
w 1 j
o W m o
C v
to C)
LLJ
z j Q LL%
w
LLJ
W i 1?Q3? O N 4
O MA CH LINE 0
z ? N
o H Ozzq?
M F >• F ?
Oa
M
a =?
°
?
o ??A
Z
Lu c3
as cHm
N E• O
L4L_ O
C14 Q) T,
a
00 u
Cj- LLJ E- r4
v ?o o vw C F
IT,
?` ocs ??` No Q ? U A ? a aoa
`ran I O z w `?
v I j v? a
O
c O ? `p
oI / z N N N
N ` I QC:)
1 Q w
1 a
59 + £ 'd1S a 3
3Ja1218 UN
W?
?D
1 ui ?z
I LL- °z?
M C) 0U.
N Cr-I 1 4Q
Q- Ln
?I I 1 ? ?O
I O
to O
Q I I W I Cc
o I ? O 0
0
N '?'N
N I W ,
CL I ?? I °x
?C?4 I1 W OO ( o
1 LO
0
ui
J
Lp Q
1 N
9NI7 1401M
0

z
O r0 O
?., p O
3N17 14JIV N F
F M ° a

{
?
O M
„

c?
,
I I ??, { a ? c
Z C7v o aw
?,aQ
i I
1-fi---t-----?? I ? ?•
a, o ?. E., m
O
?\\ { H O w Hwy w

1--- - - - - - - - - - - - -? 00
F
w
{ w > c o w E-
i o { { U 9z a 14 ? -? w
r
W
8P1' I ?
N ----
-
i- - ------
{
?
-
1-
o I 1
I?
?
f
I
----------?
LL_---?

.1 %
t I -- I ------ --j
Q z
_j
1 W `` 3
-' / O
O
cr (A W
.
-
o

0 U-
zz
ct o N
cr
-
Q O
-j Z,
_I
5L+8L 'd1S
I 41218 NIJ39
co <
mv? N Ocn LO

z O (ID
I / I? Q- W,
v ?.
V I/ Q
cr W m.
o o o z
o? o
QD
dV) Q
%0
I
N N (r

V)
??
Q
Q) I
ca Q O w
v
L?Q :z c J

LIJ
I f Q 0 N U

N
? 0 Q
O Y ?
U
i ? Z
N -
N v0 zz zQ `O

O
E
oz?
z o
a z M wax
a 'a an 2

z

x
?
0

v v

w c?
mho
o Hm
N 0
H o w
x
w
Hy

o
w
o
0 z?a

"
E.4
.0

c?

A
> Z
o ti
a w
o
0
4 v A a
0 ?0
z a_

w Fo z
tfjl J w

(f) w
?Q
E=4
/
?
O LL
® 0 W

?J

14,
Ln
N
N
- O
2

in
N
O n
W
J

Q
Lr!
tV V
V)
U-).
N
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT 411 FAYETTEVILLE ST.
RALEIGH, NC 27611
' CURTIS V. COOKE, III 1183 LILLY BRIDGE RD.
Mt. GILEAD, NC 27306
CHARLES McCAULEY P. O. BOX 1202
Mt. GILEAD, NC 27306
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.2550401 (B-3355)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO-26
OVER LAKE TILLERY ON
SR 1110, LILLY'S BRIDGE ROAD
SHEET 8 OF 9 Sep!. 10.2001
0
_ o
O
? N
f0 C
O
W
? L
? U
0
c c ?

f- _
;ql c6 t6 ?'
Q w U E v

IL
o 0
LU
w
LL

o

0
Q aU U
E c --
H
W
U
LL

C7

M
O

r c U O
N 0 m
LL
0
? m

m
Q ?z

_ o

co
_ L M

a
o? o

? a m
v
c
L - a x
w c
W p
z N
= 10 o
J LL
12
Z w E CL

~
W o
.
5 N
C ?

LL n ?.
»>j
O
.
-
N
- (D
?
~
i
` N a

3
N
C)
v .
m`
0
o t
?o 0
LL
vi

_
_.?. O J
z
0
H
N
r

m
O
CL
w
cn
w
J

O Y
<0
Cl)

3! z w
m>
a O ??
-
Z =
v C
4
o CO
0 U)
U-
f-O LU to
NZ}
`
LL Z
00 O
0 J
00 w
Uo'' .
F- U)
CL 1
-
O
-mo
Oo m 0LL
O
U
aim
Z z
w

w
U
g
a
w U-

0
O
H
w
w
z
U)

0
• a

Montgomery County
Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110
Over Lake Tillery
Federal Project BRZ-1110 (2)
State Project 8.2550401
TIP No. B-3355
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPROVED:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

®2 063 L)
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r 2- ?9 -oo -d ' t?L ?-?..
Date's Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
/2-!l-00
r
Montgomery County
Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110
Over Lake Tillery
Federal Project BRZ-1110 (2)
State Project 8.2550401
TIP No. B-3355
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
12- - C )C) - 4<4h,7VO
Date aren T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
Date Wayn Elliott ??,Q4FESSr?r'??v s
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head •
SFPi L
69'76
•
r
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager V.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ``? ?;j!- "``
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 26
On SR .1110 over Lake Tillery
Montgomery County
Federal-Aid No. BZP-1110 (2)
State Project No.8.2550401
T.I.P. No. B-3355
Commitments. Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics `Unit,: Structure Design Unit, Division Eight
Construction Unit
NCDOT will consider the use of hazardous spill catch basins as part of the
proposed bridge; replacement project during the hydraulic analysis in the final
design phase of the project.
Roadway Design Unit, Division'Ei ht Construction Unit
NCDOT will include 4-foot ?.2-rn) bridge offsets, 54-inch (1372-mm)
bicycle safety rails, and 4-foot (1.2-m) paved shoulders on the roadway
approaches-to the new bridge to accommodate the N. C. Bicycling` Highway
located on SR 1110.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Eight
Construction Unit
NCDOT will preserve the existin& Bridge No. 26 in place for use as a
pedestrian bridge and fishing pier. Barricades will be installed to prevent
vehicular traffic from crossing the bridge after the new bridge is complete.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Division Eight
Construction Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with Carolina Power and Light (CP&L)
Company regardin any requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC regarding permits. Requirements from the FERC regarding
permits will be met prior to right-of-way acquisition (May 18,2001):
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
December 15, 2000

