20110136 Ver 1_Handouts_20100901

r

RECEIVED
DIVISION OF WATER
AUG 2 6 2010
SWP SECTION
MOORESVI LLE REGIONAL OFFICE
CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON
2
PROJECT ENGINEER
Elmo Vance
TIP #R-2812
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.
f
STAR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
AGENDA
Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday September 14, 2010
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR
SECRETARY
1:00 PM to 3:00 PM - Elmo Vance, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT-PDEA Branch,
TIP No. R-2812, Re-alignment review for NC 211 Improvements from NC 73 in West End
to the traffic circle in Pinehurst, Division 8, Moore County
Team Members:
Ronnie Smith, USACE Travis Wilson, WRC
Elmo Vance, PDEA Polly Lespinasse, DWQ
Felix Davila, FHWA Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO
Chris Militscher, USEPA Paul Black, Triangle Area RPO (non-
Gary Jordan, USFWS signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Tim Johnson, Division 8 Tim Goins, Roadway Design
Jay Twisdale, Hydraulics Jamille Robbins, HEU
William Zerman, Hydraulics John Conforti, PDEA
James Goodnight, Roadway Design Teresa Hart, PDEA
* The purpose of this meeting is to revisit alignment / Cp3.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOLGOV
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH W RMRIGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

TI,
044,

Pinehurst, Moore County
Widen NC 211
From NC 73 in West End
to the traffic circle in Pinehurst
TIP PROJECT R-2812
September 14, 2010
tAO R
bf /!
0
Purpose of Aleeting
The purpose of the meeting is to review and obtain project team concurrence on a
proposed alignment shift along TIP project R-2812. The project begins at NC 73 in West
End and terminates at the traffic circle in Pinehurst located in Moore County. The length
of the proposed project is 7.2 miles. (see Figure 1)
Project History
The Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI )
were completed in October 2005 and August 2006, respectively. Concurrence Point 1
was achieved on August 9; 2001. The purpose of the project is to upgrade NC 211 in
order to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes....
Concurrence Point 2 was achieved on April 11, 2002. The alternatives carried forward
for detailed study were "Best-Fit" Alternative with curb and gutter and "Best-Fit"
Alternative with grass shoulder section. Concurrence Points 3 and 4a were achieved on
October 26, 2006. The selected LEDPA was the "Best-Fit" Alignment with a
combination of Alternative I and Alternative 2. A 4B meeting was held on March 12,
2008, and a 4C meeting was held on February 25, 2009. Copies of the signed
concurrence forms are located in Appendix D.
While preparing the Right of Way plans for the project, NCDOT discovered that an
apartment building would be impacted resulting in eight families being relocated at a cost
of $1,725,000, not including utilities. Moreover, NCDOT discovered a cost savings of
$150,000 by shifting the alignment to minimize impacts to utilities. The Department has
now revised preliminary plans to reflect an alignment shift which would avoid these
impacts. The permit drawings displaying the alignment shift is now presented for the
project team review.
Proposed Alignment Shift
In order to minimize impacts to an apartment building and utilities, NCDOT proposes
shifting the alignment south between stations -L- 39 + 05.52 and -L- 133 + 16.02,-L- 253
+ 34.50 and -L- 317 + 10.00, respectively. The permit drawings and impact tables are
located in Appendix A.
Environmental Impacts
Table 1. Preliminarv Hvdraulic Design for Stream Crossing of US 21
Site l_." rr1Str ae m I ", ?r

a Area a
50,49 _=r

Pro _osed,Structure
1 -L- 245+05 UT to Joe's Fork 0.5 Sq Mi
I
Remove extension and retain and
extend existing RCBC
2 -L- 278+75 Joe's Fork 1.2 Sq Mi Replace with RCBC
3 -L- 340+60 Board Branch 368 Ac 60" RCP
RCBC Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Table 2. Potential Wetland Impacts
rr
.?.s,' " r?w+zrarra ua^„?" 2010 'Wetlaad lm acts
'K& y""?-'"'? "v
? Permanent
dim Excavahoo
to 5' Mechalazede
Clea?l g Pennaneot(1
FsOm EYC8V3LOn
.sn 6cMe@hamzed
Cl?eargin
Stahon-
Sst ?
-§Wfi e
d nds>
W ket,Wet
lFnds s
-1•WeUandsy t W
e Wends
d- r
»"fx"s a
:
--`? *
N
c)
r
-
s -
k )'ts3
(ac
:' f
??sc ; +:(ac ,+a
g
ac `r
"
3
`( ) ??«"(ac
.
,.
:?
. .
;
a .. .
...„„
.w-
1 -L- 245+00 U00 0.000 0.050 0.193 0.044 0.016
-L- 270+00 0.000 0.120 0.010 0.029 0.019 0.028
3 -L-280+00 0.310 0000 0.050 0.887 0.000 0.118
4 -L- 340+50 0.380 0.000 0.120 0.374 0.000 0.140
0.88 0.12 0.23 1.48 0.02 0.302
Total
Impacts
1.23 1.80
Table 3. Potential Stream Impacts
t•-a. sae
': y•2005 w.. '
,StreamWat _3" rri,
eilmpacts;(S :,«..t-.. .
,W) u ,? ^saxvt+.r'sY
a 2010Streatn
?+Wat .w rn
ertlmpacts( . -a, ?. -.

`
?
?'
,
n -vrsewrx-s?_.9c. ?sex..::.?v.asur a
-et
' .

-} .Vi=a' 4Pemanenl
3W '" ' sTemp l
Wes, c '"Enstmg i
{Channel
#- Enshng`
µ.Ch na net
p Permanen[z g` Temp. as.,.;,
F "`SWSW?-
e.SV''
.cx
`
`
' •"y,'sEsusting
?LCtianoel?*" "?'fEiistuig
Y Cha el' `
?
c

