20040995 Ver 1_Complete File_20040930

FOLLOW V p EAl AI L
Fo& B - wuj$S'
From - Fri Oct 01 10:10:43 2004 `Va o ij O "57
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 4,
Return-Path: <[e-mail]> fU??- /A?
Original-Recipient: rfc822;[e-mail] Wok ?? RSV M .L?
Received: from scc076.its.state.nc.us (207.4.22.40) by ms0l.ncmail.net (6.5.029)
id 4116120E002352F9 for [e-mail]; Fri, 1 Oct
2004 09:17:54 -0400
Received: from scc076.its.state.nc.us (127.0.0.1) by scc076.its.state.nc.us
(6.5.029)
id 413F39150012BB6A for [e-mail]; Fri, 1 Oct
2004 09:17:53 -0400
Received: from scc097.its.state.nc.us (207.4.219.18) by scc076.its.state.nc.us
(6.5.029)
id 413F39110012BA34 for [e-mail]; Fri, 1 Oct 2004
09:16:54 -0400
Received: from dotmail02.dot.state.nc.us (dotmail02.dot.state.nc.us
[207.4.62.2231)
by scc097.its.state.nc.us (8.13.1/8.13.1/DFR) with SMTP id i91DHEHN022104
for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:17:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PDEA220295.dot.state.nc.us ([149.168.135.40])
by dotmail02.dot.state.nc.us (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62)
with ESMTP id 346 for <[e-mail]>;
Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:15:56 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:14:41 -0400
To: Nicole Thomson <[e-mail]>
From: Michael Turchy <[e-mail]>
Subject: B-3685
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="================--===_351198203==.ALT"
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=-98.949 required=6
X-Spam-Score: -98.949 HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,USER_IN_WHITELIST
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44
--=====================_351198203==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Nikki,
I received the 401 and buffer certification for B-3685. Thanks for working
on this one so fast. As I was reading the conditions to the permit, I have
a question regarding the third special condition:
"No in-water work is permitted between February 12 to June 30 of any year,
without prior approval from the NC Division of Water quality and the NC
Wildlife resources Commission. In addition, NCDOT shall conform with the
NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage (May 12, 1997) at all time."
I am forwarding an email below from Mr. Travis Wilson from WRC, regarding
this stream no longer supporting anadromous fish. With this information,
may I also get your permission (as required from above) to remove the
moratorium for this stream. In essence, I think that would remove
r
condition number three.
This information was just provided to us, otherwise I would have made this
recommendation at an earlier time.
Thanks for your help,
Michael
From: "Wilson, Travis W." <[e-mail]>
To: 'Michael Turchy' <[e-mail]>,
Subject: RE: B-3685 Anadromous Fish
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:07:31 -0400
Michael, after further review by our district biologist it was determined --
that due to the highly urbanized nature of Green Mill Run at this
location. WRC no longer feels the need for an in water work moratorium.
Travis,
I realize that I have already discussed this particular project with you
during a phone conversation on 9/13/2004, but I have been asked to request
that you review project B-3685 (replacement of bridge no. 30 over Green
Mill Run in Pitt County) for anadromous fish restrictions again. I know
that your predecessor commented on this project the first time in a letter
dated June 8, 2001, stating this project does cross potential anadromous
fish waters. We respect his call, but we have recently learned that Sean
McKenna from NC DCM has withdrawn their call that this is an anadromous
fish stream, and we want to make sure that an error was not made with WRC's
first call.
NCDOT is severely constrained with the schedule of this project. We are
balancing East Carolina University's need for this bridge to be open, the
utility companies coordination with removing the utilities from the current
bridge, and the scheduling around the anadromous fish moratorium.
We appreciate your time and help with this project. Please let me know I
can provide any assistance,
Michael
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
/? I 1
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
________________________351198203==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
Nikki,<br><br>
I received the 401 and buffer certification for B-3685.&nbsp; Thanks for
working on this one so fast.&nbsp; As I was reading the conditions to the
permit, I have a question regarding the third special condition:
<br><br>
<i>&quot;No in-water work is permitted between February 12 to June 30 of
any year, without prior approval from the NC Division of Water quality
and the NC Wildlife resources Commission.&nbsp; In addition, NCDOT shall
conform with the NCDOT policy entitled &quot;Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997) at all time.&quot;<br><br>
</i>I am forwarding an email below from Mr. Travis Wilson from WRC,
regarding this stream no longer supporting anadromous fish.&nbsp; With
this information, may I also get your permission (as required from above)
to remove the moratorium for this stream.&nbsp; In essence, I think that
would remove condition number three.<br><br>
This information was just provided to us, otherwise I would have made
this recommendation at an earlier time.<br><br>
Thanks for your help,<br>
Michael<br><br>
From: &quot;Wilson, Travis W.&quot; &lt;[e-mail]&gt;
<br>
To: 'Michael Turchy' &lt;[e-mail]&gt;, <br>
Subject: RE: B-3685 Anadromous Fish <br>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:07:31 -0400 <br><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#00008011>Michael, after further review
by our district biologist it was determined that due to the highly
urbanized nature of Green Mill Run at this location.&nbsp; WRC no longer
feels the need for an in water work moratorium.<br><br>
&nbsp;<br>
</font>Travis,<br>
I realize that I have already discussed this particular project with you
during a phone conversation on 9/13/2004, but I have been asked to
request that you review project B-3685 (replacement of bridge no. 30 over
Green Mill Run in Pitt County) for anadromous fish restrictions
again.&nbsp; I know that your predecessor commented on this project the
first time in a letter dated June 8, 2001, stating this project does
cross potential anadromous fish waters.&nbsp; We respect his call, but we
have recently learned that Sean McKenna from NC DCM has withdrawn their
call that this is an anadromous fish stream, and we want to make sure
that an error was not made with WRC's first call.<br>
NCDOT is severely constrained with the schedule of this project.&nbsp; We
are balancing East Carolina University's need for this bridge to be open,
the utility companies coordination with removing the utilities from the
current bridge, and the scheduling around the anadromous fish
moratorium.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
We appreciate your time and help with this project.&nbsp; Please let me
know I can provide any assistance,<br>
Michael<br><br>
<br>
<font face="verdana11 size=l>-------------------------------------------- <br>
OF , -%
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist<br>
North Carolina Department of Transportation<br>
PDEA Office of Natural Environment<br><br>
1598 Mail Service Center<br>
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598<br>
voice: 919.715.1468&nbsp; fax: [phone]<br>
<a href="http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/</a>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
-------------------------------------------- <br>
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist<br>
North Carolina Department of Transportation<br>
PDEA Office of Natural Environment<br><br>
1598 Mail Service Center<br>
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598<br>
voice: 919.715.1468&nbsp; fax: [phone]<br>
<a href="http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/</a> <br>
</font></body>
</html>
_______________________ 351198203==.ALT--
O?O? W A T ?RpG
r
September 30, 2004
Pitt County
DWQ No. 040995
TIP B-3685
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacing Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in Pitt County.
Impact Locations Stream Impacts (Linear Feet)
8" Water Line 2.67
16" Water Line 3.33
6" Gas Line 0.5
West Side 8" Sewer Line Pier 6
East Side 8" Sewer Line Pier 6
Total 18.5
In addition to these temporary stream impacts, 11,251 square feet of protected Tar-Pamlico Buffer impacts (7,370
square feet in Zone 1 and 3,881 square feet in Zone 2) are allowed for the installation of the aforementioned utility
line crossings, as well as replacement of Bridge No. 30.
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your revised application dated received September 14, 2004 and
September 15,2004. After reviewing your application, we have decided that these impacts are covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3374, 3403 and 3366. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide
Permitl2, Nationwide Permit 23 and Nationwide Permit 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also
valid for the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0259). In addition, you should acquire any other
federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
o One
NhCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Nahmally
1650 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) The NCDOT will need to adhere to all appropriate in-water work moratoriums (including the use of pile driving
or vibration techniques) prescribed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
3.) No in-water work is permitted between February 15 to June 30 of any year, without prior approval from the NC
Division of Water Quality and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, NCDOT shall conform
with the NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997) at
all times
4.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
5.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
6.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
7.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
8.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
9.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
10.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
11.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by orange fabric fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to
areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
12.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
13.) The NCDOT shall strictly adhere to sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices as described for
High Quality Waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction of the project.
14.) Pursuant to NCAC15A 2B.0259(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Tar-Pamlico Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no
sediment and erosion control devices in Zone 1 outside the identified impacts presented in your application.
Sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
41
15.) The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species
may also be necessary.
16.) When the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict
adherence the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
17.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened.
18.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
19.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
20.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
21.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the?,construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if a? y, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
22.) No changes to the horizontal or vertical placement of the stormwater outfall locations, the horizontal or vertical
placement of the culverts, the horizontal or vertical placement of bridges, the horizontal or vertical placement of
grassed swales, or the horizontal or vertical placement of open ditches is permitted without written approval
from the NC Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit. In addition, no changes to the flow spreader
locations or designs, preformed scour hole locations or designs are permitted without written approval from the
NC Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit. Any request for changes to the referenced items above will
require submittal of a modification request, with seven copies, and corresponding fees will need to be submitted
to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
23.) All protected riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored
to the preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
Sin4ly,
Alan W. Klimek, P.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. C.E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division 2 Engineer, PO Box 1587,Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer, PO Box 1557, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
C:\Correspondence\DW Q040995\092704wcq.doc
J
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
Daic:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Date:
Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Registration No.
Date
imap://nicole.thomson([e-mail]:143/f...
Subject: B-3685 Utility Impacts
From: Michael Turchy <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:14:27 -0400
To: Nicole Thomson <[e-mail]>
Nikki,
Below are the linear impacts from the B-3685 utilities.
Utility Linear Impact (in) '',Linear Impact (ft)
16" Water Line 13.33'
?8" Water Line 32" 2.67'
V' Gas Line 30" 0.5'
The standard is 12 inches on either side of the utility to allow for work on the pipe(s) when they are
installing them. Please let me know if you need additional information.
Thanks,
Michael
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
1 of 1 9/28/2004 2:26 PM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTN 4FNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 14, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000 SE P 1,5 7004
WATER QUaI rY SECTION
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 12 & 33 Permit Application and Buffer Certification
Modification for the replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR
1703 in Pitt County, Division 2. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1703(1), State
Project No. 8.2221601, T.I.P. No. B-3685.
Please reference the Nationwide 23 application dated June 9, 2004, the subsequent Nationwide 23
Permit (Action ID 2004 1 1 508, July 5, 2004), and NCDOT's response to the on hold letter from
the Division of Water Quality dated August 2, 2004. Due to permanent and temporary utility
impacts associated with project B-3685, NCDOT is requesting a Nationwide 12 and 33, and
buffer certification for the associated impacts.
Utility Impacts/ Avoidance and Minimization
Bridge No. 30 has several utilities attached to the current structure. Before construction can
begin, it is necessary to relocate a 16" water line, an 8" water line, a 6" gas line, and an 8" sewer
line which are in conflict with the replacement of Bridge No. 30, and are shown in the attached
drawings.
The 8" and 16"water lines cannot be installed using a directional bore method for the following
reasons:
• Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) does not allow the use of High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) Pipe in their system. This is the most commonly used pipe for directional bore
because of its flexibility. Their preference is to use Ductile Iron Restrained Joint Pipe which
is less flexible.
• The steep slope on one side of the stream, limited R/W and buildings on the west side of the
bridge restrict the area we have to install the water lines. In this situation, a directional bore is
impractical due to the horizontal and vertical restrictions placed on the pipe during
installation.
• GUC also requires all ductile iron pipes to be wrapped with polyethylene. It would be
difficult to directional bore ductile iron pipe without damaging this wrap.
It is difficult to perform a directional bore in loose sand, which is present on this project.
The 6" gas lines cannot be installed using a directional bore method for the following reasons:
• A high pressure gas main requires the use of steel welded pipe. This material limits flexibility
thus increasing the difficulty of a directional bore installation within the limits of the right of
way.
• The gas main must be epoxy coated and taped at the joints. There is a significant chance that
damage to the coating and joints will occur during the directional bore drilling operation.
• It is difficult to perform a directional bore in loose sand which is present on this project.
Therefore, these utilities must be installed using an open trench method. It is expected that the )C
installation of these utilities will temporarily impact 29 linear feet per utility of Green Mill Run.
The phasing of this installation is as follows:
1. An impervious dike will be installed to divert stream flow during installation.
2. After installation, the trenches in the buffer zones and stream will be backfilled with the same
soil removed.
3. Install seed, mulch and coir fiber matting in buffer zone 1, (see special provisions in
drawings). Install seed and mulch in buffer zone 2 over trench.
4. Remove impervious dike and follow steps 1-3 to complete stream crossing to install utility
lines.
The 8" gravity sewer line will be installed as an aerial crossing over the stream. The concrete
piers were designed to be s aced 40 feet apart, which will minimize the impact to the stream.
Temporary dewatering o 0.04 cre of Green Mill Run will be ecessary to construct these piers
using the following phasing metho+3 (9-?- 1?C1-e
1. An impervious dike will be installed t iv am flow during installation.
2. After installation, the trenches in the buffer zones and stream will be backfilled with the same
soil removed
3. Install seed, mulch and coir fiber matting in buffer zone 1, (see special provisions in
drawings). Install seed and mulch in buffer zone 2 over trench.
Tar-Pamlico Basin Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (subbasin 03-03-05, TAR2 03020103),
therefore the regulations pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0259)
apply. All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed. The
following table summarizes the buffer impacts for project B-3685:
Type of Impact Zone 1 Impacts ft2 Zone 2 Impacts ft2) Total Impacts (ft-
Bride 4373.0 1957.0 6330.0
Utilities 2997.0 1924.0 4921.0
Total 7370.0 3881.0 11251.0
According to the buffer rules, bridges and utilities are allowable. Uses designated as allowable
may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives to the
requested use pursuant to item (8) of this Rule. These uses require written authorization from the
division or the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests written authorization for a
Buffer Certification from the Division of Water Quality.
,I Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of Greenmill Run will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
the temporary dewatering of Green Mill Run. It is also anticipated that the relocation of utilities
will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities; Activities
required for the construction, maintenance, and repair of utility lines and associated facilities).
All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095;
January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3374, 3366 and 3403 will
apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org_/planning(pe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Turchy at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
GregoryJ. Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)***
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E. (Div. 2), Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson (Div. 2), DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Wadsworth, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
***During a meeting with Nikki Thompson from DWQ on 8/26/2004, larger
plansheets were provided at NC DWQ's request.
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 12 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thome, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:-m aturchy @dot. state.nc.u s
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation: .
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: B-3685 Replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3685
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Pitt Nearest Town: Greenville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 36' 18"N, 77° 20' 28"W
Greenville SE
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Green Mill Run
8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uc,/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Urban, University
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replace
Bridge No. 30 Over Green Mill Run. This project will also require the relocation of 2 water
lines, one sewer line and a gas line. Heavy utility construction equipment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Relocate utilities which are in conflict with the
replacement of Bridge No. 30.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Nationwide 23 Action ID# 200411508 dated 7/5/2004, issued for the same structure replacement.
Now that utilities are involved we are requesting a Nationwide 12 & 33.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
None
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:Please see attached cover letter.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
No Wetland Impacts

i I I
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Site
Number
indicate on ma Type of
Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent.
(please secif )
See Cover Letter

*- List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.11s(2s.cov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mipqucst.com, etc.).
Page 4 of 8
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 87'
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
No Open Water Impacts

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
See attached cover letter.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 5 of 8
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htmi.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation required
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
*
ZOne Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 2997 3 N/A
2 1924 1.5 N/A
Total 4921 N/A
"Lone I extends out 3U feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 7 of 8
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
I ._CG4 r•4d
U•:,;: t????i?d`t-I:,t?,?.°?l ?3c95.u:_111:1_l.J..dg?
To ? -o o II rn III - ? ? ``
A. o N" I o II; ~?
II = ?_ _
° C) rr -0.
< a z rn l ??,?_?? 7
m Z-0 N I' , / Q rn
-O O O O T • 'I II ?,?'? RAk ROAD `G•= I? (O;
W 2 JI?? l Y
I l I ??
P
r S1
I) ~ ?5 0
80
-- ° ° LO LI w a r. ;
cCi C C C yi?i l` ?00 Q fl S ?i rTl
_
b I ?? ^ I r i Rl m
O
I
ti
tTj
F M ?f! floc y .? /
'fill,
cq-l
z ? I I I I I ?;
y
pP
b b I I ? x
I
N
?A
oo u?m' r.iz I b
Q
rt,
w
S' o j? I O r
Al Ln
l: r r ?O rr
rn r z.
k b M ofn " O
4 C ??C ?. rrN V1
d ' y r h•+
M o ??? y RjOI
qN 0,
ta o s II I c,-s NC GRA
NAp 83 ?
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ct z
-x
c,c y?
' -r o
i m'v
mA
r N a
C -0 W
O 1-a Ul
vW v-1
cn o m
0
?
o
N
m O
W i
mm
O -
O
H
--v?vvvv
oaaaaaa
-icooooo
m -° -° :° •° -° v
D U) C O
cU)0
r C Am'
-1• CnA AA -A
>z r- P. N?Dx -
rOr1nN ? --IA
r m
ti<v
D a 0 < O
Tr< ° r
m omoomm
m Z H H m o
Z I-1 -i I? m M Z
w 0 mmo
__ m
r- r. OOG
r- = D -
r -m r
M O O m c.t
o m vt
Z u9 O O
v D
m c)
-i N
-1 O O
xa o
a ze
C: b
S
m
m 1
=m
m ai
=. Jlltl
I -
I 1 ?t,t 1 _j 1
> ti ? i 1511, • ? ,;;
#I s I ;III€? °y
{{Yy I I .? ` I
i I ICI , , II ? Z
Pdr II ';
r
f?
I i.?? I`ti.. ? LIs•1 t? I
I I ?- I t"I I I I !..III ' _! +,• u H I
t' 'I J I j '?'11? DrX•1 x
1 _ C? 1? .r it o
1 •J
A En
14 ov
....1 _ III •,:_:?,?,.; ; i;. ?1I 0 (i' I.? .? ;:,. ?:- U) 'D
_. tt jI III I I{ > T _ D0 T
..- _7 • :lilt 1 ?i n t I' Z L., :>t.. N I +'P a
11'1 m
?? t. - .?•I,'LI 1 II I h ?O?- En N .D b n
I t, Jtl I Al m T
p
,- fptt Ipl I t 16 1 w f y °
z -•s r
e sIl 1.1f i m
C: zz 1 -`? s I( I ?F ??I ' 1, ;jam I m = ,m( Cn
_' $ 'UI - IfS? }yf i ?O N m (x71a
-ir
Z co -u_
Hm
mf i I'I,•_ ?:? r 7.,,.:,f? _e.M
?g m II?? I I'ip, I$ is r n mw
en I co F-4
fD ,- 2* ':4 ' I I l I I t NI Z z yy.
N N t ttdl. f - L? N ?s T
o N L. s W ?, r.I r• p Y1 :. ?. rn o
N_ _ N it IJ ! ?. _ sit r..t Z
m m
n7 r-1 W f I? ` 67 '-?I?i 1} I I ?F? I ?t iI? O
' to ? ? ._? i L? ?, ',I:II,? '?':;`?'=; 't..bbb••• .:? i
co A a),
"-T
N m t o to
' m
r 1 ? 1 I ,? :,
N Z
m O _;) ?i ?i 11 4Il I? m
Hrzn k'r t,F
z, I 1 i
z
0
m
--i co -n
m•0o
/L
o H cu
zrr
nrm
m
rn -4 -n
--I=H
m m r-
r
?xU)
rn c)
>r
C H to
zom
zz
m c
rccn
00
?o
z
0
m
?mr-
m r- r--
mo
H -D-I -{
r- m
r o :3o
m z H
D
H H U)
Hro
COM
1-4 m
m G)
?CCDn
0 -_°o r
F-- r H
Hmm
U)0
H
z -<
v
0
v
A
fD
W

_ u
r O
- -n
n fn
°p rr?r
y rn m?
? O a

O
9O ~ z
=
'vm D mD
N ? f71
''_11
T V 9 fA

n
H z
D W O
Z m
m
N
n zm
z
M
m-
O A fn
m
o
°t
' - ???.: ? . ?1 f I ??? , i• 1 ' Y+ ;..: ' ' `ter '
t'p I ??•t ?? 7 1 .. "I
,d ? 1 1. 1 KCF? 1 rll
lij,
pvssssi?
i'' 11 I h I r r ± ? .? 1.11 ilr
a x
s J?
?K ae '.ey! F $ 1c -iX i .D DAO / o r?Am
I, ?41 ql I ill; aH v 00
W• a1 o n
rn m Ao 1 r I ?t :ca U)
N fn• m• 'i? •) .I? 1 t I O r -QC) C
r.. a z _ W r, -I
G_ 37 v/t
_ N p f m o :4 D m a1 T I .I
N m I N ` ?? s _ u1 ?y _ N *?,'.. < 'O) 9 ?vo m 'v = p
?(l 3 I•I :2 .tom .•• S r 1.Im a rt ?.'
M \ y i <,i * N 11 DO -m
m p D _ ° N '' G l ' ' I I I'+ i , L:i M ' -' u H y _ .. •r 5 = .I T In ""I •( ?1 - v,> x (•, (TI O Q; rrm 97? O 9
?I I , I ?, G7 3V ?P2 ci7 Ar G ?mD
Q1
rm OA mO N t?I II yt? Z ' p m + m D ?? 'L?r ``?O
o °c?'n '°mm w 11 ?j II ?°' o. < v O oo?
z o cn o A m z mm<<
° N D G y m m U) -
0 01
n .c x ?iI?''•.
01 -A
m H ca C:
o (31 c Ij e
ca U
?'•.
11 I 'lt( - 1, fn ?• .. O -?•? •?6LEr .... CvP,.
z _ ,"" r
?LrelenA8
-3665VdeI,gnAb3685_,dy-peh.dgn
8/
0
0
i
t
,
I

0

N
W
A
I
w
01
V
00
-11
,p
N
O
N
N
N
? ? p A c
I y ??
^pa b o?
day ; ???
? a ? C O t??? rrx>r"rx..
II
1 1-111,111, 0
N rM
i L z
? ro 4 I w'
a = ny
Iv
I
4 -?
V
I'
FO
r --I
m
Zo
m, t
N
p5 CrT'
f n °
mD
t
v; i F
i
? SAS /4i
Q W
I°? a
I I?
ll?
r??. j as
io
. ? nl I •
of ce I{?, 0 9
l I ?!' ?r o 0
w
1 -1
CIS
fI_ mA
O
M
air,
E r?
c 1 '
car.
ti
II .p" /5
N:Z
c? r
I? I
pI I ?i
m S b „Y1S? H
ZOpOM &, ??
?InN33N
cT T ?
0

I
O
I a'? ? s u
Q ?
? O
rr
09-? P-Zpr? IL2g
l/:-AF ?JJETT\?alrn\B-3685\demgn\63665_rdy_pah.dgn
10
0
J
N
W

to
O?
V
co

N
O
N
N
N
8i
14
?a
+444
\/V
449 U)
a v
i a y ? v -
rL,
r P ?. t O (}fig C^S^"" ,?, I I G' I 0 0

9
z
RL^y
k?
?A? RRHUM
\ /?? ? ,JAI ?wlp Q
Y`
f

a
? c I
II ,1 ? ?I ` ? ? I I Q
A
i ,.~E \ II m O
1?u L,
/I ra
I ?
R ?
I I/ I m ??
? wa
m I / Orr
my
-71 Z
r0 f\l s? ?\ I ?1 m
m ?? ?. R \,a I F \ \
v \ 'r

I I?
I I?
\1 ! rX'y
i

II `,
.I
I 4?
a
Q
va
s?4; $
t.y q
p?
Y?
?r
r
d
IF11111's
4 ?
O
63-,_r? PP-F4 IZ :35
wo H(7J S\Galen\B-3685\dea:gn\63695_r dy_pah.dgn
1 1o
la
IN
Iw
V.
1u
I?cr%
1 •,
I?co
Io
I N
O
IN
J
N
N
m
-p y ,r
a t? oy
y o
C
I
?I O I
ILL
l c??
0
ro a
rl

Q ? I
g
n V1 ?
ol??
R A
PAPA 5
/ rn? F !I
j S-
- - - - --------- - -----
------ ----------
Il
-------- - -------- ------
o r -?? it
Cow oro??
-nD CD
D
m
?m mm
?, p? N3 n ? ro
0
r. Mn mD
C')
N L -4
.r U) O ..
I
---------- -------
--- --------- - - ----
I I?
--- -------- - -------- --
---- --- --------
it H
/I
I / m I a?
r?
Y
P ° t
Ii
I
i e
i ?
i
li Y
-t J
H
I
0
I! v
H Q
T_ s
IT
m °:
z
ar,
a?
nZ5
a
N •?.
?A
I9
I C
I
4

• /
v
? t
$ M
•?.hSl
t
Soo*
, A
r
I
Oro rm?33n

j
Hv

+Tium
? -+n?
}}EE 1f '
''
-
p .
oN r
C

\ ? '
T \ Oyu C
o ./ b n
20

?
t
t a pc
y r

-I
S\?° en\B-3665\dcatgn\63665_rdy_pah.dgn
I1 \ °
?/ - /IL??? III;\p \ ° /??
10
0
N
W
I
UI

V
00
?O
N
O
N
r
N
N
ail,
p t?
e,- t7';
51 1
p i
Ccon,
r 10
i ac ? ? m 1
do W o ^?? \ L
a ? ? ? ? ? ? Z ?'?"?/ ? ??•?'?; ill ,; `:(. \ \` r \ °?
1
zz?y
h?
R, III, Mg %
Q
Z Al
r ° e:
-Ir O
coo Or o 13
c:r- fA
-n D CD
-71W MO
m -q
:Z) m mrn
N3
Z D C '3D ^ d
m C) m D
-I C-)
NU') - co O
c?uu
Q -•
? I
? ma
2
`? II ti t?
AA A
gRG ? A ????
?} !! IfI -a1mf
j I
I? n 1?
/
f' I/ I L m / ?a
I II' ? ,
.

ft
is
as
Q
v .l
?F?{m
O R?i
c
J 0
Q

Y

Q
a
w
n
GJ
CJ
a
W
H
N
W
F-
W
J
CL
O
U
O
M
C
W M Y
F-
N Q
O V) In
LLJ
JZ
Li
O _O
J
O >- > (
z ?_ cl? N
Q _J LLJ
W ~ CL m
of
V) a N
M I- N
2(n m
>z
W O
_O
W Z
> N
O N
Wl=
a: U
v
n_
W
N
W
' !?- CL
I '
I I? I
I I
1 =
II U
W
-z
1 ? ~
1 1
I I l Q
LLI V

U
(L W
I co

L

J LL -
M
Z

CL
0 0
U
•

O

0
w
w
(n
? z
a
0
o
?
w
LLJ
V)
Q
LLJ
0
LLJ
I-
W
0
J
a
H
W
a°
w
W
Z V)
J V)
O
W cr
? U
a?
?a
Co W
W ~
Z V)
J W
W
?a

a
U
W
CL
N
W U
W Z
N W
W Z IY
N >
N O
Z Z Iw N
Q LL Z
O W LDN
z z
LLI
W N OLL
_Z LL
W ?- O
N LL F- CD
LA-
Lij Q
=) C; ??
>
= O W U
V; M WUJ W m_
> Z 2 Ir Lr S`
J
N - 0 Z
or- WN Q
I- ~ a o
W? n.M < LWLJ
O W Q N
O = N =
W ?' U J
LLJ -j _j
o~ z? =Q
"o J = O Z
nWZ w
O N ' N Z
_Q zJ JO
J J = W J to
J
LLJ Q -
NH LL Q NtY
ZZ Qw ZIL
Z N ri
N CL tL tL
Q W W W
S F- H 1-
4. N N N
a
w
O
00
d
cn
d
N
2
co I?. I U
z
i
W
N s ?? za
co W I F-- p F-
v) = U W
Z LL) U F--
LLI O N N W
LLJ
J Z ?/)
Q N W V
z a:
to O U
> CD
z iw No W z F- W
L. N V
LU F-
=3 IL
O] LL Z \ 4- z
o = mp < 0
O N / 1 W
I-- z
Z
a ? ? v r?
LIJ
N w . O H LL I- m
EL- O
a U
w oo ?? LL LL
t=- a > a: = Q? 0-? 0
Z
0. m - U W 0- w o U
LLI _L LL. o 0
o a J o F- W.
o ?° L)a U V) U Z
LLJ 00 ? aw LLJ O - / U 0O
w z
vi Q f > ?y
?? Uw JJ a z O LL
W
O W Z F=- f. U I I ?- ?- Q-
>w J2 N ? z w I I ( Q
z N J U ,^^
O ZJ z _ J V/
Jv J J2 N W M Q=
as wY a-i (n
5: W N m m--?i W 00
E- ?- r- v N O i?-- N LL.
zLi. am -z W m
- o z {- LL
N r; = o < (n 0
Z
Q w a- a. CL
w w U
n. N In N O W LLJ
-"2 Ld
at o?
0
w
w
C\
w
0
a?
cn

z
0
q,
m
Qa
o m

co IL

w?

0
Z? 0
z
cc N
2 N

rn
LL
U
F- 0
LL Z O W
Lkj
O
Q
O F-
x
r= N ° w
w? O
O ? (L
C) a
Z

F- LLI

m N co

t
r
Z
m
« T
C
?
m
3

LL
?
0 CD
m
N
«
O w
O

CC 0 N O
Z, N
N
3 '
o
cD CA
r p
co
C «
O C

0 C N
O1
O
C
m
N
O
ro
N r7

CO
C
U (b
C
O CO
3 m
? v
N

T I
t= 0
CO

?-- N
Z w
W z
? ,,..
V
W ?
W

O
J O

O
H
W
J
m °
Q N O
? Z
O
?
0

Z 0

O...
N

N
Q
O
O
O
O

U J
Q M N
o
^

O
0
Q. ? wH in v o?
O O
rn
J
N J O O

? ?
V O M
R N n
N
a
J
J
U
J Q

W w a
{L a

= 0 Z
M
W ? U)
X
X

U
u?
r
J
Q
O
? O O
cD
0 ? 07 O
O O
f- ? t[7 f F
Cn
LL 1-: O OOi
t
O ? ?
w

? m m
a
C
U co
?
7

O ..1
z
w Q
?

0
o -o
O O
O CIS
U O
,. u Syr.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTN: Mr. John Hennessy
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Response to the § 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No.
040995) requesting more information, TIP No. B-3685.
Dear Sir:
On June 9, 2004, the NCDOT requested an Individual § 401 Water Quality Certification for
the subject project. The NCDOT is in receipt of a letter placing the project on hold from your
office dated July 29, 2004. A copy attached for your convenience. A meeting was held with
NC DWQ representative Nikki Thompson, and NCDOT Hydraulic, Utilities and Natural
Environment representatives on August 26, 2004. The following concerns were addressed at
this meeting.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit drawing plans are very difficult to read and therefore, this
office cannot make an appropriate permit determination. Please supply a better set of plan
drawings that more clearly depict the bridge replacement preferably a larger plan sheet.
NCDOT Response: During a meeting with Nikki Thompson from DWQ clearer, larger,
plansheets were provided.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There is a proposed direct discharge into Green Mile Run without first
providing diffuse flow a non-erosive velocities through the buffer. Please change your
designs to rectify this issue.
NCDOT Response: There is direct discharge into Green Mill Run from West and East of the
crossing. There is no means to get treatment for site drainage. The concern is how to diffuse
flow. It was determined no practical alternatives could improve the existing site drainage
September 15, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
based on the following:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TIIA16PORTATION
PI IOJECT DEVELOPMENT AIIU ENviiior -NTAL AIIAU'As
1148 Wit- SEIIVIGG Cr_Nrr_N
HALEIl.H NC 27G1l'x-1FA%3
TELE P H G 11 E: 919-733-3141
FAX: [phone]Tx4
WE115'ITE: V1V1W.NCbOL0RG
LOCATION:
T 1A16;-%(1TA T10N 0';.L1)lt1c
1 SOUTH'//ILMIN(irON'iT(SFET
RALLP.H tIC
Wcst Sidc -An existing 42" trunkline just North of loth Street conveys now down to Green
Mill Run. At the sag in the road approximately 250' West of the crossing the invert of the
existing 42" is 23.0'. From here the 42" traverses to the stream to an elevation of 22.4' (slope =
0.24%). The natural ground elevation in the area of the sag is approximately 28.5' and at the'
outlet is approximately 26.0'. South of 14th Street is parking lot. Therefore, the only available
area to diffuse flow is in the Northwest quad and this would require excavation (4') in the
Green Mill Run floodplain. It is estimated the floodplain and roadway overtop in less than the
2 yr storm. So any excavation would be frequently inundated. Also, excavation would require
the removal of trees, which are already scarce at this site. (the Northwest comer of the Green
Mill Run crossing contains about the only significant stand of trees at the project site) Also,
the additional stormwater generated from the project is negligible. Although there is widening,
mainly on the West side of the crossing, there is additional grassed channelization.
East Side -An existing 18" trunkline just North of 14th Street conveys flow down to Green
Mill Run. Due to the steep banks on this side of the crossing it was decided to outlet the 18"
as the existing. There is a low area in the Southeast quad where an outlet was considered.
However, water exiting a scour hole at this location would have to go down a steep
embankment which would potentially create more erosion/sediment concerns than an outlet at
the stream. Also, any scour hole would be frequently inundated.
Therefore, due to the frequent high water in Green Mill Run, the lack of area for attenuaters
and the negligible increase in impervious area, it was determined the best (least erosive and
maintenance intensive) means to outlet site drainage would be to outlet the systems as
existing. The outlets will be submerged even under nominal storm frequencies and therefore
outlet velocities will be less significant.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There are 2 structures on the north and south sides of the bridge that
extend beyond the bridge. The north side structures start at approximately STA. 15+00 and
extend to approximately STA. 20+010. The south side structures start at approximately STA.
16+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. What are these structures?
NCDOT Response: Thz structures shown on each side of 14th Street are proposed utility
relocations. They consist of the relocation of a 16" water and 8" sewer on the North side and a
8" water and 6" gas on the South side.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit drawings show an excess of impacts and fill in the buffer
zones to the north and south of the bridge replacement. What is the purpose of these extra
impacts and fill?
NCDOT Response: The additional buffer impacts are due to the utility construction. An
additional Nationwide 33 permit addresses these impacts under separate cover.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit shows abridge bent within the stream channel. What is the
location of the existing bridge bent? DWQ prefers that bridge bents are not present in the
stream channel. Is it possible to move this bridge bent?
NCDOT Response: All bents have been removed form the stream channel.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There has been some preliminary communication regarding the need to
change the installation method for the piles of the bridge. DWO respecoilly reminds NCDOT
that any change to the pennit design, including construction design, require a permit
modification with the appropriate fees and copies. In addition, NCDOT will need to
appropriately demonstrate avoidance and minimization techniques in the application as well
as calculate all associated temporary and permanent impacts related to this construction
design change.
NCDOT Response: All bents have been removed form the stream channel.
NCDOT requests that the "on hold" status be lifted and that processing of the § 401 Water
Quality Certification resume as soon as possible. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Turchy of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E. (Div. 2), Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson (Div. 2), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Wadsworth, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
4 0 M
o
CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
July 29, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,-North Carolina, 27699-1548
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
RECEIVED
AUG s 2004
DMSION OF Hl MAYS
PDEA CRE OF NATURAL ENYIROINEIff
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in
Pitt County, Division2, TIP No. B-3685, DWQ No. 040995
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for making
an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
VI/ The permit drawing plans are very difficult to read and therefore, this office cannot make an appropriate permit
determination. Please supply a better set of plan drawings that more clearly depict the bridge replacement,
preferably a larger plan sheet.
• There is a proposed direct discharge into Green Mile Run without first providing diffuse flow at nonerosive
velocities through the buffer. Please change your designs to rectify this issue.
,.or There are 2 structures on the north and south sides of the bridge that extend beyond the bridge. The north side
structures start at approximately STA. 15+00 and extend to•approximately STA. 20+00. The south side
structures start at approximately STA. 16+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. What are these
structures?
t f The permit drawings show an excess of impacts and fill in the buffer zones to the north and south of the bridge
replacement. What is the purpose of these extra impacts and fill?
t f The permit shows a bridge bent within the stream channel. What is the location of the existing bridge bent?
DWQ prefers that bridge bents are not present in the stream channel. Is it possible to move this bridge bent?
V,f There has been some preliminary communication regarding the need to change the installation method for the
piles for the bridge. DWQ respectfully reminds NCDOT that any changes to the permit design, including
construction design, require a permit modification with the appropriate fees and copies. In addition, NCDOT
will need to appropriately demonstrate avoidance and minimization techniques in the application as well as
calculat&all associated temporary and permanent impacts related to this construction design change.
Transportation Permltung Unit
1550 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27;99.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sude 250, Raleigh, ttor1h CarrA Ina 275(14
Phone: 911i•733.17g5 / FAL 919.733 539': / Inl6dn5t: hnlt Moo rni .t:ur w: u'./ncwtilanrl .
!•n Fnn:J (it r.rirtuniIVIA l hrrn:r Im. Lr:f:r,n F:rnrd Ar.r . r f,%:. P.(.( 'if Im 111 It %;. 11, 1•1 (}.n•.urnnr P:ifa-r
One
NorthCarolina
N atutvlltf
Page 1 of 2
DWQ No. 04099)
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the NC Division of Water Quality receives the information,
we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place die permit application un hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
incer-ely,
/? an W. Klim k P. .
Director
JEH/njt
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Feld Office
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. C.E. (Neil) Lassiter, Jr., P.E., NCDOT, Division 2 Engineer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Jay Johnson, NCDOT, Division 2 Environmental Officer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
W. Michael Turchy, NCDOT, Office of Natural Environment, 1598 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT, Roadway Design, 1582 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Mr. Omar Sultan, NCDOT, Project Management/Scheduling Unit, 1534 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., NCDOT, Highway Design, 1584 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1584
Mr. David Chang, P.E., NCDOT, Hydraulics, 1590 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT, Structure Design, 1581 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Mr. Mark Staley, EI, NCDOT,.Soil & Water Operations, 1557 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ, Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
eCE E d
C:\Cornspmdence\DWQ0409951holdltrM2804.doc AUG 3 2004
Z
_ a
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
WILMINGTON DISTRICT r k 1 w 2?4
Action ID. 200411508 County: Pitt s5
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICe";'nrl15
Property Owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: Proiect Development and Environmental Analvsis, 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): Proiect involves the
demolition and reconstruction of Bride No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in Pitt County,
North Carolina. TIP Proiect No. B-3685. DD Cord. 35.6007N and -77.3684W.
Description of activity: Proposed impacts are those associated with the placement of fill to
accommodate the replacement of Bridte No. 30 with a new 100-foot long bridge on existing
alignment. All excavated materials will be removed from the site. 0.001 acres of non-tidal wetlands
will be impacted by the site.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
_ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 23
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity is subject to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (as indicated above), before beginning work you must receive a Section 401
water quality certification from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]). For any
activity within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in
Washington, NC, at [phone].
Please read and comply with the attached conditions and the following special condition.
Special Condition: No in-stream activities will occur during the spring migration period behveen
February 15 to June 30.
Any violation of these conditions may subject the permittee to a stop wori: order, a restoration order
and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain
any other required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps
of Engineers regulatory program, pl ase n t Michael F. Be at [phone] ext. 26.
Corps Regulatory Official 14 Date: 07/05/2004
Expiration Date of Verification: 07/05/2006
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT
PLANS, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF
REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE. FRECEIVED
JUL J 2004
DIVISION OF HluHMYS
PDEEA-OFFICE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
„` sT/VE u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0q0?q5_
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTN: Mr. John Hennessy
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401'COUP
SEP 1 5 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Response to the § 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No.
040995) requesting more information, TIP No. B-3685.
Dear Sir:
On June 9, 2004, the NCDOT requested an Individual § 401 Water Quality Certification for
the subject project. The NCDOT is in receipt of a letter placing the project on hold from your
office dated July 29, 2004. A copy attached for your convenience. A meeting was held with
NC DWQ representative Nikki Thompson, and NCDOT Hydraulic, Utilities and Natural
Environment representatives on August 26, 2004. The following concerns were addressed at
this meeting.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit drawing plans are very difficult to read and therefore, this
office cannot make an appropriate permit determination. Please supply a better set of plan
drawings that more clearly depict the bridge replacement preferably a larger plan sheet.
NCDOT Response: During a meeting with Nikki Thompson from DWQ clearer, larger,
plansheets were provided.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There is a proposed direct discharge into Green Mile Run without first
providing diffuse flow a non-erosive velocities through the buffer. Please change your
designs to rectify this issue.
NCDOT Response: There is direct discharge into Green Mill Run from West and East of the
crossing. There is no means to get treatment for site drainage. The concern is how to diffuse
flow. It was determined no practical alternatives could improve the existing site drainage
based on the following:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
September 15, 2004
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEEISITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
West Side -An existing 42" trunkline just North of 14th Street conveys flow down to Green
Mill Run. At the sag in the road approximately 250' West of the crossing the invert of the
existing 42" is 23.0'. From here the 42" traverses to the stream to an elevation of 22.4' (slope =
0.24%). The natural ground elevation in the area of the sag is approximately 28.5' and at the
outlet is approximately 26.0'. South of 14th Street is parking lot. Therefore, the only available
area to diffuse flow is in the Northwest quad and this would require excavation (4') in the
Green Mill Run floodplain. It is estimated the floodplain and roadway overtop in less than the
2 yr storm. So any excavation would be frequently inundated. Also, excavation would require
the removal of trees, which are already scarce at this site. (the Northwest comer of the Green
Mill Run crossing contains about the only significant stand of trees at the project site) Also,
the additional stormwater generated from the project is negligible. Although there is widening,
mainly on the West side of the crossing, there is additional grassed channelization.
East Side -An existing 18" trunkline just North of 14th Street conveys flow down to Green
Mill Run. Due to the steep banks on this side of the crossing it was decided to outlet the 18"
as the existing. There is a low area in the Southeast quad where an outlet was considered.
However, water exiting a scour hole at this location would have to go down a steep
embankment which would potentially create more erosion/sediment concerns than an outlet at
the stream. Also, any scour hole would be frequently inundated.
Therefore, due to the frequent high water in Green Mill Run, the lack of area for attenuaters
and the negligible increase in impervious area, it was determined the best (least erosive and
maintenance intensive) means to outlet site drainage would be to outlet the systems as
existing. The outlets will be submerged even under nominal storm frequencies and therefore
outlet velocities will be less significant.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There are 2 structures on the north and south sides of the bridge that
extend beyond the bridge. The north side structures start at approximately STA. 15+00 and
extend to approximately STA. 20+010. The south side structures start at approximately STA.
16+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. What are these structures?
NCDOT Response: The structures shown on each side of 14th Street are proposed utility
relocations. They consist of the relocation of a 16" water and 8" sewer on the North side and a
8" water and 6" gas on the South side.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit drawings show an excess of impacts and fill in the buffer
zones to the north and south of the bridge replacement. What is the purpose of these extra
impacts and fill?
NCDOT Response: The additional buffer impacts are due to the utility construction. An
additional Nationwide 33 permit addresses these impacts under separate cover.
NCDWQ Deficiency: The permit shows a bridge bent within the stream channel. What is the
location of the existing bridge bent? DWQ prefers that bridge bents are not present in the
stream channel. Is it possible to move this bridge bent?
NCDOT Response: All bents have been removed form the stream channel.
NCDWQ Deficiency: There has been some preliminary communication regarding the need to
change the installation method for the piles of the bridge. DWQ respectfully reminds NCDOT
that any change to the permit design, including construction design, require a permit
modification with the appropriate fees and copies. In addition, NCDOT will need to
appropriately demonstrate avoidance and minimization techniques in the application as well
as calculate all associated temporary and permanent impacts related to this construction
design change.
NCDOT Response: All bents have been removed form the stream channel.
NCDOT requests that the "on hold" status be lifted and that processing of the § 401 Water
Quality Certification resume as soon as possible. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Turchy of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E. (Div. 2), Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson (Div. 2), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Wadsworth, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Page 2 of 2
DWQ No. 040995
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the NC Division of Water Quality receives the information,
we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
mcerly,
(Si
/an W. Klim
Director
JEH/nj t
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. C.E. (Neil) Lassiter, Jr., P.E., NCDOT, Division 2 Engineer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Jay Johnson, NCDOT, Division 2 Environmental Officer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Michael Turchy, NCDOT, Office of Natural Environment, 1598 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT, Roadway Design, 1582 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Mr. Omar Sultan, NCDOT, Project Management/Scheduling Unit, 1534 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., NCDOT, Highway Design, 1584 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1584
Mr. David Chang, P.E., NCDOT, Hydraulics, 1590 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT, Structure Design, 1581 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Mr. Mark Staley, EI, NCDOT„Soil & Water Operations, 1557 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ, Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy

C:\Correspondence\DWQ040995\holdltr072804.doc 1 AUG S 20N
??? 1t F
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
July 29, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
RECEIVED
AUG s 2004
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PDEA•OFFiCE OF NATURAL ENVY
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in
Pitt County, Division2, TIP No. B-3685, DWQ No. 040995
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for making
an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
The permit drawing plans are very difficult to read and therefore, this office cannot make an appropriate permit
determination. Please supply a better set of plan drawings that more clearly depict the bridge replacement,
preferably a larger plan sheet.
• There is a proposed direct discharge into Green Mile Run without first providing diffuse flow at nonerosive
velocities through the buffer. Please change your designs to rectify this issue.
There are 2 structures on the north and south sides of the bridge that extend beyond the bridge. The north side
structures start at approximately STA. 15+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. The south side
structures start at approximately STA. 16+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. What are these
structures?
t f The permit drawings show an excess of impacts and fill in the buffer zones to the north and south of the bridge
replacement. What is the purpose of these extra impacts and fill?
iar The permit shows a bridge bent within the stream channel. What is the location of the existing bridge tent'?
DWQ prefers that bridge bents are not present in the stream channel. Is it possible to move this bridge bent?
t/f There has been some preliminary communication regarding the need to change the installation method for the
piles for the bridge. DWQ respectfully reminds NCDOT that any changes to the permit design, including
construction design, require a permit modification with the appropriate fees and copies. In addition, NCDOT
will need to appropriately demonstrate avoidance and minimization techniques in the application as well as
calculateoall associated temporary and permanent impacts related to this construction design change.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httv://h2o.cnrstatc.nc.us/ncwctlancis
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarohna
Naturally
A
B-3685
Purpose: Responses to DWQ comments dated 7/29/04
1 - Full size plans will be plotted and unnecessary info removed to improve clarity.
2 - There is direct discharge into Green Mill Run from West and East of the crossing.
There is no means to get treatment for site drainage. The concern is how to diffuse flow.
It was determined no practical alternatives could improve the existing site drainage based
on the following:
West Side -An existing 42" trunkline just North of 14th Street conveys flow
down to Green Mill Run. At the sag in the road approximately 250'
West of the crossing the invert of the existing 42" is 23.0'. From here the
42" traverses to the stream to an elevation of 22.4' (slope = 0.24%). The
natural ground elevation in the area of the sag is approximately 28.5' and
at the outlet is approximately 26.0'. South of 14th Street is parking lot.
Therefore, the only available area to diffuse flow is in the Northwest quad
and this would require excavation (4') in the Green Mill Run floodplain.
It is estimated the floodplain and roadway overtop in less than the 2 yr
storm. So any excavation would be frequently inundated. Also,
excavation would require the removal of trees, which are already scarce at
this site. (the Northwest corner of the Green Mill Run crossing contains
about the only significant stand of trees at the project site) Also, the
additional stormwater generated from the project is negligible. Although
there is widening, mainly on the West side of the crossing, there is
additional grassed channelization.
East Side - An existing 18" trunkline just North of 14th Street conveys flow down
to Green Mill Run. Due to the steep banks on this side of the crossing
it was decided to outlet the 18" as the existing. There is a low area in the
Southeast quad where an outlet was considered. However, water exiting a
scour hole at this location would have to go down a steep embankment
which would potentially create more erosion/sediment concerns than an
outlet at the stream. Also, any scour hole would be frequently inundated.
Therefore, due to the frequent high water in Green Mill Run, the lack of area for
attenuaters and the negligible increase in impervious area, it was determined the best
(least erosive and maintenance intensive) means to outlet site drainage would be to outlet
the systems as existing. The outlets will be submerged even under nominal storm
frequencies and therefore outlet velocities will be less significant.
3 - The structures shown on each side of 14th Street are proposed utility relocations.
They consist of the relocation of a 16" water and 8" sewer on the North side and a 8"
water and 6" gas on the South side.
y
4 - The additional buffer impacts are due to the utility construction.
5 - The proposed bridge layout is presently being revised. The proposed bridge will be a
1 @ 25', 1 @ 50', 1 @ 25' Cored Slab. This was actually the original layout before
concerns arose over using drilled shafts so close to the top of bank and also over the
width of drilled shaft piers in a small, detailed flood study floodplain. That is when a 2
@ 50' was considered. However, recent Geotech analysis revealed steel piles could be
driven instead of drilled shafts. Therefore, it was determined the 3 span is the better
option.
6 - See previous comment.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
July 29, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in
Pitt County, Division2, TIP No. B-3685, DWQ No. 040995
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking, necessary information required for making
/ an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
determination. permit drawing plans are very difficult to read and therefore, this office cannot make an appropriate permit
determination. Please supply a better set of plan drawings that more clearly depict the bridge replacement,
preferably a larger plan sheet.
• There is a proposed direct discharge into Green Mile Run without first providing diffuse flow at nonerosive
velocities through the buffer. Please change your designs to rectify this issue.
• There are 2 structures on the north and south sides of the bridge that extend beyond the bridge. The north side
structures start at approximately STA. 15+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. The south side
structures start at approximately STA. 16+00 and extend to approximately STA. 20+00. What are these
structures?
/ • The permit drawings show an excess of impacts and fill in the buffer zones to the north and south of the bridge
eplacement. What is the purpose of these extra impacts and fill?
• he permit shows a bridge bent within the stream channel. What is the location of the existing bridge bent?
l? DWQ prefers that bridge bents are not present in the stream channel. Is it possible to move this bridge bent?
• There has been some preliminary communication regarding the need to change the installation method for the
\ piles for the bridge. DWQ respectfully reminds NCDOT that any changes to the permit design, including
construction design, require a permit modification with the appropriate fees and copies. In addition, NCDOT
will need to appropriately demonstrate avoidance and minimization techniques in the application as well as
calculate all associated temporary and permanent impacts related to this construction design change.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
None hCarolina
Awmallff
Page 2 of 2
DWQ No. 040995
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 21-1.0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the NC Division of Water Quality receives the information,
we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
/ inter ly,
i
Alan W. Klim P. .
Director--.._.
JEH/nj t
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. C.E. (Neil) Lassiter, Jr., P.E., NCDOT, Division 2 Engineer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Jay Johnson, NCDOT, Division 2 Environmental Officer, PO Box 1587, Greenville, NC 27835
Mr. Michael Turchy, NCDOT, Office of Natural Environment, 1598 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT, Roadway Design, 1582 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Mr. Omar Sultan, NCDOT, Project Management/Scheduling Unit,\,1534 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., NCDOT, Highway Design, 1584 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1584
Mr. David Chang, P.E., NCDOT, Hydraulics, 1590 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT, Structure Design, 1581 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Mr. Mark Staley, EI, NCDOT, Soil & Water Operations, 1557 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ, Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Co
C:\Correspondence\DWQ040995\holdltr072804.doc
Ye I 1?
jj?
L'

33

v5

y.
d X11# .1 211. f # #u : ' .:i? fl?? 1YII 311, i:zl # ? iii t.f.:I:i ; t- }111 '#3 '•?? ?=: i1#? f? ?. ITf1 ??11 ?, 11 i
•• ' :+I ,' i 3 I' , : II$ # I t 2 t t i1 I i2
3 =L + 3 '1 ii+ +i3 o•
41,
x i.o# T##. #l-,# Y iii I31 I,'# ti# f #f# i TIzlz i+. i. f 1 : I
a
It 1101"101,11101
w
1011 t
'fit, IM
III filliflilfil till 1114141 $ 1f 1
1 i 1?1
f 11,14
PA7
0 1 111113I ff? $$ ,.;_,+ +, II?? $; $ I;# ,,1 1 31 1 '. 31 ' #$ fill 1,
++I +tt?, z ,i+11l* j,413 f $?i # l + $$
i t 1 1Y S Y` 3 3 11 i# 11 1 I 11 4 . 11 1f ft t#ff 1#f# 114 11
o•" # # +', Iii 31
III i'
I
IM41fill -3 4at" '41111M j4
1111 # r{ +tr 1 I1 f i 1 t##
+ 3 i
1
+ i
4441 MIN 141 1:: 11 P- - ?1111
?+ I I
1 + -'1 3111 ; 1 ;1_1 I
1
11]Ij 11? 1 3 411 flfill 0'41111111
4 fit #3 f 1ff 1 I3 + uu?'?;? i.3 T,#3 Iii: 4+ # ?r ##
2 1,f 1f 1#i## i , I 1: 404 u f ### 11 2 #+ i 11 133 I 1 f Y: ' ' E, l
iY #a 1#1 f#
tt
11111411" 9 11 #I 3 i# #. z # ; ,
SIN A" "
14
fit HIM
HIM 4
1 loll :11 ii i# i+ ii
# $ Aliti 1111411011111 Ili IIII Hifill fill 111` 11 111 t1 * ? 1,
*U111 MIMI
+ 1111:11 111111 F11 I :1111 :111 X1111# :3111111## t 11E
. 1 111 T' :1:l l 1 f. 111 # 1 i1 :1 # +
-11 1
M t$' 11,+i 3 i t fiflijililtill 1 ? ri 41 1111 ` $I wil ii fit i $ r2 1 E i I
Ilfl 111 #z 1 fit tilt 1111 1 i + 33 fi f1 till ttEi1 ; k # #
111 +1 111 {.
$ I' Ittil"llpt 1 11111 1
31 3 d
# 11d M11 1 /f11 12 Iu f +t 111ill
; mi till IL33
1Y11 # # 1 $ LI#3 23 $# Lill,
3,' # 31
fillift
21S I3 t.
+# 111 111 1 :u + ???:t1 11 .1.2 iI 1111 # 22 I111
$$I {{#: I 72# i? $I " +#i3 # ?,+,?$$3
11 111 .f z :i x3 iI „ I fI 1#+. f 11 . #3 3 # 1141 M
111 1131 3++.1 f 2 #1 . 11
#,1 iii t###
4 4
litf 111111.:2 1111 1111 1 II++ 3 + , . 4
1j# 11 +
11 3: 3 zz11 !fill 1; 13 ' 1r## ii;11111 11 Ill „ I , 111JR 11414 fit
4 -411
illifil
1-11 fi r #? ## ##1I 1111 fl Hit {#11 '# a 3# Iffilifflif4
i111111il ;#" 2 ## "i# # 1
in, 4 44H
fill Ili,
I till fill 4
ii# 1111111111 ill" R MR-mm fill 1111- fit tiff ow fill # +;
1
1${ IM11111 111111 4M"IR INIM1 1 1 + 11 III 1 I'mi" 11111 min t It Miltiffam: MINOR
I i #.
# #, 11 1 x.111 X11
{;:#1111111111Yti_ #111111'21 3 11#1113Ii3 1111 11 1 111'.I 1r?1?+'Y'1 1111
+ µ3I I iIa + # +2 ' 2' ' II ?I '2 +-_:I I I+:: # ' 2 4jj 41 33 2i 1II3: ' ff 2 2;I I #
++
' N z 3 : I 22 # ii 2 I 11# X11 #3
u6pd.-FP.-18969\uEceP\589L-8\"°l"9\51 J3COid\M

X ? ?

1
i2##
##
i
$ 2
11 t
1111 2
1
11
1 -?,?
iz3
z 1
? z
fib
11
#I
##
11
i 1
11
21 2$
11
2
,

#?

1

?:,

'

13

1

T1;

1

1?:

?

?

;

I

1

f

E

1

#
#
#?+
'f
#
T3
I
3I3
3
3
31
.z3
., ?;
#fi #
1# ?
ff 3Y3
. 11 I
I ;?
S3
c1
?
;
#
' ?
;
#f"
f.
:1
3#
1
#i
It2
1
#
1#
1
11
1.
11
.
I
1{ 11 I i?
? 1 W4+ ? 1 ? ? ? ; ?
# ; ; ?
# ? , ,. ? ? } $$? I
1 1 1 II IIi 3 .. I T ? I f" ??
1 3f
11 I 1 {+

?
#?##
#
# {
11
{T#
?
f
1
#+

„

,IZr

1G

Tf

#1

I

i

tll
I
#

t
: ??

