R-4748

???tATFS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
W REGION 4
z ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET OC-i
+114 PRol ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 G ,
?N?sq D
cTHCt/y/J
'J
October 11, 2007 ORUW4?? kBp?dCy
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments of the State Environmental Assessment (EA) for
R-4748, New Route from SR 1660 to SR 1662, Macon County, North
Carolina
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and for general consistency with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
propose to construct a new route between SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley
Brown Road) with a potential new bridge over the Little Tennessee River in Macon
County. The proposed project is approximately 1 mile in length. This project is included
in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 process. This project is proposed as being State-
funded and the Lead Federal Agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
According to EPA's Merger 01 records, Concurrence point 1 was signed on
December 8, 2005, and Concurrence points 2 and 2A were signed on February 12, 2007.
EPA offers specific comments on the State EA for NCDOT's consideration in the
Attachment. The purpose and need for the proposed project is to create access for
development sites and improve traffic flow in the project study area.

EPA plans to stay actively involved in the Merger 01 process for the proposed
project. EPA has substantial environmental concerns for anew bridge over the Little
Tennessee River. These environmental concerns are also detailed in the Attachment to
this letter. While direct `fill' impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are relatively
low, there is a significant potential for adverse water quality impacts from induced
development and associated activities to the Little Tennessee River and nearby
tributaries. EPA requests that NCDOT remain actively engaged with local officials
concerning the coordination of local growth plans and the transportation plans, including
the consideration of incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities into the roadway
design. The Town of Franklin issued a `Best Development Practices Guidebook' in
November of 2001 that includes stormwater management issues, erosion and sediment
control, landscape design considerations, etc. EPA recommends that these practices also
Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
be employed for the development parcels that are obtaining access to NCDOT's new
roadway.
Because of the project setting in western North Carolina, EPA is also requesting
that NCDOT consider the' use of the most recent `experimental/mountain' Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as was presented to the Merger Interagency
representatives on September 27, 2007. This NCDOT-funded research to North Carolina
State University includes the use of `coconut fiber logs', `straw wattles', `PAM' and
other innovative soil erosion and sediment control techniques to remove clays and other
fine particles from entering nearby waterways during construction. EPA and other
agencies would be interested in employing these new techniques for construction areas
near the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. EPA recommends that you address
our environmental concerns at future Merger 01 meetings and in the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). We would appreciate receiving a copy of the FONSI when
it becomes available. Should you have any questions concerning this proposed project,
please feel free to contact Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
fir' {
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Cc: S. McClendon, USACE - Wilmington
S. Lund, USACE - Asheville
J. Hennessy, NCDWQ
M. Buncick, USFWS
ATTACHMENT
EPA's Specific Comments on State EA for R4748, New Route from SR 1660 to SR
1662, Macon County
Purpose and Need:
While EPA signed the Concurrence Point 1 Purpose and Need statement, EPA
and other agencies expressed specific concerns that NCDOT had not fully documented
any actual benefit of `sustainable' economic development that might be gained from
building a new bridge across the Little Tennessee River less than a quarter mile from the
existing four-lane bridge at US 64/23/441. EPA and other agencies recognized
NCDOT's desire to provide roadway access to several parcels on either side of the river
that local interests were expressing a desire to develop. Other agencies and EPA also
recognized that the primary purpose and need for the proposed project is economic
development. However, NCDOT was unable to demonstrate specifically how this project
and a new bridge would provide sustainable economic development to the area.
One of the local development interests included the future site of the Macon
County Public Library and Southwestern Community College on the west side of the
Little Tennessee River. Other development ideas (Page 3-1 of the EA) include
approximately 80-88 residential units, restaurants and retail stores along US 23/441, and
a mixed-use development. There are also some ideas for a resort theme park (Mayberry
development theme) with extensive retail, hotels, etc., modeled after the fictional town of
"Mayberry" north of US 64. There were discussions during the Concurrence meeting
that a proposed convention center (`to handle the overflow from Atlanta, Georgia') was
also a local development interest.
One of several problems that EPA and other agencies expressed during the
meeting is that both the Town of Franklin and Macon County do not have formalized
land use plans and strict zoning requirements in this area. Furthermore, NCDOT and
regional authorities have not completed a comprehensive transportation plan for the area.
EPA notes that the Town of Franklin is in the process of developing a final growth plan.
The draft plan is now available on their website as of September of 2006. EPA and other
agencies had requested a copy at previous concurrence meetings. EPA understands that
there is no comprehensive transportation plans available for the area (Page 1-6 of the
EA). It is also noted that a thoroughfare plan dated January of 2005 did not include the
proposed project (Page 1-6). Several agencies recommended that NCDOT take a direct
approach to assisting the Town of Franklin and Macon County in developing a
meaningful comprehensive plan that incorporates sound land use planning principles with
essential multi-modal transportation needs and the environmental sensitivity of the
project study area. On Pages 2-4 and 3-5 of the EA, it states that there are no designated
bicycle lanes or.pedestrian accommodations on roads that adjoin the proposed project and
none are planned for the new roadway. This recommendation potentially conflicts with
the proposed development of `...mixed-use development with a walkable-type
community consisting of residences and service businesses' (Page 3-1 of the EA).
Quoting from the Town's draft plan and EA: "Mixed-use development is encouraged that
will promote connectivity, walkability, and a sense of community". However, NCDOT
does not propose any pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the project study area as part
of this "economic development" project.
While roadway access is one important element to economic development goals,
the availability of other needed infrastructure can be just as important. On Page 3-4 of
the EA, it states that a sewer line for the community college will need to be extended
along the west side of the Little Tennessee River. Section 4.2.5 of the EA states that
there are water and sewer services available or under construction in the project study
area. The EA contains no information on treatment capacity, permitting status,
limitations, etc., for these `other' essential services for sustainable growth and
development. The EA does not contain details of any water supply facilities in the
project study area or the means to meet future demand from increased growth and
development.
EPA is concerned that the case has not been made in the EA that the potential
development of the parcels on either side of the Little Tennessee River are `connected',
activity dependant or even compatible. Depending upon the future development plans
that are not specified beyond the new library and community college on the west side of
the river there is, not sufficient information to justify a new bridge between the two
proposed development areas.
EPA has reviewed the "Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin" and notes
that there are several references to `walkability'. Principle #4 of the plan includes a
proposal to "Create Walkable Neighborhoods" and provides that there be pedestrian
connectivity and safety. EPA is concerned that the proposed transportation
improvements identified in the EA conflict with the local desires for `multi-modal'
accommodations. Similarly, Principle #6 highlights the local desire to "Preserve Open
Space, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas". However, there is also a
`request' that the Little Tennessee River be provided with a new bridge. EPA is
uncertain how a new bridge meets the plan's requirement to protect critical
environmental areas such as the river and the existing greenway. Considering the
potential development that is possible within the project study area, there is also an
environmental concern that `open space' will be eliminated in such a manner as to
conflict with this local land use principle.
On Page 4-3 of the EA there is a discussion concerning the vital importance of the
Little Tennessee River greenway to summer (and winter) visitors and that induced
development will likely impact the aesthetics associated with greenway. The greenway is
visited approximately 15,000 times each summer and 8,000 visits in the winter and helps
generate substantial `eco-tourism' dollars for the local economy. Adversely impacting
this greenway will potentially eliminate the direct source of revenue and would have
potentially longer-term impacts to tourist interest. A 345 to 380-foot concrete bridge
(without bicycle or pedestrian accommodations) will not positively add to the greenway
area's aesthetic qualities or the viewscape along the Little Tennessee River.
The information provided regarding the projected conditions of traffic in Section
1.8.3 of the EA does not show significant benefit of building the proposed project. The
level of service (LOS) for the design year does not show improvements of the build
scenario over the no-build scenario at either signalized or un-signalized intersections,
with the exception of one intersection showing LOS C in the no-build and LOS B in the
build scenario. In addition, there is also another intersection that went from a LOS of D
in the no-build projection to LOS E in the build analysis. Nonetheless, the purpose and
need for the project is to improve traffic flow and to provide access for parcels proposed
for development. All of the Detailed Study Alternatives meet the stated purpose and
need. The future potential problems at intersections could be addressed through Traffic
System Management (TSM) measures or other minor roadway or lane improvements.
Detailed Study Alternatives
NCDOT has presented four Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) in the EA,
including Alternatives, A, B, C and D. Alternatives A, B, and C were the original
alternatives presented to the Merger team that included the construction of a new bridge
over the Little Tennessee River. The team included a `non-bridge' -alternative that
NCDOT designed to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and added
Alternative D. Alternative D will provide increased accessibility to land currently being
developed or available for development east and west of the Little Tennessee River (Page
3-4).
The EA states that Alternatives A, B and C provide emergency responders
alternative access across the Little Tennessee River from the east properties in the area
west of the Little Tennessee River. It notes that Alternative D is not expected to provide
notable increases in emergency response times. The Town of Franklin's Principles of