-i?a 9cea -e;?Stalion
-v k..
Lr ., ?!-€e a?
Impacts
Y
r,-(ac).,
+''lsmpacls
fi . .5- 6
v (ac) i
? .. °'
MIma?p'ancts
5ry nom
3emanent a v
n,lmpacts
d. ..9.K>."k°
a.T¢mp a ae
+
zzS-na`:,e.
cR
',}`?tmpacts ?itmpacts
"k: ?2 ^ kd
?; (ac)^F"'V1 (ae) sz, r-wK
IIlmpacts.F'
j APiCb"'a
Permanent? ?.,.
-
a-s lm acts v
.p?9.-Y
c Temp `
r ea F? ?(t9., (r0* ih ??=4 '(t)? ( t)ia
I -L- 245+00 0.12 2.83 8.00 11.00 0.123 2.83 8.00 11.00
2 -L-270+00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.520 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 -L-280+00 0.03 0.00 192 0.00 0.031 0.00 210.00 0.00
4 -L-340+50 0.01 0.00 157.00 0.00 0.017 0.001 157.00 0.00
Total Impacts 0.68 2.83 357.00 11.00 0.69 2.83 375.00 11.00
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat
The proposed project will result in the loss of RCW foraging habitat associate
with RCW clusters MOOR 35 and SOPI 50. MOOR 35 was reassessed due to ROW
changes made within the partition since USFWS concurrence (8 October 2009). The
ROW design did not change within the SOPI 50 forage partition, however; due to other
project construction within the SOP] 50 partition since 2009 concurrence, the pre-project
foraging habitat totals have decreased.
These clusters did not meet pre-project SMS requirements for the 0.25 mile radius
foraging partition. SMS foraging habitat analyses results fro the 0.5 mile radius partition
follow.
MOOR 35: The pre-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 1,999.49 sq. ft. of pine BA
on 31.56 acres of suitable habitat; 13;489.81 sq. ft of pine BA on 141.56 acres of
potentially suitable habitat and 2,022.59 sq. ft. of pine BA on 69.86 acres of future
potential habitat.
Road improvements will remove 31.14 sq. fr. of pine BA on 0.57 acre of suitable
habitat, 366.61 sq. fr. pine BA on 4.52 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 103.10 sq.
ft. of pine BA on 3.58 aces of future potential habitat.
The post-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 1968.35 sq. ft. of pine BA on
30.99 acres of suitable habitat, 13,123.21 sq. ft. of pine BA on 137.05 acres of potentially
suitable habitat and 1,919.49 sq. fl. of pine BA on 66.28 acres of future potential habitat.
This partition will meet the SMS requirements post-project provided that potentially
suitable habitat is made suitable through management. The 2010 revised project design
resulted in a decrease in pine BA removed from 704.32 sq. ft. to 500.84 sq. fr. and a
decrease in forested habitat removed from 10.07 to 8.67 acres in the MOOR 35 partition
.relative to the Concurrence Letter (8 October 2009).
SOP) 50: The revised pre-project foraging habitat totals were 1,078.80 sq. ft. of pine BA
on 21.12 acres of suitable habitat and 8,729.06 sq. fr. of pine BA on 101.33 acres of
potentially suitable habitat and 307.73 sq. fl. of pine BA on 11.75 acres of future
potential habitat prior to removing habitat impacted by the highway project.
Road construction will remove 63.83 sq. fr. of pine BA on 1.10 acre of suitable
habitat, 307.72 sq. fr. of pine BA on 3.41 acres of potentially suitable habitat and 1.57 sq.
ft. of pine BA on 0.06 acre of future potential habitat.
The post-project SMS foraging habitat totals were 1014.96 sq. ft. of pine BA on
20.02 acres of suitable habitat, 8,421.34 sq. ft. of pine BA on 97.92 acres of potentially
suitable habitat and 306.16 sq. ft. of pine BA on 11.69 acres of future potential habitat.
This partition will meet the SMS requirements post-project provided that potentially
suitable habitat is made suitable through management.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Pinewild Community and Dam
The Pinewild Community and Lake Pinewild Dam are located in Pinehurst, NC. The
Pinewild property owners association has had a committee in place to monitor progress
of the project and ensure that the project does not adversely affect the property owners.
Of particular concern is the alignment of the project in the area near the Pinewild dam.
The Lake Pinewild Dam is located approximately 3300 feet (0.63 miles) west of the
intersection of NC 211 and NC 5 and approximately 500 feet south of existing NC 211;
near the eastern most entrance along NC 211 to the Pinewild subdivision. The dam is an
earth structure approximately 850 feet long and about 30 feet high at the maximum
3
section. The dam was reportedly constructed in the early 1940's and is presently owned
and maintained by Tohato Realty, USA. The dam impounds an approximate 40-acre lake
that serves as a source for irrigation water for the Pinewild golf course and as drinking
water for the Town ofTaylortown. The lake outlet works consist of a vertical 21-inch
diameter corrugated metal pipe connected to an 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe
through the dam leading to a concrete end wall and directing the outflow into a channel
leading into a wetland area.
The Pinewild Dam is listed as dam number 63143 by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Land Resources (DLR); it is
categorized as a "High Hazard". This categorization is due to the potential for property
damage and loss of life downstream in the event that the dam fails.
In addition, the Pinewild Property Owners Association (PPOA) hired Eddy Engineering,
P.C. in 2000 to conduct its own evaluation of the Pinewild Dam. This report commented
on the possible ramifications of the proposed NC 211 widening project with respect to the
dam. In the report, it was the opinion of Eddy Engineering, P.C. that the widening along
the NC 211 could adversely affect the dam if:
1. Significant fill or excavation occurs, including deeper ditching.
2., The culvert capacity does not match dam discharge capacity.
3. Pile driving or other equipment that could cause vibrations to be
transmitted to the dam is used.
4. Any construction, clearing, or ground disturbance is to occur very
close to the dam.
During coordination between NCDOT and the residents of the Pinewild subdivision, the
PPOA reiterated these concerns about the potential for construction activities from the
proposed project to affect the dam. NCDOT Soils and Foundations Unit conducted a
preliminary assessment of the dam and the potential for the proposed project to have an
adverse effect on the dam in May of 2002. A copy of the Eddy Engineering, P.C. report
was reviewed and the four points of concern were addressed. The finding of the Soils
and Foundations' study was that "minor road widening should have no negative impact
on the dam."
After reviewing the report by the NCDOT Soils and Foundations Unit, the PPOA was
still concerned with the potential for the dam to be adversely affected by the proposed
NC 211 widening. Because the dam was listed on the DLR's list of "high hazard"
structures, NCDOT decided that a comprehensive analysis of the dam was needed. In
September 2003, Mactec Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. was hired to
perform a detailed analysis of the Lake Pinewild dam. Mactec Engineering made two
site visits and evaluated the dam using existing data, discussions with representatives
from PPOA and Tohato; Inc., and field data (including test borings). From this
information, Mactec Engineering was able to address the four points of concern detailed
in the Eddy Engineering report. The findings of the Mactec Engineering report supported
the findings of the Soils and Foundations Unit. In summary, the Mactec Engineering
4
report concluded "widening NC 211 along the north side of the existing road, as
proposed, will have no impact on the structural performance of the dam."
In 2006; the alignment of the roadway was finalized. The north side alignment was
chosen minimizing the impact to the Pinewild Community. However, the north side
alignment would impact an apartment building that was vacant directly across from the
dam. Since that time, the apartment building is occupied with plans to build more in the
future. NCDOT proposed revising the alignment further south to avoid the apartment
building. NCDOT is proposing this change to avoid displacing eight families within the
apartment complex at a cost savings of approximately $1,725,000.00.
NCDOT, again, hired Mactec Engineering, to conduct another detail analysis of the Lake
Pinewild dam with the re-alignment of the roadway closer to the dam. A copy of the
findings from the Mactec Engineering report is located in Appendix C. The findings of
the Mactec Engineering report concluded the following:
1. Significant fill or excavation occurs, including deeper ditching.
Fill heights are expected to be less than 15 feet high and will not
extend outward far enough to affect the dam.
2. The culvert capacity does not match dam discharge capacity.
NCDOT will evaluate drainage requirements and design
accordingly.
3. Pile driving or other equipment that could cause vibrations to
be transmitted to the dam is used.
Planned widening does not include a bridge or heavy structures
where pile driving or heavy equipment would be needed.
4. Any construction, clearing, or ground disturbance is to occur
very close to the dam.
The grading limit is approximately 220 ft. to more than 400ft. from
the toe of the dam: there should be no construction, clearing, or
ground disturbance "very close" to the dam.
As a result of the proposed re-alignment, the Pinewild Property Owners Association has
requested that the NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources' (NCDENR)-
Department of Water Quality (DWQ), review their concerns relative to the dam. A copy
of the letter from the Pinewild Property Owners Association to DWQ is attached in
Appendix B.
Upon approval of the proposed re-alignment, NCDOT will conduct a citizens'
informational workshop to present the plan revisions to the public.
A copy of the Eddy Engineering report, the Soils and Foundations report, the DLR
inspection reports, and the Mactec Engineering report are on file with the NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
Benefits
The proposed alignment shift will result in 8 fewer families relocated and a reduction in
utility relocations at a cost savings of $1, 875.000.00
Ii,
6
m
0
q
Z
BEGIN
PROJECT
VICINITY
MAPS
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
PROJECT: U504 XI Ot-2819J
FIGURE-1
SHEET OF 01/16/
NORTH CAROLINA
APPENDIX A
Permit Drawing
TIP Project No. R-2812
%6v.

