20120240 Ver 3_More Info Received_20130305

A �
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
March 5, 2013
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Greg Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699 -1598
Subject: Request for Modification to Individual Section 404 and Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed improvements to NC 24 from SR 1853 (John Nunnery Rd.) in Cumberland County to US 421 -
701 /SR 1296 (Sunset Avenue) in Sampson County. Federal Aid Project number STPNHF-F-8-2(17)-
133(3), WBS No 34416, TIP No R -2303C and D, DWQ Project No 12- 0240v.3
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for making
an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
R -2303C Application
1. Permit Drawing 8 of 75, cross section 734 +90.46 shows 6:1 slopes at this jurisdictional crossing. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
2. Please provide cross sections for Sta. 752 +00 to 766 +00 (Sites 3 and 4).
3. Permit drawing 16 of 75, cross section 774 +00 shows 4:1 slopes at this jurisdictional crossing. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
4. Plan Sheet 8 (not permit drawing set), shows a PDE in wetlands that is not addressed in permit drawings or
application. Please clarify.
5. Permit drawing 27/28 of 75, drainage feature below wetland at site 8 is labeled as a non jurisdictional
stream. This feature is not indentified on jurisdictional resources mapping and no impacts have been noted
in application. Please clarify. If feature is a ditch, please label it accordingly.
6. Permit drawing 27/28 of 75, Site 9 shows wetlands impacts' within —D7 -, this was brought up at 4C and
was never clarified. Please clarify. If wetlands do exist within existing —D7 -, can —D7- be relocated
outside of wetlands?
7. Permit drawing 34 -35 of 75. Impact summary sheet list 315 If of stream impacts at Site 11, however the
permit drawing scale indicates approximately 190 If of stream impact. Please clarify.
8. Permit drawing 37 of 75, cross section shows 4:1 slopes at this jurisdictional crossing. Your application
states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in jurisdictional
areas. Please correct.
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617 One
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] �%,laturalllJ
Internet: www.ncwaterauality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

9. Permit drawing 38/39 of 75, please label equalizer pipes and add a note that they are to be place at natural
ground elevation.
10. Permit drawing 48 of 75, cross section 980 +00 shows 4:1 slopes at this jurisdictional crossing. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
11. Permit drawing 51 of 75, shows 4:1 slopes on the outlet of this jurisdictional crossing. Your application
states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in jurisdictional
areas. Please correct.
12. Permit drawing 62 of 74, appears that a single 24" pipe will be replaced with twin 36" pipes. The 401 will
be conditioned as follows: "if multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural
stream cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills
where appropriate. 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." Provide a detail or cross section on how DOT
will comply with this condition. This has been an issue on several projects that are under construction and
has required field modifications.
13. Permit drawing 70 of 75, shows 5:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources at Sta. 1092 +00.
Your application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
14. Impact summary sheet PD 73 -75 of 75. The purpose of adding permanent and temporary non- mitigable
impacts columns is unclear. Please remove these columns for the spreadsheet and add these impacts the
appropriate "SW Impact' columns which would be consistent with B & D sections.
15. Table 3 in the permit application states that there was an increase of 1.92 acres of wetland impacts within
Section C over the preliminary estimates provided in the original application. Please provide a summary of
where and why this increase in wetlands impacts has occurred.
16. Utility drawings do not appear to have been updated with the revised JD. Please correct.
17. Utility permit drawing 5 of 10 notes 0.028 acres of HC at Site U9, however the Impact Summary Sheet
(UPD 10 of 10) only list 0.017 acres of HC at Site U9. Please correct.
18. Utility permit drawing 8 of 10, Site U -13 is a total take on roadway permit drawings. This impact does not
need to be accounted for twice. Please correct.
19. Utility permit drawing 10 of 10 list permanent fill impacts in hundredths and the total in thousandths.
Please correct.
20. Sheet 2 -J, Details 28, 30 & 32, please show coir fiber matting in detail as shown in Detail K on Sheet 2E in
the Section D permit drawings.
21. Please categorize stream impact sites as perennial or intermittent.
R -2303D Application
1. Site 1, Permit drawing 5/6 of 79, no stream impacts are list for Site 1 in the impact summary sheet, Sheet
77 of 79. Please clarify.
2. Site 2, Permit drawing 77 of 79, provide linear feet of impact for bank stabilization in impact summary.
3. Site 4, Permit drawing 10 /11 of 79, label equalizer pipes and note that pipes to be placed at natural ground
elevation (not buried).
4. Site 7, Permit drawing 19 of 79, shows 4:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
5. Site 7, Permit drawing 20 of 79, shows 4.86:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources at Sta.
1197 +50. Your application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will
be used in jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919 - 807 -63001 FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterguality.oro
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Natura!!rf