If

i

ii 1+4
I
f 1 f#
{

Tf

1t

11

I

-

1

3

#

'#3+:+22

3

f#

#.

l

u

:

?

' 11 ,

t.

tfi:

i

#T

#

#

1
`y+
y
11
f?

1
'+

1I

°

'

9

t
':i

?
'1

ti

#
$
1t

I'
{

' I
t'

?

?

zf1

?' 7

Tf

# i ?

#

1 ,

# $:

??: r' j

#
$ f fjjf

f f ? ff

f 14
1
?'1 t

f$, jt

?f;

' ?

f I?

{?, ri"
? I

1
t
t

.

?
j
f
$
f

., - M I R f il l
I $ 3 ??,, ,, ?? $ ; ? ??## ? 3 ' „+ + f
ti## ii f
f
? ?#
l
t ; ; t
# ?
I ?
# ,$
I3 1? ? : ? i? I
t ?
S #
I I
? t
ift ; # , kt
1 t :# ? 1 I32 : ' # I " : $
i #
#
ff I# ?
T
3 s
f $?
1 ?
2
2 #
1f ?
?
:3 1: ??
I3 # $
f # $
: ! ' I }
3 r?
tl i : ,z
µ ? 1 ? $
1i , ?
,?
Sizi
1~
",." # ##
I ?#
IYI ?i
: t t
t
..
3
fff#
'#

1

{I ;;
??
:
I

11 ?

1 $j
#
ti3 33
3 I3 #t 33 z3 Si ii ? # 1 111 #33 I f #1 ?a ?
3
tf 1
f #I f # ii : is Y ' 3}? ? f I ? Si
1 M ? }2 $
$
tt
11 i
1 t
1 + tz# ' 1 ? # ?"r If lf Il i ? 1 ,

?? 1 111 ? ? ? ? }
,

?
$
? .?#
' r
1 I
1:1 '1
1 1
?
:#
?
1 3
11
; t
2? ? I+ +
Izi 22
t3 f
I
i
#
'1 I
t ?
Il: z
#i 11
1
1' f f
i
3I
f
# ` .
t +
i z '..
:##
f iii
.?
1 ,3
:f $
f
z?
t ?.

11; il; # S3 :' #3# I?I T I , + N i f + 2 S
14 I I T# T# ;1 1 i3f 1 a i +Y I3 t:+ f 3 i

x

t

?
lit

3

H

T4

1

?

#3

3

3

33t

iiI

3

fi1

T#

fi

2#

ii 1.

j ;4 l 4

I

if

3

T

#3 1 4

#

1
33
t#
$
3

Y,
f
i
Tr:i
#ir
#
ili
1
M1,1
++3
11
,1
11
1if
ff
N
f
?-
l
HE
1
+
i 4
11 4
14 1

?$
1
T

1414
3

"I

I13
- 4, 1

j 111

f -

M -, H i

H

.

;,
N
#f
u
+
u
#1
j i
r
1T1
3
1#
#
I
?ir I
$ 4 ±
#
+
;
U
. 44
a I1
-i j
fl ?jj
il :!
„
I
jjj ?
i #Tf
lif
;
iY3 ?
y ?-!-;!-
yi 2}
y
fj
j
li
I q11 ,11 4 I
9, i
i H-:111
i
11 f
j ?
S3
3 T

1

i

j

:j

jA 'III

j

f#

ll

1

#

22

#

i

j
o u f # f # ' . ,
Y
3 # I # 1 : j If -1 1 I
I
2 0 I }}
t ,i f
f j 3
i #?
r1 3
3 # l
?
,
TiS f ##
#3 j

_
0 .

a

I

I
;.
14
'
Tf

t

L

3

*

+ #

f

I

#

#

+
ii U t ill i . I N t - V 1 111 m O f $ 1 ij

H' H
4 -1 4

=.jjj + . f : fl li W I I #S tf { # - of I Y 1 3i j ff 3 I3 ?# i j jj

114 $$$ ,? T

Sj 3

li rr

tf $$

ii t2#tp

li #t-;

I: II

i }? -

# I12

13 I

r
i
"
ill
Ii
Tf
$
ff
ii
tta$
i
#
#
#

4

i
i
-
}a

1

`j
jj
i 3

f I $
f
11 1 "
i r
if
Y
.;
#
#;
r#
a
III
V
-4 31
I, a
1 T
T# 1
f 3.
i
i .
f
I $ $
1 .r
3#
# 11 f #
i # $$
T $
Ij $
TI Ti I
f 33
f $
I ?
,,
ft 2 3f f i f ff $
f
f i3 $$ $
fjT i f# ###
ii i
I
I -
fj
4 f
4
t f# i

Ji m m il
"it" I
#:
i
il
I
l
t
i
I
3
#
`
2?2
1
iY
?
?
i
;
,?
4
I•I 4
'
1
M
il
li
1
11
1
0 11 4 M W ,, } i t
? ?? II r ii $ I
?
4i fi ll I 2
i ## Tf # 1 t i} t"u
JI
M I f$ f 1 1 3 H I M 1 i
j a },
Y# 3# + I ?
fl it j t ? + # f1 i ffl ' f; f $i ;j : ii : 1 ? # $t ,*3 ? ? ? tt tt .
H 1q, 1 0 11 11 ? $ ? ? II + M i ll . ? ?1? ?
a T; f
i f ? ;i ,
f ?# ' .
,, ??; $$ }
$ z I .
} I3 T I I # i i

. 4 1 j fl?

41

I I S

* i
i `
- 1 ? 4 9 # ?
4?
I
V
t# ; ri ft # 3 If , i
- . 0 4 4

H

l

f

U

I

f

1

#

1

:

1

1

14,

u

"

#

M

7

:
:

3

1

1

3

4
$
# # j#f i 2$
1 ####
2 f t
i
l i 3 ii f # f 2 i #S ' #
T1 $1
f# $$
#1i4
i
ff #l
fl I{
fl2
*
;
2
i.
# I
,
i

+

a

r li

fi t

f

3

3
1

*

1

: #

2'
t #

i

I $

i

ll

il $

I
'#

#f

i
,
1
1
11

?

I

th

+
-

1

11

0

0

11

11

1

M

il

li

j M I X
$$ # 33# $ ttTT I ## $

11
1 1,1 11 0

# H
## IM i

a ;$

i,
1

i ??##
W

f
i

i
ll
?
#3
jj
#

E

9

1
if

#
#

11

f
i
$$
I
3

u

,

i

j

#

1

}$

j

i?

jj

#

+

I3

3;

#

r

1

i

4

J

V

M

f

?i
4
+ 1 0 11 1 1 M l fi ll f
_ III 4 11 1 4 4,1 4fl i g il j4 Q ,4 4 1 41 M "

3

I

?

t

tt

N

tt

t

t .

.

j

i

f

,

4 ri :i ij # 1 + u ##

3 ?

i

E + +

,

i T

;
1
l

i
11
4 It
a

,.
S

#
#
I

,
+

i

i

i
Y:
tfi

i

.
j
'

#

.

$

i
S
5
+.

I

f

i

i

#

#

r

#

#

tit
#
1
1
i
Y
3#
3
3
1:
i` 41
.;
23
f3
33
1
Sf
3
2
33
13
2 I
#
}: 3
111
1 I
'
: T
i }
$
f
i
.'
f
$
l
3
f
I # }
f T
I
ri
iI fi
#f
i
*
# i
3 $
3
1 1
3 i 1 N? i 22 2 i 2
31 3# , ii I f fli l fl 3 3 ijii + #j 13 f f ji # tj f
##

f u- # t j . 2 Ij . f f f3 j i i f # j
I i i j' f# 22 I ii : #3 j M M 3
:
i ;
ii It

1

-4

3

S

fi r3

t 1 .

.:

Y

i

til N

l

l

L

:f

Ii.

if

tl

i

4
N

t

li

:

3 1

1

#

iii ? # I f f3T , ? Y13
i . #
:
li:
I
?#
?
f
Y ,
,Ii3 ? ? I Si if I t #j ?i ?t ff ji j 3
t I
$ $3
,
,??
rf ,
fi
,
g
lli
?
4
w-
f?,1
3
f1f
f
i
f#
fj
+
j
?#
:t
'
'
ii
f?
f
11
?
ff
f
f'
3I
I*
?
i
P-
?
t
m
,
i
+
?
,
1r
t 2 22
#?
` #
i
1 #?
f2 2
$
3
1
i#
+j ft t
T
$
i }} 3 i ? 3

3 Tt tj # ? t ": , #i i ? n j i 3
3 t

S 1i t i f2 i ff i

j
!?
3 }}
2
1#
$ $$
`I
'.i
~ }}
f
r
?;
?
' $$
i3 tt
3 33
f
fi
f.
3
? j
#
,
? i; ? #ii
?
i
?`

?

+
I
#
?3
.

?

:22T
i

:
.
r1
Ir
:
?
?
t

I
2

:?
`

`
`
221

It
I
i::
3
1
?"

r

r
f# ? ?iit $
# ? ? S #
t1 ?
:? T
t2 ?fi ? ss
f iIf t; / 33#
,, # # ?
r i'$ ,: r# # ## 2# i1 1 11 .
Yi
#

j # ? i f # j t #
f
j

,j { $
# s
Ij
j
; f
#
T $$
}
.:
#
$$ j # ? I
f mo
1? 1# Ii H it 1 11 9 I . ? . 23 T i
d t I I3 Y + i $3 T I
I # S 3 t 1
z
? y
x 1 .1 jj
I 1 1

f u t I 1, ? +
=3
o
u
vi
#:

tlI

t+ :
i$

t

#
?#f?f

f
3

33

Il

l

,

u

1

u
J4

t
11 I

ff

3;

?

;

#

$

##

i
?

1

#

1T

j
f

fi?
2a

a

#

f

j
$

#

f3
t .,

#

H
#i#

I

f j

#
i

f

I
2i

f

fff
3

#f#

#

,

#

.'
$ +i

i
#

„

i

f

S

t'.

# f
.i

$'i + _

#

T ?

iT1

u #

#

?
i#

u

t

t

i
f$

#

+

#

3

#

4

1

3T'.a`.
I
#ff
Tf ??
## #
# ? ,
`
"
: i
:
i
# ?
it
#
:
SI
-
2 }?
#
Y}# i
lt
?'f

ItI

tt
t i
#t
.
;1
1 i
1
. i
A3 I
I i
t3 i
3 i
#. #:?
'.# i
t
lff
#itf#,
tt
'.
:
; i
'3 }
t
+`
f#
#
" i
#
#
1 i}
f
#
,o

tt
f
tf
fi
f

11 s
$
b #

R }

if -}

T

H1 V4

T1 $

f

f

4 t

ii ?
-f

f

4

1

0

11

zf

Tf

t R in

o

# I
$$
S M UM I +
$$ T ? ? # t
4
4
i g ? ,

1
1
1

1

114

J

?

J

i

ll
2 ii# 33 u 3 i # 4 + I # Y
# `
# 3# # f
Z2 u # t2 t# + I $ I f?
$ $
?
#3 $
2 ' f
T L' I
t T #
#
i
i
#
3 #?I
iz t j3
# f } , f $$??
3:T yf??
1 i??} 3
# ff i ?iii
#z $$
f 3 Tti; 33
Y $$
Iff 3
i i# iii
ff i 3
# ? ii# V4 1
##
T
?
1#
$$
f
Ji ll # # u ## t
, "it #
a
i , ff ft ll ., H_ 1 {#i ', : #f t 1 +
tt
i? i
#. { ' ff ii
f# #i }}
$
tI#i ##
f ffff
#f ii##
T; ff
f ii}?
tf ,,
Tt ? ?,: # i ? { $$
f #.1 ii
1 #

U
K -1 1 1 41 - W

f7 f

4 1,

MLI

Mi l l M ill

111 11 41 f f
+ +:
f !; ,
? $Z 2 i +} T1 ?}
i }{
i 1, f 1 H
}I }I !
}{ It ?}
y }( }
? jt }j }
a }j }I 1] jt
I o n . I M I R II M R - W I

t, VI
.4 11 1
# f#Z 2 YY ??3#
t
f ?: ? Si #f#f #if i t
T T# fi $ f $ ' i3t t T #3# f i f
T # ? t ffT iT tt 'a i't t t t# ?-.
?t
##? ?? $
$#
;; $ ?
, i
? ,
? $ I I ?

III IJI +!j}j}j ++1 ?i # # 1 a n + 1 it +
ii
3 $$
f ? i ##
f ? T# fi
1 14M N M I _ 1 11 41 4 1 4 114 : 111 11 M I N R A JM JI R I ll.. ........... w 11, 11 " Ifl il l #

HI M + ? fT A - 411 " M I m lIff M # f; i 1 4 1, I S I
Bwl

# I #I {' ; S t; i , S '+ It # :. {
iT i f Tt il , 1
I
t
#
f#
a
1t
1 #
T#T
33
i
i
i
I
T#
I
Y
ii
#if3

#: 4 11
t
1
"
i
a
#,
t?
t
##
fii
f
Tf i
ti 1

! +111

NT

? $$
tt
t $

$# ??

ft ##??

##

i$1:

ii

f

f

f

4?d/21/21 ^°H AH 1N
\-1-9\9 7
u Ep• ?d.-fiP'-589£9\u6c°P\5H9f-H1 ]
j° M
C0 Hlfd\11

!u #u
{## # {{ '1 fl o . ? 1 1: T
?; # # 1 i f tt 't + .
f : ?f3 ## : Y
; 1? ? + i i ? . i a if #
i
;
f
# ? f if i
fi }
t ftT? t
` t#f i
tt
i
t 3 tI #
# . .3 •, fttt ?? 3
I
t1
3
? #
1 $
#
t }i
,
t1 l: i
ii ?
: y
#t 3
t , }
f# ?
ff
r
, ? # ??
; i
i t t
11
$$ i
# $$ #

i
?
Q
+.?
f
H
IM
1 I
TT.
11
fr?T
f
i't
T
? tt
f# f#
##
f
4
?
+
T1
,
#f
iz
gi n M i ? L: # ?
t?# 3 3. ? 1 ?1 #f f? t ;,# ?- ?fj# 3# tt # 1# #f 1 ? $# f1 ? ?; Y:? ff
f ?? ? tt$$
1# F ii ? f f 21# # ` f ,a T
41

,w
f ? ks> ? ". 1 ?7
.
? .,f $$ # its ' • ? ? : {? ? ?
#
i $$
3 II $$
IS
9
# uu
?
+ ,uu,;!
N ??i-ii
O 1
?+=? $$##
f
$
1 ,II
1'
+
1
14
111 }
t i?
tTf $
#
I
?
t
: I
3
1
411
f
1 t.,
1? $
I
# '
?
+
+
: $
f,
?
$$
t#
? ii
t??
f#
##
? ##
# ##?i
#
z
T;
?{
fft
fi_i $ r
#1i f
f
i
'T
J

#

if

T ;
#
fY ?

f#

°`x

? ,3

#tf #
$
$ $

? $

l# I

f#
i?
t
# f
? ? f + 0 9 1 $
11 11 ?
?;f# $
#1 ? :
, - Il l n 4
# ;
itt #
?:3 $
t
+#
IT
:
? $
?
t
33
I
33 $$
i## TT
f I
##
fi ????
ff ii
#.+ ce?,,
u`
.?? $
i'fi
,# f
f tt
t TT
t
!
#
1
f
f;;
ifi
t
1Tt
t?
i
}
u
i
!
f
##
1 $ ?
4 i
$
1 $

i
t
]{
?{ f
* ? ? ? ?? ? - ?
L 1 k? +a l ll i
! 1 1 ll i 11 1 ! . J 1 J J
}
+
?
u + f

1
? y 1 l If f in
i
11
1
4
1
11
1
l
}
I

t

11

11
1

I

I

n

R

-

Wi

+
n
t #
t{#
? $$
f#
f
'?
T#
9 #;

#: 1
? 9 1 11 11 1 11 ?
If
l T
3
# ii
i }}
?t
I ?
#t Y
##
#; $
i $
i13 f
T
143 ,
kf? f ?
f?
1
t
?
i

$$
## t ? t ##$ 3 T # ,'
f#
I
33 tt i II jj
3 3 f ?#
# $
i
#
2 # # T i #t T # # + 1
3# ? # i
? +
:f i ? f ? i
t t:t$ # #
# $ , , ? f; ? $
fT # " I M IJ I M n 11 11 1 0 1 1 11
I t }f ? ?
i $;
? i i i ce ?
# i ? i} ? ?i i ? ?
11 , , ,
{?? 2f 11 ?
a # 3T ?
` ? I2 Is #f #
; # 3 a+ _ #
:
t
t , ## if # # ?
I
fi?
?
#I i{
$
II f f ++
. ? ?
i
?
Tf# $
$
if $
i?
#? $
# i
# ?
f i
,
t;?f ? ;; :##ii# ? ii
t1f ,
? i
t ?
i
ktt
k
,
?t
f
:
i, ?
f #
;
f1
?
}
} }
jj j

IIii
ff f ?+ , .'t ?
TT ?' + ff # Tf tf ?# i t T# Tft? T f t3 3 :f . ,' # # .o
# # zzz z ? # f rz , , + # zu ' f
?#; #. u 11 i ? ?
? ff :T #? ? #
? # uT zi ts H it -, $ l 1
i
Tf f tf?
To ## ?f
! 33
T
, i i i 1111 _
-4-
;
.. ?
2#
;' _

a
#' 4 ?

,, I
ff
f
?#I 33
1

1
1# :; fi i, ,
,

L

" ti ff ML- 11 11111. •, 1+i

f: #

1.