o?
Z +
<
_ N
F V

Z
N G K N L
3- Z 3 z
z
tt U
- 1
_ n U
a
C G
Z U
Z U
f w f K
5 =
K
O d = ?
? (v N -
c z ?
0
z r
m
N

U

0
v
N

0

N

co

m
0

W

N
_N
in

0

N
n

m
m
0
r
N

a

15

«

a
w
w m
n
E

Of

N
U

Or

x
W
C
N
N
E

N
a

?E=
m?
d? s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

zNO i
ar d
'n
.
.
C C U n
y? D E S 0 0 ? O O O O O
v
W
E ~
U
OI N .!? O

yc d E? W 0 0 O m N m N m
U E
v
w
d
a
a
? o r o 0 0 o M
3 O W
Y F?E'? o N O 0 0 0 0 0 N
?
Q
C
? V O (?J O O D) N N ' m
N 3 Q A O - O N 0 0 O O W
U
" ?
F ?
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U a
a
N
C
? O O O O O O O O O
CT U O O O O O O O O O

? ry N C-
U- 3" 0
x 0
0 0
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0

N

N C C
c ' !? U t0 W
N O
O ? <
N
? yy
W W
UJ
M
?
= L? y ry 0 0 0 O O O O O O
Q "
?
u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?
U

W ? w
3 o
_
C ? N
?
? c??
- O
0 O
0 O
0 O O
O O
O O
0 O
0 O
?
3'-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
1
J w
N
p C??
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
E__

`°
O
FLL3
' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C N
C G? W ? W
O-? U
N O ! O
O N
O O r
W W
O W
N ?
E
LL 3" o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a

? ? ° m m
U U c
? ? m U U
F n ? ? U
U y _
vi 2 ? r r U
? '
` 9 O O d
y? W W I m

o o o ? m
W a U
« o x x ?
w w

J J J J
(r it M
O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 O O O i0 ?O
O C N ?O ?+O O O O 0 0
? N N N N N N M ?

N LL ?0 « N 10 « Yp N N
to N V1 to U N N h
J J J J J J J J
J

« O Q
Z
VJ
N
(7
t"J
V
O
f-
'

m
F
F
4

2/27/2009
R:\ ZSr idge\R-2812\OesIgn_010808\Permits\r-2812_hyd-oermits_tsh.dgn
cmvers I
LWBS;: 34504.1.1 TIP PROJECT: fi
O
9 U 0 p lII U U Z
O I 0
m c Fm o o ; rT7
(4 v
"o cF0o Vrni
g ?
h ^
IIJ I r t-)
8 r
egg I ? ,.. ... Z
s
N N p O
O IN IN R1 RO?FF OV
O Q A.
II.i < ? O ? IN S ? ?'9ti
II II II• II, II II
N N IUI ? IN
C O iN IN 14Ni
? = aR i ae i$ I$ a ?
I ?
o +
2 W
a
a ebb SR 1291
ARCHIE RD -Y5-
c o y V, r ?'1
a E PIAip Vgll? W O
4A4
g ? I h
I c
I?
e e li I ?? ? II iE
I I 1`
-Ya- GLASGOW RD I
I I i I f
I
N 1 61) ->70- 0 1 1 b
SR 1216 a
Z m 5 D LAKE RD JUNIPER O I S i
m
N o m I ; ii
c ? N I I I I h
o ,,01,1 00 I I•
I
Ln H J i I n ??
< ...I a ? N I I c
S70NEYKIRK I
0 ?' q DRIVE ?
VI t?, 1
Y+ -Y12- I i 1c) I
r71 1210 BEAULAH
MILL g3 yC
- Z CHURCH RD .I,i' Q I I u`1
I _ ©. _ - gyp. ? I I Its I
yby i? ,• SRO I I 1
Z \yOOCKSV\lL
b i S0.
O I
I , C V0.
P C ? f1 1
I
I t i n
I y N ., d? I
i
I
Mi Z Mi O ?m
m GUNCLUB DRIVE -Y15-
?\ m ?
Z n6 ORIAL DRNE D

REVISIONS

SEE SHEET 20 -L- STA 222+85
MATCH LINE
I'
I ? II I
I 114
I III ?I I
II III III ? I ?
\ III III I
? ? I II III I II I II '
I I
II III I I I I I
II II I I II II ?'? ? yy
I I
II I I ' I I p
III' I
III ? >, i
I III I? I r
' I' III / m
I Ih /
III III ? / ?
III III III ? I //// r? ?

I a
11
1
1 ?

?I
I? 11
I 1
`? I f

i
o ?
I

I
I I
V
'I

o

4 I'1
V
III
I
II? I?
I I ? ? F / ?'/rte/ r?
II Z I
II I I
111 ?I
I
I II ?I
III I ?I
rl ,
I '' I
I
I ' ? # Z
I I
I I
I I
I
I'
1
I It
1 1 1 I
I
I I
I:
1 .'

TOES
245
I
'bE
N \
UZI-
m6
Yil
it .

j
te_e23_nocon.dgn
1
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 22 -L- STA 263+88
n,
P
II II 1?
• I I'?.. I I I I 1
II i' 1'II ? 'I ,
'r
la _r
•
•
- _ I
I /Y ,?? t. ez wet
/ ? b ? Z?'--aes
c
/
It,
265
TDE
r ??-
n
n
"II

I III
III
11
,
?? ? II
. 1
1
270
H ?
N `1+
a I
' I I
sE'll ? I"
i - III 71 I
1 I
I
It
?? j1II
y lul
I ? ?g, 4I?? iii ??..'
I II nil rrf.-i'
I
I 14? '/ I
II IIII JI_ ?-' /\
II Ipi 1
I
27.`
II IIII I \ ? \
I fRl T \ \
II IIII ' \ n\
111 IIII h \ \
NMI
IIII - r-
III'
I
r?ui
nm
c
L
'
O
I
I D3
c N ?
Yn
?X
v
1 O ? O
I I I ,
C R'l A I?I^
u
STA 263+88
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 22 / _L_
III I ? ? F
.. ? .II II ,I 'q
II i ;, IIII
III'
I
I
I
I
r ,
I

1 r'
I
TOE z

I
I
I
?I
--- n.
- -- - - - - - - - - - -
y\/
270
N
I
.III nIi ,I ?:v i
on. :rf ? ? f
r
u "hl
II III i`" / _ 27'
.
I ? ?7f,?\ I
fill
I u I ---III
I pl. I IT \ 5\
I ?I 1 h
I IAI I: _ ?. o r
II If o ino 4 m
N I. ?, o Z
I M1+ m? c?' O
n a3
I: n3
i ?I?.• ? zc r?z
„I >
?SIONS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ I
I I I
I I

28
L

wwom
=e
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 27 -L- STA 331+92
i
4 ,

Ir i
I
hl I
I
I'
ITT \\ a
,,,ter i .?, ,.•.?-,\
too!
;d 9 • I
I I
I _I
I I

--1k
I
I '
I
I
II ;
II © I
2 ,; I I i
i B l
8; J
ym 6 z
a pp
?E I
I '? I
I ti I
} oar D in ? ? i I
I€ I.
I
I
M;•9 • fit. .. i i
i' 9 O I I'
i
rc
• ?r I
I'
x96. ?i
414
I
I \\
p r r:.
II `
SI
?Q
MgF ?rv"?r,'.
Oil:
340
I?
p Q
oa 0 m ? 3?
° s
F °
© O V V
z
8 T1
G b
O A@
1
T
s
z E
UI
p C r
O
F
-
? = e 2 n

O U
x
v
4
0
F Z
T
U
(
-
N U E C

F
6 `-] O

U O
F

a

0

-
° m
o

o
.