Montgomery County
Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110
Over Lake Tillery
Federal Project BRZ-1110 (2)
State Project 8.2550401
TIP No. B-3355
Bridge No. 26 is located in Montgomery County over Lake Tillery. It is
programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 26 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new
bridge on new alignment north of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The new
alignment will include a new 565-foot (172.2-m) long bridge as well as a new
causeway, approximately 10 feet (3.0 m) long, on the eastern approach. The cross
section of the new bridge will be 30 feet (9.0 m) wide, including two 11-foot (3.3-m)
lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) offsets on each side of the bridge to accommodate bicycles.
In addition, 54-inch (1372 mm) bicycle rails will be installed on the new bridge for
bicycle safety. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during
construction of the new bridge. The existing historic bridge will be preserved in
place for recreational usage.
There will be approximately 630 feet (192.0 m) of new approach work to the
east of the bridge and 800 feet (243.8 m) of new approach work to the west of the
bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches to the new bridge will be
30 feet (9.0 m) wide, including two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicycles. Additionally, there will be 2-foot (0.6-m) grass
shoulders on the roadway approaches to the bridge. The design speed will be
40 mph (65 km/h).
A new driveway tie-in will be constructed for access to the convenience store
and gas station located on the southwestern quadrant of the project site. The tie-in
will begin approximately 350 feet (106.7 m) west of the new bridge and will extend
approximately 240 feet (73.2 m) to tie in to the existing driveway.
The estimated cost of the project is $ 2,716,000 including $ 2,500,000 in
construction costs and $ 216,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in
the Draft 2002-2008 TIP is $ 820,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will not be required for this project.

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1110 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. SR 1110 is located approximately four miles northwest of
Mount Gilead, North Carolina. Currently the traffic volume is 585 vehicles per day
(VPD) and projected at 1000 VPD for the year 2025. There is a 25-mph posted speed
limit across Bridge No. 26. The road serves primarily local residential and
recreational traffic.
Both shores of the Lake Tillery have various recreational boating and fishing
facilities in the vicinity of Bridge No.26. A convenience store and gas station with a
small marina as well as both indoor and outdoor boat storage facilities are located on
the western side of SR 1110. Along the southeastern shoreline is a public boat ramp
with parking facilities. On the northeastern shoreline, there are two wooden docks
with additional parking.
Bridge No. 26 was completed in 1935. The existing bridge contains a timber
and steel superstructure supported by concrete abutments and bents. The bridge deck
is 213 feet (64.9 m) long and 18 feet (5.5 m) wide. There is approximately 33 feet
(10.0 m) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and the
streambed. There is one lane of traffic on the existing bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
existing bridge is 21.9 out of a possible 100. Presently, the bridge is posted with
weight restrictions of 18 tons for single vehicles and 23 tons for truck-tractor semi-
trailers.
Vertical alignment is good in the project vicinity. The existing bridge lies in
between two horizontal curves with an operating speed of 25 mph. The pavement
width on the roadway approaches to the existing bridge is approximately 18 feet
(5.4 m). Shoulders on the roadway approaches to the existing bridge are
approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident was reported
during a recent three-year time frame in the vicinity of Bridge No. 26.
There are four daily school bus crossings over the existing bridge. According
to the Transportation Director for, Montgomery County Schools, closing the road
during construction would be a major inconvenience.
Montgomery County owns a water line attached to the southwestern side of
Bridge No. 26. Also located on the south side of the bridge are overhead power
lines, telephone cables, and television lines.
2

IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 26 would be replaced with a new 215-foot (65.5-m) long
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as
the existing bridge. Traffic would be detoured offsite along
surrounding roads during construction. The design speed would be
30 mph (50 km/h).
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Bridge No. 26 will be replaced with a new. 565-foot
(172.2-m) long bridge on new location to the north of the existing
bridge. A new causeway, approximately 10 feet (3.0 m) long, will be
constructed on the eastern approach to the new bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing alignment during construction. The design
speed will be 40 mph (65 km/h).
Alternate 3: Bridge No. 26 would be replaced with a new 280-foot (85.3-m) long
bridge on new location to the north of the existing bridge. Causeways
would be constructed on both the eastern and western approaches to
the new bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing
alignment during construction. The design speed would be 40 mph
(65 km/h).
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
An alignment located roughly 500 feet (152.4 m) north of the existing bridge
was also considered at the Citizens Informational Workshop. This alternate was
eliminated from further consideration due to strong public opposition and associated
high cost.
An alternate that would maintain traffic using an on-site detour while
replacing the bridge in existing location was not considered due to excessive cost and
no apparent benefits.
Alternate 2 and Alternate 3 both propose to replace Bridge No. 26 along the
same new alignment to the north of the existing bridge. However, both alternates
were considered in order to compare the cost of a new structure with a causeway on
the eastern approach only (Alternate 2) and the cost of a new structure with
causeways on both the eastern and western approaches (Alternate 3).
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 3, 1999 in Mount
Gilead. Approximately 12 citizens attended the meeting. No objection to the
replacement of Bridge No. 26 was expressed. The majority of the people that
attended the meeting preferred Alternate Two. The most significant concern of the
residents was that road closure be avoided/minimized. As mentioned above, the
alternate located roughly 500 feet (1521.4 m) north of the existing bridge received
strong public opposition and was dropped from further consideration.
.'
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
(Recommended)
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 ALTENATE 3
New Bridge 703,100 1,535,100 853,300
Existing Bridge Removal 39,400 N/A N/A
Roadway & Approaches 157,500 614,900 1,646,700
Engineering & Contingencies 125,000 350,000 400,000
Total Construction $ 1,025,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,900,000
Right of Way $ 109,000 $ 216,000 $ 216,000
Total Cost $ 1,134,000 $ 2,716,000 $ 3,116,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 26 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new
bridge on new alignment north of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The new
alignment will include a new 565-foot (172.2-m) long bridge as well as a new
causeway, approximately 10 feet (3.0 m) long, on the eastern approach. The cross
section of the new bridge will be 30 feet (9.0 m) wide, including two 11-foot (3.3-m)
lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) offsets on each side of the bridge to accommodate bicycles.
In addition, 54-inch (1372 mm) bicycle rails will be installed on the new bridge for
bicycle safety. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during
construction of the new bridge. The existing historic bridge will be. preserved in
place for recreational usage.
There will be approximately 630 feet (192.0 m) of new approach work to the
east of the bridge and 800 feet (243.8 m) of new approach work to the west of the
bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches to the new bridge will be
30 feet (9.0 m) wide, including two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicycles. Additionally, there will be 2-foot (0.6-m) grass
shoulders on the roadway approaches to the bridge. The design speed will be
40 mph (65 km/h).
Alternate 1 (Road closure) is not feasible since the existing bridge must
remain in place for the following reasons:
1. The bridge is determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Montgomery County owns the water line attached to the existing bridge. The
urban community surrounding the bridge contains a population of 5500 or less.
Under the law, this situation requires NCDOT to relocate the water line if the
bridge is removed, which is extremely costly.
In addition to,the need for the existing bridge to remain in place, Alternate 1
is not feasible for further reasons. Alternate 1 is not practical since the
inconvenience to school bus and EMS routes would jeopardize the safety and
efficiency of these operations during construction. Alternate 1 was also strongly
opposed by the Mount Gilead Town Manager and the public at the Citizen's
4
Informational Workshop. Lastly, when considering the estimated cost of upgrading
surrounding secondary roads to safety standards for use as a detour route
($1,550,000), Alternate 1 becomes similar in cost with Alternate 2 and Alternate 3.
Although an initial analysis showed Alternate 3 as a less expensive proposal
than Alternate 2, Alternate 3 proved to be more costly than Alternate 2 due to the soft
streambed material found on the lake bottom by the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit. The
fill associated with strengthening the lake bottom for constructing the causeways in
Alternate 3 proved to be more costly than spanning a larger area, as seen in
Alternate 2. Therefore, Alternate 2 is recommended as the most reasonable and
feasible alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of
an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited
scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental
commitments listed in the Project Commitments ("Green") Sheet of this document.
In addition, the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications will be
implemented.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this
project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is
not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the
area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project. This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. There will be no impact to the
Wildlife Boating Access Area southwest of the existing bridge. A public boating
ramp, parking area, and wooden docks for fishermen exist on the southeast shoreline.
This property is leased to the Wildlife Resources Commission. The lease agreement
contains a cancellation clause that states that Carolina Power and Light Company can
terminate the lease on short notice at any time. The FHWA reviewed the lease
agreement and determined that this land is not considered under "public ownership"
and therefore not protected under Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. In addition, Bridge No. 26 has been determined eligible
5'

for the National Register of Historic Places and therefore protected under Section
4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. However, the existing
Bridge No. 26 will be left in place for pedestrian use. Therefore, the State Historic
Preservation Office has made a determination of "no effect" on this resource
protected by Section 4(f). (See Concurrence Form.)
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood
levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
Coordination with Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) for potential
requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding
permits has been initiated for this project. Roadway design plans for this project
were sent to Larry Mann, contact person for FERC permits, at CP&L on August 24,
2000. Larry requested a signed copy of the B-3355 Categorical Exclusion to submit
to the FERC for coordination.. This coordination will continue through the
permitting phase of this project. (See Environmental Commitments Sheet.)
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be
included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not
required.
The project is located in Montgomery County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51
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 will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will
not have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur
during construction.
C. COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I. Land Use and Zonin
The new alignment to the north of the existing bridge will require the
removal of one wooden dock to the northeast of the existing bridge. Because traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction, only slight temporary
impacts to the community will result from the construction of the new Bridge No. 26
including minor disturbances such as dust and noise. In addition, short intervals of
inconvenience may occur in the form of narrowing traffic to one lane while tying in
to the existing alignment.
However, because the new bridge replacement project will result in standard
bicycle accommodations, a pedestrian bridge and new fishing pier on the existing
bridge, and a new tie-in to the convenience store and gas station, the result may
increase the attractiveness of the current bridge site.

