20010404_VASS R-210_20100726

TABLE 4. US 1 Relocation - Stream Impacts
Site Water Body Channel
Impact
Channel Proposed Acres
Replaced Mitigation* Impacted
linear feet) (linear feet)
Section A
341
1
10 m ` .' ?,'''"verb 574
12 UT to Crane Creek 13
13 UT to Crane Creek 26
14 UT to Crane Creek 39

? 15 UTto Crane Creek' ?--? 256
V`
' 16 UT to Crane Creek --? 600
17 UT to Crane Creek/Farm Pond 223
19 UT to Crane Creek 259
21 UT to Crane Creek 223
22 UT to Crane Creek 43
24 Farm Pond 0

Secti SUBTOTAL
on ) 2729`
1 Farm Pond 0
2 Farm Pond
0
4 Farm Pond .0
5 Farm Pond 0
6 anN ncyyer Branch '-*- 213
9 UT to Little Crane Creek`---r 167
12 Farm Pond 0
14 Farm Pond 0
15 Farm Pond 0
SUBTOTAL 380
Section C
3 Farm Pond/ 282 ? GA
SS UT to Little Crane Creek
U 4 UT to Little Crane Creek 472
5 UT to Little Crane Creek 646
6 UT to Little Crane Creek' ---- 276
9 Farm Pond ` 0
G 10 Little Juniper Creek 39
11._ UT to-Little Juniper Creek
-56- - - -
SUBTOTAL 1771
0 682 0
0 14 0
174 574 0
0 276 0
0 52 0
0 78 0
0 512 0
0 1200 0
0 446 5.83
0 518 0
0 446 0
0 86 0
0 0 1.12
174 4884 6.95
0 0 1.31
0 0 0.91
0 0 0.12
0 0 1.09
0 426 0
0 334 - 0
0 0 0.09
0 0 1.57
0 0 1.59
0 760 6.68
0 564 0.20
449 472 0
531 646 0
0 552 0
0 0 0.67
0 78 0
._0- --. •_.-112--- - --.. _0 ___.- .
980 2424 0.87
TOTALS X4880 „ 1154 806814.50
* - A?2:1 multiplier was applied to each impact site, except for those with on-site relocations
SO Y'"Ires C.

Y I'a C? . IT
C?Y.?-FVU???f 5C RS
CY US v15
C.iI'1li.Y - c Aur v,\ Gi lV? S
?„ ?? Cv??s?c7ei?f
AN - m== m+ IM am 40 = s la, i,
r?
D "<
? N
O o N O mD
oo w0p
00
?u m
0.
a N
Eo- N O G)
CA
W o. C-
lLn m
O O W
?.. ,A N
00 00
Off' O O
RIVER
c0 00n\
400 In ? O O ? \
O y + \• N ?1 f ???•
1 ?I N O O
i O.
co N°1 0 o O, W
N ?
\ W
Ln Lo
O
i
i
00
00
N
N
57- 0
a. _.. ?.
0 00 r)
01) 0 -4 O O O O -J
r71 O O \
I co \
O W
0
.\ o t \ p
o r
(A N
0 W
0 0
\ N OD - A
O N
L-i
n
D
r
N r \ m
b, p)
V O1 N O to Lnn \ m
VV 1 0 O 00 N
C 1 00 oD N
O 1 A ODCA
.b /
C> Ul
O 0 O M W
0
? o
M
\ \
w w ° 0 1
o \
0
°' p Lnn
0 (A
°
i D0
-4 ;v
D O O 00 N ` \\ 00
cC \\
?Z 61 00
m °O PI)
0
N
N -
N \
M Ul
-J
O
m.
< m `4° 0 0 0
0 0
C) r- m oN N
m z °
o p LO m D D p
0 O / 00 ° p M M N O -?
--< m D D N r
I
-0 m
(A 0
m
?, a 00 1 9C)° D I o
x •-n m m m I
(A L cn ? I
0 m II
-?
n
N

iZT 8?£ £81
bii b9l Tb
cnT Tc? FR I

?aP?? II
BJ I
I
I
me lsr:
N ,
-'anmg e
0
a9PPQll!W
F r !
. a
WATER QUALITY SECTION
July 19, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
THROUGH: Coleen Sullins, Section Chief
Boyd DeVane, Assistant Section Chie
FROM: Steve Zoufalv,_
Local Government Assistance Unit Supervisor
Planning Branch
SUBJECT: November 1, 2001 Public Hearing
US Highway 1 Vass Bypass (Moore and Lee Counties)
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
In accordance with your appointment, I served as the Hearing Officer for the subject
public hearing on November 1, 2001 at Union Pines High School in Cameron, North
Carolina. In addition to the Division of Water Quality, Department of Transportation,
and public presentations during the hearing, written statements were received within the
30-day comment period following the hearing. The attached report contains my
findings, analysis and recommendation. A tape recording of the hearing, copies of the
material presented during and after the hearing, a copy of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, and an analysis of the secondary and cumulative impacts are
available from Cynthia Van Der Wiele of DWQ's Wetlands/401 Unit (919-715-1786).
Based on review of the FEIS, a site visit, presentations made during the public hearing,
written comments received subsequent to the hearing, and discussions with State staff,
I recommend issuing the 401 Water Quality Certification for the Highway 1 Vass
Bypass (R-210). As part of the certification, I recommend that the Certification be
conditioned such that NCDOT comply with the commitments made in the FEIS for
water quality protection (page S-11 of the FEIS). Specifically, NCDOT will "...minimize
long-term water quality impacts through the use of their Best Management Practices..."
and "...will strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations, 'Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds' 05A NCAC 413 .0124) throughout the design and construction within one
mile and draining to High Quality Waters."
The above conditions to the Water Quality Certification are deemed appropriate since
the proposed expansion to the US Highway 1 is located in a water supply watershed,
and a segment of Crane Creek and its tributaries located within the project corridor are
classified as HQW.

Additional details on the above recommendation are in the attached report.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please let me know.
Enclosure
C: Paul Rawls
John Dorney
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
THE HIGHWAY 1 VASS BYPASS (R-210) 401 WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS REPORT
Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, North Carolina
Table of Contents
Paqe
1. Summary 1
11. Background 2
Ill. The Hearing 3
IV. Analysis and 6
Recommendation
Appendices
Map of project area 18
Map of selected area 19
Public Notice 20
Public Hearing staff presentations 22
Water Quality Certification Rules 29
REPORT: 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT
PROCESS: HIGHWAY 1 VASS BYPASS (R-210) LEE AND MOORE COUNTIES, NC
SUMMARY
The following report provides a review and recommendation for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's request for Water Quality Certification for wetland and stream fill associated
with their Highway 1 Vass Bypass project (R-210) in Lee and Moore Counties. A map of the
area is on page 18.
The conclusion of this report is the recommendation to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification
for the project with the following condition. NCDOT will use the more protective sedimentation
and erosion control measures [15A NCAC 413 .0124(a-d) and provide plant cover within 10
days] and will strictly adhere to implementing water quality protection practices outlined in their
most recent version of "Best Management Practices For Protection of Surface Waters." More
details of the recommendation and the condition for Water Quality Certification are contained
in the Analysis and Recommendation Section of this report.
BACKGROUND
The North Carolina Highway Trust Fund, Article 14 136-177.1 established a requirement to use
federal funds for Intrastate System projects. This Statute states that the purpose of the
"Intrastate System is established to provide high-speed, safe travel service throughout the
State. It connects major population centers both inside and outside the State and provides
safe, convenient, through-travel for motorists. It is designed to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways of adjoining states. All segments of
the routes in the Intrastate System shall have at least four travel lanes, or bypasses." NCGS
136-1.79 establishes the Intrastate System projects to be, funded from the Trust Fund, including
the completion of four-laning US Highway 1 from Henderson, North Carolina to the South
Carolina state line. U.S. Highway 1 runs north and south through North Carolina connecting
Virginia and South Carolina. The highway runs through the larger municipalities of Henderson,
Raleigh, Sanford, Southern Pines, and Rockingham. The portion of Highway 1 proposed for
modification is currently two lanes consisting primarily of 22-foot-wide pavement with shoulders
on a 100 foot-wide right-of-way for most of the project area. The EIS states that the existing
alignment for this section of the highway is "substandard" with "restrictive roadway geometrics
and poor passing sight distances."
NCDOT examined five alternatives for construction along with other options, such as the No-
Build and mass transit. The FEIS provides a sizable amount of information concerning the
proposed project and the analysis of alternatives. The Department, Federal Agencies,
Environmental Groups, interested citizens and the general public have had several
5
opportunities during the processing of the EIS (in draft and final stages) to review, comment
and make known their views. Two public hearings, November 19, 1991 and July 18, 1995,
were held at Cameron Elementary School on the Draft EIS. The FEIS for the project was
completed on December 1, 1995. FHWA's Record of Decision for the FEIS was signed on
March 21, 1996. The Corps of Engineers agreed with the proposed alternative, Alternative A,
by letter dated May 4, 1993.
The proposed changes to U.S. Highway 1, Transportation Improvement Project R-210, begin
at the existing four lanes south of Secondary Road 1853 at Lakeview, North Carolina, and
continues north to the existing four lanes at the intersection of Secondary Road 1180 south of
Sanford, North Carolina. R-210 is 12.8 miles long and is located in the southern portion of
Lee County and the eastern portion of Moore County. The proposed four-lane highway would
use portions of the existing Highway 1 corridor and a new corridor to the east of the existing
Highway 1 corridor. Approximately three miles of the existing Highway 1 corridor would be
used. Another nine miles, approximately, of new corridor would be added. The project area is
rural consisting of mostly farmsteads and scattered commercial services. However, the
Towns of Cameron, Lakeview and Vass are located in the affected area. R-210 will have a
46-foot wide median. The highway will cross Little River, Crane Creek, Little Juniper Creek,
and several unnamed tributaries. Bridges will be constructed over the Little River, Crane
Creek and an unnamed tributary to Little Crane Creek. The bridge designed to cross over the
Little River was extended from 393 feet to 1308 feet. The design modification reduced the
impact to wetlands by 2.81 acres. All the waters are located in the Cape Fear. River Basin.
With the exception of Little Juniper Creek (Class C), these waters are all classified as WS-Ill
(Water Supply III). The watershed is the raw drinking water supply source for the Fort Bragg
military reservation. The Water Supply Watershed Protection rules (15A NCAC 2B .0100 and
.0200) require local governments having land use jurisdiction within the watershed to adopt
and implement a water supply watershed protection ordinance. The local government
ordinances control stormwater runoff through development restrictions. This is an important
factor since all new development will have to conform to the local government water supply
watershed protection ordinances to protect water quality. In addition, the Little River is
supplementally classified as High Quality Waters (HQW). HQW waters have water quality
that is rated as "excellent" based on DWQ monitoring. These waters have development and
wastewater management criteria that are, in general, more protective than WS-III
requirements. However, the DWQ is responsible for implementing the HQW controls. NCDOT
is responsible for more protective sedimentation and erosion control practices for projects
located in HQW areas (15A NCAC 4B .0124) and have stated in the FEIS that they will abide
by the practices set out in their "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters".
A Federal 404 Permit application for the proposed project was submitted to the Corps of
Engineers by NCDOT on February 19, 2001. The NCDOT also requested a Section 401
Certification (sections of the Federal Clean Water Act) of DWQ. The project would affect
approximately 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation and
6
mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and
4,880 linear feet of stream channel within the R-210 Altemative A corridor.
The Director, having received a request for a hearing, determined under the Water Quality
Certification Regulations that significant public interest existed. Therefore, a public hearing
was scheduled and held November 1, 2001 at Union Pines High School in Cameron, NC.
The public comment period was held open for an additional 30 days.
Prior to the hearing, staff of DWQ's Wetlands/401 Unit provided the Hearing Officer with a
copy of the final EIS and a copy of the file record of this project. The file record included
agency comments concerning the federal EIS and the State Clearinghouse review comments
from various organizational units of the Division and the Department. The Hearing Officer
discussed the general aspects of this project with individuals of the Wetlands/401 and DWQ's
Fayetteville Regional Office. The Hearing Officer also toured the project area on September
11, 2001.
THE HEARING
In accordance with the public notice (page 20), a public hearing was held at 7PM in the Union
Pines High School Auditorium in Cameron on November 1, 2001. Sixty-two people
registered. In addition, seven DWQ and nine DOT staff participated in the hearing.
The Hearing Officer presented the public hearing process, introduced State staff in
attendance and went over the rules of conduct. A copy of presentations by the Hearing
Officer and Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, of DWQ's 401 /Wetlands Unit, starts on page 22 of
this report. Ms. Van Der Wiele summarized the State 401 Certification procedure. Mr. Carl
Goode, Manager of DOT's Office of Human Environment, briefly reviewed the history of the
proposed project. A copy of Mr. Goode's presentation starts on page 26 of this report. Next,
those who signed up to speak came to the podium and made brief presentations. There were
32 people who registered to speak and one additional person, who requested an opportunity
to speak, was allowed to present following the registered speakers.
The majority of the verbal comments were in favor of the proposed bypass around the Town
of Vass citing the need for a safer highway as a primary factor. Local safety personnel stated
that with a better road there would be fewer accidents, which could result in fewer lives lost
and prevent hazardous spills into the surface waters, and allow quicker transportation for
emergency vehicles. Others suggested the bypass would benefit the local economies.
Concerns were expressed with the way and the fact that land had been condemned by
NCDOT for the proposed bypass. And, concerns were expressed that the secondary and
cumulative effects analysis was inadequate; loss of wetlands; degradation of water quality
and rural character; and the criteria (15A NCAC 2H .0506) that DWQ must address when
making a decision on whether to issue the water quality certification for the project were
reiterated.
7
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
Over twenty written comments,were received. The comments were from interested citizens,
special interests, consultants, businesses; and local governments. The following is a
summary of the comments:
- Moore County Board of Commissioners endorses the proposed project:
- Moore County Planning Department discussed their land use plan, which includes
a water supply watershed protection ordinance that is more protective than the
State's requirements.
- Town of Vass has not taken formal action to endorse the project, but if it proceeds
the Town stresses the importance of watersheds and the desire that NCDOT's
reclamation program would compensate for losses. The Town foresees economic
gains with the project and expresses concern that the project be overseen by
NCDOT "firmly" and "judiciously." The Town also states that it implements water
supply watershed protection and land use plans.
- Village of Pinehurst endorses the project and is of the opinion that NCDOT's
mitigation for wetland loss is adequate.
- Moore County Schools supports the proposed project for safer bus travel.
- Speed limit should be reduced until new road is constructed for safety reasons.
- Streams area mess due to natural disasters and NCDOT's position to restore
wetlands and streams;-and monitor stormwater runoff. would be beneficial:
- Town of Cameron's wells needed replacing anyway; new deeper wells will not be
affected by highway.
- Additional letters of support stated that the proposed ,four-lane highway would
increase safety; NCDOT's stream and wetland mitigation will improve water quality;
impacts associated with new development will be addressed through local land use
ordinances; and project will benefit local economy.
- Counsel for MooreFORCE, Inc. and condemnees affected by the proposed project
provided a full three-inch binder. The notebook extensively documents pleadings
offered to the Moore County Superior Court in the case of NCDOT vs. Stout
(property owners in the proposed path of the highway) and traffic safety statistics
presented to the Transportation Research Board in 2001. In addition, counsel
presents the factors (15A NCAC 2H .0506) that DWQ bases decision on issuance
of water quality certifications with Counsel's comments on each factor. Counsel
concludes by stating that DWQ should either deny NCDOT's request for 401 Water
Quality Certification, or, require a supplemental EIS from NCDOT that addresses
the factors of rule .0506. Counsel also requested a 60-day extension to comment.
The Hearing Officer, by way of letter dated December 4, 2001, respectfully denied
the 60-day extension request.
8
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Comparison of the Request to the Water Quality Certification Rules: A few comments
reiterated the requirement that Rule 15A NCAC 2H .0506 is a necessary part of any decision
to certify this project. This provision of the rules requires the Director to determine if the
proposed activity has the potential to remove or degrade those significant existing uses that
are present in the wetland or surface water. Based on the mitigation plan for the proposed
project, the hearing officer believes that significant existing uses of the waters and wetlands
proposed for fill will be properly mitigated and that water quality will not be degraded as the
result of this project within the reasonably foreseeable future.
Rule .0506 (b) sets forth six conditions that allow the Director to issue a 401 Water Quality
Certification. for fill to waters where significant existing uses are not removed or degraded by
the discharge to classified surface waters. Rule .0506 (c) pertains to wetlands and also
contains six•conditions that are very similar to .0506 (b). Since the two are similar and
applicable to this project, a combined point by point review of the conditions, based on the
Hearing Officer's review of the FEIS, public hearing comments and NCDOT's supplement to
the EIS, follows:
(1) has no practical alternative under the.criteria outlined in Paragraph (f)
of this Rule; (paragraph (f) says, "A lack of practical alternatives may:,
be shown by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a
reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and
all alternative designs the basic project purpose cannot be practically
accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse
impact to surface waters or wetlands.") One could argue that the NCGS
(Article 14 136-178) sets the "basic project purpose" by stating "It [Intrastate
System] is designed to support statewide growth and development
objectives and to connect to major highways of adjoining states. All
segments of the routes in the Intrastate System shall have at least four
travel lanes, or bypasses." NCGS 136-179 establishes the completion of "4
laning from Henderson to South Carolina Line" of US Highway 1 in Vance,.
Franklin, Wake, Chatham, Lee and Moore Counties as part of the Intrastate
System. Based on that premise, this Hearing Officer must assume that the
"practicality" of Alternative A, which is four laning of US Highway 1, has
been established. This,seems to rule out any alternatives that do not include
4 laning US Highway 1. The question as to whether Alternative A is more
practical than Alternatives B, C, D and E has been addressed in the FEIS
process. Based on the FEIS, public hearing proceedings, secondary and
cumulative analysis, and DOT's mitigation for and minimization of impacts to
wetlands and water quality, the Hearing Officer concurs that Alternative A is
the most practical. (more details on mitigation and minimization follow).
9
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on
consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife
resources, and hydrological conditions under the criteria. outlined in
Paragraph (g) of this rule; (Paragraph.(g) says, "Minimization of
impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the surface waters or
wetlands are able to continue to support the existing uses after project
completion, or that the impacts are required due to: (1) The spatial and
dimensional requirements of the project; or (2) The location of any
existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or
configuration of the proposed project; or (3) The purpose of the project
and how the purpose related to placement, configuration or density.")
The project will affect 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through
permanent fill, excavation and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface
waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,880 linear feet of stream
channel. Since the purpose of the project is to four-lane a section of US
Highway 1, the configuration of this road, primarily the width and length of
the corridor, establishes the baseline for impacts. Review of the FEIS
indicates that NCODT took into consideration configuration of the road so as
to minimize impacts to the surface waters. Perhaps the most notable
example is the extension of the bridge over the Little River. The bridge has
been redesigned from 393 feet .to 1.308 feet in length to reduce the impact to
wetlands. The result is the bridge will` cost more;- but 2.81 acres of wetlands
will not be filled. The road was also configured sous to avoid construction
of new roads within the Critical Area of water supply watersheds as required
by Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0104(m). NCDOT agreed in the FEIS (page S-11) to
numerous commitments. Commitment #2 and #3 are directly related to
water quality. These commitments state that NCDOT will "minimize long-
term water quality impacts through the use of BMPs outlined in their
document entitled "Best Management Practices For Protection of Surface
Waters" and "NCDOT will strictly adhere to" more protective sedimentation
and erosion control practices required of 15A NCAC 4B .0124. A few
examples of the numerous control measures outlined in their BMP
document that NCDOT has committed to are:
"promote infiltration and filtration of pavement runoff by directing
sheet flow over grassed shoulder slopes and shallow flat slope
ditches."
"ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be provided within 15
calendar days" rather than the 30-calendar day requirement for
waters other than HQW.
"erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices
within High Quality Water zones shall be designed to provide
protection from the runoff of the 25 year frequency event."
10
"sediment basins within High Quality Water Zones shall be designed
to have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron
size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of the two (2)
year frequency storm."
"Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction
and major road improvement projects at identified strategic locations
along the system highways."
The Hearing Officer has concluded that impacts due to the project are
necessary due to the spatial and dimensional requirements of the project,
and the purpose of the project and how the purpose related to the
placement, configuration or density. However, as long as NCDOT strictly
adheres to the commitments made in the FEIS and subsequent mitigation,
impacts due to the project will be minimized.
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwater or surface waters; The
Town of Cameron had five working drinking water supply wells prior to the
highway being proposed They also had a_sixth well as a spare that has not been
developed. The proposed road impacts two of the five working wells. To.
compensate for the loss, NCDOT has stated (letter from NCDOT's William D.
Gilmore dated February 12, 2002) that they entered into agreement on October
26, 1998 with the Town to replace the wells. One of the replacement wells is
about 95% complete and the second is more than half way finished as of early
April 2002. Of the three remaining active wells, the closest one to the proposed
highway is two miles away. The Hearing Officer does not believe that the
relocation of the two wells is basis for stating that the groundwater would be
degraded. The FEIS states that the ground water table is well below most cut
sections of the proposed highway.
As stated above in criteria number 3, NCDOT committed to strictly adhering to
the "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" rule and the use of numerous
BMPs. NCDOT's BMP document states that BMPs are activities, practices and
procedures undertaken to prevent or reduce water pollution." The document also
states that "The most stringent application of the BMPs would be expected where
highway projects could affect environmentally sensitive waters, such as; Water
Supply Watersheds, Trout Waters, High Quality Waters and Outstanding
Resource Waters."
The Hearing Officer's assessment is that, as long as NCDOT fulfills its
commitments there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that either groundwater
or surface water will be degraded.
11
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably
anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of
downstream water, quality-standards;, The Hearing Officer agreed* with
concerns that the FEIS did not adequately address cumulative impacts. NCDOT
was requested to address this concern and subsequent to the November 1, 2001
public hearing, submitted the document, "R-210 Secondary and Cumulative
Effects on Downstream Water Quality Final Report -March 15, 2002." NCDOT is
to be commended for providing much more thorough analysis of the potential for
secondary and cumulative effects due to the highway project. This type of
analysis is essential for making an informed decision.
A hydrologic modeling analysis was conducted to assess the potential for water
quality standards violations. The methodology for the analysis was based on; 1)
The Louis Berger Group: "Draft Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina," and ECONorthwest and
Portland State University: "A Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and
Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements, Final Report." The analysis of R-210
examined local land use and the potential for development changes due to the
proposed highway ("before" and "after" hydrologic comparison) and then
assessed the potential effect on water quality standards for the watershed. The
most likely development scenarios were modeled based-on. existing land use
patterns; local land'use-plans; existing ordinances and potential build out allowed
under existing controls ("worst case"). In summary of the thirty-nine page report,
in the "worst case" scenario, an additional 100 acres of additional built- upon area
(impervious cover), or about 0.2% of the potentially affected watershed might
occur due to R-210. The increase in peak stormwater flow under the "worst case"
scenario could range from undetectable to 1.5% throughout the watershed. The
report concludes that there will be no impact on downstream water quality as a
result of secondary and cumulative effects due to the proposed R-210 highway.
A "helping" factor in this assessment is that development in the majority of the
project corridor is controlled through state rules and local land use ordinances
with the intent to protect water quality. This provided a known quantity in which to
base input, such as maximum density of development, into the model. Whereas,
if the local government did not implement land use controls, then input into the
model would have been much more speculative adding less certainly to the
result.
The majority of the project drainage area is located within a WS-III water supply
watershed and HWQ. The former requires the local governments with land use
jurisdiction in the watershed to adopt and implement land use management
measures to control stormwater runoff. The local governments affected by the
proposed by-pass, Lee and Moore Counties and the Towns of Vass and
Cameron, all have water supply watershed protection ordinances that meet or
12
exceed state minimum requirements. The Little River (south of Vass) is
supplementally classified as HQW. The DWQ is responsible for overseeing land
use management requirements for HQW waters. The stormwater controls for
development are slightly more stringent than for the overlapping WS-III
classification. WS-III and HQW restrict impervious surface area and require
buffers along perennial waters. These onsite controls are expected to protect
water quality for this area in the foreseeable future. A section (from end of project
to about one mile south along the proposed corridor) of the overall project is
within the drainage area of Little Juniper Creek. The creek is classified. as Class
C (general purpose waters). There are no state mandated stormwater control
requirements for this area. Lee County regulates this area through a subdivision
ordinance and requires 40,000 square foot residential lots, 0.5 acres for highway
commercial and light industrial and one acre lot for heavy industrial (confirmed
through phone conversation with Lee County Planning Department).
The Hearing Officer's assessment of the analysis is that secondary and
cumulative effects will have negligible, if any, cumulative impacts on downstream
water quality based on reasonably foreseeable anticipated future growth.
s.
(5) provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through the
use of on-site stormwater control measures; The direct impacts associated
with the road construction can affect water quality. However, to protect instream
water quality standards during construction, the FEIS states that "NCDDT will
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations, `Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds' (15A NCAC 413.0124) throughout the design and construction
within one mile and draining to High Quality Waters." These standards call for
more stringent sedimentation and erosion control practices (e.g., less land area
can remain uncovered at one time, less steep side slopes, ground cover must be
established sooner).
The FEIS also states that "NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts
through the use of NCDOT Best Management Practices as determined by federal
and state policies:" The design practices from NCDOT's BMP manual ("Best
Management Practices For Protection of Surface Waters" - March 1997) that are
especially relevant for this project include: new roads will be avoided in water
supply watershed Critical Areas; all projects will be consistent with locally
adopted plans and ordinances related to water supply watershed protection;
promote infiltration and filtration of pavement stormwater runoff by directing sheet
flow over grassed areas; the use of hazardous spill basins; and minimal and
judicious use of fertilizers, herbicides and deicing materials (i.e., chlorides). It is
important that NCDOT implement these and the numerous other applicable
BMPs outlined in their manual for the protection of instream water quality.
13
To be assured that the on-site stormwater control measures committed to in the
FEIS by NCDOT are implemented, the. Hearing Officer recommends that the
Water Quality Certification be conditioned such that NCDOT will employ all the
necessary BMPs to protect water quality so as to "minimize long-term water
quality impacts" NCDOT will "strictly adhere" to the more protective sedimentation
and erosion control practices [15A NCAC 4B.0124(a-d) and provide groundcover
with 10 days].
(6) provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation as described
at Subparagraph (h)(1) of this Rule. (Subparagraph (h)(1) states,
"Replacement or the mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses shall
be reviewed in accordance with the following guidelines: (1)The Director
shall coordinate mitigation requirements with other permitting agencies
that are requiring mitigation for a specific project. Mitigation required by
the U. S Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to constitute the
mitigation required by the certification unless the Director determines that
the mitigation proposal does not meet the criteria established in
Subparagraph (6) of this Paragraph." Subparagraph (6) states, "All
mitigation proposals shall provide for the replacement of wetland acres lost
due to the-proposed activity at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio through restoration
or creation prior to utilizing enhancement or preservation to satisfy the
mitigation requirements, ,unless the Director -determines thatthe public
good would be better served by other type of mitigation.") A mitigation plan
for the 41.5 acres of wetlands and 4,880 linear feet of stream impacts has been
submitted. The wetland mitigation shall be the same as approved by the Corps as
long as it equals 1:1 restoration or creation of lost wetland. NCDOT must submit
a report within two months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Corps
that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation.
The 41.5 acres of wetlands will be mitigated with 4.8 acres of on-site restoration
(1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River; 8.4 acres of on-site preservation;
and with a SALT Mitigation Site. A 327 acre site in Moore County is being offered
to offset the remainder of the wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. The site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
Monitoring of the site will occur along with additional consultation with DWQ staff.
If the hydrological modeling of the site indicates that less than 36.8 acres can be
restored, then NCDOT will obtain wetland mitigation through payments to the
Wetland Restoration Program (WRP).
The mitigation for the 4,880 linear feet of stream impacts will consist of 1,154
linear feet of on-site stream restoration with 50-foot buffers. The restored area will
be preserved through a preservation easement. Physical and biological stream
monitoring reporting will be required the first year and every other year thereafter
for a total of five years. The remaining stream mitigation will be handled through
14
payments to the WRP. WRP has agreed to accept this mitigation.
Having reviewed the file, the mitigation plan has been commented on seueral
times and the Hearing Officer is satisfied that the mitigation requirement. has been
adequately addressed.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Hearing Officer, after careful evaluation of the proposed
project in relation to State Regulations, including the Water Quality Certification criteria
addressed in the above discussion; the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and the public
hearing proceedings, recommends that the Director issue a Water Quality Certification for the
NCDOT's TIP R-210 (US Highway 1 Vass Bypass) with the following conditions:
- NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through the use of their Best
Management Practices; and
- NCDOT will strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" [15A NCAC 4B .0124 (a-d) and provide ground cover
(planting) within 10 days] throughout the design and construction of the project.
In addition, the Hearing Officer requests that the Director consider issuing the Certification
with the following conditions:
- NCDOT will install and maintain hazardous spill containment basins on alknew
stream crossings within the project corridor; and
- NCDOT will implement the more protective sediment and erosion control practices
applicable to HQW waters throughout the entire project corridor.
The basis for this request is that the proposed R-210 highway is located within a WS-III
drinking water supply and High Quality Waters watershed. In addition, a segment of Crane's
Creek within the project corridor was listed on DWQ's 2000 final and 2002 draft 303d lists of
impaired streams. The listing was based on one fish sampling. The impairment was listed as
habitat degradation. The source of the impairment was likely agriculture. The potential source
of problem is probably not related to development, however, sedimentation is still a concern
for the watershed. In particular, the lower section of Little Crane Creek prior to its confluence
with the Crane Creek, is of concern. In recent, April 2002, conversations with Environmental
Sciences Branch and the Special Watershed Project Unit staff, their preliminary water quality
sampling has indicated sedimentation problems in this area. They have also expressed the
general perception of very good habitat and water quality that could be threatened. Thus to
help assure protection of watershed, the lower portion of which is designated HQW, I
recommend the more protective sediment and erosion control practices required of HQW
waters be applied throughout the entire project corridor.
And, since the proposed highway is within a WS-III drinking water supply watershed, it would
seem prudent to install spill containment basins at each new stream crossing to protect the
drinking water from accidental spills directly into the drinking water supply. There will be 19
15
stream crossings according to the FEIS (four-lane highways involve dual structures and thus
each crossing counts as two stream crossings). Several people, including a number of
professional safety personnel, commented through the public hearing process their concern
for accidental spills. Although they indicated that they believed a new highway (R-210) would
lessen the chance of spills, they were obviously concerned with ways to better protect the
drinking water supply. I recommend the installation of spill containment basins at each of the
new stream crossings.
Prepared By:
Steve Zou y, e ` ing icer
DWQ, Planning r ch
16
18
Q
r b
M M Xy
?00 mr
C Z
R1 ? z
i
D'
r
--C
fTl
Z
D
m
D
Public Notice
PUBLIC HEARING
U.S HIGHWAY 1 RELOCATION PROJECT - FROM CAMP EASTER ROAD (SR
1853)/AIKEN ROAD (SR'21'75) IN`MOORE COUNTY TO WILD LIFE ROAD (SR 1880) IN
LEE COUNTY
N.C. DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the N.C. Department of Transportation has
applied to the N.C. Division of Water Quality for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to
Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Acct and N.C. Environmental Management
Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2B .0101, 15A NCACF 213 .0233 and 15A NCAC 2H .0500.
The activity for which this Certification is sought is to impact approximately 41.50 acres
of wetlands and 4,800 feet of streams for the relocation of U.S Highway 1 from Camp Easter
Road (SR 1853)/Aiken Road (SR 2175) in Moore County to Wild Life Road (SR 1880) in Lee
County. This road will be a four-land facility with a 46 foot median on new location, will bridge
the Little River, Crane Creek and an unnamed tributary to Little Crane Creek and will also
provide a bypass for the Town of Vass. Compensatory mitigation is proposed as follows: 1)
on-site restoration for 4.7 acres and 8.4 acres of preservation for the impact to 4.7 acres of
wetlands at the Little River and 2) restoration of 49 acres of wetlands and preserve 36.8
acres of wetlands at the Sandhills Area Land. Trust (SALT) site near Lobelia on the Little
River. To compensate for the stream impact, the Department of Transportation proposes to
utilize the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program to provide 9,760 feet of
compensatory stream mitigation.
The public is hereby notified that the Division of Water Quality will hold a public
hearing on Thursday, November 1, 2001 starting at 7 p.m. in the Auditorium of Union Pines
High School, 1981 Union Church Rd., Cameron, NC 28326.
The public is invited to comment in writing on the above-mentioned application as well
as during the Public Hearing. Speaking times may be limited to 3 minutes at the discretion of
the Hearing Officer. Those wanting to speak need to register at the hearing and speaking
sequence will be in the order of registration. Written comments may be forwarded at any
tome before or after the hearing provided the Division receives them no later than December
3, 2001 at 5 p.m.
Comments received in response to the previously scheduled hearing on November 1,
2001 will be included in the record for this hearing. Comments should be sent to the N.C.
Division of Water Quality, 401 /Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1650, Attn: Cynthia Van Der Wiele (919-733-5715, Fax [phone]). The physical
address of the 401/Wetlands Unit is 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC, 27604.
20
Copies of the 401 application, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Mitigation Plan are on file at the DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office at 225 Green Street, Suite
714, Systel Bldg., Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043 [Telephone: [phone], FAX: 910-486-
0707], as well as at the Raleigh location listed above during normal business hours (8:00 am
to 5:00 p.m.) and may be inspected by the public. Copies of all public comments received
will be available for review only at the Raleigh location. File materials may not be removed
from any DWQ office since copy machines are available.
Gregory T. Thorpe
Acting Director
N.C. Division of Water Quality
September 25, 2001
21
PUBLIC HEARING: US 1 FROM NORTH OF LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF SANFORD [VASS
BYPASS], MOORE & LEE COUNTIES, TIP NO. R-210
Auditorium of Union Pines High School
1981 Union Church Road, Cameron, North Carolina
Thursday, November 1, 2001, 7:00 p.m.
Good evening. Has everyone filled out a registration form? if not, please raise your hand and
you will receive a form.
This meeting will now come to order.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evening's public hearing concerning the
proposed US Highway 1 by-pass. My name is Steve Zoufaly. I am the Supervisor of the
Division of Water Quality's Local Government Assistance Unit in Raleigh. I have been
appointed to serve as Hearing Officer for this evening's meeting. Before proceeding, I would
like to recognize local and state dignitaries who are present here this evening:
Several employees of the Division of Water Quality are here this evening to assist you. Ms.
Cynthia Van Der Wiele of the Wetlands/401 Certification Unit is the Division's contact for the
project, John Hennessey also of the Wetlands/401 Certification Unit, Ken Averitte from our
Fayetteville Regional Office and.... Please raise your hand so the audience can identify you.
They are wearing nametags and will be available after this meeting to answer your specific
questions related to the proposed project.
The Division of Water Quality has called this public hearing under the authority of North
Carolina General Statutes. In accordance with the General Statutes, the Division published a
Public Notice in The Pilot describing the time and the place for this hearing. Notices were
also mailed to government officials, as well as other persons having indicated interest in this
evening's meeting.
The purpose of this hearing is to provide a public forum to obtain your comments on water
quality issues related to the proposed US Highway 1 by-pass, TIP Number R-210, from north
of Lakeview to south of Sanford in Moore and Lee. Counties. The proposed 12.8-mile project
would fill 4,880 linear feet of streams, 14.5 acres of farm ponds and 41.5 acres of wetlands.
The streams are classified as Water Supply-III High Quality Waters, Water Supply-III and
Class C (general-purpose waters). On June 1St, 2001, the Division of Water Quality placed
this project on hold for several reasons: there are unresolved issues regarding the impact of
the new highway on well water, and the impact of ditches along the road on adjacent
wetlands. In addition, because of the size of this project, the Division felt that a public
hearing would be the best forum for gathering additional information from the public.
22
We realize and respect that this is an important issue for many of you. In order to conduct this
hearing in a fair and orderly fashion, I ask that you follow a few rules of courtesy:
1. Please do not interrupt speakers or question speakers while they are presenting.:..-
Should you choose to speak, you will be allowed equal time and you will be
extended the same courtesies. As Hearing Officer, I may occasionally ask for
clarification after a speaker has finished.
2. Please limit your comments to the water quality impacts that may occur as a
result of the proposed US Highway 1 by-pass. Our agency is not able to consider
other concerns such as noise or condemnation of land.
The hearing record will remain open until December 3, 2001 to ensure that everyone who
wants to comment has that opportunity. If you have additional comments that you would like to
submit or if someone was not able to attend this evening's hearing, you may submit your
written comments to Ms. Van Der Wiele by December 3rd. After that time, I will evaluate all
the information and statements and make a recommendation regarding the §401 Water Quality
Certification ,to the Director of the Division of Water Quality. If the Director decides to deny the
Certification, NCDOT will either have to modify their plans to make them acceptable to the
Division or appeal the decision through the NC Office of Administrative Hearings. If the
Director decides to issue the Certification, NCDOT will have to obtain a §404 Permit from the
US Army Corps of Engineers before filling any streams or wetlands. Any conditions that the
Division of Water Quality includes in the Certification will become conditions of the Corps'
permit as well. Finally, we will be tape-recording this hearing.
I will now ask Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele of the Division of Water Quality's Wetlands/401 Unit
to provide a brief overview of the 401 Certification process. Following Ms. Van Der Wiele's
presentation, Mr. Carl Goode, Manager of DOT's Office of Human Environment will make a
brief presentation on the proposed by-pass project.
(Cynthia will give - 10 minute presentation as follows)
INTRODUCTION
Cynthia: Good evening. My name is Cynthia Van Der Wiele and I am responsible
for......
In order to put this meeting into perspective, I'd like to describe the §401 Water Quality
Certification process with regard to this project. Much of this information is outlined in the
handout provided at the sign-in desk. I encourage you to take a copy with you tonight, as it
also contains relevant contact information for your future reference. Any project which adds
fill to waters or wetlands of the United States requires a §404 permit from the US Army Corps
of Engineers. This project requires an Individual Permit, rather than a Nationwide Permit,
from the Corps due to the magnitude of the project and its associated impacts. The Corps
issued a Public Notice for this project on April 6, 2001.
23
According to the Clean Water Act, each federal permit (such as the §404 permit) must have a
§401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The §401
Water Quality Certification means that the project will not violate any relevant water quality
standards and regulations.
According to the Clean Water Act, a Corps §404 Permit cannot be issued until a §401 Water.
Quality Certification is issued or waived. The Division of Water Quality's review procedures
are outlined in regulations passed by the Environmental Management Commission, which
became effective on October 1, 1996. The basic review process is as follows:
1. DWQ must determine whether significant existing uses are present in the waters or
wetlands, and whether or not the project would remove or degrade those uses.
2. DWQ must then determine whether:
• There is a practical alternative to the project;
• Whether the impacts can be further minimized;
• Whether the project will result in degradation of groundwater or surface water,
• Whether the project will result in cumulative impacts;
• Whether the project will protect water quality downstream from the project through storm
water controls, and finally,
• Whether the stream and wetland mitigation plans will replace the existing uses of the
streams and wetlands affected by the project.
For Individual Permits, such as the one for this project, North Carolina's wetland rules require
that the Division of Water Quality will not duplicate the site-specific application of any
guidelines used for review by the Army Corps of Engineers. What this means is that the
alternatives analysis, impact minimization details, and cumulative impacts are addressed by
the Corps. The Division's review is limited to water quality issues, such as ground water,
surface water, mitigation for those impacts and how storm water is handled. We do not
evaluate unrelated issues such as noise or socioeconomic impacts. In addition, our
mitigation rules specify that whatever the Corps requires for stream or wetland mitigation, the
Division's requirements will be the same, as long as there's at least a 1:1 replacement of
wetland acreage and stream length through restoration or creation. There aren't two different
mitigation requirements to follow.
Next 1 will make a brief slide presentation to step you through the Water Quality Certification
process and then Carl Goode will give an overview of the proposed project.
This concludes my presentation; I will now turn the hearing back over to Steve
(Carl Goode's slide presentation)
Steve: Thank you, Cynthia and Carl. At this time those who indicated on your registration
form that you would like to speak'tonight will have an opportunity to provide comment. I will
first call on elected officials and then other registered speakers. When they have finished, if
time allows, others in the audience wishing to comment will be given the opportunity.
24
Due to the large number of people who expressed an interest in speaking here tonight, l
request that everyone pleas e keep your comments to no more than three minutes so that
others may have time to comment as well this evening. Ms. Van Der Wiele will hold up signs
indicating that you have one minute left to speak, and then a sign that states that your time is
up.
When I call your name, please come to the podium (point to the podium), state your name
and if you represent an organization, please state the name of the organization. Please
speak clearly into the microphone. If you have a copy of your presentation I would
appreciate receiving a copy of it. Our first speaker is...
{At this point read aloud the name of the first registered speaker, etc., thanking
each speaker afterward.
After the last REGISTERED speaker has finished.)
Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment?
{Make sure they state their name.}
If no one else wishes to speak, I would like to thank all of you very much for your attendance,
and comments. Your participation is important. As a reminder, this record will remain open
until this December 3, 2001. You may submit written comments to Ms. Van Der Wide prior to
December 3`d.
This meeting is adjourned.
25
Mr. Carl Goode's (DOT) Presentation
7 ; History

a ¦ Present U.S. 1 originally built in 1929;
widened in 1940
E Project added to the TIP in 1979
¦ Draft EIS approved - September, 1991
a
History
¦ Record of Decision approved by Federal
Highway Administration - March, 1996
¦ Design Public Hearing - March, 1996
¦ Right-of-way Acquisition 1996
¦ Proposed Let to Contract - February, 2002
Staged Construction
¦ Right-of-way acquired for future
interchanges at 2 locations.
¦ At-grade intersections will be upgraded to
interchanges when traffic demand meets
criteria.

History
¦ Corridor Public Hearing - November, 1991
¦ Revised Corridor Public Hearing - July,
1995
a Final EIS approved - December, 1995
(Alternate A - Preferred Alternative)
Alternative A
p ' Preferred Alternative
¦ 4-lane divided roadway on existing
alignment and on new alignment.
¦ Total length - approximately 12 miles
x ¦ From existing 4-lane section S.R. 1853 at
Lakeview to existing 4-lane section at S.R.
1..?r 1180 south of Sanford.
Permits
aid z.
,p g
d 404 permit applications were filed
¦ 401 an
.. on February19, 2001

26
a
Permit Process

¦ DOT has supplemented the permit process
to aid the Division of Water Quality in their
'R. decision making regarding water quality.

R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Effect on Commuting
¦ Over one hour commute to Triangle which
is greater than the 25 minute national
average suburb commute.
R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
ii
F Restrictions on Growth
¦ Extensive flood plains
¦ Extensive wetlands
¦ Substantial land trust lands
¦ Some existing development
¦ Poor soil suitability for septic systems
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
¦ Indirect effects: "caused by the action and
' occur later in time or farther removed in
distance, but still reasonably foreseeable"
¦ Cumulative impacts: `result from the
u incremental impact of the action when
° added to other past, present, and reasonable
„- foreseeable future actions"
R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
r Potential Growth Impacts of Increased
Accessibility
¦ Can increase long intra-state through-trips
¦ Can increase growth in existing magnets:
Sanford and Southern Pines/Pinehurst
£ra:w
¦ Can open new local markets at interchanges
R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Plans and Regulations for Growth
4 ¦ No sewer systems are allowed outside of
urban service boundaries in both counties.
¦ Restrictive zoning in Cameron, Vass and
Moore County.
¦ Little River Watershed Service Area:
limitations on coverage and lot size
27
R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
;Areas of potential growth
¦ Sanford vicinity
¦ Pinehurst, Southern Pines and contiguous
municipalities, or north along US 151501
¦ Woodlake, or in Cameron or Vass if sewer
r4 added
¦ Potential convenience services at future Vass
interchange
R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
¦ Division of Water Quality Rules for WS-III
watersheds do not allow for local
development to degrade downstream water
quality.

R-210 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Conclusions
¦ Based upon these findings, indirect and
cumulative impacts will not be significant.
28
15A NCAC 0211.0506 REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
(a) In evaluating requests for certification based on the procedures outlined in Paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this Rule, the Director shall determine if the proposed activity has the potential to remove or degrade
those significant existing uses which are present in the wetland or surface water. Activities which would
not remove or degrade existing uses shall be reviewed according to the procedures found in Subparagraph
(c)(2)-(5) of this Rule. Those activities covered by general certifications [15A NCAC 2H.0501(c)(2)]
which do not require written concurrence from the Division shall be deemed certified if the conditions of
the certification are followed and may proceed without the review procedures outlined in Paragraphs ( b )
through (e) of this Rule. An applicant may also demonstrate that designated uses are not present at a
particular site using a wetland evaluation procedure approved by the Director according to the criteria
found in 15A NCAC 2B .0103(c); otherwise the designated uses as outlined at 15A NCAC 2B .0231(a)(1)-
(6) are assumed to exist in all classes of wetlands , and the appropriate review procedures shall be
undertaken. Certification shall be issued where the Director determines water quality standards are met,
including protection of existing uses.
(b) The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that existing uses are not removed or degraded
by a discharge to classified surface waters for an activity which:
(1) has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule;
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of existing topography,
vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the criteria ou dined in Paragraph
(g) of this Rule;
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters;
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts , that
cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards;
(5) provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through the use of on-site stormwater
control measures; and
(6) provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation as described at Subparagraphs (h)(1) of
this Rule.
(c) The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that sufficient existing uses are not removed or
degraded by a discharge to Class WL wetlands as defined at 15A NCAC 2B .0101(c)(8), for an activity
which:
(1) has no practical alternative as described in Paragraph (f) of this Rule, or impacts less than three acres of
Class WL wetlands;
(2) will minimize adverse impacts to the wetland based on consideration bf existing topography,
vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the criteria outlined in Paragraph
(g) of this Rule; or impacts less than one acre of wetland within 150 feet (including less than 1/3 acre of
wetland within 50 feet), of the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial or intermittent
water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United State Geological Survey
1:24;000(7.5 minute) scale topographical map or other site specific data;
(3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters;
(4) does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts , that
cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards;
(5) provides protection for downstream water quality standards through the use of on-site stormwater
control measures; and
(6) provides for replacement of existing uses through wetland mitigation under U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requirements or as described in Subparagraph (h)(1)-(8) of this Rule.
(d) The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that significant existing uses are not removed
or degraded by a discharge to Class SWL wetland as defined at 15A NCAC 2B .0101(d)(4),wedands that
are contiguous to waters designated as ORW, HQW, SA, WS-I, WS-H or Trout, or wetlands that are
contiguous to rivers designated as a North Carolina or National Wild and Scenic River for an activity which
satisfies Subparagraphs (c)(2)-(5) of this Rule, and:
(1) for wetlands classified as coastal wetlands pursuant to 15A NCAC 7H.0205:
(A) has no practical alternative as described in Paragraph (f) of this Rule; and
(B) is water dependent and requires access to water as a central element of its basic function,
29
although, projects funded by government agencies may be exempted from this requirement; and
(2) provides for replacement of existing uses through wetland mitigation under U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requirements, or as described in Subparagraphs (h)(1)-(7) and (9) of this Rule.
(e) The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that significant existing uses are not removed
or degraded by a discharge to wetlands of exceptional state or national ecological significance including but
not limited to Class UWL wetlands, and wetlands that have been documented to the satisfaction of the
Director as habitat essential for the conservation of state or federally listed threatened or endangered
species, provided that the wetlands have been so classified or designated prior to the date of application for
certification or a draft environmental impact statement has been submitted to the Director, for an activity
which satisfies Subparagraphs (c)(2)-(5) and (d)(1)-(2) and:
(1) the wetland impacts are necessary for the proposed project to meet a demonstrated public need; and
(2) provides for replacement of existing uses through wetland mitigation under U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers requirements, or as described in Subparagraphs (h)(1)-(7) and (10) of this Rule.
(f) A lack of practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a
reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs the basic
project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse
impact to surface waters or wetlands.
(g) Minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the surface waters or wetlands are able
to continue to support the existing uses after project completion, or that the impacts are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or
configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration or density.
(h) Replacement or mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses shall be reviewed in accordance with
the following guidelines:
(1) The Director shall coordinate mitigation requirements with other permitting agencies that are requiring
mitigation for a specific project. Mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be
considered to constitute the mitigation required by the certification unless the Director determines that the
mitigation proposal does not meet the criteria established in Subparagraph (6) of this Paragraph.
(2) Mitigation shall not be required for impacts to Class WL wetlands of less than one acre.
(3) Participation in wetland restoration programs coordinated by the Department of E n v i r o n m e n t a 1,
Health, and Natural Resources shall be preferred to individual project mitigation whenever the Director
finds that such participation is available and satisfies the other requirements of this Paragraph, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that participation in these restoration programs is not practical. Mitigation sites
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be deemed to be consistent with the Department's
restoration plan.
(4) Acceptable methods of wetlands mitigation are listed below in the order of preference:
(A) Restoration: the re-establishment of wetland hydrology and vegetation in an area where it previously
existed.
(B) Creation: the construction of a wetland in an area where wetlands did not exist in the recent past.
(C) Enhancement: increasing one or more of the functions of an existing wetland by manipulation of
vegetation or hydrology.
(D) Preservation: protection of wetlands through purchase, donation or conveyance of a conservation
easement to an appropriate government or non-profit agency for management.
(5) Restoration is the preferred method of wetlands mitigation. The other methods may be utilized if the
applicant can demonstrate that restoration is not practical or that the proposed alternative is the most
ecologically viable method of replacing the lost functions and values.
(6) All mitigation proposals shall provide for the replacement of wetland acres lost due to the proposed
activity at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio through restoration or creation prior to utilizing enhancement or
preservation to satisfy the mitigation requirements, unless the Director determines that the public good
would be better served by other types of mitigation.
(7) Wetlands mitigation shall be conducted based on the following ratios (acres mitigated to acres loss) ; 4:
1 , for wetlands located within 150 feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial
or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United States Geological
30
Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; 2:1, for wetlands located between 150 feet and
1,000 feet from the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial or intermittent water body
as shown by the most recently published version of the United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 ( 7.5
minute) scale topographical map; and 1:1, for all other wetlands. For linear projects which impact less than
3 acres of wetlands the ratio shall be 2:1 regardless of the distance from surface waters. The above ratios
apply only to restoration. The acres of required mitigation for the other types of mitigation shall be
determined by multiplying the above ratios by 1.5 for creation, 2 for enhancement, and 5 for preservation.
The above ratios do not apply to approved mitigation sites where the state and federal review agencies have
approved credit/debit ratios. This Subparagraph shall not apply to general certifications until the
Department has established a wetlands restoration program or until January 1, 1997, whichever occurs first.
(8) Mitigation for impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (c) of this Rule shall be conducted within
the same river basin and physiographic province when practical. Unavoidable losses of wetlands adjacent
to waters classified as WS-III shall be replaced within the water supply watershed when practical.
(9) Mitigation for impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (d) of this Rule shall be of the same wetland
type and located within the same river sub-basin when practical. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands
adjacent to waters classified as WS-I or WS-II shall be replaced within the water supply watershed when
practical.
(10) Mitigation for impacts to wetlands designated in Paragraph (e) of this Rule shall be of the same
wetland type and within the same watershed when practical.
(i) The Director shall not duplicate the site-specific application of any guidelines employed by the United
State Army Corps of Engineers in evaluating permit applications under 33 U.S.C. 1344 and applicable
federal regulations.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.3(c); 143B-282(1)(u);
RRC Objection Eff. July 18, 1996 due to lack of statutory authority and ambiguity;
Eff. October 1, 1996.
31
WAS Michael F. Easley, Governor
'
fl?
QC? QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`
Gj Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality

July 19, 2002
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean
Water Act, US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford
(Vass Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
TIP No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3344 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated July 19, 2002.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
&4-4"- gt?tk
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Public Hearing Attendees
Central Files
File Copy
;
WE)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location),
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts: 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,880
linear feet of stream channels in Moore and Lee Counties, as described in the Application dated 19
February 2001, and additional information dated 12 February 2002 and 15 March 2002. The project shall
be constructed pursuant to the application dated February 19 filed to construct improvements to US 1
from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301; 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,.
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater
classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997); specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire
project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into
streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse
flow.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10 days of
ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters) to provide long term
erosion control.
6. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B .0224].
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final designs for the
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401
Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for
the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
8. The bridge(s) required for this project shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall
be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control
devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of
sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
10. Any bridge demolition work required by this project shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
11. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
12. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water.and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
14. NCDOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of. Cameron by
constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding a minimum of 70 gallons per
minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with the Town of Cameron on October
26, 1998.
15. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 41.5 acres include riverine wetlands. NCDOT will mitigate these impacts by
providing the following:
¦ 4.8 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River as described in
Appendix C of the Application.
The monitoring plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the
first year and every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ 8.4 acres of on-site preservation as described in Appendix C of the Application.
Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) Mitigation Site.(a 327-acre site in Moore County) being
offered in total to offset the remainder of wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. This site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure
the drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring
and re-modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet -with
DWQ personnel to agree upon the details of additional studies. If the resulting hydrological
modeling demonstrates that less than 36.8 acres can actually be restored, NCDOTT shall obtain
wetland mitigation through in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP).
b. Stream impacts total 4,880 linear feet in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio except where on-site
mitigation will be provided. The on-site mitigation sites will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as
detailed in Table 4, Appendix A of the February 19, 2001 Application. Compensatory mitigation
consists of the following:
¦ 1,154 linear feet of on-site stream relocation/restoration, with 50-foot buffers, using natural
channel design. The natural channel design specifications shall be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach). The plans must include
reference reach data including a sketch map, the range of values (pattern data), and all
calculations (including the determination of bankfull). The channel design should include a
floodplain terrace at stream bankfull.
The stream relocation shall be built and maintained according to approved plans before any
mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or associated
riparian area has become unstable, the stream shall be repaired or stabilized using only
natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the riparian
shall be maintained and/or replaced according to the approved plans. Rip-rap and other hard
structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land Resources or a Delegated
Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and receive written
approval from this Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ The remaining 8,068 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be provided via in-lieu payments to
Wetlands Restoration Program as agreed on April 1, 1999.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
16. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
17. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit...
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 that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 19th day of July 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
WQC No. 3344
,, IIII,
H sM6bF
Jt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 12, 2002
N. C. Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Cynthia van der Wiele, Regulatory Officer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Lu u NOV g
SUBJECT: US 1 FROM NORTH OF LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF SANFORD,
MOORE/LEE COUNTIES, TIP NO. R-210.
DWQ PROJECT NO. 010404
On July 19, 2002, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) issued Water Quality Certification
(WQC) No. 3344 for the subject project. Condition 7 in the WQC states "hazardous Spill
Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings..."
For good or bad, pursuant to letting the project to construction in October 2002, the right of
way acquisition for this project was completed in advance of DWQ's issuance of the 401
WQC. Hydraulic design decisions were based, in part, on the guidance paper, "Guidelines
for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins", which was developed in 1996 in
consultation with the DWQ.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) now understands that special circumstances may
have led the DWQ to require a more extensive deployment of hazardous spill catch basins
in the project area. The presence of impaired waters, water supply watersheds and
vigorous comments from the public are among the reasons that were given for the basin
requirement at all stream crossings.
The DOT would like to propose the deployment of hazardous spill basins only within the
HQW watershed associated with the Little River. Furthermore, the Department strongly
recommends that these basins be installed only where storm water will be channeled
through devices such as shoulder berm gutters. This will provide the opportunity for
capturing spills should they occur. Where sheet flow across grassed shoulders is the
predominant method of dispersing storm water, there is little or no opportunity for
interdicting spills. Positioning of hazardous spill basins to maximize the opportunity for
mitigating spills should be our goal. In many instances, right of way limitations, or
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
MAILING ADDRESS: FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RALEIGH NC
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Page 2
November 12. 2002
Cynthia van der Wiele
constraining features in the landscape preclude configuring the shoulder and slope zones
into channels that would direct a spill into an adjacent basin. This fact emphasizes the
need to take advantage of features such as shoulder-berm gutters to capture and channel the
spills.
DOT appreciates the assistance DWQ has provided on this project and is anxious to resolve
this matter at the earliest opportunity. If we can provide any additional information, please
contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone].
yy,, Sincerely,
4A 4 :•?'
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: ?Mr. John Dorney. NCDWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. M. Randall Turner, PD&EA.
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
W A T ,?,qQG
k
r

Michael F. Lasley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
THROUGH: John R. Domey, Manag
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coord nator 5:uGk,0
SUBJECT: US 1 Relocation (Vass Bypass) from north of Lakeview to south of
Sanford, Moore/Lee Counties. TIP Project No. R-210. DWQ Project No.
01-0404.
This memorandum is in reply to your correspondence dated November 12, 2002
(received November 19, 2002) in which you requested the use of hazardous spill catch
basins only within the High Quality Watershed associated with the Little River.
An Individual Water Quality Certification was issued and signed by the Director of the
Division of Water Quality on July 19, 2002 following the receipt of the public hearing
officer's report and a report on cumulative and secondary impacts of the project, prepared
by HNTB.
Due to special circumstances of this project, NCDWQ decided to use hazardous spill
catch basins throughout the project in order to provide protection to the water supplies in
the area as well as respond to public concern for those water supplies.
The final paragraph of the Individual Water Quality Certification contained the provision
for appeal of the conditions by NCDOT:
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
that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
NCDOT did not act within this time period to contest the §401 conditions. NCDWQ
phone records show that Mr. Michael Wood of the Catena Group contacted Ms. Van Der
Wiele in September 2002, approximately one week before the expiration of the "60-day
clock" to request changes in the extent of hazardous spill catch basins on the subject
project. Ms. Van Der Wiele advised Mr. Wood to use the appeal process detailed in the
Water Quality Certification.
NCDWQ realizes that right-of-way acquisition often takes place prior to the issuance of a
§401 Water Quality Certification. This is a risk that NCDOT takes with the realization
that circumstances may require the purchase of additional right-of-way.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
1
Issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be
instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not
degraded or lost. We urge you to proceed to develop plans for the hazardous spill catch
basins and to acquire additional land if needed. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Steve Zoufaly, DWQ
Chris Militscher, USEPA
File Copy
Or
`Ors pG
r
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 26, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qu
From. Beth Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator f P
Subject:. US 1 relocation (Vass Bypass) for north of Lakeview to south of Sandford, Moore/Lee Counties.
TIP No. R-210. DWQ Project No. 010404.
The Individual Water Quality Certification issued to NCDOT on July 19, 2002 contains conditions necessary to
provide protection to the water supplies in the area as well as to respond to public concern for those water
supplies. In particular, we would like to remind NCDOT of Conditions Nos. 3, 7, and 9 of the 401 Certification
(repeated below):
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shallstrictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(x)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for.all stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous
Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401'Wetlands Unit
prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the
construction is completed.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be
required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices
shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and
erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
Issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Beth Barnes at 919.715.8394 or John Dorney at 919.733.9646.
Cc:
File copy
Central files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/

° ?,t1P
'??s
.??. APR 1 6 2003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA J;A,70 QUALITY SEC71ON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 16, 2003
TO: John Dorney, DWQ
ATTENTION: Cynthia van der Wiele, DWQ
FROM: Elizabeth L. Lusk, Environmental Supervisor, O.N.E., PDEA v
SUBJECT: R-0210, US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass
Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
REFERENCE: DWQ Project No. 010404, DWQ WQC No. 3344, dated July 19, 2002
The NCDOT is transmitting revised plan sheets and the Maintenance Plan for TIP
Project R-210, Sections A, B, and C. The revisions address the following WQC
Conditions:
4. Stormwater directed to buffer areas or retention basins - Pre-formed Scour Holes
(PFH) have been added to slow velocities and treat discharge prior to entering
jurisdictional areas. Six PFH's have been added to Section A, one PFH to Section B,
and one PFH to Section C at the following locations:
Section A
• Plan Sheet 13, Station -L- 51+60 left
• Plan Sheet 13, Station -L- 51+00 right
• Plan Sheet 16, Station -L- 61+50 left
• Plan Sheet 17, Station -L- 63+60 left - drainage was re-routed southward along
the road into this PFH. Previously, water drained directly into the tributary at -L-
64+60 left.
• Plan Sheet 20, Station -L- 76+60 right
• Plan Sheet 21, Station -L- 78+60 right
Section B
• Plan Sheet 21, Station -L- 104+00 right
Section C
• Plan Sheet 7, Station -Lrevl- 28+10 left
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
. A- • ?
7. Hazardous spill catch basins - Six hazardous spill catch basins have been added to
Section A, which lies within the Little River water supply watershed (HQW). None
of the basins are in jurisdictional areas.
• Plan Sheet 6-7, Station -L- 22+50 right
• Plan Sheet 9, Station -L- 31+20 right
• Plan Sheet 9, Station -L- 33+80 left
• Plan Sheet 10, Station -L- 35+00 right
• Plan Sheet 10, Station -L- 36+50 left
• Plan Sheet 10, Station -L- 36+50 right
8. Bridge decking shall not discharge directly into the receiving water - While there
will be deck drains along the Little River Bridge, none of them will discharge directly
into the Little River.
9. Maintenance plan -The Hazardous Spill Catch Basin Maintenance Commitments are
attached.
The NCDOT understands that there is a pending Notice of Violation from DWQ. As
a result, there may be additional WQC conditions, which need to be addressed. If
necessary, the NCDOT will submit a request to modify the WQC. If there are further
questions regarding this transmittal, please contact Rachelle Beauregard at (919) 715-
1383.
Cc: Greg Thorpe, PhD, PDEA Manager
Phil Harris, PE, ONE Manager
Tim Johnson, Division 8 Construction Engineer
Art King, Division 8 DEO
Rachelle Beauregard, ONE
Marshall Clawson, P.E., Hydraulics
File: R-210
1: `
. 4. • ?
Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Commitments
• Annual Inspection for structural integrity
(cut slope stability, embankment erosion or scour)
• Annual Inspection of control structure
(sandbag replacement, lube & maintenance of mechanical devices)
• Annual Inspection for vegetation control
(woody vegetation removal, etc.)
• Hazardous Spill Removal & Cleanup
Immediate action will be taken to contain spill and prevent discharge into
receiving waters.
Spill removal and cleanup by contractual service provider or responsible parties
will proceed ASAP.
?AT9
4G
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 23, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. Art C. King, Division Environmental Officer
NCDOT Division 8
902 North Sandhills Blvd.
P.O. Box 1067
Aberdeen, NC 28315
Dear Mr. King:
Re: Modification Requests to the Individual §401 Water Quality Certification for Moore and Lee
Counties; US 1 Bypass of Vass from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford; F.A. Project NHF
0001(3); State Project 8.T560302; TIP No. R-210A, B, and C.
On April 10, 2003, the Division of Water Quality received the following modification requests to the
§401 Water Quality Certification for the aforementioned project:
1. Sanford Contractors Request to modify the temporary causeway for constructing two bridges at Sta.
151+13.609 -L- dated November 5, 2002.
2. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 21, Bridge Sta. 81+06.460 -L- Left Lane and Bridge Sta.
80+88.540 -L- Right Lane dated November 8, 2002.
3. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 21 Bridges at Sta. 81+00 -L- over Craines Creek dated
March 12, 2003.
4. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 16 Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road dated April 4, 2003.
5. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 1 Bridges at Sta. 25+19-L- over Little River dated
November 8, 2003 and April 4, 2003.
6. S.T. Wooten Request to modify Site No. 1, Bridge.Sta. 25+19.700 -L- Left and Right Lanes dated
November 8, 2002.
Review of these applications was not possible. The application appeared to contain requests for six
modifications to the §401 Water Quality Certification. The organization of the application(s) was such
that the location and detail of the proposed changes was unclear. It was not possible to discern many of
the requested design changes. Two of the requests had more than one design proposed for the same
impact site. Many of the designs had different dates on the correspondence, further complicating the
review. DWQ staff have been unable to review the application. Please provide DWQ with an accurate,
detailed, and organized listing of the modification requests by site, with the proposed design changes, and
all other supporting documentation justifying the requested changes. DWQ requests a meeting with
appropriate NCDOT staff to present and discuss the modification request.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(3), the permit application is placed on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of
Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place
the permit application on hold.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.6c.us/ncwetlands/
We look forward to working with you to expedite the review of these modification requests. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
Program
PC
USACE Wilmington Regulatory Office V
Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager, NCDOT PDEA
Coleen Sullins, NCDWQ
Paul Rawls, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ
W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division Engineer, Division 8
Marty C. Tillman, Resident Engineer, Division 8
Central Files
File Copy
Sincerely,
OIL
AM
NCQENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
May 5, 2003
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Dr. Greg Thorpe
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Notice of Violation
Vass Bypass - Hwy US 1
Moore/Lee Counties
TIP No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
!WETLANDS1401 GSp
rJp
MAY 0 9 2003
TERQuAcrTYSE
CT1%
On April 4, 2003, Ken Averitte and Hughie White from the Fayetteville Regional Office
and Danny Smith from the Central Office of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), conducted a
compliance evaluation inspection of the Vass Bypass Project. The inspection was generated in
response to a compliant.
During the site visit, the investigators took photographs, measurements and made
observations of the respective wetlands, stream and streamside/riparian zone impacts.
Specifically, the inspection revealed that clearing and grading associated with construction had
occurred. In addition to the inspection, a DWQ file review, a review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification (DWQ Project No. 010404) conditions were conducted. Also noted during the file
review was a February 26, 2003 Memorandum, reminding DOT of the requirements of
Certification conditions 3, 7, and 9. The following is a list of Certification condition violations
and/or additional information requests:
401 Water Quality Certificatlon(DWQ Proiect No 010404) Conditions
(see attached copy of Certification)
Condition Number 1:
1) The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices
which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual or the North
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street- Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043
Phone: [phone]/FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled.! 10% Post Consumer Paper

Dr. Thorpe
May 5, 2003
Page 2
Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate (available form
the Division of Land Resources in the DENR Regional or Central Offices) and
shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such BUN in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity standard; .
- We ask that you provide this office a statement indicating whether or not
the site is in full compliance with all specifications governing proper
design, installation and operations. In your response, we ask that you
specifically address the compliance status of the "in stream" check dam
and slope drains that were installed on Site No. 10.
The above conditions specifically states the requirement to use measures
"which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual". Please clearly
state whether the current DO'S, BUT manual, being used on this corridor
equal or exceeds this prerequisite.
Condition Number 2:
2) NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and
control measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project.
These measures shall be implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to
minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
During the site visit, DOT staff explained that they were not familiar with
this document. Please explain.
Please address whether the site is in full compliance with this document
(BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters NC DOT March 1997). Please
clearly explain how this was determined and whether "after-the-fact"
retrofits are required to comply with these conditions. [Note: the 1997
document indicates BMPs for HWQ waters include compliance with 15A
NCAC 4B.0134 (b-d)].