CL

U

m
m

0

M
°
c
m

n

c
0
N
N

m
fn

c
m
m
0

r

D

c

y
a

E

a

9
U

y

W
C
m
C
m
m
a

m E c
? m rn
m
? O O O O O O O O
0
Z m ?
g
C c U 6
p? N O. Em .: 0 0 ? O O O O
U )(L EF
Q wU-
a

OI
q m
? C
U C ?
' C
m
m

F. ?
m
2 E w' m 0 0 O O
[7 N
? ?[1
7
X L
E f
? w U
a

W

Q m
6 U
v
3
O
CI

o
O
O
0
0
(7
E
m
?mE`° o
o m
c?i
v 0
o 0
0 0
0 o
o m
c.i
} U

? m a!

0? N U
O
?
O
?
O _
O
O
m

y
Eve EtO
C
O
O
o
o
°°
0 (
0
0

F a
U
Q
a m
m a
c

?
m o 0 0 0 0 0 0
?? c
? o 0 0 0 0 0 0
? m- m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

? a m
H
g
m
0 mm`=?? o o
0 o° 0 0 0 o N
U 3 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0
J m

W Q c

a m
o
D
c
> c `-° ?
o
o
0
o
0
0
?
o
0
0
0
o
0
N
? m-- o 'd c d o 0 0 0-
z 3
w

v
E ?? ? o a o 0 0 0 0 0

m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FiE m o r n c o 0 0 0

C V1
m D
W_? U N m 0 O m m m

m O O O M O N m
jy y? o 0 o C O O O G
a 3

a a
U U c m U
m a ? ? o m ? 2 d
T
~
U
_ CI N ? a O ? ?'
m w W m c ? _
° o
U?
N a s o ? a ?
O m
c c U c m
m m 0
w w a w

J J J
? of Q' J
O O 0
p 0 0 ? I
O\ y? ?U O O O p 0
?
.. O P
N P
N a
N r
N m
N
M
M
m y m m m _m m m m
m m ? y m m m
J J J J J J J
I N
J
U O

m 2 N M P
m
C
F-
Q

a
Y
n
c
s 4??
"o
2 Fg ;I 5
4 :F 4
}
c
,s
}
1 x
}
a
1
1
,
11
SEE SHEET . -L- STA 222+85
LATCH LINE I
I P
6 i:9 m m II tli i'?I , I R
4 M4 \ 11il !i '
I, 1
?l\
9pr
11 /}£da
W I I¢S R £
Z W ?
0
W
11
W 7
W
M W W iD
W
N /\ W I
' W ••l
In ? W W
ro W W' ? .yi
S OO W W/I?® S?{
m µ
l?J
W W g''?il,
I
Fy; I ?I' I
l
i

I
? I I ', I? N ? Ili .. 2
I ? III I { ._L1 1''I
I I
I j. 4I II®. 9
T Z'
240
I T.; ! I II ? T ?YJ9
I I I I v?l' ?, ? I
?Tt,i I
,Ir,rl II ;tii!. I
LT??T 3 ? ? ?I ? T
Od t n II I I
lei (; II ? I
u I f
d ? ^? I ? III ?.?? ? n
., I ? III
I?? I tj7 I'f',!S ?)?ti I
4 j Yil I?u S Y'`? ?°I
P ?ii i o t' I I
P re 4'r,' ? R i ' 3r ? I
4 b
Q,
Q
r ? I
e?? ? 1>
N 7 //
r T
T
s:
a
0
? I
EV ONS
--------------------
---_____
-Furl.onuw1a.a2d.nncno.dnn__________ ___________ _____________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATCH UNE SEE SHEET 22 -L- 5TA 263+88
1
e. I 1 Iy II P __
t'I.. 4 3' o n. P? q
I
26
Q. ? '03 R ? P
I ? ?4 I
11 j. 'u ? I %Y 9 .^.^gf_t
?' .Ike d I 'I I® LQ
:ia
I - t- I I'} d Q it, n G 1 e +
r_.._
... S 184 -I?
! 5 ? 8 I yy gq
p?F (? I I ` 'liq h,'IS1 .rvJ . .. v ti; ;. ? tl
} ,1 m j
11 111 In 1 3 r 1

??-
I
I I
l ? S \ \
I
` r
..........
(1 ? ? I \
\ S'Ir0 7 1
I `? ?? ? ?:) II u n n Iryry?? ? 5 ? ( I,[

lr
7
r ?
1 tr

(

j r

( 7
i
Ll }?11 C1,?1 I
I ti \ ?
I
r

I.
V ? jY
h IV
?yl
w C ??
v ? I
o
1 .
,.s
x;.
0
In > k
In ?BW??
0
9 8 ygfl
ro + As
rn ? 59
h
G b[ 7
G 4F I
27C
1
t
I ?! I
+ +
I
I ? 1 ,
?1 ?n=?`?+ + ?+
+ \
S
I I
I > I •I` '? a
II I ? + \
III '.?
1
r ? x!
t? ' ?
+ + a

ICI
I '
l
I
? 1 ? \
' ? J J
'>?3
? o-

III I H 1 Jam.
'
I lb
do i
`' ?? T
?\ )Z
y l
a ..
I I^} N ?
IT `
II II lr ' C? II ?
A I m ? ,o
d

4 i
1

r ?
?
I I III tt /
1S
? '.o-
II
Ilq , 4
r'il ?
,
\

?5p ? I
a?lll L ??'.I
??4111 \5 ?II
s ? ICI
I
T i• =ro m
1 I ?,. ' l e„m ? Z
ii
idi ? ?f roll ?? ^? ?r

REVISIONS
I
I
i
I
i?
I
V
I
i

a
y ?
i
I
1
I

Y
3 Y x
Y i R
Y
Y Y
x x
Y
x Y x
L
Y
1 y Y i
y Ye
I '.
II
I
I P 5tC'
?i

r r?

I p}?r ? .. u 4

i
?I o
„
I
I / I

'.! I I I? I? f X
:h 1I
I I p,;
?•il I I J?le ?§
I I J`I^!i{
1'II ?rl S
?'n irl
A
< ? I?'I it I Imi
( I I? ?a?i I I ?? I
I
Tt II I ? §.I III I, i
I •.I ? PPP I t i II I
?? I o
y7,
? I?? ??g III ® Li i I n? S
L? gs Ir. I 'f I.; 4
5 ? ?y nl
15 ? ? !a I as x?
? _-. tl J ? ? 1 m
/
C
?O

is \?

REVISIONS
4 ?I I

i MATCH LOVE. SEE SHEET 27 -L- STA 331+92
I
I

? z
Y ? ? I

t ?

g
l

e
F e ? a
O
?
r 6
?
R n
4

8
F
a
I? R +
e B E.
0
r
amt
/(:
k ?
J
4 4
4 4 4 4
M 4 4
4
4 4 4
4 4 4 ?
4 4 4 h
.?1 4
Y
M
4 4
4
M ?f
/aF? I I F
I j
n?? r I '7
j4
? I II
T ,1 rt
II

I..
- aw'-
Q Aas?j. ?. g?Kkkk
sa 7 ° 1
r
II ?
A
I Il. m I
T7 `...-
I I?
oil
1 \
r IS
I f
I
I
rl
if 1
0 ;I
a Il
i
APPENDIX B
Pinewild Property Owners Association letter to
DWQ

TIP Project No. R-2812
ROADWAY OFSIGN UNIT
JUN 0 7 Z010
Pinewild Property O-%Amers Assoc iation
•
'
:
PO Box 3975, Pinehurst, NC 28374 Office: 910-215-0531, Fax: 9
? o4t6
-13 "
Gk
' J
-d1
MUMFGRD SYKES
`
_
a.. L'OVEc
June 04, 2010 - r?ok:c+n =aF,iG FE
Rqe J. MOORE
ROUSE% _:AEER
Secretary
ii?c: Freeman
;.if -TAYLOR
,
.
NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, -
F WA OMSAS
.YJ. -
1601 Mail Service Center, RMEV1AJISCWV4RB_
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 _PRE"PAREREPLY FOR _SIORATURE
Dear Sir:
We understand the NC Department of Transportation will soon be sending your department a request
for approval to revise their plans for the widening of NC Highway 211 (project R-2812). Their
request will ask for approval to move the new roadway closer to the Pinewild dam in Pinehurst, NC.
The purpose of this letter is to recommend that DOT's request, be denied.
First, some background: DOT's project R-2812 has been in the planning stages for several years.
(hJr property owners association has had a committee in place during. all this time to monitor progress
and ensure that the roadway expansion does not adversely affect our property owners. Of particular
concern to us is the alignment of the project in the area near the Pinewild dam, which has been
categorized by the NC Department of the Environment & Natural Resources as a "high hazard" dam.
In 2006, the alignment of the roadway was finalized and reviewed with the public. The plan called
for the widening of the highway in our area to take place on the north side of the existing roadway,
which we found to be satisfactory. However in the past year, DOT has decided to revise the
alignment in the area immediately adjacent to the Pinewild dam, moving the new roadway closer to
the dam. DOT is making this change to avoid buying an apartment building on the north side of the
highway, for which they have identified possible savings of $2 million.
Ten years ago, an engineering study on the Pinewild dam was done by Eddy Engineering, P.C.,
which identified several areas of concern with the proposed highway construction. A copy of their
report is enclosed for your information. Recently, DOT commissioned another study, by
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. The report issued as a result of that study attempts to
dismiss the issues raised by Eddy Engineering. Oir'the basis of that study, DOT now plans to ask for
NCDENR approval to move the roadway expansion to the south, closer to the dam. At its nearest
point, the current roadway is approximately 220 feet from the toe of the dam. The planned expansion
will move it 50 feet closer. Our concern is that the construction project and increased traffic on the
new road could threaten the stability of the dam. As you probably know, this earthen dam is more
than 80 years old and was built with no pre-construction engineering comprehending the stability of
its soil structure.
We can understand DOT's interest in the possibility of saving $2 million by not having to buy the
apartment building. However, if the dam were to fail, those savings would be dwarfed by the
property damage that would result. Our understanding is that the "high hazard" classification of the
dam is a reflection of the seriousness of those risks.
Specifically:
• The potential exists for significant property damage and/or loss of life downstream of the dam
i if it were to fail. The apartment building DOT wants to avoid buying is the first property that
would be flooded. B-1
Pinewild Property Owners Association
PO Box 3975, Pinehurst, NC 28374 Office: 910-215-0531, Fax: [phone]
NC Highway 211 (project R-2812) Project Concerns - Page 2
• The town of Taylortown, NC gets its drinking water from Lake Pinewild and this source of
water would be lost if the dam were to fail.
• The revised project will encroach upon a wetlands area which exists between the highway and
the dam. In the past, the Army Corps of Engineers expressed serious concerns about this
encroachment.
• Forty-fOnr Pinewild property owners own lots and homes with frontage on the lake. The
typical value of these lots is $250,000 and the some of the homes are valued at more than $1
million. The value of these properties would be seriously affected by failure of the dam.
• There are 1,000 additional property owners and homes in the Pinewild development whose
properties are not on the lake but whose property values would also be diminished.
All of these issues can be avoided if the alignment stays as previously planned and approved; on the
north side of the road
Keep in mind that two conflicting engineering studies have been done on the dam; one identifying
potential problems and the other minimizing those same problems. DOT is assuming their study is
the correct one. However, if they are wrong, the damages would greatly exceed their anticipated cost
savings. We believe the risks outweigh the potential savings.
For these reasons, we recommend that NCDOT's request be denied. If you have any questions,
please let us know.
Sincerely,
Mr. Charles Mills
President, Pinewild Property Owners Association
cc: Mr. Harris Blake
Mr. Jamie Boles
Mr. Terry Gibson
Mr. Jimmy Goodnight
Mr. Tim Johnson
B-2
j.

EDDY ENGINEERING, P.C.
April 7, 2000
Project 2000-011
Mr. M&e King
General Manager
Pinew ad Property Owners Association
VIA Facsimile 910-215-9736
Re: Dam Observations sad NC 211 Widening
Dear Mr. King:
copy
The purpose of this Letter is to present our observations of Pinewild Lake Dam during our site
visit of March 2, 2000, and to conunent on the possible ramifications of the proposed NC 211
widening with respect to the dam
The dam appears to be little changed since our previous site visit in 1996. The seepage collection
system installed in 1996 fippears to be functioning as Wended. The slope surface above this
seepage collection system remains stable and not excessively wet. Discharge from the drain outlet
was clear and at approximately the same Tate observed after completion of construction.
Other drain systems within the dam also appear to be functioning. The outlets for other drain
systems, recognizable by the black corrugated plastic pipes used in the drains, had become
covered. but were still flowing water. No exce dwbr wet new were observed on the
embardanem above the older drain areas
Downstream of the dam, there continues to be aeepage through the foundation of the dam
reaching the ground surface. Although many areas below the dam have water ponding n the
surface of the ground, no strong or concentrated flow was observed.
The emergency spillway has been partially landscaped and may be part of an adjoining lot. Flow
area does not appear to be restricted at this time, but any future activity in the emergency spillway
should be avoided Confirmation that the emergency spillway dinmajons have not been altered is
recommended. The. rd drawings for the work done to the dam in the late 1980's should be
consulted foT the appropriate elevations and widths.
One manhole along the sewer line near the toe of the dam was observed to be leaking. This
should be repaired as soon a possrble.
4428 Loulsbwg Road Sure 209 [phone]
Rak4A Nonk Carolina 27661 For (919) 934-18N
B-3
I We have been receiving regular piewme er readings since the constriction work in 1996-
Because there is little evidence of fluctuation in piemmeter levels over tone, we re c rr that
the piezometer readings be taken on an annual basis in the future. Monthly readings be
taken, if there are any changes in the picometer readings from one year another, or if any
construction work is commenced in the vicinity of the dam. All readings should be transmitted to
us immediately for review.
I We understand that the Pinewild Owners Association (POA) is concerned about the possible
ramifications of the proposed NC 211 widening project. NCDOT is in the preliminary stages of
locating and planning intproverrrants or relocation of NC 211. Widening along the current or
similar alignment is the alternative of most concern to the POA
It is along the current alignment could adversely affect the dam if.
our opinion that widening
fill or excavation occur, including deeper ditching.
i 1. Significant
2. The culvert capacity does not match dam discharge capacity. the dam
3. Pile driving or other equipment that could cause vibrations to be transmitted to
are used.. close the dam
4. Arty constnrctioe, clearing. or ground disturbance is to occur very
Fill and excavation both have the potential to after groundwater flow regimes through and below
the dam. Fill could consolidate soils or cover seem causing soil pore water pressures to rise.
Because soil strength is a fwection of effective stress. increased pore water pressures could reduce
dam stability. Excavation could create a preferred path for foundation seepage. This could resuh in an increase in an apparent increase in seepage discharge. If not properly filtered, such seepage
could lead to a piping failure. If excavation is conducted close enough to the embankment,
stability of the dam could be reduced by an increase in the effective height of the embankment.
If culvert capacity is such that the spillway outlet becomes submerged, spillway capacity will be
reduced. Submergence of the spillway outlet is currently limited to an insignificarit level by the
top of road elevation. If the top of road elevation avert increased without an increase in the
culvert capacity, a significant loss of spillway capacity could occur.
If pile driving or the use of other vibratory equipment occurs, the potential exists for these
vibrations to be transmitted to the dam and its foundation. Because the dam and its foundation
I are. primarily sandy soils and are generally saturated, the potential for denvi5cation or liquefaction
of soils should be considered. and monitored. DensiScation by vibration is a cornrnonty used
practice where loose, saturated sands are present. Demification of soils in the dam foundation or
within the dam itself could lead to settlement and damage to existing drainage Piping or spillway
conduit. Liquefaction on a large scale is unlikely to result from construction activities.
(919J 93?-1801
4428 Lrnrubwg Road Suitt 109 per ryl9) 931-180!
Rdelgh, va nh Carolina 17661
B-4
Mr Mike King Page 3 April 7, 2000
Any construction of land disturbing activity in the immediate vicinity of the dam could damage
subsurface dram or change surface flow patterns in areas wet by seepage flows. Existing
subsurface drains arc obscured by vegetation and ground litter. They arc not readily recognizable
by untrained personnel and could be damaged by construction traffic in the immediate vicinity of
the dam. Where seepage is ponding downstream of the dam, construction traffic, clearing, or
other work could change surface flow patterns, increasing the apparent rate of seepage.
The potential of these four groups of activities to adversely affect the dam is a function of the
proximity of the activities to the dam and the extent of the activities. As such, we recommend
that proposed activities be reviewed by us in more detail when the scope of the proposed activities
is )mown. if possible, consideration for potential negative effects on the dam should be
considered. in the proposed roadway design. Again, wben construction is eoninenced, we
recontntend taking aaW* piezometer reading so that any changes in seepage conditions can be
docutnented and evaluated.
Thank you for giving Eddy Engineering, P.C., the opportunity to provide professional services on
this project. If you have any questions on this report, or if we may be of further service, pk ase
contact us at your convenience.

