Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCDOT 99-96 Coast Guard Permit Application Wiccacon River t - aSTAA ECEIVED R g DEC 12 1997 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201.RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY December 3, 1997 Commander(OAN) Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District Federal Building 431 Crawford Street Portsmouth, Virginia 23705 ATTENTION: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Chief Bridge Section SUBJECT: Application for Coast Guard Permit for: The Proposal Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC-45 over the Wiccacon River in Hertford County; Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) No. B-1231; State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-5053(2). Application is hereby made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways for approval by the Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard(USCG), of the location and plans for the construction of a fixed span bridge to replace the existing bridge over the Wiccacon River, approximately 2.2 road miles northwest of the town of Harreisville in Hertford County. Plans call for the replacement structure to be constructed slightly north(downstream) of the existing structure (see attached plans). Existing Bridge Specifically, the proposal provides for the replacement of an aging (1940) structure which has a substructure of creosoted timber caps and piles, and reinforced concrete caps on timber piles; end bents are of creosoted timber caps and piles with timber bulkheads. Multiple (14) spans at 22 feet and a main span of 69 feet comprise the 379 feet length of the existing structure. The main span, which contains a timber fender system, provides for navigational clearances of 58 feet • horizontally and 25 feet vertically. Proposal Bridge The replacement structure consists of five spans, including two at 89 feet-10 inches, one each at 80 feet, 90 feet and 91 feet-3.4 inches. The main channel span will provide for navigational clearances of 85 feet-2 inches horizontally and 20 feet vertically (measured from normal high water). The overall bridge length will be increased to 441 feet. The existing fender system will not be replaced. Ms. Ann Deaton, Chief December 3, 1997 Page 2 Federal Funds Federal funds will be utilized and have been applied or under the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project code for this action is BRS-5053(2). Other Regulatory Actions The original proposal (+/- 15 foot vertical clearance) was authorized by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 under Nationwide Permit 23; the state Division of Water Quality (DWQ) under Section 401 Water Quality Certificate No. 3025; and, the Division of Coastal Management(DCM)under Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit No. 99-96. Due to additional environmental impacts that will result from the new design, the departmen}'is in the process of re-applying to each of these agencies for re-authorizations. Informal discussions with the COE and the DWQ suggest that such authorizations are likely to be issued only with commitments to compensatory mitigation for the additional wetland impacts that will ensue from the design revision. Once these state and federal authorizations have been obtained they will be forwarded to you. NEPA Actions The FHWA has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and accordingly, authorized the project as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115 (b) (g). A copy of the Categorical Exclusion, which was approved by the FHWA in June 1986, was previously provided to your office. Sensitive Resources There are no wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges, recreational areas, public parks or historic sites in the project study area. Furthermore, a study by a staff biologist has concluded that no federally protected species or their habitat will be affected by the proposal action. Anticipated impacts to a high quality swamp forest will total 1.11 acres for the current proposal (440 foot bridge with a 20 foot vertical clearance). The original proposal (362 foot bridge with+/- 15 foot vertical clearance)would have impacted approximately 1.05 acres of wetland, whereas a 362 foot long bridge with a 20-foot vertical clearance would impact 1.20 acres. Legal Authority Legal authority for the proposal bridge replacement project is found in the General Bridge Act of 1946. As indicated above, application for other state and federal authorizations are underway. The existing bridge and obsolete approachway sections will be demolished and removed immediately upon completion of the replacement structure and its approachways. Construction is scheduled for Summer 1998. Ms. Ann Deaton, Chief December 3, 1997 Page 3 Please find enclosed one (1) original and three (3) copies of the U. S. Coast Guard drawings for the project. Your assistance in expediting this application, including initiation of your public notice, is respectfully requested. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer, at(919) 482-7977. Sincerel , H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/mrt Enclosures cc: Mr. John R. Parker, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh Mr. Terry Moore, Division of Coastal Management, Washington District Office Mr. Mike Bell, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Mr. Raleigh Bland, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., Department of Transportation, Highway Design Branch Mr. D. R. Conner, P. E., Department of Transportation, Division One Mr. M. Randall Turner, Department of Transportation, P & E —.-•-••••• •,gill .. t �i r I - • •� R/ItR • IE10 I 1•.. 1 ,'ul• \ , I , I, 1''• vE •'rwr. N 1/ , 1./f �• '441 140 1,,,7; , i \ %ICCI4C°S / in krip, P , 4 I r u :;; 1 NI. L, 1••1 �1— (1• c, I.I 4:C ... 51 IU.�LAIUE �`1•.. � 1•l. ' VCR.III 1 PROJECT: 8.1070401 •,' \Li ,. .. ElA•.cA r 143 .. / 1 I {.N.A.m. 1 , * SR 1400 SCALE ai /-��' I 0 I 2 3 4 MILES •�WIi •i� 5R14a5 C sR1a•s VI INITY MAP R1443 ...c;• 46 . „.+ • lift RI I,4,1z • t %. 1 --1 — ill L .." ".c eoti r 0 SHEET I OF 3 .\_--'a 30 r v STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RALEIGH SCALE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE 1 o I MILE OVER WICCACON RIVER Imem, Pl. HERTFORD CO NTY SUBMITTED BY : LOCATION M AP CHIEF ENGINEER DRAWN BY : C LEDBETTER DATE ll- CHECKED BY : 4A. VW MS•v DATE : 440'-II3/8' (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE) 80'-0' 90'-0' 89'-IO' 89'-IO' .. 91'-3 3/8' ' 85'-2' HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE I / 3 ,. ., 1 ,/ , -LREV.- TO NC 561� 108 *-00'-00' if , I I EXIST. STRUCTURE TO TO SRI443 :;/ c; I ri :r BE REMOVED (TYP.) :: it :;I \\:: I :: .! .2 .... .2 , ... .2 ...: I o I /' 60 0 20 80 / / Q �N am / u I / SCALE 3c, PLAN N.H.W. EL. 1.6 N.L.W. EL. 1.4 EXISTING FENDER SYSTEM CLEARN VERTICAL (TO BE REMOVED) GP ELEV 2I_994 - , ^ A- - - - APPROX. NATURALGROUND _21.0 STA1(a M CARONA GROUND LINE EL. ± DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PALM 76'-5' CLEAR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE OVER W ICCACON IV ELEVATION HERT FOR C suBwrrrEo err I NOMNEER ,PROJECT : 8.1070401 mow err CD. ER DATE , II•J97 CHECKED Br r CATMpYP51pv DATE r ►/•3,97 FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE USED TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT. 8' 12' !Le 12' ..— 8' 12' I"/FT. 1/4" .F I/4"/Fit. I"/FT. 6I 31 9 I/4 GRADE TO THIS LINE TYPICAL SECTION I'- 6 I/2" 30'- 0" I'- 61/2" Row Y. PROJECT: 8.1070401 . I/4"/FT I/4"/FT. _ j FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE g A Yi( A t ' USED TO FINANCE T HIS PROJECT. T 1 1 T Ii HW• EL. 3.2 I I I I EL.I.6 . I 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 STATE OF NORTH cARoa.0 I,— 11• spi L.L7' 7' 7' 7' I1_ I I" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RAIEIGH 31'— 10" PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BR IDG. OVER WICCACON RIVER HERTFORD COU TY TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION SUBMITTED IEF NGINEER DRAWN Br : C. DBETTER DATE : I1-4 CHECKED BY : 4.A. 7740MPsorJ DATE : II-4- i a e"'SUS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201,RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY December 3, 1997 Mr. Michael D. Smith, Asst. Chief Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 Dear Mr. Smith: SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over the Wiccacon River in Hertford County;( TIP)No. B-1231; State Project No. 81070401; Federal Aid Project No. BRS-5053(2). The Department of Transportation recently reapplied to the U. S. Coast Guard for authorization to proceed with a revised proposal for the subject project. As you are aware, the department's original proposal was to replace the existing 25-foot vertical clearance bridge with a structure that would provide+/- 15 feet of vertical clearance. The proposed length of the new structure would have been 362 feet. Based on objections from adjacent landowners, who argued that the planned reduction in vertical navigation clearance would result in personal hardships, the Coast Guard did not authorize the proposal. The department's original design would have impacted 1.05 acres of forested wetlands, the majority of which is a high quality swamp forest. The department's current proposal is to replace the existing bridge with a structure that will provide 20 feet of vertical navigation clearance. This proposal also includes a longer bridge in order to minimize impacts to high quality forested wetlands. The newly proposed structure will be 440 feet long. Anticipated wetland impacts total 1.11 acres. In evaluating design options, the department considered an alternative that would provide a 20-foot vertical clearance while maintaining the originally proposed bridge length of 362 feet. This structure would have impacted 1.20 acres of wetlands. The decision to lengthen the