19930192 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

i
1'_ t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
N REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
March 29, 1993

Action ID No. 199301465 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. B.J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Q'Quinn:
Reference your notification of March 4, 1993, concerning your plans to
proceed with the replacement of Bridge No. 168 over Falls Creek on S.R. 1606
at High Falls, Moore County, North Carolina as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with the Federal Highway Administration's regulations under 23 CFR
771.115(b).
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401
water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management and, in the coastal area, a consistency determination from the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. You should contact Mr. John
-2-
Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification, and
Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone], regarding consistency
determination. This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain
other required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Jeffrey Richter, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
VM/r. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
Y-g3

+(\
TOO: T";
`?l7V1
REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
s •SLATE.
y r°?
st?? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP. SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 1, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 5 3
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch t'?ATER tiETLAUDS GROUP
Dear Sir:
Subject: Moore County, SR 1606, Replacement of Bridge No. 168 over
Falls Creek at High Falls, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-
1606(1), State Project No. 8.2560801, T.I.P. No. B-2152.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning
report for the subject project. The project is being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23)
issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions
of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of
the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
Robin M. Little at [phone].
Si cerelyd
q . J. Q.
Assist ant Planning onmental Branch
BJO /rml

Attachment
cc:District Hdqtrs., COE, Wilmington
Ernie Jahnke, COE-Wilmington
-Z'6hn Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
John Parker, NCEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., DOT, Program Development Branch
Don Morton, DOT, State Highway Engineer-Design
A. L. Hankins, P.E., DOT, Hydraulics Unit
John L. Smith, Jr. P.E., DOT, Structure Design Unit
Tom Shearin, P.E., DOT, State Roadway Engineer
F. E. Whitesell, P.E., DOT, Division Engineer
Jay Bissett, DOT, Project Planning Engineer, P & E Branch
Davis Moore, DOT, P & E Branch
File copy, P & E Environmental Unit
Moore County
SR 1606
Bridge No. 168 over Falls Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1606(1)
State Project No. 8.2560801
T.I.P. No. B-2152
1 "?-R - 51993 s
%7ETLANDS GROUP
?WITER QUALITY SECTIOU
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
93
ATE J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
? ? ?? L C L t ?-
D - Nicholas raf, P.E.
riDivision Administrator, FHWA
Moore County
SR 1606
Bridge No. 168 over Falls Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1606(1)
State Project No. 8.2560801
T.I.P. No. B-2152
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L Gai rimes, P. , Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
Moore County
SR 1606
Bridge No. 168 over Falls Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1606(1)
State Project No. 8.2560801
T.I.P. I.D. B-2152
Bridge No. 168 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
been classified as a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion'.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
NCDOT will initiate Section 7 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
concerning the Cape Fear Shiner and avoidance or minimization of impacts prior to starting
the design of the bridge replacement.
NCDOT High Quality Waters Standards will be required during implementation of this project.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 168 is proposed to be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It is
proposed to be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 28 feet and
length of 110 feet. The structure will provide a 22 foot travelway and three foot shoulders on
each side.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
A design exception will be required for this project.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $385,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $373,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1606 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. The paved secondary road serves a rural area of Moore
County in the Highfalls Community (see Figure 1). The land is predominately wooded in the
immediate vicinity of the bridge.
- 1 -
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1606 is an 18-foot wide roadway with four foot shoulders (see
Figure 2). The approach roadway slopes down toward the bridge in both directions. The
bridge is in the sag of a vertical curve. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with
an 8°00' curve approximately 60 feet to the northeast, and a 9°30' curve about 120 feet to the
southwest. The roadway is situated about 22 feet above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) is projected to increase to 600 VPD
by 1995 and 1000 VPD by the year 2015. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted, therefore it is assumed
that the speed limit is 55 mph. A design exception will be required.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1950. The superstructure consists of a double
timber deck on I-beams, and the substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and a
reinforced concrete post and web internal bent. There are no existing utilities attached to the
bridge structure.
The overall length of the bridge is 62 feet. Clear roadway width is 19.3 feet. The posted
weight limit is 9 tons for single vehicles and 12 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 168 has a sufficiency rating of 18.4, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991.
Three school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment
would result in excessive cost and undesirable environmental consequences.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1606.
The alternative of providing on-site detours is not reasonable due to excessive cost and low
traffic volumes.
The NCDOT Division Office concurs with closure of the bridge and detouring traffic along
existing roads during construction (see Figure 1).
The Moore County School Transportation Supervisor has no objections to Bridge No. 168
being closed during the construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
-2-
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structural Removal $6,000
Structure 184,800
Roadway Approaches 74,000
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 55,200
Engineering & Contingencies 30,000
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities 35,000
TOTAL $385,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 168 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 110 feet as shown in Figure 2. Minor improvements to the existing approaches
will be necessary for a distance of about 300 feet on each side of the bridge. The bridge
elevation would need to be raised to improve the vertical alignment of the road. The bridge is
located in the sag of a vertical curve with steep grades. However, the final grade elevation is
constrained by an overhead powerline (unless relocated) which crosses the bridge diagonally
at an estimated 20 feet above the structure. Traffic would be detoured on existing roads
during the approximate nine month construction period as shown in Figure 1. The Division
Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
A 22 foot wide pavement with six foot graded shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
A 28 foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance
with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 22 foot travelway with three foot
shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 40 MPH. A design exception will be
required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 110 feet. The proposed grade of the bridge could be lowered significantly
from a hydraulic viewpoint; however, due to the existing roadway grade a reduction in
elevation is not feasible. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same or increased from that of the existing bridge. The length and height
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Environmental scientists visited the project site on May 11, 1992 to verify documented
information and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts incurred by
the bridge replacement proposal.
The existing bridge crosses Falls Creek at an approximate right angle. The land surrounding
the bridge is forested, except for the roadsides and a utility right-of-way that crosses directly
over the bridge. Roadside and right-of-way vegetation is regularly controlled by mowing or
-3-
felling. The topography is moderately rolling; relief from the nearest ridge to the surface of the
water under the bridge is 110 feet. The west-facing slope adjacent the creek is steeper than
the opposite slope. Typical of small Piedmont creeks, Falls Creek has little or no bottomland
in the project area.
The purpose of the field examination was to examine the vegetation surrounding the highway
bridge in order to (1) search for rare, threatened, and/or endangered plants, and evidence of
habitation by listed animals; (2) identify unique and/or prime-quality communities, (3) describe
the current vegetation and wildlife habitat; (4) identify wetlands; and (5) provide information to
minimize the adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement project.
Methods
The area investigated was a circular plot with a radius of 200 ft. Plot center was located at
the middle of the existing highway bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated
from aerial photographs and ground-checked on foot on site. Terrestrial community types
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species,
general site description, and plant dominance (either to/acre or percent cover) were
composed. Dominance of herb-dominated communities was determined by ocular estimation,
but dominance of forest communities was determined by the variable-plot-method (Husch et
al. 1972). For communities dominated by trees, tree age, diameter at breast height (dbh),
and total height were measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from increment
borings; dbh and height were measured using (d-tape) dendrometers and (Abney level)
hypsometers, respectively (Wilson 1976).
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was gathered on-site through close observation of
all available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical
wildlife communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was
given to features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or
deserving special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed. Wetland determinations followed procedures described by the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental lab 1987).
Ground distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on
aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were developed from
on-site reconnaissance.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three plant communities occur within the study area, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, and Fresh Water Stream. Compared to community groupings of the Society
of American Foresters (1967), the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory community is most similar to Type
52, White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory, and the Mesic Mixed Hardwood community is most like Type
-4-
87, Sweetgum-Yellow-poplar. The Fresh Water Stream community lacks a comparative
grouping, since these communities have historically not been classified by member plants.
The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory community occurs on the moderately steep west-facing slope,
conditions that reduce available soil moisture. Several large oak and pine stumps indicate that
the stand has been selectively harvested by high-grading. This common, but dysgenic
practice, removes only large, commercially-valuable species. High-grading invariably reduces
overall stand quality and species diversity. Even so, stand quality remains moderately high.
The upper canopy contains white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), American beech Fa us
grandifolia), mockernut hickory (Carva tomentosa), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Oaks
dominate the stand, providing 70 fe of basal area. Hickory provides 20 ft2, and the other
species listed above provide 30 fe. The larger oaks measure 75 feet tall, 14 inches dbh, and
80 years old. With time and without disturbance, American beech will increasingly dominate
the stand.
The lower canopy level contains red maple (Acer rubrum), hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),
eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum , American holly (Ilex opaca), and flowering dogwood (Comus florida). The shrub
layer contains maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), low-sweet blueberry Naccinium
vacillans , sparkleberry Naccinium arboreum), possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), deerberry
(Vaccinium stamineum), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). The ground layer contains
Christmas fem (Polystichum acrostichoides), lion's foot (Prenanthes sementaria), trout lily
(Erythronium americanum), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), sedge Carex sp.),
wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), windflower (Thalictrum thalictroides), bluets Houstonia
caerulea , spring-beauty (Claytonia virginica), iris Iris sp.), avens (Geum canadense), spotted
wintergreen (Chimaphlia maculata), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia). The occurrence of sensitive ground-layer species, especially trout lily,
windflower, and spring-beauty, indicate lack of recent disturbance.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest occurs on the east-facing slope, where site conditions are
cooler and moister. The upper canopy contains sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern
sugar maple (Acer saccharum var. floridanum), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), river birch
(Betula nigra), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), ash Fraxinus sp., probably F. americana , and
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). The largest trees are sweetgum, measuring 18 inches
dbh and 87 feet tall. The lower canopy contains flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and possumhaw Ilex
decidua . The shrub layer contains southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum),
strawberrybush (Euonymus americanus), pinxter-flower (Rhododendron nudiflorum),
possumhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), and especially Chinese privet (Liqustrum sinense).
Chinese privet overwhelmingly dominates the shrub layer, providing 70 percent of the foliar
cover. The ground layer is similarly dominated by a weedy exotic, Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera iaponica), that provides 80 percent of the foliar cover. The remaining 20 percent of
cover is more-or-less equally shared by avens (Geum canadense), trout lily (Erythronium
americanum), false Solomon's-seal (Smilacina racemosa), sedge Carex sp.), cross-vine
(Anisostichus capreolata), corydalis (Corydalis flavula), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens
ca ensis , Jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), coral honeysuckle Lonicera
sempervirens), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
-5-
guinguefolia), coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), and
common blue violet (Viola papilionacea).
The powerline right-of-way contains the same woody species listed above, and therefore is
not classified separately. Maximum height is controlled at about 10 feet by regular cutting.
After cutting, most trees regenerate from root collar sprouts, forming multiple-stemmed clumps.
The ground layer, however, contains many fewer species. Only Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera iaponica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans , muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), common blackberry (Rubus argutus), common blue
violet (Viola papilionacea), hairy aster (Aster pilosus), and broomsedge (Andropogon
vir inicus occur.
Fresh Water Stream. The Fresh Water Stream community includes the plants that grow in the
stream or on rocky bars that are barely above the average water level. Only two rooted
aquatic plants were observed, pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and lizard's tail
(MVriophyllum heterophyllum). Both species are abundant near the bridge in shallow water,
where foliar cover exceeds 75 percent. Elsewhere, they are much less abundant, less than 5
percent cover. Rocky bars not only occur along the stream edge, but also extend like small
peninsulas into the streambed. These bars are flooded briefly after most heavy rains. They
contain poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinguefolia),
panic grass Panicum sp.), and buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus). Near the stream bank
smooth alder (Alnus serrulata) and meadow parsnip (Thaspium barbinode) occur. Foliar
cover of rocky bars varies with location. Peninsular bars have low cover, about five percent,
but near the stream bank cover equals 90 percent.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. Both forest communities found in the project area are
very common in Moore County, and therefore cannot be considered unique. The Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory community has been high-graded, and the understory of the Mesic Mixed
Hardwoods community is dominated by weedy exotic species. Neither community, therefore,
is prime-quality.
Wildlife (General)
The narrow valley drained by Falls Creek provides varied and attractive habitat for wildlife.
Numerous downed logs and old stumps provide ample nesting and foraging habitat in the
forest stands.
Small mammal and avian species likely dominate the wildlife community, though deer are also
likely to be residents in the surrounding area. Raccoons, opossums, and other nocturnally
foraging species will use the streambanks, though no specific evidence of their activity was
observed. The mixed hardwood forest with well-developed canopy stratification is ideal
habitat for typical woodland songbird populations in the Piedmont. The controlled vegetation
in the utility right-of-way provides diversity and additional foraging habitat for various species.
A number of small fish were observed but not identified in the pool upstream of the existing
bridge. A few common mussels, one three inches long, were found in shallow water
downstream (--25 ft) of the bridge. The population is not abundant on the site.
-6-
Physical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on metavolcanic-epiclastic rock, metamorphic argillites,
mudstones, sandstones, and conglomerates in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont
physiographic region (Brown 1985). All soils within the project area are mapped Alamance silt
loam (Jurney et al. 1922).
Water
Falls Creek arises in southwestern Chatham County and flows south into Moore County,
where it enters the Deep River near the community called High Falls. Falls Creek is therefore
part of the Cape Fear River system. The Falls Creek watershed is largely undeveloped and
forested, except for agricultural lands where the topography permits on broad ridge tops.
The overall conditions in the watershed are conducive to maintaining good water quality, with
a forested riparian zone filtering overland flow and generally limiting inputs to subsurface
lateral flow through the soil column. Although Falls Creek has not been monitored as part of
the BMAN surveys, a site nearby upstream on the Deep River below Howards Mill Reservoir
has been rated excellent, as has a site downstream on the Deep River (NCDEM. 1989,
1991 a). The water quality classification for Falls Creek is C, based on present use (NCDEM.
1991 b).
Characteristics of Falls Creek at the project site are indicated in Table 1. It is important to
note that Falls Creek is a tributary joining the Deep River between the areas designated as
recovery habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner, a fish species listed as endangered; therefore,
maintaining the current water quality by controlling sedimentation is a significant concern.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Falls Crook Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream isting Downstro,l
Substrate Rock/cobblo Rock/cobblo Rock/cobble
Current Flow Slow Moderate Slow
Channel Width (ft) 20.0 20.0 20.0
Bank Height (ft) 2.0 2.0 3.0
Water Depth (ft) 1.5 <.5 1.0
Water Color Clear Clear Clear
Water Odor None None Nona
Aquatic Vegetation No Yes No
Adjacent Vegetation HDWD Grassy/herbaceous HDWD
sociate
-7-
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Other than the creek channel, no jurisdictional wetland occurs on the site. The slopes on
either side of Falls Creek at this location are rather steep, and no floodplain has developed
here. The Alamance silt loam is not a hydric soil, no plants indicative of wetland conditions
were observed, and evidence on site suggests that the hydrologic regime produces high flows
usually contained within the existing channel and only occasionally and briefly inundating the
stream banks.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally-listed species in Table 2. Habitat
requirements and site conditions for these species have been reviewed, and conditions at the
bridge site have been examined in light of those requirements. More specifically, following
Table 2, the investigators have evaluated whether habitat exists in the project impact area for
federally-listed species in this county and, if existing, whether habitat is being used by the
species.
-8-
Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Moore County, NC.
Species Status* NC Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
Cape Fear Shiner Notro is mekistoclus) E, CH Moore
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii E Sandhills
Rough-leaved loosestrife L simacia E Sandhills
Asperuliaefolia)
American Chaffseed (Schwalbea Americana) PE Sandhills
*E= endangered T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed; SA=status
due to similarity of appearance to another species.
Cape Fear Shiner Notrois mekistoclus)
According to the Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988), only four populations of
the Cape Fear Shiner are known to exist, none of them in Falls Creek in Moore County.
Individuals were collected in June and July, 1985 in the vicinity of the NC 22 crossing of the
Deep River, near Falls Creek - Deep River confluence. Individuals have been collected from
below the Highfalls Dam in the Deep River proper in Moore County but are believed to be
"migrants from the upstream population (Pottern and Huish 1986), where Cape Fear Shiner
habitat is more extensive. However, a small reproducing population that sometimes receives
individuals from upstream could also explain this aggregation of fish." It is therefore possible
that individuals reside in Falls Creek as a result of migration.
The Cape Fear Shiner needs clean streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates where
pools, riffles, shallow runs, and slackwater areas occur. As shown in Table 1, conditions in
Falls Creek may be conducive to this species, but whether any individuals now exist in the
creek has not been determined. Small fish were observed in slackwater pools near the
bridge, but they could not be collected and identified.
Critical habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner has been identified in the Deep River above any
possible influence from this project and far downstream near the confluence of the Deep and
Rocky Rivers. The nearby section of the Deep River is not specifically identified as critical
habitat, according to the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988). However, reference to the Recovery
Plan (§3.2) makes it clear that efforts to identify additional suitable habitats should be
pursued. It is entirely possible that, if lacking a population of the Cape Fear Shiner, Falls
Creek could at some point be identified as suitable recovery habitat.
It is also obvious that to encourage the species' spread or reintroduction to such habitats
success depends upon maintaining the highest water quality possible by preventing increases
in silt loads. Therefore, NCDOT Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters will be
required during planning and implementation of this project. Coordination with the USFWS
and other concerned state and federal agencies will be initiated to ensure that appropriate
steps are taken to preclude unnecessary impacts to the Cape Fear Shiner or its habitat.
-9-
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably
Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the
surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. 'Suitable habitat consists of pine or
pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older.' Although some
colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred,
this situation is relatively rare.
The description of plant communities above should make it obvious that suitable habitat does
not occur in the project area. Pines constitute a small part of the forest composition. No
colonies were observed on the site, and no impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker will
occur as a result of the proposed project.
Rounh-teaved Loosestrife (Lysimacia aspen,liaefolia)
Rough-leaved loosestrife, typically occurs in black, sandy peat soils with long hydroperiods
like that found at the edge of seep bog pocosins or boggy flatwood savannas that bum
frequently. Although it has been observed at the edge of woods along roadsides, it more
typically occurs in the understory of open stands dominated by an overstory of longleaf pine
Pinus alustris , pond pine Pinus serotina , or pondcypress axodium ascendens). It rarely
persists in dense hardwood stands lacking fire. Associate hardwoods include swamp
blackgum N ssa biflora , red maple Acer rubrum , and sweetbay (Magnolia vir iniana .
Common understory associates include inkberry Ilex fl !2!2M, dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia
dumosa , pepperbush Clethra alnifolia , honeycup Zenobia pulvurulenta), ground-cedar
(Lycopodium sp.), chain fern (Woodwardia vir inica , three-awn (Aristida stricta), and
white-top sedge (Dichromena latifolia . Suitable habitat for this species does not occur,
therefore no impacts to this species are anticipated.
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac, false poison sumac, or dwarf sumac, grows in diverse habitats. Like other
Rhus, it occurs not only in disturbed areas and roadsides, but also in fire-maintained open
oak or pine woods. It seems more common on sandy, calcareous soil, but other soil types
provide suitable habitat also. False poison sumac grows in association with a large number
of other species, but loblolly pine Pinus taeda , blackjack oak Quercus marilandica),
bluejack oak Duercus incana , southern red oak Duercus falcata , black cherry Prunus
serotina , poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans , Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica ,
grass-leaved goldaster Pi o sis graminifolia), broomsedge (Andropogon vir inicus , and
panic grass Panicum sp.) are common associates. Suitable habitat for false poison sumac
occurred within the project area. Plant by plant surveys for the species were conducted in
these habitat zones, but no specimens were found, therefore no impacts to this species are
anticipated.
American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Chaffseed occurs principally in fire maintained ecosystems: moist pine flatwoods, savannas,
and open oak woods. Acidic sandy loams and sandy peat loams are common host soils.
Chaffseed grows in association with many different grasses and sedges, particularly bluestem
-10-
(Andropogon sp.), panic grass Panicum sp.), three-awn Aristida sp.), slough-grass Scleria
sp.), and sedge Carex sp.). Woody associates include longleaf pine Pinus alustris ,
various scrub oaks Quercus spp.), and sweetbay (Magnolia vir iniana . No suitable habitat
occurs, therefore no impacts to this species are anticipated.
State lasted Species:
Consultation with the Natural Heritage Program of North Carolina and a check of their records
revealed no observed occurrences of animal or plant species protected or proposed for
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered by NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC
Department of Agriculture.
During the field investigation, no threatened and/or endangered state-listed plants or animals
were observed. All plants encountered are common species. No adverse impact to plant
populations is anticipated from this project, since adequate populations exist outside the
project area.
Impacts
The project site was visited with the knowledge that road closure during construction and
rebuild in place was the preferred alternative. Consideration of all other build alternatives
suggests that, from a biological standpoint, road closure will have the slightest and
shortest-term impacts.
Either a relocation nearby or an on-site detour would remove more forest cover and require
considerable grading and filling for new or temporary road approaches. Both of these
alternatives would risk major sediment inputs to a relatively healthy and undisturbed creek
system. Because Falls Creek feeds the Deep River, identified recovery habitat of the Cape
Fear Shiner, additional sediment inputs to any stream system in the Deep River watershed are
unwelcome, especially if avoidable. Relocation and a necessary alteration of the highway
approaches would fragment the contiguous habitats.
Other than proximal disturbance during demolition and construction activities, road closure
would avoid serious insults to the biologic community. The proposed project will replace an
existing bridge with a wider structure at the same location. The maximum loss of forest cover
will be a long rectangular section, measuring 14 x 400 feet or 0.13 acre, and would occur in
the already disturbed corridor.
Roughly one-half of this total will be removed from each forest community. Within Moore
County as a whole, the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory and the Mesic Mixed Hardwood currently
cover 164,526 acres (Johnson 1990). This coverage is 49 percent of the total forest cover and
37 percent of the total land area of Moore County. These communities combined are the most
common forest types in Moore County. [Pine dominated communities rank second, covering
139,927 acres (Johnson 1990)]. The permanent forest losses needed for this project are
taken from the most common type of forests, and these losses are extremely small. They
nevertheless contribute to regional forest losses, which between 1980 and 1990 were one
percent for the southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Johnson 1990).
- 11 -
Terrestrial wildlife currently using the site are unlikely to be affected by the proposed project.
Daytime construction activity will not preclude nocturnal visits to the site by small mammal
species, and songbird and other avian species will be relatively immune to construction
disturbance. No appreciable dislocation of species will occur as a result of the proposed
action, and no further fragmentation of existing habitats will result if the existing bridge is
replaced.
The Fresh Water River community could receive the greatest direct impact. Construction
