20140591 All Versions_Complete File_20051028

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Nicole Thomson
FROM: Marie Sutton
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridges No. 42 & 43 on US 70 Business over the Neuse
River, Lenoir County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-70B(5), State
Project No. 8.120100 1,
The Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of Highways
has begun studying the proposed replacement of Bridges No. 42 & 43. The project is included in
the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is currently scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 2007 and construction in fiscal year 2008.
The proposed project will replace Bridges No. 42 & 43 on US 70 Business over the Neuse
River. Alternatives typically considered include on-site detours, realignment of the road, or an off-
site detour where one is available. Due to environmental issues and cost considerations, we are
having to strongly consider off-site detours on more projects than ever before. Please include any
comments you may have on the subject bridge replacement, particularly about off-site detours if
available.
This is a Federal-Aid project and any comments will be used in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion evaluating environmental impacts of the proposed project. It is desirable
that any comments be received by November 26, 2005 so that they can be used in the preparation
of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marie Sutton at (919) 733-
7844, ext. 262.
6: ram
Qauw+?
October 25, 2005
O O V?
5
92
N CP
LYNDO TIETT
SECRETARI?_
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WFRCITF' mmw turn1T l1Rl:
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
NORTH CAROLINA
J DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
US X
Replace Bridge No. 42 and No. 43
over Neuse River
Lenoir County, North Carolina
TIP NO. 6-4565
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1
i

w?v
6 yae.,
?ga?iw.6.aos'`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
O?
Or
C L ;
s'?sgr? cp?pi>j.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r? ?;41
MICHAEL F. EAsLEY LYNDO WPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 25, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. John Hennessy
FROM: Marie Sutton
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridges No. 42 & 43 on US 70 Business over the Neuse
River, Lenoir County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-70B(5), State
Project No. 8.1201001, TIP No. 4565
The Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of Highways
has begun studying the proposed replacement of Bridges No. 42 & 43. The project is included in
the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is currently scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 2007 and construction in fiscal year 2008.
The proposed project will replace Bridges No. 42 & 43 on US 70 Business over the Neuse
River. Alternatives typically considered include on-site detours, realignment of the road, or an off-
site detour where one is available. Due to environmental issues and cost considerations, we are
having to strongly consider off-site detours on more projects than ever before. Please include any
comments you may have on the subject bridge replacement, particularly about off-site detours if
available.
This is a Federal-Aid project and any comments will be used in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion evaluating environmental impacts of the proposed project. It is desirable
that any comments be received by November 26, 2005 so that they can be used in the preparation
of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marie Sutton at (919) 733-
7844, ext. 262.
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
I/I ravTF' WIAM/ Nunn r (1R/:
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
US 70.
Replace Bridge No. 42 and No. 43
over Neuse River
Lenoir County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4565
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1
i
Scoping Comments for Bridge Replacements

v
J'
J
TIP Bride County Road/Stream Comments
4415 21 Beaufort NC 32 / Pungo Cr. Channelized stream w/ broad flooplain under bridge. May be
room for on-site detour on E side of bridge w/ minimal
buffer impacts if necessary. Could restore small portion of
flood-plain on N side w/ longer bridge.
4428 140 Beaufort Sr 1626 / UT Canal w/ high steep banks on both sides. May not be suitable
for on-site detour due to private property and buffer/wetland
issues. Longer bridge would not significantly restore
flood lain due to high banks.
4413 51 Beaufort US 264 / Broad Cr Feature appears to be channelized extension of Broad Cr.
Moderate flow. On-site detour may be difficult because of
buffer/wetland issues.
4417 59 Beaufort NC 99 / Jack Creek Bridge too low for boat access other than canoe/jon boat.
Higher bridge would allow for better boat access. On-site
detour may be possible but could run into CAMA/buffer
issues. Channel much wider on both sides of bridge. They
may have brought in fill to allow for shorter bridge?? Longer
bridge could allow for restoration of original channel.
4416 76 Beaufort NC 33 / none Bridge crosses C&N railway ...no stream resent
4604 13 Pitt SR 1753 / Indian Channelized stream w/ strong flow. High banks w/ dirt paths
Wells Swp running along either side. Longer bridge would not
significantly help to restore floodplain/wetlands due to
incised channel and steep banks.
4531 36 Greene SR 1343 / Little Current bridge has deck drains, 6 sets of bents w/ 4 in the
Contentnea Cr. channel. Recommend a longer bridge to restore wetland
floodplain. Also fewer bents in the channel and no drains on
bridge
48 Greene SR 1432 / Wheat Current bridge single bent mid channel. No flow, duckweed
2>? Swp on water. Longer bridge could restore wetland area,
articular) on W side.
4568 67 Lenoir SR 1515 / Falling Low flow. Extensive wetlands/floodplain on both sides of
Cr. bridge. Could restore lots of wetland area w/ longer bridge.
On-site detour not good here due to wetlands and buffers
4570 79 Lenoir SR 1544 / Gum Extensive swamp on N side. Longer bridge could open up
Swam Cr. more wetland area on N side. Hi her ground on S side.
4565 42,43 Lenoir US 70 / Neuse R. Twos an bridge would allow for on-site detour.
O William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`O? QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C/} r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
f3 `C
December 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Marie Sutton
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
From: Nicole Thomson
Transportation Permitting
NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Comments on Various Bridge Replacements, B-4415, B-4428, B-4413, B-4416 and B-
4417 in Beaufort County,
B4604 in Pitt County,
B-4531 and B-4533 in Greene County,
B4468, B-4570 and B-4565 in Lenoir County
In reply to your correspondence dated October 24, 2005 (received October 28, 2005) in which you
requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
L Proiect-Specific Comments
B-4415 Bridize No. 21 over Pun.«; o Creek, Beaufort Co.
1. Pungo Creek are class SC; 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
Pungo 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.
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.
B-4428 Bridize No. 140 over Canal UT to Pante;°o Creek, Beaufort Co.
1. Canal UT to Pantego 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 highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk
of nutrient runoff to Canal UT to Pantego 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.
Nose Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit ? vaturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
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.
B-4413 Bridge No. 51 over Broad Creek, Beaufort Co.
1. Broad Creek are class SC; 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
Broad 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.
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.
B-4417 Bridge No. 59 over Jack Creek, Beaufort Co.
1. Jack Creek are class SC; 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
Jack 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.
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.
B-4416 Bridge No. 76 over C & N Railway. Beaufort Co.
There is no stream feature present at this site. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
B-4604 Bridge No. 13 over Indian Wells Swamp, Pitt Co.
1. Indian Wells Swamp 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
highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Indian Wells 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.
2. 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-4531 Bridge No 36 over Little Contentnea Creek, Greene Co.
1. Little Contentnea Creek are class C; Sw; NSW waters of the State. Little Contentnea Creek is on
the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to impaired biological integrity and low
dissolved oxygen. 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 Little 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.
2. 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-4533 Bridge No. 48 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene Co.
1. Wheat Swamp 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
highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Wheat Swamp 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.
2. 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-4568 Bridge No. 67 over Falling Creek, Lenoir Co.
1. Falling 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
highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Falling 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.
2. 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-4570 Bridge No. 79 over Gum Swamp Creek, Lenoir Co.
1. Gum Swamp 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
highly protective sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of
nutrient runoff to Gum Swamp 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.
2. 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-4565 Bridges No. 42 and 43 over Neuse River, Lenoir Co.
1. Neuse 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
Neuse 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 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.
H. General Comments Rezardiniz Bride Replacement Protects
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.
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. DWQ prefers offsite detours where possible.
8. 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 and4leaving
the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
9. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath
the bridge.
10. 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.
11. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources. '
12. 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.
13. 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 ReylacinQ the BrWe 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 Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecomb, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Steve Sollod, NC DCM
Mr. Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
C:\Coaespondence\Scoping Comments\B-4415, 4428, 440, 4417, Beaufort co. etc.doc