19950911 Ver 1_Complete File_19950824

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 \.Q
September 28, 1995 Action ID No. 199505645
F
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch ?'LT9? S
North Carolina Department of Transportation ?4sc
t4 Division of Highways 9
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
REPLY TO
errcunnu nc
Regulatory Branch
Dear Mr. Vick:
50'
OF .o? Woo
Reference .your application of August 24, 1995, for Department of
the Army (DA) authorization to discharge fill material within waters
of the United States, causing adverse impacts to approximately 0.8 acres
of high quality wetlands adjacent to the Tar River. The purpose of the
proposed project is to replace Bridge No. 411 across the Tar River on
State Road 1531 and extend Pitt Street by constructing a new bridge
330 feet upstream from Bridge No. 411, Greenville, Pitt County, North
Carolina (Federal Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1), State Project 8.2220601,
T.I.P. No. B-2225).
The proposed work would directly impact 0.4 acres of Cypress-Gum
Swamp, 0.1 acres of Graminoid Marsh, and 0.3 acres of Bottomland Hardwoods.
These high quality wetlands filter sediments and nutrients from the Tar
River and provide very important functions for wildlife, waterfowl, and
other aquatic organisms within such an urban setting. Most importantly,
however, the construction of a fill causeway through these wetlands will
greatly impede the flows and circulation patterns of flood waters through
this already restricted river corridor.
Based on the information you have submitted, and our knowledge of
this site, we have determined that your proposed project would cause
greater than minimal adverse impacts to the environment and cannot be
authorized under nationwide permit as presently proposed. Should you
wish to further pursue Department of the Army permit authorization, you
have the options of either applying for an individual Department of the
Army permit, or modifying your present proposal to reduce impacts. A
mod' roposal could be resubmitted for authorization under nationwide
p rmit Reduction of impacts can be accomplished through the sequencing
pro ss of avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation. We
strongly recommend that you consider extending the proposed bridging as
a means of reducing fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitat, an adverse
impacts to the movement of flood waters. If mitigation is included in
your modified proposal, all final details of the mitigation plan must be
submitted with the proposal, including a monitoring plan and success criteria.

-2-
Thank for your time and cooperation. Should you have any questions,
you may contact Mr. Henry Wicker at our Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 2.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
,North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt Mr. David Cox
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 512 North Salisbury Street
Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
0. 41
A
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
„a STA7E
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 24, 1995
q5q 11
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
QUG 2 41995
EWIRUVENTALSCIENCES
ti
.Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Pitt County, Replacement of Bridge No. 411 over Tar River on
SR 1531 (Greene Street, Federal Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1), State
Project 8.2220601, T.I.P. No. B-2225.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 411 will be replaced in its existing
location with a new two-lane bridge and will accommodate northbound traffic.
Pitt Street will be extended across the Tar River with a second two-lane
bridge 330 feet upstream of Bridge No. 411 and will accommodate southbound
traffic. During construction, traffic will be detoured onto existing area
roads. Construction of the proposed project will result in approximately 0.8
acres of permanent wetland impacts. A Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
was performed and approved in accordance with 36 CFR part 800.5(e)(4).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propos o roceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B=23 . The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulat will be
followed in-the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

f A August 24, 1995-
Page 2
We further anticipate that a Bridge Permit will be required in
accordance with Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the
General Bridge Act of 1946. We are preparing a permit application to be sent
to the Coast Guard for their action.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm ti
cc: W/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, COE, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G. R. Shirley, Jr., P. E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Ann B. Deaton, USCG, Chief, Bridge Section
r • 7
r..r
Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
R
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
A9010r- / , /? L .41-11 1",- _zz?j . (2
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
z7 S
f
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
M ? ?s
r
Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND

PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
June 1995
Documentation Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc.:
J fre W. Moor N CA.? i
Project Planner / Designer H A RO?? •.,,
SEAL ?
10359
Thomas R. Hepler, E. tys
Transportation Group Manager
'AS R. HEQ?`??
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:
L. Grim E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
Michelle Wago der Fishburne, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
Bridge No. 411 is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program. The project location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a result
of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
" I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including the NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. Department of the Army permits, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1977 and to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 will be required.
In addition, a permit under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 will
be required from the United States Coast Guard. Written concurrence of 401
Water Quality Certification will be required.
3. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss,
including the concrete approaches, in accordance with the attached Historic
Structure Recordation Plan (see Page 34).
4. Should the project affect archaeological sites 31PT440 and 31PT63 additional
archaeological investigations will be conducted to determine the significance of
these sites.
5. No additional right-of-way or easements will be acquired along Pitt Street within
the Skinnerville Historic District.
6. To minimize impacts to anadromous fish in the Tar River, NCDOT will contact
the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries Service
during the permitting process in identifying seasonal restrictions on construction
activities.
1
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 411 crosses the Tar River on SR 1531 (Greene Street) in Greenville, the
county seat of Pitt County. The existing two-lane bridge will be replaced with a new
two-lane bridge on the same location. Pitt Street will be extended across the Tar River
with a second two-lane bridge 330 feet upstream of Bridge No. 411 (See Alternative
1A on Figure 2A). The Greene Street bridge will accommodate northbound traffic
and the Pitt Street bridge will accommodate southbound traffic. Pitt Street and
Greene Street will converge with the existing four-lane facility approximately 1200
feet north of the river. To the south, Pitt Street and Greene Street will converge at the
Dickinson Avenue intersection with the existing four-lane divided Reade Street.
Between the two existing four-lane sections, Pitt and Greene Streets will operate as a
one-way pair. Both bridges will be 870 feet in length with a clear roadway width of
30 feet. The bridges will provide a 28-foot travelway with an additional two feet on
the right side for bicycles. A five-foot sidewalk will be provided on the eastern side of
the Greene Street bridge and on the western side of the Pitt Street bridge (see Figure
3).
Minor improvements to Greene and Pitt Streets are required to convert them to one-
way traffic flow. Greene Street will be resignalized and restriped. Pitt Street will be
widened to a 24-foot curb and gutter section between First and Fifth Street. The
intersection of Fifth and Pitt Streets will be resignalized and the intersections of Pitt
Street with Third, Fourth, and First Streets will be signalized.

Two-way traffic will be maintained on the existing Green Street bridge during
construction of the Pitt Street bridge. Two-way traffic will then be detoured onto the
new two-lane Pitt Street bridge while the existing Greene Street bridge is replaced.
The design speed for the proposed roadway is 40 miles per hour. The anticipated
posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $6,120,250 with a
construction cost of $5,960,000 and right-of-way cost of $160,250. The project is listed
in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project No. B-2225.
The project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in September, 1996 and
construction in August, 1997.
The section of Greene Street in the project area is not part of the Bicycling Highway
System. However, the replacement bridges will include a 16-foot lane and pedestrian
and bicycle safe bridge railing to permit motorists and bicyclists to safely share the
same lane. The Greene Street crossing of the Tar River provides the only direct
connection between residential areas north of the river and the Greenville central
business district, and East Carolina University.
V
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project is located in the central business district of Greenville. Greene
Street (SR 1531) and Pitt Street are classified as urban minor arterials in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Land use south of the Tar River includes
commercial businesses and a public park. North of the river, the Tar River floodplain
extends into undeveloped woodland. The speed limit along Greene Street and Pitt
Street is posted at 35 miles per hour. The vertical alignment on Greene Street is
generally flat with a slight rise in grade on the north approach to the existing bridge.
The north and south approaches to the bridge are in a tangent alignment, however,
the bridge is constructed in a three degree curve. Pitt Street is located on a tangent
alignment and the vertical alignment is generally flat.
The 1994 traffic volume is 15,800 vehicles per day (vpd) on Greene Street and 4800
vpd on Pitt Street. The traffic volumes for the one -way pair is expected to increase to
approximately 32,000 vpd by the year 2016. The projected volume includes one
percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and four percent dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The roadway widths vary along Greene Street in the project area. The pavement
width from First Street to the south end of the bridge is 40 feet face-to-face of curbs
with 7-foot sidewalks on each side of the street. The pavement width from the north
end of the bridge to a point 700 feet north of the bridge is 24 feet with 8-foot paved
shoulders and a gravel sidewalk on the east shoulder. The pavement section from 700
feet north of the bridge to 1000 feet north of the bridge tapers from a 24-foot shoulder
section to a 48-foot, face-to-face, curb and gutter section.
Pitt Street has a roadway width of 24 feet between Fifth Street and Third Street with a
curb and five foot sidewalk on both sides. The roadway width between Third Street
and Second Street is 22 feet with a sidewalk on both sides. Between Second Street and
240 feet north of First Street, Pitt street is a 40-foot curb and gutter section with a 9-
foot 6-inch sidewalk on each side.
Bridge No. 411, constructed in 1927, has a two-hundred foot Parker Truss divided
into nine panels (see Figure 4). The Parker Truss, common in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, is similar in appearance to the common Pratt Truss with the
exception of polygonal top chords. The Parker Truss was designed to carry heavier
loads than the Pratt Truss through the use of its distinctive arched top chords and its
.non-uniform sized members. Bridge No. 411 is recorded in the North Carolina Truss
Inventory Evaluation as being one of 35 bridges in the State eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historical Places. The bridge was dedicated in 1928 to the men
from Pitt County who served in World War I. This dedication was made by the N. C.
State Highway Commission at the request of the Woman's Auxiliary, Pitt County
Post of American Legion.
3
The Parker Truss spans the Tar River and is bounded by a 48-foot 5-inch reinforced
concrete deck girder span to the south; a 29-foot 6-inch reinforced concrete deck
girder span to the north; and nineteen 30-foot reinforced concrete deck girder spans
for a total structure length of 848.2 feet. The truss is constructed of heavy riveted steel
beams and angles with a reinforced concrete deck roadway and pedestrian walkway.
The bridge has a clear roadway width of 24 feet and a 4-foot 6-inch walkway inside
the truss on the east side. The truss has a vertical clearance of 13 feet-10 inches at the
centerline of the roadway, 14 feet-1 inch on the northbound lane, and 12 feet-2 inches
on the southbound lane. a
The truss is supported by reinforced concrete bents on timber piles and the approach
spans are supported on precast concrete pile bents. In addition, temporary support
piers consisting of steel piles have been added at both ends of the bridge.
The truss was inspected on October 13, 1993 by the NCDOT. The truss was listed in
fair condition for most inspection items. Collision damage was noted at the north and
south portal struts. The damage was noted as extensive to the portal struts at the
south end. In addition, moderate collision damage was noted on the interior sway
bracing and sway struts. Hairline cracks and minor spalling were noted in the
concrete deck. Some of the pipe handrails are rusted completely through.
The reinforced concrete approach spans reveal deteriorated conditions including
deck, bent and rail spalling, exposed rebar and up to 1/2 inch vertical cracks in
bentcaps. In addition to sagging rails and decks, a number of the deck spans have
rotated up to 1-1/2 inches to the east and the piles are tilted. The substructure bents
and piers for the truss are tilted approximately seven inches to the south as measured
from bottom to top of the northern end bent. The rocker bearing on the north end of
the truss is tilted 1-3/8 inches to the south. The piers are supported by the original
timber piles which cannot be visually inspected.
The bridge, including the truss, is classified as functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The bridge is posted Single Vehicle 28 tons/Truck and Truck-tractor semi-
trailer 33 tons. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 5.0 and an estimated remaining
life of five years.
A 225-foot wide utility right-of-way crosses Greene Street at the north end of the
bridge. Greenville Utilities maintains two 115 KV overhead electrical transmission
lines and CP&L maintains a 230 KV electrical line at this location. A 4-inch gas line
and a 12-inch waterline are suspended from the bridge. A 21-inch gravity sanitary
sewer line extends along the south bank of the Tar River and crosses under the
southern approach span to the Parker Truss. An 8-inch gravity sewer line and 14-inch

W
4
and 6-inch waterlines extend along Greene Street north of the bridge. A 16-inch
waterline extends along Greene Street south of the bridge. A 6-inch waterline extends
along Pitt Street. A fiber optic cable is located under the shoulder along Greene
Street. The cable traverses the Tar River in an arial crossing parallel to the west side
of the structure. Street lights service the entire structure from both ends.
A USGS Gauging Station is located on the southeast corner of the existing structure.
Coordination with the National Weather Service concluded this station is abandoned.
Accidents reported on SR 1531 from Second Street to approximately one mile north of
the Greene Street bridge are summarized below:

Table 1 Accident Summary

Accidents SR 1531
Jan. 89 - Apr. 92 Accident Rates
For N.C.
1991-1993*
1. Total Accidents 1025.6 251.4
2. Fatal Accidents 0 0.8
3. Non-Fatal Injury 363.2 103.9
Accidents
4. Property Damage 662.4 N/A
Only Accidents
5. Night Accidents 64.1 48.7
6. Alcohol Involved 21.4 N/A
Accidents
7. Wet Accidents 192.3 54.6
*
Accident Rates are in Accidents per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel. The
Accident Rates were taken from North Carolina Department of
Transportation Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit for Two-Lane
Undivided Urban North Carolina Routes.
Sixteen school buses cross bridge No. 411 for a total of 40 crossings per a day.
The Greene Street Park and a boat landing are located to the southeast of the
structure. The existing Greene Street bridge provides 30 feet of vertical clearance over
the Tar River.
5
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternative Description
No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative would eventually necessitate closure
of SR 1531 and removal of Bridge No. 411 due to its structurally deficient condition.
The nearest crossing of the Tar River is approximately one mile upstream on
Memorial Drive. Greene Street and the bridge over the Tar River form a vital
transportation link into the Greenville central business district from the north. It is
the most direct connection between the heart of Greenville to such important facilities
such as the Pitt-Greenville Airport, the Pitt County Campus Facility, the industrial
park, East Carolina University and numerous residential communities to the north.
Consequently, the No Build Alternative is not considered reasonable and is not
recommended.
Rehabilitation of Existing Structure A study was performed to determine the
feasibility of rehabilitating the historic Parker Truss at Bridge No. 411.
In order to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards, the roadway width would be increased to 28 feet. The
pedestrian walkway would be removed and pedestrian traffic would be relocated to
the proposed bridge on Pitt Street.
Vertical clearances through the truss vary from 12-foot 2-inches to 14-foot 1-inch. The
minimum clearance required by AASHTO is 16 feet. One option to increase vertical
clearance includes retaining the existing roadway surface and raising the portal and
sway bracing system approximately two feet. However, retaining the existing deck
would not allow for the widespread strengthening of truss members needed to assist M
the truss in carrying increased traffic volumes. In addition, raising the portal bracing
would impact the visual appearance and historical integrity of the truss.
Another option consists of replacing the existing deck with a lightweight composite
deck system. The advantage of this option is the increased load carrying capacity of
the truss and the decreased depth of the deck system. The new deck system would be
supported at a lower level on the truss bottom chord than the existing system,
thereby increasing the vertical clearance.
Due to the leaning piers and the physical inability to inspect the timber piles which
support the concrete piers, the two piers supporting the truss would be replaced.
Option 1 is to replace the piers at their present location. This requires moving the
truss to another location for an extended period of time while the existing piers are
removed, new piles driven and new piers built. Option 2 is to construct new piers
adjacent to the existing piers, shifting the alignment to the west to allow the truss to
6
remain in service while the new piers are constructed. Once the new piers are in
place, the truss would be slid from the old piers onto the new piers. The existing
piers should be demolished down to the top of the existing footing elevation. The
new substructure would be constructed similar in appearance to the existing
substructure to maintain historical integrity.
Because the truss has been in service for over sixty years, the bridge has surpassed the
two million cycles for which new bridges are currently designed. To insure against
fatigue failure, post-tensioning cables would be retrofitted into a boxed bottom chord
to provide 100 percent redundancy of the load path, and to absorb a portion of the
» dead load stresses currently carried by the bottom chord. This should reduce the
stress level and extend the life span of the truss. The length of time is speculative.
64 Total Deck replacement and pier replacement using Option 2 were analyzed applying
the National Inventory and Appraisal criteria. With the proposed improvements and
the 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) of 9500 vpd (one-way), the sufficiency rating is
70.5. With proposed improvements and the 2016 ADT of 16,300 vpd the sufficiency
rating is 67.4. Rehabilitation of the bridge deck would remove it from being eligible
for any further expenditure of Federal bridge rehabilitation funds for a period of ten
years regardless of sufficiency rating. The estimated cost for rehabilitating the truss is
$7,675,250.
Rehabilitation of the truss at Bridge No. 411 is not considered reasonable and feasible
for the following reasons: (1) although the sufficiency rating may warrant
rehabilitation, the bridge would not be eligible for Federal bridge funds; (2) the
potential of steel fatigue cracks and structural failure due to high traffic counts and
age of the bridge; and (3) the high cost of rehabilitation.
One-Way Pair Alternatives Alternative 1 will convert existing Greene and Pitt Streets
from two-way roadways to a one-way pair facility. Two options of the one-way pair
alternative were studied (see Figure 2A). Alternative 1A - (Recommended
Alternative) will replace the existing bridge on Greene Street at its current location
with a two-lane bridge to accommodate northbound traffic. Alternative 1B will
construct a new bridge 60 feet upstream of the existing bridge to accommodate
northbound traffic. Alternative 1B allows the existing truss to be preserved in place.
Both Alternatives 1A and 1B will extend Pitt Street as a two-lane roadway with a new
bridge across the Tar River to accommodate southbound traffic. Pitt Street and
Greene Street will converge with the existing four-lane facility approximately 1200
feet north of the river. Pitt Street and Greene Street will converge with the existing
four-lane divided Reade Street at the intersection with Dickinson Avenue.
Alternative 1 will require minor improvements to Greene and Pitt Streets in order to
convert them from two-way to one-way traffic flow. Construction of the Pitt Street
7
bridge and approaches will occur first allowing traffic to be detoured onto this new
bridge while the Greene Street bridge is replaced.
Single Four-Lane Bridge Alternative Alternatives 2 and 3 would replace the existing
two-lane bridge on Greene Street with a four-lane bridge and provide for two-way
traffic. In order to provide the capacity for future traffic growth, Greene Street would
eventually need widening to five lanes requiring additional right-of-way. Two
options for the single four-lane bridge alternative were developed. Alternative 2
replaces the existing bridge and approaches with a four-lane bridge 150 feet west of
the existing bridge (see Figure 2B). Alternative 2 would create a 10 degree skew at the
intersection of Greene Street and First Street and encroach upon the State Employees
Credit Union. The northern approach would be a four-lane roadway and tie to the
existing four-lane facility. L:.:sting traffic patterns in the urban area would be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Alternative 2 would allow
the existing truss structure to be preserved in place as a pedestrian bridge.
Alternative 3 replaces the existing bridge and approaches with a four-lane bridge 60
feet west of the existing bridge (see Figure 2B). Alternative 3 would improve the
design and reduce right-of-way impacts associated with Alternative 2. The southern
portion of the new bridge would be built in phases with the initial phase of adequate
width to safely carry two lanes of traffic. Traffic would be detoured onto the phased
section of the new bridge while the old bridge is removed and the remainder of the
new bridge constructed. Alternative 3 would provide a better approach to the First
Street intersection and would reduce impacts to the State Employees Credit Union.
Alternative 3 would require removal of the existing historic Parker truss structure.
B. Evaluation and Selection Criteria
N
If
Coordination with the City of Greenville and Pitt County was maintained through the "
project development. Several meetings were held with the City and County to
discuss the need for the project, and to receive comments from the Greenville Historic
Preservation Commission.
Future government facilities are programmed for construction according to the
Government Campus Masterplan. The plan sets out the City's intent to establish the
Greene Street and Fifth Street intersection as the focal point of the new City
Administrative Campus Facility. The new Police-Fire/ Rescue Headquarters located
in the triangular block bordered by Pitt, Greene and Fifth Streets represents the first
step in implementing the Facility Masterplan.
The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the City of Greenville on May 10, 1990
includes Pitt and Greene Streets as a one-way pair facility with two bridges crossing
the river. The local Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has endorsed the one-
way pair option as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix). The reasons for
8
this endorsement are: (1) The one-way pair is a Transportation System Management
(TSM) tool which provides up to 50 percent more capacity than five-lane operation
and reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflicts; (2) the one-way pair will utilize the
existing right-of-way along Pitt and Greene Streets; (3) the two-bridge option allows
for staged construction without closing access across the river; and (4) the one way
pair will not impact parking in downtown Greenville.
The concept of levels of service is a qualitative measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and passengers.
A level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort
` and convenience, and safety.
• Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures
are available. They are designated with letters from A to F. LOS A represents the
best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. LOS F represents the
worst operating conditions and indicates traffic delays at intersections exceeding 60
seconds per vehicle.
A detailed analysis was performed to determine levels of service (LOS) for future
traffic conditions. As shown in Table 2, the one-way pair facility will operate at a
higher level of service than the four lane alternative.
Table 2 Traffic Levels of Service
w

Alternatives 1A & 1B Alternatives 2 & 3
One-way Pair Single Four-lane Bridge
Level of Service 4-Lane Bridge 4-Lane Bridge
3-Lane Greene St. 5-Lane Greene St.
Construction Year
1996
AM Peak B C C
PM Peak B E D
Design Year 2016
AM Peak B E D
PM Peak D F F
Alternative 1A uses Greene Street without widening the existing pavement.
Alternative 1A accommodates higher capacity with less right-of-way damages and
allows for cost effective, safe and convenient detouring of traffic during construction.
Four properties north of First Street and eight properties on the east side of Pitt Street
will be impacted. The alternative will not affect the historic properties on Greene
9
Street since widening will be contained within the existing right-of-way. Alternative
1A is compatible with the Greenville Thoroughfare Plan and is consistent with
transportation needs of the City. Alternative 1A also has the lowest estimated costs.
Based upon these factors, Alternative 1A was selected as the Recommended
Alternative (see Figure 6).
Alternative 1B was developed to maintain the existing bridge for its historical
significance. Several agencies expressed interest in obtaining the bridge; however,
none of the local, public or private agencies were able to assume liability for
maintenance of the structure. Alternative 1B would have a greater wetland impact
than Alternative 1A because Alternative 1A uses the existing roadway fill.
Alternative 1B is also more expensive than Alternative 1A and would create an
undesirable skew at the Greene Street and First Street intersection. Due to the
associated impacts and higher costs of Alternative 1B, it is not the recommended
alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are not compatible with the Greenville Thoroughfare Plan.
Additional right-of-way would be required along Greene Street to accomodate future
widening. The National Register James Fleming House fronts the west side of Greene
Street. Thus, all right-of-way would be acquired from properties on the east side. As
a result, the County would lose nearly one-fourth of the parking spaces used for
jurors summoned to Pitt County courts. Three properties north of First Street would
be impacted by construction of the four-lane bridge alternative and 19 properties on
Greene Street would be impacted by the future widening on Greene Street. The four-
lane alternative establishes a new roadway corridor across wetland areas and
Alternative 2 creates an undesirable skew at the intersection of Greene and First
Streets. The four-lane bridge alternative also has a higher cost than the one-way pair
alternative as shown in Table 2. Due to right-of-way impacts and higher costs
associated with the four-lane bridge alternative, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not
recommended.

w
i
10
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
ft

C
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
One Way Pair Alternatives
1A 1B Rehabilitation
1996 Construction Costs
Bridge and Approaches(1) $5,310,000 $5,410,000 $7,200,000
Additional Improvements(2) $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 390,000
1996 Right-of-Way Costs
Bridge and Approaches $ 160,250 $ 248,500 $ 85,250
Future Costs
Construction(3) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Right-of-Way $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$6,120,250 $6,308,500 $7,675,250
Four-Lane Bridge Alternatives
2 3
1996 Construction Costs
Bridge and Approaches(1) $4,550,000 $4,800,000
Additional Improvements(2) $ 0 $ 0
1996 Right-of-Way Costs
Bridge and Approaches $ 634,300 $ 439,300
Future Costs
Construction(3) $ 575,000 $ 575,000
Right-of-Way $1,172,950 $1,172,950
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,932,250 $6,987,250
NOTES:
(1) Includes costs of construction from First Street to the four-lane section north of
the Tar River (Does not include any maintenance costs associated with
retaining the existing structure).
(2) Additional improvements include changes made to Pitt Street and Greene
Street to accommodate one-way traffic.
(3) Includes costs of widening Greene Street to five-lanes with new signals.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 411 on Greene Street will be replaced at its existing location with a new
two-lane bridge (Alternative 1A) as shown in Figure 6. A second two-lane bridge will
be constructed approximately 330 feet upstream of Bridge No. 411 to extend Pitt
11
Street across the Tar River. The new bridges will have clear roadway widths of 30
feet and lengths of 870 feet. The Greene Street bridge will provide a one-way, two-
lane facility to accommodate northbound traffic while the Pitt Street bridge will
accommodate southbound traffic. Five-foot sidewalks will be included on the eastern
side of the Greene Street bridge and on the western side of the Pitt Street bridge.
The existing vertical clearance over the river of 30 feet will be maintained.
The existing three-lane 36-foot curb and gutter section on Greene Street from Reade
Street to First Street will be maintained. An exclusive left-turn lane onto First Street
will be provided while the other two lanes will continue north to the proposed
bridge. No additional right-of-way or turn lanes will be required on Greene Street.
Resignalization at intersections on Greene Street from First to Reade Streets will be
required. Restriping will also be required to accommodate one-way traffic flow. i
Pitt Street will be widened from 24 feet to 28 feet between Fifth Street and Third Street
on the east side. The curb and five foot sidewalk on the east side will be replaced.
The sidewalk on the west side will be retained. The roadway between Third Street
and Second Street will be widened symmetrically from 22 feet to 28 feet, face to face.
The sidewalk will be replaced as necessary. Between Second Street and 240 feet north
of First Street, the street will remain a 40-foot curb and gutter section with a 9-foot 6-
inch sidewalk on each side. Pitt Street will be extended approximately 1200 feet north
of the Tar River to merge with the existing 48-foot roadway. New signals will be
placed at the intersections of Pitt Street and First, Third, and Fourth Streets.
Resignalization at the intersection of Pitt and Fifth Streets will occur. Pitt Street will
be re-striped between Reade and First Streets to accommodate one-way traffic flow.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic study and the established flood elevation of 23.3
feet, the replacement structure is a spill-through bridge approximately 870 feet in
length. The minimum elevation of the roadway at the proposed structure will match
the elevation of the existing bridge. This elevation is above that required to
accommodate the estimated design frequency of the 25 year storm.
The proposed project is sited within the jurisdiction of Pitt County which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Tar River is shown as a detailed study
stream on Pitt County Flood Insurance Study Rate Maps. A regulatory floodplain has
been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for this
section of the Tar River. Regulatory flood elevations and floodway limits are defined,
and the approximate 100-year floodplain is identified as a flood-hazard area. The
new structures will be designed so as not to increase flood elevations more than one
foot above the existing conditions. The project will not encroach into the approximate
100-year floodway.
12
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendations for this project.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Ecologists visited the project site on May 31, 1993 to verify documented information
and gather field data to assess potential impacts incurred by bridge replacement
alternatives. The investigation's purpose was to (1) search for rare and protected
plants and evidence of habitation by listed animal species; (2) identify unique or
prime-quality biological communities; (3) describe current vegetation and wildlife
habitat; (4) identify wetlands; and (5) provide information to minimize adverse
environmental effects.
w
Methodology
• The field survey covered an area bound by the following: (1) First Street on the south;
(2) existing SR 1531 Greene Street on the east; and (3) the western edge of Pitt Street,
with this line extended north to intersect Greene Street about 1400 feet from the Tar
River (see Figure 6).
Plant communities within this plot were identified from aerial photographs and
ground-checked on site. Acreages were calculated to the nearest 0.1 acre using a dot-
grid. Forest community types follow North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
classification (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Within each community, a list of member
plant species and general site description was developed on-site. Dominance (square
feet per acre) of woody vegetation layers was determined by the variable plot method
(Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or
communities was determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover guides
developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees,
tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (diameter breast height), and
total height were measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-
millimeter increment borings; dbh and height were measured using d-tape
dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively (Wilson 1976). Ground
distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on
aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were developed
from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was observed on-site. Habitats were
characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife communities
associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for rare and protected species. Appropriate agencies
were contacted to obtain records and information pertaining to listed species.
Aquatic system features were noted on-site. Available documentation of water
quality was reviewed (NCDEM 1991, 1993). Wetland determinations followed
13
procedures described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Lab. 1987), and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two site types and four plant communities occur within the project area. Areas with
long hydroperiods; those that are nearly always flooded in winter and that are
episodically flooded from a few days to a few weeks in summer, are one site type.
The vegetation is either Cypress-Gum Swamp (Schafale and Weakley 1990) or
Graminoid Marsh depending upon successional stage. Cypress-Gum Swamp is late- w
successional, whereas Graminoid Marsh is early-successional. The Cypress-Gum
Swamp community, occupying 0.7 acre or eight percent of the vegetated area, occurs
in a triangle-shaped tract about 800 feet north of the Tar River (see Table 3). The
Graminoid Marsh, occupying 1.1 acres or 13 percent of the vegetated area, occurs
along and in an unnamed, intermittent stream that flows westerly across the project
area, about 550 feet north of the river. About 0.1 acre of the Graminoid Marsh occurs
under the north end of the existing bridge.
The second site type occurs in areas with shorter hydroperiods, areas that often flood
in winter but generally do not flood in summer except for brief periods lasting two to
three days. As above, current vegetation depends upon successional stage. Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Schafale and Weakley 1990), which occupy 3.5 acres or
40 percent of the vegetated area, are late-successional stage. Bottomland Hardwoods
occur in two areas, a hexagonal-shaped area immediately north of the Tar River and a
crescent-shaped area, located about 650 feet north of the river. Graminoid Field,
which occupies 3.4 acres or 39 percent of the vegetated area, is early-successional
stage. About 0.3 acre of the Graminoid Field occurs under the existing bridge, and 1.0
acre occurs south of the Tar River. Graminoid Field occurs in three places: south of
the river, an L-shaped area north of the river, and a linear area along the western edge
of SR 1531.
Comparisons of acres of plant communities found in the project area with similar
communities found in Pitt County are not directly possible, because survey records of
the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station of the U.S. Forest Service do not
differentiate among the various bottomland communities. However, some general
observations are possible. Pitt County is 50 percent forested (Thompson 1990), while
the project area is 48 percent forested. Thirty-two percent of the project area is
bottomland. The bottomland found within the project area comprises about 0.01
percent of all bottomland in Pitt County.

