20021598 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20041027

0,41 q?6 wuuam u. muss or., aecreiary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`
7.
C11
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
j
'-I Division of Water Quality

October 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Hennessy -
From: Nicole Thomson ,/Y0

1
Subject: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement to construct US 17 Improvements from
South of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to North of SR 1418 (Roberson Road) in Washington and
Chocowinity Vicinity Beaufort County and Pitt County, Federal Aid Project MAF-75-3(26), State
Project No. 8.T150601, TIP R-2510, DENR Project Number 03E-0012.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as pr sented in the FEIS, will result in impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and protected riparian buffers. The,\7 offers the following comments based on
review of the aforementioned document: \ \
A) The document does not present any mapping that shows the l?cation of wetlands and streams. In addition,
the document does not give any specified amount of anticipated impacts to wetlands and streams. Until the
DWQ has a map that clearly displays all the wetlands, streams, and other surface waters located in the
project, with the proposed project superimposed onto those resources, we cannot agree that appropriate
avoidance and minimization has occurred for this project. As such, issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification for this project could be delayed until the information is provided to the DWQ for review, and
we are convinced that all appropriate avoidance and minimization has occurred for this project.
B) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation will be required for this project in accordance with
Environmental Management Commission's Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 1.
C) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1,
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A
NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3) 1, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
D) As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, NC DOT is respectfully reminded to
include specifics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to
present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification. We understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation.
qjthCaro ?ria
Transportation Permitting Unit ? K?7[ra !J?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httl2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
0
c?
J

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
E) Future documentation and the 401 Water Quality Certification Application must provide the stream data
sheets used in determining those streams as "exempt" from the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
F) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
G) An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The
type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of
secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004. We understand that you have agreed to make this
study a part of your 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
H) NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation
and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact
calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to
be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
1) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge m?y prove preferable. When applicable, DOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maxirp\ extent practicable.
J) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed'?'n wetlands.
K) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent.practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
L) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed discharge as diffuse flow at non-errosive velocities in
compliance with the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
M) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water, quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
CA2004 DOT ProjectAR-25 I OTEIS Oct04

^ 7ft
FHWA-NC-EIS-02-02-F
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
US 17 IMPROVEMENTS
Washington and Chocowinity Vicinity
Beaufort County and Pitt County, North Carolina
From South of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to North of SR 1418 (Roberson Road)
Q?6Z? r=od?o
D
O C T 0 5 2004
Federal Aid Project No. MAF-75-3 (26)
State Project No. 83150601
T.I.P. Project No. R-2510

r

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C)] and 49 USC 303
by the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. COAST GUARD
Date of Approval Mr. GregoryJ. orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
?- 3l-oy
Date of Approval A,-Mr. J n F. Sullivan, III, P.E., Division Administrator
Federa ighway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
[phone]
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
This abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the need for transportation improvements along
US 17 in Beaufort and Pitt Counties from SR 1127 to SR 1418. Current and forecasted traffic volumes indicate that
the existing roadway is not adequate. A Draft EIS, approved on June 5, 2002, evaluated three Build Alternatives with
respect to cost, social and economic impact, and environmental consequences. This Final EIS documents the
selection of the Preferred Alternative and the ability of the Preferred Alternative to fulfill the purpose and need for the
project.

1

t

I
US 17 IMPROVEMENTS
WASHINGTON AND CHOCOWINITY VICINITY
BEAUFORT COUNTY AND PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
From South of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to North of SR 1418 (Roberson Road)
Federal Aid Project No. MAF-75-3 (26)
State Project No. 83150601
T.I.P. Project No. R-2510
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY RUMMEL, KLEPPER, & KAHL, LLP:

1. Tommy Peacock, Jr., P.E.
Manager, Southeastern Operations

Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E.
Project Engineer
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
"a
Elmo E. Vance, Jr.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
k: SEAL
= c°n ; 4642 •: Q
'%-.'441-4 S PE
C A
•?Q?p4IS
= = SEAL z
6976
:r
oil I WO
Manager
Consulting Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

1

r

1

w
7

S.0 SUMMARY

t

S.0 Summary
S.1 Federal Highway Administration
Administrative Action: Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Draft ( ) Final (X) Abbreviated Final
This document was prepared as an Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) in accordance with specifications contained in 40 CFR 1503.4(c). This Final
EIS and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended,
and are intended for use by both decision-makers and the public. These documents
include the disclosure of relevant environmental information regarding the proposed
project and conform to the methodologies and requirements of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines regarding the implementation of NEPA and
the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) technical advisory for Preparing and
Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (FHWA, 1987). Information
provided in the Draft EIS is updated in this document as needed and new information
and data that was obtained is included.
The "abbreviated" Final EIS format was agreed to jointly by the Federal Highway
Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation due to the
adequacy of information in the Draft EIS, the success of public and agency
involvement in the development and review of the project, and due to the NEPA-
Section 404 Merger Team having reached agreement on the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative. With the "abbreviated" format, information in the
Draft EIS is not repeated, new and explanatory information is provided.
US 17 Improvements Summary -- Page SI

t

Federally Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of federally protected species for Beaufort
County is shown in Table 3.17 of the DEIS under Affected Environment on page 62.
This list is consistent with the most recently updated USFWS list of February 5, 2003.
As documented in the Draft EIS, the USFWS in a letter dated December 7, 2001 stated
that the Protected Species Survey Report of September 2001 was an accurate
representation of surveys and results for the protected species. The USFWS
concurred that the project will have "No Effect" on the Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the Rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia); and that the project is "Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" the sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). A copy of the USFWS letter
is included in Appendix B of the Draft EIS.
S.8 Areas of Controversy
Public involvement and agency coordination were implemented early in the planning
process. No areas of controversy were identified as part of the proposed project.
S.9 Unresolved Issues
There are no unresolved issues associated with the proposed project at the current
time.
I US 17lmprovements Summary-Page S15

Table S.1 - Build Alternatives Impact Summary Based on Preliminary Design
US 17 Improvements - T.I.Y. No. R-2510
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
B
(Preferred) C I-G
Length mi) 1:5:0 14.8 17.5
Interchanges 2 1 2
Grade Separations #) 4 _
2 7
Road Closures #)
-- 2 3 1
Road Relocations - 2 3
-- - -
-
Relocations
Residential #) 102 118 126**
Business #) _ 16 31 7
Church # 0 _
_
1 0
TO1'Ai, #) 118 150 133**
Minority Relocations
Residential (#) 54 67 58**
Business #) 4 6 0
Church (#)
TOTAL #) - 0
58 1
_ 74 0
58**
Cultural Resources Adverse Effects
Section 106 Historic Architectural)
0
2
1
Section 4(0 Impacts _ 0 _
1 0
Noise Impacts #) * 87 146** 73
Hazardous Material Sites #) 3 _
3 2
Flood lain Impacts (ac) 7.2 10.1 24.0
Prime and Important Farmland (ac) 29 25 86
Wetland Mitigatable Impacts (ac) * 9.5 8.9 29.1
Open Water Impacts (ac) 0.5 0 2.4
Stream Crossings (#) 27 33 77
Stream Miti atable Impacts (ft) * 5,977 5,903 16,873
Tar/Parnlico Riparian Buffer
Mitigatable Impacts (ac) Zones 1 & 2 *
9.3
8.8
18.5
Costs millions
Right -of-Way _ 19.5 26.1 16.6
Utility _ 1.6 2.1 2.2
Construction 207.0 189.0 210.4
Wetland Mitigation 0.2 _
0.2 0.7
Stream Mitigation 1.4 1.5 4.2
Riparian Buffer Mitigation 0.4 0.4 0.7
TOTAL COST ($ milli(lns) 230.1 219.3 234.8
* Reflects changes to impacts from those shown in the Daft Environmental Impact Statement published June 2002.
** Includes additional irnpacts for residents of Cedar Manor Rest Home.
US 17 Improvements Summary - Page S17

i
L

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

1
1.2 Supplemental Information and Updates to the Draft EIS
1.2.1 Summary, S.3 Proposed Action (DEIS Page S 2): The 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) for North Carolina, shows right of
way acquisition scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004 and construction is
scheduled to start in fiscal year 2006. The updated NCDOT Project Schedule (2-
25-04) calls for right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2005 and for
construction to start in fiscal year 2006. This updated NCDOT project schedule
is shown on Exhibit F-4.1, Project Scheduling Map, in Appendix C of this Final
EIS.
1.2.2 Summary, Table S.1 Build Alternatives Impact Summary (DEIS Page S 13):
An updated impacts summary is shown in Table S.1, Build Alternatives Impact
Summary at the end of the Summary section of this document. (The updated
impacts summary is also included in Table 1.3 of Chapter 1 of this Final EIS.)
1.2.3 Purpose and Need for Action, 1.5 Secondary Benefits, Improve the
Crossing of the Tar/Pamlico River (DEIS Page 5): Updated structural
information about Bridge No. 25 over the Tar/Pamlico River is as follows:
The existing US 17 swing-bridge (Bridge No. 25) over the Tar/Pamlico River was
built in 1928 and was reconstructed in 1966. The bridge was last inspected in
' September of 2002, has a sufficiency rating of 40.2, has an estimated remaining
life of 16 years, and is classified as structurally deficient.