Growth plan of September 2006 does not address any local problem with access or
improved emergency response times. Under Section 1.8 of the EA, Roadway Capacity,
there is no analysis provided that would indicate what the existing problem is regarding
response times from US 64 or what future development on either side of the river might
mean to these response times. The signed Purpose and Need statement in Appendix C
does not include any reference to a problem regarding existing or future emergency
response times. According to Table 23 of the EA, the Alternative A bridge would be 110
feet from the existing US 64 bridge, the Alternative B bridge would be 580 feet from the
existing US 64 bridge and the Alternative C bridge would be 925 feet from the existing
US 64 bridge. In terms of potential travel time from one side of the river to the other, the
close proximity of a new bridge to the existing US 64 Bridge does not offer any
measurable travel time benefit. The discussion on Page 4-3 of the EA concerning the
change in accessibility (Travel Time Savings) with the new bridge Alternatives has not
been quantified. Due to the proximity of the existing bridge on US 64, EPA does not
believe that there will be any substantial travel time saving between the DSAs.
Tables 23 and 24 of the EA provide a breakdown of the different alternatives,
including a comparison of the impacts for each. Alternatives B and C are approximately
0.9 miles in length, Alternative A is approximately 1.1 miles in length, and Alternative D
is approximately 1.3 miles in length. The bridge for Alternative A is proposed to be
approximately 360 feet long, 32 feet wide and 21 feet in height at a cost of more than
$1,094,000. The bridge for Alternative B is proposed to be approximately 345 feet long,
32 feet wide, and 49 feet in height at a cost of more than $993,000. The bridge for
Alternative C is proposed to be approximately 380 feet long, 32 feet wide and 55 feet in
height at the same cost as Alternative A (i.e., $1,094,000). EPA does not understand how
Alternatives A and C can have the same exact bridge cost when the bridge for Alternative
C is 20 feet longer and more than 30 feet higher. EPA also notes that the impacts to the
100-year floodplain are also included in Table 23 but not in Table 24 (Comparison of
Impacts). Alternatives B and C impact 1.0 acres of the 100-year floodplain and
Alternative A impacts 0.5 acres of the 100-year floodplain. Alternative D does not
impact the 100-year floodplain. The cost assumptions in the development of Alternatives
A, B and C bridging designs were not provided in the EA. EPA understands that right of
way costs for Alternative D are expected to be higher than the other alternatives.
However, EPA cannot discern why the construction costs (for either the Intersection
option or the Roundabout option) can be projected to be more expensive than
Alternatives A, B and C that include a new 340+ foot bridge. EPA requests that further
detailed information on the development of the estimated costs for the DSAs be provided
to the Merger team at the next planned meeting.
Impact Analysis
It is important for EPA to highlight to NCDOT the importance of the natural
resources within the project study area. Cartoogechaye Creek and Cullasaja River, both
designated Class B, Trout waters, are within the project study area and join the Little
Tennessee River, Class C waters, in the project vicinity. The Little Tennessee River
supports a smallmouth bass fishery and other warm water species in the project area. The
Olive darter (Percina squamata), a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and state Special
Concern (SC); the Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum), FSC and state SC; the
"Smoky dace" (Clinostomus funduloides ssp.1), a FSC and state SC; the Little Tennessee
River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), a state SC; and the Yellowfin shiner (Notropis
lutipinnis), a state SC, are known to occur in the Little Tennessee River in the project
vicinity or in the Cullasaja River or Cartoogechaye Creek near their confluence with the
Little Tennessee River. In the project area, the Little Tennessee River is designated as
critical habitat for the Spotfm chub (Erimonax monachus), a Federal and state Threatened
(T) species. Downstream, below the Franklin dam, there are a number of Federal and
state listed species including Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), a Federal
and state Endangered species, and the Littlewing pearly mussel (Pegias fabula), a Federal
and state Endangered species. EPA also understands that the Cartoogechaye Creek is
Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) in the project
vicinity and the Cullasaja River is Hatchery Supported DPMTW a distance upstream of
the project.
Records of the Olive darter and the Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus),
a FSC and state SC, exist within the immediate project vicinity. Surveys for the
Appalachian cottontail are recommended where appropriate habitat exists prior to any
additional land clearing in the area, if recent surveys have not been conducted. The EA
does not state when the last surveys were specifically conducted. On Page 4-2 of the EA,
it includes the statement that the forested area in the vicinity of the project study area
could be cleared for development that could eliminate habitat for this species or cause
remaining areas to be too small for the viability of the species. Table 24 of the EA
includes the information that there are no Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered
Species present within the Corridor and no State-listed Threatened or Endangered
Species. This tabular information is potentially misleading. The information in Section
3.5.10, Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species, is relevant to the
environmental analysis for the proposed project and incorporates the issues of the
environmental sensitivity within the project study area. Furthermore, EPA does not
understand this table information in the context of the discussion on Pages 3-17 and 3-18
for the Spotfin chub and the biological conclusion of "May Affect, Likely to Adversely
Affect". Tables 19 and 24 of the EA appear to be in direct conflict with one another.
NCDOT should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding the FSC and State protected species issues for the
proposed project and revise Table 24 to reflect a more balanced portrayal of the project's
potential impacts to all listed species within the project study area.
A popular greenway exists along the Little Tennessee River and a portion of
Cartoogechaye Creek, with a future extension of the greenway proposed. The portion of
the Little Tennessee River that will be impacted by a new bridge is also designed as a
Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA). Alternatives A, B and C all potentially
impact the greenway as shown on Figure 2.
Table 20 of the EA (Pages 3-22 and 3-23) includes an extensive list of the FSC in
Macon County and if there is habitat present (within the project study area). EPA notes
that the there are two avian FSC, including the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean)
and Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis) that have potential
habitat within the project study area. The EA does not address the requirements of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and that these two avian FSC are directly protected
under this Federal law.
Regarding Prime Farmlands, EPA reviewed the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) forms included in Appendix B. Alternatives A, B, and C received total
points of 116, 131, and 119, respectively out of 260 total points. Alternative D received a
total of 107 out of 260 total points. EPA also reviewed the information on Pages 3-8 and
3-9 of the EA including the requirements of North Carolina Executive Order 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands. However, based upon the NCRS
CPA-106 forms, none of the prime farmland soils or farmlands received a total point
score requiring strict compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) or the
State's Executive Order.. The impacts shown in Table 24 of the EA and described on
Page 3-8 are to prime farmland soil types, and not to "prime farmlands" (Prime, Unique
or of Statewide importance). EPA believes that the impacts to actual "prime farmlands"
for all of the DSAs is 0 acres. The EA should be revised to reflect this actual
characterization.
Page 3-26 of the EA includes information on mitigation to waters of the U.S.
EPA notes the comment in this section that states that attempts will be made to
completely span the Little Tennessee River; however, it is likely not feasible for the
proposed project to completely avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. NCDOT does not
specifically address the fact that Alternative D does completely avoid direct impacts to
the Little Tennessee River. On Page 3-15 of the EA it states that the N.C. Division of
Water Quality may consider areas directly beneath a bridge to be impacted due to hand
clearing and other disturbances resulting from construction. EPA also considers these to
be impacts to waters of the U.S under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While
bridging is a preferred minimization approach to placing culverts and pipes in streams
and rivers and direct filling activities under Section 404, it still represents a potential
water quality impact due to the removal of riparian and wetlands vegetation and from
discharges of stormwater runoff into receiving waters. EPA acknowledges the
previously permitted impacts to wetlands `WB'. Alternatives B and C show no direct
impact to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Alternative A has the greatest impact to
stream and wetlands. Alternative D is estimated to have 311 linear feet of impact to a
jurisdictional stream (UT to Cartoogechaye Creek) and no wetland impacts. The
proposed facility is an undivided, two-lane roadway with an approximate right of way
width of 150 feet. EPA cannot identify from Figure 2 or elsewhere in the EA how the
impact to the 1 stream crossing for Alternative D is 311 feet. This information should be
clarified at the next Merger team meeting. EPA believes that some of the impacts can be
avoided and minimized by increasing side slopes, alignment adjustments and the use of
retaining walls during the Merger 01 process.
EPA notes that Alternative D has 1 business relocation and 6 residential
relocations as estimated by NCDOT. Alternative C has potentially 4 residential
relocations. EPA cannot ascertain where the residential relocations are from Figures 2 or
3 or from the text on Pages 3-2 or 3-3. EPA is concerned as to why Alternative D needs
to be on new location on the west side of the river and can not take advantage of the
existing Siler roadway that Alternatives A, B and C do. EPA and other agencies have
asked this question at the previous Concurrence point 2 meeting and we do not believe
that this EA fully examines the issue or the specific rationale for the difference in the
alignments on the west side of the river.
EPA acknowledges Section 3.8.2 on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and
FHWA's partial interim guidance discussion.
O? , W AT -i9QG
o ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 21, 2007
Jill Gurak, PE, AICP
PBS & J
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609-4968
Subject: Scoping Comments on Feasibility of Proposed Improvements to Surrett Drive from the
Intersection of Surrett Drive and West market Center Drive in Guilford County South to
the Intersection of Surrett Drive and the 1-85 Ramps in Randolph County, Guilford and
Randolph Counties
Dear Ms. Gurak:
Please reference your correspondence dated November 14, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
above referenced project. A preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classifications Stream Index Number
Richland Creek Cape Fear WS-Iv 17-7-(0.5)
Mudd Creek Cape Fear WS-Iv 17-19-(1
Uwharrie River Yadkin WS-III 13-2-(0.5)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division
of Water Quality requests that PBS & J, other representatives of the High Point Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (HPMPO) or the permittee consider the following environmental issues for the proposed
project:
1. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by
15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that allow
for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the permittee is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitiaation will be reauired for impacts of greater than one (1) acre to wetlands.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
No thCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ms. Jill Gurak
Page Two
In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
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 shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The
permittee address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes the
use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to
determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality-Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream' water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above
structures.
Ms. Jill Gurak
Page Three
The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being, maintained if requested in
writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features
encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to
determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as
closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate.
Widening the stream channel shall be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other
diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
21. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment
shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with
road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the
structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure shall be removed and the approach fills removed
from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural ground
elevation. The area shall be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue
shall not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed,
sized and installed.
r
Ms. Jill Gurak
Page Four
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The permittee is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are
met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
Sincerely,
"I / !I 1'
Robert B. Krebs
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
cc: David Hyder, HPMPO
Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Office
File Copy
, . A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 10, 2007
r 2
°eo
LYNDO TIPPE
SECRETARY
TIP Project No. R-4063: Village Road, Town of Leland, Brunswick County
Merger Screening Meeting Minutes
Room 470, Highway Building, 1 Wilmington Street, Raleigh
ATTENDEES
Brian Yamamoto, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA)
Wade Kirby, NCDOT, PDEA
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Greg Brew, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
David Wainwright, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
John Merritt NCDOT PDEA Natural Environment Unit (NEU)
Worth Calfee NCDOT PDEA NEU
Peter Trencansky, URS
Jeff Weisner, URS
Duane Verner, URS
Teleconference ATTENDEES
Mason Herndon, NCDOT, Division 3
Jennifer Fry, United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
PURPOSE
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the applicability of the Merger 01 process to the
Village Road widening project.
MEETING NOTES
Wade opened the meeting by stating that the NCDOT would like to discuss whether or not the
Village Road widening project would benefit from the Merger 01 process. Jeff gave a brief
history of the project and discussed project constraints as identified by the environmental
determination report. Jeff stated that widening the bridge over Sturgeon Creek would be a
primary issue of the project and that the community was interested in developing this project as a
"gateway" corridor that included such design elements as bike paths and raising the bridge to 8-
12 feet to allow for small craft access.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH WEBSITE: RALEIGH NC 27601
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 www.ncdot.org /doh /preconstruct/pe /
R-4063: Village Road Widening
Merger Screening Minutes
Page 2 of 2
Jennifer stated that a Section 9 permit may be required and that she did not see any value in
having the project go through the Merger 01 process. Jennifer felt that coordination could be
handled at the permitting stage.
Mason stated that he recently visited the project site and that the existing bridge clearance is
approximately 5 feet above mean high water and that the bridge is currently 100 feet long.
Ron stated that, due to the nature of the widening project, there are not a lot of reasons to
consider a wide range of alternatives and therefore does not see a benefit to having the project
enter the Merger 01 process. He stated that the coordination on this project could be best
handled at the permitting stage.
David stated that he did not have any issues with taking the project out of Merger 01.
Wade then stated that there was consensus among all the co-chairs to take the project out of the
Merger 01 process and adjourned the meeting.
cc: Attendees
File
KO &ASSOCIATES, P.C.sultingEngineers Ao
?
OCl ? `?
s? Tj ?? o- ? ? !UJ
October 2, 2007r?
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Subject: Back Creek. Church Road (SR 2827), Traffic Separation Study
Project at North Carolina Railroad / Norfolk Southern Railway,
Crossing No. 715 339U, Milepost 367.52, Charlotte, North Carolina
The North Carolina 'Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained the services of Ko &
Associates, P.C. in planning the proposed safety improvements at the Back Creek Church Road
crossing with North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) / Norfolk Southern Railway at NC 49 and
Pavilion Boulevard in northeast Charlotte (see Figure 1). This rail crossing was identified for
improvements through a 1997 NCDOT Traffic Separation Study (TSS) which, with input from
the public, recommended widening northbound Back Creek Church Road and installing a median
separator. In 2001 an amendment to the TSS was written due to changes in development and
traffic density since 1997. Public involvement again contributed to the recommendations of the
"amended TSS. The amendment recommended' `widening the crossing to 45 feet; adding a 150-
foot long left turn lane along northbound' Back Creek Church Road; and installing a four-foot
wide median barrier. A 2002 level of service analysis for this crossing recommended extending
the left turn lane along northbound Back Creek Church Road 475 feet and widening the crossing
to accommodate four lanes of traffic plus a four-foot median barrier. This study concluded that
only three lanes of traffic were needed at the time but traffic increases may warrant an additional
lane in the future. Further increase in traffic densities in this area have led to the current
proposed improvements (see proposed improvements below).
The purpose of the project is to improve safety for motorists, rail passengers and train crews by
improving traffic signal operations, reducing prolonged queues and eliminating difficult
maneuvering conditions. The preliminary cost estimates include approximately $1,400,000 for
construction and utility relocations and about $130,000 for right of way acquisition, for a total of
approximately $1,530,000. Construction is planned to begin in 2008 and be completed by early
2009. The attached vicinity map illustrates the project's study area. The following alternatives
will be studied for this project:
• Do-Nothing;
• Safety improvements to the rail crossing and the 'intersection of Back Creek Church
Road and NC 49.
We would. appreciate any information you have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
community and environmental impacts for this project. If applicable, please' identify any permits
and/or approvals required by your agency.
1011 Schaub Dr., Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27606 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project. This letter
constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projects. It is desirable that you
respond by November 30, 2007, so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a
proposed Federally-funded Categorical Exclusion in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
The following describes the general features of the study area, as well as anticipated
environmental impacts.
Proposed Improvements
As currently planned, the project consists of the following improvements (see Figure 2):
Dual northbound left turn lanes from NC 49 to Pavilion Boulevard
• Dual westbound left turn lanes from Back Creek Church Road to NC 49 -
• Wider eastbound lane on Back Creek Church Road
• Wider westbound thru/right lane on Back Creek Church Road
• Extension of northbound right-turn lane from NC 49 to Back Creek Church Road
• Concrete rail crossing surface
• Updated railroad gates and flashers on both sides of the track
• Railroad cantilevered signals on Back Creek Church Road
• A concrete median with tubular markers on the approaches to the rail crossing
• Asphalt shoulders within the North Carolina Railroad' Company right of way
• Sidewalks and.curb and gutter outside of the NCRR right of way
• Revised traffic signal at NC 49/ Pavilion Boulevard/ Back Creek Church Road
Existing Land Use
Existing land uses within the project area include commercial, residential, and institutional uses.
A gas station and apartment complex are located in the northeastern quadrant between Pavilion
Boulevard and the 1-485 interchange with NC 49. A church and school are in the southeastern
quadrant, and another apartment complex is in the southwest quadrant. A shopping center is
located in the northwestern quadrant. Land uses along Back. Creek Church Road south of the
railroad crossing are primarily residential and agricultural. Pavilion Boulevard serves residential,
office, and institutional uses including an elementary school approximately 0.3 mile north of the
railroad crossing.
Water Resources
Based on the USGS topographic map and National Wetland Inventory (NWI), there is one
jurisdictional stream and one jurisdictional wetland area located in the vicinity of the project. An
unnamed tributary to Back Creek is located on the west side of and parallel to. Back Creek Church
Road. The NWI wetland is also located in this same area.
A full natural resources investigation will be conducted for the project to determine if there are
any impacts to natural resources including jurisdictional waters.
2
Threatened and Endangered Species
Five threatened or' endangered species are listed for Mecklenburg County according to the
(May 10, 2007 FWS list) US Fish and Wildlife Service species list. The currently listed species
include the following:
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorate Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is a candidate for listing in Mecklenburg County.
A natural resources investigation will be conducted to determine if any endangered or threatened
species are in the project study area.
Cultural Resources
A preliminary search using NCDOT GIS information and the North Carolina. State Historic
Preservation Office's national register of historic places in Mecklenburg County did not identify
any National Register listed properties in the project study area. The project area will be
reviewed to determine if the project will affect any properties that may be eligible for the
National Register.
Thank you for assisting us in this study. If further information regarding the proposed action or
the environmental analysis process is required, please contact me by phone at [phone],
ext. 138 or by email at mreepgkoassociates.com. You may also contact Mark Hamel (Rail
Project Development Engineer, NCDOT Rail Division) by phone of [phone] Ext. 270 or -
by email at mhamelgdot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Mark Reep, Project Manager
MLR/cdo
Attachments
3
74
l