activities could disrupt the pickerelweed and lizard's tail colonies near the bridge and the
rocky bars within the river. Nevertheless, after construction both areas will recover.
Pickerelweed and lizard's tail are both hardy colonizers, adapted to periodic disturbances.
The rocky bars will form again as part of the natural dynamic of the stream. Thus no long-
term adverse environmental impact is expected.
The animal species potentially most affected by any disturbance here would be aquatic
species, especially the mussels which are highly susceptible to heavy siltation. Damage to
mussel populations throughout the Piedmont has been well documented and has led to
increasing concern about the viability of extant populations. While the causes for mussel
declines are not fully understood, it is known that siltation diminishes the likelihood that these
filter feeders will continue to exist in a stream.
Accelerated soil erosion is always a concern when disturbing streams. Erosion contributes to
soil loss, but equally importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream. In sufficient
quantities, these deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms,
especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. But soil erosion is largely
avoidable, and appropriate measures consistent with current NCDOT standards and
specifications will be taken to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.
The proximity of the project to this observed mussel population increases the potential for
adverse effects because silt will not have had sufficient time to settle out before reaching the
mussels. But the extent to which mussel populations exist in lower reaches of Falls Creek is
not known, so no judgment about the overall effect on a viable population in the creek can be
offered. The farther away from the construction site specimens occur, the less likely they will
be affected.
If the Cape Fear Shiner does not now exist in Falls Creek, then the potential impact of the
proposed project is negligible. Replacement of the existing bridge, using an off-site detour
and Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters, would entail minor short-term stream
disturbance and have no appreciable effect on the nearby waters of the Deep River. Critical
habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner would not be affected since it is located upstream of the
confluence of Falls Creek and the Deep River and far downstream at the confluence of the
Rocky and Deep Rivers.
If, however, the Cape Fear Shiner does reside proximal to the bridge site, then the potential
for negative impact is much greater and even minimal disturbance could affect the ability of
the shiner to remain at this location.
In conclusion, the preferred alternative for this project, road closure during construction and
replacement in place, is believed to pose no serious threat to overall environmental conditions
-12-
observed and presents much less risk than other alternatives that have been considered.
Given the available information that does not cite this location as one where the Shiner has
been found, the project as proposed is believed to pose no threat to the species if High Water
Quality Standards are properly applied during the project's duration.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into Waters of the United States.'
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is 'categorically excluded'
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
NCDOT will initiate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS concerning the Cape Fear Shiner
and avoidance or minimization of impacts prior to starting the design of the replacement
bridge.
Literature Cited
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rep. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Pp. 100, appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press Co., NY.
Pp. 410.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, 1990.
U.S.D.A., For. Serv. Res. Bull. SE-11. Pp. 52.
-13-
Jurney, R. C., S. O. Perkins, and R. E. Devereux. 1922. Soil Survey of Moore County. Bureau
of Soils, U. S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 44, map.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic m acroinverte b rate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Cape Fear River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. of Environ., Health,
and Nat. Res. Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Rec., NC. Dept. of
Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. Pp. 325.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. Pp. 67
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Cape Fear Shiner recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary Forest Surveying and Mapping. Oregon State Univ. Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis. Pp. 183.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate
bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications and high quality
water standards.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
-14-
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1950, is the only structure located within the APE.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the archaeological aspects of the project
and determined that an intensive survey will not be required.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The project is located within the Sandhills Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality
for Moore County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Moore County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
-15-
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
-16-
1456 1463 1464 D ) 1467 v 3 1602 .3 1667 1FAS61d 1615 .0
1 I:p 1462 v 1466 4 n h 1603 '
1604 y
1 .9
•? I G ? 1613 .1 1600
'61461 1601
FA g b ^ Fq,
9 5 A T U c? ^ \ 1606
4.56 5 /1461 a v+ 1 1600 J ? _ 't?.3
o 1465 2 A ` 1604 ?? 1664 16
A P 1468 -
• 1460 160
.S
?C 16 5 1612
1419 i 1462 1606.
Highfalls 1.0 1'3 1611
1472 1610
-?-? vEE? a Lbos
1 h r `, •C
.J
/
1496 .0 14N1 3 1470 Cg, 1609 1610
'
1494 1419 s
5 14_19 .2 1_516 /• 4 . t?+ ,?
w 1452 214971507 q G{ BRIDGE 0. 168
4-2
1506'a -"ffL, 1,
° 1 1?• ;' McConnell 1636
474 u / 1419
J,
v ` 1484 1681 ti- C
'v
b 1.b '• 1445 / ?? / b .71635
1475 1470 1479 7' . ; •.T? ? '? / l 487 1679 ?
1 j 4 • 1484 1638
1483 4 S
76 b BOBBINS 1637
',.p POP. 1.256 tro ?' - `?65; ,
n 1.7 1482 at `?.? b
.? .O : co H
1478 r, ;• `¢` Putnam
`?? F 1481 '6
;l S Wtstmogt Mi?bfilb
? f
1. ?
1_ ?? Rob i
?I m v
? ?Ctflllttt
7
tmirctn Mill Gtit
I