4428 Lovirbwg Road Su6e 209 [phone] ' B'5
Rodeigk North Carolina 27661 Fah [phone]

APPENDIX C
Supplemental Evaluation from
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
TIP Project No. R-2812

-_ -' ROADWAYDESIGNUAllT

j ?• MAY 1 4 2010
_ f

STATE OF NORT}1•CAROLINA -
BENNETT - STEFRENSON
x
SYES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _
B. MOORE
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE RAiR=
Elltss[? A. COxrr,
GOVERNOR - SECRETARY -TAYLOR
- -TNOW
^F.Y.L -WALLS
May 10, 2010 -t ttRVTIS?s vxrR
MEMORANDUM TO: Jay A. Bennett, P.E.
State Roadway Design Engineer
ATTENTION: Tim Goins, P.E.
Project Design Engineer
FROM: MNJ Joroge'VJaiha, P.E.
{ State Geotechnical Engineer
STATE PROJECT: 34504.1.1 (R-2812)
FEDERAL PROJECT: STP-211(5)
COUNTY: Moore
DESCRIPTION: NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst
SUBJECT: Report of 2"d Supplemental Evaluation
In response to the Request for Lake Pinewild Dam Investigation (March 15, 2010), the
Geotechnical Engineering Unit's Contracts Investigation group asked MACTEC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc., to evaluate the potential for the proposed alignment changes to impact the
existing Lake Pinewild Dam. MACTEC completed the two previous investigations at the dam.
See the attached Report of 2"d Supplemental Evaluation. Please call Brad Worley, L.G.
or Kevin Miller, L.G. at [phone] if there are any questions concerning this memorandum.
NWW/bdw
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTU OFTRNI^ RTAT
GEOTECNNiULENNNEERING UW
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 276W1589
TEtFP E: 919.2504088
Fax: [phone]
~. ncdotgovhbNpeconsbucbhighway/geotecA
LOCATION:
CENTURY CEN CO PL
ENTMNcE &2
1020 BIRCH Rio DRw
RALEMR NC 27610 C-1
i
-AMACTEC
„engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
May 4, 2010
I Mr. Njoroge Wainaina, P.E.
State Geotechnical Engineer
NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit
1589 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1589
Subject: Report of 2"d Supplemental Evaluation:
Lake Pinewild Dam Assessment for Proposed Roadway Alignment Shift
NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst
Project No.: 34504.1.1
TIP No.: R•2812
Federal Aid No.: STP•211(5)
County: Moore
MACTEC Project 6468100094
Dear Mr. Wainaina:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), is pleased to submit this report of our
geotechnical services for the above-referenced project. This report reviews our understanding of the
project information, presents our observations from a field reconnaissance visit and provides our
evaluation of the potential for the proposed new alignment of NC 211 to impact the existing Lake
Pinewild dam. In summary it is our opinion that widening NC 211 as shown on the current plans (March,
2010) will have no impact on the structural performance of the dam. NCDOT should confirm that the
hydrologicthydraulic design for the culvert and extension will provide suitable now capacity so the lake
discharge from its design flood will not cause water to impound against the toe of the dam.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Our understanding of this project comes from NCDOT's letter titled "Request for Lake Pinewild Dam
Investigation" dated March 15, 2010, which was received by MACTEC on April 6, 2010 along with two
other NCDOT letters and a Pinewild Property Owners Association (PPOA) letter, all from 2002 and
regarding work on the project prior to 2002; electronic files of drawings of the project site; previous work
by MACTEC and others; and conversations with personnel of the Geotechnical Engineering Unit.
The Lake Pinewild dam is an earth structure approximately 850 feet long and about 30 feet high at the
maximum section, reportedly constructed in the early 1940's. The dam is presently owned by Tohato
Realty, USA, and they are responsible for maintenance. The lake itself is owned by the PPOA, and the
area immediately downstream. of the dam is owned by the Pinewild Project Limited Partnership.
The dam impounds an approximate 40-acre lake that serves as a source for irrigation water for the
Pinewild golf course and as drinking water for the Town of Taylortown. The lake outlet works consist of
a vertical 21-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe connected to an 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe
through the dam leading to a concrete end wall and directing the outflow into a channel leading into a
wetland area.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. NC License F-0653 C-2
3301 Atlantic Avenue - Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
w .moclec.com
.NC: Department of Transportation lake Pinewild Dam Assessment
May 4, 2010 MACTEC Project No. 6468-10-0044
Page 2
The existing NC 211 below the dam is on a low-height (-5 feet) fill. The current widening plans call for
constructing an additional fill section of similar height on the south side of the existing road embankment.
Filling will be done into an existing jurisdictional wetland in some areas. A culvert presently carries
surface runoff and outflow from the dam underneath NC 211. We understand the existing culvert will be
extended under the new embankment.
MACI'EC reviewed the dam conditions relative to two previous alignments planned for NC 211 and
issued reports dated January, 20, 2004 and September 29, 2006 that concluded that neither of the
proposed alignments would impact the dam provided the new culvert maintained capacity suitable for
flood flows from the lake.
The information provided by NCDOT in March, 2010 shows a further alignment change that would move
the new embankment closer to the dam. MACTEC was asked to evaluate the new alignment for potential
to cause impacts to the dam.
NEW ALIGNMENT
Attached is a copy of the topographic survey of the dam and immediate surrounding area adapted from our
2004 report. On this drawing we have highlighted the new proposed NC 211 alignment. The current plan
shows the southern edge of the proposed roadway approximately 50 feet south of the southern edge of the
existing roadway. The southern limit of proposed grading is approximately 220 from the toe of the dam at
the closest approach near the west end of the dam.
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
A reconnaissance of the dam was made on April 27, 2010 by Mr. AI Tire, P. E.. There were no observable
changes in the dam crest, downstream slope or outlet works from observations made during reconnaissances
in 2003 and 2006. The crest and slopes are grass covered and continue to be well maintained. Two wet
areas indicating possible seepage were noted near the toe near the center of the dam. These possible
seepage areas were noted during the previous reconnaissances. No flow was noted dining past or current
reconnaissances.
In 1996, a blanket drain and trench drains were added to the dam to address seepage problems. The outlet
of the drainage collector pipes is at the lake discharge pipe, beside the concrete endwall of the culvert.
These drainage collector pipes were flowing clear water at estimated rates of 2 to 3 gallons per minute.
While the water was clear, there was accumulated sediment in the pipe outlets and on the ground below the
pipe outlets. The sediment has become slightly cemented by iron oxides in the water, a common
observation for dams. Mr. John Robertson, director of maintenance for Tohato Realty, reported that the
drain pipes were cleaned using a plumber's snake tool last summer.
The lake drainage pipe was flowing freely. The outflow from the lake drainage pipe and the seepage drains
is directed down a narrow Swale with some rip rap. The swale leads into a low, wet, wooded area. This
area is drained by poorly defined channels that cross the nearby Progress Energy power line right of way
and then lead to the culvert under NC 211. No blockages to the lake outflow prior to its reaching the low,