G r r JA a ?q

i
?y
f
I
-I
t'

f
? o
n r,
o
c
? j.
?F
o r;
= o
?, c
^n
a
- F
7Cmz?
o o m

D? y n? ? Cn l?f??7? ? C?CJ oC o
v n fD O 0.
5 S O .;
? (D (D (D ID,

rya
y
a ..t p
a
-h fl
.+ p C?
C7 (D

CD
S
U?l p n
p? O (SD v bJ p .C. n 6?' O I?
- O ? S
v '" n ¢ n a O T O R CL". < <

- y '? N
? ?•• CD dQ T (D .-r

O ?
v Cam.
m a 3
UQ v
C (`,
d CS

CD
r
r ? M
W l 1
CD O
?
p w n J n
7

10 CD
V) m

(D

o a cc a
? o o ?.
(D CD ?\
O
cD (?
? p
? "
07 •?
CO (?
?
w ? y

0
0
J
Q
T
n
T
n
O
y
a.
r?
0
o
o
O '?
?o
o?
A? cn
STATEay.,
r
V
dy
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 18, 2007
Contract No.: C201583
WBS Element: 33336.3.1 (B-3900)
County: - Rockingham
Description: Bridge #165 Over a Creek and Approaches on SR 1376(Paw Paw Rd.)
Subject: Permit Conference
Kevin McLaughlin
Mountain Creek Contractors, LLC
P. O. Box D
Catawba, NC 28609
Mr. McLaughlin:
This letter is to advise that in accordance with the permits and my conversation with Mr. Andrew
Williams, U. S. Army Corp. of Engineers we have scheduled a Permit Conference for the above
referenced project on Wednesday, October 31, 2007, at 10:30 AM at the above referenced Project Site.
As a reminder the special provisions state no work in permitted areas will be allowed until a permit
conference has been held.
If there are any questions, please contact Randy C. McKinney (Assistant Resident Engineer) or myself
at [phone]
Sincerely, B. L. Norris, Jr., PE
Resident Engineer
Cc: J. M. Mills, PE
L. Puckett, PE
V. G. Davis, PE
J. A. Parker
D. L. Hundley
H. L. McDowell
Mathew Gant, P. E. (DENR)
Andrew Williams (ACOE)
`Beth Barnes(DWQ)
Sue Homewood (DWQ)
Barry Harrington
File
P. O. Box 1318, Reidsville, NC 27323-1318 Telephone No. [phone] Fax No. [phone]
M
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: October 26, 2007
Comment Deadline: November 26, 2007
Corps Action ID #:2004-01203
TIP Project No. R-0623
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding a potential future
requirement for Department of the Army authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States associated with construction of NC 24/27
Troy Bypass from NC 24/271,500 feet west of the intersection of SR 1138 (Dairy
Road) and SR 1550 (Saunders Road) to existing four-lane, divided section just east of
Little River, Montgomery County, North Carolina.
Specific alternative alignments and location information are described below and shown on
the attached plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at www.saw.usace.g=.mil/wetlands
Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
c/o Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application to compare alternatives that have been carried
forward for study pursuant to applicable procedures under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
In order to more fully integrate Section 404 permit requirements with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to give careful consideration to our required public
interest review and 404(b)(1) compliance determination, the Corps is soliciting public
comment on the merits of this proposal and on the alternatives evaluated in the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)/NCDOT Environmental Assessment (EA). At the close
of this comment permit, the District Commander will evaluate and consider the comments
received as well as the expected adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed road
construction to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
The District Commander is not authorizing the NC 24/27 improvement project at this time.
A final Department of the Army permit could be issued, if at all, only after our review
process is complete, impacts to the aquatic environment have been minimized to the
maximum extent practicable and a compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts
has been approved.
Location
The proposed 6 mile NC 24/27 highway improvement project begins at NC 24/27 1,500
feet west of the intersection of SR 1138 (Dairy Road) and SR 1550 (Saunders Road) and
extends to the existing four-lane, divided section just east of Little River, Montgomery
County, North Carolina. The proposed project is located in adjacent wetlands and
tributaries that are hydrologically connected to the Pee Dee River. The project is more
specifically located starting at Latitude 35.3321 N, Longitude 79.9317 W and ending at
Latitude 35.3561, Longitude 79.8494.
Background
On January 17, 2007, the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) completed and
circulated for public review, an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed TIP R-
0623 project, State Project Number 8.T551001. The social, economic, and environmental
impacts associated with potential build alternatives for R-0623 have been described in the
above referenced environmental document.
The FHWA/NCDOT EA for R-0623 is available for review at the Wilmington Regulatory
Field Office of the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington
Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina, or at the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Transportation
Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Existing Site Conditions
The project is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River subbasin 03-07-15, USGS 8-digit hydrological unit 03040104. The project area
encompasses approximately 8.8 square miles. The Biotic resources surrounding the project
area are indicative of a rural setting, with agriculture and forestlands accounting for the
majority of land uses. Topography is characterized as gently sloping hills, interrupted by
floodplains with gentle to steep areas occurring along drainage ways. The study area also
includes relatively low mountains including South Mountain and the Uwharrie Mountains.
Elevations range from approximately 400 to 690 feet above mean sea level (msl).
Jurisdictional waterways within the project area include the Little River, Warner Creek,
Turkey Creek, and unnamed tributaries to these waterways. The jurisdictional wetlands that
may be impacted by the proposed project are palustrine, forested broad-leaved, deciduous
wetlands which include bottomland hardwood, headwater and seep type wetlands.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The purpose of the proposed highway is to increase safety and to provide additional
capacity for NC 24/27 traffic which will reduce the impacts of through-traffic and heavy
trucks in downtown Troy.
Project Description
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant.
Four alternatives are being considered for the proposed project and are shown on Figure 1.
The project involves the construction of approximately six miles of new four-lane divided
partial control of access roadway extending from NC 24/27, just west of the intersection of
SR 1138 (Dairy Road) and SR 1550 (Saunders Road), to the existing four-lane divided
highway just east of the Little River. The impacts, including streams and wetlands impacts,
of the four alternatives being considered are described in the attached tables and shown on
Figure 3.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the
proposed work. However, based on information provided by the applicant, there are five
properties within the project study area that would be eligible for listing in the NRHP and
two of these properties may be affected by Alternative E. The applicant has proposed
access restrictions in the vicinity of the eligible properties to eliminate any adverse effects
that might result from the proposed project if alternative E is selected.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Five federally
protected species are listed as occurring within Montgomery County. Based on available
information, the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, that Alternative B of the proposed project may have an effect on the federally listed
Schweinitz's sunflower, which is found within the proposed project area. Furthermore, the
Corps has determined that the project would not affect any other species listed as
threatened or endangered or their critical habitat identified under the ESA. A final
determination of the effects of the proposed project will be made upon additional review of
the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That
decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important
resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among
those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands,
historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the discharge of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the impact of the
activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental Protection
Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidate state viewpoint or written position of the
Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps
of Engineers to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,
historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of a Corps of Engineers
Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received by
the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, November 26, 2007. Comments
should be submitted to Mr. Richard K. Spencer, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, P.O.
Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890.
Table 1. Summary of Impacts
ION FACTOR ALTERNATIVES
EVALUAT B C D E
CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
Mainline Length miles 5.83 5.81 6.09 6.31
Intersections 9 9 8 8
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0
Construction Cost 44,700,000 45,200,000 52,500,000 45,200,000
Right of Way Cost 4,400,000 4,300,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Total Cost 49,100,000 49,500,000 56,400,000 49,200,000
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Residential Relocations 13 12 9 9
Business Relocations 10 10 10 10
Non-profit relocations I 1 1 1
Schools/Parks Impacted 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Churches/Cemeteries Displaced 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Receptors Impacted b Noise 29 29 18 17
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Major Utility Line Crossings - High
KVA Powerline 2 Towers 1 Tower 2 Towers 2 Towers
Natural Gas Line Crossings 0 0 0 0
Sewer/Water Line Crossings 1 1 1 1
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Potential Archaeological Sites' TBD TBD TBD TBD
Recorded Archaeological Sites' TBD TBD TBD TBD
Historic Properties Effected 0 0 0 0
NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Protected Species Impacted 2 1 0 0 0
Stream Crossings 3 6 6 6 6
Upland Natural Systems - acres 148.3 180.9 189.4 195.5
Wetland Systems - acres4 0.87 0.78 0.86 0.79
Stream Impacts - linear feet5 6931 7167 7241 6726
LAND USE FACTORS 5
Rural Residential - acres 85.6 61.9 55.5 54.6
Commercial - acres 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
Industrial - acres 0 0 0 0
A icultural/Pasture - acres 7.1 7.1 7.1 10.1
Open - acres 6 98.8 99.1 114.4 119.1
PHYSICAL FACTORS
Flood plains - acres 4.4 4.4 4.4 5.0
Farmland - acres' 79.2 77.7 84.4 94.2
Hazardous Materials Sites 2 2 2 2
Exceedances of CO NAAQS 0 0 0 0
Notes: 1 An intensive archaeological survey will be conducted for the Preferred Alternative.
2 Impacts refer to a single Schweinitz's sunflower stem.
3 Based on number of major drainage structures.
4 Impacts based on construction limits plus 25 feet.
5 Impacts based on construction limits plus 25 feet.
6 Disturbed, abandoned, and/or undeveloped land.
7 Includes prime and statewide important farmlands.
Table 2 Wetland Impact Summary
NC 24/27 IMPROVEMENTS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NUMBER R-623

D

lant Community'

oil Series

Wetland
Classif.2,'
Wetland

RatinR
Score Riverine
Vs.

