20110269 Ver 1_Complete File_20050617

p?O? W AT ?
r
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: I Christina Breen, NC Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-4503
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:
I Project-Specific Comments
B-4503 Bridjze over Tar River, f4 ecombe Co.
L Tar River 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 Tar
River. 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.
2. This project is within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0259 for a table of allowable
uses.
II General Comments Rewarding Bridke 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
Nose Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Nturali'm
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htty:Hh2o enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
r
Q
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.
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 Replaciniz the Bridize 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].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
File Copy

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
4q y ai/
ryFr o f `?' I
NOS aR cy ` ?00
qN0`? ?RRPUq Jr
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9)4
?Cy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 20, 2005
Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
SUBJECT: SR 1250 (Springfield Road) Bridge Replacement over Tar River
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.2291501 (B-4503); WBS Element 33734.1.1
F.A. No. BRSTP-1250(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 the subject project. As an integral part of this study, we are soliciting
input from agencies and individuals concerning the potential impacts of the proposed
improvements on any structure or feature within the project area and the impacts this
project may have on the social, economic, cultural, physical or biological conditions in
the area. Attached is a location map for your information and reference.
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as TIP No. B-4503. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
Fiscal Year 2007 and construction in Fiscal Year 2008. The scope of the project consists
of replacement of the bridge. This replacement will result in safer traffic operations.
Rehabilitation of the existing structure does not appear to be a feasible option due to its
age and deteriorating condition.
Alternatives that will be studied for the project include:
1. Do Nothing/No-Build
2. Replace the existing structure on existing location with off-site detour
3. Replace the existing structure on existing location with on-site detour to the west
4. Replace the existing structure on new location to the west, utilizing the existing
structure to maintain 2-lane, 2-way traffic pattern
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBS/TE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
r
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts associated with
the bridge replacement project. Please note that there will be no formal interagency
scoping meeting for this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping
comments related to the subject project. In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts
of the proposed project, 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 effort 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,
GregdyJ. TraDepartfnent e, Ph. J., Environmental Management Director
North Carolof Transportation
GJT/j s 1
Attachment

I r
I ?
1
1 :N?4
e
L
I
Ica-
- r-1
1 i? : I ?I ? railer
NC 97 B,

S 'mss°' \ r Not to Scale
on''S•rr?7? ? --`_tt? 3 p?w?t ?:v A I s ?' y _. `j' 1 -
OO? 1 {- ul ? erosal r.a ? ? G-E ,O _8.. .,
i._°• t
M.,.A
awxi?. ?.: ? •4r? ?' v c
son' L yw ,
North Carolina Vicinity Map `-• . S° _
RALPH WHITEHEAD
ASSOCIATES, INC.
SR 1250 (Springfield Road) Bridge Replacement over
Tar River Site Location
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.2291501 (B-4503) FIGURE 1
F.A. No. BRSTP-1250 (2)

BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE: May 20, 2005
PROJECT TIP NUMBER: B-4503
STRUCTURE: 320007
COUNTY: Edgecombe
FACILITY NAME: SR 1250
BODY OF WATER: Tar River
DIVISION NO.: 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project involves the removal and replacement of a bridge over Waters of the
United States. Bridge No. 7 over Tar River on SR 1250 was constructed in 1954
and is 238 feet long and 26.4 feet wide. Bridge No. 7 has a sufficiency rating of
42.4.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 7 is reinforced concrete floor on I-beams. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on steel piles.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
The existing bridge can be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the
United States. However, maximum potential
fill is 170 cubic yards.
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
C; NSW
None anticipated for this project
USFWS list of Endangered and Threatened
Species in Edgecombe County:
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered)
Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)
1p <
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 the proposed replacement of the bridge on SR
1250 crossing the Tar River (TIP No. B-4503) in Edgecombe 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:
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.htmi .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. 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 vicinity for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine
presence or absence of the species. At a minimum, a mussel survey should be conducted for the Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The Tar spinymussel is present in other portions of the Tar River,
thus its presence near the project area cannot be ruled out. Mussel surveys must, at a minimum, extend
400 meters downstream and 100 meters upstream of the project boundaries.
If you determine that the proposed action 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 action 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 this project, 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 this project
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;
s-
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 this project. Please continue to advise us during
the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of this
project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32.
S' c r
Pete Zj?a?mir
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