20091148 Ver 1_Information Letter_20050531

!?1 e..swFo? ?V
Q?
?N-9,ypFN ?1 .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?`4Np TArFk S-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By??
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO l IPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 20, 2005
Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Various Bridge Replacements
Wayne County, North Carolina
State Project Nos.:
8.2331801 (B-4672); WBS Element 22827.1.1, F.A. No. BRZ-1537(4)
8.2331901(B-4673); WBS Element 33828.1.1, F.A. No. BRZ-1728(2)
Dear Ms. Thomson:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch is conducting planning, environmental and engineering
services and preparing a Planning Report/Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed
improvements on each of the above-listed subject projects. As an integral part of these
studies, we are soliciting input from agencies and individuals concerning the potential
impacts of the proposed improvements on any structure or feature within each of the
project areas and the impacts each of these projects may have on the social, economic,
cultural, physical or biological conditions in the area. Attached are location maps for your
information and reference.
Each of the above-listed projects is included in the Draft 2006-2012 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 2007 and construction in Fiscal Year 2008 for both bridges. The scope of each of
the projects consists of replacement of the respective bridges. These replacements will
result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of the existing structures does not appear
to be a feasible option due to their ages and deteriorating conditions.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOTORG
s
I•
Alternatives that will be studied for each of the projects include the following:
B-4672 B-4673
TIP No. (Figure 1 (Figure 2
Route No. SR 1537 SR 1728
Over Nahunta Swamp Walnut Creek
Replace in place with off-site Replace in new location to the east using
Alternative 1 detour existing bridge to maintain two-lane/two-
way traffic pattern
Replace in place with on-site Replace in place with on-site detour to the
Alternative 2 detour to the east east
Alternative 3 o nothing/No-build o nothing/No-build
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts associated with
each of the bridge replacement projects. Please note that there will be no formal
interagency scoping meeting for any of these projects. This letter, therefore, constitutes
solicitation for scoping comments related to each of the subject projects. In order that we
may fully evaluate the impacts of each of the proposed projects, it is requested that you
respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed project
relating to the interest of your agency. For the study efforts to stay on schedule and for
your input to be included, please respond by June 15, 2005.
Please direct your comments to:
Ms. Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[e-mail]
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this project, please
contact Ms. Freeman at [phone], ext. 227.
, Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
GJT/jsl
Attachment
n
J?
O
SR 1537 (Airport Rd.) Bridge Replacement
over Nahunta Swamp Site Location
Wayne County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.2331801 (B4672) FIGURE 1
F.A. No. BRZ-1537(4)
North Carolina Vicinity Map RALPH WHITEHEAD
ASSOCIATES, INC.
SR 1728 Bridge Replacement over Walnut Creek
Wayne County, North Carolina Site Location
State Project No. 8.2331901 (B4673)
F.A. No. BRZ1728(2) FIGURE 2
North Carolina Vicinity Map
C.
WARALPH WHITEHEAD
SSOCIAATESTES.. I NC.
ASSO
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT TIP NUMBER:
STRUCTURE:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER:
DIVISION NO.:
May 20, 2005
B-4672
95037
Wayne
SR 1537
Nahunta Swamp
4
4f 0%,
n
c te v"
'sl?FP? 1? ?U3O
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project involves the removal and replacement of a bridge over Waters of the
United States. Bridge No. 37 over Nahunta Swamp on SR 1537 was constructed
in 1951 and is 87 feet long and 25 feet wide. Bridge No. 37 has a sufficiency
rating of 29.8.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 37 is a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists. The substructure consists of timber caps and timber piles at various
centers.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL: The existing bridge can be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the
United States. However, maximum
potential fill is 50 cubic yards.
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
C; Sw, NSW
None anticipated for this project
USFWS list of Endangered and Threatened
Species in Wayne County:
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered)
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT TIP NUMBER:
STRUCTURE:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER:
DIVISION NO.:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
May 20, 2005
B-4673
950120
Wayne
SR 1728
Walnut Creek
This project involves the removal and replacement of a bridge over Waters of the
United States. Bridge No. 120 over Walnut Creek on SR 1728 was constructed in
1971 and is 90 feet long and 30.6 feet wide. Bridge No. 120 has a sufficiency
rating of 24.5.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 120 is prestressed portland concrete channels.
The substructure consists of prestressed portland cement caps on timber piles.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
The existing bridge can be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the
United States. However, the maximum
potential fill is 650 cubic yards
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
C; NSW
None anticipated for this project
USFWS list of Endangered and Threatened
Species in Wayne County:
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered)
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 10, 2005
Ms. Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Freeman
This letter is in response to Dr. Gregory Thorpe's request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental effects of two proposed bridge replacements: SR 1537
crossing of Nahunta Swamp (TIP No. B-4672) and SR 1728 crossing of Walnut Creek (TIP No. B-4673)
in Wayne County, North Carolina. These comments provide seeping 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).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer 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/countyfr.litml .
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of listed species near the vicinity of B-4672. The NCNHP database does show a 1995
occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) approximately 0.4 mile west of B-4673.
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 action 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" altemative;
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
these projects. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919)
856-4520, ext. 32.
Si ce
Pete BjttIamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USAGE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson/Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

O?OF N1A7F9PG
r
O --
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
June 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colista Freeman, P.E., NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: 6Christina Breen, NC Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-4672, and
B-4673
In reply to your correspondence dated May 20, 2005 (received May 31, 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-4672 Bridle over Nahunta Swamp, Wayne Co.
Nahunta Swamp are class C, Sw, NSW waters of the State. Nahunta Swamp is on the 303(d) list for
impaired use for aquatic life due to impaired biological integrity. DWQ is very concerned with
sedimentation and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff
to Nahunta 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 213 .0224(2) and 15A NCAC 2H. 1006. This project is within the
Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
possible. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for a table of allowable uses.
B-4673 Bridge over Walnut Creek (Lake Wackena), Wayne Co.
Walnut Creek (Lake Wackena) are class C, NSW waters of the State. Walnut Creek (Lake Wackena) is
on the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to impaired biological integrity. DWQ is very
concerned with sedimentation and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends
that the most protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Walnut Creek (Lake Wackena). 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. This
project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to the
greatest extent possible. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for a table of allowable uses.
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.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 276991650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
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 pattem. 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 orstructures 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].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
File Copy