s
14
Table 3. Plant Community Acreage's within the Project Area
Community Type Project Area
Wetlands Non-Wetland Total
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.7 0 0.7
Graminoid Marsh 1.1 0 1.1
Bottomland Hardwoods 3.4 0.1 3.5
Graminoid Field 2.2 1.2 3.4
Totals 7.4 1.3 8.7
Cypress-Gum Swamp. The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)
community is also called Cover Type #102, the Baldcypress-Tupelo community, by
the Society of American Foresters (Eyre 1980). It occurs in a backwater slough, only
part of which lies within the project area. Water from the Tar River alternatively
enters and leaves the slough through an artificial canal, located about 150 feet west of
the project area. Therefore water flows both ways in the canal, depending upon the
water level in the Tar River. At the time of the field investigation, the slough was
flooded to a depth of about two feet.
The overstory of the Cypress-Gum Swamp community contains scattered
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) that measure about 90 feet tall, 16 inches dbh, and
80 years old. The baldcypress canopy was originally much more abundant, but most
of the trees were selectively harvested by high grading. Tree growth ring patterns
indicate release of the surviving baldcypress overstory about 25 years ago, when the
baldcypress measured about 10 inches dbh. This release period in 1968 could
possibly be the time of high grade logging, and the baldcypress trees that survived
were possibly too small to harvest in 1968.
Most of the overstory is composed of Carolina ash (Fraxinus carolinianabut
American elm (Ulmus americana), swamp cottonwood (lulus heterophylla), and
water hickory (C a aquatica) occur also. The species were undoubtedly present in
1968 in the understory, and removal of only the baldcypress released them.
Overstory dominance averages 140 square feet per acre (ft2/acre), and elm,
cottonwood, and hickory share the remaining 10 ft2/acre. Spanish-moss (Tillandsia
usneoides grows on scattered trees, especially baldcypress. The small tree and shrub
layer contains hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
and Virginia-willow (Itea vir 'ca). Poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) climbs on
the stems of scattered overstory trees and hawthorn.
The ground layer is sparse, owing to the long hydroperiod. Foliar cover averages 100
percent, composed of lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sedge (Carex sp.), and
duckmeat (Spirodela polyrhiza), which forms an almost continuous floating mat
15
across the slough. Cypress knees about two feet tall and numerous floating dead
branches were also observed.
Graminoid Marsh. The Graminoid Marsh community occurs in the powerline right-
of-way in and along an intermittent stream that flows westerly across the project area.
This community is dominated by herbaceous plants, because regular mowing under
the powerlines favors herbs, not woody species. If mowing were eliminated, the
Graminoid Marsh community would probably succeed to the Cypress -Gum Swamp
community. Foliar cover of rooted plants in the marsh varies according to water
depth. Along the edges, foliar cover averages about 25 percent, but in the middle,
where water depth was about three feet at the time of the field investigation,
emergent vegetation is lacking. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), rose mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos), and alligator weed (_Altemanthera yhilozeroides) are most
abundant, providing about 80 percent of the foliar cover. The remaining cover is
shared among frog's bit (Limnobium spong_), duck-potato (Sagittaria latifolia),
smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and parrot-feather (Myriolhyllum sp.). Along the
edges, above the water line, spike-rush (Eleocharis sp.) was observed. Two
submersed plants were observed, coon-tail (Ceratoph llum sp.) and large colonies of
blue-green algae (Division Cyanobacteria), growing most commonly in deeper water.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods. The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods is
the late-successional community that develops where flooding during the growing
season lasts only two to three days and water depths do not exceed 18 inches. This
community is more-or-less the same as Society of American Forests Cover Types #92,
Sweetgum-Willow Oak, and #94, Sycamore -Sweetgum- American Elm (Eyre
1980). Flood waters have carried numerous dead branches, leaving them in piles
whenever they become lodged against trees. The overstory contains sweetgum
(Liquidambar s raciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), winged elm ( ercus
hellos , sugarberry (Celtic laevigata), water hickory (Carva aquatica), and
occasionally baldcypress (Taxodium distichum). The largest trees are sweetgum,
water hickory, and American elm, measuring 95 feet tall, 20 inches dbh, and 85 years
old. Overstory dominance averages 120 ft2/acre; sweetgum, hickory, and elm are
most dominant providing about 50 ft2/acre, and the remaining 70 ft2/acre is shared
by the other species listed above. The dominance of sweetgum and willow oak was
likely reduced by high-grade logging, possibly about 1968 when the baldcypress was
also removed, but evidence from tree growth rings was inconclusive.
The shrub/small tree layer contains unusually high numbers of hawthorn (Crataegus
viridis , but musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), and
privet (Ligustrum sinense) occur also. The ground layer contains two species of
greenbrier (mostly Smilax rotundifolia, but also S. bona-nox), muscadine (Vitus
rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quMguefolia), supplejack (Berchemia
scandens), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'a onica),
s
i
w
i
16
cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), coral
honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata), violeta
(Viola spp.), smartweed (Poly onum sp.), uniola grass Qn-iola latifolia), and several
species of sedge (Carex spp.). Foliar cover of the ground layer is typically either
lacking or about 60 percent. Small depressions about ten feet across with somewhat
longer hydroperiods lack ground vegetation. Elsewhere, violets, sedges, greenbriers,
and poison-ivy grow abundantly, and the other species noted above grow scattered
among the other four species. The greenbriers (esp. Smilax rotundifolia) grow by
climbing on trees and shrubs, making foot travel sometimes difficult, especially along
forest edges. In addition, seedlings of green ash and sugarberry occur at densities
estimated at over 200 seedlings/ acre.
i
Graminoid Field. The Graminoid Field community occurs along access roads and
• under the powerlines, where periodic mowing prevents significant tree development.
It occupies the same site type as Bottomland Hardwoods so, without regular
disturbance, the Graminoid Field would probably succeed to Bottomland
Hardwoods. Indeed, as listed below, saplings of the dominant bottomland species
are already present. A single vegetation layer is present, containing several species of
sedge (Carex spp.), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), fescue (Festuca elatior), panic
grass (Panicum sp.), smartweed Poly onum s p.), _ g p.), virgin' s bower (Clematic viorna),
curly dock (Rumex crispus), verbena (Verbena brasiliensis), Indian hemp (Apoc num
androsaemifolium), goldenrod (SoliL o sp.), greenbrier (Smilax lauca), beggar's
ticks (Bidens sp.), plantain (Plantago ru elii), field cress (Lepidium sp.), rose mallow
(Hibiscus Moscheutosrabbit. tobacco &Daphalium obtusifolium), fleabane
(Erii eron sp.), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), bachelor's button Centaurea
c anus , kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and cleavers (Galium aparine). Foliar cover of the
graminoids averages about 60 percent; the other species listed above provide about 35
percent cover, and saplings, especially hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), sweetgum
(Lic uidambar styraciflua), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and buttonbush
(CCe halanthus occidentalis), provide the remaining five percent. South of the river,
kudzu dominates almost completely.
Wildlife
The plant communities in the area surrounding the project have experienced frequent
disturbance. The result is a fragmented system in which edge-dwelling wetland
animal species are advantaged and species able to tolerate or avoid vehicular traffic
can thrive. The floodplain is relatively broad and contiguous with undeveloped areas
upstream and downstream of the project site. According to Karnowski et al. (1974),
Bibb and Cape Fear soils provide sites poor for open land wildlife, good for
woodland wildlife, and fair for wetland wildlife because they support wetland food
and cover plants, hardwood trees and shrubs, and low-growing conifers.
17
South of the river, landscape shrubbery and controlled grassy vegetation occur except
where Kudzu has overgrown the steep banks down to the water. Mockingbirds
(Mi_mus ,poiYglottos), Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), American robins (Turdus
mi atorius), and Common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), all of which were observed,
represent the avian community in this habitat. Open conditions occur with relatively
few trees to provide either shelter or forage.
North of the river, natural and post-disturbance habitat conditions prevail. The
existence of both permanently and seasonally flooded areas adjacent to both forested
and unforested non-wetland areas allows a variety of animal species to exist in
proximity. Throughout the area, herptile species are accommodated by the shallow
waters and variety of seral stages. Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) tunnels were found
along the bank of the slough north of the river. Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) are
abundant in the slough, tadpoles were observed at several locations in the shallows,
and juvenile crayfish (Cambarus sp.) were collected in the shallows. A Great blue
heron (Ardea herodias) was observed farther west in the river bottom; this species
and other wading birds are likely to find ample food in the shallow water. Close to
the existing bridge and in the powerline rights-of-way, a Kingfisher (Me aceryle
alcyon), Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon vyrrhonata), and Barn swallows (Hirundo
rustica) were observed.
i

In the cypress - gum swamp, beaver (Castor canadensis) damaged trees were
observed, and crayfish nest holes are abundant. Dickson et al. (1980) indicate that a
number of songbird species may be abundant in mature Oak-Gum-Cypress (>44
years old) stands: Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccvzus americanus), Acadian flycatcher
(Emyidonax virescens), Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens) and several other species are usually
common in such stands.
Terrestrial and avian wildlife habitats will be modestly affected by the proposed .
action. Additional forest habitat fragmentation would occur under Alternative 1A.
However, species already adapted to fragmentation would probably prosper from
Alternative 1A, and significantly reclusive forest interior species probably do not
occur here. The implementation of the NCDOT "Best Manaagement Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" before and during construction activity will result in
minimal long-term impacts on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Aquatic Resources
Physical Resources
Greene Street crosses the Tar River and its broad floodplain, much of which is
inundated. The project area is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
18
Province. The area consists of coastal plain soils of Quaternary Age deposited in
fluvial environments underlain by the Peedee Formation of Cretaceous age
representing a marine depositional origin.
The upland soils south of the Tar River generally consist of interlayered sand and
clay. Floodplain soils north of the river typically consist of a surficial alluvial clay bed
underlain by sand. The Peedee formation underlies the alluvial floodplain soils and
consists of slightly micaceous sand with clay layers. The sandy deposits exhibit good
engineering characteristics while the clay soils exhibit poor engineering behavior.
Through natural erosion over many thousands of years, the Tar River has eroded
s these younger surface deposits, exposing within the floodplain the underlying older
deposits.
Water Resources
The 179-mile long Tar River arises in eastern Person County, to flow generally
southeast through Granville, Franklin, Nash, Edgecombe, and Pitt Counties. It
continues into Beaufort County, where the name changes to the Pamlico River. The
watershed above the project site drains more than 2500 square miles, or
approximately 1.6 million acres.
Within the project area, the Tar River flows easterly, measures 180 feet across at the
bridge, and has virtually no gradient (Table 4). Like many rivers in the Southeast, the
Tar River channel is shifting very slowly to the south. As a result, the northern bank
is lower in elevation and contains more palustrine swamps and marshes. Local
drainage of these swamps and marshes is westerly by means of natural and artificial
sloughs which enter the Tar River east of the project area. Thus, by flowing westerly
first and then easterly, slough drainage makes a 180 degree turn.

Table 4. Tar River Characteristics at SR 1531
Observation Point
Substrate
Current Flow
Channel width (ft)
Bank Height-(ft)
Water Depth (ft)
Water Color
Water Odor
Existing
Not discernible due to depth
Serene (no gradient)
180.0
14.0 S, 1.0-2.0 N
Sly
Mud
None observed
Variable
Clear to amber
None
Aquatic Vegetation Non observed
Adjacent Vegetation Cypress, black gum, red maple
Wetlands Associated Broad floodplain adjacent
< 1.0
2.5
Clear to Amber
Sulfic when disturbed
Emergent grasses/ forest
Cypress, etc.
Broad floodplain adjacent
19
The southern bank of the Tar River along Town Common, a recreational park located
downstream from the project area, is stabilized with a wall, possibly to reduce
channel movement. Ditching and other disturbances have occurred throughout the
floodplain.
Water classification of the Tar River varies in the Greenville vicinity. From Johnson
Mill Run to the Greenville Raw Water Supply Intake (1000 feet upstream), the
designation is WS-IV NSW CA. From the Greenville Raw Water Supply Intake to a
point 1.2 miles downstream of the mouth Broad Run, the designation is C NSW. The
latter section includes the project area and the Greenville treated sewage outfall,
about 2.7 miles downstream from the project site. In all segments, the Tar River is
designated "nutrient sensitive" (NCDEM 1993), which means nutrient inputs to the
system should be curtailed to the fullL s t extent possible.
The BMAN monitoring records suggest "water quality in the basin appears to be
relatively stable. Most changes in bioclassification (three sites) appear to be due to
changes in flow rather than to real long term changes in water quality" (NCDEM
1991). At two nearby sites, ratings of Fair have been recorded.
At the project site, the Tar River is tranquil and conducive to recreational use. A boat
ramp is situated 1600 feet down river. A two-person scull rowing down river and a
bass boat at some distance downstream were observed.
s
4
Populations of all species depend on the aquatic systems' health. Aquatic organisms
can be adversely affected by siltation resulting from construction activities occurring
close to the banks of streams. The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters" will be implemented, as applicable, to control siltation and runoff.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
All land within the project area north of the Tar River is classified Cypress -Gum
Swamp, Graminoid Marsh, Coastal Plain Bottomland hardwoods, and Graminoid
Field and is considered wetland except for 1.3 acres (Refer to Table 3). The wetland is
palustrine, combining aquatic bed with forested cover, part of the area being
permanently flooded and part episodically flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979).
The floodplain soils are Bibb and Cape Fear, both of which are on the North Carolina
hydric soils list. The Munsell Soil Color observed was 10YR 4.5/1. Characteristic
vegetation types have been catalogued in the plant community section and are clearly
indicative of wetland sites. When the site was examined in late May, hydrologic
evidence consisted of inundated (>_ 2.5 feet) and saturated conditions throughout most

20
of the study area, and debris drift lines were observed well above the present water
level.
The dividing line between wetland and non-wetland is roughly the five foot contour
line. Thus, 7.4 acres of wetland occur within the project study area.
Alternative 1A would fill about 0.8 acre of wetland and 0.1 acre of non-wetland north
of the river, and about 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river (Table 5). The fill for
Alternative 1A is associated with the Pitt Street bridge. The approaches to the Greene
Street bridge are currently adequate.
i Alternative 1B would require the fill of about 1.3 acres of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-
wetland north of the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river.
s
Alternative 2 would fill about 1.4 acres of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-wetland north of
the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river. However, about 0.5 acre
wetland could be reclaimed, if current bridge causeway were removed to the same
grade as the surrounding wetland. Thus, net wetland loss could be reduced to 0.9
acre.
Alternative 3 would require the fill of 0.7 acre of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-wetland
north of the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river.
Table 5. Co 77 \ty Impacts from Causeway Construction
0
0
Community terra ve
1 Alternative
1B Alternative
2 Alternative
3
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Cypress-Gum 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1
Graminoid Marsh 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Bottomland Hdwds. 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1
Graminoid Field 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Wetland Total 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.7
Bottomland Hdwds. 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Graminoid Field 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Non-Wetland Total 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total Acreage Filled 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.0
Wetland Reclaimed 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Net Wetland Loss 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.7
21
Roughly one-half of the distance north of the Tar River will be crossed by bridge, and
the Bottomland Hardwoods under and near the new bridges would be converted to
the Graminoid Field community by clear-felling all trees. Alternative 1A or 1B would
convert about 0.6 acre, Alternative 2 would convert about 0.9 acre, and Alternative 3
would not require any community conversion. Conversion would cause loss of forest
habitat in a county that is currently about 50 percent forested, and would further
fragment the bottomland forest community. Animal and plant species that utilize
edge habitat would be further favored, and non-edge species would likely be
eliminated from the area.
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been designed to avoid
construction in wetlands to the extent possible, and utilize all practical measures to
minimize wetland impacts. Measures have been employed in the initial planning of
the proposed alternatives to minimize potential impacts through route location,
design, and construction practices. Where wetland crossings are unavoidable, the
proposed alternative crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest point to minimize
impacts. Mitigation is not anticipated for this project because the net wetland loss for
Alternative 1A is less than one acre. However, during final design the actual wetland
areas impacted will be coordinated with the Army Corps of Engineers. If mitigation
is required, a mitigation plan will be submitted with permit applications.
Rare and Protected Species
Any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally protected
plants and animals is subject to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does
not jeopardize any protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the
USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife
resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC661 et seq.).
North Carolina laws are also designated to protect certain plants and animals where
statewide populations are in decline.
a
s
0

22
The federally protected and candidate species in Pitt County are listed below
according to common name, scientific name and category:
4
Common Name
Scientific Name Category*
Birds
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 2
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Crustaceans
Albemarle crayfish
Clams
Tar spinymussel
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel)
Plants
Smooth bog asphodel Tofieldia afabra 2
Procambarus medialis 2
2
Elliytio steinstansana E
Fusconaia masoni 2
* U .1 _ _-
+ K A LW LGD ca luQl t6Ct CU nFmieb dnu /- aenotes reaeral candidate species.
Federally Listed Species
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service included the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) as federally listed protected
species potentially occurring in Pitt County as of March 28, 1995 (see Appendix).
Habitat needs concerning occurrence of these species at this site are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred throughout most of the
southeastern United States. In North Carolina moderate populations are found in the
sandhills and in the southern coastal plain. The few populations that are found in the
piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape in the male. The back is black and white with horizontal stripes
and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pines (Pinus palutris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and be
contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are at least 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands
23
at least 30 years of age (Henry 1989). The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500
acres, this acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colony
trees from 12-100 feet above the ground and average 30-50 feet high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surround the tree. This is used
as a defense against possible predators.
A thorough field investigation was conducted on May 31, 1993 to determine whether
there would be impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker. ,
The habitat at this site, dense bottomland hardwood and emergent marsh, is not
conducive to red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, and no pines greater than 30 years
old will be removed by the project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Tar spinymussels (Elliptio steinstansana)
This species is a freshwater mollusk which, along with many other mussel species
(naiads), has been affected by degradation of aquatic conditions. Although "little or
no information is available on mussel population numbers" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1992), decreases in naiad populations have been observed throughout North
Carolina and the Southeast. In specific locations, entire populations have been
extirpated by impoundments but, more generally, gradual declines have been noted.
The biology of mussels is complex, so various factors may be involved in the declines,
with each specific location and population subject to differing insults. Filter feeders
occurring in gravel and sand deposits in river bottoms, these organisms may be
intolerant of fine silt and pollutants. Their dependence upon native fish populations
to host glochidia (the initial reproductive stage) also subjects mussels to the indirect
effects of impoundments and obstructions of fish migration.
Information from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that no Tar spinymussel
specimens have been reported from Pitt County in the last 20 years. A thorough field
investigation was conducted on May 31, 1993 to determine whether there would be
impacts to the Tar spinymussel. This survey resulted in no Tar spinymussels found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
State Listed Species
According to the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, information on the current status of
state-listed species in the Greenville area is lacking (see Appendix). However, "three
24
rare species of freshwater mollusks have been reported from the Tar River near
Greenville. The yellow lamp mussel (Lampsilis cariosa) and the Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) is state-listed as Threatened. The Tidewater musket (Lampsilis
ochracea) is state-listed as Special Concern." The Roanoke bass (Ambloplites
cavifrons) is also significantly rare in the state. All of these species are susceptible to
the same factors as the Tar spinymussel discussed above.
s
•

The Tar River and its adjacent wetlands provide habitat for a variety of anadromous
species including striped bass (Moron saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima),
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus). Bridge construction activities can impact fisheries by
dredging in the river or filling of wetlands for construction access. During the
permitting process, the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries will be contacted for
detailed information on the seasonal occurrence of anadromous species in the project
area. If conflicts between the proposed project and anadromous fish utilization of the
Tar River are identified, seasonal restrictions on construction activity in the river may
be recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program notes that the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi), a salamander Martof et al. (1980) referred to as the Carolina mudpuppy, is
listed for Special Concern by the state. This mudpuppy occurs in "the main streams
and larger tributaries of the Tar and Neuse Rivers from well above tidewater into the
lower piedmont. It prefers leaf beds in quiet water in winter" (Martof et al. 1980).
Habitat suitability for the Carolina mudpuppy appears excellent at this site, and
though none were observed, there is no reason to expect that they could not occur.
Permit Coordination
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch is responsible for processing
permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and Section 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The proposed structures will span
approximately 870 feet over waters of the Tar River and bottomland hardwood
wetlands adjacent to the river. Any filling within wetlands will require a Department
of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, a
Section 10 permit may be required for structures and work in, over, or affecting
navigable waters of the United States.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) will be
required for this project. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in
a discharge into water for which a federal permit is required.
With the exception of the "no-build" alternative, all alternatives studied for this
bridge will require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit. Any structure replaced or any new
25
structure built across the Tar River within the City of Greenville will have to be
approved by the United States Coast Guard (see Appendix B).
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Historical/ Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a s
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
A
The following structures of historical or architectural significance within the area of
potential effect for the project are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Bridge No. 411, a Parker Through Truss dedicated in 1928, was formally determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the Register on
August 14, 1979. The bridge is not part of the central business district, nor is it
contiguous with the properties that constitute Skinnerville Neighborhood.
The following alternatives which avoid the permanent removal of the structure were
fully evaluated and found to be neither practical or prudent.
No Build Alternative: The existing bridge is classified as functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The bridge is currently posted Single Vehicle 28 tons/Truck
and Truck-tractor semi-trailer 33 tons. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 5.0 and
an estimated remaining life of 5 years. Programming of this project is based upon a
need to improve and insure the safety of the roadway. The consequence of pursuing
the No-Build alternative would be closure of the bridge when it becomes structurally
unsafe in the near future. Closure of the roadway terminates a vital river crossing for
the Greenville area. The possibility of a catastrophic structural failure will be eminent
if the bridge remains open to traffic.
Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Existing Structure: A Feasibility Study was
performed to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating and strengthening the
historical Parker Truss comprising Bridge No. 411. In order to meet present day
standards, it is necessary to increase the roadway width and vertical clearance of the
truss along with increasing the strength of the structure This will require the removal
of the structure and constructing new support bents and a new super structure and
deck. The roadway width can be increased to the minimum 28 feet for two-lanes by

26
removal of the pedestrian walkway. Pedestrian traffic will be relocated to a proposed
new bridge on Pitt Street which will serve as the complementary structure for the one
way pair. A method of obtaining the minimum vertical clearance through the truss is
total deck replacement with a lightweight composite deck system, thereby increasing
the load carrying capacity of the truss and the decreasing the depth of the deck
system. With the proposed improvements the sufficiency rating using current 1994
ADT of 9500 vpd (one-way) is 70.5 and with 2016 ADT of 16,300 vpd the sufficiency
rating is 67.4 compared to 100 for a new structure. Rehabilitation of the existing truss
at Bridge No. 411 is not prudent because of the resultant low sufficiency rating of the
truss coupled with the possibility of steel fatigue cracks and potential failure as the
traffic volumes increase and the bridge continues to age.
i
Preservation of Existing Structure: This alternative would build the proposed bridge
• on new location and retain the existing truss structure for other than roadway use. A
local interest was raised for preservation of the existing structure for use as a
pedestrian crossing providing access to the park on the north side of the river. Issues
of maintenance, liability, rehabilitation costs, and cost of approach work to ramp
down to the Greenville Commons rendered this option impractical. However, a
suitable location for the truss structure is not available at this time. Therefore, the
bridge will be disassembled, the members numbered aand stored in the NCDOT
bridge maintenance facility for a period of not less than two years.
The James Fleming House located on 302 South Greene Street was listed in the
National Register on July 21, 1983. The two-and-one-half story Queen Anne house
was designed by a Knoxville, Tennessee architectural firm, Barber and Kluttz and
constructed in 1901-1902. The house has a wraparound porch and complex patterned
slate roof with pedimented gables.
The Greenville Fire Station is a two-story Art Deco building with stone veneer on
the front facade and blond brick on the sides and rear. The building is considered
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, architecture, because it is an
intact example of the Art Deco style used in concert with the Municipal building.
The Skinnerville Neighborhood is Greenville's first residential neighborhood and
consists of a number of properties over fifty years old located within the Area of
Potential Effect, along Pitt Street. The neighborhood is potentially significant in the
area of community planning and development. Skinnerville Neighborhood appears
eligible under Criteria A and C. The neighborhood is well documented as an
important part of the development of the city of Greenville and a large number of
intact and contiguous buildings of late nineteenth and early twentieth century
architectural distinction remain.
27
B. Effects to Historic Properties
In a letter dated March 3, 1995, the SHPO concurred the project will have no effect on
the James Fleming House, Greenville Fire Station or the Skinnerville Historic District.
The project will have an adverse effect on Bridge No. 411.
Based on coordination with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared which stipulates
that NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss prior to demolition (See Appendix A).
C. Archaeological Resources
Two archaeological sites were identified in the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE) j
(NCDOT Archaeological Study for Replacement of Bridge 411). A limited
investigation and assessment were conducted for these two sites. No determination
was made on whether these sites are eligible for the National Register; however, the
recommended alternative will avoid any disturbance to the sites. Construction in the
vicinity of these sites will be within the existing right-of-way; therefore, in accordance
with the letter dated March 3, 1995, from SHPO, no additional archaeological
investigations are recommended.
Should the project effect archaeological sites 31PT440 and 31PT63, additional
archaeological investigations will be conducted to determine the significance of these
sites.
Since the archaeological sites within the project's APE are not likely to warrant
preservation in place or be suitable for public interpretation, it is not likely that
Section 4(f) will apply to this project as a consequence of impacts to the archaeological
resources.
D. Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Bridge No. 411, constructed in 1927, has a Parker Through Truss. The bridge was
dedicated in 1928 to the men from Pitt County who served in World War I and was
formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the
Keeper of the Register on August 14,1979.
Since this project necessitates the use of a historic bridge and meets the criteria set
forth in the Federal Register (July 5, 1983), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic bridge structure, have been
fully evaluated: (1). do nothing; (2) build a new structure at a different location
0
28
without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by procedures
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic
bridge by procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge have been incorporated
into the project. Measures to minimize harm include:
Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss,
including the concrete approaches, in accordance with the attached Historic Structure
i Recordation Plan (see Page 34).
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
4 whose correspondance is included in Appendix B. Section 106 has been resolved and
documented, and the SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway
Division Administrator is included on page 33 of this document.
A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Highway
Administration and the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is
included in Appendix A.
t
w
29
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
'FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
Description:
F. A. Project BRM-6964(1)
State Project 8.2220601
T. I. P. No. B--2225
XLS No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or x
rehabilitated with Federal funds?
2. Does the project require the use of a
historic bridge structure which is on or
eligible for listing on the National x
Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic x
Landmark?
4. Has agreement been reached.among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)? X L???ltt
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Y&I NO
1. Do nothing x Q
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered a x
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? x
30
t
a
t
A
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
T
a
_19
14
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (?) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude _
and/or (Q) The existing bridge cannot be
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the
structure.
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
((D) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria

31
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
2. ' Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
G For bridges that.are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve.the bridge.
d? For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO9 ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
Yes No
X
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
The FEW will insure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the
Parker Truss, including the concrete apps?oac-es, in accordance with
the attached Historic Structure Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
T
a
t

32
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation x
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
d. US Coast Guard x
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) _Y
I
w
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on July S, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of
the historic bridge. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
s
at
Date
g a Environmental Branch
NCDOT
/L Division Administrator, FHWA
33
HISTORIC STRUCTURE RECORDATION PLAN
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 411
Pitt County, North Carolina
Photographic Ra uirem_nts
(1) Photographic views of the bridge, including:
Overall views
Distant views showing the truss in its setting
Details of construction or design
- Views showing the relationship of the bridge to the surrounding
area.
- 35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
3" by 5" black and white prints (all views)
I
A
Color transparencies (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs, negatives, and transparencies to be labeled
according to NC Division of Archives and History Standards.
Copies xd Curati on
One (1) set of all negatives, prints and transparencies will be
deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State
Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the Statewide
survey and iconographic collection.
34
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plan or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
e No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
,expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the recommended alternative.
Alternative 1A (Recommended Alternative) is in compliance with the Pitt County
Board of Commissioners' vote on July 29, 1994 endorsing the one-way pair alternative
for the replacement of the Greene Street bridge. The key factors involved in this
decision include cost, increased traffic flow of the two bridges, less wetland
disturbance, and less parking disturbance to the County and other major property
owners in the area.
The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the City of Greenville on May 10, 1990
includes Pitt and Greene Streets as a one-way pair facility with two bridges crossing
the river. The local TAC also recommends the one-way pair; therefore, Alternative
1A is consistent with local transportation plans.
Potential conflicts exist with the three electric transmission lines crossing Greene
Street in the vicinity of the existing structure. The waterline and gas line will require
accommodations on the proposed structure. Street lights which service the structure
will require replacement. Coordination with local utilities will be initiated during
design. Impacts to utilities are anticipated to be low.
Wetland mitigation is not anticipated for this project; however, coordination will be
initiated with the COE during design to determine the actual acreage of wetlands
impacted. If mitigation is required, a plan will be submitted with the permit
application. The net wetland loss for Alternative 1 A is less than one acre.
There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in
the project area. The city park at the intersection of Greene Street and First Street will
not be impacted by the recommended alternative. The sidewalk on the Green Street
bridge will be replaced and bicycle lanes will be provided on both bridges.
35
Within the project's area of potential effect (APE), there are two buildings, one bridge,
and a portion of one district which are either listed in or potentially eligible for the
National Register. The James Fleming House located at 301 South Greene Street, is
listed in the National Register. The Greenville Fire Station and Skinnerville
Neighborhood are considered potentially eligible for the National Register. Bridge
No. 411, a Parker Through Truss dedicated in 1926, was formally determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the Register on August
14, 1979. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reviewed the historical
aspects of the proposed project and concurred that there is no effect to any of the
historic resources in the APE, except for Bridge No. 411. This bridge will be removed
and replaced with a new bridge. A Section 4(f) Evaluation and Memorandum of
Agreement were prepared to address measures to minimize harm and mitigation for
the removal of the historic Truss.
The proposed project limits are within the City of Greenville or Pitt County zoning
jurisdiction. The areas affected by the project are committed to urbanized land use
consisting of urban commercial, residential and industrial uses. Therefore, the project
is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The FHWA noise abatement criteria (from Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
772) is shown in the following table:
Activity Leq (h) Description of Activity Category
Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of
sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
36
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear by
placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz. Because the A-
weighted scale closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it is used
almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-
weighting are often expressed as dBA. References will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either (a) approach
or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), with approach meaning
within 1 dBA of the values shown in the above table, or (b) substantially exceed
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is either a 15 dBA
increase for receivers with an existing noise level of < 50 dBA, or a 10 dBA increase
for receivers with an existing noise level of > 50 dBA. Noise abatement measures
must be considered when either of the two preceding conditions exist.
A traffic noise analysis includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and
a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if
traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. The Leq
increases due to the project are moderate with better than half of the increased
resulting from the initial conversion to one-way traffic. The predicted noise increases
range from 4.7 to 5.5 dBA and will impact a minimum of two (2) residences located
along Pitt Street. The other twelve residences approach or exceed FHWA criteria
under existing conditions. No receptors are predicted to experience substantial noise
level increases as defined above. Greene Street is expected to experience a decrease in
noise levels due to an overall reduction in traffic by converting to one-way traffic
flow.
Noise abatement measures were considered but determined impractical. Traffic
management measures which will limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. To some degree traffic
management measures are already in force. Speed limits are posted for downtown
urban street conditions and heavy trucks are discouraged. The nature of the
surrounding development also discourages high speeds and frequent use by trucks.
These conditions are assumed to continue. The proposed improvements to Pitt Street
contains no control of access; therefore, existing and future development will
continue to have direct driveway access. Such access prohibits noise barriers from
effective noise abatement since barrier continuity is the key to effectively reducing
noise. These evaluations complete the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 772. No additional reports are required.
37
The project is located in Pitt County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
A reconnaissance survey of the proposed area identified no sites which contain or
have the potential for underground storage tanks (USTs). A file search of the
Division of Solid Waste Management was also conducted to determine whether any
known unregulated dumps or other potentially contaminated sites were within the
area. After review of these files and the North Carolina Department of Environment, s
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
Groundwater Section's incident list, none of the known sites within the Pitt County
area were identified within the project area.
Pitt County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Tar
River is a detailed study stream with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
floodway defined. The alignment of the project crosses perpendicular to the
floodplain area and there are no feasible alternatives to crossing the floodplain.
There is an existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) navigation project in this
area which includes a channel in the Tar River, 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide, from the
Hardee Creek confluence to Greenville. The proposed bridge replacement of Bridge
No. 411 will not impact this project.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This project will impact one geodetic survey marker. N.C. Geodetic Survey will be 19
contacted prior to construction.
The proposed improvements will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R.P., and R. L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown
densities of loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., SE for. Exp. Sta. Res Note
SE-352.
38
Boschung, H.T., Jr., J. D. Williams, D. W. Gotshall, D. K. Caldwell, and M. C.
Caldwell, 1983. The Audobon Society field guide to North American fishes, whales,
and dolphins. Alfred A. Knopf: NY. 848 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U. S. Dept. of Interior: Washington, D. C. 103 pp.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of
breeding birds in forest stands in the Southeast.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F. H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of
Amer. For., Washington, D. C. 148 pp., map.
Federal Register. 1991. Rules and Regulations. Vol. 56, No. 62,13270 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and
evaluations for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta GA. 13 pp. appendices.
Husch, B. C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers, 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press
Co. NY. 410 pp.
Karnowski, E. H., J. B. Newman, J. Dunn, and J. A. Meadows,. 1974. Soil survey of
Pitt County, North Carolina USDA Soil Conservation Service and NC Agricultural
Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 73 pp.
maps.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams.
benthic macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-
1990. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect.,
Raleigh, NC.
39
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of North
Carolina, 1990. USDA, for Serv., Southeast. for Expt. Sta. Res. Bul SE-113. 52 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of the
Southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.
C. 1070 pp.
United States Dept. of Agric. (USDA). 1989. Hydric soils of North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC 20 pp.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon State Univ.
Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis.1 pp.
i
"j
40
4

w P, I
tr
144L yd" I
'Wok's `
?eenriile.
m
T hOOD
' ea?a.r

a
M
a` '
/ !J8
?

`':y:,,. c: • •:.?;vim, ? . r ' -
.J7 ? :`:%J:? •'A:{??h?.vim r
FII ,y,?, .Jf a::;;. e '3?k •iii ` ` fen Me&

? Pm*. "obno"
OL y
?
t•:
4? ^. ? MOk•MN ?
33
tike ?•.. "?`+. ? / Pak"f
:°Y

BRIDGE NO. 411 "

$•:» ""`

GREENVILLE
K)P. 35,710
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
WL TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

GREENVILLE
l PITT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 411
ON GREEN STREET (SR 1531)
OVER TAR RIVER
B-2225
FIGURE 1 0 mile 0.5
!

N N
?m
m0
m0
mz
?o
N
MA
m N
m
C)
D \1 x
m
< m
N f z
m
° IN
x ?
c ?
x I m
? m
xm
mx
m? I
_:E I
D
° n
a
z°
A <
a
N m
-i o
M c
mx
m?
I N
m
m
m
m?
m I
m0
0
F ?
goF o?
? O
s
T pF ?
?
?a z C
F
T ?
? _
m F71
ox
1m
om
c> ED
'n N
m m
N C) Z C-)
O M
axm m I c
Mmm (A
? ?
m m
m

m
1

?I
a3n is avI 11
I
II
I'I
m
mx
m ?-
CO M LA
q o0-i 1
0o mz
C) N 0
mm
O

C
)
D
r ?
m
m
z
FT?
D
< )
m D
El
?o
?o
0
m OF `ST d ? o -?
G7 flFFT '„?r m I
°M
z im
0m
M z
m
a \I c?
x x
< m
N + m
? I m
x N
? Z ?
c ?
? m
A Im
x m
x T
m=
m I
? l
a I I
ax I
z0 I
a I I
N m
?° I
m C
mx
m?
-l x I y
I N
m
m
I
I
lP
7, 0
I
00
0
I"
N
i mm
I 0
\•1 I
.1 I
'1 I
'\ I
'\ I
0

m m
?:7 z
0 0
m
n
D
r
N
M

m z
D

\
\ II
o ?
m
N O
\
w OJ

-,C) m
77 m
O G)
C- ?-+
m z
C?

m?
m I
m0 ,
I
I
N N
-i m ? I
m O i.
m0
mz
-1 0
N ; Il 1 1 v
m A
m
m?
MI
m N
m m
m
LA0 z C
x?x m
a x rn
N
Mm z
-i m x I N
m
m I rn
m ( m
I -?
a3Alii aVl I __-_ _--
co
az m
>m mx
m? ?N
xm 0-a
N m z /
0 c)
z71
O
11
.1
o
?] °
00
C) N
mom
I
/
I , ZZ-0 Z?Illl
m
0
C_
m
13
\
\
\
\A
\
m
z
0
D
r
N
D m
r ?
m z
D
u <
C) m
O
D
f
°

?F'4p ??ti
F

?
3
?L7
S
a ?° o f

zy o
0 m
o m
n

\ ?z
m
---
D
?
< \1 ?
m
m
N

f7
c z
m
I N
?

-UZI _
mm
?
mi = m
Cj
m
c?
z
f
n
o?
D =
O
D
N m
-1 O
m c
mm
m -i
-i x v
1
m
N m
y, y
mo
mo
-i
N N
mm
? 0
m O
mz
-4o
N m
m m
m?
? C:l.I
m II v
N
m m -{
m I 0 1
z c
m
N m
>mrn
N m
m m m
?mm m m
zmz m I a
-Im m
y
-'-
?? li
m m III II
to ?x rl
00 0V) .
C) (In C) - 1 I
mm mz 1.1
o c?
C ?
D C
m
z
D
< N)
U) W

7,O
F9p? S P?y? 0 O
zy
RFFr ?cd m I L
0m
m
om n
m z
m
n \1 ?
a
< + m
N f m
z
? I m
x N
C y
A I A
? m
x m
N y
--I m
Z7 T
rn
n
xzoo
?
N m a
"MO
SJ c
m z
m -I i
?x
v
y
y
N
m
N I y
?-1
:0_
m
in o
-I
N N
-i m
mn
m O
mz
-1 0
v
mN
m?
y
OD
m
C)
z
`
Z1
m N
I'M m
z
N0 m
ym f7
c
D x m
N
?mm y
7cmZ m
k
-1 m
m

8: TA 1 -8 -8 V I
lr
-
?
W 0
I ?u
00
1
I mo
co x
N 1 11 /? /?
mz
?/ 00
-u z \\ Il
N
D
m
1
m ?
0 C:)
m \. 1
1
.1
\'s
w
D
D m
r ?
m D
u ?
M
N
GREEN STREET & NORTH SIDE OF PITT STREET*
TWO-LANE APPROACH
7773
d/ .
a
R a
S
f{y nl ?' n
2
5' I 12' 12' e'
2• 2
* APPLIES AT ENDS OF STRUCTURES
OTHER ROADWAY WIDTHS WILL VARY
GREENE STREET & PITT STREET BRIDGES
TWO-LANE STRUCTURE
FIGURE 3
5' 16' 14'
Looking
North
At South
Approach
Looking
North At
East Side of
Truss
Looking
West At
East Side of
Truss
(CSX
Bridge in
Background)
FIGURE 4
Looking
South At
North
Approach

Looking
South At
North
Approach
Looking
South At
West Side
FIGURE 4
I
MOORE _._,L`'2?? sr R L? ? ?j f ,, //- ? \\ ,•./,
BRIDGE NO. 411 TAR -7f 7
r
r
Lob,
POW
J l
R 5 Cn. W Y .?=1f
«?. d d * ?•
Ile Al
IL T ;? r J
n ,?T y J
t- -' ! e
LJLJu
imp W
4 Y w
L EM 023
PA-
c:, Ls
Bus L_
,
' n
SECTION OF GREENVILLE ?, 264 -\
THOROUGHFARE PLAN L J
rte' EXISTING PROPOSED
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ONE,
st
r w W04
MINOR THOROUGHFARE THIN N't
•?? F J H R
g _F{ Sc
FIGURE 5,

It 1
LINE
' f .
pti 'c "
r'
"sill"
yy? f, ? F ra^ r d
M

? M N t
? N
a?
-c
y
?O
y
r
r 9

a
i
i" w y` SFr
w
aR ?

o
DD
?O y
O
an ?
x
Q
o
EA ro
m
q
M
y
Appendix A
Memorandum of Agreement
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
?UBMiT-cJ TO T11 ADVISORY CuUNCIL ON HISTORIC P4ESERVAT;ON
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 411 OVER THE TAR RIVER
PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRM-6964(1), TIP NO. B-2225
WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
« the replacement of Bridge No. 411 over the Tar River will have an effect
upon the 200' Parker Truss eligible for inclusion in the National Register
ef.Historic Places (NR), and has consulted with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant.-to 36 CFR part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS the design of the bridge replacement in Pitt County is as
described in the Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation (CE), Pitt County, North Carolina (with Alternatives 1A as the
Pre erred Alternative); and
WHEREAS the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
participated in the consultation and is invited to concur in this
Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following
stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the replacement
of Bridge No. 411 on the historic Parker Truss.
STIPULATIONS
The FHWA will insure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the
Parker Truss, including the concrete approaches, in accordance with
the attached Historic Structure Recordation Plan
II. r9iSPUTE RESOLUTION:
Should the North Caroina SHPO object --nithin thirty (30i days to an;,
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
Memorandun of Agreement (MOA), FHWA shall consult Nit;; the North
Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or. the SHPO
determines that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward
all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within
thirty, (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the
Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section +
800.6(b) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided
in response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA
in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2) with reference to
the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's
responsibility to carry out all the actions under the MOA that are
not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
`1

2
Execution of this Memorandum of Aareement cv FHWA and the North
Carolina SHPO, its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and
implementation of its terns, is evidence that FHWA has afforded the
Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge
No. 4i! ove- the Tar River, and its effects on historic properties
and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking
on historic properties.
HDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By : Date: Nicholas L. Graf; P.E.
Division Administrator
•
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
r,
By: ??; ?' - - Date: q-3- S
Wi iam Price, Ph.D./
North Carolina State tistoric
Preservation Officer
CONCUR:
NORTH CA LINA 0 TMENT T NSPORTATION
By:
H. Fr nk in Vick, P. ., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
By: Date:
/L??9 ?-
3
hiS70R:C STRUCTURE RtCORDA?ION PLAN
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 4?:
Pitt Countv, North Carolina
Photographic Requirements
(1) Photographic views of the bridge, including:
- Overall views
Distant views showing the truss in its setting
- Details of construction or design
s
' - Views showing the relationship of the bridge to the surrounding
area.
Format
"35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
- 3" x 5" black and white prints (all views)
Color transparencies (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs, negatives, and transparencies to be labeled
according to NC Division of Archives and History Standards.
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all negatives, prints and transparencies will be
deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State
Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the statewide
survey and iconographic collection. •
Appendix B
Comments and Coordination
MINUTES - TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1994
Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee met on the above
date. at 3:00 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room of Greenville
City Hall. Mayor Nancy M. Jenkins, Chairperson, called the meeting
to order.
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Nancy Jenkins, City of Greenville
Commissioner Kenneth Dews, County of Pitt
Mayor Lin Kilpatrick, Town of Winterville
Board Member Bob Mattocks, Board of Transportation
TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
E Mr. T. N. Tysinger, Jr., P.E., City of Greenville
Ms. Tamra Shaw, NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch
Mr. Alan Lilley, Town of Winterville
Mr. Jeff Ulma, County of Pitt
Mrs. Nancy E. Harrington, City of-Greenville
Mr. G. R. Shirley, P.E., County of Pitt
Mr. Glen Whisler, P.E., City of Greenville
Mr. John Roberson, P.E., City of Greenville
Mr. Phil Dickerson, P.E., County of Pitt
OTHERS PRESENT:
Councilmember Bob Ramey, City of Greenville
Mr. Will Peterson, The Daily Reflector
Mrs. Sarah P. Connor, City of Greenville
Mr. Ed Folk, Citizen
Mr. Jack Taft, Citizen
Mr. Richard Duncan, Citizen
Mrs. Louise Duncan, Citizen
WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS: Mayor Nancy Jenkins welcomed everyone to the
meeting and expressed appreciation to those in attendance.
Everyone was given an opportunity to introduce themselves.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Commissioner Dews made a motion to approve the
agenda for the October 20, 1994 meeting. This was seconded by
Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES: Commissioner Dews made a motion to approve the minutes of
the July 13, 1994 meeting. This was seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick
and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF GREENE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT: Tom Tysinger,
Technical Coordinating Committee Chairman, gave a summary of the
Greene Street Bridge Replacement Project. He reviewed three
options being considered and referred to a memo dated October 13,
1994 regarding the bridge that was included in the agenda packages.
The memo summarized the actions of the TCC at their October 5, 1994
meeting which included (refer to enclosed copy of memo): 1) a
motion in support of the four-lane bridge option failed with five
members in support and seven members in opposition. 2) a second
motion to recommend the one-way pair option failed with five
members in support, six in opposition and one abstention. There
was no motion made for the third option (single, two-lane bridge
with future expansion.) The memo also summarized Greenville City
Council's action to support the four-lane bridge option as voted on
at their October 10 Council meeting. Following Mr. Tysinger's
explanation of the TCC meeting, the TAC members discussed the pros
and cone of the three options and the feasibility of each.
Commissioner Dews made a motion to recommend to NCDOT the one-way
pair option. This was seconded by Board Member Mattocks and the
motion was carried with three in favor and one in opposition with
Mayor Jenkins being the descending vote.
CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES: Glen Whisler summarized
the list of priorities as proposed by the TCC to be presented to
NCDOT at the public hearing in New Bern on November-16, 1994. He
indicated the priorities included highway improvements (currently
in the state's TIP) and unmet needs (not currently in the State's
TIP), Bridge replacement . improvements, railroad crossing
improvements, highway safety improvements, bicycle improvements,
public transportation and enhancement projects. He noted that
these priorities were recommended by the TCC at their October 51
1994 meeting. Mr. Whisler outlined the various highway improvement
projects and delineated same on a map. As a continuing part of Mr.
Whisler's report he outlined the bridge replacement improvements
requested which included Greene Street bridge replacement,
replacement of some bridges in Brook Valley subdivision and a new
bridge over the Tar River (although it is outside the metropolitan
boundary it will impact the urban area). Mr. Whisler said the
resolution states that the MPO is in full support of the railroad
crossing improvement listed in the State TIP. The highway safety
improvements included a signal feasibility study and the re-
alignment of Memorial Drive with Dickinson Avenue. Mr. Whisler
concluded his report by stating that other projects listed in the
resolution includes bicycle improvements, public transportation and
enhancement projects. Mayor Jenkins noted that the Council members
were particularly interested in Highway Priority No. 5 (Farmville
Boulevard) which included a grade separation at the CSX railroad.
Greenville Councilmembers feel very strongly that railroad grade
separations are critical to the future of Greenville. Mayor
Kilpatrick was concerned about the ranking of priorities for
Winterville. He was assured that these projects are not being
overlooked and that the list was prepared after looking at the
technical merits of all projects within the MPO. Commissioner
Dews made a motion to approve the Resolution listing the priorities
of projects as recommended by the TCC and present the list of
priorities to NCDOT at the hearing on November 16, 1994. This was
seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATION CONCERNING GREENVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: Tom Tysinger said that a schedule, outlining
the MPO activities for the next two to three years was included in
the agenda packages. He said the schedule listed activities such
I
A

as traffic counts, transit route studies, analyzing high traffic
locations, digital road networking, etc. The schedule also gave
the responsible entity and timetable within which the tasks will be
completed. He said these activities will be discussed during
future meetings. Ms. Shaw distributed a quarterly progress report
which outlined activities that have transpired during the quarter.
TRIP TO NEW BERN: Greenville as the Lead Planning Agency agreed to
make arrangements for the trip to New Bern to present the
priorities to NCDOT.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business or discussions,
Commissioner Dews made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was
seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.
i
a
f
s-
TO: Nancy M. Jenkins, Mayor
Chairperson, Greenville Urban Area - Transportation Advisory Committee
FROM: T. N. Tysingex, Jr., PE
Chairperson, Greenville Urban Area - Technical Coordinating Committee
DATE: October 13, 1994
SUBJECT:
Due to the heightened awareness and importance of the Greene Street Bridge Replacement Project to the
city of Greenville, Pitt County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), I felt
compelled to report to you the actions of the Greenville Urban Area Technical Coordinating Committee
(TCC) during their October 6 meeting. Further, this is to summarize Greenville City Council's action to
re-affirm their original support for a four-lane bridge as voted on during their October 10 mating.
During their meeting of October 6, the TCC began this agenda item with a review of the two (2) basic
options: the one-way pair bridge and a single four-lane bridge. The review was followed by a brief
explanation from committee members of each entity's concerns over the two basic options. The option
rcecatly proposed by NCDOT involving a single two-lane bridge that in the future could be widened to
four lanes or used as one bridge as part of a one-way pair option was these discussed. Issues discussed
relative to this new option included: .
• This option would address the immediate need of replacing the existing Greene Street Bridge.
• This option would afford local governmental entities and affected businesses an opportunity to
work out parking issues.
• This option would allow additional time to complete other ongoing planning efforts that may
have a direct impact on related issues such as downtown parking, traffic circulation, etc.
• By building only a single two-lane bridge now, are we giving up an oppottunity for two, two-lane
bridges or a single four-lane bridge?
Current estimates for this project within the State's Transportation improvement Program (TIP)
are sufficient to build either two bridges or a single four-lam bridge. Currant estimates appear
sufficient to build a single two-fare bridge. If we go with either the one-way pair option or single
four-lase bridge, where will the additional funds be found? Will it impact other projects?
Following approximately 1 %a hours of discussion, a motion was made to recommend to the TAC the four-
lane bridge option. The ensuing vote was S in support and 9 in opposition. Immediately following, a
second motion was made to recommend the am-way pair option. The resultant vote was S in support, 6
in opposition and 1 abstention. There was no motion made for the third option (single, two-lane bridge).
In closing discussions on this item, it was generally the feeling of the TCC that the third option did not
offer the technical merits that either of the other two did. Though this option may not have technical
Memo: Nancy Jenkins, Mayor
Page 2
October 13, 1994

merit, it does offer other advantages including additional time to further address stated concerns.
As you know, the aforementioned information was reported to the Greenville City Council during their
workshop on October 10. Through the discussions, it was clear that the general consensus of Council was
to continue support for the four-lane bridge. To that end, Council has directed City staff to address
parking concerns of affected property owners along Greene Street including the County. These efforts ;
should include the consideration and review of all possible options that could resolve these specific
parking concerns up to and including a parking deck. To close Council's discussions, a motion was made
and approved to re-affirm their original position to support a four-lane bridge and to have staff
aggressively pursue solutions to the parking concerns along Greene Street.
On behalf of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), I will be pleased to go into further detail on
their position during the upcoming TAC meeting.
dhf
cc: Transportation Advisory Committee Members
Technical Coordinating Committee Members
x
`°
c
PITT COUNTY BOARD QOU.N7Y
ONE
S
COMMISSI
R
?' - 1717 West Fifth Street Ed Bright
°tn caa?
North Carolina 27834
Greenville Kenneth K Dews
, Wilton R Duke
TeL [phone] Charles A Gaskins
Fax. [phone] Eugene Janes
Tom Jobnson, Sr.
August 3, 1994 Fa?ney M. Moore
Mark W. Owens, Jr.
Je,iV, E Savage

Ms. Michelle W. Fishburne
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Project Engineer
N.C. Department of Transportation
Dear Ms. Fishburne:
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted on July 29, 1994
to express a preference for the one way pair option (1A) for the
replacement of the Greene Street bridge in Greenville, N.C. The
Board considered all the factors involved in this decision and feel
that it is the citizens best interest to build the two structures.
Key factors in this decision include the cost, the increased
traffic flow of the two bridges, less wetland disturbance, less
parking disturbance to the County and other major property owners
in the area, and the increased safety factor of having two
different physical structures.
The County of Pitt appreciates the time the Department of
Transportation staff has spent presenting the various options for
replacement of this bridge to the Commissioners and staff and
further we are confident that the Division will select an option
that will best serve all the citizens of Pitt County.
Sincerely,
C-r-
Ed B. Bright, Chairman
Pitt County Board of Commissioners
°"0U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
g FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
• REGION FOUR
., •? 310 New Sem Avenue, Suite 410
°+prudMry Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
February 6, 1995
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
0/_? E1j7
FEB 0 8 1995 _
Re'etWISIGN OF
HIGHWAYS
In
Subject: Federal-aid Project BRM-6964(1), B-2225, Pitt County
Section 106 Consultation
Enclosed are two copies of an Archaeological Study prepared on the
subject project. Two archaeological, sites,, 31PT440 and 31PT63,
were identified within the project's Area of Potential Effect.
Although only limited investigation. and assessment of the two sites
has been conducted and site significance has not been determined,
it appears the preferred alternative will not disturb important
remains at either site. No additional archaeological investigation
of the sites is recommended unless the preferred alternative's
location is changed to require ground disturbing activities outside
the area presently defined.
Based upon our review of the report, -the Federal Highway
Administration has determined the project, as presently proposed,
will have no effect on any archaeological site that is listed on or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Your concurrence in this determination is requested. Questions
regarding the report can be directed to John Wadsworth of this
office at 856-4350 or Mr. Kenneth Robinson with the Division of
Highways at 733-3141.
Sincerely yours,
f f t+. Shelton
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosures
T