? 2i

fl ,,

ft

;{

3? u,? ?" ? i T # ! # f I #

f T3

f3 i

t

ti +

,

-cr
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 9, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
INET?gNOS/4o
?QN 0,900
1 ; 2004
?y5?cl?
0

Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 30 over
Green Mill Run on SR 1703 in Pitt County, Division 2. Federal Project No.
BRSTP-1703(] ), State Project No. 8.2221601, T.I.P. No. B-3685.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
Bridge No. 30 will be replaced at the existing location with a 100-foot cored slab structure. The
roadway approach work will extend from approximately 723-feet west of the bridge to 214-feet
east of the bridge, and will include the addition of a turn lane from the west approach of the
proposed bridge to the intersection with SR 1707 (Charles Blvd.). Traffic will be maintained by a
two-mile offsite detour route along Elm St., SR 1598 (Tenth St.), and SR 1707 (Charles Blvd.).
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the construction of the bridge. There will be no
surface water impacts or temporary fill associated with the construction of Bridge No. 30.
Tar-Pamlico Basin Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (subbasin 03-03-05, TAR2 03020103),
therefore the regulations pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213.0259)
apply. Buffer impacts associated with this project total 6540.0 sq. ft (0.07 acre) for Zone 1 and
4360.0 sq. ft (0.08 acre) for Zone 2. All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer
zones were followed. Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the
current alignment. According to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. Uses designated as
allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives
to the requested use pursuant to item (8) of this Rule. These uses require written authorization
from the division or the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests written
authorization for a Buffer Certification from the Division of Water Quality.
LYNDo T1PPF.TT
SECRETARY
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 30 is an 87-foot long, five-span structure, composed of a reinforced concrete floor on
timber joists with a bridge deck width of 34-feet. The substructure is a timber abutment design,
with interior bents composed of timber caps on timber piles. The bridge deck is 15-feet above
Green Mill Run.
There is potential for components of Bridge No 30 to be dropped into Waters of the United
States. The potential temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is expected to be
approximately 38-cubic yards. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be applied for the removal of this bridge.
As noted in the project's CE document, NCDOT will observe an in-stream and land disturbance
moratorium from February 15 to June 30 to avoid impacts to anadromous fish migration,
spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. Therefore, the bridge demolition and
removal will fall under Case 2, which does not allow in-water work during the moratorium
period.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species for Pitt
County (Table 1). A description of each species and Biological Conclusions are provided in the
referenced CE document. Surveys of the project area were completed on May 28, 2004 for the
tar spinymussel and on May 27, 2004 for the bald eagle. As potential habitat does not exist in the
project area, the Biological Conclusion for both the Tar spinymussel and bald eagle is "No
Effect". Biological Conclusions for the West Indian Manatee and red-cockaded woodpecker
remain "No Effect" due to lack of habitat in the project area.
Table 1. Federall -Protected Species for Pitt Count
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological Conclusion
Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T (Proposed No Effect
for delistin )
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
Tars in mussel Elli do steinstansana E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.1 15(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose o proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate the 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a), NCDOT is providing two copies of this application
to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) for review and requests the issuance of a Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certification for
impacts to Tar-Pamlico Buffers in compliance with the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http•//www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Turchy at
[e-mail] or (919715-1468.
Sincerely,
pe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Tho
Grego4V11,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
t
I--? 1611 / TAR
( U y 1531
W. Fl
571{th St I y i GREEWLLE BRIDGE
NO. 30

'?' 1610
P END
0? 1598
Te^tn PROJECT : 4111
- -- _ _ ?
6
??
S
1 - - '- 264
A
?
1598 -v 11598 3
RAILWAY ?
'? BEGI ?~? ?4?

PROD CT ,
1703 ><
?' ?,, 26a
? l s

1 1 4/
q e
d`
903 1707
f 4 ?
? a
1702
?'S I
7

ytll_ - 1704
?(y?,
43
sO
264

17
AA
VICINITY MAP
TEMP.MTOUR ROUTE
VICINITY
MAPS
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 82221601 (B-3685)
BRIDGE NO. 30
OVER GREEN MML RUN
ON SR 1703
SHEET OF
NORTH CAROLINA
4
£g CON
?4
?? ® $ Z
_ W z
14 9
z? H? a z o
w
W a a o
ti W
YY
?? II
y
?i-
?
?? II
m? I
I
C
I 1
y?
J I I _ ?
b
BLV
r707
5R
w
W
E
C
A
WET-I'L..AND LEGEND
--WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
.T? DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
E '-
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
TS'?'TSi FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
+••` •" * CLEARING
-?- FLOW DIRECTION
TEI TOP OF BANK
WE- EDGE OF WATER
- - C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- • NATURAL GROUND
- P--- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
--- WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
E2D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
i
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-4 B'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
-??- ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER OR PARCEL
NUMBER (IF AVAILABLE)
El PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
F-777A LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE

S ffE i ni
?- N i
Z W N

W _
Z v
W W ON
L
U

ma z
LLI 0
a: N
0
0
J
H -
0-

co m
Q
N q
O
Z
O-

O
G
Z
O "
N
? 0 OO
M
ii
¢ yj

` O
? w
c
G

Q
Co
-C\l

O

O

U
0-
N

w
U
-
a
a
?
W W a

? o?
m oo X
a:
¢
U

n
rn

O
?
a O
~ 2 u?
ti r
rn

WW
Q ? v
?
U tD

H

F O
U) F..

PIE$®PIEII$TY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
7 WILLIAM C. BOWEN
8 KINGS ARMS OF GREENVILLE, INC.
9 EASTERN REALTY CO
11 EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
ADDRESSES
303 CLUB PINE DRIVE
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
P.O. BOX 114
GREENVILLE, NC 27835
P.O. BOX 834
GREENVILLE, NC 27835
UNKNOWN
ITTCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PITT COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2221601 (B-3685)
BRIDGE NO. 30
OVER GREEN MILL RUN
ON SR 1703
T OF

V

z M BI '? k k k

;
I =
\
I"
%C
CS

N
aE

04 I
I
I
k -'t
T
H
+ N
---- -----------

0. 4 f
W

'F ? LLJ
M {t}1
t?+'
_
w
v71
/
- 0111
4
sl
03 __

4 r U.
til
t

_

i

t

,,

` $ ?'
? ?? W p i
m J
? a
? ? 1 $
-? ;' v
ov
?
/
oco C '
% ?9 ?Uttu?' 01
N ,
;
r
I?
`
mo '
'
,
t 00
W 3 W
Q o:z
;i 1 I i, ?FoN?o V) ?w? w?pU w? s? w - - CO
{
? r-
?° c::
?J 1 O ?i 1vr y V1 l7 I - b 33 r', ? ?? _ ty- '_'

jiV 1• Q t 0 ,' `
"b Lf)
?-r UZ
?<h
`-?
?
(}
J,1Y
?
.
??RCC
5
t.?J??y
7i >'
l.• '?' .
- `
\
--`,?_"•,'r CL O ?y
l
(+y _`? Y
??
WW7
VV - _
y ~UJ W Q d N ` -

^' S . 7
k

W? W
o.
LL w

o

o
Y,

V

?I

A Q

b1
Z co

--_

_

_

.1

_

?
W N r t

10

ZW(rs y"'?W
- tin

?t 1 4

Qa
.. - .
? i i
? . - 1 f l M
a z11
[
i
WW to _
1
'
? ?
• -
??P S ? Z'
s
I
?
n11
? 1
WO
i
ti KW
??°
K 1
?.
^t - 1 • O
tyi 1
JNOJ
-- -'?
9
?Z '
1 - ?
;

-

-
x LL - ?
.
D
7 1

?
? _ t t
Ba N
W N
w D b 1J
11yy,,??
??,
?
(? N

W
Og
w

to ---------------

-.-
W fc - 1 1)
t
tli
ttt
WO ? i G
;?? i, ??y??
T 78 F3 $
1
.
$ bl 11 .'1 f.?'P?. 2 (
3 d
w ? 1 r
yl?
?
rr N
t

--
?4J JNo7i .T 141

??
I {L N ?
'
gd m
"' s o
1
AA??
743 J:bp .Sl
'Zak
'
r r rr •...__. vs??-. .? 147 ? 4 ;?}s
?
] }+
/,
7ND
iY
alt)
jd d
y.
?
?
yN?> rt? g ,rY "? ?- S ? ? -?? - •--- ??9 ? ? a O ? ry
w 9 ?' ?
r _ t?J?

F'AFL5 O
c
AT
cEtE
//??
r
Op
-11

!7 sY ~N f? r?
/ J

SA (fur 01
LIS
-t it- Ir

LLJ

______________I
-
H
it
- S t u

O L-1 i?j ! ¦ i l `l
r,
Ic
c"
CS
i
I?

z
? M• ` I\ k??k J
k ~ 3i
4
r

n

L

I
N
J
I ?
CON I ?
I - -
?

w II s
#
tt
-

??
°
l
I
?
I A I
IC
"?
M ]z Q?
x L I
° I W E
i
VI r
Q,
ev
?CN I ~ W
u z
- T f
.
0y\ I In I n'
J. m? O 0
t= n a (n W

/ LLJ LL
a
'
'

r
OZ
Q
T
IT T I.
T
M

t .

N
y °z°3 .?
N O O ?'x I J o H
m 1 E
lC

`
•1 1 1 ` J
-tt-
T
it it
?
D ? ?ON ? d5
WO ? 4f
01
V jp '.. ?S?Ce
N

O ?
%

«? _
li
t
fl

_
? d 0.W E ?c0c
?"

Wco

3
00 J ?n

W

?i
4
Q W?5<
61
? r`to Z?Z.?W? co

x

?

(/lI Y ? M 4 II

Q p
.? °1' q
ttf
F
LL
.-o anti
o? /
adOJt?a V? ?
Q?"J
Q 3S?nF$n?T
?
?

?
I ? J do Ill
`
F- W

}
?
w _ J? \ U Z

0
7?Q3?
jiS W yy J[ t?
S ?

r
;L O
9N ? 4 W
7d ? O
''? k ,rl r- -
.a
I W W aaa $ . ?
s h ~ D . ,_
B
W a ?. I a
z m +
M
m ??? I ? \
?
I Wa
u4
? `t
? I
$ o
=S O OPm W
y
l
W W
?? 8 ? i I ?y `p

Y17+ b,
1 ? *
77
o r i?-1-
zz
>i7 $$~ lip wR '?h I ? -

hg
9
p

WW LfiSv 1

S r\ 3? l'_. -
U10
p?

yr?a LL 09J ONO7.IZ

3

T

O

N
MI

-
-

-
?? rn
F I
OJVyOj yOj
Z ?„?
:3a , I v1 ?f n /
Y
b
W
J 4' 1 i ?

- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Ott
o
M
h
C
<
M

O z h

o =m> R?
Y r
?'? ???r

v

Lti?
?y =

?
m 'Q W

d
N

1

?

-
--
--- -
------- r
I ? a

.? ? a jtj4' CdJ

W
O
l
•
u
b
i N ? [14
- M i n t - _ -
F 51?a Ir
I
I N
O
r
-
-
O? p
y W

3 m r
Y W
?
-
I
oto ?Lb,.s a I?
O N Z ? I
L
? 35_ 7N1HH3n2_ `?
h
q
j Y

a
m
W
Qj r
2p
I
113 ON
?
03V¢
L-
?D ?
? H A
-
?
I_
I
r q
_ •
c y ?3NO ti
II O d
'? '•
_ P

II `?
F
q VIM
F q
'
?
? .;t
jig
° /
0l3. h g ., o
`CS 0`? O .? po
a
AT

N
Sp DST
q

4 4

Q
a
A d p? -# 41 M I
LVD Roy L
CH as B

.. I t4
I?I
?II!!lt

G I

11
I

r,

Ic

Ln

M,
W?? 8 adN
J', I II
¢ - ?cJ ?N ?-s?,?o?• ?I ? II ?,
Ln nnn I cc I Qm
? ?l N
0?
r ci
r
W O d
?....
I
H ? ?d I
IE
W
W
w ^\1 I? W
N j I I? I Ln
ii II
p ? ? I
IL- --a-
" Q I m
v
o C
}a?
to + ??d m `?\ gl v SR 1707
?'? e! £ qtr`-! a W °?oavra r L?? i I III? Z
it w
(17 I tj) HJ jo y?II (dg. IL g_.v10 '"Y 0-1\ 0
>b/B /60 u6p'4sl-fiprS89E9`.l o?y,fio.pcoy1,
f
I
f?
I?

I
w
a
11
cocoa
LU
:5
e
z
0
z
LLJ
O
v
O 0 e 4 ?? ©®® o® s (D o b o 0 0© e o
r r r r r ? r r r r ? i
r r r r , LL; r r r r i i i i i i ' ;
r i i i i i r r r r r r i r LJ
i i • ; i i r i r r r r r r i O
N i u
' i W W ' q r r • i i i i i ' i j Cd
V r r ; r ? .A r r r r q i
r q r U u C i i
i i r i r r r r i i i r r
C C r p O 1.1 .C d r r C i . r N C •° i ' Df _ _
a• ?- i r O U O C p p O L i X
U ?' -? ' ° ', •= C '' .° u ; q Q m O O W C
?° ' ° .qo u- a l9 q 4° o$ o m :n o O O c
LL. o
0 a ::E U) LL.
WW VI .° LL L I. N !n , L O a fD •?
L m? q° ° 0 0 (? 49 ? ?i 3 3 In O o u 0? 3 o Q
<< O` O U Z7 ?. '17 O N o a O V) 'O W = -13 O
> T a S o®° a o S 2 g a a > h a c l7 ° o 0 o s e c c c°
O 3 -p t7 0 ?j o 0 7i o. 'L F- O ° is o °
O O 0 O a > N a 1°- G Q G p? G ® ?i :t 4 h > a W
f" S o S©° > it it S .m 3 a r3 S ZC c C o° u O v
N
?l
• 8
-0 -0
r1 u
r i r r r r i r i i i ? i W W 12
' W
W q
-03
O O ,p O C O
u C u a U
O r r 0 i r r ; r ; 0 -0
C V l0 u
c q u
'? r i r •O i i i i ' O i i C, o q O .? •a
U o ; m; q; o o r c Q o? i o a o a a O
q o °- o ` 3 a. ; `- q L g L q q
[? _ - L o O
tE?i m o p n• o = 3 ° c q ; ;•[°7y o m m ® m -O
-a a
L u 75 F-° F- W LL.
_+ p a O`R= ' o q a C. U. o x
V' 3 O `7 m 3 ° € u a c o o c t? t9 t?
c a w t o 0 m O `c "o s oq
o v m U°
c v 4 c o o '' c c c `o o_ s Q w :j
o t" p o o p o• °
ri? o O V "a a 0 m m ° ? 7 3 ° $ Z F' '° e c e c? v ° v ° o °
° pm
c rid c o c a o a E v 0 c n _°C t-C r Fq- O° c° 'Uq c -O° °c
y 0 na m o n o o E w ry a g q q I' p ° o a a a w o a o
Z q O. U o O O 3 O O O O O O u W p q q 4 S U 4u
m m _ n U. O n°. in w O o o. 9L IL n o? D µJi o` oG 0
IL .
I ? ? I I (1
R a ai I ?I LL
I u lF3 O b
? I I I I`
Ll
E `c o q a
c E E
W 0" E C
1 r r'Lr' r'C. 1` i i O w LOU
NHN i = i i
r i r c
r
13 3 3 -E a Ui ; a U
O
.? ?•C ,C ? q X ?C 'O q
?p 3 3 u 3 E 'S w Z` u
CA _c ° ° s r `O ° a E ° ° ° ° ° a p l7 E O ° ° ° O
E€ o o n h
O E n
0 l7 c c j La w a IN c a° o u o n0. a v? in ? .° q t? o U 0"3 tai °
o q 2 q
n ° q oZ a .° M a •o u v w v -o M v w u m -n v 'D u v ° c ;
c O Ei a os o o o q °1 g o 0 a 4 a w w a q q r- w v O
H H C H 0 C E °m H S H H H H ?+ a Q H H U H m ''
v °-' 5 .5 0 0 0 o . 0 0 0 0 E .S o o o c in o E © q q "' ° u- E °
C N 0 q O. CL O.U m O. O. a a O. n. CL n O. '?- D. q p, p3 O1 O L p
N oG to ^I m a 2 2 d a a a a` a` U a O2. W O°.. ?i C C O O C_
H N = 3 O >
OE
v
r
i
i G
? c
c ?
a ,
L
i 4 i
i 4 1° l
02 Q
rrr rr
' i r i r r p !
in ? •D
O C
3 3 c m 0
i i r r r r C q C ?` O p m
, u LL°- E
O
E
LL'
o
Z o c $ m ° °
p C ? ) ?7 .° p O O
q ' C a E 3 '? m C_ 1? ?° O U U ?
C
p : G U G , g U m a '° '°
W {L = W
1 Z C \ C O O a „ Q q
rL Di CL CL Ix CL Ex
1 ` ` ` `
. id a a a ° o
CL . a a? a
O O? 0.
O. ? r r i i i r i r
p i ? i r i r r
V r ? ? r?? r r
ac
Q C r i ? r i
O r i r ? r
ro) O
. o c r r
r
o '
o O
i i .q. a
C t
a
O a C ° C ° q 'n -°C ` =3 a
GQ 0 in 3 V) U. u m v, U 13
41
1?I?6

O
off m
N
G
Q U U ; L ;
y m O C 3 C o 9 E

0 O
0
' O
°
a-
H
a ID
v
CD
E ca CL CX

` °
4n S u. O N N o
. u.
??.a"nulrnpr?? ? `,.,- ?i ?• it 5- j , 1'?; ' I- ? ??: x.>??,,??`n-rr,?,? I ?j.? i'I
e ° ?o Iy it
Y v?d ?d? W<3?R" t?a ?3 II Y4 f ?' J
"'
.? I ?? r ! I 1.. r,, ,
,?pH,vr'r111r,1j, ? i[• , i ii J I „- ri lta,l
> z
< g3 ,•, w ..s ct?1,? N - o ? I?? I„I ° 7O IP- ?
U C-)
t'•d?.?'•?...?-4?,0? ? ?? - }z `,?? _ I ? ?' ic< JQ? ?3 r., -? 114 J`,: = n• `? c i A
+,I ,IIIIIIIIII " - +`. ?i .9?-I IrT ? I iP - * y J ? -m F- O _ ? - _ _!- ++
? _ ? , I I la ? N ??J
td ?/ c J, rjX 111 a 1
8 v /
?_ ti h. , .? to IJ (IWno$en 1 N 1 I S SGt
f-
O7 to 4. ?F *r y I 1 (Il < _
? p-N *t?^'? IIrU ;ALL- 'L?y ??S• W _ _
'Br.F rS 4b 4..P IS ? "?( ._?. ? clfr? ? vi:? - __ -
?1pp ?4 k i
vP d'l 11 4 0? z h'q ' - -? U 'F --2? ,c J.. C ?.C :0O
7) V)10
q L
a o¢
u x J WE
Nfu??!y, _
NLL 3 ¢ Z0 m ?*'la u? ..I *?NN? ? J,
O >`f wam W
`o m f J r I ti•• vgF1° I o?coN='E'"'
ILL
m ¢ 1'l F-O \ `' ? a om`?` V111 II II II II '¢ o @ }E1 _ -
? ,~,i 177 1 RuN
W N?
'll+11' SO'061115 w W a° .r °u ?? ,? Jx?
for ?l-9Z'C5- ??.. `? S• {' ,ti ?'? aN 1 ?: ?c. 1 O ? >? ?? ? -
9-1
Ga a?
_Tm K_
+ -
LSB t a
' 8 II 3Nld
1 w
-
?. yt ;; 3¢ t
V1 @;
7 W SS I }. iZ k ? \ o
I.WlmF ` m: _ II • I 1 W3 --t
d? w¢(AQx¢ 8g, r °?7x Z?p1 to-- -
v
444
mom -
r?? Zml X111' I i +??" ? ?, ?W7d m - -
Z a y` I 2? ac c f w
`J? tr. N _ ? ? ?ix ??'a s S Wu l' w Q W ? 1n? tr,? 1 i
en ,.. 4 co
rn o ?. yr- }
{ III 1 W' S a ;fl In - - -
d13. Y.cl,s rcc. t _-
?? I R ?? h =r,- r .7r1
211 lot
;; 4y WOE z? alb f`
W Z"
U ! ? M` is
Inn 'max 3z` < ,?
8 • ?,?1
?y7m ?SJi I 7Wn * ?`' L? - ?S ?r-'al
m 2,
W LL x to "7 t; a' ` -
v 1 1 ? ` w ?, u ti
A yJ 11' 1.r2 __ I ? ? F. u I ? ? y]?
M?'r- a3 rr o w•,.vs.c.r.ils cr• - ? n ? "' ° ?? 7d o ¢ ?ry1' >
I u
-- _ ii Jr7El .ai ,Z/ °L/I i. I it OZ+1, W -J?? v a -
N ??u
1,. u - N$ 3 ? O W° 11i a?
cc 1.0 v7. J 9 I m E °daS
NOW
F
fill v- a
?: h > h 4 I L -
.zt
z .ml"ai ? f?
oNr Al
Ny3_- ¢ chi u
a ( Q
W$ rl ti ?I?
T14 T
,..E
__ 71J ?I+iJ .rZ +j¢ ii r O'f'?a.?n3' * u3 ,°I,•I i? _
I?Sj?7 r•7 + a .,w ? i• y
m? t I M m iS'*' V"" any I ` p" fi 11,
W, 1
3E>
Eff
yi+PPIE" I,ptT G m1Y {?' y
O ",i I 2 d,? `N? BS TSog i, S {??4
3 v
L-Li
} I ? I ? ?.V•E? e
- - - - - --------
W III I a r? F y
II M;I I Ii l
W T_
j?ll?it?l f
cl;
' I
N
N
N
O
N
01
r
00
r
r
10
r-
7 1 1
?i
? t1'1
_UV
I r

y!
7h
1
a-
'' N
40 1
1 1
I
tl?l C
O?

