20041320 Ver 1_Complete File_20040806

0
%-51A
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTA
January 27, 2003
Memorandum to: Participants
From: John Wadsworth, PE
Pamela Williams
!.'?; rE,
LY
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge
No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County,
B-3684
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
A NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting was held on January 22, 2003, at 1:00 p.m. in the
Transportation Building Board Room. This meeting was held to reach a concurrence on the
above subject project's Concurrence Point 3-Alternative Selection and Concurrence Point 4A-
Avoidance and Minimization. The informational package for the meeting was mailed to the
Merger Team members four weeks prior to the meeting for their review.
Participants at the meeting for B-3684:
Mike Bell -team member
Ron Lucas - team member
Gary Jordan- team member
Travis Wilson- team member
John Hennessy - team member
Chris Militscher-team member
Sarah McBride - team member
Ed Eatmon- team member
John Wadsworth- team member
Beth Barnes
Neil Lassiter
Greg Thorpe
Gail Grimes
Stacy Harris
Mary Pope Furr
Michael Turchy
Cathy Houser
Robert Stroup
Dan Shuller
Marshall Clawson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
US Army Corps of Engineers
FHWA
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Wildlife Resource Service
NC Division of Water Quality
EPA
DCR-SHPO
NCDOT-Division 2
NCDOT-PDEA
NC Division of Water Quality
NCDOT-Division 2
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Hydraulics
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WININ. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
N 3 0 2005 I?
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
John Pilipchuk
Njoroge Wainana
Madonna Rorie
Omar Azizi
Pam Williams
Tommy Register
NCDOT-Geotechnical
NCDOT-Geotechnical
NCDOT-Structure Design
NCDOT-Structure Design
BHME
BHME
Merger Team members not present were Sean McKenna, NC Department of Marine Fisheries,
and Ron Sechler, National Marines Fisheries.
John Wadsworth gave a brief history of the project; that several alternatives (13) had been
considered and Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were selected to be studied in further detail and
presented at the workshop in May 2002. The three build alternatives were described by Pam
Williams and Table 1 (a comparison of potential impacts) on page 4 of the handout was
reviewed. The following issues were discussed for Concurrence Point 3:
? All alternatives presented will require temporary work bridges and/or barges for
construction of the new structure. The work bridge will be approximately 30 feet wide.
The location of the temporary work bridge should be located between the existing road and
proposed bridge if practical, if not the permit should state why.
? Base on preliminary geotechnical, piles will be used on land and drilled piers in the river.
? ' The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Operations Branch, maintains a navigational canal
upstream of Bridge No. 129. A 40-foot vertical navigational clearance and a 60-foot
horizontal clearance have been requested by the US Coast Guard (USCG).
? Girders are required for all build alternatives due to the vertical curves required to provide
the 40-foot horizontal clearance. Top down construction is not considered feasible because
of the girder structure.
? The impacts presented in Table 1 are for wetlands taken by embankment only.
? The area under the proposed bridge needs to be shown as permanent impacts and the area
under the temporary work bridge as temporary impacts. The impacts will be calculated
based on the width and length of the bridges. This is separate from impacts associated
with embankment.
? Alternative 2 and 3 will displace one resident and one business (Seine Beach). Alternative 4
will displace two residences and one business. Alternative 2 will also displace two water
wells.
? The recreational area (Seine Beach) northwest of the Bridge No. 129 is privately owned.
? The Division looked into providing another entrance to Seine Beach but discovered the old
road was located along the river and within the buffer zone. This would require clearing of
the old road bed in the Grimesland Mitigation Site. To provide access to Seine Beach would
impact the mitigation site therefore, this alternative was eliminated.
? COE requested an archeological survey to be prepared on the preferred alternative.
? Bridge No. 129 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and will be offered for
reuse in accordance with NCDOT's Historic Bridge Relocation and Reuse Program. The
proposed bridge will have a 40 foot clearance and the existing bridge could be floated up or
down stream for relocation.
? Alternative 4 was eliminated from consideration because it will split (fragment) the
Grimesland Mitigation Site.
? Alternative 3 has a spiral on the southern end of the bridge.
? Alternative 2 does not have a spiral; therefore, Alternative 2 is preferred by the Division,
Structures Design Unit and Hydraulic Design Unit due to the ease of design and
construction.
? It was discussed that if Mr. Gray's septic field was taken by Alternative 2, there may be
other options to provide a septic system and thus avoid a total displacement. This will be
determined during the right-of-way stage. Mr. Gray, the property owner, sent several
letters to NCDOT opposing Alternative 2 which will impact his septic field.
? John Wadsworth recommended Alternative 2 as preferred.
? Alternative 2 impacts more wetlands than Alternative 3 and 4, but it returns a net positive
amount of wetlands.
The Merger Team concurred with Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the
replacement of Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 127 and signed Concurrence Point 3.
(Attached).
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1940 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and roadway embankment
will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business and one residence will be relocated.
******************************************************************
The following issues were discussed concerning Concurrence Point No. 4 - Avoidance and
Minimization
• The project area is with in the nursery habitat and the in-stream moratorium will be
from February 15 to September 30 due to anadromous fish
• The 1996 Manatee Guidelines will be included in point 4
• NCDOT should receive enhancement and restoration credits due to removal of the
existing roadbed between Bridge No. 129 and 127.
• If the work bridge is not located between the existing roadway and proposed bridge
then an explanation will be required in the permit to DWQ.
The Merger Team concurred with the avoidance and minimization and signed
Concurrence Point 4A (attached).
These minutes are the writers'interpretations of the events and discussions, which took place
during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing
within seven (7) days.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Wadsworth at [phone],
ext. 209.
CC: Sean McKenna, DMF
Ron Sechler, NMF
David Chang, PE, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Bill Brazier, USCG
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 - Alternative Selection
Project No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River and Bridge No.
127 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River Overflow
County: Pitt
Alternative recommended:
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on a new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single structure
approximately 1, 940 feet (591 meters) in length. The proposed structure will provide a 30 foot (9.0
meters) clear roadway width allowing for 2-12 foot (3.6 meters) with a three foot (0.9 meter) horizontal
clearance on each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meters) travel way with
eight-foot shoulders including two-foot paved. Navigational clearances over the Tar River will be 40-foot
(12 meters) vertically and 60 foot (18 meters) horizontally. Design speed for Alternative 2 will be 60 mph
(100 km/h). During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structures. After
traffic is placed on the new facility, the existing bridges and approaches will be removed and restored to
wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands. Alternative 2 is
shown in Figure 2 of the Merger Team meeting handout dated December 20, 2002 and is incorporated
into this Concurrence Form by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of January 22, 2003 with the selection of Alternative
2, as noted above, as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for
TIP No. B-3684.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation,
Division 2
N. C. Department of Transportation
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Proiect NoJTIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River and
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River Overflow in Pitt
County
Recommended Alternate: Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on a new alignment west of the
existing bridge with a single structure approximately 1, 940 feet (591 meters) in length. The
proposed structure will provide a 30 foot (9.0 meters) clear roadway width allowing for 2-12 foot
(3.6 meters) with a three foot (0.9 meter) horizontal clearance on each side. The approach
roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meters) travel way with eight-foot shoulders including
two-foot paved. Navigational clearances over the Tar River will be 40-foot (12 meters) vertically
and 60 foot (18 meters) horizontally. Design speed for Alternative 2 will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structures. After
traffic is placed on the new facility, the existing bridges and approaches will be removed and
restored to wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
Avoidance and Minimization:
The existing bridges of 512 feet (156 meters) and 359 feet (109 meters) will be replaced with a
single structure on new alignment west of the existing bridges approximately 1,940 feet (591.3
meters) in length.
2. The portion of SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) maintained by NCDOT will be removed and
restored to wetlands. All portions of the existing embankment for SR 1565 adjacent to wetlands
(north side of Tar River) and not utilized in the new facility will be removed and the area restored
to wetlands or buffer as appropriate. The buffer area on the south side of the Tar River will be
restored by plantings after removal of the existing river bridge.
3. Work bridges will be utilized in the construction of the new structure across wetlands. To the
extent practicable, work bridges will be located between the new bridge and the existing roadway
embankment to minimize disturbance of the adjacent wetlands. Construction in open water will
be from work bridges or barges.
4. The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The new bridge will completely span the riparian buffers
[50 feet (15 meters)] on either side of the Tar River.
5. To avoid and/or minimize impacts to anadromous fish, the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage" will be followed including an in-stream construction moratorium of
February 15 to September 30.
The 1996 USFWS Manatee Guidelines for construction activities in aquatic areas will be utilized
to the maximum extent practicable.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of January 22, 2003 with the "avoidance and
minimization of the alternative recommended in the NEPA document" as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation
N. C. Department of Transportation (Div. 2)
Aif,
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 29, 2003
UJ f r' -
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director f l j
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch J ?
AN 3 02003 G' t
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
WMANI)S
NC 27699-1548 WA GROUP"J
Q.!+urv sFCr?or?
Re: Onslow County, proposed replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509, TIP
Project No. B-3358.
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) hereby acknowledges the N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) letter dated January 29, 2003 requesting that the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) permit application to replace Bridge No. 91 on the existing alignment with a new bridge while
maintaining traffic on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing bridge be placed in abeyance while
you pursue the following items of additional information that are needed for DCM to complete its review:
The wetland mitigation plan proposed within the original CAMA permit application was Clayhill Farms
mitigation bank. However, at this time, NCDOT proposes to use on-site preservation. NCDOT is
currently surveying the area to be placed in a conservation easement. A map of the preservation area and
a mitigation plan are expected to be available by the end of February.
Based on your request, processing of your application will be terminated until such time as a written
request is received in this office requesting a resumption of application processing. As required by
NCAC T15A:07J.0204(d), during the pendency of any termination of processing, the permit processing
period will not run. Upon receiving a written request to reinitiate processing, the Division of Coastal
Management will resume processing of the application at the point where it was terminated. Please
include a map of the preservation area and a revised mitigation plan with your written request to reinitiate
processing of the permit application.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] x238 or via e-mail at [e-mail] if
you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Cathy Britt ham
Transportation Project Coordinator
cc: Lynn Smith, NCDOT
Bill Arrington, DCM
John Hennessy, DWQ
Dave Timpy, USACE
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled \ 10% Post consumer Paper
.,. SUI[ a?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 27, 2002
Memorandum to:
From:
Subject:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mike Bell
John Hennessy
Tom McCartney
David Cox
Ron Sechler
Ron Lucas
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Chris Mitscher
Sara Winslow
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Division of Water Quality
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Water Resources Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service
FHWA
SHPO
EPA
NC Department of Marine Fisheries