Non-
Riverine Total

Area of
Wetland
(ac)
5
Impacts Per Alternative
B C D E
1 Seep Herndon PF01A 37 Non-riverine 0.09 - - -- --
2 Seep Herndon PF01A 37 Non-riverine 0.09 -- -- -- --
3 Bottomland Hardwood Herndon PF01A 38 Non-riverine 0.09 -- -- - -
4 Disturbed Herndon PF01A 19 Non-riverine 0.05 -- -- - -
5 Seep Herndon PF01A 57 Non-riverine 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
6 Seep Herndon PF01A 57 Non-riverine 0.05 -- -- -- --
7 Seep Herndon PF01A 53 Non-riverine 0.01 -- -- - --
8 Disturbed Herndon PF01Ad 49 Non-riverine 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
9a Seep Herndon PF01Ad 53 Non-riverine 0.03 -- -- -- --
9b Seep Herndon PF01A 53 Non-riverine 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
10 Seep Herndon PF01A 15 Non-riverine 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
11 Seep Herndon PUBHh 53 Non-riverine 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
12 Bottomland Hardwood Herndon PUBHh 61 Riverine 0.43 -- -- -- --
13 Wetland around pond Herndon PUBHh 31 Non-riverine 0.04 -- -- --
14 Seep Herndon PF01A 41 Non-riverine 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 --
15 Seep Herndon PF01A 36 Non-riverine 0.02 -- -- --
16 Headwater Herndon PF01A 57 Non-riverine 0.09 -- -- --
17 Seep Herndon PF01A 57 Non-riverine 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 --
18 Seep Herndon PF01A 41 Non-riverine 0.01 -- -- -- -
19 Headwater Herndon PUBHh 33 Non-riverine 0.03 -- -- --
20 Seep Herndon PUBHh 36 Non-riverine 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.01 --
21 Headwater Herndon PUBHh' 46 Non-riverine 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.17 --
22
&
23
Wetland around pond
Herndon
PUBHh2
72,25 Non-riverine
0.73
0.21
0.21
0.21
-
24 Headwater (very disturbed) Herndon PF01Ad 17 Non-riverine 0.02 -- -- -- --
25 Wetland around pond Herndon PUBHh 22 Non-riverine 0.83 -- -- -- 0.21
26 Seep Herndon PUBHh 27 Non-riverine 0.02 -- -- -- --
27 Headwater Herndon PUBHh 27 Non-riverine 0.73 -- -- -- --
28 Headwater Herndon PF01 228 Non-riverine 0.61 - -- 0.37
29 Wetland around pond Herndon PUBHh 28 Non-riverine 0.15 - - -- --
30 Wetland around pond Herndon PUBHh 28 Non-riverine 0.10 -- -- 0.24 --
31 Headwater Herndon PF01 447 Non-riverine 0.01 -- -- --
32 Bottomland Hardwood Callison-
Secrest PF01A 58 Riverine 0.11 - -- --
33 Headwater Herndon PF01A 39 Non-riverine 0.06 - -- -- --
34 Seep Herndon PF01A 54 Non-riverine 0.11 -- -- - -
35 Seep Herndon PF01A 54 Non-riverine 0.01 -- -- -- --
36 Seep Herndon PF01A 54 Non-riverine 0.09 0.08 0.07 -- --
37 Headwater above pond Georgeville PUBHh 33 Non-riverine 0.16 0.07 0.07 - --
38 Seep Georgeville PF01A 54 Non-riverine 0.12 -- -- -- --
39 Wetland around pond Herndon PF01A 32 Non-riverine 0.13 -- - -- --
40 Seep Callison-
Secrest PF01A 49 Non-riverine 0.04 - -- -- --
41 Wetland around pond Herndon PUBHh 34 Non-riverine 0.03 -- -- -- --
42 Bottomland Hardwood Georgeville PF01A 56 Riverine 0.04 -- -- - --
43 Seep Herndon PF01A 45 Non-riverine 0.02 -- -- -- --
44 Seep Herndon PF01A 45 Non-riverine 0.19 -- -- -- -
Wetland Impact Summary Con't
NC 24/27 IMPROVEMENTS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NUMBER R-623

I - - - -

Pl
C
i
'

S
il S
i - - --'
Wetland
Wetland
R
ti Riverine

Vs. Total

Area of `s
Impacts Per Alternative
D ant
ommun
ty o
er
es Classif.Z,' S
a
n
i
N
Rion-
i
Wetland

(ac)
B
C
D
E
45 Headwater Herndon PF01A2 42 Non-riverine 0.07 0.05 - -- -
46 Headwater Herndon PF01A 42 Non-riverine 0.03 0.03 -- -- --
47 Headwater Herndon PF01A2 41 Non-riverine 0.18 -- -- -- --
48 Bottomland Hardwood Herndon PF01A 45 Riverine 0.13 -- -- - --
49 Bottomland Hardwood Herndon PF01A 37 Riverine 0.03 -- -- -- --
50 Bottomland Hardwood Herndon PF01A 23 Riverine 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
51 Seep (disturbed) Herndon PF01Ad 20 Non-riverine 0.33 -- -- -- --
TOTALS 0.87 0.78 0.86 0.79
1 As defined in Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakly (1990).2 As identified on National Wetland Inventory Mapping (USFWS,
2003) and defined in Cowardin et al. (1979). PUBHh denotes farm or golf course ponds that are irregular in outline, located
near the headwaters of small drainages where the flow of water has been obstructed by human-made dams. The lower case
"h" modifier is applied to upstream wetlands that are affected by impoundment. PFOIA denotes bottomland forests in the
mountains and piedmont where the streamflow is moderate and alluvium is fairly well-drained (NCDENR, 1988).
3 Wetlands without a Cowardin designation were classified in general accordance with Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetlands were
evaluated based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography.
4 Source: NCDWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet. (Generally, a score of 0-33 = low quality wetlands, 33-66 = medium quality
wetlands, > 66 = high quality wetlands.)
5 Estimate of impacts based on construction limits plus 25 feet.
Table 3. Stream Impact Summary
NC 24/27 IMPROVEMENTS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NOR-623

Site No.

Stream
Stream
Classification
Day'O

Score.. Impacts Per Alternative (linear feet)

Based on Construction Limits + 25 foot buffer
B -- c- D E
?- ---
I --
UT Warner Creek Perennial. 36.5 316.67 316.67 316.67 316.67
2 UT Warner Creek Perennial 34 -- -- -- --
3 UT Warner Creek Perennial 45 228.04 228.04 228.04 228.04
4 UT Warner Creek Perennial 45 -- -- -- --
5 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 24.5 521.52 521.52 521.52 521.52
6 UT Warner Creek Perennial 50.5 432.23 432.23 432.23 432.23
7 UT Warner Creek Perennial. 50.5 125.77 125.77 125.77 125.77
8 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 20.5 210.81 210.81 210.81 210.81
9 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 24 168.37 168.37 168.37 212.54
10 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 23 -- -- -- --
I1 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 23 - -- --
12 UT Warner Creek Perennial 49.5 - -- 19.23
13 UT Warner Creek Perennial 49.5 -- -- 127.27
14 UT Warner Creek Perennial 33 -- -- --
15 UT Warner Creek Perennial 35.5 -- - -- --
16 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 16 -- -- --
17 UT Warner Creek Perennial 45.5 -- 247.05
18 Warner Creek Perennial 53 -- -- -- 345.91
19 UT Warner Creek Perennial 39.5 282.03 282.03 282.03 --
20 UT Warner Creek Perennial 39.5 319.88 319.88 319.88
21 UT Warner Creek Perennial 53 319.75 319.75 319.75 --
22 Ditch --- 16 -- -- -- 294.21
23 Warner Creek Perennial 32 -- -- --
24 UT Warner Creek Perennial 37 -- -- --
25 UT Warner Creek Perennial 36.5 137.31 137.31 137.31
26 UT Warner Creek Perennial 40 509.12 509.12 509.12 -
27 UT Warner Creek Perennial 29.5 -- -- -- -
28 UT Warner Creek Perennial 38 313.55 313.55 313.55 -
29 UT Warner Creek Intermittent 26.5 -- -- -- --
30 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 17.5 - - 27.97
31 UT Turkey Creek Perennial. 40.5 - - 382.79
32 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 15 -- -- --
33 Turkey Creek Perennial 48.25 - --
34 UT Turkey Creek UT Ephemeral 7 -- -- -
35 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 15.5 -- --
36 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 39.5 -- 67.89
37 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 38.75 - -- 250.38
38 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 47.75 -- - --
Stream Impact Summary (Cont.)
NC 24/27 IMPROVEMENTS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NOR-623

Site No.
Stream
Stream

Classification DWQ
Seore2 impacts Per Alternative {linear feet)

(Based on Construction Limits + 25 foot buffer

B C D E
39 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 15.5 -- -- -- --
40 Turkey Creek Perennial 58.5 -- 569.52 --
41 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 37 - -- --
42 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 49.5 -- -- 286.36 407.18
43 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 52.5 - - -- --
44 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 38 --
45 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 26 -- -- -
46 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 49 270.76 270.76 -- --
47 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 32 -- -- -- --
48 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 39 -- -- -- --
49 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 45.5 430.60 249.09
50 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 29.25 -- -- 253.64 287.35
51 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 30 -- -- -- --
52 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 19 -- 306.47 -- --
53 UT Turkey Creek Perennial 41 147.16 427.04 314.07 304.66
54 UT Turkey Creek Ephemeral 12 -- -- -- --
55 UT Turkey Creek Intermittent 15.25 -- --
56 UT Little River Perennial 28.25 293.02 258.12 -- --
57 UT Little River Perennial 30.75,
39.5 -- -- 265.37 263.32
58 UT Little River Ephemeral 13.25 -- -- 217.05 217.17
59 UT Little River Perennial 35.75 158.74 239.29 312.58 298.99
60 UT Little River Intermittent 20.75 813.88 293.09 264.96 270.86
61 UT Little River Ephemeral 11 -- -- -- --
62 UT Little River Perennial 51.25 120.01 63.23 67.68
63 UT Little River Intermittent 26.25 -- -- -- --
64 UT Little River Perennial 52.5 153.09 --
65 UT Little River Intermittent 25.5 486.09 826.82 516.59 506.80
66 UT Little River Ephemeral 11.5 -- -- -- --
67 UT Little River Perennial 30.5 -- --
68 UT Little River Intermittent 15 -- -- -- --
69 UT Little River Perennial 33.5 291.20 291.20 291.20 291.20
70 UT Little River Intermittent 27 -- -- -- --
71 UT Little River Intermittent 23.5 - -- --
72 UT Little River Intermittent 23 -- -- --
Totals 6929.59 7166.94 7239.62 6725.49
ii
. r
f -
A `7
?r
SWdy Am
Puna,
,. /r
Ease
I
f
r
Rcherdo
f
u S
L
Montgomery County
yQ. i r a.
i ^?, "hy x
j
/ ; ?i Fnn?n
NATI(7HAL {IFF'
sau'/'iA?6 ri.n: c

?le ter«A it
Y t
? rx
'SaRarcapA
il.
e
?
.!W L:•p v
,Sa / BG#t,
'
+*srs .aDn i
.unH t .n ? .. ? ! ? avrr
? r ? oayx.
_, f ? a:n
o

?-:. r CS?aNG , I
NC 24/27 Improvements
Montgomery CoLinty, North Cmal lne Figure 2
? 57A? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
V ?.
<'00 C%
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPP'eT'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 1, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Eileen A. Fuchs fA_1?
Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the Widening of I-85 from
I-485 Interchange to NC 73 Interchange
TIP Project No. I-3803 B Mecklenburg / Cabarrus Counties
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
I-3803B This project intends to widen I-85 from the I-485 interchange to the
NC 73 Interchange.
EAF/cdh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Marion A. Cowell, Jr., Board of Transportation Member - Division 10
Mr. Larry S. Helms, At-Large, Board of Transportation Member- Division 10
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E..
Mr. A. D. Allison, II
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser
Mr. Greg Thorpe, Ph.D.
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSI T E: WWW. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Kenneth Hill, Right of Way Agent - Division 10
FHWA

