20191416_Merger Process Documentation_20120322

a
V. •_
.v. j.s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
AY 2 2
N�� 2012
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
May 16, 2012
Mr Ronnie Smith
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403
Dear Mr Smith
EUGENE A CONTI JR
SECRETARY
SUBJECT SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS Apphcatnopn for a
Department of the Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States to widen NC 24 27 from NC 740 in Albemarle to the
proposed Troy Bypass west of Troy Stanly and Montgomery Counties,
North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRSTP 0024(33) — B 4974
WBS Element 34446 16, 39922 1 1, & 35572 1 1
TIP Projects R 2530B, B 4974, and R 2527
The following application, including ENG Form 4345 and the project summary, is submitted for
your consideration The mailing list (labels) will be sent in a separate mailing As you are
aware this project was selected for treatment under the Merger 01 process At this puncture, the
Regulatory Division has provided concurrence with Purpose and Need (CP 1), the selection of
Detailed Study Alternatives (CP 2) and Bridging Decisions Structures (CP 2A) An
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared and was distributed prior to this application
The attached information includes a summary of relevant project details and is being
provided to assist in the Section 404 regulatory review of the project This letter and
attachments along with the previously distributed EA should provide sufficient
information for the issuance of a Public Notice for the project
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly proceed
toward selecting the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative
which meets the purpose and need of the project) following analysis of public input
Once the LEDPA is selected and approved efforts will be undertaken to further minimize
impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to propose suitable
compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts

If you have any questions, or need additional information please contact Ms Lisa Feller,
PE at [phone] or Ms Amy James at (919) 707 -6129
i
s Sincerely,
Grego rpe, Ph D anager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
CC Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
John Sullivan, PE, FHWA Division Administrator
David Wainwright, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Renee Gledhill- Earley HPO
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Mihtscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Felix Davila, PE, FHWA
Jay Bennett, PE, Roadway Design
Greg Perfetti, PE, Structures Management
Art McMillan PE, Hydraulics
Phil Hams, PE Natural Environment Section
Richard Hancock, PE Division 8 Engineer
Barry Moose PE Division 10 Engineer
Eric Midkiff, PE, Project Development
I I Beverly Robinson, Project Development
Mated Al- Ghandour, PE, Program Development
Dana Stoogenke, AICP, Rocky River RPO
Jesse Day, AICP Piedmont Triad RPO

r
APPLICATION FUR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL NO 0710 -0003
(33 CRR 325)
EXPIRES 31 August 2012
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions searching
existing data sources gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send Comments regarding this
burden eAtmate or any other aspi:ct of this collection of information including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense Washington
Headquarters Executive Services and Communications Directorate Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 0003) Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Information if it does not display a currently valid ONIB control number Please DO NOT RETURN your form to
either of those addresses Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 33 USC 403 Clean Water Act Section 404 33 USC 1344 Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries
Act Section 103 33 USC 1413 Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332 Principal Purpose Information provided on this
form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses This Information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal
state and local government agencies and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law Submission of
requested information is voluntary however if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued One set of
original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity An application that is not
completed in full will be returned
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1 APPLICATION NO
2 FIELD OFFICE CODE
3 DATE RECEIVED
4 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5 APPLICANTS NAME
8 AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
First Greg Middle Last - Thorpe
First Middle Last -
Company — NC Dep rimem of Transportatio Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit
Company —
E- mail Address - Iteilerr@ncdotgov
E-mail Address -
6 APPLICANT S ADDRESS
9 AGENTS ADDRESS
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
Address
City — Raleigh State - NC ZP - 27699.1546 Country -
City - State - Zp - Country -
7 APPLICANTS PHONE NOs W /AREA CODE
10 AGENT'S PHONE NOs WIAREA CODE
a Residence b Business c Fax
a Residence b Business c Fax
919 707 -6000
STATEMENT OFAUTHORIZATION
11 1 hereby authorize to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of this permit applicatron
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see mtrvctions)
NCDOT TIP Project R 25308 84974 rid R 2527 (Fed rally f ded EA) NC 24-27 from NC 7401 Aibern rte t the Proposed T oy Bypas (R -623) westof Troy n St my and Montgomery Counties
13 NAME OF WATERBODY IF KNOWN (dappl cable)
14 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if ppirc bie)
Poe Dee Rrvar Creaks Rocky Dumas Ct3rks Lick F rk Wood R Smith Branch Mm to & J mbs
Address
15 LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude N
Longitude °W
City State - 7lp
16 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality
Section - Township - Ranae -
17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See attached vicinity map cover letter and summary
ENG FORM 4345 SEPT 2009 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE Proponent CECW OR

u u . v �✓c .. } v �. Vic., u vc nu. �
Widen two lane to three lane NC 24 -27 to a four lane divided facility between NC 740 to the Proposed Troy Bypass
(R -623) west of Troy In Stanly and Montgomery Counties See attached summary for further information
I
19 Project Purpose (Descnb the reason or purpos of the Wq d see stru tons)
The improvements will improve traffic flow and level of service along NC 24 27 and maintain a bridge across the
Pee Dee River that addresses the needs of the highway users See attached summary for further information
USE BLOCKS 20 23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20 Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of the NC 24 27 improvements will result In roadway fill in wetlands and surface waters
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see nstftwWns)
Acres gee attached summary
Or
Liner Feet
23 Description of Avoidance Minimization and Compensation (see inswctons)
See attached summary
24 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes 0 No ) IF YES DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25 Addresses of Adjoirung Property Owners Lessees Etc Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here please attach a supplemental tst)
Address - See attached mailing labels and lists
City — State — Zip —
26 List of Other Certifications or ApprovalslDenials Received from other Federal State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning budding and flood plain permits
27 Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work descn bed in this application 1 certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant
7ock E OF AP 1CANT AT SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The a i be signe by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the
statement in has been fi lled out and signed
13 U S C Section 1001 provides that Whoever in any manner within the )unsdichon of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully
falsifies conceals or covers up any trick scheme or disguises a material fact or makes any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry shall be fined not more than
$10 000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345 SEPT 2009

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page I of 23
NC 24 -27 WIDENING FROM NC 740 IN ALBEMARLE
TO THE PROPOSED TROD' BYPASS (R -623), WEST OF TROD'
STANLY AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES
TIP PROJECTS R- 2530B, B -4974 AND R -2527
INTRODUCTION
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project R 2530B involves widening
existing NC 24 27 from west of NC 740 to the Pee Dee River in Stanly County from a two /
three lane facility to a four lane divided facility with a 23 foot raised median from NC 740 to SR
1731 (Sweet Home Church Road) and transitioning to a 46 foot depressed median from east of
SR 1731 to the Pee Dee River in Stanly County TIP project B 4974 involves replacing existing
Bridge No 51 over the Pee Dee River on the Stanly / Montgomery County line TIP project R-
2527 involves widening existing NC 24 27 from a two lane facility to a four lane divided facility
with a 46 foot depressed median from the Pee Dee River to the proposed Troy Bypass west of
Troy in Montgomery County The total length of the proposed projects is approximately 14 6
miles long (See Vicinity Map, Figure I and Typical Sections, Figure 2) The proposed
widening is included in the 2012 2020 North Carolina State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP)
NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
A NEPA 404 Concurrence Point 1 Meeting for TIP Project R 2527 was held on February
23 2006 The merger team did not concur with the purpose and need statement and study
corridor because of logical termini issues Logical termini for project development are defined
as rational end points for a transportation improvement and rational end points for a review of
environmental impacts Based on recommendations made by the US Army Corps of Engineers
a Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed that will include all three TIP
projects All three projects are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
A Concurrence Point 1 and 2 meeting was held on August 12 2008 Concurrence was
reached on the Purpose and Need (CP 1) for the projects and Alternatives to be Carried Forward
for Detailed Study (CP 2) for projects R 2530B and B 4974 The Concurrence Point 2 meeting
was continued on December 11 2008, and concurrence was reached for Alternatives to be
Carried Forward for Detailed Study (CP 2) for project R -2527 Concurrence on Bridging
Decisions (Concurrence Point 2A) was reached at the February 2 2011 field meeting
Concurrence was reached to eliminate two of the four bridge replacement alternatives
Concurrence Point 2 (revised) for project B -4974 in August 2011
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of these projects is to improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on the
section of NC 24 27 between NC 740 in Albemarle to the proposed Troy Bypass west of Troy
and to maintain a bridge across the Pee Dee River that addresses the needs of highway users