US 17 Improvements Chapter I - Updates to DEIS - Page 3

C C
O C
O

C
Lo
O
CD U
41 `
O
O
O
O
O
7 p)
Lo
a) 7
C O o
N v) N O a) N a) CO
O
O `

U
N
C
a c
N
N
N
Q)
N N N ca. c:
L U °U E Li a L ° U} LL U

C
O
E U
O
O -
C LL E
O
? L
C LL
C E
C
U
0
o U u cr? U -
? m m p
U 41
vV 'o
v C)
m co
a- C:
c
a- a)
m Q Q CO Q) Q)
m C:
?n-
m ca C:
m?
ca
m co
a
N
.r
La „
L/1 fn in o o ti a) r-
_ ?La

}
a) u)

CD °

N m a) o

0 o

N a) o o ° ° m o
N d y
? N

m
N

O

N

L

N

N

Q)

N

a N
E
o a
o OL
a o L
E a
E LL c CL
E }
LL a)
° >
LL n.
E }
U LL o a
E
U s d
07 U C U U U a) U d m 0,
U
C
CU CU
d
U
L
p, a)
m m Q m a cL

d l0

c
C
m
m
°
m
a) U)
N U)
n
m
v,
m
N
m

?
a)
a)
R ?
E E a) m m ° m E m ° ? a) ? a) ° a) a)

4.
u n a n a a m
p L77
p a m n a a a
0 0 0 0 0 ` ` o a- o o- o E o o
O U U U U U n n U U
C Q c
- c
- c
- c
- U U U U
LU

O
V o

? c
o
+
+ o ° o U
U
C w N a) r
w+
C N _
c o w _
c c
0 U O C C O O O
ti y
R1
U O
O
n
U -
p (n m
O

(n
C
a) p
=
0 O
L C p)
c CO
a) O
L
O)
O C C
L?
o
p m
O w
O U C
O N - U)
N U
O Z
m E
m
IT
co

Cn
r , z Fr o co O z
r y
-O C
c E
J
O 7 w
O O v-
O
m
O L 3
a)
Z 4'-
° CO
co O
0 L_

O
° t!
p tf
N O
? O
C 7
U) p
U)
N U) U
w C
o C (n O
O O .
.
7 .
7 f`
O
G r- O Ln > Y N
U N O -0
V _ O O
(? p
(n
. U) O O O ` U C p (n c
3 o F C c F- Y

> m
CD- a N
S a o m .4
E :3
ca
s U
w
0
m
a
m
>,

c u) o n U) 0
co
c
co
o m E a.. ? w c °
-r o M s
C 4) 4) O p ti co 00 U co r- Or - 'C C
O m m ~ p - A C O U
m 3 3 o .
-. E? w Y
W z z 0 `-r w chi) chi) U) chi) ? 5 z -LD

C
Z CD O O O o - `- N C) ? U LL U-) Cl) M ~

d N
N co
N 'T
N d'
N V'
N U)
N Lo
N Lo
N L1')
N

N [Q
Ln C

- ((O
N C)
M 0
N
F- a, Q (i Qf CL CL Q? Ln ro C
4 Q? 3
N

ti
q
O
:a.
I
v
Q.
U
m
M
N
cr-
M
O ?
O ?
N a
a7 ?
C
? Q)
~ ? U
0
0 0 ? N
o ac)
O
N Q) L o
m a)
m Q)
ca
,J

location, was determined eligible for listing in the National Register under
Criterion D - Data. Data recovery is recommended at this site (31 BF340).

Table 1.2: Summary of Archaeological Survey Data
Site Number Component Site Type Recommendation

31 BF59 Middle Archaic/
Woodland/Contact Limited Activity Not Eligible
31 BF282 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Domestic/A ricultural Not Eli ible
31 BF324/324 Middle Archaic/
Twentieth Century Limited Activity/
Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF325 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF326 Twentieth Century Domestic/Commercial Not Eligible
31 BF327 Twentieth Century Cemetery Not Eligible/
Avoidance
31BF328 Twentieth Century Agricultural Not Eligible
31 BF329 Twentieth Century Cemetery Not Eligible/
Avoidance
31 BF330 Twentieth Century_ Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF331 Twentieth Centu_ r? Agricultural Not Eligible
31 BF332 Twentieth Century Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF333 Twentieth Century Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF334 Lithic Prehistoric Isolate Not Eligible
31 BF335 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Agricultural Not Eligible
31 BF336 Twentieth Century _
Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF337 Nineteenth Century Cemetery Not Eligible/
Avoidance
31 BF338 Twentieth Century _
Agricultural Not Eli ible
31 BF339 Twentieth Century Dump Not Eligible
31BF340 Middle Woodland Limited Activity Eligible
31BF341/341 Woodland/
Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Limited Activity/
Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF342 Twentieth Century Agricultural Not Eligible
31 BF343 Twentieth Century Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF344 Twentieth Century Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF345 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Agricultural/Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF346 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31BF347 Lithic Prehistoric Limited Activity Not Eligible
31 BF348 Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Historic Scatter Not Eli ible
31 BF349/349 Lithic Prehistoric/
Twentieth Century Isolate/Domestic Not Eligible
31 BF350 Twentieth Century Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF352/352 Early Archaic/
Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries Limited Activity/
Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF353/353 Middle Woodland/
Twentieth Century Isolate/
Historic Scatter Not Eligible
31 BF354/354 Woodland/
Twentieth Century Limited Activity/
Domestic/Agricultural Not Eligible
CIS 17 Improvements Chapter I - Updates to DF,IS - Page 7

t

1

1.2.7 Affected Environment, 3.5.1.4 Protected Species, Federal Protected
Species (DEIS Page 61): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of
federally protected species for Beaufort County is shown in Table 3.17 of the
DEIS on page 62. The list was reviewed and is consistent with the most recently
updated USFWS list of February 5, 2003.
1.2.8 Environmental Consequences, 4.4.1 Historic Architectural Properties,
Potential Effects on Eligible Properties Within Alternative B, Bishop Joseph
A. Beebe House, and Washington Historic District (DEIS Page 23): On April
8, 2003, the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) revised the determination
of effect on the Bishop Joseph A. Beebe House from "No Effect" to "No Adverse
Effect With Conditions". The conditions are to minimize tree removal along the
right of way in front of the Beebe House and to erect a tree-protection fence
during construction of the project. Also, the determination of effect on the
Washington Historic District was established as "No Effect" if NCDOT, in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, provides for aesthetically
pleasing rails on the new US 17 bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River. Each of
these commitments has been included in the Project Commitments listed in the
front of this document. A copy of the HPO's letter is included in Appendix B of
this document.
US 17 Improvements Chapter I - Updates to DEIS - Page 9

Table 1.3 - Build Alternatives Impact Summary Based on Preliminary Design
US 17 Improvements - T.I.P. No. R-2510

Eval
ti
C
it
i Alternatives
ua
on
r
er
a
--? B
(Preferred) C I-G
Lcnylth (mi) 15.0 14.8 17.5
Interchanges #
- 2 1 2
(.grade Separations (#) 4 2 7
Road Closures (#) 2 3 1
Road Relocations
- - - 4 2 3
Relocations *
-- - -
Residential (#) 102 118 126**
Business #) 16 31 7
Church #) 0 1 0
'TOTAL, #) 118 150 133**
Minority Relocations
Residential (#) 54 67 58**
Busincss?#)_ 4 6 0
Church (#)
TOTAL #) 0
58 1
74 0
58**
Cultural Resources Adverse F,ffects
Section 106 Historic Architectural)
0
2
1
Section 4 f) Impacts 0 1 0
Noise Impacts #) * 87 146** _
73
Hazardous Material Sites (#) 3 3 2
Floodplain Impacts (ac) 72 10.1 24.0
Prime and Important Farmland ac) 29 25 86
Wetland Mitigatable Impacts (ac) * 9.5 8.9 29.1
Open Water Impacts (ac) 0.5 0 2.4
Stream Crossings #) 27 33 77
Stream Miti Ratable Impacts (ft) * 5,977 5,903 16,873
Tar/Pamlico Riparian Buffcr
Miti atable Impacts ac) "Zones 1 & 2 *
9.3
8.8
18.5
Costs s millions
Right -of-Way 19.5 26.1 16.6
Utility 1.6 2.1 22
Construction 207.0 189.0 210.4
Wetland Nlitigation 0.2 0.2 0.7
Stream Mitigation 1.4 1. 5 4.2
Riparian Buffer. Mitigation 0.4 0.4 0.7
TOTAL COST ($ millions) 230.1 _
_
219.3 234.8
- tcenects changes to impacts trom [nose snown in the uratt LJnviron mental Impact Statement published June 2002.
** Includes additional impacts for residents of Cedar Manor Rest I-Ionic.
US 177mprovements Chapter I - t%ptlates to DEIS - Page 11

11

CHAPTER 2
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND
BASIS FOR SELECTION

1

1

Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and
Basis for Selection
2.1 Introduction and Overview
The proposed action is to improve the 15.5-mile US 17 Corridor in the vicinity of the
City of Washington and the Town of Chocowinity in Beaufort County, North Carolina.
The study area is approximately 16 miles long and encompasses a portion of Beaufort
County centered on the City of Washington and the Tar/Pamlico River, as well as a
small tip of Pitt County. The City of Washington, Town of Chocowinity, and crossroad
communities of Hackney, Frederick, and Old Ford are located within the study area.
The need for improvements along this route include levels of services (LOS) ranging
between LOS D and E along US 17 throughout most of the study area, above average
statewide accident rates along US 17 through Washington and Chocowinity, and the
t need to improve the US 17 crossing over the Tar/Pamlico River. The LOS is for
current traffic volumes and is expected to decrease as traffic volumes increase. In
' addition, US 17 through Beaufort County is part of the North Carolina Intrastate System
which is designed to support statewide growth and development objectives and to
connect to major highways of adjoining states; and is a STRAHNET route developed
by the Department of Defense to provide defense access, continuity, and emergency
1 capabilities.
' The proposed US 17 Improvement is identified in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) as
' Project No. R-2510. The US 17 Improvement project through Beaufort County is also
designated as priority item number one in the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of
Washington (2000). Documented reasons for this high priority include "US 17 is the
only route east of 1-95 that is an alternative for continuous north-south travel and is an
essential link in realizing the full potential of the tourism industry in the coastal region of
' North Carolina." The 2004-2010 T.I.P. shows right of way acquisition scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 2004 and construction is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2006. The
' updated NCDOT project schedule (4-7-04) calls for right of way acquisition to begin in
US 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page I

t

• From south of existing US 17 north of SR 1142 (Bragaw Lane) to north of
the Tar River [length = 2.8 miles] - Four-lane freeway bridge on new
location with a 10-foot median divided by a barrier and full control of access,
The bridge will span existing US 17, the Norfolk-Southern Railway, SR 1165
(Sand Hole Road), the Tar River, Kennedy Creek, and the wetlands
adjacent to the Tar/Pamlico River.
• From north of the Tar River to existing US 17 north of SR 1404 (Whispering
Pines Road) [length = 1 mile] - Four-lane freeway on new location with a
46-foot median and full control of access. An interchange is provided at US
264 west of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road). An at-grade intersection is
provided at existing US 17 north of SR 1404. A grade separation is
provided at 15`h Street.
• From north of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) to 0.2 mile north of SR
1418 (Roberson Road) [length = 5.2 miles] - Widen the existing roadway to
a four-lane divided expressway facility with a 46-foot median and partial
control of access.
The roadway typical sections, grade separation typical sections, and Tar/Pamlico River
bridge typical section for the proposed US 17 improvement project are shown in
Appendix C.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with State and Federal Environmental
Regulatory and Resource Agencies selected Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative
for the improvement of US 17 in the vicinity of Washington and Chocowinity.
Comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and at the
Public Hearing were considered during the selection of Alternative B as the Preferred
Alternative.
U.S 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 3

