20160525 Ver 1_Bridge 300278 PCN_20160531

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Frank Fleming <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Steenhuis, Joanne
Cc: Westphal, Anneliese; Carpenter,Kristi; [e-mail]; Reid Robol; Heather
Smith
Subject: RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Thanks Brad
I will have to discuss this with the Hydraulics Unit. I will be in touch.
Thanks
fff
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Frank Fleming; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Reid Robol; Heather Smith
Subject: RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Frank,
I have reviewed the bridge survey report, field scoping meeting summary, and my field notes. First, it appears to me that
you are making impacts to wetlands along the south bank of Buck Branch that have not been captured. My field notes as
well as the scoping summary anticipated these wetland impacts.
Secondly, the issue surrounding our regional condition 3.6. According to the scoping summary (Mr. Herndon) indicated
that the existing stream channel measures 14'-16' wide coming to the bridge, this is further confirmed by field notes
from 9/17/2013. That being the baseline to drop in a twin 12' wide boxes would nearly double the stream width and
would not be in compliance with condition 3.6, "The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below a
pipe or culvert should not be modified by widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream in
connection with the construction activity."
I understand that flooding is a real concern but would it be possible to remove the low flow barrel sill both on the inlet
and outlet, add six inches to the high flow barrel inlet and remove the outlet sill. This way you could create a small bench
in front of the high flow barrel and encourage all the water to transport through the low barrel during low flow
conditions. This would best mimic the current situation and remain in compliance with the Corps regional conditions.
I have discussed this with the State and DWR has indicated that Water Quality Certification 3886 contains general
condition #13 which states that the original stream profile cannot be altered.
If we find ourselves at an impasse I would recommend a meeting or conference call with NCDOT-Division 3, DWR, and
the Corps.

I know this is not the answer you were seeking but the conditions are pretty clear and I can't recall a time we have
waived the stream profile condition for the eight years I have been the NCDOT project manager.
I will be in the field tomorrow and Thursday but should return to the office on Friday. I will do my best to keep up with
any email exchanges while in the field.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Fleming [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 4:03 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Reid Robol
<[e-mail]>; Heather Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Brad
Attached is the Culvert Survey Report (CSR) for the project. The approved report is proposing a sill at the inlet and
outlet on both barrels.
Please note that we tried multiple structure types on this project. We tried spanning structures (bridge/aluminum box
culvert) and different culvert barrel configurations. This project is not in a FEMA regulated flood zone but we do have
insurable structures upstream. This recommended size was the best fit for the site while not significantly increasing
flooding on upstream property owners. The site is overtopping in less than the 50 year storm and therefore standards
for bridge rails did not allow for a bridge to be considered because it caused a rise in the flood waters upstream. We
didn't want to go with a wider structure because it didn't fit the site. The existing bridge spans 36.0' while the
recommended box spans 24' which is closer to the natural channel conditions.
I respectfully request to consider approval of the structure replacement, in that, we cannot recommend a replacement
that will cause additional backwater on upstream insurable structures and if we raise the sill on the south barrel we
would do just that.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you like to discuss further.
Thanks and have a great Memorial Day weekend.
fff
Frank F. Fleming, PE, Senior Project Manager
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP � 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518

p 919.557.0929 � c 919.815.7016 � Blockedhttp://www.ecologicaleng.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Reid Robol
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:05 PM
To: Frank Fleming
Subject: FW: Bridge 300278 PCN
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Heather Smith; Steenhuis, Joanne
Cc: Reid Robol; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Heather,
Thank you for the updated information. I was out in the field yesterday with Mason and Joanne and we briefly discussed
this project. I had some questions about the channel running under the bridge and had questioned whether or not it
may be more appropriate to place an inlet sill on the south barrel to maintain the existing stream profile and dimension
(condition of both the nationwide permit and general water quality certification).
I think the bridge survey report may help resolve this question as it provides additional survey information from the site.
Do you think you could get your hands on this and provide to Joanne and I both the first of next week?
This again stems from the plan view drawing showing that you are dropping in a box on top of something not depicted
as stream channel located along the south barrel.

If you believe that a sill may be appropriate please go ahead and have the designers correct the drawing otherwise, we
can continue the discussion with the Bridge Survey Report in hand. Below is the condition from our regional conditions;
3.6 Safe Passage Requirements for Culvert Placement For all NWPs that involve the construction/installation of culverts,
measures will be included in the construction/installation that will promote the safe passage of fish and other aquatic
organisms. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below a pipe or culvert should not be modified
by widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream in connection with the construction activity. The
width, height, and gradient of a proposed culvert should be such as to pass the average historical low flow and spring
flow without adversely altering flow velocity. Spring flow should be determined from gage data, if available. In the
absence of such data, bank full flow can be used as a comparable level.
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Smith [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:08 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Reid Robol <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Brad,
Please see our response to questions from the original permit package submittal.

1. Bridge to culvert projects cannot go through the low impact bridge replacement process, they must go through the
normal Nationwide permitting process. Please revise the cover letter accordingly.
Cover letter has been revised. Please see attached revised permit package dated 2016-5-23.
2. This project will also require written approval from DWR under NW 14/WQC 3886. Please provide information in
your cover letter authorizing DWR to debit the required permit fee for processing the application. You will also need to
send an electronic copy of the revised application to Kristi Lynn Carpenter with the Transportation Permitting Branch in
DWR at [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > so she can process the permit fee
and assign the application a DWR project number.
Information has been included in the cover letter and Kristi Lynn Carpenter is copied on this permit package email.
Please number and date the permit drawings.
Date and sheet numbers have been added.
4. Mitigation for permanent stream impacts will be required by the Corps of Engineers. An acceptance letter from
DMS accepting responsibility for the mitigation requirements needs to be included in the permit package.
A letter from DMS has been included in the attached revised permit package dated 2016-5-23.
5. The permanent stream impacts listed on the WIS and PCN do not match. The PCN list 36 If of permanent stream
impacts whereas the WIS list 39 If of permanent stream impacts. Please correct.
The permanent stream impacts have been changed to 361f.