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 2 of 23
The proposed projects are intended to address the following needs
Transportation deficiencies exist along NC 24 27 in the project study areas which are
projected to increase substantially by the year 2035
Bridge No 51 over the Pee Dee River is considered structurally deficient and is eligible
for the Federal Aid Highway Bridge Program
Maintain and improve the mobility and connectivity functions of the NC 24 27 corndor
as part of the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision and the North Carolina Intrastate
System
COST ESTIMATES AND SCHEDULE
According to the 2012 2020 STIP, right of way acquisition and construction for R -2530B
and B -4974 are scheduled for state and federal fiscal years 2014 and 2016, respectively Right of
way acquisition and construction for R -2527 is scheduled for state fiscal years 2016 and 2018,
respectively
The cost estimates included in the 2012 2020 STIP are listed in Table 1 below, and the
latest cost estimates for the projects are listed in Table 2 below
TABLE I PROJECT COST ESTIMATES FROM THE 2012 -2020 STIP
Project
Number
Right of
Way Cost
Construction
Cost
Mitigation
Cost
Prior Years
Cost
Total Project
Cost
R 2530B
$5,750,000
$22300,000
$0
$841500
$28,891,506-
B -4974
$1,800,000
$18,200,000
$0
$0
$20 000 000
R 2527
$4,100,000,
$32,299,000
$4,058 000
$2,574 000
$43,031,000
TABLE 2 LA'T'EST PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Project Number
Right of Way Cost
Construction Cost
Project Cost
R -2530B
Tie to Alternative 1
$10 620 830
$26 100 000
$36720,830
Tie to Alternative 4
$9,482,460
$26,100,000
$35,582,460
B 4974
- Alternative 1
$1 665 000
$14,700,000
$163652000
- Alternative 4
$1,588,150
$12,100000
$13688,150
R 2527
$3089,790
$34600,000
$37689,790

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 3 of 23
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"No- Build" Alternative
The No Build alternative is not recommended The No Build Alternative would not
provide any substantial improvements to the NC 24 27 study corridor and would not meet the
purposes and needs identified for the proposed projects It would not improve traffic flow and
level of service (LOS) on the section of NC 24 27 through the project study area The structural
deficiencies of the James B Garrison Bridge would not be addressed
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the
available capacity of the roadway within the existing right of way with minimum capital
expenditures and without reconstructing or adding additional through lanes to the existing road
Addition of turn lanes striping signing signalization and minor realignments are examples of
TSM physical improvements Examples of TSM operational improvements include traffic law
enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and signal timing changes TSM improvements
alone will not increase capacity or improve levels of service enough to prevent failing traffic
conditions in the future design year
Ah$!nment Alternatives
The projects were divided into seven sections in order to evaluate alignment alternatives
The NEPA/404 merger team discussed and agreed on preparing a detailed study of a Best Fit
Build alignment for R 2527 Sections 6 and 7 at the NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 2
meeting This alternative will widen NC 24 27 at locations that best fit the current road
location and surrounding land uses Best fit locations were evaluated and selected to improve
the existing road alignment minimize impacts and permit maintenance of traffic during
construction
Both north and south side widening were considered for R 2530B until the merger team
agreed to a detailed study of a Best Fit Build alignment for R 2530B Sections 1 2 3 and 4 at
the NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 2A meeting North or south side widening was
eliminated because of the similarity in impacts The merger team agreed that a Best Fit
alternative would allow the design engineers an opportunity to minimize the impacts by shifting
the alignment as necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements Best fit locations
were evaluated and selected to improve the existing road alignment, minimize impacts, and
permit maintenance of traffic during construction
Four alternatives were considered for B 4974 Section 5 Alternative 1 consists of
replacing Bridge No 51 with a new bridge south of the existing bridges Alternative 2 consists
of replacing Bridge Nos 50 and 51 with new bridges south of the existing bridges Alternative 3
consists of replacing Bridge Nos 50 and 51 with new bridges north of the existing bridges

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 4 of 23
Alternative 4 consists of removing Bridge No 51 and replacing it with a new bridge along the
existing roadway alignment Alternative 4 will impact the National Register Eligible Bridge No
51 Alternatives 1 2 and 3 do not directly impact Bridge No 51 and may provide a potential
preservation opportunity for an interested individual group or municipality Stanly County has
expressed an interest in taking over the maintenance of historic Bridge No 51 to provide a trail
connection between Morrow Mountain State Park and the Uwharrie National Forest
The merger team agreed to a detailed study of two alternatives Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4 and eliminated Alternatives 2 and 3 after the Concurrence Point 2A meeting
Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated based on higher natural environmental impacts and the
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit s recommendation to not replace Bridge No 50 at this time
Alternatives 1 and 4 will be carried forward for detailed study
The project study area for all sections of R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 are shown in
Figures 4A to 4M Table 3 presents various impacts for the original alignment scenarios
Table 4 presents the environmental impacts for the alternatives currently under consideration
THIS SECTION WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

\
�
¢
/
\
\
%
b
\
�
\
\
\%
/ 0
r©
% %
ca
04 k
«
w
2
«
w
-i
m
«
w
U)
eM
o
0
CC
0
0
0
o
c//
c
7
\
�L_j
�$}
_ u
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:
A
«4§
�
7
n
r
o
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
\
o-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
§
§
�
@
=
c
n
q
A
r
n
r##
�
m
(©#
w
r
A
r#
r
A
r
q
_
&/
0
0
0
2
0$
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
2
■ 2
z
2
Z
y
Z¥
2
2
2
2
2
2
y
y
CL
2
_^
c
A
n
n
CO
r
q
n
r
u
o
o
-=
0
0
0
0
o
CO
o
o
N
It
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
§_
M
n
w
&=
r
=
A
o
A
c
c
'IT
n
2
%
w
a
c
o&
n#
m#
#
c
n
m
A
r
q
n
n
o
CO
n
n
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
n
n
�
7
r
q
CO
_£
=
2
=_
_
r
E
c
E
c
U-
-
LL
t=
=
s
t
5
t
5
b
a
m
b
«
f
k
$
k
/
k
k
_k
/
$
k
m
m
M.
04
C4
n
=
=
n
A
o
#
It
k \
//
2
I-
/
0
-N
0
�k
/f
//
en
CO
�®
/%
//
\m
m±
Z�
//
\
77
0
LL
2m
ƒU
ƒU
ƒy
Ǥ
7 ®ƒ®
\
/0
w
k 0
■�
/
n=
/
V) 04
/
rn
/
V)
/
« E
\
rc©¥
\
o v
q
q
A
q
A
q
a m
±
±
I
±
E
%
@
U $
U /
U-
0
�
0
/ /
w §
ƒ 0
m )
q
? S
� k �
m o a
/ :3 0
2 � co
= 2
7 //
\ ƒ
0 3
� 2 �
E _ £
7 � 3
c � m
« cn
c F
LO
E \
k 2 2)
CL E m E
2 ƒ
«
- / m -
n E 0 -0
c2Om
/ D- \ k
E \2§
J m
7 [ N %
ƒ C)-f�
3
U)
LL m -0 m�
$ o ƒ
co
-2 2
5 § L
0)/
m n E
EoQ�m
E 7o \ -c
k �
m |
w
O
2

