19970503 Ver 1_Complete File_19970604

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A LTF?ITA
IT 0
ID EHN1=1
June 24, 1997
Moore County
DWQ Project # 970503
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in
0.20 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Mill Creek, as you described in your application
dated 2 June 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the
Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water
Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified
below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design
standards for sensitive watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024).
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27 6 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
eston Howard, Jr. P. .
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
970503.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycledt10% post consumer paper
• -J
a pea 5rArt v,
V R
191
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B- GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 2, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers tt?c??c+? ????
Regulatory Field Office I - ,
P.O. Box 1890
nf?4
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Moore County, Replacement of Bridge No. 10 over Mill Creek on NC 22;
Federal Aid Project No. BRM-9202(1); State Project No. 8.1560101;
TIP No. B-2057.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 06, 1986. The project
involves replacing Bridge No. 10 over Mill Creek on NC 22.
The referenced planning document states that the recommended structure to ,
replace the bridge is three 72 inch pipes. Since completion of the planning document, the
replacement structure has been changed to a reinforced concrete box culvert (8-foot by 5-
foot). The new culvert will be constructed on existing alignment. During project
construction, traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour.
DOT staff biologists investigated the potential of wetlands in the project study
area in April 1997. Based on a wetland delineation, permanent impacts to wetlands from
the project total 0.207 acre. Temporary impacts to wetlands from construction easements
total 0.074 acre. Data sheets for the delineation and a plan sheet depicting the delineation
for the bridge replacement are attached to this cover letter.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the DOT does not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but proposes to proceed under a Nationwide Permit 23 in

with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corps of
Engineers (COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
The DOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. A copy of the CE document has also been provided to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
Due to the time lapse between the project planning document and project
construction, the DOT has completed an updated review of water resources and protected
species issues for the project. A copy of this review is attached to this letter.
Enclosed is a plan drawing depicting the proposed project with the wetland
boundaries. A US Geological Survey map has also been enclosed to identify the site.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HF V/pct
cc: w/ attachments
Mr. Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
w/o attachments
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Jim Buck, P.E., Planning & Environmental

?' J _ ? ))f ?? D n n c.s" r• MO ICIJNM' AIRPORT
"mss: a? // _ - ?`• J/? - ' a •' \
,,r• r I/.
_ _ C.l J ` ? ?f ?1 ? _ r 1? C ? \ - "^'. ?.,?,,. ?.. , tom' •;
:- 1.: ..
Mill Creek
Bridge -1 Z7-
? , i-. ? 1,.?.. '; ,} ?' •. n .? •\. ? L• r \? \ \ `\` \ '.? ? - r' ,' \`? ?? (C ail/. , l.? ? _?
n %. ?, ? =z`'?1?•?.•?? xasa' . rn%-)JJ`?r..?=?-s-?'f .7??m e-??y/ '/?I• ??1?? iyJi^V?V?I ?ir? (i // ?Y?95J
`h ^` -.?;--emu \.?I' JII.??i. hCi1SP '"Y ?(? /'iP. ?••';?~" ?... 1(i/ W 4. ?j:?i
?'t?i _ `-? "? _?r /111114 .7l ?1 r'? 'l??fit \.. ?,?n.. :; •t _-?1 `?1?.' ,b
f'Y - 1 ?? _? 1 ?•`
,r. ?C' ' ..? ? _, ;s'w (1?° f ..r.???:•;?-!J `? .-,1 ?ir I ? v?-// _ , / ??+•Y ?; ._ti ` ? i? (?V ? .. ? ? d ?-•=_:
o' RCW Colony No. 322 ?L?
..e``, `,.'.`` ? .?// ? ?'? ( r t r7 ?/J ^ I ? r?.w 1 I ! ? i ?.t r , `. r (? ,? \ It , I • /, .i . _ t r I ? i I''?.v /•?/-. --
7" V
0•?] .?F= tea` I\ 1 rte/ '. ?-?---- 1\ . \ ? , , `?o?,?w )?? ????1'.
00
? X ` ?• / „' Cam'. ? \ ?? _ =?.= r 1 ?%a _? 1N3 ? r 1 ? J., cphs l.•-• . r ???- /?nqq?' • n • ? i e`??? \\ a. t1Q?lWn ? /?^l' f • ? .;' ; ?= '? % }.'y?? .(? 11'
Y ?? • Y ` a?` _ ? f/j ?` \X,972 '+?• .L. •F? ? x=a f' lr i1/'` ?'l?ti??
p ( ?? •?
-.r ??r••,?/ ?/ . / .41 '•\llj rr"??• a -??/ `l ,!L//??`\t? LI r`\1 f/// 1 ' - ',I :r
1C= / 1/ Cix? ?._900LR ioT6wei V
?.. , Y , ' ?8.? 4 v"?4'=d\• ?%-'" f / "/./ ??:?'1 /?-? ? ?3 ??? _ ,1 D ? i R I ,??1 , ,I,"??==`??.
, °='??ii•2... , o J / ate -.c
ryl-

• • v • 1 d 1_ ? . \ vim',,. - i
. Kll'c?? ? •.%, ? 1?.' .111 ^? ,.•'?' /?.?-1.`' a'• ???,
,. , / ,? '-- „ Vii' u-r- .. ,. ?.... , ;.//. ? .?,.•: , ?•-?• , . _ .?,,
a J? _. ' • %\ f'S,.c- ?? -'.?•? y,.3V,•?'??? :. '.^? "tic, ',?.>i..C. •\'•'•?.?• '; ???L'•(''''"S ?: .?.
?' :. 'ice r - • •' ' ?' '/i ^,'..;•?.••? r r. rl? ,•. :\..- ?• .,?,. :;,, I?' ?//
v
•5
u^i
u N
pm ooe end wwoos a1
.. .. .. .. . ,fir,,,. p?
Cj? $ E? O
1 ? PQ W
v
i
? O
Q
m
O
O
If,
M
a
S
0
E
cg E ? w
N e`
C) ` I
N e` W
P W 1 IS
I ?
LO
y
N"i \J I

Jlti
d.
:b
•E
N s9 5.
v?'tii? 591. ppRN _
0 •
Prw tp ? ¢ •
156 b5
31W lfyVd ZlIOM3S'7&'
0 °
bw ? ?
35
W1 M

I N v` 00
z z_ Wy,
V.
N 2
N
O J
ZV
•
I
? W

a
L CC z
o
LL
? EM W
O F?LLJ
ON
??
CL N
m = O
zo
?
' a
O?

a

3
? r

e
°
O K N
{p
L ? CZ O1 JO?O
r
C
as

z W . a as I

° MILL 0 E K„
49' 03.3' E 1h00

?n
ER a
Z
Soo U/p

f t
V H
300
St
'NAER
R
a
W
H
59BlE N
O
H EFn'? OQ
z M

3
co
1 F C
` ?
S
a
E
T ?W
S
" O Z J O ?
1 a r.

-? J N W
? a a a t(1 N

00
pp
7
p? "D .
o

Q 0

Y U
I `
`
0
48 SOIL Cb

Bc

I a OO
d

y ?
axes.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
?
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) uQ/
Project/Site: -rrP ZtaS?r Date: 29 Ayt-- 9-4-
Applicant/Owner: tear- County: L.nnQt_Fc--
Investigator: Tc •? State: ?J _
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes C796;' Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes "
Plat ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeciess Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecici. Stratum Indicator
1. L.it?i00En4-A.&_ 1J`iPi??ew1 I? F-t_? S.
2. 5_Na"ig (rVCitn 4_1?. 1^A<,-W 10.
3. t l`(UA S-K,A-rn ,LXI C_ O MA- 11.
~•_??D?JW ?1 t r-j4 S FKU. 12.
5. P4Q5'ba go(??O+v? S ^h- ? 13.
6. 14.
7. is.
8. 16.
Percent of Cominant Species that are 08L, FACW or FAC
(
l
i
F
?C
exc
ud
ng
AC-). C?
Remarks:
p
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauga
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available _ Wadand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Mats
_ Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Psaams in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (n.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ?Pr Drzinare Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Death Matrix Color Mottle Colors Manua Texture, Concretions.
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moistl AbundaneeiConrrest Structure, etc.
O ' Co -4 Z.S C? 3
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ AGuic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Gloyed or Low-Chroma Colors
I Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
E\"V>t % (, rr ,? t- P?s_t-_?
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? @?o (Circle) (Circle)
Wedand Hydrology Present? Yes (?.tn
Hydric Soils Present? Yes }Mtfl Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Yas o
Remarks:
roved
LJ:a I A )-t.) rittit
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: TIP 31 6 zoS-?' Date: -.I JU*-_ °t-4
Applicant/Owner: N?_t%=ST County: MAo TIG
Investigator: P 7or,o State: tJC?
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: -Ffn % e
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
V EG ETATI O N
Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
1. ?6'twNtTh GiV?.1AN.,oMt. It r?t-UJ 9.
2. AcFitrS SF.CLUI.?-tom S ?tcn 10.
3. AcgR... lZu o'e-u +? G ti-?tL t t .
?. bC$Y Q ut*,W?^ s 12.
5. L.i4oof?.rxo.s Tvu Dir?.tA C. . 13. '
6._?r.it.t?c Fo L;A y 14.
7. 1Vl,wr it Grtn,.n sn Ilk Yrrtt??/ 1 S.
8. NY 80- T t L JJM? t ri G tr 16.
Percent of Cominent Species that a re OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC•).
Remarks:
V?C? ? ?'tr v'4.- CAv-t?r., ?rT ro L Cur) (Vl?r <y
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Onto (Describe In Remarks):
Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
t./Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Merits
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Panems in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: Z), fin.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Gn.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): N ?A Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Macped Type? Yes No
Profile Oescriotion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mor.Ia Texture, Concretions,
inchesl Horizon (Munscll hloistl (Munsell Moistl AbundanceiContrest Structure, etc.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Hisric Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Glayed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
_
I Remarks:
4 qC>(--L 5;="\- I?1?5?ctiT
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circ)a)
Wodand Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? ee No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? 1E) No
I Remarks:
'?)n j-r IS -& WT,T\.A IX

by
u,.% i.,A runtvi
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: n1P *s 8 zos-+ Date: ;Z9 Ar- 97-
1-Applicant/Owner: County: tnooc5:
Investigator: ?tt:wV. -rz ? State: T'
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y? No Community ID: Pe-\ % C-
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes CN3> Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (Tip) Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratym Indicator Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator

10.
3, ?JrrWI i rS? Fe1t•tAJ 11.
4•_LIjr?kkiu i4 pct 1Kw,Foy- ?L 12.
S. 13.
6. 14.
7. is.
8. 16.
Percent of Cominent Species that a re 08L. FACW or FAC
?
(excluding FAC-). • (1
Remarks:
VETobr4't?oN Lp,r„?o+?,ZrV[-' Qlt' WtuNlN? frL'T `?
V?'t?*9r+?..) ?-C?uVK.I. 17????J? AS U?.r71?- PAL l.iN?
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Strcam. Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available _ Wodand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Panemz in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (n.) _ Oxidized Root Channals in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC•Nautral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

• v .
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): fJ /A Orzinar,o Class:
Ficid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Oescriotion•
Depth Matrix Color Mor le Colors Mar-.IV Texture, Concretions,
inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AhundanceiContrest Structure etc.
- to 4 2•S ?R ?`(
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Suriaca Layer in Sandy Soils
_%.-'?ulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Glayed or Low-Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
- _
y
Remarks: PLC ?dpP?vL to
6?'FV4- I'-vN aFP (^+a.n Qofrp ? S'?n, N"Fi?tT
sa'tr cu SSMC r A t u fit' L- +J r-**>
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Presont? C? No (Circle)
Wadand Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Remarks:
(Circ!a)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand7 es No

veo

y° r?•n
rho
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETi JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRUARY
10 January 1997
Memorandum To: Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Unit
From: Christopher A. Murray, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Water resources and protected species review for
right-of-way consultation: proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 10 on NC 22 over Mill Creek,
Moore County. TIP NO. B-2057; State Project
No. 8.1560101; Federal Aid Project No. BRM-
9202 (1) .
Reference: (1) Categorical Exclusion (NCDOT, 9 June 1986)
Attention: Jim Buck, P.E., Project Manager
Consultant Unit
This project consists of the replacement of Bridge No. 10 on
NC 22 over Mill Creek in Moore County. The proposed replacement
structure is a reinforced concrete box culvert (1 @ 2.438 m x
1.524 m). A temporary off-site detour will be used to maintain
traffic during the construction period. This report addresses
water resources and federally-protected species involved with the
construction of the proposed project. This report is relevant
only in the context of existing design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations
will need to be conducted. The project study area was visited by
NCDOT biologists Christopher A. Murray and Logan Williams on 6
January 1997.
Water Resources
Water resources located within the project area lie within
the Cape Fear River drainage basin. Mill Creek originates
approximately 3.1 km (1.9 mi) west of the project area (Figure
1). The creek near its source enters a series of small ponds
before it forms the old Southern Pines water supply reservoir.
0
I-x
-Is 1 5."??i. ?'I'. .;._':`:.' :`• , . OOO'vZ T T bz3 C..?t J?-
i ^ ,. \
"'= '•; ?: %?1? , a3? _s'?.'? ?``,c`.-CatII+ .:;? e, yam' ? . '? \ ? ?: er ? ' ' .\?' • L S 0 Z - $ - - ?
i\I* Ari'. t .r r .ZOO
/ .? :';:.`z • ',r; ..: r? \' : '' ,:- -} xaazZ) TTTW .zano "
ZZ oN uo OT abpT.ZS
`?\-?'-r7 ': ??. - ? ? ? r ?? ?.?°.r- `??'. • •. •? 'I`d.I.I?I?I'1II\102iIAN3 QI\Itr'JI`III?II\it''ld ? ?y=u ,?? r ?''
a*. .. ? ?. ''^' -Ys':. ?.. '" <...?.,"\, , •:.9? SAt'hlli`JIH dO NOISIAiQ
NOLLf/IEUSNVIII ^ a
>% /, i'lll3' r?/ / ?. "? ! ?',' d0 IN31VINYcIM YNI'102It'0 HIMON
\\.-BS1, o,?f f--rte-_ / \ 0 l?r! .jl} -??\ •?..ns f "? ??_[l' o ?'
71
.11? .\,. r: ? ?. ??i _ _9N -J.?. /? . , ?/ ?: / ?Ia C \ ?\ ?I Jac,-??-\- •tx,... `.
' (833M ??? . ?.?
-7 A /J 'r t
1 (?_?'\`. -f °r' \??\._\? •1• I? V
? 1 ? - ?1 \? ? ? _ \ • ? 1 0? a -005 ?
1\? 1• _ )/ r\`J L. -.? r 'I• _ 11 i`? - ?/ ? b ??,t?/I
Y?? - .i'1 ! !// --\ /`J `- t650Fj-•r- 5 ?? n ' ! \ p '? '_ 1 I tir•-`. . , r?/
\! \•1 •I _ ' % ,: ?j? ? .\?i,=?1 ! /' S9?T'+L Y-?_ ?' \? ?` IN. < 2FS?? C O w r•l n +" ?' + _
''1' .+• ?- _ ' iI c3C = i11 ; ??. ?._s? :l: J 1 p 1.. , n _ n
ill ? ? ?(;`4•^??! i .'i1 ^• ''?l. 1 . i+ \\ ? f-?? y" = =??'=?i"u4?-`=-_- ?a : •'?\
?• ' '/mil, ?: .?1' +. " ,I ' f,'-\ ?- Ni / ?.? _ ?- iC. °, ,t
_ !/? lj? .r/•,. i J._\ rr ? ? 1 /) O;?'' ?' / .? ; ? •atsl ? ,1 i I ?\. ?. ? \ ??.'r.. 1?,, ???. '\ ', ` =__= -<
Jll _..kIv ?\ , yf J`\ l 0 •? i ?? r 1 ?; "t ?\\\`\ \ ,\,?`,1 '! r ?1' 1 ;
_ !?.. - / v p, J r •e \ ?\ tl?? „ ? \ •,J 1 r ?(' J r _ y ?\ .mil • 1 1
1r.? / F ?4 I \ 1 l\ '' V ? .?a
?`-1?•`?; ? (??• "? `• ? q ' ,?/?\ ?, [LT1,?? 1? ) v-/, rl ( .%'1 /'f'.r l ?!r ? _ ? `,w\? r?.y
`? , ? ?\? 11N rev. /.YJ ??,?i C• ?I!\`,• l`??r_'.' f?-% ?? ?l/ j_ °e/? ,I'•?..z:;? x. _:?'i??-.\.??\' //
M?2I ?? r? ?_ ' a ` ~• .1. ,l/i
•7 7 O /(uO TO:)
J?I
ILI
,? •• 55 ?'v /i) `1 ----??i- r.?????'? 1i '+{/ /erg-?H?1•awn - ,?;cJ '1/\ ? ?,? .1 86: % '° ? j,?_ ? _----?-?/- j nJ __
FS6.1 `°?=.e'_.= .+1 -,-? o ? )l\ .r)Ir.\`'? 1 1 "' ????? •?' _ slir:r J :\,..?-?--??? ?yY.?r
z'l r J _ 1
nA NN
OT 'ON ab TZg
-.: ?,?'.• :.? ?/ -?/rte
jqo
? •a,. - --- ?lil aId ;7,:?rf??? ow 'r\ ? ,? c=; O ?-?; \ ??? ?: L
t 3
Mill Creek continues eastward from a dam at the old Southern
Pines water supply and crosses NC 22.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the North-Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
The referenced report states the that Mill Creek is classified as
B. The best usage classification of Mill Creek (DEM Index No.
18-23-11-(2)) has been reclassified to WS-III & B. Class WS-III
waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted. Class B waters
are suitable for primary recreation and any other usage specified
by the "C" classification. Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. No High Quality Waters
(HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Federally-protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in,
the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists four
federally-protected species for Moore County (Table 1). A
description of these species and a conclusion regarding potential
impacts are included below.
Table 1. Federally-protected species in Moore County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinct
on throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
L 4
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 26 September 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow.
Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band
runs along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are yellowish and
somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a
black bar along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel,
cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often observed
inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with
water willow (Justica americana) beds. Juveniles can be found
inhabiting slackwater, among large rock outcrops and in flooded
side channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed
on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive
specimens feed readily on plant and animal material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North
Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in
Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam upstream to Rocky
River and Bear Creek. Another population is located above the
Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore
counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mill Creek is located within a Coastal Plain bottomland
hardwood swamp. The substrate in Mill Creek is comprised of sand.
There were no cobbles or boulders present within the creek and
there were no populations of water willow observed during the site
visit. Therefore, suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner is
not present in the project study area. A review of NHP database
of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations
of Cape Fear shiner within 1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project study
area. Construction of the proposed project will not impact the
Cape Fear shiner.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 November 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides
of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white
with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50°s pine,
1 5
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands
at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to
200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3
m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average.9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft)
high. They 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 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded
woodpeckers, in the form of old growth loblolly pine greater than
60 years in age, is located in the project study area. Suitable
habitat was surveyed by NCDOT Biologists Christopher A. Murray and
Logan Williams on 6 January 1997. This included walking transects
in suitable areas and visually searching for RCW signs (cavity
trees, start holes, etc.). A review of NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed an inactive RCW nest (J.
Carter Colony No. 322) located approximately 0.1 mi southwest of
NC 22, just north of an abandoned trail running southwest across
from the Southern Pines waterworks (see Figure 1). This nest was
recorded as inactive in 1982, 1992, and 1994. This nest was
observed during the current site visit and remains inactive.
There were no other RCW nests observed within the project
vicinity. Therefore, construction of this project will have no
impact on the RCW.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub.
The bases of the leaflets are rounded and their edges are simply
or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's
sumac is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the
openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy.loams. Michaux's sumac
grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle „ with which it is often associated.