wet area were seen. Natural blockages in the low, wet area are present, causing meandering of the swales.
The toe of the dam fill is at the edge of woods or within woods from the lake discharge pipe outlet west to
the end of the dam. This area was walked to check for possible seepage. No seepage from the slope or at
the toe of the fill was observed. The natural topography north of the dam leads down toward the low, wet
AMACTEC C_3
N.C. Department of Transportation Lake Pinewild Dam Assessment
May 4, 2010 MACTEC Project No. 6468.10-0054
Page 3
area. Two locations about 20 to 25 feet north of the toe of the dam in the wooded area near the west end of
the dam were seen where water was emerging from the ground and feeding into natural swales (Photograph
1). The water was barely moving. No boils or other signs of underflow piping conditions were seen. These
areas are interpreted as possible groundwater discharges, but they could represent water moving through the
natural ground undemea[h the dam in response to the head in the lake. Blockage of these exit points by
filling could cause elevated pore water pressures to develop in the dam. These points; however, are over 200
feet from any planned construction associated with the NC 211 relocation, and no filling would be occurring
over the points.
The area between the dam and the proposed new alignment is wooded. The natural topography has a high
point on the west end of the area, slopes down to a low flat bottom that is about 500 feet wide west to east
and then rises to the east. Progress Energy maintains a 100-foot power line right of way that is roughly
parallel to NC 211 and angles northeast away from the dam. About half of their right of way is cleared.
Photographs 2 through 4 show the topographic setting along the power line right of way. Standing water
and small swales with slowly moving water draining toward the existing NC 211 culvert are present in the
central low area along the power line right of way. The planned new fill limits are approximately 40 to 60
feet north of the power line right of way.
The most recent inspection of the dam by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Land Resources was performed on December 9, 2009. Their report dated December,
10, 2009 did not indicate any apparent problems. A copy of their inspection report is attached.
EVALUATION
In our 2004 report, we addressed four concerns presented by Mr. John Eddy of Eddy Engineering, P.C. in a
letter to the Pinewild Property Owners Association dated April 7, 2000. The concerns Mr. Eddy has
identified are possible areas of concern for construction near any existing dam. Based on the proposed 2010
alignment and the dam location as illustrated on Drawing No. 1 (attached) and normal roadway
construction, our evaluation of the 2010 proposed alignment of NC 211 relative to Mr. Eddy's concerns is
given below for each concern.
1. Significant fill or excavation, including deeper ditching could alter groundwater flow, causing soil
pore water pressures to rise.
There will be some excavation to clear trees and near surface organic materials on the south side of the
existing roadway prior to placement of roadway embankment fill material. The southern limit of grading
at the closest point to the toe of the dam (near the west end) as taken from Drawing I is approximately
220 feet. The distance between the toe of the dam and the south edge of the roadway embankment fill
increases to the east to more than 400 feet.
As Mr. Eddy points out, fill placement can result in increased pore water pressures and reduced effective
soil strengths. These effects are limited to the areas affected by the stress increase of the fill. Stress
increases due to a fill are minimal at a lateral distance beyond the toe of the fill equal to about half the fill
height. Since the new fill is expected to be less than 15 feet high, stress increases and related pore water
pressure increases from the new fill construction will not extend outward far enough to affect the dam.
Also it should be noted that the subsurface soils are very sandy. In granular soils pore water pressure
increases dissipate very rapidly, typically as embankment fill is placed.
?MACTEC C_4
N.C Department of Transportation Lake Pinewitd Dam Assessment
May 4, 2010 MACTEC Project No. 6468-10-0094
Page 4
We anticipate that only limited shallow ditching will be required through the highway improvement area.
The areas where possible ditching might be used are the low, wet areas. Ditches with gravity inflow ate
not very efficient for lowering the groundwater table except in the immediate vicinity of the ditch. Then:
is a significant recharge in the wetland area that will inhibit the lateral extent of drawdown due of
ditching. Because the groundwater table at the dam will be outside the influence zone of ditches,
excavated ditches will have no influence on the phreatic surface through the dam. Also, because the low
areas needing drainage are already several feet below the base of the darn, any further lowering of
groundwater by ditching in the low areas would only cause drops in groundwater levels near the dam, not
increases, if any effect were noted at all.
As described earlier, possible groundwater or dam underseepage is emerging from the natural ground in
spots west of the lake drain outlet. These areas may represent mechanisms for natural dissipation of pore
water pressures through normal movement of water through a dam. The areas are over 200 feet from the
planned construction. The planned 2010 NC 211 alignment does not call for any fill over these areas, thus
blockage of these natural drainage features would not occur due to the road construction.
2. If the culvert capacity does not match dam discharge capacity, the dam could be affected.
As Mr. Eddy points out in his letter, if the culvert beneath the highway can not pass flood flows through
the culvert rapidly enough, backwater flooding could result in submergence of the dam outlet, reduction
in spillway capacity and potential adverse effects on the performance of the dam. Hydraulic evaluation
was not within our scope; we understand the NCDOT hydraulics section will evaluate drainage
requirements.
3. If pile driving or other equipment that could cause vibrations to be transmitted to the dam were used
the dam could be affected.
The planned widening does not include a bridge or other heavy structures; we are not aware of any pile
driving requirements for the portion of NC 211 to be constructed adjacent to the dam. The only
equipment required will probably be earthmoving and compaction equipment. Vibrations from such
equipment are low to begin with and dissipate with increasing distance from the work on a logarithmic
scale. Based on published studies and our experience with monitoring construction vibrations, with
approximately 220 to more than 400 feet from the southern limit of the construction area to the toe of the
dam, vibrations from normal earthmoving and compacting equipment should be at levels nearly non-
detectable on monitoring equipment.
4. If construction, clearing or ground disturbance is very close to the dam, the dam might be affected.
The limit of grading is approximately 220 to more than 400 feet from the toe of the dam; therefore there
should be no construction, clearing or ground disturbance "very close" to the dam. Within the limit of
grading, work will include clearing and grubbing, and placement and compaction of embankment fill. As
noted above, the distance from the dam is such that vibrations from equipment for these operations should
have no adverse affects on the dam.
JMACTEC C-s
N.G'Department of Transportation
May 4, 2010
Lake Pinewild Dam Assessment
MACTEC Project No. 6468-10-0094
Page 5
MACTEC appreciates working with you on this project. Please call us if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
J. Ilan Tice, P.E. 0
Senior Principal Get
Registered NC 6428
JAT/jat
a
QAN