tit` ••••
t?MA
i I t tA•M?
•••
I STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
IiO2TII CLnOLIIIA DIIPARTUUNT OF
TU"OPORTOTION
DIVIOION OF MGHVAT0
PLAMflUG AND =V=OIIEIHI AL
un"C11
a
BRIDGE NO. 168
MOORE COUNTY
B-2152
5/92 Q M, I. FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 168
MOORE COUNTY
B-2152
I Z-10,
LOOKING NORTH
I t`
` - 19 LOOKING SOUTH
t
?iw 4 1? g
j rf ...} 1-'r .(.??"'..
SIDE VIEW
y^
FIGURE 3
' r
?. MOORE COUNTY

` it8)

ZONE X

ZONE X
'
1161 '?'• ? •`..•? U ••\ /
II

1600 i
ZONE A
-?... ?. I i
14

FALLS CREEK

\
"HIGH FALLS
ZONE X

ZONE X
f
B-2152
11 BRIDGE NO. 168
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
.
`•
?' lug >.....• . ;:,,:.' :?:: • ::: •; :. ?

! `
01
ZONE A '.

fur _
... ..
;.• BUFFA10

CREEK
ie 0
22

z

MCCONNELL.
loll

118) r

FIGURE 4
1,85 / N
•?
...•'
., .; r }'
•:-ia
J
?
ti
.
...... ..
•
._. _ _ _
v-

r Jul 201992
/V/S/O OF Z'
GN U
Wq ys ?_
?9F81 ,4RV?1 ?1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
at 919/733-4763.
you have questions concerning the
environmental review coordinator,
Sincerely, J \
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
Replace Bridge No. 168 on SR 1606 over Falls Creek,
Moore County, B-2152, ER 92-8538
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
July 16, lqq?