II. Farmland Impacts
No farmland exists anywhere within the general vicinity of the bridge
structure and approaches. Therefore, farmland mitigation or avoidance is not
required for this project.
III. Scenic Rivers, Wetlands, and Water Supply Watersheds
No river, stream, or creek within the project area has been designated as a
Wild and Scenic River.
No wetland areas occur within the project area.
A water supply intake is located 1'/z mile west of the Montgomery County
Water Treatment Plant, downstream of the project area. The Montgomery County
Water Treatment Plant was informed of the proposed bridge replacement project on
January 11, 2000. Terry Calicutt, representative for Montgomery County Water
Treatment Plant, stated that Montgomery County concurred in the bridge
replacement project proposal and no further coordination was needed
IV. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts
As this section of SR 1110 corresponds with a NCDOT designated Bicycling
Highway, Sandhills Sector, Map I-1, accommodations for bicycles are included as a
part of this project. The new bridge will include 4-foot (1.2-m) offsets with 54-inch
bicycle safety rails. In addition, the roadway approaches will include 4-foot (1.2-m)
paved shoulders to accommodate bicycles.
Although there are currently no sidewalks across the existing Bridge No. 26,
the existing bridge will be left in place for use as a pedestrian bridge and fishing pier.
Vehicular traffic will be prohibited.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project,
as stated in the letter dated March 25, 1999, and recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. However, the letter
recommended an architectural historic evaluation of the potential historic district
given the bridge's age and location downstream of the Tillery dam, powerhouse, and
Norfolk Railroad bridge (see March 25, 1999 SHPO letter).
Subsequently, Architectural Historian Mary Pope Furr performed an
architectural historic survey, which determined the eligibility of Bridge No. 26 for
listing in the National Register. The bridge was determined eligible under Criterion
C for architecture as a unique form compared with other bridges constructed during
this time period. The SHPO concurs with the determination that Bridge No. 26 is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see April 12, 2000 SHPO letter).
This determination of eligibility affords protection to Bridge No. 26 under Section
4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The NCDOT along with the SHPO reviewed the subject project at an Effects
Meeting on May 4, 2000 and agreed there are no effects on the National Register-
eligible Bridge No. 26 because the bridge will be left in place and closed to vehicular
traffic (see Concurrence Form).
7
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur within the project 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 Inner Piedmont physiographic region. Gently sloping to steep wooded
ravines characterize the topography of the project vicinity. The project area is
situated between broad ridges and narrow side slopes adjacent to Lake Tillery.
Project elevation is approximately 280-310 feet (85-94 m) above mean sea level
(msl).
SOILS
Four soil phases occur within project boundaries: Hiwassee clay loam, 2-8
percent slopes (HwB), Goldston-Badin Complex, 15-45 percent slopes (GbE),
Badin-Tatum Complex, 2-8 percent slopes (BtB2), Badin Tatum Complex, 8-15
percent slopes (BtC2).
Hiwassee (HwB) clay loam, 2-8 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil on
broad gently sloping uplands. If this soil is unprotected, runoff is medium and
erosion is a severe hazard. Permeability and available water capacity are moderate.
Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
Goldston-Badin Complex (GbE), 15-45 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil
on long and narrow ridges and convex side slopes in the uplands. Badin has a depth
class of moderately deep. Badin soils have moderate permeability, available water
capacity and shrink-swell potential. Goldston soils have moderately rapid
permeability, shrink-swell potential is low and available water capacity is very low.
They both have a depth to seasonally high water table greater than 6.0 feet in depth.
They also have very rapid surface runoff and severe hazard from water erosion.
Major uses are for woodland, cropland and pastures.
. Badin-Tatum Complex (BtB2), 2-8 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that
occurs on irregular shaped ridges in the uplands. Badin has depth class of
moderately deep. Tatum depth class is deep. The Badin and Tatum soils both have
moderate permeability and a depth to high water table greater than 6.0 feet. They
also have moderate shrink-swell potential, medium surface water runoff and severe
hazard from water erosion. Major uses are for cropland, woodland and pastures.
Badin-Tatum Complex (BtC2), 8-15 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil
found on elongated narrow ridges, convex side slopes and nose slopes in the uplands.
Badin has depth class of moderately deep. Tatum depth class is deep. The Badin
and Tatum soils both have moderate permeability and a depth to high water table
greater than 6.0 feet. They also have moderate shrink-swell potential, medium
surface water runoff and severe hazard from water erosion. Major uses are for
cropland, woodland and pastures.
Core samples taken throughout the project area did not exhibit hydric
conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas around Lake Tillery. Therefore,
hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual", were not observed within the project area.
8
WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to
be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
aspects of the 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.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Lake Tillery will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 2). The lake is located in sub-basin 030708 of the Yadkin
Pee-Dee River Basin. Damming the Pee Dee River forms Lake Tillery and it's
tributaries.
Lake Tillery's fill slopes at Bridge No. 26 measures approximately 10 feet
(3 m) down to the water edge. The water depth under Bridge No. 26 was
approximately 20-30 feet (6-9 m) deep. The lake's substrate consisted of sand, clay
and cobble. Sand was prevalent along the lake's edges. Water within Lake Tillery
was murky, with visibility at 1.0 feet (0.3 m) at the time of the survey. Bank erosion
and/or surface water runoff from adjacent uplands may contribute to the Lake's high
siltation.
Best Usage Classification
The DWQ categorizes streams according to a best usage classification. Lake
Tillery's classification is the same as the Pee Dee River [index no. 13-(1)] and falls
under Class WS-IV and B CA (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Water
Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina, Yadkin Pee-Dee River
Basin; 1 September 1998 Internet update). Class WS-IV waters are protected as
water supplies, which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to 15A NCAC
2B .0104 and .0211. Local programs to control non-point source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class B designates
waters protected for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the "C"
classification. The supplemental classification CA or critical area means the area
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. The critical area is
defined as extending either 0.5 mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir
in which the intake is located or to the ridge line of the watershed (whichever comes
first); or 0.5 mile upstream from and draining to the intake (or other appropriate
downstream location associated with the water supply) located directly in the stream
or river (run-of-the-river), or to the ridge line of the watershed (which ever comes
first). Class C designates waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation (e.g., wading, boating), and agriculture. There
are no restrictions on watershed development activities within Class C designated
streams (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Surface Freshwater
Classifications Used in North Carolina; 15 October 1997 Internet update). Neither
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) Nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
9
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin-wide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. The Environmental Sciences
Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ, collects biological, chemical and
physical data that can be used in basin-wide assessment and planning. River basins
are reassessed every five years. The Basin-Wide Assessment Program assesses water
quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate (benthos) organisms throughout
the state. The monitoring sites may vary according to needs assessed for a particular
basin. Monitoring of benthos is conducted concurrently with monitoring of physical
parameters in preparation for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit renewals for specific basins. Macroinvertebrates are important
indicator organisms and are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. Clark Creek which is less than 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project was sampled
during 1996 and received a rating of Good.
All of the streams within the project area flow into Lake Tillery. This lake is
considered to be eutrophic, because of the short retention time (15 days). Lake
Tillery was described as an "over-enriched", slow moving river in the study. Lake
Tillery was sampled by DWQ on July 26, 1994 as a part of the Lake Assessment
Program. The lake exhibited water quality characteristics representative of a
moderately productive lake. The lake was stratified and dissolved oxygen levels
decreased with depth. This may be due to the deep water release by the Yadkin Falls
Hydroelectric plant owned by Carolina Power and Light. The DWQ's Lakes
Assessment Program monitors water quality of lakes by measuring various
parameters such as trophic state, nutrient enrichment and productivity. Lake Tillery
is considered to fully support all designated uses (NCDENR 1997a).
Point sources refer to discharge that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch,
or other associated points of discharge. The term most commonly refers.to