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Stacy Harris, PE
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County, TIP No. B-3684
Please find attached one (1) combined "Purpose and Need Statement" and "Preliminary Build
Alternative" report for the referenced project for your review.
A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting for the referenced project has been scheduled for March 27,
2002, at 3:00 p.m. in the NCDOT Board Room in the Highway Building. Please plan to attend
this meeting or have a representative present.
Please call me at [phone] Extension 264 or email at [e-mail] if you
have any questions.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEDSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
AND
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE REPORT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and
Bridge No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565
Pitt County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project No. 8.2221101
TIP Project No. B-3684
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
And
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperating Agency
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared By
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
February 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROPOSED ACTION
III. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
VI. ALTERNATIVES IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPARISON
VII. TRAFFIC ANALYSES
VIII. HABITAT PRESENT
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 AERIAL OF PROJECT SITE AND ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 3 BRIDGE NO. 129 PICTURES
FIGURE 3A BRIDGE NO. 127 PICTURES
FIGURE 4 ROADWAY AND BRIDGE TYPICAL
FIGURE 5 PAMLICO & TAR RIVERS-CORPS OF ENGINEERING
FIGURE 5A CHANNELS AT WASHINGTON-CORPS OF ENGINEERING
TABLES
TABLE 1.1 IMPACTS COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 1.2 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
1
u
I. INTRODUCTION
A planning, environmental and engineering study is being conducted for the proposed action in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended. An environmental document will be prepared that discloses relevant
information concerning the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action. This information will be used by the Federal Highway Administration, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and our Federal, State and environmental private partners in
selecting the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative" (LEDPA) for the action.
The Purpose and Need Statement and the Preliminary Build Alternatives Report, phases one
and two, have been combined for this project and will be included in the environmental
document.
II. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is to replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127 over
the Tar River overflow on SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge Road) in Pitt County. The proposed
bridge replacement is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program as Project No. B-3684.
III. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 127 have
sufficiency ratings of 47.6 and 28.2 respectively, out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The
bridges are considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of the
inadequate structures will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
The existing swing bridge (Bridge No. 129) over the Tar River and the overflow bridge (Bridge
No. 127) were built in 1954 and have an estimated remaining life of approximately 10 years and
2 years, respectively. Structural failure of the either bridge would render SR 1565
impassable. In the event that either existing bridge is closed, local traffic desiring to cross the
Tar River would have to use the existing swing bridge in Washington, an approximate 17.9 mile
(28.8 kilometer) detour or routed to Greenville on US 264A bridge, approximately a 20 mile
(32.2 kilometer) detour.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action is located in Pitt County, North Carolina, at the SR 1565 crossing of the Tar
River, Figure 1. SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge Road) is functionally classified as a rural major
collector. Land use in the project vicinity is predominantly woodlands and wetlands north of the
Tar River and light residential south of the Tar River. There is one business located in the
northwest quadrant of Bridge No. 129. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) intersects SR 1565
approximately 480 feet north of Bridge No. 129 and 470 feet south of Bridge No. 127.
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
2
The Grimesland Wetland Mitigation Site is located north of the intersection of SR 1566 and SR
1565 in the project area, Figure 2. Over a span of several years, NCDOT propose to convert
the entire 550-acre Grimesland site to a regional mitigation site. In the project area, the
mitigation site is for wetland preservation of the existing riparian ecosystem and cypress-gum
swamp.
Bridge No. 129 is 359 feet (109.4
meters) in length, consisting of seven
spans with the maximum span at
1_ A ?
approximately 80 feet (25 meters).
The main span is a steel deck on a
swing thru-truss. The steel truss
swing bridge existing vertical clearance
over SR 1565 is 14 feet (4.3 meters).
The clear roadway width is 20.1 feet
(6.1 meters), providing two nine-foot
(2.7 meter) travel lanes with one-foot
(0.3-meter) shoulders. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced
concrete floor on steel I-beams. The
substructure is a timber abutment
design. The posted weight limit is 28
tons (28.4 metric tons) for single
vehicles (SV) and 34 tons (34.5 metric
tons) for truck-tractors semi-trailers
(TTST). This swing bridge is normally opened for routine monthly maintenance. When the
swing bridge is closed, the navigational clearances are 14 feet (4.2 meter) vertically and 60 feet
(18.3 meter) horizontally.
Bridge operations data for the existing Grimesland swing bridge is shown below.
Year Openings
1996 6
'
1997 0
1998 3
1999 0
I
2000 0
2001 3
The Corps of Engineers-Operations Branch maintains a navigational channel at the project site,
' Figures 5 and 5A. The Corps yearly snagging operation requires a 40 foot (12 meter) clearance
for the snagging vessel.
Purpose and Need Statement
' Preliminary Alternatives Report
3

I

I
Bridge No. 127 is 512 feet (156
meters) in length, which consist of 30
spans with the maximum sp an at
approximately 18 feet (5.5 me ters).
The clear roadway width is 20. 1 feet
(6.1 meters) providing two nin e-foot
(2.7 meter) travel lanes with on e-foot
(0.3 meter) shoulders. The
superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete floor on timber joists . The
substructure is a timber abu tment
design. The posted weight limit is 18
tons (18.3 metric tons) for SV a nd 26
tons (26.4 metric tons) for TTST.
Crown of road height to streambed is
approximately 12 feet (3.6 mete r).

The existing Bridge No. 129 and approaches on SR 1565 are tangent with a four-degree curve
t approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) from the south end of the structure. SR 1565 consists of
two nine-foot (2.7 meters) lanes with eight-foot (2.4 meters) shoulders. The existing bridge
No. 127 and approaches on SR 1565 are tangent.
' The current estimated 2002 average daily traffic volume is 2700 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 3900 vpd by the design year 2025. The
' volumes include one percent TTST and two percent SV.
The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) [90 kilometers per hour (kmh)].
t Approximately 1300 feet (396 meters) south of Bridge No. 129 are three 48-inch (1200
millimeter) concrete cross drain pipes in approximately 20 feet (6 meters) of embankment.
' There were three accidents reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the three-year period of
January 1, 1996 to November 30, 1999. None were fatal.
' SR 1565 is not part of a designated bicycle route and there are no indications that an unusual
number of bicyclists are using this route.
' There are aerial power lines on the north and south sides of SR 1565 but do not cross the Tar
River. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
' No Pitt County school busses cross these bridges.
I
1
Purpose and Need Statement
' Preliminary Alternatives Report
4

7
V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meter) travel-way providing for
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with eight-foot (2.4 meter) grassed shoulders, Figure 4.
The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
The proposed navigational clearances are 40-foot (12 meters) vertically and 60-foot (18-meter)
horizontally. An individual permit will be required from the USCG.
The proposed structures will provide a 30-foot (9.0 meters) clear roadway width, allowing for
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with three-foot (0.9 meter) shoulders, Figure 4.
Four (4) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternative 1 replaces the bridges at the existing location with a single structure
approximately 1950 feet in length and a 40-foot navigational clearance. During construction,
traffic will be maintained off-site. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to
wetlands. One business will require relocating.
Alternative 1 detour route through Washington along NC 33, US 17, and US 264 is
approximately 17.9 miles (28.8 kilometers) in length. A road user analysis was performed
based on 2800 vehicles per day for construction year 2003 and an average of 17.9 miles (28.8
kilometers) of indirect travel. The cost of additional travel will be approximately $5.9 million
dollars annually. The construction period is anticipated to take approximately two years.
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1940 feet in length and a 40-foot navigational clearance. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road)
1 will be removed and restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the
existing bridges and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business
will require relocating.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1900 feet in length and a 40-foot navigational clearance. During
1 construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road)
will be removed and restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the
existing bridges and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1)
resident and one (1) business will require relocating.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new alignment with a single structure approximately
2320 feet in length and a 40-foot navigational clearance. The new alignment will begin
approximately 3000 feet south of Bridge No. 129 and routed along SR 1589 (Pokerhouse Road),
it will cross the Tar River at a 106 degree skew and tie back into SR 1565 approximately 475
feet north of Bridge No. 127. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing
structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands. After traffic
is routed on to the new structure and roadway, the existing bridges and approach roadway will
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
5
be removed and restored to wetlands. Two (2) residents and one (1) business will require
relocating.
Additional alternatives considered:
e An alternative to replace the two bridges with one bridge approximately 1075 feet (328
meters) was not considered any further due to the impacts to the floodplain and the
blocking of the existing overflow area.
e An alternative to replace the two bridges on new alignment west with a lift span bridge over
the Tar River, maintain SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) and a second bridge over the overflow
was considered. This alternative was considered impractical based on the projected life of
the proposed lift span structure, the negative impacts it will have on the traffic to remove
the span for vessels, and the additional cost associated with the equipment to remove the
span.
VI. ALTERNATIVES IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPARISON
The four preliminary Build Alternatives evaluated based upon the following criteria:
e Satisfies the purpose of and need for the project and is consistent with local land use
and transportation planning; and
e Minimizes community, socioeconomic, and/or environmental impacts.
The purpose of the evaluation is to be established "Build" alternatives for which a detailed study
will be performed, with the ultimate goal being the selection of a "Preferred Alternative." The
results of the detailed study will be set forth in an Environmental Assessment (EA). All of the
Preliminary Build Alternatives under consideration involve social, economic, and/or
environmental impacts. Social impacts include relocations, community continuity, and disruption
of services. Economic impacts include monetary commitments for right-of-way, utilities, and
construction. Environmental impacts include habitat conversion, wetland impacts, stream
crossings, and flood plan encroachment.
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
6

0 Table 1.1 presents a comparison of potential impacts and design features for each alternative.
Table 1.1 Impacts Comparison of
Preliminary Alternatives
T.I.P. No. 3684 Alternatives Alternative
1 Alternative
2 Alternative
3 Alternative
4
Length of project 4040 (1231) 4600 (1402) 4700 (1433) 5950
(1813)
Length of Bridge over River 255(78) 258(79) 250(76) 250(76)
Length of Bridge over Wetlands 1689 (515) 1680 (512) 1646 (502) 2115 (645)
Total Length of Bridge 1944 (593) 1938 (590) 1896 (578) 2365 (721)
Width of Bridge 30(9.2) 30(9.2) 30(9.2) 30(9.2)
Vertical Clearance over Main Channel 40 (12.2) 40 (12.2) 40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)
Distance upstream or downstream from
existing Bridge No. 129 (centerline to
centerline
0.0 (0.0)
125(38)
105(32)
925 282)
Relocations:
? Residential (No.)
? Business (No.) 0
1 0
1 1
1 2
1
Total Relocations (No.) 1 1 2 3
Wetlands: acres (hectares)
? Wetlands not in Mit. Site. 0.41 (0.17) 0.41 (0.17) 0.41 (0.17) 0.0 (0.0)
? Wetlands (Grimesland Mit. Site) 0.64 (0.26) 0.73 (0.30) 0.63 (0.26) 0.69 (0.28)
Total Wetlands 1.05 (0.43) 1.13 (0.46) 1.03 (0.42) 0.69 (0.28)
Restoration of wetlands 2.95(l.19) 3.14(l.27) 3.10(l.26) 3.33(l.35)
Balance 1.90 (0.76) 2.01 (0.81) 2.07 (0.84) 2.64(l.07)

Construction Cost ($ millions)* 14.7 14.5 14.5 15.4

Note: * Right of way and utility cost are n ncluded.
191 i1j
VII. TRAFFIC ANALYSES
A traffic analysis for each of the preliminary build alternatives was preformed to determine the
level of service (LOS) in design year 2025. The 2025 LOS for all build alternatives are B.
VIII. HABITAT PRESENT
Potential habitat is present in the project area for four federally protected species:
Federally Protected Species Biological Conclusion
Tar Spinymussel No Effect
Bald Eagle No Effect
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker No Effect
West Indian Manatee Not Likely to Adversely Effect
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
7
I IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
FWS: DWO: COE-Re ulq atory Branch: no project specific comment. COE requested to be invited
to the workshop.
COE-Operations Branch: Requested a 40-foot clearance for navigational clearance for snagging
operation.
NCDENR-Biologist Supervisor: Requests an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
June 30. According to the Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage, the spring
migration period for anadromous fish is considered to fall between the dates of February 15 and
fi June 30.
WRC: In-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
NMFS: "No construction or demolition activities shall be allowed in the water between February
15 and June 1 of any year. Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses."
US Coast Guard: Bridge No. 129 will require an individual Coast Guard Permit.
Clearance/access will have to be provided for the COE snagging operation. The USCG
requested to be invited to the workshop.
Pitt County School: no school buses cross the bridges
SHPO: Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C
for engineering technology as one of only four Warren thru trusses functioning as swing-spans
in North Carolina.
Town of Grimesland: Requested not to close the road due to terrorist attaches and threat of
chemical warfare and as listed below:
1. If the bridge is closed down for a period of two years, or two weeks, it would present a
potential hazard for our residents living on both sides of the Tar River.
2. There is a public school, G. R. Whitfield School, in that area that would be isolated if
there was an accident involving the train, especially a chemical spill. The children and
teachers would not have a way toe evacuate.
3. It would hinder our law enforcement and rescue service from reaching citizens of Pitt
County on the North side of the river.
4. Would hinder both Pitt and Beaufort County residents from going to and from work.
5. Economically, it would be a tremendous hardship on the town and the surrounding area.
Purpose and Need Statement
Preliminary Alternatives Report
8
TABLE 1.2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND PLANT CONTNIUNITIES