2.4 Jurisdictional Findings
Wetlands and Waters of the US - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
regulates the discharge of fill and dredged material into "Waters of the US", including
wetlands, under Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, commonly
' known as the Clean Water Act. The occurrence of wetlands was determined using the

three parameters discussed in the COE Wetland Delineation Manual of 1987. The
largest regulated impacts are associated with the Tar-Pamlico River and adjacent
floodplains and are anticipated to be 9.5 acres for Alternative B (Preferred). In general,
the wetlands directly associated with the Tar-Pamlico River are functionally classified
as higher quality riverine or palustrine systems while the wetlands that occur further
removed from the river are medium quality palustrine and/or palustrine emergent
systems.
Streams - The COE under Section 404 guidelines, jointly with the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources; Division of Water Quality (DWQ) under 15A NCAC
2H.0506, jointly regulate perennial and intermittent streams in North Carolina. Impacts
to regulated stream features for the Preferred Alternative are anticipated at 5,977 linear
feet. The general characteristics of the perennial streams located adjacent to
Alternative B (Preferred) are low flow with sandy or sand/organic substrate materials,
averaging 4 to 5 feet in width and classified as Rosgen channel type F (highly
entrenched with moderate sinuosity).
Riparian Buffers - DWQ regulates riparian buffers along waterways in the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin in North Carolina under 15A NCAC 28.0259. Anticipated impacts
to regulated riparian buffers are 9.3 acres and as such, the proposed project will
require a "no practical alternatives" determination prior to initiation of construction. The
vegetated riparian buffers located adjacent to local streams are characterized as
forested, broad-leaved deciduous with well developed shrub and herbaceous layers.
Avoidance and minimization measures were reviewed for all regulated impacts.
Compensatory mitigation measures will be coordinated through the COE and DWQ for
those that were unavoidable.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis -Page 5

Study (ICI) for the project. Additional ICI analysis focused on impacts to water
resources will be prepared as part of the Section 404 / Section 401 permitting process
as stated in the Project Commitments (Green Sheets).
I ?1

1 2.6 Agency Coordination
The Wilmington District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) signed an Interagency Agreement Integrating Section 404/NEPA in 1997.
This agreement describes a "phased" approach to the coordination process where a
' series of four concurrence points are reviewed by a "Project Team" assembled at the
beginning of selected highway project. The Project Team reviews each concurrence
point with respect to the project and provides written concurrence before the next step
is initiated. The four concurrence points reviewed for this project are as follows:
I ' Purpose and Need Concurrence Point 1
( )
' Detailed Study Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2)
¦ Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
' (Concurrence Point 3)
¦ Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts (Concurrence Point 4A)
A Comparison of the Preliminary Study Alternatives used in the selection of Build
Alternatives (Detailed Study Alternatives) by the Project Team is given as follows:
F

U.S 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 7

1

Alternative F extended westward of the City of Washington and was
determined to be detrimental to future land uses in undeveloped areas of
Beaufort County. Local citizens were against this alternative as it was felt that it
would divert traffic away from the existing commercial areas of Washington.
Alternative G modified Alternative F and extended westward of the City of
Washington and was determined to be detrimental to future land uses in
undeveloped areas of Beaufort County.
Alternative H modified Alternative F and extended westward of the City of
Washington and was determined to be detrimental to future land uses in
undeveloped areas of Beaufort County. This alternative had the largest
impacts to agricultural lands and designated floodplains and the third largest
impacts to regulated wetland features.
Alternative I extended westward into Pitt County and was determined to
potentially impact three listed historic properties. This alternative was the
second longest alternative studied and again, was not favored by local citizens
due to the distance from the City of Washington and associated business
district. This alternative had the second largest impacts to agricultural lands,
large potential impacts to Section 4(f) properties, and the highest residential
relocation potential of the alternatives located west of existing US 17.
Alternative I-G (Build Alternative) was developed to combine the best features
of Alternatives I and G, and was selected by the NEPA-Section 404 Merger
Team to be carried forward as a Build Alternative.
' Alternative J extended eastward of the City of Washington and was the
longest of the preliminary alternatives. This alternative potentially impacted the
largest amount of wetland and stream areas. The majority of local citizens and
officials did not favor this route located east of existing US 17.
[J
1 US 17 hnprovernents Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 9

Fill

u

1
1
fJ

The following measures were undertaken during project development to avoid and
minimize impacts to environmental resources:
Concurrence Point 4A - Avoidance and Minimization Efforts - Alternative B
1. Delineated, field verified, and surveyed per GPS methodology all jurisdictional
features (wetlands, streams, riparian buffers) within the study corridor for
Alternative B. The study corridor was approximately 1,000 feet in width along
new location and 500 feet in width along upgrading existing. Using these
surveyed features, preliminary designs were adjusted to avoid and/or minimize
impacts to jurisdictional areas.
2. Removed an interchange from design of existing US 17 and Alternative B south
of Chocowinity; avoided relocation of several residences and reduced impacts
to natural systems.
3. In the area south of NC 33 and east of Chocowinity, the entire alignment was
shifted westward to minimize a parallel crossing through a large wetland
maintaining continuity of the natural system.
4. Considered bridging pond adjacent to existing US 17 and east of Chocowinity;
however, based on field review and information received from project biologists
concerning the pond being a beaver impoundment, it was not recommended.
5. Designed a perpendicular crossing of the northern most finger of the same
wetland.
6. Revised interchange with NC 33 to avoid relocations of local physician's office
and pharmacy.
7. Shifted Alternative B east at the NC 33 interchange to avoid relocations on
Jones Circle and Bragaw Lane.
8. Reduced median width from 46 feet to 10 feet for approximately 500 feet prior
to beginning of bridge over Tar/Pamlico River.
9. Extended Tar/Pamlico Bridge over all open water, adjacent riparian buffers and
natural wetland systems.
10. Closed Grimes Road at historic Rhem Family House to avoid impacts.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - preferred Alternative and Basis - Page l l

1
Additional avoidance and minimization actions since the Concurrence Point 4A Merger
Team meeting and the Combined Public Hearing are as follows:
1. The horizontal alignment of NC 33 was revised and the control of access
reduced to minimize impact on the recently constructed Chocowinity Fire and
EMS located on the south side of NC 33. The station structure and parking lot
are located in the southwest interchange quadrant.
2. The US 264 interchange Ramp A (northwest quadrant) was modified to reduce
impacts to the Maryanna Mobile Home Park. The relocation of five (5) mobile
homes was avoided as a result.
3. The location of the 15th Street connector to the Maryanna Mobile Home Park
was revised to connect to the north side of the mobile home park. This revision
was requested by the mobile home park to provide better access, and also
avoids impacts to the recently constructed Hampton Inn and Radio Shack.
4. The proposed US 17 connector north of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) was
' modified to avoid the existing building and the recently constructed St. John's
Missionary Baptist Church on the John Hardison property. The relocation of the
church was avoided as a result.

5. Right of way was reduced to avoid a newly constructed residence located on
the west side of US 17 on the Joseph Boston and Mazel Smith property.
6. To minimize any effect to the Bishop Joseph A. Beebe House, a commitment
was to minimize any tree removal along the right of way in front of the Beebe
House and to erect a tree-protection fence line during construction of the
project.
7. To minimize any effect to the Washington Historic District, a commitment was
added to design the proposed US 17-Washington Bypass Bridge over the
Tar/Pamlico River with "aesthetically pleasing" rails. The design of the rails is
to be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 13

' Along NC 33, the Ramp B / Loop B (southwest quadrant) intersection with
SR 1142 (Bragaw Lane) was revised to minimize impacts on the recently
constructed Chocowinity Pharmacy and Chocowinity Family Care located
on the north side of NC 33. The revisions to Ramp B resulted in an
I increase of 0.14 acre of wetland impacts.
• The NC 33 interchange Ramp C (southeast) was modified to reduce
wetland impacts. The wetland impacts were reduced by approximately 0.06
' acre.
• An additional 250' service road was added east of Clarks Neck Road
southwest of the US 264 interchange to provide access to the remainder of
the Rufus Knott property via the Eddie Knott / Rufus Knott property.
r
• Grimes Road was relocated to tie into US 264 at Pontiac Drive creating a
four-way intersection.
' Whispering Pines Road (SR 1404) was cul-de-saced on both approaches to
the former intersection with US 264.
• The US 264 interchange Ramp A (northwest quadrant) was modified to
' reduce impacts to the Maryanna Mobile Home Park. The relocation of 5
mobile homes was avoided as a result.
The location of the 15th Street connector to the Maryanna Mobile Home
Park was revised to connect to the north side of the mobile home park. This
revision was requested by the mobile home park to provide better access,
and avoids impacts to the recently constructed Hampton Inn and Radio
Shack. The new connector is 400' in length.

U.S 17 Improvements Chapter 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 15

' The Caterpillar property and structures (700' north of Spring Road) on the
east side of US 17 were located for design purposes. Access to the
' property was reviewed and partial control of access is proposed along the
property.
Other recently constructed buildings that were located and placed on design
plans include the following:

n

• One residence located on the west side of US 17 on the Joseph Boston
& Mazel Smith property. The proposed right of way was reduced to
avoid the building on the property.
• Two residences and one garage located on the west side of US 17 on
the James Beatty & Joyce W. Family Trust property.
• A church located on the east side of US 17 on the Covenant Community
Church property. The former church building was removed from the
map and the new church building was located on the Design Public
Hearing Map.
• Pamlico Mini-Storage located on the west side of US 17 on the
Swanner-Cooper Farm Historic Property adjacent to parcel 474.
This Final EIS will be made available to the public. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be
prepared after the distribution and comment period of the Final EIS, and the ROD will
be made available to the public. A Design Public Hearing will be held, after the
circulation of this Final EIS and the completion of the ROD, to inform the public of
changes made since the public hearing of September 23, 2002.
US 17 Improvements Chaptc r 2 - Preferred Alternative and Basis - Page 17

I

1

CHAPTER 3
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

t

Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses
This chapter contains comments received from Federal, State, and local agencies and
the general public during the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). The notice of availability for the DEIS appeared in the Federal
Register on July 5, 2002. The comment period closed on August 30, 2002. In
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public and agency
comments were reviewed and incorporated into this Abbreviated Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS). These comments were taken into consideration by the
Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
in the decision making process.
3.1 Agency Comments Received on the Draft EIS and
Responses to the Comments
Copies of the letters received from Federal, State, and local agencies since the
distribution of the DEIS are included in Appendix B.
3.1.1 Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(July 8, 2002)
Comment: "The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any
comments at this time."
Response: Comment noted.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 1

' Comment (2): "The condition of the existing US 17 bridge is described as "structurally
deficient" with rusted and cracked underpinnings, and that the bridge has a remaining
life of 16 years. These statements seem somewhat contradictory. Does this mean that
the weight limits have or will be lowered in the future or other service limitations
1 imposed?"
' Response: Unless the bridge is reconditioned when needed, reduced weight limits
will be imposed if necessary. It is anticipated that the existing bridge will be repaired.
The proposed new bridge will provide an alternative route to the existing bridge during
times of repair and emergencies, as well as serving as an improved route for everyday
' traffic.