6
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for Michaux's sumac does exist in the project study
area. Specifically, these areas included ecotones of open
disturbed habitat and forest habitats, and power line ROWS. A
plant-by-plant survey was conducted during the site visit on 6
January 1997 by NCDOT biologists Christopher A. Murray and Logan
Williams to determine if this sumac is located in the project
study area. No populations of Michaux's sumac were identified in
the project study area. A review of the NHP rare species and
unique habitat database, which was conducted before the site
visit, did not reveal any populations of Michaux's sumac within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this
species will not occur from project construction.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only
at the base (if at all). The entire plant is pubescent, with
upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance-
shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined and
become progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary
flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-
yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long
narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open
grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally sandy, acidic, and
seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of
open habitat for the American chaffseed.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area is comprised of mesic mixed pine-
hardwood forest, disturbed maintained areas, and Coastal Plain
bottomland hardwood swamp. Therefore, suitable habitat for
American chaffseed is not present within the project study area.
A review of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of American chaffseed within 1.0 km
(1.6 mi) of the project study area. Construction of the proposed
project will not impact this plant.
CC: Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit'Head
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
Phillip Todd, Permits Coordinator
File: B-2057

Moore County
Bridge # 10 on NC 22 over Mill Creep
State Project # 8.1560101
Federal-Aid Project BRM-9202(1)
B-2057
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Date C. D. Adkins
Manager of Planning and Research Branch, NCDOT
Date ?/nneth Bellamy UY ion Administrator, FHWA

-1- B-2057
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Moore County
Bridge # 10 on NC 22 over Mill Creek
State Project # 801560101
Federal-Aid Project BRM-9202(1)
B-2057
Moore County Bridge No. 10 is included in the NCDOT 1986-1995
Transportation Improvement Program as a candidate for replacement
under the Federal Aid Replacement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. The sufficiency rating of this bridge is 7.0 (structurally
deficient) as compared to 100.0 for a new structure. Recommendations
presented herein will not significantly alter the existing environ-
ment; therefore, the project will be processed as a categorical exclu-
sion, in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115 (b)(9).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended the Bridge No. 10 be replaced at its existing
location, on a slightly different grade. During construction, traffic
should be temporarily detoured using a local off-site detour (see Fig-
ure 5).
The recommended replacement structure is three (3) lines of 72-
inch pipe. Pavement width of 20 feet with 6-foot usable shoulders is
recommended to match the existing roadway cross-section. However, the
length of the culvert shall be designed to allow for a 24-foot-wide
pavement with 8-foot usable shoulders in accordance with current
design policies. Approximately 300 feet of work will be required on
each approach in order to yield adequate clearance for 72-inch pipe.
The estimated cost of the recommended replacement is $106,500.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 10 over Mill Creek, constructed in 1936, consists of a
reinforced concrete slab and deck on I-beams with a reinforced con-
crete substructure. The east side has been widened using the same
materials as described above. The structure now consists of two
approximately equal spans for a total length of 20 feet. Clear road-
way width on the existing structure is 27 feet, 1 inch. The bridge is
not posted.
The following types of deterioration exists on the bridge:
1. Large patched areas exist in the wearing surface of the
south-bound lane.
2. Scattered hairline cracks with some exposed rebar appear in
the girders.
1
°2-
B-2057
3. Scattered transverse hairline cracks and some exposed rebar
appear in the underside of the deck.
4. The tops of the curbs are mapped cracked. The underside of
the right curb has several exposed rebars.
4. Scattered hairline cracks, efflorescence, facial soalls and
exposed rebar appear in the breastwalls.
N.C. 22 is classified as a "urban minor arterial" by the Func-
tional Classification System. Additionally, NC 22 is part of the
Federal Aid Urban System and is designated as FAU 9202. The speed
limit is a posted 45 MPH. Current average daily traffic (ADT) cross-
ing the bridge is 3600 vehicles. Projected ADT for the year 2005 is
6200 vehicles. It is estimated that these volumes contain 1 percent
TTST and 3 percent dual-tire trucks. The Moore County School Tran-
sportation Director has indicated no daily bus crossings over this
bridge.
The typical approach roadway cross section consists of a 20-
foot-wide asphaltic pavement with 6-foot shoulders. Existing horizon-
tal and vertical alignments are good. The structure is located in a
tangent section with a 2-degree, 30-minute curve located approximately
200 feet to the north. The structure is also located near the bottom
of a moderate vertical curve. Existing passing sight distance in the
vicinity of the bridge is adeouate for 45 MPH. One accident has been
reported in this area for the period of January, 1982 through April,
1985. This was an alcohol related accident.
The topography in this area is moderately rolling . The land is
rural, semi-residential.
The following utilities may be found west of the structure:
an 8-inch ductile iron water line approximately 20 feet paral-
an overhead telephone line approximately 20 feet parallel and;
a 4-inch gas line attached to the structure.
The following utilities may be found east of the structure:
- an 8-inch ductile iron sewer line encroaching upon the right-
of-way approximately 10 feet parallel to the pavement;
a manhole approximately 50 feet southeast (encroachment);
- a manhole 2 feet east of pavement 210 feet north (encroach-
ment);
- an asphaltic valley storm drain approximately 15 feet east of
the south end;
- a sewer lift station approximately 30 feet east of N.C. 22
approximately 20 feet south.
Other facilities located near the existing bridge include the follow-
ing. A sewage-treatment plant is located approximately 200 feet south
of the structure approximately 75 feet east of N.C. 22. The entrance
to the the plant is approximately 275 feet south of the existing

-3-
B-2057
bric:ge. A local park road intersects with N.C. 22 from the west
approximately 300 feet south of the structure. A private road inter-
sects with N.C. 22 from the west approximately 550 feet north of the
structure.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do-nothing and Rehabilitation of the existing structure were both
studied but not considered as viable alternatives due to the present
structural condition of the bridge.
Relocation of the horizontal alignment was studied but eliminated
due to the conflict of utilities in the area as well as providing
negligible improvement. The recent accident history in the area of
the existing structure supports retaining the existing alignment.
Replacement of the structure in its present location appears most
attractive from an economic standpoint.
The replacement structure, from a hydrographic study can consist
of three (3) lines of 72-inch pipe or a triple 6-foot-wide by 4-foot-
high reinforced concrete box culvert. Both were considered and com-
pared as replacement alternatives.
Alternate 1 involves the placement of 3 lines of 72" pipe in the
existing streambed. In order to provide minimum cover over a 72-inch
pipe culvert, the roadway grade will need to be raised approximately 3
feet over Mill Creek. Because the structure is located near the bottom
of a moderate vertical curve, this can be accomplished by extending
the approach work on each side approximately 300 feet.
The use of a triple 6-foot-wide by 4-foot-high reinforced con-
crete box culvert was studied as Alternate 2. This can be installed
maintaining the existing roadway grade. Approximately 200 feet of
approach work will be required to tie to the existing roadway.
Both alternatives involve construction of 20-foot-wide pavement
with 6-foot usable shoulders over the replacement culvert. A minimum
culvert length of 48 feet is recommended allowing for 24 feet of pave-
ment and 8-foot usable shoulders in accordance with current design
policy.
The estimated minimum construction time for completion of each
alternative to the point that traffic can utilize the new roadway and
structure is six (6) weeks for Alternate 1 and four (4) months for
Alternate
According to a hydrographic study, a separate detour structure,
if used, should be two (2) 60-inch pipes installed upstream (west) of
the existing structure. However, according to a biological study, a
prime inland wetland area exists west of the existing structure.
Detours studied for handling traffic during the construction were.
on-site on both sides of the existing structure as well as a local

-4-
off-site detour.
6-2057
The off-site detour utilizes state system roadways SR 1853, SR
1802 and SR 1843 each consisting of a minimum 20-foot-wide asphaltic
pavement in good condition (see Figure 5) . A bridge located on SR
1802 is not posted. The detour involves a maximum of 3.7 additional
miles for through traffic, and a maximum of 6 miles for local traffic
The excess user cost to the 3600 vehicles per day traveling the road-
way using a local off'-site detour is estimated at $120,000 (Alt 1) and
$335,000 (Alt 2).
Conventional on-site detours were studied for both sides of the
existing structure. Total approach work is estimated at 700 feet.
Detouring on the west side was discovered to be least disruptive to
utilities and could be installed with less reverse curvature. How-
ever, disruption of a prime inland wetland would result. An on-site
detour to the west would involve the temporary relocation of a tele-
phone line (4 poles) and approximately 600 feet of 8-inch ductile iron
water line. The cost of such an on-site detour was estimated at
$124,000 including $26,000 for right-of-way and utilities. These
costs do not include mitigation measures for damages to the wetlands.
Construction of a conventional detour on the east side of the
existing structure involves the relocation or modification of:
approximately 600 feet of 8-inch ductile iron sewer line, two sanitary
sewer manholes and a sewer lift station, an overhead powerline ( 4
poles, 1 of which supports 3 transformers), and an asphaltic valley
storm drain. The estimated cost of this detour is approximately
$165,000 including $67,000 for right-of-way and utilities.
Due to proximity of the wetlands to the west and major utilities
to the east resulting- in excessive costs and complexity, a conven-
tional on-site detour is discouraged. The replacement alternative
culverts lend themselves to extension of the proposed structure to
accommodate construction and detouring of a single lane of roadway
during each phase of construction. A diagrammatic sketch of how this
concept would be applied to this site is depicted in Figure 6, whereby
4 phases would be incorporated with approximately 20 feet of extended
culvert required. Approximately 400 feet of approaches would be
necessary for such a detour. Detouring on the west side using this
alternative would have negligible impact to the wetland area with
proper construction techniques. The west side detour would also avoid
the complexity of the lift station and other major utilities on the
east side. Estimated costs of this detour alternative on the west
side is 122,000 including 22,000 for right-of-way and utilities. Con-
struction phasing and working between and adjacent to traffic will
escalate the cost of this alternative.