Pitt County
Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 Over Green Mill Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1703(1)
State Project No. 8.2221601
T.I.P. No. B-3685
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3 1^ ZI
DATE Gregory J orpe, AM., Environmental Management Director
Project evelopment and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
"__ 7 ? `7
DATE ! 4ohn F. Sullivan, III
, Division Administrator, FHWA
Pitt County
Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 Over Green ' .': ill Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-17030 )
State Project No. 8.2221601
T.I.P. No. B-3685
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2003
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
pwmuo
Greg . Purvis, P.E.
Project Manager
A\A C
???OFESS/pw dL
- Q ,
e
99
/15/03
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
jec?t worth, P.E.
ager
Cons ultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Pitt County
Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 Over Green Mill Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1703(1)
State Project No. 8.2221601
T.I.P. No. B-3685
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines for
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division Engineer
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as applicable.
Additional Commitments
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rules will be implemented during the design,
construction, and maintenance of this project.
An in-water construction moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to June 30.
No deck drainage will be allowed to discharge directly into the water, main channel or Zone 1 (30 feet
(nine meters) from the channel banks).
Green Shret
Nrecunstnicnon Page 1 bf 1
July 2003
Pitt County
SR 1703
Replace Bridge No. 30 Over Green Mill Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1703(1)
State Project No. 8.2221601
T.I.P. No. B-3685
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of' Bridge No. 30 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 60.6 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. When Bridge No. 30 was added to the TIP in 1996 the
sufficiency rating was 45.9. Maintenance work has been performed to raise the sufficiency rating
to 60.6. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The
replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
IT. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1703 (Fourteenth Street) is classified as an urban minor arterial. Land use in the project area is
predominantly residential and light commercial. Private residences and maintained yards are
located in the eastern quadrant of the study area. Commercial businesses are adjacent on the west
quadrant of the study area.
Bridge No. 30 was constructed in 1956. The existing structure is 87 feet (26.1 meters) in length,
consisting of five spans with the maximum span at approximately 18 feet (5.4 meters). The clear
roadway width is 34.0 feet (10.2 meters), providing three ten-foot (three meter) travel lanes with
two-foot (600 millimeters) gutters. There is also a five-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk along each side.
The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The substructure is a
timber abutment design. The interior bents consist of timber caps on timber piles. The bed to
crown height is 15 feet (4.5 meters) and the normal depth of flow is 2.5 feet (750 millimeters).
The posted weight limit is 25 tons (22.7 metric tons) for single vehicles (SV) and 34 tons (30.8
metric tons) for truck-tractors semi-trailers (TTST).
The existing bridge and approaches on SR 1703 is tangent. There is an approximate 6.75-degree
(261.25 meter radius) curve located approximately 305 feet (91.5 meters) east of the existing
structure. SR 1703 consists of three ten-foot (three meter) lanes with 2.5-foot (750 millimeters)
curb and gutters.
The estimated 2003 average daily traffic volume is 16,700 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 25,500 vpd by the design year 2030. The volumes
include one percent TTST and one percent dual tired vehicles.
The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) (55 kilometers per hour).
This section of SR 1703 is listed in the TIP as needing wide outside lanes (14 feet [4.2 meter]
wide) as an incidental bicycle accommodation.
There are aerial power lines and telephone lines on the north and south side of SR 1703. There is
a gas pipeline attached to the south side of the bridge. There is a sewer line that runs underneath
and near the center of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There were fifty-one accidents reported for the three-year period of'January 1, 1999 to December
31, 2001. The statewide crash rate is 373.69 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for the period
from 1999-2001.
Thirteen school buses cross this bridge twice daily.
111. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 44-foot (13.2 meter) travel-way providing two
12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes and one 12-foot (3.6 meter) turning lane with 4.0-feet (1.2 meter)
between the edge of travelway and the face of the sidewalk for bicycle use. The structure will
also provide a 5-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk along each side. The design speed will be 40 mph [65
kilometers per hour (kmh)].
The proposed approach roadway will be 44 feet (13.2 meters) face-to-face, providing one 12-foot
(3.6 meter) turning lane and two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes. There will be 4.0-feet between
the edge of travelway and the face of curb for bicycle use. The approach roadway will also
provide ten-foot berms (three meters) with 2.5-foot (750 millimeter) curb and gutter and a five-
foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk along the north side. This project will include the addition of a turn
lane from the west approach of the proposed bridge to the intersection with SR 1707(Charles
Boulevard) that will be funded separately.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 30 will be a cored slab bridge
approximately 100 feet (30 meters) in length with a spill through design. The low point
approximately 240 feet (72 meters) from the proposed bridge will be raised approximately 0.44
feet (132 millimeters) to help alleviate the frequent flooding adjacent to the bridge. The length
and opening size of the proposed bridges may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis, to be performed during the
final design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour route along Elm St., SR 1598 (Tenth. St.) and SR 1707
Charles Boulevard approximately two miles (3.2 kilometers) in length. The length of approach
work will be approximately 723 feet (216.9 meters) on the west side of the bridge and
approximately 214 feet (64.2 meters) on the east side of the bridge. This work will include the
addition of a turn lane from the west approach of the proposed bridge to the intersection with SR
1707(Charles Boulevard). The right-of-way width varies from 60 feet (18 meters) to 70 feet (21
meters).
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing alignment. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site temporary detour structure located north of the existing bridge. The
length of approach work will be approximately 723 feet (216.9 meters) on the west side of the
bridge and approximately 292 feet (87.6 meters) on the east side of the bridge. The right-of-way
width varies from 60 feet (18 meters) to 70 feet (21 meters). This work will include the addition
of a turn lane from the west approach of the proposed bridge to the intersection with SR
1707(Charles Boulevard). Alternate B was not selected because of the comparatively higher
construction cost, higher environmental impacts, and long construction season.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Studv
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1703.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the existing location, while maintaining traffic by an
off-site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected because of the
comparatively lower construction cost, lower environmental impacts, and lesser construction time
associated with it.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternate A as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2003 prices, are as follows:
Alternate A
(Preferred) Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 30,600 $ 30,600
Structure (proposed) 370,500 370,500
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 205,000
Roadway Approaches 151,300 180,200
Utilities 20,000 20,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 94,100 144,500
Engineering and Contingencies 108,500 149,200
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities: 258,000 405,000

TOTAL ---------------------
$ 1,033,000 --------------------
$ 1,505,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $825,000 including $325,000 for right-of-way and $500,000 for construction. The
projected cost includes the addition of a turn lane from the west approach of the proposed bridge
to the intersection with SR 1707(Charles Boulevard).
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Greenville SE, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI)
(Greenville SE, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS;
formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1974), and recent aerial photography.
The site was visited on February 13, 2001. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was assumed to be the same
as right-of-way (70 feet [21.0 meters]) and temporary easement boundaries. Actual impacts will be
limited to cut-611 boundaries and are expected to be less than those shown for the right-of-way.
Special concerns evaluated n the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands
and water quality protection in Green Mill Run.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with exceptions for updated nomenclature.
Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al.
1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992; Palmer and Braswell
1995; Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived
from available sources (DWQ 1999, 1997). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Pitt County
(February 25, 2003) was reviewed prior to generation of this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing field
investigations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Yorktown and Duplin geologic formation within the inner
Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized as gently
undulating with wide floodplains and broad, flat interstream divides. The study corridor is located on
uplands and across the floodplain of Green Mill Run. Elevations in the study corridor are gently
sloping and range from 22 to 52 feet (6.6 to 15.6 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)
(USGS Greenville SE, NC quadrangle).
Soil mapping units underlying the study corridor are Bibb complex (Typic Haplaquents), Wagram
loamy sand (Arenic Pulcudults), and Craven fine sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults) (SCS 1974). The
Bibb complex series is listed as a hydric soil in Pitt County (NRCS 1997) and typically occurs on
floodplains and in draws and depressions in uplands. This series occurs in the study corridor in
bottomland areas beneath Bridge No. 30 and in the Green Mill Run floodplain. The Wagram series is
a well-drained soil and typically occurs on uplands and stream terraces with a zero to six percent
slope. This series is characterized by rapid infiltration, slow runoff, and occurs on the western,
upland side of the study corridor. The Craven series consists of moderately well drained soils on
smooth side slopes of one to six percent in uplands. This series occurs in the study corridor on upland
areas east of Bridge No. 30 (SCS 1974).
C. Water Resources
1. Surface Waters
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-03-05 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (DWQ
1999). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020103 of the Mid-Atlantic/Gulf Region.
The drainage basin area at the project site is 10.8 square miles (28 square kilometers). Structures
targeted for replacement span the open water stream associated with Green Mill Run. There is no
direct involvement of additional streams or tributaries. This section of Green Mill Run has been
assigned Stream Index Number 28-96 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997). The
nearest tributary to Green Mill Run is Fornes Branch (according to USGS mapping), which is
joined by Green Mill Run approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) downstream (west) of the
study corridor.
2. Stream Characteristics
Green Mill Run is a disturbed, moderately entrenched, perennial, Coastal Plain, stream with
moderate flow over a silty substrate. At Bridge No. 30, Green Mill Run is approximately eight
feet (2.4 meters) wide. The banks are steep and average seven feet (2.1 meters) high. During
field investigations, water clarity was good, flow velocity was moderate, and water depth was
approximately three feet (900 millimeter). The stream channel is moderately entrenched, has low
sinuosity, poor riffle/pool sequence, and shows very little natural features. The streambed is
composed of silt with some gravel and rock, and some concrete rip-rap near the bridge. Bridge
height averages 11 feet (3.3 meters) above the water surface. A storm-water drainage pipe exists
on the northwest side of the bridge providing input to the west side of the stream.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C NSW has been assigned to Green Mill Run. The designation C denotes that
appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The designation NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which
require limitations on nutrient inputs. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur
within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor (DWQ 1997).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed study
corridor is summarized in the Tar-Pamlico basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 1999). Green
Mill Run is rated as Not Rated for designated uses. Green Mill Run is not rated for ambient
water quality; however, Hardee Creek, approximately 2.7 miles (4.3 kilometers) west and
upstream of the study corridor, has a bioclassification rating of Good based on fish sampling
(DWQ 1999).
This sub-basin (03-03-05) supports one major point-source discharger and three minor point-
source dischargers. Total permitted flow for the major discharger is 17.5 million gallons per day
(MGD) (66.5 million liters per day [MLD]). Total permitted flow for the three minor dischargers
is one MGD (3.8 MLD). There are no permitted point-source discharges directly associated with
Green Mill Run. Major non-point sources of pollution for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin are
agriculture, animal operations, urban runoff, construction, forestry, mining, onsite wastewater
disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are
major problems associated with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform,
heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters
(DWQ 1999).
3. Anticipated Impacts
a) Impacts Related to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management
practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to
control runoff, elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to
waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water
quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside
vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Green Mill Run, thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term impacts to
adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to
minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, a worst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is expected to
be approximately 38 cubic yards (29 cubic meters). NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of this
bridge.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section,
work done in the water for this project will fall under Case 2, which states that no work will
be performed in the water during moratorium periods (February 15 to June 30) associated
with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This conclusion is
based upon the classification of the waters within the project area and vicinity, the Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage, and comments received from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
U. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: Coastal Plain
hardwoods and roadside/disturbed land. These plant communities are described below.
a) Coastal Plain Hardwoods
Coastal Plain hardwoods are a natural plant community occurring along the Green Mill Run
floodplain north and southeast of Bridge No. 30. This community represents approximately
70 percent of the total vegetated study corridor area, and consists of a mature forest with
many invasive species. The canopy is closed and includes sycamore (Platantts occidentalis),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), hackberry (Cehis laevigata),
American elm (Ulmus a,nericana), river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and laurel oak (Q. latirilblia). The sub-canopy/shrub layer is moderately dense
and consists of American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), silverberry
(Elaeagnus pungens), red maple (Acer rt(brum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Herbaceous vegetation is moderately sparse and includes
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitus rotundifblia), common greenbriar,
(Smilax rotundifoha), and crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata).
b) Roadside/disturbed Land
Roadside/disturbed land is defined as the maintained roadside and developed margins within
the study corridor. This plant community represents approximately 30 percent of the total
vegetated study corridor, and occurs adjacent to SR 1703 and the streamside southwest of the
bridge. Plant species include sweetgum, blackberry (Rubes arguius), wild strawberry
(Duchesnea indica), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese
privet, common greenbriar, nightshade (Solanum sp.), and chinaberry (Melia azedarach).
c) Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present
within the projected right-of-ways (70 feet [21.0 meters]) and temporary easements. A
summary of potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 1.
Total plant community impacts are greater for Alternate B because of the use of an on-site
detour with this alternative. Alternate A minimizes impacts to natural plant communities
(Coastal Plain hardwoods), and results in approximately one-third the impact area to
hardwood forest relative to Alternate B.
F_
Table 1
Area of Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
acres (hectares)
Plant Communit
Alternate Coastal Plain
hardwood Roadside/Disturbed Total
A 0.12 (0.049) 0.24 (0.097) 0.36 (0.15)
B 0.41 (0.17) 0.18 (0.073) 0.59 (0.24)
Impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Very little area
of natural plant community is expected to be impacted by the proposed project. From an
ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. No
additional fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result only
in alteration of community boundaries. Much of the alignment is currently bounded by a
maintained right-of-way 60 feet (18 meters) in width; therefore, the proposed project may
only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural communities.
Roadside-forest edges typically serve as vectors for movement of invasive species into
adjacent natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing
roadsides is kudzu (Pueraria lobata). The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road
shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive
and undesirable plants.
2. Wildlife
a) Terrestrial
Signs of two mammal species, beaver (Castor canadensis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor), were
observed during the site visit. Other mammal species, which are expected to occur within the
study corridor, are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray fox (Urocvon
cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail (SvlvilagusJloridanus), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus
palustris), fox squirrel (Scittrus niger), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinets).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the study corridor are northern cardinal (Cardinalis
car-dinalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jantaicensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melaneipes carolinus), and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). Other avian
species expected to occur in the study corridor are prothonotory warbler (Protonotaria
citrea), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), turkey vulture (Catharses aura), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubeseens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Carolina
chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), eastern towee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), hermit thrush (Catharus guttattts), wood duck (Aix sponsa), Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonav vir•escens), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), pileated
woodpecker (Drvocopus pileatus), barred owl (Stria varia), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some
terrestrial reptiles which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene c•arolina), Carolina anole (Anolis c•arolinensis), eastern fence lizard (Seeloporus
urrdulatus•), five-lined skink (Eumeces fisc•iatuc), broadhead skink (Eumec•es laticeps), worm
snake (Curphophis amoemts), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis
getula), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix),
little grass frog (Linntaoedus ocularis), southern toad (Bar%o terrestris), and slimy salamander
(Plethodon cvlindraceus•).
b) Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no observations of aquatic reptile or amphibian species within the
study corridor. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which are expected to occur
within the study corridor include snapping turtle (Chelvdra serpentina), mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), river cooter (Pseudemvs
c•onc•inna), brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
er;whrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorets), eastern newt (Notophthalnuts
viridescens), dwarf salamander (Eurveea quadridigitata), marbled salamander (Ambvstoma
opacurn), and southern dusky salamander (Desmognathats auriculants).
Green Mill Run was not sampled to determine fishery potential. Visual surveys of Green
Mill Run did reveal the presence of fish and molluscan fauna, in particular a juvenile
tassellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and an invasive Asian clam (Corbicula thtminea).
Fish species that may be present in Green Mill Run include eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathuc regius), American shad (Alosa
sappidissima), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptoeephahts), margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
tadpole madtom (Noturus gvrinus), golden shiner (Notemigonus c•rys•oleucas), spottail shiner
(Notropis hudconius), creek chubsucker (Erimyson oblongus), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurats
natalis). Potential game fish that may be present within the study corridor include
bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosuc), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirats), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bowfin (Amia calva), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and
largemouth bass (Mic•ropterus sabnoides).
c) Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Green Mill Run is a Coastal Plain system, and anadromous fish passage will be considered in
the timing of any proposed in-stream activities associated with bridge replacement. Several
anadromous fish species have been documented to occur in the Tar-Pamlico River basin and
have distributions that include Pitt County (Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991). Design and
scheduling of the bridge replacement will avoid the necessity of in-stream activities during
the spring migration period for anadromous fish species (February 15 to June 30) within the
Tar-Pamlico River and its tributaries, including Green Mill Run.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will
be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances
will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
However, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible. Potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect
10
benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction will be minimized by implementation of stringent erosion control
measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Green Mill Run are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Green Mill Run exhibits characteristics of a riverine
system with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (R2UBH; Cowardin el al.
1979). Field investigations indicate that, within the study corridor, this description of Green Mill
Run is accurate.
Wetlands adjacent to Green Mill Run are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that floodplains of Green Mill Run exhibit characteristics
of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous and needle leaved forest system that is seasonally
flooded (PFOI /2C; Cowardin et al. 1979). Field investigations indicate that no vegetated
wetlands occur within the study corridor.
Bridging will not result in fill or dredging of wetlands/waters of the United States, and
encroachment into the stream will be avoided. Upon completion of construction, temporary
impacts associated with construction activities and temporary alignments will be restored to pre-
project conditions.
Alternate A entails reconstruction of Bridge No. 30 in place with no impact to vegetated
wetlands. Alternate B entails construction of a temporary bridge alignment north of the existing
alignment and no impacts to vegetated wetlands.
Table 2
Potential riparian buffer impacts
Jurisdictional Type
Alternate
Riparian Buffer Area Acres (hectares)
A 0.24 0.10 )
B 0.35 (0.14
Table 2 Potential open water and riparian butler impacts resulting from project alternatives. Area estimations are expressed in
acres (hectares) and linear distance is expressed in feet (meters).
There is potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into waters of the
United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill is associated with the bridge
removal is expected to be 38 cubic yards (29 cubic meters). This project can be classified as Case
2, where no in-stream work may occur during moratorium periods due to anadromous fish
migration (February 15 to June 30) as well as those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of'Surface Waters. Impacts by construction activities to Threatened or Endangered
species, or protected water resources, are not expected. NCDOT will coordinate with the various
resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition
are resolved.
2. Permits
a). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23 (67 FR 2019, 2095, January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts
expected with bridge construction. Activities under this permit are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of activities
that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human and natural
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and
conditions of the particular permit.
b). Section 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this permit will require
written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under
General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
c). Bridge Demolition and Removal
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will need to be
considered during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario should be assumed with the
understanding that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be
dropped into the water. The worst-case scenario associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be 38 cubic yards (29 cubic meters) of temporary fill. Permitting will be
coordinated such that any permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues
related to bridge demolition.
d). Coast Guard
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard
bridge permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used,
susceptible to use in their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement
as a means to transport interstate commerce. Due to this, this bridge project is exempt, and
will not require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit (Appendix).
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Since this project is within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, it is subject to The Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers
12
(15A NCAC 02B.0259). These rules were developed to protect and preserve existing riparian
buffers and arc part of larger nutrient reduction strategies for the basin.
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.0 meter) wide riparian buffers dircctly
adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. This rule does not apply to portions of
the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Existing uses include transportation
facilities. It should be noted that only the portion of the buffer that contains the footprint of the
existing use is exempt. Any change in land use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an
impact
Activities in the buffer area beyond the footprint of the existing use are classified as either
"exempt'", "allowable", "allowable with mitigation", or "prohibited". The following list of
activities that may be subject to buffer rules within the study area are provided along with their
classifications. Depending upon project alternatives, not all of the uses listed may apply, and
other uses not listed here, such as utility crossings and roadside drainage ditches, among others,
may be regulated under the buffer rules. Guidelines should be consulted in entirety to review all
project related uses subject to the buffer rules.
Activities deemed "exempt" should be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize soil
disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable. "Allowable"
activities may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives
to the requested use. Written authorization from the DWQ or delegated local authority is
required. Activities deemed "allowable with mitigation" may proceed within the riparian buffer
if there are no practical alternatives to the requested use and an appropriate mitigation strategy
has been approved. Written authorization from the DWQ or delegated local authority is required.
"Prohibited" activities, none of which are listed above, may not proceed within the riparian buffer
unless a variance is granted from the DWQ or delegated local authority.
RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION RULES
Allowable
Use Exempt Allowable With Prohibited
Mitigation
Bridges X
Road crossings that impact lass than or equal to ISO
linear ft. (45 linear meters) or 0.33 acres (0.13
hectares) of riparian buJfe r
Road crossinIgS that impact greater than 150 linear
ft. (45 linear meters) or greater than 0.33 acres (0.13
hectares/ of riparian buffc r
Temporar-l• roads that disturb less than or equal to
2,500 square feet (225 square meters) provided that
vegetation is restored within six months ?
Temporan• roads that disturb greatep• than ',500
square fret (225 square meters) provided that
vegetanon is restored within.six months
Expected activities involved with project development include a temporary roadway crossing for
Alternative B. and bridge replacement for both alternatives. These uses are designated Allowable
13
within the riparian buffer, assuming project impacts are below 150 linear feet (45.0 meters) of
buffer (measured parallel to the stream) and/or 0.33 acre (0.13 hectares). The Allowable
designation means that the intended uses may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that
there are no practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the N.C. DWQ is obtained
prior to project development.
4. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMP's will minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to
floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native wetland species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion.
Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.0 meters) of stream may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation
rests with the C:OE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.). The term
"Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any
species that is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance" is defined as a species that is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected species
listed for Pitt County (February 25, 2003 FWS list) are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Federally Protected Species Listed For Pitt County
(February 25, 2003 FWS list)
Common Name Scientific Name Status
West Indian
Manatee Trichechus marratus E
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Bald Eagle Haliaeents letrcocephalus T
Tar Spinymussel Elliptio weinrstansana E
West Indian Manatee - The West Indian Manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that
averages ten to 13 feet (three to 3.9 meters) in length and weighs up to 1,000 pounds (455
kilo( grams). During summer months, manatees migrate from their Florida wintering areas to as
far north as coastal Virginia. These mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where
their diet consists mostly of aquatic vegetation (Webster et al. 1985).
14
Green Mill Run is a small, shallow, Coastal Plain stream lacking submerged aquatic vegetation.
Therefore, this tributary does not provide passage or suitable forage habitat for the manatee.
Manatees have not been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that manatees have not
been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor,
and the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on
analysis of NHP records and the aquatic habitat type within the study corridor,
this project will not affect manatee. NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than six feet (1.8 meters).
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with
whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may
also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December
through May (Potter et al. 1980).
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles
forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (225 to 450 meters) from
a nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The FWS
recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this
primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of one mile (1.6 kilometers) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities
should be restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of
natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities
within 1500 feet (450 meters) of known roosting sites.
Plant communities within the study corridor are 1) roadside/disturbed land and 2) Coastal Plain
hardwoods. Although the forested community may be suitable to bald eagle nesting and foraging,
no large bodies of water exist within the study corridor, and no large bodies of water occur within
2.5 miles (four kilometers) of the study corridor. Therefore, no habitat for bald eagle occurs
within or adjacent to the study corridor. Bald eagles have not been documented to occur within
one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that bald eagle has not
been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor,
and the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on
analysis of NHP records and habitat types within the study corridor, this project
will not affect bald eagle. NO EFFECT
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (seven to 8.5 inches [17.5 to 21.3
centimeters] in length) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be
absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature
southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P.
ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed
in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-
heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS
1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine
15
flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve
as ideal nesting and foraging habitat.
Plant communities within the study corridor are 1) roadside/disturbed land and 2) Coastal Plain
hardwoods. Forested areas within the study corridor lack a pine component in the canopy, which
is necessary habitat required by this species for foraging and nesting. The red-cockaded
woodpecker has not been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that red-cockaded
woodpecker has not been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the study corridor, and the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for this
species. Based on analysis of NHP records and habitat types within the study
corridor, this project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Tar Spinymussel - The Tar spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that grows to
approximately 2.5 inches (6.3 centimeters) in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth,
orange-brown to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines (0.2 inch [0.5
centimeter] long). The shell is thicker on the anterior end and thinner on the posterior end.
Preferred habitat of the spiny mussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-oxygenated,
circumneutral water over a silt-free, non-compacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (FWS 1992).
The mussel's range is believed to be limited to a one-mile (1.6 kilometers) section of the Tar
River in Edgecombe County and Swift Creek in Vance and Edgecombe Counties (TSCFTM
1990) and is also known from Little Fishing Creek in Halifax County, and Shocco Creek in
Warren/Franklin Counties.
Green Mill Run is a disturbed, moderately entrenched, perennial stream, characterized by
moderate flow. The stream bed is primarily composed of silt, with scattered gravel and rock, and
concrete rip-rap near the bridge. Shells of only the Asian clam (Corbicula.Jluminea) were
observed during the site visit.
The project site was visited on September 12, 2001 by NCDOT environmental specialists to
conduct a field survey. Surveys for mussels were conducted from approximately 400 foot (120
meters) downstream to 200 foot (60 meters) upstream of the project crossing. Survey
methodology included wading using visual and tactile methods. The stream occurs in a highly
urbanized area, and is degraded by trash, and storm-water discharge. A total of three elliptio
mussels (Ellip[io sp.) were found in approximately one man-hour of survey time.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that Tar spinymussel
has not been documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor. The study corridor contains poor habitat for this species. Based on the
conducted field survey, it is apparent that the Tar spinymussel does not occur
within the project area. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 25, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one
that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species
listed for Pitt County are presented in Table 4. NHP files have no documentation of FSC-listed
species within the study corridor or within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
16
Table 4
Federal Species Of Concern Listed For Pitt County
(Februar y 25, 2003 FWS list