discharges associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers
located throughout North Carolina are permitted through'the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any person discharging
pollutants from a point source directly into waters of the United States is required to
register for a permit. There are no NPDES sites located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area.
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source
(NPS) pollution comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt
runoff moves over the earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are picked
up, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and
groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and
insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals from
urban runoff and energy production; sediments from construction sites, land clearing,
and eroding streambanks; salt from irrigation activities; acid drainage from
abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal wastes, and faulty
septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS pollutants on water
resources vary, and in many instances, may not be known. These pollutants
generally have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, wildlife, and
fisheries (USEPA Office of Water, Nonpomt Source Pollution Control Program,
What is Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution? - Questions and Answers; 30 December
1997 Internet update).
10
The NCDOT field investigators conducted a visual observation of any
potential NPS discharges located within or near the project area. Atmospheric
deposition; petroleum residue from boats; edge of the banks eroding, and
hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby driveways were identified as. potential
sources of NPS pollution near the project area. The field investigators did not
observe any construction or land clearing activities near the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project may impact water resources during the
following processes: Alternate 1 will require demolishing the existing bridge and
constructing the new bridge; and Alternate 2 and Alternate 3 will require
constructing a new bridge north of the existing bridge. Construction activities are
likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at stream site. This
disruption of the stream can reduce flows downstream of the project. Temporary
diversions of water flow may raise the water level upstream from the project and
lower the water level downstream of the project. Anticipated impacts to the project
area water resources are contained in the "Jurisdictional Topics" section of this
report. Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Changes in water temperature due to lakeside vegetation removal.
4. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed
areas.
5. Potential concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area; NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) must be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMP's include, but
are not limited to: minimizing built upon areas and diversion of stormwater away
from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval should also be
strictly enforced.
Since Alternate 1 is not recommended, no components of Bridge No. 26 will
be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
II. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study area as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses iri 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 described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided
for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows
11
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 that was observed during
the site visit is denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat
analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area:
mixed pine/hardwood forest community and maintained/disturbed community.
Community boundaries within the study area are well defined without a significant
transition zone between them.. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area
will exploit all of these communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors.
Mixed Pine / Hardwood Forest Community
The mixed pine/ hardwood forest community is dominated by species
common throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. The herbs and vines in the
mixed pine / hardwood upland flora include yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The canopy was
comprised of red maple (Ater rubrum), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), loblolly pine (Pinus teada), short-leaf pine
(Pinus echinata), and turkey oak (Quercus laevis). The shrub layers consisted of
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), dogwood
(Cornus jlorida), water oak (Quercus nigra), sparkle-berry (Vaccinium arboreum),
and American holly (Ilex opaca).
The Maintained / Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community is made of three sub-communities,
which include roadside shoulder, maintained areas around Lake Tillery and
irregularly maintained areas.. The flora which can be found in the roadside shoulder
areas are fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bush clover
(Lespedeza intermedia), crab grass (Digitaria sp), St. John's-wort (Hypericum sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), five-fingers (Potentilla canadensis),
reindeer lichen (Geranium carolinianum), henbit (Lamium off cinale), wild onion
(Allium canadensis) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
The flora associated with the maintained areas around Lake Tillery include
loblolly pine, sweetgum, American holly, southern red oak, water oak, red cedar,
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), white oak (Quercus alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendren
tulipifera), sycamore (Plantus occidentalis), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), strawberry
bush (Evonymus americana), Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and bush clover
(Lespedeza capitata).
The flora found in the irregularly maintained fill slopes of Lily's bridge
include red maple, sweet gum, tag alder, sycamore, dogwood, Japanese honeysuckle,
blackberry (Rubus argutus), catbrier, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis); persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), foxtail grass (Setaria glauca), broom sedge (Andropogon
virginicus), plume grass (Erianthus contortus), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
and sassafras (Sassafras albidum).
12
Fauna
Wildlife that may frequently use the mixed pine / hardwood community and
maintained/disturbed communities include: two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon
platyrhinos), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), red bat (Lasiurus
borealis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Avian species utilizing these communities include the northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottas), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), great blue heron*
(Ardea herodias) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), belted kingfisher*
(Megaceryle alcyon), field sparrow* (Spizella pusilla), pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). The mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura) is a permanent resident in this community type.
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
One aquatic community, Lake Tillery, a reservoir, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Lakes support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant
source of flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing water. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource influence flora
and faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to
a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to moderately
sized reservoir in rural areas may include common snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophurus sexlineatus), eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander (Ambystoma maculatum),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix), scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum),
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Fish species that may be located here include gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), long nose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), paddlefish (Polyodon spathula),
quillback (Carpiodes carpio), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), eastern mosquitofish* (Gambusia holbrooki), silver
redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), striped bass (Moron saxatilis), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
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. Permanent and temporary impacts to biotic communities are represented in
Table 2.
13
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of
each community present within the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradating portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 80 feet (24 m) for Alternate 1 and 100 feet (30 m) for Alternate 2 and
Alternate 3. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
New Bridge Alternate 3
New Bridge
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood Forest 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.35 (0.14) 0.76 (0.31) 0.76 (0.31)
Totals 0.35 (0.14) 1.76 (0.71) 1.76 (0.71)
Values cited are in acres (hectares)
¦ Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community due to
rounding of significant digits.
¦ Alternate 1 values indicate permanent impacts associated with the removal of existing Bridge
No. 26 and adjacent roadway approaches in approximately the same location for the new bridge.
¦ Alternate 2 and Alternate 3- New Bridge values indicate permanent impacts associated with
the new bridge and adjacent roadway approaches.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting
and sheltering habitat for a variety of wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 26 and its
associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing
faunal numbers. 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 road shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat
will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife
by the creation of earlier successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Permanent terrestrial impacts associated with Alternate 1 total 0.35 acres
(0.14 ha). Permanent terrestrial impacts associated with the new bridge are 1.76
acres (0.71 ha). Alternate 2 and Alternate 3 have the most permanent impacts on
terrestrial communities of the three alternatives because of building a new bridge on
new location. Consequently, Alternate 1 is the least environmentally damaging
alternative, but is not acceptable for reasons previously stated.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even the smallest changes in their
environment. Scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work would effect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes
may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-water construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the lakebed. In-water construction alters the lake's
substrate and may remove lakeside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the
substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian
species and may also release chemicals on or buried in the sediment back into the
14
water column. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a lake.
The removal of lakeside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the banks of the lake enhances the
likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil,
thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic
compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
Lakeside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of
water temperatures, which may impact many species.
III. 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.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated.soil conditions are considered
"wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredge or fill materials
into Waters of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must
follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344).
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. There were no wetland
areas located within the project study area.
Lake Tillery is a 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 Lake Tillery are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters and to wetlands are determined by
using the entire project right-of-way. The right-of-way width is 80 feet (24 m) for
Alternate 1 and 100 feet (30 m) for Alternate 2 and Alternate 3. Surface water
impacts pertaining to Alternate 1 have been determined to be an area of 0.37 acres
(0.15 ha). The surface water impacts for Alternate 2 and Alternate 3 are
approximately 0.45 acres (1.15 ha). The amount of surface water and impacts may
be modified by any changes in roadway design. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right-of-way, therefore, and actual surface water and wetland
impacts may be considerably less.
15
Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge
of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits
for minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other
authorities. A nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words,
compliance with the NWP rules satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404
of the CWA (Strand, 1997).
Nationwide Permit No. 23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers
certain activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in
whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department. Nationwide Permit No.
23 applies when another Federal agency or department determines that their activity,
work, or discharge is categorically excluded from an environmental impact statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or
discharge becomes categorically excluded when its actions neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Also, the Office
of the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the agency or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concur with the categorical exclusion
determination (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). The project's impacts on
the waters of the U in ted States will likely require a NWP 23.
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities
permitted by the federal government comply with state water quality standards. The
DWQ may require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or
substantially modifies surface waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General
Certifications (GCs) that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of
Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water
Quality Certification; updated Internet site). Water Quality Certification No. 3107,
which corresponds to NWP 23, will likely be required for the project's impacts to
surface waters.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted,. through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands and surface waters" 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 Waters of the U.S. has been defined by
the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to surface waters), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40
CFR § 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
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 (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts, such measures should be 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. Total avoidance is not possible because replacing the
16
existing bridge will affect or impact Waters of the United States.
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.
Minimization typically focuses on 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 minimize impacts 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, minimization of "in-stream" activity, covering of
exposed fill material and litter/debris control. Choosing Alternate 1 over Alternate 2
or Alternate 3 may minimize impacts to Waters of the United States, but this option
is not acceptable for reasons previously stated.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
In most situations, the NCDOT must avoid and minimize to the maximum
extent possible all unavoidable adverse impacts to the waters of the United States
before considering compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation includes
restoring, creating, and/or enhancing waters of the United States. The NCDOT
should make every effort to conduct mitigation activities in areas adjacent or
contiguous to the discharge site. The USACE usually requires compensatory
mitigation for activities authorized under CWA §404 if unavoidable impacts to
waters of the United States total more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands or 152.4
linear m (500 linear ft) of perennial and intermittent streams. The DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under a CWA §401 permit if
unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetlands and/or 45.7 linear m (150 linear ft) of perennial streams. Written approval
of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ before the regulatory agency
issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The USACE determines final
permit and mitigation decisions under Section 404 of the CWA.
Compensatory stream mitigation will probably not be required for the project.
Estimated unavoidable lake impacts under Alternate 1, Alternate 2, and Alternate 3
do not require compensatory mitigation levels by the regulatory agencies.
Compensatory mitigation for wetlands will not be required because the project will
not impact wetlands. The regulatory agencies will ultimately provide final permit
and mitigation decisions for the protect.
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 FWS. Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
17
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 November 20, 2000, the FWS lists five federally protected species
for Montgomery County.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Montgomery Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Eastern cougar Fells concolor couguar E*
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
Red cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E**
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Name: Eastern cougar (Fells concolor couguar)
Animal Family: Felidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: June 4, 1973
Characteristics:
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat weighing between 68
and 91 kg. Males are 30-40 percent larger than females. The cougar's body and legs
are a uniform tawny color, although the belly is a pale reddish color, and the backs of
the ears, tip of the tail, and sides of the muzzle are black. Kittens are spotted with
black and have ringed tails until they are about 6 months old.
Distribution and Habitat:
Historically, the eastern cougar occurred from eastern Canada south to
Tennessee and South Carolina. Its distribution has contracted to a few scattered
locations in Minnesota, Michigan, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Additional sightings have also been reported in several counties of western and
southeastern North Carolina. No populations of this species are well documented.
Habitat requirements consist primarily of large tracts of wilderness and adequate
prey, and this species can live in coastal swamps as well as mountainous regions.
Cougars feed mainly on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), although they
may also eat small mammals, wild turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock. It is
estimated that a female cougar can have a range of 5-20 square miles, and a male can
have a range upwards of 25 square miles.
Threats to Species:
Hunting and trapping has been the primary cause of the decline of the eastern
cougar, along with deforestation and increased development. As human activities
encroach further into previously undeveloped areas, the range of suitable habitat for
the eastern cougar will continue to contract.
18
Distinctive Characteristics:
The large size, uniform tawny color, and long tail make this species easy to
distinguish from the bobcat, the only other cat species found in this area.
BIOLOCICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The project study area has vast undeveloped uplands to the north on both
sides of Lake Tillery. Lake Tillery, Richland Creek, and the mixed pine/hardwood