Comment (3): "All new location alternatives considered only fixed span in deference
to draw or swing span bridges for navigation. The basis for this design specification is
not given in the document. Further, the only basis for the 35 feet of vertical clearance
(Table 2.5) is for one particular Corps of Engineers vessel to navigate upstream for de-
snagging river obstructions. The frequency of these maintenance events is not given
nor any equipment options. A conflicting vertical clearance height of 40 feet is defined
in the text on page 40."
Response: A fixed span bridge was recommended rather than a draw or swing span
type bridge as it provides uninterrupted service to both roadway and water traffic, costs
less to build, costs less to operate, cost less to maintain, and is safer for both motorists
and boaters. A vertical clearance under the bridge of 40 feet was specified by the U.S.
Coast Guard in a letter dated February 28, 2002 (a copy of the letter is located in
Appendix B of the Draft EIS).
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 3

From DEIS Section 4.1.2: "Alternatives B and C will have minor impacts on this facility
1 (Cedar Manor Rest Home) as the at-grade intersection with existing US 17 and
Alternatives B and C is constructed. Alternative B will require approximately 10 feet (3
' meters) of temporary construction easement from this property. Alternative C will
require approximately 60 feet of permanent right of way including an existing parking
area from the rest home property. Widening existing US 17 in front of the facility will
result in a loss of some driveway and landscaped areas, increase visual impacts, and
increase noise impacts during actual construction. However driveway connections will
be maintained. Possible impacts associated with Alternatives B and C will include a
' reduction in quality of the visual, air, and noise environments directly outside of the
Cedar Manor Rest Home as a result of the proximity of the proposed intersection.
' Alternative I-G will require a permanent relocation of the entire facility."

1
Section 3.1.1 in the DEIS presents demographic data for Beaufort County, Pitt County,
and the State of North Carolina, as well as, limited data for the municipality of
Washington. Table 3.1 of the DEIS has been revised to include available data for the
Town of Chocowinity.
Table 3.1 Past and Projected Population Statistics (Revised November, 2002)
Year Town of
Chocowinity City of Washington Beaufort County Pitt County North
Carolina
1980 --- 8,418 40,355 90,146 5,880,095
1990 624 9,160 (8.8%) ` 42,283 (4.8%)' 108,480 (20.3%)' 6,632,448
(12.8%)'
1995 not available not available 43,287 119,426 7,185,327
1999 not available not available 44,158 127,879 7,650,699
2000 733 (17.5%) " 10,109 (10.4%) " 43,709 (3.4%)" 130,849 (20.6%)" 7,734,401
(16.6%)"
2010 not available not available 44,477 153,853 8,675,564
Source: North Carolina Office of State Planning (1997b, 1999a,b, 2000b,c, d).
' Indicates percent increase from 1980 to 1990
" Indicates percent increase from 1990 to 2000
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 5
1

Comment (7): "Existing noise levels were monitored in the project area. Sensitive
sites were selected for measurement but the 17 sites selected did not include Cedar
Manor Rest Home, on the west side of US 17 near SR 1409, south of Chocowinity.
The Noise Technical Memorandum does not identify any receptors in Activity Category
' A, where quiet and serenity are needed to maintain the use of the property. Category
A is logical for elder care facilities which commonly provide outdoor use areas for the
residents. This rest home was assigned Activity Category C, a category suitable for
less noise sensitive activities such as businesses. EPA believes the categorization for
rest homes should be reconsidered."
Response: It is agreed that FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) "C" is not
appropriate for this site as indicated in the DEIS and Noise Technical Memorandum
(April 2000); however, it is believed that Category B should be used rather than
r Category A. Category B includes residences, motels, schools, churches, libraries and
hospitals (which are similar to rest homes). In addition, the existing rest home is only
' 89 feet from the existing US 17 roadway and the ambient noise level is 65 dBA. This
ambient level of 65 dBA exceeds the NAC of 57 dBA for activity A and is close to the
NAC of 67 dBA for activity B
' The Preferred Alternative B is located approximately 710 feet from the rest home and
does not affect the noise level at the rest home.
' Alternative C widens the existing US 17 roadway in front of the rest home. As a result,
' the year 2025 noise level at the rest home will increase from the existing 65 dBA
ambient level to 71 dBA. However, even if US 17 is not widened by Alternative C, the
' 2025 "No-Build" noise level will be 68 dBA. This exceeds the NAC criteria of 67 dBA
f
C
t
B
Th
f
Alt
ti
ill i
C
t th
C
d
M
H
T
or
a
.
egory
ere
ore,
erna
ve
w
mpac
e
e
ar
anor Rest
ome.
he
DEIS includes this impact even though the site was classified as Category C.

Alternative I-G will go through the Cedar Manor Rest Home and requires the relocation
' of this facility. Therefore, Alternative I-G has no noise impact on the rest home.
i
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 7

1

11

Comment (12): "In the discussion on community cohesion (Page 15 of the DEIS),
EPA believes that the analysis does not appropriately address the 'bisecting' of the
town of Chocowinity under Alternative C.. The analysis describes mobile home parks
and other residential areas within the project study area. With partial control of access
under Alternative C, the town will be 'halved' by the new "high speed" US 17 route.
This could have potentially significant impacts to the business area of the town and the
town's cohesiveness. This issue should be addressed more fully."
Response: The existing roadway typical section through the Town of Chocowinity is
a four-lane curb and gutter facility. Alternative C proposed a six-lane roadway typical
section with a 20-foot raised median and no control of access. While existing US 17
traffic already bisects residents and neighborhoods east to west, increasing the
number of lanes and encouraging additional traffic in downtown Chocowinity would
increase isolation in the community, decrease safety for pedestrians, and further limit
access to public facilities.
As Alternative B has been selected as the preferred alternative, the existing roadway
section in Chocowinity is to remain as it currently exists and a substantial amount of
the existing through traffic on US 17 should be diverted to the proposed bypass facility.
Comment (13): "Table S.1 in the DEIS provides a summary of the build alternatives'
impacts on preliminary design. ... However, it is unclear whether the impact of
Alternative I-G includes all 34 residential units of the Cedar Manor Rest Home. ...
Based on field observations, EPA believes that these impacts for Alternative C may be
under estimated within the Town of Chocowinity, and the matter warrants further
consideration."
Response: The environmental impact data associated with the Build Alternatives has
been updated and is included in Table S.1, Build Alternatives Impact Summary at the
end of the Summary section of this document. The updated impacts summary is also
included in this document as Table 1.3 in Chapter 1. The impacts associated with the
Cedar Manor Rest Home have been included and are noted on the tables.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 9

Comment (16): "Beaufort and Pitt Counties are two of the top crop-producing counties
in the state. The losses of high value farmlands are documented in Table 4.15. The
impacts from Alternative I-G would be more than triple either Alternatives B or C.
Within the project study area, there are 20 prime, one unique and 13 statewide
important farmland soil types. The DEIS does not address what these losses
represent percentage-wise of the total of these designated classes of farmland soil
types in the study area. Neither are there any specific farming activities or specific
farms within the alternative corridors defined which would be significantly impacted by
the proposed project. The FEIS should address this issue more comprehensively
given the significance of the industry to this area."
Response: Farmland impacts are noted and summarized in Table S.1 of this
document. Alternative B (Preferred) has one of the lowest impacts on Prime and
Important Farmland. The U. S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Service
had no comments regarding farmland impacts presented in the Draft EIS.
Comment (17): "Alternative B adversely impacts no properties eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, while Alternative I-G potentially impacts one historic
property, and Alternative C impacts two historic properties. The 4(f) analysis of
avoidance options for the Chocowinity Historic District with Alternative C concluded
that those options would shift the adverse impacts to minority communities."
Response: Comments noted. Alternative B was selected as the Preferred Alternative.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 11

t

i

1

Comment (20): "EPA considers it standard practice in environmental reviews to
identify all impacted wetlands. This document identifies the amounts of jurisdictional
wetlands, which we assume means those federally regulated under Section 404
guidelines. Perhaps there are no non-jurisdictional wetlands within the alignments, but
this is unclear."
Response: As indicated in the Draft EIS, the wetlands indicated are based on the
three-parameter approach in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(1987). Updated impacts to wetlands and natural systems are shown in the updated
Table S.1 and in Table 1.3 of this document.
Comment (21): "Wetland impacts data in the summary tables in the document do not
fully define how the alternative alignments impact the resource. Total impacts to
wetland resources require the numbers in Tables 4.18 and 4.19 to be added, resulting
in impacts to 18.7, 22.8 and 41.2 acres for Alternatives B, C and I-G respectively. We
realize that it is not possible to avoid many of the wetland systems in this area, but we
recommend that NCDOT investigate bridging bank to bank all 20 of the wetlands which
were found to possess high functional value using the ESI method. All of these appear
to be forested wetlands along streams, and most of them are deciduous wetlands
(either cypress or broad-leaved deciduous). EPA recommends that bridging should be
considered for the crossing of Tranters Creek by Alternative I-G; bridging would
substantially minimize the impact to wetland and aquatic resources."
Response: Comments noted. Bridging has been considered during project
development and will continue to be evaluated during final design, permitting, and
mitigation.
I US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 13

' Comment (24): "EPA recognizes that there is a valid purpose and need for the
proposed improvements on US 17. Alternate I-G would provide far less traffic utility
than the other build alternatives. Reasonable alternatives have been evaluated to
meet the identified needs."
"While all of the build alternatives would result in significant impacts to the human and
' natural environment, EPA prefers Alternative B."
' Response: Comments noted. Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative.

3.1.2 State Agencies
' N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
(January 29, 2003)
Comment: "We find that the DEIS has done a good job of addressing our concerns
' about historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect. However, the information
addressing effect to cultural resources in Chapter 4.4 is no longer current. The final
t environmental impact statement should reflect the findings in NCDOT's Revised US 17
Improvements Project "Meeting for Determination of Effects Historic Architecture"."
Response: Comments noted. The findings of effect have been updated and are
included in this document in Summary, in Section S.7 Summary of Impacts, Cultural
Resource Impacts.
r

U.S 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 15

N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
(April 19, 2004)
Comment: "We have reviewed the specifications you have provided concerning the
Department of Transportation's proposal to construct a bridge over the Tar River west
of Washington and the current Highway US 17 bridge. Your agency and the applicant
i should be aware that in the project vicinity several recorded submerged archaeological
sites have been recorded including the USS Pickett 002TTR, Tranter's Creek wreck
003TRR, and the composite wreck, 011TRR. Other undocumented sites are likely to
lie in the project area."
"Alerted by this information, we inspected the project specifications carefully and
determined that bridge construction creates a bottom disturbance that may damage
unknown archaeological resources. We, therefore, recommend that a comprehensive
survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and
significance of submerged archaeological remains lying within the project boundaries.
Potential effects on these resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of
construction activities."

