20201438 Ver 1_USACE_Emails_20201130

1
Matt Martin
From:Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, November 26, 2020 10:23 AM
To:Matt Martin
Cc:Ward, Garcy; Doug Keller; Pete Stafford
Subject:RE: B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839
Matt,

Thanks for updating the project information. After reviewing the project plans and impact
tables it looks like the project meets the non-reporting use of the NWP #3. For recording
purposes I would like to request that you submit a courtesy notification through the E-PCN
process.

Kyle

From: Matt Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 4:39 PM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>; Doug Keller <[e-mail]>; Pete Stafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839

Kyle,

Thank you for reviewing the previous drawing and allowing us to the opportunity to correct some inaccuracies. There
was some confusion within the project team on the open water vs wetland areas. I apologize for any confusion this may
have caused. The attached permit drawings now have the same linework that is shown in the PJD. Cross sections are
shown of the utility installation under the jurisdictional stream in the utility plans. Please review the revised permit
drawings and utility plan and advice the team if the project meets the “no written concurrence” needed for the NWP’s.
We are happy to submit a courtesy notification through the E-PCN process if that is requested of us.

Sites 2 and 3 are intended to be temporary impacts that will be restored to pre-construction elevations after
construction.

Project background:
The city of Elizabeth City has proposed to replace Bridge #690034 along Providence Road over Knobbs Creek Tributary in
Pasquotank County. The existing bridge span arrangement is 2 total spans each measuring 15.75 ft. for a total overall
length of 31.5 ft. The bridge has a 4” timber floor on timber girders and a total out-to-out width of 26.0 ft. The bridge
has timber vertical abutments and are skewed 90 degrees to the road. The replacement structure is proposed as a 44.5
ft long bridge with a span arrangement of 1 @ 44.5 ft consisting of 18” cored slabs. The proposed bridge will
incorporate 2.75 ft end bent caps. To facility accelerated construction, vertical corrugated sheet pile walls are proposed
4.25 ft. inside the cored slab extents for an effective vertical bridge opening of 36 ft. The bridge is skewed at 90 degrees
to the roadway. The design storm is the 100-year. Elizabeth City received a letter from Jintao Wen with NCFMP dated
6/19/2020 stating that the project met its requirements for a No Rise.

Thank you,

2
____________________________

MATT MARTIN, PWS
Environmental Scientist

8601 Six Forks Road
Forum 1, Suite 700
Raleigh, NC 27615

919.878.9560 P | 919.653.7369 D I 919.219.2765 C
www.rkk.com

Responsive People | Creative Solutions

From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:09 AM
To: Matt Martin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839

Matt,

I have the same concern as Garcy in regards to the permit drawings not matching your impact
summary sheet. I have attached the Aquatic Resource map from the PJD. I don’t see the
permanent impacts quantified at Sites 2 and 3 as shown on the project plans. I will need to see
a cross-sectional plan or inset indicating that the utility installation will meet the correct
separation under the bed of the jurisdictional stream. This project will also be utilizing the
NWP #12 for the utility crossing. Please update us with a revised project plan and Impact
Summary sheet so we can give you guidance in regard to notification and NWP #3 and NWP
#12.

If after updating the requested information the project meets the “no written concurrence”
needed for the NWP’s I will ask you to submit a courtesy notification through the e-pcn
process so the Corps and DWR have a record of this project.

Also, can you give me any background regarding the new bridge span? What is the new flow
path opening versus the old one and is it associated with any hydraulic engineering to meet
high flow events? Elizabeth City has approached the US Army Corps of Engineers in the past
and indicated that the neighborhoods upstream of this crossing have issues with flooding
during high rainfall events.

Kyle
3
From: Matt Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:56 PM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839

Kyle,

Thanks for getting back so quick! The bridge will be replaced on existing location so there should be no effect on the
waters impounded by the road. I attached a draft permit drawing and impact table for your reference. Let me know if
you see anything that would trip written concurrence.

____________________________

MATT MARTIN, PWS
Environmental Scientist

8601 Six Forks Road
Forum 1, Suite 700
Raleigh, NC 27615

919.878.9560 P | 919.653.7369 D I 919.219.2765 C
Blockedwww.rkk.com

Responsive People | Creative Solutions

From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 7:45 AM
To: Matt Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839

Matt,

Have you reviewed the Regional Conditions associated with the NWP #3? There are regional
conditions that require the submittal of a PCN. Without having the project plans to review I am
not sure if anything associated with the construction methods that would trip written
concurrence.

Kyle

From: Matt Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:17 PM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] B-6053 PCN Question SAW-2020-00839

Kyle,

4
I was looking through the PCN requirements for NWPs 3 and wanted to make sure I was understanding them correctly.
The project B-6053 is a small bridge replacement in Elizabeth City, on both sides of the bridge there area open water
areas and directly under the bridge there is a stream. The impacts for project are 0.07 acres temporary open water, 0.02
acres permeant open water impacts and 58 linear feet of temporary stream impact. The total open water impact is 0.09
acres, there is no wetland impact. I believe this project could fall into a non-notifying nationwide permit since we are not
working under any of the activities in paragraph (b) and the impacts are so low. Does this sound like a potential non-
notifying situation to you? I am in communication with Garcy to figure out if I would need to complete the EPCN for
DWRs benefit.

Notification: For activities authorized by paragraph (b) of this NWP, the permittee must submit a pre-construction
notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity (see general condition 32). The pre-construction
notification must include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the outfalls, intakes,
small impoundments, and canals. (Authorities: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (Sections 10 and 404))

Thanks!
____________________________

MATT MARTIN, PWS
Environmental Scientist

8601 Six Forks Road
Forum 1, Suite 700
Raleigh, NC 27615

919.878.9560 P | 919.653.7369 D I 919.219.2765 C
BlockedBlockedwww.rkk.com

Responsive People | Creative Solutions

Note Our New Address!

"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, a Maryland limited liability partnership. This message contains
confidential information intended only for the person or persons named above. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
sender by return email and delete the message. Thank you.
RK&K is an equal opportunity employer that values diversity at all levels. RK&K does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including pregnancy), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, parental status, military and
veteran status, and any other characteristic protected by applicable law. Consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended and other nondiscrimination laws and authorities, we also note that RK&K does not discriminate in its selection or retention of subcontractors on
the grounds of race, color, or national origin. We also note that RK&K will ensure that Minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and not
be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.