Dr. Thorpe
May 5, 2003
Page 3
Condition Number 3:
3) During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to NC
regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B
.0124(a)-(d), within the entire project corridor.
15A NCAC 4B .0124 (a- d) states the following:
"DESIGN STANDARDS IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS
(a) Uncovered areas in HQW zones shall be limited at any time to a maximum
total area within the boundaries of the tract of 20 acres. Only the portion of the
land-disturbing activity within a HQW zone shall be governed by this Rule.
Larger areas may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written
approval of the Director.
(b) Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within
HQW zones shall be so planned, designed and constructed to provide protection
from the runoff of the. 25 year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of
runoff as calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of
Agricultural Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for
Conservation Practices" or. according to procedures adopted by any other agency
of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or
association.
(c) Sediment basins within HQW zones shall be designed and constructed such
that the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40
micron (0.04mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of that
two-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated
according to procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Services "National. Engineering Field Manual for Conservation
Practices" or according to procedures; adopted by any other agency of this state or
the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
(d) Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes. no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a
vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper
slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural
devices or other acceptable ditch.. liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes
shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion."
Note: The area subject to Certification condition No. 3 includes the entire project
corridor.

Dr. Thorpe
May 5, 2003
Page 4
Based on the inspection, it appeared to staff that greater than 20 acres of
land have been uncovered as a part of the land disturbance effort. Please
indicate how many acres of land have been cleared and grubbed. Also,
please clearly explain what measures you have taken, including measures
with contractors, to insure compliance with the 20 acre disturbance limit
condition.
Please indicate whether this project is compliant with condition 15A
NCAC 4B.0124 (a-d).
Please provide copies of your sediment and erosion control plan and
respectively explain how the plan complies with 15A NCAC 4B .0124
(a-d).
Condition Number 5
5) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil
within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control.
During the site inspection, inspectors noted areas that were seeded and efforts
were actively being taken to seed disturbed areas. However, it was unclear how
DOT staff determines or insures that the seeding is. accomplished within 10 days
of disturbance. Please explain if the site is fully compliant with this condition and
how this determination is made (Note: sections of the corridor were observed
have been seeded, while others appeared to have exceeded 10 day window).
Condition Number 7:
7) Hazardous Spill Catch Basin shall be required for all stream crossings. The final
designs for the hazardous. spill catch Basins shall be submitted to the NCDWQ
401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning of construction in the Waters Supply
Watershed. AS BUILT drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30, days after the construction is
completed.
A file review indicates no information has been provided to meet
Condition 7. A review of the site plans used by DOT staff in the field did
not indicate the presence or location of these basins. Please explain why
this matter has not been addressed and provide a schedule with dates of
when this information will be provided to the DWQ.
Condition Number 9:
9) Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan
for all Stormwater management facilities and hazardous catch basins associated
with the project. The NCDOT shall be required to implement the maintenance
plan for the life this road. Sediment and erosion control devices shall not be
placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of
the sediment an erosion control devices in wetlands waters is unavoidable, they
shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the DLR has released the
project.
A review of DWQ files has revealed that the maintenance plan for all
Stormwater management facilities and hazardous catch basins has not
been received. Please explain why this information was not provided to.
DWQ along with a schedule with dates of when this information will be
submitted for review.
Condition No. 15: Mitigation
15) "A report must be submitted to thetNC Division of the Water Quality that
describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this project within
two months of the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers."
A review of DWQ files has revealed that a wetland and stream mitigation
report for this project has not been received. 'lease explain why DWQ
has not received this report. Also, please provide a schedule with dates
detailing when this information will be provided.
Please be advised that violations, as detailed above, be abated immediately. Also please
note, these violations and any future violations are subject to civil penalty assessment of up to
$25,000.00 per day for each violation. This office requests that you respond to this letter, in
writing, within 10 days of receipt of this Notice. Your response should address each item as
detailed above.

Dr. Thorpe
May 5, 2003
Page 6
Please be advised that this office is considering sending a recommendation for
enforcement to the Director of the Division of Water Quality regarding these issues and any
future/continued violations that may be encountered. Also, your above-mentioned response to
this correspondence will be considered in this process. Should you have any questions regarding
these matters, please contact Danny Smith at [phone] or Ken Averitte in the FRO at
[phone].
Sin II
POr Y71
Paul E. Rawls
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: FRO - Water Quality
Central Files
FRO- Division of Land Resources
US Army Corps of Engineers- Washington Field Office
Central 401/Wetlands Unit - Danny Smith
File Copy
Page 1 of 1
4? - Al,
LL <"s `' 7
tile://A:AM VC-004S.JPG 07/31 /2003
Page 1 of 1

"
"AW

9 w`
?
?
t
b
te'
'?
?
•°
?
.
-r
-
."fy*?s? °;
s
?.? ?'•
q

tile://A:\MVC-006S.JPG 07/31/2003

Page I of I
AA
,x
..f3 ?ty9
1 t..' ?#

r .alb .>r'''. Hr fxs Olt+.'4'+c.
r.
_-a
R
' .
,
4 .9
^?.
v-

k

A 4A.,4-

%ow
4 _

file://A:AMVC-005S.JPG 07/31/2003
Page 1 of l

W
9 A _ f
I syrw 4
e
tile://A:\M VC-003 S.JPG
N? k
AW-
...ir..'
07/31 /2003
Page 1 of 1
PP.
` r
'Yid Jw Z?r
Aw.
ye ?,m - t4? K_y
s z
u
-Oki -
p
opt,
,pp. ? ..1.-?`^a4.,.w.,:a. -- ". rte' ,.'?.-*'? ,• ?,'?.

file://A:AMVC-012S.JPG 07/31/2003
Page 1 of 1
NO,

>T9' _ .- t. a a.
?? ?' ,:,?H.e ae„Q - L- _
y
file://A:AMVC-01 I S°JPG 07/31/2003
Page 1 of 1

y< ?? .may. ?o_
r
s
Y
file://A:AM VC-010S.JPG 07/31 /2003
I
a9
Y,
a '
file://A:\M VC-009S.JPG
Page 1 of 1
1
07/31/2003
Page 1 of 1
*? * =
xF -
i
s w
- {? -41 r
a
17
} 3 }.
file://A:\MVC-007S.JPG 07/31/2003
Page 1 of 1
5."tt ?'i': `"" '??E ,.t? k' .p?c?. $a r i,'.3 ?iP -]' ,?' ? fi'y' "'?•a'^ F?`?e?' 3.t ,.#`? F""
,v," ,. txe, t ? :-; ?) #.^' ?> !F.,pr, "rr. ?S ?.?? 9.efi ? y R ? ,..ti n ?.? • '' '?i,T?d n _
5 i F ? i r ? • P i 'd '`- "r r: ??'? M?. p w ?* "e d io- E fi ? _
ye dr'r• - *? ? '? ?'(a ? .r :.. ^ ? -•z w ,. ° fi ? 3t,'S : ?° Y iFF $?.
? YYt
??? x 3? ?, Q ? c +c? y,^:~ a ?T $.i1 ?_ } M .w- '?? ,i..._ ?-,•,r`?€- ? • k r w?` t a i t aie? -.
y ,
Y
.1? x-:. ?ly??t??'?' •?`? f, ?•= t? ??a •?.ssi"w?$ii?%+§`r -??`i''e? ??y?°..?f?.+ir'''?[a l..i' ???,,,?i
' ??_..+$ ; A aka
aYt.. ?.r°ryar°. t•' d? -' .? ,? f.c.: -8 - # '«?js..
?_' ..
Aw,
,?» ?-, ? .i ? ? , . ? •f'fA' ?' . ? ? • :ate. F
'+ri!e
Ilk*
tile://A:AMVC-008S.JPG 07/31/2003
Page I of 1
4
s<, v
t 'V

file://A:AMVC-002S.JPG 07/31/2003
?? ? y°.T4 ?i?,? _ "4'°?`? .yam aiu/t ?,.?• ..

?r
Page 1 of 1
p`
:1 WS i
, KA T
M yYV
A 0
?,._ • a ?.Pc.. ?
yam

t-
jo
file://A:\M VC-001 S.JPG
07/310003

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
N?Fo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality,
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street - Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
May 30, 2003
11118 1401 GROUP
MAY 3 0 2003
YTER QUALITY SECTION
ATTN.: Mr. Paul E. Rawls
Dear Sir:
Subject: Responses to the Notice of Violation for Project R-210, Vass Bypass-
Highway US 1. DWQ Project No. 010404.
On October 4, 2002 and July 19, 2002, respectively, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) 404 Individual Permit (Action ID # 199300570) and the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC # 3344) were issued for the
subject project. These permits authorized construction of Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) Number R-210, Sections A, B and C. The project was let to contract on September 30,
2002 and construction began on February 19, 2003. On April 16, 2003 information was sent to
the DWQ which demonstrated compliance with Conditions 4; 7; 8, and 9 of the DWQ Section
401 Water Quality Certification. On May 3; 2003 the DWQ issued a Notice of Violation that
cited violations and/or additional information requests. In a letter dated May 13, 2003 to Mr.
Paul Rawls of the DWQ, the NCDOT requested an extension of the time to respond to the NOV
from May 19 to May 30. This letter, attachments, and references constitute our responses to the
DWQ requests.
Several of the items that were listed in the NOV refer to the compliance with the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and regulations administered by the
Division of Land Quality [15A NCAC 4B .0124 (a)-(d)]. In order for the NCDOT to maintain
its Delegation of Authority to self-regulate, it must comply with all facets of the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973 which include the above referenced manual and regulation. The
failure to comply with the SPCA will result in a NOV from Land Quality; therefore the project
has been designed. and is being constructed in compliance with the SPCA.
In addition, several items referred to the 1997 manual titled, "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" (NCDOT March 1997). As we have explained in more detail
below, the manual has been used primarily during the design of the project. In the spring of 2001
the NCDOT in partnership with the DENR, the USACE, the USFWS, the NCWRC, and the

.
'
2

USEPA instituted a Permit Process Improvement program. One of the tasks identified was the
need for a BMP manual specifically for Construction and Maintenance. In February 2003 the
interagency team produced draft 7.0 of the manual. The Interagency Team is working on a final
version. The last step in the finalization of the manual will be training NCDOT and interagency
staff in its implementation. A copy of the first few pages of Draft 7.0 is attached to this letter for
your information.
Condition Number 1:
COND1ENT BY DWQ: "The applicant must follow appropriate sediment and erosion control
practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual. "
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: The 1997 manual titled, "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" (NCDOT March 1997), is a document that compiles activities,
practices, and procedures that shall be undertaken to prevent or reduce water pollution. The
1997 manual is a compendium of BMPs developed as a result of the adoption of state regulations
addressing protection of water supply watersheds and presents policies and guidelines to the
NCDOT in planning, design, construction and maintenance of the State highway system.
Traditionally the NCDOT has relied on this manual in developing the design of the project. The
NCDOT has assumed that these designs were carried through in the construction and
maintenance of the project. Therefore, it was the understanding of the NCDOT that the design of
the erosion and sedimentation control plans for R-210 satisfied the requirements of the manual..
The manual references regulations that dictate the project must have a design that will control a
25-year storm event for HQW zones and 10-year storm event for all other areas. The HQW zone
a for R-210 extends from STA. 15+03.197 to 47+00.00. This represents the entire project corridor
within the HQW zone. Basin sizes have been calculated using a 6.5-inches/24 hour rain event.
i
The storage capacities are based off of the entire width of the project being disturbed, and a
runoff coefficient of 0.5. When areas are seeded and mulched the overall efficiency of the
V14 erosion control system then exceeds the regulations due to the reduced amount of exposed
'Sw acreage.
COAE%IENT BY DWQ: "Address the compliance status of the "instream " check dam and
slope drains that were installed on Site No. 10. "
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: The slope drainpipe was installed such that equipment could cross
0 this area and not cause an adverse impact. The check dam was placed to allow any sediment that
was created during the installation of the slope drainpipe to settle out prior to drainage leaving
the project. The pipe and the check dam have since been removed. The permanent drainage
?'? iPe has been installed and the contractor is flooring in this area.
P
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.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Condition Number 2:
. COMMENT BY DWQ: "NCDOT shall use BMP's for the Protection of Surface Waters
" Manual, specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
?Construction, and maintenance of this project. "
A?
h a RESPONSE BY NCDOT:?The referenced BMP manual is a document that was used primarily
C? during the design of this project. The activities, practices, and procedures mandated by the
document were incorporated into the design and the design was transmitted to the field for
construction.
J Since the design for the project strictly conformed to the BMP Manual, it is reasonable to expect
N , 'Athat implementation of the design would be in full compliance with the BMPs. As previously
® stated the NCDOT has traditionally relied on this manual in developing the design of the project.
o The NCDOT has assumed that these designs were carried through in the construction and
i A'-maintenance of the project. Therefore, it was the understanding of the NCDOT that the design of
the erosion and sedimentation control plans for R-210 satisfied the requirements of the manual.
In order to emphasize the significance of and clarity to all portions of the NCDOT regarding the
importance of the use of the BMPs, and to protect the waters of the State, a separate manual
targeted specifically to the Construction and Maintenance forces in the NCDOT is being drafted.
In the spring of 2001 the NCDOT in partnership with the DENR, the USACE, the USFWS, the
NCWRC' and the USEPA instituted a Permit Process Improvement program. One of the tasks
identified was the need for a BMP manual specifically for Construction and Maintenance. In
February 2003 the interagency team produced draft 7.0 of the manual. The Interagency Team is
working on a final version. The last step in the finalization of the manual will be training
NCDOT and interagency staff in its implementation. The NCDOT hereby commits to instituting
a program to ensure that the BUT Manuals will be sent to Division Offices and that each resident
engineer and inspector must be familiar with the documents and references therein,
As part of the preparation of this response to the NOV we requested that the NCDOT Hydraulics
Unit review their design and ensure that the design incorporated BMP's. Hydraulics has
confirmed that the BMP's were strictly followed in the preparation of the drainage design.
('1 The appropriate BMP's were being utilized for the subject project. The only exception wasthe \
17-acre rule as described on page 12 of The Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters Manual (copy of page attached). Please note that bullet 2 on page 12 states that
"Grading operation will not be allowed to accumulate exposed erodible slope area in excess of
seventeen (17) acres at any one time without beginning permanent seeding and mulching or other
erosion control measures." We employed the following erosion control measures: check dams
silt dams, silt fence, Temporary Sediment/Silt Ditches (TSD), silt basins, and other devises as
shown on the plans. In addition, we installed inlet and outlet protection.
Another way in which we.ensure that the BMP are enforced is through the monthly inspections
by the Area Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer. His report of the inspection
identifies actions that need to be immediately addressed. The Resident Engineer then directs the
contractor to implement actions to correct the problems. The reports grade the project for

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: %19-733-3141
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION: ?i
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING V
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC //
J
4
compliance with the Land. Quality Regulations on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest
mark. This project has never received a grade below 8.
COMMENT BY DWQ: "During the site visit, DOT staff explained that they were not familiar
with the BMP manual. Please explain. "
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: As previously stated, the referenced BMP manual is a document that
was used only during the design of this project. The activities, practices, and procedures
mandated by the document were incorporated into the design and the design was transmitted to
the field for construction. Please see our response to item 1 above for a more detailed
description.
Condition Number 3:
COMMENT BY DWQ: "During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly
adhere to NC Regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [I 5A NCAC 4B
.0124(a)-(d)j, within the entire project corridor." RESPONSE BY NCDOT: There are approximately 48 acres of project footprint thaato be n° r`? 55
disturbed within the HQW zone (STA. 15+03.197 to 47+00.00). The contractor is currently off ? k
grading be n STA. 30+00 to 43+00. According to field reports, seeding and mulching
operatio are eing performed to comply with the 20-acre rule. The remainder of the HQW
zone has b temporarily seeded and mulched. Some flooding has occurred along the project
near the Little River, which has resulted in the need for additional seeding and mulching in this
area. The 20-acre rule may have been exceeded in non-HQW areas; however our field. records 1P L
do NOT show any violation of the 20-acre rule in the HQW areas which are regulated by [15A
NCAC 4B.0124(a)-(d)]. It is the policy of NCDOT to comply with all regulations and to mana 6? ?? Iy
projects in such away as to minimize the amount of exposed area, which is currently taking ?
place. x?
The NOV cites 15A NCAC 4B . 0124 (a-d). We have structured our response using the same`
format and paragraph sequencing as the cited regulations as excerpted in the NOV. '
1. COMMENT: 1115A NCAC 4B. 0124 (a) - Uncovered areas in HQW zones
shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area within the boundaries of
,mil ?ry/P l t the tract of 20 acres."
b ?/?` , i ? RESPONSE: Construction activities have been performed in a manner that I
6? r would minimize the amount of exposed area. During phases of grading there
?, ? - have been tunes when the protect exceeded the 20 acres in NON HQW areas
??&& but not in HQW areas. The present operational procedures ensure compliance
with this regulation.
2. COMMENT: 111 SA NCAC 4B . 0124 (B) - - Erosion and sedimentation
control measures, structures, and devices provide protection from a 25 year
storm event."
RESPONSE: Design is based on a 25-year storm event that occurs over a 24-
hour period. Basins are sized to handle storm event.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SP9-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EwRONMENTALANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET J
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STA7E.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548 ` /
3. COMMENT: "15A NCAC 4B .0124 (C) - Basins are designed to be 70 %
efficient at settling a 40-micron particle. "
RESPONSE: NCDOT utilizes a standard design calculation for the total
amount of disturbed area draining to a basin. In evaluating this basin design VJ - Li,
we have compared our initial calculations to the Barfield and Clair (1985) lr
trapping efficiency calculation:
Surface Area at Design Flow (Acres) = (0.01) Peak inflow rate (cfs)
Due to the slope of grade and adjacent topography of the HQW zone and a 2-
year storm event for Lee and Moore counties, (3.6 in/day) our basins comply
with this. design standard which has proven in research to give trap efficiency
of 75% for most Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils. I /
4. COMMENT: "15A NCAC 4B .0124 (D) -Newly constructed open channels
in HQW zones shall be designed using 2:1 side slopes or less. "
RESPONSE: Designed channels that exist in the HQW zone are in
compliance with this regulation.
Condition Number 3 (continued):
COMMENT BY DWQ: "Based on the inspection, it appeared to staff that greater than 20
acres of land have been uncovered as apart of the land disturbance effort Please indicate how
many acres of land have been cleared and grubbed. Also, please clearly explain-what measures
you have taken, including measures with contractors, to insure compliance with4he 20 acre
disturbance limit condition. "
The contractor installed the initial erosion control devices as shown on the plans when the
clearing and grubbing operations began. Some areas were only cleared while other areas (fields)
were neither cleared nor grubbed. Areas that required grubbing were immediately seeded and
mulched if weather allowed (following rain events some areas were not accessible and in several
cases these areas were under water). Every attempt was made to contain our operations to the
17-acre rule. Once this area was protected we then moved ahead. There were times when this
acreage was exceeded, but at no time were there areas that did not have perimeter devices
installed.
Specifically the sequence of the fieldwork was as follows:
• February 19, 2003 Hand Clearing in HQW zone began
• February 21, 2003 silt fences were installed in the HQW areas. .
• March 3, 2003 Seeding and mulching began. Our daily records show that the seeding
and mulching proceeded behind both the areas that were just cleared and those areas
that were both cleared and grubbed. ILJ
• Note that excessive rain hampered the clearing and seeding efforts.
• By March 12 and 13, 2003 we recorded that we had seeded 25 acres between Stations y
40 and 55.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSUE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

6
• March 22, 2003 grading began in the cleared areas. During grading the contract
requires that we do staged seeding on cut and fill slopes as grading is actively
occurring. When the final grade is obtained we finish and permanently seed and
mulch the area.
• Inspectors meet daily with the contractor and continue to do so. Where problems are
identified the NCDOT inspector notifies the contractor and the contractor is tasked to
immediately resolve the problem. Many of the tasks involve maintenance of the
erosion control devices. This is especially crucial given the excessive bad weather.
• April 4, 2003 the DWQ conducted a compliance evaluation inspection.
The entire project will result in clearing of approximately 400 acres. Only about 50 % of the
land will be cleared and grubbed. In areas where grubbing is not completed, temporary seeding
and mulching is done around the perimeter to create a vegetative buffer. Both the Contractor and
the Department have staff on site daily reviewing Erosion Control matters. The contractor
maintains a seeding and mulching crew on site at all times and has access to additional crews b
when needed.
COMIVVIENT BY DWQ: "Please provide copies of your sediment and erosion control plan andl?
respectively explain how the plan complies with 15A NCAC 4B. 0124 (a-d). " V RESPONSE BY NCDOT: Copies of this plan are attached. The following responses to your
question on Condition Number 3 explain how the plan complies with the regulations.
1. COMIV4ENT: "15A NCAC 4B. 0124 (a) - Uncovered areas in HQW zones
shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area within the boundaries of
the tract of 20 acres. "
RESPONSE: Construction activities have been performed in a manner that
would minimize the amount of exposed area. During phases of grading there
have been times when the project exceeded the 20 acres in NON HQW areas
but not in HQW areas. The present operational procedures ensure
compliance with this regulation.
2. COMIVENT: "15A NCAC 4B. 0124 (B) - Erosion and sedimentation
?ontrol measures, structures, and devices provide protection from a 25 year
storm event."
RESPONSE: Design is based on a 25-year storm event that occurs over a 24-
hour period. Basins are sized to handle storm event.
'v o
3. COAIMIENT. . cc 15A NCAC 4B .0124 (C) - Basins are designed to be 70 %
efficient at settling a 40-micron particle. "
RESPONSE: NCDOT utilizes a standard design calculation for the total
amount of disturbed area draining to a basin. In evaluating this basin design
we have compared our initial calculations to the Barfield and Clair (1985)
trapping efficiency calculation:
Surface Area at Design Flow (Acres) = (0.01) Peak inflow, rate (cfs)

MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: %19-733-3141 LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PRoiEOT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

7
Due to the slope of grade and adjacent topography of the HQW zone and a 2-
year storm event for Lee and Moore counties, (3.6 in/day) our basins comply
with this design standard which has proven in research to give trap efficiency
of 75% for most Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils.
4. COMMENT: "l5A NCAC 4B .0124 (D) -Newly constructed open channels
in HQW zones shall be designed using 2:1 side slopes or less. "
RESPONSE: Designed channels that exist in the HQW zone are in
compliance with this regulation.
Condition Number 5:
COMMENT BY DWQ: "Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on
all bare soil within 10 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control.
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: Historically the Department has performed seeding and mulching
operations within 15 working days after grading operations are completed. The permit requires
L) I Xll
seeding and mulching operations to be conducted within 10 working days following gr13
operations. There are times when weather (flooding) prevents areas from being seeded 10 days. The Department uses inspectors' diaries and erosion control reports to track thsoil areas. With this information we make every attempt to comply with the 10 working vegetative cover as required by the permit. Unfortunately, there are times when weatheconditions do not allow this to be accomplished. Condition Number 7:
Xfor
COM LENT BY DWQ: "Hazardous Spill Catch Basin shall be required for all stream
crossings. The final designs for the hazardous spill catch basins shall be submitted to the
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning of construction in the Waters Supply Watershed
AS BUILT drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
- A file review indicates no information has been provided to meet Condition 7. A review
of the site plans used by DOT staff in the field did not indicate the presence or location of these
basins. Please explain why this matter has not been addressed and provide a schedule with
dates of when this information will be provided to the DWQ. "
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: On November 12, 2002, the NCDOT submitted a letter of appeal to
the DWQ regarding this condition and followed up on this action with ongoing discussion with
DWQ staff about the need for the basins outside the Water Supply Watershed. The most recent j
discussion occurred May 27, 2003 in a meeting with John Domey, Cynthia Van Der Wiele, of
the DWQ; and Greg Thorpe, Randy Turner, and Marshall Clawson of the NCDOT. The result of
the meeting was that the NCDOT would send a letter to DWQ proposing alternatives to
Hazardous Spill Basins outside of the Little River Watershed.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. VWVW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING'
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
The permit drawings and plans have been revised to reflect the addition of six hazardous spill
basins within the Little River Watershed. This commitment was documented in our November C ' N
12, 2002 letter to the DWQ (copy attached to this letter).
We completed the design and transmitted the plans to the DWQ on April 16, 2003. The letter of 1 ?/\
transmittal is attached to this letter. At that time, several sites on the project were revised so
there was no direct discharge to streams.
Condition Number 9: .Z
COMMENT BY DWQ: "Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a
maintenance plan for all Stormwater management facilities and hazardous catch basins
associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be required to implement the maintenance plan
for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in wetlands or
waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of the sediment an erosion control
devices in wetlands waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the DLR has released the project.
A review of DWQ files has revealed that the maintenance plan for all Stormwater
management facilities and hazardous catch basins has not been received. Please explain why
this information was not provided to. DWQ along with a schedule with dates of when this
information will be submitted for review. "
to
RESPONSE BY NCDOT:
There are no stormwater management facilities on the project. Therefore, there is no
maintenance plan for those types of structures. A Hazardous Spill Maintenance Plan entitled v
"Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Commitment" was transmitted to the DWQ on April 16,
2003. A copy of the transmittal letter is attached to this response to the NOV. In addition to the U`
Maintenance Plan, the April 16, 2003 letter. describes the design and location of the Preformed 4 w
Scour Holes (PSH) designed to provide sediment and erosion control. The structures used were
added to slow velocities and treat discharges. Several of the PSHs are located in jurisdictional
areas. All of the PSH structures in jurisdictional areas are inside the area slated for mechanized
clearing. Therefore, the impacts (impact for one PSH is 0.0023 acres) have been accounted for
in the existing permit and mitigated.
Condition Number 15 Mitigation
COMMENT BY DWQ: "A report must be submitted to the NC Division of the Water Quality
that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this project within two
months of the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. "
RESPONSE BY NCDOT: Please be advised that in addition to the stipulation in Condition 15
of the 401 Water Quality Certificate quoted above, Condition 15 also states
"NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure the
drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring and re-
modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet with DWQ
personnel to agree upon the details of additional studies. "
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OFTRANsPoRTAnoN FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1648

It was our understanding that compliance with paragraph 2 negated the two-month requirement
noted in paragraph 1. This understanding was reached with the DWQ at a meeting on November
27, 2002. At that meeting which was held in the Raleigh DWQ office, Michael Wood and Tim
Savidge of The Catena Group met with Cynthia Van Der Wiele (DWQ) to discuss the additional
monitoring and re-modeling of the groundwater table. Details discussed included placement of
the wells and length of monitoring. It was also noted at this meeting that NCDOT would be
unable to furnish the report of the final approved wetland and stream mitigation until the results i
of the re-modeling were known. I
It was further agreed that the site would be modeled for four to six months, depending upon
weather conditions. The gauges were installed in December 2002 and have been monitored
monthly. The gauges are scheduled to be read at the end of May 2003. This is anticipated to be
the final reading before the re-modeling portion of the study. The results of the study are
expected to be completed by July 2003, which will then be presented to DWQ and the USACE.
Once a consensus is reached on the mitigation provided from the SALT tract, a report of the final
approved wetland and stream mitigation for this project will be provided to DWQ.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at
[phone].
Sincer
Gre o 4&rector, Envir PDEA
Cc: 4o_hn Dorney, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Steve Dewitt, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA-ONE Raleigh
Fred Lamar, Attorney General's Office, Raleigh
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.DOH.DOT.STATE NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

e``S_WF4
y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality,
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street - Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
ATTN.: Mr. Paul E. Rawls
Dear Sir:
May 13, 2003
LYNDo TIPPETT
. SE=ARY
Subject: R-210 Vass Bypass-Highway US 1. Notice of Violation. Request for extension
of Comment Time. DWQ Project No. 010404.
On May 9, 2003 we received the referenced Notice of Violation. In that letter the
DWQ requested that we respond within 10 days of receipt of the Notice. In order
to draft and finalized our responses we will need more time. Therefore, we
request an extension of the comment time to May 30, 2003. Please let us know if
there are any problems with this procedure.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone].
Sincerely, 17
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Steve Dewitt, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA-ONE Raleigh
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: q19-7333141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTA oh FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOumWILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE
BMP MANUAL
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
y

O
D?
?O
'ook
t
OF

0
?Q
O?
7 RpNSQ
C,4\
O?
s
February 2003
DRAFT 7.0
0`140 R THE
V,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. »............................... .................................... ............................2
1.2 PURPOSE OF MANUAL ............................................. »............................................................... .......................... 3
2.0 PROJECT PLANNING AND PRECONSTRUCTION ...................................................6
2.1 PLANNING ........................ ».................................... ..»............ ».............. ................................ ................................ 7
2.2. PRECONSTRUCTION ........................................ »...»...... ......................................... »........................................... 8
3.0 GENERAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES/ OPERATIONS .....................9
3.1 PROJECT MONITORING ................................................ .............. ».......................................... ........................ 10
3.2 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL .......................................................................»................................10
3.3 MANAGING THE WATERCOURSE .....................................................................................».»...».................11
3.4 MANAGING THE RIPARIAN BUFFER .........:...........................................................................»...................12
3.5 MANAGING THE WORK AREA ................................. ».................................................. ................................ 13
3.6 MANAGING THE SPOIL ...................................................................................................................................15
3.7 GROUND STABILIZATION ..................... .............................. »............................. .............. ....... »..... ................ 15
3.8 SITE CLEAN-UP ........................................... .................... »................... ................... »........... ....... »»...».............. 17
4.0 SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES/ OPERATIONS ......................................18
4.1 PIPE/CULVERT EXTENSIONS ....................... ...... »............................ »......................... «...... .....»..... .............. 19
4.2 PIPE/CULVERT INSTALLATION ..................... .......... »...... .............................................. ............................... 22
4.3 SLOPE REPAIRS ADJACENT TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ..............................................................27
4.4 HEADWALL INSTALLATION ..........................................................................:......................»...................:..29
4.5 OUTLET MAINTENANCE ............................................ ............................................... ................................... 32
4.6 BRIDGE DEMOLITION .....................................................................................................................................34
4.7 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................................................................37
North Carolina Department of Transportation DRAFT Operation and Maintenance BMP Manual
January 2003 Pager
Table of Contei
4.8 CHANNEL RELOCATION .....................».........................................»..............................................................
5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ..........................................................................
5.1 EROSION CONTROL .........................................................................................................................................
5.1.1 Temporary Silt Fence .........................................................................................................................................
5.1.2 Special Sediment Control Fence .........................................................................................................................
5.1.3 Temporary Silt Ditch ..........................................................................................................................................
5.1.4 Temporary Rock Silt Check Type "A .................................................................................................................
5.1.5 Temporary Rock Sediment Dam Type `B.. ................................................. .......................................................
5.2 FLOW DIVERSION .............................................................................................................................................
5.2.1 Bypass Pumping .................................................................................................................................................
5.2.2 Suspended Bypass Pipe ..................................... ........................................... :.....................................................
5.2.3 Piped Diversion .........................:........................................................................................................................
5.2.4 Fabric Lined Diversion Channel .......................................................:.................................................................
5.2.5 Turbidity Curtain ................................................................................................................................................
53 . IMPERVIOUS DIKES ..............................................................................»................................................
5.3.1 Stone with Impervious Fabric .............................................................................
5.3.2 Sand Bags .............. ............... .......
...................:..................................................................................................:
5.3.3 Prefabricated Dams..:........................................................................................................................................:.'
5.3.4 Sheet Piles ...............................:................::........:..,...................................................:.........................................'
5.4 DEWATERING .............................
.......».».....«.»...............:...........»»..................»....................».....................:
5.4.1 Stilling Basin for Pumped Effluent ...................... :................................................................................ ...............
5.4.2 Special Stilling Basin (Silt Bag) .............:............................................................................................................
5.5 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS ................... ...:.................. ........ »....... »».»...... .....................
....»...»....?
5.5.1 Temporary Fording .......................................:.:...................................................................................................I
5.5.2 Temporary Piped Crossing ..................................................... ............................................................................I
5.5.3 Temporary Access Bridge ..................................................................................................................................I
5.6 GROUND STABILIZATION ..........................».................................................».............................................. !
5.6.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching ......................................................................................................................5
5.6.2 Permanent Seeding and Mulching ................................................... ..................................................................
5.6.3 Erosion Control Blankets ..........................................................................................................................:........ S
5.6.4 Riprap Slope Protection .........................................................................................................................:............5
5.6.5 Riprap Outlet Protection .................................................................................................................................... 5
5.7 MAINTAINING NORMAL FLOW ...................................................».........»..............«............»....................1C
5.7.1 Sills....................................:..:............................................................................:.............................................1(
5.7.2 Rock Vane ................................

North Carolina Department of Transportation DRAFT Operation and Maintenance BMP Manua
January2003 Page i
Section 1.0 -Background Information
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Construction activities can have significant impacts on water
quality, stream ecology and aquatic'habitat. The health of
these aquatic systems impacts many aspects of life in North
Carolina including fishing, travel and tourism, water-based
recreation, drinking water supplies and aesthetics. Healthy
stream ecology and aquatic habitat are necessary to support
a healthy recreational and commercial fishing stock. Good
water quality is key to providing clean and affordable drinking
water supplies and maintaining attractive water bodies that
invite recreational use. Much of North Carolina's economy is
supported by aquatic trades and tourism and many of North
Carolina's citizens enjoy activities on or around the numerous
streams, lakes and estuaries the state has to offer. 'By
managing North Carolina Department of Transportation's
operation and maintenance activities to minimize adverse
water quality impacts, we all help maintain the outstanding
quality of life we enjoy in North Carolina.
NCDOT can best manage its water quality impacts by
performing work in and around bodies of water with the
utmost care and by using Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that focus on minimizing sediment loss from a
project. Sediment transport is a natural stream function..
However, excess sediment is the number one pollutant in
streams across the state of North Carolina and its impacts
are often seen far downstream. When sediment enters a
stream it can have a number of effects on the water body. 'It
may cause turbidity, or clouding of the water, which reduces
light penetration through the water column. Decreased light
penetration can affect plant life and the levels of oxygen in
the water, which in turn affects aquatic life that obtain oxygen
from the water. Sediment particles suspended in the water
column also add erosive force to a stream, much like a piece
of sandpaper, and can contribute to downstream bank
erosion and channelization. Sediment settles to the bottom
of water bodies and smothers the insects, microbes and.
plants that support healthy populations of fish and other
aquatic animals. Sediment can also serve as the transport
mechanism for many other pollutants that adhere to sediment
particles, such as nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and organic
matter which have their own adverse affects on the water
body.
North Carolina Department of Transportation DRAFT Operation and Maintenance BMP Manual
February 2003 Page 2
Section 1.0 -Background Information
1.2 PURPOSE OF MANUAL
NCDOT is responsible for managing new roadway
construction and operating and maintaining over 76,000. miles
of roadway throughout the state. This manual is designed to
help construct, maintain and operate NCDO7s roadway
systems while minimizing impacts on jurisdictional areas.
This manual assumes that the proper permits have
been obtained and notifications sent before
construction or operations begin.
This manual includes necessary information for construction
and maintenance crews to. perform the necessary activities
while minimize their impacts on jurisdictional areas. during
normal construction activities and emergency repair
situations.
Activities in and around streams, lakes and estuaries are
regulated by a number of different programs and anyone
performing work in these areas should have some idea of the
magnitude of regulations governing their activities. This
manual. provides a brief introduction to.eAsting regulatory.
programs and information on a number of BMPs and
construction practice guidelines that should be utilized when
working within or adjacent to jurisdictional areas.
The Project Planning and Preconstruction section
summarizes the activities that are performed prior to any
construction or maintenance within or adjacent to
jurisdictional areas. The Construction Supervisor is not
responsible for performing these activities but should
question the Lead Engineer and Division Environmental
Officer if it is unclear the activities have been performed.
The General.Project Construction Practices/Operations
section provides an overview and general process that
should be applied to projects and activities within or adjacent
to jurisdictional areas. Specific conditions. that shall be
followed on all projects are highlighted.
The overview and general process for all projects is followed
by specific guidance in the Specific Construction
Practices/Operations section. Specific construction practices
are identified and guidance provided so the project can be
completed in an environmentally responsible manner. This
section also identifies appropriate BMPs, provides a general
-----------°--?°° "" "" '"-"? DRAFT Operation and Maintenance BMP Manual
North Carolina Department of Transportation Page 3
February 2003
J
Section 1.0 -Background Information
overview of the construction sequence as it relates to
protecting jurisdictional areas, and highlights specific
conditions that must be followed in order to be in. compliance
with NCDOT, State, and Federal regulations.
The last section of the manual includes information for each
individual BMP such as where the practice is and is not
applicable, construction standards, maintenance
requirements, and typical problems. Some of the BMPs
identify the appropriate NCDOT standard and specification
for proper construction. While other BMPs have detailed
construction specifications and installation procedures, the
intent is to not duplicate existing standards and provide
standards where none exist.
The overall goal of the manual is provide guidance to
construction crews,when working within and adjacent to
jurisdictional areas. At the same. time providing flexibility to
the crews to choose which method is suitable for each given
situation.

W - DRAFT Operation and Maintenance BMP Mar
North Carolina Department of Transportation Pac
February 2003
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
FOR PROTECTION OF
SURFACE WATERS

*051? NORTH CAROLLNA
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
MARCH ,1997

CONTROL MEASURES
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
• Clearing and grubbing shall be
performed in a manner which will
cause minimal soil erosion. The
work shall be coordinated with other
operations so that, unless otherwise
authorized, no more than seventeen
(17) acres of exposed, erodible
surface area will be accumulated at
any one time.
• . Grading operations will not be.
allowed to accumulate exposed,
erodible slope areas in excess of
seventeen (17) acres at any one
time without beginning permanent
seeding and mulching or other
erosion control measures.
• Intercept ditches should be
constructed across the roadway in
both cut and fill sections at the
close of each day's operations to
direct the runoff to controlled.
drainageways and outlets.
• If grading operations are suspended
for any reason, partially completed
cut and fill slopes shall be brought
to the required slope and the work
of seeding and mulching, or other
required erosion control operations
shall be performed.
• A self monitoring program will be
performed to ensure compliance with
the Sediment and Erosion Control
Program Requirements, and to evaluate
and rate levels of field implementation
of the program.
12
REFERENCE
Standard
Specifications
230-1
Standard
Specifications
225-2
Sediment and
Erosion Control
Program
Standard
Specifications
225-2
Sediment and
Erosion Control
Program
i
. pt ST?'O

7. Hazardous spill catch basins - S
Section A, which lies within the ; STATE OF NORTH CAR
of the basins are in jurisdictional DEPARTMENT OF TRANS
• Plan Sheet 6-7, Station -L- 2
• Plan Sheet 9, Station -L- 31 d MICHAEL F. EAsLEY
• Plan Sheet 9, Station -L- 33? Govsmm
• Plan Sheet 10, Station-L- 3 April 16, 2003
• Plan Sheet. 10, Station -L- 3f
• Plan Sheet 10, Station -L- 3 F
TO: John Dorney; DWQ
8. Bridge decking shall not dischar
will be deck drains along the Lit ATTENTION: Cynthia van der Wiele, DWQ
into the Little River.
FROM: Elizabeth L. Lusk, Environmental Si
9. Maintenance plan -The Hazard(
attached. SUBJECT: R-0210, US 1 from north of Lakevie
Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
The NCDOT understands that tl REFERENCE: DWQ Project No. 010404, DWQ W
a result, there may be additional W(
necessary, the NCDOT will submit
questions regarding this transmittal, The NCDOT is transmitting revised plan sheet
1383. Project R-21 0, Sections A, B, and C. The revisions ac
Conditions:
4. Stormwater directed to buffer areas or retention b
Attachments (PFH) have been added to slow velocities and trea
jurisdictional areas. Six PFH's have been added tc
and one PFH to Section C at the. following locatiol
Cc: Greg Thorpe, PhD, PDEA II Section A
Phil Harris, PE, ONE Mana . Plan Sheet 13, Station -L- 51+60 left
Tim Johnson, Division 8 Cc . Plan Sheet 13, Station -L- 51+00 right
Art King, Division 8 DEO . Plan Sheet 16, Station -L- 61+50 left
Rachelle Beauregard, ONE . Plan Sheet 17, Station -L- 63+60 left - drainag
Marshall Clawson, P.E., Hy the road into this PFH. Previously, water drab
Mike Wood, Catena Group .64+60 left.
• Plan Sheet 20, Station -L- 76+60 right
File: R-210 • Plan Sheet 21, Station -L- 78+60 right
_ Section B
• Plan Sheet 21, Station -L- 104+00 right
Section C
• Plan Sheet 7, Station -Lrevl- 28+10 left
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: 919-715-
FAX: [phone]C
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.4

400
lry??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 12, 2002
N. C. Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Cynthia van der Wiele, Regulatory Officer
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: US 1 FROM NORTH OF LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF SANFORD,
MOORE/LEE COUNTIES, TIP NO. R-210.
DWQ PROJECT NO. 010404
On July 19, 2002, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) issued Water Quality Certification
(WQC) No. 3344 for the subject project. Condition 7 in the WQC states "hazardous Spill
Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings..."
For good or bad, pursuant to letting the project to construction in October 2002, the right of
way acquisition for this project was completed in advance of DWQ's issuance of the 401
WQC. Hydraulic design decisions were based, in part, on the guidance paper, "Guidelines
for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins", which was developed in 1996 in
consultation with the DWQ.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) now understands that special circumstances may
have led the DWQ to require a more extensive deployment of hazardous spill catch basins
in the project area. The presence of impaired waters, water supply watersheds and
vigorous comments from the public are among the reasons that were given for the basin
requirement at all stream crossings.
The DOT would like to propose the deployment of hazardous spill basins only within the
HQW watershed associated with the Little River. Furthermore, the Department strongly
recommends that these basins be installed only where storm water will be channeled
through devices such as shoulder berm gutters. This will provide the opportunity for
capturing spills should they occur. Where sheet flow across grassed shoulders is the
predominant method of dispersing storm water, there is little or no opportunity for
interdicting spills. Positioning of hazardous spill basins to maximize the opportunity for
mitigating spills should be our goal. In many instances, right of way limitations, or
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE:. [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WVWV.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
+ Page 2
November 12, 2002
Cynthia van der Wiele
constraining features in the landscape preclude configuring the shoulder and slope zones
into channels that would direct a spill into an adjacent basin. This fact emphasizes the
need to take advantage of features such as shoulder-berm gutters to capture and-channel the
spills.
DOT appreciates the assistance DWQ has provided on this project and is anxious to resolve
this matter at the earliest opportunity. If we can provide any additional information, please
contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone].
Sincerely,
Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. M. Randall Turner, PD&EA.
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
Re: 1t?210 info
r
Subject: Re: R-210 info
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:10:56 -0400
From: "Marshall W. Clawson PE" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Alice Gordon <[e-mail]>
CC: "Michael G. Wood" <[e-mail]>,
Elizabeth Lusk <[e-mail]> ,
Sarah Luginbuhl <[e-mail]>
51+00 RT
51+60 LT
61+50 LT
63+20 IT
76+60 RT
78+60 RT
104+00 RT
28+10 LT LREV1
Alice Gordon wrote:

> Marshall,
> Do you have a list of the PSH locations. I need them for one of the NOV
> responses. Thanks
> "Marshall W. Clawson PE" wrote:
> > Mike,
> > The preformed scour holes are all inside the mechanized clearing. The
> > impact for one PSH is 0.0023 ac. How precise do we need to be? We moved a
> > direct discharge point from site 16.
>>MC
> > "Michael G. Wood" wrote:
> > > Marshall - I am working on the mod for R-210. You recently sent an
> > > information packet that had among other things,. the pre-formed scour
> > > holes in jurisdictional areas. I realize they are small, but would
> > > like to know the amount of additional impact associated with each one.
> > > Specifically, I need to know how much is within the mechanized cleared
> > > zone as well as the amount outside the mechanized cleared zone.
> > > Also, the permit drawing for R-210A Site 16 was included in the packet,
> > > however I am not sure why it was in there since I can't spot any
> > > additional impact areas. Any information you could shed on this will
> > > be appreciated. Please reply to all parties on this email. Thanks.
>>>MW
> > > ----------------
> > > Michael G. Wood
> > > The Catena Group
> > > 410-B Millstone Drive
> > > Hillsborough, NC 27278
> > > [phone]
1 of 1 5/29/2003 7:37 AM
µ SfA7Eo
FILE COPY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVERNOR
July 11, 2003
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
i IF
.A
?
I UL 1 5 2003
' UALI S I
SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERMIT MODIFICATION. REQUEST FOR US 1 FROM
NORTH OF LAKEVIEW TO SOUTH OF. SANFORD, MOORE/LEE
COUNTIES, TIP NO. R-210. $200.00 - DEBIT WORK ORDER
#8T560302 (WBS 34330.1.1)
On October 4, 2002 and July 19, 2002 respectively, the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) 404 Individual Permit (Action ID # 199300570) and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC #
3344) were issued for the subject project. These permits authorized construction of
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Number R-210, Sections A, B and C.
Construction has begun on the project. The purpose of this correspondence is to request a
permit modification for the subject project.
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
As previously noted, construction has begun on this project. The Contractors
have requested modifications for three sites. The reasons for these modifications were
discussed with personnel from the USACE and DWQ on May 8 and May 9, 2003
respectively. The reasons are restated, and in some cases further clarified, in this cover
letter. The Contractor has provided detailed drawings and descriptions of each site as
well as supporting information when appropriate. This information is contained in the
appropriate Appendix. The location of each of the sites is noted in the vicinity maps in
Appendix A. The sites are summarized as follows.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 1: This is the crossing of the Little River. This river has been
assigned a best usage classification of WS-III HQW by the DWQ and considered a high
quality wetland for design purposes. The original permit called for a temporary work
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] _ TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
method of construction was requested and subsequently approved by the agencies in
building of the bridges for the Deep Run Bypass (TIP R-2001 B).
The mats and filter fabric will NOT be removed if the Little River has escaped its
banks and flooded the construction site. If this situation occurs, the contractor will
wait for the floodwaters and Little River to.recede back to within the existing channel
before removing the mats and filter fabric. This design change will result in no
additional impacts to the site and will reduce the temporary impact time by
approximately 240 days.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 16 (Harbour Borrow Site): In the early development stages of
this permit modification, it was anticipated that the haul road to access the Harbour
Borrow Site would result in 0.02 acre of temporary wetland impact. However, the haul
road is now located such that there are no wetland impacts. Michael Wood of The Catena
Group performed this field determination on June 24, 2003. Therefore, there will be no
jurisdictional impacts associated with this haul road. A drawing (Cl) showing the
placement of the haul road in relation to the project is being provided in Appendix C for
informational purposes.
SECTION R-210 A SITE 21: This is the crossing of Cranes Creek. This creek has been
assigned a best usage classification of WS-III by the DWQ. The original permit design
and placement of the temporary work pads is shown on page D 1. The Contractor is
proposing to construct a temporary haul road (consisting of timber mats) and temporary
bride to facilitate construction of the permanent bridge crossing of Cranes Creek: This
construction is being shown in two phases. By using this two-phased method, the time
required for the temporary impacts will be decreased by 3 months. The placement of the
haul road and minor reconfiguration of temporary work mats will result in a total increase
in temporary wetland impacts of 0.01 acre. However, it is believed that this slight
increase will be offset by the reduction in the amount of time of the temporary impact.
• Phase 1 (page 132) consists of constructing the haul road and the temporary bridge.
The temporary haul road will consist of Type 2 filter fabric (page 135) placed
under timber mats. A silt fence will be constructed on either side of the timber
mats as shown in Detail "A" on page D2 to contain any spillages. Two temporary
work bridges placed side by side, as shown on page D4, will be placed across
Cranes Creek connecting the haul roads. Temporary 42" handrails covered by 24"
of filter fabric (Detail "B" on page D2) will be constructed to contain any
spillages on the bridge. In addition, a laborer will be at the site with a shovel to
ensure there is no build up of material that could fall into jurisdictional areas.
This design allows a hydraulic opening of approximately 15 meters, which is the
same as proposed in the original permit. Once in place, approximately 175,000
m3 of material will be moved across the bridge. This is expected to take 4-5
months to complete, after which the haul road and bridge will be removed and
Phase H will begin.
• Phase II is detailed on page D3. It is anticipated that Phase II will take 9-10
months to complete.
restoration is proposed. The other Design Changes will not result in any additional
impacts within jurisdictional areas, but represent a change from what was originally
permitted and therefore will require authorization from the permitting agencies.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is requested that these modifications be authorized via a modification of the
Section 404 Individual Permit. (Action ID # 199300570). We also request that the
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC # 3344) be modified. In compliance
with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC we are electronically providing $475.00 to act
as payment for processing the Section 401 permit application as previously noted in this
application (see Subject line).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Michael Wood at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ (7 copies)
k.Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA >
?,Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. John Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
,IVIr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
,-W. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
-hm PO,6 ib67 ?4? ? ? Z?315

agrore 10 1 Carbonto ivx? North, ew D'ncan 6• ` ?/
2. y 42 I 1 ? 6
WhTnot 42 _ _ Il Caron
321 f ;, .Chalvbeate Springs r
\ J 42 an* Ord 1 g ngi
S Westmoore e?
High alts`` Glqnd Re• ioc, Klplmg I
v
0 , H^? \ Tramway 1 v(, a
A WR Ro rl.. ' L E E` Szl C°de S eulek3
Mon.rFu ` 81 + + Cree ( Coats ,
pies 3 arkr.aod (. ernon i Mamers '
y Ulhngton q \ ]
h 2 I r Springs i a
5 Srrann H A 'R E - f T len
I 3
l s t + > SS
suls
0 O R
.. 9 }Cartnage •' ? , Olivia ;l •r «? " J
G I
h 105 s;eron Erwl
Pinenew r 2 0
HIIICrest
Samarcand r Will paring 1 1 Is Sunnlevel %1)Ufl
agi II even lakes alohns villa SpoutSpnngs to s
Springs Eastwood ass 3 .82 s/
l3. t \
E ry We
End 8 akeview S 1 1. Inde x 17 J Jaekso rly _ • . 2 Manly Maneit ir
Springs t ?:,." g' ?• ieoe s 2 / j;• Won
, i Pine.hur• t "? r t = w.o. + nx
in? acutWhIll • 'Sp`in ake`• 1? ? u
,.Iwrn Woods slur ;, ,.. 1
o Aberde C V A N , 1
fORfl a Folly lRA GG /.Ut17ARY,RESEaY?nGJ' + I
5 Villa a Pmebluff II ` o'
Fayntje?n(i 7 S
shley Haighta
J.
J
ro t ? Mc lln
6
I Montrose . 59 •r 4
off an 1Vander J S
guan sondhilll Rec. A-. •rO?eE. A ,. '.. -7 ?_ 4..L_ 1 ?? a Autryvl
)e Met Marston y T1 26 C. Timberland O. ..:.,?ockITd e 9 t
* r y? Raeford' ,
Scale of Miles
5 10 20 30
20 30
Pew 1
VI CI N/ T Y
0 Scale of Kilometers
Nzz .4
' 131- .?• "?•-.•... ? «.. ? del, sell IYe4 y:•..•'.1aa Y ,
! • ( Ills . leee .' e.
/rail L e1?. Y •,el.' ' e ••'
7
Ift
' ar .? 7- is J ,o¢e
INI ? 1.1,,E ?\.or •? _ ? ?r•. 1\
11-• Hi,r} IN• _ toil Iel. ^ M •'./. :w-?\?'. -...f ,
11.,
s , ' .! " •`,r^ .',?? 7ny! ••.' 1 .1 701,
p`• % ; - r. I ,r. ,, ' i u loll ..
ATI • E I, lm. J ` ~193'
K ?. fill,
191
• .? Lwi4 nl.' '1771
rl ? 7 / / lot,. a 1. \" rrr. " ? lo?ebe
1 „ J ,> l .1 19 ,.7
till the Le 77„ \ til.
1 O (. 2 3 MILES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF.HIGHWAYS
SCALE
MOORE COUNTY
B.T560302 R-21OA'
PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS-ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1625.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET I OF NOVEMEBER 1997

SITE MAP
SCA L E
o SLR /ouoM.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
/ UDp
8.T560302
R-210A
PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET Z OF S NOVEMEBER 1997

,
` l
'?
1'?
L;p
r
Rrt
.
'
.
.
- lr' STA RO
T- 11W

'
1Q 95 ( i t A MgR??i
6 003 /

VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO VALE) .
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MO.ORE/ LEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.569003T (R-210B)
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 1825
TO NORTH OF SR 1182
SHEET' 4 OF 5

August 28, 2003- Vass Bypass Inspection
On August 28, 2003, Ken Averitte of the Fayetteville Regional Office and Danny Smith
of the Central Office of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), conducted a compliance
evaluation inspected of the Vass Bypass project. The inspection was generated in response to
compliant.
During the site visit, the investigators took photographs, measurements and made
observations of the respective wetlands, stream and streamside/riparian impacts. Specifically, the
inspection revealed that clearing, grading and construction efforts associated R-210 Vass Bypass
were in progress. In addition to the respective impacts authorized by Water Quality Certification
(DWQ Project No. 01-0404), impacts to streams and wetlands, beyond the construction corridor,
were also observed. The following Stations and below-mentioned observations coincides to staff
observations during the site visit:
Station 30 - In wetland areas beyond construction limits and silt fencing, sediment was
observed ranging in depths from 4 to 6 inches.
Station 32 - In areas beyond construction limits and silt fencing, sediment was
observed ranging in depths of 4 to 8 and in excess of 12 inches in places. Also, observed
at this location was a slope-drain (a sediment control measure not depicted on the plans).
This measure had rip-rap place along the inlet. The outlet of the this slope-drain
structure (a plastic corrugated pipe) had been placed beyond the toe slope of the road fill
and laid over top of the sediment fencing.
Station 68 - Slope-drains had been installed near an area known as the old target range.
These devices appeared to be in disrepair, where rilled preferential flow pathways short-
circuit much of the function of the rip-rap controls. Also, certain segments of silt fences
were day-lighted), the side slopes were not vegetated, and sediment was traced to stream.
It was noted along the edges and where overbank flows had occurred along the stream
that 4-6 inches of sediment had been deposited.
Station 73 - At this location a channel had been partially excavated through the
construction corridor and flowed into a check dam. The check dam was intact, but had
debris indicating it had clearly over topped. Beyond, the check dam 6 to 12 inches of
sediment within the stream channel and along the edges of the channel (immediately out
of banks) was observed.
Station 75 - A this station location a "type A basin" had been installed. The basin edge,
nearest the construction corridor, was not vegetated. Also, a small portion of the
construction area was outleting into the emergency spillway of the basin, bypassing the
basin. [Note: off site impacts to waters was not observed at this location].
Station 76 - At this location a culvert had been installed into a stream, an authorized
stream crossing impact. Upstream, at the inlet portion of the culvert, a perimeter ditch
had been installed in the construction corridor paralleling the road construction efforts.
This perimeter ditch was directly connected to the tributary to Crane Creek and contained
no sediment and erosion control measures. Conversely, the sediment control plan
requires a series of check dams. Downstream from the culvert sediment accumulations
ranged from 2 to 6 inches within the tributary to Cranes Creek.
Sno,? C, llC'U CCvU i'1 /AUDUBON COUNCIL OF ?CONSERVATION CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NC
& COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY NC ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
. SANDHILLS-AREA LAND TRUST
ATTENTION
CONTINUED MULTIPLE,.Ri=niucK,.r
STORM WATER AND
VIOL- AWNS
N---T
US#1 Cameron-Vass Bypass Project
in Moore and Lee Counties
MW - 4 P%1
WE lL_A_N D

W 'A' Michael F. Easley, Governor
\o?O AQG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
.? Division of Water Quality
.? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 2, 2003
Dr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: MODIFICATION to Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean Water
Act
US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass), Moore/Lee Counties
TIP Project No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Attached hereto is a copy of the MODIFICATION to Certification No. 3344 issued to The North
Carolina Department of Transportation dated September 2, 2003.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Coleen Sullins, NCDWQ
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
W. Christopher Militscher, USEPA
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Bill Rosser, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. B.W. Harrington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer
Public Hearing Attendees
Central Files
File Copy

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Sincerely,

NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. This Certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts: 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,880
linear feet of stream channels in Moore and Lee Counties, as described in the Application dated 19
February 2001, and additional information dated 12 February 2002 and 15 March 2002.
The Modification to this Certification allows for the addition of 50 linear feet of temporary stream
impacts and 0.05 acres of temporary wetland impacts as described in the Modification Request dated July
11, 2003.
The project shall be constructed pursuant to the Application dated February 19, 2001 and the
Modification Request dated July 11, 2003 filed to construct improvements to US 1 from north of
Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210).
The Application and the Modification Request provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill
material into the waters of the state with the proposed development will not result in a violation of
applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions .of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to. submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Conditions of Certification:
I New Modifications of the Certification issued on July 19, 2002.
1. Section R-210A, Site I
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to place a temporary span. across the Little
River. Construction and removal of shall be in accordance with the sequence as described in the
Modification Request and as depicted on page B2.
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to use temporary work mats for each of the
work spurs. Placement and removal of the temporary work mats shall be in accordance with the
process described in the Modification Request.
2. Section R-210A Site 16 (Harbour Borrow Site)
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct a temporary haul road to
access the Harbour Borrow Site as depicted in drawing C1 in Appendix C of the Modification
Request. NCDWQ understands that this will result in 0.02 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
Section R-210A, Site 21
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct a temporary haul road
(consisting of timber mats) and temporary bridge to facilitate construction of the permanent
bridge crossing of Cranes Creek as described on pages D2 (Phase I of the construction sequence)
and D3 (Phase II of the construction sequence) of the Modification Request. NCDWQ
understands that this will result in 0.01 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
4. Section R-210B, Site 10
¦ NCDWQ understands that due to a change in federal regulations concerning construction in
railroad corridors, the work pads will need to be reconfigured as depicted on drawing page E2 of
the Modification Request. NCDWQ understands that this will result in a net increase of 0.02
acres of temporary wetland impacts and an increase of 50 linear feet of temporary stream impacts
for a total temporary impact of 83 linear feet as depicted on page E3 of the Modification Request.
5. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall restore the above-referenced impact sites as described in
the Appendices of the Modification Request.
6. NCDOT has requested authorization to construct five preformed scour holes (PSH) at the outlet of
several road storm drains to reduce stormwater discharges to non-erosive velocities as described in the
Modification Request. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct these PSH,
an activity necessary to comply with Condition number 4 of the Certification issued on July 19, 2002.
The PSH that are proposed, are located in the mechanized clearing zone of the roadway. Therefore
additional wetland impacts will not occur due to the installation of these structures.
7. NCDOT has requested authorization to re-design a storm drain to eliminate the direct discharge into
the stream channel at R-210A, Site 16. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to
eliminate the direct discharge in accordance with the Modification Request, an activity necessary to
comply with Condition number 4 of the Certification issued on July 19, 2002. The installation of the
structure shall not involve discharging fill or dredged material into waters of the State.
8. An additional condition of this Modification is that DOT must provide DWQ (the Wetlands/401 Unit)
a complete copy of the construction plans for the entire corridor of the project known as the Vass
Bypass (R-210A and R-210 B&C). These plans must be provided within 30 days of receipt of this
Modification.
II. Conditions of Certification issued on July 19, 2002
The following Conditions listed in the Water Quality Certification No. 3344 issued on July 19, 2002 still
apply:
1. NCDOT must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater
classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
i
2. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [ 15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire
project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into
streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse
flow.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10 days of
ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters) to provide long term
erosion control.
6. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B .0224].
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final designs for the
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401
Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for
the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
8. The bridge(s) required for this project shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project.
10. The NCDOT shall be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment
and erosion control devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
11. Any bridge demolition work required by this project shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
12. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
13. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
14. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown

to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The Applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium
shall be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
15. NCDOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of Cameron by
constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding a minimum of 70 gallons per
minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with the Town of Cameron on
October 26, 1998.
16. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 41.5 acres include riverine wetlands. NCDOT will mitigate these impacts by
providing the following:
¦ 4.8 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River as described in
Appendix C of the Application.
The monitoring plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the
first year and every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ 8.4 acres of on-site preservation as described in Appendix C of the Application.
¦ Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) Mitigation Site (a 327-acre site in Moore County) being
offered in total to offset the remainder of wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. This site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure
the drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring
and re-modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet with
DWQ personnel to agree upon the details of additional studies. If the resulting hydrological
modeling demonstrates that less than 36.8 acres can actually be restored, NCDOT shall obtain
wetland mitigation through in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP).
b. Stream impacts total 4,880 linear feet in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio except where on-site
mitigation will be provided. The on-site mitigation sites will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as
detailed in Table 4, Appendix A of the February 19, 2001 Application. Compensatory mitigation
consists of the following:
¦ 1,154 linear feet of on-site stream relocation/restoration, with 50-foot buffers, using natural
channel design. The natural channel design specifications shall be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach). The plans must include
reference reach data including a sketch map, the range of values (pattern data), and all
calculations (including the determination of bankfull). The channel design should include a
floodplain terrace at stream bankfull.

The stream relocation shall be built and maintained according to approved plans before any
mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or associated
riparian area has become unstable, the stream shall be repaired or stabilized using only
natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the riparian
shall be maintained and/or replaced according to the approved plans. Rip-rap and other hard
structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land Resources or a Delegated
Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and receive written
approval from this Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ The remaining 8,068 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be provided via in-lieu payments to
Wetlands Restoration Program as agreed on April 1, 1999.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h).. Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
17. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall complete and return
the enclosed "Certification of Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401
Certification has been completed. The responsible parry shall complete the attached form and return
it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project along
with as-built drawings and photographs.
18. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
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 that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 2nd day of September 2003
D
ALITY

WQC No. 3344
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
County:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water. Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
Date:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
1, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used
in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Certificate of Completion
Date
NOV-25-2003 11:47AM FROU-
?Ar?R
Q?
Alan W. Kllmek, P.E„ Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 2, 2003
I?
E
Dr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director + 9 2f .
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center --
. ? . ;. .
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548 --
Dear Dr. '.Thorpe:
Re: MODIFICATION to Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean Water
Act
US 1 from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass), Moore/L= Counties
TIP Project No. R-210
DWQ Project No. 010404
Attached hereto is a copy of the MODIFICATION to Certification No. 3344 issued to The North
Carolina Department of Transportation dated September 2, 2003, .
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us,
Attachments
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Coleen Sullins, NCDWQ
Tien Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Cbxistopher Militscher, USEPA
Mr. David. Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Bill Rosser, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. B.W. Harrington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer
Public Bearing Attendees
Central Files
File Copy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Welliands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NO 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Bbd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2^260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2c.enr.stat9.nc.us/nowatiands/
T-794 P-002/008 F-265
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Sincerely,
NOV-25-2003 11:47AM FROM-
T-794 P.003/006 F-265
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WAFER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
TIIIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. This Certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts: 41.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing; 14.50 acres of surface waters (anthropogenically-created ponds) fill; and 4,980
linear feet of stream channels in Moore and Lee Counties, as described in the Application dated 19
February 2001, and additional information dated 12 February 2002 and 15 March 2002.
The Modification to this Certification allows for the addition of 50 linear feet of temporary stream
impacts and 0.05 acres of temporary wetland impacts as described in the Modification Request dated July
11, 2003.
The. project shall be constructed pursuant to the Application dated February 19, 2001 and the
Modification Request dated July 11, 2003 filed to construct improvements to US 1 from north of
Lakeview to south of Sanford (Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210).
The Application and the Modification Request provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill
material into the waters of the state with the proposed development will not result in a violation of
applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina
certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set
forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given, a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A. NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
;
Conditions of Certification
I. New Modifications of the Certification issued on July 19.. 2002.
1. Section R7210A, Site 1
NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to place a temporary span.across the Little
River. Construction and removal of shall be in accordance with the sequence as described in the
MoMcatiou Request and as depicted on page $2.
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to use temporary work mats for each of the
work spurs. Placement and removal of the temporary work mats shall be in accordance with the
process described in the Modification Request.
2. Section R-210A Site 16 (Harbour Borrow Sire)
NOV725-2003 11:47AM FROM--
T-794 P-004/008 F-265
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct a temporary haul road to
access the Harbour Borrow Site as depicted in drawing C1 in Appendix C of the Modification
Request. NCDWQ understands that this will result in 0.02 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
3. Section R-210A, Site 21
¦ NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct a temporary haul road
(consisting of timber mats) and temporary bridge to facilitate construction of the permanent
bridge crossing of Cranes Creek as described on pages D2 (Phase I of the construction sequence)
and D3 (Phase 11 of the construction sequence) of the Modification Request NCDWQ
understands that this will result in 0.01 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
4. Section R-210B, Site 10
¦ NCDWQ understands that due to a change in federal regulations concerning construction in
railroad corridors, the work pads will need to be reconfigured as depicted on drawing page E2 of
the Modification .Request. NCDWQ understands that this will result in a net increase of 0.02
acres of temporary wetland impacts and an increase of 50 linear feet of temporary stream impacts
for a total temporary impact of 83 linear feet as depicted on page E3 of the Modification Request.
5. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall restore the above-referenced impact sites as described in
the Appendices of the Modification Request.
6. NCDOT has requested authorization to construct five preformed scour holes (PST at the outlet of
several road storm drains to reduce stormwater discharges to non-erosive velocities as described in the
Modification Request. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to construct these PSIS,
an activity necessary to comply with Condition number 4 of the Certification issued on July 19, 2002.
The PSH that are proposed, are located in the mechanized cleating zone of the roadway. Therefore
additional wetland impacts will not occur due to the installation of these structures.
7. NCDOT has requested authorization to re-design a storm drain to eliminate the direct discharge into
the stream channel at R-210A, Site 16. NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall be allowed to
eliminate the direct discharge in accordance with the Modification Request, an activity necessary to
comply with Condition number 4 of the Certification issued on July 19, 2002. The installation of the
structure shall not involve discharging fill or dredged material into waters of the State.
8. An additional condition of this Modification is that DOT must provide DWQ (the Wedands/401 Unit)
a complete copy of the construction plans for the entire corridor of the project known as the Vass
Bypass (R-210A and R-210 B&C). These plans must be provided within 30 days of receipt of this
Modification.
11 Conditions of Certification issued on July 19.2002
The following Conditions listed in the Water Quality Certification No. 3344 issued on July 19, 2002 still
apply:
1. NCDOT must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 Nl'Us in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater
classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
NOV-25-2003 11:48AM FROM-
T-794 P.005/008 F-265
2. NCDOT shall use Pest Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 413 .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire
project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into
streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse
flow.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10 days of
ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters) to provide long term
erosion control.
6. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B.0224].
7. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final designs for the
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401
Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for
the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no
later than 30 days after the construction is completed.
8. The bridge(s) required for this project shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project.
10. The NCDOT shall be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment
and erosion control devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
11. Any bridge demolition work required by this project shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management
;practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
12. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
13. Where shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
14. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life uuless it can be shown
NOV-25-2003 11:48AM FRO-
. ,• ,
T-794 P.006/008 F-265
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be. conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures, The Applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium
shall be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
I5. NCDOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of Cameron by
constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding a minimum of 70 gallons per
minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with the Town of Cameron on
October 26, 1998.
16. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 21-L0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 41.5 acres include riverine wetlands. NCDOT will mitigate these impacts by
providing the following:
¦ 4.8 acres of on-site restoration (1:1 ratio) in the floodplain of the Little River as described in
Appendix C of the Application.
The monitoring plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the
first year and every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ 8.4 acres of on-site preservation as described in Appendix C of the Application.
¦ Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) Mitigation Site (a 327-acre site in Moore County) being
offered in total to offset the remainder of wetland impacts (36.8 acres) associated with the
project. This site includes a maximum of 49 acres of wetland restoration.
NCDOT shall place groundwater gauges on the site such that they will accurately measure
the drainage effect of the existing ditches at the SALT site. Before the additional monitoring
and re-modeling of the groundwater table of the SALT Site occurs, NCDOT shall meet with
DWQ personnel to agree upon the details of additional studies. if the resulting hydrological
modeling demonstrates that less than 36.8 acres can actually be restored, NCDOT shall obtain
wetland mitigation through in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Pxogram (WRP).
b. Stream impacts total 4,880 linear feet in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030004).
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio except where on-site
mitigation will be provided. The on-site mitigation sites will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as
detailed in Table 4, Appendix A of the February 19, 2001 Application. Compensatory mitigation
consists of the following:
¦ 1,154 linear feet of on-site stream relocation/restoration, with 50-foot buffers, using natural
channel design. The natural channel design specifications shall be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach). The plans must include
reference reach data including a sketch map, the range of values (pattern data), and all
calculations (including the determination of bankfull). The channel design should include a
floodplain terrace at stream baalfull.
NOV-25-2003 11:48AM FROW
T-794 P.007/008 F-265
The-stream relocation shall be built and maintained according to approved plans before any
mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or associated
riparian area has become unstable, the stream shalt be repaired or stabilized using only
natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the riparian
shall be maintained and/or replaced according to the approved plans. Rip-rap and other hard
structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land resources or a Delegated
Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and receive written
approval from this Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism. or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
¦ The remaining 8,068 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be provided via in-lieu payments to
wetlands Restoration Program as agreed on April 1, 1999.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 28.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC M0506(4. Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
17. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT and/or its authorized agents shall complete and return
the enclosed "Certification of Completion For] w, to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401
Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return
it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project along
with as-built drawings and photographs.
1$. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
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 that conforms to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Adm Wstrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and bindina, unless you ask for a hearing. '
This the 2nd day of September 2003
DIM OF QUALITY
.F.
NO1-25-2003 11:48AM FROM-
WQC No. 3344
D'WQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
T-794 P-008/008 F-265
Certificate of Completion
County:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, XC,
27699-1650. This fornx may be returned to J)WQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from 4 of these.
Applicant's CertiWation
11 . hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water. Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Cerdfkation.
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signa=--:
Date:
Engineer's Cern'fication
Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used
in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Date
S;;` 06-2005 11:58AM FROM-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
100VERNOR
February 6, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
REF: DWQ's July 1 9, 2002 Water Quality Certificate (WQC)
Dear Sir:
T-096 P-002/006 F-158
LYNDO TiPPE'1-I`
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for Modification to WQC No. 3344; DWQ Project No. 010404;
US 1, Vass Bypass, Moore-Lee Counties; TIP No. R-0210; Project No.
8-T560302; Federal Aid Project No. NHF-0001(3)
The Depamnent has evaluated each of the stream crossings within the construction limits
of the US-1 (Vass Bypass) project (figure 1). The following information is being submitted in
support of a request for modification of the WQC.
Condition 7 of the referenced Water Quality Certificate requires that hazardous spill
basins be installed of all scream crossings. The NCDOT has designed six (6) hazardous spill
basins for stream crossings within that portion of the Little River watershed designated as High
Quality Waters (HQW) (Figure 2). These designs were provided to your office for review and
approval and have since been transmitted to the contractor for implementation. The area of the
designated HQW zone, which includes the southern portion of the US 1 project, extends from the
project's southern terminus south of Aiken Road (SR 2175) northward to the US 1 intersection
with Lobelia Road (SR 1001)-
Outside the boundary of the HQW watershed the level of concern for hazardous spills is
somewhat less compelling. Furthermore, the design of the preexisting 2-lane roadway facilitated
left turn movements, which are significant factors in accidents involving large trucks. The new,
divided roadway will be a full control facility where turning movements will be limited to
interchange locations. Stream crossing sites outside the HQW watershed fall into two categories:
sites along US 1, north of the HQW watershed, and sites along secondary routes that intersect
with US 1.
MAILINGADDRESS: TELEPHONE 919.733-$141 LOCATION:
AIC pEF-ARTMENr OFTRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION RuILDiNG
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 Sour HWuANGTONSTRM
1548 MArL SERVICE CENTER WEBSfTE' WWW.OOf-LOOT STATE NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
.JUN-6-2005 MON 10:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 2
JL*,''-06-2005 11:59AM FROM-
Page 2
September 25, 2003
DWQ
T-096 P.003/006 F-156
The Department feels that positioning stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations
near these stream crossings should be adequate to support emergency responders during a rare
hazardous spill event. The volumes of sand or earth material and the specific locations for these
stockpiles can be discussed and coordinated with the Division of Water Quality and Moore
County emergency response staff.
Of the 22 stream crossings on US 1 north of the HQW zone there is adequate storage
space for stockpiles of sand or soil on both sides of the road at 17 sites and space exists on only
one side of the road at the 18a' site. Wetlands, or natural stream channel relocation preclude
locating sand or soil at the remaining 3 sites. The sites where space does not exist for stockpiles
include:
• R-021 OA Station 80 + 00 -L-
PL-021 OA Station 82 + 00 -L-
R-021 OC Station 31 + 80 -L-
• R-0210C Station 3 8 t 40 -L-Rev 1-
• R-02100 Station 45 + 40 -L-Rev1-
(Wetland site)
(One side of road only)
(Natural stream channel design)
(Wetland)
(Wetland)
There are four stream sites on two separate secondary roads within the construction
limits of project R-0210A. The volume of large truck traffic on these secondary routes has been
estimated to be no more than 3% of the total average daily volume of traffic. Since the principal
threat to aquatic life and overall stream water quality is posed by an accident involving tanker
trucks, it is important to recognize that tanker truck traffic represents a significantly smaller
portion of the daily traffic volume than 3%_ Given the low risks that exist for a spill event along
these secondary roads, installation of hazardous spill basins and long term maintenance of these
devices does not appear to be warranted. These intersecting roadways, designated Y2 and Y4 are
James Street (SR 1864) and Cypress Church Road (SR 2005), respectively, and their stream sites
include:
• R -0210A Station 10+ 10 Y2- (Roadside Ditch)
• R-021 DA Station 12 + 80 Y4- (No Room)
• R-02 I OA Station 10 + 80 Y4-
• R-0210A Station l 6 + 50 -Y4- (Wetlands)
You will also note that a roadside drainage ditch and wetlands preclude the location of
sand or soil stockpiles at 2 of these sites, and topography prevents it at a third site- Furthermore,
in order to position the stockpiles of fill additional right of way will be needed at each of the Y-
line sites-
JUN-6-2005 MON 10:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 3
J?F„--06-2005 11:59AM FROW
Page 2
September 25, 2003
DWQ
T-096 P-004/006 F-158
The Department respectfully requests you modify Condition 7 of the referenced WQC to
allow the use of strategically placed piles of sand or soil at stream crossings north of the HQW
area and on secondary roads within the project limits in lieu of hazardous spill basins. The
Department design staff believe they have faithfully followed the Hazardous Spill Basins design
guidelines (outlined in the NCDOT Drainage Study and Hydraulic Design Guidelines) jointly
developed by the DOT and DWQ staff in 1996." Thanks for your time and consideration to these
matters.
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
CC" Cc: John Domey, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Steve Dewitt, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA-ONE Raleigh
Fred Lamar, Attorney General's Office, Raleigh
JUN-6-2005 MON 10:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 4
s 1°?p D-
FEB i 6 PRO
SUN Sao- 2004
gM DUV
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 10, 2004
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality,
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street - Suite 714
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1 401 GROUP
FEB 10 2004
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTN.: Mr. Paul E. Rawls
Dear Sir:
Subject: R-210 Vass Bypass-Highway US 1. Notice of Violation. Response to Request
for Additional Information. DWQ Project No. 010404.
On October 4, 2002 and July 19, 2002, respectively, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) 404 Individual Permit (Action ID # 199300570) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC # 3344) were issued
for the subject project. These permits authorized construction of Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) Number R-210, Sections A, B and C. The project was let to contract on
September 30, 2002 and construction began on February, 19, 2003. On April 16, 2003
information was sent to the DWQ which demonstrated compliance with Conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9
of the DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification. On May 3, 2003 the DWQ issued a Notice
of Violation that cited violations and/or additional information requests. The requested
information was transmitted in a letter and attachments dated May 30, 2003. On August 8, 2003
the DWQ met with representatives of the NCDOT and at that meeting the NWQ requested
additional information. This letter, attachments, and references constitute our responses to the
DWQ requests.
Specifically the DWQ requested that
1. A revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The document was revised by
September 9, 2003 and transmitted to the NCDENR Land Quality Division. In
addition, the information was transmitted tot he Resident Engineer and implemented
in the field.
2. A plan for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Plan. A plan is attached for your use.
3. Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Plan. This document was transmitted to Mr.
John Dorney on December 18, 2003. A copy is enclosed for your use.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: q19-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
r
* A ?
4. Condition 15 Mitigation documentation. Documentation is enclosed. In addition a
meeting with DWQ (Cynthia Van Der Wiele) is scheduled for February 9, 2004 in the
DWQ office in Raleigh to discuss the results of the additional monitoring from the
SALT site.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
4L -,I
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D
V Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Ellis Powell, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA-ONE Raleigh
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS17E. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

- i .
?.L
of p0&iH ?q
hP~? GI,Y
o Z
q o
9,p? ASP
OFTR SQO North Carolina Department of Transportation
Roadside Environmental Unit
November 20, 2003
To: G. J. Thorpe, PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Director
From: David B. Harris, PE, CPESC 40 -y eu -
State Roadside Erosion Control and Vegetation Management Engineer
Subject: Current Status of the Roadside Environmental Units involvement with the R-210 NOV
On August 8, 2003 a meeting was held between the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
D.E.N.R. Division of Water Quality to discuss the response that had been issued by the Department of Transportation for
the R-210 NOV.
The Roadside Environmental Unit had documented two areas during the meeting that required additional
information. The first was a complete redesign of the existing erosion and sedimentation control plan for R-210 to meet
High Quality Water zone standards. The redesigned plans were completed on September 9, 2003 according to the
schedule that had been discussed during the meeting. The plans were distributed to the Resident Engineer, the Field
Operations Engineer and the Land Quality Regional Engineer. The new plan was implemented in the field to satisfy the
NOV. There is an attached copy of the current R-210 erosion and sedimentation control plan that meets High Quality
Water Standards.
The second issue involves the interpretation of the 15A NCAC 04B.0124(a) (20 Acre Rule) Design Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds regulation. As discussed during the meeting, the Department of Transportation at times exceeds the
interpretation of this regulation, but utilizes properly sized erosion and sedimentation control devices as well as
stabilization methods that protect the environment from damage resulting from siltation. This procedure is the currently
allowed by D.E.N.R. Land Quality Section in order for the Department of Transportation to construct highways in North
Carolina.
If you or your staff have any other questions please let me know at 919.733.2920
DBH/dbh
Cc: Mr. Don G. Lee
Mr. Ted Sherrod, PE, CPESC
r
.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 6, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
REF: DWQ's July 19, 2002 Water Quality Certificate (WQC)
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TiPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for Modification to WQC No. 3344; DWQ Project No. 010404;
US 1, Vass Bypass, Moore-Lee Counties; TIP No. R-0210; Project No.
8.T560302; Federal Aid Project No. NHF-0001(3)
The Department has evaluated each of the stream crossings within the construction limits
of the US-1 (Vass Bypass) project (Figure 1). The following information is being submitted in
support of a request for modification of the WQC.
Condition 7 of the referenced Water Quality Certificate requires that hazardous spill
basins be installed at all stream crossings. The NCDOT has designed six (6) hazardous spill
basins for stream crossings within that portion of the Little River watershed designated as High
Quality Waters (HQW) (Figure 2). These designs were provided to your office for review and
approval and have since been transmitted to the contractor for implementation. The area of the
designated HQW zone, which includes the southern portion of the US 1 project, extends from the
project's southern terminus south of Aiken Road (SR 2175) northward to the US 1 intersection
with Lobelia Road (SR 1001).
Outside the boundary of the HQW watershed the level of concern for hazardous spills is
somewhat less compelling. Furthermore, the design of the preexisting 2-lane roadway facilitated
left turn movements, which are significant factors in accidents involving large trucks. The new,
divided roadway will be a full control facility where turning movements will be limited to
interchange locations. Stream crossing sites outside the HQW watershed fall into two categories:
sites along US 1, north of the HQW watershed, and sites along secondary routes that intersect
with US 1.
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.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
t
Page 2
September 25, 2003
DWQ
The Department feels that positioning stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations
near these stream crossings should be adequate to support emergency responders during a rare
hazardous spill event. The volumes of sand or earth material and the specific locations for these
stockpiles can be discussed and coordinated with the Division of Water Quality and Moore
County emergency response staff.
Of the 22 stream crossings on US 1 north of the HQW zone there is adequate storage
space for stockpiles of sand or soil on both sides of the road at 17 sites and space exists on only
one side of the road at the 18`h site. Wetlands, or natural stream channel relocation preclude
locating sand or soil at the remaining 3 sites. The sites where space does not exist for stockpiles
include:
• R-021 OA Station 80 + 00 -L-
R-02 Station 82 + 00 -L-
R-02 Station 31 + 80 -L-
R-021 Station 38 + 40 -L-Revl-
• R-021 0C Station 45 + 40 -L-Revl -
(Wetland site)
(One side of road only)
(Natural stream channel design)
(Wetland)
(Wetland)
There are four stream sites on two separate secondary roads within the construction
limits of project R-0210A. The volume of large truck traffic on these secondary routes has been
estimated to be no more than 3% of the total average daily volume of traffic. Since the principal
threat to aquatic life and overall stream water quality is posed by an accident involving tanker
trucks, it is important to recognize that tanker truck traffic represents a significantly smaller
portion of the daily traffic volume than 3%. Given the low risks that exist for a spill event along
these secondary roads, installation of hazardous spill basins and long term maintenance of these
devices does not appear to be warranted. These intersecting roadways, designated Y2 and Y4 are
James Street (SR 1864) and Cypress Church Road (SR 2005), respectively, and their stream sites
include:
• R-0210A Station 10 + 10 -Y2- (Roadside Ditch)
• R-021 OA Station 12 + 80 Y4- (No Room)
• R-0210A Station 10 + 80 Y4-
• R-0210A Station 16+50-Y4- (Wetlands)
You will also note that a roadside drainage ditch and wetlands preclude the location of
sand or soil stockpiles at 2 of these sites, and topography prevents it at a third site. Furthermore,
in order to position the stockpiles of fill additional right of way will be needed at each of the Y-
line sites.
i r
Page 2
September 25, 2003
DWQ
The Department respectfully requests you modify Condition 7 of the referenced WQC to
allow the use of strategically placed piles of sand or soil at stream crossings north of the HQW
area and on secondary roads within the project limits in lieu of hazardous spill basins. The
Department design staff believe they have faithfully followed the Hazardous Spill Basins design
guidelines (outlined in the NCDOT Drainage Study and Hydraulic Design Guidelines) jointly
developed by the DOT and DWQ staff in 1996." Thanks for your time and consideration to these
matters.
Sincerely,
1d-- ?!U__
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Cc: John Dorney, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Steve Dewitt, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA-ONE Raleigh
Fred Lamar, Attorney General's Office, Raleigh

lE
w 7
t=f
¦
Mi o
c?
f f

co 4000

Q 3 N
c g m N Q co
ow

Z
a
?
r
O
A
\Y 1

N N
G>
N ai ?
0

m

r?
3?
X
fA 3
Z o
F.W :r 0
CO
tD
C
V? to
U? S
y ?
? r+
l< s
,am
d
to 0
-n W
• c
O
n -•
?* O
i
y z
Cif
T
0
A
N
I!

ccn>><o
pN N N '
Nrj m
C
O r 0wD
O
1 Z
G
N
(A
? N
N
N vi ?
0
m '
N

r Cl)
rt as
Ro
0
S y
(D
C 3•
CO) N
C
y
N
W
.a
y
N
.02.
n
e-r

3
0
0
O
3
N
-z
O
3

L

s
.a
m
s
L
L
m
J
tV
L
z
co
now
L.

O
O
to
u
z

?
O v
o
N
O N
3 tl1
m t
O H O O
r
Al- Z; L6
`
m r O N?
40 ow 0 LL

OQC CO)
?+
a
.r O N U
moon

ti
O I, %ca
$6.2
... o p 2
a?
o
Z ?? ....
d m m0
F N`"Q ? m?ccca?? 3?d
ONES
= v
Z

fn
VGC?S
I =
U
?,

r r
Condition Number 15 Mitigation
In order to comply with paragraph 2 of Condition 15 of the 401 Water Quality
Certification for the Subject project, and in so doing comply with paragraph 1, NCDOT
has contracted The Catena Group to re-model the groundwater table of the SALT
Mitigation Site.
The re-modeling effort involves the installation of three groundwater gauges placed at
50-foot intervals in a perpendicular line from a ditch at three different locations, for a
total of nine gauges. Two rain gauges were also installed to ensure no lapses in coverage
were experienced. The details of this effort were discussed with DWQ personnel in a
meeting on November 27, 2002 in the Raleigh DWQ office.
The groundwater model DRAINMOD, developed at NC State University, is being
utilized to model the SALT Mitigation Site. This was the same model used to estimate
the drainage effects of the ditches in the original Mitigation Plan. For most modeling
programs, the more observed information one has to calibrate the model the better the
accuracy of the model. While this is true for DRAINMOD, the most critical element of
DRAINMOD is to monitor a site for a long enough period of time that a typical seasonal
fluctuation is observed.
The monitoring gauges have been installed since January 1, 2003. It was initially
anticipated that the non-growing season / growing season fluctuation would be observed
within a four to six month period. However, due to the unusually wet weather that has
impacted this area of the state throughout 2003, the typical drop in the water table that
was anticipated in the growing season was not observed during this period. Therefore,
the monitoring period was extended through October 2003.
While the seasonal fluctuation was still not observed as of October, monitoring has
ceased and the model has been calibrated. As of January 7, 2004, NCDOT has requested
a meeting with DWQ personnel in the Raleigh Field Office to discuss the results of the
modeling efforts and in so doing, finalize the mitigation requirements for the R-210
project.
?Ty rSfA7Fo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
December 18, 2003
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N. C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
REF: DWQ'S July 19, 2002 Water Quality Certification
SUBJECT: Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Policy
US 1, Vass Bypass, Moore-Lee Counties;
TIP No. R-210; Project No. 83560302
Dear Mr. Dorney:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has developed a maintenance strategy for
the long-term management of the hazardous spill basins that will be constructed on the subject
project as required by DWQ's 401 certification. Cv-lplete installation of the basins will not
occur until just prior to the end of project construction. Therefore, Division forces will implement
these maintenance procedures after construction is complete.
Hazardous spill basin maintenance will be performed as outlined below:
• Annual Inspection for Structural Integrity
The spill basin will be inspected for cut slope stability and embankment erosion or scour.
Eroded areas will be repaired.
• Annual Inspection for Control Structure
Sandbags will be replaced as needed. Mechanical structures will be inspected for proper
operation. Lubrication, debris removal, and other maintenance will be performed as
required.
• Annual Inspection for Vegetation Control
Woody plants and other undesirable vegetation that may adversely affect the functionality of
the basins will be removed.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHIEF ENGINEERS OFFICE
1537 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1537
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Mr. John Dorney
December 18, 2003
Page 2
Hazardous Spill Removal and Cleanup
Immediate action will be taken in an effort to contain spills and prevent discharge into
receiving waters.
Spill removal and cleanup by contractual service provider or responsible party will proceed
as soon as possible. Disposal of hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner
consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Access to basins to remove spills will not occur via jurisdictional areas such as streams and
wetlands. If access through jurisdictional areas is absolutely necessary in order to prevent
further contamination of environmentally sensitive areas, coordination with appropriate
resources agencies will occur prior to this work being done.
A post spill inspection of the basin and appurtenances will be conducted. Any damage to
the structural integrity of the basins will be repaired upon completion of hazardous spill
removal and cleanup.
This maintenance policy will be implemented on the hazardous spill basins constructed for this
project. The Department also proposes to utilize this maintenance policy for basins that will be
constructed on future NCDOT projects across the state.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you should have further questions, please do
hesitate to contact my office at [phone].
Si r y,
W. S. Vamedoe, P.E.
Chief Engineer - Operations
WSV:jm
cc: L. A. Sanderson, P.E., State Highway Administrator
Lacy Love, P.E., Director of Asset Management
W. F. Rosser, P.E., Director of Field Operations
Steve DeWitt, P.E., Director of Construction
Roberto Canales, P.E., State Construction and Materials Engineer
Jennifer Brandenburg, P.E., State Road Maintenance Engineer
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division Construction Engineer
G. J. Thorpe, PhD, Director, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Don G. Lee, State Roadside Environmental Engineer

?t a ?J
A
r ` ?r
1U

7?lk
"

L ?

VICINITY MAP
04M To sc"
f fR
i
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE / LEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.569003T (R-210B)
US, I FROM NORTH OF SR 1825
TO NORTH OF SR 1182
SHEET q OF 5.
Od
r

O- AREVI- STA. 16 + 31.750 L.A. (R-210C)
'
-;
- 01
` llzk
SITE XV

SITE XVI
S O
R-210 B
Site 16
SITE X I V CSX Railroad
A
PINE FOREST RD. r

(SR 1173) t -
O P
10 4
?
- Y£ P?H f FO y y
,
?
SITE XI I I ? N .
- ,tot JJ
h

' 0
N
7z

SITE
XII O
w
T SITE XVII

LEE CO"^'N
MOORE COUNTY , SITE X

Abe

u?
Qt

SITE IX?-- --
MATCHLINE SITE MAP 1
SITE MAP - 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE/ LEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.569003T (R-210B)
US 1 FROM NORTH OF SR 1825
TO NORTH OF SR 1182
SHEET ._5 OF ._.S. 8/2/99
i
J •

-l- Ob+LZ •V1S 3NIl HO1VW
-if
?, : wl*i
\
1 t \\
0
F< c o m a
o i N F C y.
a
x Q o O W p
e C U °e L vE
F o cl m
4
O p C V i ,<j ON
C ? C < ? LE•1
r
z

" a
z
p ? u
\ ? a N
z
1 z
x
o
J ? ? w
i
? w
i
1
w
i C
w ?`v
V
O
2 `2
QV
?} w W
QV
O

Z
O
F
? r K O
a 2 4' - y `1 K
N ? z
'o K
m n bd n
? o O U? J S
C
R .
W> o_
ci " ?_a z
z _-
0
z
O b
A u
d b
? a
1 r z
I ? a !
* 0 0 it

\ `V
O O!
0
3
DQ
?S U f
E w
{ '0
\1 1`{
J
s
3
r
d
1?
o,
0
N
J
c
a
N
?i
W?
2^
o-W
Wm
C?
?Z
>W
?W
W
i
W
W
V
e
W?
ti
2
hm
oe ?? ? Q
?m JJJ ?
t7
?l 4 W
m o '?? a ??, Q ? Q
FW ?Q 2
2 ? J
2
2 ?R
• ? 7
3

(c1 V

+L Ito h

I ?

4 ?
1 W
2
`
i

1

? h
t
I Z

°
IZ5 .
v

LO
i
i
Q
ti\
?O
?W
Ih

fl

Q
2 -?

-F?
MQ
U
O
?c
i
I

M?
OO
in I
?Q
h
FF ?'
F?
MRY-14-200 10:00 ECS LTD.
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental
_...:_ M. G=
.gory Nelson-
S.T. Wooten Corporation
PO BOX 2408
Wilson, NC 27894-2408
RE: Estimate of Consolidation
County, NC
ECS Project #11303
91y 544 '30H2 H.02
May 13, 2003
Under Crane Mats at US I and Little Creek, Moore
Dear Mr. Nelson_
As requested ECS has evaluated the potential consolidation of the native soils at the site
under the anticipated 300 pounds per square foot load-
We understand that the crane pad will consist of 24-foot long oak mats set in two layers
perpendicular to each other, with the joints staggered.
ECS has reviewed the logs of the borings advanced by S&ME, Inc. Based on the
conditions encountered in those borings, it is our opinion that the majority of
consolidation would likely occur in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Therefore relatively
undisturbed samples of the soil wete obtained from the surface to a depth of 3 feet by
hand angering and driving Shelby tubes.
The soils recovered consist of a few inches of topsoil underlain by brown fine sandy low
plasticity CLAY. The CLAY layer was encountered at approximately 2 inches below the
ground surface with a layer thickness ranging from 4 to 22 inches. Below the CLAY
layer, a brown meditun to coarse grained SAND was encountered to the depth explored, 3
feet. The depth to the sand layer varied from 6 inches to 24 inches below the ground
surface.-
It is our opinion that the majority of permanent settlement will occur in the CLAY
encountered to depths of 6 to 24 inches below the ground surface. The deeper soils are
anticipated to behave in a relatively elastic manner, rebounding after the loads are
removed.
In our opinion, approximately V. to ill of an inch of settlement will occur under the
specified load. Settlement of up to %2 of an inch will not, in our opinion, adversely effect
plant growth or other biological fimctions in the soil over the long run.,?,s ?' '•
Respectfully,
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD
Chris M. Caton Tb

V. Admay, P-E.
P. O. Box 12015, Rcsearah Triangle Park. North Carolina 27709. [phone] - PAX (919) SAA-0810.1-800-327=5832 - wv
TOTAL P.02
1
J
8 q 05/14/03 WED 10:00 [TX/RX NO 6968]
t?
Abcrd a MD0 • Atlm t& GA - Austin. TX - B7iltR am tD • Chantilly, VA, Qmrlottt, NC - Odmgo, LL - Cornelia. GAO - Deltas, TX • b=Vllte. VA- - FkedcricL MD - C-aiQida6urg. V^
G cenkosn, NC, Gmeny te, SC • Norfolt vA - Rmcwch TnmWe ft& NC • Ridlm man4 VA - ItUnttoke- VA - San Antonia. TX • Urdlimnstw& VA - wamingom. NC • Windterer. VA
'Testing Services 0@y
Table ]056-1
Physical Properties of Engineering Fabrics
0
s
Pb?sicalPrapcrrc TrslAletbod T., pcI Tire' Type 3 Type4
ti
l
41156
La
?
r
r
c
-
,
Class A C•lau 11
Minimum Rill WAIT, -- -" -- 36' (914.4 111111) 36' (914.4 nun)
Aiiuinuwi F:ilii ij tt'ci?lu --" 1 4 oz./Yd' -- -- _- --
10. I3 Aghn-t
Alinimum Trnsilc Su'rn?lh _ 90111. .001/5. (890 N) 50 lb. (222 N) 100 lb. (445 N) 200 lb.
1400 N) (890 N)
Eloneation _ 80t: Alas. )SSi•hIm. 301,'. Max. 25% Max- --
Alininunn Bulsl SOenedt (kP:n) lilt psi t 03,41 100 psi 127581 100 psi t684) ISO psi 11241) 390 psi
(2700)
Alinimum Puncture Strength 4. 4A for Type 4 45 lb. 1100 N) SO lb. 1356 N) 30 lb. (133 Ni 60 lb. (267 N) 80 11».
(356 N)
Apparent Gpenine Size- Aiax/Afit) 5 60/100 30/1 30 30/50 20/50 30/80
1Standard Sicce) 1,111111 (.2511/0.150) (O-6UU/0.115) 10.850/0.300) 10.850/0.3001 (0.6(1/0.18)
Mininuuu Ultraviolet Exposure 6 SO lb. (356 N) 14016. 1623 N) 40 lb. (178 N) 80 lb. (356 N) --
Strength Retention
Fun_tus Resistance 7 No Grotah No Growth No Growh No Growth No Growh
Minimum Permeability (Thickness x 8 0.2 cnVsec
Ptrmiuilicity)
Minimum Penninhivity u -- -- U. 15 See'[ 0.15 Sec" --
(407 Urnin/tw (407 Vn irdni )
Typical Applications Shoulder Drain Under Rip Rap Temporary Sill Fence For Soil
Stabilization
rA
a
Q
oz
o l:l
00
W W
A
Cr
Q
U
A
z
Q'
a
u
o
G cb C
r .? C4
o
•J- v
U
w 4- -=
u. U u
Q
?z
Q1 S O
u
c? to -p
v a
4,
4
U U O
'fl= q
? U
int
G U
t. (A N
O h
N 4) U
.a a y
n U O
Z w o
W u ?"
u
v T O U
_N
cl
r Q U Q
O u `a
045
, APPENDIX C
R-210 A Site 16 - Harbour Borrow Pit Haul Road
WETLAND BOUNDARY
G 1 -
9y
Ji
82+00
Y
W
a?
E
D
. i
O ?
m
(L
Y
?1 ~
V
8H00

80 flop =
N

1 1

V-- c

.Y•
•
I

r

P C
?4
I r?-

i as P
l
1

- o' 1, ul o•st

I ? / d
J
_.? o ._ a•it
1,

9. .1
??-
I
•1
? b

a
14
t W?\

NY 0 ? 1
O t 1 •?

- I-V';I?bL -71b ?NI ItiJlyVy
0
ti
?

O U
K u
o _ •i l
1?

K w
"r F
1- _
C W ?
- L ut
p
W W ?V DI
a
vl _
_
W i G o
= -- `
?
uKOr W ? q
_:.. ..c_. _ . _
s.. O
0
o eW
e G q O ?
_
w ?o - V

_ - -
G
K}-z O
0 W
00 F ¢ N 4 x
u a? S C
z u o o vi w, W m 4
?
U „ U W c ? -• Y
H a> a 4?/I J W
F
a? F O-2 rt W
G
?s
x m dw oo
.

? J

J ?u o .;
O J < ? rt
1 J :) l
u S -YE
z
?.

u

4 U N

W ?. K
i W W.0 41
n N ? "ol
N a Iv
0
`'
°dW
r 0 _oou ° o
W >
i t-?J
O a
off u =
w
-:
W a s _ o W

ti Y y C R
J W T -
w
Q OS n
U F-
K "'? ` C ?Y C _ ?I
H= G O n S
r
r avr2- ° o
c 0 z u Q-

Q ' z
u o o
u 0 0- 1.. m a ,rql c?I
oi ..mac

r H
C>
C
n
H
» H
O, C W

W
D S n o•uYmO
O
.1 j

J ?

IJU•.
r z -
c' O < d

='"•o O
_ -13 u
o b o :E o .1

:Ix
i a /
_ ^/
44
r?l J < _

p` W
N
a
w
r
J ?
J ?
Ol ?(1
?a
a >o
a
--=
V
v9
1?? t
8z- 00
J W
C ?
?- M a
V
Z ?
Q° ?A
9 fi
4 c? V
J of
?
? ! - ? \ 8lf00
h h i
? Q
v
?xr. `ham `sue
T ` F
"'v b
. J CU O
a 111...
W o?, '
' O too
p n
w

a
V
?-

1
U
s ? k ?.I a

!
O 'U
'`y I
10,
I
• Y/'9v
q? ti .., I I

T 7 ;? I

N or Ny ?: /. 1 / "aJ
s
6-3 W I

f -

11
j
f

''.
n.

\
'.E 7

' nv 031 \ . I
o .: • L
\'\v.
.1 Z". o I EFT

- i- V'; +bL -VI" dNl IY1?1VVy
Q
`C
N
c
0
11
J
p?
J O
N
o c

I_ C C
w
Woo 0
o z
u
_ _
W > O
U ?. C r
2 a W iJ _
>

4 u
CO>
?

U r - ?
W "1 O 7
u "1 "? ? 4 LL

u
O w ~ CIO
ci
u ur ••.
z u•n
'n
_x c
a?
_
z 2 00 O '
00 .. W OK
V
U O U ??u
0 4 V
S In W m O W n .n K W

>
n
F O a u
rt W
o
? O
- = ? qq
m a UTaO _
?n n
J
J Guy ';
7 3 5cc z
`e
J ?
V
may. O 4U u In
`
C F U S P
V 4 71- F
C

V 'e
?• W W 1n Q
- W ? LI
LI
?, ?^ W > O x
U S O !• W
?
F 40.W >O p

(e
V
-O i,
U 0. M O
W
0 0 =WU
A F -u - o
W ?y=?
W

4 U

h a2 w N 41

WS ?
UH„r

00
W o?
U 0 ou U
0
0
0
W FU :?1?

`Q-
,?, 2? ? ? O W w 1n ¢ W F
p F ¢
h 4 Ll
O„
20 p
S , ^
ew
m 0. U?a0O N N
- o
o ?
F .l > ?
2 _J3
J
r z Lu`o
5 <
V U ? - i
U
t3 vi U
_ o 0 0?0
?.=.I a
d
S
N
F •?
•„ a
7 -
Li 1
v
3 N
?ww
-e
' C
W
r
A

I
821 00 -
m
An
r
? J
0
a
? d
O 1J
n. m
j
SIf00
so too
JI'?.
>
,
I i la•
J
I n

7
,
I ?
1
I
I ?
?
\,
r O a I 4]
1 _

i 1 Q J

10• GI "A
` I

o ? s'
CI I
? ? I
I ?
I
' i ? te::
A zo
N ? r

1

i
i•
_ u li - ??nr ?? u•s1

`
' _ ., v I I
ii
, I.• 0.51
•? ®
i`' ? ?
`; a
1 r I

1 n
t(j• '
r
LA MA

- I - '?. ay

i 1 :fi a

i7i

I NY 0
S•d
•
'
.
u•
' "1 •
\
?
I ?
1 •
L 1
10 t ? ?r?
•
jl j ?`...
- 1- (,"7+bL GL5 -INI Ir•IJlytry

O •c
O
•i
u w ,,
F r, U ? ~ h i
_ C C W W y ,j W ?'1

y
-
7 W O
U,(OF
w
w
?

O
a o. O 1
-pM ?
v
i u -=
1
M
w =?n O V

M V
l
(?
K O -
2 2 O¢ _O y 3
a W F Cv,?S N O
q0q 0 •- u O¢ •?
U O U O W C 2 :?
wl?
C F O >
¢ u4. y R iwi
°o z m ailsao y
J
-mss •,
3 ?uu. i
? 3 SAN z
_ V O
V L
Q

0 e

0 0 0 ? ?_ ?
Y
0 F
a r, V -. S
7F F
d
? ? ? Y O ? WI ?y0 LI
m
Jt

V Q
N p

u i WF 1=1

o
J
f
a j ?
L41
1?
a u
o
?au
d
W
IV °yo
a
3 Q F " pa U
l
,
O H O ia?• wwg

7
pp?? ?

p Z
O S

?
V F ,Vi n

"
'-

Ina
11

??
W <
w2 ?
=
oco?. - 1

`u `p u wtt-`
•.
y
a V
- c> S
o» F o.(co. a

c w
zo z o
.uo ?
a u

4

=3'
•}"1 , Gum
O < d

u ?= r
61
o
i?
2 0 0 0 '` o

\ lax ? ? K

F
ar
f
A
finish, we can provide you with a bridge that will meet your needs (and budget). Give us
a call to demonstrate what we can do for you! Many sizes in stock and ready to roll.
VV%.T boo fo! d to hearing from you soon!
-3G 5•
~j a
http://www.prsx.com/l)rldges.htm I?

3/11/2003
510= 6 Si .3 HOC
l ,z} /J.e/c19G3 gg ' X 9 f 57'
/
(z7..., x 6,-J)
? u
? c.
1
I
I
I
I
I
? N
I
I
I
t
I /
?
1
I
?
1

bk

?jk

\

z

1 Ck6V
"-
4,
'
o
G:°Qa
av

v,

E- 0
a pp W Oz
/ O ?•
IS:
1g / ' \
W _,(A'
y =* y \\
W ? \
am o-m
r? a
°z z
? `\ ? k61 a ? a a
1 1
Q \
r yyp99 \ Cn
r sa 1 ?
N „? N
D l
1
1
1
11 ?
f
/
/
w
12905ft^2
1199 m^2
20.00 m
mat area per plan sheet 23 of 37
original plan
13619sf
1265 n"2
20.00 m
I
n
listed mat area for plan and proposed details are
calculated areas taken from plan sheets 23 of 37
digitized and scaled to scale listed on plan sheet
N
v
c?
1 1. -, .? \
3K 0#00
I \ ?
Gr lob
1 ?
1
1 ?
1 CS o ? '?I
\ 1?'
\ 1 •
36
rj*
Z C ? ?
p O G ?-3 Z
can
ry 3r
z
z rAl
.a. Z •?c 1, 1 ?.. , ?
Z as ? ? •
00,
• 1
-4
;I
,.
,NZ
w o -? -: z o ?r /, o
Cep Crr1 `j v 201
W, 4
w?v d
41
tAj 70
04
b? -
•m o o
0 ti (w,.f N ?0 1 pct
Fm ° "? A A A
00 G a? AtiaT A
C4 o7\i? 2v9 cgMp?,A a•p A H o
A. Cr. p,o
a r r) p A o ? or ". 00 f D a o
G ? l9 ?. A ...
;7 M P- CL
i? 52
U

I

z?

I m

LL
M
O
C\J ix- 0
0 9L ^ 1 E-4

I
N
QLo

r

i

E _
V?
O
O m

G (? cf3
E..4
E--4 0 rj)

?. ? .
z a 06
rz.
H g
o 0

H
N
N
N
N b N N
N N
K o
ICI ® IU4 w
~'
C??
J1 ?l aR
' N N O I/? h"' Q`
? V
ff M

I?
) N N N

N
N
dp 3
1
'

?
VI
1 o .
K < •
II•• N N N
N N N N N N yy?1
N' '?I ?Y 'II '
' I?
pr FQ \ '
xmy

r up U
6•
Q ??
?

-

••
v
Q

'
'
/1
i?l
1-?
w
d Sn • • ?M ;N it ? ?
O WW
K W 1
IN,

R
C, ? :H lM JM

•• ¢ Gy

l±?
fTJ U
m
W

?'/' 9: all U
E Q
N >il Ill aN ii
O
a 1-1

?!
aN
i

2
el
:N
a4
p?
?'I
x i

vl ali :N 7)I
r ? * ??'

••
?••

G
K
< 4
s
Ili N (
u
m
?
)AN
~ '
4 3

s? 6 Y

cc

1 J O
.-.
Z
Q ¢
J
V
LA rr

O
aX
4
l l 0 LL <r
?
W
a: La
w
m w~
w ?U ln?
W CAJ
WU
' W
*? ; b I
-?
O
w Z? °z z°
FI
n
o
Oy
W
i

H
<
^

'
I
'
E

J?
R O W

U) O

r •
f
f f
f f
S 1
i ~• I o? V) f f
1
Y
J BAR RANCH
\ DB 530 PG 988
DB 453 PC 618
PROP. LAT. 'V' DITCH \ 47/ -
1?iDF +20.000 -L-
6 8-000 000 (LT)
TOE.
ZL?'AS' HAYES
SPECIAL TYPE 'A' SILT BASIN \ / 45.000 (LT)
W/ PERFORATED 600rtrn CS 'a? •/ ?(147.64 )
RISER / TEE 156
C
%•-? ' CLASS 8 RIP RAP
25 MI FILTER FABRIC
PZEFOaAACD
Hot.6
j ?• ?? U0,
J L T
W/ ILTER FABRIC
ROP AT. B 0 C! W___` .? ---- 40aCS 2G1 W/
s?rr w/ EL6n- ` FLAT GRA7
C/s•/ - ?? 2GI DETAIL IIISUMP `

ilk $,
h1oR12Dm-rAL LE
BE=
O ID 20 Aom
W%A9SM' FILTER F,
617Y/v0•l5
DENOTES FILL 1 N Inl T:TLA.V D.
DENOTES :ILL),' SURFA(-_ WATci..
Q p p p p p p DEnlO rES TEt1R IMYAC.T IN L.)F- T LA ND
QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q DLIGTD MEU•+ANICAL C.LEARIMCr
BEYOND C 0r4STFCL.IC.TIDIJ OMITS.
H '
iJ

.
,
f
T
?r

f
:f
r
[t V .

?S

Y
1
HORIZONTAL -S/-ALE
lam Now=
O ID Zo AOm
s1 T-C /c?
4o0 c-?
1 F_ Lf?jc t?5
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
OENaTCS FILL IN W/TIA.vO.
MOORE COUNTY
8.T560302 R-210A
DEN ?T??,:ILLIN SURFACE WG7E?. PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
p p p p p p p vENOTCS TEMP. iMi cCT IN h1 ET ANp CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
pp p p p p p p DuaTo MECHANICAL CIEAklrIC- MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U. S. 1
o_YOuD l1M57cwLTIOrI untT?: BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET -af OF S? NOVEMEBER 1997
env o41?5/?3

J
OD
O
O

J
O
O
15
WWI

•i: J N C-10 MA N
`t
1
?
J •

• J
- I
U 1
_y

2GI W/
FLAT GRATE
'
-
?'
4-6 •n ?
•
,: _
••
?
,

- •- .

...
RM
01
O
4 CS W 2-EFoaMk_-ti

LA V,
t' .1101.16
_'w ?_ . ' ?.. _ 1
'• -
-
4
• 11 _
Q
y L
ttA55 ) 'B' RIP RAP
W/ 6 m FILTER FABRIC CLAS A.-
W/ B T=_IeT - A

r.
6
=
Y '_'
s ¦
A
- m
FILTE FABRIC Z
M
ONLY N L ROP. Y ?t;
TOE PROTECTIO
J
tTYP.)
N
SI
TE 2 1

i ' 440:000 -L-
`
_
-, -. Q
X5.000 (RT) :
iT
t
' ...,_.._..
A
LA•
?
i
rG1' ),,
??. I ^?
W/ 117 m= FII,jEB
...-"
'-
+•' -FABRIC
-E?
?
?
i
EER ...._ IS CL CNEER
I ...
Ci- S ? ..

REDGA R. THOMAS
DO 133 PG 406
- SfTE?2(
SCALE
20121 10 0 20121
DLNOTL-S FILL IN W1'sTLAND
- _J DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATWI.
n n o o v o n DENOTES TIENU'. MU'AC'P IN WILILAND
n A o n n A A A UUL TO MECIIANICAL CLEMUNU
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LINUTS
SCALE AS SHOWN p
SHEET-41 OF ??O NOVEMEBER 1997
(ZEV 041151 o 3
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MOORE COUNTY
8.T560302 R-210A
PROPOSED GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, FENCING
CULVERTS, STRUCTURES, SIGNING, PAVEMENT
MARKINGS, AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825.
x
A W
0 ow d?i 1 ? ? •r , r
?? " Sj? 1B
its
a ? i? 1 el'?` sY
rl?' I r i is ? 1v
4f /
?? f e Y g? ?7 % it /
7 i."
CIO
SITE #16 i
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
® DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND MOORE COUNTY
8-T560302
DENOTES EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS PROPOSED GRADING. PAVING. DRAINAGE. FENCING
CULVERTS. STRUCTURES. SIGNING. PAVEMENT
MARKINGS. AND SIGNALS ON PROPOSED U.S. 1
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER BYPASS FROM SR 2175 AT LAKEVIEW TO NORTHEAST
OF SR 1825
°ooo°o° DENOTES TEMP. IMPACT IN WETLAND SCALE AS SHOWN
DUE TO MECHANICAL CLEARING
BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHEETo DF-
REJ o4•/)5]ol
:0 I I i ME14
q N I I' ' w
A i I e
\ i r^II 1. I I7.2 T.O? 7.0 7.2 I •2 I,'
S. I I
P. S. P. S. I ' ?? j I r
^ I of
n
a w. N= k= iK k N I` ?I I? ° • I NC NC I
1 ?!
S ?? v om I n Ai:f. ? O
I I ?? III= I
C)
tiz I I <,:.•
?• I i I ? p m??'.
I II r-IU, I )l^
I o
I t i ?N I I ir°
Y N. N
? I 1 ~0 I N yi:.
,' I ?I ro ?, Ib
` ? O I ?N !Ji i I m
1
III ?m 20+00
o? 1 I ? 1 I
mm
a >
?T tn^ ZI I I
3 ' YD I? O I al i I I
m I I ?'I I
3 i c ?? I =?1 I I I.
µ r N k< k: M2 -
10
A Z.,
•., I 1 m- I ?i I n
t:D
mm CD r,
K ?- I Ii I! As:l I I
` I I ? ;:111NO ?Z
II m > I
i O I O-.I O
fi m <_, D 0
o a I I _ A j I I ma l O
i.,
co ?# !? I I I I li I C) C
C) z
? m ?" ( I I I i I -.om
?A
O?F . /I 4 I I I I I I I I 'D0 -
k. C)
N I I I II I 0
m I j I
mm N Y- kN
N I'I I I
\
m i I ^• III n III I .I I
r ?< tiz I
1 '"m ? Im A I II
< m V' I ~ I I I
. K k. u § ? ` „ ? x m_ .I p
W Iri s
/r ?' / ;' IIJ 1 II I I !? ? I I
I I?
21+00
I I^ ? ' I
r ? r ? A I I I
a
Tyl I I '?I 11 I I
a I I I I I I I
I
'? I III i III ILI
NA.. nRi
I I. I ? 1 i I: I I ° a° y
. 4 11 I
I I I I'I i I
I o v mm I ?'?r? I I II II I / I
m I
p`•
?0 ? I. I I III I.,
.. t r IF ti i ?? m i , II II I I I I I i I .
I
F I I li !I
I
r of , ? ,, II 11 I'I
mj a1 11 `y I I I'I II I
?\ i ml I 1 it `? L
r 1 I '' `
I ? m n 1 i
N N N ? m
m I
E-V
'1 I y I .1:
m o "I I'•
A z / I ` 1 I
r---- \` ` 22+00
m m k k k- ?{- 9 1 1 _ .
OO
p A 375 RCP `-
01
-r I I
-, I I t •J
37
I I
0o m o
Dk I
D r cn/? r Q, 1 ' n.
? V i I `.t t 1
Z
Ntn mn ? / L
Comm I I P. S. MM rr il:
?o ^t
m 1 <oooz
y I w,' ,Ili. 1
m= DD v o; y I 1 oc t, 1. ?1 '?. 6"1y `.
I . 1
tom 0
rc ° rmi =Z
A !7
m m C• ` II N N >N I , '?11 •, -+ I F ht 'E $ rte'
yW
x 74
V y N2 ,...Z j , A yr?Jy
O 11 ?r I i 1 - IA•1 rr
D TI O T I A NC NC CT CA
41,
1 mr? m? ?z ,_2 c,
AND X0
rh 3 A I? ?? P. S. 5. W f-70-,1` 1 t; .r r^?
o o ?? a
C p`C ? N ?I ,
j j 7.2 7 0 7 0 7.2 t.2
N A I4 In , z? C
0 45.0 I m z
+00
+4, All
X 23+00
_
MATCHL I NE TO SHEET 7
y STATION 23+00
t I 1 I I I i t I I 1 1 I ? 1 I I 1 1 I ! I I I b ?,?
a
MATCHLINE TO Y
w,TEA z. STATION 30+60ET 8
-00
o° 1`k w,
w h ? ? k• ,?.,., \ :.?,V 1 ?? P.S. ? ?B ?. w n r '
o•
D ?..? .fa r? ?° vlm { o m
wm ' .?\ \ 7.0 . 7.2 •-x a N m5 I rL
r, m
_ \ m 1.
o o Qi v p I
1.2 i b R m m z
w w
w w w w 3-.4 .71
w w ,o w R 1 0• 02', r r Of Df
c qsz.. { Ncs?
N? m st n x 6j O-
.
m
0 / i? ? w!y
+06
r- CZ m? z yooyv °J ??V / __
.04
Cn C7? /? II 04
fl ° m ? •?Y
.05 I r
(A= u5
\.\
°o mm
°W ' c
OCnNA?j`N r k m
O 1 l /
,' 1 W ?mtiN / rn I r - /
OOm a 1 ~ 1
?mm
Ir w w - 11c (n
z4 a ?j
CD ooo_ z Iz I 3 n - ??
°zT
I m
C)
°p=
r Z
p
co m y r 'l z r rsa k, w. AL1Z P P1 omm I k?? fJl ' k• ``wTe ./'
in
n l y G tool m wzl-
? Qj U1 (/1 / N ?• NII .. ? I D ?
ap -_YN3=,•'? k 4I K? IK 'r. I k? k k Y .. ?..__/'
L4 u -1 wt.9.-
m y z 3 y y
Ep ? w w r k? k< I w ? w k' w w wW / .. Y +' ..
r ,2+00
lllj
w w / w w w R w z wI w I w ?pw w w is il x y
C'o
)I I /,
,a
{ K k= w !? w v wl ? - I k= ? %= k' ?. w y ?' k' w r ,.
???•' nm
r I // O
r: w w w w w - w wj w I w a w w w rrn r w w w
n ~ wZ
D
k Y: y r r r
4 a k w K I w µ'. r k' O Cc'f -n
r I ??/ J N v
J wm
• M
w w w w ki w k ` V.. I!' W w r w i• p^a?R
w !F
II I M°
m' D n A \
I / L rm ? o
_ w x w v; k: R w k) w I .- ; k' µ: x r: f r -
°r mtn I
F ?(- k >f iF w w w ! Nw? O1 I X i! w k' Y i 1' '' I'
m
'A '.
r
N37 RCP I ^
/ mI c3I N
e k k• k- k? w .k= w -Ni?= ®•, 3 IN' m
aI w ? 3 " 33+00
ws-- / m m Ir
K K .
w w w w m k. w ?. m -k: it,
a
z
W, "K
Rl- W.
`l i an
z, \ to
m
w w It 1, O I i 7? m Q o R kt?.l w 'm e` ' Iti W. k,
y A •rtB? _ _
2 'J / \ 1 rl T T J( ?
A / ? I •
0 o xo OS I N r r !1
05
m,n
co / k- .. . z w w w c w
cam to fr .. .. ,
m
A
_
mz a.
LoO / a oz o z z N
w n ?j, w Y I W w w y
m ! k w w w w .cy? In
mm s z .,r I
D 04 w? .04 m° w? - -
m LA - -
r I
xm ? ,
m I n° ? 1
-.1 , CD Z 1Ao ?. ,.-,..
C-- zmm
.03
n••f• I\Y? p .
P• v .0 In I I y <°O- t; w° ;•_,+ r„?T .
N A 1` I rmmti ^. ?. .,
(D ;o
r • ??7 O `4 'd; $il m Ilpny N
C• n+, 0 z ss n I Ao ?z =z •.A c'?•. •
/ ?. pU z n .02 pr ?nicr N Q m _ .rn
\2fer. ?. 0 A .02 I n r W• ? y ???ii. ?.
Jyk. _? 0 3 3 O>, O T o w m A P o O a N.

_' r} CD Q, 0 -• r ?
-0 mm In
m 1C' A to
O.DZD 3 ro
00

0 =

N G C (

-drN

why y

y n _

o
g''
f.z'

•. ..
`P O p
a
P co
y
?? .,m2 @ W. °

u o _
Ow
M3 n 01
ro 37
0 RCP z c
2
i ° N

O a + r
f>t N V
°o w

/ 7.0
s l.
1.2
P s 7 az 14 0 .
P• m
-d t7
-M
! j1 3?9
13/
--
\

?
,. ,
? N
m.
AN
w ` C
9 45.0
' isa a ns
/?9 ?
?.
i
•9
?
`.
°r? ?
?+?g k N r
•F?
O n ? \ ? 1.00 ,?o ti ?
A c9a . 5
?•.:
tl p
C •o
_ g t ? \ 45.0 t
?s \
' 10
\.

"

''
LINE TO
MATC ET
SHE
34+40
" STATION
h

O Z

T m Mm
m0 0 l
O
W (
-4 3
-uT m
m

AD
o
m
71
y
'
3

-A r
W
r
N

-1 n ,

m
v C3

0
z s ? °

v v
v m m
? m
D?-
_
_ 0 f7

17

•\ W.W,o
0
? 2
0m
0002
\
o
\ + r oma'f
mmx
v
\ It n;m
n
JN It
D
_
Z
O
\ Nr
\ 3110 ,
m33
3

M[6 - -
?r
0 z
Z
gyM
?A
O x,00
w ?
?
'•^m
? z
asm
U r in
U r •4
D
m .4
om
n ?-
m
a
n
L
-- '- --?C fLgb'SZx
I
?
T ?1 a
?K

of
-r
? I
n
xv
0
m
ar
T

r- ,
^
m
n I
;
N ?
m
mm
m
Z

M in

L" x
m
xm
o
T

m I
m -1
m
m
N

?

_
LlziiEl
i
r
N
I ? \

I ? Z

?•i I W W
a
y 0. 00 m m It
y w Z
m
N •7
T
-0
x.?
wM
w m
? .Z1
N O
o m
n .? 35+00 \\
:n yr
a p•
to
or
o .0z
m D \
cc O
T
?•
N
-i
m
A
nr
0s
oz
v z
vr'm
s
moo
W -0 T
?
a 'J- m
J r- ,
w r- ,
m
vm
m
x; 36+00 -
i
z tivm-Ir.l ,
n
31
8002M
0 m 0
?OmnOC ^
C mm S Z N -
a - ,
?2 m_ 2
O U?r
N 11'
13w '
?r
z?
gym r
- \
m o o \'r
O?TM\ 37+00
m, m
>?
ms
m
C', m r.
? m
w{
?m
r?7 m ?
o
o
m
C?
, , 1 1 1 I? 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i! i I 11 I I I I' I ?
JL?1-06-2005 11:59AM FROM- T-096 P-005/006 F-158
GIRM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FEB 16 2004
DWQ
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 10, 2004
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality,
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street - Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
ATTN.: Mr. Paul E. Rawls
LYNDo T1PFETT
SECRETARY
WaTLANDS 1401 CR01J'
FFg 10 2004
WAMP, QUALM' SECT&I
Dear Sir:
Subject: R-210 Vass Bypass-Highway US 1. Notice of Violation. Response to Request
for Additional Information. DWQ Project No. 010404.
On October 4, 2002 and July 19, 2002, respectively, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) 404 Individual Permit (Action ID # 199300570) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC # 3344) were issued
for the subject project. These permits authorized construction of Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) Number R-210, Sections A, B and C. The project was let to contract on
September 30, 2002 and construction began on February. 19, 2003. On April 16, 2003
information was sent to the DWQ which demonstrated compliance with Conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9
of the DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification. On May 3, 2003 the DWQ issued a Notice
of Violation that cited violations and/or additional information requests. The requested
information was transmitted in a letter and attachments dated May 30, 2003. On August 8, 2003
the DWQ met with representatives of the NCDOT and at that meeting the NWQ requested
additional information. This letter, attachments, and references constitute our responses to the
DWQ requests.
Specifically the DWQ requested that
1. A revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The document was revised by
September 9, 2003 and transmitted to the NCDENR Land Quality Division. In
addition, the information was transmitted tot he Resident Engineer and implemented
in the field.
2. A plan for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Plan. A plan is attached for your use.
3. Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Plan. This document was transmitted to Mr.
John Dorney on December 18, 2003. A copy is enclosed for your use-
LOCATION:
?1 LOCATION:
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEFpHPFIOONF.: ; q1g? 73333-3.3141 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT Of 7 ATpN 1 SIXTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND CNwRONmENTAL ANALYSIS RALP-mm NC
YVEBSlTE: yyy?+yy ppN.00T.STATE.NC. W
1545 M&IL SERVE CENTER
RALHIGn NO 776 99-1 54 8
JUN-6-8005 MON 10:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 5
Jed-06-2005 11:59AM FROM-
T-096 P.006/006 F-156
4. Condition 15 Mitigation documentation. Documentation is enclosed. In addition a
meeting with DWQ (Cynthia Van Der Wiele) is scheduled for February 9, 2004 in the
DWQ office in Raleigh to discuss the results of the additional monitoring from the
SALT site.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Grego . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: John Domey, DWQ Raleigh
US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Office
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8
Ellis Powell, P.E., State Construction Engineer, Raleigh
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental, Raleigh
Phil Harris, P.E., PDEA- ONE Raleigh
MAlllNG ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: X19-733.3141
NC DEPARTMENT OF T"NsFoRTATIDN FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANb ENviRONMPISITAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERvcE CENTER WitOWTE. WWW_D0H.a0T.5TATE NC. US
RALEJGH INC 27699-1548
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
T SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALaSH NC
JUN-6-2005 MON 10:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 6
r & WArF9
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
fP" Alan W. Klimek, P.E.; Director
q Division of Water Quality
qw-1 Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
5
Division of Water Quality .
March 22, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Modification Request for Individual §401 Water Quality Certification No. 3344 (DWQ No. 010404).
Moore and Lee Counties; US 1 Bypass of Vass from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford; F.A.
Project NHF-0001(3); State Project 8.T560302; TIP No. R-210.
The Division of Water Quality staff.has reviewed your February 6, 2004 letter requesting a modification
to Condition 7. Condition 7 requires hazardous spill catch b sins (HSCBs) at all stream crossings along
the project limits. DWQ understands that NCDOT has designed six (6) hazardous spill catch basins for
stream crossings within the Little River watershed designated As High Quality Waters (HQW). It is
DWQ's understanding that NCDOT. does not wish to install hazardous spill catch basins on the remaining
stream crossings within the project limits-22 crossings on US l\north of the HQW zone and four (4)
crossings on two secondary roads within the project limits. NCDOT has proposed using "stockpiles of
sand or soil at strategic locations near these stream crossings". as an'. ".adequate" means of supporting
emergency responders during. a hazardous spill event.
The Division of the Water Quality has the following comments:.
1. DWQ concurs with NCDOT's rationale for not requiring HSCBs along the secondary roads
associated with the R-210 project. Because of the low volume of truck traffic estimated along
these secondary roads, water supplies and other protected waters would be at minimal risk
associated with a hazardous materials spill. The four (4) locations are identified on page 2 of the
February 6, 2004 modification request letter. NCDOT's reasons are consistent with the current .
requirements developed by DWQ and NCDOT (see Appendix O. of the Guidelines for Drainage
Studies and Hydraulic Design
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstrucd ighway/hydro/g10399web/).
2. DWQ does not concur with NCDOT's alternative proposal for the placement of sand or earth
material near any of the stream crossings. The purpose of HSCBs is to contain a spill until the
appropriate response agencies can contain and clean up the hazardous material. Sand and/or soil
stockpiles would be completely ineffective. in slowing the flow of spilled material.
¦ Heavy equipment to move stockpiles of sand/soil is generally not immediately available, in
the event of -an emergency. Reconfiguring stockpiled material into a catchment form to block
the path to a stream is time-consuming and potentially unsafe.. If the material is volatile. or
poisonous, operators would be at a great ri sk of exposure to toxic, flammable or corrosive
chemicals.
AM.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center,.Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax)., (http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncweilands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Response to Request for Modification to WQC No. 3344
Vass Bypass, TIP Project R-210
¦ Sand/soil stockpiles near streams would be potentially subject to water and wind erosion and
flood events. If covered with grass or weeds (over time), these piles of sand/soil•would be an
indistinguishable feature on the landscape during a nighttime spill event.
¦ Under USEPA's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations (see 40
CFR Part 112) and related program guidelines for fixed facility spills, this practice would not
be considered a `good engineering practice' even if heavy equipment was immediately
available on-site.
¦ Under 29 CFR 1910.120 regulations for emergency response safety requirements,
contamination avoidance is the primary goal for all response personnel. Placing sand/soil
stockpiles and equipment and personnel in the path of a hazardous material spill while
ongoing; is dangerous and contrary to safety regulations and EPA standard field operating .
procedures.
¦ "Good" engineered practices for spill containment include passive collection and containment
devices which can be remotely closed during a spill, put personnel at minimal risk, and hold
the spill until the appropriate response agencies arrive on the scene to re-containerize the
spill.
¦ Most rural counties in North Carolina lack fully tained, experienced hazardous material
responders. It is our understanding that Moore an %8=ties . County lack the resources and
expertise in spill containment and cleanup. Many lack the heavy equipment,
response vans and trailers, and other support vehicle?;.and personnel protective equipment to
contain or clean up a spill. This includes minor and medium-sized spills.
3. DWQ will allow the following options:
a. Obtain sufficient right-of-way along the US 1 corridor (R-210) and install appropriately-
sized hazardous spill catch basins (i.e., 10,000 gallon + Q2 storm event), as required by
the §401 Water Quality Certification issued on July 19, 2002 and the Modification dated
September 3, 2003; OR,
b. Provide buried pipes in conjunction with stormwater management and conveyance
devices to provide the same storage capacity (10,000 gallon + Q2 storm event) as a
hazardous spill catch basin. The outlet to this pipe containment system should be fitted
with a sluice gate that remains open until a spill event. It is imperative that specific
"signage" be provided near the roadway which could be readily identified. by emergency
response personnel; OR
c. Provide a catchment and closure device at stormwater drains utilizing median and
shoulder areas for containment which meets the 10,000 gallon '+ Q2 storm event capacity.
Signage will need to be provided at the catchment and closure device locations.
DWQ believes that these options either individually or in combination could be cost-effectively applied to
the stream crossing locations for this project. Only after NCDOT could. demonstrate that none of these
engineering alternatives are feasible should other non-structurally-engineered containment options be
considered. The US 1 corridor is heavily traveled by hazardous material carriers.
Gregory .. i norpe, rn:u.
Response to Request for. Modification to WQC No. 3344
Vass Bypass, TIP Project R-210
To summarize, if NCDOT addresses the above issues, then we are prepared to consider a Modification to
the §401 Certification. Please advise as to your plans once you have a chance to consider these options.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(3), the Modification request is placed on hold until we are supplied
the necessary information. Please provide seven copies of the requested information. Furthermore, until
the information is received by the NC Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that
the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place the permit application on hold.
We look forward to working with you to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have
any questions, please telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
John E. Hennessy
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Richard Spencer, Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Coleen Sullins, DWQ
Paul Rawls, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Ken.Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Danny Smith, DWQ
File Copy
T,
y .Y%F
r? ?1?ss g yPpss
TABLE 4. US 1 Relocation - Stream Impacts
Site Water Body Channel Channel Proposed Acres
Impact Replaced Mitigation* Impacted
(linear feet) (linear feet) (linear feet)

15. V Section A
UT to Little River }ScP?'s
341
0
682
0
fl& 5 UT to Little River 7 0 14 0
0
UT to Little River 574 174 574 0
Crane Creel -
2 UT t 138 0 276

WS-? o
1
13 UT to Crane Creek - -M - 26
39 0
0 52
78 0
0
6J) 14 UT to Crane Creek-Y4-
k 256 0 512 0
33 >3 15 UT to Crane Cree 0 1200 0
16 UT to Crane Creek 600 0 446 .5.83
17 UT to Crane Creek/Farm Pond 223
19 UT to Crane Creek 259 0 518 0
0
p atzt lief 21 UT to Crane Creek 223 0 446 0
22 UT to Crane Creek 43 0 86
0 12
1
n
u 0 0 .
vu
ZS SUBTOTAL 2729 # 5 5,,j e,? 174 4884 6.95
Section B
0

0
0
1.31
1
-1 -F' m on
m-Pend
F4
0
`0 0 .91
ar
2_-- 0 0 0 0.12
0 p 0 1.09
6 Nancy Dyer Branch 213 0 426 0
0
9 UT to Little Crane Creek 167 0 334
0 0 0 0.09
1 0 0 0
0 1.57
59
1
1-5 -+md
SUBTOTAL 0
380 0
0 760 .
6.68
Section C
UT to Little Crane Creek
4 UT to Little Crane Creek
5 UT to Little Crane Creek-
VJS' 6 UT to Little Crane Creek
9 9 -1wagmic-
C 10 Little Juniper Creek
-
11 UT to Little Juniper Creek -Y13
clrmns -b SUBTOTAL _
upper LAt 12-ivec
t,?qb exce(len+ b,0claSV6YALS
*-A2:1 multiplier was applied to each impact'
282 0 564 0.20
472 Un • s;+e -449 472 0
6465-e10c . 531 646 0
276 0 552 0
0 0- 0 0.67
39 0 78 0
56 0 112 0
1771 980 2424 0.87
4880 1154 8068 14.50 l Wn1
, e. exceDt W_RwrivW on-site re oca io rids
+0 01?a?ft WSms's @ - y'- ,Cry -- 3 7,
17 6? +e-5
1
T
?s
s?
e17
3 -?