Response: NCDOT will conduct an underwater archaeology survey prior to
construction.
I US 17 Improvements Chaptcr 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 17

I
Comment (4): "Page 13, Purpose and Need for Action, Table 1.2, US 17 Intrastate
t Corridor: Planned Improvements. This is a very informative table. However, some of
the information is out-of-date. Please revise the information within this table within the
FEIS."
' Response: Table 1.2, US 17 Intrastate Corridor: Planned Improvements, has been
updated and is included in this document as Table 1.1 in Chapter 1.
' Comment (5): "Page 40, Alternatives Description, Table 2.11, Preliminary Cost
Estimates and Page 19, Environmental Consequences, Table 4.2, Cost Estimates.
Please explain in detail within the FEIS how the wetland, stream and buffer mitigation
' and utility cost estimates were determined."
' Response: Amounts of wetlands, streams, and buffer impacts were calculated and
then mitigation ratios and estimated unit costs were applied to determine mitigation
costs. Utility costs were estimated by the NCDOT Right of Way Branch.
' Comment O6 : "Page 42, Alternatives Description, Selection of Build Alternatives.
"The existing US 17 swing-open bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River will be maintained
with all three alternatives." Please include a detailed discussion within the FEIS of the
human and natural environmental impacts that will be required in order to maintain
existing US 17 within the project study area, including the existing US 17 Bridge over
the Tar-Pamlico River. Please include an explanation as to why maintaining existing
US 17, including the existing US 17 Bridge over the Tar-Pamlico River, is considered a
separate project from R-2510, as stated at the NEPA/404 Merger Team meeting on
1/22/03."

Response: Existing US 17 and the existing US 17 bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River
1 will be left in place to serve existing development along the roadway and to provide for
circulation of local traffic in the area as part of the Washington-Chocowinity
thoroughfare system.
US 17lmprovemenis Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 19

Comment O9 : "Page 42 to 49, Alternatives Description, Build Alternatives. At the
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting on 1/22/03, it was mentioned that a Welcome Center
is being considered in associated with R-2510. Within the FEIS, please include a
' detailed description of the Welcome Center that is being considered for this project,
including any anticipated impacts to the human and natural environment."
' Response: NCDOT has recommended a preferred site for a possible rest area. The
' site is located on the south side of Chocowinity, just north of Price Road (SR 1149) on
the east side of US 17, and just north of the point where the proposed US 17 Bypass
(Alternative B) separates to the east from existing US 17. The site is located across
' US 17 from the Cedar Manor Rest Home, and is bounded by existing US 17 on the
west and the proposed US 17 Bypass on the east. The rest Area is still in the early
planning stages and construction of a rest Area is not part of this project.
1
Comment (10): "Pape 2 to 6, Affected Environment, Socioeconomic Conditions. The
' population and demographic data appears to be based on the 1990 population census.
Please update this information within the FEIS to include the results of the 2000
population census."
' Response: The latest data on population and demographics is shown in Tables 3.1,
3.2, and 3.3 of this document in Chapter 3.

CIS 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 21

' Comment (13): "Page 73 to 84, Affected Environment, Wetland Descriptions and
Wetland Functions. DCM requests that NCDOT use the DCM GIS-based wetland
' inventory and mapping program to determine the estimated total wetland impacts for
Alternative B according to wetland type and functional significance. This information
should be provided to the NEPA/404 Merger Team prior to the next NEPA/404 Merger
Team meeting to discuss Concurrence Point 4A. This information should also be
' included in the FEIS."
"The DCM GIS-based wetland inventory and mapping program is a valuable planning
tool for transportation planning purposes. The DCM GIS wetland inventory and
mapping program is not a substitute for wetland delineations and other types of
wetland analysis. It should be provided in addition to the existing wetland information
contained within the DEIS."
Response: Updated wetland impacts are included in Table S.1 of this document.

Comment (14): "Page 1 to 65, Environmental Consequences. Additional
environmental consequences for Alternative B that should be discussed within the
FEIS include, but are not limited to:
• Location of service roads and associated impacts to the human and natural
environment;
• Bridge construction techniques, including moratoriums, access, detours and
pile installation practices;
• Location of pipes, culverts and bridges. For existing pipes, culverts and bridges
please indicate the proposed replacement structure's type and dimensions.
• Proposed stormwater management practices for the entire project length,
especially for the new bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River."
I US 17lmprovements Chapter 3 - Comments anti Responses - Page 23

u

Comment (16): "Pape 16, Environmental Consequences, Community Cohesion.
"Access control issues will be discussed on a property-by-property basis during the
final design phase of the proposed project" and Page 18, Environmental
Consequences, Altered Travel Patterns. "Access to adjacent properties is maintained
by utilizing the original roadway as a service road or partial control of access in areas
where construction is on new location." Please explain what is meant by these
statements within the FEIS. How do these statements relate with previous
commitments made within the DEIS states: "A full-control access freeway facility will
further improve the safety by controlling the access points and eliminating at-grade
intersections and driveways. " "
Response: Full control of access is to be provided along the "new location" sections
of the project from SR 1149 (Price Road) to existing US 17 north of SR 1404
(Whispering Pines Road). Full access control will provide for access at controlled
access points such as interchanges, and will not allow access at at-grade intersections
or driveways. Where existing access is severed, access will be provided by service
roads or other existing roadways. The remainder of the project along existing location
will have partial control of access. Sections with partial control of access usually
provide for only one access per parcel, with additional access points only being
provided for large tracts of land or unique situations. Final access will be determined
on a parcel-by-parcel basis in final design.
Comment (17): "Page 26, Environmental Consequences, Visual Impacts. "Scenic
easements and the construction of a new bridge over the Tar/Pamlico River in a
natural, undeveloped setting will add to the quality of the view from the highway,
regardless of which of the three Build Alternatives is selected. Such
improvements......" Within the FEIS, please explain in detail the locations of scenic
easements that will be acquired, and the restrictions that will be placed upon
development within these areas. If the acquisition of scenic easements will avoid and
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment, then this information should
also be included within the avoidance and minimization section of the FEIS. Also, it
appears as though some of the text on the bottom of this page was cut off."
1 US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 25

1

Comment (20): "Page 54, Environmental Consequences Mitigation Evaluation.
"Reduction of fill slopes and median widths at stream/wetland crossings will reduce
jurisdictional impact areas." Please elaborate on this statement within the FEIS. What
specifically is proposed at each stream/wetland crossing for Alternative B?"
"Page 54, Environmental Consequences, Mitigation Evaluation. "Conservative use of
culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures will minimize degradation of
water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in streams and
tributaries." Please elaborate on this statement within the FEIS. What specifically is
proposed at each stream/wetland crossing for Alternative B?"
Response: Reductions in the width of fill slopes and median widths will reduce the
footprint of the project and intrusion into adjacent streams and wetlands. Final
decisions on bridging of streams and wetlands will be made in final design and
permitting.
Comment (21): "Page 55, Environmental Consequences, Mitigation Evaluation. The
compensatory mitigation discussion should be substantially expanded within the FEIS
by providing specific information about the compensatory mitigation that is proposed
for this project."
Response: Mitigation is discussed in Chapter 2 of this document under Section 2.8
Mitigation.
Comment (22): "Page 55, Environmental Consequences, Permits and Certifications
Required. Please add the following statement to the FEIS within this section: "DCM
typically requires that the invert of pipes and culverts that are located within
jurisdictional wetlands or streams within the 20 coastal counties must be placed a
minimum of 1 foot below normal water level." "
Response: Comment noted.
1 US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 27

Comment (25): "Please state within the FEIS whether the hydraulic design and
roadway design will be 100% complete for all of the segments when environmental
permit applications are submitted. If not, then what information will be available when
the environmental permit applications are submitted?"
Response: It is anticipated that hydraulic design and roadway design will be complete
when environmental permit applications are submitted.
Comment (26): "Page 57, Environmental Consequences, Traffic Congestion and
Detours. "Detours and road closures may be required in locations where the proposed
improvements are along existing roadways." Please include a discussion within the
FEIS about the possibility that on-site detours will be constructed, or whether the
existing road network will be used if detours are needed. Is there a possibility that on-
site detours, if constructed, may result in temporary or permanent additional wetland,
stream and/or buffer impacts?"
Response: Very few detours are anticipated for the construction of the project as it
will mostly involve widening of existing roadways and construction on new location. No
significant additional impacts are anticipated to wetlands and buffers by the use of
detours. The use of detours will be determined during final design and any impacts are
anticipated to be minor and temporary.
Comment (27): "Page 57, Environmental Consequences, Noise and Vibration.
"Minimization of construction noise can be achieved by maintaining adequate mufflers
on equipment, distancing haul road locations from sensitive receivers, erecting
' temporary noise barriers, and limiting construction to daylight hours on weekdays. "
Please explain within the FEIS whether there is a possibility that haul roads will be
' proposed within streams, wetlands and/or buffers."

project. Special bridge construction techniques will be evaluated and incorporated to
Response: Comments noted. Haul roads may be required for construction of the
minimize any impacts to streams and wetlands.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 29

Comment (30): "Pace 3, Coordination and Public Involvement. Please add the
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) to the list of agencies on the NEPA/404
Project Team within the FEIS. "
Response: The Division of Coastal Management is part of the NEPA-Section 404
Merger Team and the agency is listed as a member of the Team in this document in
Appendix B under the listing of Merger Team Agencies.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (September 5, 2002)
Comment (1): "Alternative I-G results in significantly greater impact to wetlands,
streams, and buffers. At this time, DWQ does not support the selection of this
alternative as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)."
' Response: Comment noted. Alternative B is the Preferred
Alternative.
Comment (2): "In Table S.1 and Table 4.18, the document lists "wetlands mitigatable
impacts" for each alternative. The identified potential impacts to "mitigatable wetlands"
' is 8.59 acres, 9.12 acres, and 29.10 acres for Alternatives B, C, and I-G, respectively.
In Table 4.19, DOT lists additional wetland impacts that will occur from proposed
bridges for each alternative. Those proposed impacts are 10.11 acres, 13.63 acres,
' and 12.09 acres, respectively. Therefore, according to the document (see comment
G), the total wetland impacts for Alternatives B, C, and I-G are 18.70 acres, 22.75
' acres, and 41.19 acres, respectively. However, review of the final impact matrix (Table
4.20) indicate the anticipated impacts for Alternatives B, C, and I-G, are 8.6, 9.1, and
29.10, respectively. While we agree that impacts to wetlands that are bridged will not
1 US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 31

1
Comment (5): "On page 54, the document states, "Due to the extent of wetlands and
1 surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of impacts is not possible."
Throughout the process of developing and reviewing corridor alternatives, avoidance of
impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers occurs. In addition, after the preferred
alternative (LEDPA) is selected, additional avoidance of impacts can occur through
realigning the roadway. Please rewrite the section to address this issue. In addition,
please provide additional information that catalogs the avoidance measures employed
during the planning of the project."
1 Response: Avoidance and minimization efforts are given in Chapter 2 of this
document in Section 2.6 Agency Coordination.