6. Please provide justification for the 70 If of bank stabilization proposed on this project. Based on the photos
provided and our field notes the banks appear to be well vegetated and stabile, and this impact should be avoided or
minimized.
In the immediate area of the wing construction the banks will be disturbed. In order to provide a smooth transition
from the end of the wings/culvert back to the natural top of banks, the existing banks need to 'laid back' on an
appropriate slope and stabilized with rip rap. There will also be ditch construction at the outlet of the relocated drive
which warrants rip rap stabilization.
7. Please provide justification for the wetland impacts associated with the driveway relocation. In your discussion
please, justify why the current driveway cannot be utilized and what other options for access were considered. For
example are there any other access points to this parcel or other upland alternatives?
The driveway relocation is required, due to guardrail requirements for the proposed culvert. In an effort to minimize
impacts to the surrounding wetlands, minimum length shop curved guardrail is being utilized to provide the necessary
impact protection for the proposed culvert. This allows the driveway connection to be as close to the existing driveway
location as possible, which helps to minimize the impacts to the surrounding wetlands.
Additional options were considered, such as trying to maintain the existing driveway location. This required ending the
guardrail on top of the proposed culvert, with this design a GRAU-350 guardrail anchor unit is required. The GRAU-350
anchor unit requires a breakaway post which can not be attached to the top of the box culvert. This option was
eliminated and replaced with extending the guardrail across the culvert and utilizing shop curve guardrail.
The existing driveway serves a+/- 29 Acre parcel and is one of two access points for this large track. The other access
point is located off of Wildlife Run Lane, which intersects NC 41. This existing driveway off of Wagon Ford Road serves
as the primary access point for this track and the primary access for the Potter's Hill Pumping Station.
8. Both the entry and exit pits for the waterline bore need to be moved into an uplands area. Per Sheet UC 4 both
transitional areas for the bore have wetland impacts (the impacts for the receiving pit at 13+20 are not depict on the
permit drawing but are shown on Sheet UC 4 as being inside the wetland boundary but this may be overlapped by the
proposed fill for the driveway relocation).

We have included the pit locations on the permit drawings. The entry pit has been moved into the upland area to
eliminate impact to the wetland. The receiving pit at 13+20 is within the permanent fill impacts for the relocated drive
and is not creating additional impact.
The total permanent impacts to wetland did not change but the temporary impacts were reduced from 2,431 sq.ft. to
2,106 sq. ft.
I will forward this email to Mason Herndon's replacement on May 31st. It will be Joanne Steenhuis.
Also, Anneliese will be forwarding this email to Mason Herndon once he has his new NCDOT email.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Heather Smith, LSS, Environmental Scientist
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP � 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
p 919.557.0929 � c 919.999.0275 � BlockedBlockedhttp://www.ecologicaleng.com
<Blockedhttp://www.ecologicaleng.com/>

From: Herndon, Mason [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Heather Smith; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid Robol; Mathis, Stonewall D; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bridge 300278 PCN
Good Morning Heather:
I reviewed the application you submitted for Duplin 278 and discussed it with Brad Shaver and we have a few items that
need to addressed or corrected before we can consider this a complete application:
Bridge to culvert projects cannot go through the low impact bridge replacement process, they must go through the
normal Nationwide permitting process. Please revise the cover letter accordingly.
2. This project will also require written approval from DWR under NW 14/WQC 3886. Please provide information in
your cover letter authorizing DWR to debit the required permit fee for processing the application. You will also need to
send an electronic copy of the revised application to Kristi Lynn Carpenter with the Transportation Permitting Branch in
DWR at [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > so she can process the permit fee
and assign the application a DWR project number.
Please number and date the permit drawings.
4. Mitigation for permanent stream impacts will be required by the Corps of Engineers. An acceptance letter from
DMS accepting responsibility for the mitigation requirements needs to be included in the permit package.
5. The permanent stream impacts listed on the WIS and PCN do not match. The PCN list 36 If of permanent stream
impacts whereas the WIS list 39 If of permanent stream impacts. Please correct.

6. Please provide justification for the 70 If of bank stabilization proposed on this project. Based on the photos
provided and our field notes the banks appear to be well vegetated and stabile, and this impact should be avoided or
minimized.
7. Please provide justification for the wetland impacts associated with the driveway relocation. In your discussion
please, justify why the current driveway cannot be utilized and what other options for access were considered. For
example are there any other access points to this parcel or other upland alternatives?
8. Both the entry and exit pits for the waterline bore need to be moved into an uplands area. Per Sheet UC 4 both
transitional areas for the bore have wetland impacts (the impacts for the receiving pit at 13+20 are not depict on the
permit drawing but are shown on Sheet UC 4 as being inside the wetland boundary but this may be overlapped by the
proposed fill for the driveway relocation).
If you have any questions or need a clarification on any of the items above, please do hesitate to contact Brad or myself.
Thanks!
Mason
From: Heather Smith [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 8:40 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Reid Robol <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]»>; Herndon, Mason
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >; Mathis, Stonewall D
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >;

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Bridge 300278 PCN
Brad,
I have attached the PCN and supporting documents for the bridge 300278 replacement in Duplin County. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Heather Smith, LSS, Environmental Scientist
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP � 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
p 919.557.0929 � c 919.999.0275 � BlockedBlockedhttp://www.ecologicaleng.com
<Blockedhttp://www.ecologicaleng.com/>
io