I-?
-J

clt
7
t
0

N
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE Q
l
REF. + 'OR OR
OOM, BLDG.;

FROM:, REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
COMMENTS:

C LQd? p
Q
NOV 0 8 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
yyET MDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
t
s?,a SfA1Fo
ay
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 8, 2004
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
® r`?3 @flglJ V 9 B
NOV Q 8 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Subject: Moore/Lee Counties, US 1 Vass Bypass, from north of Lakeview to south
of Sanford; TIP No. R-210; USACE Action Id 199300570;
DWQ No. 010404.
Dear Ms. Sullins:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDQW)
issued a 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), dated July 19, 2002, to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the construction of the US 1 Vass
Bypass in Moore/Lee Counties. A modification to the 401 WQC for the road project was
issued on September 2, 2003.
The NCDOT requested in a letter dated February 6, 2004 to modify Condition 7
of the 401 WQC. Condition 7 requires the NCDOT to install hazardous spill catch basins
(HSCB) at all stream crossings along the road project.
The NCDWQ replied to NCDOT's request in a letter dated March 22, 2004. The
NCDWQ agreed that HSCBs were not needed along two secondary roads (four crossings)
because these streams would be at minimal risk for a hazardous materials spill. The
NCDWQ did not comment on the NCDOT's request to eliminate the design and "1 P?
installation of HSCBs at 22 additional stream crossings as required in the 401 WQC.
The purpose of this letter is to: (1) transmit the designs and the maintenance plans
for the six (6) HSCBs already designed and constructed as well as the maintenance plan
for these HSCBs; and (2) request the deletion of the requirement for HSCBs at the other
22 stream crossings and of NCDWQ's inclusion of US Environmental Protection
Agency's (USEPA) "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure" regulations in the
March 22, 2004 letter.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WasiTE: WWW.DOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
R
As mentioned previously, the NCDWQ agreed that HSCBs were not needed along
two secondary roads (four crossings) because these streams would be at minimal risk for
a hazardous materials spill. In fact, based on data compiled by the NC Division of
Emergency Management (NCDEM) for US 1, for which the remaining HSCBs are being
required, those sections of the highway that comprise the additional 22 stream crossings
are also at minimal risk for a hazardous materials spill.
In the information provided by the NCDEM, there were two accidents involving
hazardous materials along the existing two-lane section of US 1 over the three-year
period covered by the data. The data covered the time period from January 2000 through
December 2003.
One reason for the construction of US 1 Vass Bypass was to improve the safety
for the traveling public along the existing two-lane section of US 1. There is a higher risk
of accidents involving a hazardous material spill along the existing two-lane section of
US 1 than there will be for the roadway currently under construction. The existing two-
lane section has partial control of access with left turn movements at most intersections, a
significant factor in accidents involving large trucks. The road under construction is a
four-lane divided roadway with controlled access with safer vertical and horizontal
alignment when compared to the existing two lane US 1. The controlled access on the
new roadway restricts turn movements to interchange locations along secondary roads.
With this new roadway, there is a lower risk of accidents involving a hazardous material
spill because turn movements are limited to interchanges with more than adequate sight
distance. In the March 22, 2004 letter, the NCDWQ concurred with NCDOT that it was
not necessary to include HCSBs along secondary roads as there is minimal risk associated
with a spill along these roads. This decision was based on requirements developed by
NCDWQ and NCDOT in Appendix O of the Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design.
Additionally, the risk of accidents involving a hazardous material spill along the
existing two-lane US 1 will decrease because these vehicles will be using the new, safer,
controlled access US 1. This information from NCDEM further supports the lower risk
of these accidents occurring with NCDOT constructing a new four-lane divided facility of
US 1 to supplement the existing two-lane section. A copy of the data provided by
NCDEM, as well as a letter (dated May 12, 2004) from NCDEM conveying information
regarding specific incidents in Lee and Moore Counties in 2004 are attached.
History of the Use of Hazardous Spill Catch Basins
The NCDOT and NCDWQ mutually agreed in a letter dated July 8, 1996 to install
HSCBs when two criteria are met: 1) the stream is identified as Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or WS -I Water Supply; or, 2) the stream crossing is within '/Z mile of the
critical area of a water supply classified as WS-II, WS-III and WS-IV. A copy of this
letter from Mr. John Dorney of NCDWQ to Mr. Franklin Vick of NCDOT is attached.
TIP No. R-210
Page 2 of 5
D
Construction of Six Hazardous Spill Catch Basins
The NCDOT has incorporated six HSCBs into the design and construction of TIP
No. R-210. The NCDOT agreed with NCDWQ on the inclusion of six HSCBs within the
portion of the Little River watershed designated as High Quality Waters (HWQ). This
area is located from the project's terminus south of SR 2175 (Aiken Road) to the US 1
intersection with SR 1001 (Lobelia Road).
This decision by NCDOT exceeds the mutually agreed upon criteria to install
HSCBs, as described previously. These six HSCBs were incorporated into the roadway
design plans and constructed as part of the road project in good faith by NCDOT toward
its environmental stewardship effort.
Hazardous Spill Catch Basins at 22 additional stream crossings
The additional 22 stream crossings required in the 401 WQC to have HCCBs are
located outside of the Little River designated HQW watershed. There is less compelling
information to require the need for these HSCBs. The NCDOT would like NCDWQ to
justify the reason behind the requirement of 22 HSCBs outside of the Little River
designated HQW.
The NCDOT understands that part of the rationale for the HSCBs at the other 22
stream crossing may have been in response to comments at a NCDWQ public hearing for
the project. The NCDOT understands the transcript of the public hearing cannot be
located. Apparently, at the public hearing, a citizen expressed concern about the potential
degradation of water quality resulting from the new road; therefore, it is likely NCDWQ
thought the best way to address the concern was to require HSCBs at all stream crossings.
If this is the reason for the requirement, the NCDOT believes there are other more
practicable ways to address this concern if, in fact, there were evidence to support the
citizen's concern.
In the March 22, 2004 letter to NCDOT from NCDWQ, there was an inclusion of
USEPA's "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure" from Code of Federal
Regulation 40. The NCDOT has reviewed this regulation provided by NCDWQ. The
regulation has no link to transportation related projects. Part (a) (1) of the regulation
specifically states the regulation is intended to prevent the discharge of oil from non-
transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of
the U.S. The regulation was promulgated as part of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.
Conversion of "A"-basins to Modified Hazardous Spill Catch Basins
In another good faith effort, the NCDOT has identified three areas along other
stream crossings where it can modify existing "A"-basins to construct a modified HSCB.
Two of these areas are located in TIP No. R-210 A at Station Number 60+80 and 74+40.
The drainage area of these two basins is 0.60 acre and 4.94 acres. The third "A"-basin is
TIP No. R-210
Page 3 of 5
D
J \1

r
located at Station Number 132+00 in TIP No. R-210 B and has a drainage area of 14.83
acres.
The NCDOT would not construct a sleuth scape with these modified basins. The
berm of the existing "A" basin would be modified to allow storm events to flow through
the basin and to the streams. Sand bags would be set at the "notched" area of the berm.
If a wreck of a vehicle carrying hazardous material occurs at one of these three additional
stream crossings, the sand bags would be placed across the notched areas to hold back f
any hazardous material from entering the stream. NCDOT would coordinate with local
emergency responders to ensure they are aware of the facilities and their operation. c?
These areas are currently within a temporary drainage easement. The NCDOT 4d I
would have to return to landowners and purchase a permanent drainage easement to Via
secure these areas for perpetuity. Additional right of way costs would be incurred.. (?? F
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The NCDOT has been conducting water quality monitoring through N.C. State
University at Little River and Crane Creek crossings. As noted earlier, Little River is
designated as HQW, and Crane Creek is a stream formerly listed as a 303(d) stream. The
research shows NCDOT has excelled with its erosion and sedimentation control. n
The mean NTU on Little River during a storm flow, comparing upstream and downstream from the project, shows a minimal increase. The storm flow mean NTU
upstream of the project is 9, while the mean NTU downstream of the project is 12.
The mean NTU for Crane Creek during a storm flow, comparing upstream an
downstream from the project, shows a negligible increase. Upstream of the project StiL (4M1,
during a storm event, the mean NTU is 28 while the mean NTU downstream is 27. ?np
Regulatory Approval
n8
The NCDOT requests that DWQ modify the 401 WQC Condition 7 for TIP
No. R-210 in the following manner.
• The NCDOT will construct HSCBs for TIP No. R-210 at six (6) locations in
the Little River designated HQW zone.
• The NCDWQ delete the requirement for HSCBs previously required at 22
other stream crossings on the project and the four (4) HSCBs previously
required along secondary roads.
TIP No. R-210 ,
Page 4 of 5
Thank you for your consideration of these important matters. If you have any
further questions about this permit application, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my
staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
GreghDev pe, Ph.D., nvironmental Management Director
Projement an d Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE (w/ attachment)
Mr. Alan Klimek, P.E, NCDWQ (w/ attachment)
Mr. Paul Ross, NCDWQ (w/ attachment)
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (w/ attachment)
Mr. Don Lee, Roadside Environmental Unit (w/o attachment)
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics(w/o attachment)
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E, Division 8 (w/o attachment)
Mr. Art King, Division 8 DEO (w/o attachment)
TIP No. R-210 Page 5 of 5
09-27.2004 10:11 AM FROM-NCDOTRoadsideEnvi 919 733 9910 T-179 P.002/002 F-755
1? - - UU-i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAMN
MICHAEL F. EA.SLEY
GOVERNOR
December 18, 2003
Mr. John Domey
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N. C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
REF: DWQ'S July 19, 2002 Water Quality Certification
SUBJECT: Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Policy
US 1, Vass Bypass, Moore-Lee Counties;
TIP No. R-210: Project No. 87560302
Dear Mr. Domey:
LYNDO TtPPETT
SECRETARY
NOV 0 g 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMW TER BRANCH
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has developed a maintenance strategy for
the long-term management of the hazardous spill basins that will be constructed on the subject
project as required by DWQ's 401 certification. Complete installation of the basins will not
occur until just prior to the end of project construction. Therefore, Division forces will implement
these maintenance procedures after construction is complete.
Hazardous spill basin maintenance will be performed as outlined below.
• Annual Inspection for Structural Integrity
The spill basin will be inspected for cut slope stability and embankment erosion or scour.
Eroded areas will be repaired.
• Annual Inspection for Control Structure
Sandbags will be replaced as needed. Mechanical structures will be inspected for proper
operation. Lubrication, debris removal, and other maintenance will be performed as
required.
Annual Inspection for Vegetation Control
Woody plants and other undesirable vegetation that may adversely affect the functionality of
the basins will be removed.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMNT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRAN°.PoRTAnoN BUI.13I140
CHIEF ENGNEER's OFFICZ 1 SWTm WILMINGTON STREET
1537MALSERVICECAN`.8R WEBSIrE_ WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.us RALEIGH NO
RALfi1Gx NC 276 9 9-1 5 37
09-2N004 10:08AM FROM-NCDOTRoadsideEavi 919 733 9810 T-177 P.002/003 F-754
{VII. JLI III VV/...+Y
December 18, 2003
Page 2
Hazardous Spill Removal and Cleanup
Immediate action will be taken in an effort to contain spills and prevent discharge into
receiving waters.
Spill removal and cleanup by contractual service provider or responsible party will proceed
as soon as possible. Disposal of hazardous materials will he conducted in a manner
consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Access, to basins to remove spills will not occur via jurisdictional areas such as streams and
wetlands. If access through jurisdictional areas is absolutely necessary in order to prevent
further contamination of environmentally sensitive areas, coordination with appropriate
resources agencies will occur prior to this work being done.
A post spill inspection of the basin and appurtenances will be conducted. Any damage to
the structural integrity of the basins will be repaired upon completion of hazardous spill
removal and cleanup.
This maintenance policy will be implemented on the hazardous spill basins constructed for this
project. The Department also proposes to utilize this maintenance policy for basins that will be
constructed on future NCQOT projects across the state.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you should have further questions, please do
hesitate to contact my office at [phone].
Si r y,
W. S. Varnedoe, P.E.
Chief Engineer - Operations
WSV:jm
cc: L. A. Sanderson, P.E., State Highway Administrator
Lacy Love, P.E., Director of Asset Management
W. F. Rosser, P. E., Director of Field Operations
Steve DeWitt, P.E., Director of Construction
Roberto Canales, P.E., State Construction and Materials Engineer
Jennifer Brandenburg, P.E., State Road Maintenance Engineer
Tim Johnson, P.E., Division Construction Engineer
G. J. Thorpe, PhD, Director, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Don G. Lee, State Roadside Environmental Engineer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan I Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 8, 1996
Mr. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
RE: Hazardous Spill Catch basin
ffl?.IWA
A09NNOMMMOM AN
ID E H !mil F?L
'JUL 1 6 1995
AHl Attached for the final (minor) revisions HisnRthel. Hazardous
Spill Catch Basin understanding between DOT and DWQ (previously
DEM). The minor changes suggested are typographic in nature.. I
have discussed with Archie Hankins the related issue of weep
holes in bridges. Instead of dealing with this issue in this
agreement, I suggest that we prepare a separate brief
understanding regarding when weep holes are acceptable with
regard to their impacts on water quality taking into account
( maintenance and safety issues. If this is an acceptable
approach, we will prepare a draft understanding in the next
several weeks.
The process we have followed for the hazardous spill catch
basins has been very productive mainly due to the active
involvement of Eric Galamb of DWQ and Archie Hankins of DOT. I
believe that it is a good model of how our agencies can develop
workable solutions for difficult problems in a cooperative mode.
Plea"se call me if you have any questions. I look forward to
receiving the final.version of the guidelines.
Please call me at 733-1786 if you have-any questions.
Si ncerelcvv,
Johh R. Dorney
Water Quality(Certificatio rogram
hazbasin.mem
cc: Linda Rimer, EHNR
Preston Howard, DWQ
Steve Tedder, DWQ
Larry Goode, DOT
Barney O'Quinn, DOT
ArcIaie_,:Hanki ns, DOT.
Wayne Wricght COE
11
r'
Environmental Sciences S aro,"i • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An EgLJ CFportunity Allirmaixe Action ErnPioyw _'7l. rec}de&l0% Pull comumer paj>x
APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as; parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such.as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management pWtices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria, presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
• The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
• The stream(') crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area(') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways .
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream" will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation` of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.
. .-__._. ....... -s r....-.:q
Z-

..-IF ?F

v W -

F IK IK IK IF IF K
K IK N= IF IF IF IF
K IF IF IF IK IF kr
K IF !F IK IF - IF IK
F IF IF IF IF
IF
IF
v
? C.
F IK IF W- IK IF ?rIF
-tO.i m
F IF IF IF IK IF O ai NIF
N ?
°v m
F IF W. IF IK IF NIK
F IF IF IF IK IF IF
F IF IF IF IF IF IK
1
?E

C
IK
IF ?y
IF
IK
IF
IFI

c IF IF IF K IF

?
< IF IF IF IF IK 1l
- 1
1
C IF IF IF IF It-

W- IF IF i
1
iF IF IF IF IF IF'
I

IF IK IF IF IF IK

- 1F IF IF IF IK IF
\
` 1
`\ - IF IF IF IF IF l
1
1

?4
00
K.
KC IF
IF
v? !
S E
00
my '
rn^ mo ;
p.m end ? IF

F

F IF

F I
trip mz
• In mn

-4m
m
?m
\
r?
m=
ay
? IF
IF IK ?f
m
=
m1
m
G
-4 m X
N l
n
<
Q' -ni
N b
s
1 -
? IK .

? IF .

IF

D 4 \??`aw
T ~
? m
g
0 0
? SIaS? i
N?
10 1 1*;,, 4?, Li?

,' z caiicwcior t?3ts?sr,=
MATCHLL.NE TO SHEET 5
;TATinN t9+20
MATCHLINE lu JM=-, r
STATION 23+00
MATCHLINE TO SHEET 6
STATION 23+00
In
A
i
F"
x
N
x
Z
C,
O
0
O
N
m
v
m
n
m
O
i
x
2
I l vj
3
m ? r
r? W. Nr r * 1 K IF
A a)
m O ?
n o N 45.0
o?
1 ? IF IF !K
23+00
T R 23-00
,
? ? ? 1, •• ? -\
IK If L? , ?•. n
S! 1 Goo.
Kc IK IK `?`.', ?.?
?., 10 c
IFS vm
mp --?
? 16 k= Ilt ? IK ? r ? ?,1
7.2 - - - •r. tibti 1 \
Q1 IF I IK IK ? $ 2 ? `
27+00 ' ro u,11
it., rn a? 24+00
1°n o?p \`
rn 1
z I µ k IK -I
•Z-1 v ?? • ? ` n IK IK
NC
o ?
z ? Nr IK IK IF ? .
IK w
IK I IK IK IK .: • . ? ?
w z z •70 ? ? ?
ccccc?c? cr m
wwwww Nm N? I •?
mmmmm min? min ? ? ?C If IK ? `
WWN?••NW O•? W? 3? 1 w
.. 33a-"N -3 31,E 3 ? 1_ ? ?C .aa
Ie;
3333 9 fC -1,51
ww w H m ?
y•Owww N? O ? O D
>D-OV-°VD D I ?' \
o?on-?
c,r•n-n-1 zz---••z z m
c)ozzznzo n o 14 1F
zoa. ooc? IK M= `
mmmx I r'
7.1A m m m m -am
pm mmmmco A n ? N
v?+cn ooamam?o
(no -L 1R-?'9? UI
; 3om T? oy a IF IK
1 i^? ;
M-CM-4 1
m?°t'ccisv It -LrLrL ?? D Ni 16 C) oo .01
mD -4 z ww1 1 I IN I I uZ oWim I W IF 1
rn000 ND -1-4www-w?y1 NN O
VI O.z7m-n m0 >>DDDY?• DT ? ? ? N ? '? O
T O Z m i .-. nlp D W -? ••pp ••• MC k=
Inm
rn-1 .-.m 4n-4 cNp uNi(dN NNW NN r mZ n
-rD tnr• so +waa..+ YIW m * ,IV !K a I
v? smul mz o
rmm• H r"a u?tWm DN m _
110- K
NIn<tnm -v- oo. wad au v K Y ? vZ O
N
.yy o N-i..wo o r Or i. IF
•?o xm o$..w?m?o $N > v '.02 -0 .02 . urZ .
?Immmin s> ooooi o- m
P{n.i.R1 O 00--Iti-iti0 ?-1 O IK I{? tLi If •? ?O ?-a,
N -IDw Sm Ir_ NN0000,?,,,NN Oo
In -1 ?• -I UINNNrO•J. NN -4
OCDIn--4 j wwAa4- rW p 'DZ
nil --4 (A X w j???? am m 16 ...m Nr IF 1 %'?.
n o o• w ,r W IK
m?=? a mO°o'o0W°ao ug IF I! i°o
DCAMP ov If ?.
zinc vrwzz?? g? -SC 25+27.153 .03 .03
orn N -z °,w -rw ?-1
'? - --?
x In I oo.- G-- my z _ _
mmmmm m°m r
m?S'ww w o
m ooxx==s _= > :
i _ ?ggr-,?,g g gQ, "? I
r °mmoor?`rv rr`6' a w- ? IK
D ??rmmoom vv z Kc ? ? ? ? ? ?
yprnmA mm ? ???? ? ? ••
I C A
y L^ o °o ( IF M- !" . ..`I tl3ntu 311iP 1 / .?
v? O yCV /
N?WN ,?, t. 3.0 I? F
$O r
cop 30? 1
????? RC IF 11.4 17.
03 rn W- m
r ?
- I ?•• / ? z : ? - 1? IK K- IK k?
IK ? ? ? I R
26+00
rL Lb iK IK 1K 1 IK IK A p
A m
m ~
y ?. r I rn IF IK )K ,? a
0
m oti. _k.• _•••• I (K mZ o O
?+ o°i. n„A \ 'OC !rte
'A °i A 1 l k; IK o O If; IF ? J!^? /y ?•o
m aT a '?n?S• m
o in J /• IK IK IK ?'? = O ac
ff. ? o? ? ?D
? ? ? ? g IF V ?? --•?..• y? ?
9?A ?• J
W- W- v W- IK cjmQ.. w ? rn 1
-t x
•`
?98? IK I!c IF f. • rij .?c

M-Af.CHLINE TO SHEET 8
STATION 26+80
.. MA TCHI. I NE TO SHEET
STATION 8
30+g 0
Et A\ a 1'? 00
f?3' "'NQ ? a 'ppn p t -
? ?' m ?' O a 1? k•` fl
- _ 1 P. -S
IK IK k= W, .01 om v '" O
im_ k N K lK k ?? 7.0 7.2 = b p m -4 II
Fn P. .2
rmn
02 " ..S. J fF 'no ?' IK K k >? k
O
IK H? Kt K- O n?1K IF IF ? K= 9 "? 1 0" :t .. N 1s•1
T.5 ;CU3;0
K( IF
m L , ?1S " e
4 •_ f .
t+/ a L l?? N .04
(N IF IF IK IK IF .04 ly .45), p-
- -
IK Wti IK IF K: IF = ? ? Jm 8 w
.05
0.- to
O V tp ? ? - _ •" ? -ai ?r ii k: ? _
1 41
r00 IF IF --I to t, //
? ?" ? ?? o o / f^ I 3 (7
W
m K/ IF I ALIZ P P 4F1 I IFA ?A k IF '"'?•?_` ?Z7
Yc 1 ' 00Z _innfDS;w -0
Y
~~ t ?? OWT, °wZm? ctno I m L4
?11?1V ?•AN I? n'rl 3?aZ E ? IF I .. IK IF F I k'9 ? ??
wm? ) a 3 I { ??-_ -
/ '/ K; IF IF
? • ? ? IF r IF I K= IF IF / If
;=2 3
I w
1 I k ?' K IF IF K IF IF fF
4r lK IF IF IF= IF? °c
m
W. / m kr IK If Kc k, M
kc IF IK IF IK KC ? ? ?-
r wz
n n
„I I ? '? N= IF NO iF? IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
Nr IF IF IF IF IF ? IF IryI ? 1 0 0
LA rn
_ IF IFp IF k IF N?ooa IF IF IF
I / {1 m n n
- { - I m
'- ;? ? IK k= IF IF fF IK IK IK k? IK
IF +F IF r F IF v w k{ py `
Infra l y
^ IF K
...aid 2' t (F Kf iF hr IF IK k'• IK IK
IF IF IF IF IF IF iF IF i .-.m
?N
?° . ? IK 1K IK IF IK k= IK IF k;
IK IF k IF IF IK IF a v37 Rte' { m
?r ol 2
rL, w tF K K IF IF
,. -Wift 3300
? ? ? K= IF IK IF IF k. IF ?
'^ { = A
?? A ?. K= ? H; IK IK M W W_ IF IF
\IF ' IF IF ? ? ? ? N
?? qc I j >K IK IK I!? IF K= K• N` IF IF IF iF IF IF
?m -
\ 1y Im / -? ?? _
K
M M •A1F` Kf 1? m IF kf lF - _?? `
° rI y Z. 1 Kw°i
/ w H 4
rL -n
0 -! IK k \
X .05 f r
m m ° J A IF IK I
'0 0
Nz 1, /' ° ° Im m o N \`,
PT
N m
N n IF IF NO
-1 i w C
M c?/ / ?? IF {
MM N wN v .04 ~ •? z ??
Mtn
(n M
3: rn
I
M --I
m
J ,
IK IF \
r') C'mm
c" c,
?Z \ { r o ?oor N < fn
° ° ' oz m • a m3 34-tO0\ o ?-?
?nm x
?"r m _ r n? v a °rv °°
O n
m $ o a
C). m oY r
1
-./ r m y a C'f = MN T w 'O in ? - 1 z
w r P•5. .+ ° <n w• °
m> F 01 .. N 3T RCP O -n
°o N m R
7. rl IL
o P? z r
r
\ N m / F 2 l = n 13 /? a> mm I T
N 6a , +14 N 1 45.0 % 9 15A?yaj1"Sbs?+r.?' ?Z a n
\ \ iK r •sy, { y O o 15 to "•,wrr r
?i \l c
its
.6 iq
$ y T t 1 ?5?x ,7b?; x c
Fr 45.0 9+, c
g F
y 4
4s /, SINE TO SHEEN 10
- a -;? MATCN ION 34+40 ,,
"°""?•`?--- _ - CONSTw CTIp1 REVISION - Wtzstw - ??UED
oV20/206T OJdkli.f ?G\nroJKf\%\9d9W,q.OD, ?
MATCHLINE TO SHEET 9
STATION 34+40
r--- !' worn m z ? ( o O t? I g o ? O W.. IK
? 'I IFm m z o .+' o °o ? m
O ?l O N O ` J,C ..P ` C 11 r r- '. O Z
W '9 T m !", In 11 sqA r W Z
/N c? • _ 3 I p - 45.0' ~ `?° ?1 \
r N -? m 45.0 I $\ .. O T \?
w r -1 ? a '? ? ° ??,lri
i/ ?? r s i kF i 14 0 I '?\ w d '??
o b1? a
/?+ \ _ - * s m 7. 7. 7.0 7.2 1.2
? * ?t ?? -?s; /m ?zo P.S. Iv, ?; _x x +
\?F. r x \
/' IF iK D n I Io 1v 11 -?
1.2 1.2 Im -to C c7 o m
A r P.S.. ` N p t\
h; i m Ip a m o ip
* Nc ? z n Im Yj oy n m t
Q
k I Ir i z ??
i IZ ann pr
K ? ? a Im ? r .. 07
zpipvr C, . `L I r O
/' oO?no m to t6 ?. I ~ O O
\ `\'> rim' 3 1.2 U7 I D \
\ * !K tlmiv " P.S. lp I m?
?H m r
T
,,\ ZN? z I? ? m I N \
Stl n i i ~
\ p oI ?, I
\ 3 mI u
\`\ _ - aI o r I
?•?? N ^I I
\Y?e\ \ 3 mI c i O Z
IR * \ I m a0 n m
m I c I
?- ? ?? o ? goo
AC 'n m " rn
'?-_ n I r I y?m
• `"?, I ? wry
~ _?w?B•_ y _r D
m
?I' I m? w? I m /?
p„ I ?: I ?'` ; '.? 36+00 -- .
wry I - I Nr ?1
m 1 I Icm-pwml?s I , n IK
O m 2-01?R1?1N I1\ I A * .
pp pp , '? I IF
„mxzw
I _ T I _ _ ?1
tli;mis ?- n ;O~mma
0 1 !0
N.. -Z p
02m«.2N I K_ ?Y y911mp ' 1K
D I7 3 m3 I C= m?Zc
Ivv wW v,x ( c?imxz,n a ?°
B 0 1 ®c mmsvmat
I 3 D rIDD 1 µ
m 1 / M ?
_ -zro.•zm r
r mm ! a E'nr
rn ?m m omo? I. I
r
I r I ?N
-rn pp(?1y?(?1? 1
p ??.-. ? ado v = mm . • K:
J1RfdRl1 ? '9?p N _ r? ??1 ?? '•.
ti.? + _ 1-CA o ?m r? ?
? ? ' .
O 1 N (? r O =\ h?q
0 1 \
m? °? ` p OmoN$ \
nm ? I qnv w ?m \ n
r? A ry? I ami O A V
?m ti ` I o lrh 21`'
min z ,?,I I was ???
In = "n I; I sl I 1^ -i
1 v
rn m m
rnn m-1 X r I I ..
-4m 0 zI I ??
xYrawy7 m M?W'Tf .fV.Btl6 .. " p fv f?
N O rewse 'tn°' °'? O r
= A I m
N °O OI D S? Q? Q O C, ,
in
I O°m ?' I p4Q t Y orn t
\?` I ?m ?, I p Q
:? \ Wp -
1 p0 a _ 45.0. # 45.0 m ,- E 1 v+l
i \ W^y Q
aAD Z ?l/-.'1J?aZ
C> N A? N
i a a` ?c?+i Im O 'a j C m
,O r 11{II h1? N
In
y __ ?A - a °
\n 9 I P.S- 'ol y p N s £?Q ? mI m
2? ? D c? O'o x c-
0 0`??gt I 7.2 T. 7.0 K I O o gyp„ ?. j p
, Or ?I. +^1 d} z?OR
a? \ 1 D
ro °+m \ I o n; C i
a s O V A -4 D ? , c
rwm _
r Pill wa 7S n°m? \ ^z 4 ? ?y x
^? D n ? t d .. -<
II: 6 ilia- a Q?>1 _ I ?a j,gT ?>?
:= MATCHLINE TO SHEET 11 Rwo R
STATION 38+20 ?: °?'°? °

SAY 14 M04
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
. Division of Emergency Management
4713 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-4713
Michael F. Easley, Governor Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary
May 12, 2004
Roy Shelton
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Pursuant to your letter/email received, dated May 12, 2004; 1 made a search of our spill database and
have attached Hazardous Spill reports relating to US 1. in Lee and Moore County.
The following agencies can also help you with your research:
Lee County Emergency Management - 919-775-3941
Moore County Emergency Management - 910-947-6317
US Environmental Protection Agency Spill Database - hftp://www.epa.clov/enviro/index java.html
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality - 919-733-5291
Division of Water Quality- 919-733-3340
Division of Waste Management
--Hazardous Waste Section-919-733-2178
--Solid Waste Section-919-733-2801
--Superfund Section-919-733-2801 NO V 0 8 2004
If you require further assistance, I may be reached at 919-733-3899. TCDENR D WATER
QUALITY
MWATER BRANCH
Yours truly,
An hony B. Bon art
EPCRA Cooriator
Attachment:
Spill Reports
Location: 116 West Jones Street - Raleigh, NC 27603-1135 - [phone]
An Eaual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Emplover
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 1
Source: Web
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: Cedric Cherry Date Reported: 01/16/2000 Time Reported: 02:52 PM
Date Occurred: 01/15/2000 Time Occurred: 03:00 PM
Reported by: William Moore Agency: City of Aberdeen Phone: [phone]
County: Moore City: ABERDEEN EM Area: C 8
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event:
0 N/A 0 SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
t Cl
ss
H
M
Wx Event Name: a
:
az
a
zMat Mode:
W N/A 0 Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT: Sewage
Event Description: Approx 1000 gallons of sewage spilled into a tributary of Aberdeen Creek
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: RP Phone:
Point Of Contact: POC Phone:
Event Location: US 1 and Brook Rd
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No
NOTIFICATIONS
Y=On Scene A=Advised
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: SO: PD: LFD: CHealth: Sewer: Y PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: SHP/SWP: Env. Mgt: Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes:
EM Hours: SAR Hours: Call #:
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 4
Source: Web
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: Warren Lee Date Reported: 08/06/2001 Time Reported: 10:49 AM
Date Occurred: 08/03/2001 Time Occurred: 02:30 AM
Reported by: cellular caller Agency: citizen Phone:
County: Lee City: SANFORD EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event: on-Hazmat S II
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: N/A ?J SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
zMat Mode:
0 N/A 0 Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT:
Event Description: Tractor trailer carrying soybean oil had a gasket on the dome cover that was damaged
while loading at Cargill facility in Raleigh. Driver of truck was unaware of faulty dome cover gasket,
resulting in product sloshing out when truck turned, decelerated, or accelerated. Spill started in Lee
County on off ramp of US-1 at US-15/501 business (Hawkins Ave), south on Hawkins Ave. to Carthage
St., west on Carthage to US421. Truck driver was alerted by motorist at Carthage and US421 intersection
that product was leaking.
Sanford Police called Sanford Public Works and NC DOT to apply sand to areas with heaviest
concentration of oil. Noble Oil was contracted by hauler to clean up residue and sand.
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: Lawson Transport RP Phone: [phone]
Point Of Contact: Kevin Lawson POC Phone: [phone]
Event Location: US 1, business 15/501, Carthage St.
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No
NOTIFICATIONS
Y=On Scene A=Advised
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: Y SO: PD: Y LFD: Y CHealth: Sewer: PWRK: Y
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: SHP/SWP: Env. Mgt: Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: Y DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes: Truck Driver - David Tallant, cited for failure to secure load.
Lawson Transport
875 West Ridge Rd
Gainesville, GA 30501
fax [phone]
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 3
Source: NCEOC
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: K Gorrell Date Reported: 02/29/2004 Time Reported: 10:20 AM
Date Occurred: 02/29/2004 Time Occurred: 10:20 AM
Reported by: Jim Groves Agency: Lee Cc EM Phone: [phone]
County: Lee City: RURAL EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event: Riesel Fuel
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: U N/A 0 SARA 40 Petroleum 0 Other
zMat Mode:
7 N/A Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT:
Event Description: Jim Groves, LEMC, requested RRT 3 to respond to a diesel fuel tanker, hauling 9,000 gallons, that has
overturned into a creek which is a drinking water source. They do not have haz-mat personnel to control or stop the leak and this
exceeds their capabilities. Jim Groves is at the airport the contact person on the scene is Bob Brown (919-353-2278) or Lee Co.
Communications at (919-775-8268).
El
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER.d(
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: RP Phone:
Point Of Contact: POC Phone:
Event Location: Colon Rd. near US1,Exit 74, toward the City of Sanford
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: State RRT Approved: Yes RRT Team Number: 3
RRT Mission No.: 0402293006
RRT Information
REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAM REQUEST FORM
Requesting Agency Lee Cc EM Name Jim Groves
County Lee Contact Phone [phone]
Date of Request 02/29/2004 Time of Request 10:20 AM
Location of Event Colon Rd. near US1, toward the City of Sanford
Why do you need the RRT? Exceeds capabilities
Has event exceeded local response capabilities? 0 Yes 0 No
Local resources are expected to be exceeded at hours.
What local resources are available to assist? Local Fire Department
Has local EM coordinator been notified? Yes If yes. indicate the time of the notification 10:20 AM
a 4 1.119= ? a.
A check in any of the two categories below should result in an IMMEDIATE DISPATCH of the RRT and notification of the
Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety or his designee.
? KNOWN Hazardous Material(s) (EHS*) has/have been spilled/released
-Product is off gassing. There is a vapor cloud -Product is leaking / spilling now
Proper Chemical Name(s) :
*EHS means chemicals on the EHS list (EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES)
? UNKNOWN Chemicals has/have been released.
-Product is off gassing. There is a vapor cloud -Product is leaking / spilling now
IF ABOVE CRITERIA NOT MET. REFER TO RRT TIME / WORKSHEET REQUEST
pi-- n..mn?e*n - mnrh infnrmatinn helow as is known at this time:
Chemical State : Liquid Is this an EHS chemical? No
Size of container : 9,000 by Gallons How much has spilled/leaked : Unk by Gallons
Fire or explosive potential : Unknown at this time Is the container pressurized?
Any other chemicals involved? Unknown at this time Wind Speed Wind Direction
If yes, name(s)
Is this a fixed facility? No Temp ° F Humidity
If yes, name:
Precipitation : No Immediate threat to life and/or safety:
Deaths (number) Injuries (number)
Evacuation occurred or is occurring? No Immediate threat to water intakes? Yes
If yes, evacuation distance : in If yes, have preventative actions been taken? Yes
If yes, is area :
If yes, population density:
If yes, has shelter opened?
Comments or further information :
REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAM TIME/WORKSHEET
Incident# 0402293006 OPS Officer K Gorrell
Date o2/29/o4 County Lee
Area s RRT 3
Time (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM Description
02/29/2004 10:20 AM] Request received from (Name) (Agency)
02/29/2004 10:20 AM] Filled out EM43/RRT request hazmat incident format sheet
02/29/2004 10:39 AM] Notified area coordinator on call of request
02/29/2004 10:30 AM] Briefed RRT leader Tatum (Name) Recommendation is for a level under the tiered
response guidelines.
02/29/2004 10:37 AM] Made request/recommendation for dispatch of RRT# to
02/29/2004 10:20 AM] Notified communications manager.
02/29/2004 10:24 AM] Request Approved by Sec.Rudisill.
02/29/2004 10:15 AM] Assigned an incident number.
02/29/2004 10:30 AM] Notified RRT# 3 leader of Approval.
02/29/2004 10:36 AM] Notified requester of Approval.
02/29/2004 10:39 AM] Notified area coord/on call of Approval.
02/29/2004 10:55 AM, RRT en route/ETA 60 Minutes.
02129/2004 10:43 AMj Notified requester RRT en route and ETA.
02/29/2004 11:04 AM] Notified area coordinator/on call RRT en route and ETA.
02129/2004 11:01 AMj Notified DDO and Branch Manager that area staff is going on scene.
02/29/2004 10:57 AM] Notified hazmat program manager.
02/29/2004 11:43 AMj RRT on scene.
02/29/2004 03:19 PM J RRT Returning to station.
02/29/2004 05:01 PMj RRT returned to service.
NOTIFICATIONS
Y=On Scene A=Advised
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: A SO: PD: LFD: Y CHealth: Sewer: PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: Y SHP/SWP: Y Env. Mgt: A Water: A DRP: CAP: DOT: DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes: 1021 - Spoke with Communications
1022 - Ken Davis advised and approved
1024 - Sec. Rudisill approved
1025 - Paged Ben Majors w/ RRT 3
1030 - Contact made at the station ...
1034 - Wayne Munden paged w/ Public Water
1035 - Paged Joe Wright
1036 - Jim Groves checked back on status and he was advised of approval
1038 - Munden advised
1039 - Wright advised
1043 - Advised Brown on the scene of The RRTs response, and that I have advised Public Water and DENR
1044 - Paged Water Quality
1045 - Steve Lewis w/ Water Quality advised
1054 - Paged Elaine Wathen
1055 - Paged Scoff Bullard
1057 - Bullard advised ... He is in the area and will be enroute to the scene.
1101 - Elaine Wathen advised
1104 - Wright 10-17
1132 - Wright advised that the leak is 6 inches from the creek not reaching the running water and to leave the
notifications in place.
1143 - RRT3 is on the scene and their SAT system is not working ... Cell # 910-624-4043
1144 - Bullard is on the scene advising that the tanker has lost app 80 % ( 6400 gallons ) of its load ( 8000 gallons) and it
might impact the surface waters. Noble Oil ( RP ) is on the scene and ready to off-load the remaining oil. He could not see
if the leak has been stopped.
1147 - Wright updated w/ Bullards info.
1204 - Bullard advised this was the result of a vehicle accident ... The subject in the passenger vehicle was airlifted from
the scene and the driver of the truck was not transported.
1219 - Linked Bob Brown w/ Steve Lewis with Water Quality ref clean up.
1229 - Joe is on the scene ... advised to contact the EPA for an update ( 404-229-9508 or 404-562-8705)
1312 - Joe was concerned with the wetlands that are being impacted and that trees will have to be removed for the clean
up ... Wildlife advised was their jurisdiction and are sending an officer or one will call
us here to link them to the scene. Also, a fire truck has struck the RRT trailer damaging the hinges on the door and bending the
frame. A trooper is on the scene to take a report if necessary.
1315 - Taylor advised
1317 - Davis advised
1321 - Sec. Rudisill updated
1327 - Spoke with an Wildlife Officer and he wasn't sure who governed the wetlands ... He is checking and will contact us
back.
1344 - Gary w/ Wildlife does not know who governs the wetlands.
1345 - EPA is sending a representative ... will be here at app 1900 hrs. EPA will notify Brown directly.
1346 - Steve Lewis paged ... ref EPA and wetlands jurisdiction.
1348 -Steve advised that he knew the EPA was responding and Buster with the local DENR office is enroute. Buster will
be in charge of the wetland preservation and any other notification that might be needed.
1505 - Joe Wright advised that Buster was on the scene and RRT-3 was wrapping up there operation.
1519 - RRT-3 is clear the scene.
1535 - Joe Wright is clearing the scene, Buster with DENR will remain on scene until clean up operations are complete.
1701 - RRT back in service
1705 - Joe back at home
DDo backbriefed re: RRT and other departed, Elaine paged
1733 - Elaine backbriefed
EM Hours: SAR Hours: Call #:
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER - FLASH FAX
***GOVERNMENT USE ONLY***GOVERNMENT USE ONLY***
DO NOT RELEASE this information to the public without
permission from the NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER 1-800-424-8802
Incident Report # 714692
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
*Report taken by: CIV CREWS at 12:55 on 29-FEB-04
Incident Type: MOBILE
Incident Cause: UNKNOWN
Affected Area: WETLAND AREA
The incident was discovered on 29-FEB-04 at 12:00 local time.
Affected Medium: WATER WETLAND AREA
REPORTING PARTY
Name: GLENN ADAMS
Organization: EPA REGION IV
Address: 61 FORSYTH ST.
ATLANTA, GA 30303
OTHER Phone: [phone] ALTERNATE Phone: [phone]
Type of Organization: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SUSPECTED RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Name: UNKNOWN
XX
Type of Organization: UNKNOWN
County: LEE
City: SANFORD State: NC
COLON RD EXIT ON HWY 1
INCIDENT LOCATION
RELEASED MATERIAL(S)
CHRIS Code: OUN Official material Name: UNKNOWN OIL
Also Known As:
Qty Released: 4000 GALLON(S) Qty in Water: 4000 GALLON(S)
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT
DUE TO AN UNKNOWN CAUSE A TANKER TRUCK RELEASED AN UNKNOWN OIL
MATERIAL INTO A WETLAND AREA.
INCIDENT DETAILS
Road Mile Marker:
Length of Service Disruption:
Airbag Deployed:
---WATER INFORMATION---
Body of Water: WETLAND AREA
Tributary of: UNKNOWN CREEK
Nearest River Mile Marker:
Water Supply Contaminated: NO
---MOBILE INFORMATION---
Vehicle Type: TANKER TRUCK
Vehicle Number: N/A
Trailer/Tanker Number:
Vehicle Fuel Capacity:
Cargo Capacity:
Cargo On Board:
Hazmat Carrier: UNKNOWN
Carrier Licensed: UNKNOWN
Suspected Non Compliance: UNKNOWN
DAMAGES
Fire Involved: NO Fire Extinguished: UNKNOWN
INJURIES: Hospitalized: Empl/Crew: Passenger:
FATALITIES: Empl/Crew: Passenger: Occupant:
EVACUATIONS: Who Evacuated: Radius/Area:
Damages:
Hours Direction of
Closure Type Description of Closure Closed Closure
Air: N
Road: N Major N
Artery:
Waterway: N
Track: N
Media Interest: NONE Community Impact due to Material: NO
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
A CLEAN UP CONTRACTOR IS EN ROUTE
Release Secured: YES
Release Rate:
Estimated Release Duration:
WEATHER
Weather: UNKNOWN, °F
ADDITIONAL AGENCIES NOTIFIED
Federal:
State/Local:
State/Local On Scene:
State Agency Number:
NOTIFICATIONS BY NRC
ATLANTIC STRIKE TEAM
(609)7240008
ATSDR NC
29-FEB-04 13:02 (919)7153591
EPA OERR
(703)9675012
U.S. EPA IV
(404)6504955
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENC
(800)6347084
NC DEPT OF EMERGENCY MGMT
29-FEB-04 13:02 (800)8580368
NOAA 1ST CLASS BB RPTS FOR NC
29-FEB-04 13:02 (206)5266344
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER HQ
(202)2672100
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DENR
29-FEB-04 13:02 (919)7335083
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THE CALLER HAD LIMITED INFORMATION ON THE INCIDENT.
*** END INCIDENT REPORT 714692 ***
Report any problems or Fax number changes by calling 1-800-424-8802
PLEASE VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT http://www.nrc.uscg.mil
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 4
Source: Web
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: Jim Groves Date Reported: 03/11/2004 Time Reported: 03:24 PM
Date Occurred: 03/11/2004 Time Occurred: 08:45 AM
Reported by: Communicator Agency: Communications Phone: 911
County: Lee City: RURAL EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event: Riesel Fuel
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: U N/A 0 SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
zMat Mode:
C N/A Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT:
Event Description: A tractor trailer and passenger truck were involved in a 10-50 which caused one saddle tank to rupture. A
large fire resulted from the release which engulfed the tractor and passenger truck. US 1 was closed (northbound) for approx. 30
minutes, then one lane was later re-opened after the fire was extinguished. LFD used Class B foam to extinguish the fire. A dike
was made from•earth materials to prevent the run off,_from entering a nearby storm drain. Approx. 150-200 gallons of diesel fuel
was on=board 'FA66RbTtV6 fuel was consumed in the fire, and approz: 50 gallons mixed with water and remained in the ditch. The
owner of the tractor trailer contacted Noble Oil for clean-up activities.
Deaths: Injuries: 1 Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: Henry Barrett RP Phone: [phone]
Point Of Contact: POC Phone:
Event Location: US 1 and Rocky Fork Road
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square Point=
RRT Request: No
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: Y SO: Y PD: LFD: Y CHealth: Sewer: PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: SHP/SWP: Y Env. Mgt: A Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: Y DMV: Y
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes: Henry Barrett - 162 Barrett-Bush Lane Sanford, NC 27332 - Truck #152. TVFD/LSVFD used 15 gal of foam concentrate, 15
3"x 4 socks, 3 8"x10 boom, 4 5"x10 boom, 10 bags of speedy dry.
EM Hours: 3 SAR Hours: Call #:
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 3
Source: NCEOC
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: MB Young Date Reported: 04/04/2003 Time Reported: 05:01 PM
Date Occurred: 04/04/2003 Time Occurred: 04:52 PM
Reported by: Warren Lee Agency: LEMC Phone: [phone]
County: Lee City: SANFORD EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event:
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: 0 N/A 0 SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
zMat Mode:
W N/A 0 Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event: Missing Person with SAR
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT:
Event Description: Missing 4yoa boy walked away from residence approx 1 hour ago. Local rescue has been conducting ground
search, K-9 units enroute to assist in SAR. Requesting Helicopter w/ flier to assist in search before night fall.
17:30 Child located,no state resource sent.
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: RP Phone:
Point Of Contact: POC Phone:
Event Location: McNeal) Road off US 1
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: A SO: PD: LFD: CHealth: Sewer: PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: /, SHP/SWP: Env. Mgt: Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes: W. Mashburn paged @ 1652, 1741
W Mashburn briefed @ 1742
Doug Hoell paged @ 1652
Doug Hoell briefed @ 1653 (DH called LEMC to see if local PD would go through SHP for resource)
Sec Dudley briefed @ 1658 NCNG approved for SAR if SHP can not assist.
EM Hours: SAR Hours: Call #:
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 4
Source: Web
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: Jim Groves Date Reported: 11/07/2003 Time Reported: 03:49 PM
Date Occurred: 11/07/2003 Time Occurred: 12:45 PM
Reported by: Communicator Agency: Communications Phone: 911
County: Lee City: SANFORD EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event:
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: 0 N/A 0 SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
HazMat Mode:
N/A 0 Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT: DOT Events
Event Description: A contractor for DOT either fell a tree, or pulled tree debris, into three high power lines, causing the pole to .
snap and the lines to go down across both directions of US 1. There were two separate 10-50's associated with the event, but no
personal injury that required transport. LFD, EMS, EM, DOT all assisted with traffic control and hazard assessment. EM contacted
the State EOC and Metro Traffic ('40) to report the lane closures. Progress Energy cut the lines and removed them from the
roadway to restore the flow of traffic. The power poles will be fixed later and the power lines re-hung. When this occurs, traffic will
be stopped once again. At the time of this report, Progress Energy was not able to give a specific date or time for line restoration to
take place. EM advised Metro Traffic ('40) that the lanes of travel were back open. Contacted the State EOC to advise of the same.
Deaths: Injuries: Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: Progress Energy RP Phone:
Point Of Contact: Progress Energy POC Phone:
Event Location: US 1 at McNeil Road
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.46.0 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: Y SO: Y PD: Y LFD: Y CHealth: Y Sewer: PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
AIC: A SHP/SWP: Y Env. Mgt: Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: Y DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes: Road closed for approx. 45 minutes.
EM Hours: SAR Hours: Call #:
For Communications Use Only
EM Level: 4
Source: Web
NC Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Report Form (Rev 2.0)
Taken by: Jim Groves Date Reported: 11/19/2003 Time Reported: 10:07 AM
Date Occurred: 11/18/2003 Time Occurred: 12:56 PM
Reported by: Communicator Agency: Communications Phone: 911
County: Lee City: SANFORD EM Area: C 08
EVENT TYPE
Weather Event: HazMat Event:
Wx Event Name: HazMat Class: * N/A 0 SARA 0 Petroleum 0 Other
zMat Mode:
W N/A 0 Transportation 0 Fixed Facility 0 Other
FNF Event: Non-FNF Event: SAR Event:
FNF Type:
FNF Class:
Fire Event: Complaint:
OTHER EVENT: Traffic Accident
Event Description: A multiple vehicle accident involving a tractor trailer and two other POV vehicles, both ending upside down on
US 1, caused both Northbound lanes to shut down for approx. 30 minutes. After patient care and transport was completed, traffic
was partially opened at a very slow pace, since the vehicles were in both the #1 and #2 lanes of traffic. Once vehicle removal was
completed, both lanes were fully opened. EM contacted Metro Traffic ('40) and the State EOC to advise of the road closure and to
warn motorist of the delay.
Deaths: Injuries: 2 Evac: Radius:
Responsible Party: RP Phone:
Point Of Contact: Sanford PD POC Phone:
Event Location: US 1 northbound lanes, approx. 1/4 mile South of McNeil Rd.
Latitude (decimal degrees ) (NC inland range is 33.840 - 36.588 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
Longitude (decimal degrees) (NC inland range is 75.460 - 84.322 degrees. Values outside these parameters may be used.)
USFS Block-Square-Point System: Block= Square= Point=
RRT Request: No
COUNTY AGENCIES
LEMC: Y SO: PD: Y LFD: Y CHealth: Sewer: PWRK:
Other Local Agencies:
STATE AGENCIES
A/C: SHP/SWP: Y Env. Mgt: Water: DRP: CAP: DOT: Y DMV:
Other State or Federal Agencies:
Notes:
EM Hours: 1 SAR Hours: Call #:
-_-_-__--_-_-_-__---_________ ___=____ _______________-___°_____-
V -V _-
..• J J ^ ?^. ?: \: r L W W X S V^ j1 ^ V .-. V• X V .. r W ^ ^r r r N V V^ ^ Y L_ J. %_ X T T J l,J N- ^ r J W W
-_ _ -_ - - ...• - - X x X X S x X V V V V V V V T - - _ - _ - -' L LY, L !'. VJ ' i _ r N ?-J fJ 1^ N r - - - - - - - - -
Y x j V - - Y+ V '+J IJ N - - ^ T r . ' r J Iv ? ^ .. --. . •••? T ? J ?r N L _ i.J .J ^ % V "? '.J V ?: S S - T - V J X x
Iv J^ L ^ x^- Y^- L L W V ^ V- J• ^J• Y T V J' ^ N '.l V• W- V- N%% V V. V W W V Vr L x Vr Vr N-
};. r_ IJ T T Vr L V V L J V V W-- ^- 1? S^ V IV V• V N J j Jr V- _
Jr V V Iv W L V Vr IJ V VJ N Y V T N- V? ?+ N L :C '.J 'r T '.J Ur _^. r J J T V• T J, Y S W Vr V '. T L V- V T L VJ V }.. W J ?O ?^.. C` - J ?.. "` ? ? ?r ?: L Ur J J N
.r J, " L L L L L L Y\ Y L Y L L Y 'J ?J W W W W W\` N N N N N IV N N N N N--?--?----??? ---
ur Ur Vr V. J• V. rJ. •Jr V. V• \r _ _ _ _ N Iv N N IVY. - IJ N - •r, = N ^ V 1"' N - - .. •/' W N N - ",
= X W N - - x \ 1 V % \ V• Y L _ x JC ?1 V• ?• % . _. - .. 3 v ` V• J x J % V J .. i- L x .. Y .^ ?. .... V ?I
\ - ` L J X W rW N N ' I.i N N N N 1 IJ N`-. N N Iy ?? 1? 1? N N N N N_ N I.i I^ IJ 1? N N tJ N N f?J I__ lu IV N N N_ Iv Iv N N_ N N_ N N_ N = j ?_
t? 1? 1? f?.l N_ N N IJ IV 1'J IJ N_ N_ - ^J N_ N N tJ N N - N N_ -_ - - - _ - = - - - -_ - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ -_ _ T = - - - -_
J r •Jr - N % N L - ._ J :1 V' Y N Vr - .•'y. '.a % L N Vr - Jr = - •'^ _ N - T 1.J -J 'V J, - L 1= L V, N 1 W N Y Iv '.J ".
.. - Vr L N J N `J `J fJ Vr ?, yN. ? J? N L ?Vr ??? I? 1•= L Vr L_J ?' - - - h'N - .J 'a •? L ? •= N - _ - .1 Y ? L .J, W 1_ X _ _ _ - V r .^ - V• rJ I ? ... ? - -IV rJ 1 ? 1. N ? 1 j V % Y ?.
yD yv'o y 'vvyYvYv'o Dvv?-aD y -o'r-vvDyDz>zY?D 1z?'z??z> y>?> >
> > z 7 z z z ?? ? z z ? 7 z 7 ? ? ? i„ z 3 ? - z 5 ? _ - _ _ 3 = -
-?
m m _ -1 (7i •-? 7 `? -1 > > m m --? '? -? K K 1 N m ? m m -? (n m -? Y = rrn m = m m -n -n 2
C r C Or ZAAC Z 0 zZO O 0 0 NZO O a z O mi Z C o O A
x 2- S m m n 2 Y Y n r m m m m O z Z n z m C P' m r C C EL Z Z C? C
C b?AC?"'?AAVVpv 00 C O ?A CM C! m
G O C 0 0 a a> 0 0> Lrri , > a> > CA > p Y 0 D>> O> y y D O W D> v v O v w > > D O O > v> 1 O > D C y W?> f> d
DY y ADD ,y.??' J J{ J{{{ J J-C{? {,?,? JD '•{ {{ { D D.rD Y
J J 1 J J J 1 1 J
... .i r 7 7 ? Z 7 7 e) r) rl
o`?nCO_ n 3n o nr u u 3n n C)nc nC)C?n.-T=ao ?n CT Fo cni y
O c f.' O r u ?C?p p S? ?r? v v r??Ar?
=) a O v ° 07 C T. r. =. n C c r. r. r. v c - o c° o T m c- c m o u v 3
f T (: d v O n n =? w 6 3 n v u p A n V r n 0. i A n o S O o O `^ -- Q i) n y m fl' r r. o ci = i) T T.
• n_ _ o o v o o' o o' o
._ C C =. : u i o }_ CJ O O O O o• i T T. p• O O 7 G U- 7 y0 _ n - O' cr V _ C n O Q uc - Q n n
C?^ O' Uf -ns O Chi n n O O = O' O' G C G n Q' O' O_' n d C _ 'C_ v d d O c ti 6 C O^ C n 3 0. a c G _ CJ .. C d C O
i. _ C T n _ ^ 0. G li. U_ n 11= Ir' U= l U? R U2
?; 2 < m tCo T [) Z O L) O Y W A
nzvrnr Z Z Z ?< nn A Z Ann n n SZiY AA722 V'Opvl -? SvmC)mmcni, 22 N C m-1' YrDOY Stip?2N,v?2Z
YY--tYYNC--l?bm2vJ? r'r"'YY mm2 V OOAAA??rmm07Z?AAmAAmc^-!mz?rnAm-i7yvl?NCmAOZNA W Dr?AA
(4 Ln
LI) 7, -mi 70 0w °vvZ ArwIv n i-i0<OOOOmOmAmOY W vA00 0ymrmOr AON <O x <CT mmTrynOrr ClZr 7 co ai (A
om Ono A 0
LOY 0-i0 >O CAD <OApOmO-]cr0Z?y ADO -X11-1-?I='L ZC Apz00m ?ZNZ NA?mC?D?A?m- ?rx r- , ? Y??OrYOOO?SD?Y
Y ?r?mn m - r± z mm p F m mmm --? _m 00 mm m V, OD?nm -aM - --I m m
m 3 T
z
m
m oo Z rZ
Z r = v Z ,a n v
z y 0 c > v_ n m z rn D A D m m
v ?, br 3 '? m C) v Z z z y A A z- Z ,-. I :n -y-I Z m C m C Z
V VIv.C
CZ ZCC AC?A?C mzD ZC -CCZ?-mnC -yC- fwv17.-?nC? JrAA --AZ m ZmZACZnZVNmZ JZ
-CNnC2n w ? -Z n
ut- -Z Ar)U, ww0 «Dc'?' Hi s m?n10rn _nDn,vn V Inn-n Lr„n?nol„mc
% N L 1 N Z N L W IV n ._ Vr J W to V V' 1 r el +- IJ m= ". In V l a. A . 7. Y. N 'J'- '-1 Y i z -• V Iv IV V .^^ V Q V o ?l W V' N- x OZ N r V. VI O? O= z ..
J• V I? _ N= N c ?`• N =,_ x L Z° .^. 7 N= +• O- M L ?. A ?: z Q Y A m
p v O m m .o --1 O 7n'• 00 b m v A m Ab CJ
r- V)
A W T A r
<l v o v
v{
- .Y .- r - ._ - - J ^ N ^ L N % L
V x_ x V x L J• IV N X 1. y IV Ur V '?J - x X V V V- Y J
m m cn :E mZ<;Z Zz;Zmr :nzmr nom zz mNv,m zm Ut NZ -,;mZc Z Z czC, UJZ :r<n Ccn7mm mZ Z. ZZ Zcn
z
m > O O T C)
cn m
z y
A r m
I- W A -?-3 DOrn z v, N w NcnC cn{ cn In ?`ti?wur '•'` C?mcn .JC InNNy Smto yZ Ncn
= ImiJ n :- z (A X T n (A A yon A- A 2 _ A A A z _ A A 7 A 7 1A., A 2 2 A? A v n AAA m Y ?A.. A n N O C) A
Ln z O z: t A C A -? z C A D A
In D C) - - N n 7, a - Z (rn ^
7 N x N C - A X 'iy ?J n N i. Y z 0
L -i Y m m `, V. .- w A V ?• V' -1 ,?^? m x = r
Y m rn Z 'i -• I ,Ji Ob 7 yr
T 7_
-I T w c' D N - Z r O
Jr = 1"'7. 7 A v z Y. L Iv m r N A L ... Z 1:., N v n --I ,- N- ?• Z. a c Jr T Jr = m m Z v -o ;n y z-
im T m ?rnz b m ...{v -iN-1 r p A ? mA -i <?
A
v A Z
z v D v <_ ? m
A C) v r r
D r
z z m
O m rn
z n r m y
Z m-1 Ti -Ni ,. C mn rn SIn v T mT cr-• 7 rm -
Om Y ci - oC) D a? O?Zy V n n r rm7 V Y2?- Dm?7
A CA D C'1 p v .? 7 In 2 m m W V/ w 7 L w cn In 'A Ln L? C4 C: :n m^ .z y-1 --1 ?: cn = rn to H N D N m W N- 1 y O O > v A (4 CA L? V7 7 AAA Z Y n A A A v F x n A [C-• A n A m m p A> n m O A C) E:
o V 'F
A m
Am r.,2nACAC AAAA = In Ar{ YC-nN-r,Jm? -D _ ;aw DOm
A m 1 O i y N ?J ._ w > N 0 9 = v O O ?J 7 A 0 O v i\'i Jc ` .? C7 -< O trn A O to .?•, -
T
_ T. m Z Z .. S z 7_ v~;,< Y ?°G r' o ?: ^, _ A G y r F
J ?T Jr,?, m+- mA A <bm Tm p z-' A v
7 A v m v z
NF y F H ?- N N
y vi n tr Vi vJ r In ?: V? ?- :n V' ?- -nN.' A
On 0 A A m n a
y c A n A A c - a c a n a a A v vnr H - n A- A n n y
.0 0, 00
:. m n 0 7- m O I = E n. , 5 1, 9. v=- - 3 ?. ° o m a 3 a m p ?• n a d i n n o s p o o cm 3? 3 ° n
o .. z c} }- o n i o n n .!n p o o- O n S n n /. o n 2 c c c p o° D 3 n y- y r. a n. 0. 0 y 0 ° a
= o n c G_ n n n'o D- n D N o v a ?' n a r. .., ,? v T. ?, o v o r H c v v N _r
o v v °' ,.. u 3 r 3 °- = H o °' '-' o m T v o• ° Ir °_ Ir'. t-J m o 0 o IF a .yt' a 'J 0 5 m o 0 3 o o= n c T ou c c°J IR - p o n o o N -° .. o
G w O i U= f. (R 3' A .. ? A Q V n .. (r O ' u A `' A o () o O A i _. A A V A n n o 0. A V^ ^? _ _, n G A U=
c c? _ 0 0 0 0 S o 0 0 p_ - o° o 0 0 p _, a o o n ° ?, o r n iJ' c g n°
n _n O - .A O O L O O N. O O' , 3 d y - 0. 0. 0. In. G n 6 q n 0 A O O O C n 0. C 9 m U. p, Ir' N _ N 0. n f. 3
U= = li ,n v n H p' n rn U ?. f~. u fn' n a 6 n O i n G O O 0. n O An- ..
^O O_ i O 3 O G' n n .. .- 7 O. ti mI
O. O. n i 'O (J. O O f. L rv n n _.
O. .O tV 'O 'O p' O• O O C - N -
J v C ?' C1 O p' O 3 C ? O C O
'O
0 0 0 C Z7 0 0 0 0 0 O V 0 0 O a 0" 7
'O 'O ' ^J 'O 'O "O '9 "D 'O 'O b 'O 'O '•O 'O
V "a ' 0 00 ' a 00 9 n O 'n V ,0 '00 V 00
O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 ?O ?O 90
O 0 0 0 O o n W n -9 n n n O D m n
v 'O v v v v v n A '? pp n n n 9 n o ?i n !'1 n r, n n n n n O n n n n n n n Y n co CD r1
•O v v 'o n
n D o ^• n D n n. n o n n 0 n n n n i
ar7 -•? j 0 O j O j O j O j 7 r7 7 n 7 O 7 7 .j .7 v 0 .7 ... b ... . .? 7 7 0 •?. •? v 0 0 O rj O v
p .j C .j
?? 3 = 3 ? 3 n ? n n n v n n n u u 3 n Ei a n m w u n n ?, n n n' n .. n... of n u
U n= n n n n o u n n c c u n n 1J h v n u n c n n o n 1 a o r v m o n o r n? r 00 o 0 0 0 0 o v o o n o o o ?J o
U- U` m v V v v CJ V?' v G n
U. U- IF n An
V. U= U= c'J t1- U= fR v Ca v U- (r
n H n v, n ?, n n n n n .a n n 0 n
_ 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 00 0 0 0 o c
O O C_ O O_ O_ S 0 0 0 O_ O O O_ S O O _O O O_ O O_ O_ O O_ O _ 0 0 O 0
J J 1 J J 1 J J 1{ -? J{{ 1 1 J{{{ J J J J ?' { J 1 J J 1 J J J J J 1 .f J J? 1 J J ..( J -l' l J J 1 1 .! <?{ J ./ .! J .t: J .! { J J{ 1{{ J J 1
N ?1 v. v H vni vn. vi u+ rni. tni, Inir "ni vn• N vni rnir tni, rnir H h H HJ h rnir vni rni vni rni• v rni, vni H ?J N rnir H NJ h h n v tni, w H H NJ a vni vni rnir a w yr roil r?iai rni, n H ? H H H H H` H H H N "ni yr H ?
.< { Z { z z z z -< 7 '< {{ z z 7?' '' { Z z z-< z '< z Z Z Z< Z Z Z Z 7_. Z '< Z '< z z 7 z 'z z z z '< Z Z f '< "< Z z z 7 Z' Z
o N a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n N o 0 0 0 o N N o o c N o 0 o N o N o 0 0 0 o 0, o o o 0 o N o y o o y o n 0 o 0 o 0 o N 0 o a 0 0 0 o oo
Z '<
J .! { 7 7 1 7{ 1 1{ { { 1 {{ •< '? { Z 7 i 7 7 "< { 7 J 1 J z J{ Z' {{{ Z .? J 1 I 1 Zr 1 7 1{ .I J 7 ../ -e, N J { 7 J ./ z ../ ./ r' ./ z Z. { •!,
v. v v O ^' w O w nir r H 0 0 0 of O v 'ini O v vni N n H O O : O O y N O rOi, nni N O n vn, O H rni• n O r,0i rnir ton O n O r?ir w v v O u rnir n N O rOir O rOn r H vni O O
% IV `^ '^ N IJ IJ T IV N Vr 1^ N N-. 1^ N - _ N 1^
- - - - - - - - - - - --
,J r L VJ J V W .J r l i r , _. I.J iaJ W .J 1.J I.J t-,J W v - W .J
n
r^J N N_ ^ I J N N^ N 1? IJ A N=- N IV "" ^ 7 x N N 1^ N N N N N N o- z N^ V^ N
W 7 : J V .. x fJ .^ N j T+ j J V ?! y V J J
V V IiJ .i L W L tt-J W uJ ,J V O VJ r .. .J U• x N L .J W i.J ',l • V• W t.l r W W ' V• W '.J W W W
m
W W N•- W N N W VJ x W,, x W W T W' 1 W W N? rW -. r r r W W
V V
W?
x 1.J J. W 'Jr .J •J tN x W N- W'+J J N W V^ x W N 'N W N x W W W r '- W N 1 x W N N W
Ive tri
m
®
C, Z
CD ILIA 1YLIALII

c
O > C

O
M
O°
C?
M
D CD
m

%

O
'm`ot
co?
N
O
r
O
dQ.
b
a
O
c
S.
r
orl?