Comment (6): "As presented in the document, Alternative B departs the existing US
17 road corridor south of Chocowinity, and bypasses the town to the east. This
alignment is located in an area with several streams and wetlands. In reviewing of
Exhibits 3.6a-d, it appears that Alternative B has a greater potential for impacts to
streams and protected riparian buffers than Alternative C (which upgrades the existing
' alignment). However, the total anticipated impact presented in the document show
Alternative B to have the lowest impact to wetlands and streams. Moreover,
Alternative B anticipates only 0.5 acres of additional impact to Tar-Pamlico riparian
buffers. Please provide additional information that clarifies the location and magnitude
I of the proposed impacts."

Response: Alternatives B and C are concurrent except for the vicinity of Chocowinity
where they are on different alignments and affect different natural systems. The
anticipated impacts to wetlands, streams, and buffers were itemized by segments in
Appendix F of the DEIS. Anticipated natural system impacts were re-evaluated after
the DEIS and the values were updated and presented at the Merger Team meeting on
January 22, 2003. These values were also presented in Newsletter No. 7 which is
included in Appendix A of this document. The anticipated impacts of Alternatives B
and C are very similar. Some of the impacts for Alternative B are slightly higher than
Alternative C as noted in the updated Table S.1 at the end of the Summary section of
this document, and in Table 1.3 in Chapter 1 of this document.
I US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 33

' Chocowinity Historic District. Some of the designs show a potential for a large number
of impacts to existing homes and businesses presented in Table 4.20 for Alternative
' C? What are the number of relocations of homes and businesses for each proposed
design?"
' Response: Alternatives were developed to provide for anticipated traffic movements
' and to minimize impacts to significant natural and cultural resources. An updated
summary of impacts for the three Build Alternatives is given in Table S.1 and Table 1.3.

Comment (10): "On page 44, the document proposed a 6-lane divided highway typical
t section with a 20 foot raised median through Chocowinity. We have observed smaller
medians used for similar typical sections on other projects. Why was a 20-foot raised
' median selected for this typical section? A smaller raised median could result in a
lesser, or possibly remove completely, impacts to Alton Weatherly House in
1 Chocowinity for Alternative C.
' Response: A 20-foot raised median is a standard minimum urban median design for
NCDOT highway projects.

' Comment (11): "In Section 2 and 3, the document presents nine possible alternatives
for consideration. However, in Section 4, only three alternatives are presented.
' Therefore, there are six alternatives that are not studied in detail and presented in
Section 4. It should be noted that we agreed, as part of the Merger Team, that it was
appropriate to no longer consider the six alternatives in question. However, the
document should present an explanation as to why and how the six alternatives were
eliminated for further study."

' Response: A discussion of study alternatives is given in Chapter 2 of this document
under Section 2.6 Agency Coordination, Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives.

I US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 35

' Comment (15): "In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506 (h)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to
t any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan
should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance
with the NCDWQ Wetland Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation."

F1
1

Response: Mitigation is discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.8 Mitigation.
Comment (16): "Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used
in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the
use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where
high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When
applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable."
"Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands."
"Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation."
"The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should
not be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be
designed to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus."
Response: Comments noted.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 37

3.1.3 Local Agencies
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners (July 2, 2002)
Comment: The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners submitted a resolution in
support of Alternative B.
Response: Resolution noted. Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative.
Beaufort County Committee of 100 (September 19, 2002)
Comment: The Beaufort County Committee of 100 submitted a resolution in support
of Alternative B.
Response: Resolution noted. Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative.
Beaufort County Economic Development Commission
(September 19, 2002)
Comment: The Beaufort County Economic Development Commission submitted a
resolution in support of Alternative B.
Response: Resolution noted. Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative.
US 17lmprovements
Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 39

"We appreciate all you have done to move the "Alternative B" once before to save our
Center 33 Professional Building altogether, however we strongly encourage you to
remove the right-of-way requirement as requested. If you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]. We look forward
to working with you in any way possible. "
Response: Comments noted. As requested, the design was revised to minimize
impacts to the Professional Building by the proposed US 17 Bypass / NC 33
interchange.
Town of Chocowinity (October 4, 2002)
Comment: "As you are aware, the Town of Chocowinity has always requested the
alternative going west of Chocowinity. However, the route we were most interested in
is no longer an option considered. Therefore, we would like to change our
endorsement to alternative B, which goes to the east of Chocowinity with the following
conditions. We would like for you to be aware that the main growth of the town has
been to the east. A new physician's office is currently under construction as well as a
new fire department and EMS building. We would like you to be considerate in placing
this alternative B that would not interfere with the current growth of this town. We also
request that sound barriers placed along Highway 17 where it abuts a residential
section of our Town. Our main concern with this alternate is the disruption the traffic
' noise will cause to our town citizens."
Response: Comments noted. The Town's support of Alternative B is noted.
Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative. As requested, the design was revised to
minimize impacts to the physician's office and the EMS facility in the vicinity of the
' proposed US 17 Bypass / NC 33 interchange.
1
I US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses -Page 41

' Comment: A citizen suggested an alternative using NC 32 and NC 45 from
Washington to Midway (Bertie County). He noted that with this alternative the
' connection from Washington southward to Bridgeton would have to be determined and
that sections of existing US 17 would need to be upgraded to 3-lanes where
' practicable. He noted that Beaufort County is a Tier I County and that improving the
roadway system should help with the economic development.
1 Response: Comments noted.

Comment: The President of the Southern Albemarle Association read a resolution in
' support of Alternative B.
Response: Comments noted.

Comment: A citizen suggested that he thinks the money set aside for this project
t could be better spent on a new alternative. He noted that all possible corridors were
not evaluated because of politics and that one of the corridors impacts the Beaufort
County industrial park. He recommended a route located east of Washington that
would use the high grounds south of the river. He stated that this corridor would
minimize impacts to the wetlands, reduce the noise impacts, provide improved route
continuity, help with emergency vehicle response and provide a good hurricane
evacuation route.
Response: Alternatives east of Washington were evaluated in the preliminary route
studies but were eliminated early in the DEIS process. The location of the future
Beaufort County industrial park near Cheery Run Road and Leggett Road on
Alternative I-G was noted. Alternative I-G will impact the industrial park.

US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 43

u

Comment: The President of the North Carolina Rails to Trails Committee stated he
supports the rails to trail project noted by the previous speaker. He made reference to
the pedestrian culvert that was added to the US 64 project to make provisions for the
American Tobacco Trail. He noted the added benefits of having a trail: property values
increase and helps to provide physical activity. He also noted that this proposed trail
should be taken into consideration through the planning process as noted in the
Department's Greenway Policy.
Response: Comments noted.
Comment: A citizen requested that the speed limit between Chocowinity and
Washington be reduced to 35 m.p.h. He also noted that he thinks the engineers are
insane for evaluating an alternative that takes six lanes though Chocowinity. He
supports Alternative I-G because it will take the truck traffic and noise away from both
Washington and Chocowinity. By reducing the speed limit and enforcing it, he thinks
truck drivers would be forced to use Alternative I-G.
Response: Comments noted.
Comment: A citizen stated that this project has been a nightmare to those individuals
who live along US 17. Because the project has been in the planning stage so long,
citizens are left not knowing what to do with their property. He is concerned that all
study corridors will take business away from both Washington and Chocowinity. He
would like to keep US 17 on its present location. He would also like for US 17 to be
widened to a four-lane roadway from Williamston to New Bern. This would decrease
the traffic accidents that are a result of passing. He questioned that if this project is
completed there will still be a traffic problem for the sections of US 17 north and south
of this project. He stated that the planning for those projects is behind this one.
Response: Comments noted. There are proposed T.I.P. projects at both ends of this
project and both are post year on the T.I.P. schedule. Project R-2511 borders this
project to the north and Project R-2513 to the south.
US 17 Improvements Chapter 3 - Comments and Responses - Page 45

CHAPTER 4
DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

' Chapter 4 - Distribution of the Environmental Impact
' Statement
The Draft EIS was approved on June 5, 2002 and distributed to the following
Federal, State, and local agencies and was made available to the public.
Indicates agencies that responded in writing. Copies of letters received are
included in Appendix B of this document.
' The agencies listed below will receive a copy of this Final EIS.
4.1 Federal Agencies

U. S. Department of Agriculture
' U. S. Department of Commerce, National Geodetic Survey
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries
' U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department Health and Human Resources
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Transportation, Coast Guard
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
' U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
U.S. General Services Administration

US 17 Improvements Chapter 4 - Distribution of the EIS - Page 1
i
4.2 State Agencies
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources *
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management *
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality *
4.3 Local Agencies
City of Washington
Town of Chocowinity
Beaufort County
Pitt County
Southern Albemarle Association
4.4 Public Review Locations
Washington City Hall
Chocowinity Town Hall
Beaufort County Public Library
Pitt County Public Library
North Carolina Department of Transportation Division Two Office
US 17 Improvements
Chapter 4 - Distribution of the FIS - Page 2

APPENDIX A
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

s
Appendix A
Coordination and Public Involvement
* Copies of Documents Since the Approval of the Draft EIS (June 5, 2002) Are
Attached
Newsletter No. 7
Combined Public Hearing Handout
Hearing Attendance Register
Newsletter No. 6
March 2003 *
September 23, 2002
September 23, 2002
August 2002 *

