20181416_Public Notice_20080411

I r
Issue Date June 28 2012
Comment Deadline July 30 2012
Corps Action ID # SAW 2008 02315 `
TIP Project No R 2527 R 2530B B 4974
The Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) regarding a potential future
requirement for Department of the Army authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States associated with widening construction of NC
24/27 from NC 740 in Albemarle to the proposed Troy Bypass, west of Troy in Stanly
and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina
Specific alternative alignments and location information are described below and shown on
the attached plans This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at
httn / /www saw usacL arnn mil /Wt tlands OtICLS /Cuntnt notices html Viewing the on
line version will better display color and grant the ability to view exploded views
Applicant North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT)
c/o Dr Gregory J Thorpe PhD Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1548
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application to compare alternatives that have been carried
forward for study pursuant to applicable procedures under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U S C 1344)
In order to more fully integrate Section 404 permit requirements with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and to give careful consideration to our required public
interest review and 404(b) (1) compliance determination the Corps is soliciting public
comment on the merits of this proposal and on the alternatives evaluated in the NCDOT
State Environmental Assessment (EA) At the close of this comment period the District
Commander will evaluate and consider the comments received as well as the expected
adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed road construction to select the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) The District Commander is
not authorizing the NC 24/27 improvement project at this time A final Department of the
Army permit may be issued only after our review process is complete impacts to the
t,
r

r
aquatic environment have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable and a
compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts has been approved
Location
The proposed 14 6 mile NC 24/27 highway improvement project begins in Stanly County A
from west of NC 740 and extends along the existing facility to the proposed Troy Bypass
west of SR 1138 (Dairy Road) west of Troy in Montgomery County North Carolina The
proposed project crosses tributaries and wetlands that are hydrologically connected to the
Pee Dee River The corridor is more specifically located starting at Latitude 35 3492 N,
Longitude 80 1657 W and ending at Latitude 35 3318 Longitude 79 9320
Existing Site Conditions
The project is located within the Carolina Slate Belt Eco region in the Pee Dee River
Basin USGS 8 digit hydrological unit 03040104 The Biotic resources surrounding the
project area is indicative of a rural setting with pine and hardwood forests pine
plantations agricultural fields and residential and commercial developments accounting for
the majority of the land uses The large portion of the project located east of the Pee Dee
River is located within the Uwharrie National Forest Topography is characterized as gently
sloping to hilly with steep areas occurring along drainage ways Elevations range from
approximately 300 to 600 feet above mean sea level
All streams identified within the R 2530 portion of the protect study area are unnamed
tributaries to one of three named systems Mountain Creek Jacobs Creek, and the Pee Dee
River The water resources present in the R 2527 portion of the 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 The Pee Dee River at this location is dammed downstream to form Lake
Tillery The lake does not exhibit riverme conditions due to the dam and is typical of
manmade reservoirs throughout the state The streams in the project area have NCDWQ
classifications of Class B waters Class C waters and Water Supply (WS) IV waters A
Best Usage Classification of C indicates waters are used for secondary recreation fishing
wildlife fish consumption aquatic life including propagation survival and maintenance of
biological integrity and agriculture A Best Usage Classification of B indicates waters are
used in the same manner as Class C waters in addition to primary recreation activities that
involve human contact with water A Best Usage Classification of WS IV indicates waters
are used as sources of potable water where a WS I I1 or III classification is not feasible
WS IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected
Areas Most of the WS IV waters in the project area are designated Critical Areas (CA)
which means the areas are within one half mile upstream and draining to a river intake or
within one half mile and draining to the normal pool elevation of water supply reservoirs
There is one stream system with a supplemental classification of High Quality Water
(HQW) which indicates the waters are rated excellent based on biological and
2

physical /chemical characteristics There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) Water Supply I (WS I) Water Supply (WS II) or 303(d) listed waters in within 1 0
mile of the project area See Table 1 for the designations of the water bodies in the project
area
TABLE 1 WATER RESOURCES DATA
Project
Water
Resource
DWQ Stream
Index No
Subbasin
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
13 164
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 0708
WS IV
R 2527
Wood Run
13 7 (1)
03 07 08
WS IV
All wetlands in the project area were delineated using the current Corps of Engineers
methodology The Jurisdictional wetlands within the project area are primarily palustrine
forested wetlands including headwater bottomland hardwood and seep wetlands
Applicant's Stated Purpose
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
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
3

• Maintain and improve the mobility and connectivity functions of the NC 24 27
corridor as part of the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision and the North Carolina
Intrastate System
Project Description
The following description of the work and the alternatives were taken from data provided
by the applicant 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 and 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 transitionmg 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 project is approximately 14 6 miles long See the
attached Vicinity Map and Typical Sections
Alternatives Considered
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to the NC 24
27 study corridor and would not improve traffic flow or 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
Alignment Alternatives
The project will consist of two alignment alternatives Both alignment alternatives within
the R 2527 and R 2530B portions of the project would involve the asymmetrical widening
Best Fit widening) of NC Highway 24/27 This Best Fit alignment would involve
widening the road either to the north or south of the existing roadway depending on
engineering considerations as well as human and natural environmental constraints Best
4