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-85 FROM
1-485 INTERCHANGE TO NC 73 INTERCHANGE
TIP Project No. 1-3803 B Mecklenburg / Cabarrus Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on October 30, 2007 between the hours
of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Concord Christian Church - Family Life Center,
3101 Davidson Highway, Concord, 28027. Interested individuals may attend this
workshop at their convenience during the above stated hours. Please note there
will be no formal presentation.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. NCDOT proposes to widen 1-85 from 1-485 interchange to NC 73
interchange. The proposed project is to widen 1-85 to an 8-lane divided facility
with auxiliary lanes. Existing traffic volumes already exceed the capacity of the
existing roadway.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Wilson Stroud,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at 1548 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, phone [phone] ext. 310, fax (919) 733-
9794 or email: wstroud .dot. state. nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop.
Anyone requiring special services should contact Mr. Stroud as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
1011
Mkk . GIYC TRs
Ma1PLANMRS
/0 000
(ullualms
ECONOMIS
%Wow
Wilbur Smith Associates
MEETING MINUTES FROM CONCURRENCE POINTS 2A & 3 421 Fayetteville Street Mall
SOUTHERN SECTION, BELGRADE TO CHADWICK, Suite 1303
CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 22, 2007 Raleigh, NC
[phone] phone
DATE: July 26, 2007 [phone] fax
www.wilbursmith.com
TO: All Attendees
ATTENDEES: See Attached
FROM: Wes Stafford, PE, AICP - Wilbur Smith Associates
SUBJECT: US 17 Improvements from SR 1330/SR 1429 south of Belgrade to the
Jones /Craven County line south of New Bern
Onslow and Jones Counties, North Carolina
TIP No. R-2514 B, C & D State Project No. 8.T190301, WBS No. 34442.1.1
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-17 (7), (WSA Project No. 297420)
William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), opened the meeting with introductions. Mark
Pierce (NCDOT) gave a brief recap of the project to date and brought up the issue of the Byrd Property
site violation. William Wescott brought everyone up to speed on the violation to date.
Byrd Property site violation (illegal filling of wetlands)
• Landowner is not cooperating and the USACE lawyers are mediating.
• USACE cannot evaluate the impacts for Alternative 2C until the issue is resolved.
• NCDOT proposed that we consider the site as not being filled and that the high quality wetlands
were still present.
• USACE reiterated that it cannot make a corridor selection recommendation while the violation is
unresolved.
Discussion of Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review (Wes Stafford (WSA))
Using the project maps and Table 1 from the CP2A meeting packet, Wes Stafford presented the
alignments and proposed hydraulic structures. He gave lengths and structure specifics for each location
and compared them to what was presented in the SDEIS.
• USFWS questioned why the costs of the bridges went up from the SDEIS. Answer is inflation.
• EPA questioned what the height of Bridge S4-A (880') over the White River on Alt. 2A.
Answer is 10' in order to accommodate wildlife crossings.
• EPA questioned the height of Bridge S8 (1690') on Alt. 2C. The reply from DOT was between
8' and 10'.
• The question was asked if any of the bridge heights were adjusted to accommodate wildlife
passage. The NCDOT answered no, because they were originally designed at a height high
enough (10') to accommodate wildlife passage,
Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH
Cleveland OH, Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX, Kansas City MO, Knoxville TN
Lansing ML Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven Cr, Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland
ME, Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA, Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Trenton NJ, Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company
R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
July26, 2007
Page-2-
• The EPA asked if there was anything showing the amount of avoidance or minimization the
extra long bridges were providing. They want to see if the extra cost of the bridges were worth it
by looking at the quality and quantity of wetlands that were being avoided.
• USFWS indicated that they will accept shorter bridges to save money.
• EPA wanted to see more options than just a long bridge or a culvert.
• USFWS proposed dropping the length of Bridge S4-A from 880' to a 100' foot bridge on Alt.
2A.
• EPA wanted to see a cost comparison and acres of wetlands saved for all bridging options. The
EPA asked if savings of wetlands are not significant than why build such an expensive bridge?
• USFWS proposed it was willing to go to a 100' bridge from the 880' bridge proposed for
structure, S4-A, on ALT 2A, and to drop the 110' foot bridge, S4-B, to a culvert, and to keep the
1160' bridge, S4-C, as proposed. The EPA concurred.
• USACE suggested taking another look at the Alt. 2C because the quality of the violations site is
actually zero, and they pointed out that USFWS and EPA were proposing dropping a 880' bridge
to 100' bridge over very high quality wetlands for a 1000+' bridge, S8, over zero quality
wetlands?
• A discussion then ensued, taking place over the display boards with members from DOT, ESI,
and USACE to ascertain the location of the proposed bridge in relation to the violation site for
EPA and USFWS.
• The EPA indicated that it was willing to accept a bridge 1/3 the length of the proposed 1690',
structure S8 on Alt. 2C, which would be basically adding approximately 300' to the required
hydraulic minimum.
• USFWS agreed and added that it does not make much sense to bridge imaginary wetlands?
• Everyone agreed to limit the 1690' bridge, structure S8, to approximately 560'.
• The agencies agreed to go with the hydraulic minimum of 160' and not the recommended length
of 620' for structure S6 on Alt. 2B.
• Mark Pierce then went back over each structure before recessing the meeting for a 10-15 minute
break.
After the break Mark Pierce produced a concurrence agreement signature sheet for CP2A and
reminded everyone that this is a state funded project therefore the USACE is the lead and not the
FHWA. The agreement was passed around and all of the agencies signed.
USFWS brought up an issue that was just brought to their attention the previous day. The Onslow
BIGHT Conservation Forum has been looking at creating a wildlife corridor connecting the Hoffman
State Forest and the Croatan National Forest. In 2003 several agencies signed off on an MOU, one of
which goals is to promote the establishment of the corridor. The DOT had never heard of the MOU,
USFWS just found out about it, and the DOT is one of the signatories. The DOT wanted to know
who from the DOT signed it but the USFWS did not have that information available.
• The Nature Conservancy is in the process of getting a conservation easement from
Weyerhaeuser in order to get the wildlife corridor. The Weyerhaeuser land has been clear-
cut and would be "ready" for bear use in 5-10 yrs.
• One or two wildlife crossings are desired by the Nature Conservancy. They should be large
enough for bear because Hoffman State Forest has a "core" bear population.
R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
July26,2007
Page - 3 -
• For wildlife crossings typically a 100' minimum width with a lot of fencing is sufficient.
Consider using the US 64 passages as a model.
• Karen Compton indicated the Forest Services support for the passages and the concept.
• MOU is not legally binding.
• USFWS pointed out that this is the last chance to ecologically connect the two forests.
• USFWS prefers two crossings/bridges at least 100' in length.
CP3 - (Corridor Selection)
Mark Pierce reminded everyone that there is a March 6t' field meeting for the northern portion and then
handed over the meeting to Wes Stafford who called everyone's attention to table 8 in the concurrence
packet for CP 3.
• EPA asked if there is a DOT "preferred" alternative.
• Mark Pierce explained that this section of the project has a lot of human environment issues
(town of Maysville and Belgrade). There is support for the project from Maysville but Belgrade
has expressed some concerns from business owners over relocations.
• Wes Stafford summarized the changes to table 8 from the previous merger meeting.
• DOT explained how Alt. 2A fits the overall concept of a freeway for US 17 the best; Alt. 2A is
the DOT "preferred" to meet the strategic highway initiative.
• EPA commented on the dramatic difference in wetland impacts between the Alternatives and
expressed concern on how some of the information is presented in table 8, especially
Environmental Justice (EJ) and Community Impact Issues. The EPA went on to explain that it is
the USACE's call on whether there is an EJ issue. The EPA does not see any of the Alternatives
having a real EJ or community impact to Belgrade. EPA went on to question farmland and forest
impacts and would not agree to accept Alt 2A at this time because the cost and wetland impacts
are so much more significant than the other Alternatives.
• USFWS requested to see a total cost comparison not just construction costs.
• Wes Stafford called out the right-of-way cost for each alternative which could then be added to
construction cost to get a total cost.
• The EPA noted that there is still a 30 million dollar difference between Alt. 2A and the next most
expensive alternative.
• EPA questioned the layout and need of the southern interchange on Alt. 2A south of Belgrade.
• The DOT reiterated the need to make the roadway a strategic highway corridor and Alt. 2A
would satisfy that need.
• The EPA reiterated its questioning of why Alt. 2A wetland impacts per mile are more than twice
the average. They wanted to hear what the other merger team members think.
• The NC Wildlife Commission had no comment. The SBPO thought that the EJ issues were not
sufficiently analyzed and commented that if a median was constructed through the middle of
downtown Maysville and 6 businesses were displaced that it would rip the heart right out of the
town.
• The EPA would like to see more formalized commitments to mitigate for habitat fragmentation
on Alt. 2A so it could feel better about it. Without formal finding of EJ issues the EPA will only
consider the natural environment impacts in its decision making. The EPA suggested that the
merger team agree to drop Alts. 2B and 2 from further consideration.
0 Everyone verbally agreed to drop 2B and 2.
R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
July26, 2007
Page-4-
• The Forest Service abstained from offering an opinion on which Alternative it preferred.
• The MPO recommended Alt. 2A.
• Three team members (NCDOT, RPO, SHPO) supported Alt. 2A, six team members supported
Alt. 2C, and the Forest Service abstained.
• The Elevation process was initiated at Rob Hanson's request to resolve the concurrence issue.
• CAMA informed the DOT that is will need to apply for a CAMA permit for only the portions of
the project that fall within the coastal counties.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
Name Agency Telephone
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3 910-251-5724
Joe Blair NCDOT - Division 3 910-251-5724
Daniel Van Liere Down East RPO 252-229-0308
SunTem le Helgren Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4196
David Wainwright NCDENR - Division of Water Quality 919-715-3415
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics 919-250-4100
Chris Militscher USEPA - Raleigh 919-856-4206
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - TIP Unit 919-733-2039
Carlos Mo a NCDOT - Transportation Planning 919-733-4705
Chris Manley NCDOT - Natural Environment 919-715-1487
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental 919-733-2920
Neil Lassiter NCDOT - Division 2 919-733-2293
Allen Poe NCDOT - Division 3 919-251-5724
John Lansford NCDOT - Roadwa Design 919-250-4016
William Wescott US Arm Corps of Engineers 252-975-1616 x 31
James Speer NCDOT - Roadway Design 919-250-4016
Karen Compton US Forest Service 828-257-4230
Steve Sollod NCDENR - Div. Coastal Man. 919-733-2293 x 230
Stephen Lane NCDENR - Div. Coastal Man. 252-808-2808
Kathy Matthews US Environ. Prot. Agency 919-541-3062
Travis Wilson NCDENR - Wildlife Resources Comm. 919-528-9886
Kevin Markham Environ. Services, Inc. 919-212-1760
Matt Smith Environ. Services, Inc. 910-383-6021
Renee Gledhill-Earley NCDCR Hist. Pres. Office 919-733-4763 x 246
Ed Lewis NCDOT - Human Environment 919-715-1593
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - Natural Environment 919-715-1460
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT - Historic Architecture 919-715-1620
Jim Morrison Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4206
Rob Hanson NCDOT -Project Development 919-733-7844 x 226
Mark Pierce NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 214
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 265
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA Branch 919-733-3141
Wes Stafford Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4196
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service 919-856-4520 x32

?rAZZo
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 27, 2007
CONTRACT NO:
T.I.P. NO:
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM TO:
C201114
R-977A
34357.3.6
STP-64 (79)
Cherokee
T
.JFrl?9?os9ti? ?v l ? ? v"
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Grading, Drainage, Paving, Signals, and Structures on
US 64 from US 19/74/129 in Murphy to east of NC 141
in Peachtree
Proposed Waste Site - David R. Murphy & William G.
Murphy
Mr. Stephen Wright
Vice President
Wright Brothers Construction Company, Inc.
MEMORANDUM FROM: W.T. Anderson
Resident Engineer
The Murphy waste site has been discussed and reviewed a number of
times during the past two years. All along I have advised the Murphys
as well as representatives from your company that the Department's
permits for the construction of the above referenced project will not
allow for additional impacts to wetlands or streams. The Department
has provided compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with this
project through an in-lieu payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program and has performed on-site replacement mitigation
for an unnamed tributary to the Hiwassee River.
Our 401 water Quality Certification states, "if any additional
wetland impacts, or stream impacts, for this project (now or in the
future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet, respectively, additional
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 (h)(6) and (7)." The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
has repeatedly maintained the position that soil and rock material from
a Department of Transportation project shall not impact any wetland or
stream outside of those impacts covered in our permits..
Due to the foregoing statements of fact I regret that I am not
able to approve this site for disposal of waste material generated from
the construction of this highway project.
191 ROBBINSVILLE ROAD, SUITE A, ANDREWS, NC 28901
[phone]
Page 2
August 27, 2007
Proposed Waste Site - David R. Murphy & William G. Murphy
WTA:ttq
Cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Fil
Mike
Bria
J. B.
J. R.
T. B.
M. S.
J. A.
R. S.
R. K.
e B-2
Parker, NCDWQ
z Wren, NCDWQ (Raleigh)
Setzer, PE
Wilson, PE
Adams, PE
Davis
Dockery
Barker
Woods
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