forest community could supply adequate food and water supply for this species.
However, construction of the proposed project will not limit foraging opportunities
for this large predator. A review on October 19, 1999 of the NHP database for rare
species and unique habitats did not indicate the presence of the eastern cougar within
1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project area. No eastern cougars were observed during the
site visit. This project will not affect this species.
Name: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Chatham, Chowan,
Craven, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New Hanover, Northhampton,
Periquimans, Richmond,. Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Their large white head and short white tail can identify adult bald eagles. The
body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a
clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon
otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in
December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources
include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION : NO EFFECT
The project study area is comprised of a maintained/disturbed habitat, mixed
pine/hardwood forest and Lake Tillery. Lake Tillery could provide foraging habitat
for the species; however, the construction of the project will not affect foraging
opportunities for the bald eagle, because the waters of Lake Tillery surround the
project vicinity. Prior to the field visit, NCDOT biologist Jared Gray spoke with
David Allen of the Wildlife Resource Commission Non-Game Division on January
21, 2000, about known nesting sites at Lake Tillery. Mr. Allen said that "all known
nesting sites at Lake Tillery had been below the dam along the Pee-Dee River and
that a survey of the project should be done and that confirmation from the United
States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service would be needed." A survey for the
bald eagle was conducted on February 2, 2000 by NCDOT biologists Chris Murray
and Jared Gray. The search consisted of locating areas, which could be potential
habitat for the eagles nesting site within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project. This search
included using binoculars and walking transects through these areas searching for
nesting sites. There were no bald eagle nests or activity at or near the project study
area during the site visit. On February 9, 2000, NCDOT biologist Jared Gray
contacted Candice Martino of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Martino was
informed of the project, the correspondence with Mr. Allen, and the survey. Ms.
19
Martino said that she did not think that the project would affect the bald eagle. A
review on October 19, 1999 of NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of bald eagle within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project
study area. This project will not effect the bald eagle.
Name: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Animal Family: Picidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The
back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine Pinus alp ustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at east 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees
that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.0 acres (200.0 ha). This acreage must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 12-100 feet (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 feet
(9.1- 15.7 m) high. A large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree can
identify them. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the RCW is located within the mixed pine/hardwood
forest adjacent to Lake Tillery. Scattered loblolly pine trees >60 years old are
present in this community. Accordingly, suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
RCW is located in the project study area. Suitable habitat was surveyed by NCDOT
biologists Chris Murray and Jared Gray on January 12, 2000. This included walking
transects in the suitable habitat and visually searching for RCW signs (cavity trees,
start holes, etc.). There were no RCW cavities or starts observed within the project
vicinity. A review on October 19, 1999 of NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no known populations of RCW within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area. This project will not effect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Name: Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Animal Family: Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: December 9, 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched
rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the
largest, and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the base and
elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are
20
smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pinks to purplish in color and solitary.
The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-
angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open
woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and
dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous parent
material. North Carolina populations are found in soils derived from Diabase, a
circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and
little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist in the project area (i.e.
roadside shoulder and power-line easement). NCDOT biologists Tim Bassette, Tim
Savidge and Jared Gray conducted a plant-by-plant survey on August 14, 2000.
Prior to conducting this survey, a known smooth coneflower population was visited
to familiarize the biologists with the species. Survey methodology involved walking
the length of the project to look for areas with suitable habitat. Once the survey area
was determined, habitat was found and surveyed on foot by the above mentioned
biologists. Although habitat was located, no smooth coneflower was found
anywhere within the project study area. The NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitat does not list any populations of smooth coneflower within the
1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore, this project will not impact
smooth coneflower.
Name: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Animal Family: Aster (Asteraceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
Best Search Time: late summer through frost (August - November)
Characteristics:
Schweinitz's sunflower is a long-lived perennial, flowering from late August
to frost. The yellow disk and ray flowers are formed on small heads (involucre less
than 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 inches (10-20 cm) long and 0.6 - 1.0
inches (1.5 to 2.5 cm) wide while upper leaves are half this size. The leaves are 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 feet (2.0 m) with the top one-third of the
stem branching. The stems are at least sparsely strigose or hirsute below the
inflorescense. 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 occupied prairie-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
21
and other sunny or semi-sunny areas. 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
Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in relatively natural vegetation, the natural community
would be considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Threats to Species:
This species is threatened by fire suppression, urbanization 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.
Distinct characteristics:
Purple stem, scabrous upper leaf surface, dense, soft, white hairs on the lower
leaf surface, small (< 1.5 cm) flower head (not counting petal width), yellow disk and
ray flowers.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's Sunflower does exist in the project area (i.e.,
roadside shoulder and power-line easement). NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter,
Shannon Simpson and Mike Wood conducted a plant-by-plant survey on October 14,
1999. Prior to conducting this survey, a known population of Schweinitz's sunflower
was visited to familiarize the biologists with the species. Survey methodology
involved walking the length of the project to look for areas with suitable habitat.
Once the survey area was determined, habitat was found and surveyed on foot by the
above mentioned biologists. Although habitat was located, no Schweinitz's
sunflower was found anywhere within the project study area. A review on October
19, 1999 of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitat does not list any
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within the 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project
study area. Therefore, this project will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
Federal Species of Concern
According to the December 20, 1999 USFWS list, eleven Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) are listed for Montgomery 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 or
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), 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 1979.
22
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status, and the
existence 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 4. Federal Species of Concern For Montgomery County
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC No
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T/PE No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T/PE No
Sandhills clubtail dragonfly Gomphus parvidens carolinus SR No
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus T/PE No
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana SC/PE No
Georgia aster Aster georgianus T Yes
Ravine sedge Carex impresinervia C Yes
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E No
Yadkin River goldenrod Solidago plumosa E Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material
may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"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"-A Significantly Rare 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 generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern by the state, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were these species observed during the site visit. On October 19, 1999, a
search of the NCNHP database of rare and unique habitats revealed no records of
FSC or State listed species in the project area.
23