I
cc: Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E., NCDOH./

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 411 on SR 1581 (Greene
Street) over Tar River, Pitt County, B-2225,
Federal Aid Project 'BRM-6964(1), State Project
8.2220601, ER 95-8433
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
?C)
Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1995, transmitting additional information
for the above project.
We have reviewed the sections and functional plans for the recommended One-
way Pair Alternative, and concur that the project will have no effect on the
Skinnersville Historic District, the James Fleming House, and the Greenville Fire
Station. As stated in the past, we believe the Greenville Bus Station; which was
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is within the area of
potential effect for the project, and that the project will have no effect on it.
We have also reviewed the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the project's
adverse effect on Bridge No. 411. The following typographical errors need
correction for the final version:
1. *In the third WHEREAS clause, the word "have" following "(NCDOT)" should
be changed to "has."
2. In the NOW, THEREFORE clause, the word "stipulation" should be plural.
3. Under Stipulation II, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, in the first paragraph, the word
".amendment" should be changed to "Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),"
and in the last paragraph, the word "amended" preceding "MOA" should be
striken.
Otherwise, we believe the draft adequately addresses our concerns for the
project's effects on Bridge No. 411.
rA
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1jp
Nicholas L. Graf
March 3, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
4: av:ely,
Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Preservation Of icer
a
I
!.a . L r t ,. s L
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1995
's
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 411 on Greene Street (SR
1531) over Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, TIP 8-
2225, Federal-Aid Project BRM-6964(1.), ER 92-7998;
ER 95-8358 _
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Dear Mr. Graf:.:
Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Kenneth W. Robinson, North Carolina Department of Transportation archaeologist,
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological sites were identified. According to Me.
Robinson, both sites--31 PT440 and 31 PT63--are potentially significant,: but were not fully
evaluated during the recent study. Since the preferred alternative for the bridge.
replacement will occur within existing rights-of-way and not disturb either site, Mr.
Robinson has recommended. no further investigations at this time. Should. construction
plans change or ground disturbing activities be required outside of the existing rights-of-
way, additional archaeological investigations will be necessary.
We concur with these recommendations and believe the preferred alternative will have no
effect on significant archaeological sites. The report meets our office's guidelines and
those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
S' ely,
Gzv?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
Robinson
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Q3P
„aSfNFv
?d y'A
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
s
November 17, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Phase I Historic Architectural Resources Survey
Report for replacement of Bridge 411 over Tar
River on SR 1531 (Green Street), Greenville, Pitt
County, B-2225, BRN-6964(1), ER 94-7571
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 24, 1993, transmitting the phase I
architectural resources survey report by Kitty Houston for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation concerning the above project.
OF ri
We have reviewed the report and believe the area of potential effect has been
drawn inappropriately since it excludes the structures which lie between those
fronting Green and Pitt streets. As the alternatives are currently described, the
project has the potential to affect these structures visually and/or by changing
traffic patterns. From the map provided, it appears the Greenville Bus Station is
the only additional historic structure to take into account.
The following property was included in the National Register of Historic Places on
July 21, 1993:
James Fleming House
The following property was formally determined eligible for the National Register
by the keeper on August 14, 1979:
Bridge No. 411
'For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Skinnerville Neighborhood. Criterion A--As Greenville's first residential
neighborhood, Skinnerville is significant in the area of community
planning/development. Criterion C--Skinnerville contains an intact and
varied collection of late nineteenth and early twentieth century architecture.
Please note, we believe the proposed eastern boundary for the district is
appropriate, except in the vicinity of the cemetery. As shown on the
attached map, we have included the Colonial Revival style dwelling just
north of the cemetery's entrance.
V V ` I le
C
0 19 993
109 East Jones Sheet - Raleigh. North Ca hna 276012807
Nicholas L. Graf
November 17, 1993, Page 2
Greenville Fire Station. Criterion C--The first station is a rare and intact
representative of the Art Deco style in Pitt County.
We also believe the following property is within the project's area of potential
effect and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: cant
in t Greenville Bus Station. Criterion A-- The station stations lof that eha ?area of
transportation as one of the few remaining bus
eastern North Carolina. Criterion C--The bus station is a rare and intact
example of the Art Moderne style in eastern North Carolina.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Greenville Central Business District. Due to modern intrusions, the
commercial district no longer retains integrity.
Until additional information for t they eligb lity fobthe NatonallRegistee:are
unable to make a determination of
Jarvis Memorial United Methodist the only Because Romanesque style church in
landmark in Greenville and probably
Since 1921,
Pitt County, we believe it shoved blithe and the additions late symp th tic to
the exterior has been altered very was
the character of the church. The rert notes that the were made in 19587 tPlease provide a
What
remodeled in 1958.
brief history of the church as well.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory on Histo Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and ase consideration.
contact Renee Gledhill Ea ley?ions
concerning the above comment, p
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
B k

Davi too
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
-ADB:slw
Enclosure
cc: ?H. F. Vick
B. Church
Greenville HPC

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 10, 1993 C E / L
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager .?
Planning and Environmental Branch JUN 14 1993
Division of Highways
• Department of.TransRortation? D1?'1SICti OF ?
FROM: David Brook /De ut State p Y Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street)
over Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, B-2225,
8.2220601, BRN-6964(1), CH 93-E-4220-0902
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our-maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Bridge No. 411. Bridge No. 411 is a Parker Through Truss which was
formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by
the Keeper on August 14, 1979.
James Fleming House. 301 South Greene Street. This property was
included in the National Register on July 21, 1983.
Skinnerville Neighborhood. Please see the enclosed map for the location.
Based upon available information, we believe the Skinnerville Neighborhood
is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture.
Central Business District. Please see the enclosed map for the location.
Although the central business district contains several National Register-
listed properties scattered throughout, we feel there are too many intrusive
and noncontributing properties to comprise a National Register-eligible
historic district.
Also, we recommend that you contact Mr. Donald Belk with the Greenville Historic
Properties Commission (919/830-4486) since he may have additional information
concerning historic structures in the area of potential effect.
109 East Jones Street - Raleieh, North Carolina 27(01-2RO7 V-'
L. J. Ward
June 10, 1993, Page 2
We look forward to working the Federal Highway Administration and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on this project in the future. We
note that the rehabilitation of Bridge No. 411 is one of NCDOT's alternatives and
appreciate your efforts to investigate and consider rehabilitation of the historic
structure.
A review of our files indicates that there are no recorded archaeological sites in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, the north side of the
river has a high probability for prehistoric archaeological sites. In addition, historic
archaeological sites may exist in the area of potential effect on the south side of
the river. We, therefore, recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted
along the construction corridor on the north side of the river and that historical
background research be conducted for the area along the south side. Based on
the results of the research and further consultation with us, additional field survey
may be warranted for the south side.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: Nicholas Graf, Federal
State Clearinghouse
Donald Belk, Greenville
B. Church, NCDOT
T. Padgett, NCDOT
Tom Hepler, William G.
Highway Administration
HPC
Daniels & Assoc.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGII
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 22, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
+* Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
CEj

JUN 2 3 199,3
DIVISlC
!.J N OF
;? GNWAY`
?ONAIfE>s? P•.
This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1993, requesting
our comments on the initiation of a study of the project, "B-2225,
Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street) over the Tar River,
Greenville, Pitt County, State Project 8.2220601, Federal Project
BRN-6964(1)" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199302437).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective,
our review and comments focus on impacts to COE projects, flood
plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and
wetlands. There is an existing COE navigation project in this
area which includes a channel in the Tar River, 6 feet deep and
75 feet wide, from the Hardee Creek confluence to Greenville.
The bridge rehabilitation/replacement project would not impact
this project, provided the same navigation opening is provided.
The proposed project is sited in Greenville, which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. Tar River is a detailed
study stream with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
floodway defined. We suggest that you coordinate with the city of
Greenville for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any
resultant changes in their flood insurance maps and report.
The COE Regulatory Branch is responsible for processing permits
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The following
comments and recommendations from our Regulatory Branch are based
on your four preliminary alternatives and the information available
to us at this time.
a. Alternative 1: "Do-Nothing." No Department of the Army
permits will be required.
-2-
b. Alternative 2: "Rehabilitate the Existing Structure."
Depending on project plans, Nationwide Permit No. 3 may apply
for the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously
authorized, currently serviceable structure, provided Condition
No. 12, Historic Properties, is satisfied in accordance with the
National Historic Preservation Act, and North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) has given full consideration to comments
provided by the State Historic Preservation Office, Mrs.-Renee
Gledhill- Earley. 14
C. Alternative 3: "Replace the Existing Structure." As
referenced in the above paragraph, „at i onwid ^ei•ui i i ??;,. ; ;,;d
apply, depending on proposed plans for replacement, provided
Condition No. 12, Historic Properties, is.satisfied in accordance
with the National Historic Preservation Act, and NCDOT has given
full consideration to comments provided by the State Historic
Preservation Office, Mrs. Renee Gledhill-Earley.
d. Alternative 4: Construct an additional bridge structure
associated with the Pitt Street Extension, west of the existing
bridge. This alternative will span approximately 852 feet over
Section 10 waters of the Tar River and bottomland hardwood wetlands
adjacent to the river. Any filling within wetlands will require a
Department of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. In addition, a Section 10 permit may be required for
structures and/or work in, over, or affecting navigable waters of
the United States.
e. In order to review your proposed project, the following
information must be provided.
(1) The proposed corridor and/or corridors overlaid on
appropriate resource maps such as the Greenville Southeast and
Greenville Southwest United States Geological..S;:rvey quadrangles,
National Wetland Inventory maps, Soil Conservation Service maps,
and any other information such as aerial photography.
(2) Describe and indicate all approximate locations of
waters and wetlands of the United States and linear crossing
of the Tar River; approximate wetland types, acreage, and the
potential impacts of these areas within the proposed corridor
and/or corridors; and any areas such as borrow pits and waste
disposal sites which may be constructed.
(3) Indicate bridge construction techniques associated with
potential temporary approach fills along the Tar River shorelines.
-3-
f. If impacts to wetlands are anticipated, the level and type
of mitigation must also be addressed.
g. Once this information has been provided and reviewed, we
will then make a decision regarding which alternatives are accept-
able to be reviewed during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
process.
The information requested above is essential to our expeditious
review of your proposed project. If you have any questions or
comments related to permits, please contact Mrs. Laura Fogo of the
Washington Regulatory Ficld.Office at (10119,1 -9751-3509.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Si rely
Lawrende W. launders
Chief, la ng Division

Dlltp
State of North Carolina
epartment of Environment, Health, and Natuied ' ourck
Division of Land Resources C
James G. Martin, Governor Th
PROJECT Review ooruIErrrs Char4,fJrdner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary , Director
Project Number: ` ! 3 O OZ County: P t! r I
Project Name: (r)6- Yl/
Geodetic Survey
_L.- This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box* 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
e•.
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at ( lam) 7?"836 t
c7a
Reviewer' Date
L r..i`!S'? y ? V
Erosion and Sedimentation Control C
•?f ?iZ ?)G pv
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
, P4
Reviewer Date
a
s

3
P.O. Box 27687 a Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STA
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan 13 Howes, Secretary
May 13, 1993
Gary B. Blank
313 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
SUBJECT: Rare Species Near Bridge Replacement Sites
Wake and Pitt Counties
Dear Gary:
Thank you for your letter of May 6, 1993, requesting rare species
information from bridge replacement sites in two counties. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record of one rare
species near downtown Raleigh and records of five rare species in
the Tar River near Greenville.
The horse-shoe crab beetle (Limulodes paradoxus), significantly
rare in the state, was collected in 1964 in western Raleigh. It
seems unlikely that the two bridge replacement projects would
affect this species.
Three rare species of freshwater mollusks have been reported from
the Tar River near Greenville. The yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa) and the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) are state-
listed as Threatened and are federal Candidate species. The
Tidewater mucket (Lampsilis ochracea) is state-listed as Special
Concern. Two rare vertebrate species also are known from this
area. The Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), a species of
salamander, is state-listed as Special Concern and is a federal
Candidate (3C) species. The Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons)
is significantly rare in the state. We do not have information on
the current status of these species in this area. However, all of
these aquatic species are vulnerable to degradations in water
quality resulting from pollution and sedimentation.
Enclosed please find two lists of rare species, as well as high-
quality natural communities, that are known to occur in Wake and
Pitt counties. This should address your request for information
concerning state-listed threatened or endangered species that occur
in these counties.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276117687 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atfnnawn Action Employer
50%mycled/105por.me wpTw
Mr. Gary B. Blank
Page 2
May 13, 1993
Please contact me at 733-7701 if you have any questions or require
further information
sincerely,..
Ann W. Kelly
Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
/awk
x
Enclosure
0
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator 5V-Iry
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 4, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street)
over the Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, North
Carolina, TIP No. B-2225, SCH Project No. 93-0902.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and a site inspection was conducted on June 3,
1993. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves improvements to the existing
bridge, with possible alternatives of rehabilitation or
replacement of the present structure. The addition of a new
structure and extension of Pitt Street is also being considered
among alternatives. The NCWRC recommends improvement of existing
facilities over construction on new location and offers no
objection to rehabilitation or on-site replacement alternatives,
provided that stringent erosion and sedimentation control
measures are maintained and that field investigations are
coordinated with resource agencies to evaluate possible impacts
on threatened or endangered species.
The Pitt Street extension and associated river crossing will
involve construction on new location, potentially impacting
Memo Page 2 June 4, 1993
significant areas of bottomland hardwood forest. If the NCDOT
elects to proceed with this alternative, the NCWRC recommends
that all efforts to avoid and minimize wetland/floodplain loss be
incorporated into project designs. A span of greater length than
that of the existing Bridge 411 will be required to avoid fill in
wetlands and constriction of the Tar River floodplain. The use
of causeway within the floodplain will be considered an avoidable
wetland impact for purposes of permit review. Constriction of
the floodplain would increase the likelihood of upstream
flooding, possibly leading to environmentally damaging secondary
measures, including channelization or armoring of the river
channel. The NCWRC anticipates that the scope of work described
for the Pitt Street extension will require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment to adequately address project impacts.
For purposes of reference during document preparation, our
informational needs are listed below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
a
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for'the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Memo Page 3 June 4, 1993
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by any new road construction. These
indirect impacts have often been ignored in NCDOT
documents, although the possible economic benefits of
subsequent development are frequently cited as
justification for highway construction. The NCWRC
recommends that this and future documents provide a
balanced treatment of secondary development impacts,
particularly when construction on new alignment is
proposed.
Memo
Page 4
June 4, 1993
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1

,0""T or CQ41,
_ 4M UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIp NAL MARINE FGSHERIES SE,??IICE
+JAT[f of f' Southeast Regional Orrice
X450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

June 7, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Attention Michelle Wagoner
Dear Mr. Ward:
Please reference your May 4, 1993, letter requesting input into the
environmental assessment process for the proposed improvements of
the Greene Street Bridge over the Tar River in Greenville, Pitt
County, North Carolina, B-2225, Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531, State
Project 8.2220601, Federal Project BRN-6964(1).
Based on our knowledge of the Tar River system, we have determined
that this project may adversely impact National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) trust resources. The Tar River and its adjacent
wetlands provide habitat for a variety of anadromous species
including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa
sauidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), and alewife (Alosa oseudoharbngus), Therefore,
the potential adverse impacts on anadromous fish should be
addressed for each alternative.
The impact on wetlands for each alternative is unclear. If wetland
losses are anticipated, the type, acreage, and location of wetland
alternations should be identified and measures to avoid and
minimize wetland losses should be incorporated into the planning
process. If a determination is made that wetland losses are
unavoidable, a plan to mitigate these losses should be developed.
A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 10 and Section 404 permit
may be required for this work. If this is the case, failure to
include a plan to mitigate unavoidable wetland losses may result in
a recommendation from the NMFS that federal authorization for this
work not be granted.
Bridge construction activities can impact fisheries by dredging in
the river or filling of wetlands for construction access.
Therefore, construction related impacts on wetlands and eggs,
larvae, and juvenile. anadromous fish should be addressed in the
environmental document. We recommend that you contact the N. C.
Division of Marine Fisheries for detailed information on the
seasonal occurrence of anadromous species in the project area. If
conflicts between the proposed project and anadromous fish
` G. l r;\

r
Ar

utilization of the Tar River are identified, seasonal restrictions
on construction activity in the river may be recommend by the NMFS.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincer
Andra Mager, r.
Assistant Reg' nal Director
Habitat Conservation Division
04

a
( SDept ( wl Comma,•::er Federal Building
of Tnonsporfation "" Fifth Cc? ^ and District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23(QJJ§0p4
Uln1WStat?es rt- Phone• 1?b4) 398-6227
coast Guard 'APR 31995 = 16590
a 22 Mar 95
ZZ DIVISION OF v`
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Mana HIGHWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch V1RONiJIE?
North Carolina Department of Transpor on
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is to rescind our previous, determination of May 27, 1993,
regarding the navigational clearance requirement for the proposed
bridge project across the Tar River, mile 59.0, in Greenville,
North Carolina.
Upon further review, it was determined that the "quoted" guide
clearance in our May 27th letter was for fixed bridges up to but
not through Greenville, North Carolina. Based on this, the
clearances shown on the plans attached to your November 21, 1994,
letter appear to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. A
Coast Guard Bridge Permit will still be required for the
replacement of this bridge as well as a Section 106 Evaluation
and a Memorandum of Agreement.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments during the
early stages of this project. If you should have any questions,
please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam, Bridge Management Specialist,
at [phone].
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
U.S. Department Federal Building
of Tin jard District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23?9J$0p4
United SftM% Staff Sy
Cof?sf Guard Phone: 04 ) 39Z-6227
16590
-16590
ay 93
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportatio
Division of Highways -? JUN 0 2 1993 =
P.O. Box 25201 v
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
2 DIVISION Or 2Q'
Dear Mr. Ward: HIGHWAYS
?FNWROW0-` 0
This is in response to your letter dated May 1 , regarding
proposed improvements to Bridge No. 411 across the Tar River
(Pamlico & Tar Rivers), mile 59.0, in Greenville, North Carolina.
Of the four alternatives being studied for this bridge, all but
the "do nothing" alternative will require a Coast Guard Bridge
Permit. Any structure replaced or any new structure built across
the Tar River within the city of Greenville will have to meet the
minimum standard guide clearances for bridges on this river which
were established November 20, 1972. These clearances are:
a. Fixed/Vertical Lift Bridges - 60-foot horizontal
clearance and 50-foot vertical clearance at mean high water.
b. Swing/Bascule Bridges.- 60-foot horizontal clearance and
5-foot vertical clearance (in the closed position) at mean high
water.
To ensure these clearances will meet the reasonable needs of
navigation, we will issue a preliminary public notice, upon
written request from you, soliciting information on the types and
sizes of navigation that transit the river at the location of the
proposed project. -The preliminary public notice has a 30-day
comment period. At the end of the 30 days, we will review all
comments received, and inform you in writing of our findings.
As stated in your letter, Bridge No. 411 is eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In the
event the existing structure is replaced, or rehabilitated, a
Section 106 Evaluation will be required as well as a Memorandum
of Agreement between the appropriate Federal and state agencies
involved in the historical significance of the bridge. A Section
4(f) Evaluation of the Department-of Transportation Act will have
to be prepared if the public park, adjacent to the existing
bridge, is impacted by the proposed project. All other
environmental impacts should be adequately addressed in the
environmental document.
16590
27 May 93
If you should have any questions regarding this project, please
contact Ms. Linda Gilliam, Bridge Management Specialist, at (804)
398-6227.
Sincerely,

ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
2

State of North Carolina .
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Planning & Assessment
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
I! MORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
A74 0
rte"
FROM: Melba McGee ll
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0902 Scoping Proposed Improvements to Bridge No. 411
on Sr 1531 over the Tar River in Greenville, Pitt County
DATE: June 9, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will -be provided
during the environmental review process. The N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission was unable to provide comments at this time.
Should comments be received, they will be forwarded to you for your
file. '
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If, during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 27, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Diivision:of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihare, Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 93-0902; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Improvements to Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 over the Tar
River in Greenville (TIP #B-2225)
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge improvements would occur over
a section of the Tar River which is classified as C NSW. The
environmental document should discuss the measures the NCDOT would
utilize to minimize the potential water quality impacts associated
with construction and the long-term use of the improved bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification .31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
9290er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carofna 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
so+oo? eus sc„oo? eus
Pitt County Schools
School Bus Transportation
901 Mall Drive
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
1
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. John McKnight, Associate Superintendent
FROM: Rodney Bullock, Transportation Director*a
DATE: April 29, 1993
Re: Information requested for preparation of Categorical
Exclusions for B-2225 (Pitt County)
In response to your request for information concerning the
number of school bus trips across bridge No. 411, we have
determined this bridge is crossed 40 times by 16 buses during the
course of a day.
If I can provide any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE C F j L?
3125 Presidential Parkway - Suite 300 Q`
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
May 26, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
JUN 0 1 1993
ZC lChv pF
e z
NIt(?
This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated May 4, 1993,
soliciting comments on the proposed improvements to Bridge 411 over
the Tar River in Pitt County, North Carolina. It appears that the
improvements will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory - Commission.
Therefore, we have no comment.
?Ve truly yours,
Robert W. Crisp, P.E.
Director
l
a

i
Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A.
Post Office Box 1767
Greenville, NC 27835-1767
September 8, 1994
Mr. Rick Shirley
Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 1587
Greenville, NC 27835
Dear Rick:
09 U?
! L,
HC DOT. DIV. CF HIGHWAYS
I want to personally thank you for finding time to visit with our small
group Wednesday to provide a better understanding of the proposed Greene
Street bridge issue and its possible.-affect on Greene and Pitt Streets.
Your sharing the information currently available plus the time frame of
this project was very beneficial to all of us.
I was delighted the Chamber agreed to write you a letter stating at the
latest meeting of the full board held on August 25th, the board unanimously
voted to re-evaluate their earlier position. As you know, the Transportation
Committee plans to meet next Wednesday, the 14th at 7:30 a.m. at John
Chaffee's office. I am pleased those meeting with us Wednesday will
attend this meeting.
I thought it would be appropriate to state in writing Wachovia's three
main concerns as it relates to the possible widening of Greene Street
should the four lane bridge option be selected versus the two one-way
bridges.
First, parking is very important to our business and the loss of potentially
30 parking places could be devastating. As our city grows and the University
M expands, parking downtown will be of greater importance. Also, from a
safety standpoint, even if adequate parking is made available two to four
blocks away, the crime element also becomes an issue when our employees
' would be coming and leaving work.
Second, the eventual expansion of Greene Street to four lanes plus a turn
lane would be a concern from a safety standpoint both to drivers and to
pedestrians. The tendency is for the speed of the drivers to increase
when a four or five lane thoroughfare is available. Egress and ingress of
our customers would become difficult, also.
Last is the possible economic impact should Greene Street be eventually
widened. We have 53,000 sq. feet in this building so you can calculate
quickly at $100.00 per sq. foot that we have a $5.3MM building plus the
cost of land. If we should ever leave downtown, and certainly as I mentioned
we have no plans to, the decrease in parking spaces would decrease the
marketability of our property. No reasonable amount of compensation could
offset this loss.
Mr. Rick Shirley
Page 2
September 8, 1994
I personally appreciate your time and hope that you will share the feelings
of Wachovia and the feelings that Ed Kirby of NationsBank shared with you
earlier.
It was interesting to learn that the widening of Pitt Street to the minimum
two-lane requirement would not create a need for any property to be purchased.
Only when turn lanes were deemed necessary would there be a need to purchase
property, and then.only a very nominal amount. This within itself makes
the pair of one-way streets versus the four lane bridge a very attractive
consideration.
You were very helpful and I look forward to seeing.you on the 14th.
. i
With warmest regards,
erely,
John J W st, J
Senio ice Pre.,.....,
JJW,Jr/smd
cc: Mr. Bobby Tripp
Mr. Chip Cherry

State Employees' Credit Union
August 15, 1994
Ms. Michelle W. Fishburne
NC Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
i PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
• Dear Ms. Fishburne:
This letter is in follow up to our conversation regarding
selection of the Greene Street bridge replacement alternative.
Because of our location on the north side of First Street,
either of the alternatives selected will have a considerable
impact on our property. However, based on the preliminary
drawings made available to us, the option resulting in the
construction of a five lane bridge to the west of the existing
structure would have a substantially more negative effect on our
business. The amount of right of way required would render our
entire drive-in operation inoperable as the lane entrance would
be taken. Our building is designed such that the drive-in units
can not be moved to another location. It would appear that the
redesign and renovation necessary to recover from a loss of this
much property, if possible, would be quite extensive. The option
of the two one way bridges would be preferable to us as this
choice would not require the extensive redesign of our facility
that the five lane bridge would dictate.
We would appreciate your making our concerns known to the
individuals who will make the final decision. In addition, I
would like to thank you for your cooperation in answering my
questions and providing information to me during this process.
If any additional information is needed in order to clarify
our concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
STATE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION
E. R. Taylor
Senior Vice President
ERT:tmt
® 300 W. First Street .4W Post Office Box 7126 W Greenville, INC 27835.7126 .+W 919 758-5547
P-Wied Paw
NC 1-005-16-06
Real Estate Services
121 West Trade Street
Charlotte. NC 28255
HationsBank
September 6, 1994
Mr. Ron Kimble
City Manager
City of Greenville
P.O. Box 7207
Greenville, NC 27835
Dear Mr. Kimble,
NationsBank hereby offers this letter to strongly object to the planned direction the City
of Greenville is taking regarding the new bridge being contemplated for access into
downtown Greenville. NationsBank values its involvement and commitment to the
City of Greenville but respectfully questions a road improvement project that will
severely impact our main office location at 201 West First Street. It appears that
offering a solution that minimally affects private and public entities downtown would
be the logical path of least resistance and most feasible.
Therefore, it is with great determination and candor that NationsBank strongly opposes
the single five lane option and favors the two one-way pairs option for improving the
access across the Tar River to the downtown sector of Greenville.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Jimmy H. Medlin
Vice President
Real Estate Services
cc: Mr. Edgar Kirby - NationsBank
v-Ma. G.R. Shirley - NC Department of Transportation
Mr. Tom Tysinger - Director of Public Works City of Greenville
USA
•:`4-31 Sthricr
..;qa, i?x?s
.e, u-s ooo-ooi?
Fax [phone]
SEP 1 2 a nip,
IC=I
4..r'
NC DOT, DIV. C.'
2ND DIVI:'C::
[ember FDIC
•
. o Wuuaa+aiin
P. O. Box 1807
Greenville, NC 27835-1807
Tel [phone] _
9 4]
NaflonsBank 2
NC DIOT, CIV C' KWNAYS
1-•? E CI'1;7. OFFICE
September 9, 1994
Mr. Rick Shirley
Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 1587
s Greenville,.NC 27835
-Dear Rick:
I want to express my appreciation for you taking the
time to meet with our group from NationsBank, Wachovia
and the Pitt/Greenville Chamber of Commerce to discuss
our interest in the Green Street bridge replacement.
This gave us the opportunity to make you aware of the
current Chamber position which is to further examine
the issue and also allowed us to learn more about the
impact of the various options from the perspective of
the Department of Transportation staff.
As a follow up to our meeting I believe you will
receive a letter from the Chamber reaffirming that the
Chamber Board in full session tabled the issue pending
further consideration by its Transportation Committee
of the economic impact of the various options on the
existing downtown businesses particularly NationsBank
and Wachovia. I hope you will share this information
with your Board in Raleigh.
The Chamber Transportation Committee will meet again on
Wednesday, September 14, 1994 at-7:30 AM at. John
Chaffee's office. At this meeting I believe all of the
affected parties will be represented and a more
comprehensive discussion of the issues should occur. If
your schedule allows I hope you will join us at this
meeting.
I want to also take this oppbrtunity to discuss
NationsBank's position on the Greene Street bridge
replacement. Due to our location at the corner of First
and Greene Streets we will be significantly impacted by
the bridge option selected.
If the decision is made to
ultimately leading to the
5 lanes, NationsBank will
USA
Orha
,9-04/10-96
build a four lane bridge
widening of Greene Street to
lose 24 of its 89 parking
Member FDIC

spaces., Having no commitment as to how these-spaces
could be replaced, we would find ourselves with
insufficient parking to service our building size. This
would be compounded by the fact that the nature of
banking requires more than the normal number of spaces
to service our flow of customers. The result would be a
substantial reduction in the economic value of our
property, unless other-readily accessible parking could
be located.
A second major concern that we have relates to
potential problems with the accessibility of our
building if Greene Street is eventually widened to 5
lanes. We fear that the added width would increase the
difficulty of entering and exiting our parking lot and
thereby increase the risk to our employees and
customers of coming to our office. Because of this
perceived danger we fear that customers would avoid
using this location and make our building less valuable
as a banking office.
We believe that the two one way bridges option offers
all of the advantages of the four lane bridge option
while having minimal negative effect on downtown
Greenville. Further, the two one way bridges option
appears to avoid the substantial reduction in economic
value that will occur to the two major private
properties in downtown Greenville, the NationsBank and
Wachovia buildings, with the 4 lane bridge option.
Again let me thank you for taking the time to meet with
us. I hope you will share NationsBank's,position on
this issue with your associates. I appreciate your
discussion of the options with our group and look
forward to seeing you at our meeting on September 14.
Sing rely,
u.?iGcJ, n ?
Ed W. it III
S i r Vice r sident
cc: Mr. Chip Cherry
Mr. Bobby Tripp

10
.._I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
u
MAY - 7 1993
GROUP
Am SECTION
JAM HUNT
SECRETARY
May 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor ,Q
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: B-2225, Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street) over
the Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, State Project
8.2220601, Federal Project BRN-6964(1)
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Bridge No. 411 over the Tar
River. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Department of
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in
fiscal year 1994 and construction in fiscal year 1995.
As shown on the attached location map, Bridge No. 411 is located on
Greene Street in Greenville. The existing structure crosses over the Tar
River and is located adjacent to a public park.
The existing structure was built in 1927 and is 852 feet long with a 200
foot steel truss and 652 feet of reinforced concrete spans. The bridge is
eligible for the National Register and was dedicated in 1928 to the men from
Pitt County who served in World War I. This dedication was made by the N. C.
State Highway Commission at the request of the Woman's Auxiliary, Pitt County
Post of American Legion.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do-Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace the Existing Structure
Also included as part of this bridge study is an alternative which
provides a new structure on the proposed Pitt Street extension, west of
Bridge No. 411. This new structure, when coupled with Bridge No. 411, will
provide a one-way pair for access in and out of Greenville along Pitt Street
and Green Street. The proposed new structure and the Pitt Street extension
is indicated by a dash line on the attached thoroughfare plan map.

I'
May 4, 1993
Page 2
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. It is desirable that your agency respond by June 7, 1993 so that
your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Michelle Wagoner, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919)
733-7842.
LJW/plr
Attachment
5'0 app 0
SZZ?-&
83A18 HVI 83AG
4£SL 8S)A381SN338aNO
LHb 'ON 304188 30VId38
AlNnOO uld
3111AN3380
HDNYHH
IIV.LNHWN02IIAN3 QNH ONINNvld
SAVMHO1 H ,40 NOISIAIQ
Nolly aodSN`d u
AO .LN3WIHVd3Q VNI IOHVD HIHON
l5piawlays II uap,(y. \
1? 01
t aailuno
If yoel9 it lIeJa)wM
ova !
v+s
1 l i d El
EE puelsawug
N `. Uosdw
0 iny3iY 1108 " •
+ apuuaa??
snloloed 6- _.EO RI /ppol
sagol$ a
5 OE EI t
a
._ ? i 144148 /.-f/
F= f
?F
Wwl i,
B6S1
z 9'd
??sI
OVZ'gC 'dOd r;
3111nN?321 J I 'S
TEST
{
Zvi
?, K..-V
I yjod"V
a?pnuaa?0•p?d
i

i . I
Wt t
Lit-
-iA
y i/? . 4 , S F ?, : 4 a
+ s `1
(?/ , 7 J r +?r. `t y> f t. 5' y f,Y r l \\ U
BRIDGE NO 41 IY
• : i ; • TAR ? RI V E: i
4t f Li
Ff v.
tt IF.
1. e `. h?, '?z ? ? x -'t c{ ?•t f': ° ti r ..y+:' f•. h ?- }? b ? ? ,F 11
I%
\
r
i,
g N t r 1
?- ,X . \ ?,,it k{ ?i"? '•? ' § r.L ?. ids '?` ?+t??flj;,?l?A 1
?' _ ?? QQ v 7
O +9tiT- •,
Its
l, F '? ^ t +i- 1
p t ._.
ilk
a SECTION OF GREENVILLE ri r> 4'"' t'i,rt
THOROUGHFARE PLAN n Vf y' <
EXISTING PROPOSED k s.c L• y i ?,
f MAJOR -THOROUGHFARE lMMMM S Mal
7 a'x t'
" tM
MINOR THOROUGHFARE ??p r? li ¦ a { "tr• ?' i'
' ?s • ?. r ?'t, f i t F..L r+ 1,r r ?• r , Jl
- ? ? ?.r ('FSi? ?' I? ? a... '• r 'Yr t' . ?1 (;1L Q 'y' CY • f
' 1 3'; CJ 3\
? s •.. `?' ? ? a l ,rt ,,, i C' fi? _ ? _ -q ??+ .-? ?` r •r,?'V FIG U /f
}. ?y { wYh 'C?,?•,TT }ti ?'F h 1' 3 tsl y? F'VU f\ `t
• '? C i , tl F.? e>r.f tip}, xrr.
7-1
?id
?:" - LSD r .-__? ?.i. , .-3.> \,.a r i ?Ib a ±.; f,t ..ryl ?? •;??h--b ?`f> .,?..•"_!l

N C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
peA4 -
FROM: REF. NO: OR ROOM, BLDG.

it
ACTION .
? NOTE AND FILE ?: PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME - ? PER. YOUR REQUEST
I? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?- FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?'FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER . . ?FORYOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE. ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?. INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
;A
r
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
November 12, 1992
nR
NOV 17M2
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manage'''
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Bridge Replacement Project B-2225,
Pitt County, State Project No. 8.2220601
The private engineering firm William Daniels & Associates has been selected
to perform the planning, environmental, and engineering services for the
subject project. In order for the Planning and Environmental Branch to
negotiate a contract as soon as possible, a scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 1992 at 10:30 AM in Room 470
of the Highway Building.
Attached for your review are the scoping sheets and location map for the
proposed project. The purpose of these attachments is to provide you with
the information necessary to prepare any comments, concerns or information
you have regarding this project. You may provide us with your comments at
the meeting. If you cannot attend the meeting, please mail your comments
by November 16, 1992.
Thank you for your assistance with this part of our planning process. Your
input will be greatly appreciated and helpful in identifying the scope of
work needed to implement the project effectively.
If you have any questions, please call Michelle Wagoner, Project Engineer,
at 733-7842.
MW/wp
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
r -
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 11-9-92
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING _
PLANNING x
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT
B-2225
STATE PROJECT 8.2220601
F.A. PROJECT BRM-6964(1)
DIVISION
COUNTY
2
ROUTE _ US 13 Greene_ S_t_reet )-
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Prepare Categorical Exclusion for the
replacement of Bridge No. 411 on
Greene Street over the Tar River
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION -
2. EXISTING LOCATION -
3. RELOCATION _
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)
r -
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 19,000 VPD DESIGN YEAR 32,600 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 4 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC TION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 541 FEET; WIDTH 28 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR S TRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE @ INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES AND
ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $ 4,300,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 137,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 4,437,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 4,437,000
PREPARED BY: Michelle Wagoner
DATE: 11-9-92
uu f.of s^'• LJ
>•? ice; ?
.J! 1 YB
.I1 1?nM
.'1? Mull .
1707
1390
Y TT
c `AU T
f 1107
I Y ( ?
Of L <
State of North Carolina
D€pcwtment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
!vision of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 27, 1993
MEMORANDUM
AAr4**A
1? EHNR
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM Monica Swihar?1?', Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 9370902; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Improvements to Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 over the Tar
River in Greenville (TIP #B-2225)
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge improvements would occur over
a section of the Tar River which is classified as C NSW. The
environmental document should discuss the measures the NCDOT would
utilize to minimize the potential water quality impacts associated
with construction and the long-term use of the improved bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
9290er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

+wSTATFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 14, 1997
RECEIVED
JAN 16 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Chief
Bridge Administration Section
United States Coast Guard
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Subject: Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531• (Greene Street) over the Tar River in
Greenville, North Carolina, Pitt County, State Project No. 8.2220601,
F. A. Project No. BRM-6964 (1), TIP No. B-2225
In response to your letter of December 11, 1996, please find enclosed a copy of the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject project. A Finding of No Significant
Impact will be prepared for the project following an appropriate comment period for the
EA.
As indicated in our previous letter, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
not applying for a bridge permit at this time. Our request is for concurrence from the
Coast Guard with the proposal to provide a minimum vertical clearance of 20.7 feet
between the normal water surface elevation and the low chord in the channel for the
bridge. This request is based on the following information:
• The existing under-clearance for Bridge No. 411, from approximate normal water
surface elevation to the low chord in the channel, is 24.6 feet,
• The under-clearance for the railroad bridge located 0.2 mile upstream of Bridge No.
411 is 20.7 feet, and
• The only boat landing in the area is located downstream of Bridge No. 411 near the
Greene Street Park.
0
Your concurrence is necessary for the NCDOT to proceed with structure and roadway
design. If you have questions, or need additional information, please contact Gail Grimes,
P.E. at [phone], Ext 265.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/lgg
attachment
cc: Roy Shelton, FHWA w/attachment
rhn d L ekson, USACOE w/attachment
Dorney, NCDEHNR w/attachment

US. Department
of Transportatio/Aff
United States Coast Guard
Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA(§J61*f3(?04
Staff Sym
Phone: M7) 5 7) 398-6227
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
l
Dear Mr. Vick:
16590
11 Dec 1996
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that we have received.
the Categorical Exclusion/Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for
the replacement of Bridge No. 411 across the Tar River (Pamlico &
Tar Rivers), mile 59.0, at Greenville, North Carolina.
As discussed with Ms. Gail Grimes o?`your department and Mr. John
Wadsworth, Federal Highway Administration, we cannot accept a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project. In accordance with
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), each Federal agency is required to adopt procedures to
supplement those regulations. The Coast Guard's procedures and
policies are published in a Commandant Instruction entitled
"National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and
Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts" (COMDTINST
M16475.1B). Under section 2:B.2.e.(32)(a) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59 FR 38654, 29 July 1994),
Categorical Exclusions can be used for modifications or
replacements of an existing bridge on essentially the same
alignment or location. Excluded are bridges with historic
significance or bridges providing access to undeveloped barrier
islands and beaches. Section 2.B.2.e.(32)(g) of this section
states that another Department of Transportation agency acting as
lead agency can classify a bridge program action as a CE;?
however, in referring back to section 2. B. 2.e.(32)(a), historic
bridges are excluded.
Since a CE will not be accepted, you will need to provide us with
a Finding of No Significant Impact for this project. In the
meantime, your application for a bridge permit will be held in
abeyance. If there are any questions concerning this matter,
contact Ms. Linda Gilliam, Project Officer, at [phone].
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
.By direction of the',Commander
211 D` 196=, Fifth Coast Guard District
DIVISION OF C?
HiGHWAYS 0Q
?01 Nt?Z-
?'???
Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRN-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
12-
D-A/ Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1zla10?
Date Ni olas L. Graf, P.E.
flaz Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRN-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
December 1996
Documentation Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc.:
J re W. Mo re
Project Planner / Designer
Thomas R. He er, P.E.
Transportation Unit Manager
?.
CSACI Rp"?•
SEAL
e =
10359
o?®B??AS R NEQooooo
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:

L. Gail rimes, E., Unit Head
Cons ting Engineering Unit
Pitt County, SR 1531
Bridge No. 411
over Tar River
State Project No. 8.2220601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRM-6964(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2225
Bridge No. 411 is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program. The project location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a result
of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Environmental Assessment (EA)."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including the NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. Department of the Army permits, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1977 and to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 will be required.
In addition, a permit under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 will
be required from the United States Coast Guard. Written concurrence of 401
Water Quality Certification will be required.
3. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss,
including the concrete approaches, in accordance with the attached Historic
Structure Recordation Plan (see Page 34).
4. Should the project affect archaeological sites 31PT440 and 31PT63 additional
archaeological investigations will be conducted to determine the significance of
these sites.
5. No additional right-of-way or easements will be acquired along Pitt Street within
the Skinnerville Historic District.
6. To minimize impacts to anadromous fish in the Tar River, NCDOT will contact
the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries Service
during the permitting process in identifying seasonal restrictions on construction
activities.
1
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 411 crosses the Tar River on SR 1531 (Greene Street) in Greenville, the
county seat of Pitt County. The existing two-lane bridge will be replaced with a new
two-lane bridge on the same location. Pitt Street will be extended across the Tar River
with a second two-lane bridge 330 feet upstream of Bridge No. 411 (See Alternative
1A on Figure 2A). The Greene Street bridge will accommodate northbound traffic
and the Pitt Street bridge will accommodate southbound traffic. Pitt Street and
Greene Street will converge with the existing four-lane facility approximately 1200
feet north of the river. To the south, Pitt Street and Greene Street will converge at the
Dickinson Avenue intersection with the existing four-lane divided Reade Street.
Between the two existing four-lane sections, Pitt and Greene Streets will operate as a
one-way pair. Both bridges will be 870 feet in length with a clear roadway width of
30 feet. The bridges will provide a 28-foot travelway with an additional two feet on
the right side for bicycles. A five-foot sidewalk will be provided on the eastern side of
the Greene Street bridge and on the western side of the Pitt Street bridge (see Figure
3).
Minor improvements to Greene and Pitt Streets are required to convert them to one-
way traffic flow. Greene Street will be resignalized and restriped. Pitt Street will be
widened to a 24-foot curb and gutter section between First and Fifth Street. The
intersection of Fifth and Pitt Streets will be resignalized and the intersections of Pitt
Street with Third, Fourth, and First Streets will be signalized.
Two-way traffic will be maintained on the existing Green Street bridge during
construction of the Pitt Street bridge. Two-way traffic will then be detoured onto the
new two-lane Pitt Street bridge while the existing Greene Street bridge is replaced.
The design speed for the proposed roadway is 40 miles per hour. The anticipated
posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.

The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $6,120,250 with a
construction cost of $5,960,000 and right-of-way cost of $160,250. The project is listed
in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project No. B-2225.
The project is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in September, 1996 and
construction in August, 1997.
The section of Greene Street in the project area is not part of the Bicycling Highway
System. However, the replacement bridges will include a 16-foot lane and pedestrian
and bicycle safe bridge railing to permit motorists and bicyclists to safely share the
same lane. The Greene Street crossing of the Tar River provides the only direct
connection between residential areas north of the river and the Greenville central
business district, and East Carolina University.
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project is located in the central business district of Greenville. Greene
Street (SR 1531) and Pitt Street are classified as urban minor arterials in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Land use south of the Tar River includes
commercial businesses and a public park. North of the river, the Tar River floodplain
extends into undeveloped woodland. The speed limit along Greene Street and Pitt
Street is posted at 35 miles per hour. The vertical alignment on Greene Street is
generally flat with a slight rise in grade on the north approach to the existing bridge.
The north and south approaches to the bridge are in a tangent alignment, however,
the bridge is constructed in a three degree curve. Pitt Street is located on a tangent
alignment and the vertical alignment is generally flat.
The 1994 traffic volume is 15,800 vehicles per day (vpd) on Greene Street and 4800
vpd on Pitt Street. The traffic volumes for the one -way pair is expected to increase to
approximately 32,000 vpd by the year 2016. The projected volume includes one
percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and four percent dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The roadway widths vary along Greene Street in the project area. The pavement
width from First Street to the south end of the bridge is 40 feet face-to-face of curbs
with 7-foot sidewalks on each side of the street. The pavement width from the north'
end of the bridge to a point 700 feet north of the bridge is 24 feet with 8-foot paved
shoulders and a gravel sidewalk on the east shoulder. The pavement section from 700
feet north of the bridge to 1000 feet north of the bridge tapers from a 24-foot shoulder
section to a 48-foot, face-to-face, curb and gutter section.
Pitt Street has a roadway width of 24 feet between Fifth Street and Third Street with a
curb and five foot sidewalk on both sides. The roadway width between Third Street
and Second Street is 22 feet with a sidewalk on both sides. Between Second Street and
240 feet north of First Street, Pitt street is a 40-foot curb and gutter section with a 9-
foot 6-inch sidewalk on each side.
Bridge No. 411, constructed in 1927, has a two-hundred foot Parker Truss divided
into nine panels (see Figure 4). The Parker Truss, common in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, is similar in appearance to the common Pratt Truss with the
exception of polygonal top chords. The Parker Truss was designed to carry heavier
loads than the Pratt Truss through the use of its distinctive arched top chords and its
non-uniform sized members. Bridge No. 411 is recorded in the North Carolina Truss
Inventory Evaluation as being one of 35 bridges in the State eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historical Places. The bridge was dedicated in 1928 to the men
from Pitt County who served in World War I. This dedication was made by the N. C.
State Highway Commission at the request of the Woman's Auxiliary, Pitt County
Post of American Legion.
3
The Parker Truss spans the Tar River and is bounded by a 48-foot 5-inch reinforced
concrete deck girder span to the south; a 29-foot 6-inch reinforced concrete deck
girder span to the north; and nineteen 30-foot reinforced concrete deck girder spans
for a total structure length of 848.2 feet. The truss is constructed of heavy riveted steel
beams and angles with a reinforced concrete deck roadway and pedestrian walkway.
The bridge has a clear roadway width of 24 feet and a 4-foot 6-inch walkway inside
the truss on the east side. The truss has a vertical clearance of 13 feet-10 inches at the
centerline of the roadway, 14 feet-1 inch on the northbound lane, and 12 feet-2 inches
on the southbound lane.
The truss is supported by reinforced concrete bents on timber piles and the approach
spans are supported on precast concrete pile bents. In addition, temporary support
piers consisting of steel piles have been added at both ends of the bridge.
The truss was inspected on October 13, 1993 by the NCDOT. The truss was listed in
fair condition for most inspection items. Collision damage was noted at the north and
south portal struts. The damage was noted as extensive to the portal struts at the
south end. In addition, moderate collision damage was noted on the interior sway
bracing and sway struts. Hairline cracks and minor spalling were noted in the
concrete deck. Some of the pipe handrails are rusted completely through.
The reinforced concrete approach spans reveal deteriorated conditions including
deck, bent and rail spalling, exposed rebar and up to 1/2 inch vertical cracks in
bentcaps. In addition to sagging rails and decks, a number of the deck spans have
rotated up to 1-1/2 inches to the east and the piles are tilted. The substructure bents
and piers for the truss are tilted approximately seven inches to the south as measured
from bottom to top of the northern end bent. The rocker bearing on the north end of
the truss is tilted 1-3/8 inches to the south. The piers are supported by the original
timber piles which cannot be visually inspected.
The bridge, including the truss, is classified as functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The bridge is posted Single Vehicle 28 tons/Truck and Truck-tractor semi-
trailer 33 tons. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 5.0 and an estimated remaining
life of five years.
A 225-foot wide utility right-of-way crosses Greene Street at the north end of the
bridge. Greenville Utilities maintains two 115 KV overhead electrical transmission
lines and CP&L maintains a 230 KV electrical line at this location. A 4-inch gas line
and a 12-inch waterline are suspended from the bridge. A 21-inch gravity sanitary
sewer line extends along the south bank of the Tar River and crosses under the
southern approach span to the Parker Truss. An 8-inch gravity sewer line and 14-inch
4
and 6-inch waterlines extend along Greene Street north of the bridge. A 16-inch
waterline extends along Greene Street south of the bridge. A 6-inch waterline extends
along Pitt Street. A fiber optic cable is located under the shoulder along Greene
Street. The cable traverses the Tar River in an arial crossing parallel to the west side
of the structure. Street lights service the entire structure from both ends.
A USGS Gauging Station is located on the southeast corner of the existing structure.
Coordination with the National Weather Service concluded this station is abandoned.
Accidents reported on SR 1531 from Second Street to approximately one mile north of
the Greene Street bridge are summarized below:
Table 1 Accident Summary

Accidents SR 1531
Jan. 89 - Apr. 92 Accident Rates
For N.C.
1991-1993*
1. Total Accidents 1025.6 251.4
2. Fatal Accidents 0 0.8
3. Non-Fatal Injury 363.2 103.9
Accidents
4. Property Damage 662.4 N/A
Only Accidents
5. Night Accidents 64.1 48.7
6. Alcohol Involved 21.4 N/A
Accidents
7. Wet Accidents 192.3 54.6
* Accident Rates are in Accidents per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel. The
Accident Rates were taken from North Carolina Department of
Transportation Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit for Two-Lane
Undivided Urban North Carolina Routes.
Sixteen school buses cross bridge No. 411 for a total of 40 crossings per a day.
The Greene Street Park and a boat landing are located to the southeast of the
structure. The existing Greene Street bridge provides 30 feet of vertical clearance over
the Tar River.
5
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternative Description
No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative would eventually necessitate closure
of SR 1531 and removal of Bridge No. 411 due to its structurally deficient condition.
The nearest crossing of the Tar River is approximately one mile upstream on
Memorial Drive. Greene Street and the bridge over the Tar River form a vital
transportation link into the Greenville central business district from the north. It is
the most direct connection between the heart of Greenville to such important facilities
such as the Pitt-Greenville Airport, the Pitt County Campus Facility, the industrial
park, East Carolina University and numerous residential communities to the north.
Consequently, the No Build Alternative is not considered reasonable and is not
recommended.
Rehabilitation of Existing Structure. A study was performed to determine the
feasibility of rehabilitating the historic Parker Truss at Bridge No. 411.
In order to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards, the roadway width would be increased to 28 feet. The
pedestrian walkway would be removed and pedestrian traffic would be relocated to
the proposed bridge on Pitt Street.
Vertical clearances through the truss vary from 12-foot 2-inches to 14-foot 1-inch. The
minimum clearance required by AASHTO is 16 feet. One option to increase vertical
clearance includes retaining the existing roadway surface and raising the portal and
sway bracing system approximately two feet. However, retaining the existing deck
would not allow for the widespread strengthening of truss members needed to assist
the truss in carrying increased traffic volumes. In addition, raising the portal bracing
would impact the visual appearance and historical integrity of the truss.
Another option consists of replacing the existing deck with a lightweight composite
deck system. The advantage of this option is the increased load carrying capacity of
the truss and the decreased depth of the deck system. The new deck system would be
supported at a lower level on the truss bottom chord than the existing system,
thereby increasing the vertical clearance.
Due to the leaning piers and the physical inability to inspect the timber piles which
support the concrete piers, the two piers supporting the truss would be replaced.
Option 1 is to replace the piers at their present location. This requires moving the
truss to another location for an extended period of time while the existing piers are
removed, new piles driven and new piers built. Option 2 is to construct new piers
adjacent to the existing piers, shifting the alignment to the west to allow the truss to
6
remain in service while the new piers are constructed. Once the new piers are in
place, the truss would be slid from the old piers onto the new piers. The existing
piers should be demolished down to the top of the existing footing elevation: The
new substructure would be constructed similar in appearance to the existing
substructure to maintain historical integrity.
Because the truss has been in service for over sixty years, the bridge has surpassed the
two million cycles for which new bridges are currently designed. To insure against
fatigue failure, post-tensioning cables would be retrofitted into a boxed bottom chord
to provide 100 percent redundancy of the load path, and to absorb a portion of the
dead load stresses currently carried by the bottom chord. This should reduce the
stress level and extend the life span of the truss. The length of time is speculative.
Total Deck replacement and pier replacement using Option 2 were analyzed applying
the National Inventory and Appraisal criteria. With the proposed improvements and
the 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) of 9500 vpd (one-way), the sufficiency rating is
70.5. With proposed improvements and the 2016 ADT of 16,300 vpd the sufficiency
rating is 67.4. Rehabilitation of the bridge deck would remove it from being eligible
for any further expenditure of Federal bridge rehabilitation funds for a period of ten
years regardless of sufficiency rating. The estimated cost for rehabilitating the truss is
$7,675,250.
Rehabilitation of the truss at Bridge No. 411 is not considered reasonable and feasible
for the following reasons: (1) although the sufficiency rating may warrant
rehabilitation, the bridge would not be eligible for Federal bridge funds; (2) the
potential of steel fatigue cracks and structural failure due to high traffic counts and
age of the bridge; and (3) the high cost of rehabilitation.
One-Way Pair Alternatives Alternative 1 will convert existing Greene and Pitt Streets
from two-way roadways to a one-way pair facility. Two options of the one-way pair
alternative were studied (see Figure 2A). Alternative 1A - (Recommended
Alternative) will replace the existing bridge on Greene Street at its current location
with a two-lane bridge to accommodate northbound traffic. Alternative 1B will
construct a new bridge 60 feet upstream of the existing bridge to accommodate
northbound traffic. Alternative 1B allows the existing truss to be preserved in place.
Both Alternatives 1A and 1B will extend Pitt Street as a two-lane roadway with a new
bridge across the Tar River to accommodate southbound traffic. Pitt Street and
Greene Street will converge with the existing four-lane facility approximately 1200
feet north of the river. Pitt Street and Greene Street will converge with the existing
four-lane divided Reade Street at the intersection with Dickinson Avenue.
Alternative 1 will require minor improvements to Greene and Pitt Streets in order to
convert them from two-way to one-way traffic flow. Construction of the Pitt Street
7
bridge and approaches will occur first allowing traffic to be detoured onto this new
bridge while the Greene Street bridge is replaced.
Single Four-Lane Bridge Alternative Alternatives 2 and 3 would replace the existing
two-lane bridge on Greene Street with a four-lane bridge and provide for two-way
traffic. In order to provide the capacity for future traffic growth, Greene Street would
eventually need widening to five lanes requiring additional right-of-way. Two
options for the single four-lane bridge alternative were developed. Alternative 2
replaces the existing bridge and approaches with a four-lane bridge 150 feet west of
the existing bridge (see Figure 2B). Alternative 2 would create a 10 degree skew at the
intersection of Greene Street and First Street and encroach upon the State Employees
Credit Union. The northern approach would be a four-lane roadway and tie to the
existing four-lane facility. Existing traffic patterns in the urban area would be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Alternative 2 would allow
the existing truss structure to be preserved in place as a pedestrian bridge.
Alternative 3 replaces the existing bridge and approaches with a four-lane bridge 60
feet west of the existing bridge (see Figure 2B). Alternative 3 would improve the
design and reduce right-of-way impacts associated with Alternative 2. The southern
portion of the new bridge would be built in phases with the initial phase of adequate
width to safely carry two lanes of traffic. Traffic would be detoured onto the phased
section of the new bridge while the old bridge is removed and the remainder of the
new bridge constructed. Alternative 3 would provide a better approach to the First
Street intersection and would reduce impacts to the State Employees Credit Union.
Alternative 3 would require removal of the existing historic Parker truss structure.
B. Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Coordination with the City of Greenville and Pitt County was maintained through the
project development. Several meetings were held with the City and County to
discuss the need for the project, and to receive comments from the Greenville Historic
Preservation Commission.
Future government facilities are programmed for construction according to the
Government Campus Masterplan. The plan sets out the City's intent to establish the
Greene Street and Fifth Street intersection as the focal point of the new City
Administrative Campus Facility. The new Police-Fire/ Rescue Headquarters located
in the triangular block bordered by Pitt, Greene and Fifth Streets represents the first
step in implementing the Facility Masterplan.
The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the City of Greenville on May 10, 1990
includes Pitt and Greene Streets as a one-way pair facility with two bridges crossing
the river. The local Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) has endorsed the one-
way pair option as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix). The reasons for
8
this endorsement are: (1) The one-way pair is a Transportation System Management
(TSM) tool which provides up to 50 percent more capacity than five-lane operation
and reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflicts; (2) the one-way pair will utilize the
existing right-of-way along Pitt and Greene Streets; (3) the two-bridge option allows
for staged construction without closing access across the river; and (4) the one way
pair will not impact parking in downtown Greenville.
The concept of levels of service is a qualitative measure describing operational
conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and passengers.
A level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort
and convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures
are available. They are designated with letters from A to F. LOS A represents the
best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. LOS F represents the
worst operating conditions and indicates traffic delays at intersections exceeding 60
seconds per vehicle.
A detailed analysis was performed to determine levels of service (LOS) for future
traffic conditions. As shown in Table 2, the one-way pair facility will operate at a
higher level of service than the four lane alternative.
Table 2 Traffic Levels of Service
41
Alternatives 1A & 1B Alternatives 2 & 3
One-way Pair Single Four-lane Bridge
Level of Service 4-Lane Bridge 4-Lane Bridge
3-Lane Greene St. 5-Lane Greene St.
Construction Year
1996
AM Peak B C C
PM Peak B E D
Design Year 2016
AM Peak B E D
PM Peak D F F
Alternative 1A uses Greene Street without widening the existing pavement.
Alternative 1A accommodates higher capacity with less right-of-way damages and
allows for cost effective, safe and convenient detouring of traffic during construction.
Four properties north of First Street and eight properties on the east side of Pitt Street
will be impacted. The alternative will not affect the historic properties on Greene
9
Street since widening will be contained within the existing right-of-way. Alternative
1A is compatible with the Greenville Thoroughfare Plan and is consistent with
transportation needs of the City. Alternative 1A also has the lowest estimated costs.
Based upon these factors, Alternative 1A was selected as the Recommended
Alternative (see Figure 6).
Alternative 1B was developed to maintain the existing bridge for its historical
significance. Several agencies expressed interest in obtaining the bridge; however,
none of the local, public or private agencies were able to assume liability for
maintenance of the structure. Alternative 1B would have a greater wetland impact
than Alternative 1A because Alternative 1A uses the existing roadway fill.
Alternative 1B is also more expensive than Alternative 1A and would create an
undesirable skew at the Greene Street and First Street intersection. Due to the
associated impacts and higher costs of Alternative 1B, it is not the recommended
alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are not compatible with the Greenville Thoroughfare Plan.
Additional right-of-way would be required along Greene Street to accomodate future
widening. The National Register James Fleming House fronts the west side of Greene
Street. Thus, all right-of-way would be acquired from properties on the east side. As
a result, the County would lose nearly one-fourth of the parking spaces used for
jurors summoned to Pitt County courts. Three properties north of First Street would
be impacted by construction of the four-lane bridge alternative and 19 properties on
Greene Street would be impacted by the future widening on Greene Street. The four-
lane alternative establishes a new roadway corridor across wetland areas and
Alternative 2 creates an undesirable skew at the intersection of Greene and First
Streets. The four-lane bridge alternative also has a higher cost than the one-way pair
alternative as shown in Table 2. Due to right-of-way impacts and higher costs
associated with the four-lane bridge alternative, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not
recommended.