bridge to 440 feet, at an increased expenditure of approximately $100,000, was made in the interest of minimizing impacts to wetlands. Although the Regulatory Branch approved the department's original proposal under a Nationwide 23 authorization, design revisions necessitated by the Coast Guard have resulted in an increase in impacts to Section 404 wetlands. However, steps have been taken to minimize Mr. Smith December 3, 1997 Page 2 these impacts and, in fact, the department has reduced impact from 1.20 to 1.11 acres by lengthening the proposed replacement structure as described above. In addition, the Department has committed to the removal of all obsolete approachway fills to original contours. By copy of this letter, the department is requesting authorization of its current proposal by the Division of Water Quality under Section 401. Based upon recent discussions with Cindy Bell, the department will be obligated to provide compensatory mitigation for the anticipated 1.11 acres of impacts to wetlands. The department is willing to propose a 1:1 replacement (1.11 acres) from the restoration component at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, or provide $26,640 to the WRP (based upon unit cost of$24,000 per acre for riparian wetland replacement. In a related,but separate matter, the Division of Coastal Management has indicated that the department's current proposal can be reauthorized with a minor CAMA Permit refinement letter. The department will be pursuing this matter in the immediate future. It is assumed that any response the Regulatory Branch intends to make will occur through General Permit 291 coordination. Thank you for the time and effort your staff has invested on this project to date. Hopefully, these efforts will result in a successful project for all interested parties. Should you have any questions or comments, please call Mr. M. Randall Turner at (919) 482-7977. Sincerely, H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/mrt cc: Cindy Bell, Division of Water Quality Bill Brazier, U. S. Corps of Engineers Terry Moore, Division of Coastal Management D. R. Conner, P. E., North Carolina Department of Transportation M. Randall Turner,North Carolina Department of Transportation .• J , ‘ 1.11 \ a " -...... MD ■I I... 1 �;I.'. \ •• ID1 • ,, 11 _- 1.d ' '''..:1• • ( 7 ..I i/ I•q f IM.1 HILLS \ C� RBI 414114 V I 1,1.13 7 t u •-_. 1. • � `uw .7�. :1.. I.! �„ i�S.Rf ,? '• _ •1 � 7 PROJECT: 8.1070401 P51 „, c.c., woe — 5 'fin '',. ,../ ;'; • ,wadi -,._rj 4 11 MKh.aaa \ SR 1400 SCALE V O. I 0 I 2 3 4 MILES 011"/ l t - I I I 1 • •0 SR 11 t 5 o " � $R1445 VICINITY M A P R1443 .'.c; 46 . • Mak 1'F R • I (iblZ", Nil N 1 1 `L . � 4 ,� ,ti it �` SHEET I OF 3 1 t�0 r •,�' `'L- STATE 0► WITH CAROLMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RALEIGH SCALE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE I 0 I MILE OVER WICCACON RIVER omidm , ^ HERTFORD CO NTY SUBMITTED Br : LQ _ I10N M AP CHIEF ENGINEER DRAWN BY : C LEDBETTER DATE : /I- 440'-II %' (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE) 80'-0' ... 90'-0' 89'-10' 89'-I0' 91'-3 %' IT / 85'-2' HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE I / liri — / — 1 a/ / , _ [dA TO NC 561 -LREV. I EXIST. STRUCTURE TO TO SRI443 ::/' ': 1 :: :: ;1 :KBE REMOVED (TYP.) :I \\ V I :., !! !? t! .. , .! - ...: I o I /' 60 0 20 80 3 SCALE ' PLAN N.H.W. EL. 1.6 N.L.W. EL. 1.4 EXISTING FENDER SYSTEM GEAR NCE ICAL (TO BE REMOVED) GP ELEV 21_994 - - •I I\ 9., - -- - - - - - - _ - - - - - - 7 - ,. \ _ .. ..: .. .. 1 ii - - - - - -A _` - _ SHEET 2 GROUND .. NATURAL EL. -210± STAR a Nonni Curaw GROUND LINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 76'-5' CLEAR modsPROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE OVER W ICCACON IV ELEVATION HERTFOR C SUBMITTED Br r I MGINEER AI PROJECT : 8.1070401 DRAWN Br r CD. ER DATE r 1,-3-97 . -- , r.r „4-rn Tn rmI A Pirr Tine nnn irrT CHECKED Br r GATHONPSnw DATE r 1 F•3-97 8' 12' 12' - 8' . 12' \'‘\.7...,,,_..,„,,,,,,,,"„,...,../... .------- I"/FT. I/4'� F . 1/4"/Fir. I"/FT. 6 ! 31 91/4 GRADE TO THIS LINE TYPICAL SECTION I'- 6 1/2" L. 30'- O" I'- 6 1/2" ROW Y. PROD ECT: 8.10704 ( 11 _ I/4"/FT t 1/4"/FT _ 4 FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE c 1 y ) USED TO FINANCE THIS 1 :I k PROJECT. I I 4 _ : I HW• EL. 3.2 1 I I I I E L.I.6 SHEET 3 OF 3 sT*Tn or NORTH CAROCN. 1'- I II 7' 7' 7' 7' 0. .4 I'— I I" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATID 31'- 10" .. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BR 1 OVER WICCACON RIVER HERTFORD COU TY TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION SUBMITTED BY : IEF GINEER DRAWN BY : C. DBETTER DATE : f 1- CHFI'KFD BY : C,A_ 7701•gpsonl D4TF : Il S STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX25201. RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. GOVERNOR March 18, 1997 SECRETARY Commander (OAN) Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District Federal Building 431 Crawford Street Portsmouth, Virginia 23705 ATTN: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Specialist Dear Ms. Deaton: Subject: Hertford County, North Carolina; Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over the LViccacon River; TIP(Transportation Improvement Program) No. B-1231; State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-5053(2) On September 20, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation applied for Coast Guard authorization to replace the subject bridge structure. The Department's proposal is to replace the old (c. 1940) bridge, having a 25-ft. vertical clearance, with a new structure having a 15-ft. vertical clearance.* On July 31, 1996 the Coast Guard notified the Department that the permit would not be approved for the proposed bridge replacement. The Coast Guard's disapproval was stated to be based primarily upon objections from two adjacent property owners. The substance of these objections can be summarized as follows: 1. Property Owner A 's stated intentions to use his Wiccacon River property as a port of refuge for his 52-ft. long sportfishing boat during hurricanes that threaten his permanent port in II/forehead City, and �. Property Owner B's implied future intentions to use barge(s) to haul logs presumably from properly located upstream of the bridge site. In response, the Department feels that, as a matter of public policy, it is imprudent to allow the narrowly-defined interests of one or two landowners to dictate the design parameters of a public transportation facility. The Department must plan, design and build transportation improvements that will safeguard the overall public's interests. It is not *Note: It is important to point out that the vertical clearance of the proposed bridge will be 15 feet above normal water level(NW!.), not 13 ft.-7 in. The 13 ft.-7 in. vertical clearance, noted on drawings and in correspondence provided to the Coast Guard and the Division of Coastal Management, erroneously contrasts the existing 25-ft. vertical clearance, measured at NWT, with the proposed structure's anticipated vertical clearance at a recorded high water elevation. Page Two March 18, 1997 Ms. Deaton uncommon, in fact it is rather routine, for individuals with property interests (present or future) to object to one or more aspects of a transportation proposal. These interests are often sincere, but are narrowly-focused on specific needs and/or demands of one, or a small faction of individuals. Unless these interest coincide with those of the overall public, or unless the objection can be accommodated without compromising project objectives, i.e., safety, transportation integrity, cost, etc., the Department has an overriding obligation to defend its proposal on behalf of the public good. Regarding the first objection (1), there is no question that numerous alternate ports of refuge are available to boatsmen whose home port is Morehead City. To concede to this objection would lend credibility to requests from any adjacent landowner (who might also be part-time residents) to lengthen, shorten, raise or relocate a structure, which is scheduled for replacement, simply because they would not be able to get maximum usage from some aspect of their personal property otherwise. In this instance, the Department is aware that it is proposing to modify an existing use. The Department completed a federal Categorical Exclusion study in 1986, followed by a reevaluation which was published in 1994. The resulting environmental document addressed a full range of topics, including cultural resources, natural resources, social impacts, and air and noise analyses. Interviews with local residents were undertaken to assess trends of waterway usage. The conclusion from these surveys was that only small recreational/pleasure craft up to 22 feet in length were using the waterway. Based upon this study and the response from the public during the public hearing, it was reasonable for the Department to conclude that a lower profile, less disruptive and expensive replacement structure would accommodate the pattern of usage that had been established in the 1980's. All things considered, this objection appears to be without merit. With regard to the second objection (2), it is important to point out that currently only one firm is transporting logs via barges in northeastern North Carolina. According to N. C. Forestry professionals in eastern North Carolina, it is generally not economically feasible to harvest and load logs directly onto barges at a harvest site. Harvested logs are normally transported via surface transportation to staging areas and in some instances it is feasible to load onto barges for final transport to the processor. If the timber stocks are located on flooded swamp forests adjacent to the river, it is unlikely that traditional, mechanized timber harvests would be permissible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Non-traditional harvesting, i.e., helicopter