Bridge No. 3684 Alternate Alternate Alternate Alternate
Alternates 1 2 3 4
Man-Dominated
Community 3.75(l.52) 4.67(l.89) 4.62(l.87) 8.52 (3.45)
acres (ha)
(Total) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
(Wet)
Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest 0.42 (0.17) 0.70 (0.28) 0.38 (0.15) 2.26 (0.92)
(Coastal Plain Subtype)
acres (ha) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
(Total)
(Wet)
Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.52 (0.21) 0.66 (0.27) 0.84 (0.34) 0.61 (0.25)
(Brownwater Subtype)
acres (ha) 0.31 (0.13) 0.30 (0.12) 0.44 (0.18) 0.46 (0.19)
(Total)
(Wet)
Cypress Gum Swamp
(Brownwater Subtype) 0.41 (0.17) 0.44 (0.18) 0.31 (0.13) 0.24 (0.10)
acres (ha)
(Total) 0.32 (0.13) 0.43 (0.17) 0.19 (0.08) 0.24 (0.10)
(Wet)
Planted Pine Stand
acres (ha) 0.18 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.45 (0.18) 0.00 (0.00)
(Total) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
(Wet)
Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp 0.41 (0.17) 0.40 (0.16) 0.41 (0.17) 0.00 (0.00)
(Blackwater Subtype)

acres (ha) 0.41 (0.17) 0.40 (0.16) 0.40 (0.16) 0.00 (0.00)
(Total)
(Wet)
Total Wetland Impacts 1.05 (0.43) 1.13 (0.46) 1.03 (0.42) 0.69 (0.28)
acres (ha)
Impacts to Mitigation 0.64 (0.26) 0.73 (0.30) 0.63 (0.26) 0.69 (0.28)
Site Wetlands
acres (ha)
Total Wetlands 2.95(l.19) 3.14(l.27) 3.10(l.26) 3.33(l.35)
Restored
NOTE:
• Bold Black denotes total community impacts
• Bold Blue denotes wetland impacts within that community

CI
L.'
L
V-

L'
L-
1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
SCALE
ix ujEj 11 U"r?l
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
... ' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCII
PITT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO.129 OVER THE TAR RIVER
AND NO. 127 ON SR 1565
OVER THE TAR RIVER OVERFLOW
e
i
i
i
Replacement of Bridge
No. 129 on SR 1565
Over the Tar River
Pitt Countv
y~
O 2
ms s
74T ?1r
""Of TR ANgQO
FIGURE 3
M
a
sic .-.. A
SIDE
NORTH
Replace ment of
Brid ge
No. 127 on SR 1565
Over the Tar River
Over flow
Pitt Co
- unty
rwl -*?-

IR1N C,'?OG7
FIGURE 3A
J
Q
Z O
U O
.. O
00
O U

co

co

co

W
O O O W
J J J
L
L LL)
LL. I)
C 7
r
Q O
r- O
co O
m
iz
1l O E
to O
M
r ?
U t--?
LL
N N M N -- to to Y
M

W ?
QQ I I
O
O
> J _
N . co
z
O
CD Y
LL CD
U O
W

Q > N
L L)
J
O R
N
N
U
Q

f-
O
O U LL

W

I W
W
CL W
W
CL cr
O
-l-.) to
O
r
W
0 Y
=

I- >
Z
O
O
O
O
O
N
O N

Z N

0
m
Q
cr
cr
0
W
0

W `--?
I- N
H
° N
F-
° N
f-
°
Q
o CD
N V)
~
o W
V)
0 J
cr
:3
Z
X
Z
U
W Q a a )
- a r
O <}
f ?
N N N
W
N Z
f
C?
v - ?O 13:
U
M Qza:
L+i C)
Q
za>
CC) -
LLJ
0 Q

¢ Z °. I

J

in

z
O
0 f`
- N U a U
.-.
H
r W U
co W
O N
z 0 cr of W
(.0

In W 3 co

m oI
U
D

!y
L.L L M co
co
l. w'_

a -
O Z

o
N J

Q
iv ? a U
W

f-
M
N
O
O
N
M
J
Z O ?
Q
ti Z
-0
m tr D

m
OU w
Lt_
-2001 1537 USACE WILMINGTON P.03i04
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HALIFAX CO.
-7-
NA311 t4 ?,? •.
J '
r ..
r UPSTREAM OMIT
zOFLFmERAL PROJECT
CT
MOUNT TAF
LOCCCOYeE C0.
I WILSON C4
V
YL
A % C.
EETMEL
9
p ?tOML
r
t
'A
GREENVILLE
arCCrs co
LCMOIN CO.
M LK
3 I va rrlr A.
.'TYPICAL SECTION
Mllselo is measured ooata lha north Of Pamllsa Rirv.
U. S. AKMT

r.t. oa `
TURNINQ A31 N
Y1 a[AYf011T CO.
C
?
t ? WASHINGTON ?y~
V
f
/
Ta anYa Nr TI aA.
=.CL11
~ ?0 YL
LCI.Aa'lal
Mar 0.a1Ca t .?

r }
e
?
fi
tr?a1 rrT. rA.
t'
oa e?.la' 30Y:.
•
•
It IT
Rr. ~.
?
ac A
wau
,

?

,/, ' n?rA as sm.
ar /7 C1. 71•Ma NYL
Yf
; Aa.r CCoaco
.

CRAVEN C6
PAMLICO a TAR RIVERS,
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE Of MHFS
0 3 00 Is to
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON. N.C.
MAP REVISEO JUNE 1966
FIGURE 5
OQT-11-2001 1555
CORPS OF
O
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
a`
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
USACE WILMINGTON
?. cay
c,=
T.OR
R/VER
? .ww r...wwa
r. d r..e

.Jf, .
1k
??syi
'Ncro
ti
O

P. 04/04
U.S. ARM`
21

• ..iuiutfwwi
ww.? Kr •
? tiR?.?. f..'M) • Y \ 1
„!< 0 E.A.U F 0 R 7 C O;U!N T Y
%
.I.. ,! "4• ? ?? ?(, ?I 'VDO?Y.fhr.ii. CREEK J.. (, ? \\\\
4 A \
ell\
M.L W.
TYPICAL SECTION
• .t
PAMLICO Q TAR RIVERS. N. C.
CHANNELS AT WASHINGTON
Uvr-Z 5A
SCALE OF FEET
low 0 1000 X00
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C•
MAP REVISED JUNE ISGO y?_,101= CA
. STN[ o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Memorandum to:
December 20, 2002
Mike Bell US Army Corps of Engineers
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
David Cox NC Water Resources Commission
Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries Service
Ron Lucas FHWA _a .. _.
-
Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO
..)
Chris Mitscher EPA
Sean McKenna NC Department of Marine Fish4i i ?1._! '
Tim Ware Rural Planning
From: Stacy Harris, PE
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County, TIP No. B-3684
MERGER TEAM MEETING
Please find attached one (1) combined Concurrence Point 3 and 4A package for the referenced
project for your review.
A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting for the referenced project has been scheduled for
January 22, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. in the NCDOT Board Room in the Highway Building. Please plan
to attend this meeting or have a representative present.
Please call me at [phone] Extension 264 or email at [e-mail] if you
have any questions.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
i
i
i
CONCURRENCE POINT 3-SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE
And
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A-AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and
Bridge No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565
Pitt County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project No. 8.2221101
TIP Project No. B-3684
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
And
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coo rating Agee
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
December 20, 2002
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROPOSED ACTION
III. ALTERNATIVES IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPARISON
IV. ENDANGERED SPECIES
V. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
VI. MERGER TEAM MEETING NO. 1 MEETING MINUTES
VII. CONCURRENCE POINT 1 AND CONCURRENCE POINT 2
VIII. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES,
HANDOUT & NOTICE
IX. FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 AERIAL OF PRO]ECT,• SITE AND ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 3 BRIDGE NO. 129 PICTURES
FIGURE 3A BRIDGE NO. 127 PICTURES
FIGURE 4 ROADWAY AND BRIDGE TYPICAL
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
1

I I. INTRODUCTION
A planning, environmental and engineering study is being conducted for the proposed action in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended. An environmental document will be prepared that discloses relevant
information concerning the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action. This information will be used by the Federal Highway Administration, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and our Federal, State and environmental private partners in
selecting the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative" (LEDPA) for the action.
The Purpose and Need Statement and the Preliminary Build Alternatives Report, Concurrence
Point 1 and Concurrence Point 2, have been completed for this project and will be included in
the environmental document.
II. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is to replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127 over
the Tar River overflow on SR 1565 (Grimesland Bridge Road) in Pitt County. The proposed
bridge replacements are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) as Project No B-3684 and the Federal-
Aid Bridge Replacement Program as Project BRSTP-1565(4).
III. ALTERNATIVES IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPARISON
The three preliminary Build Alternatives were evaluated based upon the following criteria:
? Satisfies the purpose of and need for the project and is consistent with local land use
and transportation planning; and
? Minimizes community, socioeconomic, and/or environmental impacts.
Three (3) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge and displayed at the
Citizens Informational Workshop are described below.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meter) travel-way providing for
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with eight-foot (2.4 meter) grassed shoulders, Figure 4.
The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
The proposed navigational clearances are 40-foot (12 meters) vertically and 60-foot (18-meter)
horizontally. An individual permit will be required from the United States Coast Guard.
The proposed structure will provide a 30-foot (9.0 meters) clear roadway width, allowing for
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with three-foot (0.9 meter) shoulders, Figure 4.
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with
a single structure approximately 1940 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and
restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
2
0
and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and
one (1) business will require relocating.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridge with
a single structure approximately 1900 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and
restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges
and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and
one (1) business will require relocating.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new alignment with a single structure
approximately 2320 feet in length. The new alignment will begin approximately 3000
feet south of Bridge No. 129 and routed along SR 1589 (Pokerhouse Road), it will cross
the Tar River at a 106 degree skew and tie back into SR 1565 approximately 475 feet
north of Bridge No. 127. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing
structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure and roadway, the existing bridges and
approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. Two (2) residents and
one (1) business will require relocating.
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held at the G. R. Whitfield Elementary School in
Grimesland on May 14, 2002. The meeting minutes 'are attached in Section VII. Approximately
175 workshop notices were mailed to the public and local officials in the project area and
upstream of the project. Approximately 35 citizens attended the workshop and 6 comment
sheets were received at the workshop and within one month following the workshop, see
below.
Comments within 1 Month
of Workshop Number
Preferred Alternative 2 1
Preferred Alternative 4 2
Opposed Alternative 4 2
Neutral 1
Total Comments Received
as of December 17, 2002 Number
Preferred Alternative 2 2
Preferred Alternative 3 2
Preferred Alternative 4 9
Opposed Alternative 4 3
Neutral 2
Total is
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
3

Almost all those who favored Alternative 4 stated that it was safer, but in fact the same curve
radius was used on all alternatives. Alternative 4 is the only alternative with two 1400 foot
ra curves on the bridge.
All of the Preliminary Build Alternatives under consideration involve social, economic, and/or
environmental impacts. Social impacts include relocation of residence and business. Economic
impacts include monetary commitments for right-of-way, utilities, and construction.
Environmental impacts include habitat conversion, wetland impacts, stream crossings, and flood
plain encroachment.
Table 1 is a comparison of potential impacts and design features for each alternative
Table 1 Impacts Comparison of
Preliminary Alternatives
T.I.P. No. 3684 Alternatives Alternative
2 Alternative
3 Alternative
4
Length of project 4600(1402) 4700(1433) 5950 (1813)
Length of Bridge over River 258(79) 250(76) 250(76)
Length of Bridge over Wetlands 1680 (512) 1646 (502) 2115 (645)
Total Length of Bridge 1938 (590) 1896 (578) 2365 (721)
Width of Bridge 30(9.2) 30(9.2) 30(9.2)
Vertical Clearance over Main Channel 40 (12.2) 40 (12.2) 40 (12.2)
Distance upstream or downstream
from existing Bridge No. 129
centerline to centerline
125(38)
105(32)
925 (282)
Relocations:
? Residential (No.)
? Business (No.) 1
1 1
1 2
1
Total Relocations (No.) 2 2 3
Wetlands: acres (hectares)
? Wetlands not in Mitigation Site* 0.41 (0.17) 0.41 (0.17) 0.0 (0.0)
? Wetlands (Grimesland Mitigation
Site 0.73 (0.30) 0.63 (0.26) 0.69 (0.28)
Total Wetlands 1.13 (0.46) 1.03 (0.42) 0.69 (0.28)
Restoration of wetlands 3.14(l.27) 3.10(l.26) 3.33(l.35)
Balance +2.01 (0.81) +2.07 (0.84) +2.64 (1.07)
Buffers: Fill in buffer None None None
Construction Cost ($ millions) 14.50 14.50 15.40
Right of Way Cost ($ millions) 0.80 0.82 1.10
Total Cost ($ millions) 15.30 15.32 16.50

Constructability/Design Issues
• Approach curve radii (feet) 1,340 south
12,000 north 1,340 south
12,000 north 1,400 south
1,400 north
• Curve/spiral on bridge None Spiral on south
approach Curves and
spirals

1
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
4
0
N. ENDANGERED SPECIES
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS reports four
federally protected species for Pitt County as of May 31, 2002 (Table 2).
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES IN PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Trichechus manatus
(West Indian Manatee) E
Picoides borealis E
(Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
T (PDL)
(Bald eagle)
Elliptio steinstansana E
(Tar spinymussel)
TABLE 2 NOTES:
E Endangered - species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T Threatened. A species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
PDL Proposed for Delisting.
Species: West Indian manatee
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967, June 2, 1970

