20110949 Ver 1_Complete File_20051105

/40
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 5, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
on the potential environmental effects of the proposed replacement of the following five bridges:
• B-4451, Bridge No. 21 on NC 343. over Joyce Creek, Camden County
• B-4452, Bridge No. 20 on NC 343 over Sawyer Creek, Camden County
• B-4494, Bridge No. 3 on SR 1232 over Tulls Creek, Currituck County
• B-4521, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1320 over Duke Swamp, Gates County
• B-4599, Bridge Nos. land 2 on US 17 over Knobbs Creek,'Pasquotank County
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The Service recommends the following general conservation measures
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning process. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by other means
should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges. For
projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be aligned
along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of fish and wildlife
habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be entirely removed and the
impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and
migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water
work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning and
sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15
- June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to
alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or impede
fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the bank-full width
of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming or
constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible, culverts
should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some. of the hydrological
functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the affected area.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated
non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to
fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their
life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/couniyfr.html .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of listed species near the project vicinities, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project sites. The NCNHP database only
indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed. species and does not necessarily mean that such
species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat
occurs within the project vicinities for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine
presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the, proposed actions may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your
surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the actions on listed species, including
consideration of direct, indirect, and.cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect
the species. If you determine that the proposed actions will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse,
direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the public
notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in the planning
process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in project implementation. In.
addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for these projects
include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact area
that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely to
occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural resources, and how this
and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or minimize
impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including fragmentation and
direct loss of habitat;
7. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service-appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise us .
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of the
projects. If you have any questions regarding.our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32.
Si ere ,
Pete B 'Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

o?0? war?9Q?
? f
>__J. ?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
November 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
From Christina Breen
Transportation P aing Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Comments on Various Bridge Replacements, B-4451, B-4452 in Camden County,
B-4494 in Currituck County, B-4521 in Gates County, and B-4599 in Pasquotank
County.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 24, 2005 (received November 4, 2005) in which you
requested comments for the referenced projects; the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
L Project-Specific Comments
B-4451 Bridge No. 21 over Joyce Creek, Camden Co.
Joyce Creek are class C; Sw waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
B-4452 Bridge No. 20 over Sawyers Creek, Camden Co.
Sawyers Creek are class C; Sw waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this
project.
B-4494 Bridze No. 3 over Tull Creek, Currituek Co.
Tull Creek are class B; Sw waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and erosion
impacts that could result from this project. NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the
potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce
the impacts.
B-4521 Bridge No. 26 over Duke Swamp, Gates Co.
Duke Swamp are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be, implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Duke
Swamp. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best
management practices as detailed in Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0224(2) and 15A NCAC 2H'. 1006.
B-4599 Bridges No.1 and 2 over Knobbs Creek, Pasquotank Co.
Knobbs Creek are class C; Sw waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

IL General Comments Reizardinz Bridge Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace
the bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide
Permit 23.
2. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict
adherence the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401
Water Quality Certification.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require. work within the stream
and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by
bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or.entering into the stream Concrete is
mostly made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium
carbonate is very soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete
or cement will change the pH of fresh water .to very basic and will cause fish and other
macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or
mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species. should be planted with -a spacing of not more than
10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed.
Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving
the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8.A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath
the bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be, maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation
in flowing water.

12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
III. General Comments if Replacinz the Bridke with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe
invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural
thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be
placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These
should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing
sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Sufficient water depth
should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by
depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s)
should provide a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid
channel realignment. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at
the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that.
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally
designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure.
If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland
impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be
on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-
year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area
should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in
riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to
wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that 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 Christina Breen at [phone].
. ? 7
S
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecomb, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Steve Sollod, NC DCM
Mr. Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
CACorrespondence\Scoping Comments\B-4451,B4452, B-4494,B-4521,B-4599

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 24, 2005
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
NCDENR-DWQ/ WETLANDS
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
No
+Yps R??? 113, ??;?
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-4451, B-4452, B-4494,
B-4521, and B-4599.
Dear Ms.Van der Wiele:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing the planning and
environmental studies (Categorical Exclusions) for the replacement of the subject bridges. These
bridges are included in NCDOT's 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit your input concerning the potential impact of the proposed
projects upon social, economic, demographic, land use or environmental conditions near the
projects. Attached is the vicinity map for the following projects.
Project B-4451
Bridge No. 21 is located on NC 343 in Camden County and crosses over Joyce Creek.
Project B-4452
Bridge No. 20 is located on NC 343 in Camden County and crosses over Sawyer Creek.
Project B-4494
Bridge No. 3 is located on SR 1232 in Currituck County and crosses over Tulls Creek.
Project B-4521
Bridge No. 26 is located on SR 1320 in Gates County and crosses over Duke Swamp.
Project B-4599
Bridges No. 1 and No.2 are located on US 17 in Pasquotank County and cross over Knobbs
Creek
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
MAILING ADDRESS: FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IAIc001Tt• mA,vw.IV!`nnr nRG RALEIGH NC

Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for these projects. This
letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projects. To allow us to fully
evaluate the impacts of the proposed projects, please respond in writing by November 30, 2005
concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed projects relating to the interest of
your agency.
If you have any questions or comments concerning these projects, please contact Mr. Wayne
Jacas of this Branch at [phone], ext. 228.
Sincerely,
t
O ?
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Branch Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/
Attachment
o`
N?
N?
mQ
Pierceville.
a
South Mills °
4
?Y 1237
N ? 'Bridge No. 21
m a? ` . a d
1213 e
1 1237
3oyde '?3g
X53
0 ?
J hnsons
Corner
VICINITY MAP
NOV 0
4 ?(It)ti
DENR - Vt?Ell41JAll1Y
IDS a -! RANCH
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
?d
CAMDEN COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 21
ON NC 343-;-
OVER JftR'tffS CREEK
B-4451
FIGURE 1

Tulls Creek - 123

1394 1
1
1 2 1222
1279
1 6112
4-TO
MOYOCK 13 1 Bridge No. 3
12
281 Cr
e
el o
1234
2
27
12
Snowden
\ ,. NCA68
\ TO
1 CURRITUCK
Sligo -
1202
12

VICINITY MAP
-C,
ae
? a
.ew
a 6
5
o North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
?vs
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1232
OVER TOLLS CREEK

???
?? , B-4494

FIGURE 1

NO V 0 4 ?.005
DENR - WAt'ER QUALITY
-" -vnmrvAJtKBRANCH
VICINITY MAP
NOV O 4 n
b? North Carolina Department of Transportation
g Project Development & Environmental Analysis
?a
GATES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 26
ON SR 1320
OVER DUKE SWAMP
8-4521
FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP
North Carolina Department of Transportation
a Project Development & Environmental Analysis
BRIDGES NO. 1 & 2
ON US 17
OVER KNOBBS CREEK
8-4599
NOV 0 VLEp

FIGURE 1