ALT 1 ALT 2
Roadway Approaches $ 68,000 $ 37,000
Replacement Structure 21,000 35,000
Existing Structure Removal 2,500 2,500
Engineering and Contingencies 15,000 13,000
-5-
B-2057
The costs of the above discussed alternatives for bridge
replacement and detouring of traffic during construction is
summarized as follows:
TOTAL COST
$106,500 $ 87,500
Conventional On-site Detour (west side): $124,000
including $26,000 for utilities and R/W
Phased On-site Detour with extended culvert: $122,000
including $22,000 for utilities and R/W
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that bridge No. 10 be replaced with three (3)
lines of 72-inch pipe at the same location of the existing structure
(ALT 1). The present horizontal alignment should be retained. The
existing vertical alignment will require raising by approximately 3
feet over 111 Creek in order to provide adequate clearance for the
recommended pipe. Vertical re-alignment can be accomplished by rework-
ing approximately 300 feet of approach length on each side of the
structure.
The use of a triple line of 72-inch pipe is preferred over the
use of a triple 6-foot-wide by 4-foot-high reinforced concrete box
culvert for the following reasons:
- ease and speed of construction
- improvement of the vertical alignment by raising the grade
- raising of roadway grade results in less chance of roadway
flooding
Since it is estimated the old bridge can be removed, the triple
line of 72" pipe placed and the roadway approaches replaced within a
Period not to exceed 6 weeks, the use of the studied off-site detour
is recommended (see figure 5). Construction sequencing should be such
as to minimize the total time the existing roadway is closed to
traffic, thus minimizing the inconvenience to the 3500 vehicles per
day traveling the roadway.
The recommended typical section across the proposed structure is
a 20-foot pavement with 6-foot usable shoulders matching the existing
section. The culvert length shall be such as to accommodate a 24-foot
pavement with 8-foot usable shoulders in accordance with current
f
-6-
design policy.
The Division Engineer concurs with these recommendations.
B-2057
The estimated cost for the above recommendations is $106,500.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed bridge replacement will not have a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with
the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. Therefore,
this project is classified as a categorical exclusion. No families or
businesses will be displaced by the proposed project.
Environmental Setting
At its junction with NC 22, Mill Creek flows through a forested
Palustrine system. Upstream of the highway and northeast of the
bridge are seasonally flooded bottomlands dominated by hardwoods. On
the northeast quadrant, the flooded area extends alongside NC 22
approximately 150 feet from the bridge. Southeast of the bridge, the
ground is higher and devoted to the Southern Pines treatment plant.
This site, within the city limits of Southern Pines, is downstream of
the Southern Pines water supply reservoir and contiguous with Mill
Creek Park.
A strong current flows through the flooded areas and in the main
channel of Mill Creel:. A storm drain enters Mill Creek below the
bridge and adjacent to the treatment plant. Water quality along this
section of Mill Creek is classified "B". A classification of B indi-
cates the water quality is suitable for fish, wildlife propagation,
primary recreation and agricultural uses.
Vegetation
Natural hardwoods, mixed pine-hardwoods, and a municipal sewage
plant surround the bridge on NC 22 over Mill Creek. The impact area
near the creek, but west of the highway, and the impact area northeast
of the bridge are largely forested with bottomland hardwoods, species
typical of black water rivers like Mill Creek. The water table fluc-
tuates, being located at or near the soil surface in winter and early
spring, but below ground level in summer and fall. The vegetation
correspondingly consists of species tolerant of seasonally high water
tables. Swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and pond pine (Pinus
serotina) compose the overstory. The understory contains fetterbush
(Lyonia lucida), swamp pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), blueberry (Vac-
cinium sp.), poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix), azalea (Rhododendron
sp.), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), possumhaw viburnum (Viburnum
nudum), and along the forest edge smooth alder (Alnus serrulata).
Owing to frequent flooding, the ground layer is sparse, being limited
to giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smi-
lax laurifolia). The latter species commonly grows upon the other

-7- B-2057
Plants, binding them together. Mosses are common on the larger swamp
blackgum trees, that measure up to 10 inches dbh.
About 50 feet upslope, the water table is nearly always below the
soil surface and the bottomland hardwoods blend into mixed pine-
hardwoods, containing loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak (Quercus
alba), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black oak (Quercus velu-
tina), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and yeiiow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the overstory. The
largest trees are loblolly pine, measuring up to 12 inches dbh. In
the understory, chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), swamp pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.) occur. The ground layer contains grape (V.itis sp.),
poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea). Live oak (Quercus virginiana), Southern magnolia (Magnolia
grandiflora), and crepe-myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) have been
planted along the road in the southwestern portion of the impact area.
These conditions prevail, except southeast of the bridge, where a
sewage treatment plant occurs. The vegetation around the treatment
plant is either mowed lawn with planted live oak (Quercus virginiana)
and Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), or immediately adjacent
to Mill Creek a thick growth of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
associated with red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), American elm (Ulmus americana), grape (Vitis sp.), and
lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album). This tangle may be periodically
controiled by cutting, and since it contains large amounts of the
weedy exotic Chinese privet, it adds little value to the natural vege-
tation of the entire impact area.
In quality, the natural bottomland hardwoods rate about average,
but in quantity they rate above average, having a basal area of 140
square feet per acre, with 80 square feet in swamp blackgum, 30 square
feet in red maple, 10 square feet in sweetbay, and 20 square feet in
other species.
During the field investigation, no threatened or endangered
plants were observed, although the presence of a typical black water
river plant community in Moore County should be noted because such
communities are near the western limit of their natural geographic
distribution. These plant communities in addition to their own
inherent value provide important habitat for associated animal popula-
tions. Consideration of these values is especially appropriate,
remembering the potential recreational and educational experiences
provided by the proximity of Mill Creek Park. Thus, during bridge
construction, care should be taken to minimize the impact to the bot-
tomland hardwoods.

-8-
Wildlife
B-2057
Proximity to the water supply reservoir and Mill Creek Park sur-
rounding it enhances this area's environmental importance. While the
area potentially impacted is not park land, it harbors wildlife also
using the park and provides a buffer beside NC 22. Moreover, as the
previous subsection has indicated, this habitat type is somewhat
unusual this far inland.
Avian, small mammal, and herptile species are the most likely
inhabitants of the impact area. Various songbirds will be attracted
in season to the closed forest canopy and well developed shrub unders-
tory. Woodpeckers and flickers will forge in the canopy and insect
infested trees. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) and gray squirrels (Sciurus
carolinensis) are the most likely small mammals to be found here, but
others could include muskrat (Ondatra zebethicus), cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and shrews or mice. Frogs, turtles, and
snakes undoubtedly reside along the stream and around the nearby lake.
The area could also provide food and a haven for whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Most importantly, the riparian corridor
surrounding Mill Creek and its junction with NC 22 provides access to
wooded areas down and upstream for transient wildlife populations.
Many migratory and other species require contiguous or minimally bro-
ken forest cover, especially in areas limited by surrounding human
activity.
Habitats here do not and are not likely to support populations of
any endangered or threatened wildlife species listed in North Caro-
lina.
Impact of Proposed Alternatives
It an off-site detour is infeasible, replacing Bridge NO. 10 with
a long culvert and with one-half of the bridge being constructed at a
time offers the most environmentally sound choice. Such a plan would
minimize detrimental effects of construction on a highly sensitive
sight and preserve its ecological character. A small amount of fill
to widen the road on either side, with concomitant cutting to provide
minimal roadside clearance, will not appreciably alter the drainage or
species composition of the site.
Encroachment farther into the wetland to construct a temporary
detour structure would reduce the positive effects of the wooded
buffer now existing between NC 22 and Mill Creek Park. Extensive fil-
ling would be required to construct a detour along the entire wetland
expanse west of the existing road. Prior to this filling, a swath of
trees would have to be cut. Subsequent removal of the fill after the
project completion would not likely restore the site to its original
species and productivity, given the probable compaction that soils
beneath the temporary detour would experience. Permanent alteration
of the natural drainage and vegetation conditions would be incurred
for the temporary convenience of motorist during construction. A
0 -. . a
-9- B-2057
wider opening between the forested areas east and west of the highway
would also hinder wildlife movement.
For these ecological reasons, a two-stage replacement in place
with minimal cutting and filling is recommended.
Floodplan impact
Moore County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Emergency Program. A copy of the FEMA map delineating the 100 year
floodplain is included as Figure 4. The recommended replacement
structure will have no impact on the floodplain.
Air Quality and Traffic Noise Analysis
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for carbon monoxide in 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 23 CFR
770 do not apply.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with applica-
ble laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.
0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to.create a hazard to the public. Burning will
be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by con-
struction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorist or area residents.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volume.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be insigni-
ficant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. This evaluation completes the noise and air quality
assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 and no additional reports are
required.
Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, 36 CFR Part 800, and Executive Order 11593 "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment," the State Historic Preserva-
tion Office has acknowledged that the proposed bridge replacement is
"unlikely to result in an adverse effect to potentially significant
archaeological resources." A copy of this letter is attached.
t ti ? t
-10-
Farmland Imp-pc-1-5-2057

