20141132 All Versions_Other Documents_20080910

f \N A
Michael E. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
t' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(� `C Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 10, 2008
To: Rob Ridings, DWQ Central Office, Transportation Permitting Unit
From: Polly Lespinasse, DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Concurrence Meeting 2A/4A for TIP Project R -2501, US1 from Sandhill Road (SR 19` 1)
to Marston Road (SR 1001), Richmond County
Rob, here are my comments for the upcoming concurrence meeting on September 18, 2008, for the above
referenced project. As stated earlier, I don't have any historic information on this project so you may want
to check the central files to see if there were any commitments that were made,
• All streams are Class C with the exception of Falling Creek (WS -III) and Chock Creek (WS -I11).
None of the streams are 303d listed.
• Site S3, Structure 1: The cost of the bridge is considerably more than the culvert. Is this due to the
length required because of the skew? Don't know the quality of the stream(s). The only data
provided is the stream score. Again, I don't have any files on this and have not seen the project in
the field.
Site 510, Structure 5: Looks like there will be two bridges (2 different crossings)? Explore if there is
any opportunity for some interchange realignment. Also, if the alternative proposes two (2) bridges,
is there an opportunity for at least one (1) bridge or is there a grade issue. This interchange has big
impacts to both streams and wetlands. There appears to be about 300 feet of stream between the
two (2) proposed culverts. The total amount of impact per the document is 1,233 feet. Does this
include the 300 feet between the culverts? I have seen other merger team members require the
open area between culverts and fill slopes to be considered impact. 300 feet seems like a decent
amount of stream, so I'm not sure how they typically view it.
• Site S10, Structure 6: Not enough detail provided in the document to comment appropriately.
• Site 520, Structure 9: Stream impacts equal 87 feet with the culvert extension. Bridge costs
approximately $600,000 more. I don't have a huge problem with the extension.
• Site W9, Structure 2: The tables indicate that the existing culverts will be retained. Impacts are 0.71
acres. Will the culverts be extended? Where are the impacts coming from?
• Site W11, Structure 3: The cost difference for the bridge is not substantial, so the preference would
be a bridge. The wetland scored a 42 and the impact acreage is 0.76 of the total 7.98 acres.
However, the impacts for the bridge are the same as for the culvert. This is confusing. Typically,
impacts are reduced by the construction of a bridge. If the impacts are truly the same, then I don't
have a preference with respect to the bridge.
Mailing Address Phone [phone] Location
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Fax [phone] East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115 Mooresville, North Carolina
Internet: www.newatertluality.orS Customer Service 1- 877 -623 -6748
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
Na thCarolina
Amurally

• Site W14, Structure 4: This wetland scored a 74. There is only a slight impact reduction with two (2)
bridges. Explain why the impacts are not more significantly reduced prior to recommending bridge
vs. culvert.
• Site W26, Structure 7: This one is confusing to me. I believe it shows bridges for both alternatives.
There are approximately 8 acres of wetland impact proposed for the first alternative and no impacts
for the second alternative. Obviously, this is a big difference.
• Site W37, Structure 8: This is another site where the impacts to the wetland do not appear to be
greatly reduced by the construction of a bridge (approximately 0.25 acres). Please get clarification.
• Site S1: The amount of stream impact is 451 feet. This site shows extensions of 115 feet total.
Where are the other 330 feet of impact coming from?
• Sites S9 and S13: The amount of stream impact for these sites is 523 feet and 353 feet
respectively. Is there any way to reduce these impacts?
• Sites W18 and W21 are part of the interchange referenced above. There are 5.26 and 8.03 acres of
impacts to these wetlands (the scores were 65 and 56). Is there any way to reduce these impacts?
• Site W24: Impact is 2.46 acres. The score is 49. Any impact reduction would be good.
I hope this makes sense. Thanks again for helping me out!