To: Mr. John Hennessy iLDG.
# 1650
FR ,I I-DG.
J

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OU CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER OUR. REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? YOURAPPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS - .FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
? -

` -. e.

yy ASfA7F
porn ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 13, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Jamille A. Robbins
Senior Public Hearin Officer
Human Environment Unit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
RE: Notice of a Design Public Hearing for the Widening of SR 1321 (Hillandale
Road) from I-85 to North of SR 1407 (Carver Street)
Durham County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-3804 This project proposes to widen Hillandale Road from I-85 to north of
Carver Street.
JAR/cdh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Kenneth Spaulding, Board of Transportation Member - Division 5
Ms. Nina S. Szolsberg, At-Large, Board of Transportation Member- Division 5
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E.
Mr. A. D. Allison, II
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E.
Mr. Greg Thorpe, Ph.D.
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583

Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Robert H. Mathes, Jr., Right of Way Agent - Division 5
FHWA
NOTICE OF A DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED
WIDENING OF SR 1321 (HILLANDALE ROAD) FROM 1-85 TO NORTH OF
SR 1407 (CARVER STREET)
TIP Project No. U-3804
Durham County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House and a Design Public Hearing on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 in
the Auditorium at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics located at
1219 Broad Street, Durham, 27715.
NCDOT representatives will be available at the Pre-Hearing Open House
between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to answer questions and receive
comments relative to the proposed project. The opportunity to submit written comments
or questions will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the
above mentioned hours.
A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design, the state - federal relationship, and right of
way and relocation requirements and procedures. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions and comments. The presentation and comments will
be recorded and a transcript will be prepared.
NCDOT proposes to widen Hillandale Road to a four-lane,. median divided
roadway with 12-foot inside lanes and 14-foot outside lanes, and will include curb and
gutter, a 17.5-foot raised median, and 5-foot sidewalks. The purpose of the project is to
relieve traffic congestion along Hillandale Road. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this project.
A map displaying the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO, Transportation Department, 101 City
Hall Plaza, 4th Floor, Durham, NC 27701 and the NCDOT Division Office located at
2612 N. Duke Street, Durham. The map may also be viewed online at
http://www.dchcmpo.org.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Jamille Robbins, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone (919)
715-1534, or email iarobbinsa-dot. state. nc.us. Additional material may be submitted
until January 4, 2008.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Robbins as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
r
'eA ,,. STATF a?
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
G(' VERNOR
November 13, 2007
ME 10RANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FRO 1: Kimberly D. Hinton V-6
Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the East End Connector
a New Location Freeway from the Durham Freeway (NC 147) to
US 70 (Miami Boulevard) in Durham
Durham County
The f< lowing Notice is furnished for your information:
U-71 This project proposes to create the East End Connector from the Durham Freeway
to Miami Boulevard in Durham.
KDH/( 3h
Attach vent
cc: Mr. Kenneth Spaulding, Board of Transportation Member - Division 5
Ms. Nina Szolsberg, At-Large, Board of Transportation Member- Division 5
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E.
Mr. A. D. Allison, II
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E.
Mr. Greg Thorpe, Ph.D.
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Mr. Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583

Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Robert H. Mathes, Jr., Right of Way Agent - Division 5
FHWA
r.
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED EAST END CONNECTOR
A NEW LOCATION FREEWAY FROM THE DURHAM FREEWAY (NC 147)
TO US 70 (MIAMI BOULEVARD) IN DURHAM
U-0071
Durham County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Information Workshop on December 10, 2007 between the hours
of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Orange Grove Missionary Baptist Church, 505
East End Avenue, Durham, 27703. NCDOT representatives will be available in
an informal setting to provide information, answer questions and receive
comments regarding this project. Attend at your convenience during the above
stated hours. Please note there will be NO formal presentation.
The purpose of this workshop is to provide detailed information about the
Preferred Alternative being studied. The opportunity to submit comments about
the Preferred Alternative and the project will be provided. Additional right of
way will need to be purchased and the relocation of homes and businesses
will be required for this project. NCDOT Right of Way Officials will be
available to answer questions regarding acquisition of homes and businesses.
Public input from this meeting will be included in the environmental document
and will be used in the decision making process. A three-dimensional (3-D)
computer model of the preferred alternative will also be shown. This model will
provide a visual illustration of the project area after final construction.
NCDOT proposes to construct on new location a fully controlled access
freeway (similar to NC 147) with service roads between the Durham Freeway
(NC147) and US 70 (Miami Boulevard) in east Durham. The project will include
new interchanges at the Durham Freeway and US 70. The East End Connector
project will affect: Angier Avenue (SR 1926), Holloway Street (NC 98), Glover
Road (SR 1940), East End Avenue, Carr Road, Lynn Road, Pleasant Drive,
Rowena Avenue and others. This project will also improve US 70 from Holloway
Street (NC 98) to Pleasant Drive.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Beverly Robinson,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at 1548 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, phone [phone], Ext. 254 or email,
brobinson(a-D-dot.state. nc.us. General information about the project is also
provided on the NCDOT website www.ncdot.org/proiects/eastendconnector/.
You may also contact the Project Hotline number (toll free) at 1-800-734-7062.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop.
Anyone requiring special services should contact Ms. Robinson as early as
possible so that arrangements can be made.
.P

No V 1 4 20
pEfyy.. O,
illn y7 )FJ2Q?f+Ct1'
oR?tlypt*e?.g??k
tAAI"
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
November 6, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center (MAIL)
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Subject: US 17 Wildlife Underpass, Jones County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2514.
Dear Mr. Thorpe,
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) are requesting the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
to construct a wildlife underpass on US 17 in conjunction with the US 17 widening project between Maysville
and Pollocksville in Jones County.
The Commission as well as NCDOT is a participating member of the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum
(OBCF). As signatories to the MOU our agencies identified multiple goals, one of which was "to promote the
establishment of landscape corridors and buffers, between and adjacent to existing public and private
conservation lands to enhance long-term wildlife population viability and genetic exchange and to ensure land
management flexibility, respectively". As part of this goal the OBCF has identified a corridor linking two large
parcels of conservation lands, Hofmann Forest and The Croatan National Forest (CNF). CNF is located east of
US 17 while Hofmann Forest and other adjacent conservation lands are located west of US 17 and currently lack
a preserved connective corridor, however TNC is currently pursuing the development rights to 2,400 acres of
Weyerhaeuser property that would provide a perpetual conservation corridor between these two tracts.
Presently, US 17 a two lane highway facility currently bisects this corridor. However upgrading US 17 to a four
lane highway without providing a wildlife corridor will almost certainly sever CNF from the existing
conservation lands to the west.
Wildlife underpasses have been proven to minimize the effects of highway induced habitat fragmentation when
appropriately designed. The Commission is requesting the design of this structure to mirror those NCDOT
placed on US 64 in Washington County. The ongoing evaluation of the US 64 crossings has confirmed their
effectiveness in a similar landscape and habitat. Much like the US 64 underpasses our goal is to provide a
crossing structure that will function for a broad range of wildlife species including large mammals such as Black
bear and White-tailed deer. CNF and Hofmann forest are considered core areas for Black bears; consequently it
is important to reduce the potential for genetic isolation of either of these areas. Furthermore, the US 64
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
P
Page 2
November 6, 2007
US 17 Wildlife Underpass
crossings have recorded over 3,000 white-tailed deer crossings, therefore demonstrating the effectiveness these
structures have in reducing potential animal vehicle collisions.
The proposed crossing consists of an elevated bridge on both the northbound and southbound lanes of US 17.
The bridge design would allow 120 feet of opening at the base and a minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance.
The precise location of the crossing is restricted to an approximate one mile stretch of US 17 where the CNF
abuts the road. The crossing will also require the installation of chain-link fencing, ten feet in height, extending
approximately one-half mile in each direction from the crossing on both sides of the road. In addition, a series
of small culverts would be placed along the approach fill to accommodate species with smaller home ranges,
such as amphibians, reptiles and small mammals.
The Commission requests the cooperation of NCDOT in this matter. As a signatory to the OBCF and through a
continuing commitment by NCDOT to provide a safe and efficient transportation network while minimizing
harm to the natural environment, this project will be another example ofNCDOT working with the greater
conservation community to provide an important wildlife corridor.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions please call Travis Wilson,
Eastern NCDOT Coordinator, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Of #VEAAA?.
Fred Harris, Interim Director
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cc:
William Wescott, USACE
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
David Wainwright, DWQ
Hervey McIver, TNC
Lauren Hillman, Croatan National Forest