The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal averaging 10 feet (3 meters) in length
and 1,000 pounds (453.6 kilograms) in weight. The body is flattened horizontally and rounded,
and is covered sparsely with hairs.
Manatees inhabit salt and fresh water areas throughout their range. They may be found in
habitats such as canals, rivers, estuarine areas, and saltwater bays. Manatees feed upon
aquatic vegetation and occasionally fish.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
It is possible that manatees could occur within the project area. No occurrences
have been recorded in the area by the NCNHP. The USFWS has developed
recommendations for construction activities in aquatic areas where the manatee is
likely to occur. Recommendations include construction during the period of
November through May, advising construction personnel of requirements if a
manatee is sighted within the project area, and contacting appropriate agencies if
the animal is found to be present. Although it cannot be concluded that the
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
5
manatee will not occur in the project area, if construction guidelines pertaining to
the above recommendations are followed, this project is not lilcely to adversely
affect the species.
Species: Red-cockaded woodpecker
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small bird, 7 to 8 inches (18 to 20 centimeters) in length,
with black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and large white cheek patch.
The male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye.
The preferred nesting habitat of this woodpecker is open stands of pines with a minimum age
of 60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus paiustris) are preferred for nesting, however other
mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be used. Typical nesting areas, or territories,
are pine stands of approximately 200 acres (81 hectares), however, nesting has been reported
in stands as small as 60 acres (24 hectares). Preferred foraging habitat is pine and pine-
hardwood stands of 80 to 125 acres (32 to 50 hectares) with a minimum age of 30 years and a
minimum diameter of 10 inches (25 centimeters). The red-cockaded woodpecker utilizes these
areas to forage for food sources such as ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, and caterpillars, as
well as seasonal wild fruit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is one pine stand within the study area. The trees are not old enough to
provide adequate nesting habitat for the woodpecker, and the stand is much smaller
than the ranges noted above for nesting and foraging preferences. NCNHP shows
no recorded occurrence of this species within one mile of the project area. This
project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker.
Species: Bald eagle
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67 (E), 7/12/95 (T)
The bald eagle is a large bird, 32 to 43 inches (80 to 109 centimeters) in length, with a
wingspan of more than 6 feet (2 meters). Adults are dark brown with a white head and tail,
and immatures are brown and irregularly marked with white until their fourth year.
Bald eagles typically nest in the top of the tallest living tree in an area with a clear view of open
water. Nest size may measure 6 feet (2 meters) across and up to 6 feet (2 meters) in depth.
The species may be seen around lakes and rivers throughout the inland portions of North
Carolina, as well as along the coast. A large portion of the eagle's diet often consists of fish,
but it also feeds on small mammals, reptiles, and other birds.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Tar River and nearby ponds would provide adequate foraging habitat for this
species, and that there are mature trees present that could provide nesting sites. In
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
6

addition, the Grimesland Mitigation Site report notes one sighting of an eagle
foraging along the Tar River in the study area. It was surveyed for eagle nests in
areas of potential impact, and did not note any occurrences. Although foraging and
nesting habitat is present in the project area for this species, the project is not
expected to eliminate or degrade habitat in the general area such that the species
would be negatively affected. It is recommended that the area be surveyed again
just prior to construction, to make sure that no eagles have begun to nest in an area
of potential impact.
Species: Tar spinymussel
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar spinymussel measures approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 centimeters) in length. The outer
shell surface of young specimens is orange-brown with greenish rays. Adults are darker colored
with inconspicuous rays. The inner shell color is yellow or pinkish at one end and bluish-white
at the other. Juveniles may have up to 12 spines, which they tend to lose as they mature.
This species lives in relatively silt-free uncompacted gravel or coarse sand in fast-flowing, well
oxygenated stream reaches. It feeds by siphoning and filtering small food particles that are
suspended in the water. The Tar spinymussel is.found in association with other mussels but it
is never very numerous. The known population of this species is estimated to contain 100 to
500 individuals. The Tar spinymussel is often located in the central channel of the river.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Preferred habitat for this species does not exist within the study area, and there are
no recorded occurrences of this species within the study area or vicinity. The NRTR
Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" has been agreed upon by Mr. Bruce Ellis of the
NCDOT and through his discussions, by Mr. Tim Savidge of the NCDOT. In addition,
Mr. Savidge noted in a memo to Ms. Stacy Harris on September 17, 2001, that he
visited the project site on September 12, 2001, and found no habitat present for this
species. Mr. Savidge commented that this stretch of the river was surveyed by Mr.
John Alderman of the NCWRC in the late 1980s, and no freshwater mussels were
found. This project will have no effect the Tar spinymussel.
Concurrence Point 3-Selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
7

0
V. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands or natural habitats will be accomplished
through special design, construction features, or other measures.
These include the following:
1. Provide one bridge to replace the existing two bridges.
2. Minimized skew at river crossing.
3. Temporary work bridge to construct the new bridge.
4. Lengthen bridge to span buffer zones.
5. Provide vertical clearance for snagging operation and existing horizontal clearance.
6. Provide longer spans to reduce number of piers in the Tar River.
7. Provide wetland restoration for approximately 3.1 acres, with wetland impact ratio of
1:3.
8. Provide habitat enhancement by re-contouring of approximately 1000 linear feet of
roadway embankment.
9. Provide habitat enhancement by removal of roadway embankment.
10. Landscape re-contoured area with natural plants.
11. Existing historic bridge will be put in the Historic Truss Bridge Relocation & Reuse
Program.
12. Realign roadway to maintain traffic on-site for local community.
Concurrence Point 3-selection of LEDPA
Concurrence Point 4 - Avoidance and Minimization
8
!!I.
MERGER TEAi?/li MEETING NO. I
MEETING MINUTES
CI
I
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 4, 2002
Memorandum to: Participants
From:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stacy Harris, PE
Pamela Williams
LYNDo TIPP=
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge
No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County,
B-3684
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting was held on March 27, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. in the Roadway
Design Conference Room, NCDOT Century Center Building A. This meeting was held to reach a
concurrence on the above subject project's Purpose and Need Statement (Concurrence Point 1)
and Preliminary Build Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2). The Purpose and Need / Preliminary
Build Alternatives Report were sent to the Merger Team members four weeks prior to the
meeting for their review.
Participants at the meeting for B-3684:

rF
Mike Bell -team member US Arm Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman - team member FHWA - representing Ron Lucas
Howard Hall- team member US Fish and Wildlife Service
David Cox- team member NC Wildlife Resource Service
John Hennessy - team member NC Division of Water Quality
Beth Barnes NC Division of Water Quality
Ron Sechler- team member National Marine Fisheries - b hone
Stacy Harris- team member NCDOT-PDEA
Ed Eatmon- team member NCDOT-Division 2
Mike Lindgren NCDOT-Design Services
John Pili chuk NCDOT-Geotechnical
Don Moore NCDOT-Geotechnical
Kirit Desai NCDOT-Structure Design
Omar Azizi NCDOT-Structure Design
Ma Pope Furr NCDOT-PDEA
Heather Fearnbach NCDOT-PDEA
Pam Williams BHME
Jason Breda BHME
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
0
Merger Team members not present were Sean McKenna NC Department of Marine Fisheries
,
Chris Mitscher, Environmental Protection Agency and Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic
Preservation Office.
The'Purpose of and Need for' the project was read. The project area was described and the
following key issues were reviewed.
The sufficiency rating for Bridge No. 129 is 47.6 and for Bridge No. 127 is 28.2 out of 100.
The bridges are considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
? In the event that either existing bridge is closed, local traffic desiring to cross the Tar River
would have to use the existing swing bridge in Washington, an approximate 17.9 mile (28.8
kilometer) detour or routed to Greenville on US 264A bridge, approximately a 20 mile (32.2
kilometer) detour. It was discussed whether the detour length was 17.9 to 20 miles for the
average vehicle or 8 to 10 miles to detour through Washington or Greenville.
Q ? Bridge No. 129 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and attempts are being
made to relocate.
The land north of Tar River is wetlands with cypress gum trees and includes Grimesland
Mitigation Site with an elevation of 1-2 feet above mean sea level.
The land south of the Tar River is residential and agricultural with an elevation of 20-30 feet
above mean sea level.
The roadbed north of Bridge No. 129 is approximately 10 feet above the mean sea level.
Three 48" pipes are located approximately 1300 feet south of Bridge No. 129 with
associated wetlands.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, Operations Branch, maintains a navigational canal to
Hardee Creek upstream of Bridge No. 129 and requires a 40-foot vertical navigational
clearance and a 60-foot horizontal clearance.
The recreational area northwest of the Bridge No. 129 is privately owned.
No school buses cross the bridges.
The Merger Team concurred with the purpose to and need for Bridge No. 129 and
Bridge No. 127 to be replaced and signed Concurrence Point 1 (attached).
Four (4) preliminary build alternatives were presented.
a All alternatives presented consist of:
? 40-foot vertical navigational clearance.
Single structure will provide 30-foot clear roadway width.
? Typical section will be 24-foot roadway with 8-foot shoulders.
The property northwest of Bridge No. 129 will be landlocked or bought out.
Alternative 1 replaces the bridges at the existing location with a single structure
approximately 1950 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained off-site. SR
1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will require
relocating.
Alternative 1 detour route through Washington along NC 33, US 17, and US 264 is
approximately 17.9. miles (28.8 kilometers) in length. A road user analysis was performed
based on 2800 vehicles per day for construction year 2003 and an average of 17.9 miles (28.8
kilometers) of indirect travel. The cost of additional travel will be approximately $5.9 million
dollars annually. The construction period is anticipated to take approximately two years.
0
a
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1940 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and approach roadway will
be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will be relocated.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1900 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and approach roadway will
be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and one (1) business will be relocated.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new alignment with a single structure approximately
2320 feet in length. The new alignment will begin approximately 3000 feet south of Bridge No.
129 and routed along SR 1589 (Pokerhouse Road), it will cross the Tar River at a 106 degree
skew and tie back into SR 1565 approximately 475 feet north of Bridge No. 127. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road)
will be removed and restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure and
roadway, the existing bridges and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands.
Two (2) residents and one (1) business will be relocated.
Comments included:
The right of way cost to take the property northwest of Bridge No. 129 was estimated to be
$120,000.
Work bridges are proposed for all alternatives and needs to be added to each alternative on
the Concurrence Point 2 signature form. ,
These wetlands are considered high quality resources.
? Enhancement credits will be available since the roadway fill will be removed between the
existing two bridges.
Wetland restoration credits will be available for the existing embankment removal.
? Alternative 1 was eliminated because of the high road user cost for traffic to detour for two
years and public opposition did not warrant further study of this alternative.
The Merger Team concurred with Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 as the preliminary build
alternatives for detail study and signed Concurrence Point 2 (attached).
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be presented at a workshop.
These minutes are the writers'interpretations of the events and discussions, which took place
during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing
within seven (7) days
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone], ext. 264.
CC: Sean McKenna, DMF
Chris Mitscher, EPA
a Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
Bill Gilmore, PE, NCDOT-PDEA
David Chang, PE, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Bill Brazier, USCG
VII. CONCURRENCE POINT I
AND
CONCURRENCE POINT 2
Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- Purpose and Need
Project No. /TIP No. /Name/ Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
Name: Grimesland Bridge
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project:
The purpose of and need for this project is to replace functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient bridges with safer and improved structures and approaches. NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 127 have sufficiency
ratings of 47.6 and 28.2 respectively, out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The existing swing bridge (Bridge No. 129) over the Tar River and the overflow bridge (Bridge
No. 127) were built in 1954. Structural failure of either bridge would render SR 1565
(Grimesland Bridge Road) impassable. In the event that either existing bridge is closed, local
traffic desiring to cross the Tar' River would have to use the existing swing bridge in
Washington, an approximate 18 mile (28.8 kilometer) detour or US 264A bridge in Greenville,
an approximately 20 mile (32.2 kilometer) detour.
The NEPA Merger Team concurred on this date of March 27, 2002, with the purpose
of and need for the proposed project. _ . -
Federal Highway Administration
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation
?IG?D ? "?v?s,o?? 2?
B-3684, Concurrence Point 1-Purpose and Need
Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 -Preliminary Build Alternatives
0
Project No. /TIP No./Name /Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
Name: Grimesland Bridge
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County
Preliminary Build Alternatives:
Alternative eir-
appfexifna navigation-a.
Tar Riven Buring eonsttietion, braffie v,ill be maintained off-site. SR i566 (Seine Beach RuErd)
Rd tarry -the Feadbed be6y=eR the _:::s}'--^g-b.-. ges will h= . _mev d and 9tere d t edand
Gne busiAes5 will be elac``ed
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridges with a
single structure approximately 1940 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be
provided over the. main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach: Road) will be removed and restored to
wetlands. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the existing bridges and approach
roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will be relocated.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridges with a
single structure approximately 1900 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be
provided over the main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing structures. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the existing bridges
and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and one (1)
business will be relocated.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new location with a single structure approximately .
2320 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be provided over the main channel of
the Tar River. The new location will begin approximately 3000 feet south of Bridge No. 129 and
routed along SR 1589 (Poker House Road), and tie into SR 1565 approximately 475 feet north
of Bridge No. 127. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures.
After traffic is routed onto the new structure and roadway, the existing bridges and approach
roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be
removed and restored to wetlands. Two (2) residents and one (1) business will. be relocated.
?0rK brill s Coo I I be rgIJIYw- 0A.
B-3684, Concurrence Point 2-Preliminary Build Altemadves

The NEPA Merger Team concurred on this date of.March 27, 2002, with the
preliminary build alternatives to be studied in detail as described above. ,
a
s
s
s
s
e
a
a
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Highway Administration
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation
Lt Amer,{ o?' Ti?Cu? `YI e?{??
?ltilSlon 2

B-3684, Concurrence Point 2-Preliminary Build Altematives

VIII. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
MEETING MINUTES
NOTICE
HANDOUT
0
a
rs?Fs
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 31, 2002
Memorandum To:
From:
Subject:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
File
Ms. Stacy Harris, PE, Project Manager, NCDOT-PDEA,
Ms. Pamela R. Williams, Project Manager, BHME
Tar River Overflow on SR 1565, Pitt County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project No. 8.2221101, TIP Project No. B-3684
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127 over the
Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held between the hours of 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm on May
14, 2002 at the G. R. Whitfield Elementary School in Grimesland. An aerial showing the
preliminary centerline and bridge location of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were displayed. A handout
with a comment sheet included was distributed.
Approximately 35+ citizens attended the workshop. Mr. Collice C. Moore, NCDOT-Board
Member, requested a formal presentation; a question and answer session followed. The three
build alternatives as shown on the aerial were described. Alternative 1, which was not shown,
was described replacing the two bridges on existing alignment with road closure for
approximately 2 years.
Questions that were asked:
1. How many residents are taken for each alternative?
Alternative 2 will relocate 1 business.
Alternative 3 will relocate 1 resident and 1 business.
Alternative 4 will relocate 2 residents and 1 business.
C
C
2. Why can't we provide access to Seine Beach?
The Corps of Engineers has a mandate from Congress to maintain a navigable channel
from the Pamlico River to Hardee Creek, a 40-foot navigational clearance is required and
a 60-foot horizontal clearance. Due to the proposed 40 foot vertical clearance, the
proposed bridge will be approximately 20 feet above natural ground when it crosses
Seine Beach Road and there is no practical way to make a connection. This is the case
on all the alternatives. (Mrs. Davenport the owner of Seine Beach was at the meeting,
she bought the property in 2000, approximately 15 acres. Per the tax map the sales price
was $128,000 in 2000.)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1543 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NO
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
a
O NCDOT stated that they will evaluate the feasibility of providing access to Seine
Beach.
3. How will we be compensated if the new roadway takes our house or a portion of our land?
NCDOT-Right of way agent answered this question and stated that NCDOT hires an
appraiser to appraise the house based on what is taken and what remains.
4. What will be the right of way limits?
No right of way limits have been determined at this time; it depends on the ditch location
and the fill slopes, we are in the functional design stage.
F1 5. Will the proposed bridge have the same load restrictions?
No, but even with the new bridge having a higher load restriction, there is still another
bridge north of these two bridges that would continue to restrict the load on the roadway
6. What is the distance from the existing bridge to the proposed bridge for Alternative 2 and 4?
The distance is approximately 80+ feet for Alternative 2 & 3; this is needed to open the
swlIlg bridge, and 475+ feet Alternative 4.
7. Why is Alternative 1 not considered?
Due to the long detour route the Grimesland Town Council sent a letter requesting not to
close the roadway. Mayor Aldridge, at the meeting, expressed his concerns for the
children at the school if the trained derailed blocking everyone between the bridges and
the railroad tracks if the bridges were closed.
8. What will the proposed speed limit be? Can the speed limit be reduced?
The existing posted speed limit is 55 mph and all the proposed designs meet that design
speed. To reduce the speed limit it will need to be requested though the Division
Engineer's office.
9. Who will select the preferred alternative? Who will represent us?
The project study team of about 5 people including FHWA will select the preferred
alternative. Stacy Harris and Ed Eatmon represent the people in the area. Collice
Moore lives in the area and is your representative. Your cormments at this meeting and
comment sheets will be considered when selecting an alternative.
10. Will you (NCDOT) keep us informed, how and how often?
The public will be notified at milestones in the process. How often milestones will be
reached can not be determined at this time.
0 11. What is the mitigation site used for?
It is a wetland bank used for the construction of projects like the Washington Bypass.
12. Hasa route for the Washington Bypass been determined?
No.
Other comments made:
1. It was suggested that we consider providing access to Seine Beach from the old road that
went on the northwest side of the property and along NCDOT's property.
2. Mrs. Leslie Gray wanted us to be aware that at the edge of her property there is a well
(which shows on the survey) and their field lines (which do not show on the survey). She
0
also stated that the Hodges property (house on the southeast quadrant of the bridge) isn't
occupied at this time.
3. Ms. Tammy Edwards lives on Poker House Road at the river and her house would be taken
by Alternative 4. She expressed her objection for Alternative 4 and how hard she has
worked to make it her home.
a 4. Mr. and Mrs. Cole on River Rat Lane express their objection to Alternative 2, even though it
does not affect there property. They also express sight distance concerns and asked if the
speed limit could be reduced.
5. Mr. Jackie Harrington, owns all the property west on Poker House Road, stated that
common sense would show that Alternative 2 is the alternative to build.
6. Pitt County School Transportation Director commented that because of the recent
redistricting, November 2001, for the high school, in the construction year it is anticipated
that 2 school buses will be crossing the bridge twice a day.
Three continent sheets were received at the workshop. One opposed Alternative 4, one favored
Alternative 2 and one from Mr. Collice Moore commending Ms. Stacy Harris on her excellent
presentation and her being very courteous, friendly and professional.
Three additional comments have been received since the meeting. One opposed Alternative 4,
one favored Alternative 2, and one favored Alternative 4.
Total Comments:
Alterative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Favored 2 1
Opposed 2
Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers-Regulatory Branch, was present at the end of the question and
answer session.
These minutes are the writer's interpretations of the events, discussions, and transactions, which
took place during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in
writing within seven (7) days.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Stacy Harris, PE, NCDOT Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at [phone], ext. 264.
CC: Mike Lindgren, P.E. NCDOT
Ed Eatmon, P.E. NCDOT
Neil Lassiter, P.E. NCDOT
Mike Bell, USCOE
Bill Brazier, USCG
0
n
0
0
Pam Williams
From: Dwayne Alligood [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 12:13 PM
To: Stacy Harris
Cc: Neil Lassiter; Ed Eatmon, P.E.; Allen Lewis
Subject: Grimesland Bridge Replacement
At the public information workshop for the Grimesland Bridge replacement project, one of the concerns expressed was
the elimination of access to Seine Beach. Some of the people present stated that the previous access for Seine Beach tied
into the existing roadway beyond the limits of the bridge project. Allen Lewis, Beaufort County Maintenance Engineer,
and I followed this access from Grimesland Bridge Road and were able to drive to within a few hundred yards of Seine
Beach. From that point to the Seine Beach property the old path appears to have followed the river and is located within
the buffer zone for the Tar River. This section was heavily wooded and would take significant clearing to reestablish. It is
my opinion that reestablishment of this path will be prohibitive due to the environmental impacts.

Either Allen or I would be happy to show you the path location for your further evaluation if you are interested. Please let
me know if I can provide further information.
Dwayne 1-1

3
d-, sutF
-1 YSF?V??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTXMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Release: Immediate Date: 4/30/02
Contact: Linda Hilton-Cain, [phone] or email: [e-mail] Distribution: 74
Release No:
NCDOT to Hold Workshop on Proposed Replacement of Bridges on
Grimesland Bridge Road over the Tar River
Raleigh --- The N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a citizens informational
workshop on the replacement of bridge number 129 over the Tar River and bridge number 127
over the Tar River Overflow on Grimesland Bridge Road (S.R. 1565) in Pitt County.
The workshop will be held Tuesday, May 14, 2002, from 4:30 p.m.,to 6:30 p.m. in the Media
Center at G.R. Whitfield Elementary School at 4938 School Road in Grimesland.
NCDOT proposes replacing bridge number 129 over the Tar River and bridge number 127 over
the Tar River Overflow on Grimesland Bridge Road (S.R. 1565). Three alternatives for
replacing both bridges on new alignment will be presented.
Representatives from NCDOT will be available to answer questions and receive comments from
the public about the proposed project.
For more information, contact Stacy Harris at [phone], Ext. 264, email
[e-mail]
or write to and reference TIP project number B-3684:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1548
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the American Disabilities Act for
disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone requiring special services
should contact Stacy Harris at the above address or phone number or fax [phone] as early
as possible so that arrangements can be made.
***NCDOT***
For other transportation questions, call the department's Customer Service Office toll free
at:
1-877-DOT-4YOU

?CCC0MCC1=,J=M1= Ct4= CC, M Cc ?C7 c'CCCr-CCaMCCC- CrCCCa'C"
`o,NOR,„w
0 Grimesland * 1..?*
Bridge 's fOfT! May 14, 2002
0
T.T.P. 8-3684
0 Citizens Informational Workshop
Replacement of
Bridge No. 129 over The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
the Tar River and PUrpose of 1`011 preparing an engineering and environmental study to replace
15.1
Bridge No. 127 over Wall kshop: Bridges No. 129 and No. 127 on Grimesland Bridge Road
the Tar River Overflow (SR 1565). This study includes evaluating alternatives,
on Grimesland Bridge preliminary engineering, environmental analysis, and the preparation of an environmental
document. The purpose of and need for this project is to replace functionally obsolete
Road (SR 1565). and structurally deficient bridges with safer and improved structure and approaches.
The existing swing bridge (Bridge No. 129) over the Tar River and the overflow bridge
PLANNING PROCESS (Bridge No. 127) were 'built in 1954. Structural failure of either bridge would render
Grimesland Bridge Road impassable. In the event that either bridge is closed, local traffic
Step 1 desiring to cross the Tar River would have to use the existing swing bridge in Washington
Data Collection
or the US 264A Bridge in Greenville.
Step 2
Alternative NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the proposed project area want to know the
Development
And Citizens potential effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact
Informational information is not available at this stage in the process. Additional
planning planning
Workshop studies and design will be performed before the actual right-of-way limits can be
.1 Step 3 established. This Citizens Informational Workshop is for citizens to review the
Environmental Analysis = preliminary alternatives under consideration and to assist in the identification of the
Step 4 alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study.

