20130039 Ver 1_More Info Received_20130301

.�o,�
�s �„A �
�_� �� �
�Ot ar.+d°��'
� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON
PAT L. MCCRORY
GOVERNOR
TO: Garcy Ward
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Maria A. Rogerson, P.E.
Division Bridge Program Manager
DATE: March l , 2013
��� ��o ��
ANTHONY J. TATA
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge #28 over Crooked Creek on SR l 123 (Field Rd.) in Jones
County
The Department received an email on February 20, 2013, addressing concerns with the above
subject bridge replacement. The current design proposes a 27' 10"x 5' l 0" aluminum box culvert
to replace the existing forty six (46) foot long bridge. I would like to address your concerns as
stated in the letter in order to provide you with a better understanding of why the Department
chose to replace the bridge with pipe instead of a bridge to bridge replacement.
The first concern addressed with the permit application was the impact totals. All the stream
impacts were accounted for and do include the culvert structure. The LF of permanent impacts is
measured from the centerline of the culvert on the road. The dimension of 52 LF is the amount of
impacts north and the dimension of 44 LF is the amount of impacts south from the center of the
structure. Due to the confusion on this application, the Department will try to be more clear of
the permanent impact description on future PCN's. We have corrected the mechanized clearing
to be permanent impacts and will reflect that on revised permit drawings and the PCN. After
looking back at the plans we will now be able to minimize the use of rip rap and remove it from
the inlet of the pipe, therefore, reducing the amount of stream impacts per your comments.
The existing bridge opening is 130 SF. The proposed culvert opening is 89.75 SF. We do realize
that this is a decrease in opening, however the existing road overtops in a 2-yr plus storm event.
The proposed design maintains the current level of service on the roadway. A larger opening or
bridge will have no impact on the level of service since the majority of flow is across the roadway
and not through the opening. If we replaced the bridge with a bridge, it would require a longer
bridge, excavation in the wetlands, an increase in the footprint of the road and therefore
increasing impacts to adjacent wetlands and buffers. The increase in the bridge length would
require additional fill causing the need for CLOMR submittal vs. the MOA approval that can
occur with the pipe.
The actual pipe itself will increase the velocities in the channel from the existing bridge, but only
in the 2 and 5 year storm and just slightly in the remaining storm frequencies that were evaluated.
The HEC-RAS modeling completed for the existing bridge and the proposed pipe the velocities
are shown below for all options: .

Existin B� rid�e
2-Yr 3.45 fps
5-Yr 5.11 fps
10-Yr 4.71 fps
25-Yr 3.64 fps
100-Yr 1.73 fps
Pro�osed ABC
4.90 fps
5.52 fps
4.90 fps
3.99 fps
1.79 fps
RCBC
4.85 fps
6.16 fps
5.62 fps
4.61 fps
2.31 fps
As for the extensive placement of rip rap upstream and downstream of the proposed culvert, we
have reviewed what was proposed and have been able to reduce the impacts. We were able to
remove the proposed rip rap at the inlet which reduced the linear feet of stream impacts from 96
LF of permanent impacts to 72 LF of permanent impacts. This also reduced the amount of
permanent wetland impacts from 2513SF to 2124 SF. With the reduction in armoring of the inlet
we were also able to reduce the amount of buffer impacts. Initially proposed were 1517 SF in
Zone 1 and 108 SF in Zone 2 and now without the inlet rip rap we have reduced it to 1149 SF of
Zone 1 and the same ] 08 SF in Zone 2. �
The Department initially scoped in the field a cored slab bridge. Upon further discussion it was
decided that a pipe would be more applicable in the situation due to several extenuating �
circumstances, some of which have been detailed above. Currently a very sharp curve approaches
the bridge from east and does not meet current design standards. The Department would have
preferred to have straightened the alignment of the road and pave at this location however the
property owners are not amicable in providing the right of way that is necessary to correct this
situation. Under the current pipe replacement we have had to complete a design exception.in
order design a road that does not meet the minimum statutory speed of 55 mph. If we were to
replace the bridge with a bridge, it would require a longer bridge, thus causing more issues with
addressing the road alignment and safety concerns.
As for other alternatives, if we were replace the bridge with a Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
(RCBC) it would, be approximately 2@ 10'x 6', which closely matches the an Aluminum Box
Culvert proposed. The RCBC option would require approximately the same upstream and
downstream channel impacts but would also have higher outlet velocities as compared to the
ABC option as seen in the table previously shown. The RCBC option will also require a longer
construction time since it would be cast in place.
The Department stands by its decision to install an aluminum box culvert at this location vs. a
bridge or any other alternate due to the multiple reasons stated above. In the true sense of
avoidance and minimization we believe that the aluminum box culvert proposed is a much better
solution at this location. We respectfully request that you concur with this decision and approve
the permit with its revisions for an aluminum box culvert at this location so we may proceed with
its construction as planned.
Cc: Tom Steffens, US Army Corps of Engineers
Travis Wilson; Division of Wildlife Resources
Sonia Carrillo, DWQ, TPU
Lang Jones, Division Design Engineer
Jay Johnson, Division Environmental Officer
Dwayne Alligood, P.E., Division Operations Engineer

B. Project Information and P�ior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID}: 176P.2.R.23 Jones 28 Bridge to Pipe Replacement SR
1123 Franck's Field Road over Crooked Run
Latitude:35.037078 Longitude: -
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): 77.372451
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Crooked Run, Tributary of Trent River
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C; Sw; NSW �
2c. River basin: � Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: .
SR 1123, Franck's Field f2oad is a paved secondary highway. Woodlands and agriculture dominate the landscape.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2,124 Sq.Ft. (0.05 Acres) of 404 Wetland Impacts for the bridge to pipe replacement.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
60'. This site is part of a longer adjacent stream system.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Bridge to pipe replacement; the existing bridge has deteriorated and needs replacing.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The existing 46' long timber bridge on timber pilings will be replaced with a proposed 27'-10" x 5'-10" aluminum box
culvert.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property!
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ❑ Yes � No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is�this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

�_
2. Wetland Impacts �
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora T
� Yes � Corps Permanent .007
W1 � P� T Fill ❑ No ❑ DWQ Mechanized
.0094
Permanent
W2 � P� T Fill � Yes � Corps .0027
❑ No ❑ DWQ Mechanized
.0079
Permanent
W3 � P� T Fill � Yes � Corps .0005
. ❑ No ❑ DWQ , Mechanized
.0038
Permanent
W4 � P� T Fill � Yes � Corps .0017
❑ No ❑ DWQ Mechanized
.0157
W5 ❑ P❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P 0 T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps
❑ No ❑ DWQ
Permanent
.0119
2g. Total wetland impacts
Mechanized
• .0368
2h. Comments: 518 Sq.Ft. (.0119 Acres) of Permanent Impacts; 1606 Sq.Ft. (.0368 Acres) of Mechanized Clearing.
2124 Sq.Ft. (0.0487 Acres) total.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 39•
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
Permanent
S1 � P� T RipRap and Pipe Crooked Run � PER ❑ Corps 40, 52'
❑ INT � DWQ Temporary
8'
S2 ❑ P❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P 0 T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
Permanent
S4 � P� T Pipe Crooked Run � PER ❑ Corps 40, 20'
❑ INT � DWQ Tempo�ary
10'
S5 ❑ P❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P❑ T ❑ PER ❑ Corps
❑ INT ❑ DWQ
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: 72 linear feet of Permanent Impacts; 18 linear feet of Temporary Impacts
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem orary (T
01 ❑P❑T '
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P�T `
4f. Total open water impacts none
4g. Comments: No open water impacts
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total none
5g. Comments: none
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? "
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DW�)
If projectwill impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. � Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basiri? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Tem ora T im act re uired?
B1 � P❑ T Fill Crooked Run � Nos 691 0
B2 � P � T Fill Crooked Run � Nos 321 0
B3 � P � T Fill Crooked Run � Nos 105 0
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: See Sheet 7A for Total Buffer Impacts
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
There are 2124 Sq.Ft. of Permanent 404 wetland impacts along with 72 linear feet of permanent stream impacts. There are
also 1149 Sq.Ft. of buffer zone 1 impacts and 108 Sq.Ft. of buffer zone 2 impacts due to the installation of a 27'-10" x 5'-10"
aluminum box culvert.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Use of existing roadway to operate construction equipment; no equipment will enter wetlands.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation fo� ❑ Yes � No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWGi ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this � Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody rype Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
01 ❑P❑T '
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P�T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts -
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individuaily list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamiico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman "
6b. - 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact _
number— Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Tem ora T im act re uired?
61 � P❑ T 64 Fill Crooked Run � NaS 32 108
62 ❑POT ❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T ❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts 1149 108
6i. Comments: 0.026 Acres of Buffer Zone 1 Impacts and .003 Acres of Buffer Zone 2 Impacts
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version