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 6 of 23
TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
IMPACT CATEGORY
j .{.«'4 a.....� ...._._._ f
PR ©7ECT STUDY ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL
AN y
j
iM&ACtTS
#4"—
A
B 1
B4
C
R 2530B
B 4974
B 4974
R 2527
A +B1 +C
A +B4 +C
Alt 1
Alt 4
Natural Resources Impactsw
A 7 -2m, Aff "L 101-1
F 471,
Federal Listed Species Habitat
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100 Year Flood Plain and
Floodway Impacts
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Wetlands (number of
crossings/acres)
4/058
2 / 0 08
1/002
23 / 1 71
29/237
28/231
Stream Crossings (number /linear
23/
7/
29/
59/
60/
feet) * * **
7 122
1314
48/
1� 46
6 438
15 227
15 518
Water Supply Critical Areas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rare Plants *
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
USFS Forest Land (acres) * * * **
0
9
9
4-4
4-2A
4-28
0
0
50
50
50
Human Enironment Impacts'
;
Residential Relocations (number)
See
18
16
7
25
23
g
Business Relocations (number)
See
24
19
3
27
22
B
Low Income/Minority Population
No
No
No
No
No
No
Cemeteries /Gravesites (number of
Yes / 0
No
No
No
Yes / 0
Yes / 0
graves impacted)
Historic Structures **
0
0
1
0
0
1
Archaeological Sites
3
0
0
3
6
6
Section 4(f) Impacts
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Traffic Noise Impacts (receptors)
19
* **
* **
11
30
30
/Noise Sensitive Areas
Air Quality
Within an Attainment area
Physical' Environment I*adfis""X
UMM a
W ,
Railroad Crossings (number)
0
0
0
1
1
1
Farmland
No
No
No
No
No
No
Potentially Hazardous Materials
17
* **
* **
6
23
23
Sites (number)
NOTES
• All impacts but the USFS Forest Land acreage are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25
feet The USFS Forest Land acreage is based on preliminary proposed right of way limits
• * Rare plants include Schweinitz s Sunflower Georgia Aster Large Witch Alder and Smooth Sunflower
• ** The Swift Island Ferry / James B Garrison Bridge (Existing Bridge 51) is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places
• * ** Impacts for B 4974 are included with R 2530B or R 2527
• * * * *St W was declared to be an ephemeral feature not subject to the permit requirement of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act at the February 2 2011 CP2A field meeting and should be deleted
• * * * ** USFS Forest Land acreage was recalculated based on updated forest boundaries

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 7 of 23
Bridges and Drainage Structures
Table 5 below presents the proposed bridges and drainage structures at major stream
crossings for the alternatives under consideration within the R 2530B, B 4974 and R 2527
project limits The locations of the proposed structures are shown on Figure 5
TABLE 5 Proposed Bridges and Drainage Structures (Major Stream Crossings)
Site
Stream under or
No
Railroad over
Location on
Recommended Structure
Flood Zone
NC 24 27
NC 24 27
Status
R 2530B
1
0 3 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 87 5 X 68
UT Mountain Creek
NC 740 Junction
(87 X63 ) CMPA
N/A
2
UT Mountain Creek
0 3 miles NW of the
Retain and Extend 1 (rL 6 X 6 RCBC
N/A
SR 1537 Junction
3
UT Mountain Creek
0 05 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 (a, 6 X 6 RCBC
N/A
SR 1731 Junction
B 4974
4
0 2 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 7 X 7
UT Pee Dee River
SR 1778 Junction
Bottomless RCBC
N/A
Pee Dee River
0 1 miles W of the
Build a new 1135 bridge south of the
Designated Flood
5
Alternative 1
NC 73 Junction
existing bridges Existing Bridge No
Hazard Zone
51 can remain in place
Pee Dee River
0 1 miles W of the
Remove Bridge No 51 and replace it
Designated Flood
5
Alternative 4
NC 73 Junction
with a new 1170 bridge Existing
Hazard Zone
Bridge No 50 will remain m place
R 2527
6
Rocky Creek
0 4 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 2@ 10 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1150 Junction
Hazard Zone
7
Rocky Creek
0 08 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 2 � 9 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1150 Junction
,
Hazard Zone
8
Clarks Creek
0 8 miles SW of the
Retain and Extend 2 ki, 10 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1134 Junction
Hazard Zone
9
UT Lick Fork Creek
0 5 miles NE of the
Retain and Extend 2 @ 7 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1134 Junction
Hazard Zone
10
UT Rocky Creek
0 2 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 1 (cc, 7 X 5 RCBC
N/A
SR 1137 unction
11
UT Rocky Creek
0 1 miles E of the
Retain and Extend 1 La 7 X 2� RCBC
N/A
SR 1137 Junction
12
Rocky Creek
0 3 miles E of the
Retain and Extend 3 L 9 X 9 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1137 junction
Hazard Zone
Near
Norfolk Southern/
0 1 miles W of the
Build a new 210 bridge and railroad
12
Aberdeen Carolina &
NC 109 Junction
track west of the existing bridge
N/A
Western Railway
Remove Bridge No 14
13
Smith Branch Creek
0 4 miles NE of the
Retain and Extend 1 0, 8 X 8 RCBC
N/A
NC 109 Junction
Notes UT — Unnamed Tributary
RCBC — Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CMPA — Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 8 of 23
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SURFACE WATERS
Water resources within the study area are located in the Yadkin Pee Dee River
Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040104 NCDWQ Subbasins 03 07 08, 03 07 10 and
03 07 15) All streams identified within the R 2530B project study area are unnamed
tributaries to one of three named systems Mountain Creek Jacobs Creek and the Pee
Dee River Water resources present in the R 2527 project study area include Lake
Tillery /Pee Dee River Rocky Creek (Lake Tillery tributary), Dumas Creek Clarks
Creek, Lick Fork Creek, Rocky Creek (Little River tributary) Smith Branch Cattail
Creek and Wood Run It should be noted that there are two streams named Rocky Creek
within the R 2527 project study area The Pee Dee River at this location is dammed
downstream to form Lake Tillery Upstream the Uwharrie River and Yadkin River
converge to form the Pee Dee River The lake does not exhibit riverme conditions due to
the dam, and is typical of manmade reservoirs throughout the state See Table 6 for water
resource subbasin locations and best usage classifications and see Figures 4A to 4M for
water resource locations
TABLE 6 WATER RESOURCES DATA
Project
Water
Resource
DWQ Stream
Index No
Subbasm
Best Usage Classification
R 2530B
Mountain Creek
13 5 (0 7)
03 07 08
WS IV, CA
R 2530B
Jacobs Creek
13 9 (0 5)
03 07 08
WS IV CA
R 2530B
Pee Dee River
13 (1)
03 07 08
WS IV B CA
B 4974 &
R 2527
Lake
Tillery /Pee Dee
River
13 (1)
03 07 -08
WS IV B CA
R 2527
Rocky Creek
(Lake Tillery
tributary)
13 8 (2)
03 07 08
WS IV, CA
R 2527
Dumas Creek
13 16 1
03 07 08
C
R 2527
Clarks Creek
13 16
03 07 10
C
R 2527
Lick Fork Creek
13 16 4
03 07 10
C
R 2527
Rocky Creek
(Little River
tributary)
13 25 30 (0 5)
03 07 15
C, HQW
R 2527
Smith Branch
13 25 30 1
03 07 15
C
R 2527
Cattail Creek
13 8 1
03 07 08
WS IV
R 2527
Wood Run
13 7 (1)
03 07 08
WS IV

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 9 of 23
Streams and Wetlands
For project R 2530B there are 7,122 linear feet of stream impacts and 0 58 acres
of wetland impacts See Table 7 for stream impacts and Tables 10 for wetland impacts
within the R 2530B project study area For project B 4974, Alternative 1 there are 166-1
linear feet of stream impacts and 0 08 acres of wetland impacts For project B 4974,
Alternative 4 there are 1958 linear feet of stream impacts and 0 02 acres of wetland
impacts See Table S for stream impacts and Table 11 for wetland impacts within the B
4974 project study area For project R 2527 there are 6 438 linear feet of stream impacts
and 171 acres of wetland impacts See Table 9 for stream impacts and Table 12 for
wetland impacts within the R -2527 project study area
TABLE 7 STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R -2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA
STREAM
10
STREAM
-- NAME
IKAW
'WR
NCDENR STATUS,�DWQ
CLASSIFICATION
ne-
SCORE
STREAM,
LENGTH IN
STUDY
A
AREA
(FEET)
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN STREAM
IMPACTS (FEET)
ALTERNATIVE
BESTS FIT
DITCH
UT Mountain Creek
290
12
St AN 02
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
305
788
237
St AA
UT Pee Dee River
Intermittent
13
223
188
St B
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
32
475
208
St C
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
265
255
57
St CC
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
33
515
28
St DD
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
151
34
St E
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
32
396
69
St EE
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
305
527
113
St F
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
1264
657
St FF
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
245
392
130
St G
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
205
210
38
St GG
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
355
310
267
St HH
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
305
619
150
St I
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
28
2416
2060
St J
UT Mountain Creek
Perennial
295
175
36
St L
UT Mountain Creek
Intermittent
165
248
248
St M
UT Jacobs Creek
Perennial
365
3730
994
St N
UT Jacobs Creek
Perennial
40
676
381
St P
UT Jacobs Creek
Intermittent
23
789
612
St Q
UT Jacobs Creek
Perennial
345
662
178
St R
UT Pee Dee River
Perennial
31 5
884
410
L Sta 95 +00
?
?
?
15
TOTAL STREAM
IMPACTS FOR R 2530B
7 122
NOTES
• Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
• Information is unavailable for items marked with a
I

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 10 of 23
TABLE 8 STREAM IMPACTS IN THE B -4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA
NOTES
• * Information updated after 3/26/08 site visit with NCDWQ
• * *St W was declared to be an ephemeral feature not subject to the permit requirement of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act at the February 2 2011 CP2A field meeting and should be deleted
• Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
• Information is unavailable for items marked with a
TABLE 9 STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R -2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 11 of 23
SP
UT Clarks Creek
Perennial
40
521
108
SR
UT Lick Fork Creek
Intermittent
245
507
171
SU
UT Lick Fork Creek
Perennial
39
343
267
SW B
UT Lick Fork Creek
Intermittent
29
672
147
SW C1
UT Rocky Creek
Intermittent
275
664
202
SX
UT Lick Fork Creek
Perennial
375
1 567
339
SY A
UT Rocky Creek
Perennial
405
2 335
729
SY B
Smith Branch Creek
Perennial
43
902
196
SZ
UT Smith Branch Creek
Intermittent
2775
858
119
NC73 1
UT Pee Dee River
Intermittent
195
N/A per USACE
NWS1
UT Rocky Creek
Intermittent
No Form
284
96
SES1
UT Rocky Creek
Intermittent
No Form
85
85
TOTAL STREAM
IMPACTS FOR R 2527
6,438
NOTES
• Information updated after 3/26/08 site visit with NCDWQ
• These streams were verified by the USACE and NCDWQ on 05 31 06
• Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
• Information is unavailable for items marked with No Form
TABLE 10 WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R -2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA
• Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
• Information is unavailable for items marked with No Form
TABLE 11 WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE B4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA
NOTES
• Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
• Information is unavailable for items marked with No Form

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 12 of 23
TABLE 12 WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R -2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA
" fir—
WETLAND
3 ID
WETLAND'
rTYPE
WETLAND
RATING
� "
WETLAND AREA
IN STUDY AREA
(Acres)
PRELIMINARY DESIGN"
WETLAND�IMPACTS (ACRES)
M ALTERNATlVi
BEST FIT1
WBB
Rivenne
20
0110
011
WCC
Rivenne
22
0 037
001
WE
Rivenne
19
0 011
001
WEE
Non Rivenne
18
0 308
004
WF
Rivenne
25
0 101
003
WFF
Rivenne
31
0 601
004
WGG
Non Rivenne
22
0 251
005
WH
Riverine
18
0 007
001
WHH
Rivenne
31
0 019
002
WJ
Riverine
18
0 003
<0 01
WA
Rivenne
29
0 035
002
WM
Rivenne
30
0 012
001
WN
Rivenne
30
0 017
001
WNN
Rivenne
16
0 493
014
WP
Non Rivenne
30
0 092
087
WPP
Non Rivenne
18
0 057
<0 01
WR
Non Rivenne
30
0 099
003
WS
Rivenne
19
0 054
002
WT
Non Rivenne
16
0 166
Oil
WU 1
Rivenne
19
0 018
002
WU 2
Rivenne
39
0 123
Oil
WZ
Rivenne
18
0 076
002
WZZ
Non Rivenne
19
0 037
<0 01
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR R 2527
1 71
NOTES Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet
Flood Hazard Evaluation
The Pee Dee River at this location is the boundary between Stanly and Montgomery
Counties Both counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program which
is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Based on the most
current information available from the NC Floodplam Mapping Program (FMP), five of the eight
stream crossings on Project R 2527 and the river crossing on Project B 4974 are in designated
flood hazard zones which will require coordination with FEMA
The proposed culvert extensions and bridge replacement will provide equivalent or greater
conveyance than that of the existing culverts and bridge Figures 6A -6D depict the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) in the vicinity of these crossings the limits of the 100 year
floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of projects B -4974 and R 2527
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the FMP the delegated state agency
for administering FEMA s National Flood Insurance Program to determine the status of the
project with regard to applicability of NCDOT S Memorandum of Agreement with FMP or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 13 of 23
Revision (LOMR) It is anticipated the proposed projects will not have a significant adverse
effect on the existing floodplam or on the associated flood hazards
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA regulated stream
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction certifying that the drainage structures and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100 year floodplam were built as shown in the
construction plans both horizontally and vertically
WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
Given the number of streams and wetlands in the project area total avoidance of surface
waters and wetlands by these projects is not feasible Alignments within the project study
corridor have been developed to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams within the corridors
The NEPA/404 merger team has concurred on which areas should be bridged by the alternatives
Impacts on wetlands and streams will be considered in the selection of the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) for the projects Additional minimization measures
will be considered as the projects progress At the NEPA/404 Concurrence Point 2A meeting,
avoidance minimization and mitigation were discussed for several mayor stream crossings
Figure 5 shows the projects mayor stream crossing sites For Site 4 Stream St V efforts will be
made to minimize and avoid impacts during future stages of the design process For Site 9
Stream SU, mitigation will most likely be required The potential for stream relocation will be
further evaluated during future stages of the design process For Site 10, Stream SY A
topography should allow Stream SY A to be relocated The use of natural stream design will be
further evaluated during the actual drainage design For Site 12 Stream SY A topography
should allow Stream SY A to be relocated The use of natural stream design will be further
evaluated during the actual drainage design
Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
As the projects progress, NCDOT will investigate potential on site stream and wetland
mitigation opportunities Final decisions regarding wetland and stream mitigation requirements
will be made by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality If on
site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) In accordance
with the Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the U S Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (MOA), July 22, 2003 the EEP
will be requested to provide off site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project
13