a'

N
O
O ?
? C
h
N
o-
O
ti
O
O
Cz,

ti.
` J

ai
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
v IIV N lu IJ N I? J Iv N IJ Iv 1 J Iv IV 1',J Iv 1'r IJ N IJ IV N_ N Iv N Iv X x - % - X V J V V C - - - - V• V. L L L L L L L - - - -
- - - - ? h, J N 1? 1 N N N N ^ 1^ f^ N V• V • L L L • '., - - •- - - _ _ •.- - - •• X ^ : V. J. J 1 -
N= .. V J"+N, V ?% ?? L V L? J x- L J V N IV V "? L L 1?^ L '? V `"' N J r ? .? V N I x L' -
L ?. J. N V i., - J IJ N V L 'J L% '? - L'.>` "'? L ?: V• 1^ % L L? V .". J• N V V L X N V x-
tJ. ?' L L x L V ? ? L •_ ti j - IjVJ L V• V' '^,' x ? 2, ILi ? ? % ^ L % .'1 i• v .•, N ± V i ' y ?: 1 v: ,
V N L L ? J. ., + N - - .. J• L N ' • N N IV J 'J. L Y. % ? V - J-• L '", ? L .:- N =. N ? X - '? i J O` V L ' ? S 1-J L V' '. ? V L ?.. w. v J• J• V V .?^. W S V % ? ` - - X L ? x J - , 1
v IV I.J - _ - _ _ - - - b: R iL - - b: >t b': A b: A k A SF it >k - ? - - Zt A w ll R L n: A - \ ? ?: ? ?• V') ?^ \: ?C = J = X -X S W % S S x V V V J V V V V V
z il: A A it IJ 1\ ii A n: it: k ,t- 1F it ii - - - - it - it - ' A i[ tAL- ?j Ir lu Iv 1 X N V V - ?^ ?^ iv 1 ?1 V N
n: A
1 N - W b: it A 2t ?t SL A b iL it' i11 A A b: J L V. J. W N J IV y J W '1 L - `
L L ?" V - V- x V I? A ][ A it A- b: Zt A A A k ii: A K b; A ;t b. 1L Z A A It A - _ ,.
I.i I'J 1? N I^ 1? t_v 1^ IJ 1? Iv N ?_ I? A Wk it K S 1.^. I.^J b: >< ,f A i! A S ,t A Z 4t ly I^ 1= 1"J 1- b: A it A ,G k ly 1= 1^ 1= 1^-J 1^ 1-_ 1- 1'- - 1- 1 1- = 1_ .. ?-
_ - •- it iG it ik A? il- A 'iF. ik iC 3k it it iL R It ^ . - .. _
- -• _ _ - - - _ - ? - _ - - - it R it iR - ? it it tt - i! it: t1: -
L
- -J "' V W V• .T IV N 'JC V 1 • L T W- - N N= N Ir .r - ?_ W J W- N - ... - J 1 N i- L^• v N 1 'J. J. S
.? 1_ 'J _ 1- L - Y. I- V• 1- V. Vi Iv IJ. ?? •. -• V• V. % _ N - . r x V' - N V' ... .- . L - -• •- J. 1` x ii _ ' X L I
v -0
.N x .J J v y .? -O v v "° -0 v Y D 'o v> > Y D Y Y Y v Y > Y >
> '0 Y > > Y '0 'o > > y .9 Y y D 'O > > D z 7 D Y 7 Y 7 'n D ` ? Z ? 7 > ! z ? i l > > > i z r ! 7 "- S = ? ? ? Z
z Z r z v z z z z z z S 3 3 Z z -r z 3 - - - -- -_ _ r _
r l' l' Y! G r i _ _{ r i
m y == m m M m y m m m y= m m m m m In m m .n m m
CCZC?CrC ?zr0CCm-iCmCm-imO-lAC,y-pmCAm0CZ07o0pOC7?CrO???m?OCpmrZC,C???r.,0zazaxzz
vmi YC N > O p cmi> Y j O p? v vmi e Cy y v 0 m y> 0? C C? D? C7 ? YC C 1 0 CJ.• p??? Cy C C Cy > C>> 0? 0 y 0 V) (A tA "I Ln 0 0? O i? p p Y ? ? C Lo 'A C? Ln C C C C? f O C O? C C
C C! C -< Y C 1 Y Y C{ 1 1 C 1 {{ y Y{ Y Y( { Y{ 1 1{ 1 > !{ { y y{ > 1 ! J Y D> 1 Y> 1 1 Y Y> Y Y Y ! :I D
J Y y/ ! '.Y` - 1{ 1 J J 1 ! 1 ,? 1 .! 1!! J J J J 1 1 1
m C1 1, J
Z z z z g ° z a a _ °° n r. n
o Y
rp n e D n r r o 1. T c F T Y n c
n 7o n n T n o o o` 0 / r E
? 2 en n C)
L) 0 n
° A n_ O O° o n C C y y 07 c r 3 o - C n r n •p _:
T O ' _. U L ^ i O O G O T _ r T S O -. _ '' S O T O O T O T '^ 1 s 3 G O f'i d n? _ 'n >> O O
•Ui '' ? d _ _ -' S- r O^ } _ O' G^f O G O ° n C " Ci - - V O ?. G d i n = 'O 7 [: O O - T T / T 3
0- !a
O O V C, n G? n O O w O• O' O' N O" O ° O d O O O• ° 'O C G. C O O O^ O O S fJ ° S n O_ _ S O O j O' O' O_ O" ^ O
c o_ y_ o c o c d ve _ o n 3 l u c e e o c- _ - rr'-r m Ir J Ir
° N u? uc v w Ir
7 y m
G S rn rn nnn C?iOr. i ?n_p r r,c r`>Or >''?-^.AV?1?'•,y
20Zr1z?Y Cl
nn rn ?z? W SC70 m? > i222rS?pn<may=yr?rYmm, yrOmO?Yn2?TC1(-?T. r ?•.s?C emr•A?YmZ'?? M0
A
Y Fvm? m -? m O(Y?,,YiJZ<?7J?m> ?m -z m °XX m -iZ?r Z "', `-LIAm L??,m?X rmCr S X zm mwAvmH Zr?rrn y<-I2 co z O z Z< = O? z 7, O O D n m C D m Z A, c ..70.1[0 < O v r<- O O O O O o p t?-- y p A Ca r- cu m L
O O< O Y r Y O m? O z Ov m n P. 0 0 0 0 L O F O T
-l m>O :'o Om
m 7Y mOz ?O?Y Y O cr- nz-7-iCZOZ m mmmpm p?pm z m -i m Z r0 m rCIZ - n CO m O Zmrnr..C mC
Z C m y
- v
Y Y
N 1 Or Z
7 D A
?, cn O >1 0 C M < Zm
7 r vJ (11 T in O 0700 ?m cnmr Nln C In cn ZN?'ZZr_--?- LYC err ?m?C?_r-vICZ --I CA 7
20 -
- ;a n n O S =_ n N C N x N n n O Ai A L i% F vC A m A n n n v N M Cy n O N CA O O O v I V i
z C z C Y D-_ F n n ? in -ml N cn
i Gf'.- i ('a `? T 'x % y - Iv v N v - N c 11 i O J O CO A. J .J, w O =J 'J. V Q Iv _ [r-' Lmn _ - J L - r ?: _ :, tN., 'J• J i - m - i V_ J T '•'• n,
N M 'J. J. Z .i:. v L /J ° V x Z M I. T. F m -i ' V :. r L m - 7` C
- - -I - C C cn '4 ! co A M > A ;n < r A C
"O m Y -? C < C C) < C C .? z
C to m C m C C
- _ = = - = ? V - - X V V, V v - - - N V, - - rJ: ?" L L ?' - IV % i J IJ• V, V _ - ., ?% - 1? - x X J ,J. J X L - - % .- J' - - i X '. _ < _ J' _ l ?, _ _ -
v? r 7_ Z Z i m z v, v, z to m F Z z y m z z m t Z Z N Z Z m m Z i 7_ cn cn N M N c Z CA Z m m cn 'o Z Z Z Z Z r m Z In m cn S m
>
m n M. r C'1 C O T.
m
v z T T C r OC -'? C? m A r a>
Co y S m n Z r -{ - 70 C O Z r Z m Z tO In { cn cn C n w
rTi Vt N V: :n N Y z 7 z z Vl VJ -1 Q, •Z C1 fn N VJ Vf 7 Y V1 P m C In y y > 2 r N N m N v{ to y N ?- Co !n VJ p Z CO VJ y 7 N Z N Y C A F ! 7_
cn C A F m F 2 77 _< S A A Y T-' O n 'p
C C --3 P. Z .•o F A F A Y - S 7J 7J A A m A Z '-0 A Iw N r-o A v C n m
a a A x m z T C 'F F p o f Z O -- r v i- n_ n n l C --- -
70 L N J• N ?' m m Z N y_ v-< --^, J ?_ ±- y '1• Z -1 Y y r -I C .J i- O Om i O N Y N w z 1_ 67 L N iv _ Y 1? x ly Q V ^ =.? `j r i 0 7 L r i r O r- :i
C- _ L '. L v C X _ In C ti r -I - Y-
C") r vJ m- X --3 w m %' - _> C
J. - p J F r., - ` Y - ?'- r 70 ?- Z A .?'-I W p0 ` •° ?' 1 y In -i A > v x Z x
p '? O C Z a m N 70
C - n
S
a) 00
n T p m Y m Y
.'a Y -1 D ? n? Y-1 A S n r C Z C) C C
J C cn v: :n 1 rn N = v, vri rn sn v, cn cn cn r _'1 p v, w O O m 'L Co m Y
t y C „J F F m F 7i n w A A Z A ro r., 7J :n T, A A v n- N N C C G'
Z m v Z v, L "'1 ^_ '?- C L m O Z 'J. - •., C Z- c r v Y m m
r- rn
Y '? z D T. = Y c is v '- .? 3 m m v- O O y :: i ?^.. CO ;Y 0 n r\ v, c? n Z Z v
Z - ", C .'a C 70 p v' O O 7,
.p C C
0C CY <-0 m W '°?'.{ CACC ?Zr
n< m f a O X Z
-? m < C
O^ 0 0 G O C O O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O OO OO O O O O 0 0 0 0 (5 O O O O O C. 7 C O
L L 'O v D 9 'O 'O 9 C O 9 D V 9 O 'O •O •O 9 a a L 'O V 'O V a
o n C Q'' co ° Q V°° o° n o n° n n n n m m r) n ° n n W o q° n° n o 0 0 0 0 o W Y Y o n° iJ n ?+ Y o ° Q1 W W n m o 9 °
, 3 3 = _ } 33 - , - } _ } 3 3 .'-" } y } 3 3 3 } 3 3 } } } 3 m - .c •/1 C ,? _ .c .c - ? .c - 3 3 - 3 3
C C EC C ^c C c c p p c' c c p c p p `G^J .D •C ?C ?• ,O >•'O .^ ?. ?. 'C "C .v'?• .C ?C C C C C C ??'•C C C ?C O __ G ,- ?_' O T ? ?_ ?_ 7 C ?' C C c' -C C G C
G ? .J G .i u .7 J G G •7 •7 •7 J °c °o n n u •7 v .7 G j= J Q J •7 •7 7 •7 G_ .7 •7 •7 d j? •7 j 7 y c y? 3_ 7 7 7 ?? G 7 ? ? 7 n 7 7 ° 3 7 7 7 J? ? •7 7 7 ? y
nn? nC nnU G nnn? nn G G U U nv n- G nnnnnnn? nn r) G G nU nU U U G nnn - U n-' n? nnG G nn nG - n;
l? V !R v'Gi y Il-J n V V V A V A A S° A G n U A A A U --_ V U U v^Gi y H n n O y n G A A O A O A N V G (A n 10 G O A = S U V n 11? G V CJ n N o f Io o N f n
pQ pp Q OO 000 OO O 000 r - Sp - 000 O 000000 -000 00 O Os s - O OOv0' OO
0 N J o o .? J !, J 1 1 1 J 1 1{ J .? .? 1 .? .t 1 1 1 ..( 1 1 1 1 ..( N '/? 2 J 0 1! ..? J .? { 1 ! •!' J ..! 1 1 ! -/ ! 1{
1{ 1! 1{ 1 J! J 1 1 1 1 ../ H J .? { 1 1 1 J .! { N 1 1
iJ ?n v n %1 ? v .°/' v ° '°n '11/. .°/. rOn r°n t°n H N t°i. tOi• v°i N N N °v. v°i ti. w .Oi• .°n N .Oi' vni .°n .O/. h vOi N N N N VOi to 1°i. ''li+ h N vOi N H N v. H Vni N .°n N v. N
z
n
•o ? 7? '` Y Z ? m rn _ ?
Y
p w =na NCT. x C ?<,^ m Aria sT.•--, a Lo rn
w --I _ O N v j n_ Y L D Y , n Z +- = O C -L
rn T -.• r p N ? m r p C ?' C
-i C o z z -.1 0
? r
a
C
?, In
cn
cn In
a cn :n c A r :n F n N

O
' 2 2
Tl a n
'
9'
O A° T
O
0 9
O
}
O T O
'
'
O
,
a
?.
Q7 •O
C
C C
0
O' n O
7
?.
. _ O n ?.
C: C
C O
' ° O O O
-
0
d c
G ? 7
O
7
07
O
.. 7
6
6 d d
O d y d d 0 ^-'-, d
A A
0. n °
O

N C
6.
Y 9 o

Y
'O d
y =
0 G
0. 2
O

?. v
V T - >' T
T
O C
Y

0 3 rn d C'

y Y

n 6
O" _
=
H
D YY
_ r y O
- G u- V= If' y
C
.. ..
'
vl H v. O
O o O O O . Uc °
.
>
j
T T v, ?' N H u, v ^O v. v H '^ G O
O O O d Q. o U
- T U= O O O O= O
u"
c d

° O° r O .-.. 3o
O O' n o O O.
n.

'Co. H O
O v°i T
n
v.
v.
a y y
_ T
°i \ °i V= .O. H
°
n - n
°

UC O
o n d O O _
r
E! L4 O

° O S
° U= J
n
.
vc
-
n
S.
u_ R.
Z. _ °
O d

o O• d
^

_

° O

d° c n 0 r'
o o °- V

o o O

d
G
3
d p O 0. T d O O O n n O o p
'O O o V O o O o 0. o O o j ?,
d
- O
.
IP v d vO
v d -
d f
=
n an S N n O n G: rn 'n v. A ?_ .n v. v. v. D. 1i U
v
O O O - 0 0 0 O -•
'
J v,
- d u A n
° ?- fi Q
' 9 n d
n
'
?? C O
J V 9 __

.
O
- = O r O O O O

9 .O 9 O

O. O

'O 'O V ?
Q V V 'Q 0'
O. _ _

O
O
_ _

O

O / -
O G N O O O y 0 0 on O 0 0 0 N N O u °. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 N O On 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O o 0 o O G O O O O N O N N O ?' N 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0
t z z -e z z 1 { z .r 1 .t 1 1 1 J ..! Z .{ 1 1 ! Z Z 1 ..? .! 1 1 ! ! z ! Z .? Z ! { 1 { 1 { 1 .? { { 1 .? 1 1, z 'Z •!, { {
1 { J 1 1 .( 1,
..( 1 Z! 1 z. z{{ z z z •< .z "'? "'? "'? '{ "'
H N H y H H h , ° H O u O v°i H v°i u H N h v°i v0. H y N H u O ° H v vOi
N N O O H n O O O N vOi vOi O N 0 r H h O I°n N H N ° Oi. O O h 'On O O O
n . - - - . - - - N - w - - - - - N - - N _ - _ - N - - - - _ - - - - - _ - N - W - n - - _ - _ - - _ -
N: N_ V O N N X W V J V" V V• ^ N V .N. N = ' N lJ 1^ N 'V \i V N N ^ .^ N y ' % w "=1 v ^ j v V ... N- V^ V"^ V NJ' V JC V '.. A J .^.. W X "" "" ^ N
V• L O; •• V. V• O V. r W W'• W W W W. w • "J V, W • • W N- W V L W W W. W ?O W . W . N • W V, V 1., i- . L . V W i .f W A W W W- W W W LS W
- N• ., W W 5 J

Z 1- L L L L ? L J- i- Jr L i- J-. ? Y L L L 1- L 1- ? 1- L- L L L L ? L L L 1- L ? ? _ _ \: `. u y ? x J T V, 'J. L L L Y L ' '.J V, •+• _ N i?+ - _- - - - - - - _ - _
_ X x V J V T V. J. L L L L L + . W N IV N i) '.; - ^
N ? J - _. 'J. x x N ? ?J IJ J V j = / - N V T I J - J. L ?'
?' a. "'` L - x J L ? x? ."? 4) IJ - V y J L ?: IV + N r _ Ji V T l?, ?. - 'l. '? i.J V T ^ ^ V V -} IV V J ?: J 'J? L '+ - ,- V I" J ^ '?' L N N T ! -
1. x IX V V N? x x L_ V L J' ^ x'+J - N I - - V" J \. _ ., L v V T L - J V V J L ?: V y^ N I-J ? --+ ? J: + + .= L L j x J J- ` L?
- _ - .. - - _ - 1? V - - J ^ V \. ? Y Y '" - , 'N ?y? V V ?: ' V• = IJ 'J. ' '. - V L V L .? N Y x V T ? ^1 ^ Y x - J. J' Y = ' - - ? , L: ?.. V ? X L J J ... -
N i - I J J. Y r x x= '? x T L r x iu r ^' -x ', 'N -_ 'N '+, _•+, ?+, N N
J? V. V. V. J Y ,J it L L L W Y Y _ _ _
it: F: K; ` >C - - ? R >t ??: >K it ? - - ? •J J I\ ? v ` `, X x x X % Oc a ? ? j V J V V = ? V J ? v V ? .+ '.i N ? k N ? - - L ? L ? I Iv N - - - - - -
1 1
3i, it >t - 1t -- 3J= at it: k N N -N-. L___ IJ I L N V Y IN ?. x J '+ ~ x 1 L x V J ?I IV 71; V V N J= ?% J J J. L N V ^ N N IT
t ?• ?? it it, it iL u k k L x T , ?^ ... L W N N F' x^ " u v 3 ..
` t .IC + k J •'? it k it tl it ? ? Ij I Iv 1? 1? I" = I?J 1- IJ N_ t •/ N_ IJ I ?i IJ 1-i I? N_ I_v 1_J tJ I 1 1?J - - I-_
- _ - - - - - .^ - - - - - - - - - - k - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
k: k il: k = = L: It [ il: 3t 1t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - iF. -
- - - - - - - - - ^ - - - _ - n ^ - n J -
.. '? P. L- N W u. - V .- }-• - x u- W IV ! U. J L T N W ?^ L--
... N , YJ- V n_ Iv - V 1 ^ X Vt N - - :i % ^ W x ?! V 'J' Iv IV N - J. W ^ L J. y, , J '=, ?+) L U .^ - + J' N ?l - IV - J N N Y y_ j L
V = - _ 'J. J .?. U. V. ' ?- ,? = i. IJ .. ^. J 'J x - - , ..' '+, ' . 'J. _ ?'? V - 'J. L J J? N •J - V L u V.
-fl -oy 'o> -oY -o YY'o z'YY i+Y-oYYyY3>YDD y y >Y i z7! ° i ?}'zr i i??z
`r ^o v Y Y Y v '9 Y y v D v D •v 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? = 7 r =z z z z ? - = = - z - S - .? - -
m i?•-Jr'Tm
7z z < < < z S m Y2 m l D Y 2 yy -'i m m
m -i m -1 z z ? m -1 -i •-{ z -{ m D m ? m _
<
-i
m O C O C C C o z T C A c c x
p p -? O C C ?-^ G O C c 0 0 y-1 C p A A A C O C c c O° O i c O G C O C C° m° m 0 0 0 0 m 0Zm m O m CNm C C O c c
7_ Z C Z N rn Z A Z A y z Z c Z Z A Z Z y A Z Z Z C A Z A y Z A F ZN ZcnZ to cn N Z 1, A Z Z m m A Z A L ;^ z w A
??CC? CC°?°?OCO?yImiJ>>>pyp°0°?°00°OpO??yCpy cnCC?Z>7_??°y OODcnO0CNCOpCQ>C`'7>>>Cy OCO?>?>y?>y>
p l y l° 1 > Y 1{ D 0{ J y p f y{ 1 y y{ D 1 1 J ' y 1{ J{ D 1{ y{ 1{ Y{ y{ D 1{!{ J{{ I y 1> C
J J J ? J { J { ? 7 ? J 7? - J f c
? ?? '?v ^Z Acr?-, n n O^?In N n n?A? 0 2np C9 c
C) g nv o C7
Q n 5 2 20 nr n A
.? ' A n n C O n O to ?f, W .?i t_n r m o-
O n r r? O w G r ?' ?! r o c O v T? r ': w e=? r' o =_ n i, = T y T E;
O
T O T T G T T -Ci T V y O G- J O i y n??' - G n. V r A V - d ry O O A G i i'' O ?. T• 7 U. ?' d= _ i i CJ i T G w - T +_
i O T- - - T -- G n - O O• O N T :+, T w '; T O' O' n _ O O p T 7 O' p Or. Ti IS O tT - n n O O O O' IP- O_ O^ h _ O' O n- n i G n v-
02 (R (P (P (P UP (P (P ^ _ v U= n ? n p' p' n O' o _ o m G .-, o ? o" O' T G O- c w O m O o _ p O- d d d C n
c. ' P ? T c -. J c ? ? c c n p, n r c d N d c c _ .. c ?, o - d n on 1R m C, 7.
to ^!'?nn-? Z n !")nC7 A OZ! r, nn?A=0gnC1Ar > ?- co nZ <; =AlAr1 n ° f'-i<n D D =n ?. 2O . Xm Ac'C Lil
>m >==X 00-A YZ??OQm >c=Onm nZ..,l N2z n0 T•A
=A Z=SCpYy? y D mn - Xr- > 7 mF lrY 7-> Y SX?rn z>O > CO? ? rmm? z'?00 rOr -a rn ?? ?mA!-
L -2?mZi*? in aAy i
YOyY D D 7, -i r -0 2T.° r
n Tm 1- < i mCZO rZ-iZOy rcnA mA ??ZAO mZOZ?NCn_ D ?
co Oj0 x00<mODZnpZinCnc:Ln co0°YqOZ,Mo-ZizOZr•0yrZC?2rrpmCm?OiAOAOr???mAm ???0?cocC=L0
?Zr TOOT ?OU??OT?pO° OOOS mO.1. O?7
m r r 7. m?n'r ri m m A mm iOmOO )?O Jir.r.:m
z
Y
A
m O
A > > y. N .^.
- Z -I Z G7 m r = V: co m
r- cr (A m A A r A O m A Y N Y cn N cn cn r- <n r (A r C S v`/r-
M X 0) 7,
O n Ci n :: " Z Ir x x I^ A 'A n A J r N A ,^ i J^ r_ AY N +- G ?, ^ ?• X^
x z Z r z M O r Z y Z Z Z O - C '? C 2 rzj In A°M C) - i n n A 7; A rZ'1 J! r r '? v
_ _ Iv -rl J Z - x
n y ^ ° m > n n n r N'O n - z --' N = r 1J IV ^L' - JI V? = x 'J. V m
m
N ni .,, trait _ O 0 D O m T.
T -i < N A
J, a J a- y -? x Z m< -? O C C '? A ° w m
A m ° A O
x °
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
v N J' - T u Y IX L J N y r J. - N V v- J iN . V L- 1? X w v T N' x Y '~ X X J I.
Z r ZZ my(A rr nZZ m :n ZZ-m?m1.1 In m cn«m mZL cn ZvIZZC?Zv: ZmmZmicn v+? y ?m.?_••i :n Zito ?Z:Z cn
n
z w
A
Y -t p O z X J > A = m
n s _
.7 m r 0 ?O 'Nn y2C 'y°1C N p m Y - ZS GC C r
rN=cn ?T w O= v, z N^ OtitOrlw--nl ?' I D7oFAr FCr? J.?r) r- M -AAZOAA=A? rAAA ADAFCr?? ?ZmA?CN ?T.x?A 1 ;o Y n _ m N fn n Y - 7 r - 07 ---N o_ m_ A A '.J• _ m N _
L A A ' m O v^ N T A y N A A O i:. O O O to ra n m I. .A C m co- w m m J' A y_) ?+ O A= w r.J, C x v v J ?' x .L J OZ r w L C 0 C'• r >' .. 11 Z An,mZ=J2Z c, TZ > JZ =0V, ?....?? m _ C) M.
ArC- C p J A A nm ^
° s v O O O N{ A C4 Zp y ° p T Q m C p C A - v C1 A C
- r <
ti C 7, A F .? A N r m .-.,
p ? {
c
z n cr
r O c x m y
C n O m n z= Z GC r O F x-
T "z sn N O N O rn ti cn In N n .mO. m? m
7 C)
> a A F y i
s v` vl s? Y
A a F a n tr a CT' - a n^ A A O A J A F A O F A A S , J
A v.+J - '-J• N Y y, v' m O C J
m fn - v: Z r, Y- A - O vNi - ,i Z_ m
n 7 w i m- Fc O °` . L O to O x m n y ' A x r _ CO o D ?; y x
J. '.. N M W G 2 A - y J. oc ?, ° -i - Z V r N y , y V- J m -' x m N -' C r -` +
_ A A CD F -i
-I 'Z r Z T p m° A p C A 2
A n ° C P
>
C C ? A
A C
> s
r A S
C ? c T m
m N 'i N :n N Vl G' Z N N 7 a a a A Z° F F y F- a a
F' r A F a F r A C C T A
M
': v X
Iv N ?. X I'? co
u .z V O Iv V- Y N= J T m
C T ° Z A .J ,
C C C
F
r
r ?? n <n w ? v, ^nr„ In cn r A .- n n v
_ vl cn 7c r r N N c n t_ri n S. c } A 2 A
a d A r_ - d o
.o n o n ?- A (r _ A O O __ N n A n n _ A N n O n d_ O O O A A s C C? _ H
w 2 O G G ?, u w O -- 5_ s - _-- A= -
+. G O Oo •. 7 -1 . - - .n a - c ra w _ n n n c O n_*f, (i o n O-
T _ - ? -
^ n L. -' c n c .o' ,o' c o a n "n ° o ,? 'v n •? d O $ D; W $ - -? o - - _ - _
- .. - - c o _ ? _ d } n z} d ? a n O z d - m` -, n G ? d n a } ? P ? ? 2 ? i } } ? d = ? ? v
o n o °- d d .. ?,' a 3 > c n o c o> o o n c ,,, y_ T ? T, T .r c ?' T o- n r a 3 3 °• H u o In r D
O' ° u v O n d n' T O m = ?' 3 o m c _ U. N m o O n - w n
n ?? ? O O VO' VO'-' O n n ? O C? C d 0 3 O' o o
O O G-. 3 [O,• Q- G y U= '? O It- n 0 ,00' O n IT- 0 N a r n? ? G ? n 0
n n n d A ?' n A A i O r n T. -. O A_ n n n d^ i n n - 0. n i O i n ^ O n w - , n n n A
O O A O O O O A n .. . A n C C - _• C Q' n .O' 6 C 0. 6
O O 0 0 O C 0. n O C G1 O v O 'O O C O - 0- V n 'a O O O Q n O O n 0 0 C _
-- C d Q O O C O O 6 d T 0 G O O N. O N. 6 0. d ^O .? 10 O ' v _ v r: - J _ In n _ .n n-
G
F,. Q. n n C F-
0 C w rn C (i w Q- 2 w -Oi p' In p ?' n' ?' C f :.1 - C O^ d .r-' O O - O G 9 '00 E; E; d+- -
O
n % ?' _ ci _ G 7 L v O O n V ci ?j 'O O_ O. o. u 2 2
O - - - n N _ - rn w
C G D O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O G r 0 0 O O O O O O
n - n n n n n° 03 •? n o •O c D o n0: o n n o c c co co o n v n o co ° o c o co D Y Lo o ar a Y n n •O n m c° n n c ^ Z .• ti -, n
a :1
o IF
O D° p C° C r q C° C c O c" O o" C C O °- - c' O C C C=° O C C C C C p- ° C O C C T- C O a C 7 •? ?' O 7 ,7 ,7 7 .j O D u ,a v
w_ .7 n o .7 J •7 w? G o J G G o y .7 .7 w .7 w- .7 .7 _ w v .7 G .j •j .j .7 °- '? i-' ?? n Q G j? .7 w y i v .j Q n j n G 7 ?? o f •7 0 0 0 ? o g - o o- ? ..
v n v v n n n o 0 0: n u v G n n r°J n n n n iJ u n v n n n n r-J n r'J n u o n n v n n o u u n u u n S n n w J o n r-J n w o n m m ? n _ n- o- n o
Il° = v n' c') o o 'r r ?) n o h o w ,^° n n n 'w n n r w c, v v- el n w o n o °i, n ice", o G n n o o° w o 0 0 o u n 'n o H v ?J n_ ,w„ o °_ o n o° a
0 0 O C O C 0 0 0 0 O O_ O_ O O S G T' O 0 0 0 0 0 0' O O O O S' 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o O O O O C O O O
{ { { { { ..? .? / 1 J { ? ? { .? { ? { •[ `! '? "'? 'J '? ? J J { /' J ..I { J J J { .! { 1 1 { ? ./ J { J { J { { 1 { r; { J J J { ./ { { ../ .? -? { J { { 1 .! { ? •/ { { ?
v 'ni. 'n •nn n u ICi'i 'oi. IOn 'oit tOn• vol toil N y N N H N N H h N H h o y o Inn o ni IOi. In w o IOn IOn I,oi on toi. v Ini. N H` N H v H u` toil H Ini. N vni H h H u H H 2 H u N N 'n 2 roil roil Ion roil IOn v vni roi? N n v ton H
Z Z 7 1 Z Z{ •! Z! Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z - Z< Z '< 'Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z{ Z Z 7_ Z Z Z 7. "I_ Z
J ,{ ./ { 1 1 ^! {{ Z J
O J O o r v, O O O On ton O O O O O O y 0 N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O o O wn 0 o o nn O ton o O O c o O O O H O
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ?nl n 'nn nn N „ N N H Inn In^ N v nw H Inn toil '^
Z Z J J J Z. .? {{ J J J{{{ J{{ .! J{{ .( J J Z. J 7 J z{ J{{{ z{ {' {{ z .? { Z z J z 7 J{ 1{ z{ z J z 1 Z J{ JI 1{ •! Z{{{ J{ .? J{
O O Z. H 11 O Intl Ini. vni h vni voi H w w y 'Oil Intl ov, IOn H H w toil Ion O N O H O .,ol n 'On von O H o voi Inn O 2 ton O O „.n O O ,o^ H H O I2 il O 'Jni o 2 O °n ton n vO, IOn vn. O Ini? IOn nv, Ion IOi. IOn n O ,on v O n n o v
n n
0 0 _
^` W N .^+ N L N N N V^ - - N . N V' N ^ - V N ^ - N N N IJ N_ N_ V' N_ "' N N N N N N N = --V' N NJ O V' V v, `VO O ; 1=_ . V ; _ J. ,r V N (n V N IV v'J _ ' 'O V W '? v +
J= j - T- J ^..J ?O J J 7 i x C: lVA V 7- .. V J W W V. w ?O W C W W W Y W T w• • t W W W- . W O V x W W W W W t J W . V
V. - . W- W W W V? W W N N W 1 W J W W v. W W . W W W W W W W W W S W N y' Z
< <
m m
N N IV W N W N ti, - N w W N N W x W l?) IN U N- W w N l., W

?, +, w w w N ?, 'N ?, w w L w w ?, x w ?, x w x '.., .O x ?, N w w w x N N T N x w w w N 'N .., w w x - N N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ = c =_ - __ _ _ - _ - __ _ >•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J J J J V J J J V J V V J V V J J V J J J v V 1\VJ V I J V J J V V V J V^ X j V V-^,`?? ;1 y r j 1? V ^1 , V .^ '? y- - L- = Y I •1 , N
J J V V ? ^ = Vt ? L Y Y Y L W ? `: S S V 'J? Y ? I ? u .;1 G1 'J• V. JJ IV - 1? - - ' IJ ? J v L % J J J N - •J V? L ?.. - - .'J% - = V L L -_ - ? - -
? - J V, IJ x .J L X J L X .^. V 'n ` v Y L L L Y Y .-, ! -- - J t __
L J ^ - ` ?. l., T ? _ 1? _ N Y - L I.-., x - V J J J., ` ? X _ - J J ., V fJ• ?. v V = F N li ?' ?: `.. N % ., V J? = W L - % ?. Y J. - % _ % ? _ I. - , L - _ -
J L ?. r+ - -1 V x ' i J• W Y 4J N 'i ., IJ - - J' - = ^ J ^? ., J N 1 U U - - - -
-7 777:
R A R it A Iv it it -_ - ? ? _ I. X X J \ `I J J ^ ^ T ' ` J. ? L L Y '"J W `J IJ N J 1., N N - it - I N N
A A A R A 3t A A - - - R R R A R R it i! ii - - - 1 N J 1 L ? !J' '? IV ^ N - IJ ??.^. '?C J t%J ?? I,J N N 't' ` _%? u 1'L '+ it i.
N J R A R A R R R R---? iG A A R A A R it A ii N V !i y--^ 1 •jt L IJ J- - _ - L J _.. ? .. ri "'
A R ik 3G A it 1-.. J N_ N_ N u IJ _ •, 1- I.j N_ N t. fJ N 1-_ _ IJ N_ N N 1^ I_ N_ N_ it 1_? ?_ ? -` 1 _
ri S A it il: iG A A X L L IJ R R R R .R t R Ix A A? 1 % J JJ ^? N Iv M1J N 1? _ _ --_ ?_ ^
i 3t. .- _ .- _ .^ 1_J .J IJ 1^ N _ J Iv N - Iv I - _ N Iv ZL IJ Iv 1 - - - -
J N IV iY. A A A A C A it IV N N IJ ik 3f it A A k A A IJ it: A N N N N N N N IJ N IV IJ N IV IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IV N IJ IJ N N N Iv I IJ N Ir N N N N IJ N 3[ IJ N R- x N-?
X J _ ., L I x IJ = Vt J. - - ._ - . N ._ .? ? N '^ - J \: J .. -_ _ N \• .. V '? N y ? y 'J. - W
I - J• L ' ? }, J Y !., .-.^ N ?? V Y V. L ?' ??? 'J• V L _ = T .^ S Y N .^ L _ - ^ Y
V 1 _ _ O Y V• X- x
'J = W 1^ N J• N ? V• V ._ x IJ V• ?' •J' N 'J, V• V• V. ?? ,?: V• X x .. '? - - N - ' x - _ - _.
y a-- D a a v D Y o D a D o Y a 9° a a Y y a a Y Y a Y Y D a o 9 Y y y o 9 Y D D i Y> y z 7 z i z! 7 7? z! 3 z i? z z z?
? ?_ 'z ? % , z ? ? ? ? z Z z ? ?? z ? ? z 7 ? Z ?_ z z ? z ? 7 3 z = z - _ - - - - -
i c w F w m
-i r `< to N m m + y m -? 7 to Y ? m .n 2 m Z m D 2 m `,• 2 Z r 2 S ? .Y^.{
F_zcpCCCCY"lCOA00-Y"IrC m m -n -n VpOpmmC zm0??OOz m?AZz?z?mp?A?CAA1mi,??FZ??'L.C?mA ZAA?OFO?O`???F? zA?•.
pcFi,m000mFOCpCCF V'rn NCONCCv'•nc'"litpyAyOCyO?Nyp?'pYpp?c'-li.•?y py ppCO?;n?Y?pY i- J o>> L4 CCCOD J
O C
Y Y p :n vl p Y C C Y D D D p p C Y p C- Y Y p Y> C J J 3' r C y{ y { y s' i .? y p{ { Y{{ -.? ..t D •? Y Y D Y{ Y
p p y J{ J J Y> p p J J J{ J J Y{ Y J J J> 1 J { J -/ Y J J J { { J J J J
J Z 7 Z ? ?
70
[) C n r, o n o i 2 W n u 2 C C c n 2 C- o r' p vl t N =• C7 ,T- r' 2" _`G, v T c o ?` 0 n O r °_ ° T 2
n n
n C - C W` o v, r r r C ^, = .. v: ?. n ?" o_: v m o r o Y v >_ > o w c 'n c n ^o o< N -' S= a 2 a o C ? n- v, 3 c a
T ° y F _ r 'n N n n -. 07'0ff
= _ T T d C2i O^ } T rn T .? O n- O T ^"1 O ^i d e9 _ V J U' ° O O O n j O •p % O ° O S^ '^ n° G O %? a =6 O? Ij ? O O 7 f C O' a _ .?_
T' ° O w n - O O n O S ?' T O' r O d% O_ O. -? _ H 3 % O 7 _ O n i O O - S = O - IK S ?. - 11:
1 V' V- V.
r F Z t? C C?c-,< n? Znwm Z- 1N mC Y y Sin L)C) ?YTFFY2_ m ;2
o3 a. cn r) pa 7o r- N C J= Z y Y z m m a O m ?i O v O? m z O ;: m T p z m -Z 7 y z C z z O X n= m F m m r r 'z O T p Z Z r n n ?- r r
O w-a C Y Y Z m O ZmmT w = mY pFyr. F -iF rmmFZ
m n F z Z z O p
x w r- C: C O Z m ym y O m< i O 0 O p r-Z p C C m Y O C F 0< Y O< r n O A 0 0 O F o O m O 0 --1 o m m 7 ? C_? C ni
O O p T F n= < L O
-i Z m?-"'3OCD D I D -1F-iCCc'O?ZO?.?YZ F 'LF r?FF'/.myCv?'m?Czrr =r.ZFO>-ImZ?mC F0--l r - OrmF mOmCZ
•,?Y Yw ?O?F rmAmpmtn cnmv Frrn O n0 rmC1Q F= ^-° min rrn m OZ m "n CFmZO C ZvJ
r- c, m n- m 0 m Z{ z O O m ? T z OZ m n
O
In Z to A 2 •--^t 2 G
v v Cl F O z r m z F T
z z O O m r
?cn C Z' 2 2 Z 2 C r m v) zm z?cnmN sc ?r? r Z Z r /- =z ??
I- z v,
Z <,. yn C-i z OC to p'Z I^C-2Cr%CCZC ZZ-?Z`C-FCFZ<FZC CFOF L-m-^-' i,;,;t,Y--?cCilC:n x-?
f-- z CA, - lo F Y c_ e T `
/1 T T v T J J y N- p - = Y v Y V O 0 Y .J%, J- y ii D V ^^ N O r o N J z y l 0 L- r Z J n- S m- L Y ?l x i J r- J' = J .: Y _ Z Iv
2 L f
Q- O ?:? J• • Z L^ -. m i?J,- ?p N +- ^ i O '- - Z. +, _ w m ={ Q= ° y r N C ?, C In -- - n r J L N
• Fn= n rn :^?Z- = ^ '? ??^ = F O m
i m l-n to F p O ° Z ?' -i < °? m < a :n O F C I
F G 0 C m C F ! C O
C O

m m ;n Z w z Z Z m m Z M, Z r r r Z Z f m m r m S cn to to Z ! v, Z m Z m m S v, 7_ w cn to vl cn m cn rn m z v, m :n (n i to s m t
c '
`
m Y
F Z
F r
T y O m ca - O r n 'r n- n A i F rn r
Z ? svJ> 'S rNm ?cnDcncncnA cnm T.Ztn vlvJCn"wr CA ;n Ccntncn-CZ cnY ?cn v:.-NC?tncn_tncn?m, ?7cn? F:ncncn:nv:ycn
m C4 ?J C r^ F r m r Z J+ F I- C Z vJ F Z F F F 'Y F p N F F F F? F cyi, - F F n F F F F -Ni z 'r - F r A i- n F N y F F F 7? O n 2 0 N z F F F F A T r F F
N L- Z= r n a m v, n 2_ - O-- N Z N= - r -- - m 2 m - Y N - t Z v a^ vY Z
m r m N r Y^ x L J- L r- m m_ - m J ;? -^ o T w N o = Z m Y L n J - y ?• ?' D o 3 N z Z y- x z xv ? Yi I^ r_
I C,
D cn y C7 m Y rn v M D ?; v ter- m ?' z ?? L z Iv m Y - " O J N Y - V, D D < C
C O _ •^•j m ? .. ? ca Z < p CO F F p m 1- .,, F r O < ? ? m m m C N-1 a
n -'Fr c- Y p F rC C F Fr < a m
.'a OZ < X p CN C
v p
n
C n / r m
O i n _ Y y m m < Z Z Y
ZZZN_ry stn `'In w ;nrtn cn cn ?'C ! wC?tJJr"_'?<n In
Z 7 n F F F x n m Jz, n F m` ;? y A n
Y r- m y ^? i :` n=- O -; O 70 Y Y r x F n m m
Ci J "=tni-? i= ci.",p0w 7O-Tm V z-cTO=("A .,
i i m ?? C
m ^/ D F F (A FO X -N-I J F
z < C C 70
C m r
7
Y
n n
ro
_ m F Y F n
Z -p rn C_ y T r'c
cn :n N- D cn cJJ F m m cn ti O ?. F cn cn cn vl C vJ y Y N w y r m cn tJ: s A m
F F F ,:.? j C F F{ -i Y F F m 1 n F A wx n F F m F p a m C O .X A 6 F .-c .-, Y
m x? j ca F- N O- F O
i % cn a T m r I.I _-J 2 Z 'Ni. W v Rj tv - ^ 1., } z { C Cam' n = ?' - L T. ;` m Z
x ?- N -1 y - y Z 7o IJ - n = Y " cn F, m r
m T p
C p co -L4 ;c
{ Z A ?? p
F f
C
? a ?, In. ,a ?, c Ilc r r r N c n. `I' A :n (r-
,?,
F ,nn °^ F °- .'„ Il- F n• F F F F A n n F F a n N N n n = n
F X
•? O? c? ] ? ?• 7:- ? . c F v n 7 n ? m n c- T. n *1 ti - ? n ? o ? ? __ n_ c_ s
l '' l] n m n O n n = _ O n O .?' O ?' n T1 ? ? 'O' n O i rl - 7 ? %• ?. - ? ? 7 % % ., O U? C W % •?. 6 9 ? G 2 L 2 ^ - _ _ _
-p a _ i _ 4• d C r, d O ti n C n y /j d f' d y C y y O c {? d o ri n D_ n C n = n u C O n n A > > Y Y N n ^ Y -
y ? ? c o n n_ - Y D o ,? _ a =, ? r. c o. ,,, u u o °• m a o r a• N o a r. a ? v a o to -
)' ?? Y V c - ? to In to v, - - c? j N o_ n a n o- y y i
C H T n' rn u G (:' o (F Va VO'-' O- O ° L' 45 O c°i Va n o V= Ir O O O 0'. .O' .o n A n n o' 6 O' p C UO'-' o O O? 0 tF .O; o n n n n O o o O O a n n n f ^:
- O u Q O o' ° c. n c n '°^ n o fJ n: n n a n n -. c n '- n n n - c .c . ?' c n c c a
n A n nO- ' Cl 6 O d O O d O .? ^ O n p O a n O O O O O n. O ' a ° S n. a n O d 6 O n A 3 . ?' o
d d d o O n O O O O U C -I• V tJ, A 'n U. ? In d w COi ti 'n d d d .n '^ A 0 A A n ^. n O n ^ 1
`i fi I., ?., w .n v (r' to n In n a S n _ _ "
a. a ' a o o a ° ° i a o ? o
°
9 p' a p' a L a O p - O li
U
_c _c' a ?c^v?a ? ? ?z
z':F ? a a a _o -o '? a a acv T -o -v a a a ? •o -o a a ? v 7 a a 7T z ;o a T v v
o d o 1. O o 0 o O 0 0 0 O O o o o O o o o o o O o O O o 3 o o o o o c o ^ C o o
a a a a s a a aG a a a a a a a a a a a a a n n W° ° ° n n n n n Pi M 'R n I ° I n I n n D n an n? n •O a 'o ? r, v n v a vt, ? a T .? v ?? 'f
_ n n = n n n n n n n n n n n n n n !? n n n n Y } ? 7. - _ r 3 } } } 3 } - ? ^ - - } : } : : 7 3 _ } } ] } 7 : v : }
OGCC-CGCCCC-000pO -C O C_.7 ,?•J CCCO.?,JCJCC O3 D,JO OC .?O_ pCOCCC=0 =C _O nC= CnCCG
^. U :, . J u ^' U U U n O 3- U _ ? _ . J O : O r 3 3 3 O O 3 .. - O - .^ .. -
V-
-- ?' - - _ , - 3 n' n b U U n n n n c, n t'J r, n n c, n o o n iJ o n ra o u Ic n= n n n U U U a u 'c n c, n n 'm U n c', U J U
r U U U - U n U J U U U iJ U U r .n U ?, V G V U 7' n U n n n n S n J S n n n
A A <?', A Tn A N n A A A A A S n A n o ?['J ?n w n N n A n vUi U U A A A A w vUi o vUi Io n U A v Z; Ui A rJUt A A A ?t'J n n N A A A A A n n n= lR IF Ut X fly S S CJ V-' V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O _ --- 0 0 0 0 ' O O O= O O 0000-0 0-0000000 O O S 0000 O - O 000
•/ ,,,? 1 ./ { J 1/ J .! J{{ J .{ {{{{ 1 ..( 1 J J 1 J J J .( J 1 ../ J{ .! J{ J 1 J J 1 J J 1{ J J ^% ./ ./ { 1 J 1{ J ^.? J 1 1 J J 1 1, J 1 .? J .%' J .! .I { ^% J 1{{ -! {
h ' H 'nn toil vni vn, tni, H r nJ. vni snit N N N N N toil rnit N vi h H h N v. n N vt Ini,
toil tnit snit rnn b ni t il °nu, H N h vn. tni, H 2 2 t°il no o o o w o u o o H o o (nil H o ti n o In H 1n rn o N o N o w o w h tni+ o nn
vn
-/ z z z "'? z z z z{ z {{ z z z z z z z z z N ^• z z z z N• z N• z z z z z z z H z z z z z{ Z Z Z J n { Z Z{ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z{ Z o { Z Z o{ Z /
O O 0 0 O o 0 o o O O O O o o 0 O O O O N O r O 0 0 N H N O O H O 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O tn„ 0 0 0 v O G
J. O O O C N O O O o y 0 y no 0 0 0 0 0 y y
•% / J { J J J 1 J 1 1 J 1 .[ J{ ^L• -!• { 1{ J J{ Z Z -! i Z J .? {{ [ J J{ J .! Z Z{ -! J J .! J 1 1
^/ Z J J 0 { 0 Z { J {{ { J 1 Z{ { •?! { { J { J .I z Z Z { Z ,
toil ° '.n+ vnt y N N° H i H v tJn, w v° H vn, vn, tn„ « w ..n, H N N N H N o?° r? Vn• ° vni N O ton vni vni N N°° Vni ton ton N? H H H vni H°° N ° 'n.' « ?ni Vn. N N vni ton N N°° H ti n n n? n H
_ _ - Iv - - - - - - - - - - - V, - - - - - - - - - N - - -- .
Iv N% "' N Vi N 1^ N_ N 1^ N% N J N W- N IJ I? N j= 1 1_ 1?N. N j N V W V V' 1^ N VV' V J I- O N JC JD N^^ O• - V v
W
N' lrl i VJ t•.l l?l l,.J '• VJ x, V! W V t W W t.'J I.J ? V. W . t?J W^, W _^. V• , •, W W N N W W W tJ W • T W Y 'J • W V•
N j W V a
W W m
W W W ? W V V' W W V W W W ? VI V W Vt W W V'V 7\ W
,, ., N IV VJ IJ L V, N '., W ?, N w N ., Oc W Y x x N 1 1 ' '

r,Y
I\. \

arm, ?-
r
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ ., _ _ - - - - - o c
;3 = ?; :n x z x> :A x x- z x x x< z xx x N z z x z x x z> x
yV'n n. n 'V J J .. J. r • L . y.]
L l J ^ Y Ir IJ S '? U• - '? L IJ j ?• n. V L ?C J '? ?-• \% f.J I.J S ?. V X % ? ? ? y N ? ^ - 'l ? ? % ;? L j L v
r ,^? '"' N J Jr r •J• 'Jr N IV • r W V N % J' V V ' J X - - r }- IJ x ?. - ? N J 'IJ ^\ 'j ? W % Y ? ^i V S - ?: L ' ? L u i ?. ? Y. 1 j L IJ ? X X ? ?+ 1-!. N "- N ? •.. .'.^ L ' • x X L x J • ^. ..
J. J• J '+J - x J J r.J r- '.J .1 ? v^ -. n - ? ? ? J J n ?
?p V? ?+ ?. un S S X S J ?! ` J V V J J V_ J. \ L L L L' J ' \-` IJ N N N= N= f- -- r it it
.7 v N IJ _ _ - ^ Il l S IJ N? ?_: .? N .. 1-?` U• - Iv N 1- t?J V - y N N N ? - ? ? tt JI:
l L J .? _ - I.JJ IV v I - 1 N J N - .i 1. 1
IJ I.% IJ IV 1? I 1 I? N N N_ N N N ij N N N_ IJ N N_ f= I? I? fJ IJ N_ 1.1 N Iv 1 1= N N 1^ = l= N I- = = >L 25
1 VJ l l .J l.J ?l 4l .? ' VJ W . ) r?J .l iJ ?l ,?J l ?) ,J .J W . + .J .J . W ?l .J I.J ,J J .l l.J VJ .J l . ?i if, It
•J. 1 - u^ N - - X 'J. n VJ L j X r.l '?J J. V '.J ?.'. 'J• 1' _ _ ?? X .. V i - L L _ ?: - x L 1J. L t
I•.Ji
7 7? Z 7 ??? Z? ?? z 7? ? ? 7? 7Ef 7 z 7 ?? 7 7 7? z? S? 7?!? 7 7? 7 Z 7 7
-i m --I 7 m
[ST m w m m rn m
2 2 2 Y 2 S C m Z 2 2 2 C _ m
-i ? "-i m m '--1 7 -'? 7 7 R7 Z T -f7
p N o O O O 0 a O a Z A a x O O C x z JT T? ?m a OZ p o7- OZ z A N! z 'i Z
Rim mfn QQmmQm fn Cn fnQQQ'?QNO'"QfmilQQ?'Imi, ImilQCyQlnpw.npp?.pCyO
YQQNQ?Q QV >vpQ?•?{QO fOQYQQO??sY.i>.Y.'? i0 i1?QQ11Q.Y!>>000 JQ J>.r .i
1 y D 1 J J ./ J D J D Y Y '? J J J 1 { ' -< 1!{ •?
J J J J J J
n _n C) Afn11 7°;5*`Y C)o W n W Ap`? mC)n_Q° n C1cn, nn+ PC) o cAi Q ?cc C)C? C `y` r
N n ° r_ ! p r Q G r _ = n r _ p s r o _ N n= r r Ci Gt C "O r G -- O J C -. O
C-0 G' n G w_ d? w N R G n v u n n% G .n. O O O G 11_ -? O' '. i T O •^- = O -' p p' = n O_ y? p
° o o-
O. o p D. C d c C 0. o c ° - c v n' c n n - - c
6-° C r l O It- (r.
Ir U'= V= tl- - v'
A
O C) Cr fn -I r)r.i y nM- ? An= ? C1n f, C)p?fJ•T Zr ?? T
rZ Fn--1y nZC1?=z OC)7n0?Y r y =A ?C)OC •„_-'_nOn A 21n iOR.,mz ?C
pr W rymOrmC1vY,Y y -1 rnK ?Ornr ZmrT.'y Lm?FCOY T!?GAN'rTr•,Y=yrmm5?y A?rTr.7-3'
r- .1 z rY> 2 . •- Ol r- m j? Z? A N p? 2 c r ? 0 O D Q` r 0 y? f fLil <- -i Z 2 C m O
co Z fzil O= vZi -Fn z tF- S G? 14 >
000Ulm co ?? WrOm z 20mD t.? Oj?O?CA { i <OZ ?rOO?m-ziLF-135 000: ? Y A
ZOZrv,Fp?FmvYrmQ m r!-imp rr C) cr- mc-'r"1-?.•I -•FOy m m0 0OOr-T? ?r? m
z r O O C) m m m
m z
c_
r n
'? ,? Or m 0 O C) - O O C
m O C z? n - -cCi, Y-D3 m
y r L o n mi z vC Z
C - 7 Z S - C T, Z N OC (7- p C Z- C - 03 co - {- v m n c 7 F i C v %-
F y- C - A A Q n, N fn A n n D vl n J -I _• z r n v: i :n L fn i L -i m n= A :n T L ;n --? J
L ?'. (n A J •.Jr V G _ .: IV G J. - A N - G - ±- 2 J -? r Z I? •J. -p -? .: Y A N
D fn
r Y N L I:J V.'.J C'•'7 ^ ;?' Q '-' J' Z X 1 7 V, y T J V• r D P ._.{ ° G -. J n V 'C A
Q w V L T- -i m Y Z -' Y
.a Q A Z Y Z m n• fn fn
AO A Q ? FO z ? ? m •° ? D ?' ?
? F {
Y
Iv _ 1? ? _ - - - - - - Iv zl V• IJ - ?.. 1 icJ '- - _. - - •?l it _ J -. .. V• V L - J ? V
SZmm m:r: mfnmfn zZfnmm fn ter., m? In fn mfnZ fn fn fnm m ?fn? S z ym7_Zfn fn
m
D C r [- Z y n r y 7. v m
Y M. ?y
fnfnwfn?Ofnfnfn-4fn Zfn'Y-ov,fnmOy?? <OCOr-Ay?rnm zASA_a`m '-??Afxz Ir• z
A A A F AAA A M A A Q ;J A F O Z C) r
O Y y r
`^ '- - N m tom- r Q ^J - 7` m-- _?
p ?--FIVO in- ?-iQm WD r a .,0m L-y <rAm-fn? ^Om _ Dm? Z
OnN^', OLO,.. Pte,{{n ?Y ?fmC.{=OZ Al
Jr0r- -? lp`?p?aQQOLC A"p0 Q? AC- OTrn:J. im
C r F Q Z A A Z z C Y D F rri Z A l D A
p m Q A O A Q C m < D
A m -i r
fn
n
c
_
O O r ?

y A? a- p Q X N n
A m
=
A x A C
Z
A
n

A r t
n
C
z
P
v a z
A
Y_
T
m
CA m A
f?J
1
- C
A
-
J n m L-- ._ - N •-
m{ iv J y m L N D X
I O J
N
' •?, f/
i fn
r m
`- N V
N N O N Z
_ f77 O
-- fn
m
-•
\..
7
v
V J- A_-IJ t'rc
p
= 1: p N 1= N= Cp
CO A -I r Jl Y Cn Z _
xy'-!
'" m CP < L
ZN _
< .? ?r
rr. <
r
D
L c Q n x
y
< Q m Q p Q
f
iJ
Q O m Q A A Z
A
Q
rn ?
fn c fn fn ?J fn :n vl In O O O
0 G d F A A n a A o n: n. A a A c c A F 2 A
?rJ n a F R F
P H o °n ° r°, m v 1p ° 5, v O n c O n°
?' °_ O ?' °_ p v• ° ° 3] ?• n ° v 2 .D' o y' W° ° c c m e O o ° o? W P° n
Y d n O z n O n m` a' J+ c n U'
7 U - O c } n_ n O G
, n. y a _N n p a s .N T C a'N _ '° -•
$_' = r? r o v
Y D v ?, _ H a °
o
C .. ° C. O o U O •L In ° n O o n n ° O i7 0 ?. o u? o n Ir G O o n '? n C' o n a n- V- O- O -- C 1r _ o' f^ _ O
0 0 °- O .i C O O d 0- O O O R O fJ O , a p R O N. 6 'p O O a R n R N. R ? i N o i_ Q ? rn
c c. n rn v_' ??? ? N r ? ? c. ? ? o? ? n^ o? ? o 0 2 2 n o _^ -°- o o T >_• R -°
3
G V o' V ?' 'C p' 'Op L O V ?' '°O ? OO? O? ? O O O p A ? 9 ° A f. ?
0 0 0 o O o 0 o o o o o o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 " ? O O f ^
n n 9 r 7 7 ° n W n n° co co W° n 9 n n n ° n P n n° n n n v p n n R n P °O n n X n n y° -
n p c p p c a p- Q Q °, C° O n Q Q ? ,? ? Q ? •7 .? ,7 ? ? ? ?] Q ? v] ? Q ,] 7? •? ? 7 u .], .'. 'Q 'y .' C GJ.
G U o p U U_ ? .. O ? n=
.] .] G ,] U U .] •i U .] = U i ? 7 •? y '7 ? O ? 3 ? O J -
n n n G n n n r U n° n n G n y G n r G n n n L G r n G r G U n n G? G- r- G^ G G r
rGi. rGn (] vGi fA vGi G A rGi, A A H A N H A rGir n (? A vGi Uf_i A A rGir rGi, w A ffr_i A irrJ G A A A G A A H G ° H n G n ? N n n V mil-] n
O O O_ O- O O O_ ' O O O O O O O J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. O G O 0 0 G C
o O - o o - - - - - o O - - - > > - - -
ra N N v°i N N N N N N N N N N r°n N N N h N N N N N N ? H N N N r°n N r v°. r°n N r°n H •°/r r°ir r°ir N r?ir N vni N y°r r°i, VrJ N r°ir N N v
'? Z Z Z '< Z Z Z Z Z{ Z Z Z Z{ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z{ Z Z{ Z Z Z Z Z '< Z Z Z Z Z{ Z Z{ '< Z Z
az
0 0 0 o N? o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o N o 0 0 02 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o o o p°°° ?°, °°°°°?°° H N° °c
{ { { { { { { { { { { z z z z z '< Z Z { { -< -< -< -< -< -< Z z { { '•< '< -C '< -< Z '< -<'{ '? { '< -< Z 'G { { -C '< '< '?
r
0 a 0 0 v°, 11 v°, r°n vOi vOi O O O O O u O O H rOi, v°, h H h H N ° ° H H h H H H H° N N N H H N H° ti vOi u0i I°n r°ir rOir v°O C
VJ - - - - - W W - VJ r - - W N - - - - - N V' Z - •- O - N ^ S V. S V' N ; N
^^ V' IJ ^ 'V V' N 1? S^ i N N IV N N N i "'N = J N IV i- N V L O r
C Vr ' J S S V? W i w 7\ - v W V n W i W U W V W V J CLC W .JVi
L V. N 7 V. V, V
? t-.l rl W W tVJ J l.J L I?J . Vl W V J r?J V r U. N W N L .^. W r W V' W- r
_ .J V ., ? x W .J ., ?, .J .J d Y. ?: ., N N N .• N N N N N N ., ., ,. N

