20091232 Ver 1_Scoping Comments_20050705

F WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
?O RQ William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r? r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
y Division of Water Quality
July 5, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Hennessy;Cw
From: Christina Breen tip)
Subject: Comments on Various Bridge Replacements, B-4680, B-4682 in Wilson County.
In reply to your correspondence dated May 20, 2005 (received June 9, 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-4680 Bridge over Whiteoak Swamp. Wilson Co.
Whiteoak Swamp are class C, Sw, NSW waters of the State.DWVQ is very concerned with sedimentation
and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ r ommends that the most protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Whiteoak
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. 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-4682 Bridge' over Contentnea Creek, Wilson Co.
Contentnea Creek are class C, Sw, NSW waters of the State. 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
Contentnea Creek. 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 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX 919-7&W931 Internet: httpl/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
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 ba planted with a spacing of riot 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 Replacing the Bridge 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 br placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders oAtructures 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: Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Bill Biddlecome, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
C:\Comspondence\Scoping Comments\070505Nmh
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
May 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Various Bridge Replacements
Wilson County, North Carolina
State Project Nos.:
8.2342201 (B-4680); WBS Element 33834.1.1, F.A. No. BRZ-1507(3)
8.2342301 (B-4682); WBS Element 33835.1.1, F.A. No. BRSTP-1628(1)
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 DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA sposq?os?glF j?/?j5. GIj
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDVTYkt'PETT
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOTORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Alternatives that will he studied for each of the nroiects include the following:
B-4680 B-4682
TIP No. (Figure 1 (Figure 2
Route No. SR 1507 SR 1628
Over Whiteoak Swamp Contentnea Creek
Replace in place with off-site Replace in place with off-site detour
Alternative 1
detour
Replace in place with on-site Staged construction
Alternative 2 detour to the west
o nothing/No-build o nothing/No-build
Alternative 3
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.
Sincerely,
Gr'ekory J?Ahorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
GJT/jsl
Attachment
N
t

B-4680

s
i
Not to Scale
North Carolina Vicinity Map
_ J -
y RALPH WHITEHEAD
• • NJJVMIHI CJIIYIr.
SR 1507 Bridge Replacement over Whiteoak Swamp
Wilson County, North Carolina Site Location
State Project No. 8.2342201 (B-4680) FIGURE 1
F.A. No. BRZ-1507(3)

Not to Scale

North Carolina Vicinity Map
SR 1628 Bridge Replacement overContentnea Creek
Wilson County, North Carolina Site Location
State Project No. 8.2342301 (B-4682)
F.A. No. BRSTP-1628(1) FIGURE 2
T-
W RALPH WHITEHEAD
ASSOCIATES, INC.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT TIP NUMBER:
STRUCTURE:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER:
DIVISION NO.:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
May 20, 2005
B-4680
970122
Wilson
SR 1507
Whiteoak Swamp
This project involves the removal and replacement of a bridge over Waters of the
United States. Bridge No. 122 over Whiteoak Swamp on SR 1507 was
constructed in 1953 and is 87 feet long and 25.4 feet wide. Bridge No. 122 has a
sufficiency rating of 36.1.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 122 is a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists. The substructure consists of timber caps and timber piles at various centers
for both interior and exterior bents.
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 Wilson County:
Bald Eagle (Threatened - PD)
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered)
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Endangered)
Michaux's Sumac (Endangered)
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT TIP NUMBER:
STRUCTURE:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER:
DIVISION NO.:
May 20, 2005
B-4682
97002
Wilson
SR 1628
Contentnea Creek
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project involves the removal and replacement of a bridge over Waters of the
United States. Bridge No. 2 over Contentnea Creek on SR 1628 was constructed
in 1951 and is 165 feet long and 25.4 feet wide. Bridge No. 2 has a sufficiency
rating of 47.4.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 2 is a reinforced concrete floor on I-beams. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
The existing bridge can be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the
United States. However, maximum
potential fill is 90 cubic yards.
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
C; Sw, NSW
None anticipated for this project
USFWS list of Endangered and Threatened
Species in Wilson County:
Bald Eagle (Threatened - PD)
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered)
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Endangered)
Michaux's Sumac (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 1507 crossing of Whiteoak Swamp (TIP No. B-4680) and SR 1628 crossing
of Contentnea Creek (TIP No. B-4682) in Wilson County, North Carolina. 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).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
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;
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.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 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" 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;
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 [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely;
Pete Benj" " amm
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson/Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC