_External_ RE_ 20240261_BR-0251

Carpenter, Kristi
From: Thomas, John T. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 4:14 PM
To: Conchilla, Ryan; Clough, Karina A
Subject: [External] RE: 20240261_BR-0251
Attachments: BR-0251_SMU_PGD_560072.pdf, BR-0251_SMU_ PGD_560074.pdf, BR-0251
_SMU_PGD_560381.pdf, Br-0251 permit plan 2 1 24.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good afternoon Ryan, thank you for your review and comment.
Regarding the NRTR, you are correct the cover page listing Bridge 560371 is a typo. The corrected listing should be
Bridge 560381. You are also correct in that four bridges were included in the NRTR for BR-0251. However, Bridge 560500
was dropped from BR-0251 at this time because of delay in Geotech surveys needed for bridge construction design that
prevent construction plans (also permit plans) being development for Bridge 560500 before the BR-0251 construction
let date of June 18, 2024. So instead of dropping BR-0251 because of issues with Bridge 560500, it was decided to go
forward with permitting, right-of-way, and construction plans for the three remaining bridges. Thus, the ePCN submittal
is for Bridges 560072, 560074, and 5600381.
Regarding your request for site plans, when we submitted the ePCN earlier this month; we had only a plan view showing
the area for temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters that also included a typical cross section of tying
the toe of the end bents to the respective bridged stream channels. We also included impact tables of permanent and
temporary jurisdictional impacts. Since that submittal, the PGD's for the bridges have been completed. The PGD's shoulc
have the information that you are looking for in what you requested as "site plans." I have attached copies of the PGD's
and for convenience, the "permit plans" originally sent with the ePCN submittal.
The PGD's show the water surface elevation of the respective stream channels and either the cast or capped
micropile end bent stream side elevations showing a minimal, almost not measurable permanent fill in open
waters of the streams. The permanent jurisdictional impact is best defined by linear feet of bank stabilization and
not open water fill as the end bent toe tie-ins function as bank stabilization for the referenced stream
channels. Dewatering and detour bridge temporary fill was included as open water fill of the stream channel as
these fills were not impacts to special aquatic features such as pools, riffles, etc. Such impacts are routinely
included as linear impacts such as culverts, stream channel relocations, stream channel reconstruction, etc.; which
is not the case in these bridge projects.
These bridge projects are linear transportation projects that are single and complete projects with independent
utility. They were submitted together in a single ePCN under the BR-0251 banner for consistency and efficiency of
review. Each of these projects have very small, practically non -measurable permanent jurisdictional open water
impacts that are best captured in linear impacts associated with bank stabilization impacts. Also, each one of the
bridges has less than 40 linear feet impacts.
Please review the attachments and let me know if you have further comments or questions.
Thanks
John Thomas
Gannett Fleming

[e-mail]
919 389-4391
From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 11:28 AM
To: Clough, Karina A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, John T. <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20240261_B R-0251
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
The PCN application for the proposed projects cannot be reviewed as submitted.
Please submit a complete PCN, including site plans for each individual bridge replacement project.
Site plans were not submitted with the original application.
In the NRTR report provided for BR-0251, four bridge replacement projects are listed on page one.
Please clarify if Bridge 560371 is a typo, and if there are three or four projects proposed.
Let me know what additional assistance is needed.
Thanks
Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
[e-mail]
D- E
�
NORTH CAROLINA7.4m Q
kl/)
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.