U
W_ATF?
ul = )
?iw rem,.- _ -11?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 10, 2005
Mr. Len Sanderson, P.E., Highway Administrator
NC Department of Transportation
1536 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1536
SUBJECT: Assessment of Civil Penalties
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Moore County and Lee County
Case No. SS-2004-0002
Dear Mr. Len Sanderson:
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
This letter transmits notice of a civil penalty assessed against North Carolina Department of
Transportation in the amount of $ 19.284.28 which includes $ 1,284.28 in investigative costs. Attached
is a copy of the assessment document explaining this penalty.
This action was taken under the authority vested in me by delegation provided by the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
Any continuing violation(s) may be the subject of a new enforcement action, including an additional
penalty.
Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the following three items:
1. Submit payment of the penalty:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury St. Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
Payment should be made to the order of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further enforcement
action for any continuing or new violation(s). Do not include the attached waiver
form if making payment.
Please send payment to the attention of-
Mr. Shelton Sullivan
NC DWQ - Wetlands & Stormwater Branch - NPS Assistance & Compliance Oversight Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
9ne Carolina
Ntura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NC Department of Transportation
Moore County and Lee County
CASE No. SS-2004-0002
Page 2 of 3
OR
2. Submit a written request for remission or mitigation including a detailed
justification for such request:
A request for remission or mitigation is limited to consideration of the reasonableness of the
amount of the penalty and is not the proper procedure for contesting the accuracy of any of
the statements contained in the assessment letter. Because a remission request forecloses the
option of an administrative hearing, such a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your
right to an administrative hearing and a stipulation that there are no factual or legal issues in
dispute. You must execute and return to this office the attached waiver form and the attached
"Justification for Remission Request" which should describe why you believe:
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in G.S. 143B-282.1(b) were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation;
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(d) the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions.
Please submit this information to the attention of:
Mr. Shelton Sullivan
NC DWQ - Wetlands & Stormwater Branch - NPS Assistance & Compliance Oversight Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
3. Submit a written request for an administrative hearing:
If you wish to contest any portion of the civil penalty assessment, you must request an
administrative hearing. This request must be in the form of a written petition to the Office of
Administrative Hearings and must conform to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes. You must file your original petition with the:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
o Carolina
Ne
Atura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center 512N. Salisbury St. Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NC Department of Transportation
Moore County and Lee County
CASE No. SS-2004-0002
Page 3 of 3
AND
Mail or hand-deliver a copy of the petition to:
Mr. Dan Oakley
NCDENR
Office of General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
And to:
Mr. Shelton Sullivan
NC DWQ - Wetlands & Stormwater Branch - NPS Assistance & Compliance Oversight Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty days, as evidenced by a date stamp (not a
postmark) indicating when we received your response, will result in this matter being referred to the
Attorney General's Office with a request to initiate a civil action to collect the penalty. Please be advised
that additional assessments may be levied for future violations that occur after the review period of this
assessment.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shelton Sullivan at [phone] extension 544 or Danny
Smith at [phone] extension 353.
Sincerely,
C
Coleen H. Sul s
Division of Water Quali
CHS/sos
ATTACHMENTS
DEN'S - Vwi? •_ ' µ`?ri.i ??N
?p,pNOS qND S'CORN,WA(ER
cc: Ken Schuster - DWQ - Raleigh Regional Office Supervisor
DWQ - Fayetteville Regional Office Supervisor
John Hennessey - DWQ - Wetlands & Stormwater Branch - Transportation Unit Supervisor
DWQ - Wetlands & Stormwater Branch - NPS Assistance & Compliance Oversight Unit
DWQ - Central Files
Susan Massengale, PIO
oina
No Carol
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury St. Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTIES OF MOORE and LEE
IN THE MATTER OF
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
FILE NO. SS 2004-0002
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
NCGS 143-215.1,
Water Quality Certification Conditions
(DWQ Project No. 01-0404)
15A NCAC 02B.0231
FINDINGS AND DECISION
AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, I, Coleen H. Sullins of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), make the
following
L FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is a governmental
agency existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina.
B. On April 10, 2001, DWQ received a NCDOT application (DWQ Project No. 01-
0404), in the form of a Public Notice from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, for the construction of a 12.8 mile, four lane divided highway known as
Vass Bypass, US Highway 1, TIP No. R-210 in Moore and Lee Counties.
C. On July 19, 2002, DWQ issued a 401 Water Quality Certification to NCDOT for
Vass Bypass Highway US-1, TIP No. R-210 in Moore and Lee Counties (DWQ
Project No. 01-0404).
D. On September 2, 2003, DWQ issued a 401 Certification Modification, for Vass
Bypass Highway US-1, TIP No. R-210 in Moore and Lee Counties (DWQ Project
No. 01-0404).
E. On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted a site visit and performed a file review for
the US Highway 1, Vass Bypass project. The April 4, 2003, site visit and file review
confirmed the following:
a) On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff observed that the Erosion Control Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds were not being implemented at Site
No. 10.
b) Designs for the hazardous spill catch basins were not provided to DWQ
prior to beginning of construction.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 2 of 9
c) A maintenance plan for all stormwater facilities and hazardous spill catch
basins associated with the project was not provided to DWQ prior to
construction.
d) A report that describes the final approved wetlands and stream mitigation
plan for this project was not provided to DWQ.
F. On May 5, 2003, DWQ issued a NOV for violations pertaining to DWQ Project No.
01-0404. On May 30, 2003, DWQ received a response to the NOV and a follow-up
meeting was held between DWQ and NCDOT on August 8, 2003.
G. On August 8, 2003, NCDOT staff explained that Erosion Control Design Standards
for Sensitive Watersheds had not been installed for the entire project corridor.
H. On August 28, 2003 DWQ staff conducted a site visit and performed a file review for
the US Highway 1, Vass Bypass project. The site visit and file review confirmed the
following:
a) A perimeter ditch (near Station 76) connected to a tributary to Crane
Creek contained no sediment and erosion control measures. The sediment
control plan required a series of check dams (Note: below the confluence
of the perimeter ditch with the tributary to Crane Creek, in-stream
sediment accumulations ranged from 2 to 6 inches).
b) Unauthorized wetland impacts, due to sedimentation (near Station 30 and
32), were observed beyond the construction corridor. The sediment
amounts ranged typically from 4 to 8 inches and as deep as 12 inches in
places within wetlands.
c) The appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of NC Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual were not installed in the
perimeter ditch near Station 76.
d) The use of Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (NC DOT March 1997) prior to any ground-disturbing activities
had not been implemented near Station 76 or Station 32.
e) The Erosion Control Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds [15A
NCAC 4B .0124 (a)-(d)] were not being implemented for the entire project
corridor, as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification.
f) Designs for the hazardous spill catch basins were not provided to DWQ
prior to beginning of construction or by the date of the August 28, 2003
site visit.
g) A report that describes a final approved wetlands and stream mitigation
plan for this project was not provided to DWQ, nor had it been provided
by the date of the August 28, 2003 site visit.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 3 of 9
1. On November 24, 2003 DWQ staff conducted a site visit and performed a file review
for the US Highway 1, Vass Bypass project. The site visit and file review confirmed
the following:
a) Designs for the hazardous spill catch basins were not provided to DWQ
prior to beginning of construction or by the date of the November 24, 2003
site visit.
b) A report that describes a final approved wetlands and stream mitigation
plan for this project was not provided to DWQ, nor had it been provided
by the date of the November 24, 2003 site visit.
c) A complete copy of the construction plans for the R-210 (Vass Bypass)
project had not been provided to DWQ as of November 24, 2003.
J. On July 19, 2002, a401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project NO. 01-0404)
was issued to NCDOT for the US Highway 1 Bypass. The following relevant
conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification are listed:
Conditions:
1) The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control
practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of
the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual or the North Carolina Surface mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the DLR in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such BMPs in
order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity standard.
2) NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all applicable preventive
and control measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this
project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any ground-disturbing
activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3) During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to NC
regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC
4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
15A NCAC 4B .0124 (a- d) states the following:
DESIGN STANDARDS IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS
(a) Uncovered areas in High Quality Water (HQW) zones shall be limited at
any time to a maximum total area within the boundaries of the tract of 20
acres. Only the portion of the land-disturbing activity within a HQW zone
shall be governed by this Rule. Larger areas may be uncovered within the
boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Director.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 4 of 9
(b) Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within
HQW zones shall be so planned, designed and constructed to provide
protection from the runoff of the 25 year storm which produces the
maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the
United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service's
"National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or
according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the
United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
(c) Sediment basins within HQW zones shall be designed and constructed
such that the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least 70 percent for
the 40 micron (0.04mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the
runoff of that two-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of
runoff as calculated according to procedures in the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services "National
Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to
procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the United States
or any generally recognized organization or association.
(d) Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and
constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical
if a vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a
steeper slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical
devices, structural devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any event,
the sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion.
7) Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The
final designs for the Hazardous Spill Catch Basins shall be submitted to the
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water
Supply watershed. As built drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the construction is
completed.
9) Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance
plan for all stormwater management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins
associated with the project. The NCDOT shall be required to implement the.
maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control
devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of the sediment and erosion control devices in
wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural
grade restored after the DLR has released the project.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 5 of 9
15) Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army
Corps of Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1
restoration or creation of lost wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC
2$.0506(h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC Division of the Water
Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for
this project within two months of the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
K. On September 2, 2003, a Modification of the 401 Water Quality Certification
(DWQ Project NO. 01-0404) was issued to NCDOT for the US Highway 1
Bypass. The modification contained all of the conditions listed in the original
July 19, 2002 Certification. The following relevant conditions in the modification
are listed:
1.8. An additional Condition of this Modification is that DOT must provide DWQ
(the Wetlands/401 Unit) a complete copy of the construction plans for the
entire corridor of the project known as Vass Bypass (R-210A and R-210 B&C).
These plans must be provided within 30 days of the receipt of this
Modification.
111.16. Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army
Corps of Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1
restoration or creation of lost wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC Division of Water
Quality that describes the final approved wetland and stream mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
L. The water quality standards for wetlands, as found in 15A NCAC 02B .0231(a), is
designed to protect, preserve, restore and enhance the quality and such uses of
wetlands as storm and flood water storage and retention. As required by 15A
NCAC 02B .0231(b)(1), "liquids, fill or other solids or dissolved gases may not
be present in amounts which may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland
uses."
M. The Little River, Cranes Creek, and Little Cranes Creek (including their
tributaries) are located within the Cape Fear River Basin and are respectively
Class WS III & HQW, WS III, and WS III waters.
N. Staff costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action totaled $1284.28.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 6 of 9
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. NCDOT is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant to G.S. 143-
212(4).
B. The Little River, Cranes Creek, and Little Cranes Creek (including their tributaries)
located within the project constitute waters of the State within the meaning of G.S.
143-212(6).
C. On one (1) occasion, August 28, 2003, NCDOT violated condition number 1 of the
401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404) near Station 76, by
failing to follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal
or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
D. On one (1) occasion, August 28, 2003, NCDOT violated condition number 2 of the
401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404) near Station 76, by
failing to use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NC
DOT March 1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures
during the design, construction and maintenance of this project.
E. On two (2) occasions, April 4, 2003 and August 28, 2003, NCDOT violated condition
number 3 of the 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404), by
failing to strictly adhere to NC regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)], within the entire project corridor.
F. On three (3) occasions, April 4, 2003, August 28, 2003, and November 24, 2003,
NCDOT violated condition number 7 of the 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ
Project No. 01-0404) by failing to provide final designs for the hazardous spill catch
Basins to the NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in the
Water Supply Watershed.
G. On one (1) occasion, April 4, 2003, NCDOT violated condition number 9 of the 401
Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404) by the failure of NCDOT to
submit a maintenance plan for all stormwater facilities and hazardous spill catch
basins associated with the project prior to construction.
H. On three (3) occasions, April 4, 2003, August 28, 2003, and November 24, 2003,
NCDOT violated condition number 15 of the original 401 Water Quality Certification
(DWQ Project No. 01-0404, dated July 19, 2002) and condition number 11.16 of the
modified 401 Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404, dated September 2, 2003) by
the failure of NCDOT to submit a report to DWQ that describes the final approved
wetland and stream mitigation for this project within two months of the issuance of
the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 7 of 9
I. On one (1) occasion, November 24, 2003, NCDOT violated condition number 1.8 of
the modified 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404,401
Modification dated September 2, 2003) by the failure of NCDOT to provide the
Wetlands/401 Unit of DWQ a complete copy of the construction plans (within 30
days of receipt of the modified 401 Certification) for the entire corridor of the project
known as Vass Bypass (R-210A and R-210 B&C).
J. On one occasion, August 28, 2003, NCDOT violated 15A NCAC 02B.0231(a)(1)
and (b)(1) near Station 32 by the impacts to wetlands from sedimentation in amounts
which may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses.
K. NCDOT may be assessed civil penalties in this matter pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.6A(a)(1), which provides that a civil penalty of up to twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000.00) per violation may be assessed against a person who violates any
classification, standard, limitation, or management practice established pursuant to
G.S. 143-215.3, 143-214.2, or 143-215.
L. NCDOT may be assessed civil penalties in this matter pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.6A(a)(2), which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000) per violation per day may be assessed against a person
who is required but fails to apply for or to secure a permit required'by G.S. 143-
215.1, or who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or
requirements of such permit or any other permit or certification issued pursuant to
authority conferred by this Part.
M. The State's enforcement cost in this matter may be assessed against NCDOT pursuant
to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282(b)(8).
N. Coleen H. Sullins, of the Division of Water Quality, pursuant to delegation provided
by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, has the
authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION:
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A in determining the amount of the penalty, I have taken
into account the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and considered the factors
listed in G.S. 143-282.1.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 8 of 9
Accordingly, NCDOT is hereby assessed a civil penalty of-
$ 9-j 000 for 2 of two (2) violations of additional condition number 1
and additional condition number 2 of the 401 Water Quality
Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404), by the failure to follow
the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal
or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual on April 4, 2003 and August 28, 2003.
$ ,5s 00 for one violation of additional condition number 3 of the 401
Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404) by
failing to strictly adhere to NC regulations entitled Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)-(d)],
for the entire project corridor.
$ T 00 for one (1) violation of additional condition number 7 of the 401
Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404) by
failing to provide the final designs for the hazardous spill catch
basins to DWQ, prior to beginning construction in the Water
Supply Watershed.
C) C9 , for 1 of three (3) violations of additional condition number 15
of the original 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No.
01-0404, dated July 19, 2002) and condition 111. 16 of the modified
Certification (Project No. 01-0404, dated September 2, 2003) by
failing to provide DWQ a report that describes the final approved
wetland and stream mitigation for this project within two months
of the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
$ 14 Coo _ for one (1) violation of additional condition number 1.8 of the
401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 01-0404,
issued September 2, 2003) by failing to provide the Wetlands/401
Unit of DWQ a complete copy of the construction plans for the
entire corridor of the project known as Vass Bypass (R-210A and
R-210 B&C). (The modified certification required submission of
these plans within 30 days of receipt of the amended 401
Certification.)
$ 2 ZOO( for one (1) violation of 15A NCAC 02B .0231(a)(1) and (b)(1) by
impacts to wetlands from sedimentation (fill) which may cause
adverse impacts on existing wetland uses.
NCDOT
US Highway -1, Vass Bypass
Page 9 of 9
$/4/000-
1284.28
$ /%2
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
Enforcement Cost
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of the penalty I have considered the
factors listed in G.S.143B-282.1(b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violation;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
and
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
O b?
(DATE)
(&-J
Coleen H. Sul ns
Division of Water Quality
JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: SS-2004-0002 County: Moore and Lee
Assessed Party: NC Department of Transportation
Permit No. (if applicable): DWQ No. 01-0404 Amount Assessed: $19,284.28
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of
Facts form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that
you believe support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating
your request for remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to
consideration of the five factors listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the
amount of the civil penalty assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for
contesting whether the violation(s) occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements
contained in the civil penalty assessment document. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c),
remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when one or more of the following five factors
applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your case and provide a detailed
explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why the factor applies (attach
additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are listed in
the civil penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future
occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the
violation was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing
the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION (attach additional pages as necessary):
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
COUNTY OF Moore County and Lee County
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
NC Department of Transportation ) STIPULATION OF FACTS
CASE NO. SS-2004-0002
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $ 19,284.28 for
violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Director of the Division of Water Quality
dated February 10, 2005 , the undersigned, desiring to seek remission of the civil
penalties, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing in the above-stated matter and
does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document.
The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of
this civil penalty must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Quality within thirty
(30) days of receipt of the civil penalty assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission
request will be allowed after thirty (30) days from the receipt of the civil penalty assessment.
This the day of 20
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
a ?OF W ATF9 p Michael F. Easley, Govern or
\? G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
* Cq r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
40 0 .? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Certified Mail
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
March 15, 2005
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center -
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Subject: US 1 Vass Bypass from north of Lakeview to south of Sanford in Moore and Lee Counties, USACE
Action ID 199300570, WQC No. 3344, TIP Project No. R-210.
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments and concerns raised during our February 1, 2005 site visit and
to provide the NC Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) position based on the review of the final design plans for
the referenced project.
Conversion of Type "A" Silt Basins
During our site visit NC Department of Transportation (DOT) requested a response to the letter dated November
8, 2004 in which DOT proposed to convert three type "A" silt basins into hazardous spill catchment basins
(HSCBs). The three basins are located on Section A at 60+80 and 74+40, respectively, and Section B at 132+00.
DWQ agrees with DOT that these basins could easily be converted to HSCBs and would comply with Condition
7. of the issued 401 Water Quality Certification. Conversion of the type "A" basins to HSCB should include
adequate outlet structures that meet the design requirements of the Guidelines for the Location and Design of
Hazardous Spill Basins.
Revised Design. Standards for HSCBs
In an effort to find a resolution to this situation, DWQ proposes a modification to the current design standards for
HSCB. The modified design standard offers a smaller storage volume than the current 10,000 gallons plus the
estimated runoff from a rainfall intensity equating to a two-year return period storm event. The modified standard
requires a storage volume of 2,600 gallons plus the storage capacity for the estimated runoff from a rainfall .
intensity equating to a two-year return period storm event. The rational for the smaller volume is presented in
Attachment 1. Please note that the revised design standard applies only to the referenced project.
Direct Storm Water Discharges
During the site visit, DWQ identified areas of concernregarding direct storm water discharges. DWQ
respectfully reminds DOT that regardless of the methodology used to comply with Condition 7. of the issued
permit, compliance with Condition 4. must also be met. Condition 4. states that, "Storm water
shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be routed directly into streams. Existing
vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse flow." It appears that the
following sites have direct storm water discharges:
Section A:
Sheet 20, -L- 77+20 Rt. .
Sheet 22, -L- 81+90 Lt. No Carolina
tura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Phone [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 FAX [phone], Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10%o Post Consumer Paper
Dr. Thorpe
March 15, 2005
Page 2
Section C:
Sheet 7, -Lrev1- 29+10 Lt.
Sheet 7, -Lrev1- 31+10 Lt.
These direct storm water discharges should be corrected to provide treatment prior to discharge to streams. .
Issues in Impact Areas
Several impact areas were identified during the site visit where problems are presently related to pipe installation
and stream relocation. These are presented below:
Section B, Site II - When the rock check dam in the stream is removed at this site, there is a potential for
headcutting back to the pipe resulting in a perched pipe. It was agreed in the field that a rock cross, vane
would be installed to maintain the grade at the outlet of this pipe.
Section B, Site IX - An erosional area has developed just upstream of the inlet to the pipe at this location. It
was agreed to in the field that a rock/log vane would be installed at this location to maintain the grade and
prevent further headcutting upstream. .
Section B, Site X - Bridge deck drains at. this site were installed over Little Crane Creek. The proper
locations for these drains were determined during the field visit. The drains should be installed at the proper,
locations.
The problems listed above should be corrected. as agreed to in the field. If alternative solutions to the problems
are to be used, DOT should detail these in writing and submit them to DWQ for approval prior to modification. .
Determinations from Review of Final Design Plans
Based on the February 1, 2005 site visit and the subsequent review of the final design plans, DWQ has identified
stream crossing locations where alternative means other than HSCBs might be considered. These locations are
presented in Attachment 2. For all other sites, DOT will need to provide design plans that demonstrate how the
project will comply with the issued 401 Water Quality Certification and its modifications.
DOT is respectfully reminded that any modifications to the final design plans as a result of complying with the
401 Water Quality Certification will require the submittal of an application for modification of the Water Quality
Certification to DWQ.'
We appreciate your cooperation and hope that these issues can be resolved quickly. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715 or John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sine ely,
1
Coleen H. Su dins, Deputy Director
Attachments
cc: Paul Rawls, Surface Water Section Chief, NC DWQ
Tom Reeder, Wetlands and Storm Water Branch Supervisor, NC DWQ
John Hennessy, Transportation Permitting Unit Supervisor, NC DWQ
Danny Smith, 401 Compliance and Enforcement Unit, NC DWQ
Dave Henderson, Hydraulics Unit, NC DOT_
Tim Johnson, Division Engineer, Division 8, NC DOT.
Phillip Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NC DOT
Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ
y?
Attachment 1 Rationale for Design Standards of Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins
Recognizing the need for revised design standards due to right-of-way restrictions, DWQ is
proposing a smaller design standard volume for hazardous spill catchment basins (HSCBs) on the
R-210 (Vass Bypass) project. As detailed in the Guidelines for the Location and Design of
Hazardous Spill Basins, the current design standards for HSCBs are:
• Spill containment volume of 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume from a
rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period event..
• An outlet structure to allow containment of hazardous runoff (e.g., mechanical control
gate, notched berm with readily available sand bags or earthen material).
DWQ is proposing a storage volume 2,600 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume from a
rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period storm event. This revised design standard is
based on the analysis of statewide spill data related to transportation facilities from 2001 to 2004.
The data is presented below:
• The average spill volume is 1,310 gallons, and the median spill volume is 100 gallons.
• Approximately 25% of the spills statewide were greater than the average spill volume.
• The average spill volume plus one standard deviation of the spill incidents is
approximately 3,800 gallons.
• Approximately 15% of the spills statewide were greater than the average spill volume
plus the standard deviation.
• The median spill volume plus one standard deviation of the spill incidents is
approximately 2,600 gallons. .
Approximately 18% of the spills statewide were greater than the median spill volume
plus on standard deviation.
Using a conservative assumption that 100 percent of the spill volume reaches the HSCB, a HSCB
volume of 2,600 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume from a rainfall intensity equating to a
two year return period event would have the capacity to capture 82 percent of the spills that
occurred from 2001 to 2004. Therefore, DWQ proposes to allow HSCB volumes of at least 2,600
gallons plus the estimated runoff volume from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return
period storm event to meet the requirement of HSCBs at each stream crossing. Adequate outlet
structures in accordance with the original guidance are required for this revised design standard.
This design standard would apply to the R-210 (Vass Bypass) project only.
r"

Vass Bypass 401 Expiration
Subject: Vass Bypass 401 Expiration
From: Mary Penny Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:19:44 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Brian,
I reviewed the 401 page and cover letter. If I recall correctly,
Corps permits now extend for 5 years. As long as the Corps' permit
doesn't expire prior to September 2, 2006, your analysis is
correct. The 401 expires 3 years from the date of the DWQ cover
letter. Since the DWQ letter was dated September 2, 2003, the 401
will not expire until September 2, 2006. Therefore, there is no
need for an extension until next year.
If you wish to discuss this matter further or have any other
questions, please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me.
Mary Penny
Mary Penny Thompson <[e-mail]
Assistant General Counsel
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 7/12/2005 11:13 AM
--

?A NO 1,A

-7/0 of 63w,
"-(1L l- i h ?Q WvF r ?I-mow' " 5 E 1 r"
V
-DI

- o i i o t cQ-- -cl s -
.
?
?
O

E- AN Co.

A IA I t-

sz +WN & --
IATFO
O? G
> -i
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
July 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality
From: Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, Divisio j f
i
Subject: Meeting Minutes from July 6, 2005 Meeting with DOT Staff to Discuss Hazardous Spill
Catchment Basins for the Vass Bypass
Attendees: Paul Rawls, DWQ; Tom Reeder, DWQ; John.Hennessy, DWQ; Brian Wrenn, DWQ;
Dave Henderson, DOT; Elizabeth Lusk, DOT; Deanna Riffey, DOT; Phillip Todd, Sepi
Engineering
DOT began by referencing a letter that was sent by DWQ's Fayetteville Regional Office to DOT's
Division 8 office. DOT indicated that the letter was sent in r?sponse to the April 4, 2003 compliance
inspection conducted by DWQ. DOT indicated that the letter ontained a list of station numbers where
DOT should construct HSCB'. DOT also indicated that this lis differed from the list that was included in
the March 15, 2005 letter issued by DWQ.
The issue of whether the requirement of Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins (HSCBs) at each stream
crossing is consistent with the DWQ/DOT HSCB policy was discussed. DOT feels that, according to the
policy, they should only be required to construct HSCBs in HQW watersheds and not on every stream
crossing in the project corridor. DWQ explained that the policy clearly states that DWQ can on a site-by-
site basis require HSCBs when necessary to protect water quality. DWQ specifically asked DOT if they
understood that additional HSCBs would be required on the Vass Bypass. DOT stated that they
understood that there was a potential to build more HSCBs on the Vass Bypass.
DOT summarized a list of non-site-specific alternatives to HSCBs that they had considered. The list
consisted of stockpiling material (impervious clay and riprap) to construct ditch check dams, additional
training for local emergency response teams, supplying spill kits to local emergency, response teams, and
vegetation enhancement. DOT also stated that the Type A silt basins that they had proposed to convert to
HSCBs in their November 8, 2004 letter and which DWQ approved in the March 15, 2005 letter had been
removed as part of the project completion.
A sheet-by-sheet, station-by-station discussion was conducted for each stream crossing on the project.
Table 1 below presents the discussion by road section, sheet number, permit site number, and station
number and provides DWQ's proposal and DOT's proposal for each location.
Under "DWQ Proposal":
• "HSCB" indicates the need for a hazardous spill catchment basin
• "Alternative" indicates that DWQ proposes an alternative to a HSCB
• "- Spill Kit" in conjunction with Alternative indicates that DWQ proposes a spill kit alternative
and additional training for local emergency response teams
• "- Stockpile/Spill Kit" in conjunction with Alternative indicates that DWQ proposes stockpiling
of material and spill kit alternatives
1 At this time, no record of this letter can be found by either agency.
Ong,
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Page 2 of 4

Under "DOT Proposal":
• "Spill Kit" indicates that DOT proposes to comply with the WQC using a spill kit and additional
training for local emergency response teams
• "Stockpile/Spill Kit" indicates that DOT proposes to comply with the WQC by stockpiling
material and using spill kits
Table 1- Discussion results for each station number
Location DW Proposal DOT Proposal
Section A
Sheet 7 Site 1
23+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 8, Sitel
27+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
27+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
50+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
52+50 Rt Alternative-Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
61+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
59+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
61+10 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site16
63+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
65+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
64+00 Rt HSCB Sioc ile/S ill Kit
65+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
68+10 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stbckpile/Spill Kit
67+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
67+80 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20, Sites18 and 20
75+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
75+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 21, Site 21
79+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
78+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
80+50 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit

s k Page 3 of 4
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt HSCB DOT to propose alternative=
83+50 Lt Off site flow only no HSCB No Proposal
83+20 Med. Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
81+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 24, Site 25
91+50 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
94+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+50 Rt Alternative - Spill- Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+60 Lt Outlet Protection for SW pipe Outlet Protection for SW pipe
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
129+40 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit \ Spill Kit
128+50 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
129+40 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit \ Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
140+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
141+40 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
150+00 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit.
- Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
20+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
20+60 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit
Direct Discharge of SW needs to
be corrected Stockpile/Spill Kit
DOT to propose alternative
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
31+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
29+10 Med Direct Discharge of SW needs to
be corrected DOT to propose alternative
Page 4 of 4
30+50 Rt Alternative(- Stoc ile/S ill Kit
31+10 HSCB DOT to propose alternative
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt HSCB Stockp ile/Spill Kit
32+00 Rt HSCB Stockp ile/Spill Kit
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/S pill Kit Stockp ile/Spill Kit
39+20 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/S pill Kit Stockp ile/Spill Kit
38+80 Rt HS Containment No proposal
Sheet 10, Site 6
Stockp ile/Spill Kit
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/S pill Kit Stockp ile/Spill Kit
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt HSCB Stockp ile/Spill Kit
49+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit S pill Kit
48+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit S pill Kit
49+00 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Sp ill Kit Stockp ile/Spill Ki
These sites were not discussed during the meeting. DWQ proposes Alternative - Spill Kits at these locations. It is
assumed that DOT would agree as this is the least expensive and labor tense-alternative.
3 Constructability issues dictate need for an alternatives analysis.
a This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a site that requires extensive outlet protection to prevent stream
degradation due to an unorthodox pipe location.
5 This is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution to this direct discharge to comply with the
WQC.
6 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution
to this direct discharge to comply with the WQC.
Close proximity of stream relocation presents a problematic design constraint.
8 At this station, DWQ is requiring hazardous spill containment although not necessarily through a catchment basin.
DWQ will take into consideration the location and limited area when reviewing DOT's proposal for this location.
DOT indicated that it would take a few weeks to investigate the proposals discussed at each station. Dave
Henderson stated that DOT would submit proposals based on the field investigations by August 1, 2005.
DWQ expressly requested that DOT provide specific recommendations at each station to impede flow and
contain liquid hazardous spill material. The meeting was adjourned.
Cc: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary, NC DENR
Paul Rawls, Surface Water Section Chief, DWQ
Tom Reeder, Supervisor, Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Danny Smith, Supervisor, Nonpoint Source Assistance and.Compliance Oversight
John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit
File Copy

TFR
\14A
QG
micnaei r-. casiey, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Memorandum
To: Dempsey Benton

From: n'

"v
Brian Wrenn
Date: July 18, 2005
Re: Mitigation requirements for Vass Bypass (TIP R-210)
Mitigation Requirements for Vass Bypass
Permit Condition 15 of the July 19, 2002 Water Quality Certification for Vass Bypass addresses the
mitigation requirements for the project. The Vass Bypass impacted a total of-
* 41.5 acres of riverine wetlands
• 4,880 linear feet of streams
These impacts occurred in the 03030004 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Condition 15 requires wetland
mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for restoration or creation as described'in 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)(6). DOT is
required to conduct:
• On-site wetland restoration of 4.8 acres in the Little River floodplain
• 8.4 acres of on-site preservation
• 36.8 acres of off-site wetland restoration of the Sandhills Are Land Trust (SALT).
The SALT site is a 327-acre site in the 03030004 HUC in Moore County that was ditched and drained in
the 1930s for agricultural purposes. DOT proposed to fill in the ditches to restore the site to wetland
hydrology. During a field visit to determine the suitability of the site, DWQ and the Merger Team
believed the site to be an existing wetland. DOT disagreed. In a effort to find a compromise, DWQ
agreed to allow site monitoring to determine the existing hydrology, as long as WRP (now EEP) agreed to
provide the mitigation if the monitoring showed the site to be an existing wetland. Based on the
monitoring conducted by DOT, the site is a functioning wetland. Wetland restoration credits can only be
authorized for sites where wetland hydrology was previously present, and then subsequently removed.
Since the site is currently a wetland, restoration credit cannot be authorized for this site (15A NCAC 2H
.0506(h)(4)(A)). In addition, the aforementioned definition for wetland restoration is consistent with the
US Army Corps of Engineers practices for the definition of wetland restoration credits. The site can,
however, be used for wetland enhancement as defined in 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(4)(C). The site is
eligible for 18.4 acres of enhancement mitigation credit. See Table 1 below for a summary of project
impacts and mitigation.
NdithCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Ntunillf
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httr)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Table 1. - Summary of project impacts and mitigation requirements.
Wetlands (acres) Streams (linear feet)
Impacts 41.5 4,880
Mitigation Required 41.5 4,880
Mitigation Provided
Restoration 4.8
Preservation 8.4
EEP Payment 4,880
Balance 36.8 0
Cc: Coleen Sullins, DWQ
Paul Rawls, DWQ
Tom Reeder, DWQ
John Hennessy, DWQ
File Copy
[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]]
From: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:47:03 -0400
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>, Brian Wrenn
<[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Gentlemen:
Attachment FYI
I have not yet heard from Dave.
Subject: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:57:10 -0400
To: "Debbie Barbour (E-mail)" <dbarbour @dot. state.nc.us>
CC: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Debbie - attached you will find a copy of the meeting minutes that Brian put
together following our most recent meeting with DOT staff (Dave worked with Paul
at this meeting and scheduling the DOT staff). The DOT staff that were at the
meeting have all been sent copies of the memo. Please note that this is a follow up
to our letter of March 15th to which we have not received a written response. In
order to make this next meeting effective, we need to get a written response from
DOT to that letter of the 15th, along with the modifications we concurred upon at
the July 6th meeting referenced in the attached memo. The DWQ staff need to have
that letter in advance of the meeting, so that we can review it and be prepared to
work with DOT on getting to final resolution. I remain optimistic that we can
accomplish this and hope that we can at the next meeting. I f you would please
have Dave let Paul know when we can expect the letter, so that we can schedule the
meeting with all appropriate parties. I look forward to us getting to final resolution
on this project. Thanks for the assistance. Coleen
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions
Date:Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:22:31 -0400
From:Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
1 of 2 8/11/2005 9:49 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
To:Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>. Tom Reeder
<[e-mail]>, Danny Smith <Danny. Smith@ ncmail.net>,
"D. R. Henderson, PE" <[e-mail]>, Elizabeth Lee
Lusk <[e-mail]>, "Deanna R. Riffey"
<driffey @dot. state.nc.us>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Phillip Todd <ptodd @ sepiengineering.com>
CC:John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Please find attached the meeting minutes from our July 6th meeting to discuss
hazardous spill basins for the Vass Bypass. If you have any questions or comments
on the minutes, please let me know. Thanks
Brian
2 of 2 8/11/2005 9:49 AM

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 2, 2005
Mr. Paul Rawls
Division of Water Quality
1617 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: US 1, Vass Bypass, R-210. Moore & Lee Counties, WQC No. 3344
Dear Mr. Rawls:
NCDOT staff has reviewed the most recent list of site requirements presented at
the joint DWQ/DOT meeting on July 6, 2005. As discussed at that time, NCDOT had
reviewed areas of concern from earlier discussions but the Department had not been
previously made aware and was not able to comment on numerous sites which were
suggested or added during the meeting.
The Department has prepared the attached response for each site listed in DWQ's
meeting minutes dated July 8, 2005 from Mr. Brian Wrenn. It should be noted that where
term "Stockpile" is noted, stabilization of the material is included. Where the term "Spill
Kit" is noted, it also includes a training/orientation for first responders which include law
enforcement, emergency service, and DOT personnel.
On behalf of the Department, I wish to thank you for your efforts in seeking
resolution to this project's challenges. If I may be of assistance, feel free to contact me at
919-250-4100.
Sincerely,
David R. Henderson, PE
State Hydraulics Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HYDRAULICS UNIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC
r:
R-210, Vass Bypass, Moore Lee Counties
Location
Section A
Sheet 7, Site 1
23+00 Lt Spill kit
Sheet 8, Site 1
27+50 Lt Spill kit
27+50 Rt Spill kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Spill kit
50+80 Rt Spill kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Spill kit
52+50 Rt Spill kit & 2c.. stockpile
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt Construct modified containment basin, Dike with 24" pipe
61+00, excavate storage 100'x28' within existing right of way
61+50 Lt No action recommended, there is no ditch at toe of slope to
convey spill. No right of way and well established forested area
would be disturbed.
59+80 Rt Spill kit
61+10 Rt Spill kit & 2 c.y. stockpile, no HSCB
Sheet 17, Site 16
63+20 Lt
Spill kit & 2 c.y. stockpile, no HSCB, there is only one drop inlet
with 15" cmp which discharges into well established forested
area and limited right of way only 15' from toe of slope.
65+20 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB, recommend build false sump berm to
elevation 0.5' below shoulder at guard rail post. Spill kit mat to
cover grated inlet.
64+00 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB, rip rap ditch begins at 63+77, 30' high
embankment, no right of way, and well established forested
area at back of ditch.
65+00 Rt Spill kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Spill kit and 2 c. y. stockpile
68+10 Lt Spill kit and 3 c. y. stockpile
67+00 Rt Spill kit
67+80 Rt Spill kit & 3 c.y. stockpile
Sheet 20, Sites 18 and 20
75+80 Lt
Construct Modified Containment Basin, Dike & 24" pipe @
75+95, excavate storage 100'x15' within existing right of way.
77+00 Lt Spill kit & 4 c.y. stockpile, no right of way
77+20 Lt No action recommended, area is overflow from Crains Creek,
no right of way.
75+00 Rt Construct Modified Containment Basin, excavate within right of
way 50' line back & 100' line ahead of 24" cross pipe outlet.
Place sandbags at existing fence since "dike & pipe" would be
to shallow for buoyant forces
Sheet 21, Site 21
:t
R-210, Vass Bypass, Moore Lee Counties
79+00 Lt Spill kit & 4 c.y. stockpile, no right of way, construction of
permanent Modified Containment Basin could result in
hydraulic trespass on parcel 47
79+50 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB, no right of way & area is overflow from
Crains Creek
78+60 Rt Spill kit application for shoulder & median grated inlet, no
HSCB, 20' high embankment into wetland vegetated area, no
right of way, no access, & disturbance of bottomland
hardwoods.
79+50 RI: Spill kit, DWQ's suggested rerouting of 15" pipe outlet is not
feasible
80+50 Med Spill kit, DWQ's suggested rerouting of 15" pipe outlet is not
feasible
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB, DWQ's suggested rerouting of 15" pipe
outlet is not feasible.
83+50 Lt Off site flow only, no HSCB
83+20 Med Spill kit
81+80 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB, flat topography & limited ditch capacity, no
stockpile material recommended
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB, limited roadway drainage length & no
benefit due to no discharge point at this location
Sheet 24,Site 25
91+50 Lt Spill kit & 4 c.y. stockpile
94+50 Lt Spill kit
95+00 Lt Spill kit
94+50 Rt Spill kit
95+00 Rt Spill kit
94+60 Lt Division 8 has constructed deflector basin to protect stream
bank in compliance to onsite review by DOT/DWQ February
2005. Recommend adding additional rip rap at outlet invert of
24" pipe.
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Spill kit, no direct discharge
129+40 Lt Spill kit, 15" pipe discharges into wetlands
128+50 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB, steep topography, no right of way, no
storage capacity in ditch, use Spill kit at nearest grated inlet
since they have good berm height at false sumps
129+40 RI: Spill kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Spill kit
140+80 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB, steep topography, no right of way, no
storage capacity in ditch, use Spill kit at nearest grated inlet
since they have good berm height at false sumps
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Spill kit & 4 c. y. stockpile
141+40 Rt Spill kit, no discharge point to wetlands
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Spill kit
150+00 Rt Spill kit, no stockpile 30' high embankment & no access
f -.
R-210, Vass Bypass, Moore Lee Counties
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Spill kit & 3 c.. stockpile
Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Spill kit, no stockpile
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Spill kit
20+80 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB of stockpile, rip rap dike around upper limits
of pond, rip rap weir higher than invert of pipe outlet & diverts
flow left & right into vegetated area between toe of slope and
rip rap. Flow filters through 8' washed stone & 15' class B
stone.
20+60 Rt Direct discharge reported: there are 2 locations with grated
inlets in the ditch line between main line of US1 & service rd.
Both inlets intercept flow from only one lane of impervious area
on the service rd. and both locations have grassed swale
treatment prior to interring stormwater system, no further action
recommended.
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Spill kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt
Spill kit, no HSCB & no stockpile at outlet of 30" cross drainage
pipe which discharges into wetlands. Two grated inlets in ditch
line between main line of US 1 & service rd. have grassed
swale treatment prior to entering stormwater system.
31+60 Rt
Spill kit, no HSCB & no stockpile at outlet of 18" pipe. Pipe
drains ditch between US1 & service rd. which provides grassed
swale treatment prior to reaching grated inlet.
29+10 Med Spill kit & modify discharge outlet due to direct discharge
issues. Division to grade grass swale between toe of slope
and floodplain berm of natural stream relocation, remove 3'-15
rcp, place class I rip rap deflector to route water into swale,
flow line back.
30+50 Rt Spill kit, inlet of 24" cross pipe is upstream of service rd. with
no grated inlets
31+10
Spill kit & modify discharge outlet due to direct discharge
issues. Division to grade grass swale between toe of slope and
flood plain berm of natural stream relocation, place class I rip
rap deflector to route water into swale and flow line back
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB, ditch on outside of service rd. is deep at
discharge point due to high natural ground elevation. Rip rap
ditch is vegetated with lespedeza and willows providing
treatment in area which will never be mowed due to 20' high
embankment.
i If
R-210, Vass Bypass, Moore Lee Counties
32+00 Rt
Spill kit, no HSCB, ditch drains area between mainline US 1 &
service rd. Presently there is grassed swale treatment in ditch
between the roads and additional treatment in grassed swale
from 15" pipe outlet and inlet of 42 " cross pipe.
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Spill kit & no stockpile, ditch drains area outside of service rd.
with grassed swale treatment.
39+20 Lt Spill kit & no stockpile, ditch drains area outside of service rd.
with grassed swale treatment.
38+80 Rt
Spill kit & no stockpile, no HSCB, ditch drains area between
mainline US 1 & service rd. with physical constraints of 20' high
embankment, deep ditch, 4' from edge of pavement on service
rd. and 6' from control of access fence
Sheet 10, Site 6
39+60 Rt Spill kit, no HSCB. Shoulder berm inlet on main line US1,
grated inlet in grassed swale between US 1 & service rd., and
grassed swale treatment from outlet of 18" pipe to receiving
channel. Main line has 20' high embankment, no right of way,
and neighboring resident with children.
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Spill kit & no stockpile due to outlet location in wetland limits.
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt Spill kit, no HSCB, no stockpile, cut slope ditch discharge
directly into wetlands off right of way topography is high
ground, literally no room for treatment on steep grade
49+00 Lt Spill kit
48+80 Rt Spill kit
49+00 Rt Spill kit & 2 c.y. stockpile
SALT restoration
Subject: SALT restoration
From: Suzanne Klimek <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:11:50 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
CC: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Hey Brian -- thanks for faxing that info on the SALT mitigation
project for the Vass Bypass. Were y'all going to send something in
writing formalizing the credit deficit that must be made up? I
think you indicated that you needed to evaluate the restoration
potential a little more before doing so. Just let me know when I
can expect something in writing - at that point I will process the
data into our mitigation targets.
Thanks.
Suzanne
1 of 1 8/11/2005 9:49 AM
Re: SALT restoration
Subject: Re: SALT restoration
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:06:44 -0400
To: Suzanne Klimek <[e-mail]>
CC: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Suzanne,
DOT has indicated that they have some additional information that
they would like to share regarding the SALT site. We are going to
review that information and then prepare a letter documenting
credits. I'm not sure when DOT is going to submit that info. to us,
but I will let you know when we have a timeframe for you.
Brian
Suzanne Klimek wrote:
Hey Brian -- thanks for faxing that info on the SALT mitigation
project for the Vass Bypass. Were y'all going to send something
in writing formalizing the credit deficit that must be made up?
I think you indicated that you needed to evaluate the restoration
potential a little more before doing so. Just let me know when I
can expect something in writing at that point I will process
the data into our mitigation targets.
Thanks.
Suzanne
1 of 1 8/11/2005 9:50 AM
Re: SALT restoration
Subject: Re: SALT restoration
From: Suzanne Klimek <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:15:11 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
OK - thanks.
Brian Wrenn wrote:
Suzanne,
DOT has indicated that they
they would like to share re(
review that information and
credits. I'm not sure when
us, but I will let you know
Brian
Suzanne Klimek wrote:
have some additional information that
jarding the SALT site. We are going to
then prepare a letter documenting
DOT is going to submit that info. to
when we have a timeframe for you.
Hey Brian -- thanks for faxing that info
project for the Vass Bypass. Were y'all
in writing formalizing the credit deficit
I think you indicated that you needed to
potential a little more before doing so.
can expect something in writing - at tha
the data into our mitigation targets.
Thanks.
Suzanne
on the SALT mitigation
going to send something
that must be made up?
evaluate the restoration
Just let me know when I
t point I will process
1 of 1 8/11/2005 9:50 AM
L I . L

Uass wva'?) (,)/ `DEC yo
Vass Bypass Stream Crossing Analysis C l?if
6/27/05 .g?
Section A
Sheet 7 - Site 1
23+00 Lt - Alternative
Sheet 8 - Site 1
27+50 Lt - Alternative
27+50 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 13 - Site 10
51+14 Lt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
X0$0+80 Rt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
2+60 Lt Alt t' e d '1{-• ( -3ek 14)
('yk 5¢+90 Rt. - Alternative al }-.5
v Sheet 14 - Site 10

- erna ive
671+?o ?i-
G?b 1 S
59+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 &??' s K t? C d s?
61+10 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 -- a ?? • -S M ? f
Sheet 16 - Site 15
60+50 Lt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005'
61+50 Lt - HSCB - ScJ?
Sheet 17 - Site 16
63+20 Lt - HSCB - ° ` akx
R's G'Q
65+20 Lt - HSCB - D o r - ? -( '- ' CAS C?
64+00 Rt - HSCB ` QO t - s*V- P'v - -
65+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 ?t? S K
Sheet 18 - Site 17
67+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 - CGAk • s y?
68+10 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 - - ail ? .
67+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 - a 1? • S V-
67+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 -Nth • t?VdL'-
Sheet 20 - Site. 18, Site 20
-I5'4 71TO&Lt - HSCB O's c&
-j-1 W 766' Lt - HSCB N--, C9
77+20 Lt - HSCB i}SC'&
75+00 Rt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005 - 45 CPo
Sheet 21- Site 21
06 78-I-28 Lt - TBD MC8
4* 79+50 Lt - TBD -- teSc$
wT -*§C'v fzL j SIC

J%k-60 x+99 Rt - TBD - VhC&
79+50 Rt - TBD •- a At.
80+50 Rt - TBD --

Sheet 22 - Site 22
u--t-'k6
? fyj' 82+00 Lt - to HSCB at 81+80 Rt ' b6b'y
"` T
?
$ 3
? 93
11SG; -- a sw
af\k • s? 81+80 Rt - HSCB '? - Oat S ?oc1=P??
Sheet 23 - Site 22
86+30 Rt - HSCB - Wc?-c?,
\' Sheet 24 - Site 25 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
a\y?Nw 94+50 Lt - Pond Downstream- alt• s iC
95+00 Lt - Pond Downstream - alb ,,
94+50 Rt - Pond Downstream •- al+,
95+00 Rt -Pond Downstream - al#• 'Rqq),v `*. - s w d?srrpp __ Cssu -? ? Section B
Sheet 12 - Site 6 vk•
128+60 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 _ a l+ 60 ` 0 VVI
129+40 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
128+50 Rt - HSCB - t?sa
129+40 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 *Aied
Sheet 13 - Site 6
Sheet 14 Site 9
VAWAO 1-49 Lt - Alternative -
140+80 Rt - HSCB :_ ?st,R
Sheet 15 Site 9
i vk1 k'Ab Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 a?}
14 ? up 44i *89 Rt - Alternative *Need HSCB* ??.
Sheet 17 - Site 10
150+00 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
1500+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Section C
qoa-?v

a3? S 1.
W ? 6vL
5Lk+ ?,Z)
162 -HO (rf - a s?a?lt? i I a
Sheet 4 - Site 3 0
20+10 Lt - Additional information needed ??+•
20+80 Lt - HSCB lsC?
A
20+60 Rt - Additional information needed
Sheet 5 - Site 3
21+00 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 7 - Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt - HSCB - KSC??
31+60 Rt - HSCB - NScfS
Sheet 8 - Site 5
31+80 Lt - HSCB-- 4-Sc-
32+00 Rt - HSCB - 4s c$
SO
- Jim+ d ?-
31 k-10 _ DoT
7-14- Ib Sheet 9 - Site 6
38+50 Lt - HSCB'
39+20 Lt - Addressed in March 1.5, ?2005
38+80 Rt - HSCB - i S czr?M?'V si sikt- cot,W r f6W6
Sheet 10 - Site 6
39+60Rt-HSCB '-NS(Z
Sheet 11- Site 8 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
45+40 Rt - 4+SeB
Sheet 12 - Site 10
48+40 Lt - HSCB
5X
49+00 Lt - URCR - a.+.
48+80 Rt - Alternative
49+00 Rt - Alternative -- aj? • S
Current Totals
Sites where HSCB required - 24
Sites where alternatives acceptable - 26
Sites undetermined - 8
<
S
Vass Bypass Stream Crossing Analysis
6/27/05
Section A
Sheet 7 - Site 1
23+00 Lt - Alternative
Sheet 8 - Site 1
27+50 Lt - Alternative
27+50 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 13 - Site 10
51+14 Lt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+80 Rt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+90 Rt. - Alternative
Sheet 14 - Site 10
52+60 Lt - Alternative
Sheet 16 - Site 15
60+50 Lt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005,
61+50 Lt - HSCB
59+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
61+10 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 17 - Site 16
63+20 Lt - HSCB
65+20 Lt - HSCB
64+00 Rt - HSCB
65+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 18 - Site 17
67+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
68+10 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 20 - Site. 18, Site 20
75+00 Lt - HSCB
76+50 Lt - HSCB
77+20 Lt - HSCB
75+00 Rt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 21- Site 21
78+20 Lt - TBD
79+50 Lt - TBD
f i.
80+50 Lt - TBD
78+00 Rt - TBD
79+50 Rt - TBD
80+50 Rt - TBD
Sheet 22 - Site 22
82+00 Lt - to HSCB at 81+80 Rt
83+50 Lt - HSCB
81+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 23 - Site 22
86+30 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 24 - Site 25 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
94+50 Lt - Pond Downstream
95+00 Lt - Pond Downstream
94+50 Rt - Pond Downstream
95+00 Rt - Pond Downstream r.;x.
Section B
Sheet 12 - Site 6
128+60 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
129+40 Lt - Addressed in March 15,'2005
128+50 Rt - HSCB
129+40 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 13 - Site 6
130+00 Rt (same as 129+40 Rt) - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 14 - Site 9
140+80 Lt - Alternative
140+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 15 - Site 9
141+70 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
141+80 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 17 - Site 10
150+00 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
150+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Section C
Sheet 4 - Site 3
20+10 Lt - Additional information needed
20+80 Lt - HSCB
A-, ! . ,
20+60 Rt - Additional information needed
Sheet 5 - Site 3
21+00 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 7 - Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt - HSCB
31+60 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 8 - Site 5
31+80 Lt - HSCB
32+00 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 9 - Site 6
38+50 Lt - HSCB
39+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
38+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 10 - Site 6
39+60 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 11- Site 8 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
45+40 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 12 - Site 10
48+40 Lt - HSCB
49+00 Lt - HSCB
48+80 Rt - Alternative
49+00 Rt - Alternative
Current Totals
Sites where HSCB required - 24
Sites where alternatives acceptable - 26
Sites undetermined - 8

Vass Bypass Stream Crossing Analysis
6/27/05
Section A
Sheet 7 - Site 1
23+00 Lt - Alternative
Sheet 8 - Site 1
27+50 Lt - Alternative
27+50 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 13 - Site 10
51+14 Lt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+80 Rt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+90 Rt. - Alternative
Sheet 14 - Site 10
52+60 Lt - Alternative
Sheet 16 - Site 15
60+50 Lt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005
61+50 Lt - HSCB
59+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
61+10 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 17 - Site 16
63+20 Lt - HSCB
65+20 Lt - HSCB
64+00 Rt - HSCB
65+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 18 - Site 17
67+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
68+10 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 20 - Site 18, Site 20
75+00 Lt - HSCB
76+50 Lt - HSCB
77+20 Lt - HSCB
75+00 Rt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 21- Site 21
78+20 Lt - TBD
79+50 Lt - TBD
S ? k
80+50 Lt - TBD
78+00 Rt - TBD
79+50 Rt - TBD
80+50 Rt - TBD
Sheet 22 - Site 22
82+00 Lt - to HSCB at 81+80 Rt
83+50 Lt - HSCB
81+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 23 - Site 22
86+30 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 24 - Site 25 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
94+50 Lt - Pond Downstream
95+00 Lt - Pond Downstream
94+50 Rt - Pond Downstream
95+00 Rt - Pond Downstream
Section B
Sheet 12 - Site 6
128+60 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
129+40 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
128+50 Rt - HSCB
129+40 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005 *Need HSCB*
Sheet 13 - Site 6
130+00 Rt (same as 129+40 Rt) - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 14 - Site 9
140+80 Lt - Alternative
140+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 15 - Site 9
141+70 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
141+80 Rt - Alternative *Need HSCB*
Sheet 17 - Site 10
150+00 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
150+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Section C
Sheet 4 - Site 3
20+10 Lt - Additional information needed
20+80 Lt - HSCB
- 4
20+60 Rt - Additional information needed
Sheet 5 - Site 3
21+00 Rt - Alternative
Sheet 7 - Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt - HSCB
31+60 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 8 - Site 5
31+80 Lt - HSCB
32+00 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 9 - Site 6
38+50 Lt - HSCB
39+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
38+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 10 - Site 6
39+60 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 11- Site 8 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
45+40 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 12 - Site 10
48+40 Lt - HSCB
49+00 Lt - HSCB
48+80 Rt - Alternative
49+00 Rt - Alternative
Current Totals
Sites where HSCB required - 24
Sites where alternatives acceptable - 26
Sites undetermined - 8
? WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
_ 0?0 RPG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C? ?. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
>_ Division of Water Quality
C3 "C \
July 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality
From: Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, Divisio f
1
Subject: Meeting Minutes from July 6, 2005 Meeting with DOT Staff to Discuss Hazardous Spill
Catchment Basins for the Vass Bypass
Attendees: Paul Rawls, DWQ; Tom Reeder, DWQ; John Hennessy, DWQ; Brian Wrenn, DWQ;
Dave Henderson, DOT; Elizabeth Lusk, DOT; Deanna Riffey, DOT; Phillip Todd, Sepi
Engineering
DOT began by referencing a letter that was sent by DWQ's Fayetteville Regional Office to DOT's
Division 8 office. DOT indicated that the letter was sent in response to the April 4, 2003 compliance
inspection conducted by DWQ. DOT indicated that the letter '?ontained a list of station numbers where
DOT should construct HSCB1. DOT also indicated that this lisp differed from the list that was included in
the March 15, 2005 letter issued by DWQ.
The issue of whether the requirement of Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins (HSCBs) at each stream
crossing is consistent with the DWQ/DOT HSCB policy was discussed. DOT feels that, according to the
policy, they should only be required to construct HSCBs in HQW watersheds and not on every stream
crossing in the project corridor. DWQ explained that the policy clearly states that DWQ can on a site-by-
site basis require HSCBs when necessary to protect water quality. DWQ specifically asked DOT if they
understood that additional HSCBs would be required on the Vass Bypass. DOT stated that they
understood that there was a potential to build more HSCBs on the Vass Bypass.
DOT summarized a list of non-site-specific alternatives to HSCBs that they had considered. The list
consisted of stockpiling material (impervious clay and riprap) to construct ditch check dams, additional
training for local emergency response teams, supplying spill kits to local emergency response teams, and
vegetation enhancement. DOT also stated that the Type A silt basins that they had proposed to convert to
HSCBs in their November 8, 2004 letter and which DWQ approved in the March 15, 2005 letter had been
removed as part of the project completion.
A sheet-by-sheet, station-by-station discussion was conducted for each stream crossing on the project.
Table 1 below presents the discussion by road section, sheet number, permit site number, and station
number and provides DWQ's proposal and DOT's proposal for each location.
Under "DWQ Proposal":
• "HSCB" indicates the need for a hazardous spill catchment basin
• "Alternative" indicates that DWQ proposes an alternative to a HSCB
• "- Spill Kit" in conjunction with Alternative indicates that DWQ proposes a spill kit alternative
and additional training for local emergency response teams
• "- Stockpile/Spill Kit" in conjunction with Alternative indicates that DWQ proposes stockpiling
of material and spill kit alternatives
At this time, no record of this letter can be found by either agency.
*r0
,?e«i i
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htt?://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Page 2 of 4
Under "DOT Proposal":
• "Spill Kit" indicates that DOT proposes to comply with the WQC using a spill kit and additional
training for local emergency response teams
• "Stockpile/Spill Kit" indicates that DOT proposes to comply with the WQC by stockpiling
material and using spill kits
Table 1- Discussion results for each station number
Location DWQ Proposal DOT Proposal
Section A
Sheet 7, Site 1
23+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 8, Sitel
27+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Sill Kit
27+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
50+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit\ Stockpile/Spill Kit
52+50 Rt Alternative-Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
61+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
59+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
61+10 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site16
63+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
65+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
64+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
65+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
68+10 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
67+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
67+80 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20, Sites18 and 20
75+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
75+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 21, Site 21
79+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
78+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
80+50 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Page 3 of 4
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt HSCB DOT to propose alternative
83+50 Lt Off site flow only no HSCB No Proposal
83+20 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
81+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 24, Site 25
91+50 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
94+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+60 Lt Outlet Protection for SW pipe Outlet Protection for SW pipe
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Alternative- Spill Kit Spill Kit
129+40 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
128+50 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
129+40 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
140+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
141+40 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
150+00 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stock ile/S ill Kit
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
20+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
20+60 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit
Direct Discharge of SW needs to
be corrected Stockpile/Spill Kit
DOT to propose alternative
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4 and 5
28+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
31+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
29+10 Med Direct Discharge of SW needs to
be corrected DOT to propose alternative

Page 4 of 4
30+50 Rt Alternatives- Stock ile/S ill Kit
31+10 HSCB DOT to propose alternative
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt HSCB Stockp ile/S pill Kit
32+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Sp ill Kit '
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Alternative - Stockp ile/S pill Kit Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
39+20 Lt Alternative - Stockp ile/S pill Kit Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
38+80 Rt HS Containment No proposal
Sheet 10, Site 6
39+00 Rt HSCIB Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Alternative - Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt HSCB Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
49+00 Lt Alternative - S pill Kit S pill Kit
48+80 Rt Alternative - S pill Kit S pill Kit
49+00 Rt Alternative - Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit Stockp ile/Sp ill Kit
` These sites were not discussed during the meeting. DWQ proposes Alternative - Spill Kits at these locations. It is
assumed that DOT would agree as this is the least expensive and labor tense alternative.
3 Constructability issues dictate need for an alternatives analysis.
a This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a site that requires extensive outlet protection to prevent stream
degradation due to an unorthodox pipe location.
5 This is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution to this direct discharge to comply with the
WQC.
6 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution
to this direct discharge to comply with the WQC.
7 Close proximity of stream relocation presents a problematic design constraint.
s At this station, DWQ is requiring hazardous spill containment although not necessarily through a catchment basin.
DWQ will take into consideration the location and limited area when reviewing DOT's proposal for this location.
DOT indicated that it would take a few weeks to investigate the proposals discussed at each station. Dave
Henderson stated that DOT would submit proposals based on the field investigations by August 1, 2005.
DWQ expressly requested that DOT provide specific recommendations at each station to impede flow and
contain liquid hazardous spill material. The meeting was adjourned.
Cc: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary, NC DENR
Paul Rawls, Surface Water Section Chief, DWQ
Tom Reeder, Supervisor, Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Danny Smith, Supervisor, Nonpoint Source Assistance and Compliance Oversight
John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit
File Copy

[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
To:Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder
<[e-mail]>, Danny Smith <Danny. Smith @ ncmail.net>,
"D. R. Henderson, PE" <dhenderson @ dot. state.nc.us>, Elizabeth Lee
Lusk <ellusk@ dot. state.nc.us>, "Deanna R. Riffey"
<driffey @dot. state.nc.us>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Phillip Todd <ptodd @ sepiengineering.com>
CC:John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Please find attached the meeting minutes from our July 6th meeting to discuss
hazardous spill basins for the Vass Bypass. If you have any questions or comments
on the minutes, please let me know. Thanks
Brian
2 of 2 10/5/2005 1:20 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]]
From: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:47:03 -0400
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>, Brian Wrenn
<[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Gentlemen:
Attachment FYI
I have not yet heard from Dave.
Subject: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:57:10 -0400
To: "Debbie Barbour (E-mail)" <dbarbour@ dot. state.nc.us>
CC: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Debbie - attached you will find a copy of the meeting minutes that Brian put
together following our most recent meeting with DOT staff (Dave worked with Paul
at this meeting and scheduling the DOT staff). The DOT staff that were at the
meeting have all been sent copies of the memo. Please note that this is a follow up
to our letter of March 15th to which we have not received a written response. In
order to make this next meeting effective, we need to get a written response from
DOT to that letter of the 15th, along with the modifications we concurred upon at
the July 6th meeting referenced in the attached memo. The DWQ staff need to have
that letter in advance of the meeting, so that we can review it and be prepared to
work with DOT on getting to final resolution. I remain optimistic that we can
accomplish this and hope that we can at the next meeting. I f you would please
have Dave let Paul know when we can expect the letter, so that we can schedule the
meeting with all appropriate parties. I look forward to us getting to final resolution
on this project. Thanks for the assistance. Coleen
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions
Date:Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:22:31 -0400
From:Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
1 of 2 10/5/2005 1:20 PM

Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210, US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties
The Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210, is a bypass construction project for US 1 in
Moore and Lee Counties. The 12.8 mile project begins in the south at the intersection
with SR 1853 at Lakeview in Moore County and continues north to the intersection with
SR 1180 just south of Sanford in Lee County.. The project will expand the existing 2-lane
road to a four-land divided highway using portions of the existing US 1 corridor and a
new corridor to the east of existing US 1. The project area is largely rural but does
include the Towns of Cameron, Lakeview, and Vass. Named streams in the project study
area that are affected by the Vass Bypass include Little River, Crane Creek, Little Crane
Creek, and Little Juniper Creek. All of these streams are located in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Little River, Crane Creek, and Little Crane Creek are all classified as Water
Supply-III (WS-III) waters of the State, and Little River has a supplemental classification
of High Quality Waters (HQW).
Permitting Process
On April 10, 2001, NC DOT applied for an individual Water Quality Certification for the
Vass Bypass. In response to public request during the comment period, a public hearing
was held on November 1, 2001.
Based on information received at the public hearing and, data supplied in the application,
a recommendation was made by the public hearing officer to issue the Vass Bypass WQC
with conditions. The conditions included the following:
• Minimizing long term water quality impacts through the use of Best Management
Practices;
• Strictly adhering to Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for entire corridor;
• Providing ground cover within 10 days of disturbance throughout the design and
construction of the project;
• Installing and maintaining Hazardous Spill Catch Basins (HSCBs) on all new
stream crossings within the project corridor; and
• Implementing the more protective sediment and erosion control practices
applicable to HQW waters throughout the entire project corridor.
This decision was based on three main reasons:
1) The Vass Bypass was proposed be located within a drinking water supply
watershed and High Quality Waters watershed.
2) Crane Creek within the road corridor was listed on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) lists
for impaired waters;
3) Public comment was provided regarding safety concerns as a result of accidental
spills.
The majority of the new location highway is classified as WS-III waters of the State.
Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine proposed surface water crossings are in WS-III waters
of the State, and three of the crossings in the Little River watershed are in High Quality
Waters of the State. These water supply watersheds provide water to Town of Vass, Fort