Y
l Selection of
Preferred Alternative
St
5
Three alternatives (see aerial) have been selected by state and
. ep Alternatives` federal agencies as build alternatives for your review and
Complete comments.
Environmental
Document
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridges with
a single structure approximately 1940 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will
CONSTRUCTION COST be provided over the main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on the existing structures. Seine Beach Road (SR 1566) will be removed and
ALTERNATE 2 restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the existing bridges
$14,500,000 and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands.
ALTERNATE 3 Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridges with a
$14,500,000 single structure approximately 1900 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will
be provided over the main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on the existing structures. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the
ALTERNATE 4 existing bridges and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. Seine
$15,400,000 Beach Road will be removed and restored to wetlands.
-' Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new location with a single structure
SCHEDULE approximately 2320 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be provided over
the main channel of the Tar River. The new location will begin approximately 3000 feet
Right of Way in 2004 south of Bridge No. 129 and be routed along Poker House Road (SR 1589), tying into
1 Construction in 2005 Grimesland Bridge Road approximately 475 feet north of Bridge No. 127. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures. After traffic is routed
onto the new structure and roadway, the existing bridges and approach roadway will be
removed and restored to wetlands. Seine Beach Road will be removed and restored to
® wetlands.
0
CONTACTS
Ms. Stacy B. Harris, PE
Project Manager
NCDOT-Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone - [phone], Ext. 264
Email stacyharrisUclot.statemc.us
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636-3127
Telephone - [phone]
Email pwilliamsCJ)bhme.com
Resource Agencies:
4 Federal Highway Administration
el U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
0 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
t?p U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. DENR - Division of Marine Flshcries
N. C. Department of Transportation
The NEPA Process:
NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, requires federal and state
resource agencies to analyze proposed actions for potential impacts to the
human and natural environments. Resource Agencies must agree on the
purpose of and the need for the proposed project, develop a range of
alternatives that fulfill the purpose of and need for the project, and evaluate
the potential impact of those alternatives on the environment. NEPA also
requires the agencies to provide opportunities for the public to participate in
a the decision making process.
Resource Agencies involved in the decision making process for this project are
listed to the left. The agencies will review, evaluate, and reach "concurrence"
on all major project decisions. These procedures involve providing more
information to the agencies and public early in the project development
process.
The replacements of Bridges No. 129 and No. 127 are currently in the
preliminary stages of the NEPA process. Public participation and comments at
this stage in the NEPA process allow NCDOT and the Resource Agencies to fully
incorporate the needs of the local community into the project from the very
beginning.
Four "concurrence' points are identified by the procedures.
Concurrence Point 1: The purpose of and need for the project must be
approved by the resource agencies before this project could proceed. This
concurrence point for the project was received in March 2002.
Concurrence Point 2: After approval of the purpose and
need, potential alternatives were determined. Selection of
alternatives for detailed study is based upon identified
j? impacts and public input during the Citizens Informational
Workshop.
+ N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
a N. C. DENR -Division of Water Quality
National Marine Fisheries Service

We're on the Webl
Sec us at:
www.ncdot.org
Concurrence Point 3: After the selection of alternatives for detailed study is
complete, detailed engineering and environmental studies are performed for
each remaining alternative. Technical reports are published based on the
findings of these studies, including the environmental document. Selection of
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) will be
based on these reports and public comments.
Concurrence Point 4: The selected alternative (LEDPA) is further refined to
ensure Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts. This must be achieved prior to
the completion of the final environmental document.
About Our Organization...
Public involvement is an important part of the highway project development
process. The North Carolina Department of Transportation encourages citizen
involvement on transportation projects, and will consider all suggestions and
address all concerns. Please send your comments to one of the addresses
listed on the left. Your opinions are important to us!
If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer
Service Center toll-free 1-877-DOT-4YOU, or visit the NCDOT website.

Grimesland
Bridge

Steps to Success
This newsletter is published,.
by the North Carolina
' Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) '?
to Inform concerned citizens.

t about the proposed
replacement of Bridge
No. 129 over the Tar River
and Bridge 127 over the Tar'."
River overflow on Grimesland i'
Bridge Road (SR 1565).
The following is an overview

'
PLANNING
Step 1
Data Collection
Step 2
Alternative
-' Development and
Workshop
Step 3
Environmental Analysis
Step 4
Selection of
Preferred Alternative
3f M?
' Step 5
.' Complete
Environmental

' Document
SCHEDULE
Right of Way in 2003

"M of steps in the plann
Construction in 2004

April 2002 Issue 1
Transportation improvements are being considered for 1
replacement of Grimesland Bridge (Bridge No. 129) over 1
Tar River and Bridge No. 127 over the Tar River overflow
Grimesland Bridge Road (SR 1565), T.I.P. B-3684.
Plan to Attend a
Citizens Informational Workshop
To comment on alternatives.
Ask Questions
See Exhibits
ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED:
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new
alignment west of the existing bridge with a
single structure.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new
alignment east of the existing bridge with a
single structure
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new
alignment with a single structure along Poker
House Road.
This is your opportunity to
let us know which of the
alternatives you would
like to see implemented
and offer suggestions.
Review displays and
exhibits regarding the
alternatives.
Talk with members of
NCDOT's Project
Team and Resource
Team.
NF Give your comments.
Forms will be available
at the workshop.

I
Contacts• N
Ms. Stacy B. Harris, PE
Project Manager
NCDOT-Project Development &
'Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
"Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone - [phone],
Ext. 264
t ; Email
st?haCri50(1ot state,nc.us
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
`Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering,
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636-3127
Telephone - [phone]
Email
wi [e-mail]
About Our Organization...
Public involvement is an important part of the highway project development process. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation encourages citizen involvement on transportation projects,
and will consider all suggestions and address all concerns. Please send your comments to one of the
addresses listed on the left. Your opinions are important to us!
If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer Service Center toll-free
1-877-DOT-4YOU, or visit the NCDOT website at www.ncdot.org.
? s
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
' 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

1
I
0
North Carolina Department
(fit''Frans portation
IX. FIGURES

l
reo
?
l

J
0

?

:. .,, 'BRIDGE ?-
"" ,eef NO.127 TAR R IVE,Q
??'BRI RIV R T Y
%1.,VO.129 r T C 0 U N r._
MMESLAND
,
.? ?N--•
Hdit rn?E51C /RYAN N70 / O
4
y
? I

'
-
± O

Cam
C.
/
\., ?

lam:

nfo owk
R
\.' '11 an

\
w mo ?
(?, nn
f,m ?,....?,
- n3
+
w v
. \ try ,>Q ` X11
m
-1
m-'
74 T
1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
l rr ' tiri?
!s""" ' -44 SCALE
W \ / LEGEND
x,o^ o Ishlgtgo IML--®-Ask Studied
c, .. .
I T),
:`.'1 NORTH CAROLINA
`
'? ;'\ f . M D l (f! PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ff ?+? ENMONMENTAL ANALYSIS BR
m
I' \?bunl,liRM'y
\; fd PITT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 129 OVER TIE TAR R
AND NO 127 ON SR 1565
OVER TIE TAR RIM OVERFLI
TIP NO. B-.3684
FIGURE I

NORTH APPROACH
TOWARDS BRIDGE
B-3684
Replacement of Bridge
No. 129 on SR 1565
Over Tar River
Pitt County
I FIGURE 3 1
0

r

1

I
I

I

r
i
i
i
i
e
h ? a
a Z
_O +
N ? r'e'f
W
N
?N Q N H
oC o Z
IL W O N
CL 4A 1
O ----- Z O
Q
a? Ome
V
ov _? ?
LLJ
Q N N
OOC
J _
CL
N
00
1
1) i ? a
/ y
A U
U ? %e
t, <
c
U p?
pph hpp p ? ? ?Y
`C `C A
Stn#?c
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 2, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers oup
Regulatory Field Office Post ; 2004
Washington, 1NC270889-1000 Li?aIERQWILRY,,cO,
77Qi?l
ATTN: Mr. Michael Bell 1 4 ( f
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir,
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge Nos. 127 and 129 over the Tar River on
SR-1565 in Pitt County. TIP No. B-3684; Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-1565(4); State Project No. 8.2221101.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace the
existing Bridge Nos. 127 over the Tar River overflow and 129 over the Tar River in Pitt
County. Geotechnical test borings are required so that new bridge structure and
foundation recommendations can be made for Bridge No. 129. Up to 8 test borings for
the bridge will be conducted in the Tar River.
Because the Tar River is considered a Primary Nursery Area, notification satisfying
Condition 13 is required to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water
Quality under the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit General Conditions.
Boring activities will be conducted using a sectional drilling barge. It is assembled from
two sections resulting in a working platform 19 feet wide and 24 feet long. The barge is
constructed of two foam-filled aluminum sections and is equipped with four spuds and
safety rails. The size and outfitting of the barge allows containment of drilling fluids and
cuttings when working in sensitive environmental areas.
The borings in the floodplain area will be drilled with an amphibious tracked drill rig
with a ground pressure of less than 2 psi. Drilling fluids and cuttings will be contained in
a mud tub on the drill rig.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONC: 91 i-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPAN"AE1TT OF TiiAtISPORTAT10N FAX: 'W)-7-.1-9794 TIIAN:;>P011TAT10N BUILDING
PitOJrCTDEVCLOi'IAENTANDEtJI!FiCNtAEtiTALAtIALY:{I.; 1 SOU Tli V1ILtANrT0N STREET
1'48 MAILSERVICECENTFR WEIK.IrE: W'?YW.UOrl.nor.STATE.ric.US RALr-ICRrIC
RALEIrM tIC 27(,:)9.154y

The area that may be disturbed per boring is estimated to be 28-in 2 . The consultant will
use casing to advance the borin-s and rotary-wash techniques while recirculating the
drilling fluids between the mud tub and the inside of the casing. This will isolate the
drilling mud and cuttings and contain them in the boring and the mud tub. The borings
will be back-filled with the cuttings and then sealed with bentonite hole plugs. The
excess drilling mud will be disposed of away from any jurisdictional area and outside of
the buffer area.
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized by a Nationwide Permit
No. 6. NCDOT will follow the conditions set by a Nationwide Permit No. 6 and by
NCDWQ Water Quality Certification #3376.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please call Mr. Michael
Turchy at [phone] or [e-mail].
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. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Njoroge W. Wainaina, State Engineering Geologist, P.E., Geotechnical Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
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
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA Project Consultant Engineer
w
Office Use Only: 0-1,13. 'Form Version Nhy_002
0
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 6
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
U"JETLANDS / 401 GROUF
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC DOT /BUG 0 a
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Y?'`'? ?? uUNI /7v
I LA
Telephone Number: 919-715-1468 Fax Number: 919-715-1501
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
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:
Pace I 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: Replacement of Bridge Nos. 127 and 129 over the Tar River on SR-1565
in Pitt County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3684
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Pitt Nearest Town: Grimesland
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): SR 1565 over the Tar River in
between intersections with SR 1566 and SR 1777
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35 34.44'N, 77 10.53'W
(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):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Tar River
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.us/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: Rural area, most of northern portion of study area is undeveloped swamp.
There is one business located adjacent to the Tar River on the Northwest side of SR 1565. Most of the study
area north of the Tar River is included in the NCDOT Grimesland Wetland Mitigation Site. Southern portions
of the study area consist of a mixture of wetlands and uplands, and a few private residences.
Page 2 of g
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
NCDOT proposes to perform ei-ht !',eotechnical borin!,,s in the Tar River at the above
mentioned site. These borings will be performed usin!". a bar!,,e mounted drill. Impact to the
stream bottom will be 28-in' or less per boring.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Geotechnical test borings will need to be done
so that bridge stricture and foundation recommendations can be made for Bridize No. 129.
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.
N/A
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.
Nationwide 23 and possibly Nationwide 33 permits: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge Nos.
127 and 129. It is anticipated that these projects will require a Nationwide 23 and possibly a
Nationwide 33 to carry out these projects, depending on construction methods necessary to
replace these bridges. Geotechnical test borings need to be done prior to designing Bridge No.
129 so that bridge structure and foundation recommendations can be made for this project.
Pabc 3 48
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
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: NCDOT would like to perform eight
geotechnical borings in the Tar River These borings will be performed by consultants using
a barge mounted drill Impact to the stream bottom will be 28 sq. in. or less per boring.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) (linear feet)
N/A
* 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: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** B of Stream Im ct (please Intermittent? specify)
(indicate on ma) (linear feet)
I Temporary <1 ft Tar River 270 ft Perennial
* 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.usns.pov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www mapque., t.cnm, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: <1 ft
Page 4 of 8
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 ImP" act* Area of
Impact

(acres)

Name of Wat
(if applicable) ) Type of Waterbody

lake, pond, estuary' sound,
(
bay. ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, draina;e, 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.): N/A
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.
Imnacts are being minimized through the use of a non-elevating barge. The use of this barge
eliminates the impact potentially caused by elevating barge piles on the stream bed.
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
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - fn 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
fate S of 8
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.htm1.
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.
Since the impacts are temporary, no mitigation will be 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):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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 ?
Pagc 6 of g
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 ?
Y. 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 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .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 0.388 3 None
2 0.388 1.5 None
Total 0.776 None (Exempt)
' Gone l 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
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
Pagc 7 of X
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss storcnwater 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.
N/A
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).
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