10
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
One Way Pair Alternatives
I
1
1A 1B Rehabilitation
1996 Construction Costs
Bridge and Approaches(1) $5,310,000 $5,410,000 $7,200,000
Additional Improvements(2) $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 390,000
1996 Right-of-Way Costs
Bridge and Approaches $ 160,250 $ 248,500 $ 85,250
Future Costs
Construction(3) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Right-of-Way $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,120,250 $6,308,500 $7,675,250
Four-Lane Bridge Alternatives
2 3
1996 Construction Costs
Bridge and Approaches(1) $4,550,000 $4,800,000
Additional Improvements (2) $ 0 $ 0
1996 Right-of-Way Costs
Bridge and Approaches $ 634,300 $ 439,300
Future Costs
Construction(3) $ 575,000 $ 575,000
Right-of-Way $1,172,950 $1,172,950
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,932,250 $6,987,250
NOTES:
(1) Includes costs of construction from First Street to the four-lane section north of
the Tar River (Does not include any maintenance costs associated with
retaining the existing structure).
(2) Additional improvements include changes made to Pitt Street and Greene
Street to accommodate one-way traffic.
(3) Includes costs of widening Greene Street to five-lanes with new signals.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 411 on Greene Street will be replaced at its existing location with a new
two-lane bridge (Alternative 1A) as shown in Figure 6. A second two-lane bridge will
be constructed approximately 330 feet upstream of Bridge No. 411 to extend Pitt
11
Street across the Tar River. The new bridges will have clear roadway widths of 30
feet and lengths of 870 feet. The Greene Street bridge will provide a one-way, two-
lane facility to accommodate northbound traffic while the Pitt Street bridge will
accommodate southbound traffic. Five-foot sidewalks will be included on the eastern
side of the Greene Street bridge and on the western side of the Pitt Street bridge.
The existing vertical clearance over the river of 30 feet will be maintained.
The existing three-lane 36-foot curb and gutter section on Greene Street from Reade
Street to First Street will be maintained. An exclusive left-turn lane onto First Street
will be provided while the other two lanes will continue north to the proposed
bridge. No additional right-of-way or turn lanes will be required on Greene Street.
Resignalization at intersections on Greene Street from First to Reade Streets will be
required. Restriping will also be required to accommodate one-way traffic flow.
Pitt Street will be widened from 24 feet to 28 feet between Fifth Street and Third Street
on the east side. The curb and five foot sidewalk on the east side will be replaced.
The sidewalk on the west side will be retained. The roadway between Third Street
and Second Street will be widened symmetrically from 22 feet to 28 feet, face to face.
The sidewalk will be replaced as necessary. Between Second Street and 240 feet north
of First Street, the street will remain a 40-foot curb and gutter section with a 9-foot 6-
inch sidewalk on each side. Pitt Street will be extended approximately 1200 feet north
of the Tar River to merge with the existing 48-foot roadway. New signals will be
placed at the intersections of Pitt Street and First, Third, and Fourth Streets.
Resignalization at the intersection of Pitt and Fifth Streets will occur. Pitt Street will
be re-striped between Reade and First Streets to accommodate one-way traffic flow.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic study and the established flood elevation of 23.3
feet, the replacement structure is a spill-through bridge approximately 870 feet in
length. The minimum elevation of the roadway at the proposed structure will match
the elevation of the existing bridge. This elevation is above that required to
accommodate the estimated design frequency of the 25 year storm.
The proposed project is sited within the jurisdiction of Pitt County which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Tar River is shown as a detailed study
stream on Pitt County Flood Insurance Study Rate Maps. A regulatory floodplain has
been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for this
section of the Tar River. Regulatory flood elevations and floodway limits are defined,
and the approximate 100-year floodplain is identified as a flood-hazard area. The
new structures will be designed so as not to increase flood elevations more than one
foot above the existing conditions. The project will not encroach into the approximate
100-year floodway.
12
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendations for this project.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Ecologists visited the project site on May 31, 1993 to verify documented information
and gather field data to assess potential impacts incurred by bridge replacement
alternatives. The investigation's purpose was to (1) search for rare and protected
plants and evidence of habitation by listed animal species; (2) identify unique or
prime-quality biological communities; (3) describe current vegetation and wildlife
habitat; (4) identify wetlands; and (5) provide information to minimize adverse
environmental effects.
Methodology
The field survey covered an area bound by the following: (1) First Street on the south;
(2) existing SR 1531 Greene Street on the east; and (3) the western edge of Pitt Street,
with this line extended north to intersect Greene Street about 1400 feet from the Tar
River (see Figure 6).
Plant communities within this plot were identified from aerial photographs and
ground-checked on site. Acreages were calculated to the nearest 0.1 acre using a dot-
grid. Forest community types follow North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
classification (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Within each community, a list of member
plant species and general site description was developed on-site. Dominance (square
feet per acre) of woody vegetation layers was determined by the variable plot method
(Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or
communities was determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover guides
developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees,
tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (diameter breast height), and
total height were measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-
millimeter increment borings; dbh and height were measured using d-tape
dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively (Wilson 1976). Ground
distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by measurement on
aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were developed
from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was observed on-site. Habitats were
characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife communities
associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for rare and protected species. Appropriate agencies
were contacted to obtain records and information pertaining to listed species.
Aquatic system features were noted on-site. Available documentation of water
quality was reviewed (NCDEM 1991, 1993). Wetland determinations followed
13
procedures described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Lab. 1987), and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two site types and four plant communities occur within the project area. Areas with
long hydroperiods; those that are nearly always flooded in winter and that are
episodically flooded from a few days to a few weeks in summer, are one site type.
The vegetation is either Cypress -Gum Swamp (Schafale and Weakley 1990) or
Graminoid Marsh depending upon successional stage. Cypress -Gum Swamp is late-
successional, whereas Graminoid Marsh is early-successional. The Cypress - Gum
Swamp community, occupying 0.7 acre or eight percent of the vegetated area, occurs
in a triangle-shaped tract about 800 feet north of the Tar River (see Table 3). The
Graminoid Marsh, occupying 1.1 acres or 13 percent of the vegetated area, occurs
along and in an unnamed, intermittent stream that flows westerly across the project
area, about 550 feet north of the river. About 0.1 acre of the Graminoid Marsh occurs
under the north end of the existing bridge.
The second site type occurs in areas with shorter hydroperiods, areas that often flood
in winter but generally do not flood in summer except for brief periods lasting two to
three days. As above, current vegetation depends upon successional stage. Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Schafale and Weakley 1990), which occupy 3.5 acres or
40 percent of the vegetated area, are late-successional stage. Bottomland Hardwoods
occur in two areas, a hexagonal-shaped area immediately north of the Tar River and a
crescent-shaped area, located about 650 feet north of the river. Graminoid Field,
which occupies 3.4 acres or 39 percent of the vegetated area, is early-successional
stage. About 0.3 acre of the Graminoid Field occurs under the existing bridge, and 1.0
acre occurs south of the Tar River. Graminoid Field occurs in three places: south of
the river, an L-shaped area north of the river, and a linear area along the western edge
of SR 1531.
Comparisons of acres of plant communities found in the project area with similar
communities found in Pitt County are not directly possible, because survey records of
the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station of the U.S. Forest Service do not
differentiate among the various bottomland communities. However, some general
observations are possible. Pitt County is 50 percent forested (Thompson 1990), while
the project area is 48 percent forested. Thirty-two percent of the project area is
bottomland. The bottomland found within the project area comprises about 0.01
percent of all bottomland in Pitt County.
14
Table 3. Plant Community Acreage's within the Project Area
Community Type Project Area
Wetlands Non-Wetland Total
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.7 0 0.7
Graminoid Marsh 1.1 0 1.1
Bottomland Hardwoods 3.4 0.1 3.5
Graminoid Field 2.2 1.2 3.4
Totals 7.4 1.3 8.7
Cypress - Gum Swamp. The Cypress -Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)
community is also called Cover Type #102, the Baldcypress-Tupelo community, by
the Society of American Foresters (Eyre 1980). It occurs in a backwater slough, only
part of which lies within the project area. Water from the Tar River alternatively
enters and leaves the slough through an artificial canal, located about 150 feet west of
the project area. Therefore water flows both ways in the canal, depending upon the
water level in the Tar River. At the time of the field investigation, the slough was
flooded to a depth of about two feet.
The overstory of the Cypress -Gum Swamp community contains scattered
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) that measure about 90 feet tall, 16 inches dbh, and
80 years old. The baldcypress canopy was originally much more abundant, but most
of the trees were selectively harvested by high grading. Tree growth ring patterns
indicate release of the surviving baldcypress overstory about 25 years ago, when the
baldcypress measured about 10 inches dbh. This release period in 1968 could
possibly be the time of high grade logging, and the baldcypress trees that survived
were possibly too small to harvest in 1968.
Most of the overstory is composed of Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), but
American elm (Ulmus americana), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and
water hickory (Carya aquatica) occur also. The species were undoubtedly present in
1968 in the understory, and removal of only the baldcypress released them.
Overstory dominance averages 140 square feet per acre (ft2/ acre), and elm,
cottonwood, and hickory share the remaining 10 ft2/acre. Spanish-moss (Tillandsia
usneoides) grows on scattered trees, especially baldcypress. The small tree and shrub
layer contains hawthorn (CrataegLis viridis), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
and Virginia-willow (Itea virginica). Poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) climbs on
the stems of scattered overstory trees and hawthorn.
The ground layer is sparse, owing to the long hydroperiod. Foliar cover averages 100
percent, composed of lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sedge (Carex sp.), and
duckmeat (Spirodela polyrhiza), which forms an almost continuous floating mat
15
across the slough. Cypress knees about two feet tall and numerous floating dead
branches were also observed.
Graminoid Marsh. The Graminoid Marsh community occurs in the powerline right-
of-way in and along an intermittent stream that flows westerly across the project area.
This community is dominated by herbaceous plants, because regular mowing under
the powerlines favors herbs, not woody species. If mowing were eliminated, the
Graminoid Marsh community would probably succeed to the Cypress -Gum Swamp
community. Foliar cover of rooted plants in the marsh varies according to water
depth. Along the edges, foliar cover averages about 25 percent, but in the middle,
where water depth was about three feet at the time of the field investigation,
emergent vegetation is lacking. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), rose mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos), and alligator weed (Alternanthera philozeroides) are most
abundant, providing about 80 percent of the foliar cover. The remaining cover is
shared among frog's bit (Limnobium spongia), duck-potato (Sagittaria latifolia),
smartweed (Pol onum sp.), and parrot-feather (Myriophyllum sp.). Along the
edges, above the water line, spike-rush (Eleocharis sp.) was observed. Two
submersed plants were observed, coon-tail (Ceratoph. 1? lum sp.) and large colonies of
blue-green algae (Division Cyanobacteria), growing most commonly in deeper water.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods. The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods is
the late-successional community that develops where flooding during the growing
season lasts only two to three days and water depths do not exceed 18 inches. This
community is more-or-less the same as Society of American Forests Cover Types #92,
Sweetgum- Willow Oak, and #94, Sycamore - Sweetgum - American Elm (Eyre
1980). Flood waters have carried numerous dead branches, leaving them in piles
whenever they become lodged against trees. The overstory contains sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), winged elm ( uercus
hellos), sugarberry (Celtis laeviata), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and
occasionally baldcypress (Taxodium distichum). The largest trees are sweetgum,
water hickory, and American elm, measuring 95 feet tall, 20 inches dbh, and 85 years
old. Overstory dominance averages 120 ft2/ acre; sweetgum, hickory, and elm are
most dominant providing about 50 ft2/acre, and the remaining 70 ft2/acre is shared
by the other species listed above. The dominance of sweetgum and willow oak was
likely reduced by high-grade logging, possibly about 1968 when the baldcypress was
also removed, but evidence from tree growth rings was inconclusive.
The shrub/ small tree layer contains unusually high numbers of hawthorn (Crataegus
viridis), but musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), and
privet (Ligustrum sinense) occur also. The ground layer contains two species of
greenbrier (mostly Smilax rotundifolia, but also S. bona-nox), muscadine (Vitus
rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), supplejack (Berchemia
scandens), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
16
cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), coral
honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata), violeta
(Viola spp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), uniola grass (Uniola latifolia), and several
species of sedge (Carex spp.). Foliar cover of the ground layer is typically either
lacking or about 60 percent. Small depressions about ten feet across with somewhat
longer hydroperiods lack ground vegetation. Elsewhere, violets, sedges, greenbriers,
and poison-ivy grow abundantly, and the other species noted above grow scattered
among the other four species. The greenbriers (esp. Smilax rotundifolia) grow by
climbing on trees and shrubs, making foot travel sometimes difficult, especially along
forest edges. In addition, seedlings of green ash and sugarberry occur at densities
estimated at over 200 seedlings/ acre.
Graminoid Field. The Graminoid Field community occurs along access roads and
under the powerlines, where periodic mowing prevents significant tree development.
It occupies the same site type as Bottomland Hardwoods so, without regular
disturbance, the Graminoid Field would probably succeed to Bottomland
Hardwoods. Indeed, as listed below, saplings of the dominant bottomland species
are already present. A single vegetation layer is present, containing several species of
sedge (Carex spp.), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), fescue (Festuca elatior), panic
grass (Panicum sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), virgins bower (Clematic viorna),
curly dock (Rumex crispus), verbena (Verbena brasiliensis), Indian hemp (Apocynum
androsaemifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), greenbrier (Smilax glauca), beggar's
ticks (Bidens sp.), plantain (Plantago rugelii), field cress (Lepidium sp.), rose mallow
(Hibiscus Moscheutos), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), fleabane
(Erii eg ron sp.), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), bachelor's button (Centaurea
cyanus), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and cleavers (Galium aparine). Foliar cover of the
graminoids averages about 60 percent; the other species listed above provide about 35
percent cover, and saplings, especially hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), water hickory (Carya aquatica), and buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), provide the remaining five percent. South of the river,
kudzu dominates almost completely.
Wildlife
The plant communities in the area surrounding the project have experienced frequent
disturbance. The result is a fragmented system in which edge-dwelling wetland
animal species are advantaged and species able to tolerate or avoid vehicular traffic
can thrive. The floodplain is relatively broad and contiguous with undeveloped areas
upstream and downstream of the project site. According to Karnowski et al. (1974),
Bibb and Cape Fear soils provide sites poor for open land wildlife, good for
woodland wildlife, and fair for wetland wildlife because they support wetland food
and cover plants, hardwood trees and shrubs, and low-growing conifers.
17
South of the river, landscape shrubbery and controlled grassy vegetation occur except
where Kudzu has overgrown the steep banks down to the water. Mockingbirds
(Mimus polyglottos), Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), American robins (Turdus
migratorius), and Common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), all of which were observed,
represent the avian community in this habitat. Open conditions occur with relatively
few trees to provide either shelter or forage.
North of the river, natural and post-disturbance habitat conditions prevail. The
existence of both permanently and seasonally flooded areas adjacent to both forested
and unforested non-wetland areas allows a variety of animal species to exist in
proximity. Throughout the area, herptile species are accommodated by the shallow
waters and variety of seral stages. Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) tunnels were found
along the bank of the slough north of the river. Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) are
abundant in the slough, tadpoles were observed at several locations in the shallows,
and juvenile crayfish (Cambarus sp.) were collected in the shallows. A Great blue
heron (Ardea herodias) was observed farther west in the river bottom; this species
and other wading birds are likely to find ample food in the shallow water. Close to
the existing bridge and in the powerline rights-of-way, a Kingfisher (Megaceryle
alc o ), Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonata), and Barn swallows (Hirundo
rustica) were observed.
In the cypress - gum swamp, beaver (Castor canadensis) damaged trees were
observed, and crayfish nest holes are abundant. Dickson et al. (1980) indicate that a
number of songbird species may be abundant in mature Oak-Gum-Cypress (>44
years old) stands: Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens), Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens) and several other species are usually
common in such stands.
Terrestrial and avian wildlife habitats will be modestly affected by the proposed
action. Additional forest habitat fragmentation would occur under Alternative 1A.
However, species already adapted to fragmentation would probably prosper from
Alternative 1A, and significantly reclusive forest interior species probably do not
occur here. The implementation of the NCDOT "Best Manaagement Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" before and during construction activity will result in
minimal long-term impacts on terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Aquatic Resources
Physical Resources
Greene Street crosses the Tar River and its broad floodplain, much of which is
inundated. The project area is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
18
Province. The area consists of coastal plain soils of Quaternary Age deposited in
fluvial environments underlain by the Peedee Formation of Cretaceous age
representing a marine depositional origin.
The upland soils south of the Tar River generally consist of interlayered sand and
clay. Floodplain soils north of the river typically consist of a surficial alluvial clay bed
underlain by sand. The Peedee formation underlies the alluvial floodplain soils and
consists of slightly micaceous sand with clay layers. The sandy deposits exhibit good
engineering characteristics while the clay soils exhibit poor engineering behavior.
Through natural erosion over many thousands of years, the Tar River has eroded
these younger surface deposits, exposing within the floodplain the underlying older
deposits.
Water Resources
The 179-mile long Tar River arises in eastern Person County, to flow generally
southeast through Granville, Franklin, Nash, Edgecombe, and Pitt Counties. It
continues into Beaufort County, where the name changes to the Pamlico River. The
watershed above the project site drains more than 2500 square miles, or
approximately 1.6 million acres.
Within the project area, the Tar River flows easterly, measures 180 feet across at the
bridge, and has virtually no gradient (Table 4). Like many rivers in the Southeast, the
Tar River channel is shifting very slowly to the south. As a result, the northern bank
is lower in elevation and contains more palustrine swamps and marshes. Local
drainage of these swamps and marshes is westerly by means of natural and artificial
sloughs which enter the Tar River east of the project area. Thus, by flowing westerly
first and then easterly, slough drainage makes a 180 degree turn.
Table 4. Tar River Characteristics at SR 1531
Observation Point
Substrate
Current Flow
Channel width (ft)
Bank Height (ft)
Water Depth (ft)
Water Color
Water Odor
ExistinZ
Not discernible due to depth
Serene (no gradient)
180.0
14.0 5,1.0-2.0 N
Slough
Mud
None observed
Variable
< 1.0
2.5
Clear to amber
None
Aquatic Vegetation Non observed
Adjacent Vegetation Cypress, black gum, red maple
Wetlands Associated Broad floodplain adjacent
Clear to Amber
Sulfic when disturbed
Emergent grasses/ forest
Cypress, etc.
Broad floodplain adjacent
19
The southern bank of the Tar River along Town Common, a recreational park located
downstream from the project area, is stabilized with a wall, possibly to reduce
channel movement. Ditching and other disturbances have occurred throughout the
floodplain.
Water classification of the Tar River varies in the Greenville vicinity. From Johnson
Mill Run to the Greenville Raw Water Supply Intake (1000 feet upstream), the
designation is WS-IV NSW CA. From the Greenville Raw Water Supply Intake to a
point 1.2 miles downstream of the mouth Broad Run, the designation is C NSW. The
latter section includes the project area and the Greenville treated sewage outfall,
about 2.7 miles downstream from the project site. In all segments, the Tar River is
designated "nutrient sensitive" (NCDEM 1993), which means nutrient inputs to the
system should be curtailed to the fullest extent possible.
The BMAN monitoring records suggest "water quality in the basin appears to be
relatively stable. Most changes in bioclassification (three sites) appear to be due to
changes in flow rather than to real long term changes in water quality" (NCDEM
1991). At two nearby sites, ratings of Fair have been recorded.
At the project site, the Tar River is tranquil and conducive to recreational use. A boat
ramp is situated 1600 feet down river. A two-person scull rowing down river and a
bass boat at some distance downstream were observed.
Populations of all species depend on the aquatic systems' health. Aquatic organisms
can be adversely affected by siltation resulting from construction activities occurring
close to the banks of streams. The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters" will be implemented, as applicable, to control siltation and runoff.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
All land within the project area north of the Tar River is classified Cypress -Gum
Swamp, Graminoid Marsh, Coastal Plain Bottomland hardwoods, and Graminoid
Field and is considered wetland except for 1.3 acres (Refer to Table 3). The wetland is
palustrine, combining aquatic bed with forested cover, part of the area being
permanently flooded and part episodically flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979).
The floodplain soils are Bibb and Cape Fear, both of which are on the North Carolina
hydric soils list. The Munsell Soil Color observed was 10YR 4.5/1. Characteristic
vegetation types have been catalogued in the plant community section and are clearly
indicative of wetland sites. When the site was examined in late May, hydrologic
evidence consisted of inundated (>_ 2.5 feet) and saturated conditions throughout most
20
of the study area, and debris drift lines were observed well above the present water
level.
The dividing line between wetland and non-wetland is roughly the five foot contour
line. Thus, 7.4 acres of wetland occur within the project study area.
Alternative 1A would fill about 0.8 acre of wetland and 0.1 acre of non-wetland north
of the river, and about 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river (Table 5). The fill for
Alternative 1A is associated with the Pitt Street bridge. The approaches to the Greene
Street bridge are currently adequate.
Alternative 1B would require the fill of about 1.3 acres of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-
wetland north of the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river.
Alternative 2 would fill about 1.4 acres of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-wetland north of
the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river. However, about 0.5 acre
wetland could be reclaimed, if current bridge causeway were removed to the same
grade as the surrounding wetland. Thus, net wetland loss could be reduced to 0.9
acre.
Alternative 3 would require the fill of 0.7 acre of wetland, 0.1 acre of non-wetland
north of the river and 0.2 acre of non-wetland south of the river.
Table 5. Community Impacts from Causeway Construction
4
Community Alternative
1A Alternative
1B Alternative
2 Alternative
3
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Cypress-Gum 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1
Graminoid Marsh 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Bottomland Hdwds. 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1
Graminoid Field 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Wetland Total 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.7
Bottomland Hdwds. 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Graminoid Field 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Non-Wetland Total 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total Acreage Filled 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.0
Wetland Reclaimed 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Net Wetland Loss 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.7
21
Roughly one-half of the distance north of the Tar River will be crossed by bridge, and
the Bottomland Hardwoods under and near the new bridges would be converted to
the Graminoid Field community by clear-felling all trees. Alternative 1A or 1B would
convert about 0.6 acre, Alternative 2 would convert about 0.9 acre, and Alternative 3
would not require any community conversion. Conversion would cause loss of forest
habitat in a county that is currently about 50 percent forested, and would further
fragment the bottomland forest community. Animal and plant species that utilize
edge habitat would be further favored, and non-edge species would likely be
eliminated from the area.
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been designed to avoid
construction in wetlands to the extent possible, and utilize all practical measures to
minimize wetland impacts. Measures have been employed in the initial planning of
the proposed alternatives to minimize potential impacts through route location,
design, and construction practices. Where wetland crossings are unavoidable, the
proposed alternative crosses the wetland sites at their narrowest point to minimize
impacts. Mitigation is not anticipated for this project because the net wetland loss for
Alternative 1A is less than one acre. However, during final design the actual wetland
areas impacted will be coordinated with the Army Corps of Engineers. If mitigation
is required, a mitigation plan will be submitted with permit applications.
Rare and Protected Species
Any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally protected
plants and animals is subject to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does
not jeopardize any protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the
USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife
resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC661 et seq.).
North Carolina laws are also designated to protect certain plants and animals where
statewide populations are in decline.
22
The federally protected and candidate species in Pitt County are listed below
according to common name, scientific name and category:

Common Name
Birds
Scientific Name Category's
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 2
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Crustaceans
Albemarle crayfish Procambarus medialis 2
2
Clams
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) Fusconaia masoni 2
Plants
Smooth bog asphodel Tofieldia afabra 2
* E denotes endangered species and 2 denotes federal candidate species.
Federally Listed Species
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service included the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) as federally listed protected
species potentially occurring in Pitt County as of March 28, 1995 (see Appendix).
Habitat needs concerning occurrence of these species at this site are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred throughout most of the
southeastern United States. In North Carolina moderate populations are found in the
sandhills and in the southern coastal plain. The few populations that are found in the
piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape in the male. The back is black and white with horizontal stripes
and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. There is a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pines (Pinus palutris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and be
contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are at least 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands
23
at least 30 years of age (Henry 1989). The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500
acres, this acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colony
trees from 12-100 feet above the ground and average 30-50 feet high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surround the tree. This is used
as a defense against possible predators.
A thorough field investigation was conducted on May 31, 1993 to determine whether
there would be impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The habitat at this site, dense bottomland hardwood and emergent marsh, is not
conducive to red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, and no pines greater than 30 years
old will be removed by the project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Tar spinymussels (Elliptio steinstansana)
This species is a freshwater mollusk which, along with many other mussel species
(naiads), has been affected by degradation of aquatic conditions. Although "little or
no information is available on mussel population numbers" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1992), decreases in naiad populations have been observed throughout North
Carolina and the Southeast. In specific locations, entire populations have been
extirpated by impoundments but, more generally, gradual declines have been noted.
The biology of mussels is complex, so various factors may be involved in the declines,
with each specific location and population subject to differing insults. Filter feeders
occurring in gravel and sand deposits in river bottoms, these organisms may be
intolerant of fine silt and pollutants. Their dependence upon native fish populations
to host glochidia (the initial reproductive stage) also subjects mussels to the indirect
effects of impoundments and obstructions of fish migration.
Information from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that no Tar spinymussel
specimens have been reported from Pitt County in the last 20 years. A thorough field
investigation was conducted on May 31, 1993 to determine whether there would be
impacts to the Tar spinymussel. This survey resulted in no Tar spinymussels found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
State Listed Species
According to the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, information on the current status of
state-listed species in the Greenville area is lacking (see Appendix). However, "three
24
rare species of freshwater mollusks have been reported from the Tar River near
Greenville. The yellow lamp mussel (Lampsilis cariosa) and the Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) is state-listed as Threatened. The Tidewater musket (Lampsilis
ochracea) is state-listed as Special Concern." The Roanoke bass (Ambloplites
cavifrons) is also significantly rare in the state. All of these species are susceptible to
the same factors as the Tar spinymussel discussed above.
The Tar River and its adjacent wetlands provide habitat for a variety of anadromous
species including striped bass (Moron saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima),
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus). Bridge construction activities can impact fisheries by
dredging in the river or filling of wetlands for construction access. During the
permitting process, the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries will be contacted for
detailed information on the seasonal occurrence of anadromous species in the project
area. If conflicts between the proposed project and anadromous fish utilization of the
Tar River are identified, seasonal restrictions on construction activity in the river may
be recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program notes that the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi), a salamander Martof et al. (1980) referred to as the Carolina mudpuppy, is
listed for Special Concern by the state. This mudpuppy occurs in "the main streams
and larger tributaries of the Tar and Neuse Rivers from well above tidewater into the
lower piedmont. It prefers leaf beds in quiet water in winter" (Martof et al. 1980).
Habitat suitability for the Carolina mudpuppy appears excellent at this site, and
though none were observed, there is no reason to expect that they could not occur.
Permit Coordination
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch is responsible for processing
permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and Section 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The proposed structures will span
approximately 870 feet over waters of the Tar River and bottomland hardwood
wetlands adjacent to the river. Any filling within wetlands will require a Department
of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, a
Section 10 permit may be required for structures and work in, over, or affecting
navigable waters of the United States.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) will be
required for this project. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in
a discharge into water for which a federal permit is required.
With the exception of the "no-build" alternative, all alternatives studied for this
bridge will require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit. Any structure replaced or any new
25
structure built across the Tar River within the City of Greenville will have to be
approved by the United States Coast Guard (see Appendix B).
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Historical/ Architectural Resources ,.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's r
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The following structures of historical or architectural significance within the area of
potential effect for the project are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Bridge No. 411, a Parker Through Truss dedicated in 1928, was formally determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the Register on
August 14, 1979. The bridge is not part of the central business district, nor is it
contiguous with the properties that constitute Skinnerville Neighborhood.
The following alternatives which avoid the permanent removal of the structure were
fully evaluated and found to be neither practical or prudent.
No Build Alternative: The existing bridge is classified as functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The bridge is currently posted Single Vehicle 28 tons/Truck
and Truck-tractor semi-trailer 33 tons. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 5.0 and
an estimated remaining life of 5 years. Programming of this project is based upon a
need to improve and insure the safety of the roadway. The consequence of pursuing
the No-Build alternative would be closure of the bridge when it becomes structurally
unsafe in the near future. Closure of the roadway terminates a vital river crossing for
the Greenville area. The possibility of a catastrophic structural failure will be eminent ,
if the bridge remains open to traffic.
w
Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Existing Structure: A Feasibility Study was
performed to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating and strengthening the
historical Parker Truss comprising Bridge No. 411. In order to meet present day
standards, it is necessary to increase the roadway width and vertical clearance of the
truss along with increasing the strength of the structure This will require the removal
of the structure and constructing new support bents and a new super structure and
deck. The roadway width can be increased to the minimum 28 feet for two-lanes by
26
removal of the pedestrian walkway. Pedestrian traffic will be relocated to a proposed
new bridge on Pitt Street which will serve as the complementary structure for the one
way pair. A method of obtaining the minimum vertical clearance through the truss is
total deck replacement with a lightweight composite deck system, thereby increasing
the load carrying capacity of the truss and the decreasing the depth of the deck
system. With the proposed improvements the sufficiency rating using current 1994
ADT of 9500 vpd (one-way) is 70.5 and with 2016 ADT of 16,300 vpd the sufficiency
rating is 67.4 compared to 100 for a new structure. Rehabilitation of the existing truss
at Bridge No. 411 is not prudent because of the resultant low sufficiency rating of the
truss coupled with the possibility of steel fatigue cracks and potential failure as the
traffic volumes increase and the bridge continues to age.
Preservation of Existing Structure: This alternative would build the proposed bridge
on new location and retain the existing truss structure for other than roadway use. A
local interest was raised for preservation of the existing structure for use as a
pedestrian crossing providing access to the park on the north side of the river. Issues
of maintenance, liability, rehabilitation costs, and cost of approach work to ramp
down to the Greenville Commons rendered this option impractical. However, a
suitable location for the truss structure is not available at this time. Therefore, the
bridge will be disassembled, the members numbered aand stored in the NCDOT
bridge maintenance facility for a period of not less than two years.
The James Fleming House located on 302 South Greene Street was listed in the
National Register on July 21, 1983. The two-and-one-half story Queen Anne house
was designed by a Knoxville, Tennessee architectural firm, Barber and Kluttz and
constructed in 1901-1902. The house has a wraparound porch and complex patterned
slate roof with pedimented gables.
The Greenville Fire Station is a two-story Art Deco building with stone veneer on
the front facade and blond brick on the sides and rear. The building is considered
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, architecture, because it is an
intact example of the Art Deco style used in concert with the Municipal building.
The Skinnerville Neighborhood is Greenville's first residential neighborhood and
consists of a number of properties over fifty years old located within the Area of
Potential Effect, along Pitt Street. The neighborhood is potentially significant in the
area of community planning and development. Skinnerville Neighborhood appears
eligible under Criteria A and C. The neighborhood is well documented as an
important part of the development of the city of Greenville and a large number of
intact and contiguous buildings of late nineteenth and early twentieth century
architectural distinction remain.
27
B. Effects to Historic Properties
In a letter dated March 3, 1995, the SHPO concurred the project will have no effect on
the James Fleming House, Greenville Fire Station or the Skinnerville Historic District.
The project will have an adverse effect on Bridge No. 411.

Based on coordination with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared which stipulates
that NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss prior to demolition (See Appendix A).
C. Archaeological Resources
Two archaeological sites were identified in the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE)
(NCDOT Archaeological Study for Replacement of Bridge 411). A limited
investigation and assessment were conducted for these two sites. No determination
was made on whether these sites are eligible for the National Register; however, the
recommended alternative will avoid any disturbance to the sites. Construction in the
vicinity of these sites will be within the existing right-of-way; therefore, in accordance
with the letter dated March 3, 1995, from SHPO, no additional archaeological
investigations are recommended.
Should the project effect archaeological sites 31PT440 and 31PT63, additional
archaeological investigations will be conducted to determine the significance of these
sites.
Since the archaeological sites within the project's APE are not likely to warrant
preservation in place or be suitable for public interpretation, it is not likely that
Section 4(f) will apply to this project as a consequence of impacts to the archaeological
resources.
D. Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Bridge No. 411, constructed in 1927, has a Parker Through Truss. The bridge was
dedicated in 1928 to the men from Pitt County who served in World War I and was „
formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the
Keeper of the Register on August 14,1979.
Since this project necessitates the use of a historic bridge and meets the criteria set
forth in the Federal Register (July 5, 1983), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic bridge structure, have been
fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) build a new structure at a different location
28
without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by procedures
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic
bridge by procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These,
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge have been incorporated
into the project. Measures to minimize harm include:
Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the Parker Truss,
including the concrete approaches, in accordance with the attached Historic Structure
Recordation Plan (see Page 34).
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
whose correspondance is included in Appendix B. Section 106 has been resolved and
documented, and the SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway
Division Administrator is included on page 33 of this document.
A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Highway
Administration and the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is
included in Appendix A.

29
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRM-6964(1)
State Project $•2220601
T. I. P No. B-2225
Description: Removal of Bridge No 411, a Parker throucth truss
located on SR 1531 (Greene Street) in downtown
Greenville, Pitt County
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or x a
rehabilitated with Federal funds?
2. Does the project require the use of a
historic bridge structure which is on or
eligible for listing on the National X
Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic ? X
Landmark?
4. Has agreement been reached. among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through a
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the x
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing X
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered x
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety x ?
hazards?
30

.

Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic X
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or 0 Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude .
and/or (Q) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the X
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(©) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
31
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
2. ' Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
0 For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve.the bridge.
d? For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
Yes No
X Q
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
The FHWA will insure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the
Parker Truss, including the concrete approaches, in accordance with
the attached Historic Structure Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
r
32
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation x
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
d. US Coast Guard x
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) Y._
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this.project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of
the historic bridge. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
3 at Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
a
NCDOT
a e

Division Administrator, FHWA
33
HISTORIC STRUCTURE RECORDATION PLAN
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 411
Pitt County, North Carolina
Photographic Requirements
(1) Photographic views of the bridge, including:
Overall views
Distant views showing the truss in its setting
- Details of construction or design
Views showing the relationship of the bridge to the surrounding
area.
Format
35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
3" by 5" black and white prints (all views)
Color transparencies (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
- All photographs, negatives, and transparencies to be labeled
according to NC Division of Archives and History Standards.
Copies an ra i n

One (1) set of all negatives, prints and transparencies will be
deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State
Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the Statewide
survey and iconographic collection.
34
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is considered to be a Federal "Environmental Assessment" due to its lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plan or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the recommended alternative.
Alternative 1A (Recommended Alternative) is in compliance with the Pitt County
Board of Commissioners' vote on July 29, 1994 endorsing the one-way pair alternative
for the replacement of the Greene Street bridge. The key factors involved in this
decision include cost, increased traffic flow of the two bridges, less wetland
disturbance, and less parking disturbance to the County and other major property
owners in the area.
The Greenville Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the City of Greenville on May 10, 1990
includes Pitt and Greene Streets as a one-way pair facility with two bridges crossing
the river. The local TAC also recommends the one-way pair; therefore, Alternative
1A is consistent with local transportation plans.
Potential conflicts exist with the three electric transmission lines crossing Greene
Street in the vicinity of the existing structure. The waterline and gas line will require
accommodations on the proposed structure. Street lights which service the structure.
will require replacement. Coordination with local utilities will be initiated during
design. Impacts to utilities are anticipated to be low.
Wetland mitigation is not anticipated for this project; however, coordination will be
initiated with the COE during design to determine the actual acreage of wetlands
impacted. If mitigation is required, a plan will be submitted with the permit
application. The net wetland loss for Alternative 1A is less than one acre.
There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in
the project area. The city park at the intersection of Greene Street and First Street will
not be impacted by the recommended alternative. The sidewalk on the Green Street
bridge will be replaced and bicycle lanes will be provided on both bridges.
35
Within the project's area of potential effect (APE), there are two buildings, one bridge,
and a portion of one district which are either listed in or potentially eligible for the
National Register. The James Fleming House located at 301 South Greene Street, is
listed in the National Register. The Greenville Fire Station and Skinnerville
Neighborhood are considered potentially eligible for the National Register. Bridge
No. 411, a Parker Through Truss dedicated in 1926, was formally determined eligible '
for the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper of the Register on August
14, 1979. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reviewed the historical
aspects of the proposed project and concurred that there is no effect to any of the
historic resources in the APE, except for Bridge No. 411. This bridge will be removed
and replaced with a new bridge. A Section 4(f) Evaluation and Memorandum of
Agreement were prepared to address measures to minimize harm and mitigation for
the removal of the historic Truss.
The proposed project limits are within the City of Greenville or Pitt County zoning
jurisdiction. The areas affected by the project are committed to urbanized land use
consisting of urban commercial, residential and industrial uses. Therefore, the project
is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The FHWA noise abatement criteria (from Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
772) is shown in the following table:
Activity Leq (h) Description of Activity Category
Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D ----- Undeveloped lands. •
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of
sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
36
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear by
placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz. Because the A-
weighted scale closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it is used
almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-
weighting are often expressed as dBA. References will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either (a) approach
or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), with approach meaning
within 1 dBA of the values shown in the above table, or (b) substantially exceed
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is either a 15 dBA
increase for receivers with an existing noise level of < 50 dBA, or a 10 dBA increase
for receivers with an existing noise level of > 50 dBA. Noise abatement measures
must be considered when either of the two preceding conditions exist.
A traffic noise analysis includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and
a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if
traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. The Leq
increases due to the project are moderate with better than half of the increased
resulting from the initial conversion to one-way traffic. The predicted noise increases
range from 4.7 to 5.5 dBA and will impact a minimum of two (2) residences located
along Pitt Street. The other twelve residences approach or exceed FHWA criteria
under existing conditions. No receptors are predicted to experience substantial noise
level increases as defined above. Greene Street is expected to experience a decrease in
noise levels due to an overall reduction in traffic by converting to one-way traffic
flow.
Noise abatement measures were considered but determined impractical. Traffic
management measures which will limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. To some degree traffic
management measures are already in force. Speed limits are posted for downtown
urban street conditions and heavy trucks are discouraged. The nature of the
surrounding development also discourages high speeds and frequent use by trucks.
These conditions are assumed to continue. The proposed improvements to Pitt Street
contains no control of access; therefore, existing and future development will
continue to have direct driveway access. Such access prohibits noise barriers from
effective noise abatement since barrier continuity is the key to effectively reducing
noise. These evaluations complete the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 772. No additional reports are required.
37
The project is located in Pitt County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
A reconnaissance survey of the proposed area identified no sites which contain or
have the potential for underground storage tanks (USTs). A file search of the
Division of Solid Waste Management was also conducted to determine whether any
known unregulated dumps or other potentially contaminated sites were within the
area. After review of these files and the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
Groundwater Sections incident list, none of the known sites within the Pitt County
area were identified within the project area.
Pitt County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Tar
River is a detailed study stream with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
floodway defined. The alignment of the project crosses perpendicular to the
floodplain area and there are no feasible alternatives to crossing the floodplain.
There is an existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) navigation project in this
area which includes a channel in the Tar River, 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide, from the
Hardee Creek confluence to Greenville. The proposed bridge replacement of Bridge
No. 411 will not impact this project.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This project will impact one geodetic survey marker. N.C. Geodetic Survey will be
contacted prior to construction.
The proposed improvements will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R.P., and R. L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown
densities of loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., SE for. Exp. Sta. Res Note
SE-352.
38
Boschung, H.T., Jr., J. D. Williams, D. W. Gotshall, D. K. Caldwell, and M. C.
Caldwell, 1983. The Audobon Society field guide to North American fishes, whales,
and dolphins. Alfred A. Knopf: NY. 848 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U. S. Dept. of Interior: Washington, D. C. 103 pp.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of
breeding birds in forest stands in the Southeast.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F. H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of
Amer. For., Washington, D. C. 148 pp., map.
Federal Register. 1991. Rules and Regulations. Vol. 56, No. 62,13270 pp.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and
evaluations for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta GA. 13 pp. appendices.
Husch, B. C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers, 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press
Co. NY. 410 pp.
Karnowski, E. H., J. B. Newman, J. Dunn, and J. A. Meadows,. 1974. Soil survey of
Pitt County, North Carolina USDA Soil Conservation Service and NC Agricultural
Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 73 pp.
maps.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams.
benthic macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-
1990. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect.,
Raleigh, NC.
39
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of North
Carolina, 1990. USDA, for Serv., Southeast. for Expt. Sta. Res. Bul SE-113. 52 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of the
Southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region.. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.
C. 1070 pp.
United States Dept. of Agric. (USDA). 1989. Hydric soils of North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC 20 pp.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon State Univ.
Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis.1 pp.
40
I
a?
Piet-Greenville
Airport
1371

GREENVIM
POP. 35,740
FIGURE I
BeMel ? ?
'
9
13 30

Stokes
t %t I V

Brute \ 1
)
1 30 t

` louse
I21 43 0Pactolus
` 264 z??6reenville + t?,
ell Awr 47 t
mvsonZ N1
sland
G
M
1
:N P r
o
I T T
r
,
,
Chow
ck J:
1 Wintervil 11 Buc
k
1
tree
•
`y 1
Ayden Il Shelmardy
e 1 7
D
1 1? Calico
Gritton
I
?

• ? ? Cersen Mrn.
f ?
rm. rbkrrrr razz
J Ors b? fimwrud o° •1
?. l06
` :'' tau
>9 ?ttdiCh.% .Q

33

Paken
>.:>:'•:s / / F.W.B.

`
RIDGE NO. 411 v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GREENVILLE
PITT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 411
ON GREEN STREET (SR 1531)
OVER TAR RIVER
8-2225
0 mile 0.5
ALTERNATIVE 1A
SCALE: 1" = 400'

BEGIN
PROJECT
C T SR 53,
PITT-GREENE
CONNECTOR
O?
c? GREE
Spy ?-. ?'•;
9GF / .
JARVI
?vP
P
ALTERNATIVE 1B
SCALE: 1" = 400"
BEGIN
PROJECT
71 E C T SR X53,
PITT-GREENE
CONNECTOR
c
G?
F
J AF
?P
P

FIGURE 2A
STUDY ALTERNATIVES

{
F ?o o O
a
m 0 m
om n
om
;D z ?
\ m
? n
> II
< m
< m
N + Z
m
IN
C
C Im
m
4 =
rn
T
m?
mi =
mn
>o
Z<
>
N T
-0
m c N L
m A
m
E y
m
m
77 _
M3;
mo
N a
m M m
m O
m0
mz
ti 0

OJ ?o
Fri '9F
C? 4OF Z O
Z l9FFr 'c n m fTl
0m
0m
m z
\ m
v 11 ?
= N
C
D I D
? m
x
N m
-? I
? T
m" I
mi =
.y T

rn N
~ ? I
I
°
A
m II N
m I m i
z c
N
m
N Cl ? ~
- N 21
m
> m m
3> M
? m
mm m
m
7c mZ
?m m I
I
I

it II
? m III II
?o
0 -N
Z3
O o? 1
C) N - I
m m m z
O O I,

U
D
F
m
z FTI
D
< rnN
FTI
(f W

\\ m m m
? z
\\ A O D
C- r
> m
\\ n > m
m
1 z
D
I C m
\\ w
W
m
z
I
{ I
n
m=
n?
N m n
m c
,O I
mm
r, i
ti
? m
IE
N ? ?
ti =
m ?
mA
mo .
H ?
?
me
m0
mz
?
I
Nm I
mLA
mLA
H ~
17
m N
O W
m m
z n
Nn m i c
>mm
I
N
A m mm m
xz m m m
-?
m I I
m .
I I
a3A 1 a 2iV1 I r. _
I 1
I ?
it 1
m 0
00
1
I mm
I
m
CC) X
o V,
m Z
11 /?
tx II
O
L
m
`\ 11
\\ 1
I
z \` 1' N
I m
o
?. I
.1
.1
.1
s
w
D
r
n --i
> m
m ?J
0 <
o m
N
GREEN STREET & NORTH SIDE OF PITT STREET*
TWO-LANE APPROACH
? F
F 7
X y
---- 1. ' 1.5'
5. 1 12' 12' 8'
2• 2 I
* APPLIES AT ENDS OF STRUCTURES
OTHER ROADWAY WIDTHS WILL VARY
GREENE STREET & PITT STREET BRIDGES
TWO-LANE STRUCTURE
FIGURE 3
5' 16' 14'
Looking
South At
North
Approach
Looking
South At
North
Approach
Looking
South At
West Side
FIGURE 4
I ?;•
T
t
h r? BRIDGE NO. 411,
?,?• ' ?"
TARS RI VI
?- r ?:F)? o,
??? ^ ^ P' a^. ,. • rs?j".rr y J i {)
Q24011
povi
'FMKF" . AVE" - •. Sj' • F ' i ?t <,? y: :>. o "r.... .rli
con N,
Ai COLO
--I r
i 41r4 t .• ;
-JL
01.
Bus
a n
r' SECTION OF GREENVILLE 264
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
EXISTING PROPOSED
st
" MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
MEN
MINOR THOROUGHFARE -? '
4
?.1. ? •` w? y.- .w .. ' " lei !/
Appendix A
Memorandum of Agreement
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
ZUBMiT-,_J TO TIE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PREH RVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 411 OVER THE TAR RIVER
PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRM-6964(1), TIP NO. B-2225
WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
the replacement of Bridge No. 411 over the Tar River will have an effect
upon the 200' Parker Truss eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of.Historic Places (NR), and has consulted with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant-to 36 CFR part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS the design of the bridge replacement in Pitt County is as
described in the Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation (CE), Pitt County, North Carolina (with Alternative lA as the
Preferred Alternative); and
WHEREAS the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
participated in the consultation and is invited to concur in this
Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following
stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the replacement
of Bridge No. 411 on the historic Parker Truss.
STIPULATIONS
The FHWA will insure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 411, NCDOT shall record the
Parker Truss, including the concrete approaches, in accordance with
the attached Historic Structure Recordation Plan
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
Should the North Care. na SHPO object within thirty (30') days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
Memorandun of Agreement (MOA), FHWA shall consult wit;: the North
Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or. the SHPO
determines that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward
all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within
thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the
Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.6(b) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided
! in response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA
in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2) with reference to
the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's
responsibility to carry out all the actions under the MOA that are
not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
2
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement Dv =41tiA and the North
Carolina SHPO, its subsequent acceptance ?v the Council, and
implementation of its t-zrrns, is evidence that FHWA has afforded the
Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge
Ao. 411 ove,' the Tar River, and its effects on historic properties
and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking
on historic properties.
.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATICN
By: Date:
Nicol-0 L. Graf; P.E. '
Division Administrator
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
By: Date: q-3'T-C
William Price, Ph.D./
North Carolina State istoric
Preservation Officer
CONCUR:
NORTH CA LINA TMENT T NSPORTATION
By
., Manager
H. Fr nk in Vick, P.
Planning and Environmental Branch
ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
By : ,•--? ?? Date:
?-
3
Hj?,70R:C STRUrTURE RtCORDA ION PLAN
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 4::
Pitt Count-v. forth 'a roiin a
Photographic Requirements
(1) Photographic views of the bridge, includine:
Overall views
- Distant views showing the truss in its setting
- Details of construction or design
- Views showing the relationship of the bridge to the surrounding
area.
Format
- '35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
- 3" x 5" black and white prints (all views)
- Color transparencies (all views)
- All processing to be done to archival standards
- All photographs, negatives, and transparencies to be labeled
according to NC Division of Archives and History Standards.
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all negatives, prints and transparencies will be
deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State
Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the statewide
survey and iconographic collection.
J '
4
Appendix B
Comments and Coordination
MINUTES - TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1994
Members of the Transportation Advisory Committee met on the above
date•at 3:00 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room of Greenville
City Hall. Mayor Nancy M. Jenkins, Chairperson, called the meeting
to order.
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Nancy Jenkins, City of Greenville
Commissioner Kenneth Dews, County of Pitt
Mayor Lin Kilpatrick, Town of Winterville
Board Member Bob Mattocks, Board of Transportation
TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. T. N. Tysinger, Jr., P.E., City of Greenville
Ms. Tamra Shaw, NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch
Mr. Alan Lilley, Town of Winterville
Mr. Jeff Ulma, County of Pitt
Mrs. Nancy E. Harrington, City of-Greenville
Mr. G. R. Shirley, P.E., County of Pitt
Mr. Glen Whisler, P.E., City of Greenville
Mr. John Roberson, P.E., City of Greenville
Mr. Phil Dickerson, P.E., County of Pitt
OTHERS PRESENT:
Councilmember Bob Ramey, City of Greenville
Mr. Will Peterson, The Daily Reflector
Mrs. Sarah P. Connor, City of Greenville
Mr. Ed Folk, Citizen
Mr. Jack Taft, Citizen
Mr. Richard Duncan, Citizen
Mrs. Louise Duncan, Citizen
WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS: Mayor Nancy Jenkins welcomed everyone to the
meeting and expressed appreciation to those in attendance.
Everyone was given an opportunity to introduce themselves.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Commissioner Dews made a motion to approve the
agenda for the October 20, 1994 meeting. This was seconded by
Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES: Commissioner Dews made a motion to approve the minutes of
the July 13, 1994 meeting. This was seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick
and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF GREENE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT: Tom Tysinger,
Technical Coordinating Committee Chairman, gave a summary of the
Greene Street Bridge Replacement Project. He reviewed three
options being considered and referred to a memo dated October 13,
1994 regarding the bridge that was included in the agenda packages.
The memo summarized the actions of the TCC at their October 5, 1994
meeting which included (refer to enclosed copy of memo): 1) a
motion in support of the four-lane bridge option failed with five
members in support and seven members in opposition. 2) a second
motion to recommend the one-way pair option failed with five
members in support, six in opposition and one abstention. There
was no motion made for the third option (single, two-lane bridge
with future expansion.) The memo also summarized Greenville City
Council's action to support the four-lane bridge option as voted on
at their October 10 Council meeting. Following Mr. Tysinger's
explanation of the TCC meeting, the TAC members discussed the pros
and cons of the three options and the feasibility of each.
Commissioner Dews made a motion to recommend to NCDOT the one-way
pair option. This was seconded by Board Member Mattocks and the
motion was carried with three in favor and one in opposition with
Mayor Jenkins being the descending vote.
CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES: Glen Whisler summarized
the list of priorities as proposed by the TCC to be presented to
NCDOT at the public hearing in New Bern on November 16, 1994. He
indicated the priorities included highway improvements (currently
in the state's TIP) and unmet needs (not currently in the State's
TIP), Bridge replacement improvements, railroad crossing
improvements, highway safety improvements, bicycle improvements,
public transportation and enhancement projects. He noted that
these priorities were recommended by the TCC at their October 51
1994 meeting. Mr. Whisler outlined the various highway improvement
projects and delineated same on a map. As a continuing part of Mr.
Whisler's report he outlined the bridge replacement improvements
requested which included Greene Street bridge replacement,
replacement of some bridges in Brook Valley subdivision and a new
bridge over the Tar River (although it is outside the metropolitan
boundary it will impact the urban area). Mr. Whisler said the
resolution states that the MPO is in full support of the railroad
crossing improvement listed in the State TIP. The highway safety
improvements included a signal feasibility study and the re-
alignment of Memorial Drive with Dickinson Avenue. Mr. Whisler
concluded his report by stating that other projects listed in the
resolution includes bicycle improvements, public transportation and
enhancement projects. Mayor Jenkins noted that the Council members
were particularly interested in Highway Priority No. 5 (Farmville
Boulevard) which included a grade separation at the CSX railroad.
Greenville Councilmembers feel very strongly that railroad grade
separations are critical to the future of Greenville. Mayor
Kilpatrick was concerned about the ranking of priorities for
Winterville. He was assured that these projects are not being
overlooked and that the list was prepared after looking at the
technical merits of all projects within the MPO. Commissioner
Dews made a motion to approve the Resolution listing the priorities
of projects as recommended by the TCC and present the list of
priorities to NCDOT at the hearing on November 16, 1994. This was
seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATION CONCERNING GREENVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: Tom Tysinger said that a schedule outlining
the MPO activities for the next two to three years was included in
the agenda packages. He said the schedule listed activities such
as traffic counts, transit route studies, analyzing high traffic
locations, digital road networking, etc. The schedule also gave
the responsible entity and timetable within which the tasks will be
completed. He said these activities will be discussed during
future meetings. Ms. Shaw distributed a quarterly progress report
which outlined activities that have transpired during the quarter.
TRIP TO NEW BERN: Greenville as the Lead Planning Agency agreed to
make arrangements for the trip to New Bern to present the
priorities to NCDOT.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business or discussions,
Commissioner Dews made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was
seconded by Mayor Kilpatrick and the motion carried unanimously.