Bragg military reservation, and Pope Air Force Base. Written public comments from
Town of Vass expressed concerns about the protection of the water supply watershed.
Crane Creek was a high priority stream on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) list for habitat
degradation. The degradation was attributed to sedimentation associated with the runoff
from agricultural activities. Although this stream is currently not listed on the 303(d)
impaired waters list, it was a consideration at the time of the public hearing and played a
role in the public hearing officer's decision (the conditions that address this are primarily
focused on construction phase of the project and the condition preventing direct
discharges of stormwater without treatment [ex. vegetative conveyances]).
The local residents expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area.
Local emergency response agencies stated the need for spill control structures to help
prevent discharges of hazardous waste to adjacent surface waters.
The individual WQC was issued to NC DOT on July 19, 2002. Seventeen permit
conditions were included in the WQC, six of these conditions were included to
specifically protect water quality through storm water, controls and sediment and erosion
control BMPs. Appendix A describes the six most pertinent conditions of the permit
related to the above issues.
Each certification issued by DWQ for impacts to streams and wetlands includes a 60-day
adjudicatory period within which the applicant can appeal any part of the issued.
certification. One week before expiration of the adjudicatory period, DOT requested
verbally that the permit condition requiring HSCB at all stream crossings be revised to
include only those in the HQW watershed. In order to preserve DOT's adjudicatory
rights while discussions ensued, DWQ advised DOT that they should formally request
adjudication of the certification in writing. DOT failed to make a formal appeal through
the adjudicatory process within the 60-day period.
On November 12, 2002, DOT requested in writing with minimal justification, although
not through a formal modification request, that HSCBs only be required for crossings of
HQW in the Little River watershed. On November 26, 2002, DWQ responded in writing
to DOT's request advising them that, as they had missed the window for adjudication,
they needed to request a formal modification to the certification.
DOT made an official modification request for the Vass Bypass WQC on July 11, 2003.
The modification request included proposals for additional temporary impacts, changes in
wetland impacts, designs for pre-formed scour holes, and a redesign of a storm water
discharge. No official modification request was made to eliminate the requirement- for or
reduce the number of HSCBs. A modification to the Vass Bypass WQC was issued on
September 2, 2003 for the requested changes.
On February 6, 2004, DOT submitted a letter requesting a modification to Permit
Condition 7 of the Vass Bypass WQC.
2
• DOT proposed building six HSCBs for the three crossings within the HQW
watershed associated with the Little River.
• However, DOT requested that HSCBs not be required for the remaining crossing
including pond impacts, crossings of Class C and WS-III waters of the State, and
stream crossings located on secondary roads associated with the Vass Bypass.
• DOT proposed using stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations near these
stream crossings as an adequate means of supporting emergency responders
during a hazardous spill event.
In the March 22, 2004 response to the request, DWQ agreed with DOT that stream
crossings on secondary roads should not require HSCBs due to the low frequency of
truck traffic. However, DWQ did not agree with the request to remove the requirement
for HSCBs at the remaining stream crossings, which included pond impacts and Class C
and WS-III waters of the State. This lowered the number of crossings that required
HSCBs from 30 to 23. In addition, DWQ did not agree with DOT's proposal to stockpile
sand and soil to support emergency responders. Numerous safety and logistical reasons
make this an unviable option. These reasons included:
• Lack of heavy equipment on site to move the\,sand/soil to the appropriate location.
• Emergency response personnel at increased rise of exposure to hazardous
materials through placement of sand/soil to block flow.
• Stockpiles subject to wind and water erosion and flood events.
• EPA does not consider stockpiles a "good engineering practice."
• Lack of experienced and fully trained emergency response personnel in rural
areas. Lack heavy equipment, response vehicles and other support vehicles, and
protective equipment to contain or clean up spill.
DWQ provided DOT with three options or combination of options to comply with Permit
Condition 7:
1) Obtain sufficient right-of-way along the US 1 corridor and install appropriately-
sized hazardous spill catch basins, as required by the 401 WQC issued on July 19,
2002 and the Modification dated September 3, 2003; or
2) Provide buried pipes in conjunction with stormwater management and
conveyance devices to provide the same storage capacity as a HSCB. The outlet
to this pipe containment system would be required to be fitted with a sluice gate
that remained open until a spill event Specific "signage" would need to be
provided near the roadway which could be readily identified by emergency
response personnel; or
3) Provide a catchment and closure device at stormwater drains utilizing median and
shoulder areas for containment sufficient to meet the design standards. Signage,
again, would be necessary.
DWQ placed the modification request on hold until the necessary information was
provided to demonstrate compliance with Permit Condition 7.
On November 8, 2004, DOT responded providing design plans for the 6 HSCBs in the
Little River watershed (three stream crossings) and, again, requested deletion of the
requirements for HSCBs at the remaining 23 stream crossings as well as DWQ's
inclusion of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Spill Prevention Control and
3
Countermeasures regulations referenced in the March 22, 2004 letter. In the response,
DOT provided data involving hazardous mater ial spills related to traffic accidents that
occurred from 2000 to 2003 on the!existing US 1 corridor. Based on this data, DOT felt
that HSCBs were not necessary along the Vass Bypass outside of the HQW watershed.
DOT also objected to the reference of the EPA's Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures. DOT felt that it was not applicable to transportation related spills.
DOT offered as a compromise to convert three existing Type "A" stilling basins to
HSCBs. These converted basins would be modified with notched berms where sand bags
could be placed to contain hazardous spills. DOT requested that the permit be modified
to require construction of 6 HSCBs in the Little River HQW watershed and that HSCBs
not be required at the other 23 crossings on US 1 and the four crossings on the secondary
roads.
Based on numerous discussions, letter exchanges, and WQ Certification modification
requests, a site visit was set up for February 1, 2005 to observe current construction
stages and impacted resources, and to continue discussions on resolving concerns with
compliance with Permit Condition 7. During the site visit, DWQ restated that HSCBs
would not be required for secondary road crossings associated with the project. DWQ
also stated that stream crossing associated with downstream ponds would not require
HSCBs. DWQ felt that the pond could act as a containment area should a spill occur.
This reduced the number of stream crossings where HSG,Bs are required from 23 to 14.
Additionally, DWQ identified three sites where design improvements were needed.
Solutions to these problem sites were agreed upon during the site visit.
After review of the impact sites and further discussions, DWQ issued a letter on March
15, 2005 summarizing the field visit, offering suggestions on how to meet the
requirements of Permit Conditions 4 and 7, and requesting alternatives from DOT on how
compliance could be achieved.
• DWQ agreed that the proposed Type "A" stilling basins would be acceptable for
conversion to HSCBs. DWQ offered a revised design standard for HSCBs. This
design standard was based on the median spill volume from transportation related
hazardous spills throughout the state from 2001 to 2004. The required volume
was roughly 25% of the original design standard for HSCBs.
• DWQ identified four sites where it appeared that storm water was discharging
directly to streams. DWQ requested that DOT provide designs on how these
storm water discharges could be modified to comply with Permit Condition 4.
• DWQ also identified seventeen locations at eight different stream crossings where
alternative means other than HSCBs could be used to comply with Permit
Condition 7. This does not preclude the use of HSCBs at these sites. It only
identified sites where DWQ provided DOT with some flexibility in complying
with Permit Condition 7. DWQ requested that DOT identify alternative designs
for HSCBs to comply with Permit Condition 7 at these sites. DOT has not replied
to the March 15, 2005 letter as of June 6, 2005.
4
Compliance and Enforcement Proceedings
On February 26, 2003, DWQ submitted a memorandum to DOT reminding them of the
need to comply with the conditions of the WQC for the Vass Bypass. From April 2003 to
November 2003, three compliance inspections were conducted at the Vass Bypass project
site. All three were in response to complaints received by DWQ.
On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted a compliance inspection and a file review of the
Vass Bypass project. Several violations of permit conditions were observed during the
inspection. A Notice of Violation was issued on May 5, 2003 that included the following
violations:
• Permit Condition 1- Sedimentation and erosion control measures did not meet
the standards of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual.
• Permit Condition 2 - The design, construction, and maintenance measures of the
1997 Best. Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters were not
being met.
• Permit Condition 3 - Greater than 20 acres of land had been disturbed at one time
which does not meet the Design Standards fox Sensitive Watersheds.
• Permit Condition 5 - DOT had no method foi, racking when disturbed ground
had been seeded to comply with the 10-day maximum time period.
• Permit Condition 7 - Site plans used by DOT construction staff did not include
designs or locations for HSCBs. No HSCBs had! been constructed at the time of
the inspection.
• Permit Condition 9 - No maintenance plans were submitted for storm water
management facilities or HSCBs prior to construction activities.
• Permit Condition 15 - No mitigation report was submitted within two months of
the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Prior to issuance of the Notice of Violation, DOT submitted a letter on April 16, 2003
outlining changes to the Vass Bypass plans. These changes included rerouting of storm
water through pre-formed scour holes, installation of 6 HSCBs in the Little River
watershed, elimination of bridge deck drains from discharging directly to the Little River,
and submittal of a maintenance plan for the HSCBs.
On May 30, 2003, DOT officially responded to the Notice of Violation. In the response,
DOT addressed each violation. At issue was the fact that DOT had implemented the -
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds only in the HQW watershed areas of the
project corridor. However, Permit Condition 3 clearly states that these standards should
be followed for the entire project corridor. Thus, DOT had disturbed more than 20 acres
of land at one time, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to handle
a 25-year storm, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to meet the
increased settling efficiency, and had not designed all new, open channels with 2:1 side
slopes. Also at issue was the fact that DOT had not designed or constructed HSCBs at all
stream crossings. DOT did revise the plans to include 6 HSCBs in the HQW of the Little
River watershed (per the April 16, 2003 letter) but did not design any for the remaining
stream crossings. .
5
On August 28, 2003, DWQ conducted another compliance inspection and file review.
During the inspection, multiple violations were observed including several instances of
improper sediment and erosion control measures which had resulted in the bypass of
control measures and the deposition of 2-12 inches of sediment in adjacent stream
channels. On November 24, 2003, DWQ conducted a third compliance inspection, and
file review. During the inspection, it was noted that the designs for the HSCBs were not
submitted to DWQ prior to construction, that the report describing the mitigation plan
had not been provided to DWQ, and that a complete copy of the construction plans for
the Vass Bypass had not been submitted. Notices of Violation were not issued in
response to these two compliance inspections.
On February 10, 2005, DWQ assessed DOT $19,284.28 in civil penalties for violations of
the Vass Bypass WQC. This assessment was based on violations observed during the
three compliance visits. The Findings and Decisions document detailed the assessment
as follows:
• One violation of Permit Condition 1 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 2 of the Judy 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 3 of the July. 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 7 of the July `19, 2002 WQC;
• One of three violations of Permit Condition 15 0 the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 1.8 of the September 2, 2003 modification; and
• One violation of 15A NCAC 2B.0231(a)(1) and (b)(1)*.
*Impacts to wetlands from sedimentation which may cause adverse impacts on existing
wetland uses.
DOT has chosen to request an administrative hearing to contest the assessment.
6
APPENDIX A: Permit Conditions
• Permit Condition 1 - NC DOT must follow appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual
or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate
(available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or
Central Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers
not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
This condition was included in the WQC to prevent sedimentation and erosion
during the construction of the project. Due to the presence surface waters in the
project area classified as WS-III and HQW, DWQ felt that the proper preventative
measures should be followed and maintained;to ensure that water quality
standards were met for turbidity. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream impacted by
the project, was listed on the 303(d) list of imp?ired waters during the permitting
process. Crane Creek was listed due to habitat degradation making sedimentation
from construction activities a major concern. Therefore, adherence to the
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual was key to
preventing further impairment of Crane Creek.
• Permit Condition 2 - NC DOT shall use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all
applicable preventive and control measures during the design, construction and
maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing acitivities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Similar to the reasons stated above, this condition was included to protect
downstream aquatic resources during the construction of the project. This BUT
manual provides guidance and techniques during the planning, design, and
construction of highways for preventing sediment, toxic chemicals, and fill
material from entering waters of the State. This manual also provides additional
protective BMPs for projects occurring within HQW watersheds. The public
hearing officer recommended inclusion of these BMPs in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 3 - During the construction of the project, NC DOT shall
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124(a)(d)J, within the project corridor.
The requirements for Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds provide
additional protection through sedimentation and erosion control measures for
7
projects occurring within or adjacent to High Quality Waters. These standards
include the following requirements:
- No more than 20 acres of land can be disturbed a one time. This limits the
amount of sedimentation and erosion that can occur by keeping ground
disturbance to a smaller area and maintains existing vegetation that reduces
surface runoff of sediment.
- Sediment and erosion control measures must be designed and constructed to
meet the flow for a 25-year storm. This provides additional capacity to the
control measures to.handle increased flow from large rain events.
- Control measures must meet an increased settling efficiency standard.
Increased settling efficiency requires the control measures to be more efficient
at removing sediment from runoff due to rainfall events.
- Newly constructed channels shall be designed and constructed with side
slopes no steeper than 2:1 slope if vegetation is used for stabilization. This
prevents accelerated erosion of the. side slopes due to excessive steepness and
prevents sedimentation in adjacent surface waters.
The NC Environmental Sciences Branch and the Special Watershed Project Unit
had expressed concerns over sedimentation in the area, especially in Little Crane
Creek just upstream from the confluence with Cone Creek. Indications of a
sedimentation problem had been seen in recent sampling in the project area which
could threaten very good habitat and water quality: Based on this information, the
public hearing officer recommended including these standards in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 4 - Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention
basins and shall not be routed directly into streams. Existing vegetated buffers
shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse flow.
Because the majority of the road project was planned in a WS-III watershed, post-
construction storm water runoff was a big concern. Requiring some treatment of
storm water through vegetated conveyances, grassed swales, etc. prior to
discharge into streams would reduce pollutant loads reaching the streams. This
was especially important in the Crane Creek area which was listed as 303(d)
impaired stream at the time of permitting.
• Permit Condition 5 -Temporary or permanent vegetation shall be planted on all
bare soil, within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of
High Quality Waters [I5A NCAC 2B.0224]).
As stated in the permit condition, due to the presence of WS-III and HQW, bare
soil must be planted within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to reduce the
risk of erosion and sedimentation. Soil that has been planted with vegetation has
a much lower rate of erosion, which lowers sediment transport to adjacent surface
waters. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream within the project area, was on the
303(d) list of impaired waters for habitat degradation at the time the permit was
issued. The public hearing officer recommended including this condition in the
WQC.
Permit Condition 7 - Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required forall
stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins
shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands
Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built
drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the construction is
complete.
DWQ policy, developed in conjunction with DOT, requires HSCB for crossings of
HQW, ORW, WS-I, or WS-II waters of the State. However, the policy also allows for
HSCBs in circumstances where DWQ believes they are necessary to protect water quality
standards. HSCB were required at all stream crossings on the Vass Bypass for a number
of reasons:
1. Three stream crossings on the project were in a HQW watershed, and 19 of the
21 stream crossings were over waters of the State classified as WS-III. These
surface waters provide water supplies for Town of Vass, Fort Bragg military
reservation, and Pope Air Force Base. \ ,
2. Crane Creek, a stream in the project area was 0\4 the 303(d) list of impaired
waters for habitat degradation at the time of the permit process. In addition,
Little Crane Creek upstream of the confluence with Crane Creek has very good
habitat and water quality.
3. Public comment from residents and from local emergency response agencies
expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area. They stated
the need for spill control structures to help prevent discharges of hazardous waste
to adjacent surface waters.
Based on these factors, the hearing officer recommended HSCBs on all stream crossings.
9
Table 1- Number of stream crossings and HSCBs required for the Vass Bypass.
Date No. of
crossings Change No. of HSCBs' Change
Jul 19, 2002 30 120
March 22, 2004 23 -7 92 -?8
February 1, 2005 14 -9 56 -36
March 15, 20052 11 -3 44 -12
' - Potential number of HSCBs required at each crossing. This is estimated at 4
HSCBs per crossing which is a conservative estimate. The number is actually less.
2 - Further review has shown that alternative means could be used at additional sites
reducing the number of crossings and HSCBs required.

Vass Bypass, TIP Proiect No. R-210, US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties
The Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210, is a bypass construction project for US 1 in
Moore and Lee Counties. The 12.8 mile project begins in the south at the intersection
with SR 1853 at Lakeview in Moore County and continues north to the intersection with
SR 1180 just south of Sanford in Lee County. The project will expand the existing 2-lane
road to a four-land divided highway using portions of the existing US 1 corridor and a
new corridor to the east of existing US 1. The project area is largely rural but does
include the Towns of Cameron, Lakeview, and Vass. Named streams in the project study
area that are affected by the Vass Bypass include Little River, Crane Creek, Little Crane
Creek, and Little Juniper Creek. All of these streams are located in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Little River, Crane Creek, and Little Crane Creek are all classified as Water
Supply-III (WS-III) waters of the State, and Little River has a supplemental classification
of High Quality Waters (HQW).
Permitting Process
On April 10, 2001, NC DOT applied for an individual Water Quality Certification for the
Vass Bypass. In response to public request during the comment period, a public hearing
was held on November 1, 2001.
Based on information received at the public hearing and data supplied in the application,
a recommendation was made by the public hearing officer to issue the Vass Bypass WQC
with conditions. The conditions included the following:
• Minimizing long term water quality impacts through the use of Best Management
Practices;
• Strictly adhering to Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for entire corridor;
• Providing ground cover within 10 days of disturbance throughout the design and
construction of the project;
• Installing and maintaining Hazardous Spill Catch Basins (HSCBs) on all new
stream crossings within the project corridor; and
• Implementing the more protective sediment and erosion control practices
applicable to HQW waters throughout the entire project corridor.
This decision was based on three main reasons:
1) The Vass Bypass was proposed be located within a drinking water supply
watershed and High Quality Waters watershed.
2) Crane Creek within the road corridor was listed on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) lists
for impaired waters;
3) Public comment was provided regarding safety concerns as a result of accidental
spills.
The majority of the new location highway is classified as WS-III waters of the State.
Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine proposed surface water crossings are in WS-III waters
of the State, and three of the crossings in the Little River watershed are in High Quality
Waters of the State. These water supply watersheds provide water to Town of Vass, Fort
Bragg military reservation, and Pope Air Force Base. Written public comments from
Town of Vass expressed concerns about the protection of the water supply watershed.
Crane Creek was a high priority stream on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) list for habitat
degradation. The degradation was attributed to sedimentation associated with the runoff
from agricultural activities. Although this stream is currently not listed on the 303(d)
impaired waters list, it was a consideration at the time of the public hearing and played a
role in the public hearing officer's decision (the conditions that address this are primarily
focused on construction phase of the project and the condition preventing direct
discharges of stormwater without treatment [ex. vegetative conveyances]).
The local residents expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area.
Local emergency response agencies stated the need for spill control structures to help
prevent discharges of hazardous waste to adjacent surface waters.
The individual WQC was issued to NC DOT on July 19, 2002. Seventeen permit
conditions were included in the WQC, six of these conditions were included to
specifically protect water quality through storm water controls and sediment and erosion
control BMPs. Appendix A describes the six most pertinent conditions of the permit
related to the above issues.
Each certification issued by DWQ for impacts to streams and wetlands includes a 60-day
adjudicatory period within which the applicant can appeal any part of the issued
certification. One week before expiration of the adjudicatory period, DOT requested
verbally that the permit condition requiring HSCB at all stream crossings be revised to
include only those in the HQW watershed. In order to preserve DOT's adjudicatory
rights while discussions ensued, DWQ advised DOT that they should formally request
adjudication of the certification in writing. DOT failed to make a formal appeal through
the adjudicatory process within the 60-day period.
On November 12, 2002, DOT requested in writing with minimal justification, although
not through a formal modification request, that HSCBs only be required for crossings of
HQW in the Little River watershed. On November 26, 2002, DWQ responded in writing
to DOT's request advising them that, as they had missed the window for adjudication,
they needed to request a formal modification to the certification.
DOT made an official modification request for the Vass Bypass WQC on July 11, 2003.
The modification request included proposals for additional temporary impacts, changes in
wetland impacts, designs for pre-formed scour holes, and a redesign of a storm water
discharge. No official modification request was made to eliminate the requirement for or
reduce the number of HSCBs. A modification to the Vass Bypass WQC was issued on
September 2, 2003 for the requested changes.
On February 6, 2004, DOT submitted a letter requesting a modification to Permit
Condition 7 of the Vass Bypass WQC.
2

• DOT proposed building six HSCBs for the three crossings within the HQW
watershed associated with the Little River.
• However, DOT requested that HSCBs not be required for the remaining crossing
including pond impacts, crossings of Class C and WS-III waters of the State, and
stream crossings located on secondary roads associated with the Vass Bypass.
• DOT proposed using stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations near these
stream crossings as an adequate means of supporting emergency responders
during a hazardous spill event.
In the March 22, 2004 response to the request, DWQ agreed with DOT that stream
crossings on secondary roads should not require HSCBs due to the low frequency of
truck traffic. However, DWQ did not agree with the request to remove the requirement
for HSCBs at the remaining stream crossings, which included pond impacts and Class C
and WS-III waters of the State. This lowered the number of crossings that required
HSCBs from 30 to 23. In addition, DWQ did not agree with DOT's proposal to stockpile
sand and soil to support emergency responders. Numerous safety and logistical reasons
make this an unviable option. These reasons included:
• Lack of heavy equipment on site to move the sand/soil to the appropriate location.
• Emergency response personnel at increased risk of exposure to hazardous
materials through placement of sand/soil to block flow.
• Stockpiles subject to wind and water erosion and flood events.
• EPA does not consider stockpiles a "good engineering practice."
• Lack of experienced and fully trained emergency response personnel in rural
areas. Lack heavy equipment, response vehicles and other support vehicles, and
protective equipment to contain or clean up spill.
DWQ provided DOT with three options or combination of options to comply with Permit
Condition 7:
1) Obtain sufficient right-of-way along the US 1 corridor and install appropriately-
sized hazardous spill catch basins, as required by the 401 WQC issued on July 19,
2002 and the Modification dated September 3, 2003; or
2) Provide buried pipes in conjunction with stormwater management and
conveyance devices to provide the same storage capacity as a HSCB. The outlet
to this pipe containment system would be required to be fitted with a sluice gate
that remained open until a spill event Specific "signage" would need to be
provided near the roadway which could be readily identified by emergency
response personnel; or
3) Provide a catchment and closure device at stormwater drains utilizing median and
shoulder areas for containment sufficient to meet the design standards. Signage,
again, would be necessary.
DWQ placed the modification request on hold until the necessary information was
provided to demonstrate compliance with Permit Condition 7.
On November 8, 2004, DOT responded providing design plans for the 6 HSCBs in the
Little River watershed (three stream crossings) and, again, requested deletion of the
requirements for HSCBs at the remaining 23 stream crossings as well as DWQ's
inclusion of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Spill Prevention Control and
3
Countermeasures regulations referenced in the March 22, 2004 letter. In the response,
DOT provided data involving hazardous material spills related to traffic accidents that
occurred from 2000 to 2003 on the existing US 1 corridor. Based on this data, DOT felt
that HSCBs were not necessary along the Vass Bypass outside of the HQW watershed.
DOT also objected to the reference of the EPA's Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures. DOT felt that it was not applicable to transportation related spills.
DOT offered as a compromise to convert three existing Type "A" stilling basins to
HSCBs. These converted basins would be modified with notched berms where sand bags
could be placed to contain hazardous spills. DOT requested that the permit be modified
to require construction of 6 HSCBs in the Little River HQW watershed and that HSCBs
not be required at the other 23 crossings on US 1 and the four crossings on the secondary
roads.
Based on numerous discussions, letter exchanges, and WQ Certification modification
requests, a site visit was set up for February 1, 2005 to observe current construction
stages and impacted resources, and to continue discussions on resolving concerns with
compliance with Permit Condition 7. During the site visit, DWQ restated that HSCBs
would not be required for secondary road crossings associated with the project. DWQ
also stated that stream crossing associated with downstream ponds would not require
HSCBs. DWQ felt that the pond could act as a containment area should a spill occur.
This reduced the number of stream crossings where HSCBs are required from 23 to 14.
Additionally, DWQ identified three sites where design improvements were needed.
Solutions to these problem sites were agreed upon during the site visit.
After review of the impact sites and further discussions, DWQ issued a letter on March
15, 2005 summarizing the field visit, offering suggestions on how to meet the
requirements of Permit Conditions 4 and 7, and requesting alternatives from DOT on how
compliance could be achieved.
• DWQ agreed that the proposed Type "A" stilling basins would be acceptable for
conversion to HSCBs. DWQ offered a revised design standard for HSCBs. This
design standard was based on the median spill volume from transportation related
hazardous spills throughout the state from 2001 to 2004. The required volume
was roughly 25% of the original design standard for HSCBs.
• DWQ identified four sites where it appeared that storm water was discharging
directly to streams. DWQ requested that DOT provide designs on how these
storm water discharges could be modified to comply with Permit Condition 4.
• DWQ also identified seventeen locations at eight different stream crossings where
alternative means other than HSCBs could be used to comply with Permit
Condition 7. This does not preclude the use of HSCBs at these sites. It only
identified sites where DWQ provided DOT with some flexibility in complying
with Permit Condition 7. DWQ requested that DOT identify alternative designs
for HSCBs to comply with Permit Condition 7 at these sites. DOT has not replied
to the March 15, 2005 letter as of June 6, 2005.
4
Compliance and Enforcement Proceedings
On February 26, 2003, DWQ submitted a memorandum to DOT reminding them of the
need to comply with the conditions of the WQC for the Vass Bypass. From April 2003 to
November 2003, three compliance inspections were conducted at the Vass Bypass project
site. All three were in response to complaints received by DWQ.
On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted a compliance inspection and a file review of the
Vass Bypass project. Several violations of permit conditions were observed during the
inspection. A Notice of Violation was issued on May 5, 2003 that included the following
violations:
• Permit Condition 1 - Sedimentation and erosion control measures did not meet
the standards of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual.
• Permit Condition 2 - The design, construction, and maintenance measures of the
1997 Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters were not
being met.
• Permit Condition 3 - Greater than 20 acres of land had been disturbed at one time
which does not meet the Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
• Permit Condition 5 - DOT had no method for tracking when disturbed ground
had been seeded to comply with the 10-day maximum time period.
• Permit Condition 7 - Site plans used by DOT construction staff did not include
designs or locations for HSCBs. No HSCBs had been constructed at the time'of
the inspection.
• Permit Condition 9 - No maintenance plans were submitted for storm water
management facilities or HSCBs prior to construction activities.
• Permit Condition 15 - No mitigation report was submitted within two months of
the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Prior to issuance of the Notice of Violation, DOT submitted a letter on April 16, 2003
outlining changes to the Vass Bypass plans. These changes included rerouting of storm
water through pre-formed scour holes, installation of 6 HSCBs in the Little River
watershed, elimination of bridge deck drains from discharging directly to the Little River,
and submittal of a maintenance plan for the HSCBs.
On May 30, 2003, DOT officially responded to the Notice of Violation. In the response,
DOT addressed each violation. At issue was the fact that DOT had implemented the
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds only in the HQW watershed areas of the
project corridor. However, Permit Condition 3 clearly states that these standards should
be followed for the entire project corridor. Thus, DOT had disturbed more than 20 acres
of land at one time, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to handle
a 25-year storm, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to meet the
increased settling efficiency, and had not designed all new, open channels with 2:1 side
slopes. Also at issue was the fact that DOT had not designed or constructed HSCBs at all
stream crossings. DOT did revise the plans to include 6 HSCBs in the HQW of the Little
River watershed (per the April 16, 2003 letter) but did not design any for the remaining
stream crossings. .
5
On August 28, 2003, DWQ conducted another compliance inspection and file review.
During the inspection, multiple violations were observed including several instances of
improper sediment and erosion control measures which had resulted in the bypass of
control measures and the deposition of 2-12 inches of sediment in adjacent stream
channels. On November 24, 2003, DWQ conducted a third compliance inspection and
file review. During the inspection, it was noted that the designs for the HSCBs were not
submitted to DWQ prior to construction, that the report describing the mitigation plan
had not been provided to DWQ, and that a complete copy of the construction plans for
the Vass Bypass had not been submitted. Notices of Violation were not issued in
response to these two compliance inspections.
On February 10, 2005, DWQ assessed DOT $19,284.28 in civil penalties for violations of
the Vass Bypass WQC. This assessment was based on violations observed during the
three compliance visits. The Findings and Decisions document detailed the assessment
as follows:
• One violation of Permit Condition 1 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 2 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 3 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 7 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One of three violations of Permit Condition 15 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition I.8 of the September 2, 2003 modification; and
• One violation of 15A NCAC 2B .0231(a)(1) and (b)(1)*.
*Impacts to wetlands from sedimentation which may cause adverse impacts on existing
wetland uses.
DOT has chosen to request an administrative hearing to contest the assessment.
6
APPENDIX A: Permit Conditions
• Permit Condition 1 - NC DOT must follow appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual
or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate
(available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or
Central Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers
not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
This condition was included in the WQC to prevent sedimentation and erosion
during the construction of the project. Due to the presence surface waters in the
project area classified as WS-III and HQW, DWQ felt that the proper preventative
measures should be followed and maintained to ensure that water quality
standards were met for turbidity. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream impacted by
the project, was listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters during the permitting
process. Crane Creek was listed due to habitat degradation making sedimentation
from construction activities a major concern. Therefore, adherence to the
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual was key to
preventing further impairment of Crane Creek.
Permit Condition 2 - NC DOT shall use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all
applicable preventive and control measures during the design, construction and
maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing acitivities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Similar to the reasons stated above, this condition was included to protect
downstream aquatic resources during the construction of the project. This BMP
manual provides guidance and techniques during the planning, design, and
construction of highways for preventing sediment, toxic chemicals, and fill
material from entering waters of the State. This manual also provides additional
protective BMPs for projects occurring within HQW watersheds. The public
hearing officer recommended inclusion of these BMPs in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 3 - During the construction of the project, NC DOT shall
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B.0124(a)(d)], within the project corridor.
The requirements for Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds provide
additional protection through sedimentation and erosion control measures for
7
projects occurring within or adjacent to High Quality Waters. These standards
include the following requirements:
- No more than 20 acres of land can be disturbed a one time. This limits the
amount of sedimentation and erosion that can occur by keeping ground
disturbance to a smaller area and maintains existing vegetation that reduces
surface runoff of sediment.
- Sediment and erosion control measures must be designed and constructed to
meet the flow for a 25-year storm. This provides additional capacity to the
control measures to handle increased flow from large rain events.
- Control measures must meet an increased settling efficiency standard.
Increased settling efficiency requires the control measures to be more efficient
at removing sediment from runoff due to rainfall events.
- Newly constructed channels shall be designed and constructed with side
slopes no steeper than 2:1 slope if vegetation is used for stabilization. This
prevents accelerated erosion of the side slopes due to excessive steepness and
prevents sedimentation in adjacent surface waters.
The NC Environmental Sciences Branch and the Special Watershed Project Unit
had expressed concerns over sedimentation in the area, especially in Little Crane
Creek just upstream from the confluence with Crane Creek. Indications of a
sedimentation problem had been seen in recent sampling in the project area which
could threaten very good habitat and water quality. Based on this information, the
public hearing officer recommended including these standards in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 4 - Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention
basins and shall not be routed directly into streams. Existing vegetated buffers
shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse flow.
Because the majority of the road project was planned in a WS-III watershed, post-
construction storm water runoff was a big concern. Requiring some treatment of
storm water through vegetated conveyances, grassed swales, etc. prior to
discharge into streams would reduce pollutant loads reaching the streams. This
was especially important in the Crane Creek area which was listed as 303(d)
impaired stream at the time of permitting.
• Permit Condition S -Temporary or permanent vegetation shall be planted on all
bare soil within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of
High Quality Waters [15A NCAC 2B.02241).
As stated in the permit condition, due to the presence of WS-III and HQW, bare
soil must be planted within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to reduce the
risk of erosion and sedimentation. Soil that has been planted with vegetation has
a much lower rate of erosion, which lowers sediment transport to adjacent surface
waters. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream within the project area, was on the
303(d) list of impaired waters for habitat degradation at the time the permit was
8
issued. The public hearing officer recommended including this condition in the
WQC.
• Permit Condition 7 - Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required for-all
stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins
shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands
Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built
drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the construction is
complete.
DWQ policy, developed in conjunction with DOT, requires HSCB for crossings of
HQW, ORW, WS-I, or WS-II waters of the State. However, the policy also allows for
HSCBs in circumstances where DWQ believes they are necessary to protect water quality
standards. HSCB were required at all stream crossings on the Vass Bypass for a number
of reasons:
1. Three stream crossings on the project were in a HQW watershed, and 19 of the
21 stream crossings were over waters of the State classified as WS-III. These
surface waters provide water supplies for Town of Vass, Fort Bragg military
reservation, and Pope Air Force Base.
2. Crane Creek, a stream in the project area was on the 303(d) list of impaired
waters for habitat degradation at the time of the permit process. In addition,
Little Crane Creek upstream of the confluence with Crane Creek has very good
habitat and water quality.
3. Public comment from residents and from local emergency response agencies
expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area. They stated
the need for spill control structures to help prevent discharges of hazardous waste
to adjacent surface waters.
Based on these factors, the hearing officer recommended HSCBs on all stream crossings.
9
Table 1 - Number of stream crossings and HSCBs required for the Vass Bypass.
Date No. of
crossings Change No. of HSCBs' Change
July 19, 2002 30 120
March 22, 2004 23 -7 92 -28
February 1, 2005 14 -9 56 -36
March 15, 20052 11 -3 44 -12
' - Potential number of HSCBs required at each crossing. This is estimated at 4
HSCBs per crossing which is a conservative estimate. The number is actually less.
2 - Further review has shown that alternative means could be used at additional sites
reducing the number of crossings and HSCBs required.
A
Vass Bypass, TIP Proiect No. R-210, US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties
The Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210, is a bypass construction project for US 1 in
Moore and Lee Counties. The 12.8 mile project begins in the south at the intersection
with SR 1853 at Lakeview in Moore County and continues north to the intersection with
SR 1180 just south of Sanford in Lee County.. The project will expand the existing 2-lane
road to a four-land divided highway using portions of the existing US 1 corridor and a
new corridor to the east of existing US 1. The project area is largely rural but does
include the Towns of Cameron, Lakeview, and Vass. Named streams in the project study
area that are affected by the Vass Bypass include Little River, Crane Creek, Little Crane
Creek, and Little Juniper Creek. All of these streams are located in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Little River, Crane Creek, and Little Crane Creek are all classified as Water
Supply-III (WS-III) waters of the State, and Little River has a supplemental classification
of High Quality Waters (HQW).
Permitting Process
On April 10, 2001, NC DOT applied for an individual Water Quality Certification for the
Vass Bypass. In response to public request during the comment period, a public hearing
was held on November 1, 2001.
Based on information received at the public hearing an4 data supplied in the application,
a recommendation was made by the public hearing officer to issue the Vass Bypass WQC
with conditions. The conditions included the following:
• Minimizing long term water quality impacts through the use of Best Management
Practices;
• Strictly adhering to Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for entire corridor;
• Providing ground cover within 10 days of disturbance throughout the design and
construction of the project;
• Installing and maintaining Hazardous Spill Catch Basins (HSCBs) on all new
stream crossings within the project corridor; and
• Implementing the more protective sediment and erosion control practices
applicable to HQW waters throughout the entire project corridor.
This decision was based on three main reasons:
1) The Vass Bypass was proposed be located within a drinking water supply
watershed and High Quality Waters watershed.
2) Crane Creek within the road corridor was listed on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) lists
for impaired waters;
3) Public comment was provided regarding safety concerns as a result of accidental
spills.
The majority of the new location highway is classified as WS-III waters of the State.
Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine proposed surface water crossings are in WS-III waters
of the State, and three of the crossings in the Little River watershed are in High Quality
Waters of the State. These water supply watersheds provide water to Town of Vass, Fort
A, Bragg military reservation, and Pope Air Force Base. Written public comments from
Town of Vass expressed concerns about the protection of the water supply watershed.
Crane Creek was a high priority stream on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) list for habitat
degradation. The degradation was attributed to sedimentation associated with the runoff
from agricultural activities. Although this stream is currently not listed on the 303(d)
impaired waters list, it was a consideration at the time of the public hearing and played a
role in the public hearing officer's decision (the conditions that address this are primarily
focused on construction phase of the project and the condition preventing direct
discharges of stormwater without treatment [ex. vegetative conveyances]).
The local residents expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area.
Local emergency response agencies stated the need for spill control structures to help
prevent discharges of hazardous waste to adjacent surface waters.
The individual WQC was issued to NC DOT on July 19, 2002. Seventeen permit
conditions were included in the WQC, six of these conditions were included to
specifically protect water quality through storm water?controls and sediment and erosion
control BMPs. Appendix A describes the six most pertinent conditions of the permit
related to the above issues.
Each certification issued by DWQ for impacts to streams and wetlands includes a 60-day
adjudicatory period within which the applicant can appeal any part of the issued
certification. One week before expiration of the adjudicatory period, DOT requested
verbally that the permit condition requiring HSCB at all stream crossings be revised to
include only those in the HQW watershed. In order to preserve DOT's adjudicatory
rights while discussions ensued, DWQ advised DOT that they should formally request
adjudication of the certification in writing. DOT failed to make a formal appeal through
the adjudicatory process within the 60-day period.
On November 12, 2002, DOT requested in writing with minimal justification, although
not through a formal modification request, that HSCBs only be required for crossings of
HQW in the Little River watershed. On November 26, 2002, DWQ responded in writing
to DOT's request advising them that, as they had missed the window for adjudication,
they needed to request a formal modification to the certification.
DOT made an official modification request for the Vass Bypass WQC on July 11, 2003.
The modification request included proposals for additional temporary impacts, changes in
wetland impacts, designs for pre-formed scour holes, and a redesign of a storm water
discharge. No official modification request was made to eliminate the requirement for or
reduce the number of HSCBs. A modification to the Vass Bypass WQC was issued on
September 2, 2003 for the requested changes.
On February 6, 2004, DOT submitted a letter requesting a modification to Permit
Condition 7 of the Vass Bypass WQC.
2
• DOT proposed building six HSCBs for the three crossings within the HQW
watershed associated with the Little River.
• However, DOT requested that HSCBs not be required for the remaining crossing
including pond impacts, crossings of Class C and WS-III waters of the State, and
stream crossings located on secondary roads associated with the Vass Bypass.
• DOT proposed using stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations near these
stream crossings as an adequate means of supporting emergency responders
during a hazardous spill event.
In the March 22, 2004 response to the request, DWQ agreed with DOT that stream
crossings on secondary roads should not require HSCBs due to the low frequency of
truck traffic. However, DWQ did not agree with the request to remove the requirement
for HSCBs at the remaining stream crossings, which included pond impacts and Class C
and WS-III waters of the State. This lowered the number of crossings that required
HSCBs from 30 to 23. In addition, DWQ did not agree with DOT's proposal to stockpile
sand and soil to support emergency responders. Numerous safety and logistical reasons
make this an unviable option. These reasons included:
• Lack of heavy equipment on site to move the\.sand/soil to the appropriate location.
• Emergency response personnel at increased ri$? of exposure to hazardous
materials through placement of sand/soil to block flow.
• Stockpiles subject to wind and water erosion and flood events.
• EPA does not consider stockpiles a "good engineering practice."
• Lack of experienced and fully trained emergency response personnel in rural
areas. Lack heavy equipment, response vehicles and other support vehicles, and
protective equipment to contain or clean up spill.
DWQ provided DOT with three options or combination of options to comply with Permit
Condition 7:
1) Obtain sufficient right-of-way along the US 1 corridor and install appropriately-
sized hazardous spill catch basins, as required by the 401 WQC issued on July 19,
2002 and the Modification dated September 3, 2003; or
2) Provide buried pipes in conjunction with stormwater management and
conveyance devices to provide the same storage capacity as a HSCB. The outlet
to this pipe containment system would be required to be fitted with a sluice gate
that remained open until a spill event Specific "signage" would need to be
provided near the roadway which could be readily identified by emergency
response personnel; or
3) Provide a catchment and closure device at stormwater drains utilizing median and
shoulder areas for containment sufficient to meet the design standards. Signage,
again, would be necessary.
DWQ placed the modification request on hold until the necessary information was
provided to demonstrate compliance with Permit Condition 7.
On November 8, 2004, DOT responded providing design plans for the 6 HSCBs in the
Little River watershed (three stream crossings) and, again, requested deletion of the
requirements for HSCBs at the remaining 23 stream crossings as well as DWQ's
inclusion of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Spill Prevention Control and
3
Countermeasures regulations referenced in the March 22, 2004 letter. In the response,
DOT provided data involving hazardous material spills related to traffic accidents that
occurred from 2000 to 2003 on the'existing US 1 corridor. Based on this data, DOT felt
that HSCBs were not necessary along the Vass Bypass outside of the HQW watershed.
DOT also objected to the reference of the EPA's Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures. DOT felt that it was not applicable to transportation related spills.
DOT offered as a compromise to convert three existing Type "A" stilling basins to
HSCBs. These converted basins would be modified with notched berms where sand bags
could be placed to contain hazardous spills. DOT requested that the permit be modified
to require construction of 6 HSCBs in the Little River HQW watershed and that HSCBs
not be required at the other 23 crossings on US 1 and the four crossings on the secondary
roads.
Based on numerous discussions, letter exchanges, and WQ Certification modification
requests, a site visit was set up for February 1, 2005 to observe current construction
stages and impacted resources, and to continue discussions on resolving concerns with
compliance with Permit Condition 7. During the site visit, DWQ restated that HSCBs
would not be required for secondary road crossings associated with the project. DWQ
also stated that stream crossing associated with downstream ponds would not require
HSCBs. DWQ felt that the pond could act as a containment area should a spill occur.
This reduced the number of stream crossings where HS6,Bs are required from 23 to 14.
Additionally, DWQ identified three sites where design improvements were needed.
Solutions to these problem sites were agreed upon during the site visit.
After review of the impact sites and further discussions, DWQ issued a letter on March
15, 2005 summarizing the field visit, offering suggestions on how to meet the
requirements of Permit Conditions 4 and 7, and requesting alternatives from DOT on how
compliance could be achieved.
• DWQ agreed that the proposed Type "A" stilling basins would be acceptable for
conversion to HSCBs. DWQ offered a revised design standard for HSCBs. This
design standard was based on the median spill volume from transportation related
hazardous spills throughout the state from 2001 to 2004. The required volume
was roughly 25% of the original design standard for HSCBs.
• DWQ identified four sites where it appeared that storm water was discharging
directly to streams. DWQ requested that DOT provide designs on how these
storm water discharges could be modified to comply with Permit Condition 4. --
• DWQ also identified seventeen locations at eight different stream crossings where
alternative means other than HSCBs could be used to comply with Permit
Condition 7. This does not preclude the use of HSCBs at these sites. It only
identified sites where DWQ provided DOT with some flexibility in complying
with Permit Condition 7. DWQ requested that DOT identify alternative designs
for HSCBs to comply with Permit Condition 7 at these sites. DOT has not replied
to the March 15, 2005 letter as of June 6, 2005.
4
Compliance and Enforcement Proceedings
On February 26, 2003, DWQ submitted a memorandum to DOT reminding them of the
need to comply with the conditions of the WQC for the Vass Bypass. From April 2003 to
November 2003, three compliance inspections were conducted at the Vass Bypass project
site. All three were in response to complaints received by DWQ.
On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted a compliance inspection and a file review of the
Vass Bypass project. Several violations of permit conditions were observed during the
inspection. A Notice of Violation was issued on May 5, 2003 that included the following
violations:
• Permit Condition 1- Sedimentation and erosion control measures did not meet
the standards of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual.
• Permit Condition 2 - The design, construction, and maintenance measures of the
1997 Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters were not
being met.
• Permit Condition 3 - Greater than 20 acres of land had been disturbed at one time
which does not meet the Design Standards foar Sensitive Watersheds.
• Permit Condition 5 - DOT had no method for\ racking when disturbed ground
had been seeded to comply with the 10-day maximum time period.
• Permit Condition 7 - Site plans used by DOT construction staff did not include
designs or locations for HSCBs. No HSCBs hadbeen constructed at the time ``of
the inspection.
• Permit Condition 9 - No maintenance plans were submitted for storm water
management facilities or HSCBs prior to construction activities.
• Permit Condition 15 - No mitigation report was submitted within two months of
the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Prior to issuance of the Notice of Violation, DOT submitted a letter on April 16, 2003
outlining changes to the Vass Bypass plans. These changes included rerouting of storm
water through pre-formed scour holes, installation of 6 HSCBs in the Little River
watershed, elimination of bridge deck drains from discharging directly to the Little River,
and submittal of a maintenance plan for the HSCBs.
On May 30, 2003, DOT officially responded to the Notice of Violation. In the response,
DOT addressed each violation. At issue was the fact that DOT had implemented the
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds only in the HQW watershed areas of the
project corridor. However, Permit Condition 3 clearly states that these standards should
be followed for the entire project corridor. Thus, DOT had disturbed more than 20 acres
of land at one time, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to handle
a 25-year storm, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to meet the
increased settling efficiency, and had not designed all new, open channels with 2:1 side
slopes. Also at issue was the fact that DOT had not designed or constructed HSCBs at all
stream crossings. DOT did revise the plans to include 6 HSCBs in the HQW of the Little
River watershed (per the April 16, 2003 letter) but did not design any for the remaining
stream crossings. .
5
On August 28, 2003, DWQ conducted another compliance inspection and file review.
During the inspection, multiple violations were observed including several instances of
improper sediment and erosion control measures which had resulted in the bypass of
control measures and the deposition of 2-12 inches of sediment in adjacent stream
channels. On November 24, 2003, DWQ conducted a third compliance inspection, and
file review. During the inspection, it was noted that the designs for the HSCBs were not
submitted to DWQ prior to construction, that the report describing the mitigation plan
had not been provided to DWQ, and that a complete copy of the construction plans for
the Vass Bypass had not been submitted. Notices of Violation were not issued in
response to these two compliance inspections.
On February 10, 2005, DWQ assessed DOT $19,284.28 in civil penalties for violations of
the Vass Bypass WQC. This assessment was based on violations observed during the
three compliance visits. The Findings and Decisions document detailed the assessment
as follows:
• One violation of Permit Condition 1 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 2 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 3 of the July, 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 7 of the July"19, 2002 WQC;
• One of three violations of Permit Condition 15 4, the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 1.8 of the September 2, 2003 modification; and
• One violation of 15A NCAC 2B .0231(a)(1) and (b)(1)*.
*Impacts to wetlands from sedimentation which may cause adverse impacts on existing
wetland uses.
DOT has chosen to request an administrative hearing to contest the assessment.
6
APPENDIX A: Permit Conditions
Permit Condition I - NC DOT must follow appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual
or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate
(available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or
Central Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (SO NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers
not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
This condition was included in the WQC to prevent sedimentation and erosion
during the construction of the project. Due to the presence surface waters in the
project area classified as WS-III and HQW, DWQ felt that the proper preventative
measures should be followed and maintained to ensure that water quality
standards were met for turbidity. In addition, "Crane Creek, a stream impacted by
the project, was listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters during the permitting
process. Crane Creek was listed due to habitat degradation making sedimentation
from construction activities a major concern. Therefore, adherence to the
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual was key to
preventing further impairment of Crane Creek.
Permit Condition 2 - NC DOT shall use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all
applicable preventive and control measures during the design, construction and
maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing acitivities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Similar to the reasons stated above, this condition was included to protect
downstream aquatic resources during the construction of the project. This BMP
manual provides guidance and techniques during the planning, design, and
construction of highways for preventing sediment, toxic chemicals, and fill
material from entering waters of the State. This manual also provides additional
protective BMPs for projects occurring within HQW watersheds. The public
hearing officer recommended inclusion of these BMPs in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 3 - During the construction of the project, NC DOT shall
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds [ISA NCAC 4B .0124(a)(d)], within the project corridor.
The requirements for Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds provide
additional protection through sedimentation and erosion control measures for
7
projects occurring within or adjacent to High Quality Waters. These standards
include the following requirements:
- No more than 20 acres of land can be disturbed a one time. This limits the
amount of sedimentation and erosion that can occur by keeping ground
disturbance to a smaller area and maintains existing vegetation that reduces
surface runoff of sediment.
- Sediment and erosion control measures must be designed and constructed to
meet the flow for a 25-year storm. This provides additional capacity to the
control measures to.handle increased flow from large rain events.
- Control measures must meet an increased settling efficiency standard.
Increased settling efficiency requires the control measures to be more efficient
at removing sediment from runoff due to rainfall events.
- Newly constructed channels shall be designed and constructed with side
slopes no steeper than 2:1 slope if vegetation is used for stabilization. This
prevents accelerated erosion of.the. side slopes due to excessive steepness and
prevents sedimentation in adjacent surface waters.
The NC Environmental Sciences Branch and the Special Watershed Project Unit
had expressed concerns over sedimentation in the area, especially in Little Crane
Creek just upstream from the confluence with Crane Creek. Indications of a
sedimentation problem had been seen in recent sampling in the project area which
could threaten very good habitat and water quality: Based on this information, the
public hearing officer recommended including these standards in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 4 - Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention
basins and shall not be routed directly into streams. Existing vegetated buffers
shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water diffuse flow.
Because the majority of the road project was planned in a WS-III watershed, post-
construction storm water runoff was a big concern. Requiring some treatment of
storm water through vegetated conveyances, grassed swales, etc. prior to
discharge into streams would reduce pollutant loads reaching the streams. This
was especially important in the Crane Creek area which was listed as 303(d)
impaired stream at the time of permitting.
• Permit Condition S -Temporary or permanent vegetation shall be planted on all
bare soil, within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of
High Quality Waters [ISA NCAC 2B.02241).
As stated in the permit condition, due to the presence of WS-III and HQW, bare
soil must be planted within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to reduce the
risk of erosion and sedimentation. Soil that has been planted with vegetation has
a much lower rate of erosion, which lowers sediment transport to adjacent surface
waters. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream within the project area, was on the
303(d) list of impaired waters for habitat degradation at the time the permit was'
issued. The public hearing officer recommended including this condition in the
WQC.
Permit Condition 7 - Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required for all
stream crossings. The final designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins
shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands
Unit prior to beginning construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built
drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after the construction is
complete.
DWQ policy, developed in conjunction with DOT, requires HSCB for crossings of
HQW, ORW, WS-I, or WS-II waters of the State. However, the policy also allows for
HSCBs in circumstances where DWQ believes they are necessary to protect water quality
standards. HSCB were required at all stream crossings on the Vass Bypass for a number
of reasons:
1. Three stream crossings on the project were in a HQW watershed, and 19 of the
21 stream crossings were over waters of the State classified as WS-III. These
surface waters provide water supplies for Town of Vass, Fort Bragg military
reservation, and Pope Air Force Base.
2. Crane Creek, a stream in the project area was oil the 303(d) list of impaired
waters for habitat degradation at the time of the permit process. In addition,
Little Crane Creek upstream of the confluence with Crane Creek has very good
habitat and water quality.
3. Public comment from residents and from local emergency response agencies
expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area. They stated
the need for spill control structures to help prevent discharges of hazardous waste
to adjacent surface waters.
Based on these factors, the hearing officer recommended HSCBs on all stream crossings.
9
. I
Table 1- Number of stream crossings and HSCBs required for the Vass Bypass.
Date No. of
crossings Change No. of HSCBs' Change
Jul 19, 2002 30 120
March 22, 2004 23 -7 92 -?8
February 1, 2005 14 -9 56 -36
March 15, 20052 11 -3 44 -12
' - Potential number of HSCBs required at each crossing. This is estimated at 4
HSCBs per crossing which is a conservative estimate. The number is actually less.
2 - Further review has shown that alternative means could be used at additional sites
reducing the number of crossings and HSCBs required.

CFA
9
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. HIimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Date: August 23, 2005
To: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary, NCDENR
From: Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Directo
Subject: Vass Bypass, Improvements to US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties, TIP Project No.
R-210
The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your attention several items of importance
regarding the referenced project. Based on the present situation, we believe that it may be
necessary to elevate this issue to the Senior Staff level in order to seek a satisfactory resolution to
the current impasse. At present, DOT is currently non-compliant with the 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) issued for the Vass Bypass and has been unreceptive to the Division of
Water Quality's (DWQ) proposed solutions to this situation. As such, DWQ Staff has expended
an inordinate amount of staff time and effort on this matter to no avail.
After repeated efforts over the last three years to bring this issue to conclusion, DOT has still not
fully complied with Condition 7 of the issued WQC for the Vass Bypass. Condition 7 states:
Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final
designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be submitted to the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in
the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after
the construction is complete.
At this time, DOT has only constructed HSCBs on two stream crossings and one wetland
crossing and has committed to constructing HSCBs at two additional crossings. However, DWQ
has informed DOT that HSCBs are required at an additional 14 stream crossings to be in
compliance with the WQC. DOT has been notified several times through memorandums,
compliance inspections, and field visits that they must comply with Condition 7 of the WQC.
DOT still does not appear to believe that they are required to construct HSCBs at every stream
crossing. DOT contends that the Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill
Basins (HSCB policy) does not allow DWQ to require HSCBs outside of the High Quality
Waters (HQW) watershed on the Vass project corridor. However, DWQ has always retained the
option to include site-specific conditions in 401 WQCs to protect water quality. The HSCB
policy was crafted to give DWQ the ability to require HSCB outside of the HQW watershed
based on site-by-site considerations where it is necessary to protect water quality standards.
Condition 7 was included on the basis of this site-by-site consideration. NmffiCaa!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Throughout discussions with DOT on the HSCB issue, DOT has consistently referred to HSCB
locations other than those in the HQW watershed as "new", "additional", or "suggested" sites.
This language is inaccurate. The WQC clearly requires HSCBs on all stream crossings. In fact,
in an effort to bring the situation to resolution, DWQ performed a time-consuming internal
review process that removed some crossings from the requirements of Condition 7.
Furthermore, DWQ.has worked with DOT to identify sites,where alternative means other than
HSCB can be used. Both of these endeavors have substantially reduced the number of HSCBs
required in the original 401 Water Quality Certification.
We estimate that DWQ staff has dedicated almost 150 work hours to this project since February
2005. This includes multiple meetings with DOT, internal discussions, production of written
correspondence with DOT and documentation, and field visits to the project site. This is a
disproportionate amount of time considering the minimal response these efforts have produced.
Despite DWQ's efforts and flexibility, DOT has yet to acknowledge the necessity to build
additional HSCBs . It is unclear what the benefits of additional negotiations at our level would
be. Accordingly, we suggest that the most productive course of action currently available may
be to conduct further discussions on this matter and to seek a final resolution at the Senior Staff
level.
Attached you will find a chronology of the events leading up to this point, a description of the
issues encountered for this project, a list of sites where HSCBs are required, and a response from
DOT to this list of sites. We look forward to discussing this matter with you in further detail.
2
FWATF
?O?p?G
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 23, 2005
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary, NCDENR
From: Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Subject: Vass Bypass, Improvements to US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties, TIP Project No.
R-210
The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your attention several items of importance
regarding the referenced project. Based on the present situation, we believe that it may be
necessary to elevate this, issue to the Senior Staff level in order to seek a satisfactory resolution to
the current impasse. At present, DOT is currently non-compliant with the 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) issued for the Vass Bypass and has been unreceptive to the Division of
Water Quality's (DWQ) proposed solutions to this situation. As such, DWQ Staff has expended
an inordinate amount of staff time and effort on this matter to no avail.
After repeated efforts over the last three years to bring this issue to conclusion, DOT has still not
fully complied with Condition 7 of the issued WQC for the Vass Bypass. Condition 7 states:
Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The final
designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be submitted to the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning construction in
the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins shall be submitted to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Units no later than 30 days after
the construction is complete.
At this time, DOT has only constructed HSCBs on two stream crossings and one wetland
crossing and has committed to constructing HSCBs at two additional crossings. However, DWQ
has informed DOT that HSCBs are required at an additional 14 stream crossings to be in
compliance with the WQC. DOT has been notified several times through memorandums,
compliance inspections, and field visits that they must comply with Condition 7 of the WQC.
DOT still does not appear to believe that they are required to construct HSCBs at every stream
crossing. DOT contends that the Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill
Basins (HSCB policy) does not allow DWQ to require HSCBs outside of the High Quality
Waters (HQW) watershed on the Vass project corridor. However, DWQ has always retained the
option to include site-specific conditions in 401 WQCs to protect water quality. The HSCB
policy was crafted to give DWQ the ability to require HSCB outside of the HQW watershed
based on site-by-site considerations where it is necessary to protect water quality standards.
Condition 7 was included on the basis of this site-by-site consideration. te Carolina
A(rally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Throughout discussions with DOT on the HSCB issue, DOT has consistently referred to HSCB
locations other than those in the HQW watershed as "new", "additional", or "suggested" sites.
This language is inaccurate. The WQC clearly requires HSCBs on all stream crossings. In fact,
in an effort to bring the situation to resolution, DWQ performed a time-consuming internal
review process that removed some crossings from the requirements of Condition 7.
Furthermore, DWQ has worked with DOT to identify sites where alternative means other than
HSCB can be used. Both of these endeavors have substantially reduced the number of HSCBs
required in the original 401 Water Quality Certification.
We estimate that DWQ staff has dedicated almost 150 work hours to this project since February
2005. This includes multiple meetings with DOT, internal discussions, production of written
correspondence with DOT and documentation, and field visits to the project site. This is a
disproportionate amount of time considering the minimal response these efforts have produced.
Despite DWQ's efforts and flexibility, DOT has yet to acknowledge the necessity to build
additional HSCBs . It is unclear what the benefits of additional negotiations at our level would
be. Accordingly, we suggest that the most productive course of action currently available may
be to conduct further discussions on this matter and to seek a final resolution at the Senior Staff
level.
Attached you will find a chronology of the events leading up to this point, a description of the
issues encountered for this project, a list of sites where HSCBs are required, and a response from
DOT to this list of sites. We look forward to discussing this matter with you in further detail.
2
•juauIaaa2V luauzalljoS sTgj jo uoilnoaxo
age jo scup Xu 41 uiglim olquSud auoTuXud wins dTunj u ui opuw oq Ilugs junotuV luau olljoS
oq,L •pagizosop iajputajaq zauuuTu all ut juaTualljas .Toj 2INg(l of r",un6wV juou.cz)pjaS,) `([
ul itznoLUV ?uaur???? Sj$ ?spiom uu junourV ju,)wJjlhS] Xud Illm .zauoTltlad aq,L •1
:aa??uuT still ut luauuaa.zi?u IuauzalIIas 2?uTmolloJ aqp pagauaz aAUq JauoTITIad aqj Puu 2INgQ
bas is I'SiZ-£ti § sainjulS Iuaaua0 nuTlore0 gl.ToNjo suoTlulotn
padatiu joI SOOZ `01 kmn.Tga3 uo aauoppoj uodn posodmi `(8Z't,8Z`61$) sluaa N210 Sluaml
puu scollop inoj-Algfiz paapunq oml puusnogl uaalauTu 2uTlujol sisoo puu sapfouad IIATa 30
iuauzssossu oq; jo Ino oson, jaliuuI sTq,L waTussossu Klfuuod I!ATa aqj 01 sajuja.T JT sL' ASJOno.TIuoo
uT SJOIJUuz aAIOSaT XlgLoT= of .TapIo uT („juauzaoj2V„) jua waa2V luauzalljoS STgI oluT .Talus
Xgonq uotiulTodswil jo juour?mdaQ uuiloauO quoN `iouoTlTjad puu `luopuodsa-I
saomoso-d iuinjuN puu juauzuoTTnug 3o juaTuvuda(I uuilomD q)zoN oq.L

NOIJ LLgd d0 AkVIIQH,LIAAi QNV
.LNgwRaxDv ZNHWEl I,L,Lgs

6Ltb0 WHg SO
SJMMVHH HM LV d LSIN WUV
40 dOIJHO HH.L NI
•luopuodsa-d
`X1.I"IVfla 2Ig.LVAk 90
NOISIAIQ `Sd02if10SaW IVdf1.LVN
QNV .LNaWNOIHANg
d0 ,LNEIW LXVdg(I VNI'IO'dV0 H,LIION
'A
`.Tauotltlad
NOLLVI,dodsmvN L d0 INHWINVdgQ
VNPI02IV0 HINON
UIVA,k JO )UN OD
VNI"IOHV0 HINON 40 g,LVIS
govuo iirds Aoua2.zauza jo uopuilulsuyuoTioni1suoo 2uunp jugj saazgu .TauoTITIad aqZ •9
'JOPIJJOO OIZ-2I;oafgns aql BuTddul.Tano/U!gjjM UOTIOTpSUnf
anuq jugj sumi2oTd iapuodsoi lsjlj Iiu puu `sluawindop aig luool `juowo&,uuW Sou32.1auzg
oqi ao3 uoiluuuojuT lot,;uoo opnloui oslu IsnuT podai aqZ •suzuz2oad aapuodsar jS.IU Tit, puu
`siuQwvudop oig luool `juauza2uuuW AouoRio zg of poluoiunuztuoo sum sainsuauz lorluoD Illds
Xoua2aauzg llu jo uoTluaado puu asodznd `uoiloun3 `uoTlt,ool oqi moq 2uiuTuldxo junooou uglipm
u opnloui oslt, IsnuT podaz aqZ •luuoiWjado are puu polluisuT woo V juamqaujlV uT palsTl
su saoTnap pup somsuouT joiluoo lllds AouAzaum oql jo llu jugj sumldxa Rq- vodaz LI91-669LZ
DN *Talug `JOIUa:) aOTnzaS PEW L191 IV ITUn lg2TSJanO oouuTldtuoD puu aouuisissv SdN
`Xl!luno JaIt,AA, Jo UOTSTnTQ aqj 01 puu £tOS-IO£8ZZ DN allinajjOXU j `IQISXS `t I L ol!ns loans
uaaj0 SZZ `Xilluno jaluAA, jo uoTsTAT(I `OOg3O FUOJ?ag allTna11a d 01 apTAoid IITm J OQDN
IuauTaa?Bu sTql 30 2uTU21s 10 scup '081 uiq)[m 11, ssa 2L Xi?sa? a ?auoT?T?ad aqZ S
(IOafozd ssudMg MIA) JOpt.uOO OIZ-d oqj
uTgi!m paluool a.Tu wq; sa.TnsuauT loiluoD llTdS Sou32zauTg llu jo uoTjundo puu osodbnd `uoTlounj
`uoTluool oqj jo pouuojuT ag (looford ssudMg ssuA) -IOPI-uOO 01Z-2I 100fgns aqj fuiddt,l.Tano/uTUjTm
uopoipsunf anuq jugj suTmfoid .Tapuodsaa isig Iiu puu `sjuamurdop aig luool `luauza3uuuw
Aouafaauzg `soilunoD azooW put, aoq joj jugj ssoMu Xlssa.Tdxo jauoililod aq1, t
•luuoTluaado put,
palluisuT aq ll!m V oawuaujjV uT paisil su saoTnap puu samsuotu loiluoo llTds Aoua2.zauza aqp 3o
Iiu `JuOLUOaliu Z! !Uis ?o ?t,p OZ i uigjin jugj saa?&u XIssoAxo nuoTITIad aqZ £
6Z90-ZO9LZ DN `gSTOIu2I
6Z9 xog 009JO Isod
UOISTnT(I UOTIDaIoad It,luouzuozTnug
ZOUJO s,luaauaf,) SOUJOI;y
sasow auai.Tugs 'sw
:ssa.Tppu guimolloj oql it, („gNgQ„ olio) sooinosag luinjuN puu juauzuo.TTnug jo
wouzuedaQ uuTlojuD q:voN oql of a1gked opuuT 31oago Aq aq Iluqs iuoiuiivd oqs, z
Suu a3jul Ol dNau io lg2T.T Auu joulsa.T hugs IUOTUZQ.12V SIM uT 5UlgjoN •6
•Juauz00.12V STgI jo suual aql
of loofgns luouzssossu X11uuod I!ATO aql 3o UOTIOUpilus aialdwoo ui ([S ur junomV Tuotuap)aS] )
ions ui' junow '1uaLuataj?S] o juauT?ud a j idooou of soat2u
??sP ?' 3 q 21NdQ
•luomoitV sigl jo suual agl Tim aouuilduzoo s,aauojjpoj oqj of polliu!l oq lllm
pUL aeoqu inoj gduj2uzud 3o suual oqj glim omup.zooou ui '" ([ u i iunO LU V ] S) [iunodi V ?I F LI Od
:juaUUsossu Alluuod linTO oql jo junou-m agjuj auj ;oolloo of sr gNgQ Aq UOTIou
nur uT onssT olos oql `.Tauoplio l Aq `juauzaaa2V sigl jo [9'g2no.Tgl T wo.g fuifU-Up zapisuoO ]Om
io ouo qd-eiguied jo gouaaq u uodn `.Tanamoq 'SZTIIuuaa I!ATD JO IuauxsSOSSV putl SUOTSTOa(I
pug
S?UTpuTJ aqj UT pauiulUOO SUOTIu2311u aql Saiuap Jou SJIUTpu .Tagjiau JOU01190d `juaTUaaJ2V SIM
olui 2upoluo Aq `wqi o2polmou3jou puu alujndils Xlssazdxo 21NgQ puu jauoppod •g
([ ui iunowV]$) [iunouiVAI-ruad?linrD] `•a•i luauTssossu Xjjuuad
linTO oqj 3o junouTu a.TTlua aql aj car., ud pire onp japua.T Igm .iauopTiad Xq g.2no.Tgl (9 g2norgl
T sgdu.ii?ured sapjsuoz)]w:j JO •auo sgdri"I?red 3o uoi?TpuoO Xuu jo gouazq aqs ?
•inooo salna .To `sainjuis `spirpuuls Al!lunb ialum aluls jo suoTlulou
ou Iugl Bons pauuoj.Tad oq Illm `soopou.Td juauua2uurW Isag jo.Tluoo uoison
puu wo-Luipos 3o oouuualuTUUT puu `uomliodo `UOTIujILISUT `U2TSap aqj 9UTpnlouT
`SOTITnTIOU UOT?On.Tlsuoo Ilu juq; puu `nom uuT.TUdTi JO sureaaIs `saaIum `spUUjIam
uT .Tnooo Ilugs puTA Auu jo Ilg jo `spilos `Iiods `alsum pozuoglnuun ou IugZ •o
puu :sails uoTioTulsuoo .Toj
(0000109DN) 1! u od jalumumis (Sg(IdN) sTualsSS uoTlummijg a2augosiQ
S uopnli TcOiluN aq l S popnjou !uotuojTnba.T aqj glim Xlduzoo Xijnj os 'q
-?' . - .?aST?ouTd juowo2uuuW isag Bons 3o aouuualuiuuT
puu suoilu.Tado puu `uopulluisuT `u2 ap iodo.Td oql 2uTU.zaAO2 SUOT?uomoods
Iiu grim aouuTldwoo lln3 uT soopowd joaluoo luompos puu uoTson osn oZ •u
slzojja juauzdojanap ajTS juuoTllppu oininj puu 2uunp puu suTsuq
•ola.Taq swind oqj jo 31t,goq uo juamooBu sigl oluT ialuo
of poziioglnu aju Aagl jugj juuzium put luosaadai oqm `pou2isjapun oqj Xq uoTInoaxo uodn
`su2Tssu put, siossooons aiagl `saiWd aqj uodn 5uipuTq aq TTugs juauuaaj2d sigjL
SI
•uiagl uaampq juotuaar&u alogm oqj suiuauoo juauuaaz2V sigl jugj put, uioioq pauit,luoo
sosituaid aqj si juatuaTljas sigl ioj uoiiuizpisuoo oqj Iugl oai& sailmd oqZ - -t l
•jua1Ua3.z-5V sigl gITm oouuildtuoo jo sonssT 01 pajiuuTI
aq Ipm X11 ad pits loaTToo of uoTlou Am ui anssi aqj jugj put `sluotussassu SITuuad Troia
2uiXTzapun aqj of sasuajap 1Tt, puu Xuu `iapunauaq onp stuns Am jo uoi13aTTo3 jo sosodznd
.10j `sanium aq `juouuaai.3V sigl olui ftialuo Xq jugj sooj2u Alssaadxo aaumill0d £I
•soIni .To smuT o1quoiiddu 3o (s)uoijVIoin luonbasgns io oininj (po?aTTu) SUL,
aoj bmQ Xq uoilou oinirg Auu Isum.3v puajap puu isomoo of jouoilTIad Jo Ig2U agI;oTJIsaz
TTugs Juauuaaa2v sigj ui Sul IOU `SIjvTiuTTS •juauuaaz2v sT111 uigIim possaippu suOT1ou
oqj jo opislno 2uispu .Tapunaiagl palu2Tnuioid saTni ILTt,naIQJ oqj put, sainjuls Algenb aalum
aqj jo suoijuloTn luonbasgns zo mou Auu .Toj aauoplio(I oql isum2u uoilou luouiaozo,jua
oVI jo;oadsui of )AkQ oqj jo jg2TJ aqj joijjsau Tlggs juat oBV sigj ui 2uigloN 71
•panaTgot, a juoL uzzj2U STgI uT paIsTT S51 aouuijduuoo IIn3 Tijun Sup aad (00'0001$) sluao ou put
To puusnogZ oup jo Xj palulndils u luauulmdaQ aqj Xud of soaj2v STssajdxa .uauoililad
oqi iuauiaai 1 jo suopipuoo oqi giim ?(Iduioo of s1iuj nuoT?T?ad Juana aqj q T i
'XTi..uujunIOn put' `AIJU921110juT
`,?Tguimou)j OJUT ponjua sT put, saii.Tt,d oqI uodn 2uipuiq oq TTugs juauuaaa.SV sigl '0I
•[pouad luauussassu oqi uT mp isuT aqi ] aaiju i?uiuznooo suoiVIOTn
` a i `j?aCozd 01 =M gjTAx p irmos5r suoiIuioin oin;nj fm joj aauoT?T?a l jsum& uoT?ou juauiaoiojua
............ ......... .........
:_`
:aluQ
:IdHNOIJLI.Lgd
Xj!frnb.zajurn Io uorsrATQ
roloaziQ 1310T .l}I IH
1k.LI-Ivfl(?
'HalVAk 40 NOISIAIQ RH.L 2103
0099-9I L (616)
6Z90-Z09LZ ON V?iaiu2i
6Z9 xog a3830 Isod
UOTSTATQ Iuluo-muoITAug
oopsnr 3o juaLuWdaQ •D •N
Iuaaua0 AOUJOIIV luulsrssv
auXL'd -V ugor
:Ag
Iuaaua0 Aauuoliv
Nad00D XON
:aluQ
:nmoiag glrol jas soinjuOTs oql ,fig
paouap!Aa su `SUUa1$uTpaoaid oqj of aaa2u Agaraq soiwd oqj `JO9W9HAk SSgNLIAA, NI
•asuo paIsaJuoo aqj aAlosar 01 paimboi jo popaau are s2urpaooozd zagjrn3
ou jugj puu papniouoo sT jallum sTgi oar& soiwd oqs -JOITuur sigl ur s2uU93H asuo palsaluOO
.rol suollpad Io siuenuapgjiAA, s,aauoijpQd su saAlas iuauraw2v mwojuaS sTgl Io Aijug
9002 `jogoloO to.Kup oqj STU
SNOIZIS2[d 40 'IVMVHQHZIM
:ajuQ
:aluQ :a1uQ
Siliuno .TaluAk 3o uoisinTQ
Jolooila `xaulllx unjv
:A,JLI lVfIO W9 LVAk 40 MOISIAIQ 9H,L NOd
•asna paIs011103 aql aniosal 01 pajinbai .io papaau on sguipaaooid zaglznl ou jngj pun papnjouoo
si.iallum sup aa.T2u sov?md oqZ •saallum osogl ui 2uianOH asuD paIsaIuoD zo3 uoi1T1ad Tiaq?
jo ootpnfaid ql!m iumuzpgjtAk kaulunioA s,IauoTITlad sn saAX3s Iu011133z2V sigl Io AJ1119
NOII.LIS2[d AO 'IVAiVH(IHZIAA
I0'd luiol
oar ?. ..._.. '?
x4 'G ? .... e0?l...a?il/I?a? ®? ?? ?? f?I p?Jf (?'