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 14 of 23
BUFFER AREAS /IMPAIRED WATERS
There are currently no basm wide buffer rules for streams in the Yadkin Pee Dee Basin
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses None of the streams within the
study area are included on the Final 2010 303(d) list for North Carolina nor do they dram into
any 303(d) waters within 1 mile of the project study area However the Final 2010 and Draft
2012 303(d) lists include all 13 178 surface waters in North Carolina for limited fish
consumption advisories due to elevated concentrations of mercury in fish tissue of several
species
RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally- Protected Species
As of September 22 2010 (Stanly County) and March 21 2011 (Montgomery County),
the US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) lists the following federally protected species for
Montgomery and Stanly Counties (see Table 13) A brief description of each species
characteristics and habitat follows along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current
best available information from referenced literature and/or the USFWS
TABLE 13 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED FOR STANLY AND
MONTGOMERY COUNTIES
MW
EW Protect& County
,ti��
Common Name
_ "� '
Federal
VStatus
Ha tat
Present?
Biological'* '
' N ConclusionN
R 2530B & R 2527
Schwemitz s Sunflower
E
Yes
May Affect, Likely to
Stanly / Montgomery
Adversely Affect
R 2527 Montgomery
Smooth Coneflower
E
Yes
No Effect
R 2527 Montgomery
Red cockaded Woodpecker
E
No
—
No Effect
E Endangered
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb that grows from 1 to 2 in tall from a cluster of
tuberous roots The stems are usually solitary branching only at or above mid stem The stem is
usually pubescent and is often purple Schweinitz's sunflower begins flowering in late August or
early September and continues flowering until the first frost Current habitats include roadsides
power line clearings old pastures woodland openings and other sunny or semi sunny situations
Biological Conclusion May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
14

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 15 of 23
Sunflower surveys were conducted in October 2011 within the project study areas
Sunflower habitat is extensive along NC 24 27 especially in Montgomery County Several
species of sunflowers were found including smooth sunflower which is state listed as
Significantly Rare
For project R 2530B a population of Schwemrtz s sunflowers was discovered on the
southwest side of NC 24 27 under a utility line Fifty five stems were observed in addition to a
few seedlings Most of the plants were in flower The sunflowers were about 4/10 mile
southeast of Schwemrtz s sunflower population EO 14 which was thought to be extirpated (NC
Natural Heritage Database updated 10/2011) See Figure 4B
For project R 2527 the only location in which Schwemrtz s sunflowers were found in the
study corridor was a previously known population (Element Occurrence (EO) 28) along the
railroad tracks south of NC 24 27 Two clumps of sunflowers totaling about 23 stems were
found on the east side of the tracks across from the beaver pond These sunflowers may not be
visible every year due to herbicide spraying from the rail company The population may not be
viable in the long term for this reason See Figure 4L
Due to the presence of Schwemrtz s sunflower within the project area as well as within 1
mile of the project area a biological conclusion of May affect likely to adversely affect has
been given Additional surveys will be required prior to project construction and this biological
conclusion will necessitate further coordination and consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service A Biological Assessment and a Biological Opinion will be completed prior to the
completion of the final environmental document
Smooth Coneflower
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb in the Aster family that grows up to 1 5 meters tall from a
vertical root stock Flower heads are usually solitary The rays of the flowers (petal like
structures) are light pink to purplish in color Flowering occurs from late May through mid July
and fruits develop from late June to September The fruiting structures often persist through the
fall Smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides clearcuts,
dry limestone bluffs and power line rights of way
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is located within the project area within the disturbed
areas along the railroad tracks and roadside Smooth coneflower surveys were conducted in
2006 No smooth coneflower specimens were observed
The NCNHP database has no records of smooth coneflower occurring within 1 mile of
the project study area The proposed project will have no effect on the smooth coneflower
However due to the presence of potential habitat within the project area, additional surveys will
be required prior to construction
15

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 16 of 23
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
The adult red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a small black and white bird with 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 is endemic to mature fire maintained forests where it uses open, old growth
stands of southern pines particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age These woodpeckers nest and roost in cavities excavated in living pine trees
that are infected with the fungus that causes red heart disease Cavities are located in clusters
from 12 to 100 feet above the ground and average 30 to 50 feet high Cavity trees can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree The RCW lays its eggs in
April May and June the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12 days later
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The project area does contain a few large areas of pine dominated forests, most of which
are within the Uwharrie National Forest Most stands within the project area are young (between
20 and 30 years old) and fragmented between moderate to large clear cut areas Therefore these
stands would not provide suitable nesting habitat however they would provide potential
foraging habitat
Protocol requires that surveys be conducted within 0 5 mile of the project area if potential
foraging habitat is present within the project area Surveys were conducted in 2007 by NCDOT
biologists The surveyed areas within 0 5 mile of the project did contain pine dominated forests
The pines within the surveyed areas were composed of young pines (between 20 to 30 years old)
that would not provide suitable nesting habitat Two areas contained older long leaf pines
(between 30 to 60 years old) The first area located approximately 1 0 mile west of the railroad
and 0 4 mile north NC 24 27 is small with scattered mature pines An inactive cavity tree was
observed within this stand The second area is located approximately 0 3 mile north of the
project study area associated with the railroad This area provides the best potential nesting
habitat however the older trees are scattered throughout the stand which are dominated by
younger pines between 20 to 30 years old The area within 0 5 mile of these stands is
fragmented due to clear cutting
The NCNHP database does indicate a RCW occurrence approximately 2 4 miles south of
the study corridor This record dates back to 1994 and was a cavity tree sighting however no
RCWs were observed No RCWs were observed during the 2007 surveys Based on the
minimal amount of suitable nesting habitat within the study area and within 0 5 mile of the
project area the proposed project will have no effect on the RCW
V

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 17 of 23
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites typically within
1 0 mile of open water Suitable bald eagle nesting habitat exists in the project study area in the
forested areas around Lake Tillery (Pee Dee River)
Biological Conclusion Not Required
The most recent surveys for bald eagle in the Montgomery County portion of the project
study area occurred in 2007 Based on previous bald eagle surveys performed by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission and the known bald eagle nest (approximately 7000 ft
southwest of R 2527 s western terminus) the USFWS agreed to survey limits from 1500 ft
north and south of NC 24 27 to an area 1500 ft inland from the farthest inland tributary of Lake
Tillery / Pee Dee River located near the NC 73 boat ramp No bald eagle or eagle nests were
observed during this survey and it was determined that this area did not have enough large trees
to provide suitable eagle nesting habitat The USFWS did not require bald eagle surveys for the
Stanly County portion of the study area at the same time due to the proximity of the known eagle
nest
The bald eagle was delisted on June 28 2007 Additional surveys may be required within
Montgomery and Stanly Counties prior to project construction However these surveys will be
restricted to 660 feet from the edge of the project boundaries
Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of September 22, 2010 (Stanly County) and March 21 2011 (Montgomery County),
the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists Georgia Aster and Yadkin River Goldenrod as Candidate
species for Montgomery and Stanly Counties During an October 2011 environmental survey, a
population of Georgia asters was found along NC 24 27 in Stanly County See Figure 4B for
the location
Current state and federal laws do not require protection of candidate species These
species were designated within the project study area in case the status is upgraded in the future
Federal Species of Concern
As of September 22, 2010 the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists the following federally
species of concern (FSC) for Stanly County American Eel Carolina Darter Carolina Redhorse,
Brook Floater Carolina Creekshell, Butternut Dwarf Aster, Prairie Birdsfoot Trefoil, Riparian
Vervain and Virginia Quillwort
As of March 21 2011 the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists the following federally
species of concern (FSC) for Montgomery County American Eel Carolina Darter, Carolina
17