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Antntodramus henslor no SR
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simtts no SR
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutintts yes SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni yes T (PE)
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis yes W3
Yellow lampmussel Lampcilis eariosa yes T (PE)
"Neuse" madtom Notitrus fttriostts no SC
Carolina asphodel
*E-E d Tofieldia glabra no C
- n angered, T -
- threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; P = Species has
been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; W 1 = NC Plant Watch List: rare,
but relatively secure; W3 = NC Plant Watch List: rare, but uncertain documentation (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and
Hall 1999). -
2. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso
1999; LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.
106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that no state listed species have been documented to
occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 2, 1999. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence forni dated October 27, 2000, the HPO concurred that
there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing on the National
17
Register of' Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated July 28, 2000, had no comment on the project as was currently
proposed. There is little likelihood of any National Register archaeological sites occurring in the
project area because of the disturbed landforms, therefore the SHPO recommends no further action.
A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of this
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional emission
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This 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 effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
Is

The traffic volumes will not increase or decre -se because of this project. Therefore, the project's impact
on noise and air quality will not be substantio
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. li'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 evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. No
facility with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) was identified in the project vicinity. There is one
facility with potential environmental hazards, (The Wash House, located 100 feet (30.5 meters) southwest
of the project. This facility may pose an environmental hazard because of the dry cleaning solvents that
may have been used there.) A letter dated August 22, 2000 concerning the Geoenvironmental Impact
Study stated, "if an off-site detour is utilized, this facility (The Wash House) will not be impacted." The
preferred alternative utilizes an off-site detour therefore there will no impacts to the Wash House.
Pitt County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site over Green Mill
Run is included in a detailed F.E.M.A. flood study. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map,
on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain in the vicinity of the project
(Figure 5). There are six businesses in the existing floodplain near Bridge No. 30. The proposed
replacement will not adversely affect the floodplain. The proposed alternatives will not modify flow
characteristics and will have a minimal impact on floodplains due to roadway encroachment. The
existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials and involve them in the
project development with scoping letters and newsletters. A Local Officials Meeting, followed by a
Citizens Informational Workshop was held at C. M. Eppes Middle School on January 28, 2002, where
preliminary alternatives were reviewed and discussed with concerned citizens and local officials.
The local officials concerns were the frequent flooding of 14`" Street at the low point west of the bridge,
the off-site detour route, and construction duration. The general consensus was that Alternate A is the
preferred alternative.
Approximately eight citizens attended the workshop. The citizens primary concerns were the frequent
flooding of 14'" Street at the low point west of the bridge. Three comment sheets were received; the
majority of all the citizens attending the workshop preferred Alternate A.
19
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following are comments received during the scoping process:
1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Comment: "No construction or demolition activities shall be allowed in the water between
February 15 and June 30 of' any year, and mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable
wetland losses."
Response: Construction work will be restricted as noted in the Project Commitments.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
Comment: "Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NC'DOT should closely
follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramouc Fish Passage ". This includes an in-
water work moratorium, from February 15 to June 15. "
Response: Construction work will be restricted as noted in the Project Commitments.
Comment: "Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. "
Response: No deck drainage will be allowed to discharge directly into the water, main channel
or Zone 1 (30 feet (nine meters) from the channel banks).
3. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDENR)
Comment: "...the Division requests an in-water work moratorium. This would include removal
and neiv construction. The requested moratorium timefi•ame is Februarv 15 through June 30. "
Response: Construction work will be restricted as noted in the Project Commitments.
4. City of Greenville, North Carolina
Comment: "Flooding of the section of 14`h Street at Station 14+50 occurs on average six times
per year. With the volume o% trgf frc that currently uses this road, minimizing the frequency of
.flooding as part of this project is imperative. The property adjacent to and upstream of the
roadway is approximately 18" higher than the roadway. It appears that the roadway could be
raised 6 " - 18 "without affecting the surrounding properties in a negative manner. In addition,
the drainage system within 14`x' Street at this location is poorly designed and with minor revisions
could result in significant improvements in ihe_ flooding circumstances. "
Response: Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 30 will be a cored slab bridge
approximately 100 feet in length with a spill through design. The low point approximately 240
feet (72 meters) from the proposed bridge will be raised 0.44 feet (132 millimeters) to help
alleviate the frequent flooding adjacent to the bridge. This area was modeled using the top of
curb as control elevations for the proposed road, since the proposed top of curb elevations is 0.06
feet (18 millimeters) higher than the centerline/grade point. NCDOT requires that the proposed
100-year storm elevations match or lower the existing 100-year elevations. This requirement
cannot be met if the existing grade is raised more than 0.44 feet (132 millimeters), since the top of
20
curb is 0.06 feet (18 millimeters) higher than the grade point. Increasing the length of the bridge
would not add any significant additional area under the bridge since the bridge would be spanning
a height of approximately 1 foot (300 millimeters). Raising the grade 0.44 feet (132 millimeters)
will not significantly decrease the frequency of flooding of the street due to Greenmill Run
however, it will alleviate the problem somewhat. The existing drainage system will also be
replaced and this will help improve the flooding situation as well.
Comment: "The Citv of Greenville Greenway Master Plan and draft Greenville Bicycle Plan
call .for a Greenway to cross 14th Street in the vicinity ol'Green Mill Run and a hike route along
14th ,, !et.... In order to allow the anticipated bicycle and pedestrian trurlic, this bridge and
street stun needs to allow an appropriate width for hike lames and provision.for crossing for
the Greenway. "
Response: To allow for the anticipated bicycle and pedestrian traffic the proposed replacement
structure will provide a 44-foot (13.2 meter) travel-way providing two 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel
lanes and one 12-foot (3.6 meter) tu-- ?ng lane. The structure will provide 4.0-feet between the
edge of travelway and the face of sic valk for bicycle use. The structure will also provide a 5-
foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk along each ::,ie.
Comment: "A sidewalk along the north side of 14'r' Street currently exists. The new cross
section of 14" Street should certainly accommodate the existing sidewalk and take into
consideration a sidewalk along the south side of 14'1' Street. -
Response: The proposed structure will provide a 5-foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk along each side.
The proposed approach roadway will be 44 feet (13.2 meter) face-to-face, providing one 12-foot
(3.6 meter) turning lane and two 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes with 2.5-foot (750 millimeter)
curb and gutter. There will be 4.0-feet between the edge of travelway and the face of curb for
bicycle use. There will be ten-foot (3.0 meter) berms on each side and a five-foot (1.5 meter)
sidewalk along the north side. The berm width on the south side will accommodate any future
sidewalk placed there.
Comment: "The City of Greenville Thoroughfare Plan calls_for a five-lane curb and glitter street
as the ultimate thoroughfare plan cross section on both sides of the bridge. "
Response: We will build a three-lane section and design the structure so that it can be widened
in the future in the event 14'h Street is widened to five-lanes.
Comment: "Fire. rescue, and police personnel have indicated that they can adapt, but thus an
extended road closure will be inconvenient. "
Response: 10 Street will be closed due to the replacement of the existing bridge. The NCDOT
will try to ensure that the road closure is limited to as short a time as possible.
Comment: "Consider routing traffic through Elm Street and 10'" Street.
Response: During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour route along Elm
St., SR 1598 (Tenth. St.) and SR 1707 Charles Boulevard approximately two miles (3.2
kilometers) in length.
It
Comment: "Coordinate intersection improvements at Charles Boulevard and 144" Street with
local Division Offce... "
Response: Funding in the amount of $250,000 has been approved to make the necessary
improvements to the intersection to help facilitate traffic flow. These improvements will be
constructed at the same time as the proposed bridge. This work will include the addition of a turn
lane from the west approach of the proposed bridge to the intersection with SR 1707(Charles
Boulevard).
Comment: "We would also encourage utili ing construction methods that would limit the length
of time that 14r6 Street is closed to traffic.
Response: The proposed bridge structure will be a cored slab structure. This type of structure
consists of pre-fabricated concrete units. Utilizing this type of'structure will limit the length of'
time 14'x' Street is closed during construction.
22
FIGURES
1611
1571 t, a c? 1531
1610
J0.
P?
15%
1702
d' 1598
WIC
i
i/
i
_' .._.. 1702 43
1 41 f

T AR^
l?
GREENVILLE
O \
J?
33 /
1 707
?.
1703 BRIDGE NO. 30 1598 33
''r air pc?'i '7 _
Sr
m
N
C 1703
7 _7
h i z6A4
1704
264 ?
A ?
43 1706 oc?g
M A
Bear G,'
1l ?
7 `+
y
tolu? u,, Ord
? y :=
>s. is$ . q p I T Ty
lrrna t? Inttratll I' Cho6oriinil
B?eaw r1?Rh
r aw will a yAydcn d anelmera`la
? u
e _ y y ?
Cali . ,AVlmar
?? Opfloe ,? ' G
H
1 0.5 0 1 MILE
1 0 1 KILOMETERS
SCALE
LEGEND
Studied Detour
Route
NORTH CAROLINA
a o DBPARTHI ENT OF TRANSPORTAT70N
?' f BN[?RONMSNTAL A IS
PITT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 30 ON SR 1703
OVER GREEN MILL RUN
TIP NO. B-3685
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
fire
f
&
.f .n• i 1??t
lit
k
xr
low,
Ole.
'r
I VIA
rol
Nit
`
Ile

6 •
•
E
0
4Q
4Q
C=3
b ?

? 1 I
II
lb a
Ji 81
N aS zs
r.
'f t ? Q
.? cad d`? ? L?
N' 4 ? W
?r r r r •
N
R\ ,
5
p a
?? A

yr

i
poo
w

t
wa
its
i bit
w?
h
A
i
0 0
............? r
4
............
CJ
? t
Ila

H M tr
ti
1-4
o ? a ?
? UM o
L4
a a
A ?
t:A
B-3685
Replacement of Bridge
No. 30 on SR 1703
Over Greene Mill Run
Pitt County
I:at-im L
1RE 3
i
B-3685
BRIDGE NO. 30
PITT COUNTY
KEY TO MAP O I 'Co a OHr ?. O. v ; a;
50¢.ren /1,-19.~., v ' O:
Sr O. a Sf
ruwrt.rllua,xuu.e,rr v ? qrJ tiny
„t
J O G `
/ ti W
r-?z
IL')ODWgY 141 r.
NGC IL00OW41 ?• 501, .T '.?
IU4•Yrer I loos buneur v 7 ,
SOPVeu /loos louee•rr Q' 0 -•" ;
r ,
= - ..v .,
A•nro•rronr 100•Yrer r- - -+'? ? ? Q,. ?'. O
1 le" BoYneuv
Crm SeLlgn lrM __ _; ?? _ • ??;. ^ `yy 1? N
L kglMn RNarncr mok RM7
RrMr Milt 1. S r 1 (! ??': t '/ •1' /
?OrH ?- _-` nwOF RSON ST
;? r ?rt' '?'-= ???•Sr r. ? ????? ?_ r; RM29
RM30
ul,
B/1l1DOE Nb: 4B`vQl/;~ i ?&'y
1 I mo- `?'I , 13
u
/,0 28
RM3
o%
4bsoo
\4FOF WEST
''LUNg OUW
OAD'.
1 O O ?RUTLEDGE i l'
ROAD,
1' (tee FLOODWAY IN THIS AREA
TOO NARROW TO SHOW ?\ I •f
RM77 lllli
`Z TO SCALE. REFER TO ?
aOt
' . b)
S 11 FLOODWAY DATA TABLE.
/ JE// RN123
p/ Q,E .-.N 1 ii 1
_ / SULGROVE ROAD
LONGWOOD
?` `?•???? - l,t ,I DRIVE
? ?. ?. \\? -' •? 11,1
W .