Y70'-
. LL -
disc f ? /• ? ?. ?
I MA v xqj
0?? _ a ?V 0MOW MOU04d
c ?i ? ?
?
.? ?N
?O •?aaro?
?
7
O?? V• ua+? y
?M D? ?l l//dot
(i ?'¢t2rr sx!n?pAtodo??
`J
k
?.J
U
S'
r
?Il
xr
3 -
Of
r%r
i
i
L 2
F ? b

44.

t
N
1
R}

t.'
1
? l
i
1
ktz:
? hr

APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as; parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria`presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
• Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
The stream(`) is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
The stream(') crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
ared') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96
. A . ,
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream" will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation' of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will be provided such that ?e normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.
r p
APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as;.parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteri?\presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
• Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
The stream(') crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area(') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
• Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96

APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream " will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation` of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REOLTIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will be provided such that ihe normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.
., r
APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as; parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management p*actices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria`presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
The stream(') crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
ared') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96
a I-
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream " will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation` of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This.would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
A means will 'be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.
? R
APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as;.parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management pfiactices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria, presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
• Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
• The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
• The stream(') crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area(') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and VAS-IV.
• Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96

APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream" will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation'of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will'be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
' controlled access.
APPENDIX O
SHEET I OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as;.parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
• Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
• The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-I watersupply, or
• The streamM crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area(') of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of these streams on highways
functionally classified as collectors and local streets and roads
can be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for;
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the
the highway geometrics, receiving water quality and the
feasibility of basin construction at the site.
7/96
- ..
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream" will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1: 24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished. by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
• The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.

Vass Bypass Stream Crossing Analysis
Section A
Sheet 7 - Site 1
23+00 Lt - HSCB/SW thru WL
Sheet 8 - Site 1
27+50 Lt - HSCB/SW thru WL ? c,
o ?.
27+50 Rt - HSCB/SW thru WL --, o,
Sheet 13 - Site 10
51+14 Lt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+80 Rt. - Addressed in March 15, 2005
50+90 Rt. - HSCB/SW thru WL
Sheet 14 - Site 10
52+60 Lt - HSCB/S-W thru WJ,. a 1 ?.
Sheet 16 - Site 15
60+50 Lt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2065
61+50 Lt - HSCB - (,6c6
59+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
61+10 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 17 - Site 16
63+20 Lt - HSCB -? N-SCP
65+20 Lt - HSCB 7 }(c, cf3
64+00 Rt - HSCB T,c_R
65+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 18 Site 17
67+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
68+10 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
67+80 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 20 - Site 18, Site 20
75+00 Lt - HSCB
76+50 Lt - HSCB ? i+s 6
77+20 Lt - HSCB ? s c-A
75+00 Rt - Type A basin, Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 21- Site 21
78+20 Lt - HSCB?7 ? c?? Pv-db?- T?
79+50 Lt - HSCB
80+50 Lt - to HSCB at 79+50 L
PP , 1
78+00 Rt - HSCB >
79+50 Rt - to HSCB at 79+50 Lt TtD
80+50 Rt - to HSCB at 79+50 Lt
Sheet 22 - Site 22
82+00 Lt - to HSCB at 81+80 Rt ((Sc?
83+50 Lt - HSCB N-sC%
81+80 Rt - HSCB > t?SC$
Sheet 23 - Site 22
86+30 Rt - HSCB 7 f4Sc (2
Sheet 24 - Site 25 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
94+50 Lt - HSCB
95+00 Lt - HSCB aWrS1r.
94+50 Rt - ?
95+00 Rt - ? v
Section B
Sheet 12 - Site 6
128+60 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
129+40 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
128+50 Rt - HSCB >? ?S C-B
129+40 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 13 - Site 6
130+00 Rt (same as 129+40 Rt) - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Sheet 14 - Site 9
140+80 Lt - HSCB/SW thru WL > a?#`
140+80 Rt - HSCB -7 kC
Sheet 15 - Site 9
141+70 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2001
141+80 Rt - HSCB/SW thru WL
Sheet 17 - Site 10 -
150+00 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
150+00 Rt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
Section C
Sheet 4 - Site 3
20+10 Lt - HSCB/SW thru WL -7 4, N VA
20+80 Lt - HSCB
20+60 Rt - HSCB/? 7 -
14'R
Sheet 5 - Site 3
21+00 Rt - HSCB/? 7 cu??,
Sheet 7 - Sites 4 and 5 25
28+00 Lt - HSCB/? Is this a crossing?*4
31+60 Rt - HSCB > Wsct
Sheet 8 - Site 5
31+80 Lt - HSCB >? ?i
32+00 Rt - HSCBSC?S
Sheet 9 - Site 6
38+50 Lt - HSCB > NsGB
39+20 Lt - Addressed in March 15, 2005
38+80 Rt - HSCB
Sheet 10 - Site 6
39+60 Rt - HSCB

Sheet 11- Site 8 - Not listed in impacts summary for project.
45+40 Rt - ? --7 EVScZ
Sheet 12 - Site 10
48+40 Lt - HSCB ' 5c
49+00 Lt - HSCB 'A"
48+80 Rt - HSCB/SW thru WL ? a«
49+00 Rt - HSCB -)a Ik
Current Totals
Sites where HSCB required - 29 2(-
Sites where alternatives acceptable -16 > 26,
Sites undetermined -15 -?
Table 1- Discussion results for each station number with revised DOT proposals. Y10165-
Location DWQ Proposal DOT Proposal
& W DOT Revised
Proposal
Section A
Sheet 7, Site 1
23+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 8, Sitel
27+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
27+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
50+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
52+50 Rt Alternative-Stockpile/Spill
Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
61+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit No action
59+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
61+10 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site16
63+20 Lt HSCB Stock ile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
65+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit and false
sum
64+00 Rt HSCB Stoc ile/S ill Kilt Spill ill Kit
65+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Alternative -
Stock ile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Stockpile/Spill Kit
68+10 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
67+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
67+80 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20, Sites 18
and 20
75+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
77+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit, Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+20 Lt HSCB Stock ile/Spill Kit No action
75+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
Sheet 21, Site 21
79+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
78+60 Rt HSCB/Stock ile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
79+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
80+50 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit
Kit
Spill
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt HSCB DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit
83+50 Lt Off site flow only no
HSCB No Proposal No Proposal
83+20 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
81+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 24, Site 25
91+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
94+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+60 Lt Outlet Protection for SW
pipe Outlet Protection for
SW pie Additional riprap at
outlet
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
129+40 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
128+50 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill ` Kit
129+40 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
140+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit
Kit
Spill
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
141+40 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
150+00 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit ?04
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit X11 Kit
20+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit S it Kit
20+60 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
DOT to propose No direct discharge-
of SW

Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected alternative
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4
and 5
28+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
31+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
29+10 Med Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected DOT to propose
alternative Rerouting water to
grassed swale
30+50 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
31+10 HSCB DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit and
rerouting direct
discharge to grassed
swale
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
32+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
39+20 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
38+80 Rt HS Containment No proposal Spill Kit
Sheet 10, Site 6
39+60 Rt HSCB Stock ile/S ill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
49+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
48+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
49+00 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
z These sites were not discussed during the meeting. DWQ proposes Alternative - Spill Kits at these
locations. It is assumed that DOT would agree as this is the least expensive and labor intense alternative.
3 Constructability issues dictate need for an alternatives analysis.
4 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a site that requires extensive outlet protection to
prevent stream degradation due to an unorthodox pipe location.
5 This is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution to this direct discharge to comply
with the WQC.
6 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a
solution to this direct discharge to comply with the WQC.
7 Close proximity of stream relocation presents a problematic design constraint.
s At this station, DWQ is requiring hazardous spill containment although not necessarily through a
catchment basin. DWQ will take into consideration the location and limited area when reviewing DOT's
proposal for this location.

frou" tL4- ? ?" I
GCJ?? s5 " sn-Y 5,0 or
??? tl?na S i 5 ,, s s Cw c e L
14-
VET NU- ok 40(
Vass Bypass, WOC No. 3344, TIP Project No. R-210, August 15, 2005
The NCDOT project known as the Vass Bypass is located through High Quality Waters
and Water Supply Watersheds in Moore and Lee Counties. The permitting review,
public notice, and public hearing process occurred immediately subsequent to OAH
hearings regarding NCDOT and NCDWQ and the Goldsboro Hwy 13.
During the DWQ's public hearing process regarding the bypass, numerous concerns were
detailed regarding the presences of Water Supplies, High Quality Waters, and emergency
spill protection. As part of the 401 individual certification process, information and input
were gathered from the public hearing, from written comments received from interested
parties during the public hearing process, and from additional information requests
submitted to NC DOT. Using this information, DWQ was able to properly issue the 401
Certification. The Conditions of the Certifications were not contested, are valid and are
in affect.
DWQ has received many complaints from Audubon Council of NC-Clean Water
Federation of NC Conservation and Community Affairs Office regarding Water Quality
and 401 Certification violations. Attached is a chronology for your consideration.
• NC DOT applied for a water quality certification for the Vass Bypass, US Highway 1
in Moore and Lee Counties, WQ# 01-0404, TIP Project No. R-210 on April 10, 2001.
DWQ issued Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3344 to NC DOT for the Vass
Bypass on July 19, 2002. The WQC includes the following permit conditions.
NC DOT is authorized to fill, excavate, and mechanically clear 41.5 acres of
wetlands; fill 14.5 acres of surface waters (ponds); and fill 4,880 linear feet of
streams.
NC DOT must follow appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which
equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual or the North
Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate (available from
the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central Offices)
and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper .
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management
Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water
quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers not designated as
trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10
NTUs in trout waters).
2. NC DOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and
control measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project.

These measures shall be implemented prior to any ground-disturbing acitivities to
minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, NC DOT shall strictly adhere to North
Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [15A
NCAC 4B .0124(a)(d)], within the project corridor.
4. Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and shall not be
routed directly into streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in
order to utilize it for storm water diffuse flow.
5. Temporary or permanent vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 10
days of ground-disturbing activities (due to the presence of High Quality Waters
[15A NCAC 2B.0224]).
7. Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be required for all stream crossings. The
final designs for the Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins shall be submitted to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit prior to beginning
construction in the Water Supply watershed. As-built drawings for the basins
shall be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands
Units no later than 30 days after the construction is complete.
9. Prior to any construction activities, the NC DOT shall submit a maintenance plan
for the storm water management facilities and hazardous spill catchment basins
associated with this project. The NC DOT shall be required to implement the
maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control devices
shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If
placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the
Division of Land Resources has released the project.
14. NC DOT shall mitigate for the loss of two water supply wells for the Town of
Cameron by constructing a municipal supply well or wells capable of yielding 70
gallons per minute (gpm). The Utility Relocation Agreement was entered with
the Town of Cameron on October 26, 1998.
15. NC DOT shall mitigate for wetland and stream impacts according to 15A NCAC
2H.0506 (h)(6). Mitigation requirements include 41.5 acres of wetlands, and
4,880 linear feet of streams at appropriate ratios. A final reports shall be
submitted to DWQ within 2 months of issuance of the Water Quality Certification
that describes the approved wetland and stream mitigation for this project. (see
permit for details of mitigation requirements)
• DWQ phone records show that NC DOT verbally requested a change in the extent of
Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins (HSCBs) on this project approximately one week
before the expiration of the 60 day adjudicatory period. DWQ advised NC DOT to

use the appeal process detailed in WQC No. 3344. NC DOT did not request an
adjudicatory hearing to contest the WQC within 60 days of receipt of the WQC.
• On November 12, 2002, NC DOT requested in writing that DWQ require HSCBs
only in the High Quality Waters watershed associated with the Little River and more
specifically only where storm water is routed through shoulder berm gutters.
• On November 26, 2002, DWQ responded by letter stating that the permit condition
would not be changed as requested.
• On February 26, 2003, DWQ sent a memorandum to NC DOT reminding them of the
need to comply with the issued WQC for the Vass Bypass, specifically conditions 3.,
7., and 9.
• On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted an on-site inspection of the Vass Bypass
project. DWQ Staff found violations of permit conditions 1., 2., 3., 5., 7., 9., and 15.
of the July 19, 2002 WQC No. 3344.
• On April 16, 2003, NC DOT submitted a letter to DWQ detailing revisions made to
the project design. These revisions included rerouting of storm water through pre-
formed scour holes, installation of 6 HSCBs in the Little River watershed, elimination
of bridge deck drains from the discharging directly to the Little River, and submittal
of a maintenance plan for the HSCBs.
• On May 5, 2003, a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued as a result of the April 4,
2003 on-site inspection and the subsequent file review. The NOV addressed
violations of permit conditions 1., 2., 3., 5., 7., 9., and 15.
• On May 30, 2003, NC DOT responded in writing to the NOV.
• On July 11, 2003 NC DOT requested a modification to WQC No. 3344. The
modification request included proposals for temporary work bridges and work mats at
the Little River bridge crossing at Section A, Site 1; a reduction in wetland impacts at
Section A, Site 16; an increase in wetland impacts at Section A, Site 21; an increase
in temporary impacts at Section B, Site 10; revised drawings for locations of several
pre-formed scour holes; and a redesign of a storm water discharge at Section A, Site
16.
• On August 28, 2003, DWQ staff conducted an on-site inspection and file review.
Staff documented violations of sediment and erosion control requirements,
unauthorized wetland impacts, failures to submit designs for HSCBs prior to
construction, and violations of reporting requirements.
• On November 24, 2003, DWQ staff conducted an on-site inspection and file review
Staff documented failures to submit designs for HSCBs prior to construction,

violations of reporting requirements, and failure to submit a complete copy of the
construction plans for the Vass Bypass.
• A modification to WQC No. 3344 was issued on September 2, 2003 for the requested
changes.
• On November 8, 2004, NC DOT submitted a letter detailing their reasoning for not
installing HSCB along with a request that DWQ modify the permit condition
requiring HSCB as follows:
The NC DOT will construct HSCBs for TIP No. R-210 at six (6) locations in the
Little River designated HQW zone.
The DWQ delete the requirement for HSCBs previously required at 22 other stream
crossings on the project and the four (4) HSCBs previously required along secondary
roads.
• On February 1, 2005, DWQ met with DOT staff on-site at the Vass Bypass to discuss
specific areas where alternate means other that HSCBs might be considered.
• On February 10, 2005, an Assessment of Civil Penalties was issued to NC DOT in the
amount of $19,284.28 for violations of WQC No. 3344 for the Vass Bypass.
• On March 15, 2005, DWQ responded to questions and comments raised in the
November 8, 2004 letter and during the February 1, 2005 field visit to the Vass
Bypass. The letter addressed the following issues:
Conversion of Type "A" Silt Basins - DWQ agreed with NC DOT that three existing
silt basins could be converted to HSCBs with appropriate outlet structures that meet
the guidelines for HSCB design.
Revised Design Standards for HSCBs - DWQ proposed a revised design standard for
HSCBs that allows for a smaller storage volume. This revised standard is applicable
for the Vass Bypass project only.
Direct Storm Water Discharges - DWQ identified four locations on the final design
plans that appeared to be direct discharges of storm water which violates condition 4.
listed above. DWQ indicated that these direct discharges should be corrected.
Issues in Impact Areas - During the site visit, DWQ identified several areas of
concern with the existing design. DWQ and NC DOT agreed to solutions to these
problems during the site visit. DWQ requested that these areas of concern be
corrected as agreed to during the field visit.

Determinations from Review of Final Design Plans - From the review of the final
design plans, DWQ identified several stream crossing locations where alternative
means other than HSCBs would be considered. DWQ requested that for all other
sites NC DOT submit design drawings demonstrating how the 401 WQC would be
met.
On April, 14, 2005, DWQ responded to a monitoring report received from DOT on
February 9, 2005 for the Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) mitigation site. The
report indicated that the site is currently functioning as a wetland. DWQ's response
was to inform DOT that they would not receive the 36.8 acres of restoration credit for
the mitigation site. However, the SALT site would receive wetland enhancement
credit.
• On July 6, 2005, DWQ met with DOT to discuss HSCB locations and potential
alternatives to HSCB addressed in the March 15, 2005 letter. DWQ and DOT talked
at length about each plan sheet, crossing, and station identified and subject to the
requirement for HSCBs. Meeting minutes for this meeting were distributed on July 8,
2005.
On August 2, 2005, DOT submitted responses to the proposed HSCBs and
alternatives locations discussed in the July 6, 2005 meeting. DOT's response
proposed 3 additional HSCBs to the existing HSCBs on the Vass Bypass.
Vass Bypass, TIP Proiect No. R-210, US 1 in Moore and Lee Counties
August 15, 2005
The Vass Bypass, TIP Project No. R-210, is a bypass construction project for US 1 in
Moore and Lee Counties. The 12.8 mile project begins in the south at the intersection
with SR 1853 at Lakeview in Moore County and continues north to the intersection with
SR 1180 just south of Sanford in Lee County. The project will expand the existing 2-lane
road to a four-land divided highway using portions of the existing US 1 corridor and a
new corridor to the east of existing US 1. The project area is largely rural but does
include the Towns of Cameron, Lakeview, and Vass. Named streams in the project study
area that are affected by the Vass Bypass include Little River, Crane Creek, Little Crane
Creek,' and Little Juniper Creek. All of these streams are located in the Cape Fear River
Basin. Little River, Crane Creek, and Little Crane Creek are all classified as Water
Supply-III (WS-III) waters of the State, and Little River has a supplemental classification
of High Quality Waters (HQW).
Permitting Process
On April 10, 2001, NC DOT applied for an individual Water Quality Certification for the
Vass Bypass. In response to public request during the comment period, a public hearing
was held on November 1, 2001.
Based on information received at the public hearing and data supplied in the application,
a recommendation was made by the public hearing officer to issue the Vass Bypass WQC
with conditions. The conditions included the following:
• Minimizing long term water quality impacts through the use of Best Management
Practices;
• Strictly adhering to Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for entire corridor;
• Providing ground cover within 10 days of disturbance throughout the design and
construction of the project;
• Installing and maintaining Hazardous Spill Catch Basins (HSCBs) on all new
stream crossings within the project corridor; and
• Implementing the more protective sediment and erosion control practices
applicable to HQW waters throughout the entire project corridor.
This decision was based on three main reasons:
1) The Vass Bypass was proposed be located within a drinking water supply
watershed and High Quality Waters watershed.
2) Crane Creek within the road corridor was listed on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) lists
for impaired waters;
3) Public comment was provided regarding safety concerns as a result of accidental
spills.
The majority of the new location highway is classified as WS-III waters of the State.
Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine proposed surface water crossings are in WS-III waters
of the State, and three of the crossings in the Little River watershed are in High Quality
Waters of the State. These water supply watersheds provide water to Town of Vass, Fort
Bragg military reservation, and Pope Air Force Base. Written public comments from
Town of Vass expressed concerns about the protection of the water supply watershed.
Crane Creek was a high priority stream on the 2000 and 2002 303(d) list for habitat
degradation. The degradation was attributed to sedimentation associated with the runoff
from agricultural activities. Although this stream is currently not listed on the 303(d)
impaired waters list, it was a consideration at the time of the public hearing and played a
role in the public hearing officer's decision (the conditions that address this are primarily
focused on construction phase of the project and the condition preventing direct.
discharges of stormwater without treatment [ex. vegetative conveyances]).
The local residents expressed concerns over the safety of truck traffic through the area.
Local emergency response agencies stated the need for spill control structures to help
prevent discharges of hazardous waste to adjacent surface waters.
The individual WQC was issued to NC DOT on July 19, 2002. Seventeen permit
conditions were included in the WQC, six of these conditions were included to
specifically protect water quality through storm water controls and sediment and erosion
control BMPs. Appendix A describes the six most pertinent conditions of the permit
related to the above issues.
Each certification issued by DWQ for impacts to streams and wetlands includes a 60-day
adjudicatory period within which the applicant can appeal any part of the issued
certification. One week before expiration of the adjudicatory period, DOT requested
verbally that the permit condition requiring HSCB at all stream crossings be revised to
include only those in the HQW watershed. In order to preserve DOT's adjudicatory
rights while discussions ensued, DWQ advised DOT that they should formally request
adjudication of the certification in writing. DOT failed to make a formal appeal through
the adjudicatory process within the 60-day period.
On November 12, 2002, DOT requested in writing with minimal justification, although
not through a formal modification request, that HSCBs only be required for crossings of
HQW in the Little River watershed. On November 26, 2002, DWQ responded in writing
to DOT's request advising them that, as they had missed the window for adjudication,
they needed to request a formal modification to the certification.
DOT made an official modification request for the Vass Bypass WQC on July 11, 2003.
The modification request included proposals for additional temporary impacts, changes in
wetland impacts, designs for pre-formed scour holes, and a redesign of a storm water
discharge. No official modification request was made to eliminate the requirement for or
reduce the number of HSCBs. A modification to the Vass Bypass WQC was issued on
September 2, 2003 for the requested changes.
On February 6, 2004, DOT submitted a letter requesting a modification to Permit
Condition 7of the Vass Bypass WQC.
DOT'proposed building six HSCBs for the three crossings within the HQW
watershed associated with the Little River.
However, DOT requested that HSCBs not be required for the remaining crossing
including pond impacts, crossings of Class C and WS-III waters of the State, and
stream crossings located on secondary roads associated with the Vass Bypass.
DOT proposed using stockpiles of sand or soil at strategic locations near these
stream crossings as an adequate means of supporting emergency responders
during a hazardous spill event.
In response to the request, DWQ agreed with DOT that stream crossings on secondary
roads should not require HSCBs due to the low frequency of truck traffic. However,
DWQ did not agree with the request to remove the requirement for HSCBs at the
remaining stream crossings, which included pond impacts and Class C and WS-III waters
of the State. This lowered the number of crossings that required HSCBs from 29 to 25.
In addition, DWQ did not agree with DOT's proposal to stockpile sand and soil to
support emergency responders. Numerous safety and logistical reasons make this an
unviable option. These reasons included:
• Lack of heavy equipment on site to move the sand/soil to the appropriate location.
• Emergency response personnel at increased risk of exposure to hazardous
materials through placement of sand/soil to block flow.
• Stockpiles subject to wind and water erosion and flood events.
• EPA does not consider stockpiles a "good engineering practice."
• Lack of experienced and fully trained emergency response personnel in rural
areas. Lack heavy equipment, response vehicles and other support vehicles, and
protective equipment to contain or clean up spill.
DWQ provided DOT with three options or combination of options to comply with Permit
Condition 7:
1) Obtain sufficient right-of-way along the US 1 corridor and install appropriately-
sized hazardous spill catch basins, as required by the 401 WQC issued on July 19,
2002 and the Modification dated September 3, 2003; or
2) Provide buried pipes in conjunction with stormwater management and
conveyance devices to provide the same storage capacity as a HSCB. The outlet
to this pipe containment system would be required to be fitted with a sluice gate
that remained open until a spill event. Specific "signage" would need to be
provided near the roadway which could be readily identified by emergency
response personnel; or
3) Provide a catchment and closure device at stormwater drains utilizing median and
shoulder areas for containment sufficient to meet the design standards. Signage,
again, would be necessary.
DWQ placed the modification request on hold until the necessary information was
provided to demonstrate compliance with Permit Condition 7.
On November 8, 2004, DOT responded providing design plans for the 6 HSCBs in the
Little River watershed (three stream crossings) and, again, requested deletion of the
requirements for HSCBs at the remaining 22 stream crossings as well as DWQ's
inclusion of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures regulations referenced in the March 22, 2004 letter. In the response,
DOT provided data involving hazardous material spills related to traffic accidents that
occurred from 2000 to 2003 on the existing US 1 corridor. Based on this data, DOT felt
that HSCBs were not necessary along the Vass Bypass outside of the HQW watershed.
DOT also objected to the reference of the EPA's Spill Prevention Control, and
Countermeasures. DOT felt that it was not applicable to transportation related spills.
DOT offered as a compromise to convert three existing Type "A" stilling basins to
HSCBs. These converted basins would be modified with notched berms where sand bags
could be placed to contain hazardous spills. DOT requested that the permit be modified
to require construction of 6 HSCBs in the Little River HQW watershed and that HSCBs
not be required at the other 22 crossings on US 1 and the four crossings on the secondary
roads.
Based on numerous discussions, letter exchanges, and WQ Certification modification
requests, a site visit was set up for February 1, 2005 to observe current construction
stages and impacted resources, and to continue discussions on resolving concerns with
compliance with Permit Condition 7. During the site visit, DWQ restated that HSCBs
would not be required for secondary road crossings associated with the project. DWQ
also stated that stream crossing associated with ponds would not require HSCBs. DWQ
felt that the pond could act as a containment area should a spill occur. This reduced the
number of stream crossings where HSCBs are required from 22 to 11. Additionally,
DWQ identified three sites where design improvements were needed. Solutions to these
problem sites were agreed upon during the site visit.
After review -of the impact sites and further discussions, DWQ issued a letter on March
15, 2005 summarizing the field visit, offering suggestions on how to meet the
requirements of Permit Conditions 4 and 7, and requesting alternatives from DOT on how
compliance could be achieved.
• DWQ agreed that the proposed Type "A" stilling basins would be acceptable for
conversion to HSCBs. DWQ offered a revised design standard for HSCBs. This
design standard was based on the median spill volume from transportation related
hazardous spills throughout the state from 2001 to 2004. The required volume
was roughly 25% of the original design standard for HSCBs.
• DWQ identified four sites where it appeared that storm water was discharging
directly to streams. DWQ requested that DOT provide designs on how. these
storm water discharges could be modified to comply with Permit Condition 4.
• DWQ also identified seventeen locations at nine different stream crossings where
alternative means other than HSCBs could be used to comply with Permit
Condition 7. This does not preclude the use of HSCBs at these sites. It only
identified sites where DWQ provided DOT with some flexibility in complying
with Permit Condition 7. DWQ requested that DOT identify alternative designs
for HSCBs to comply with Permit Condition 7 at these sites.
On April 14, 2005, DWQ responded to a monitoring report received from DOT on
February 9, 2005 for the Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) mitigation site. The SALT
site is a mitigation site that DOT proposed to use for wetland restoration to meet the
mitigation requirements of their WQC. DOT proposed to fill in a series of existing
ditches to restore a wetland hydrology to the site. Upon inspection of the site for
suitabitlity, DWQ felt that the site was currently functioning as a wetland. DOT agreed
to monitor the site to determine the existing site hydrology. If the available acreage
functioning as uplands was less than 36.8 acres, then DOT would make an in-lieu
payment to the Wetland Restoration Program to supply the remaining balanceof
restoration credit. The monitoring results indicated that the site is currently functioning
as a wetland. DWQ informed DOT that they would not receive the 36.8 acres of
restoration credit for the mitigation site. However, the SALT site would receive wetland
enhancement credit.
On July 6, 2005, DWQ met with DOT to discuss HSCB locations and potential
alternatives to HSCB addressed in the March 15, 2005 letter. DWQ and DOT talked at
length about each plan sheet, stream crossing, and station location on the Vass Bypass
project subject to the requirement for HSCBs. Each agency provided a proposal for each
site to meet the requirements of Condition 7. Meeting minutes for this meeting were
distributed on July 8, 2005. On August 2, 2005, DOT submitted responses to the
proposed HSCBs and alternatives locations discussed in the July 6, 2005 meeting.
DOT's response proposed 3 additional HSCBs to the existing HSCBs on the Vass
Bypass.
Compliance and Enforcement Proceedings
On February 26, 2003, DWQ submitted a memorandum to DOT reminding them of the
need to comply with the conditions of the WQC for the Vass Bypass. From April 2003 to
November 2003, three compliance inspections were conducted at the Vass Bypass project
site. All three were in response to complaints received by DWQ.
On April 4, 2003, DWQ staff conducted a compliance inspection and a file review of the
Vass Bypass project. Several violations of permit conditions were observed during the
inspection. A Notice of Violation was issued on May 5, 2003 that included the following
violations:
• Permit Condition 1 - Sedimentation and erosion control measures did not meet
the standards of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual.
• Permit Condition 2 - The design, construction, and maintenance measures of the
1997 Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters were not
being met.
• Permit Condition 3 - Greater than 20 acres of land had been disturbed at one time
which does not meet the Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
• Permit Condition 5 - DOT had no method for tracking when disturbed ground
had been seeded to comply with the 10-day maximum time period.
• Permit Condition 7 - Site plans used by DOT construction staff did not include
designs or locations for HSCBs. No HSCBs had been constructed at the time of
the inspection.
• Permit Condition 9 - No maintenance plans were submitted for storm water
management facilities or HSCBs prior to construction activities.
• Permit Condition 15 - No mitigation report was submitted within two months of
the issuance of the 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Prior to issuance of the Notice of Violation, DOT submitted a letter on April 16, 2003
outlining changes to the Vass Bypass plans. These changes included rerouting of storm
water through pre-formed scour holes, installation of 6 HSCBs in the Little River
watershed, elimination of bridge deck drains from discharging directly to the Little River,
and submittal of a maintenance plan for the HSCBs.
On May 30, 2003, DOT officially responded to the Notice of Violation. In the response,
DOT addressed each violation. At issue was the fact that DOT had implemented the
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds only in the HQW watershed areas of the
project corridor. However, Permit Condition 3 clearly states that these standards should
be followed for the entire project corridor. Thus, DOT had disturbed more than 20 acres
of land at one time, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to handle
a 25-year storm, had not designed all sediment and erosion control measures to meet the
increased settling efficiency, and had not designed all new, open channels with 2:1 side
slopes. Also at issue was the fact that DOT had not designed or constructed HSCBs at all
stream crossings. DOT did revise the plans to include 6 HSCBs in the HQW of the Little
River watershed (per the April 16, 2003 letter) but did not design any for the remaining
stream crossings.
On August 28, 2003, DWQ conducted another compliance inspection and file review.
During the inspection, multiple violations were observed including several instances of
improper sediment and erosion control measures which had resulted in the bypass of
control measures and the deposition of 2-12 inches of sediment in adjacent stream
channels. On November 24, 2003, DWQ conducted a third compliance inspection and
file review. During the inspection, it was noted that the designs for the HSCBs were not
submitted to DWQ prior to construction, that the report describing the mitigation plan
had not been provided to DWQ, and that a complete copy of the construction plans for
the Vass Bypass had not been submitted. Notices of Violation were not issued in
response to these two compliance inspections.
On February 10, 2005, DWQ assessed DOT $19,284.28 in civil penalties for violations of
the Vass Bypass WQC. This assessment was based on violations observed during the
three compliance visits. The Findings and Decisions document detailed the assessment
as follows:
• One violation of Permit Condition 1 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 2 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 3 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 7 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One of three violations of Permit Condition 15 of the July 19, 2002 WQC;
• One violation of Permit Condition 1.8 of the September 2, 2003 modification; and
• One violation of 15A NCAC 2B .0231(a)(1) and (b)(1)*.
*Impacts to wetlands from sedimentation which may cause adverse impacts on existing
wetland uses.
DOT has chosen to request an administrative hearing to contest the assessment.
APPENDIX A: Permit Conditions
Permit Condition 1 - NC DOT must follow appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual
or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more appropriate
(available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or
Central Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers
not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
This condition was included in the WQC to prevent sedimentation and erosion
during the construction of the project. Due to the presence surface waters in the
project area classified as WS-III and HQW, DWQ felt that the proper preventative
measures should be followed and maintained to ensure that water quality
standards were met for turbidity. In addition, Crane Creek, a stream impacted by
the project, was listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters during the permitting
process. Crane Creek was listed due to habitat degradation making sedimentation
from construction activities a major concern. Therefore, adherence to the
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual was key to
preventing further impairment of Crane Creek.
• Permit Condition 2 - NC DOT shall use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NC DOT March 1997), specifically using all
applicable preventive and control measures during the design, construction and
maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing acitivities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Similar to the reasons stated above, this condition was included to protect
downstream aquatic resources during the construction of the project. This BUT
manual provides guidance and techniques during the planning, design, and
construction of highways for preventing sediment, toxic chemicals, and fill
material from entering waters of the State. This manual also provides additional
protective BMPs for projects occurring within HQW watersheds. The public
hearing officer recommended inclusion of these BMPs in the WQC.
• Permit Condition 3 - During the construction of the project, NC DOT shall
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, Design Standards.in
Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B.0124(a)(d)], within the project corridor.
The requirements for Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds provide
additional protection through sedimentation and erosion control measures for
Re: 2005 Monitoring Reports
Subject: Re: 2005 Monitoring Reports
From: Jason Elliott <jelliottC dot. state. nc.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:34:31 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <brian.wrennC ncmail.net>
CC: Randy Griffin <rgriffinC dot.state.nc.us>, Byron Moore
<bgmooreC dot.state.nc.us>
Brian,
Thanks for the response on this report. The sediment control stone
has now
been completely removed from the buffer area as of August 15 when I
visited
the site. I've checked with the Division to see when the repairs
can be
completed. I'll let you know as soon as I find out something.
Thanks
again.
Jason
Brian Wrenn wrote:
Jason,
I have visited the Div. 8 projects and have some concerns of which
are
noted in your reports. On the UT to Little R., the second or
third log
vane down from the culvert outlet is too high. Water is not only
ponding behind the vane but has gone under the vane through a
subsurface
pathway. This log vane should be lowered to an appropriate
height. On
the UT to Little Crane Cr., the sediment/erosion control stone is
still
in the buffer area of the southern segement of this stream as of
August
11. this stone should be completely removed and natural
woody/herbaceous vegetation replanted. the northern end of this
relocation had been adequately cleaned up but the woody/herbaceous
vegetation should still be replanted. If you have any questions
regarding this email, please let me know. Thanks.
Brian
Jason Elliott wrote:
Hello Everyone,
The following 2004 mitigation monitoring reports have been posted
on NEU's webpage.
Please make note that the NEU webpage has a new web address.
1 of 2 8/24/2005 1:58 PM
Re: 2005 Monitoring Reports
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/neu/default.html
Monitoring Reports address
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/neu/Monitoring/
SITES
Division 7:
I-2402A,B,C I-85 Greensboro Bypass Streams - Please make a note
that one year quarterly monitoring has been completed for all
permitted sites listed under the 4th Quarter Reports tab.
However, we will continue to monitoring the 4 sites listed under
the I-2402A Additional Sites tab quarterly for 1 year. These
sites were not initially included when the monitoring began; site
close out to follow once monitoring is completed.
Division 8:
R-0210A UT Little River
R-0210C UT Little Crane
Division 12:
R-2206A NC 16 Lucia Bypass
U-2307AD Hickory Stream
Division 14:
R-2210A Waynesville Streams
R-2214A Hendersonville Stream
R-2224A Cashiers Stream
The remaining reports will be posted as soon a
completed. Once the reports are posted on the
will be notified via email. I can be reached
there are any questions or concerns.
Jason
s they are
web, the agencies
at [phone] if
2 of 2 8/24/2005 1:58 PM
i
Channel Mitigation Monitoring Sheets I, II, III, AND IV
Monitoring Data Record
Project Title: R-0210A (Site 10) COE Action ID: 1993-0-0570
Stream Name: Unnamed tributary to the Little River DWQ Number: 010404
City, County and other Location Information: US 1 Vass Bypass) in Moore County
(Sta. 51+70 to 52+20)
Date Construction Completed: July 2003 Monitoring Year: ( 1 ) of 5
Ecoregion: 8 digit HUC unit: 03030004
USGS Quad Name and Coordinates:
Rosgen Classification:
Length of Project: 174' Urban or Rural: Rural Watershed Size:
Monitoring DATA collected by: M. Green, D. Jenkins Date: 6/7/05
Applicant Information:
Name: NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
Address: 1425 Rock Ouarrv Rd. Raleiizh. NC 27610
Telephone Number: [phone] Email address: mlgreen(a)dot.state.nc.us
Consultant Information:
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number:
Email address:
Project Status: Complete
Monitoring Level required by COE and DWQ (404 permit/ 401 Cert.): Level 0 -2 -3
Monitoring Level 1 requires completion of Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3
Permit Conditions: The permittee shall monitor the stream relocation site for a period of five
years starting the year following construction. Monitoring data at the site should include the
following: reference photos, plant survival, and channel stability. Data shall be collected each
year for 5 years at the same time of year. No less than two bankfull events must be documented
through the required 5-year monitoring period. If less than two bankfull events occur during the
first 5 years, monitoring will continue until the second bankfull event is documented. The
bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
Section 1. PHOTO REFERENCE SITES
(Monitoring at all levels must complete this section)
Attach site map showing the location and angle of all reference photos with a site
designation (name, number, letter, etc.) assigned to each reference photo location. Photos should
be provided for all structures and cross section locations, should show both banks and include an
upstream and downstream view. Photos taken to document physical stability should be taken in
winter. Photos taken to document vegetation should be taken in summer (at representative
locations). Attach photos and a description of each reference photo or location. We recommend
the use of a photo identification board in each photo to identify location.
Total number of reference photo locations at this site: 3 reference points, 2 photos at each
Dates reference photos have been taken at this site: 6/7/05
Individual from whom additional photos can be obtained (name, address, phone):
Other Information relative to site photo reference:
If required to complete Level 3 monitoring only stop here; otherwise, complete section 2.

Section 2. PLANT SURVIVAL
Attach plan sheet indicating reference photos.
Identify specific problem areas (missing, stressed, damaged or dead plantings):
Woody vegetation was minimal along the streambank and in the floodplain.
Estimated causes, and proposed/required remedial action:
This site will be supplementally planted in 2006.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Vegetation noted onsite consisted of black willow, silky dogwood,
tulip poplar, willow oak, sweetgum, and various grasses.
If required to complete Level 1 and Level 2 monitoring only stop here; otherwise, complete section 3.
2
Section 3. CHANNEL STABILITY
Visual Inspection: The entire stream project as well as each in-stream structure and bank
stabilization/revetment structure must be evaluated and problems addressed.
Report on the visual inspection of channel stability. Physical measurements of channel
stabili /morphology will not be required. Include a discussion of any deviations from as-built
and an evaluation of the significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a
stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
The stream is stabilized for the 1 S` year of monitoring. The log vane structure noted in photo 1 is set too high and is
holding the water flow onsite. This loe vane will be reset to the correct elevation of the structure.
Date Station Station Station Station Station
Inspected Number Number Number Number Number
Structure 51 + 80 @
Type to vane
Is water
piping
through or
around
structure?
Head cut or
down cut
resent?
Bank or scour
erosion
present?
Other Water is
problems ponding
noted? behind log
vane
NOTE: Attach separate narrative sheets to each monitoring report describing/discussing the
overall monitoring results. Include the identification of specific problem areas/channel failures,
estimated cause and proposed/required remedial action. This should include a brief discussion of
any parameter that has changed significantly from as-built.
1
Photo 1
Photo 3
Photo 5
Year 1 - June 2005
UT to Little River
Photo 2
Photo 4
Photo 6
4
Channel Mitigation Monitoring Sheets I, II, III, AND IV
Monitoring Data Record
Project Title: R-0210C (Sites 4 and 5) COE Action ID: 1993-0-0570
Stream Name: Unnamed tributary to the Little Crane Creek DWQ Number: 010404
City, County and other Location Information: Intersection of Service Rd. and Oak Leaf Rd. off
of US 1 (Vass Bypass) in Lee County (Sta. 22+00 to Sta. 24+80)
Date Construction Completed: March 2004 Monitoring Year: ( 1 ) of 5
Ecoregion: 8 digit HUC unit 03030004
USGS Quad Name and Coordinates:
Rosgen Classification:
Length of Project: 980' Urban or Rural: Rural Watershed Size:
Monitoring DATA collected by: M. Green, D. Jenkins Date: 6/7/05
Applicant Information:
Name: NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
Address: 1425 Rock Quarry Rd. Raleigh, NC 27610
Telephone Number: [phone] Email address: ml reenaa,dot.statemc.us
Consultant Information:
Name:
Address:
Telephone Number: Email address:
Project Status: Complete
Monitoring Level required by COE and DWQ (404 permit/ 401 Cert.): Level 0 2- -3
Monitoring Level 1 requires completion of Section 1, Section 2 and Section 3
Permit Conditions:: The permittee shall monitor the stream relocation site for a period of five
years starting the year following construction. Monitoring data at the site should include the
following: reference photos, plant survival, and channel stability. Data shall be collected each
year for 5 years at the same time of year. No less than two bankfull events must be documented
through the required 5-year monitoring period. If less than two bankfull events occur during the
first 5 years, monitoring will continue until the second bankfull event is documented. The
bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
Section 1. PHOTO REFERENCE SITES
(Monitoring at all levels must complete this section)
Attach site map showing the location and angle of all reference photos with a site
designation (name, number, letter, etc.) assigned to each reference photo location. Photos should
be provided for all structures and cross section locations, should show both banks and include an
upstream and downstream view. Photos taken to document physical stability should be taken in
winter. Photos taken to document vegetation should be taken in summer (at representative
locations). Attach photos and a description of each reference photo or location. We recommend
the use of a photo identification board in each photo to identify location.
Total number of reference photo locations at this site: 7 reference points, 2 photos at each
Dates reference photos have been taken at this site: 6/7/05
Individual from whom additional photos can be obtained (name, address, phone):
Other Information relative to site photo reference:
If required to complete Level 3 monitoring only stop here; otherwise, complete section 2.
Section 2. PLANT SURVIVAL
Attach plan sheet indicating reference photos.
Identify specific problem areas .(missing, stressed, damaged or dead plantings):
Wood vegetation was minimal along the stream bank and in the floodnlain.
Estimated causes, and proposed/required remedial action:
This site will be supplementally planted in 2006.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Vegetation noted onsite consisted of black willow, sweetgum, overcup
oak, tulip poplar, sedges, cattails, iuncus sp., and various grasses.
If required to complete Level 1 and Level 2 monitoring only stop here; otherwise, complete section 3.
2
Section 3. CHANNEL STABILITY
Visual Inspection: The entire stream project as well as each in-stream structure and bank
stabilization/revetment structure must be evaluated and problems addressed.
Report on the visual inspection of channel stability. Physical measurements of channel
stability/morphology will not be required. Include a discussion of any deviations from as-built
and an evaluation of the significance of these deviations and whether they are indicative of a
stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
The stream is stabilized for the 1 s` year of monitoring. The log vane structure noted in photo 1 is set to high which is
causing water to go under the log vane. This log vane will be reset to correct the elevation of the structure. The
sediment control stone noted throughout the site will be removed before supplemental planting takes place.
Date Station Station Station Station Station
Inspected Number Number Number Number Number
Structure 24 +80 @
Type to vane
Is water Water is
piping piping under
through or the log vane
around
structure?
Head cut or
down cut
resent?
Bank or scour
erosion
present?
Other
problems
noted?
NOTE: Attach separate narrative sheets to each monitoring report describing/discussing the
overall monitoring results. Include the identification of specific problem areas/channel failures,
estimated cause and proposed/required remedial action. This should include a brief discussion of
any parameter that has changed significantly from as-built.
UT Little Crane Creek
Photo 1
Photo 3
Photo 5
Photo 2
Photo 4
Photo 6
Year 1 - June 2005
UT Little Crane Creek
Photo 7
Photo 9
Photo 11
Year 1 - June 2005
Photo 8
J $,,S
7f?
ell `
Photo 10

f:
r r -
???^y T
? 4S TY
k
rc`?
Photo 12
5

UT Little Crane Creek
r 4
t
a > r"r
Photo 13
Year 1 - June 2005
r?
i?
Photo 14
6

Cs - Tat SAS
YIhf
O 1no,J_ e? _ NS C ? f
ms?ov-,e 1&16V)
6L?43 ac? io N scIR,
?i
DOT
vlk?
i?
?? - DoT we S _ _ db D?, d& ?? Iti?
Ij
VYW s GIUi + ?C?c•,N ?e q0( I-SSfttB1
"j [s cF, Coc+-1) - UA" 0 yU? ?r6cC-14
t
m6c, jS LA., r-P--Jvej
Ne u1j/ ,3su---
'! CvAk ?e,?? oUrd • ? s a- - ?
s
t;
_._...... _
n
_. {v.----_ fib j05
-----c orr?un.___C? ___?_r?.?C?;
I
US 1 photos
Subject: US 1 photos
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:39:05 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>, Dempsey Benton <[e-mail]>
There will be two separate e-mails. Pictures aren't always received in the same
order I send them, so...
The first four (with this message) are of the northern side of the secondary
road.
i
¦
{-Z - `S'` 4?.•{?,?.,K ?M - `?F'd?. ;f'. y T' • t
{r ' k 4
ZOM
L Z, ?00
?.??' S•. ?: i1i? six - _ ?n t`. ? ?? _. ? t` +.. t ?p.
LY
NY-
1 of') 9/13/2005 2:26 PM
US 1 photos
. . ?. 4 r.r ?y-
it t!a` ?'
WW6
?7 a y _
Ail
i h
w3k
qa?
2 of 3 9/13/2005 2:26 PM
US 1 photos

#'- ?Y
t:__.
3 of 3 9/13/2005 2:26 PM
more pictures
Subject: more pictures
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:40:15 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>, Dempsey Benton <[e-mail]>
These are pictures of the shoulder downstream of the secondary road.

c
1 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
more pictures
? or
'?? - .??:_ ?.1'rirT?,?„?•?<. - sue;;
06 jqb.
%.? ,? s` ^ ?i .?`r' •? --? Y r?7-jY - ? a s ? ?..n r1 1.?
.
. 't S
lot

y
_

•
'
-rte,... _!`..° ° _ .?-•„""'._ --- : d,1',ta,o_ s1? 1 ?.r.Al"?G?

2 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
more pictures

3 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
more pictures
4of7
9/13/200 2:27 PM
more pictures
IfA
I' ; y '? ? ; ?,? -,• a ,? ' ` .,fir
y r}
r t` _ r t "4. t YM?
A4
ry?y? ' • . ? r ,, ? "` ice' ?? • . -
.44
arc: •
..c. a
5 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
more pictures

ate '.? xs
-
sIILI
6 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
more pictures
-w z

.. j mkt'
lk?
I'M IL
f
Ry .I`?q?M ! •'' ?Y,E. "?' - ; -"Alf ?y y• • x
+ i
?C?x./i? e. } s d • ?Vr„ir ??ts . .' . ?, r ; .... • eMf. ? Y? ? ?" .? ?`.N:
AY : «.??hiQf yam" r t . 1 -„a
'?,y"k = .+? x? 4r.? ?SL?W syv wlr?rF`'? ..- ? ,yr -= ?• ;,:
7 of 7 9/13/2005 2:27 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]]
From: Paul Rawls <paul.rawls @ ncmail.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:47:03 -0400
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>, Brian Wrenn
<[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Gentlemen:
Attachment FYI
I have not yet heard from Dave.
Subject: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions]
From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:57:10 -0400
To: "Debbie Barbour (E-mail)" <dbarbour @dot. state.nc.us>
CC: Paul Rawls <paul.rawls @ ncmail.net>
Debbie - attached you will find a copy of the meeting minutes that Brian put
together following our most recent meeting with DOT staff (Dave worked with Paul
at this meeting and scheduling the DOT staff). The DOT staff that were at the
meeting have all been sent copies of the memo. Please note that this is a follow up
to our letter of March 15th to which we have not received a written response. In
order to make this next meeting effective, we need to get a written response from
DOT to that letter of the 15th, along with the modifications we concurred upon at
the July 6th meeting referenced in the attached memo. The DWQ staff need to have
that letter in advance of the meeting, so that we can review it and be prepared to
work with DOT on getting to final resolution. I remain optimistic that we can
accomplish this and hope that we can at the next meeting. I f you would please
have Dave let Paul know when we can expect the letter, so that we can schedule the
meeting with all appropriate parties. I look forward to us getting to final resolution
on this project. Thanks for the assistance. Coleen
------- Original Message --------
Subject:July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass discussions
Date:Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:22:31 -0400
From:Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
1 of 2 9/15/2005 11:47 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: July 6th meeting minutes for Vass Bypass di...
To:Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, Tom Reeder
<[e-mail]>, Danny Smith <Danny. Smith@ ncmail.net>,
"D. R. Henderson, PE" <[e-mail]>, Elizabeth Lee
Lusk <[e-mail]>, "Deanna R. Riffey"
<driffey @dot. state.nc.us>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Phillip Todd <ptodd @ sepiengineering.com>
CC:John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Please find attached the meeting minutes from our July 6th meeting to discuss
hazardous spill basins for the Vass Bypass. If you have any questions or comments
on the minutes, please let me know. Thanks
Brian
2 of 2 9/15/2005 11:47 AM
i t. N
Table 1- Discussion results for each station number with revised DOT Proposals.
Location DWQ Proposal DOT Proposal DOT Revised
Proposal
Section A
Sheet 7, Site 1
23+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 8, Sitel
27+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
27+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
50+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit ?pil l Kit
52+50 Rt Alternative-Stockpile/Spill
Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSC13
61+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit NO actiO14,
59+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
61+10 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site16
63+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stoc ile/S ill Kit
65+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit and false
ruin p
64+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit ?ipijj Kit
65+00 Rt. Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
68+10 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
67+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
67+80 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20, Sites 18
and 20
75+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
77+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stoc ile/S ill Kit
77+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit N6 ?ctioll
75+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCH
Sheet 21, Site 21
79+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Sill Kit
78+60 Rt HSCB/Stock - ile/S ill Kit Stock ile/Spill Kit ill Kit
79+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
80+50 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
t % 1
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt HSCB DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit
83+50 Lt Off site flow only no
HSCB No Proposal No Proposal
83+20 Med Alternative -Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
81+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit S'i'll" it
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit S ill; Kit
Sheet 24, Site 25
91+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
94+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+60 Lt Outlet Protection for SW
pipe Outlet Protection for
SW pipe Additional riprap at
outlet
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
129+40 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
128+50 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit S' ivlt -it,
129+40 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
140+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill (tit
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
141+40 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit ,Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
150+00 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit ISpill4
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit,
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
20+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit °.S ill kit
20+60 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
DOT to propose No direct discharge
of SW
. 1%,
Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected alternative
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4
and 5
28+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
31+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit $'JIIXit
29+10 Med Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected DOT to propose
alternative Rerouting water to
grassed swale
30+50 Rt Alternative -
Stoc ile/S ill Kit Spill Kit
31+10 HSCB DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit and
rerouting direct
discharge to grassed
swale
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
32+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockp le/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
39+20 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit pill Kit
38+80 Rt HS Containment No proposal Sill Kit
Sheet 10, Site 6
39+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Alternative -
Stoc ile/S ill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kid
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit ?-' ill Kit
49+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
48+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
49+00 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
z These sites were not discussed during the meeting. DWQ proposes Alternative - Spill Kits at these
locations. It is assumed that DOT would agree as this is the least expensive and labor intense alternative.
3 Constructability issues dictate need for an alternatives analysis.
4 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a site that requires extensive outlet protection to
prevent stream degradation due to an unorthodox pipe location.
This is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution to this direct discharge to comply
with the WQC.
6 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a
solution to this direct discharge to comply with the WQC.
7 Close proximity of stream relocation presents a problematic design constraint.
8 At this station, DWQ is requiring hazardous spill containment although not necessarily through a
catchment basin. DWQ will take into consideration the location and limited area when reviewing DOT's
proposal for this location.
Re: [Fwd: Pipe list]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pipe list]
From: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:34:33 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
I was on the north end of the project yesterday, very briefly, and looked
at the gravel removal site. North of the secondary side road seems to be
pretty clean. Has been reseeded and mulched. Used a probe to see how many
rocks were left under the mulch, and there were just a scattered few. South
of the culvert had considerably more rocks mixed with dirt. I need to get
with Art and Marty and revisit, with them present. Didn't look at the pipe
crossing.
Brian Wrenn wrote:
Thanks Ken. Have you had a chance to visit the Vass Bypass lately. I
was out there at the end of July and there was still 6-8" of sediment in
that pipe and still gravel on the mitigation site. Have you heard
anything from Art regarding the status of that? Thanks
Brian
Ken Averitte wrote:
this is the Div. 3 culvert list. I still don't have the Div. 6 list.
Subject:
Pipe list
From:
Mason Herndon
Date:
<[e-mail]>
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:11:19 -0400
To:
Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Ken
Per your request attached is a excel spreadsheet with pipes we
have replaced under NW 14, 18 & some 3's. If it is listed as
proceed under the status column it means it is either under
construction or has not been closed out until vegetation has
become well established. For the list of NW 3's, we listed
mainly the larger pipes since you are concerning about
headcutting as we discussed. If you need any additional
information or want to set a date to look at some of these
locations let me know.
Mason
1 of 1 8/15/2005 10:27 AM
i
Table 1- Discussion results for each station number with revised DOT proposals, August 15,
2005.
Location DWQ Proposal DOT Proposal
July 6, 2005 DOT Revised
Proposal
August 4, 2005
Section A
Sheet 7, Site 1
23+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit it
Spill K Spill Kit
Sheet 8, Sitel
27+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
27+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 13, Site 10
51+14 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
50+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 10
52+60 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
52+50 Rt Alternative-Stockpile/Spill
Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 16, Site 15
60+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
61+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit No action
59+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit. Spill Kit
61+10 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site16
63+20 Lt HSCB Stock ile/S ill.Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
65+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit and false
sum
64+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
65+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 18, Site 17
67+20 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
68+10 Lt Alternative -
Stock ile/S ill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
67+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
67+80 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20, Sites 18
and 20
75+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
77+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
77+20 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit No action
75+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit HSCB
Sheet 21, Site 21
79+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
79+50 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
78+60 Rt HSCB/Stock ile/S ill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit ill Kit
---?
79+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Kit
Epill
i

80+50 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 22, Site 22
82+00 Lt HSCB DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit
83+50 Lt Off site flow only no
HSCB No Proposal No Proposal
83+20 Med Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
81+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 23, Site 22
86+30 Rt. HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 24, Site 25
91+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
94+50 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+50 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
95+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
94+60 Lt Outlet Protection for SW
pipe Outlet Protection for
SW pipe Additional riprap at
outlet
Section B
Sheet 12, Site 6
128+60 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
129+40 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
128+50 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill . Kit
129+40 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 14, Site 9
140+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
140+80 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill-Kit
Sheet 15, Site 9
141+40 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
141+40 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 17, Site 10
150+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
150+00 Rt Alternative -
Stoc ile/S ill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit,
Sheet 18
153+15 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
Sheet 20
162+90 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill `Kit
Section C
Sheet 4, Site 3
20+10 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
20+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
20+60 Rt Alternative - Stockpile/Spill Kit No direct discharge
l{
r
Stockpile/Spill Kit
Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected DOT to propose
alternative of SW
Sheet 5, Site 3
21+00 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 7, Sites 4
and 5
28+00 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
31+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
29+10 Med Direct Discharge of SW
needs to be corrected DOT to propose
alternative Rerouting water to
grassed swale
30+50 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
31+10 HSCB' DOT to propose
alternative Spill Kit and
rerouting direct
discharge to grassed
swale
Sheet 8, Site 5
31+80 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
32+00 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill . Kit
Sheet 9, Site 6
38+50 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
39+20 Lt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill, Kit
38+80 Rt HS Containment No proposal Spill Kit
Sheet 10, Site 6
39+60 Rt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 11, Site 8
45+40 Rt Alternative -
Stock ile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
Sheet 12, Site 10
48+40 Lt HSCB Stockpile/Spill Kit Spill Kit
49+00 Lt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
48+80 Rt Alternative - Spill Kit Spill Kit Spill Kit
49+00 Rt Alternative -
Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit Stockpile/Spill Kit
' These sites were not discussed during the meeting. DWQ proposes Alternative - Spill Kits at these
locations. It is assumed that DOT would agree as this is the least expensive and labor intense alternative.
3 Constructability issues dictate need for an alternatives analysis.
4 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a site that requires extensive outlet protection to
prevent stream degradation due to an unorthodox pipe location.
5 This is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a solution to this direct discharge to comply
with the WQC.
6 This station number is not related to a HSCB. It is a direct discharge of storm water. DOT will propose a
solution to this direct discharge to comply with the WQC.
' Close proximity of stream relocation presents a problematic design constraint.
8 At this station, DWQ is requiring hazardous spill containment although not necessarily through a
catchment basin. DWQ will take into consideration the location and limited area when reviewing DOT's
proposal for this location.
If DWQ is considering accepting the proposal from DOT, the 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) should be modified to reflect our approval of DOT's proposal.
DOT should submit the relevant information required for a modification of an individual
401 WQC. Below is a list of items, DWQ will require to review the proposal for
approval. The required information includes but is not limited to the following:
• A complete list of station numbers where "modified containment basins" or
modified Hazardous Spill Catchment Basins (mHSCBs) will be constructed.
• Justification for placement of the mHSCBs as well as reasoning why mHSCBs
were not placed at the other locations identified by DWQ.
• A description of the measures that will be used at locations where DOT has not
proposed sHSCBs.
• To scale drawings and designs of the proposed mHSCB locations.
• To scale detail drawings of the mHSCBs with the storage volume of each
structure and the calculations for the storage volume.
• For mH o not meet the revised designs s SCBs as detailed in
the March 15, 2005 letter ro ' ication why the mHSCBs do not meet
the revised standar_ds.?-
• Detail drawings of the outlet structures for the mHSCBs with a justification of
why sand bags are proposed instead of sluice gates.
?.mr
'w
,?
'
1
?.~
V
Q \
? ??,
?? ??
10 ? '? ?
? ???
?? ??
? 0 ???
? p ?- ? ?
? ? ?,
?? ?
4L ? . ? ?
~ ? ? ??'? ?
? I? ?
n ?? i ?
s ? \ ?
?: Ili o
? ? ,??
-_

kl
?J
S
RO

r
fit
XS ?I1
n

?r

fit

J I r

J ?
?
Q
? ?II

-3) z ?
F % b

N
V o f-r'Lq/v.>¢af
,?- /Z' )-)4
sh4? ._.
to fSD?C f wad - - --s/•,
f, _?Jf R7
"F?ccavaA L?,?;
7?-f04/e? GJa s T Ex
--- :? :-• ?s?_2._ ..!//OBE!_4!O!-?`LIoYAl7F?_S/?...21??
??'?av/??----"-'=•?"''i-/.eo(.,-Z-F?J?I?!l?d-!?/...LJ?S?.h ?L??CG2da??.f2. ?'i
... .........
___
Sk?fZ 3
........... .
/f Ir
TOTAL P.01
TofM- !? ?l1.1/ FrwnD
fiJQ
CaJ?l. DENS Co.
Phone N 23 -,TV 93 -c ,s7' Phone N ^ ? D `_ ?/Q °
Felt N 7,33 -,07/'9
Faz N
A t 1
vlo de???P?+--f(?f ? ?r?oVrvu?
scUu???/?- Cc' (sc Ianc?es on^en _ Incu,? Iv ?)ecwaf uw? ???FC?
ii
p I )) e)
0-4

r?

°j
d '

O I #' ? ?L lk?""'? ? I+GY? ? W?.QvR _. G?? ?'e?'!M ?Z`'r a? )
i
,,
__
??? ?_
t ED
-IIA 14 -17V
- -- ----- ---------

n
?/?, P?-.
4-7 i?
AM
f?a OLC
- _ ,
44
tv ram
f1
All-

Oj
XS ?I1
0 0 1
`-?
r1
f// r
V's
r ?? ( r
? ? ? ? ? o • ? iii
s
° S?s ^? I 2'
'Its j
d °v>
A w
J

l`
Q ?
i?
\ l
i
o W ?? Q
"f
U ? o

75
a
R-210A Mitigation Site Restoration
Subject: R-210A Mitigation Site Restoration
From: "Spencer, Richard K SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:22:22 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "Timothy Johnson, PE" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Harris, Keith A SAW" <[e-mail]>, "McLendon, Scott C SAW"
<[e-mail]>, "Jolly, Samuel K SAW"
<[e-mail]>
To All:
I just finished a telephone conversation with Tim Johnson, Division 8 Division Engineer, concerning the
above referenced mitigation site restoration project. We currently have a window of opportunity to begin
restoration of the mitigation site. We are currently in a major drought situation and this has resulted in dry
conditions at the mitigation site. Therefore, by this email, I am granting permission for Division 8 crews to
take advantage of the current drought situation and begin the removal of the fill material that is in violation
of the permit conditions at the above referenced site. The rip-rap material is to be removed by use of a
trackhoe positioned on the roadway fill slope and either placed on the fill slope or removed completely from
the site. Exposed areas should be stabilized by mulching or appropriate matting as soon as possible
following disturbance. Further, it is my understanding that the restoration plans for the above referenced
site are forthcoming and will be delivered to me next week. I will review and, if acceptable, respond to the
submitted material in short order so that restoration work may continue while we have the current window
of opportunity.
Richard K. Spencer
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
USACE
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone]
<<Richard K. Spencer (E-mail).vcf>>
Richard K. Spencer (E-mail) <Richard.K.Spencer(a' jsaw02.usace.army.mil>
Regulatory Project Manager
USACE, Wilmington Field Office
1 of 1 9/7/2007 7:05 AM