111f
n
1
i
i
i
I
I
Q ?
Loke
i
i
T Illery
Bridge No. 26
i
?g,52
ZO
1150
i•
SHELTER
MOUNTAIN
1132 1131
• , 4 ?J
1.2 1112
1171 4.
2 n?; 1 130
Pee Dee
1112 1113
.l
8 O to \
73
1111
1188
1110
1109
1188 •- •1 103
Hydro 1187 `?
11
D
\ North Carolina
• Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
or
Planning & Environmental Branch
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR MO
Over Lake Tillery
&3355
Figure 1
KlFaL^^.". ?,<.i'i.??t?fC.?... =. ?'. r , f?? f l 1 •, -r?? i? f, ..-?,
?i
00 :r
efl ?
c.
h ?
a
? U.
CV
C ?
a^f
O N
a-r
"S
O r?r
v
w U.
"Y
O
P.
iA
(v

yy4k

M?
62p? 5 fit P \
19
t?y`i )
f •
1
?? 1
f/?4 t ''I
¦Gc -
%A?
i$

RUN
T

L
O
G

>
C >,
3 G R
? c C C ?-•
o c y
? O O
U O ? N F"' iP+
_
x ?
? c i' o v v;
E Q '? ?
0 +
U
L c
O c
o o
0
co ;
?+
L G
O CJ ?
?
? C G'i rYq" >
? py
z Ca Q c. W
I
614
OM``, ?'.
'Y C'I
F
Q ? o--
? F?
Iti '
?
ly f
k T
f

'+

t
ow
?
,
,1 I
! I
5 t ]?? J ii ) F 3'Y +' t7?i?
r M?
q ?n fJ, w .
,r??? YSlr ?- ?.. I
.RA ? • ! I III
F
ti
B-3355 FIGURE 3A
Looking Nest Across the Bridge
Looking East Across the Bridge
B-3353 FIGURE 3B
North Side of Bridge
South Side of Bridge
OA #0UAJ
d„? srnre,,
s
0?5
V E D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 25, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110 over Lake Tillery,
Montgomery County, B-3355, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1110(2), State Project 8.255040 1,
ER 99-8411
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of March 8, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have checked our maps and files and determined that the subject bridge was built in
1935. Given its age and location immediately downstream of the Tillery dam, powerhouse,
and Norfolk Railroad bridge, we believe it may be part of a•small historic district that
highlights industrial development in the area. An evaluation of the potential historic district
is recommended.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the protect
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?w
,?, STATF ?„?
Dpp
,?yf
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
April 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic-Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 110 over Lake Tillery, TIP No. B-3355, Montgomery County,
ER 99-8411
Thank you for your recent letter transmitting the survey report by Mary Pope Furr concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Bridge No. 26 is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C for architecture as a unique
form consisting of a deck made of steel I-beams onto which a timber and asphalt deck is laid, wholly
different from other bridges constructed at this time. We concur with the boundaries as stated on page 10
of the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: T. Padgett
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] - 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] - 715-4801

Federal Aid # BRZ-1 110(2) TIP 4 B-3355 County: Montgomery
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 1 110 over Lake Tillery
On May 4, 2000, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s).are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ' . ` Date
S
State Historic Preservation Officer /
Date
Date
Federal Aid # BRZ-1 110(2) TIP # B-3355 County: Montgomery
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Br e Z(.Q DE - no c ??e& ba se
b r; w '1\ be- closes ?D v ?1?i Culo` r
A-to-l V
Properties within the area.of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT HP FHWA SHPO wJ

M STS p
t? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANsPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT J R.
GoVERNoR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
E._NQOR S TOLSON
SECRETARY
t ?.
I A%
March 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager _
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
C'?Lr
Curtis B. Yates, Director
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge Replacement Project:
Bridge No. 26 on SR 1110 Over Lake Tillery
Montgomery County, TIP No. B-3355.
In your memorandum of March 8, 1999, you requested our comments regarding the
proposed improvements to the subject project.
This section of roadway, SR 1110 corresponds to a TIP request, it is also a
designated bicycle route, North Carolina Bicycling Highway - Sandhills Sector, Map I-1.
Since the Uwharrie National Forest and the adjoining Morrow Mountain State Park are
increasingly attractive destinations for a variety of outdoor recreational pursuits,
including bicyclists, we recommend that bicycle accommodations be considered for the
subject facility. The proposed facility should accommodate a cross-section with
AASHTO standard wide paved shoulders of 1.2 m (4 ft.) along both sides of the subject
roadway. In addition, bridge rail height of 1372 mm (54-inch) should be provided for
bicycle safety. These bicycle accommodations should be provided on the bridge
approaches and bridge deck.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If there is a need for further
information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/rwd
Curtis B. Yates
Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
Email: cbyates®mai1do1.sta1e.nc.us
?. 1W