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 18 of 23
Redhorse, Northern Pinesnake Pinewoods Darter Sandhills Chub Atlantic Pigtoe Brook
Floater Carolina Creekshell Savannah Lilliput Yellow Lampmussel Bog Oatgrass Bog
Spicebush Dwarf Aster and Ravine Sedge
Current state and federal laws do not require protection of FSC These FSCs were
designated within the project study area in case the status is upgraded in the future
US Forest Service Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species
In addition to plant and animal species receiving protection under the Endangered
Species Act the U S Forest Service (USFS) maintains their own list of Proposed Endangered
Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) species for the Uwharrie National Forest and considers these
species when determining impacts to National Forest System (NFS) lands Since projects B
4974 and R 2527 cross NFS lands a special use permit from the USFS will be required to
provide land for the proposed projects Prior to approving a special use permit for the project,
the USFS requires that the project study area be evaluated for PETS species PETS surveys were
conducted in 2007 by NCDOT staff, and populations of three PETS species were found as
follows one population of Schwemitz s sunflower two populations of large witch alder and
several populations of smooth sunflower Findings of these surveys were sent in a report to the
US Forest Service for review in June 2009 NCDOT will conduct additional surveys of PETS
species in the project area and the PETS survey report will be updated based on comments
received from the USFS prior to the selection of the preferred alternative Further coordination
between the USFS and NCDOT will occur in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
No federally or state designated Wild and Scenic Rivers occur within the project study area
Therefore the project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers
included in the list of study rivers (Public Law 90 542 as amended)
ANADROMOUS FISH
Stanly and Montgomery Counties are not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout
Waters (MTWs) The streams within the project study area do not support trout or anadromous
fish and are not designated as essential fish habitat
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed projects are subject to North Carolina General Statute 121 12(a) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended
ff:3

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 19 of 23
Historic Architectural Resources
A Historical Architectural Survey Report was completed in 2000 for the R 2527 Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in Montgomery County This report recommended that there are no
National Register listed properties within the APE and that the properties over 50 years old in
the APE are not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
A Historical Architectural Survey Report was completed in February 2005 for the R
2530B and B 4974 APE in Stanly County This report recommended that the James B Garrison
Bridge (Swift Island Ferry Bridge) over the Pee Dee River Bridge No 51, is individually
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, design See Figures 4E
and 4G
The James B Garrison Bridge (Swift Island Ferry Bridge) over the Pee Dee River is an
open spandrel arch bridge and was built in 1927 28 by Carolina Power and Light (CP &L) in
cooperation with the Highway Commission to replace a bridge flooded by the raising of the
Tillery Reservoir for a hydroelectric plant CP &L paid most of the costs but the bridge s design
was supervised by the commission, thus the bridge mimicked its predecessor an open spandrel
arch built in 1922 Prior to 1922 a ferry served as the river crossing but since it was such an
important East West route, an open spandrel arch was constructed in 1922 This type of design
was used by the Highway Commission on a handful of bridges at prominent locations across the
state because it offered aesthetics as well as structural strength and economy of materials Only
five open spandrel concrete arches remain in the state
While the design of the bridge is certainly striking and uncommon in this state, the story
behind the demolition of the previous bridge makes this crossing even more interesting Instead
of simply dismantling the bridge CP &L turned the structure over to the military for artillery and
aerial bombing practice The subsequent testing, conducted near Christmas 1927 became known
as The Battle of Swift Island Bridge and was captured for newsreel by cameramen from
Metro Goldwyn Picture Company The bridge withstood assaults from numerous groups
including engineers placing 350 tons on the deck Air Force dive bombers with sand bombs and
live loads, and Army artillery blasting the supports Much to the chagrin of the War Department
(and smugness of the engineers), it took 2,000 pounds of TNT placed at the piers to finally bring
the bridge down
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) concurred with the recommendations discussed in the 2000 report for project R 2527
HPO concurred with the recommendations discussed in the February 2005 report for projects R
2530B and B 4974 in their March 23 2005 memorandum
Project effects on historic properties were discussed with HPO on August 30, 2006 and
again on February 10 2011 The project effects on Bridge No 51 are shown in Table 14
19

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 20 of 23
TABLE 14 B -4974 PROJECT EFFECTS
ALTERNATIVE / SCENARIO
EFFECT FINDING
Alt 1, 2 & 3 new owner agrees to take ownership of Bridge No 51
No Adverse Effect
Alt 1, 2 & 3 — no new owner agrees to take ownership of Bridge No 51
Adverse Effect
Alternative 4
Adverse Effect
Alternatives 1 2 and 3 received a no adverse effect call because these alternatives do
not require the removal of Bridge No 51 There is no adverse effect if a responsible party agrees
to take ownership of the bridge because it will be preserved in place Demolition funds will be
made available to the new owners for future maintenance costs
Alternatives 1 2 and 3 received an adverse effect call because these alternatives do not
require the removal of Bridge No 51 but, the bridge will be removed if no responsible party
agrees to take ownership of it A Section 4(f) evaluation and a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) will be required if a responsible party does not agree to take ownership of Bridge No 51
since the bridge will be removed
An adverse effect call was made for Alternative 4 because the alternative requires the
removal of Bridge No 51 in order to erect a new structure adjacent to Bridge No 50 A Section
4(f) evaluation and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be required since Bridge No 51
will be removed
Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated after the project effects were assessed based on the
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit s recommendation to not replace Bridge No 50 at this time
the SHPO effects determinations and Stanly County s interest in taking over the maintenance of
historic Bridge No 51 to provide a trail connection between Morrow Mountain State Park and
the Uwharrie National Forest Alternatives 1 and 4 will be presented at the public hearing for
citizen comments The least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) will be
selected following the public hearing and the NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 3 meeting
Archaeological Resources
An Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation (Phase I and II) report was
completed in August 2006 for the R 2530B project study area in Stanly County This
investigation recommended that only one site (31ST195) was individually eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criterion [d] of 36 CFR 60 4, and three
sites (31ST195, 31ST196 and 3 1 ST204/204* *) were eligible for listing in the NRHP as an
archaeological district under criterion [a] and [d] of 36 CFR 60 4 (sites 31ST196 and
31ST204/204 ** are not considered to be individually eligible for the NRHP) Two historic
cemeteries were also documented during the course of field investigations but are not
recommended as eligible for the NRHP as individual archaeological resources Avoidance is
recommended for both of the cemeteries and all of the site components to the proposed
archaeological district
20

