20090473 Ver 1_More Info Received_20090602

Sonia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ward, Garcy
Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:26 AM
Gregory Sonia
0 9&L-(73
Attachments
FW: B-5129B, Bridge No. 31 in Pamlico County, NC304 Bridges CAMA Permit Drawing
revisions
REV_PCN_B5129B_page5_page7.pdf
Sonia,
Here is the information l had requested for these bridge projects. (bridges 44 and 42 coming in separate e-mails) The
consultant just e-mailed the pages of the PCN that needed corrections, so just put these with the file copies you have in
your office. I've already issued the 401's. I received these on June 23, so 1 guess we can take it off of 'on hold' status
effective that date. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a good 4th .
Thanks - Garcy
E-mail correspondence to and form this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Cindy Carr [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:12 PM
To: Ward, Garcy
Cc: Johnson, Jay B
Subject: RE: B-51298, Bridge No. 31 in Pamlico County, NC304 Bridges CAMA Permit Drawing revisions
Garcy,
Attached are the revised PCN pages for Bridge No. 31 as requested:
B-5129B (Bridge No. 31): Page 5, revised Sections 2f, 2g, and 2h to represent previously revised wetland
impacts submitted to Stephen Lane, NCDCM
Page 5, revised Section 3 to remove stream impacts (impacts are Open water
impacts for interior pier placement)
Page 7, revised Sections 6f, 6g, 6h, and 6i to represent revised buffer impacts
Additional revised pages for the other two bridge sites will be sent under separate email because of file size.
Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.
Cindy Carr
Senior Scientist
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
P.O. Boa 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3127
919-858-1871 (direct)
919-851-1918 (fax)
Mulkey... helping you transform everyday challenges into everyday achievements.
http://www.mulkeyinc.com
From: Ward, Garcy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Cindy Carr
Cc: Johnson, Jay B; Sutton, Michael W
Subject: RE: B-5129E, Bridge No. 42 in Pamlico County, NC304 Bridges CAMA Permit Drawing revisions
Hey Cindy,
Thanks for sending the revised plans. In addition, I also need the revised impact tables in the PCN (pp 5-7). I've
issued the 401 and BA for 5129 C and D, so I only need this information for the other 3 bridges. Also, for bridge
42 - B5129E - the canal on the SE side of the road has been determined to be subject to the buffer rules and
should have the 50' buffer and any impacts shown on the plan sheets. In this situation, the buffers on the canal
and those on Gale Cr have an area where they overlap and the impacts in this area don't need to be counted
twice. There did however, appear to be some fill in the canal buffer outside of the buffers off the creek. These
impacts would need to be counted in the buffer totals. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.
Thanks - Garcy
E-mail correspondence to and form this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Cindy Carr [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:44 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Caldwell, Betty A; Johnson, Jay B; Wendee Smith
Subject: B-5129E, Bridge No. 42 in Pamlico County, NC304 Bridges CAMA Permit Drawing revisions
Importance: High
Garcy,
Attached are the revised pages for the CAMA/404/401 permit package on Bridge No. 42, B-5129E.
These revisions reflect the comments from Stephen Lane, DCM as noted in the email forwarded to
me on May 6 and my telephone conversation with him on May 14. The revisions include the
following items:
Revised MP-5, page 3 of 4 which contains Section 3 items (e), (0, and (g) - 8.5 x 11 sized
Revised Stream and Wetland Impacts plan view, which contains reduced 404/CAMA wetland
impacts revised by design modifications and WLB correction - 8.5 x 11 sized
Revised Profile plan view, which contains shading at excavation areas - 8.5 x 11 sized
Per Stephen's request, I am providing only the sheets with revisions and have initialed and dated the
bottom corner to indicate the sheet contains changes from the original submittal.
I will be sending you revised pages for the other bridge sites by separate email. If you have any
questions or concerns, please call me.
Cindy Carr
Senior Scientist
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
P.O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3127
919-858-1871 (direct)
919-851-1918 (fax)
Mulkey... helping you transform everyday challenges into everyday achievements.
m
http://www.mulkeyinc.co
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory

'
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ? Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ®P ? T riprap
Roadway fill Tidal Freshwater ? Yes ® Corps 0.006 acre
, Marsh ®No ? DWQ (249 sq.ft.)
W2 ®P ? T riprap
Roadway fill Tidal Freshwater ? Yes ® Corps 0.001 acre
, Marsh ®No ? DWQ (18 sq.ft.)
W3 ®P ? T Roadway fill, riprap Tidal Freshwater
Marsh ? Yes
® No ® Corps
? DWQ 0.001 acre
(64 sq.ft.)
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.008 acre
(331 sq. ft.)
2h. Comments: B-51296, Bridge No. 31: Wetland impacts include 246 sq. feet of CAMA wetlands. Impacts are for fill
placement at new bridge end bent locations and are necessary for guard rail installation.

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? . other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S3 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S4 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S5 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S6 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ?Tor-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary T impact required?
B1 ®P ? T Roadway Vandemere Creek ® Nos 437 82
B2 ® P ? T Roadway
Fill,riprap Vandemere Creek ? Yes
® No -295 141
B3 ®P [-I T Fillll npfap Vandemere Creek 1-1
NNo 375 14
6h. Total buffer impacts 1,461 '474
(0.034 acre) (0.011 acre)
6i. Comments: Add additional buffer impact B4 as follows:
B4 X P Roadway Fill Vandemere Creek X No Zone 1: 354 sf Zone 2: 237 sf
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Avoidance Measures: Existing roadway and bridge alignment will be maintained during staged construction and an on-site
detour will avoid need for a temporary detour bridge by using a portion of the existing bridge to maintain traffic flow. The new
structure will be constructed using pre-cast concrete components which avoids potential impacts from live concrete. During
demolition, components of the existing bridge will not be dropped in the water. Sediment curtains will be used around relic
pylons to prevent sediment from entering the water column.
Minimization Measures: Wetland impacts have been minimized to the extent feasible, with impacts occurring only where new
location of bridge bents and piers are required to support the structure and installation of safety guard rails. Existing roadway
and bridge alignment have been maintained to minimize impacts.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Use of the existing roadway to maintain traffic on-site during construction of the new bridge. Use of existing roadway to
operate construction equipment; no equipment will enter wetlands or waters. Use of pre-cast concrete bridge components
avoid use of live concrete.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ®No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form- Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
9 . (2&W 6fz3/v9