TO: Nancy M. Jenkins, Mayor tron Advisory Committee
Chairperson, C,reenville Urban Area - Transports
FROM: T. N. Tysinger, Jr., PE
Chairperson, Greenville Urban Area -'Technical Coordinating Committee
DATE: October 13,1994
SUBJECT:
Due to the heightcrsed awareness and importw= of the Greene Street Bridge Replacement Project to the
City of Greenville, Pitt County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), I felt
compelled to report to you the actions of the Greenville Urban Area Technical Coordinating Committoo
(TCC) during their October 6 meeting. Further, this is to summarize Greenville City Council's action to
re-affirm, their original support for a four-lane bridge as voted on during their October 10 meeting.
During their meeting of October 6, the TCC began this agenda item with a review of the two (2) basic
options: the one-way pair bridge and a single four-lane bridge. The review was followed by a brie lion options explanation from committee members of each entiri s lane a dB over in ttwo he bfuau c could be ? to
==tly proposed by NCDOT involving a single
four lames or used as one bridge as part of a one-wary pair option was then discussed. Issues discussed
relative to this new option included
This option would address the immediate need of replacing the existing Greene Street Bridge.
This option would afford local govetnawntal entities and affected businesses an opportunity to
work out parking issues. fforts that may
• This option would allow additional time to complete other ongoing planning e
have a direct impact on related issues such as downtown parking; ftffic circulation, dc.
By building only a single two-lane bridge now, are we giving up an opportunity for two, two-lane
• bridges or a single four-lane bridge? tton rovemettt Program (TTF')
• Current estimates for this project within the State's Transports Imp
are sufficient to build either two bridges or a single four-lane bridge. Current estimates appear
sufficient to build a single two-lam bridge. If we go with either the one-wiW pair option or single
four-lane bridge, where will the additional funds be found? Will it impact other projects?
Following approximately 1'/? hours of discussion, a motion was madto recommend ato ft loTAC wi he f=-
lane bridge option. The ensuing vote was S in support and 7 in opposition.
second motion was made to recommend the one-way pair option. The resultant vote was S in support, 6
in apposition and 1 abstention. There was no motion made for the third option (single, two-lane bridge).
In closing discussions on this item, it was generally the feeling of the TCC that the third option did not
offer the technical merits that either of the other two did. Though this option may not have technical
Memo: Nancy Jenkins, Mayor
Page 2
October 13, 1994
.l ff-
merit, it does offer other advantages including additional time to further address stated concerns.
As you know, the aforementioned information was reported to the Greenville City Council during their
%nrkshop on October 10. Through the discussions, it was clear that the general consensus of Council was
to continue support for the four-lane bridge. To that end, Council has directed City staff to address
parking concerns of affected property owners along Greene Street including the County. These efforts
should include the consideration and review of all possible options that could resolve these specific
parking concerns up to and including a parking deck. To close Council's discussions, a motion was made
and approved to reaffirm their original position to support a four-lane bridge and to have staff
aggressively pursue solutions to the parking concerns along Greene Street.
On behalf of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), I will be pleased to go into further detail on
their position during the upcoming TAC meeting.
dhf
cc: Transportation Advisory Committee Members
Technical Coordinating Committee Members
`ti CO4'
r
rfit'a a
c'
?Qth ?aao`
August 3, 1994
PITT COUNTY
1717 West Fifth Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Ms. Michelle W. Fishburne
Project Engineer
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Fishburne:
BOARD OF C.OUWy
COMMISSIONERS
Ed Brfgbt
Kennetb K Dews
Wilton R Duke
cbarles P. Gaskins
Eugene James
Tom Jobnson, Sr.
Farney M. Moore
Mark W. Owens, Jr.
Jeffrey E Savage
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted on July 29, 1994
to express a preference for the one way pair option (1A) for the
replacement of the Greene Street bridge in Greenville, N.C. The
Board considered all the factors involved in this decision and feel
that it is the citizens best interest to build the two structures.
Key factors in this decision include the cost, the increased
traffic flow of the two bridges, less wetland disturbance, less
parking disturbance to the County and other major property owners
in the area, and the increased safety factor of having two
different physical structures.
The County of Pitt appreciates the time the Department of
Transportation staff has spent presenting the various options for
replacement of this bridge to the Commissioners and staff and
further we are confident that the Division will select an option
that will best serve all the citizens of Pitt County.
Sincerely,
e,4114 le'
Ed B. Bright, Chairman
Pitt County Board of Commissioners
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
. REGION FOUR
`? 11 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
0 ',.? j4116 d Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
February 6, 1995
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
0
FEB 0 8 1995 ]]a
In L??Refe
5NISIGN OF
1
r HIGHWAYS _A
Subject: Federal-aid Project BRM-6964(1), B-2225, Pitt County
Section 106 Consultation
Enclosed are two copies of an Archaeological Study prepared on the
subject project. Two archaeological sites, 31PT440 and 31PT63,
were identified within the project's Area of Potential Effect.
Although only limited investigation and assessment of the two sites
has been conducted and site significance has not been determined,
it appears the preferred alternative will not disturb important
remains at either site. No additional archaeological investigation
of the sites is recommended unless the preferred alternative's
location is changed to require ground disturbing activities outside
the area presently defined.
Based upon our review of the report, the Federal Highway
Administration has determined the project, as presently proposed,
will have no effect on any archaeological site that is listed on or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Your concurrence in this determination is requested. Questions
regarding the report can be directed to John Wadsworth of this
office at 856-4350 or Mr. Kenneth Robinson with the Division of
Highways at 733-3141.
Sincerely yours,
R0 C. sh,011ton
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E., NCDOH ?
•S 1'? Qu?oo:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 411 on SR 1581 (Greene
Street) over Tar River, Pitt County, B-2225,
Federal Aid Project BRM-6964(1), State Project
8.2220601, ER 95-8433
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

P 0
Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1995, transmitting additional information
for the above project.
We have reviewed the sections and functional plans for the recommended One-
way Pair Alternative, and concur that the project will have no effect on the
Skinnersville Historic District, the James Fleming House, and the Greenville Fire
Station. As stated in the past, we believe the Greenville Bus Station, which was
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is within the area of
potential effect for the project, and that the project will have no effect on it.
We have also reviewed the draft Memorandum of Agreement for the project's
adverse effect on Bridge No. 411. The following typographical errors need
correction for the final version:
1. 'In the third WHEREAS clause, the word "have" following "(NCDOT)" should
be changed to "has."
2. In the NOW, THEREFORE clause, the word "stipulation" should be plural.
3. Under Stipulation II, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, in the first paragraph, the word
"amendment" should be changed to "Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),"
and in the last paragraph, the word "amended" preceding "MOA" should be
striken.
Otherwise, we believe the draft adequately addresses our concerns for the
project's effects on Bridge No. 411.
t
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Nicholas L. Graf _
March 3, 1995, Page 2 -
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee. Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
ely,
Z:avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Of icer
DB:slw
cc: IH F. Vick
B. Church

S AIZ
f;r r
x ? ?? t
3 1 ?:
Y •? p? ?J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 411 on Greene Street (SR
1531) over Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, TIP 8-
2225, Federal-Aid Project BRM-6964(1.), ER 92-7998,
ER 95-8358
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Dear Mr. Gra#:. --
Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Kenneth W. Robinson, North Carolina Department of Transportation archaeologist,
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological sites were identified. According to Mr.
Robinson, both sites--31 PT440 and 31 PT63--are potentially significant,: but were not fully
evaluated during the recent study. Since the preferred alternative for the bridge,
replacement will occur within existing rights-of-way and not disturb either site, Mr.
Robinson has recommended. no further investigations at this time. Should. construction
plans change or ground disturbing activities be required outside of the existing rights-of-
way, additional archaeological investigations will be necessary.
We concur with these recommendations and believe the preferred alternative will have no
effect on significant archaeological sites. The report meets our office's guidelines and
those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
S' ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
Robinson
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
(air??c,v O
North Carolina Department of Cultural ReskWce&ly1S1C,v OF
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
November 17, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Phase I Historic Architectural Resources Survey
Report for replacement of Bridge 411 over Tar
River on SR 1531 (Green Street), Greenville, Pitt
County, B-2225, BRN-6964(1), ER 94-7571
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 24, 1993, transmitting the phase I
architectural resources survey report by Kitty Houston for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the report and believe the area of potential effect has been
drawn inappropriately since it excludes the structures which lie between those
fronting Green and Pitt streets. As the alternatives are currently described, the
project has the potential to affect these structures visually and/or by changing
traffic patterns. From the map provided, it appears the Greenville Bus Station is
the only additional historic structure to take into account.
The following property was included in the National Register of Historic Places on
July 21, 1993:
James Fleming House
The following property was formally determined eligible for the National Register
by the keeper on August 14, 1979:
Bridge No. 411
'For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Skinnerville Neighborhood. Criterion A--As Greenville's first residential
neighborhood, Skinnerville is significant in the area of community
planning/development. Criterion C--Skinnerville contains an intact and
varied collection of late nineteenth and early twentieth century architecture.
Please note, we believe the proposed eastern boundary for the district is
appropriate, except in the vicinity of the cemetery. As shown on the
attached map, we have included the Colonial Revival style dwelling just
north of the cemetery's entrance.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 276012807
Nicholas L. Gra1993, Page 2
November 17,
Greenville Fire Station. Criterion C--The i County station is a rare and intact
representative of the Art Deco style in the project's area of potential
We also believe the following property is within effect and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. the .area of
Greenville Bus Station. Criterion --T prong
portation as one of the few bus stations H of that era tact
trans
eastern North Carolina. Criterion - eastern bus North Carolina a an ?n station is a rare example of the Art Moderne style in the National
The following property was determined not eligible for listing
Register of Historic Places:
Greenville Central Business District. Due o modern intrusions, the
commercial district no longer retains integrity.
below is provided, we are
Until additional informationsion of their eligibility or the National Register.
unable to make a determ
Jarvis Memorial United Methodist Ch he onlBRomanesque style church in
landmark in Greenville and probably t sympathetic to
and the additions fare Since 1921,
Pitt County, we believe it shoved be looked
the exterior has been altered y made in 1958? Please provide
a
the character of the church. The s pVOe were notes that the interior was What .rof h
b istory of the church as well.
comments are made pursuant to Section l o Historic Pr do rvnal
The above
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Counci's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. . If you Thank you for your cooperation and consideration taRenee Gledhve questions
concerning the above comment, please con
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,

?Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
-ODB:slw
Enclosure
cc: / F. Vick
B. Church
Greenville HPC
sr^n Q
?? r+Y1 u,3 `" s
A
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 10, 1993
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of.Tr-ansportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State /(st?ese
at on Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street)
over Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, B-2225,
8.2220601, BRN-6964(1), CH 93-E-4220-0902
<<__OFFE y`
JUN 14 1993
DWISICti OF =U
??? . HtCHbti?
rNV?kONIVI?!`? ??
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our-maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Bridge No. 411. Bridge No. 411 is a Parker Through Truss which was
formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by
the Keeper on August 14, 1979.
James Fleming House. 301 South Greene Street. This property was
included in the National Register on July 21, 1983.
Skinnerville Neighborhood. Please see the enclosed map for the location.
Based upon available information, we believe the Skinnerville Neighborhood
is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture.
Central Business District. Please see the enclosed map for the location.
Although the central business district contains several National Register-
listed properties scattered throughout, we feel there are too many intrusive
and noncontributing properties to comprise a National Register-eligible
historic district.
Also, we recommend that you contact Mr. Donald Belk with the Greenville Historic
Properties Commission (919/830-4486) since he may have additional information
concerning historic structures in the area of potential effect.

F OD
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2907
L. J. Ward
June 10, 1993, Page 2
We look forward to working the Federal Highway Administration and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on this project in the future. We
note that the rehabilitation of Bridge No. 411 is one of NCDOT's alternatives and
appreciate your efforts to investigate and consider rehabilitation of the historic
structure.
A review of our files indicates that there are no recorded archaeological sites in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, the north side of the
river has a high probability for prehistoric archaeological sites. In addition, historic
archaeological sites may exist in the area of potential effect on the south side of
the river. We, therefore, recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted
along the construction corridor on the north side of the river and that historical
background research be conducted for the area along the south side. Based on
the results of the research and further consultation with us, additional field survey
may be warranted for the south side.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway Administration
State Clearinghouse
Donald Belk, Greenville HPC
B. Church, NCDOT
T. Padgett, NCDOT
Tom Hepler, William G. Daniels & Assoc.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 22, 1993
IN HtrLr ntrth{ W
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
SUN 2 31993
?'.' DI V!S fC
?Tz
'^.`` fGHwA OF
?O11iA11??1
This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1993, requesting
our comments on the initiation of a study of the project, "B-2225,
Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street) over the Tar River,
Greenville, Pitt County, State Project 8.2220601, Federal Project
BRN-6964(1)" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199302437).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective,
our review and comments focus on impacts to COE projects, flood
plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and
wetlands. There is an existing COE navigation project in this
area which includes a channel in the Tar River, 6 feet deep and
75 feet wide, from the Hardee Creek confluence to Greenville.
The bridge rehabilitation/replacement project would not impact
this project, provided the same navigation opening is provided.
The proposed project is sited in Greenville, which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. Tar River is a detailed
study stream with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
floodway defined. We suggest that you coordinate with the city of
Greenville for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any
resultant changes in their flood insurance maps and report.
The COE Regulatory Branch is responsible for processing permits
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The following
comments and recommendations from our Regulatory Branch are based
on your four preliminary alternatives and the information available
to us at this time.
a. Alternative 1: "Do-Nothing." No Department of the Army
permits will be required.
-2-
b. Alternative 2: "Rehabilitate the Existing Structure."
Depending on project plans, Nationwide Permit No. 3 may apply
for the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously
authorized, currently serviceable structure, provided Condition
No. 12, Historic Properties, is satisfied in accordance with the
National Historic Preservation Act, and North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) has given full consideration to comments
provided by the State Historic Preservation Office, Mrs. Renee
Gledhill-Earley.
c. Alternative 3: Replace the Existing Structure." As
referenced in the above paragraph, INation-widp 'ruiniiL I\u. 3 liid"
apply, depending on proposed plans for replacement, provided
Condition No. 12, Historic Properties, is.satisfied in accordance
with the National Historic Preservation Act, and NCDOT has given
full consideration to comments provided by the State Historic
Preservation Office, Mrs. Renee Gledhill-Earley.
d. Alternative 4: Construct an additional bridge structure
associated with the Pitt Street Extension, west of the existing
bridge. This alternative will span approximately 852 feet over
Section 10 waters of the Tar River and bottomland hardwood wetlands
adjacent to the river. Any filling within wetlands will require a
Department of the Army permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. In addition, a Section 10 permit may be required for
structures and/or work in, over, or affecting navigable waters of
the United States.
e. In order to review your proposed project, the following
information must be provided.
(1) The proposed corridor and/or corridors overlaid on
appropriate resource maps such as the Greenville Southeast and
Greenville Southwest United States Geolog cal.Survey quadrangles,
National Wetland Inventory maps, Soil Conservation Service maps,
and any other information such as aerial photography.
(2) Describe and indicate all approximate locations of
waters and wetlands of the United States and linear crossing
of the Tar River; approximate wetland types, acreage, and the
potential impacts of these areas within the proposed corridor
and/or corridors; and any areas such as borrow pits and waste
disposal sites which may be constructed.
(3) Indicate bridge construction techniques associated with
potential temporary approach fills along the Tar River shorelines.
-3-
f. If impacts to wetlands are anticipated, the level and type
of mitigation must also be addressed.
g. Once this information has been provided and reviewed, we
will then make a decision regarding which alternatives are accept-
able to be reviewed during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
process.
The information requested above is essential to our expeditious
review of your proposed project. If you have any questions or
comments related to permits, please contact Mrs. Laura Fogo of the
Washington Regulatory ficld Office at (Ti9,1' 9751-3609.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Si rely
Lawren e
Chief, 1
aunaers
ng Division
_ j
1%`
State of North Carolina 40
.,
Department of Environment, Health, and NatuF rlSsou Us. top
Division of Land Resources
ry
j James G Martin, Governor PROJECT Rgvlsw COMMENTS Ch&rrdner
.
?
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary , Director
Project Number: oZ County: lot '-
Project Name: r/?'(G(rL?? yl>
Geodetic Survey
- This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) ?• I0?
•e n\ 1rC•J ??.
For//moogre information contact the Geodetic Survey office at ( i4) 7? - 836. 1
411
_1 z
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
?? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
• If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
y
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
'n
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
-TATr
P r...' ? ?2 1
y~l 7?.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
May 13, 1993
Gary B. Blank
313 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
SUBJECT: Rare Species Near Bridge Replacement Sites
Wake and Pitt Counties
Dear Gary:
Thank you for your letter of May 6, 1993, requesting rare species
information from bridge replacement sites in two counties. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record of one rare
species near downtown Raleigh and records of five rare species in
the Tar River near Greenville.
The horse-shoe crab beetle (Limulodes paradoxus), significantly
rare in the state, was collected in 1964 in western Raleigh. It
seems unlikely that the two bridge replacement projects would
affect this species.
Three rare species of freshwater mollusks have been reported from
the Tar River near Greenville. The yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa) and the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) are state-
listed as Threatened and are federal Candidate species. The
Tidewater mucket (Lampsilis ochracea) is state-listed as Special
Concern. Two rare vertebrate species also are known from this
area. The Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi), a species of
salamander, is state-listed as Special Concern and is a federal
Candidate (3C) species. The Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons)
is significantly rare in the state. We do not have information on
the current status of these species in this area. However, all of
these aquatic species are vulnerable to degradations in water
quality resulting from pollution and sedimentation.
Enclosed please find two lists of rare species, as well as high-
quality natural communities, that are known to occur in Wake and
Pitt counties. This should address your request for information
concerning state-listed threatened or endangered species that occur
in these counties.
P.O. Box 71687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50%._Y ed/10%poae<aiuumarpaper
Mr. Gary B. Blank
Page 2
May 13, 1993
Please contact me at 733-7701 if you have any questions or require
further information
Sincerely,
Ann W. Kelly
Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
/awk
Enclosure
y
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 4, 1,993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 (Greene Street)
over the Tar River, Greenville, Pitt County, North
Carolina, TIP No. B-2225, SCH Project No. 93-0902.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and a site inspection was conducted on June 3,
1993. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves improvements to the existing
bridge, with possible alternatives of rehabilitation or
replacement of the present structure. The addition of a new
structure and extension of Pitt Street is also being considered
among alternatives. The NCWRC recommends improvement of existing
facilities over construction on new location and offers no
objection to rehabilitation or on-site replacement alternatives,
provided that stringent erosion and sedimentation control
measures are maintained and that field investigations are
coordinated with resource agencies to evaluate possible impacts
on threatened or endangered species.
The Pitt Street extension and associated river crossing will
involve construction on new location, potentially impacting
Memo Page 2 June 4, 1993
significant areas of bottomland hardwood forest. If the NCDOT
elects to proceed with this alternative, the NCWRC recommends
that all efforts to avoid and minimize wetland/floodplain loss be
incorporated into project designs. A span of greater length than
that of the existing Bridge 411 will be required to avoid fill in
wetlands and constriction of the Tar River floodplain. The use
of causeway within the floodplain will be considered an avoidable
wetland impact for purposes of permit review. Constriction of
the floodplain would increase the likelihood of upstream
flooding, possibly leading to environmentally damaging secondary
measures, including channelization or armoring of the river
channel. The NCWRC anticipates that the scope of work described
for the Pitt Street extension will require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment to adequately address project impacts.
For purposes of reference during document preparation, our
informational needs are listed below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Memo Page 3 June 4, 1993
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by any new road construction. These
indirect impacts have often been ignored in NCDOT
documents, although the possible economic benefits of
subsequent development are frequently cited as
justification for highway construction. The NCWRC
recommends that this and future documents provide a
balanced treatment of secondary development impacts,
particularly when construction on new alignment is
proposed.
Memo Page 4 June 4, 1993
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

??NT Or CO
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
a ? NATIo NAL MARINE FISHERIES BERJICE
f?sT4ns Of Southeast Regionall vr ice
450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
June 7, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Attention Michelle Wagoner
Dear 14r. Ward :

1 t;, r
Please reference your May 4, 1993, letter requesting input into the
environmental assessment process for the proposed improvements of
the Greene Street Bridge over the Tar River in Greenville, Pitt
County, North Carolina, B-2225, Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531, State
Project 8.2220601, Federal Project BRN-6964(1).
Based on our knowledge of the Tar River system, we have determined
that this project may adversely impact National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) trust resources. The Tar River and its adjacent
wetlands provide habitat for a variety of anadromous species
including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa
sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), and alewife (Alosa pseudoharbngus), Therefore,
the potential adverse impacts on anadromous fish should be
addressed for each alternative.
The impact on wetlands for each alternative is unclear. If wetland
losses are anticipated, the type, acreage, and location of wetland
alternations should be identified and measures to avoid and
minimize wetland losses should be incorporated into the planning
process. If a determination is made that wetland losses are
unavoidable, a plan to mitigate these losses should be developed.
A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 10 and Section 404 permit
may be required for this work. If this is the case, failure to
include a plan to mitigate unavoidable wetland losses may result in
a recommendation from the NMFS that federal authorization for this
work not be granted.
Bridge construction activities can impact fisheries by dredging in
the river or filling of wetlands for construction access.
Therefore, construction related impacts on wetlands and eggs,
larvae, and juvenile. anadromous fish should be addressed in the
environmental document. We recommend that you contact the N. C.
Division of Marine Fisheries for detailed information on the
seasonal occurrence of anadromous species in the project area. If
conflicts between the proposed project and anadromous fish
.A
A

Y au
utilization of the Tar River are identified, seasonal restrictions
on construction activity in the river may be recommend by the NMFS.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincer
Andrea Mager, r.
Assistant RegY%nal Director
Habitat Conservation Division
L'S.Department Commar -ar
of Transportatio/Aff Fifth Cc ^uard District
United States
Coast Guard Q
'APP 31995 z
2?2 DIVISION OF
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Mana g- HIGHWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch FNVIRON'
North Carolina Department of Transpor on
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23(QJISOp4
"a' S '9b4) 398-6227
Phone:
16590
22 Mar 95
This is to rescind our previous determination of May 27, 1993,
regarding the navigational clearance requirement for the proposed
bridge project across the Tar River, mile 59.0, in Greenville,
North Carolina.
Upon further review, it was determined that the "quoted" guide
clearance in our May 27th letter was.for fixed bridges up to but
not through Greenville, North Carolina. Based on this, the
clearances shown on the plans attached to your November 21, 1994,
letter appear to meet the reasonable needs of navigation. A
Coast Guard Bridge Permit will still be required for the
replacement of this bridge as well as a Section 106 Evaluation
and a Memorandum of Agreement.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments during the
early stages of this project. If you should have any questions,
please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam, Bridge Management Specialist,
at [phone].
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
U.S. Department
of Transportatio/Aff
United States
Coast Guard
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportat
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Federal Building
jard District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23?16150p4
Staff : Sy 1*
T904 ) 395-6227
Phone: (l
6590
ay 93
6
JUN 0 2 1993 =
2
Z2 DIVISION OF ?Q
HIGHWAY
k1
This is in response to your letter dated May 4, 19-73; regarding
proposed improvements to Bridge No. 411 across the Tar River
(Pamlico & Tar Rivers), mile 59.0, in Greenville, North Carolina.
Of the four alternatives being studied for this bridge, all but
the "do nothing" alternative will require a Coast Guard Bridge
Permit. Any structure replaced or any new structure built across
the Tar River within the city of Greenville will have to meet the
minimum standard guide clearances for bridges on this river which
were established November 20, 1972. These clearances are:
a. Fixed/Vertical Lift Bridges - 60-foot horizontal
clearance and 50-foot vertical clearance at mean high water.
b. Swing/Bascule Bridges,- 60-foot horizontal clearance and
5-foot vertical clearance (in the closed position) at mean high
water.
To ensure these clearances will meet the reasonable needs of
navigation, we will issue a preliminary public notice, upon
written request from you, soliciting information on the types and
sizes of navigation that transit the river at the location of the
proposed project. The preliminary public notice has a 30-day
comment period. At the end of the 30 days, we will review all
comments received, and inform you in writing of our findings.
As stated in your letter, Bridge No. 411 is eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In the
event the existing structure is replaced, or rehabilitated, a
Section 106 Evaluation will be required as well as a Memorandum
of Agreement between the appropriate Federal and state agencies
involved in the historical significance of the bridge. A Section
4(f) Evaluation of the Department of Transportation Act will have
to be prepared if the public park, adjacent to the existing
bridge, is impacted by the proposed project. All other
environmental impacts should be adequately addressed in the
environmental document.
16590
27 May 93
If you should have any questions regarding this project, please
contact Ms. Linda Gilliam, Bridge Management Specialist, at (804)
398-6227.
Sincerely,

ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
y
2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Planning & Assessment
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary

VMEMORAND M

RF 0! AAA
AV'

TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee t-
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0902 Scoping Proposed Improvements to Bridge No. 411
on Sr 1531 over the Tar River in Greenville, Pitt County
DATE: June 9, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will.be provided
during the environmental review process. The N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission was unable to provide comments at this time.
Should comments be received, they will be forwarded to you for your
file. '
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If, during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
r divisions.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AT?;*VA
Health and Natural Resources Aw ° •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 27, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihare, Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 93-0902; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Improvements to Bridge No. 411 on SR 1531 over the Tar
River in Greenville (TIP #B-2225)
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge improvements would occur over
a section of the Tar River which is classified as C NSW. The
environmental document should discuss the measures the NCDOT would
utilize to minimize the potential water quality impacts associated
with construction and the long-term use of the improved bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
9290er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
r
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
R
SCHOOL 6U5
Pitt County Schools
9 WA
School Bus Transportation
901 Mall Drive
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. John McKnight, Associate Superintendent
FROM: Rodney Bullock, Transportation Director 4
DATE: April 29, 1993
Re: Information requested for preparation of Categorical
Exclusions for B-2225 (Pitt County)
scroo? eus
In response to your request for information concerning the
number of school bus trips across bridge No. 411, we have
determined this bridge is crossed 40 times by 16 buses during the
course of a day.
If I can provide any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE C+ E 1 ??
3125 Presidential Parkway - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
JUN 0 1 1493
DIVISICN OF .
ti
HIGH WAYS a?
ONtV?E r?
May 26, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated May 4, 1993,
soliciting comments on the proposed improvements to Bridge 411 over
the Tar River in Pitt County, North Carolina. It appears that the
improvements will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory - Commission.
Therefore, we have no comment.
?Ver truly yours,
Robert W. Crisp, P.E.
Director ^
Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A.
Post Office Box 1767
Greenville, NC 27835-1767
September 8, 1994
• Mr. Rick Shirley
Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 1587
Greenville, NC 27835
Dear Rick:
D [E=IE9MCE
u
,SAP 9•
HC DOT, DIV. CF HIGHWAYS
2ND DIVISION OFFICE
I want to personally thank you for finding time to visit with our small
group Wednesday to provide a better understanding of the proposed Greene
Street bridge issue and its possible affect on Greene and Pitt Streets.
Your sharing the information currently available plus the time frame of
this project was very beneficial to all of us.
I was delighted the Chamber agreed to write you a letter stating at the
latest meeting of the full board held on August 25th, the board unanimously
voted to re-evaluate their earlier position. As you know, the Transportation
Committee plans to meet next Wednesday, the 14th at 7:30 a.m. at John
Chaffee's office. I am pleased those meeting with us Wednesday will
attend this meeting.
I thought it would be appropriate to state in writing Wachovia's three
main concerns as it relates to the possible widening of Greene Street
should the four lane bridge option be selected versus the two one-way
bridges.
First, parking is very important to our business and the loss of potentially
30 parking places could be devastating. As our city grows and the University
expands, parking downtown will be of greater importance. Also, from a
safety standpoint, even if adequate parking is made available two to four
blocks away, the crime element also becomes an issue when our employees
would be coming and leaving work.
Second, the eventual expansion of Gre,
lane would be a concern from a safety
pedestrians. The tendency is for the
when a four or five lane thoroughfare
our customers would become difficult,
ane Street to four lanes plus a turn
standpoint both to drivers and to
speed of the drivers to increase
is available. Egress and ingress of
also.
Last is the possible economic impact should Greene Street be eventually
widened. We have 53,000 sq. feet in this building so you can calculate
quickly at $100.00 per sq. foot that we have a $5.3MM building plus the
cost of land. If we should ever leave downtown, and certainly as I mentioned
we have no plans to, the decrease in parking spaces would decrease the
marketability of our property. No reasonable amount of compensation could
offset this loss.
Mr. Rick Shirley
Page 2
September 8, 1994
I personally appreciate your time and hope that you will share the feelings
of Wachovia and the feelings that Ed Kirby of NationsBank shared with you
earlier.
It was interesting to learn that the widening of Pitt Street to the minimum
two-lane requirement would not create a need for any property to be purchased.
Only when turn lanes were deemed necessary would there be a need to purchase
property, and then.only a very nominal amount. This within itself makes
the pair of one-way streets versus the four lane bridge a very attractive
consideration.
You were very helpful and I look forward to seeing.you on the 14th.
With warmest regards,
e:rel y,
John W st , J
Senio ice President
JJW,Jr/smd
cc: Mr. Bobby Tripp
Mr. Chip Cherry