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 21 of 23
Site 31 ST195 was recommended for listing based on the recovery of a high quantity and
variety of artifacts including diagnostic projectile points and ceramics, the recovery of numerous
artifacts in undisturbed contexts, and the likelihood that this site can be placed into a broader
regional context of lithic procurement and reduction that is rather unique to the Uwharne
Mountain region
Site 31 STl 96 represents a prehistoric lithic quarry where raw material was first obtained
Immediately adjacent to this quarry are two reduction sites (31 ST195 and 31 ST204/204* *) that
represent lithic workshops which are intensive reduction/production sites Together these three
adjacent sites represent the full spectrum of lithic reduction activities from initial extraction
(31ST196) through raw material caching and limited reduction activities (3 1 ST204/204**) to
intensive reduction and tool replacement activities (31 ST195) Diagnostic artifacts were
recovered from sites 31ST195 and 31ST204/204 * *, but not from 31ST196 Avoidance is
recommended for all of the site components to the proposed archaeological district If avoidance
is not possible data recovery excavations are recommended for site 31 ST195 and additional
laboratory analyses (e g lithic sourcing studies) be conducted on the already recovered materials
from 31ST196 and 3 1 ST204/204** prior to the construction of project R 2530B
The Stanly Gardens of Memory cemetery and a portion of the Anderson Grove Church
cemetery are within the R 2530B project study area Neither of these cemeteries is
recommended as eligible for the NRHP as an individual archaeological resource Avoidance and
preservation are recommended for these cemeteries If avoidance is not possible NCDOT will
comply with North Carolina laws governing the treatment of cemeteries (NC General Statutes,
Chapter 65, Article 5)
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) concurred with the recommendations discussed in the August 2006 report in their March
29, 2007 memorandum This memorandum also recommended that if avoidance is not possible
then data recovery excavations be conducted at 31 ST 195 and additional laboratory analyses be
undertaken with archaeological materials recovered from sites 31 ST196 and 31 ST204/204* *
An Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation (Phase I and II) report was
completed in March 2008 for the R 2527 project study area in Montgomery County This
investigation recommended that three sites (31MG321, 31MG1629 and 31MG1806) were
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criterion [d] of 36
CFR 60 4 Avoidance is recommended for these three sites If avoidance is not possible then
mitigation of effects (including data recovery excavations) will be required at these sites prior to
ground disturbing activities
While site 31MG321 was not originally recommended as NRHP eligible in 1978 (when it
was identified), the site was reassessed as potentially eligible for the National Register
following testing by the United States Forest Service in 1983 This site appears to represent
intensive occupation of the location, largely during the Early Archaic period Testing undertaken
on behalf of NCDOT revealed a degree of integrity to the archaeological deposits that may
21

R2561 July 2011 Merger Application
Page 22 of 23
produce extremely valuable information about ecological adaptation and technological
organization during the Early Archaic period
Site 31MG1806 was identified in 2008 as a relatively large lrthic site dating to the Late
Woodland period with a fair degree of vertical integrity to the archaeological deposits south of
NC24/27 This site was recommended as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under criterion [d]
of 36 CFR 60 4 based on the site's ability to convey significant information about technological
organization and lithic economies during the Late Woodland period
Originally identified by the United States Forest Service in 2000 and determined to be
potentially" eligible for the National Register, site 31MG1629 was relocated adjacent to the
Roberdo Bog within the Uwhame National Forest Recent investigations identified a number of
components within the archaeological deposits dating to Late Paleomdian, Middle Archaic and
Middle Woodland periods These deposits appear to retain integrity and clarity, allowing for the
preservation of significant information regarding ecological behaviors associated with all of
these periods The presence of Roberdo Bog in such close proximity, allows for the possibility
of further ecological information being retained in palynological contexts in the bog
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) has concurred with the recommendations discussed in the March 2008 report in their
April 8 2008 memorandum
All of the archaeological resources identified through the course of investigations for the
R -2530B and R 2527 projects (as outlined above) are deemed significant through the
information contained in the archaeological deposits themselves It is understood that this
information can be retained through data recovery efforts or through creative mitigation
strategies such as more intensive laboratory analysis of recovered materials None of these sites
should be considered 4(f) resources, requiring preservation in place
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project area twenty
one (2 1) possible UST facilities one (1) dunk yard and one (1) tire dump were identified within
the proposed project corridor No Hazardous Waste Sites and no apparent landfills were
identified within the project limits Preliminary site assessments will be conducted for all
potentially contaminated sites within the proposed right of way prior to right of way acquisition
Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not
reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur The GeoEnvironmental
Section should be notified immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s)
may be assessed Potentially contaminated properties within the project study areas are presented
in Table 15 and Figures 7A and 7B
22

R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527 May 2012 Merger Application
Page 23 of 23
TABLE 15 - POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Site
No
Site Name
Facility ID
No
Location
1
Rite Aid
0 008321
NW quadrant E Main Street / NC 740 intersection
2
Walgreen s
0 002057
SE quadrant E Main Street / NC 740 intersection
3
Vacant lot
None
South side of E Main Street 1100 east of NC 740
4
Shell
0036518
NW quadrant Barnard Street / E Main Street intersection
5
Lee & Co
None
South side of E Main Street 275 west of Anderson Rd
6
Vacant Dwelling
0026106
North side of E Main Street 275 east of Staley Street
7
Flagstone Realty
None
South side of E Main Street 500 west of Anderson Rd
8
Smclair
None
South side of E Main Street 350 west of Anderson Rd
9
Deeck Mechanical
None
South side of E Main Street 350 west of Anderson Rd
10
Midway Salvage
0008715
SE quadrant E Main Street/ Anderson Road intersection
11
Custom Accessories
None
North side of E Main Street 190 east of Anderson Rd
12
Stanly Salvage
None
North side of NC 24 27 1500 east of Sweet Home Church Rd
13
Min O Pon
0 209440
0 009440
North side of NC 24 27 2300 east of Sweet Home Church Rd
14
Castaways
None
North side of NC 24 27 575 east of McNeil Road
15
Tillery Sportsman BP
0 008319
SW quadrant Indian Mound Road Ext / NC 24 27 intersection
16
Tillery Realty
None
SE quadrant Indian Mound Road Ext / NC 24 27 intersection
17
Vacant Garage
None
SW quadrant Indian Mound Road/ NC 24 27 intersection
18
Norman Residence
None
North side of NC 24 27 550 east of Bridge No 51
19
Remax Properties
0 020889
East side of NC 73 640 south of NC 24 27
20
Uwharrie Sportsman
0 021230
SW quadrant River Road / NC 24 27 intersection
21
Swift Island BP
0036545
NE quadrant River Road / NC 24 27 intersection
22
Greene s Guns & Ammo
None
North side of NC 24 27 1000 west of Liberty Hill Church Road
23
Undeveloped
None
West side of NC 109 1800 south of NC 24 27
LOGICAL TERMINI/INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The proposed projects have logical termini and independent utility The projects involve
widening a two / three lane facility into a four lane divided facility and replacing a bridge The project
limits are limited to the work necessary to widen the road and for all approach work to tie back into
existing roadways The proposed projects will not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements in the area These projects would be a reasonable
expenditure of capital even if no additional transportation improvements in the area were made

FIGURES
USED IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Q
0
cz�
0
W
0
J
w
Q
0
cr
0-
c+i
O
a
--O-1
O O
� � Q
J p
Q
� N
LLJ
D
L
O Ul)
Q
az Lj—
Cl-
!Y�
O
I�
v 1
N
0
U
L
U
Q)
0
Z
Qi
Q)
V)
QZ
0
v
z
0
L
Q
0
ti
Q)
0
LU
W
W
O
cLn v
W
0
I
c+
c�
a
N
k
N
0
a
O J
O
J � Q
v�o
�LIJ�
Q
J
Cl-
� O �
O
I
N
Cl-
Q
m
0
L
a.i
O
O
Q-)
0
QD
O
U
L
,c
cr-
a�
0
Z
a�
/ Q ^i
v 1
0
i
z
O
U
W
N
Q
U lu
Cc
O�
W
V)
O
Cl-
0
Q-

FIGURES 3A TO 31):
2010 AND 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET

O
M
.�1dd Sr4r
O O
1
1
n
Ll
©
n �-
Li
Cl a
�1D
T� -1
cn Z
O
O
y m
m-*
D
n
O
Z
D-
W
m
N
-0
CD
=
Q
O
O
m
m o=
o m
D
C
D
;M,
c
-<
m
D
0
m
0
m
(D .
O
O
D
T<
A
0
C
m
z
17
ZJ
m
Z�DZ�
Dm�
z
D
D
zCI
v
�z�' D
<�
C
D
mm
D
7J
0
O
cNn
V
CN71
caw
A
9Z �Z
—I < 0
coon m
D -zi
m
x
m
D
z
O
C()
2
m
_
N
cn
m
o
-<
C)
X10
(OD O
m
>
>
m
-{
Cl)
m
O
n
m
�r
pl'rR7
1
o
00
740 0���
r'
70
o r;
-4�-
cn o 1
I �\
n L4�
i
O �
cn n)
��4
I
X00
mZ�
DD0
X Z
DEE RIVFQ
\
�
m
M
.�1dd Sr4r
O O
T� -1
cn Z
r
9
—1 0
O l-4
O
% ,n
Z
A
m °
0
mv00z
Z z�<„O
<
n
ci)a cnr
co
pn0D= Ln
z Z
_
ZMc�
z n
mm -n o�
No ig>
- zi <=��
ITI
m o m >
�mv
Z�DZ�
Dm�
OZ
cwt 9c
v
�z�' D
cn
9Z �Z
—I < 0
coon m
D -zi
On
ZO
z
z
1
o
00
740 0���
r'
70
o r;
-4�-
cn o 1
I �\
n L4�
i
O �
cn n)
��4
I
X00
mZ�
DD0
X Z
DEE RIVFQ
\
�
m

NM m 5
LAM
rno
NZ
LAM 6
Mm
mz
Z--j 0 0 Z
IZ Z:,O:;z - o
o-
Z- :5 2 5; , - .
5 rm) 5 �! 5! . -
z n o >
-.4 c
m m m 0 0
Z z m T o
OZ F, > -0 C) >
-C -4 z :�: m 0
C) > -::E z a
460 0 �Z>
-< --q -< In
-4 Ln >
jtL C: rn CA
z CA Z
4 C V
Z m
rn r z z
C (A r)
m f_n z
N -4
4 -< z
(-) -<
z
Al-
4W— 173
(Mc
9
OA
Ap.
jv
-V
'175
f
4.-
16 V-Alih
I lam'
(doo -LNnovi
as
I 1s)
XNO
MATCHLINE
FIGURES 4D
pc'-jilon"(s2).
0
0 —r- 0
Ul
0
C:)
0
M
m
�:O
LAJ
0
V)
0
0
•
C)
0--
C)
L
0
•
ItA
-4
gE
rn
C
3E
m
M
00
'D
m
a D
m m
rn
x
m rn
ip
r-
30.
33.
m
X
m
0
v v
0 0
T
CZ
-2
(A
rn
CA
rr,
(A
rn
CA CA
A rn
Cl)
ZCIAC
310
z
4A
Z
0
0
0 0
4
&A
rrl
CA
--o SP
cl)
•
rn
Z
Z
0
ci
rn
rn
Z
rr' m
Z Z
'71
z
O n
rn
CA
rn
LA
-V
16 V-Alih
I lam'
(doo -LNnovi
as
I 1s)
XNO
MATCHLINE
FIGURES 4D
pc'-jilon"(s2).
0
0 —r- 0
i II
Ul
0
C:)
0
M
m
�:O
LAJ
0
V)
0
0
•
C)
0--
C)
L
0
•
i II

-i r
F>
J O O
yJadds ST4TP
n
m
0 -< y
�4TON
L 0
I
D D
550Fn �;
tDu
�Ncn�
zZ zizo
7�
Zmn
n �
rn-n -0z
o m O
1
o
a
rm
> '0
a
W c
z
Z -<Z
00
CD
c
Cn
-0
_
v z
A �z
n
D
_1
=
O
D
m
O
D
O
m
m
Q
O
D
m
O
=
m
Z
m
v
m
m
O
m
p
m�
K
O
O
o
O
D
c�
-<�
CD
m
71
�7
U
O
n
O
Z
Cl)
r
-4
m
c
m
�
Cmi
-4
co
O�_
m
m
o
<
Z��
`°
O
D
c
*
o
D
0
Ln
U
a
D
O
0
j
o
r
r
cci)
D
-Di
O
W
m
O
�
Z
c
n
m
o
=
N
�
Z
m
Gm
r
O
O
-,
D
_r
TI p
O O
<
m
m
CD
m
/
U)
0
�
c
U)
-i r
F>
J �
N � L —ems
� L m
cl) ci rn 7 LE5 6 7
—I ra fn
00
CID
im0
S5 7i,
i rye,
• _ ��� � \ \` Ott`
rn
1,0001
m
I fj)
-�
m
.0
90
cf) 0
3
0
^h. f
m
w
X00
mZ;o
O
�
Z�
DEE RIVER
0
m
\ h —
CIL-
J O O
yJadds ST4TP
n
m
0 -< y
�4TON
L 0
D D
550Fn �;
�Ncn�
zZ zizo
7�
Zmn
n �
rn-n -0z
o m O
V Z 0 ;0 A
Dr=Dz
t�
� M -i m ''
> '0
a
W c
z
Z -<Z
00
mp m
z
O
C7
v z
A �z
}
J �
N � L —ems
� L m
cl) ci rn 7 LE5 6 7
—I ra fn
00
CID
im0
S5 7i,
i rye,
• _ ��� � \ \` Ott`
rn
1,0001
m
I fj)
-�
m
.0
90
cf) 0
3
0
^h. f
m
w
X00
mZ;o
O
�
Z�
DEE RIVER
0
m
\ h —
CIL-

C�W
I
\`�
O 0 ut
`� P
7
Cl�
°$ 3 a OZ 0
N
q6 S
a
O
O
3N:.
A N
ti
C13
A
i
Pi
0 z
W
O
n'oo V.. -1
p W �
�
O'
m
7
•\
CD
O n
O
O
O
II 3 i!
.c m
PP
- - -''�'
3 c9
S. 3
0 n
5' g v
N
0
o ao
v
CD M
M �°. 0
rn
°O
o &
3
f!) C
CD (D m
a• ai
SL
9 �5
Dusty RO
snW
o
p
`
v Z
Pc
er
o
0
N
O
7
0
3
C A
C
S
r
V,
O
e
ei
dP�
O
O
C
N
H
r
Qi
0
�
O
Gd
3
de
=
R
Grove
Church
w
ti
O
�
L obertY Hill Church
3
S11
rr
Q
H
T
6
�
cos
xEo
o
o� Pa
!
fan a
Gibson
'
00�1Ud
i
cRae rut on Car'Penter
aD
n3
�
o
P
'► ue� c
Y a�
s
e^
�aQJ
d
�C
b
a
°c
M
0
4

C)
Z
r
o
t7
f�
N
p
N N E
,f
tm
CD
O
Z
O O n
N
p p 17
�� 3 x
:U
n O O
° °a o
7 C
o
CD
,� N nN
N
Sat ply
1
N
N
< ?
V
II� =
� O 7
D�
�D m 3
O
'$ c V
3 m a
?
m
--i
CD
O
m tC��hj
C CD m
Q
O
0
O 7'O
3 N
O co 1
c
CD
3
d.
00N�aaMS
Spy
�
y
0
i
r
0
a�
0
N
StarwOOd
C
f
N
Stogy
N
Gap
r
Barr
as
�
Ny
J
/
',Valley
N
C
�
CD
T
C
a
eil
n
0
qsh
�
3
a>'
Z
C
CD
CL
N
A
�
A
V, ,
v
W
(D
N
¢�unoW 1S
Mountain Ridge
IRdian
48
M pLnd
�a
m
n
N
Strand
iedmont
cn
w
I �
A
%
Farreld
%
F dlers
ost
` -__—
a Reeves
a

td
I
N
N
ITI
J
W
y

OT7
G�
a
n
N
N
J
00

"�
Gi
o�
I
N
N
J
y
R�
N