The project has been coordinated with :ie Soil C--servalion Ser-
vice as required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The Soil Con-
servation Service has stated that there are no lands taken that are
covered by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. A copy of this letter
is attached.
Permits
It will not be necessary to apply to the Corps of Engineers for
an individual permit as the Nationwide Section 404 Permit provision of
33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) are applicable and the provision of 330.5(b) and
330.6 will be followed.
Conclusive Environmental Imoact
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no
significant adverse environmental effects will result from implementa-
tion of the project.
? M
- d°a STN7(a"a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
February 25, 1986
Mr. Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
Project Manager
William G. Daniel and Associates
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 140
Cary, N.C. 27511
Re: Bridge Replacement Projects, ER 86-7649
B-1199, Gaston County
B-1337 and B-1338, Richmond County
B-1405 and B-1406, Union County
B-1258 and B-1259, Jones County
B-1308, Onslow County
B-1488, Bladen County
B-2057, Moore County
Dear Mr. Hepler:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 and the rest of the
photographs we had requested for the above referenced bridge projects.
In our opinion, the following bridge replacements are likely to affect
potentially significant archaeological resources: B-1405 in Union
County, B-1406 (A and B) In Union County, and B-1259 in Jones County.
Bridge B-1405 bisects archaeological site 31Un5, an extensive distribu-
tion of Archaic remains. However, because of local identification of
this area as "the Indian mound site," more recent materials may also be
likely. Both B-1406 and B-1259 are situated within high probability
areas.
All other bridge replacements are considered unlikely to result in
adverse effect to potentially significant archaeological resources.
Therefore, we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an
experienced archaeologist to determine the effect of the projects upon
significant archaeological remains at B-1405, B-1406, and B-1259.
Enclosed is a list of the members of the North Carolina Archaeological
Council which has been provided to this office by the NCAC as a guide to
the professionally employed archaeologists in North Carolina. This
office also maintains a file of letters from other individuals and
organizations who have expressed interest in conducting contract work in
North Carolina, which is available for examination. If additional names
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
' .. r
Thomas R. Hepler
February 25, 1986, Page Two
are desired, we recommend that you consult the current listing of the
members of-the Society of Professional Archeologists, or contact the
society's secretary/treasurer, Mr. William Lovis, Michigan State University
Museum, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Any of the above persons, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted in order to conduct
the recommended investigations.
In addition, the majority of the replacements appear to be in rural
areas with few or no structures nearby. However, the bridge replacement
in Belmont, Gaston County (B-1199), appears to be within a residential
neighborhood. Early in the 1980s an inventory of Gaston County's
historic resources was carried out and several significant structures
were identified in the vicinity of the bridge.
From our project maps, it appears that the bridge is on Central Avenue,
although your maps only identify it as SR 2560. Please verify this and
provide additional information concerning structures within the vicinity
of the bridge itself, as well as information relating to the technical
aspects of the bridge replacement. For example, will there be changes
in approach, taking of adjacent land, etc. We will complete our review
of this particular bridge upon receipt of that information.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
.
United States Soli
_ Department of Conservation
N771/4?' A griculture Service
Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
William G. Daniel & Associates
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Mr. Hepler:
Federai Building, Rm 535
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
February 18, 1986
Using aerial photos and other maps that you sent us, we identified the
soils to be affected by the following Department of Transportation
projects:
1. B-1199 - Gaston County 6. B-1258 - Jones County
2. B-1337 - Richmond County 7. B-1259 - Jones County
3. B-1338 - Richmond County 8. B-1308 - Onslow County
4. B-1405 - Union County 9. B-1488 - Bladen County
5. B-1406 - Union County 10. B-2057 - Moore County
Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as listed above, will not affect
farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Project 3, as
listed above, will affect farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act. The farmland impacted by project 3,is indicated on aerial
photos or other maps of the project areas that we are returning to you.
We have not yet completed the land evaluation process for the soils in
the above counties. Therefore, we were unable to fill out Part IV of
Form AD 1006 for the projects.
If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.
S rely,
C A. Garrett
S to Conservationist
Enclosures
0 The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture

N
03
CO
O
m 0
r- m o
° o z O -v ° -? z
n oor ?u r':? ;u o
o > f o m. zNz -A
N O z o c-np 2
in O O
C71 ;0 m n Zp o D
Z cc n-"noo
o z z= it
3. Z 0--
C) o z
D n rn?zn
N m nc r°n
-Ti N n U) n
G) i
c
co m
m > -i
o
s -n
i EXT. l am
1
a?
Oy

•? q
4r w
flit.
_ ttr?

0 0 ??
.o o f.
i

,) "9S
S ).)
to
?to
b'
w
A
m c 0 Z «.
Q 4
rri
?N
l / r
O o
a
C ?-
Z
W
w
? w
co
w
OD
H
S'
M

010 ?" 1 S S0U-1 H
LOOKING NORTH
VIEW OF
WEST SIDE
RE Y F

', • _ ``` ?`' ? pia
f?
I

- - y

loo y?? rloa?l
aroma
i
1
i
i

1 -

ll t? ?• f
' . .
t\
i `
\BRIDGE NO. IQ
_
_ It
y

" SR=
'/ L-
8 - 2057
MOORE COUNTY
FI UPz 4
TOWN OF SOUTHERN PINES
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)

s A-k J i os? vL-'o 8J5
i -
N -
1333 81 1
_2=q O c7 1892 r-,6 1 h 1
?? 5 u
ry (? b r\,1252
^ T? 1$33-? j? -? 2057i f 1831 o
1 w - V l
04 1298 -1250 f? (?`J('? (?VOR_ r 1.2 -j
1209 ..?? \5 2 .6 r Q a 1 {Y3E COUNTY , 1805.
1835 --.___._.
1251 1251 - 1830
`? 1836 N ,X
?" X14 O 1837 b 18b8
.S cfs 1 18311 fir, 1
•`s {"1.0 •"? 18
r 3
1224 1.9 1835\`Pf 1 0 1831 3 ,Y 1.2
22> 1,80
t
\ ?? ? ? 19^0 18ai j ,^^?
18,38
,?:•:.:~_•::::,?:?•? ?`??.•.•:,,
1 1223
Little
ti 1838
WHISPERING f.'•`
PINES i \
Eastwood POP. i , l 60 y :' _•>'
1.0 1802
1 `r 1$39 `•: •:. ..:?: 1894
_ i 91 1f 2 ' S
.,1221
° - a Moore
` 1219 / C rE>>;' Count 1843
Y _ 1853 2
i - J 1897 Airport
'61 GOL
- -
0 8 1859. f It
_1_858 -
' BRIDGE NO. 10 1 ='?
sville `
1884
1853
Delaware y- FO
? ,?`?.??;?:•?--`?..t •?? •:?'•? ..? 18'1- P
10
P, 1923
1924 S
r' :I D
f, 211 n
} 1 $47
j9 c J, - Niagara f
<2y r
:.:•? ,
`` qs 7 (14 2
1 FAS
i' t•0
1912 r.:.~ 9
PINEHURST.:)
POP. 1,622
q t..•
15
(EST. 1980) :i 501 -.?, ?•,•..
r :? r NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
-t'
1905
TRANSPORTATION
FE'S DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BDY. 'TPLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
MOOR E COUNTY
X1914BRIDGE No. 10 on NC 22
?U Jackson Hamlet t- OVER MILL CREEK
1161
-? B- 2057
X} 211 STUDIED DETOUR
w , Li•
O
12/85 1 1 L1 FIGURE 5
I