Fit locations were evaluated and selected to improve the existing road alignment
minimize impacts and permit maintenance of traffic during construction
Alternative 4 would consist of asymmetrically widening NC Highway 24/27 as described
above This alternative would involve the replacement of Bridge Number 51 with a new
bridge along the existing roadway alignment Alternative 4 would involve adverse impacts
to Bridge Number 51 which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places
Alternative 1 would consist of the same asymmetrical widening of NC Highway 24/27
described above This alternative would involve the replacement of Bridge No 51 with a
new bridge south of the existing bridges This alternative does not directly impact Bridge
Number 51 and may provide a potential preservation opportunity for an interested
individual group or municipality Stanly County may be interested in taking over the
maintenance of Bridge Number 51 to provide a trail connection between Morrow Mountain
State Park and the Uwharrie National Forest
Table 2 provides a summary and comparison of impacts associated with both alternatives
and Table 3 compares the costs of both alternatives
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
� IMPAC GATEC��®IZY
PROS, C TI STUDY�AL�TE A�VE
PTA LPL
L
ACTS
A
B
B4
C
R 2530B
B 4974
B 4974
R 2527
A +13 1 +C
A +B4 +C
Alt I
Alt 4
Natural Resources Impacts
&W
Federal Listed Species Habitat
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100 Year Flood Plain and
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Floodway Impacts
Wetlands (number of
4/058
2 / 0 08
1 /002
23 / 1 71
29/237
28/231
crossings/acres)
Stream Crossings (number /linear
23/
7/
8/
29/
59/
60/
feet) * * * *
7 122
1 314
1 467
6 43 8
1 15 227
15 518
Water Supply Critical Areas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rare Plants *
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
9
9
444
440
4110
USFS Forest Land (acres) * * * **
0
0
1 0 1
50
50
1 50
Human Environment Impacts
N
Residential Relocations (number)
g See
18
16
7
25
23
Business Relocations (number)
B See
24
19
3
27
22
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( Impacts
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Traffic Noise Impacts (receptors)
/Noise Sensitive Areas
19
* * *
* * *
11
30
30
Air Quality
Within an Attainment area
Ph sical Environment Im acts
14�1
V
�
$34 600 000
Railroad Crossings (number)
0
1 0
0
1
1
1
Farmland
No
No
No
No
No
No
Potentially Hazardous Materials
Sites (number)
17
* **
* **
6
23
23
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 Schwemitz 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
TARiX 3 i,ATF,ST PROJECT COST F,STiMATES
Project Number
Right of Way Cost
Construction Cost
Project Cost
R 2530B
Tie to Alternative 1
$10 620 830
$26 100 000
$36 720 830
Tie to Alternative 4
$9 482 460
$26 100 000
$35 582 460
B 4974
Alternative 1
$1 665 000
$14 700 000
$16 365 000
Alternative 4
$1 588 150
$12 100 000
$13688 150
R 2527
$3 089 790
$34 600 000
$37 689 790
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
Bridges and Drainage Structures
Table 4 below shows the bridges and drainage structures proposed for the mayor stream
crossings in the alternatives under consideration within the R 2530B B 4974 and R 2527
project limits
0
X, f
� 1
Y. y
t
8

TABLE 4 Proposed Bridges and Drainage Structures (Major Stream Crossings)
Notes UT — Unnamed Tributary
RCBC — Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CMPA — Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch
7
Stream under or
Railroad over
Location on
Recommended Structure
Flood Zone
No
No
NC 24 27
Status
NC 24 27
R 2530B
0 3 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 87 5 X 68
N/A
1
UT Mountain Creek
NC 740 function
(87 X63 ) CMPA
2
UT Mountain Creek
0 3 miles NW of the
Retain and Extend 1 6 X 6 RCBC
N/A
SR 1537 function
3
UT Mountain Creek
0 05 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 6 X 6 RCBC
N/A
SR 1731 function
B 4974
0 2 miles SE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 7 X 7
N/A
4
UT Pee Dee River
SR 1778 function
Bottomless RCBC
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 in place
R 2527
6
Rocky Creek
0 4 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 2 @ 10 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1150junction
Hazard Zone
7
Rocky Creek
0 08 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 2 @ 9 X 7 RCBC
Designated Flood
SR 1150 unction
Hazard Zone
8
Clarks Creek
0 8 miles SW of the
Retain and Extend 2 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
Zone
SR 1134 unction
Hazard
10
UT Rocky Creek
0 2 miles W of the
Retain and Extend 1 @, 7 X 5 RCBC
N/A
SR 1137 function
11
UT Rocky Creek
0 1 miles E of the
Retain and Extend 1 7 X 5 RCBC
N/A
SR 1137 junction
12
Rocky Creek
0 3 miles E of the
Retain and Extend 3 @ 9 X 9 RCBC
Designated Flood
Hazard Zone
SR 1137 function
Near
Norfolk Southern/
0 1 miles W of the
Build a new 210 bridge and railroad
Aberdeen Carolina &
track west of the existing bridge
N/A
12
Western Railway
NC 109 function
Remove Bridge No 14
13
Smith Branch Creek
0 4 miles NE of the
Retain and Extend 1 @ 8 X 8 RCBC
N/A
NC 109 function
Notes UT — Unnamed Tributary
RCBC — Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CMPA — Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch
7

Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation will be required for project impacts to wetlands and streams The
applicant will investigate potential on site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities
Compensatory mitigation requirements may also be fulfilled by using the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program or a nearby mitigation bank t
Cultural Resources
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 Area of Potential Effects (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 Number 51 is
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 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
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 The HPO concurred with the recommendations discussed in the February 2005
report for projects R 2530B and B 4974 in a March 23 2005 memorandum
The project may or may not adversely affect Bridge Number 51 The project will not
adversely affect Bridge Number 51 if a new owner agrees to take ownership of the bridge
If no one agrees to take ownership over the bridge the bridge will be removed and the
project will adversely affect the historic property
Archeological Resources
An Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation (Phase I and 11) report was completed
in August 2006 for the R 2530B portion of the project study area in Stanly County This
i I 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
604 and three sites (31 ST195 31 ST196 and 31 ST204/204) were eligible for listing in the
�� 8

c
NRHP as an archaeological district under criterion [a] and [d] of 36 CFR 60 4 (sites
31 ST196 and 31 ST204/204 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
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) concurred with the recommendations discussed in the August 2006 report in a
March 29 2007 memorandum This memorandum also recommended that if avoidance is
not possible then data recovery excavations be conducted at 31ST195 and additional
laboratory analyses be undertaken with archaeological materials recovered from sites
31ST 196 and 31 ST204/204
An Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation (Phase I and II) report was completed
in March 2008 for the R 2527 portion of the 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
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) has concurred with the recommendations discussed in the March 2008 report in a
April 8 2008 memorandum
Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for
Montgomery and Stanly Counties Table 4 provides a list of the federally protected species
and a description of the effects the project may have each species
Pr ciO
oject Porhon1W
­� �
Federal
k Habitat
Biolo icaf
g
-41 W t1Coun ��
Common`Namev�
Status
Presents
�- Conclusion
R 2530B & R 2527
Schwemitz s Sunflower
E
Yes
May Affect Likely to
Stanl / Montgomery
dversely Affect
R 2527 Montgomery
Smooth Coneflower
E
Yes
No Effect
R 2527 Montgomery
Red cockaded Woodpecker
E
No
No Effect
Sunflower surveys were conducted in October 2011 within the project study areas A
population of Schwemitz s sunflowers was identified on the southwest side of NC 24 27
within the R 2530B portion of the project Fifty five stems were observed in addition to a
few seedlings Schweinitz s sunflowers were also found in the study corridor along the
railroad tracks south of NC 24 27 within the R 2527 portion of the project
E

The USFWS 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
Due to the presence of Schwemitz s sunflower within the project area the project will
likely adversely affect the plant Additional surveys will likely be conducted prior to
project construction and coordination and consultation with the USFWS will be required
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit (which will come after the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative Corridor is selected) will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public
interest That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization
of important resources The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof
among those are conservation economics aesthetics general environmental concerns
wetlands historic properties fish and wildlife values flood hazards flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988) land use navigation shoreline erosion and
accretion recreation water supply and conservation water quality energy needs safety
food and fiber production mineral needs considerations of property ownership and in
general the needs and welfare of the people For activities involving the discharge of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States the evaluation of the impact of the
activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental Protection
Agency s 404(b)(1) guidelines
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal State and local
agencies and officials including any consolidate state viewpoint or written position of the
Governor Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity Any comments received will be considered by the Corps
of Engineers to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA)
To make this decision comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species
historic properties water quality general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above Comments are used in the preparation of a Corps of Engineers
Environmental Assessment (EA) and /or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity
10

Written comments pertinent to the proposed work as outlined above will be received
by the Corps of Engineers Wilmington District until 5pm July 30 2012 Comments
should be submitted to Mr Ronnie D Smith Wilmington Regulatory Field Office 69
Darlington Avenue Wilmington North Carolina 28403 or by email to
Ronnie d smith @usace army mil
11
z
S P