?? ?, t ??.?.? ?.? ? ; ? ?"; ? ? "*" \ ' ? ? rte •' t
w It ? -'^e. -. ?^--•? ? _. ice. ?
C? l? `C ! r
t \
BRIDGE RIVE \ 1 O J '
0.127 TAR
F&BRIDGE RIVER 'S
i 33 0.129 T,? Co NTr_
n
GUMLSIAND
-. 1 V
.: /RYAfd t,?o
tM'tS?E Hn t!w Iir` t•i i
J Mt
n! y cxe t» ?' ? 'F ;
1 neo ?'•t \ ? ? '? Kt7
( mt ".
Harr t O
trro Gt?oode '
.•.` T>g nSt
17!12 c
-1; Its
tm '?
nrr tsie
t]p ;
Htvit ? ? 11 5 ? Bttntt A T
?
G.. F'
`t r.. `a e t 9'.
i f7 tt
ec6tla2 Gisp/ ., c 1 / fl7j n
r Stw?t t
l
y. faunUre 0'KI b•. ,House 1
?- icly 171 43 ?7 • i,?) f ?tctnlW 1 1fC Fz"I ?u
2f.? !?Q? _
«I PIG, „1 "me TfYI ? '
Fum•nll? ?? :r = ? v ml>lon ''`_ ? \,.? YI]SbIAjtCA?
1 life t'.?l'M+.P f T unr
Utn 7t I Ill wnr.er"die I: Cr nnl 1;1•?v,E 7A
' MIVT
Hi11 :htlmerdW ?'f?
r •n"n A%CtR :I
r e? . Hora.r t f ,-, , is f 1 '^ .t ?? I1
Pe It ?. f ?v Cslrn {., In+ar f
G.flte ? l• ,e il? Cas GOSln sts/?
r
Iv1t Oltessn i/.?' .I?r .?. r \. ce

O

1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
SCALE
LEGEND
Studied Detour
Route
NORTH CAROLINA
f G DEPARTMENT OF 17?ANSPORTA77ON
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
??• _ ... ' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
I' Y Shcct I of 4
PITT COUNTY
BRIDGE NO.129 OVER THE TAR RIVER
AND NO.127 ON SR 1565
OVER TIIE TAR RIVER OVERFLOW
TIP NO. B-3684
C
IJ
I? E
?o
In -
I= z

1
V
ao
rA
? m
0 -urn
n
?
07
u
tD zzfn N :-W
m n N a
ti
v
t n H
mi
? 0 N m N

? n
0
V

H v u
? o

D
1
? r
r
? r

N - ?
,
7 m
Y
m c?
n O

H rn "
7
°
e
; z N
- -_
0 0 -?
Z to -, m 0
Z N
r
to a
c
`C
1-J
o?
-j ~
C
"
T T/
r
V
Z v
-3
C' V
O `t>
:j

L U r m m N
r
O
co n
ti rf- ?
n f- a
cc
O ?
o
N
LI1
f
o^ j-
T7 -
a tp
z -u
v
N H ?1
? N
? rn
Zr

1
(/1 v
v m
a C-)
A
rl

_ ?
`SAC, fTl? m
Z
Z1m
..
:
r
Cly
-
i
^
D
Er, z
L °
ti0r
r- o Q
t.
I- F""I
,
m r
.
1
to
?a?H S

r•r t
- C J
Z7

M
O
H m
Z
Z
H
W ? O
OD --I
-E-
L-i
O m
C7 00
rC
Z
I
1
I O
I SO)
I "
r
I - N
n
z
0
I
II
ox I
O m? II
n i I I b
mcz
D o? I I
H fE
pi
Q
Z IJ-
i f?
I I i
N 1
rn
Il ??
= I I Az .Ar
?c ° 1 I ? w o
;0 i I n y m
o I1 vz o
0 0
° II ; r
o I H
O
n
m
o? I I/
[D 1 O
rn z f
A O
rn
O A
<o
°" I
Il m ?f
fr vr' fl f?
L
f
W
o "
c o
-, c Z
o I
H N
y m
iI
< a< a a m m
w p m N N N N m 1Ni
o a z m z
m< z
v V)v G 1=iH°m2?0
OM H < T
0--4 Cz7 O Z N r)
S S D=
zv 0
a m 2
o D m
r
0 0
H

O nm a n

1 n I L O
O<
N -
M M -1 m n
z
SN O m 0
O
'D ;Q
0 1 m N
1 2 jn
0 O >
m 0
r' m F"I m
r o m z 1
1
n rn -u
n Z m0 r
I
?C < H m < F-
1
m -
I <
M
M Y z l I
> r
I Y O I
? y, -1 n I
H I H I I -1 O 1

1
n
m '"I iz°i I o bi
? 14 rl O 1 I I IZ I I
z w 1 0
p 1 O I
rl 1 1 I 1 1
xi
vo i i

?

1
i

I

a

n

T

f ;

D
v b, - r ?-
m
r
K D
'
A 3
(AN -f -4 Y
mOSNx N
NAm c
nVrtW L
Omrn?u m
?t^ S a v
??77m r
cm) m
ma
L N N r0
zzN O
m0°z z
'I ?O 2 04
YSZm n m
m, inN r? to
0;: z o
?Kno o
z c)
y?°Z a
r
D O^ m
r,NO z
Nmo z
Two
n
+r-? m o
gs o
Z =f
N 2 n
?%,
J
J
:/:
r
+ n
c?
IT ?
m
v
m
ti.

r?
n
o I,
u \?
n
H •J
r ,
r .,
1- n n
r+ r
D r
H ?
r =
r O
n ?
m N
v
r
r
,r7
..........i
u
lnl 1
v o
v
VOo
O
O

0
i' C7 A
' m
- „ rrl n
rn ? p n

D

o H o
'rl co
I ,,yrcv '
? ?1
a -v ° D p F-1 5' A C.O

v D

o'
'
?
r
+o 00

?0 <
r,
I- c
Z
? ? Z -I
I -

/
I \ /
.
I /

mD ?
m
+o
a z
O
O ?
1 ?
r
,
N
n s
• o
w a
v
m0 o
m0 H
Z O Z
Z1
,
•r '
u, • m
D ?
' O
w?
V? 7c
zo N
z
-4 -A
.r ¦
14'-V
(TYP.)

0 w0 NO o o 0 6 C,

r z
?o N
\m
or
w,..
` w
N
O
44
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1

CO
Pi
z 1 w
1
1
I?
1 --
tt
? I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
v I
ci C
o° 1
zz
° 4 I
Np I
mr
(A

m
C-)
I
I
?
H
O I
I
I
Z
D
?, ?
co
Z I

I
O
Ln I
I
I
I
?
r
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m 1
r I
N I
O
?I
I
I
1

?
m
z I
I
I
-,
tt
? I
JI
I I
m I
r
w I
o I
M I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
a
11
-v
D
z
0
(n
u
D
z
m
(n
u
D
z

(n
D
z
G7
ENT OF ryP
QP United States Department of the Interior
i
v, y.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
flcH 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 25, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
J?(13z?
I01 +4
This letter is in response to your letter of August 20, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that
the replacement of Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 over the Tar River and overflow in Pitt County (TIP No. 13-
3684) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the
project will have no effect on the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Tar
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted at the project site on July 29, 2004 for
bald eagles and nests. The survey covered a'/2 mile radius around the project site. A bald eagle was observed
near the project site, but no nests were observed. Potential habitat exists in the Tar River for the West Indian
manatee. NCDOT has agreed to implement the Service's Guidelines for Avoiding Lnpacts to the lVest Indian
Manatee - Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in Not-th Carolina Waters. No habitat exists
for the rcd-cockaded woodpecker and Tar spinymussel.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your
determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle and West
Indian manatee. Based on the lack of habitat, the Service also concurs with your determination that the project
will have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker and Tar spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] Ext. 32).
ncer ,
Pet J
a " i
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militsclier, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
- jl
------------------
--`??`?j <2 /TLG` ? /I.?GC? ' .?C? =-f7-tt? *?cG?Z ?G</?/1LGlf' ? ?-
----n?t?_/.-ticG{??
i
rr e ? STAN
?t
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 4, 2002
Memorandum to: Participants
From: Stacy Harris, PE
Pamela Williams
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge
No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County,
B-3684
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting was held on March 27, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. in the Roadway
Design Conference Room, NCDOT Century Center Building A. This meeting was held to reach a
concurrence on the above subject project's Purpose and Need Statement (Concurrence Point 1)
and Preliminary Build Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2). The Purpose and Need / Preliminary
Build Alternatives Report were sent to the Merger Team members four weeks prior to the
meeting for their review.
Participants at the meeting for B-3684:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
c ?l 370
APR
g 200
Mike Bell -team member US Arm Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman - team member FHWA - representing Ron Lucas
Howard Hall- team member US Fish and Wildlife Service
David Cox- team member NC Wildlife Resource Service
John Hennessy - team member NC Division of Water Quality
Beth Barnes NC Division of Water Quality
Ron Sechler- team member National Marine Fisheries - b hone
Stacy Harris- team member NCDOT-PDEA
Ed Eatmon- team member NCDOT-Division 2
Mike Lindgren NCDOT-Design Services
John Pili chuk NCDOT-Geotechnical
Don Moore NCDOT-Geotechnical
Kirit Desai NCDCT-Structure Design
Omar Azizi NCDOT-Structure Design
Ma Poe Furr NCDOT-PDEA
Heather Fearnbach NCDOT-PDEA
Pam Williams N.4 C:
Jason Breda BHME
MAILING ADDRESS:
NO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER .
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Merger Team members not present were Sean McKenna, NC Department of Marine Fisheries,
Chris Mitscher, Environmental Protection Agency and Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic
Preservation Office.
The 'Purpose of and Need for' the project was read. The project area was described and the
following key issues were reviewed.
? The sufficiency rating for Bridge No. 129 is 47.6 and for Bridge No. 127 is 28.2 out of 100.
? The bridges are considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
? In the event that either existing bridge is closed, local traffic desiring to cross the Tar River
would have to use the existing swing bridge in Washington, an approximate 17.9 mile (28.8
kilometer) detour or routed to Greenville on US 264A bridge, approximately a 20 mile (32.2
kilometer) detour. It was discussed whether the detour length was 17.9 to 20 miles for the
average vehicle or 8 to 10 miles to detour through Washington or Greenville.
? Bridge No. 129 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and attempts are being
made to relocate.
? The land north of Tar River is wetlands with cypress gum trees and includes Grimesland
Mitigation Site with an elevation of 1-2 feet above mean sea level.
? The land south of the Tar River is residential and agricultural with an elevation of 20-30 feet
above mean sea level.
? The roadbed north of Bridge No. 129 is approximately 10 feet above the mean sea level.
? Three 48" pipes are located approximately 1300 feet south of Bridge No. 129 with
associated wetlands.
? The US Army Corps of Engineers, Operations Branch, maintains a navigational canal to
Hardee Creek upstream of Bridge No. 129 and requires a 40-foot vertical navigational
clearance and a 60-foot horizontal clearance.
? The recreational area northwest of the Bridge No. 129 is privately owned.
? No school buses cross the bridges.
The Merger Team concurred with the purpose to and need for Bridge No. 129 and
Bridge No. 127 to be replaced and signed Concurrence Point 1 (attached).
Four (4) preliminary build alternatives were presented.
All alternatives presented consist of:
? 40-foot vertical navigational clearance.
? Single structure will provide 30-foot clear roadway width.
? Typical section will be 24-foot roadway with 8-foot shoulders.
? The property northwest of Bridge No. 129 will be landlocked or bought out.
Alternative 1 replaces the bridges at the existing location with a single structure
approximately 1950 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained off-site. SR
1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will require
relocating.
Alternative 1 detour route through Washington along NC 33, US 17, and US 264 is
approximately 17.9 miles (28.8 kilometers) in length. A road user analysis was performed
based on 2800 vehicles per day for construction year 2003 and an average of 17.9 miles (28.8
kilometers) of indirect travel. The cost of additional travel will be approximately $5.9 million
dollars annually. The construction period is anticipated to take approximately two years.
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1940 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and approach roadway will
be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will be relocated.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1900 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and approach roadway will
be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and one (1) business will be relocated.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new alignment with a single structure approximately
2320 feet in length. The new alignment will begin approximately 3000 feet south of Bridge No.
129 and routed along SR 1589 (Pokerhouse Road), it will cross the Tar River at a 106 degree
skew and tie back into SR 1565 approximately 475 feet north of Bridge No. 127. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road)
will be removed and restored to wetlands. After traffic is routed on to the new structure and
roadway, the existing bridges and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands.
Two (2) residents and one (1) business will be relocated.
Comments included:
The right of way cost to take the property northwest of Bridge No. 129 was estimated to be
$120,000.
Work bridges are proposed for all alternatives and needs to be added to each alternative on
the Concurrence Point 2 signature form.
These wetlands are considered high quality resources.
Enhancement credits will be available since the roadway fill will be removed between the
existing two bridges.
Wetland restoration credits will be available for the existing embankment removal.
Alternative 1 was eliminated because of the high road user cost for traffic to detour for two
years and public opposition did not warrant further study of this alternative.
The Merger Team concurred with Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 as the preliminary build
alternatives for detail study and signed Concurrence Point 2 (attached).
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be presented at a workshop.
These minutes are the writers'interpretations of the events and discussions, which took place
during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing
within seven (7) days.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone], ext. 264.
CC: Sean McKenna, DMF
Chris Mitscher, EPA
Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
Bill Gilmore, PE, NCDOT-PDEA
David Chang, PE, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Bill Brazier, USCG
Section 4041NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- Purpose and Need
Project No. /TIP No. /Name/ Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
Name: Grimesland Bridge
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the?Tar River overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project:
The purpose of and need for this project is to replace functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient bridges with safer and improved structures and approaches. NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 127 have sufficiency
ratings of 47.6 and 28.2 respectively, out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The existing swing bridge (Bridge No. 129) over the Tar River and the overflow bridge (Bridge
No. 127) were built in 1954. Structural failure of either bridge would render SR 1565
(Grimesland Bridge Road) impassable. In the event that, either existing bridge is closed, local
traffic desiring to cross the Tar River would' have to use the existing swing bridge in
Washington, an approximate 18 mile (28.8 kilometer) detour or US 264A bridge in Greenville,
an approximately 20 mile (32.2 kilometer) detour.
The NEPA Merger Team concurred on this date of March 27, 2002, with the purpose
of and need for the proposed project.
Federal Highway Administration
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF

N. C. Department of Transportation
tilGi?n ? 1??'iS?E'' 2 ?' ?
B-3684, Concurrence Point 1-Purpose and Need
• Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
46 Concurrence Point No. 2 -Preliminary Build Alternatives
Project No. /TIP No./Name /Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
Name: Grimesland Bridge
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge No. 127
over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County
k
Preliminary Build Alternatives:
Alternativeheir-existing-ieeatien with singl,e-4FUettre
approximate. t-navigationai?lea Ee-ewii?e-?r?euiued-ero?eI the
atn d I ICTTdU)
aade-readbed-b ges-MR-be-remov.
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridges with a
single structure approximately 1940 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be
provided over the. main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to
wetlands. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the existing bridges and approach
roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business will be relocated.
Alternative 3 replaces both bridges on new alignment east of the existing bridges with a
single structure approximately 1900 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be
provided over the main channel of the Tar River. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing structures. After traffic is routed onto the new structure, the existing bridges
and approach roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. One (1) resident and one (1)
business will be relocated.
Alternative 4 replaces both bridges on new location with a single structure approximately
2320 feet in length. A 40-foot navigational clearance will be provided over the main channel of
the Tar River. The new location will begin approximately 3000 feet south of Bridge No. 129 and
routed along SR 1589 (Poker House Road), and be into SR 1565 approximately 475 feet north
of Bridge No. 127. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structures.
After traffic is routed onto the new structure and roadway, the existing bridges and approach
roadway will be removed and restored to wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be
removed and restored to wetlands. Two (2) residents and one (1) business will be relocated.
WC)rK_ br?d Cs LOi !1 recLurecl ??I ? v?c? i s
B-3684, Concurrence Point 2-Preliminary Build Alternatives
Lr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 27, 2003
Memorandum to: Participants
From: John Wadsworth, PE
Pamela Williams
r.,,.. JAN 2 ECM
Y' IL
,t,DS Gr
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 129 over the Tar River and Bridge
No. 127 over the Tar River Overflow on SR 1565 in Pitt County,
B-3684
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
A NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting was held on January 22, 2003, at 1:00 p.m. in the
Transportation Building Board Room. This meeting was held to reach a concurrence on the
above subject project's Concurrence Point 3-Alternative Selection and Concurrence Point 4A-
Avoidance and Minimization. The informational package for the meeting was mailed to the
Merger Team members four weeks prior to the meeting for their review.
Participants at the meeting for B-3684:
Mike Bell -team member
Ron Lucas - team member
Gary Jordan- team member
Travis Wilson- team member
John Hennessy - team member
Chris Militscher-team member
Sarah McBride - team member
Ed Eatmon- team member
John Wadsworth- team member
Beth Barnes
Neil Lassiter
Greg Thorpe
Gail Grimes
Stacy Harris
Mary Pope Furr
Michael Turchy
Cathy Houser
Robert Stroup
Dan Shuller
Marshall Clawson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
US Army Corps of Engineers
FHWA
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Wildlife Resource Service
NC Division of Water Quality
EPA
DCR-SHPO
NCDOT-Division 2
NCDOT-PDEA
NC Division of Water Quality
NCDOT-Division 2
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Design Services
NCDOT-Hydraulics
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
4
John Pilipchuk
Njoroge Wainana
Madonna Rorie
Omar Azizi
Pam Williams
Tommy Register
NCDOT-Geotechnical
NCDOT-Geotechnical
NCDOT-Structure Design
NCDOT-Structure Design
BHME
BHME
Merger Team members not present were Sean McKenna, NC Department of Marine Fisheries,
and Ron Sechler, National Marines Fisheries.
John Wadsworth gave a brief history of the project; that several alternatives (13) had been
considered and Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were selected to be studied in further detail and
presented at the workshop in May 2002. The three build alternatives were described by Pam
Williams and Table 1 (a comparison of potential impacts) on page 4 of the handout was
reviewed. The following issues were discussed for Concurrence Point 3:
? All alternatives presented will require temporary work bridges and/or barges for
construction of the new structure. The work bridge will be approximately 30 feet wide.
The location of the temporary work bridge should be located between the existing road and
proposed bridge if practical, if not the permit should state why.
? Base on preliminary geotechnical, piles will be used on land and drilled piers in the river.
? The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Operations Branch, maintains a navigational canal
upstream of Bridge No. 129. A 40-foot vertical navigational clearance and a 60-foot
horizontal clearance have been requested by the US Coast Guard (USCG).
? Girders are required for all build alternatives due to the vertical curves required to provide
the 40-foot horizontal clearance. Top down construction is not considered feasible because
of the girder structure.
? The impacts presented in Table 1 are for wetlands taken by embankment only.
? The area under the proposed bridge needs to be shown as permanent impacts and the area
under the temporary work bridge as temporary impacts. The impacts will be calculated
based on the width and length of the bridges. This is separate from impacts associated
with embankment.
? Alternative 2 and 3 will displace one resident and one business (Seine Beach). Alternative 4
will displace two residences and one business. Alternative 2 will also displace two water
wells.
? The recreational area (Seine Beach) northwest of the Bridge No. 129 is privately owned.
? The Division looked into providing another entrance to Seine Beach but discovered the old
road was located along the river and within the buffer zone. This would require clearing of
the old road bed in the Grimesland Mitigation Site. To provide access to Seine Beach would
impact the mitigation site therefore, this alternative was eliminated.
? COE requested an archeological survey to be prepared on the preferred alternative.

? Bridge No. 129 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and will be offered for
reuse in accordance with NCDOT's Historic Bridge Relocation and Reuse Program. The
proposed bridge will have a 40 foot clearance and the existing bridge could be floated up or
down stream for relocation.
? Alternative 4 was eliminated from consideration because it will split (fragment) the
Grimesland Mitigation Site.
? Alternative 3 has a spiral on the southern end of the bridge.
? Alternative 2 does not have a spiral; therefore, Alternative 2 is preferred by the Division,
Structures Design Unit and Hydraulic Design Unit due to the ease of design and
construction.
? It was discussed that if Mr. Gray's septic field was taken by Alternative 2, there may be
other options to provide a septic system and thus avoid a total displacement. This will be
determined during the right-of-way stage. Mr. Gray, the property owner, sent several
letters to NCDOT opposing Alternative 2 which will impact his septic field.
? John Wadsworth recommended Alternative 2 as preferred.
? Alternative 2 impacts more wetlands than Alternative 3 and 4, but it returns a net positive
amount of wetlands.
The Merger Team concurred with Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the
replacement of Bridge No. 129 and Bridge No. 127 and signed Concurrence Point 3.
(Attached).
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single
structure approximately 1940 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structures. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
After traffic is routed on to the new structure, the existing bridges and roadway embankment
will be removed and restored to wetlands. One business and one residence will be relocated.
******************************************************************
The following issues were discussed concerning Concurrence Point No. 4 - Avoidance and
Minimization
• The project area is with in the nursery habitat and the in-stream moratorium will be
from February 15 to September 30 due to anadromous fish
• The 1996 Manatee Guidelines will be included in point 4
• NCDOT should receive enhancement and restoration credits due to removal of the
existing roadbed between Bridge No. 129 and 127.
• If the work bridge is not located between the existing roadway and proposed bridge
then an explanation will be required in the permit to DWQ.
The Merger Team concurred with the avoidance and minimization and signed
Concurrence Point 4A (attached).
V
These minutes are the writers'interpretations of the events and discussions, which took place
during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing
within seven (7) days.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Wadsworth at [phone],
ext. 209.
CC: Sean McKenna, DMF
Ron Sechler, NMF
David Chang, PE, NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Bill Brazier, USCG
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 - Alternative Selection
Proiect No./TIP Nod Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River and Bridge No.
127 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River Overflow
County: Pitt
Alternative recommended:
Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on a new alignment west of the existing bridge with a single structure
approximately 1, 940 feet (591 meters) in length. The proposed structure will provide a 30 foot (9.0
meters) clear roadway width allowing for 2-12 foot (3.6 meters) with a three foot (0.9 meter) horizontal
clearance on each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meters) travel way with
eight-foot shoulders including two-foot paved. Navigational clearances over the Tar River will be 40-foot
(12 meters) vertically and 60 foot (18 meters) horizontally. Design speed for Alternative 2 will be 60 mph
(100 km/h). During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structures. After
traffic is placed on the new facility, the existing bridges and approaches will be removed and restored to
wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands. Alternative 2 is
shown in Figure 2 of the Merger Team meeting handout dated December 20, 2002 and is incorporated
into this Concurrence Form by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of January 22, 2003 with the selection of Alternative
2, as noted above, as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for
TIP No. B-3684.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation,
Division 2
N. C. Department of Transportation
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance and Minimization
Proiect NoJTIP No./ Name/Descrintion:
Federal Aid Project Number: BRSTP-1565(4)
State Project Number: 8.2221101
TIP Number: B-3684
TIP Description: Replace Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River and
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1565 Over the Tar River Overflow in Pitt
County
Recommended Alternate: Alternative 2 replaces both bridges on a new alignment west of the
existing bridge with a single structure approximately 1, 940 feet (591 meters) in length. The
proposed structure will provide a 30 foot (9.0 meters) clear roadway width allowing for 2-12 foot
(3.6 meters) with a three foot (0.9 meter) horizontal clearance on each side. The approach
roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meters) travel way with eight-foot shoulders including
two-foot paved. Navigational clearances over the Tar River will be 40-foot (12 meters) vertically
and 60 foot (18 meters) horizontally. Design speed for Alternative 2 will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structures. After
traffic is placed on the new facility, the existing bridges and approaches will be removed and
restored to wetlands. SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) will be removed and restored to wetlands.
Avoidance and Minimization:
The existing bridges of 512 feet (156 meters) and 359 feet (109 meters) will be replaced with a
single structure on new alignment west of the existing bridges approximately 1,940 feet (591.3
meters) in length.
2. The portion of SR 1566 (Seine Beach Road) maintained by NCDOT will be removed and
restored to wetlands. All portions of the existing embankment for SR 1565 adjacent to wetlands
(north side of Tar River) and not utilized in the new facility will be removed and the area restored
to wetlands or buffer as appropriate. The buffer area on the south side of the Tar River will be
restored by plantings after removal of the existing river bridge.
Work bridges will be utilized in the construction of the new structure across wetlands. To the
extent practicable, work bridges will be located between the new bridge and the existing roadway
embankment to minimize disturbance of the adjacent wetlands. Construction in open water will
be from work bridges or barges.
4. The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The new bridge will completely span the riparian buffers
[50 feet (15 meters)] on either side of the Tar River.
To avoid and/or minimize impacts to anadromous fish, the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage" will be followed including an in-stream construction moratorium of
February 15 to September 30.
6. The 1996 USFWS Manatee Guidelines for construction activities in aquatic areas will be utilized
to the maximum extent practicable.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of January 22, 2003 with the "avoidance and
minimization of the alternative recommended in the NEPA document" as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
N. C. DENR - DMF
N. C. Department of Transportation
N. C. Department of Transportation (Div. 2)