or cabling out via winches to barges, would probably not be practicable. Again, in this instance the Department feels that attempts to accommodate the desires of a local, part-time resident, who may, or may not find it expedient to transport logs in the future from parcels located upstream of the bridge, is to subjugate the overall public's interest. The record will reflect that the Department is always receptive to comments and criticism from individuals or groups of individuals, but, in the final analysis, the interest of the collective public are usually the most compelling. It is on behalf of the larger public interest that the Department petitions the Coast Guard for a review and reevaluation of its permit decision. Page Three March 18, 1997 Ms. Deaton Following a review of all aspects of the subject project, the Department has concluded that is should continue to pursue authorization of its original design. In addition to comments made above, numerous other factors were evaluated in making this decision. These factors are summarized below: • Federal Highway Administration approved Categorical Exclusion for project on April 21, 1994. During the investigation that preceded publication of the Categorical Exclusion document, it was determined that the only water-borne craft which utilized the river were small, recreational boats up to 22 feet in length. Based upon this data, the Department could not justify the expenditure of the additional funds required to purchase excess right of way and construction costs to build a new bridge with the same vertical clearance as the existing structure. • Section 401 Permit was issued on May 13, 1996 by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) of the NC Department of-Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). • Section 10 and Section 404 authorizations issued by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Nationwide 23: CFR 330.5 [a] 23). • Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit was issued on June 26, 1996 by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) of the NCDEHNR. The adjacent landowner notification process is a mandatory prerequisite of the CAMA permit process. The DCM received adverse comments from the adjacent property owners, presumably similar to those received by the Coast Guard. However,the DCM decided to issue a CAMA Major Development Permit on the merits of the proposal, which were ultimately determined to be in the overall publics interest. While the DCM is charged under CAMA to make its permit decisions only after consideration of a wide range of issues, navigation and public trust issues were among the more important factors evaluated during that agency's deliberations. • Elevated bridge design will impact more wetlands. Redesign of the bridge replacement to conform to the existing vertical clearance will necessitate impacts to an additional 10,000 square feet of palustrine forested wetlands. Under the strict application of the 404b(1)guidelines, the Department would have difficulty justifying this additional impact, since its preferred alternative would avoid and/or minimize impacts, as compared to the elevated bridge design. The Department has reason to believe that the Corps of Engineers (Section 404) and the Division of Water Quality (Section 401) would object to the elevated bridge design on the basis of"avoidance/minimization". • Additional design and anticipated construction costs estimated at $189,000 would be needed to accommodate the elevated bridge project, as compared to the recommended design. Page Four March 18, 1997 Ms. Deaton • Additional right of way expenditures are anticipated to accommodate the larger footprint that would be required with the elevated bridge structure. • Project completion date would be delayed more than 1 year from date decision is made to shift to elevated bridge design. This delay will lead to additional cost increases. Under the existing, recommended design, construction letting could be scheduled within weeks of permit approval. It cannot be over-emphasized that the Department has no intentions of initiating a highway improvement project which will not be in the best interest of the general public. Consequently, it is requested the Coast Guard reconsider its previous decision and authorize the project as originally proposed. We believe that when all economic and environmental factors are considered, the alternative selected is in the best interest of our state. Your assistance in expediting this review and reexamination will be appreciated. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. If you need additional information, please call M. Randall Turner at (919) 482-7977. Sincere! , //1 y • ,VICw� H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/eah cc: John Parker, DCM John Dorney, DWQ Michael Bell, COE David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., NCDOT D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT M. Randall Turner, NCDOT