James E. Veith, P. E. (Reviewer)
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 023232
Attachments: Drawing 1 -'•nwu,.v"
Photograph Sheets (2)
NCDENR Notice of Inspection 10 December 2009
YV'
MACTEC c-6
,North Carolina -
Department: of Environment and Natural Resources
?CV I erly Eaves Perdue, Governor
0ee'Freemau, Secretary
Jambs D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
4 0
NCDENR
Division of Land Resources
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
. LAND QUALITY SECTION
10 December 2009
Pinewild Projects Limited Partership
ATTN: Koichi Sato
P.O. Box 3087
Pinehurst, NC 28374
RE: Pinewild Lake Dam
Moore-143
Moore County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
I Dear Mr. Sato:
The Dam Safety Law of 1967, as amended, provides for the certification and inspection
of dams in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, in order to reduce the risk of failure
of such dams; to prevent injuries to persons, damage to property; and to insure the maintenance
of stream flows.
Our records indicate you are the owner of the referenced dam; which is located off NC
Hwy 211. This dam was inspected on 9 December 2009 by personnel of the Land Quality
Section. This inspection revealed no apparent problems with the dam. However, the following
items pertinent to maintenance and operation of the dam are recommended.
1. Maintain a ground cover sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion on all earthen
portions of the structure.
2. Periodically remove trees less than about six inches in diameter and thick
undergrowth from the slopes and crest of the dam. This will serve to (A) prevent the
formation of a root system which might significantly increase seepage through the
dam which could ultimately result in failure of the structure, (B) reduce the possibility
of damage to the darn due to the uprooting of trees by wind or other natural causes,
and (C) facilitate ease of inspection and increase the likelihood of early detection of
more serious problems connected with the dam.
C-7
Pinewild take Dam
M60RE-143
I
3. Periodically remove all trees from the emergency spillway. This will reduce the
possibility of its capacity being reduced by the entrapment of debris, should it become
active.
4. Periodically check the operation of all drain valve facilities. This will insure
satisfactory operation of the drains should an emergency situation arise.
5. Periodically monitor the subject dam and appurtenant works with respect to elements
affecting its safety. This is in light of the legal duties, obligations, and liabilities
arising from the ownership and/or operation of.a dam.
During this inspection we also investigated the potential for property damage and loss of life
in the event that your dam fails. This investigation determined that failure of your dam could result
in severe property damage and/or possible loss of life downstream. Therefore, we are listing your
dam in the "High Hazard" category.
i Also be advised that this Office must approve any excavations in this dam or major repair
work to this dam before any work is done. Also, note that this dam may not be breached; meaning
the dam may not be drained by cutting a notch in the dam, without prior engineered breach plans
being submitted to and approved by this Department.
Please be advised that though we make every reasonable effort to determine the safety of your
dam, our resources limit us to surficial inspection. There is no certainty regarding the internal
stability of the dam. Dams, and especially their spillways and conduits, deteriorate with age.
Therefore, you are advised to keep a close watch on your dam and to notify us if you detect any
changes, especially cracks, ground movements, or changes in seepage rate or color.
Your cooperation and consideration in maintaining a safe dam is appreciated. If ownership
of the dam has changed, or if you are not responsible for the dam, please notify us so that we can
update our records. Should you have any questions concerning our inspection, please contact roe at
[phone].
Sincerely,
M. Steph , Cook, C. E.S.C.
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
MSC1joh
cc: State Dam Safety Engineer (electronic copy)
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office File
C-8
APPENDIX D
Signed Concurrence Forms
TIP Project No. R-2812
r,
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need.
Project Name/Description: Widen NC 211 from NC 73 in West End to east of SR 1208
((Page Road) in Pinehurst; Moore County, TIP R-2812, Fed. Proj. STP-191(1)
Purpose of the Proposed Project (Aueust 9 2001)
The purpose of the project is to upgrade NC 211 in order to safely and efficiently
accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes.
The Project Team members concur with the purpose and need stated above , as indicated
by signature below'
USACE
NCDOT
USEPA
USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
FHWA -Date
J
i D-1
:< _ Date S3 /7/0/
am.,w
!SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 - Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
ProiI et No./TIP Nn f?-T- ne/Descri tion
I
State Project Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number: R-2812
TIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Recommended alternative:
The "Best-fit" Alignment is a combination of Alternative I and Alternative 2.
A four-lane divided facility with curb and gutter will begin at the traffic circle in Pinehurst and will
extend along existing NC 211 to terminate at SR 1291 (Archie Road) (Alternative 1). A four-lane divided
facility with grass shoulders will begin at SR 1291 (Archie Road) and will extend along existing NC 211
to the project terminus at NC 73 in West End (Alternative 2).
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 26_2006 with the selection of the "Best
Fit" as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for TIP Project No.
R-21112 as stated above
U. S: Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. DENR-DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation
D-2
L' ,. C. VP a.,., . \
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
ConcurrencePoint-No.-2, Alternatives to be studied in detail
in the NEPA document.
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
State Project No. 8.1560601
Federal Aid No. STP-211(5)
TIP NQ-R-2812
Widen NC 21`1 to amultilane facility from NC 73 in West End to the traffic circle
in Pinehurst
Alternatives to be studied in detail in the, NE A-document:
1.) "Best-Fit" Alternative with curb and gutter
Widen NC 211 to a multi-lane facility, from NC 73 in West End to the
traffic circle in Pinehurst, utilizing a combination of North-side South
side, and symmetrical widening in order to minimize impacts to the natural
and human environments.
2.) "Best-Fit" Alternative with grass shoulder section
side, and symmetrical widening in order to minimize impacts to the natural
and human environments.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of April 11, 2002 with the
"alternativestabe.sWdiediu_detaiE iu-the.NEPA-documeut-asstnted_absove
with the stipulation that the "Best Fit" alignment will be determined during
Coucu==e_Point 3.
USACE
v
USEP. -`-= ?a Z ---
1
NCDW
NCDCR
NCDOT
USFWS
NCWRC Q;Oi ; L,
]=FIWA ? - ?,??
D-3
? 7-
SECTION 404 / NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Proiect No./TIP No./Name/Description:
I
State Project Number: 8.1560601
Federal Aid Number: STP-211(5)
TIP Number: R-2812
TiIP Description: Widen NC 211 to a multilane facility from NC 73 in West End to
the traffic circle in Pinehurst
Avoidance and Minimization:
Minimization efforts have taken place continually throughout the planning process. NCDOT studied
various widening scenarios that achieved the purpose of the proposed project and minimized impacts to
the environment. NCDOT developed the "Best Fit" alignment with the Merger Team in order to
rrunmuze impacts to the human and natural environment. The Merger Team reviewed the preliminary
plans on December 11, 2002 and concurred that the "Best Fit" alternative was the preferred.
See attached sheet for continued Avoidance and Minimization Efforts.
The Project Team concurred on this date of October 26, 2006 with the avoidance and minimization
measures for TIP Project No. R•2812 as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. DENR-DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation
D-4
October 26, 2006
R-2812 Concurrence Point 4A-Avoidance and Minimization Efforts to date
i. -Leave current drainage structures in place and accommodate widening by extending
the two existing culverts
2. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would use a curb and gutter typical section for a
portion of the project which narrows the project footprint.
3. -The NCDOT preferred alternative would reduce the typical section by using the curb
and gutter instead of a shoulder section along a portion of the project.
4. -Steeper fill slopes (2:1) were used along the curb and gutter section, reducing the
project footprint.
i 5. -A 23-foot raised island, the narrowest acceptable median width, is recommended.
This median width will reduce the project's footprint.