C
t
!J

fl
1

t
1

NP OF NORTH
US 17 IMPROVEMENTS
T.I.P. NO. R-2510
BEAUFORT AND PITT COUNTIES
of IlA?SQO Newsletter No. 7 March 2003
Alternative B Selected
as the Preferred Alternative
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and State and Federal
Environmental Agencies has selected Alternative B as the
Preferred Alternative for the improvement of US 17 in the
vicinity of Washington and Chocowinity. Comments
received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and at the Combined Public Hearing were considered
during the selection of Alternative B as the Preferred
Alternative.
Alternative B was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the
following reasons:
• Provides the best service to the US 17 Intrastate traffic
• Is shorter than Alternative C
• Has the least number of relocatees
• Has no cultural resources impacts
• Has the second fewest noise impacts
• Has the second fewest wetland, stream and buffer
impacts
• Has the second lowest total cost
• Is supported by local governments and organizations
including the City of Washington, the Town of
Chocowinity, the Beaufort County Economic
Development Commission, and the Southern
Albemarle Association
• Was selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) by the NEPA/404
Merger Team.
The proposed US 17 Improvement is listed in the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) as Project No.
R-2510 and is part of the US 17 Intrastate Corridor. The
proposed project will improve 15 miles of US 17 in the
vicinity of the City of Washington and the Town of
Chocowinity in Beaufort County.
Description of Build Alternatives Studied
Three alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and I-G) were evaluated
in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). All three alternatives begin at SR 1127 '(Possum
Track Road) and extend northward partially along existing US
17 and partially on new location to SR 1418 (Roberson Road).
The approximate locations of the three alternatives are shown
on the enclosed map and described below:
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) is approximately 15
miles in length and will: a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane
divided highway from SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR
1149 (Price Road); b) provide a four-lane freeway on new
location from SR 1149 bypassing Chocowinity to the east and
Washington to the west and connecting to existing US 17
near SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) north of Washington;
and c) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided highway
from SR 1404 to SR 1418 (Roberson Road). Interchanges are
proposed with NC 33 near SR 1142 (Bragaw Lane) and US
264 near SR 1404.
Alternative C is approximately 14.8 miles in length and will:
a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided highway from
SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR 1149 (Price Road); b)
widen existing US 17 through Chocowinity to a six-lane
highway with curbs and gutters; c) provide a four lane freeway
on new location from north of Chocowinity to north of
Washington near SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road); and d)
widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided highway from SR
1404 to SR 1418 (Roberson Road). An interchange is
proposed with US 264 near SR 1404.
Alternative I-G is approximately 17.5 miles in length and
will: a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided highway
from SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR 1149 (Price Road);
b) provide a four-lane freeway on new location west of
Chocowinity and Washington from SR 1149 to SR 1413 (Ball
Road); and c) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane highway
from SR 1413 to SR 1418 (Roberson Road). Interchanges are
proposed with NC 33 west of SR 1158 (Carroty Road) and
US 264 near SR 1407 (Leggett Road).

N }
y -' W F
01 1 O ? 5 a ,A2 z ? ? ?
`$?d O o p?? /3o P ; PI W
O p
1(7 JC J 8tY1 44 a? E-"
9 p ?] a U O
al N/ //II '021 NOSa3130'd
' do ?1 W I._.•E "? O 1 W H N z
?i S ? ? ?_.-- ? '`;n Pao ? .•. P/0 ? .J w, ? ' SR 1512 ? ?? , W z a' ? W
W ,/ ?r \_: - -_? vii {?. E_ •d E?
-?? r-a F 1409 " z W r. O .-?
z z
'•-d/ ! ..., is ? ? ?
? 1, rho `? .E.1 a' ¢ w E, Q
1 ! ?, o SR 1540 W
U, 0
a„ 2
5 y e• ? ec
?., ?•s ? x'1[0>1 ?a° a
`\ i ••i? r?-..•R 1509- •°- Q' G1• S,y1
1 ?j. ''i 7 k ••?? ?i1' I
' e^?y ??,? ,.. i,- •?• ?, c?,1/? •; ? .?? ::iii: [?1 s?s?b
0 _
r m d .c, x
m N
71
1?? ?` d• , ..• ?, ® _ ,teM?le21 wa4lnoS >t101PoN r ...... ry1
Sµ %,?• ly \ ?'S
r •2 , m U SsLL h co ?• % 9e
g?y' F bs N
l5° m ``? AAr??O '? y c bN13
SP
AGO GpJ K ``?? m / ..? O r 99L •p?Je..•
l`• J??V- h ?? m L ?S
cr)
r - y2- 1 iG ?f
i rh '? O
o sR 115 v '••.... ' f 'll,?, ff` ?S
"" 7s?o ds ~ b?L bg ;d'+ 4iayyO'W??b s
d? fB ? • 'Y? •.,? !"? ? sP 1150 J) ? ??'Y y?
{ w N ( P? ti
r -_ 2
2g?L (mil r' ?
r_, ?y y •?L , ` a
0111
?^ ykW,?? /
' O C7 0 / y fL[ 1124
1 5? W m Ltl?^?
5
i
r i wnss d
/
m f ? O
of ?
I,
L_J
UPGRADE OF US 17
FROM SOUTH OF CHOCOWINITY
ASHINGTON
TONORT
,1 a ,?k? .?
M a, ? 4. t ? ? rL
1 W& ,: s ^I N C M. %PN B lot SS)
?py?,, Ih21 i3 +' ?
N I "r??y4 1141
l? ?lpN}IdG IN
xyn n a 41
Q?S?P 4;q?? atV'L?i'?????'h?? 'ry S?p• ?.??F?µuS ?' H??.
i ..'
I? P III Y I ? i y,?°, , ? ? °? I Tj 1 5y W wc?y'xa.onsw.esa?'. m?..rnu.weti?+al?oavew.m:aan?Nn,new•a• k?f
f k i' , to
' ? J??? Cl??lt ??z'?i'k? ?4 kl 51 I ? 1 ^ u I ? I ?4?? ?. ?'?,?''A "?Plw, ? e •4!?1, I????
I• nii? h1??ir? f r ? i''SI?P,fRci' ?':j'?',? ?"nt. 9"?? {?;?
l?;t' ?,dvlnaM ^ l ? ?i T,`.? ? y? ? Tu I Aw? `U(
' In.r tic ? ? I? I '
I t ?J?+MVyr ,r!?I"STATE
1 r u 1 ?9 (p? ??yk
f?? I U' ,?? ? ?'?? 9n ?ml:+wr+Wxo ?? ? 4F ? ???1 "(, ry"l?'
;r id4T!:. z, j ° ! { :? npd'It' II t ,; r?? V
','AU?11r: ah w D PITT OUNTI
+ug q,U'4'. , . U , `5??e??LLr,YYY,IV' 1 pry?(? A TOP
yP41 ?k' '?? n,L1• 1
,UW F g 4„Y
O
19 SaiNi
! . X
Tb7 I i ep
9
?.`? tea %xn
k F
fi:?P'UBIC ?EA.N
CONTINUING EDUCATION BUILDING -
BEAUFORT COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002

11

1

t
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be held after the comment period has ended. This meeting will be
attended by NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division, Right of Way, Public
Involvement & Community Studies and others who play a role in the development of a project.
When appropriate, representatives from the Federal Highway Administration and local
governmental staff and officials also attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at this post-
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic service, social
impacts, environmental impacts and public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may
require additional study and may be reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation
Members and the Secretary of Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public. You
may request a copy of the post-hearing minutes on the attached comment sheet.
CORRIDOR SELECTION PROCESS
After the post-hearing meeting, the Section 404/National Environmental Policy Act Merger Process
Project Team will convene to recommend the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical
Alternative (LEDPA). This Merger Team is comprised of representatives from the NCDOT, the
Federal Highway Administration, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife .
Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the NC Division of Water Quality, the NC
Wildlife Resource Commission, and the State Historic Preservation Office. Other agencies are
included as appropriate. The LEDPA recommendation will be sent to the Secretary of
Transportation for the final selection. This selection will be announced in a project newsletter in
late fall or winter.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal Funds and 200/c
State Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design and maintenance cost after construction.
The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of the previously
mentioned activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed, constructed and
maintained to Federal Aid Standards.

t

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Alternate routes under consideration vary in length from approximately 15 to 18 miles and include
a route following existing US 17 through Chocowinity and bypassing Washington just to the west
(Alternative C), a similar route that includes a short bypass east of Chocowinity (Alternative B), and
a route bypassing both Chocowinity and Washington further to the west (Alternative I-G). These
alternate routes are shown in the attached figure showing the Build Alternatives.
Alternative B
Alternative B begins 0.5 mile south of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) and extends to 0.2 mile
north of SR 1418 (Roberson Road) with portions following existing US 17 and portions on new
location. Alternative B leaves existing US 17 near SR 1149 (Price Road) south of Chocowinity,
crosses NC 33 with an interchange east of Chocowinity, bridges over existing US 17, the Norfolk
Southern railway, SR 1165 (Sand Hole Road) and the Tar River north of Chocowinity, crosses US
264 with an interchange west of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) west of the Washington
central business district, and connects to existing US 17 north of SR 1418 (Roberson Road). The
length is 15 miles.
Proposed Interchange Locations - Alternative B
• NC 33 east of Chocowinity
• US 264 northwest of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road)
Proposed Bridge Locations - Alternative B
• Existing US 17 north of Chocowinity (also extends over Norfolk Southern railway, Sand
Hole Road and the Tar River 1 mile west of the existing Tar River bridge)
• 15th Street

11

Proposed Intersections - Alternative B
• Existing US 17 south of Chocowinity at SR 1149 (Price Road)
• Existing US 17 north of Washington near SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road)
Alternative C
Alternative C begins 0.5 mile south of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) and extends to 0.2 mile
north of SR 1418 (Roberson Road) with portions following existing US 17 and portions on new
location. Alternative C widens existing US 17 to six lanes through Chocowinity and leaves existing
US 17 north of SR 1142 (Bragaw Lane) north of Chocowinity, bridges over the Norfolk Southern
Railway, SR 1165 (Sand Hole Road) and the Tar River, crosses US 264 with an interchange west
of SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) west of the Washington central business district, and
connects to existing US 17 north of SR 1418 (Roberson Road). The total length is 14.8 miles.
Proposed Interchange Locations - Alternative C
0 US 264 west of Whispering Pines Road (SR 1404)

t

U5 17 lnlj)rO vcnicnts - 'r.I.P. Ni,. R-2510
Build Altcr(lattves Impact Sunln)ary Bascd on PrOlmitlaty Dcsi-n
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
B C I-G
Length tni) 15.0 14.5 '17.5
Interchanges #) 2 1 2
Grade Separations #) 4 2 7
Road Closures #) 2 3 1
Road Relocations 4 2 3
Relocations
Residential #) 107 123 96
Business #) 14 29 7
Church # 2 3 0
TOTAL #) 123 155 103
Minorite Relocations
Residential #) 54 67 42
Business # 4 6 0
Church #) 0 1 0
TOTAL. #) 58 74 42
Cultural Resources Impacts
(Section 106 Historic Architectural 0 2 1
Section 4 Impacts 0 1 0
Noise Impacts # 87 116 73
Hazardous Material Sites #) 3 3 2
Flood lain Impacts (ac) 7.2 10.1 24.0
Prime and Important Farmland (ac) 29 25 86
Wetland Mitigatable Impacts (ac) 8.6 9.1 29.1
Open Water Impacts (ac) 0.5 0 2.4
Stream Crossings #) 27 33 77
Stream Impacts ft 5,720 5,823 16,793
Tar/Pamlico Riparian Buffer
Miti atable Impacts (ac) Zones 1 & 2
9.1
8.6
18.2
Costs $ millions
Right -of-Way 19.5 26.1 16.6
L till 1.6 2.1 2.2
Construction 207.0 189.0 210.4
Wetland Mitigation 0.2 0.2 0.7
Stream Miti ration 1.4 1.5 4.2
Riparian Buffer `IitigatiOn 0.4 0.4 0.7
1'O"1'l11, COS-1. (S millions) 230.1 219.3 234.8

Y)
z
w u
?? z
o
>
a
W
o
CL U 0
t j y..„
Z, N
a •--7
U
b
z m
. z H
.

w d

• ?
a o
?
IV
ESE E?
-m o
E
= am
? Z
Z

f
??O L
U
I .
I C
E Q
WU_ o
? U
3 c v CD LIJ
Ql
0 0 06 0 `
e a$ o'- - ' mom, CD Q
i L (? .o
E
?
a Q
w Va a
?
E I W
Zti
y `
_
e
I '
^
^ ^
v/ J
/,
W
E j 0

w

Z
E
am E ? 4 a
o

w
M ?
' NAME (Please Print) ADDRESS REPRESENTING
21.
2.? 1 Gt ?. b ?ti
-? I
' 23.
24.
25. WAS ?g3
26 ?44
?Co O J
27. 1-f
llail
29. 2 ??t' CrU
30. ,U P? C?1
?oQ o co
31. Ir c Ic?? ?e4-? ?3 rossu?, VeOL'ckl
32. ? l h
33../
4
34. u? ?? G ^ l
1
35. U Cc S Lj - C ho c a ?,W 1.4, ?] k
abc Z. c) 2,7 Se-
31. CJO- r
3 8. \?/A? 1-e OW, c-4 2, F 7:,
39. J. (? ?L 5 // C / 'l??w S' i _ I?! ?s hYyw?o? a7 0? 1
? C hOC? v ? 0 C-
'.. 40. -?L 0 u?
(VN J64
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I /
NAME (Please Print) ADDRESS
REPRESENTING
61.
62.
63. ? Q F ^? ?? ?, < < 1s !, Neil ?{ , s .,n ` v,:? A
64.E
65. ???l ?G / r e r per( d' WaC ?I ,? J?
66.
67.
68. i?> :ILL- 304, )W 51f/i l emlyl C, .
69. AA
Capg?x
70. L1 N? hOLG1 / J,^C-
t
71. &,V?l V d ?? 45 2 9 Le
72.
?L3
73.
74. ,y O?is 9 r L G- Ob LEE?I o Rf !/613 ?o/90 LIkSLQ722N Ae' .? Y8
14,
75. '?'? M ?,9 ? ? I (? k 1c? L j,
1 Z 7 ?`?c(
76.1 Z oTTe?e r -30I 0Id Sawm.? R? Mounts 7 aq
77. ?306 C? ? PVC ?"]??
7 9.
80./??'i,? ????C'?Il? ??y/)I`?CCaa?v ??./ -SfJ??,r/?r'? /?/// ?a -?`.
`?oF NORiH Cyq?/
??P ti9 US 17 IMPROVEMENTS
T.I.P. NO. R-2510
OF T0. BEAUFORT AND PITT COUNTIES
?FHr PN °? Newsletter No. 6 August 2002

Environmental Study Completed
Description of Build Alternatives

t

The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCI-)OT) in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration (FI-IWA) approved the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed US 17
Improvements on June 05, 2002. This DEIS is the result of
an intensive study and documents the human and natural
environmental resources in the area and the potential
impacts to each by the three Build Alternatives.
The proposed US 17 Improvements is listed in the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (I'.I.P.) as Project
No. R-2510 and is part of the US 17 Intrastate Corridor.
The proposed project will improve 15.5 miles of US 17 in
the vicinity of the City of Washington and the Town of
Chocowinity in Beaufort County.
Combined Public Hearing Scheduled
As part of the public involvement process for the proposed
US 17 Improvements, the NCDOT will hold a Preheating
Open House and a Combined Public Hearing on Monday,
September 23, 2002.
The Prehearing Open House will be held between the
hours of 4:30 P.M. and 6:30 P.M. in the Beaufort County
Community College. Interested individuals are invited to
attend this open house at their convenience during the above
stated hours. NCDOT representatives will be present to
provide information and answer questions concerning results
of the study.
The Combined Public Hearing will begin at 7:00 P.M. in
the Beaufort County Community College and will be open
for questions or comments from the public. The hearing will
consist of a description of the location of each Build
Alternative, details of the probable impacts associated with
each alternative, and the schedule for selecting a Preferred
Alternative.
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Comments received on the DEIS and at the Combined
Public Hearing are considered during the selection of the
Preferred Alternative. It is anticipated a Preferred
Alternative will be selected by November 2002. The
selection of the Preferred Alternative will be announced in a
project newsletter.
Three alternatives (Alternatives B, C and 1-G) are
evaluated in detail in the DEIS. All three alternatives
begin at SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) and extend
northward partially along existing US 17 and partially on
new location to SR 1418 (Roberson Road). The
approximate locations of the three alternatives are shown
on Figure 1 and described below:
Alternative B is approximately 15 miles in length and will:
a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided facility from
SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR 1149 (Price Road);
b) provide a four-lane freeway on new location from
SR 1149 bypassing Chocowinity to the east and
Washington to the west and connecting to existing US 17
near SR 1404 (Whispering Pines Road) north of
Washington; and c) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane
divided facility from SR 1404 to SR 1418 (Roberson
Road). Interchanges are proposed with NC 33 near
SR 1142 (Bragaw Lane) and US 264 near SR 1404.
Alternative C is approximately 14.8 miles in length and
will: a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided facility
from SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR 1149 (Price
Road); b) widen existing US 17 through Chocowinity to a
six-lane curb and gutter facility; c) provide a four lane
freeway on new location from north of Chocowinity to
north of Washington near SR 1404 (Whispering Pines
Road); and d) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided
facility from SR 1404 to SR 1418 (Roberson Road). An
interchange is proposed with US 264 near SR 1404.
Alternative I-G is approximately 17.5 miles in length and
will: a) widen existing US 17 to a four-lane divided facility
from SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to SR 1149 (price
Road); b) provide a four-lane freeway on new location
west of Chocowitnity and Washington from SR 1149 to
SR 1413 (Ball Road); and c) widen existing US 17 to a
four-lane facility from SR 1413 to SR 1418 (Roberson
Road). Interchanges are proposed with NC 33 west of
SR 1158 (Carroty Road) and US 264 near SR 1407 (Leggett
Road).
US 17 IMPROVEMENTS

u

Table 2 US 17 Improvements - T.T.P. No. R-2510
Build Alternatives Impact Summary Based on Preliminary Design
Evaluation Criteria Alternatives
B C I-G
Length mi 15.0 14.8 17.5
Interchanges #) 2 1 2
Grade Separations #) 4 2 7
Road Closures #) 2 3 1
Road Relocations 4 2 3
Relocations
Residential # 107 123 96
Business # 14 29 7
Church # 2 3 0
TOTAL #) 123 155 103
Minority Relocations
Residential #) 54 67 42
Business # 4 6 0
Church (#)
---- - _....

TOTAL #) 0
....... - ..... ..... .... .

58 1

_.._.
........ _.....
74 0

42
Cultural Resources Impacts
Section 106 Historic Architectural 0 2 1
Section 4 Impacts 0 1 0
Noise Impacts # 87 116 73
Hazardous Material Sites # 3 3 2
Flood lain Impacts ac 7.2 10.1 24.0
Prime and Important Farmland ac 29 25 86
Wetland Mitigatable Impacts (ac) 8.6 9.1 29.1
Open Water Impacts ac 0.5 0 2.4
Stream Crossings #) 27 33 77
Stream Impacts (ft) 5,720 55823 16,793
Tar/Pamlico Riparian Buffer
Midi atable Im acts ac) Zones 1 & 2
9.1
8.6
18.2
Costs $ millions
Right -of-Way 19.5 26.1 16.6
Utility 1.6 2.1 2.2
Construction 207.0 189.0 210.4
Wetland Mitigation 0.2 0.2 0.7
Stream Mitigation 1.4 1.5 4.2
Riparian Buffer Mitigation 0.4 0.4 0.7
TOTAL COST $ millions) 230.1 219.3 234.8

264 4 I R w•w i t
i ? l Sp'1?6 3ro''t 2 ?d'
fr// ?u ? Gl
h? •'r
rlrr COUrTr ¦ s
PAUFORT COUNTY
r ALT. I -
ALT. B,
i
o?

END PROJECT
R-2510
(ALL ALTERNATIVES)

Ba
Swamp
d 'D
?v
' 104???1PMS?ON
Ab
?,9
s?
71

CA

Legend
17 U.S. HIGHWAY
STATE HIGHWAY
SR 1418 STATE ROUTE

. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦?¦?¦?¦ ¦ ¦?¦ COUNTY LINE

CITY LIMITS

........... ................... WATERWAYS
RAILWAYS

O INTERCHANGE
LOCATIONS
SCALE
1 0 1 2 MILES
1,6 0.8 1.6 3.2 KM
US 17 WASHINGTON IMPROVEMENTS
Beaufort and Pitt Counties
WOP TIP No. R-2510
S
GOAT
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT 1.1

1
APPENDIX B
AGENCY AND GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Appendix B
Agency and Governmental Correspondence
* Copies of Correspondence Since the Approval of the Draft EIS (June 5, 2002) Are
Attached
Federal Agency Correspondence
Date Agency
07/08/02 * U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Natural Resources Conservation Service Letter
07/31/02 * U.S. Department of Commerce -
National Geodetic Survey Letter
08/29/02 * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letter
State Agency Correspondence
Date Agency
01/29/03 * North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -
State Historic Preservation Office Letter
04/08/03 * North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -
State Historic Preservation Office Letter
04/19/04 * North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -
State Historic Preservation Office Letter
01/28/03 * North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Coastal Management Letter
09/05/02 * North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality Letter
t
Local Agency Correspondence
Date Agency
07/02/02 * Beaufort County Board of Commissioners Resolution
09/19/02 * Beaufort County Committee of 100 Resolution
09/19/02 * Beaufort County Economic Development Commission Resolution
07/18/02 * Southern Albemarle Association Resolution
09/25/02 * Town of Chocowinity Letter
10/04/02 * Town of Chocowinity Letter
NEPA - Section 404 Merger Team Agreements
01/22/03 * Concurrence Point 3 - Alternative Selection Agreement
04/23/03 * Concurrence Point 4A - Avoidance and Minimization Agreement
Merger Team Agencies Included:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
NCDENR - Division of Coastal Management
NCDENR - Division of Marine Fisheries