1
S
1 t
1

FEMA FLOOD STUDY 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
Panel No. 370191 0010 :1 1
Date: April 30. 1986 1000 ft. 0 1000 R
Street Name: SR 1703
City of Greemilie. North Carolina 305 m Approxime Scale 305 m
FIGURE 5 ?
.I ? ? t
APPENDIX
RECORD OF CONTACT
DATE: 7/11/01
CONTACT WITH: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers - Washington Office
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 27 Scoping comments(B-3612, B-3626, B-3640, B-3684, B-3685, B-
3711, B-3712, B-3809, B-3810, and B-3871)
VIA: Telephone 1:00 pm
DISCUSSED: He said he agreed with the specific continents for each bridge from David
Cox's(from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission) letter dated 6/08/200 1 (included
in appendix) and the general comments from David Franklin's (of the Corps of Engineers) letter
dated 8/212000 (included in appendix). He will not be sending out a letter.
Signed: " Greg Purvis, Wang Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
A t 2 2000
ErC!?
r ?
IN REPLY REFER TO ugu$ + ?.:Regulatory Division
t..u..
Action ID No. 200001525, 200001526, 200001527, 200001528, 200001529, 200001530.
200001531.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters dated June 7, 2000, June 28, 2000, and July 3, 2000
regarding the following proposed bridge replacement projects, including those of Group
XXVII:
1. TIP Project B-3449, Duplin County, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over Northeast
Cape Fear River, Action ID 200001525.
2. TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1154 over a branch
of the Newport River, Action ID 200001526.
3. TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires
Run, Action ID 200001527.
4. TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken
Creek, Action ID 200001528.
5. TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
6. TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe
Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
7. TIP Project B-3613, Bladen/Sampson County, Bridge No. 44 on NC 41 over
South River, Action ID 200001531.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters, it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including

disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided. On-site
detours can cause permanent wetland impacts due to sediment consolidation resulting
from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment. Substantial sediment
consolidation in wetland systems may in rum cause fragmentation of the wetland and
impair the ecological and hydrologic fi mctions of the wetland. Thus, on-site detours
constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts. These types of
wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites and a cursory
determination was made on the potential for sediment consolidation due to an onsite
detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment consolidation in wetlands
exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore, it is recommended that geotechnical
evaluations be conducted at each project site to estimate the magnitude of sediment
consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the results be provided in the
project planning report.
Based on our field inspections, we strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be
conducted at the following proposed project sites:
1) TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 226 on SR 1154 over a
branch of the Newport River, Action M 200001526.
2) TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over
Squires Run, Action ID 200001527.
3) TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over _'.
Shaken Creek, Action ID 200001528.
4) TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
5) TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big
Shoe Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND %VILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Orrice Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 25, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Thank you for your July 3, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of fourteen proposed bridge replacements in
various counties in eastern North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state
resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3449, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, DupIin County;
2. B-3612, Bridge No. 143 on SR 1123 over Branch of Indian Creek, Bertie County;
3. B-3626, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1154 over Branch of Newport River, Carteret County;
4. B-3640, Bridge No. 16 on SR 1400 over Merchants Mill Pond, Gates County;
5. B-3684, Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 over the Tar River, Pitt County;
6. B-3685, Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 over Green Mill Run, Greenville, Pitt County;
7. B-3708, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1325/SR 1583 over Welch Creek, Washington/Martin
Counties;
8. B-3711, Bridge No. 42 on NC 111 over the Neuse River Outflow, Wayne County;
9. B-3712, Bridge No. 88 over SR 1006, Falling Creek, Wayne County;
10. B-3809, Bridge No. 64 on NC 99 over Pungo Creek, Beaufort County;
11. B-3810, Bridge No. 272 on SR 1514 over Big Swamp, Beaufort County;
12. B-3871, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1001 over Dog Branch, Martin County;
13. B-3884, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires Run, Onslow County; and,
14. B-3887, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken Creek, Pender County.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as ou :lined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems Should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Chinquapin, Grantham,Greenville SW,
Grimesland, Merchants Mill Pond, Newport, Old Ford, Ransomville, Richlands, SE Goldsboro,
Stag Park, Washington, Williamston, and Woodville 7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland
resources in the specific work areas. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an
overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation
by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in
addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Coms of
Wetlands Delineation Manual and, verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Beaufort, Bertie, Carteret, Duplin, Gates,
Martin, Onslow, Pender, Pitt, Washington, and Wayne Counties. The Service recommends that
habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the
respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that
includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results,
should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official detennination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
r. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Washington, NC (Michael Bell)
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMeCartney:TM:07/24/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\14brdgs.var
_ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Charles R FuUw*od. Exeootive Director

TO: Stacy Hams, PE
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project tot _
Habitat Conservation Pro
DATE: June 8, 2001
SUBJECI': NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Duplin, Bettie. Carteret, Gates, Pitt, Wayne,
Beaufort. Martin, Onslow, and Pender counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos.
B-3449, B-3612, B-3626, B-3640, B-3684, B-3685, B-3711, B-3712, B-3809, B-
3810,13-3871, B-3884, and 13-3887.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Comrnistion (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provistons of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Sint. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-6674).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream-
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Distunccd
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
Mailing Address: Dwiaion of InlAnd Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1 721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: (919) 71S-7643

Bridge Memo 2 Junc 8, 2001
stnictures the area should be cleaned but not Snubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized egtdpment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soul.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general '404' omits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual '404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified Special measures to ptect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control meaaurvs sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soi I
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All wnrk in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdaau, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated fmm the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-frae rock should be used as temporary till (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids. or other toxic materials.
1 f corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pike invert is buried at least 1 foot below tho nawral stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third calls should be placed so that their
Bridge Memo
June 8, 2001
bottoms are at stream bankfuJ stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufrcient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts arc
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should he designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases. we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream batiks. If the structure will be on a new alignment. the old structure should be removed
and the approach fells removed from the 100-year tloodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural gmund elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands. NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3449 - Duplin County - Bridge No. 204 over Northeast Cape Fear River. Due to the
potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work
moratorium from February 1 to June 15 for area where there is the potential for Shortnose
sturgeon, an endangered species. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and )erosion
Control Measures be used due to the presence of HQW waters.
2. B-3612 - Bertie County - Bridge No. 143 over a brawl of Indian Creek. Due to the potential
for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We arc not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. NCDOT should be aware that NCWRC has designated NCWRC gamelauds
in the vicinity of this bridge. Impacts to gameland properties should be avoided.
3. B-3626 - Carteret County - Bridge No. 26 over a branch of the New Port River. Standard
comments apply. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project
vicinity.
4. B-3640 - Gates County - Bridge No. 16 over Merchant's Mill Pond. Standard comments
uppiy. We are isot aware of any threatened of endangered spocies in the project vicinity.
Bridge Mcmo 4 June R, 2001
5. B-3684 Pitt County -Bridge No. 129 over Tar River. Due to the potential for unadromous
fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
Standard comments apply.
6. B-3685 - Pitt County - Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run. Due to the potential for
anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
7. 8.3711 - Wayne County - Bridge No. 42 over the Name River Overflow. Due to the
potential for anadromous fish at this location. NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 1S. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered
species in flic project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
8. B-3712 Wayiie County -.Bridge No 88 over Falling Creek. Standard comments apply. We
are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3809 - Aeattfort County - Bridge No. 64 over Pango Creek. Due to the potential for
anadroinous; fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 1 S. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
10. B-3810 -Beaufort County -Bridge No. 272 over Big Swamp. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3971 - Martin County - Bridge No. 64 over Dog Stanch. Due to the potential for
anadrontous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
rcbruary 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
12.13-3894 Onslow County - Bridge No. 40 over Squires Run. Due to the potential for
anadmmous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
13.8-3887 Pender County -Bridge No. 116 over Shaken Creek. Due to the potential for
anadromotts fish at this location. NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
we request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement ofbndgea with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Bridge Memo S
June 8, 2001
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements. pleasc contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
?,. STATE
r
??41pr,•d•?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook RjR_?Zv uu?_d Fc)t?k__,
Deputy State Histo Preservation Officer
Re: B-3685, Pitt County, Replace Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703
over Green Mill Run in Greenville, ER 01-7089
Thank you for your memorandum of July 3, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
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 : kgc
cc: B. Church, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount St. . Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-.4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • -15-2671
RESTORATIOV 515 N Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 37699-.1513 [phone] '15-180
SURVEY S PLANNING '.5 N Blount St.. Raleigh NC .1618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 3'699-161 9191 '_3-5545 4",Ol
Federal Aid 9BRSTP-1703(1) TIP #B-3685 Counw: Pitt
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 over Green Mill Run in Greenville
On September 21, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Siened:
Representati e, NC OT Date
- ?/; If (' 'DlL 1L- r-- / !, / Z x /?`4i
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
,;! / Z _?J1 a
Repr sentati e, SHPO / Date
?r
xd, fc%,t?
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment o `
and Natural Resources rr,:?y .t
Division of Marine Fisheries "{
.Pw
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ?t "
Bill Holman Secretary L Y J
---r• GRC_:NA CEPARTMEU- :.F
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director AND NATURAL RESC:JRCES
MEMORANDUM:
TO: William D. Gilmore, NCDOT Manager Project Development ;r Jut 1 ?D,q
and Environmental Branch
FROM:
Sara E. Winslow, Biologist Supervisor''"
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Projects - TIP 2000-2006
DATE. July 13, 2000
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has reviewed the information provided
relative to upcoming bridge replacement projects and submits the following comments. All of
the bridges to be replaced cross documented anadromous spawning areas. These bridges are:
B-3612 Bertie County - Replace No. 143
B-3640 Gates County - Replace No. 16
B-3684 Pitt County - Replace No. 129
B-3685 Pitt County - Replace No. 30
B-3708 Washington/Martin Counties - Replace No. 66
B-3871 Martin County - Replace No. 64
The Division assumes all of the replacements will be with another bridge.
Since all of these areas are spawning areas for anadromous fish, the Division requests
an in-water work moratorium. This would include removal and new construction. The
requested moratorium timeframe is February 15 through June 30. This will ensure the
environmental integrity is protected during critical times of usage by these species.
The Division also expresses concern relative to wetland impacts associated with
removal and construction. The importance of wetlands as spawning and nursery areas,
providing food directly and indirectly for aquatic resources and being vital to water quality in the
receiving waters has been well documented.
This agency appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal. If you have any
questions relative to the Divisions comments please contact me at [phone].

P.O. Ecx 759. Carz::ina ?35557-G7._ _, _ ?--_ _ - -- - =
P Pitt. COLUILN;
Schools

July 12, 2000
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
1?111ce, 0191 7,76-1421
1`:!x: 0119) 7.-)t)-11243
I am responding to your letter dated July 3, 2000 concerning the number of buses
crossing Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 30 in Pitt County. Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565
over the Tar River has no buses crossing at this time due to the weight limit on the
bridge. Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 over Green Mill Run in Greenville has 13 buses
crossing this bridge twice a day.
If you need additional information, please give us a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
Debbie Lewis, TIMS Coordinator
P.O. Box 7207
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
July 21, 2000
CITY OF GREENVILLE
N O R T H C A R O L I NA
27835-7207
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
F.%-%J 25.4
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: B-3685, Replace 14th Street (SR 1703) Bridge over Green Mill Run
In response to your July 3, 2000 letter, the City of Greenville offers the following:
The vertical profile of 14th St. has a low point west of the bridge over Green Mill Run
(see the attached copy of the topographic map). This low point floods frequently during
the course of the year due to the rising waters of Green Mill Run. It is requested that the
vertical alignment of 14th Street be reviewed in conjunction with the opening area of the
structure to replace Bridge No. 30. Every effort to reduce the frequency of flooding atop
14`h Street needs to be made. Traffic volumes on this road are 15,000 AADT (1998). It
is not unusual that this traffic has to be rerouted due to flooding.
2. The City of Greenville Greenway Master Plan and draft Greenville Bicycle Plan call for a
Greenway to cross 14`h Street in the vicinity of Green Mill Run and a bike route along
14`h Street (see attached plan map). Virtually all of ECU student housing is located on or
near 14`h Street just east of this bridge. Bicycle access along 14`h Street from can:-pus
housing to retail development to the west of the bridge is crucial to maintaining
pedestrian/bicycle travel. Funds to construct Phase H of the Green Mill Run Greenway in
this vicinity has already been appropriated by NCDOT. In order to allow the anticipated
bicycle and pedestrian traffic, this bridge and street section needs to allow an appropriate
width for bike lanes and provision for crossing for the Greenway.
s. A sidewalk along the north side of 14`h Street currently exists. The new cross section of
14`h Street should certainly accommodate the existing sidewalk and take into
consideration a sidewalk along the south side of 14 `h Street.
Mr. William D. Gilmore
July 21, 2000
Page 2
4. As we write this response, the City and Division 2 are in the middle of negotiations with
a developer of a new retail center just west of the Green Mill Run on 14`h Street. Street
improvements being required of this developer must be considered in determining the
ultimate replacement of Bridge No. 30. The City of Greenville Thoroughfare Plan calls
for a five-lane curb and gutter street as the ultimate thoroughfare plan cross section on
both sides of the bridge.
We thank- y cu aga n for th-- op-oi1u:tf to discuss this projezt. If you have any questiG:;s, do not
hesitate to call me at 252-329-4520 or Ron Svejkovsky at 252-329-4476.
Sincerely,
T. N. Tysinger,
Director of Public Works
Attachments
Pc: James H. Jatko, City Engineer
W. Brad Kerr, City Engineering
Steve Yetman, Traffic Engineer
Ronald Svejkovsky, Transportation Planner
Ms. Stacy Harris, Project Development and Environmental Branch, NCDOT ?
#82676 v 1 - Letter to William Gilmore re 14th St bridge project
N-6 'ou 173HS
IA-? li?
x
i
w
t
•„
?O x

?p
Ql?l No. 3c
M
f-0 «
APe4 of
U& ?00 r PA KING
f X f 61t Y84R)
x?
?NKIM???
J
p k
r)p ?
W iwr•
3?? * p
?D
a
D
ex
00
Q
IE"AKo
K
Y
0
?x
A
•
SR tam xa
J•
P.O. Box 7207
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
February 5, 2002
CITY OF GREENVILLE
NORTH CAROLINA
2786.7207
Ms. Stacy B. Hams, PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Departmer.! of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina . ::99-1548
Re: Continents for B-3685, Replacement of Bridge No. 30 Over Green Mill Run on 14`° Street
Dear Ms. Harris:
We expressr many of our concerns at the Citizens' Informational Workshop held January 28, 2002, at
C. M. Eppe! addle School in Greenville, N.C. To reiterate concerns expressed early on, enclosed is a
copy of a Ju,y 21, 2000 letter from me to Mr. William Gillmore in which we address several issues. We
feel these concer=ts were and are still legitimate. In addition to the July 21 letter, we have the following
comments:
1. Flooding of the section of 14'b Street at Station 14+50 occurs on average six rimes per year. With the
volume of traffic that currently uses this road, minimizing the frequency of flooding as part of this
project is imperative. The property adjacent to and upstream of the roadway is approximately 18"
higher than the roadway. It appears that the roadway could be raised 6" - 18" without affecting the
surrounding properties in a negative manner. In addition, the drainage system within 14m Street at
this location is poorly designed and with minor revisions could result in significant improvements in
the flooding circumstances. We are requesting that a detailed study be completed in conjunction with
this project to review the impact of elevating the roadway centerline and modifying the roadway
drainage system. Improvements should be made to minimize the flooding in this area as part of the
bridge replacement project.
2. Although the City is not opposing the closing of 14'` Street for a 9 month period, we wanted to ensure
that you had considered the following:
a. Students attending classes at East Carolina University use this roadway due to the student housing
located on the western side of the bridge. Additionally, employees of East Carolina University
park their vehicles and walk to the power plant across the existing bridge to work on a daily basis.
If the pedestrian count is high enough, a temporary pedestrian bridge may be a warranted.
b. Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium traffic uses this section of 14'h Street dunng events at the stadium. The
capacity of the stadium is 47,700.
c. Fire. rescue, and police personnel have indicated that they can adapt, but that an extended road
closure will be inconvenient.
Ms. Stacy B. Harris, PE
Page 2
February 5, 2002
d. We would also encourage utilizing construction methods that would limit the length of time that
14'h Street is closed to traffic. If an incentive can be offered to the contractor for early
completion, this would benefit those that use this roadway.
e. Consider routing detour traffic through Elm Street and 10`s Street (map enclosed).
3. Our greenway will cross this bridge. The bridge should be widened to accommodate bike lanes
versus a "share the road" approach. At a minimum, this would require a 12' travel lane and a 4' bike
lane in each direction that could be striped when the greenway is constructed. Funding has been
reserved by NCDOT for this project.
4. Maintain sufficient width across the bridge to allow for sidewalks on each side. Handrails should he
installed with the initial bridge construction project for the protection of pedestrians that cross this
bridge.
5. This section of 14"' Street is proposed to be a 5-lane road as part of our thoroughfare plan. The bride:
should be constructed in such a manner that the proposed bridge can be widened when necessary
without disrupting traffic on 14"' Street.
6. The City received information concerning the workshop approximately 1 week in advance. Please
provide more lead-time, preferably 4 weeks, prior to any future public meetings on this or other
projects in the Greenville area. We would be delighted to assist in selecting meeting sites if you need
assistance.
7. Coordinate intersection improvements at Charles Blvd. and 10 Street with local Division Office (see
attached schematic). Improvements at this intersection would help facilitate traffic flow,dunn.u peak
periods.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have questions, please call on me at
252-329-4520 or Scott Stevens at 252-329-3525.
Sincerely,
T. N. Tysinger, J ., PE
Director of Public Works
Attachments
Pc: C.E. Lassiter, PE, NCDOT Division Engineer
Marvin, Davis, City Manager
Scott Stevens, PE, City Engineer
William B. Kerr, PE, Engineer III
Stephen J. Yetman. PE, Traffic Engineer
.. .. - ri- ...-' ..n.• ?'r'- r ___' ... .. '" .. _?? ?' .- e- ?a....=JCV...7-.FV VIY7

r
Z
PJ

M a
M
O?
O
Qy
?
o
.!J $ rp
Q2
y
`

4/ co N
OOD
/
?
J Og

Am

1S h
L
?' gUl pZpVE RO
.(41
ti 3 !.f CHARLES
W RY LN
Z
f. .`
~ RE
u? w
2 w
W N370
LU = W ( 0
W
co
W
W
W

O W

W

N
w
W w 1%
- w
o
z
O ? ? 0
?aN¢
L
Y
LL
O RW ? J y
; ??o ?

. 10
S?
m
Cn
W
J
Q
Z
U

VV J /?
o , 4t
CZF
4