6. Site 12, Permit drawing 27/28 of 79, the permit drawing does not show rip rap bank stabilization which is
depicted in Detail L for the outlet. The "TS" shown on the inlet is not listed in the impact summary sheet.
No "TS" is shown on the outlet for dewatering measures, bypass and etc. Please clarify.
7. Site 13, Permit drawing 31/32 of 75. The impacts numbers listed in the impact summary sheet do not
match the scaled impacts on the permit drawings. Please clarify.
8. Site 13, Permit drawing 34 of 79. Shows 4:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources. Your
application states in the "Minimization -and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
9. Sites 14/15, Permit drawing 40 of 79. Shows >3:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
10. Site 16 and 19, Permit drawing 78 of 79, typically excavation in a marginal wetland area for the purpose
restoring a natural wetland elevation is considered a temporary impact and should be noted accordingly in
the impact summary sheet and in Table 4 of your application. Please confirm with Corps before making
this change.
11. Site 18, Permit drawings 42 -48, temporary impacts are proposed for a work causeway to aid in the
construction of the bridge. Please provide description of this temporary fill and what measure the
Department is taking to ensure that permanent impacts won't occur at this site. If the Department is
proposing temporary fill in this area please provide a restoration and monitoring plan for this site.
12. Site 22, Permit drawing 79 of 79, pipe removal is not considered NSD, however if agreeable with both the
Corps and DWQ, the removal of 56 If of pipe could be noted at the bottom of the impact summary sheet
and used to partially offset the new impacts at this site.
13. Site 22, Permit drawing 66 of 79, shows 4:1 slopes extending out into jurisdictional resources. Your
application states in the "Minimization and Avoidance" section states that 3:1 slopes will be used in
jurisdictional areas. Please correct.
14. Sites 21, Permit drawing 68/69 of 79, impacts are to a wetland; however the permit drawing as ponds
labeled on the site. Please clarify.
15. Site 24, Permit drawing 75 of 79, depicts a rip pad in the stream; however the impact summary sheet
indicates fill and bank stabilization impacts. Please clarify.
16. Site 14 & 15, Permit drawing 38 of 79, shows bank excavation at pipe outlets rather than rip rap bank
stabilization as noted in Detail J. Please clarify.
17. Utility drawing for Site 2 was not included in the application.
General Comments on Application
Stream Impact Enumeration in Impact Summary — Based on conversations with the Hydraulics Unit and NES, all
permanent stream impacts beyond the culverts in this application is being list as bank stabilization. For clarification
purposes and to assist DOT in potentially reducing mitigation needs, DWQ offers the following comments:
Bank stabilization impacts should only be listed when armoring banks with a hardened material like rip rap.
DWQ consider hard armoring of the banks a permanent impact and if the length of the structure and rip rap
banks is equal to or greater than 150 If, mitigation will be required.
If the proposed work is to only lay back vertical banks and stabilize with soft armoring like coir fiber
matting and you are maintaining the typical width and depth of the stream channel, the Department
considers this as a temporary impact which would not require stream mitigation.
If the proposed work requires minor widening of the stream to accommodate the opening of the structure it
should be considered a permanent impact directly associated with the structure and added to the permanent
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterouality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
;Vatumlly

impacts of the structure. If the linear foot of the channel modification and structure is equal to or greater
than 150 If, mitigation will be required.
If the proposed culvert is substantially wider than the receiving stream, DWQ requires floodplain benches
and /or sills to maintain stream dimension. If this is accomplished with existing native earth material and no
hard armoring is proposed, it is considered a temporary impact and should be accounted for accordingly. If
hard armoring is required within the stream channel, it should be listed as'a permanent impact associated
with the structure.
Temporary Channel Impacts should be shown on both ends of any permanent channel impacts to allow the
contractor to install BMP's to work in the dry. Some sites did not have temporary impacts on both ends of
the proposed work nor were they listed in the impact summary.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a) (5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. You have 21 days to respond in writing with the requested information or
notification to this office that the information is forthcoming. If, at the end of the 21 days, this office has not
received this information in writing, we will assume you are withdrawing your application and it will be returned.
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 place the permit application on hold.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mason Herndon at (910) 308 -4021 or
mason.herndon @ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Charles Wakild
Director
cc: Brad Shaver, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Stoney Mathis, Division 3 Environmental Officer
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Jordon, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Carrillo, DWQ Central Regional Office
File Copy
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617 One
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] �%,latura!!l�
Internet: www.ncwatemualitv.oro
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer