20140762 All Versions_Complete File_20071022

O?OF W ATF9QG
r
>
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
October 22, 2007
Ms. Gail Tyner
Environmental Services Inc
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Subject: NCDOT TIP # R-2915, US 221 Improvement Study, Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(h)
Dear Ms. Tyner:
On June 12, 2007, at your request and in your attendance, and with Monte Matthews of the US Army Corps of Engineers
in attendance also, Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff, conducted an on-site determination to
review a selection of drainage features located in and adjacent to the identified study corridor for the US221
Improvement Project TIP # R-2915 for applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)). The drainage
features are approximated on the attached map.
Given the size of the project, a selection of sites were identified and visited to represent stream determinations conducted
by Environmental Services, Inc. Stream sites reviewed were STE, STM/SVS, SPH, SGE,.SPN, SPO, SPQ, SPP, SPR.
SPQ, SGA2, SGL, STAF, SPZZ, SGY, SPZ, SPPP, SGB2, SGGQ and SZN.
Since that site visit, Environmental Services Inc. has submitted an updated Stream Delineation Table dated July 3, 2007.
Based on these site reviews of determinations and the updated table submitted, the Division concurs with the stream
delineations as outlined in the referenced and attached Table.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within the buffer,
Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams and buffers must comply with the,
404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 213 .0216), applicable buffer rules, and any other required
federal, state and local regulations. Please be aware that even if no direct impacts are proposed to any protected buffers,
sheet flow of all new stormwater runoff as per 15A NCAC 2B .0250 is required.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A request
for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ 401
Transportation Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that dispute a
determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the mitigation rules may
ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are
hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and
adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
No One
Carolina
NaAmI !y
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ms. Gail Tyner
TIP # R-2915
October 22, 2007
Page 2
to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within
60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964 or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Attachments:
cc: Monte Matthews, US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ WSRO File Copy
DWQ,?,W,etlandsa4.01.TxanspLoxtationsUnit?o
4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
919-212-1760 / Facsimile 919-212-1707
gtyner(a,esinc.cc
MEMORANDUM
Sue Homewood
Gail Tyner
RECEIVED ----)
N.C " .. ..
JUL 0 6 2007
Regional Cii;ce
3 July 2007
US 221 Improvements, Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
Enclosed is an updated copy of the jurisdictional areas maps and wetland and stream tables,
along with a digital copy of the wetland and stream data forms for US 221. Based on our field
visit on 12 June 2007, we have made some changes to the jurisdictional areas maps. These
changes are presented in the table below.
Stream
Number Line
Sequence Mitigation
Required Length
feet Notes
S6a SVD N 154 Photo 4.1
S7 SVE N 17 Small reach
S18a-b SVS/STM N 294 USACE/DWQ Review
S22 SVX N 38 Small reach between culvert and
stream confluence
S30 SVAA N 454 Photo 4.2
S31 SVZ N 0 Piped
S72 SGE N 60 USACE/DWQ Review
S73a-c SPN N 598 USACE/DWQ Review
S82 ditch N 544 USACE/DWQ Review
S84a SZL N 46 Photo 4.3
S84b SXL/SGM N 0 Piped
S87a-c SGL N 820 USACE/DWQ Review
S97 STAF N 256 USACE/DWQ Review
S136 SVOO N 15 Small reach between culvert and
stream confluence
S153 STBJ N 45 Small reach between culvert and
stream confluence
S154 STBL N 94 Small reach between culvert and
stream confluence
Table 1 continues.
s?
Table 1 cont.
Stream
Number Line
Sequence Mitigation
Required Length Notes
5160 SPVV N 210 Photo 4.4
S 161 a-b SPTT N 393 Photo 4.5 and 4.6
167 SNF N 246 Photo 4.7
Removed SXV n/a n/a Removed based on SGBZ now
part of W93
Removed SXW n/a n/a Removed based on SGBZ now
art of W93
Removed SPRR n/a n/a USACE/DWQ Review now
W43
Please let me know if you feel another field visit is necessary. If you need any other information,
you can reach me at [phone] or [phone] (cell).
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC

L

a

Z

E

m

V

c

a
N

U.

N

Z

E
L

c

o

t0 10

y
01 ?6
mL)

a
L
0
c

J

O
C c
m
E
W

L

m

c
m
a

m
>
d

c
o
is ?
m
m

F-

"'

d
3
y
S1a STC Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 455 P Y Y
S1b STF/SVC Gap Creek C', Tr:+ 5041 P Y Y
S1c STUSVY. Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 17640 P Y Y
S2 STA UT Gap Creek C; Tr-.+ 918 P Y Y
S3 SVA UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 227 1-1 Y Y
S4 STB UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 205 P Y Y
S5 STE UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 368 P 'x Y Y
S6a SVD UT Gap Creek C- Tr-+ 154 -1 N Y
S6b SVG UT Gap Creek C: Tr:+ 109 P Y Y
S7 SVE UT Gap Creek C• Tr.+ 17 1 N Y
S8 STG UT Gap Creek C-1 Tr:+ 235 P Y Y
S9 STH UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 372 P Y Y
S10a SVil UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 376 P Y Y
S10b SVF UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 260 P Y Y
S11 STI UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 236 P Y Y
S12a SVH UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 613 P Y Y
S12b SVJ UT Gap Creek Q Tr:+ 544 P Y Y
S13a SVO UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 154 P Y Y
S13b SVM UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 28 P Y Y
S13c SVM UT Gap Creek C; Tr.+ 95 P Y Y
S13d SVM UT Gap Creek C,- Tr- 75 P Y Y
S13e SVM UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 139 P Y Y
S14a SVL UT Gap Creek C,, Tr:+ 586 P Y Y
S14b SVN UT Gap Creek Cl- Tr:+ 46 P Y Y
S14c SVN UT Gap Creek C- Tr:+ 69 P Y Y
S14d SVN UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 90 P Y Y
S15 SVR UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 36 P Y Y
S16 SVQ UT Gap Creek C Tr- 477 P Y Y
S17 STO UT Gap Creek C• Tr- 341 P Y Y
S18a SVS UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 141 I N Y
S18b STM UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 153 1 N Y
S19a SVT UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 537 P Y Y
S19b SVT UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 217 P Y Y
S19c SVT UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 141 P Y Y
S20 SVW UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 103 P Y Y
S21a SVU UT Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 171 P Y Y
S21 b SVU UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 383 P Y Y
_
S21 c SVU UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 391 P Y Y
_
S22 SVX UT Gap Creek C; Tr.+ 38 f ° N Y
S23 STP UT Gap Creek C-1 Tr:+ 274 P Y Y
S24 STQ UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 45 P Y Y
S25 STIR UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 196 P Y Y
S26a SBB UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 122 P Y Y
S26b SBB UT Gap Creek C-1 Tr:+ 238 P Y Y
S27a SBA UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 130 P Y Y
S27b SBA UT Gap Creek C; Tr.+ 319 P Y Y
S28 SVCC UT Gap Creek C-1 Tr:+ 243 P Y Y
S29 SVBB UT Gap Creek C• Tr- 39 1 Y Y
S30 SVAA UT Gap Creek C-1 Tr:+ 454 1 N Y
S31 SVZ UT Gap Creek C; Tr.+ PIPED- 1 N N

Table 2. Continues
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
Table 2. Continued

a

E

z

E

w
fA

v

_
m

c

CD

U.

d

E
1°
z

E

r
fq c
o
N
to
U
d

A

d

m

m

t

+'

J

?
?

`
o
R

c
C
ad.
d

d
a
m

or-

++
?

rL

m
O

H
o

..
u
d

fA
S32a SVEE UT Gap Creek C; Tr.+ 281 P Y Y
S32b SVFF UT Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 588 P Y Y
S33 SVDD UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 231 P Y Y
S34 SBD UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 642 P Y Y
S35a STS UT Gap Creek C,, Tr:+ 116 P Y Y
S35b STS UT Gap Creek Ca Tr:+ 78 P Y Y
S36a STU UT Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 748 P Y Y
S36b STU UT Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 125 P Y Y
S36c STU UT Gap Creek Cf Tr:+ 38 P Y Y
S37 STT Little Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 609 P Y Y
S38 SBG UT Gap Creek C: Tr:+ 346 P Y Y
S39a SBF UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 54 P Y Y
S39b SBF UT Gap Creek C: Tr:+ 49 P Y Y
S40 SBJ UT Gap Creek C; Tr:+ 555 P Y Y
S41 SAL UT Gap Creek Q Tr- 54 P Y Y
S42 SBI UT Gap Creek C• Tr:+ 549 P Y Y
S43 SVJJ South Fork New River WS-V• HOW 1175 P Y N
S44a SCA UT S.F. New River WS-V• HOW 907 P Y N
S44b SCA UT S.F. New River WS-V• HOW 61 P Y N
S44c SCA UT S.F. New River WS-V• HOW 173 P Y N
S44d SCA UT S.F. New River WS-V• HOW 86 P Y N
S44e SCA UT S.F. New River WS-V: HOW 127 P Y N
S45 SGI UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 947 P Y Y
S46a SCB UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 224 P Y Y
S46b SCB UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 318 P Y Y
S47a STW UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 514 P Y Y
S47b SGJ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 536 P Y Y
S48a STV UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 511 P Y Y
S48b SPM UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 502 P Y Y
S49 SXG UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 103 P Y Y
S50a SPI UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 349 P Y Y
S50b SPL UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 15 P Y Y
S51 SPJ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 77 P Y Y
S52a spring head UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 5 P Y Y
S52b SPH UT Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 664 P Y Y
S53 SZI UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 163 P Y Y
S54 SXB UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 57 1 Y Y
S55a SXA UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 135 P Y Y
S5515 SXA UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 226 P Y Y
S55c SZH UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 235 P Y Y
S56a STAG Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 5 P Y Y
S56b SXR Old Field Creek C; Tr.+ 715 P Y Y
S56c SGA/SGK/STAA Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 13521 P Y Y
S56d SPC/SZA Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 5185 P Y Y
SPK Old Field Creek C; Tr ORW 1103 P Y Y
SZG UT Old Field Creek C-1 Tr+ 24 P Y Y
a SZF UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+
' 51 P Y Y
S59a SZE UT Old Field Creek M.+ 72 P Y Y
i able z. continues
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
T.h1c 9 Cnnfina,orl

`

4)
Z
E

d
u?

V

a

vi
M
u

N

z
E

d
us c

O
i?

(A

R

y

d

m

£

c

i
41
E

c

c
c

°?

L

O

m

Q
c
.-'
?

M

2

3

m

w

m

d

to
S59b SZD UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 10 P Y Y
S60 SZC UT Old Field Creek C• Tr.+ 97 P Y Y
S61 SZB UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 30 P Y Y
S62a SXD UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 753 P Y Y
S62b SXD UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 8 P Y Y
S62c SXI UT Old Field Creek C• Tr.+ 274 P Y Y
S63a SXC UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 548 P Y Y
S63b SXH UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 103 P Y Y
S63c SXH UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 165 P Y Y
S64 SXE UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 41 P Y Y
S65 SXF UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 63 P Y Y
S66 SXK 1 UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 55 P Y Y
S67 SPA UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 86 P Y Y
S68 SPD UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 20 P Y Y
S69a SGC UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 124 P Y Y
S69b SGC UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 529 P Y Y
S70a SGD UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 5 P Y Y
S70b SGD UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 16 P Y Y
S71a SGB UT Old Field Creek Ca Tr:+ 194 P Y Y
S71 b SGB UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 297 P Y Y
_
S72 SGE UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 60 1 N Y
S73a SPN UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 468 1 ? N Y
S73b SPN UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 113 1 / N Y
S73c SPN UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 17 1 N Y
S74 SGF UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 17 1 Y Y
S75 SGG UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 319 1 Y Y
S76a SGH UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 422 P Y Y
S76b SGH UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 101 P Y Y
S77 SPF UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 384 P Y Y
S78 SPE UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 191 P Y Y
S79 SPP UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 94 P Y Y
S80 SPQ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 357 P Y Y
S81 SPS UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 53 P Y Y
S82 ditch UT Old Field Creek C; Tr.+ 544 1 .!' N Y
S83 SGO UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 326 P Y Y
S84a SZL UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 46 1 N N
S84b SXUSGM UT Old Field Creek C: Tr:+ PIPED. P N N
S85 SXK 2 UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 121 P Y Y
S86 SGAZ UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 340 P Y Y
S87a SGL UT Old Field Creek C• Tr.+ 388 1 N Y
S87b SGL UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 133 1 ? N Y
S87c SGL UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 299 1 N Y
S88 STZ UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 509 P Y Y
S89a SZN UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 73 P Y Y
S89b SZM UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 62 P Y Y
S90a SXM UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 217 P Y Y

Table 2. Continues
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
. Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
Tahla 9 Cnntinuad

Z

E

d
. +
co

c

Q
d
rn
tM
!?
LL

d

Z

E
y
+?+
fn c

"'
f?
y
R
)
R
N
M
y
C1
m

)

w
C
d
J
c
d
?

0
io

d

d

O
`

0:
c
O

r+

m
3
co
7
t-
«

7

to
S90b SXM UT Old Field Creek C• Tr:+ 333 P Y Y
S91 SXO UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 23 P Y Y
S92a SXQ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 155 P Y Y
S92b SXQ UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 131 P Y Y
S92c SXQ UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 357 P Y Y
S92d SXP UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 296 P Y Y
S92e SXN UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 77 P Y Y
S93 STAB UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 161 P Y Y
S94a STAC UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 23 P Y Y
S94b STAC UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 142 P Y Y
S95a SGPX UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 1447 P Y Y
S95b SGP UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 1724 P Y Y
S95c STAD UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 1130 P Y Y
S96 STAE UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 224 P Y Y
S97 STAF UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 256 I N Y
S98a SGQ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 58 P Y Y
S98b SGQ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 126 P Y Y
S98c SGQ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr.+ 140 P Y Y
S99a SGR UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+. 103 P Y Y
S99b SGR UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 129 P Y Y
S99c SGRX UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 204 P Y Y
S100 SGS UT Old Field Creek C' Tr:+ 44 P Y Y
S101 SPZ UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 8 P Y Y
S102 SPX UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 510 P Y Y
S103 SPY UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 17 P Y Y
S104 SPW UT Old Field Creek C; Tr:+ 424 P Y Y
S105 SPT UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 308 P Y Y
S106a STAH UT Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 259 P Y Y
S106b SPU UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 62 P Y Y
S106c SPV UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 130 P Y Y
S107 STAI UT Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 114 1 Y Y
• S108 SGV UT South Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 485 P Y Y
S109 STAL UT South Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 919 P Y Y
S110 STAK UT South Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 70 P Y Y
S111a SPAA UT South Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 730 P Y Y
S111b SGUX UT South Beaver Creek C: Tr:+ 1007 P Y Y
S111 c SGUX UT South Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 188 P Y Y
S112a SXS UT South Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 75 P Y Y
S112b SGT UT South Beaver Creek C; Tr.+ 60 P Y Y
S113a SPEE UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 109 P Y Y
S113b SPDD UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 633 P Y Y
S113c SPCC UT Beaver Creek C; Tr.+ 245 P Y Y
S114a SPBB UT Beaver Creek C; Tr.+ 390 P Y Y
S114b SPBB UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 188 P Y Y
S114c STAS UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 927 P Y Y
S115 STAM UT Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 323 P Y Y
S116 SGW UT Beaver Creek C' Tr:+ 176 P Y Y
S117 STAN UT Beaver Creek C: Tr.+ 389 P Y Y
S118a SGX UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 228 P Y Y
Table 2. Continues
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
T.,hle O r`., f;-'.'4

z

o

c

c

d
m
R
Y.

z

n C
C
R
V
L_
N

l6

R
to

d
m

.

w
t

d
J
"

E
61

..

C

d
a

V

C

•++
R

!
E

m

w
3

V
d
7
N
S118b SGX UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 171 P Y Y
S119 SPFF UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 90 P Y Y
S120a SPHH UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 25 P Y Y
S120b SGZ UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 200 P Y Y
S120c SPGG UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 94 P Y Y
S121 SGY UT Beaver Creek C Tr.+ 73 P Y Y
S122 SXT UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 104 P Y Y
S123 SXU UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 125 P Y Y
S124a STAT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 1549 P Y Y
S124b STAID Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 1749 P Y Y
S124c SXY Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 513 P Y Y
S125 SXV UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 58 1 Y Y
S126a STAO UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 521 P Y Y
S126b STTAA UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 160 P Y Y
S127 STAQ UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 197 P Y Y
S128a SXAA UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 202 P Y Y
S128b STAU UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 664 P Y Y
S129 STAV UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 127 P . Y Y
S130 SXBB UT Cole Branch C• Tr:+ 1223 P Y Y
S131 SXCC UT Cole Branch C• Tr:+ 84 1 Y Y
S132 SXDD UT Cole Branch C• Tr:+ 76 1 Y Y
S133 SXFF UT Cole Branch C• Tr:+ 44 1 Y Y
S134a STAX UT Cole Branch C• Tr.+ 72 P Y Y
S134b STAW UT Cole Branch C• Tr.+ 98 P Y Y
S134c SXEE UT Cole Branch C• Tr:+ 154 P Y Y
S135a SVNN Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 134 P Y Y
S135b SVNN Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 2034 P Y Y
S135c STAY Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 148 P Y Y
S135d STAY Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 209 P Y Y
S136 SVOO UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 15 I < N Y
S137a SVUU UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 126 P Y Y
S137b SVPP UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 21 P Y Y
S138 SVTT UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 86 P Y Y
S139a SVSS UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 114 P Y Y
S139b SVRR UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 129 P Y Y
S140 SVQQ UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 134 P Y Y
S141a SPJJ UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 53 P Y Y
S141b STAB UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 87 P Y Y
S142a SPIT UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr.+ 389 P Y Y
S142b SPIT UT Little Buffalo Creek C; Tr:+ 72 P Y Y
S142c STAZ UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 269 P Y Y
S142d STAZ UT Little Buffalo Creek C; Tr:+ 32 P Y Y
S143a SPKK UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 184 P Y Y
S143b STBB 1 UT Little Buffalo Creek C; Tr:+ 248 P Y Y
S143c STBB 1 UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 177 P Y Y
S144a STBB 2 UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 57 P Y Y
S144b STBB 2 UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 604 P Y Y
S145 STBC UT Little Buffalo Creek C• Tr:+ 374 P Y Y
S146 SPILL UT Naked Creek C:+ 1518 P Y N
Table 2. Continues
Table 2. US 221 Stream Detail Summary T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
Table 2. Continued

E

O

z

V

d

a

N

?0

U.

E

z

E

w
(n c
o

y

m

R

0

ao

d

w

c

J
«
c
d
E
?
C

O

C
c

a

V

rV
•C'

c
_o
«

_.0

m

O

V

d
Q

y
S147 SPMM UT Naked Creek C:+ 59 P Y N
S148 SPNN UT Naked Creek C:+ 622 P Y N
S148b STBH UT Naked Creek C:+ 237 P Y N
S149 STBD UT Naked Creek C:+ 308 P Y N
S150 STBE UT Naked Creek C:+ 74 P Y N
S151a STBF Naked Creek C:+ 23 P Y N
S151b STBG Naked Creek C:+ 11 P. Y N
S151c STBG Naked Creek C:+ 267 P Y N
S151d STBG Naked Creek C:+ 563 P Y N
S151e SVZZ/SPUU Naked Creek C:+ 1833 P Y N
S151f SVAAA Naked Creek C:+ 1058 P Y N
S151 SND 1 Naked Creek C:+ 119 P Y N
S151h SNG Naked Creek C:+ 50 P Y N
S151i SND 2 Naked Creek C:+ 1215 P Y N
S151' SPOO Naked Creek C:+ 57 P Y N
S152 STBI UT Naked Creek C:+ 268 P Y N
S153 STBJ UT Naked Creek C:+ 45 I - N N
S154 STBL UT Naked Creek C:+ 94 -11 N N
S155 SVWW UT Naked Creek C:+ 54 P Y N
S156a SVXX UT Naked Creek C:+ 360 P Y N
S156b SVXX UT Naked Creek C:+ 127 P Y N
S156c STBK UT Naked Creek C:+ 24 P Y N
S157a SVYY UT Naked Creek C:+ 192 P Y N
S157b. SVYY UT Naked Creek C:+ 189 P Y N
S158a SPXX UT Naked Creek C:+ 19 P Y N
S158b SPXX UT Naked Creek C:+ 7 P Y N
S159 SPWW UT Naked Creek C:+ 12 P Y N
S160 SPW UT Naked Creek C:+ 210 1- N N
S161a SPTT UT Naked Creek C:+ 164 I-- N N
S161b SPTT UT Naked Creek C:+ 233 1 N N
S162a SPYY UT Naked Creek C:+ 170 P Y N
S162b SPYY UT Naked Creek C:+ 63 P Y N
S163 SPSS UT Naked Creek C:+ 464 P Y N
S164 SPAAA UT Naked Creek C:+ 120 P Y N
S165a SPZZ UT Naked Creek C:+ 116 P Y N
S165b SNH UT Naked Creek C:+ 20 P Y N
S166 SPRR UT Naked Creek C:+ 631 P Y N
S167 SNF UT Naked Creek C:+ 246 h- N N
S168a SPQQ UT Naked Creek C:+ 39 P Y N
S168b SPQQ UT Naked Creek C:+ 86 P Y N
S168c SPQQ UT Naked Creek C:+ 184 P Y N
S168d SNE UT Naked Creek C:+ 334 P Y N
S169a SPPP UT Naked Creek C:+ 300 P Y N
S169b SPPP UT Naked Creek C:+ 45 P,- Y N
S169c SPPP UT Naked Creek C:+ 19 P Y N
S170 STAR UT Beaver Creek C• Tr:+ 71 P Y Y
S171 SXZ UT Beaver Creek C; Tr:+ 173 1 Y Y
Total: 120581
Total Perennial Stream Channel: 115085 l inear feet
Total Intermittent Stream Channel: 5496 l inear feet

UT=Unnamed tributary
* Mitigation required: Final mitigation status is at the descretion of the USACE
Table 1. US 221 Improvements T.I.P. Number R-2915
Wetland Detail Summary Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC

z

C
?

_

?
?

I

J

Q

O
?,
LU

J
Q _Z
--
d

cC_C
?
M
R

H

=
Rf
+r
M
•M
CF
C
?C
++
W1 VA 3684.96 .0.08 N PEM 12
W2a VB/TA 9172.78 0.21 N PSS 14
W2b VI 24509.96 0.56 N PEM 14
W3 VC 2091.82 0.05 Y PEM 14
W4 VD 2855.07 0.07 N PEM 16
W5 VF/VG 31024.37 0.71 N PFO 25
W6 TXA 6600.20 0.15 N PEM 8
W7a TG 258.86 0.01 N PSS 12
W7b TC/TD/TG 1698.69 0.04 N PSS 12
W8 TB 3540.35 0.08 N PEM 8
W9a VL 1644.84 0.04 N PEM 11
W9b VL ° 4482.13 . 0.10 N PEM 11
W10 VK 3507.00 0.08 N PEM 9
W11 TE 11355.99 0.26 N PSS 23
W12 TF 2168.41 0.05 N PSS 23
W13 BA 28790.71 0.66 N PSS 4
W14 VN 706.41 0.02 N PSS 24
W15 BC 5219.64 0.12 Y PSS 24
W16 BB 1775.78 0.04 N PFO 24
W17a VM 45789.47 1.05 N PEM 16
W17b VM 5618.81 0.13 N PEM 16
W17c VM 234.48 0:01 N PEM 16
W18 CA 1304.55 0.03 Y PSS 23
W19a GI 4030.38 0.09 N PSS 19
W19b GG 12462.63 0.29 Y PSS 19
W20 GF 1409.89 0.03 Y PSS 19
W21 TI 391.18 0.01 Y PSS 30
W22 PH 3651.64 0.08 N PFO 24
W23 PF 3104.90 0.07 Y PFO 24
W24 XA 1145.55 0.03 N PEM 37
W25 ZD 606.31 0.01 N PSS 30
W26 ZC 7.43 0.00 N PSS 30
W27 ZB 540.87 0.01 N PEM 30
I able 1. continues
Table 1. US 221 Improvements
Wetland Detail Summary
Table 1. continued
T.I.P. Number R=2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC

0
.Q

z

C
t0
m

d

Q

N
R

s
v
J
Q
~
0

a

J

Q
F-
0 z

Q

-

Q.

L
H

C
c4

4 CM
c

.?

t'1

C
M

Q
W28 ZA 3257.73 0.07 Y PEM 30
W29 PA 29.02 0.00 N PEM 24
W30 XB 138.36 0.00 Y PSS 19
W31 PB 140.00 0.00 Y PSS 24
W32 PC 464.39 0.01 Y PSS 24
W33 PI 1065.36 0.02 N PSS 36
W34 GA 338.94 0.01 Y PFO 19
W35 GB 435.58 0.01 Y PFO 19
W36 GC 894.34 0.02 Y PFO 19
W37 GD 608.70 0.01 Y PFO 19
W38 GE 2528.48 0.06 N PSS 21
W39 PD 649.21 0.01 Y PSS 49
W40 PE 228.45 0.01 Y PSS 49
W41 ZE 506.61 0.01 N PFO 14
W42 Pi 3608.68 0.08 Y PFO 54
W43 GAA 2219.96 0.05 Y PFO 54
W44 PK 154.55 0.00 Y PEM 36
W45 PM 4780.13 0.11 Y PSS 36
W47 TL 1395.55 0.03 Y PSS 15
W46 PL 2718.16 0.06 N PSS 36
W48 TK 644.93 0.01 N PEM 13
W49 SNA 748.61 0.02 N PEM 13
W50 SN 486.66 0.01 N PEM 13
W51 GJ 244.48 0.01 N PEM 13
W52 GK 1697.16 0.04 N PEM 13
W53 TYX 842.28 0.02 N PSS 31 .
W54 GH 5817.64 0.13 N PSS 11
W55 TJ 2856.63 0.07 N PSS 21.
W56 XF 1156.03 0.03 Y PEM 29
W57 XE 1680.45 0.04 N PSS 29
W58 XC/XD 2004.51 0.05 Y PSS 29
W59 XG/XH 6017.09 0.14 Y PSS 21
Table 1. continues
Table 1. US 221 Improvements
Wetland Detail Summary
Table 1. continued
T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC

E
z

?
a

a

d
to

)

J
F-
L1

Q
J
t` z
a

=
?
ctt

G a?
?

U'

C
W60 TN 1940.54 0.04 N PSS 11
W61 TM 3782.02 0.09 N PSS 11
W62 XI 573.08 0.01 Y PSS 20
W63 ZF 16868.43 0.39 N PEM 18
W64 TO 872.05 0.02 N PEM 10
W65 GL 7235.66 0.17 Y PSS 19
W66 GN 1743.51 0.04 Y PFO 17
W67 GM 2873.67 0.07 Y PSS 19
W68 PR 1950.43 0.04 N PSS 45
W69 PQ 12693.73 0.29 N PSS 45
W70 PN 711.38 0.02 N PSS 26
W71 PO/PP 32594.47 0.75 Y PSS 26
W72 PS 743.86 0.02 N PSS 14
W73a TT/TR/TU/TS 14322.77 0.33 Y PSS 34
W73b TT/TR/TU/TS 11030.67 0.25 Y PSS 34
W74 GT 1491.49 0.03 Y PEM 15
W75 GS 3544.56 0.08 Y PFO 15
W76 GR/GQ 13008.16 0.30 Y PFO 15
W77a TP/GO 53582.00 1.23 Y PFO 66
W77b GO 10361.00 0.24 Y PSS 66
W77c GP 536.25 0.01 Y PSS 66
W77d GP 8228.15 0.19 Y PSS 66
W77e GO 8292.30 0.19 Y PSS 66
W78a PT 5192.02 0.12 Y PFO 66
W78b PU 26886.77 0.62 Y PFO 66
W79a XK 10259.48 0.24 N PSS 30
W79b XL 327.13 0.01 N PSS 8
W80 PW 2627.04 0.06 Y PFO 28
W81 TV 545.17 0.01 Y PFO 15
W82 GU 2768.28 0.06 N PEM 15
W83 PV 155.70 0.00 Y PSS 28
W84 GW 1997.41 0.05 Y PEM 19
W85 GV 1296.44 0.03 Y PSS 17
86
V PX/TW 7822.41 0.18 N PSS 49
W
- TX 278.22 0.01 N PSS 49
Table 1. continues
Table 1. US 221 Improvements
Wetland Detail Summary
Table 1. continued
T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC

E

z
C

G)

J

Q
~

Q

J
Q
~ z

?v

M
L
_C.

M

4)
M

v

w
d
W87b GX 2066.04 0.05 N PSS 49
W88a TY 1021.66 0.02 Y PFO 17
W88b GY 1896.45 0.04 Y PFO 17
W89 XM 3750.94 0.09 N PFO 19
W90 TAF 5744.17 0.13 Y PSS 24
W91 TAG 10079.91 0.23 N PSS 24
W92 TAE 29454.09 0.68 Y PEM 28
W93 XO 23459.23 0.54 Y PEM 26
W94 TXX 1885.44 0.04 N PEM 18
W95a TAD 10444.05 0.24 N PEM 30
W95b TAA/TZ 12029.91 0.28 Y PEM 30
W96 XP 13202.11 0.30 Y PSS 17
W97 TAH 8080.22 0.19 Y PSS 18
W98 XQ 3215.50 0.07 Y PSS 17
W99b TAJ 4441.86 0.10 N PSS 18
W99a TAK 1809.63 0.04 N PSS 18
W100a XU/XS 15243.16 0.35 Y PSS 30
W100b XR 2932.04 0.07 Y PSS 30
W101 TAIL 441.10 0.01 N PEM 10
W102 XV 11845.85 0.27 N PSS 25
W103 XY 9763.68 0.22 N PSS 25
W104 TAM 7339.50 0.17 N PEM 10
W105 TAN 622.46 0.01 N PEM 10
W106 VQ 1618.56 0.04 Y PEM 35
W107 VR 1479.76 0.03 Y PEM 35
W108 TAP 714.51 0.02 N PSS 12
W109 TAQ 3740.62 0.09 N PSS 12
W110 VS/VT 26951.83 0.62 Y PSS 24
-Will W 2279.88 0.05 Y PSS 16
W1 12 VU 19871.27 0.46 N PSS 24
W113 PZ 540.85 0.01 N PEM 32
W114 PY 2505.85 0.06 N PSS 32
cable 1. continues

Table 1. US 221 Improvements
Wetland Detail Summary
Table 1. continued
T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC
Z

L v 'a ?
E L!J
Z

d
J a
J c
M 'a
c -a
c
?
a N Q
~ Q
~ '?
CL ?
CD es
0
U. O O W
W115 TAR 1169.95 0.03 Y PFO 31
W116 PBB 1372.04 0.03 N PSS 32
W117 PAA 8803.64 0.20 Y PFO 56
W118 PCC 360.29 0.01 Y PSS 51
W119 PDD 2107.61 0.05 Y PSS 51
W120 PEE 1839.04 0.04 Y PEM 51
W121 TAS 1698.48 0.04 N PEM 9
W122a TAU 2750.56 0.06 Y PSS 32
W122b TAV 3416.25 0.08 Y PSS 32
W123 Mitch 2258.50 0.05 N PEM 8
W124 GZ 808.71 0.02 N PSS 12
W125 NF 772.04 0.02 Y PEM 9
Total: 812710.22 18.66
a Wetland Type: PFO palustrine forested, PEM palustrine emergent, PSS palusrine scrub-shrub
b Riparian wetland are those wetlands that are within the "zone of influence" of a stream, creek, or river.
Non-riparian wetlands are those wetlands that are not adjacent to or hydrologically influenced by a stream,
creek, or river.
Table 3. US 221 Improvements
Pond Detail Summary.
Ponds
T.I.P. Number R-2915
Ashe and Watauga Counties,
NC
m
a 0

d
0
0

CL C.
a
a. co Q Q
SW1 SWVA 3364.00 0.077226798
SW2 SWVB 22160.10 0.508725964
SW3 SWGA 309.44 0.007103809
SW4 SWGB 744.54 0.017092211
SW5 SWXA 2711.45 0.062246267
SW6 SWZA 1929.92 0.044304846
SW7 POND7 7757.60 0.178089991
SW8 1 26205.24 0.601589591
SW9 sw-stbb 1633.93 0.037509789
Total 66816.22 1.533889265
atch Ll e
\ f _d
Figure 3c
5 ? ? A
?lX
Stir?:aS4 • .

Awl
Corridor Boundary'
,;;risdictional Wetland' + f x S14d
pi,
Q uunsdictional Pond' r S16 .ty Y
jurisdictional Stream -Perennial'
Jurisdictional Stream - Intermittent+fesfi. ' S14b f, s ti
Q Feature Number - Mitigatable w?r F'Tr S14c
Feature Number - Non-mitigatable ftaL?' " .b' :y m- q
'Location and extent is approximate. S13e 514a xa-3,
0 250 500t?y.tP+-1? *?`z
- S1c S13c fi ,+ {;r E " iii y
O-e 2005 r Color Imago Asno an0 Watauga Coun S13b 'S13a
o ry p Oed Dy Persons Transponat on G- P F .?a fi h
raBu• ,?{ r4 ?"••? 'Yy t? 4 S`y?`'. v}?ls?.r :?',•-"i Y'k.?a 1.. L.`.l+?a
?? ?Kf{ General Jurisdictional Layout "mi
1 US 221 Improvements Date x.2007
Ashe and Watauga Counties. North Carolina Dr n;Chkd KTIGT
T.I.P, No R-2915 F,gu,e 3b
D61-7.2 50 PM
i
Figure 3d
;r
Rt?

4?'a
?k
Q'

I;y
7 t..
`a +t
a
a'
C3 Corridor Boundary'
Jurisdictional Wetland'
M Jurisdictional Pond'
-- Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial'
Jurisdictional Stream - Intermittent'
s2 Feature Number - Mitigatable
Feature Number - Non-mitigatable
'Location and extent is approximate.
0 250 Soo
t -ncn eoaaia soo Baer
2005 Ttia cmor -,b Aana and w t c c
i t -r,d.ry prop dad by canons Traz c c.
n oapc slqur?rMr
............
on ee ?T n s nlomu pere0 br
br use on y oy r Proros[rone Lena Su cyw pwr m apwrory n.w... sd
S42 ?
t?fliyt t5-.1µ . rl
C\ ?M1 if.y ..yy N` ...T t
i
.anaral Junsdic_ional Layout
US 221 Improvements
Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. R-2915
Project: ER06099 00
Date: Jul 2007
Drwn/Chkd. KT;GT
Figure 3d
T . =4,
4 f ?,? -yy j' ?..?
s 4 g::
9
S85 f
SW5 w
6
-7T7

:
1. W 51
A50 J

F
?±'
k

Figure 3g

f?? v
r'
yl.L-?tx" ?v
EZ3 Corridor Boundary' (,.0: 1k
5W4
Jurisdictional Wetland" i
W35
Jurisdictional Pond' r a- ` 374
-- Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial' W34
Jurisdictional Stream - Intermittent Y F k `, SW3
62 Feature Number - Mitigatable S69a
Feature Number- Non-mitigatable ?, .` 1? 3 f jhy' Y °{w ve
'LOCZtion and extent is approximate.
?^ r Match Lire rs _? r L r369b t=.
lS h '? a q _
a s o s u r?gure 3e y a i
zoos c i e n w.-g.cOne: S71a
_1d, Pd dDyP v G -P
I'4Y,.,M n\? -a 'tea 5 ' n W33 C. , S70
.irX.F?(;???,I?k i` "vl°a' J S71 b S
General Jurisdictional L.ayaut Project ER0609900
US 221 Improvements Daze Jui2oo7
Ashe and Watauga Counties, Na-h Carolina Drwnr Chkd: KT.!GT
TA P. No. R-2915 Rgure 3f
i
"k, ?'- - `.. S89a "S89 W56¦ _ ?: a f ` g? < 1?... a., ?. v I'-.ksr'
a sr s
C3 Corridor Boundary` . W53
isd,ctional Wetland` W55 r ? ?3
ur'sdictional Pond` sr
S3?bX tw Frp
Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial' W54 } ,rte}
Jurisdictional Stream - Intermittent* ' >r
(ID Feature Number - Mitigatable
Feature Number - Non-mitigatable S8' Y r
'! ocation and extent is approximate.
o250 110
> mod- Sirt v *?? `;
F
.a soo, Match Line
zoos *- coaeb e n n a e '>_ _ S86 --`'.ex w f `,
1 no dbya T o G o t f C 6 `? Figure
?A, r Ste`
06099 00
.
General Jurisdictional Layout ER
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina D-n.'Chkd K7/GT
. „t. T.I.P. No. R-29?5 Figu e 3g
General Jurisdictional Laycu Pro' - ERC6099 00
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
Ir Ashe and Watauga Counties. North Carolina Dmr Chkd K-/GT
+. TIP No. R-2915 Fgu e 3h
?'? J?.?s&? 1 .u^' ?-'j? ? ??'...rr?? ,? ?.s,I `! ••'?`?? tree
?' p 1 t' 3r+.'. Ra I Grf _
V .1f
t r.
%
1 711
4'1Ra 1-.;.? y , ,S124a
„?f<T s x{
y \ 11g" e 41
If F NY A
?'b ???;?? _ ???r• ? ? ?i ?,F' ?? ? 4`b ,"` ??C...`- ?- .. ; f ?r (r •"?1• ? ??`iI?F,.
i alt 4F? , ?i'rh jv ?. I 1 .. S122 -5123
n!C ° ??
^sa ?ar?;li i a S114c S120e "7< sit f'
5 F ayaj, t r W?87a.? 7c• W881d
i^
or
S119 ?i .5121
?a UF ? °ya x$ ??
` tiy? 'ax ,tg, r'?: • S114a+ W86 • w,,,F-!
f,514b
- $y. 120e wes slzoa • W83 S117 }g,
fj-
S11 3b a*tW84 ?I}
W82?
?? •?c• Yb.. _' + `F ? `i'"`¢'t ''`?? ? - ?WBO ' ? J •• SW7 r? ?t?N I?aC'?,'1 .
c irf 1 ? { M
r a atci
13a ,,.5116 ..
w1l
r +,,- ' a...'. S115 K r a` , -'f '1`i ••.:• Line
Figure
- ?? S1'.ta W79a - z s x t " S --
P _.
z `W78a W79b i*P-r` X*??e'st. f F ! ??.:• t .. ` Aft,
`- 2.7iks? •W'8b s S112b' f s?".s • ...rx sT r - l j? r - .
V1
b 5eR ..-''1? W77a `- ° +t ct zql
W72 S110 r? ° jj•d?j'?.1 } ?3,
S106 Ssi^ W7'e
I. W74 W73c W76 - s W77b
::{ / s W75 4 q S111c
t W77c
41
W73a W77d 2 a'?+r ;' :\ y
VY73b
Y J°'}
? ?? lP ?. -;?- 81, y- '?` , 1, ti• '. ?,b-,a`P? ?
CO Corridor Boundary' ?' %• • ?
'sdictional Wetland` k s r .: 1 R\
w?
-°n Jurisdictional Pond'
Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial' a
urisdictional Stream -Intermittent' ' re v? y y fe?1 / ;' r?
C Feature Number - Mitigatable'
Feature Number - Non-mitigatable
'Locaiion and extent is approximate
0 250 500?u
Feat .,*' ?. ??? ,?*• , alpP {'L,q,, ,,
f -.ncn eaua: 500 fee +!`•tr. a4+ _ f t? -/°' _ ,z ,r-" ter "F
2? C g A n a w g :r F y4 `
i r o 0 ov a r p i o. Ti•Nl{ ?r 'S
` ??'? ..?`<.r???^ :x4 -}„,a; p• !,e'rf'?',1~4 r . { r ? `.- ? fp a?`?it'rl?.:
General Jurisdictional La°cut Froiect. ER06099.00
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina Dmn'Chkd: KTiGT
`? 1 T-I-P- No. R-2915 Figure 3i
Vvl
16
S1 34a
o,?r- -Rw }5."F ?t 'r, N r •? t a ..,.. ar'.
S134b
h q c { 41W103 '? ' "I•! (.w 3' 4•, ?. yrs `-
Y 3 '134, ?r A / 40
r; s13o r `?
r r S133
1111" IF
CJ Corridor Boundary' r 5132 ?r?
Jurisdictional Wetland' u a ,yc #
Jurisdictional Pond' y: S131 ?- as URA
Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial'
Jurisdictional Stream -Intermittent' ` " Fc
Q Feature Number - Mitigatable W100b f h. s
FeatureNumber - Non-mitigatable s W100
'Location and extent is a - I ? t ~ `
pDroxlmate- ?? „e•
0 2?0
f,
Feet} /
1 "h egua a 5oo feet -_e', Tree Coo, Ir.eg, Ash,- tog Match Llne "%I T v '
tYh tl 1, 'Oh D T
General Jurisdictional LaycLt F'D EP06099 00
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
?a Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina Dnan/Chkd KirGT
r ` T.I.P. No. R-2915 Figure 3k
.r

ate, ???
G
Ile
Lire
re?.I.j 3m

:... W122b
CYr? F {,J+?-:.
l???r r

*? 1 ?? "s C z 4 4 CO Corridor Boundary*
f^ ?. s •? ?7? C Ju sdictional Wetland'
?? qt r r, x 4< tih Jurisdictional Pond'
i f tt S144b V Yy ?' t, yv? - Jurisdictional Stream - Perennial'
rt q Jurisdictional Stream - Intermit.ent'
r ?? ` Feature Number - Mitigatable
' tr tt c S1a3a+ ( ??a ?f ti 4 ;zr s? ; Feature Number - Non-mitigatable
2• S143c ?. 5143b
_ 'Location and extent is approximate.
?r u W 15 i ` p? x aj ? 0 ?250 11c
W116 W1 17 ;t` sk
y f s as
zoos T c n
y(((?{y S142 +k ?., t c 142a - - ? '< 3 kS??c` y?i 00 o n a or a c
y?Rw 5142
8 kti ry W113 "? Kai •a k Y r F
General Jurisdictional LO,out ?? Project ER06099.00
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina Dmn/Chkd KT,GT
,,,d '` T.I.P. No. R-2915 Figure 31
1?
s Diu R`•-? fr" ?-r Tom` ?o #y E? $-?C
't"
+c-t,-, ? -c V•Y Z1,
c ?r a
( '4'` a, _ 1TZ'? d .?t x .?+lr + : ?E? f' ? ,_ r sit. j- •tss' ,¢",
"kW
4 ? s '''".r fir. ? tE?ah.• ? ?'.
Match
Line
Figure ' r t ±r?'t! UZ ?s T
Q t '?l i, t L r •?+'°'+*es'r9 sr '-..' o ,r"?a' ° ?F. JP _ A > Nf o i..
ar JIZ 1r7. r S 41'. 5165a +ti } (? ?+ Apr F
I?? i t s , 5164 r DNS t it r. =q? 5• ` ??
r d r " "? "'. w a?'?
S1 a r s5H= S151 S165b;
a---'-\S151f/ :,.c:•:J r_:-f,-? ,.a. S151.??:-,? ;..
'?' F'S162b -?-l
W125 e 316 >Ar
S158a t"r x 1 f :,? Fem.' + ,
r• S159 S168? ?! 51511 - '
S158b r e . ?# ?,..1 J} a his °er• v,?. ?f- L '? t ! "•,
,?,? ,) ° ''?`,?°- sS }• 'W '?°" '*T:.. '°>" - S 166
? i•^+?1ef1? S161a ? ?? X? try tx., . ? ?? w? r+> S168c +? - ;.
r kx ? T • S169b d
1. S151j ,t
3 ai t< ?a? 1 4Cr,`Y?k S169c ti'..
1 fy ?r .x. sr.R ¢xa Yd SS168a y
"R'- i fir, ,f' `sti
?nr. .. ?'? K'x. r .,P•?,' ? ....-+? lt. ". ??c`? ? ?f _. e '? d t'f 1 ? Yr ? ,,? 'a. ?.,,,
•.X .Xy - L .rr'? 1 n ['1`A
-.?y.,?'?a'
ti*a .{ R• 'i4r, ?b r
?g
,ar ^.,e ?.?$? ?.-~( l ,? E•r d Y t. '1' ? ,^ r'.::?? ?':_ '"""?.?.a?az `o'{?p,<?Px {, w?-° •S t
v-? 3 t u t`I .-x. 5 f , s:;^ yF .,s'?a.,y 'r'h •°r X rf
.aea-• ? f ;: ? Tay YY ??, ? i .g .,M. ? #' """,_:.
. -? - _
C3 Corndcr Boundary*
Jurisdictional Wetland' s ;;? , r h t?`g :
® Jurisdictional Pond'
Jurisdictional Stream -Perennial'
Jurisdictional Stream - Intermittent
S Feature Number - Mitigatable az r Y r r, F4 .,
Feature Number -Non-mitigatable yT x r r'9.?=
'Location and extent is approximate. t xr "cam '? -t
0 250 500
eaueIs 500 reel. 's"f
2005 C 9 A n G V t g '•'? ,? 4'. t ! S 3
P I Ib CrvP 0 CYP G R Z _ `Y _ y
Aye 3hUr -`7'' h
.. General Jurisdictional Layoct Proles: ER06099-00
US 221 Improvements Date Jul 2007
Ashe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina Drwn/Chkd: KVGT
,' .. °E T. LP No. R-2915 Figure 3m
r.??_ ?NQS tiR' y?T . ZED
FqCDENR °STU?()ry
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ?W?
Division of Coastal Management ti
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 21, 2007
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
N.C. Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
RE: Ballance Farm Wetland Mitigation Site, Currituck County, Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) Permit No. 124-95, TIP No. R-2228A and TIP No. R-2228BA.
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is regarding the Ballance Farm Wetland Mitigation Site in Currituck County. This
mitigation site provides restoration of coastal marsh and forested wetlands, and preservation of
coastal marsh, forested wetlands and upland habitat. The site provides mitigation for impacts
incurred by the widening of NC 168 (TIP No. R-2228), with additional credits available for future
projects.
The last annual monitoring report received by DCM for this site was the Annual Report for 2004
prepared by NCDOT. At the annual monitoring report meeting on 4/29/04, and at an on-site field
review meeting on 7/27/04, DCM agreed that no further monitoring of the non-riverine forested
wetland restoration area would be required since the construction and success criteria for that
acreage has been met and that portion of the site could be closed. However, DCM agreed with
NCDOT that monitoring for the coastal marsh creation area should continue.
At an on-site multi-agency field review meeting on 8/9/05, all of the agencies present except for
DCM agreed that the mitigation site could be considered successful and closed out. DCM was
concerned that some of the marsh creation area did not appear to meet the success criteria, and may
not be considered suitable mitigation for impacts to CAMA coastal wetlands. Therefore, DCM
continued to work with NCDOT and EEP to determine how much of the marsh creation area could
be considered suitable mitigation for impacts to CAMA coastal wetlands.
At an on-site field review meeting in Fall 2005, NCDOT and DCM identified 6.08 acres (see
attached map) of successful coastal marsh creation area that could be considered suitable mitigation
for the CAMA coastal wetland impacts that were authorized by CAMA Permit No. 124-95. The
required mitigation for these CAMA coastal wetland impacts is 5.58 acres (1.86 acres coastal
wetland impacts mitigated at a 3:1 ratio). According to the debit ledger received
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 100% Post Consumer Paper
from the EEP on gn107, a debit of coastal marsh creation in the amount of 5.58 acres has been
made for these impacts.
The Ballance Farm Mitigation Site was transferred as an asset to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) by NCDOT, therefore, DCM continued to work with EEP to determine how much
of the remaining coastal marsh creation areas could be considered suitable mitigation for impacts to
CAMA coastal wetlands. In the Fall of 2006, the EEP hired a consultant to delineate the successful
coastal marsh creation areas at the mitigation site not including the areas already identified by DCM
and NCDOT in Fall 2005. The delineation, which was verified by a DCM Field Representative,
documented 30.6 acres (see attached map) of successful coastal marsh creation areas. This does not
include the 6.08 acres of marsh creation areas previously documented by NCDOT and DCM in Fall
2005. Therefore, prior to any debits, the total amount of successful coastal marsh creation areas at
the Ballance Farm Mitigation site that are considered by DCM to be suitable mitigation for CAMA
coastal wetland impacts is 36.68 acres.
In conclusion, DCM agrees that the total amount of successful coastal marsh creation areas at the
Ballance Farm mitigation site prior to any debits is 36.68 acres. DCM also agrees that the
mitigation requirements for CAMA coastal wetland impacts of CAMA Permit No. 124-95 have
been satisfied by the debit of 5.58 acres from those available coastal marsh creation credits.
DCM greatly appreciates the extra effort that NCDOT and EEP expended to confirm the amount of
successful coastal marsh creation areas at the Ballance Farm Mitigation Site that are considered by
DCM to be suitable mitigation for impacts to CAMA coastal wetlands.
Please contact Cathy Brittingham at [phone] x238 or via e-mail at
Cathy.BrittinghamOncmail.net is you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
e
Doug Hugg tt
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Bill Biddlecome, USACE
David Wainwright, DWQ
Garcy Ward, DWQ
Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Lynn Mathis, DCM
Jim Stanfill, EEP
Ballance Farm
Mitigation Site
Original Planted Area = 51 acres
Marsh Area GPS'd July 2002 = 39 acres
REM DCM App-rQved Marsh Creation Area
GPS'd October 2005 = 6.08 Acres
4.89 Acres
JUL 2 ? zoos
Div. cl?
1.19 Acres

N

Figure 1A

..TW.4l. ?- _::: 1?
? _::: ??I:[
(. • :;.:: "?'• .:
' .::::.
:::: )111. ?
_
•
•
.
;
_:_-
,? ._..
:
.
.
'_:

Figure 1C

w
Jr Jr

__._•1?f.,f.::°_' ''-? ? ?Iate. ::-:_., .._._..- ...__.__ ...:.._ .._.....__
_
__
I ...._ .._....._. ?•1v1(.:::_
_
I

... ... :. '- - I
,( .:
111!1 .: '...
. 1UJ1 ._... _ ... ._
.. _ ... 1------ ..
? 111/!•:::..:-
.":.-.
_
Att,
'
..
11V1:_=.
Ai. -
:_: ?1I./G .:::_: ? .•.:-: ]7tu .:_::. 31_1/L ...'.': 111/L •_._. 37?.lL ...._.
. .- Lam- - -•._ aL ' _- L •_ __ __

-_
...._l]tl!
:_:: .AWL. .:.:..-•;
..,,-?,•::: __'?,?-_
"^ •'._.
? -_
?I
?
151(1 .:
.... .. a .. ,.;
- Jr
';1518 ,., .. '?'...151t1it:{'•: ???.._-':.-1118 •:.::.. -?__--: ??15Y1
-...' --- -- 13(1! .a_: °:: :`_-•" •-- sk.'-_. -: .
-:
... ' _.Lr..:?:_: 1111x. ...•
.
_
•
...__..,•? 1V.11. :::__.. ._ - 1111! ..

Figure 1B
Legend
Creeks
DCM Line/Coastal Marsh = - 30.6 acres
0 145 290 580 870 1,160
• GPS Points/Flag Locations Feet
2126 Rowalnd Pond Dr.
Willow -1693 27592
(919)19) 215215-1693 BALLANCE FARM MITIGATION SITE
COASTAL MARSH DELINEATION Dwn• By: CLF
Date: Nov 2006 FIGURE
[phone] (fax)

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Currituck County, North Carolina
Project:
06-019

SAT ?9QG
r

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
October 9, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Colin Mellor, NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
From: David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit?*
Subject: Comments on the proposed US 17 Improvements (New Bern Bypass) ICE Assessment (dated
December 10, 2004) in Craven, TIP R-2301A.
The DWQ was recently requested by the NCDOT to comment on the aforementioned project with regards
to the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICE) Assessment document. The DWQ would like to submit the
following comments:
While it is stated in the document that there are no known Wild and Scenic Rivers, High
Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) in the vicinity of the
project, it fails to address Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Several NSW waterbodies exist
either in or very near the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA), and include:
x Str.carn N:une;.'; llWQ,,In 1evN6, =F CC l is
Bachelor Creek 27-98 C;Sw,NSW
Beaverdam Branch 27-98-2.2 C;Sw,NSW
Beech Tree Branch 27-98-2.4 C;Sw,NSW
Caswell Branch 27-98-2.6 C;Sw,NSW
Dee Branch 27-98-2.1 C;Sw,NSW
Dee Gully 27-101-32 C;Sw,NSW
Hayward Creek 27-101-35 C;Sw,NSW
Hollis Branch 27-98-1 C;Sw,NSW
Island Creek 27-101-33 C;Sw,NSW
Miry Hole Branch 27-101-34 B;Sw,NSW
Muddy Cove 27-101-33-2 C;Sw,NSW
Raccoon Creek 27-101-29 C;Sw,NSW
Roc Run 27-101-35-1 C;Sw,NSW
Scott Creek 27-101-30 C;Sw,NSW
Trent River 27-101-(31) SB;Sw,NSW
Trent River 27-101-(1) C;Sw,NSW
The DWQ is concerned about potential run-off to NSW waters, especially with respect to
nitrogen and phosphorous. Construction and development can exacerbate nutrient related
run-off to surface waters, leading to further degradation.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http•l/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Ne Caroti
on
Mural bf
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
The document indicates that portions of the Trent River included in the GISA are on the
State's 303(d) list, more specifically the Trent River from it's source to the mouth of Deep
Gully Creek (27-101-[1]). While segments of the Trent River are still listed on the State's
303(d) list, the segment located within the GISA is not listed on the 2006 303(d) list. Personal
communication' with the Modeling and TMDL Unit of the DWQ indicate that this segment
of the Trent River does appear to be meeting state standards with respect to the swamp water
classification.
The DWQ believes that cumulative effects should be presented for the whole project, and not
just partof it. TIP 2301A by itself may not have a large impact on travel timesavings or
result in significant development by itself. It is only a portion of the complete bypass project,
and as pointed out in the document, other routes currently exist. However, when 2301B is
built and the project is completed, the bypass route would expected to be much more
desirable for growth and result in faster travel times. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the full
effects of the whole project based on the information provided in the document.
The DWQ agrees that segment A of this project will most likely have minimal effects on growth and
development in the GISA. This is based upon:
Based on "Population Growth, 1990 - 2000" table in the document the growth rate in the
demographic area of the project was only 3.1 percent. This is considerably lower than that of
New Bern (33.2 percent), Craven County (12.0 percent) and the statewide average (21.4
percent). Based on this, development pressures in the GISA are low, and will not likely
escalate significantly due to this segment of the project. However, this project is on the
outskirts of New Bern. Development tends to push outward from city centers, so eventually
this area will see increased pressures for development. This would happen with or without
the road, although the road may accelerate it some, it most likely would not be significant due
to the road alone.
• The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates that there is a significant amount of
wetlands in the area of the proposed project. The DWQ estimates that nearly one-third of the
GISA is wetlands. Many of these areas appear to be quite large. The DWQ agrees that these
large pockets of wetlands may help deter some growth.
It appears that the only intersections associated with segment A of the project are the ones at
each terminus - US 70 and US 17 - and will have controlled access throughout section A.
Areas along US 70 are already developed, and the document states that poor soil conditions
in the area of the interchange will help limit potential growth. There is an industrial park
located near this intersection as well. While the industrial park may not be completely built
out yet, the land should already be zoned industrial, and therefore should not result in a
significant rezoning shift to "industrial."
The new road's intersection with US 17 is primarily rural at this time, comprised mostly of
single-family residences and forested or agricultural lands. This area may also eventually see
development pressures, especially when the both segments are completely finished. The
DWQ agrees that segment A will not likely induce a significant amount of growth in this area

either, despite the availability of land. However, this may change when the full project is
completed.
In closing, the DWQ generally agrees that, based on the information provided in the ICE for this project,
cumulative effects for segment A of this project will be minimal. However, as discussed earlier, it is
difficult to assess the effect of the complete project.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT 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 David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
File Copy
'Personal communication with Mr. Cam McNutt (DWQ Modeling and TMDL Unit), October 4, 2007.

QUALITATIVE INDIRECTAND
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
TIP Project R-2301A
US 17 NEW BERN BYPASS
Craven County, North Carolina
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Office of Human Environment
PREPARED BY:
HNTB North Carolina, PC
343 East Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
December 10, 2004
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1
II. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND BACKGROUND ................................... 2
III. STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES .............................................................................. 2
IDENTIFICATION OF GROWTH IMPACT STUDY AREA .................................................. . 2
IDENTIFICATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC AREA ................................................................. . 3
IV. STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS ........................................................ : 3
REGIONAL LOCATION ................................................................................................ . 3
GRowTH TRENDS ...................................................................................................... . 4
EXISTING LAND USE .................................................................................................. . 8
LAND USE PLANS ....................................................................................................... . 8
ZONING ..................................................................................................................... 10
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (WATER RESOURCES) ........................................... 10
TRANSPORTATION PLANS ......................................................................................... 11
V. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES ........................................................ 12
INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES ........................................................................ 12
VI. ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE EFFECTS ............................................................ 12
PREVIOUS REPORT CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 12
RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ............................................................................ 13
VII. POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR ANALYSI S
................................................................................................................................ 13
VIII. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................15
POTENTIAL FOR LAND USE CHANGE ........................................................................ 15
IX. ANALYSIS RESULTS ..........................................................................................16
INDIRECT EFFECTS .................................................................................................... 16
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................18
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Office of Human Environment
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE)
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Existing Conditions
• In Craven County, most of the population growth over the last decade has occurred
along the US 70 corridor between New Bern and Havelock, as well as within the
newly incorporated communities of Trent Woods and River Bend.
• According to data from the North Carolina Employment Security Commission,
employment in Craven County increased by 25.0% (7,655 jobs) between 1990 and
2003 (see Table 2). The Government sector led the way with an increase of 2,135
employees during the 13-year period. Unlike most North Carolina counties, Craven
County added over 500 manufacturing jobs.
• Land use within the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) of TIP R-2301A is
predominantly forested, with some scattered agricultural and single-family residential
uses, particularly along existing US 17. Land near the proposed interchange with US
70 is more commercial in nature, with the Craven County Industrial Park nearby and
other related industry located along the Atlantic & East Coast Railroad.
• According to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, there are a
substantial amount of wetlands located within the GISA of TIP R-2301A. These
wetlands could potentially limit where growth related to the project could take place.
In addition, a portion of the Trent River within the GISA is designated as a 303(d)
impaired water body. According to DENR, it is impaired as a result of low dissolved
oxygen; potential sources include agriculture or intensive animal feeding operations
• There are existing public water lines located parallel to the Atlantic & East Coast
Railroad to'the north of US 70 and along US 17 from New Bern to the Jones County
border. In addition to these areas, the extreme eastern portion of the GISA is
adequately served by both water and sewer utilities. The remaining portion of the
GISA is not served by public utilities.
Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects
A GIS search revealed no Wild and Scenic Rivers, HQWs or ORWs within either of
the Neuse River subbasins that encompass the GISA. None found in the EIS or web-
based search either.
Other than the areas near both proposed interchanges (termini) of TIP R-2301A,
conditions within the majority of the GISA are unfavorable for development. A
number of wetlands within the GISA should preclude land development activity
resulting from the project in some locations, as should the lack of adequate water and
sewer services within the majority of the GISA.
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
liklt_ = Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
• Based on the known locations of notable features within the GISA, as well as
professional judgment regarding where potential growth resulting from the project
could be located, there appears to be a low likelihood of notable features being
affected as a result of TIP R-2301 A.
• TIP R-2301A by itself should not create substantial travel time savings since it is
merely a segment of the proposed US 17 Bypass around New Bern. NC 58 and NC
43 already provide a direct connection route between US 17 and US 70 further south
and west.
• Because of improved access, property values for land near the proposed interchanges
should slightly escalate, potentially causing the conversion of existing and planned
single-family and agricultural uses to commercial uses, particularly along US 17.
Property values along the project alignment may actually decrease because of
increased noise and the negative impact on the visual environment.
• Any induced commercial development from TIP R-2301A would more than likely be
located along SR 1225 (Clarks Road) near its intersection with US 70 (including
within existing Craven County Industrial Park and industrial parks along Old US 70)
and along US 17 near its proposed interchange with TIP R-2301A. Induced
residential development would likely occur along SR 1224 (Tuscarora-Rhems Road)
and along US 17 (including areas within and adjacent to the River Bend community).
II. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND BACKGROUND
TIP R-2301A is a four-lane, divided freeway on new location from US 17 to US 70 in
Craven County, North Carolina (see Figure 1). It is included in the Division 2 highway
improvement section of the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Section B of R-2301, which extends 11.2 miles north of Section A, from US 70 to US 17,
is not included as part of this analysis. TIP R-2301A is 5.1 miles in length, and is
scheduled for construction during SFY 05. The NCDOT preferred alternative
recommends controlled access throughout the entire project, with interchanges proposed
at US 17 and US 70.
US 17 is the only continuously designated highway route east of I-95 that extends from
South Carolina to Virginia. It serves all of the important urban centers along the coasts
of North and South Carolina. In Craven County, approximately 8.5 miles of urban
development in River Bend, Trent Woods, New Bern, and Bridgeton must currently be
traversed in order to continue travel along US 17. TIP R-2301A would begin to allow
some through traffic to avoid local traffic in those areas, but a direct bypass route would
not be established until Section B is complete as well.
III. STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
Identification of Growth Impact Study Area
The North Carolina DOT's and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' (DENR) Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina indicates that the development effects of a
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
S, 1.10k
December 10, 2004
new or improved roadway facility are most often found up to one mile around an
interchange, and up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
Based on this guidance, the fact that TIP R-2301A is a new location project, an initial
review of existing conditions surrounding the project, and professional judgment, it was
determined that the potential for growth impacts as a result of the project would most
likely be within a three-mile radius of the project alignment (see Figure 1).
This three-mile radius, referred to as the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA), is the area
within which the project has the potential to induce land use changes, and will determine
the data collection and analysis area, but will not necessarily be the extent of the growth
impact that is expected to occur. More specific areas within the GISA that are most
likely to experience land use changes as a result of the roadway improvements will be
identified later in this report.
Identification of Demographic Area
TIP R-2301A is located in Craven County in eastern North Carolina. A Demographic
Area for the project was delineated in order to analyze the population growth trends in
the GISA (see Figure 2). The Demographic Area encompasses virtually all of the GISA,
and is generally bounded by NC 43, Bachelor Creek, and NC 55 to the north, Racetrack
Road, US 70, US 17, Wilson Creek, and the Craven County/Jones County border to the
east, Island Creek Road, Lee's Chapel Road, Trent River, and Franks Field Road to the
south, and Trent River, NC 41/Trenton Road, Cicero Riggs Road, and Core Creek to the
west. The following US Census Bureau block groups from 2000 are included in the
Demographic Area for TIP R-2301A:
• Census Tract 9603, Block Group 2
• Census Tract 9604, Block Groups 5-7
• Census Tract 9605, Block Group 1
• Census Tract 9801, Block Group 1
• Census Tract 9802, Block Group 1
IV. STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS
Regional Location
The eastern boundary of Craven County is located approximately 15 miles from the coast
of North Carolina between Wilmington and the Outer Banks. The Neuse River bisects
the county, flowing from west to east and ending in the Atlantic Ocean. New Bern is the
county seat and largest city in the county with a 2000 population of 23,128. The major
access routes to the county are US 70, which connects New Bern to the Triangle area
(Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill), and US 17, which is the major north-south coastal route
within the Carolinas.
The second oldest town in North Carolina, located at the confluence of The Trent and
Neuse rivers, New Bern has become a popular destination for many visitors who enjoy its
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
natural beauty, historic charm, and convenient location. The town was settled in 1710,
and its picturesque downtown waterfront district is still home to many of the attractive
historic buildings, shops, and homes of that era. New Bern is synonymous with the
Tryon Palace and the New Bern Historic District. Close in proximity are the Croatan
National Forest, Cherry Point Marine Base in Havelock, and Camp Lejeune Marine Base
in Jacksonville. Although all of the proposed TIP R-2301A alignment is within Craven
County, a portion of the Growth Impact Study Area for the project is within Jones County
immediately south of Craven County.
Growth Trends
Most of the population growth over the last decade within Craven County has occurred
along the US 70 corridor east of New Bern, as well as within the newly incorporated
communities of Trent Woods and River Bend. Commercial growth is continuing along
the NC 55 and NC 43 corridors northwest of New Bern, where the Craven County
Industrial Park is located, as well as major manufacturers such as Weyerhaeuser Co.,
Moen, Inc., and Hatteras Yachts. The largest Craven County employer is the Naval
Aviation Depot at Cherry Point Marine Base, which employed a total of 3,700 personnel
at the end of 2002.
Table 1 indicates population growth trends for the Demographic Area, New Bern, Craven
County, and North Carolina. Population in the Demographic Area grew by only 3.1 %
between 1990 and 2000, much less than any of the other three geographic areas. This
low growth rate seems to be due to the loss of population in downtown New Bern, which
is included in the Demographic Area. Most of the population growth in New Bern
appears to be due to annexation practices along the periphery of the city (and outside of
the Demographic Area), particularly along US 70 southeast of the city.
Table 1. Po ulation Growth, 1990-2000
Po pul ation. Growth, 90-00 ,
Area 1990 " -2000 - # % ..
Demographic Area 21,865 22,553 688 3.1%
New Bern 17,363 23,128 5,765 33.2%
Craven County 81,613 91,436 9,823 12.0%
North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4%
Source: US Census Bureau
According to data from the North Carolina Employment Security Commission,
employment in Craven County increased by 25.0% (7,655 jobs) between 1990 and 2003
(see Table 2). The Government sector led the way with an increase of 2,135 employees
during the 13-year period. Also growing rapidly within the County was the Health Care
and Social Assistance sector and Administrative and Waste Services sector. Combined,
these sectors added about 2,600 jobs, or 34% of the total growth. Unlike most North
Carolina counties, Craven County added over 500 manufacturing jobs. The following
tables indicate employment growth for Craven County, Jones County, and the State.
4
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Table 2. Employment By Sector Growth, Craven County
Eoi plovment Change, ")0-'03
Sector 1990 2003^ # `%>
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
& Hunting
355
427
72
20.3%
Mining 68 * N/A N/A
Utilities 94 74 -20 -21.3%
Construction 1,564 2,092 528 33.8%
Manufacturing 3,608 4,224 616 17.1%
Wholesale Trade 907 885 -22 -2.4%
Retail Trade 3,906 3,945 39 1.0%
Transportation and
Warehousing
504
1,042
538
106.7%
Information 635 647 12 1.9%
Finance and Insurance 673 721 48 7.1%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
224
298
74
33.0%
Professional and Technical
Services
1,095
1,651
556
50.8%
Management of Companies
and Enterprises
*
70
N/A
N/A
Administrative and Waste
Services
670
1,643
973
145.2%
Educational Services 47 123 76 161.7%
Health Care and Social
Assistance
1,732
3,619
1,887
108.9%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
695
339
-356
-51.2%
Accommodation and Food
Services
1,999
3,108
1,109
55.5%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
833
1,003
170
20.4%
Unclassified * 77 N/A N/A
Government 11.026 13.165 2,139 19.4%
Total** : 30,635 39,006 8,371 27.31Vo
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission (NCESC)
* - Indicates disclosure suppression
^ - 2003 total does not include data for those sectors in which 1990 data
was not disclosed
N/A - Not Applicable
** - 1990 total does not include data for * sectors
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
r = Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Table 3. Employment By Sector Growth, Jones County
Em plovment Change, '90-'03
Sector 1990 2003^ # %
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
& Hunting
113
165
52
46.0%
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utilities N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 62 145 83 133.9%
Manufacturing 261 58 -203 -77.8%
Wholesale Trade 80 77 -3 -3.8%
Retail Trade 214 137 -77 -36.0%
Transportation and
Warehousing
28
85
57
203.6%
Information * * N/A N/A
Finance and Insurance 20 17 -3 -15.0%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
*
*
N/A
N/A
Professional and Technical
Services
17
*
N/A
N/A
Management of Companies
and Enterprises
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Administrative and Waste
Services
*
18
N/A
N/A
Educational Services N/A N/A N/A N/A
Health Care and Social
Assistance
*
294
N/A
N/A
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
*
*
N/A
N/A
Accommodation and Food
Services
*
15
N/A
N/A
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration
33
32
-1
-3.0%
Unclassified N/A * N/A N/A
Government 442 557 115 26.0%
Total** ° 1,467 1,663 196 13.4 ON;
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission (NCESC)
* - Indicates disclosure suppression
^ - 2003 total does not include data for those sectors in which 1990 data
was not disclosed
N/A - Not Applicable
** - 1990 total does not include data for * sectors
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Table 4. Employment By Sector Growth, North Carolina
Em plovinent C°han(;c, '90-'03
Sector 1990 2003^ #
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting
21,827
30,422
8,595
39.4%
Mining 3,993 3,976 -17 -0.4%
Utilities 26,626 14,112 -12,514 -47.0%
Construction 166,733 211,121 44,388 26.6%
Manufacturing 820,239 602,017 -218,222 -26.6%
Wholesale Trade 139,697 162,750 23,053 16.5%
Retail Trade 377,026 431,925 54,899 14.6%
Transportation and
Warehousing
82,772
108,410
25,638
31.0%
Information 57,615 75,357 17,742 30.8%
Finance and Insurance 102,412 137,797 35,385 34.6%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing
32,488
47,143
14,655
45.1%
Professional and
Technical Services
89,618
145,953
56,335
62.9%
Management of
Companies and
Enterprises

35,104

61,193

26,089

74.3%
Administrative and
Waste Services
108,590
211,244
102,654
94.5%
Educational Services 22,091 46,339 24,248 109.8%
Health Care and Social
Assistance
203,641
363,400
159,759
78.5%
Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation
27,952
45,594
17,642
63.1%
Accommodation and
Food Services
205,943
291,530
85,587
41.6%
Other Services, Ex.
Public Administration
77,172
96,446
19,274
25.0%
Unclassified * 7,943 N/A N/A
Government 476,906 625,966 149,060 31.3%
Total.",,; 3,079,017 3,712,695 633,678 20.6%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission (NCESC)
* - Indicates disclosure suppression
^ - 2003 total does not include data for those sectors in which 1990 data
was not disclosed
N/A - Not Applicable
** - 1990 total does include data for * sectors
7
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
A total of only 1,663 jobs existed in Jones County in 2003, 13% more than the total in
1990 (see Table 3 above). The lack of a growing urban center, a limited transportation
network, and a relatively small supply of developable land has limited the growth
opportunities in Jones County. The Government sector had the largest employment total
in 2003 with 557 jobs, followed by the Health Care and Social Assistance sector with 294
employees. Many of the employment sectors suppressed data or simply did not have any
employment to report.
According to Table 4 above, North Carolina employment grew by 20.6% between 1990
and 2003 from nearly 3.1 million to over 3.7 million jobs. A total of slightly over 25% of
that growth occurred in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector, while the
Manufacturing sector lost 26.6% of its employment (218,222).
Existing Land Use
Land use within the GISA of TIP R-2301A is predominantly forested, with some
scattered agricultural and single-family residential uses, particularly along existing US 17
and NC 55 (see Figure 3). Land surrounding the proposed interchange with existing US
17 (near SR 1224) includes an Amoco gas station, some large lot single-family
residences, and agricultural uses along the east side of US 17. Land near the proposed
interchange with US 70 is more commercial in nature, with the Craven County Industrial
Park (highlighted in blue and brown in Figure 3) located just south of the intersection of
SR 1225 (Clarks Road) and US 70.
Industrial uses are also
prevalent immediately
north of the proposed US
70 interchange near the
intersection of Clarks
Road and SR 1005,
including the Martin-
Marietta Corporation
Rock Quarry
(highlighted in brown on
Figure 3). Land use data
within the Jones County
portion of the GISA was
unavailable at the time of
th' t

is assessmen .
However, based upon a site visit, the area along the US 17 corridor in Jones County is
predominantly agricultural with scattered single-family development.
Land Use Plans
The 2000 New Bern Regional Land Use Plan identifies planning needs and objectives for
New Bern, Trent Woods, and River `Bend. The.majority of TIP R-2301A's GISA is
8
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
located in unincorporated Craven County, but all of River Bend and a portion of New
Bern and Trent Woods are located within the GISA as well. The southern portion of the
GISA extends into Jones County, which currently does not have a land use plan for its
unincorporated areas. New Bern's plan identifies several land use issues or objectives for
the region including, but not limited to:
• conservation of wetlands
• surface and ground water quality
• preservation of agricultural and commercial forest areas
• determining land use and transportation impacts on resources
• provision of municipal sewer service to future residential development
The plan indicates that the largest undeveloped tracts within the New Bern region are
located in the western portion of New Bern's extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and in
the northwest quadrant of River Bend, both of which are included in TIP R-2301A's
GISA (see Figure 1). However, the plan also denotes that there are severe soil
limitations for building site development along the project corridor, including the
proposed interchange with US 70. Soil conditions are considered severe if soil
properties are so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that special design, significant
increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required.
Craven County completed an addendum to their 1996 Land Use Plan in 1998. All of the
proposed TIP R-2301A alignment is within the jurisdiction of this plan, but the southern
portion of the GISA is not (in Jones County). According to the plan, 55.5% of the
county's land is considered forested. Key land use issues highlighted in the Craven
County Land Use Plan relevant to TIP R-2301A include:
• designation and protection of wetland areas
• expansion of central water and sewer areas
• increasing traffic congestion, particularly along the US 70 corridor
• continued support of economic development
The plan identifies fragile areas which could be easily damaged or destroyed by
inappropriate, unplanned, or poorly planned development. These areas include both
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's), as defined by the Division of Coastal
Management, and other natural resource fragile areas. According to the map included in
the plan, there are no AEC's or other fragile areas within the Craven County portion of
the LISA. Also, TIP R-2301A is the first project listed under Craven County TIP
Improvements.
In addition to the Land Use Plan, Craven County recently adopted a document entitled
Craven County 2006: Strategically Planning for the New Millennium, in which
recommendations and action steps are outlined in the areas of Education, Economic
Development, and Environment. The Environment chapter focuses on water quality and
includes recommendations for the adoption of a Uniform Growth Management Plan, the
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
development of a comprehensive approach to wastewater treatment and disposal, and a
regional approach. to reducing urban and residential stormwater impacts.
Zonin
There is no zoning within the unincorporated portions of Craven County or Jones County.
Zoning within the New Bern portion of the GISA is mixed, with commercial, residential,
office, light industrial, and institutional all included. Zoning within the Town of River
Bend is predominantly single-family residential.
Environmental Regulations (Water Resources)
According to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, site disturbances of less than
one acre require the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), but a site plan is not
required. BMPs include activities, practices, and procedures undertaken to prevent or
reduce water pollution, such as: on-site detention areas, vegetative buffers, culverts, and
erosion control. Site disturbances greater than one acre require both the application of
BMPs as well as a site plan. These regulations should provide adequate water resource
protection for any project-related land clearing activity (including induced development)
that may occur as a result of TIP R-2301 A.
The TIP R-2301A portion of the US 17 Bypass is located within the Neuse River basin.
According to the July 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Plan, the project is partially located
within two of the subbasins in the overall Neuse River basin. Subbasin 03-04-08
encompasses most of northwestern Craven County, including the Neuse River, the US 70
corridor west of New Bern, and the US 55 corridor west of New Bern. The plan indicates
that within this subbasin, there are no impaired water bodies within the GISA of TIP R-
2301A. Subbasin 03-04-11 encompasses almost all of Jones County, as well as a small
portion of extreme southern Craven County, including the US 17 corridor south of New
Bern. The Neuse River Basinwide Plan indicates that this subbasin also does not have
impaired water bodies within the GISA of TIP R-2301A. Furthermore, no Outstanding
Resource Waters or High Quality Waters were identified within either of these subbasins.
Craven County, is also considered a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county. The
Division of Coastal Management enforces this adopted policy, which was enacted in
order to protect, conserve and manage North Carolina's coastal resources through an
integrated program of planning, permitting, education and research. Any development
that is to take place within CAMA's designated Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC),
as they define them, would require a CAMA permit (see
www.nccoastalmanagement.net). There is no mention of any AECs within the 2001
Environmental Impact Statement for TIP R-2301A.
According to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, the agency under
which CAMA is located, there are a substantial amount of wetlands located within the
GISA of TIP R-2301A (see Figure 4). Because of the environmental sensitivity
associated with these wetlands, they could, potentially restrict where growth related to the
10
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
project could take place. Although a few are located in existing floodplain/floodway
area, which in and of itself restricts development opportunities, all wetlands are protected
by the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of this Act, a permit
will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers for any potential discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" (which includes wetlands). In
addition, BMPs would be required for any new development resulting from TIP R-2301A
that could potentially have wetland impacts.
The Craven County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance stipulates that new construction
or substantial improvement of any structure within flood hazard areas shall have the
lowest floor, including basement, elevated above the base flood elevation. Within
floodways, which are extremely hazardous areas due to the velocity of floodwaters that
carry debris and have erosion potential, no encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements and other developments shall be permitted unless
certification by a registered professional engineer is provided that stipulates no increase
in flood levels during occurrence of the base flood discharge is anticipated.
Transportation Plans
The US 17 Bypass, of which TIP R-2301A is a portion, is listed in the transportation
section of the 2002-2003 New Bern Comprehensive Plan as a project that will relieve
congested local corridors and allow regional traffic to bypass local municipalities. It is
also designated as a proposed freeway/expressway within the 1993 Thoroughfare Plan.
This 1993 New Bern-Bridgeton-Trent Woods-River Bend Thoroughfare Plan forms the
basis of New Bern's transportation system planning, along with the State TIP. There are
currently no plans to update this Thoroughfare Plan. This plan identifies US 17 as the
only designated highway route east of I-95 that extends from South Carolina to Virginia.
According to the Thoroughfare Plan, the US 17 Bypass will allow regional traffic on US
17 to bypass the local municipalities thus relieving congested local corridors and
improving local traffic flow.
The 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program also identifies the US 17 Bypass as
a priority project. Other NCDOT TIP projects in the area include (see Figure 1):
• R-2301B: Continuation of the US 17 Bypass on new location north of US 70 to
existing US 17 near Vanceboro; construction to start Post Years
• R-2514: Widening of NC 17 to multi-lanes from Craven/Jones County border
south to the northern city limits of Jacksonville in Onslow County; construction to
start FY 2009
• R-4463: NC 43 Connector on new location in Craven County from existing NC
43/NC 55 to US 17 with an interchange at US 70; construction to start FY 2006
• R-3403: Widening of US 17 to a four-lane, median-divided facility from
Bridgeton to NC 43 in Craven County; construction to start FY 2005
11
40* TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
V. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES
Inventory of Notable Features
In order to help determine the potential of TIP R-2301A to indirectly affect
environmentally notable features within the GISA, an inventory of notable features was
assembled. Tables indicating the name, status, and location of these notable features are
located in the Appendix.
Endangered species and natural communities which may be found within the GISA are
listed by the USGS Quad within which they are located. Figure 5 indicates the
boundaries of these USGS Quads. All other notable features that were inventoried were
either located within the GISA or Craven County.
The following are the highlights of the data included in the Appendix tables (refer to
Figure 5 for some of the locations):
• Five (5) federally-protected species: Red-cockaded woodpecker, West-Indian
Manatee, Leatherback Sea Turtle, Bald Eagle and Sensitive Joint-Vetch
• More than twenty (20) natural communities and one special habitat
• One National Register Structure and no National Register Districts in the GISA
• Nine (9) potential underground storage tanks in the GISA (per EIS)
• No solid waste facilities in Jones County.
• Approximately nineteen (19) potential solid waste or hazardous material facilities
in Craven County/GISA
• GIS search revealed one hazardous waste site (superfund) in the GISA.
• GIS search and web-based search revealed one 303(d) water (Trent River) in the
GISA. According to DENR, it is impaired as a result of low dissolved oxygen;
potential sources include agriculture or intensive animal feeding operations
• GIS search revealed no Wild and Scenic Rivers, HQWs or ORWs. None found in
the EIS or web-based search either.
In addition, according to the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Tuscarora
Game Lands are located along the proposed TIP R-2301A alignment, and the extreme
northern portion of the Croatan National Forest is located in the southern portion of the
GISA. In addition, the EIS identifies three archaeological sites that appear to be located
within the GISA and are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
One is near Round Tree Branch, one near the Neuse River, and one approximately'/4-
mile northeast of Swift Creek.
VI. ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE EFFECTS
Previous Report Conclusions
2001 Environmental Impact Statement
12
- TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
In terms of potential indirect and cumulative effects, the TIP R-2301 Environmental
Impact Statement includes an "Indirect Impacts" section as well as a "Cumulative
Impacts" section. Conclusions related to indirect effects within this document include the
following:
• No impact is expected on the available deer hunting sites within the Tuscarora
Game Lands
• No impacts anticipated for designated recreational sites
• No effects for National Register properties
• No effect on Federally Endangered and/or Protected species
• Changes in patterns of development and/or land use (particularly commercial and
industrial) as a result of the project is expected to occur mainly at interchange
locations due to the interaction of local businesses with nonresidential through
traffic
• Pressure for commercial or industrial development at the proposed US 17/US 17
Bypass interchange is minimal
• Because of its proximity to the US 70/Clarks Road interchange and Craven
Industrial Park, the potential for development at the proposed US 70/US 17
Bypass interchange is high
• Development at the proposed US 70/US 17 Bypass interchange could impact the
nearby Clarks District, a property eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places
• Since the interchange locations of TIP R-2301A are located on the outskirts of
New Bern, their completion could accelerate development and the extension of
urban services to those areas
Recent Development Activity
Much of the new growth within Craven County is occurring along US 70 south of
downtown New Bern within newly annexed portions of New Bern. Proximity to Cherry
Point Marine Base and the coast make that portion of the US 70 corridor attractive for
both residential and commercial development.
Development activity within the GISA, particularly industrial, has been primarily limited
to the area north of US 70, and within industrial areas along NC 55 and the Atlantic &
East Coast Railroad. Also, the River Bend residential community located to the west of
New Bern along US 17 has experienced recent residential growth.
VII. POTENTIAL INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR
ANALYSIS
The North Carolina DOT, in their April 2001 handbook titled " Guidance for Assessing
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina," outlines
a set of factors that need to be evaluated to determine whether or not a more detailed
indirect and cumulative impact analysis (ICI) maybe necessary for specific projects.. The
following is an assessment of those factors as they relate to TIP R-2301 A.
13
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Conflict with local plan:
The US 17 Bypass in its entirety is identified in the transportation section of the New
Bern 2002-2003 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Craven County 2006: Strategically
Planning for the New Millennium Plan, in which recommendations and action steps are
outlined in the areas of Education, Economic Development, and Environment.
Furthermore, it is listed as a needed improvement within the transportation section of the
1998 Craven County Land Use Plan Addendum. The project is mentioned as a needed
major improvement in this document. Lastly, the March 2000 New Bern Regional Land
Use Plan suggests that the US 17 Bypass should help to minimize congestion on local
roadways within New Bern. The project should not conflict with any adopted land use
plans.
Explicit economic development purpose:
The stated purpose of the project is to alleviate vehicular congestion and improve the
level of service (LOS) along US 17, while at the same time providing through traffic with
unimpeded travel. The US 17 Bypass should also allow improved mobilization whenever
hurricane evacuations are ordered in nearby coastal regions. According to local planners,
there is no explicit economic development purpose.
Planned to serve specific development:
There is minimal development located along the TIP R-2301A portion of the US 17
Bypass. The project does provide for an interchange at US 70 in close proximity to the
Craven County Industrial Park, which should generate industrial development
opportunities. However, this appears to be an indirect benefit and not the driving force
behind the project.
Likely to stimulate land development having complementary (to highway-related
travel) functions:
The assessment of this factor partially involves an evaluation of a subset of factors
commonly used to determine the potential for growth resulting from transportation
projects surrounding rural interchanges including:
• distance to a major urban center
• traffic volumes on intersecting roadways
• presence of frontage roads
• availability of water/sewer
The TIP R-2301A portion of the US 17 Bypass is predominantly located within a
suburbanizing area of Craven County, an estimated 10-minute drive to downtown New
Bern. Portions of New Bern as well as its ETJ boundary are located within the GISA of
the project. Vehicles per day (VPD) along intersecting roadways (see Figure 1) is as
follows:
2002
• US 17 (between River Bend and New Bern): 18,000
• US 70 (just east of Clarks Road interchange): 14,000
14
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
• SR 1224: 2,600
• SR 1225: 2,100
The traffic volume data unsurprisingly indicates that most of the current traffic
surrounding the project is located along US 17 and US 70. Thus, the likelihood of TIP R-
2301A stimulating land development having complementary functions near the proposed
interchanges with these two federal highways is higher than that of other nearby
roadways, such as SR 1224 and SR 1225.
No frontage/service roads are proposed as part of TIP R-2301A.
Existing public water lines are located parallel to the Atlantic & East Coast Railroad to
the north of US 70 and along US 17 (with smaller service lines extending north) from
New Bern to the Jones County border (see Figure 5). In addition to these areas, the
extreme eastern portion of the GISA is adequately served by both water and sewer
utilities. The future expansion of New Bern into their ETJ area west of the existing town
limits should provide for additional public utilities for much of the eastern half of the
GISA.
Likely to influence intraregional land development location decisions:
Typically, if the conditions are favorable for development and/or a region is currently
undergoing urbanization, a modification to the transportation infrastructure is likely to
influence where development will occur. Other than the area surrounding both proposed
interchanges (termini) of TIP R-2301A, conditions within the majority of the GISA are
unfavorable for development. A number of wetlands within the GISA should hinder land
development activity resulting from the project in many locations, as should the lack of
adequate water and sewer services within the majority of the GISA.
Notable feature present in GISA:
Section V of this report indicates there are a number of notable features located and
potentially located within the GISA of TIP R-2301A, including state and federal
protected species, natural communities, solid waste facilities, hazardous substance sites,
and underground storage tanks. In addition, the 303(d) impaired Trent River is a major
body of water located within the extreme southern portion of the GISA, as is a portion of
the Croatan National Forest. According to the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement,
there is also a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Gamelands
area along the project alignment within the GISA.
Notable feature impacted:
Indirect impacts to any notable features would come in the form of land use change
(conversion from undisturbed land to developed land) as a result of the project. The
protection of any notable features within these potential areas would be the responsibility
of the local jurisdiction, including coordination with state agencies. Based on the known
locations of notable features within the GISA, as well as professional judgment regarding
where potential growth resulting from the project could be located, there appears to be a
low likelihood of notable features being affected.
14
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
VIII. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Potential For Land Use Change
To further evaluate whether indirect and cumulative effects would likely result from TIP
R-2301A, an analysis of a set of quantitative factors was completed. This analysis helps
to determine the potential for land use change as a result of the project. Table 5 on the
following page indicates the results of this rating analysis.
Table 5. Potential For Land Use Chance. 2000-2020
Land
Change Supply ?_--
in - vs. Water!- `
Change in Property -Forecasted Land Sewer- Marl et ar Pubhc
,-F,-
Ratin 'ccessibility Values Growth Demand AvaiNbility q
_
Develo ntfi . Policy
> 50%
increase >3% < 10- Less
> 10 min. in annual year Existing Development stringent; no
travel time property pop. supply service activity growth
Strong savings values growth of land available abundant management
n
It
it X X
"
„ X X X X X
No 0-1% > 20- No service More
< 2 min. property annual year available Development stringent;
travel time value pop. supply now or in activity growth
Weak savings increase growth of land future lacking management
TIP R-2301A by itself should not create substantial travel time savings since it is merely
a segment of the proposed US 17 Bypass around New Bern. It only provides a new route
between US 17 south of New Bern to US 70 west of New Bern. It would still require a
through traveler to take indirect routes from US 70 north to US 17 near Vanceboro to
complete the bypass. Furthermore, NC 58 and NC 43 already provide a direct connection
between US 17 and US 70 further south and west.
Because of improved access, property values for land near the proposed interchanges
should slightly escalate, potentially causing the conversion of existing and planned
single-family and agricultural uses to commercial uses, particularly along US 17.
Property values along the actual project alignment may actually decrease because of
increased noise and the negative impact on the visual environment.
According to the North Carolina State Demographics (www.demog.state.nc.us) website,
forecasted population growth between 2000 and 2020 within Craven County is 0.5%
annually. Land within the GISA of TIP R-2301A is fairly undeveloped, with only
pockets of commercial activity at both termini and scattered agricultural and single-
family residential development along most of the project alignment. There are some
15
J;'?4 MOM] TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
environmental limitations due to wetlands and floodplain area; however, there is still an
abundance of land available for any type of future growth.
As mentioned previously, current water and sewer service is mainly limited to
incorporated areas within Craven County, and is unavailable throughout most of the
GISA. In terms of the market for development within the GISA, there is minimal
development activity taking place and the area is not considered a current growth region
for Craven County. The development of the US 17 Bypass as well as the NC 43
Connector (TIP R-4463) should change that to some degree. Growth management
strategies are in place as part of local planning policies. On the whole, economic
development and new growth activity is encouraged in most areas of Craven County
where soils and topography are suitable and where basic infrastructure (transportation,
water/sewer, etc.) is provided.
IX. ANALYSIS RESULTS
Indirect Effects
TIP R-2301A is anticipated to generate moderate indirect effects. Full control of access
is proposed along the 5.1-mile alignment, including at interchange with US 70. Land
along the project is heavily forested and vacant, with little growth momentum or current
development activity. Any induced commercial development from TIP R-2301A would
more than likely be located along SR 1225 (Clarks Road) near its US 70 interchange
(including within existing Craven County Industrial Park and industrial parks along Old
US 70) and along US 17 near its proposed interchange with TIP R-2301A. Induced
residential development would likely occur along SR 1224 (Tuscarora-Rhems Road) and
along US 17 (including areas within and adjacent to the River Bend community).
Any indirect growth would be limited by the wetlands within the GISA of TIP R-2301A,
as well as the Tuscarora Gamelands, immediately located along the alignment. Although
there are a few federally endangered and threatened species (including the red cockaded
woodpecker, the leatherback sea turtle, the sensitive joint vetch, and the bald eagle)
within the USGS quads that encompass the GISA, the 2001 Environmental Impact
Statement indicates that the US Fish and Wildlife Service found there would be no effect
upon them as a result of TIP R-2301. In addition, with the amount of available land
within the GISA, any induced growth resulting from the project should be able to avoid
disrupting any habitats for the species mentioned above.
Cumulative Effects
TIP R-2301A is located in the immediate vicinity of a growing urban area between two
major federal highways (US 17 and US 70) in North Carolina, one traveling north to
south, and the other traveling east to west. Additionally, the project is located near a
heavily utilized railroad and has great access to major ports along the East Coast.
Furthermore, Section B of this project would complete a bypass around New Bern,
allowing for more efficient travel for through traffic as well as reduced congestion for
16
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
local traffic within New Bern. When considered cumulatively, it would seem that all of
these conditions would contribute to a high growth potential for the GISA. However,
limited water/sewer services, a substantial amount of wetlands, a lack of past and current
development activity, and the full access control and minimal travel time savings
associated with R-2301 A should counteract these conditions somewhat.
There are a number of other transportation projects along the US 17 corridor from South
Carolina to Virginia that should improve traffic flow and accessibility for the only major
coastal route through the Carolinas. In addition to R-2301B, which is the northern leg of
the US 17 Bypass, US 17 is also being widened to four lanes as part of TIP R-2514
beginning at the Craven/Jones County border and extending south to the northern town
limits of Jacksonville in Onslow County. Cumulatively, these projects should enhance
economic development opportunities, particularly in the vicinity of North Carolina
coastal ports such as New Bern, Wilmington, Jacksonville, Washington, and Elizabeth
City. Precautions need to be taken, however, to protect the environment of the coastal
regions, as induced growth resulting from the combination of all these US 17 projects
have the potential to impact future water quality and other natural resources.
17
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
APPENDIX
State and Federally-Protected Species
Common Name
-- -- - Scientific Name
- - Federal Stahis State Status j - L-SGS Quad Ma
Amphibian:
Neuse River Askin, Jasper,
Waterdog Necturus lewisi N/A Special Concern Pollocksville
Bird:
* ?Bachman's Aimophila
Sparrow aestivalis Species of Concern Special Concern New Bern
Threatened
Haliaeetus (Proposed
* TBald Eagle leucoce halus Delisted) Threatened New Bern
* ?Red-cockaded New Bern,
Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered Poll ocksville
Least Tern Sterna antillarum N/A Special Concern New Bern
Fish:
Special Concern
(Proposed
Carolina Madtom Noturus uriosus N/A Threatened) Askin
Special Concern
Notropis (Proposed
Bridal Shiner bi enatus N/A Endangered) Jasper
Procambarus
*Croatan Crayfish lumimanus Species of Concern N/A N/A
Mammal:
* tWest Indian Trichechus
Manatee manatus Endangered Endangered New Bern
Mollusk:
Elliptio
Cape Fear Spike marsu iobesa N/A Special Concern Jasper
Elliptio
Roanoke Slabshell roanokensis N/A Threatened Jasper
Eastern Lamsilis radiate
La mussel radiata . N/A Threatened Pollocksville
Moss:
Hall's Pocket Significantly Rare
Moss Fissidens hallii N/A - Throughout Pollocksville
Moth:
*Ceromatic
Noctuid Moth =
Anointed Sallow Pyreferra
Moth ceromatica Species of Concern N/A N/A
Reptile:
Threatened
* ?American Alligator (Similarity of
Alligator mississi iensis Appearance) Threatened New Bern
Deirochelys
Chicken Turtle reticularia N/A Significantly Rare New Bern
* tLeatherback Sea Dermochelys
Turtle coriacea Endangered Endangered New Bern
* ?Southern
Ho ose Snake Heterodon simus Species of Concern Special Concern New Bern
Vascular Plant:
18
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
J?ti lmiklkO Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Significantly Rare
* ?Ponds ice Litsea aestivalis Species of Concern - Throughout Askin
Significantly Rare
Raven's Seedbox Ludwi is ravenii N/A - Throughout Askin
Sagittaria
Grassleaf graminea var Significantly Rare
Arrowhead weatherbiana N/A - Throughout Askin, Jasper
* ?Spring-
flowering Significantly Rare
Goldenrod Solida o verna Species of Concern - Limited Askin, New Bern
* tCarolina Asplenium Jasper, New Bern,
Spleenwort heteroresiliens Species of Concern Endangered Pollocksville
Long Beach Significantly Rare
Seedbox Ludwi is brevi es N/A - Throughout Jasper
* ?Sensitive Aeschynomene
Jointvetch vir inica Threatened Endangered New Bern
Crowned Beggar- Significantly Rare
ticks Bidens coronata N/A - Peripheral New Bern
Riverbank Significantly Rare
Quillwort Isoetes ri aria N/A - Peripheral New Bern
* tGodfrey's New Bern,
Sandwort Minuartia godfreyi Species of Concern Endangered Pollocksville
Ponthieva Significantly Rare New Bern,
Shadow-witch racemosa N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Long-beak Rhynchospora Significantly Rare
Baldsed a scir oides N/A - Other New Bern
Sagittaria Significantly Rare
Water Arrowhead sta norum N/A - Peripheral New Bern
Significantly Rare
Hop-like Sedge Carex 1u uliformis N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Southern
Willdenow's Carex willdenosii Significantly Rare
Sedge var me arrh ncha N/A - Throughout Pollocksville
* ?Tennessee Cystopteris Endangered -
Bladder-fern tennesseensis N/A Special Concern Pollocksville
Hexalectris Significantly Rare
Crested Coralroot s icata N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Florida Adder's Significantly Rare
Mouth Melaxis s icata N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Significantly Rare
Bluff Oak Quercus austrina N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Significantly Rare
Drooping Bulrush Scir us lineatus N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Twisted-leaf Significantly Rare
Goldenrod Solida o torti olia N/A - Peripheral Pollocksville
Laterallus
*Black Rail jamaicensis Species of Concern N/A N/A
*Cha man's Sedge Carex chapmanii Species of Concern N/A N/A
*Loose Myriophyllum
Watermilfoil laxum Species of Concern Threatened N/A
*Savanna
Cowbane Ox olis ternata Species of Concern N/A N/A
19
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
*Smooth Bog-
Asphodel Tofieldia glabra Species of Concern N/A N/A
*White Wicky Kalmia cuneata Species of Concern N/A N/A
Dionaea
*Venus Flytrap musci ula Species of Concern N/A N/A
*Yellow Platanthera
Fringeless Orchid inte ra N/A Threatened N/A
*Snowy Orchid Platanthera nivea N/A Threatened N/A
*Carolina
Goldenrod Solida o Pulchra N/A Endangered N/A
*Dwarf Utricularia
Bladderwort olivacea N/A Threatened N/A
* Listed only in the 2001 EIS
* t Listed in NC National Heritage Program and EIS
Source: North Carolina National Heritage Program, Askin, Jasper, New Bern and Pollocksville USGS topographic
quadrangles (June 2004), hitp:ilils.unc.edu/parkproiect/nhp
Natural Communities
Name t SGS Quad NIa
Bay Forest Askin
Coastal Fringe Sandhill Askin
Coastal Plain Semipermanent Impoundment Askin
Dry Oak - Hickory Forest Askin, Pollocksville
Nonriverine Swamp Forest Askin
Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill Askin
Pond Pine Woodland Askin, New Bern
Small Depression Pocosmi Askin
Small Depression Pond Askin
Tidal Cypress - Gum Swam Askin
Wet Pine Flatwoods Askin
Xeric Sandhill Scrub Askin
Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Brownwater Subtype) Jasper
Coastal Plain Marl Outcrop Jasper, New Bern, Pollocksville
Cypress - Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype) Jasper
* tTidal Freshwater Marsh New Bern
^Gull - Tern - Skimmer Colony (Colonial Waterbirds
Nesting Site
New Bern
Basic Mesic Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) Pollocksville
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam Blackwater Subtype) Pollocksville
*Long Leaf Pine-Turkey Oak Forest N/A
*Upland Pine-Hardwood Forest N/A
*Mixed Pine Forest N/A
*Mixed Hardwood Forest N/A
*Dee Gully Creek and Mature Mixed Hardwood Forest N/A
*Neuse River Floodplain and Bluff System N/A
*Cool Springs Sand Ridge and Swamp N/A
*Forested Wet Hardwood Flat N/A
*Tupelo Gum/Bald Cypress Swamp N/A
*Wet Hardwood Flats and Bottoms N/A
*Non-Forested Palustrine N/A
* Listed only in the 2001 EIS
* t Listed in NC National Heritage Program and EIS
^ Special Habitat
Source: North Carolina National Heritage Program, Askin, Jasper, New Bern and Pollocksville USGS topographic
quadrangles (June 2004), http://ils.unc.edwparkproiect/nhp
20
TIP R-2301A, Craven County
= Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Architectural Features and Historic Sites
Growth Impact Study Area
Name Address Status
US 17 near Ten Mile Fork Road (Jones
Foscue Plantation House County) National Register
Ipcock-Lancaster- Near intersection of NC 55 and SR
Beaman Farm 1005 Historic Study List
Near intersection of US 17 and Rocky
Elijah Farrow Farm Run Road Historic Study List
Near intersection of Clarks Road and
Clarks Historic District SR 1005 Historic Stud List
Beech Grove United Near intersection of Washington Post
Methodist Church Road and Stevenson Road Historic Study List
*Trent Brick Road US 17 near Shoreline Drive Eligible for National Register
*Caswell Bridge and
Neuse Brick Road Near Old US 70 and NC 55 Eligible for National Register
* Listed only in the 2001 EIS
Source: NCDOT Transportation Planning Division GIS (June 2003)
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Locations
Growth Impact Study Area
UST Name Location -
Abandoned Service Station Near Rhems at Craven/Jones County line
Riggs Grocery Union 76 Near Rhems at Craven/Jones County line
B&T Grocery Amoco Near US 17 and Tuscarora Rhems Road
Moen Incorporated Near US 70 and Clarks Road
Service Station Near NC 55 and Old Clark Road
Service Station Near NC 55 and Old Clark Road
Beech Grove Fuel Market Chevron NC 43 near Stevenson Road
Dillahunt's Grocery NC 55 near NC 43
Amital Spinning Co /TEXFI NC 55 near NC 43
Source: 2001 EIS
Solid Waste Facilities
Craven County
Permit_ Name Tti e Location - Contact,:;
CRSWMA Allen Hardison
Composting 7400 Old Hwy 70 West P.O. Box 128
2511 Facility Compost New Bern, NC Cove City, NC 28523
Danny Meadows
New Bern Yard Country Club Road P.O. Box 1129
2506 Waste Facility Compost New Bern, NC New Bern, NC 28560
Dave Gardner
SR 1400 P.O. Box 1391
2502 Weyerhaeuser Indus New Bern, NC New Bern, NC 28560
Leslie E. Parson
Leslie E. Parson Hwy 17 P.O. Box 1065
25-H LCIDLF LCID New Bern, NC Bridgeton, NC 28519
CRSWMA - Allen Hardison
Interim Regional SR 10051US 70 P.O. Box 128
2504 LF MSWLF New Bern, NC Cove City, NC 28523
CRSWMA - SR 1005/US 70 Allen Hardison
2509 Interim Regional MSWLF New Bern, NC P.O. Box 128
21
441t TIP R-2301A, Craven County
Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
December 10, 2004
Landfill Cove City, NC 28523
Source: North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,. Craven County (June 2004),
http:i'/wastenot.enr.state.nc.us,,'dbases.htm
Hazardous Waste Sites & Superfund Sites
Growth Impact Study Area
---- Nano ---Location
*Illegal Solid Waste Dump Near Hayward Creek, south of US 17

*Illegal Solid Waste Dump Approximately 0.3 mile east of Rocky Run Road
and Staten Road

*Active Septic Disposal Site Approximately 0.5 mile.north of Rocky Run Road
and Staten Road
*Stanadyne Moen Incorporated Craven Industrial Park near Clarks Road and US 70
*Mack Trucks Incorporated Craven Industrial Park near Clarks Road and US 70
*Industrial Park Waste Water Spray Field South of US 70 near Clarks Road
*Active Se tage Disposal Field Immediately west of Sanders Lane
*Martin Marietta's Clarks Quarry North of US 70 and south of NC 55
*Inactive Solid Waste Dump NC 43 near NC 55
*Robert Bosch Power Tool Corp. Near Bosch Boulevard south of NC 55
*Amital Spinning Co ./TEXFI Near Bosch Boulevard south of NC 55
*Trede ar Film Products Near Railroad south of Bosch Boulevard
TEXFI Su erfund) Bosch Boulevard near NC 55
* Listed only in the 2001 EIS
Source: NCDOT Transportation Planning Division GIS (June 2003)
22
mA=oAn ? o

c
imp O
n
ii
n
i

¦

ii
u

¦

A

zoN
" n
n ¦
: n
U ¦
¦
•

- _
J (?)
Wiz
ym
CJ
N
N Z T TO
< Z
iTi
<
D =
D l? c!^?
V /
/v+

z y3
m?
w r,
°w cn c)

°

co m m

W m -i
m r D= D D m

_
m

z

o
T1
W

z
m

z
-

00 C/)
D
w

m
= N
m
0
m 0
o
D

m a
Z
C- o
Cl) m

Cl) m
C

Q
rn
0 0
z to D

a
'w
z
ti_
A

S.
T
N/
?O
d?
1
A
\J C1
n
m
O C
a _.
Y
cn tia, ?
m
Core. Creek
a?J O? n
C
2?
?
m ?, `
O
?C
y C
a \

2
V
O

7 C N
i
r \
y
6
? 1
S
v
A
r dF a n
m 'I
j
Q'm
x
J
A
i 'Wilson Creek
a?etra?k
R
tl.
i
J
,? ae

O -

cm m
OD O
zo?o fl
3
"I, v
mZO ' ?
mz-O
me
?>
rl r\) Z A= 000 000 co rn co rn m m r p= D ?J +n rn
^? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N
(n cn
_ co m m co co co m 0 O ? o -?
;o 0 0 0 0 0 0 G7 0 D
C m
p T
m s _] --4 D7 Cn N m m
m0 cn T
U T
D w
rn?
z D D

C
`T
a?T
L
ppion O

m p x ?
=
y
O

F?.:

I IIT
?

?
•
•
n

....
p
p
zm
°c f o m (n G
<maiy D

m m m
D C C

,Z7 2 ? ? Z
X m
M O

O ?
T C

?
Z

T?
O

D
O

C
Z
.__ Y
;0 ? ?7
G D D

Z7 2 G7
O

? ^
YI
OZ D =Nm Z

^
-' O .
O
m m o D 0 <?

m

m
;U
n
X

c

C
z _

m m r
o

0= D
vi

'^ C
v+
Rl
(n m
z -1;
N A r
p3 D
z .
,
O C m
D
r O w -1
D cn 22
m D
O r T
D -Tt
D ?
r
D r -4 c
n
co
O
O D
-<
cn w
o
D
m
N
z
O
p0
?-
Fn -j

> r
<
{ z
O
m Rl
O
(A?

?N Vl m
cn YI 1
r
p -
"
=
2
D
z
2 v ;o
c N
cn o
'z mD

G

z?
z?
cn?
T`
c _ n

N-H-H O
N-p
Z 3 D p O ?_
ZO AAn m
0,
OZ y?y cyl
pK ND I?
3 `/ i ?J 1 fo /_
mn ;u z ;Cl 2 G7 -I m
A m
D t y
m m D O
zm o' m
zi o W D cn N
0o m ?
mn D w
Z
p= O Z Z O -I
O D m o r
Cl) v
' z cn

`. N
on°
a 2
c__

O A
Z
m D
cn m
z
zrizmzg
mDF<AU ?
m Ayy
AOZm0n
??
??^I
. \
L J

I

I

¦

¦
3C zOm
-ZI< ?ZN
N m Z
m ?
m -
TT
N
< Z
n w D D •
Cn
m ?] 2 G7

HA
0 mm

?
W
m
z

m c
O
?° °
o

-OT

°

O

y ?, D
M

m
O

m
m

cn ?' ,'
M=

m O G> r,
D S D

°
Ct)
D
m
a
z ?
Z
m
p
Z° S
Z N
D
D
m
CO
cn
r
D Z
° m
Z
m
m
m
0
° w
o
D
z
A N N
Cp ` o X
CD 77
W cf)
C m cn w w m m
(n
T
I
O NO
A=
A
U)

D

M
m Z
m (/>
X

' z
m c

m
m
E5
-n /;
Dm
C?
m0
to D
m

iiz
? ^ R
? ; C
ti
Page 1 of 1
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/TIP/Trans/maps/R2301.jpg 10/3/2007
R-2301A
Subject: R-2301A
From: Colin Mellor <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:16:1.7 -0400
To: David Wainwright <[e-mail]>
CC: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
David,
have you seen the ICE report for R-2301A (Dec., 2004), US 17 New
Bern Bypass? I've been going over some upcoming (2008/2009) Let
dates and this was a project that came up. The report lists the
Trent River as 303(d), which apparently it was in 2002 but was
removed in the 04 and 06 listing (after the report was written).
The facility is controlled access which should limit development
to the interchanges at US 17 and US 70. There is some National
Heritage Area and State Significant Aquatic Habitiat along the
Trent that was not addressed in the report.
Let me know if you have even seen the report or if you have it in
your files. I can provide it if necessary. Sorry that my
searches seem to be limited to your jurisdictions lately.
Colin Mellor
PDEA - Natural Environment Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
919-715-1426
1 of 1 10/3/2007 10:47 AM
C?
October 5, 2007
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:

R-2502B, Widening US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Richmond and Moore Counties; Lumber River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03040203); Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian mitigation for the unavoidable
impact associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation
request dated October 1, 2007, compensatory riparian and nonriparian mitigation from EEP is
required for approximately 2.95 and 2.23 acres of impacts, respectively-
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued
August 21, 2007. Compensatory wetland mitigation associated with this project will be provided
in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory riparian and nonriparian
wetland mitigation up to 5.90 riparian and 4.46 nonriparian wetland credits to offset the impacts
associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is permitted. If the
above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer
be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sin rely,
6X
Willia Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2502B Revised
cez"m ` m 0 Itaut NR
t ... ? r?,?. ... rote
North Carolina Ecosystem E hancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
October 5, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-250213, Widening of US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Moore and Richmond Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian wetland
mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on October
1, 2007, the impacts are located in CU 03040203 of the Lumber River Basin in the
Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 2.95 acres
Nonriparian Wetlands: 2.23 acre
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter
issued August 21, 2007. EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory
wetland mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the
MOA Year in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the
Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter
will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
FIA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / wwwnceep.net
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Wil ' D. Gilmore. P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE - Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2502B Revised
W A T
F9p
?0F Michael F. Easley, Governor

?- William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

p -? Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 15, 2007
Mr. Brian Dustin
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
6750 Tryon Rd
Cary, NC 27511
Subject: NCDOT TIP #R-3430, Caldwell County
Gunpowder Creek [Catawba Basin, 03-08-31, 11-43-(1), WS-IV]
Stafford Creek [Catawba Basin, 03-08-32, 11-55-(0.5), C]
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)
Dear Mr. Dustin:
On October 12, 2007, at your request and in your attendance and with Monte Matthews of the Army Corps of Engineers,
Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff, conducted an on-site determination to review drainage features
located in the project corridor for the above referenced project for applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H
.0506(h)). The drainage features are approximated on the attached map initialed and dated October 15, 2007.
During the site visit Streams Sl, S2A and S3B were visually inspected. Streams S1 and S3B were determined to be
intermittent streams and therefore not subject to 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). Stream S2A was determined to be a perennial
stream and is subject to mitigation as per 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h).
Please note that other sites identified in the jurisdiction vertifrcation request package but not reviewed on site by DWQ
will be considered accurate as presented.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and the buffer rules and does not approve any activity
within Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams and buffers must comply
with the 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0216), and any other required federal, state and
local regulations.
The owner (or future owners) or permittee should noti fy the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Nit Car
oolina
Nturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.ne.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Brian Dustin
October 15, 2007
Page 2
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A request
for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ Wetlands/401
Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or
Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day
statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of
this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third parry appeals
are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Sue Homewood at 336-7714964. or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Attachments:
cc: Monte Matthews, US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
I? ?e a 4 "ansb rtatiow? t
If,
W AT
F9QG
o?OF Michael F. Easley, Governor
? William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

0 .? Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 8, 2007
Ashley Cox
NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1598
Subject: NCDOT TIP # U-2612A & B, New interchanges on US 421 at SR 3389 and SR 3418
Guilford County
Big Alamance Creek [03-06-03,16-19-(1), WS-IV, NSW]
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (I 5A NCAC 211 .0506(h)
Dear Mr. Cox:
On May 8, 2007, at your request and in your attendance, Sue Homewood Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
staff, conducted an on-site determination to review drainage features located adjacent to the proposed new
interchanges for the above referenced project for applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H
.0506(h)). The drainage features are approximated on the attached map initialed and dated October 8, 2007.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the stream and wetland features identified in the
attached summary letter provided by NCDOT accurately describes the field verification conducted.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams must comply with the
404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0216), and any other required federal, state and
local regulations.
The owner (or future owners) or permittee should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this
decision in any future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site determination
shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority
that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the
Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John
Hennessy, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Nose Carolina
Ntura!!y
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ashley Cox
October 8, 2007
Page 2
mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive
this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected
party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the
applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Sue Homewood at 336-771-
4964 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Attachments:
cc: Andy Williams, US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ WSRO File Copy
UM1W T110 QT-41- - JAI
VJl!, (? Jl u ?/? C?)Ii.C'e1
-I ?If , ..:II ) / ^ Zp ) 11 ?. _ S' l I ) ; I J f a
- ^- It I.'' ?' ,' • ? i..`?--?i ? l 'J ' I?j(?•? I r ?, J ,.)r of ? f f? ` I) \I
7 ?(, ? 11 ? j ';i ??:J ? ?`-?r-''?/ '• ?' • '? \??nl i
ILI
nd
i ? 1 r • . ti., ? _ J . u .:II u / n??n?i t,i : t I ^ II ? )% I ; ; ?,F
' l; , )..\' i\I. I'll / II• II II/, IIC II; I \ ry , ?•)
i:_- ''I% (' ? ? J,., r ?\ //u.- rl! fl •II - 11_ li ll _ II . ?0" . - 1 ?.
I ?-- I /Jl 1 ??Jr n (?I o i !
1 :.L.+ ? ?? ? ! ,.r ) ?; ?" --= t t'_ ? \ \, rn °Q I ? t ?/.IS:- i C 1 r (. 3 (u )) ? ? > } - 4•Tl.
TN,
011
o'y
i (l ? •, ?? 'I ' 4 ( I I }\. VII)o?!•r/(1
cv J ) i ?_ _ \ =?, ,,` (/( _ -? `` c` i_•- os o f y' - `1 •? LI 1) j / I ? (' ?, I li \
?O.).rl(.) IS } i ?)ll/mills `' i4r \\f. (S/ I_.,???)))?1? ?i III-(1??.
v,
Oco,
?Aj
?' (`? Ali !•, / ! '\: ' ; -t ;! / / -/?. II \:: , ...3) ?W1 ) `)I I ;? `,
1• JIZ?I !\?/ `? `' ?l i-,/r?? ,Z ,Jai;
I, rj
i.,? `' ti....;),i?/• ???,??I /I' I;Y` ?.•Y' o ? - -} ?',(r = ?J ))?)??? . y.'i. l ??(I ( 1 ?.??n ??;?:
---
v if
f ( lltid \' ' r \? \ l l (' n / X11 '' r r I \:; I ( ?(J t° j-?
i ? ~ ? m ?. ? J .? f ,- t) 1 t ?•) I .-.? 1,) ? ?? ?I( O? ?l? • l •? II ' ' ) . 1 I, 1? •/? 1 •` t ??- ? V
I
;?/? ? ? ?: X11_1 ? J??i __ . _;; ; ? ?? ,?,? • l ? I r ?-
1.. fir'\? _ I Q/ 1KPIr, p?r
..lr?? .,.?I??1i?• ?'1???( 1??%'g° NJ% ?// ( !` ??? r ??J•.)I? _-\ I? o? ??.? ! :i_?, (`--,1?` ?`? ? /?, '?'
17 ..3
11 ZZ4
IkN? ti - •.I ?-?..1? ('(. _ _.;I_'1.? f?,`f? %? /. Il' ?.•J_1: ?• ? li? \`'•?? ?a3 ?`1?1• o? 1??
QV, (((? / it ,/ ? ? os? \ ` `? 1, `i?:.?r?-.?.,'r ? rr--:r ?\???. , ? - ??.,•?'?.,?•?f.::.• lp,??" \
-';???,',1`;._ .-C:-1??? .?) ?\=,\j--- .,,. ?.l r?,(r1???•?i'??.I??'?Gr1??. °--??? ..17 l `• (: :i:;•: ?,ir? 1,

P? f? -\
?r? 1
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Harris
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
FROM: David Cox, Technical Guidance Superv' or
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 15, 2007 0
SUBJECT: Mid-Currituck Bridge Study, Alternatives for Detailed Study. Currituck and Dare
counties, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2576.
On September 19th the NC Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposed to carry two alternatives
forward for detailed study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). NCTA proposed
to drop all non bridge alternatives therefore selecting to study only two bridge corridor
alternatives. NCWRC cannot agree with the elimination of all non-bridge alternatives at this time,
and therefore requests alternative ER2 be carried forward for detailed study based upon the
following:
1. Total wetland impacts are less with the non-bridge alternative.
2. Human impacts are preliminary and are based on a standard corridor width. Forty-seven
potential displacements compared to a low of eleven for the least human impacts for a
bridge alternative is not substantial enough to drop an alternative before it is studied in
detail.
3. All the alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project, therefore it is not prudent to
drop an alternative prior to the DEIS based on which alternative best meets purpose and
need. The intent of the DEIS is to study in detail the potential impacts and gather public
comment on a full range of alternatives.
4. Most notably WRC requests a non-bridge alternative be studied to have a full range of
alternatives as a comparison for the secondary and cumulative impacts on the fish and
wildlife resources with in the project area. These include:
• Increased development on mainland Currituck leading to a shift from residential to
commercial and a potential increase in the pace of development.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
NCTA Mid-Currituck Page 2 October 15, 2007
• Impacts to essential fish habitat
• Impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) due to storm water runoff and
shading. Bridging alternatives will impact SAV beds in Currituck Sound. SAV's
are an important habitat for migratory waterfowl and aquatic species. Mitigation
for SAV's is difficult, usually unsuccessful, and can result in a net loss of this
habitat type.
• Impacts to migratory waterfowl utilizing the Currituck sound. Currituck sound is a
focus area described in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, bridge
alternatives have the highest potential to effect waterfowl usage and effect shoreline
development patterns along Currituck sound.
• Bridging alternatives will bisect Maple Swamp, a Significant Natural Area (SNA)
identified by the NC Natural Heritage Program as being of state significance.
Therefore directly impacting an SNA and further fragmenting habitat
In conclusion, NCWRC feels it is necessary to study a non-bridge alternative in the DEIS
in order to fully assess the direct and indirect impacts of this project upon the natural environment
and to have a full range of feasible and comparable alternatives for the resource agencies and
public to review. If you have questions or need further information regarding our comments,
please contact Travis Wilson, Eastern NCDOT Coordinator, at [phone].
Cc:
George Hoops, FHWA
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
David Wainwright, DWQ
Ron Sechler, NMFS
N d?SU?p? •`
CT 1 ?O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?R '*D'.
FNR• w , 1?00
q'?4 ?gTrR. J
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `TOR,?,ry
fiRSp
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO `P?ETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 17, 2007
MEMO TO: File
FROM: Brad Smythe, PE, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Ana is Branch
SUBJECT: Concurrence Point 2A Meeting Minutes for TIP Project U-3419
The NEPA/404 Concurrence Point 2A Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review meeting for
U-3419 was held on September 20, 2007. Those in attendance were:
Chris Militscher
Kathy Mathews
Ron Lucas
Bill Biddlecome
Gary Jordan
David Wainwright
Travis Wilson
Sara Winslow
Jim Hoadley
Cathy Brittingham
Anne-Marie Knigh
Stephen Yeung
Jerry Jennings
Mohammed Mulla
EPA
EPA
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Coastal Management
ton Edenton Town Manager
NCDOT - Congestion Management
NCDOT - Division 1
NCDOT - Geotechnical Unit
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Tony Houser NCDOT - Roadway Design
Jason Talley NCDOT - Roadway Design
Quang Nguyen NCDOT - Structure Design
Tom Stoddard NCDOT - TIP Unit
Kerry Vallant NCDOT - Transportation Planning Branch
Jamelle Robbins NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - Natural Environment Unit
Brad Smythe NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Rob Hanson NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Charles Cox NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Pre-CP2A Field Meeting
Merger team members and NCDOT representatives met in the field on September 13 to
view the wetland and stream locations to be discussed at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting. The
group visited five sites, corresponding to the major hydraulic locations and one additional
wetland impact area with high impacts.
For all the sites considered major drainage systems, NCDOT hydraulic recommendations
called for culverts. The fifth site was not a major drainage system but the Soundside alternative
has a large impact area in this wetland. After reviewing the sites in the field, the agencies
represented asked NCDOT to investigate minimum length bridges at two locations, Site 1 and
Site 3. Site 1 is an unnamed tributary of Queen Anne's Creek and Site 3 is a crossing of Queen
Anne's Creek itself.
NEPA/404 Concurrence Point 2A Meeting
Table 3 from the merger packet was revised to show details that were discussed in the
field and provide a comparison of costs/ wetland acres impacted for sites where bridging is being
considered. 'Copies of this table were distributed at the meeting. A copy of this table is attached
to this memo.
Mr. Biddlecome started the meeting by introducing the project. After introductions and
the distribution of the revised Table 3, Mr. Smythe reviewed the project history and provided a
brief description of each of the three current alternatives. The discussion then moved into the
discussion of bridging decisions. The group went through the five sites reviewed in the field and
came to an agreement on each one before proceeding on.
Some of the wetland sites listed in Table 2 of the concurrence packet were not visited in
the field because they had small impacts and were not considered major hydraulic locations. All
wetland sites along the creek were rated the same.
The sites that were visited are noted below:
Site 1: Most of the discussion was at Site 1. The wetland at this site is high quality with a
well-defined channel. This tributary enters Queen Anne's Creek. downstream of the riser-
board structure located in the creek. The hydraulic recommendation for this crossing was
dual 8' x 5' reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC). Discussion in the field indicated that
the addition of equalizer pipes would make this recommendation acceptable. At the end of
the field meeting Mr. Biddlecome asked if NCDOT would look at a minimum length bridge
(approximately 140') at this location. After completing cost estimates for a minimum length
bridge, PDEA recommended a minimum length bridge at this site. This was based on cost
estimates that included construction costs and mitigation costs associated with wetland and
stream impacts. The estimates show that the cost of the bridge is slightly less than the cost of
the culvert at this location, though future maintenance was not taken into account. The
merger team concurred with; this recommendation.
2
Site 2: Site 2 is a wetland area associated with Queen Anne's Creek. There is no well-
defined channel in this area. The hydraulic recommendation was a 10' x 6' RCBC with the
addition of equalizer pipes. The merger team concurred with this recommendation.
Site 3: TIP Project B-4463, replacement of the existing bridge on NC 32 over Queen Anne's
Creek, is scheduled to go to Let in January of 2011. The site 3 crossing of Queen Anne's
Creek is upstream of the bridge replacement and is also upstream of the riser-board structure
in place under a farm road in the area. There was a question of the legality of the riser, but
Mr. Wainwright found a copy of the permit, and it is indeed legal. A large portion of the
wetland along the creek has been recently clear-cut. This appears to have a negative effect on
the quality of the overall wetland system, though the portion of the corridor along the creek
remains intact and of high quality. Initial hydraulic recommendation for this site was a dual
8' x 6' RCBC, but after comment from the agencies, NCDOT proposed a minimum length
bridge at this site. A bridge of approximately 120' meets this purpose and may, in fact,
bridge all of the effective high quality wetland in this location. The merger team concurred
with this recommendation.
Site 4: Site 4 was also a crossing of Queen Anne's Creek but is located farther upstream. At
the field meeting, the group agreed with the NCDOT recommendation of a 9' x 6' RCBC at
this location. Ms. Brittingham (who wasn't present at the field meeting) was initially
concerned with the agreement of a culvert at this location since DOT had previously
indicated a commitment to look at bridging all high quality wetland systems. This site is near
the upper reaches of Queen Anne's Creek, and has the smallest drainage area of the major
sites at 0.8 square miles. It should be noted that all of the wetlands around Queen Anne's
Creek were given the same DWQ score of 82. There is some decrease in the actual quality of
the wetland as you go upstream which is not indicated in the wetland score. The merger team
then concurred with this recommendation.
Site 5: Unlike the previous four sites, site 5 was part of Wetland 2, a lower quality system in
the northeast part of the study area, not connected to the Queen Anne Creek system. This
system is not a major hydraulic conveyance, so NCDOT recommends no culvert or bridge.
Once hydraulic designs are done, pipes may be constructed along this alternative in order to
maintain existing drainage patterns. This can be addressed at the 4B meeting, per Mr. Snead.
There were no other comments for this location. The merger team concurred with this
recommendation.
Alternatives Discussion
At the end of the Concurrence Point 2 meeting in 2003, there were six alternatives
remaining. These included Paradise Road, Peanut Lane, and Soundside Western. These were to
be considered as fully controlled access, both with and without service roads. The purpose of the
service roads was to provide access for large property parcels whose access was being cut off by
the new road. NCDOT decided that the service road alternatives were not necessary because
access to most parcels could be-provided off of adjacent, existing roads. NCDOT recommends
3
that the three alternatives (Paradise, Peanut, and Soundside) be carried forward in the
Environmental Assessment and to the Public Hearing. There were no comments against this.
Summary
Results from this meeting, with regards to bridging options, are compiled in a short table,
which is shown on the signature sheet. In addition, the alternatives to be carried forward are also
shown on the signature sheet. An Environmental Assessment document for this project is
scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2007, and a public hearing will be held in the Spring of
2008.
BDS/bds
Cc: Meeting attendees
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Adrian Cox, Albemarle RPO
4
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Agreement
Extension of NC 94 (Soundside Road) from NC 32 to US 17 Bypass,
Chowan County, TIP Project U-3419, State Project 8.2030301, Federal Aid
Project STP-1114(2)
Concurrence Point No. 2A Bridging Decisions & Alignment Review
Bridging Decisions:
Site Description Alts. Bridging Solution
1 Unnamed Tributary to QAC #1 All minimum length bridge
(140)
2 Unnamed Tributary to QAC #IA All 1 @ 10' x 6' RCBC w/ 48"
equalizer pipes
3 Queen Anne's Creek Paradise minimum length bridge
(120')
4 Queen Anne's Creek Peanut 1 9'x 6' RCBC
Alignment Reivew:
The project team has concurred with the bridging alternatives as described above.
In addition, the team concurs that the three alternatives, Paradise, Peanut, and Soundside,
will be carried forward to the public hearing.
NAME

AGENCY DATE
NCDOT g Z• 1`7
USACE q r k(03
FHWA
NCDWQ"?ZCif i' 7
USEPA
USFWS
NMF
NCWRC Z ' )1007
NCDCM -( _.0 - ? 7
SHPO
_0--
G
c
?Q
N
(-- O
i... O N
woo
?? U N
M O f1
U cn
rA
G?
?i
O
?V
W
?r
G?
rA
0
L
U
rU.l
C?
LW
x?
O
U
.IC
C?
y?W
a
rS
o?
M
i
v^+
y w c) N O N 0 0 0 O N O
py
?.+ H
V
00
00
CF
M
M
[-
.-.
[?
6
Q r- V1 M .-+ .-- C? W) M •- + ? 00 - ?
a
W L+ ci . r .. N N N .- r. .-. r , cq - + .-.

k ?O
.-+ r+
C-, r-
00 O
00 O
tn d
O '-
O'\ v1
- 00
r- O
d• ?,c
\C 00
r-
r- M ?c O M Itt en r- M CIS O N
W O
O tr
? oo
qT N
M --
d l?
--? O
N O
00 M
r- ?O
M O
- ?O
N
U 00 l- 00 00 00 00 M N N ?,o r- M
69 69 69 69 s 69 69 69 69 69 6, 69
? N N ?

H

O

?

?

O
i
N

O O
7 C ?.
u
U N C
N U N U U U
t4 to M I'D

U o U o U o 0
d q:T qT U o0 N D\

C in v'? ?n ? N ~
w+ X x x

00
00
00 O
1 ?
N N 1-
4 r.
N t
o
y V O
O O

C .
.O
O .w
3 ' E -?
cz
a 3 •"
a
?
U° ; o E U

? U U ..-.
n,o U
?
o
? 3• : °
U .

?
c (?
U W W

b k x x
x O °O ° oo rn

?i r4 N ?-+

6

xU

b

a
d a a. c° a a rA a

? ? d U Q w
~ 3 ? 3 3
3

? U U U

d

? o d o U ? U
a
?D
W
N
M
It

N
t,
U
y
w
Ri
al
'C3
O
U
CZ.
cts
b
U
N
r-
cd
4-.
O
O

cd" Cd
U N
U y
> o
Cd
o r.
bA r.
O O
O
O
En
cd ..
?D a
U W
'b cd
x ?
U
Q
z "
cd
?T
o
w .-0
O U
b
? o
'~ v
O p
U O
O
? o
s.. U
.?"
dU

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
T
IVIT.
TO: John Hennessy ?-
BLDG.
# 1650
FROM: BLDG.

ACTION
?.NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?'NOTE ANDRETURN TO ME ? PER
YYOUR REQUEST
??/
'. ? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS '?OUR APPROVAL
13 NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS 12 FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE. ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS -
? PREPARE 'REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? ? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION O INVESTIGATE AND REPORT -
COMMENTS:
r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
orT
.?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 10, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Kimberly D, Hinton
Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Public Hearing on Howell Mill Road (SR 1184) from
Russ Avenue (US 276) to Asheville Avenue (US 23 Business)
Haywood County.
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-4412 This project proposes to improve Howell Mill Road from Russ Avenue
to Asheville Avenue.
KDH/cdh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Conrad Burrell, Board of Transportation Member- Div. 14
Mr. Steve Vamedoe, 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
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
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
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Teddy Greene, Right of Way Agent - Division 14
FHWA

J
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON HOWELL MILL ROAD (SR 1184)
FROM RUSS AVENUE (US 276) TO ASHEVILLE ROAD (US 23 BUSINESS)
TIP Project No. U-4412
Haywood County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a
Design Public Hearing on November 15, 2007 between the hours of 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. at the Waynesville Recreational Center, 550 Vance Street,
Waynesville, 28786.
NCDOT representatives will be available in an informal setting 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.
Please note there will be no formal presentation.
NCDOT proposes to make improvements to Howell Mill Road (SR 1184)
from Russ Avenue (US 276) to Asheville Road (US 23 Business). The proposed
project would correct the existing two-lane roadway deficiencies and upgrade the
roadway to current design standards. The NCDOT also proposes to construct a
railroad grade separation with an improved alignment over the Norfolk Southern
Railway to eliminate train-car conflicts.
A map setting forth the design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for
public review at the Waynesville Recreational Center, 550 Vance Street,
Waynesville, 28786; the Town of Waynesville Administration Department, 16
South Main Street, Waynesville, 28786; and the NCDOT's Division Office located
at 253 Webster Road, Sylva, 28779.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Kimberly Hinton,
Human Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583,
phone [phone], fax [phone], or email khinton dot. state. nc.us.
Additional comments may be submitted until November 30, 2007.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this hearing.
Anyone requiring special services should contact Ms. Hinton as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDWQ
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
October 11, 2007
SUBJECT: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter for TIP R-2408A.
Dear Sir:
Please find the attached EEP mitigation acceptance letter for TIP Project R-2408A. EEP
has agreed to provide compensatory stream mitigation for 167 ft. of permanent impacts
attributed to this project.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at 919-715-
5535.
Sincer y,
Jas L. Dilday
N OT Environmental Specialist
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SAS'°
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ??'??rrcN
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
RECEIVED
OCT 9 2001
F?co tem
S
PROGRAM
October 5, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
DWOF NIMlMYAYS
WOM OF,1MME1rVF10101ENT
R-2408A, Improve SR 1323 (Riverview St) from US 441 Bus. To
NC 28
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project.
Based on the information supplied by you on September 28, 2007, the impacts are located
in CU 06010202 of the Little Tennessee River Basin in the Southern Mountains (SM)
Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Cool Stream: 167 ft.
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
4"rl'izr /?- C-9-- .,e_
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. David Baker, USACE-Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2408
e µ S7AiF n?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Eileen A. Fuchs Z,
Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the Improvements to
Smith Level Road (SR 1919) from south of Rock Haven Road to Bridge No. 88
over Morgan Creek
TIP Project No. U-2803 Orange County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2803 This project proposes to improve Smith Level Road from south of Rock Haven
Road to Bridge No. 88 over Morgan Creek.
EAF/cdh
Attachment
October 1, 2007
? ?OV
©?'20 (C?'
R2pyy9?:)Y
F
LYN DO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cc: Mr. J. Douglas Galyon, Board of Transportation Member - Division 7
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.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
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. Ritchie Tuttle, Right of Way Agent - Division 7
FHWA
t?
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO
SMITH LEVEL ROAD (SR 1919) FROM SOUTH OF ROCK HAVEN ROAD TO
BRIDGE NO. 88 OVER MORGAN CREEK
TIP Project No. U-2803
Orange County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) together with
the Town of Carrboro will hold the above Citizens Informational Workshop on
November 5, 2007, between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. in the Carrboro
High School Cafe Commons, 201 Rock Haven Road, Carrboro, 27510.
Interested individuals may attend this informal 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 the following improvements to Smith Level Road:
? widen the northern section (between Morgan Creek and Bpw's Club Road)
to a four-lane divided roadway
? widen the central section (between Bpw's Club Road and Culbreth Road)
to where four lanes would transition to three lanes
? widen the southern section (between Culbreth Road and Rock Haven
Road) to a three-lane roadway with a central turning lane
? install a roundabout at the intersection of Rock Haven Road
? install sidewalks and bicycle accommodations throughout the length of the
project
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity, improve bicycle and
pedestrian access and to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Steve L. Brown,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at 1548 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, phone [phone], fax [phone] or
email: slbrown(aD-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. Brown as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
„ STA
X41 ???
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
r 1
u / \
C' p ® jCV/'// ?'0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?rOR ,r</
?RBp
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPE I Ty
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 1, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Ed Lewis
Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Combined Public Hearing for Improvements to SR 1406
(Piney Green Road) from NC 24 To US 17
TIP Project No. U-3810, Onslow County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-3810 This project proposes to improve Piney Green Road from NC 24 To US 17.
EL/cdh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Lanny T. Wilson, Board of Transportation Member - Division 3
Mr. Louis W. Sewell, Jr., At-Large Member - Division 3
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
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P. E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J.Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
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
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Hugh Thompson, Jr., Right of Way Agent - Division 3
FHWA
NOTICE OF A PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSE AND FORMAL COMBINED PUBLIC
HEARING FOR PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO
SR 1406 (PINEY GREEN ROAD) FROM NC 24 TO US 17
TIP Project No. U-3810
Onslow County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House and Formal Combined Public Hearing on Thursday, November
8, 2007 in the Cultural Arts Building Auditorium at White Oak High School, 1001 Piney
Green Road, Jacksonville, 28546.
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 location and design of the proposed project. Interested
citizens may attend at any time during the above mentioned hours.
The formal Public Hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design, the State-Federal relationship, 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 and partially realign SR 1406 (Piney Green Road)
to a four lane median divided curb & gutter roadway with wide outside lanes to
accommodate bicycles. The purpose of the project is to improve safety and traffic
flow along Piney Green Road. There are two alternatives considered. Widening will
occur on the west side or symmetrically. Preliminary designs for these options will be
presented at the hearing for public comments. 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 the Jacksonville City Hall in the Planning Department located at 815 New
Bridge Street, Jacksonville, 28540 and at the NCDOT District Office located at 295-A
Wilmington Highway, Jacksonville, 28540. The map is also available on the City of
Jacksonville's website: www.ci.jacksonville.nc.us
Additional copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) are available for
viewing at the Onslow County Public Library Main Branch, 58 Doris Avenue East,
Jacksonville, 28540.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Ed Lewis, 1583 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, 27699-1583, by phone at [phone], fax at (919) 715-
1501, or E-mail at elewisCab-dot.state. nc.us. Additional comments may be submitted
until December 7, 2007.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this hearing. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.

Ecosystem r-d?jj
PROGRAM
October 9, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
00.E
T
N? S?O??A ,G? fN
R-250213, Widening of US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Moore and Richmond Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian wetland
mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on October
1, 2007, the impacts are located in CU 03040203 of the Lumber River Basin in the
Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 5.18 acres
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter
issued August 21, 2007. EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory
wetland mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the
MOA Year in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the
Amendment.No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter
will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
Y
Eco tem
PROGRAM
October 9, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-250213, Widening of US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Moore and Richmond Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian wetland
mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on October
1, 2007, the impacts are located in CU 03040203 of the Lumber River Basin in the
Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 5.18 acres
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter
issued August 21, 2007. EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory
wetland mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the
MOA Year in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the
Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter
will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
i
-Eco stem
PROGRAM
October 9, 2007
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter (revised):
R-250213, Widening US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Richmond and Moore Counties; Lumber River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03040203); Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian mitigation for the unavoidable
impact associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation
request dated October 1, 2007, compensatory riparian mitigation from EEP is required for
approximately 5.18 acres of impacts.
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued
October 5, 2007. Compensatory wetland mitigation associated with this project will be provided
in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory riparian and nonriparian
wetland mitigation up to 5.90 riparian and 4.46 nonriparian wetland credits to offset the impacts
associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is permitted. If the
above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer
be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
J erely,
iam . Gi mor P.E.
Dir for
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2502B Revised
c0 Stem '.
aIMF "t
MAY-
.11
PROGRAM
September 20, 2007
Mr. Bill Biddlecome
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Biddlecome:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:

B-4226, Replace Bridge Number 62 on SR 1110 over Bear Swamp
Canal, Perquimans County; Pasquotank River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03010205); Northern ester Coastal Plain (NOCP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the riparian wetlani aritigation for the unavoidable impact associated with the
above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request dated September 10,
2007, the riparian wetland mitigation from EEP ? required for approximately 0.19 acre of
riparian wetland impact.
Riparian wetland mitigatior. associated with this project will be provided in accordance
with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of Transportation, and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-Party MOA). EEP
commits to implement sufficient 0.38 riparian wetland credits to offset the impacts associated
with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is permitted. If the above
referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be
valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will' e required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Willi D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4226
#...,> . ? ..?._ '? -?' 1 ?. .? ?l .l L N . ti`s-' e??
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Y
FOSVStem
PROGRAM
September 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4226, Replace Bridge Number 62 on SR 1100 over Bear Swamp
Canal, Perquimans County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you on September 10, 2007, the impacts
are located in CU 03010205 of the Pasquotank River Basin in the Northern Outer Coastal
Plain (NOCP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetland: 0.19 acre
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory riparian wetland
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2
to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above
referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
ee?
-VJ
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 ./ 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Will D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecome, USACE - Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4226

COS?'5???
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Steve Lund
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
4 0?
?'yF pF G
kps M4 . ?001>
R-2320G, US 52 Extension from the Intersection of US 52/NC 73/
NC24/27 and NC 138 to the Intersection of US 52 and SR 1785 (Johns
Road), Stanly County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040105);
Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the unavoidable impact associated
with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request dated August
7, 2007, compensatory stream mitigation from EEP is required for approximately 948 feet of
warm stream impact.
Compensatory stream mitigation associated with this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory stream mitigation up to 1,896
warm stream credits to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year
in which this project is permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this
mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be
required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William . Gilmore P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2320G
ffl "A
P'Z
-Y J
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
CO stem
11- T a> CITTI aI 1
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2320G, Albemarle - US 52 Extension from the Intersection of
US 52/ NC73/NC 24/27 and NC 138 to the Intersection of US 52
and SR 1785 (Johns Road), Stanly County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project.
Based on the information supplied by you on August 7, 2007, the impacts are located in
CU 03040105 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and
are as follows:
Warm Stream: . 948 feet
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
h y 0..!J f >?].'?£ S '1 "'f' j' ?.7 Y',s'?..27J, i ??A
?"o Z
sa NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
(;, sw"?.w frI,
Willia 7Gilm(re, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE - Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2320G
Ecos, stem
?:.
1 1A
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Wescott:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
O..
o..
N,
?? c
os
y t:
B-3625, Replace Bridge Number 20 on SR 1124 over East Prong of
Broad Creek, Carteret County; White Oak River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03020106); Southern Outer Coastal Plain (SOCP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impact
associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request
dated July 27, 2007, compensatory riparian wetland mitigation from EEP is required for
approximately 0.13 acre of riparian wetland impacts.
Compensatory riparian wetland mitigation associated with this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA)., EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory stream mitigation up to 0.26
riparian wetland credits to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA
year in which this project is permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then
this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter
will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
A
William ilmore, P.E.
EEP Director

cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3625
® WAA
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
co stem
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3625, Replace Bridge Number 20 on SR 1124 over East Prong
of Broad Creek, Carteret County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you on July 27, 2007, the impacts are
located in CU 03020106 of the White Oak River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal
Plain (SOCP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 0.13 acre
During the review of this request, it was noted that this project did not include any
wetland or stream impacts in the 2007 Impact Projection Database; however, EEP will
provide the requested riparian wetland mitigation. Depending on the availability and
projected need of stream mitigation in this cataloging unit, additional stream mitigation
may be required that was not included in the biennial budget submitted to NCDOT on
April 2, 2007 (revised April 16, 2007).
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory riparian wetland
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2
to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above
s r i.. NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
f)4 -a?o ?
Willi 7Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE - Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3625
P't 'I%,-
----Eco stem
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. David Baker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Baker:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
4or 2
No) ?00
H
B-4197, Replace Bridge Number 73 on SR 1552 (Lake James Road) over
Dales Creek, McDowell County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03050101); Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the unavoidable impact associated
with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request dated August
1, 2007, compensatory stream mitigation from EEP is required for approximately 167 feet of cool
stream impacts.
Compensatory stream mitigation associated with this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory stream mitigation up to 334
stream credits to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in
which this project is permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this
mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be
required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William . Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4197
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
co stem
. d J,- i., ."-
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4197, Replace Bridge Number 73 on SR 1552 (Lake James
Road) over Dales Creek, McDowell County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project.
Based on the information supplied by you on August 1, 2007, the impacts are located in
CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Cool Stream: 167 feet
During the review of this request, it was noted that this project did not include any
wetland or stream impacts in the 2007 Impact Projection Database; however, EEP will
provide the requested stream mitigation. Depending on the availability and projected
need of stream mitigation in this cataloging unit, additional stream mitigation may be
required that was not included in the biennial budget submitted to NCDOT on April 2,
2007 (revised April 16, 2007).
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
4 _ NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Willia D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. David Baker, USACE - Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4197

o?
a
No
?sT?? wG U>
?? ?ygaFRe
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 6, 2007
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed widening of SR 1406 in Jacksonville, Onslow
County; North Carolina. TIP No. U-3810, SCH Project No. 08-0051
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd) from NC 24 to US 17 in
Jacksonville. Two alternatives are presented in the EA. Widening to the west of existing will
impact 1,160 linear feet of stream and 2.6 acres of wetlands. Widening with a "best fit"
alignment will impact 1,195 linear feet of stream and 3.4 acres of wetlands, but will reduce
human impacts.
At this time we do not have any specific comments, we concur with the EA for this project.
We will continue to assess the impacts associated with the remaining alternatives in preparation
for the Merger 01 concurrence point 3 meeting, selection of the LEDPA and for further
avoidance and minimization measures. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If
we can be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Memo
David Wainwright, DWQ, Raleigh
Jennifer Frye, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Chris Militscher, EPA
September 6, 2007
Astern
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Richard Spencer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Spencer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
It 400 T?N? q QSgTFR ? ?DUi
R-2502B, Widening US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Richmond and Moore Counties; Lumber River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03040203); Southern Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian mitigation for the unavoidable
impact associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation
request dated July 11, 2007, compensatory riparian and nonriparian mitigation from EEP is
required for approximately 4.73 and 0.49 acres of impacts, respectively
Compensatory wetland mitigation associated with this project will be provided in
accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-
Party MOA). EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory riparian and nonriparian
wetland mitigation up to 9.46 riparian and 0.98 nonriparian wetland credits to offset the impacts
associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is permitted. If the
above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer
be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Willia D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2502B
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652'Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
r-d?jj
I-Ecosvstem
?1 -v /71-J
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2502B, Widening of US 1 from SR 1528 to Existing Facility in
Richmond County, Moore and Richmond Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian and nonriparian wetland
mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on July 11,
2007, the impacts are located in CU 03040203 of the Lumber River Basin in the Southern
Piedmont (SP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands: 4.73 acres
Nonriparian Wetlands: 0.49 acre
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
I ?(3. %4pL L?L
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE - Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2502B
\ZED ST Y ev,
?? ,rFS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
?'' ? YZ REGION 4
o ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER J]/?
Z3 02 61 FORSYTH STREET 9(/G+ ?c/
+Tqt PROteol ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 r? ?F 19.9
August 3, 2007
BRA
Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E.'cy
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1578
RE: USEPA Scoping Comments:
Mid-Currituck Bridge Study; Currituck County
TIP Project Number: R-2576
Dear Ms. Harris:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Office has reviewed
the June 20, 2007, Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) information,
including the proposed purpose and need, conceptual alternatives report, and the Draft
Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan for the Mid-Currituck Bridge Study Toll project
in Currituck County. In addition, EPA has also included in this letter its comments
following the July 10, 2007, field review meeting for the proposed corridor alignments
Cl to C6.
EPA understands that scoping for the proposed Mid-Currituck Sound Bridge
began with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in 1994. A Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) was issued in January of 1998. The FHWA and NCTA basically
propose the same corridors (C l to C6) that were proposed in the 1998 DEIS. Since the
issuance of the DEIS and prior to the project being turned over to the NCTA, the
proposed project was placed into the NEPA/Section 404 Merger process. According to
.EPA's tracking database, Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need was signed September
15, 2003.
In 2005, the North Carolina General Assembly issued Article 6H of Chapter 136
of the NC General Statutes that more specifically defined NCTA activities with respect to
toll projects. Under Section 136-89.183A, there is a requirement for an accelerated pilot
toll bridge project. The statute is very clear in requiring a contract with a single private
firm to design, obtain all necessary permits for, and construct the toll bridge described in
G.S. 136-89.183(a)(2). The bridge is to be of more than two miles in length going from
the mainland to a peninsula bordering the State of Virginia, in order to provide
accelerated, efficient, and cost-effective completion of the project. EPA and other
agencies interpreted this to mean the Mid-Currituck Bridge project, although the FHWA
and NCTA's project study area and proposed corridors are more than 10 miles from the
Virginia state border. FHWA and NCTA should confirm this interpretation.
Intemet Address (URL) • http://WWW.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
t
EPA has attached to this letter specific comments on the proposed Purpose and
Need for the bridge project, the preliminary alternatives under consideration, data and
analytic needs for the NEPA review and other comments and observations from the field
review meeting (See Attachment).
EPA appreciates the opportunity for early comments and to highlight some of the
issues of environmental concern on this proposed toll facility under SAFETEA-LU
Section 6002. Should you have any questions or want to discuss, please feel free to
contact Chris Militscher at 919-856-4206 or me at 404-562-9611.
Sincerely,
0)
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Cc: Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Scott McLendon, USAGE
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Pete Benjamin, USFWS
Attachment
R-2576, Mid-Currituck Bridge Study
Currituck County, NC
Scoping Comments
Purpose and Need
The 1998 DEIS describes two general purposes for the Mid-Currituck Bridge,
including the reduction of road user costs and travel times between Currituck Countys
Outer Banks and its mainland and to provide public services more efficiently to the Outer
Banks. In 2007, NCTA incorporated coastal hurricane evacuation of the Northern Outer
Banks into the proposed toll bridges purpose and need statement. NCTA's consultant
provided a coastal hurricane evacuation model and report to develop evacuation
clearance times for the years 2004 and 2030 when the project was with the NCDOT.
Subsequently, modeling efforts have been updated (Referring to the April 24, 2007,
handout on important model development features) and a hurricane evacuation analysis
has been developed (Referring to the May 16, 2007, handout time summary prepared by
D. Lewis, PBSJ).
The FHWA and FHWA have refined the original purpose and need to improving
traffic flow on the project area's thoroughfares, including US 158 and NC 12, to reducing
travel times for persons traveling between Currituck County mainland and the Currituck
County Outer Banks, and to reducing hurricane clearance time for residents and visitors
who use NC 168 and US 158 during coastal evacuation. Details of the primary purposes
for the project are included in the May 2007 Statement of Purpose and Need. EPA notes
that the statement concerning the NC General Statute Section 136-102.7 for statewide
hurricane evacuation clearance time"goal'on Page 1-4. Unfortunately, the General Statute
does not refer to the 18-hour hurricane evacuation standard as merely a goal. This
Section specifically states: Hurricane Evacuation Standard (a) Evacuation Standard =
The hurricane evacuation standard to be used for any bridge or highway construction
project pursuant to this Chapter shall be no more than 18 hours, as recommended by
State Emergency Management officials.
EPA is concerned that this State standard, as it is currently written, is so
prescriptive that it will not allow for the FHWA and NCTA to explore a full range of
alternatives under NEPA if a proposed project does not meet the 18-hour clearance time
as it is applied to a Category 3 storm with a 75% tourist occupancy. Based upon the
current purpose and need and the alternatives under consideration by NCTA and FHWA,
none of the alternatives or a combination of alternatives strictly.meet the 18-hour
standard. There is no explanation as to how this legislated requirement might be
interpreted as a`goar or that all projects must cumulatively add to improved clearance
times for hurricane evacuation even if individually they do not meet the 18-hour standard.
Existing clearance times well exceed the 18-hour standard along portions of the Outer
Banks based upon current projections and multiple bridges, new roadways, and other
infrastructure might be required to meet the standard. EPA has requested that FHWA
obtain clarification from the N.C. General Assemblys Transportation Oversight
Committee and that this information be fully disclosed in the DEIS.
EPA has reviewed the traffic forecast data, including the Level of Service (LOS)
and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for non-summer weekday, summer weekday,
and summer weekend, for the years 2001 and 2025 (Figures 1-4 to 1-7). The project
study area is sectioned in to `links' along US 158 and NC 12. EPA notes that the LOS for
most of the US 158 links in 2001 is LOS A and B. Year 2025 projections for these same
links (#1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) from Barco to the Wright Memorial Bridge are LOS C or D.
NCTA projects that nearly all of the links will be either LOS E or F in the 2025 design
year.
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 of the Statement of Purpose and Need document provide base
(2001) and future (2025) daily traffic volumes. FHWA and NCTA are projecting a
doubling or near doubling of traffic volumes (in AADT provided by NCDOT) at most of
the links. Summer weekday and summer weekend traffic volumes are more than double
the AADT and non-summer weekday. From these traffic numbers there appears to be no
end to future traffic demand in the project study area, particularly at US 158 between the
bridge and NC 12 (Link #6), US 158 just west of the NC 12 intersection (Link #7), and
US 158 just south of NC 12 intersection (Link #8). Summer weekend traffic numbers
(>90,000 AADT) in 2025 would potentially exceed an expanded four-lane type facility at
peak hours. EPA is concerned that these projected traffic numbers from NCDOT are not
current and that there were assumptions made prior to 2001 that may not be realistic
regarding growth along the Outer Banks. Much of the growth has occurred or is
occurring now and much of the project study area along the Outer Banks. appears to be
approaching `build ouf, particularly for the upland areas. There are extensive coastal
wetlands located in the project study area that may be included in the development
estimates for future traffic projections. Permits from regulatory agencies may not allow
for as much development as was projected by NCDOT. Furthermore, EPA has concerns
that the traffic analyses appear to be based upon the`worst-cases summer weekday and
summer weekend projections. Projections were based upon the summer peak season
including the months of June, July and August (Page 1-31). Since hurricane evacuation
is such a vital component to the overall purpose and need for the proposed bridge and that
the peak hurricane season does not occur until :after the peak summer traffic months (i.e.,
After September 1"), EPA believes that the justification or need for a new bridge maybe
overestimated. This is also highlighted by the fact that the major failing links of the
overall traffic network along the Outer Banks will continue to be LOS E and F in the
2025 design year even with a new bridge (and no other improvements). EPA
recommends that traffic forecasts be updated for the base and design year in the DEIS
and that current traffic counts also be utilized.
EPA reviewed Table 1-14 regarding year 2004 and 2030 hurricane evacuation
clearance times, based upon the Category of hurricane (1-2 and 3-5) and percent
occupancy. The 2004 clearance time for a Category 3-5 storm at 75% occupancy is 25.8
hours. The projected year 2030 clearance time for a Category 3-5 storm at 75%
occupancy is 39.0 hours. EPA is uncertain as to the likelihood of a Category 3-5
hurricane prior to September 1St. Most of the strongest and most damaging storms have
occurred later in the hurricane season (September and October). EPA requests that a`risk
analysis' be performed by NCTA and FHWA that documents the past recorded storm
events along the Outer Banks that met or exceeded the Category 3 status and the time
when these storms occurred. NCTA and FHWA should be able to provide a model that
includes the probability (risk) of a Category 3 storm event along the Outer Banks during
the peak summer traffic season. Table 1-14 also includes clearance times for 2030 with
the TIP projects shown in Figure 1-3. Even with all of these other 2007-2013 TIP -
projects (R-4429, R-2574, R-4457, R-2404, and R-2545/2544), the year 2030 with 75%
occupancy clearance time for Category 3-5 is 35.9 hours. It is interesting to note that the
2007-2013 TIP includes $137.5 million for the Mid-Currituck Bridge project. EPA was
informed that due to B-2500, Bonner Bridge/NC 12, even the short bridge replacement
alternative would use all of the TIP funds for the next several years for Division 1. EPA
raised questions during one of the scoping meetings regarding the funding assumptions
for a toll facility. It was explained by the NCTA consultants that are examining the
different funding scenarios that only the new bridge alternatives could be justified (i.e.,
Specifically, Alternative MCB3) for the proposed project. The DEIS needs to fully
disclose the assumptions and conditions for full funding and how the available toll
funding can fully meet the purpose and need for the project.
Alternaiives Analysis
EPA has reviewed the June 20, 2007, information (Handout 6) concerning the
different alternatives under consideration by the FHWA and NCTA, including ER1, ER2,
MCB1, MCB2, and MCB3. Based upon EPA's review of this material, the following
comments are offered for FHWA and NCTA's consideration:
1. An alternative of improving (i.e., Widening) Aydlett Road through Maple Swamp
needs to be analyzed in the DEIS. This alternative should investigate different
potential locations for toll plaza facilities on the mainland and bridge termini in
Aydlett rather than along US 158 as is currently proposed. NCTA has cited that
there will be significant impacts to the Aydlett community. These potential
impacts should be fully explored and examined in the DEIS
2. An investigation of alternatives for the interchanges with US 158 and NC 12 on
the Outer Banks should be examined in the DEIS. FHWA and NCTA should
perform a full analysis of alternative interchange designs in order to reduce
potential impacts to wetlands. EPA recognizes that there is a potential desire to
design a `high-speed' type interchange facility. However, the development
characteristics and traffic conditions along NC 12 in Currituck County do not
support this type of`high-speed facility.
3. FHWA and NCTA need to perform a full wetlands assessment using the new
`NCWAM' functional assessment for all of the potential alternatives. Each wetland
type potentially impacted needs to be fully described and characterized in the
DEIS.
4. The DEIS should examine and analyze the operational impacts of a proposed ,
bridge facility on Currituck Sound. If the bridge is expected to be ultimately a 4-
lane facility, this configuration should be assessed.
5. FHWA and NCTA should also address how stormwater will be collected and
treated from any bridge alternatives.
6. Although EPA and other agencies did not explore other termini on Bodie Island, it
is clear that each of the two sites investigated during the field meeting would have
significant impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources.- Qther_termini need to be
considered that have potentially less wetland impacts.
7. The potential widening of NC 12 needs to be fully examined in the DEIS. EPA
has reviewed the July 12, 2007, functional designs for the alternatives. EPA is
concerned that without improvements to NC 12, hurricane evacuation clearance
times will not be sufficiently reduced. Referring to the June 20, 2007 handout,
Table 6 revised, the MCB3 Alternative still exceeds the 18-hour clearance
standard by 8.2 hours. NCTA has stated that this is the only alternative that does
not have a`substantiaf funding shortfall (i.e., $51.2 million). Alternatives ERI,.
ER2, MCB1 and MCB2 are essentially being`eliminated due to the potential
funding shortfalls ($268.6 to $525.5 million). The MCB3 Alternative does not
include any improvements to US 158 in Dare County. Alternatives ERl, ER2,
MCB1 and MCB2 all include some improvements. to US 158 in Dare. County.
The MCB3 Alternative includes the least amount of improvements to NC 12 from
these 5 alternatives ($77.3 million). FHWA and NCTA should consider Ynixing
some of the improvement components of the alternatives to achieve a better
balance of traffic network conditions.
8. FHWA and NCTA have provided a characterization in Table 6 revised referred to
as" Rnral/Beach Community Fragmentation. EPA is concerned that some of the
impacts from the alternatives may be mischaracterized, including C1, C3, C4 and
C5 (Pass through middle of subdivisiori'or`Passes through Aydlett). FHWA and
NCTA should discuss the Federal and state requirements concerning community
impacts (e.g., E.O. 12898 on. Environmental Justice, the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, etc.).
9. EPA requests that the estimated wetland impacts from the ER1, ER2 MCB1,
MCB2 and MCB3 Alternatives be fully identified in the DEIS. EPA cannot
ascertain where the impacts to 10+ acres of wetlands would occur along NC 12
from ERl, ER2, MCB1 and MCB2. Similarly, EPA cannot locate the impacts to
23+ acres of wetlands from ERl and ER2 for the US 158 third northbound lane in
Currituck County..
10. EPA cannot concur with the estimates for the `high quality resources frlled/bridge(f
presented on Page 6, Table 6 revised form the June 20, 2007, handout. FHWA
2. Include and provide an analysis of the most recent submerged rooted aquatic
vegetation survey data from USGS and/or NOAA of Currituck Sound. Define all
benthic sediment and habitat present in the Sound. Consideration of the general
habitat and water quality is insufficient.
3. The DEIS should evaluate the proposed project in relationship to either conflict or
consistency with the management goals and objections set forth by the joint
State/Federal National.Estuary Program for Currituck Sound. This discussion
should also include consultation with State officials concerning the requirements
and consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Acfs Federal consistency
regulations. The DEIS should include a full characterization of the traditional
uses for the Currituck Sound, including recreational fishing, commercial fishing,
hunting, etc. and what the short-term, long-term and cumulative effects of this
proposed project will have on these uses.
4. The DEIS should provide an analysis of the worst-case impact of construction
activity on the water quality and aquatic habitats within Currituck Sound. This
analysis should include dredging needed to move equipment and materials to and
from the projecfs mainland areas and during construction. Alternative
construction methods to minimize impacts should be fully considered and
described in the DEIS.
5. EPA is aware that fecal coliform is an issue in shallow water estuaries and that
continued runoff from human activities such as parking lots, roadsides, etc., can
further degrade water quality and traditional uses of these water bodies. Harmful
bacteria in the coastal zone can be very problematic to water quality as there are
generally few upland areas available to treat contaminated runoff. The DEIS
should analyze this water quality parameter and any potential effect that direct
sources of runoff will have on shellfishing and benthic organisms within
Currituck Sound. The DEIS should further explore and discuss the issue of
`hydrologic trespass? to new or existing roadway ditches and conveyances.
6. Based upon the site visits recently conducted, it is essential that a detailed
functional assessment be accomplished for all of the wetlands potentially
impacted.
7. EPA and other agencies noted numerous specimen trees during the July 10, 2007
site visit. An arboreal survey should be conducted for all of the new location
corridors, including both uplands and wetlands in Maple Swamp, Great Swamp,
and at the proposed interchanges and an avoidance strategy developed. Size and
species should be documented and mature specimen trees mapped. Cavity and
rookery nesting of avian species is highly likely and should also be documented.
8. Alternative construction practices should be evaluated for accessing the work
areas within wetlands.
9. With the exception of small areas of Phragmites sp., and Chinese privet along
Aydlett Road, the presence of exotic invasive plant species was not evident during
the site visit. Therefore, the potential introduction and spread of such species
should be considered in the NEPA review and compliance with Executive Order
13112 and FHWA guidance should be documented.
10. A cultural impacts assessment is needed and should include potential bisection
caused by the roadway and its approaches.
and NCTA need to provide a full disclosure of how these estimates were
developed for high quality resources and what criteria were utilized in
ascertaining their quality.
11. Relocations (displacements as presented in Table 6) have been estimated based
upon past right-of-way investigations by NCDOT (circa mid-1999s) and it
appears that they need to be updated. Furthermore, the DEIS needs to analyze
and disclose the methodology for determining. an actual relocation. Noting the
comments from WRC and others at one of the past scoping meetings, EPA
requests that the minimum `lot sizes issue for Dare County (15,000 square feet) and
Currituck County (20,000 square feet) be examined by FHWA and NCTA and
discussed in the DEIS. This analysis should include a`consistency determination
with other projects where structures and necessary services (e.g., Well, septic,
etc.) were not impacted and minimum zoning lot sizes were used as the `legal
criterid for relocations.
12. FHWA and NCTA need to explore a ferry service alternative that is compared
both individually to other alternatives as well as combinations of the `highway
alternatives with a ferry alternative. Based discussions with NCTA and FHWA
indicate that the ferry service alternative does not meet purpose and need. This
alternative needs to be fully examined and explored in the DEIS. A combined
Yew bridge alternative with a robust ferry service could help to improve estimated
hurricane evacuation clearance times, especially for critical link segments, on
Bodie Island.
13. EPA notes that improvements to NC 12 include a 17-foot median, 4-lane facility.
Considering the close proximity to pedestrian walkways/bicycle paths along NC
12, FHWA and NCTA should examine the safety aspects of providing a `higher- .
speed 4-lane facility so close to these other users. FHWA and NCTA should fully
consider the current tourist conditions and community setting issues along NC 12
and develop plans that incorporate safe, mixed modal activities.
14. EPA might consider NCTA's proposal `to eliminates Alternatives C5 and C6 due to
the very high quality of the Maple Swamp south of Aydlett Road. However, EPA
has requested that FHWA and NCTA examine a new alternative closer to Aydlett
Road as well as widening the existing road.
Additional Data and Analytical Needs for NEPA Review
EPA has identified numerous data and analytical needs that should be explored
during the NEPA process and provided in the DEIS, including the following:
Currituck Sound
1. Depth and benthic profiles of potential roadway corridors and a general
description of the entire Currituck Sound ecosystem.
11. Because of the documented presence of ancient habitation and early European
colonization in this area of the State, there should be extensive survey work of all
potential corridors and this new information should be considered in the site
selection rather than waiting for a final alignment.
12. The project study area is in the coastal ecosystem and it is possible that potential
future sea level rise (SLR) could be an important construction and environmental
issue. North Carolina has a Climate Change Commission that includes such
coastal geology experts such as Dr. Stan Riggs. He and other experts should be
consulted during the planning process regarding the vulnerability of placing
additional infrastructure within the dynamic coastal beach setting. Future
initiatives by government agencies in response to SLR may influence design year
traffic volumes and patterns. The DEIS should examine SLR issues and the
potential affect on future traffic volumes and patterns.
Other NEPA `Cross-cuttinj' Issues
Currently, NCTA is not a signatory agency to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for compensatory mitigation
needs. The issue of compensatory mitigation should be fully coordinated with the EEP
and other agencies to insure that there are adequate mitigation credits available in the
hydrologic cataloguing units (RUCs) where the impacts are occurring. Please feel free to
consult with Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands Section at
matthews.kathy a,eya.gov. FHWA and NCTA need to provide detailed mitigation plans
for the new location alternatives.
The NCTA should consider some of other potential NEPA `Cross-cutters' in the
DEIS, including compliance with Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species and the
requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service should be consulted regarding an analysis of avian Federal
Species of Concern (FSOC) and potential requirements and considerations under
MBTRA. All of the alternatives involving new bridge structures need to fully investigate
the potential impacts to migratory birds along the Atlantic flyway.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 27, 2007
Rachelle Beauregard
NCDOT PDEA
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject Property: "Stream 2" of R-2814A, UT channel to Neuse River, US 401 at Ventura Circle, Wake County.
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233)
Dear Ms. Beauregard:
On August 27, 2007, at your request I conducted a site visit to the subject channel to determine applicability to the
Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233). The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the surface
water labeled as "Stream 2" on the attached map is ephemeral and is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. This
determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ that a surface water is or is not
subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director
shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o. John Hennessy, DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ that "exempts" a
surface water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the
affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that
the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To
ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within Waters of the
United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require additional information please
call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
!,Va,o?
Rob Ridings,
Transportation Permitting Unit
Attachment
cc: File Copy (R-2814)
NoootltCarol ina
Transportation Permitting Unit ll?lfl'gr'?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http:f(h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
TopoZone - USGS Wake Forest (NQ Topo Map
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=35.89012&lon 78.52167&si...
to ozone prret /'name
terraserver tottne.too.
Cs Togo asps
-T-S-.can Fllrmck-Aea by Caoook
Download USGS Wake Forest (NQ Topo Map
every USGS TopoZone Pro: View Aerial Photos, Download Unlimited Topos
Topo Map & UTM 17 723703E 3974398N (NAD27)
Aerial Aerial Images Free Aerial Maps GPS Maps Satellite Pictures Land
Photograph Maps Aerial Maps
available
here 9.95?.? f •, o
- ?rSIG V 'f 1?
Map and Photo ((
•'
Info
Download Topo
x
Images ?`?? ? a?? ? • ? .
Download Photo
Images
USGS Top o
Maps
r 1:24K/25K
Topo Maps
1:100K Too t?
<
M 1250K TODD
Maps Automatic r/ -,. r J
selection
TopoZone Pro
Layers
177, Shaded Relief r7 Street Maps
Aerial Photos F,: 1 ,:; I I
v
F7 Black and / 4 E
White
FColor Infrared ,
b; \
Map Size ??;, ,?? ? - /?y? ?a•
c Small
c Medium Print p I Download MapPack I Bookmark Map I Email Map
c• Large rt*
View Scale ° 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 kn?
1:50,000 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 ni
Coordinate
Format
uTM
Map Datum
NAD27
Show target
R -2?ty?
fo /V 9 r,
716
7
TopoZone.com.© 1999-2006 Maps a la carte, Inc. - All rights reserved.
Use of this site is governed by our Conditions and Terms of Use. We care about your privacy - please read our Privacy
Statement.
demmAlNM0Wu.M
Free Satellite Map Tool
Using Earth Software you
can view a Satellite Map of
Anywhere, Free!
Map.Free-SateAdePhoto-m
Gos Maus
Find Mapping GPS Units
From All The Major
Makers. Order Online
Now!
-'rige,GPS-m
Topo Maps
US Map Topos Online in
Detail. Try it Free!
Unlimited printing.
way, traf -m
Clayton Presbyterian
A Church for You in
Clayton, NC! Lot of Kids
and a Great Message
www.claytonpe-
National Geographic
Ma s
Keep Your adventure Alive
with TOPO Software &
Trails Illustrated Maps
vmw.trailezp-.mm
1 of 1 8/27/2007 1:45 PM
Re: [B-4504 Edgecombe County]
T 11
Subject: Re: B-4504 Edgecombe County]
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:37:16 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Worth,
Wetland N sounds easy---apparently it doesn't hold on to wetland criteria enough to
be claimed as such. We'll go with the COE's call on that one.
The other two...the man-made borrow pits could be less clear. From what I
understand, they could be classified as man-made ponds under the Isolated Wetlands
permit. In which case, unless we're shown otherwise, we would treat them as that.
Let me know if you need anything else from me. I'll be happy to look at them if DOT
disagrees.
-Rob. Ridings
David Wainwright wrote:
Rob,
This project is is Edgecombe County.
Subject:
B-4504 Edgecombe County
From:
Worth Calfee <[e-mail]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:06:47 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
David,
I am trying to create an accurate map of the wetlands at B-4504
in Edgecombe county. I recently had William Wescott out to look
at my delineation, and he did not want jurisdiction over 3 (out
of 15) of my flagged wetlands. Two of these areas are man-made
borrow pits (each about 0.1 acre, on map wetlands L & M), and
possess no nexus with waters of the US. The third area (wetland
N) was marginally a wetland when I flagged it in April, and
looked nothing like a wetland when William was there in June, so
he didn't want jurisdiction over it either.
My question to you is.. do you want state jurisdiction over any
(or all) of these areas (L,M, &N)? I will be glad to go and look
at them with you, or you may take a gander at them by yourself.
Let me know. I am enclosing a map. Like I said, the 404
wetlands have been field verified. Call me if you have any
questions.
-Worth
M. Worth Calfee, Ph.D.
Environmental Specialist
Project Management Group
PDEA Natural Environment Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
voice: 919.715.7225 fax: [phone]
1 of 2 8/13/2007 2:37 PM
Re: [B-4504 Edgecombe County]
0
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/
Subject:
B-4504 Edgecombe County (Map)
From:
Worth Calfee <[e-mail]
Date:
Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:07:59 -0400
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
Oops, forgot to attach the map... here it is... -WC
M. Worth Calfee, Ph.D.
Environmental Specialist
Project Management Group
PDEA Natural Environment Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
voice: 919.715.7225 fax: [phone]
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/
2 of 2 8/13/2007 2:37 PM

n r

?? b7 ul Ul m c?i Q' ?? ? rF ?' % _
A A 7 A
?
0
A C O Z
r a o w
?" i.
R
? r? 7 A
?
aa
N ? a ? D o9r _
?^o ? _
O S c^ Q ?

L? Q
cn

O?O? W A 11?RQG
?? r
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
August 13, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Polly Lespinasse, Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Proposed NC 211 Improvements
from NC 73 in West End to the Traffic Circle in Pinehurst, Pinehurst, Moore County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-211(5), State Project No. 8.1560601, WBS Element 34504.1.1, TIP Project R-2812,
DENR Project No. 08-0038, Due Date 08/28/07
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated May 2007. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams,
and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member, the
NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
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 21-1.0506(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.
3. 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 Stormwater Best Management
Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
4. Prior to the issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need
to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. 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.
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.
Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall continue to include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet: www.newaterquality.ore Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
NorthCarolina
,Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC DOT shall
address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any
mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. Therefore, the potential
for impacts to waters that are used for municipal drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water
intakes in the projects study area. In addition, please include their locations in all future documentation. It should
be noted that alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes will need to be considered during
the development of the project.
9. All of the streams in the project area are classified as Water Supply (WS) waters, WS-III. Given the potential for
impacts to these resources during the project implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North
Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction of the project.
10. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The type and
detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and
cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
11. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to,.bridging, fill, excavation and
clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calculations.
These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of
the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
12. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts shall be countersunk to
allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or
streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
13. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
14. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste
areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory
mitigation.
15. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or
surface waters.
16. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require
an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification.
Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware
that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of
appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
17. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
shall 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.
22. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed 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. 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.
23. 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 should 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.
24. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
25. 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. .
26. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. 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 shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 shall be properly designed, sized and installed.
30. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Riparian
vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season
following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or require
any additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
cc: 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
Ire: U-4703 Timber Drive East Extension
Subject: Re: U-4703 Timber Drive East Extension
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:58:36 -0400
To: Drew Joyner <[e-mail]>
Drew,
If no other agencies request a meeting, then I'll go with DOT's recommendation of Alternative 4. It does
seem to be the best. (Hopefully, as we move along in the design process, some tweaking can further
minimize impacts to Tributary 3 if possible.)
Provided no one wants a formal merger meeting, I'll sign off for Alt 4.
-Rob Ridings, DWQ
Drew Joyner wrote:
Merger Team Members:
A Merger Team meeting for U-4703 was held on February 13, 2007. At that meeting, the team
discussed looking at a shorter bridge alternatives. Information concerning those alternatives,
including NCDOT's recommended alternative, is attached. It is my hope that the Merger Team can
come to agreement without having to hold another meeting. Please review the attached
information. If you agree with NCDOT's recommendation, please "reply all." If you have questions
or concerns, please let me know (you can "reply all," for that, as well). If any team member thinks
we need a meeting, please let me know and we'll schedule one. If all the Merger Team members
agree with the recommendation, I will collect signatures over the next few weeks. I would
appreciate a response to this email by August 24th.
Attached in this email are updated impact summary sheets (two spreadsheets in one excel
workbook) for each alternative and an information sheet explaining why NCDOT is recommending
Alternative 4. Also attached are the minutes from the Merger Team meeting for U-4703 held on
February 13, 2007 (which you received earlier).
Due to the size of the figures, I will send them in subsequent emails.
Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Phone: [phone] ext. 268
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 8/13/2007 12:59 PM
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Timber Drive East Extension, From NC 50 to White Oak Road, Garner, Wake
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number STP - 0508 (2), WBS
Element 35871.1.1, T.I.P. Project Number U-4703
Dear Merger Team Member:
A Merger Team meeting for U-4703 was held on February 13, 2007. At that meeting, the
team discussed looking at a shorter bridge alternatives. There are five attachments that will give
you information concerning the alternatives analysis:
• An excel workbook with two spreadsheets (Impacts and Mitigation Costs and
Comparative Alternative Costs)
• Figure 1 - Alternative 1 - Original alignment (shown in EA, at public hearing, and at
Merger Field Meeting) with culvert
• Figure 2 - Alterative 2 - Original alignment (shown in EA, at public hearing, and at
Merger Field Meeting) with 440-foot bridges shown at Merger Field Meeting
• Figure 3 - Alternative 3 (NEW) - Original alignment with 325-foot (shorter) bridges
• Figure 4 - Alternative 4 (NEW) - New southern alignment with 365-foot bridges
• Figure 5 - New Rand Road impacts
Two shorter bridge alternatives (see Figures 3 & 4) were studied. The difference in the
alignment between Alternatives 3 and 4 is between NC 50 and just east of Mahlers Creek.
Therefore, the figures and the Comparative Alternatives Costs tables only cover that area of the
project. This information is sufficient to compare the impacts.
NCDOT would like to recommend Alternative 4. This alternative has the least wetland
and stream impacts of the short bridge alternatives (see Impacts and Mitigation Costs table).
While Alternative 4 costs more than Alternative 3, the Town of Garner is going to pay the cost
differential. The Town of Garner is responsible for purchasing right of way for the project.
They are asking developers along the project to donate right of way. Alternative 4 represents a
shift in alignment that benefits the developers.
If you agree with NCDOT's recommendation, please reply by email. If any team member
thinks we need a meeting, please let me know and we'll schedule one. I would appreciate a
reply by August 241h. If all the Merger Team members agree with the recommendation, I will
collect signatures over the next few weeks.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC

Also, as there is only one large stream crossing, NCDOT does not plan on having a
Concurrence Point 4B or 4C meeting. Due to steep slopes, the roadway drainage will be
discharged to a dry detention basin and then piped down the slope to a level spreader outside of
the wetlands. This will achieve non-erosive velocities into the wetlands. At this point we
anticipate using a pipe at tributary 3. If anyone would like further discussion on this topic, please
let us know.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] extension 268 or
[e-mail] , or Lubin Prevatt (Project Manager with RK&K Engineers) at (919)
878-9560 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Drew Joyner, P.E.
Project Engineer
February 13, 2007
Memorandum To: File
From: Lubin Prevatt, PE
RK&K Engineers - Raleigh
Subject: Merger Team Meeting
Timber Drive East Extension
NC 50 to White Oak Road
Garner, Wake County
T.I.P. Project U-4703
On February 13, 2007 a Merger Team Meeting was held to reach concurrence on
Concurrence Point (CP) 3 and CP4A, and to discuss bridging versus culverts at Mahlers
Creek. The meeting was held on the project site in Garner at Mahlers Creek at
1:00 P.M.
Those attending the meeting included the following:
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jake Riggsbee, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rob Ridings, N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Travis Wilson, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Drew Joyner, N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
- Project Development and Environmental Analysis (PDEA)
Maad Hassan, NCDOT - PDEA
Richard Helms, NCDOT - PDEA
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT - Natural Environmental Unit (NEU)
Sara Easterly, NCDOT - NEU
James Pflaum, NCDOT - NEU
James Speer, NCDOT - Roadway Design
Danny Gardner, NCDOT - Roadway Design
Piotr Stojda, NCDOT - Roadway Design
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT - Hydraulics
Chris Murray, NCDOT - Division 5 Environmental Officer
Tracy Parrott, NCDOT - Division 5 Construction Engineer
Lubin Prevatt, RK&K Engineers
Joanna Harrington, RK&K Engineers
Drew Joyner, NCDOT Project Manager, began the meeting and led the introduction of
attendees. Mr. Joyner outlined the purpose of the meeting, to reach agreement on CP3
and CNA and to discuss bridging versus culverts at Mahlers Creek. Updated Merger
Packets were given to the meeting attendees. Mr. Joyner mentioned that as a result of
coordination with a developer, various alignments had been studied for the project. The
various culvert alternatives were comparable on an impacts and cost basis, and the
various bridge alternatives were comparable on an impacts and cost basis. Therefore,
just one culvert alternative and one bridge alternative were shown. However, it is noted
that the bridge alternatives cost about 1.8 million dollars more than the culvert
alternatives, but have significantly less natural environmental impacts.
The group went down to Mahlers Creek to review the project and the existing natural
environment.
The USEPA and NCDWQ felt that Mahlers Creek, Tributary 3, and associated wetlands
and buffers should be bridged. The USACE stated that due to cost, a culvert should be
considered, but also recommended that a shortened bridge alternative be reviewed.
The group discussed the situation and agreed to study a shortened bridge alternative at
Mahlers Creek. NCDOT-Roadway Design is to provide alignments for current designs
being considered, and RK&K Engineers is to determine what shorter bridge length might
be effective at Mahlers Creek with regard to streams, wetlands, buffers, and the
proposed greenway. It was discussed that Tributary 3 might be re-channeled to allow
shortening of the bridge and to save costs. Piping Tributary 3 under the road will also be
investigated. Also, an alignment shifted farther to the south to minimize impacts to .
Tributary 1 is to be reviewed. RK&K is also to determine new impacts and mitigation
costs for the shortened bridge alternatives, and NCDOT-Roadway Design will determine
construction costs for the alternatives.
The new study data, along with existing alternative data, is to be provided to the
Merger Team Members for review via email. If all the team members agree via email,
signatures will be obtained without holding an additional meeting. However, if anyone
has issues to be discussed prior to making a final decision, another Team Meeting will
be held.
Copies: Attendees
Mark Staley, NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Mary Lou Todd, Garner Town Manager
Brad Bass, Garner Planning Director
303-032
H:\Word\Document\303-032\303-032C U-4703\U-4703\File Memos - Meeting Minutes\Merger Team Meeting 2-13-07-
revised.doc
I
C)
N 1
r
L
Q
Q
N
N
O
U
c
O
R
a1
lC
N
V
R
Q.

H

N a)
L

m
E

O
L

m

00

co

)

#
# CD
rn to
O
LO -
Q N
N C\l ?
O r`
O ?
O O
0 p N a6
O N
: M
1-
Ln
L
a) O 0 0 0 0 O 0
? N
N e
O T
W _
0 LO
t ti
M M 6
9, o fA
' O
0 T

a

:a o

m
LLJ

# L
O
N
t-
O
G
O

is C;)

N IT

N M C T

T 0

O NO --

r o6

N c6

O mo
,d.
't
c O c; CD O 0 00
tf) O - CO M O fV

M
`" ! •- N O
0
CN Ef? d9 69,
!!9

Cl)

w
T
Q
N
m ?
V
•L
m Q ? i
LLI i M M

0 # t!7
1n
O
LL C6 O 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LL O It

Q c O O O O O O O N
r N
T

N
Q
U)
W O N
ca co r- Lo
7 ' 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 LO O
CY) cN cMo
V f6
C M O T d: O O O C "L
?- 0 0 0 0 0) O
T • L
L - C) M
0 0) O V9. EA ER
Q N
,?T
>
ED U U
m E m co
E N
i? a)
L ? N
L
r Q C
f/) U
m m
N U
ca m

N

?
Q
H
w
.-
m L
O
M i
/1
O•
° E ° E w ? vF
Y
N
T
T
N
N
a)
O L
F
co C
O
W
m
Q) a) a) a) a) a V + O + .-
co
.a
O L

U LU c c c c U L W
U
co
o
U
m
a N N N N O a U
w L ca L L L L M c N L E
CU 4'
U. t L ? r
O R?
m ? m m m m ? m (n
L
0

U
m
O
O ?

y
0
0 01
O =
O c C; LO
LO
o
a
U
m
0

o
O
M C)
O C)
O to
to
a?
U
m
O
O tt

O
O =
O 0
O 0
O cc
!H

U
co
O

O
O
O 07
O co
O "= O O WW
O
M
L
O
V
C

C #
# #
#
o T N L
w T
U V CD CD
m o o w
# N N 0?.
O *
# a) a) V +

* m m o
? m T T T ? c

Z
co
M m
y
O
M

M CO
m
c
44% O O
U O
IE5
N
a)

a)
c a
C
N
Ce)
ti 3 ?
U II
E
CD
O U a
mi
z
N O fn
T
?
a_ aS
5 U
m
y
m Lm
N a
(D CC)
w
O W
O
?

ti T
EA
II
L

T
00
? L
r_ 0 =3
m m
Q N c
c6 a
L
O

m n U
w i c m

co p 7 O L
a) O ()
CO E a) O' ?
r w co
r- O O CO L N
?
?
M
d' M
Ow
EH
:o 0 3 o m u
c a) O
O
L
C
6
w U m E
3za?a`?°cm
w c E a
m m L
U 1O m
O U N
co
Q
M
V T m O
c

' N
c
Z
CM
0H C m N p w o
vw c +_ m
+
+ co m Co O

rnU
0
m
QW

C7 'Om o
c
p
cu co m\ E C
H' C -O ?'' T "••' N
O
? C

d - c
?N 3 T
O o
.- c
J
m O c 0 m 16

0 w + # # « #
ti
O
O
N
N
r
L
Q
Q
N
O
U
w
Q o
z
w `r
F-
J v
Q d
•O
IL
R
L
R
Q
E
O
V
? d
m
E0
m 0)
C)
O
C)

co
Iq

0 O
C5 M

m
? O O
M M
N
'
+ O
L O N O
O
LO c
N O
N
N
Q ?3
M
O Ef3 Efl
U)
N O O ti O
'O W p

1 O O
C) G?

C)
0
M
W LO O LQ
Z

M p) O
O
L
O
C)
O
N
0
0p
L 1
Q 06
r
v r
GO,
co
M
mQ 0) o o v
v w •0
L 1 •L
O O
O ti ?-
r
m O O
r M
c "

N •2) O U

LO, O

O
O r
oc? r

00
0
= L 1
Q 06 00 Ln r (6
6R K3
N

<
LLI >

C)
O
C)
C)

co
co
7
>

O U
O
? O
0
O (D
V o rn o
0 o
r .? O 0
0 M O
Q O N (6
Ef? cli
r I- U')
r
Efl Ef3

N
N X ca
"
X
(6
a)
> O U)
O O W O
(a
n ? 0 W N p

N w^ W
N
> H
W

Q) «7

LO E U
V L

A p
V 03 "O

C W c i
O

.-, O
(0 p L
O
U W c-

N
O
N
>
O
i ?i

d •_ Q.

O - a) W co

+r > C.)
a) CD L)
(X a)
O >
?V
m
07
QQ p? iQ O
U R? O
U ?FQ" p
t °? N Z
a) O Z
00
?
O> 3
0 = •Q U)
n
U
F 0 U F- co
p
d
d
LL p
O
a
0
0
N
O
O
0
d
LL O
O
a
0
0
0
0
0
LL O
O
V
O
O
N
O
O
O
d
LL O
O
V
O
O
N
O
O
0

LD '04
mQl IH M
?1 +-+w ` r c n r

E x O O
O

r Q
cn s w ~ n
*? ?,
' '' ?,
?wr
f 2
o f Q 3 Y W ?- R
? ? X a. Z
'IC ` ?
Y *., .vYy7 r';sA. . ?'. U W ,
W Q O
o N
?,
l ..

'
t 111 Q Z
ol ?s m J m

t. xr -

ti .?1 d t
}
.
r

'"?

••.A
Now
ii
i
c

jj

Y a /
?
yY
r ? ,
z
w h
/
(
a
i? t 4 m q

1 y a, l
?

' ,{
?
` a
o
Nw:L y
i \?
I r,,.

?. J
Cf 2
J.a,tIVV/ E E
?J3

N
-6
o

?k(: ry jam. ? ? ? , ? ? ? y ?' °?•' f ? E ?

m
0
0
N
N
N
P
d
s
U
r
d
m
LL O
0
0
N
°o
0
d?STAT[
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 28, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Start of Study for NC 3, Widen to multi-lanes from Kannapolis
(U-2009) to SR 1691 (Loop Road), 2.5 miles, Cabarrus County,
Division 10, WBS 39010.1.1, STP-0003(6), TIP U-3440
arkway
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed widening of NC 3 to a multi-lane
facility from Kannapolis Parkway (U-2009) to SR 1691 (Loop Road). The project is included in the
2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in
fiscal year 2011 and construction in fiscal year 2013.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by November 2, 2007. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Impact Statement/Finding of No
Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Kristina Solberg, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 259. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
00
0?nei's Kannapolis
C. A„ B A R R U 5
3 a ®s * ,
7
Hunters le ?j.
l < 3. C49
49 + 13 AI
24 iaa J -
...uctburg -
\ 1 S T a4/
?
1
24
Charlotte
mint 51 29
1
r??((?r? lb i] ?l n ?'Jll!i!LI\'I,`l?iJ N ?? ?? - l
------------ -------? ?I? ? i/ ??,
v r --- _?
? a
4-3 0 s 'Qy? END ?
PROJECT BEGIN
s ?
PROJECT o SR 1625
! r ?? 6 l
29
it J
,...gyn...
/_ C?OoNnIC?0oG3D
0 3,000 6,000 12,000
Feet v
VICINITY MAP
NOpiH pq9 Cau nty: CABARRUS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NC 3 WIDEN TO MULTI LANES
y'. OF TRANSPORTATION FROM PROPOSED KANNAPOLIS Div: 10 TIP#U-3440 Figure
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PARKWAY (U-2009) TO LOOP RD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 39010.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH (SR 1691)
9yFH?GF TRP4$FJ CABARRUS COUNTY Date: JUNE 2007
TIP PROJECT U-3440
1
•?GVlw.d??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 28, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the proposed widening of NC 3 to a multi-lane
facility from Kannapolis Parkway (U-2009) to SR 1691 (Loop Road). The project is included in the
2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in
fiscal year 2011 and construction in fiscal year 2013.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT staff to discuss the proposed
project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we would
appreciate your response by November 2, 2007. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting, please
notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Impact Statement/Finding of No
Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Kristina Solberg, P.E., Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 259. Please include the TIP Project Number in
all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Start of Study for NC 3, Widen to multi-
(U-2009) to SR 1691 (Loop Road), 2.5 miles, Cabarrus County,
Division 10, WBS 39010.1.1, STP-0003(6), TIP U-3440
L.YNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
\
nail sue-{ ;RR C. A BA S unters Ile ? Albemai 7324 ?.,n sburg
?` S T /A
?.'•. l:' ras
Charlotte
Mint Hilr 5t , ` i It-;
J
1
----- ------ ( -------- - - - - - ---
oo? ,
END
3 3I PROJECT
BEGIN
SR 165
PROJECT O ?
p 29
1 L
1?: __> rC?OoG7Go0°o
0 3,000 6,000 12,000
i
Feet
?N°HiM Coq VICINITY MAP County: CABARRUS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NC 3 WIDEN TO MULTI LANES
OF TRANSPORTATION FROM PROPOSED KANNAPOLIS Div: 10 TIP#U-3440 Figure
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PARKWAY (U-2009) TO LOOP RD
PROJECTDEVELOPMENT AND SR 1691 MS: 39010.1.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ( )
CABARRUS COUNTY Date: JUNE 2007
TIP PROJECT U-3440
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due (firm deadline)
MM r
W G.. © 1 t v t, L O
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
_ Asheville ir _ Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
_ Fayetteville ? Water _ Coastal Management
?Mooresville _ Aquifer Protection . `(Vildlife -W-
Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer vllforest Resources
- Washington _ Water Resources ?tnvironmental Health
Wilmington ?Parks & Recreation - Solid Waste Mgmt-
_ Winston-Salem _Iz4ater Quality`ja 01 _ Radiation Protection
Air Quality - Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable) 4,!?' @*
_ No objection to project as proposed / Sk-
2
_ No comment r?ND ?14,,? cu4%r, <k, ?
_ Insufficient information to complete review ??4FR p
- Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
?2
.. ??F W ATERQ
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
September 20, 2007
Ms. Amy James
NCDOT, PDEA, NEU
2728-240 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: NCDOT TIP # R-2507A, Hertford and Gates Counties
Pasquotank River Basin; Chowan River Subbasin
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)
Dear Ms. James:
On August 29, 2007, at your request and in your attendance, David Wainwright and Garcy Ward, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) staff, conducted an on-site determination to review drainage features located adjacent to US 158 for
applicability to the mitigation rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)). The drainage features are approximated on the attached
map, initialed and dated September 18, 2007.
The following table summarizes the DWQ's findings:
Feature Waterbod * Visited b DWQ Feature Type Jurisdictional
S l UT to Folle Branch Yes Perennial Stream Yes
S2 UT to WSE4 Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
N/A Chowan River No Perennial Stream Yes
N/A Buckhorn Swam No Perennial Stream Yes
WNE8 UT to Jad Branch Yes Perennial Stream Yes
* Not all UTs are direct tributaries to primary waterway.
The field review of feature S1, on the southern side of US 158, revealed the stream has been severely impacted. The
impact appeared to have been due to the failure of a concrete drainage spillway. The spillway had collapsed and as a
result an extensive amount of sand had been carried downstream, which in effect has smothered the stream. Although
this portion of the stream has been impacted, the DWQ still claims the stream as jurisdictional.
Site WNE8 (tributary to Jady Branch) in the project corridor is primarily perennial. DWQ staff flagged the stream at the
intermittent/perennial boundary, which is approximately 100 feet off the north side of the current road.
Please note that no features other than those listed above were evaluated.
No One
Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Ntura!!y
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Ms. Amy James, NCDOT
September 20, 2007
Page. 2
The owner (or future owners) or permittee should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A request
for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ Wetlands/401
Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or
Delegated Local Authority that "exempts a surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day
statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of
this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals
are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call David Wainwright at (919)-715-3415
or at David.wainwrightQncmail.net.
Sincerely,
David Wainwright
Attachments: Locational map of stream features
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Garcy Ward, DWQ Washington Regional Office File Copy
File Copy
?Y
J
w
w
ry
N
CO)
Z
O Q
Z>
cu
O
-F
(yo
O
7v U
Z N
Z=
cu
t
cu
t
O
Q/
O
o Nz
0 '
Z °
U°
, N
4y
E N
c
E EM
CQ a
C
? o G
O O
Q cn ?
m U) W y,
t ., U) z o z;
`+ i CT ` 1F a • ? ? ? ,
1?/ 4 er+ r'b r ?' f \, 11 I I?Sf
a / k
irYT / .fry j " 1+a1 ?d
,
t, , yr r ,q t tY ?. ?,V
n-yam itf i t +; ° tt4 al s ai
9 ? Y.
1t. , , _+ 1 -r k
9. r
It k F a, 'S ,rk t.e ? ', ,,11
1 ? 1 .r
:.fi, 1` 1 ii.+tfi J{i ?. acrjf14 Y: lil ee ',
a- 1 '.4 At f 1
'te'kfa Yfi?p+?t + e+i, t , i
} 7 i 4 1 t
1 - } e ° ?I? / yli a ?aj
7
ai#, t +?il ta'#11,4 a?;d .4 i, 1#' lti•..
1 7, ter. ?- ' ?j) ;'!!}t l' e`ryd{I,$,.1` t#tt' `ti
r
it
UOL
pi ?' i t?} +aD Y? tit s 1
J! U) C .t
(6 "O m 4,t,+fi'4 s: s- > Cjaj`
?0) ' U _? n f yi t -.11
?(6
• P -?Y-` ' / \ , ?-' ? U ? f _ f? 1Y t !bt 1 y I ` ! I:j
/f a? ? Z Cp t i+ F t 4y , ? cj
-c. ( 7 ?/ -7<. S 'p/ •+# L°s err i #t.i°?9a SeUk41 Itjlt(
14
`?a.: ` .. ,/ + }+ ,,>° }4 ? t ¢ r i t s r t # ^s 't , j Z ?, x t
P'4 ?,. {it :.y.?`,a,>.........?.•`-t:_ ..._.-.r_...._-_.--a/ /.? _ 4 j` ,? t b 4 eltete,} #i tlf fi i Z "?7
{,t. ;ii II 1 f }•4#, 6, d }kt+';1 tt+a
..__.... ! I _ 3 iP???{rr •? tt;, } jj }, { it y:i tt9 is {`41 t.4 #.,'j ,t- t
V' , a Illi,h l'!}i}I t?lt?'#li Qty}It ty;t i'}.7} `tv + I?f?i _
}lyt}
y t+? st t{t 1'' r} it,0 r. }?#' <
z=-^ 111 .?-:? y + ?,... Idt,1t j+1ii t+ } 1 j aa,} i t ? - ar? r
? --? ? + r, 9j'Pit?4ffif9a}s{{•t}{} kYr
_'\ *«.•aytl ?./ 4 li .?,cn°`g-•-.•=? }'Sii? ?} I t it 41?j4 }4't t 4tY j1 } ? ?i.
- • _ „),. Cry' y, ?' f t i f { 1 f f ? # i' # P 1 1 r } Y t 4? t; tF t ' l -.
i}9$+9} 1 t{- -_ ? {+tt?.#, Pj,i j'if-'t?,914¢t?tl ;i,,?'?` ` }'
1?r,{, iift'Nllt 1', al{a#t }tl 4}ii#P ki ... i1 a, - ?.?
i j , ? } iq?f l ea?'fl +i }° k W ?a}tijrslilk , ??1 ? co
rr p+!, ttk! j a }? # #, ¢t }+ ,I# '? ` }-??t, y#> !-?f m
,yi }f'i,aaj, tyti ,}Pit i 11 s! fi,.iyt I r i r r.' (0
}4 f1 Mi+ M }* It.l+?'¢+isle,k`+..k a 1 i19 '04
# IJI h.a , i 19 ,13 + r ?.,a ?`?' TC a
"4
+ i { a,li 1° j t I Y a ?{--4'f;?-t-?t-7 t. ! 3-3ir' .t.ic II ?-rT 3 a_ s t r r' li a ( U O ?p
,???h.P?d} V#}4 pv rIi o:i'}te+t#}`tls4 #, f.,tlr ki titt ! ,,/ .? ? •? LL 'O ?? C C?:
yt1 )4;k1 ti '!.t f {If ¢4td3ry ¢.d,j3y l?.i iii., n ° -.? O
-L_ fi_-+-r a ? of ? !'rIS? ?-r l t 1 f.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 08-0060 County: Pender Date Received: 08/21/2007'
Due Date: 09/17/2007
Project Description: Replace bridge No. 16 on NC 50-210 over the Intracoastal waterway in Pender County. TIP No.
B-4929
"...a : l.c;nn YPl/1PlA/Pd nc indicated below:
I I I 1J i +vw.+• .- ----o
Regional Office
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
r
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contaet: i
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
.S
Regional Office Area In-House Review
Air Soil & Water y Marine Fisheries
Water Coastal Management .
Wildlife Water Resources
Groundwater Environmental Health
Land Quality Engineer Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Land Resources Other
Parks.& Recreation
Water Quality
Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
yr.' : 'M1 Ji 1?0,
FRQ?C?

0F W ATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q
?
O G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
i
d N
l R
? ronment an
atura
esources
North Carolina Department of Env
y
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
o ?c
September 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba MCGee, Environmental Coordinator
FROM: David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality, Office
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects: B- 4929
(Pender County),
In reply to your correspondence dated August 16, 2007 (received September 6, 2007) in which you
requested comments for the above referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the
following comments:
Project-Specific Comments
1. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as SA;HQW; High
Quality Waters of the State in the project study area. This is one of the highest
classifications for water quality. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .1006, and 15A NCAC 2B
.0224, NC DOT will be required to obtain a State Stormwater Permit prior to construction.
General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
2. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this
project. NC DOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may
occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
If foundation test borings are necessary, it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3624/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Nye Carolina
NaAMa!!rff
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50%a Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
7 ?
concrete shall not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
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 shall 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.
8. 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.
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 shall 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 shall 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.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT 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 David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Jennifer Frye, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Steve Sollod, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
??? c9q nvcnaei t. r.asrey, tiovemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p -? Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tracy Walter, Bridge Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects: B-4582,
Montgomery County
In reply to your correspondence dated July 13, 2007 (received July 19, 2007) in which you requested
comments for the above referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
General Comments
B-4582, Bridge No. 121 Over Densons Creek, Montgomery County
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC DOT
shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
2. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the stream banks 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.
6. 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.
North Carolina
Naturally
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]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Y Page Two
7. 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.
8. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. 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 shall 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
12. 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.
13. 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 shall 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 shall 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.
General Comments if Replacing the Bridge with a Culvert
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. 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.
2. 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.
I Page Three
3. 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 shall be properly designed, sized
and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCDOT 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].
cc: 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
WAIF Michael F. Easley, Governor
0
9
0? QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`
C? ? Coleen H. Sullins, Director
j Division of Water Quality
'C
September 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
From: Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Office
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact related to proposed NC 194
Improvements from existing Avery County Line to Existing SR 1112, Watauga County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-194(4), State Project No. 8.172 TIP R-2710.
DENR Project Number 08-0068 due date 9/24/07
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated July 31, 2007. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Craborchard Creek and its tributaries are classC; Tr waters of the State. DWQ recommends that the
most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of turbidity
violations in trout waters. In addition, all disturbances within trout buffers shall be conducted in
accordance with NC Division of Land Resources and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
requirements.
2. 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 211.0506(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.
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 Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
4. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. 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.
No ` Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit NtkullY
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
5. 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.
6. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
7. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
10. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
11. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
12. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Nationwide (NW) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
13. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
14. 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.

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 shall 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.
18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed 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. 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.
19. 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 should 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.
20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
21. 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. .
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. 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 shall be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.

23. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NW1) 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 shall be properly designed,
sized and installed.
26. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964.
cc: Monte Matthews, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Felix Davila, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Miltscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Q?Trsp?r-ta??on:;P?rrnitting?IJa?i?:e
V e r
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 08-0068 County: Watauga
Due Date: 09/24/2007
Date Received: 08/28/2007
Project Description: Proposal to resurface the pavement & replace guardrail along a NC 194 between Avery County
& SR 1112 (Broadstone Rd) in Watauga County & to widen section of NC 194. TIP No. R-2710
This Proiect is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ? Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management
Mooresville
uifer Protection
A Wildlife Water Resources
q Environmental Health
Raleigh .
? Land Quality Engineer
Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resources Other
Winston-Salem Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
-- No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
RECENUD
KI.c, Dept. of ENR
Regional Office
.. If
.sip 0
0 4 ?o
w?LANDSA?DSA? 4UALIry,
UWArFRg
RANCH
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. BOX 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
September 12, 2007
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199502242; Currituck Sound Area Transportation Study (Mid-Currituck
Bridge Study), Currituck and Dare Counties, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2576
Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E.
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1578
Dear Ms. Harris:
Please reference your August 7, 2007, e-mail correspondence requesting written
comments relating to materials provided and discussed over the course of the past few months
with respect to alternative development, assessment and conclusions for TIP No. R-2576 in
Currituck and Dare Counties, North Carolina. In response to your request we have the following
comments:
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) have presented an initial set of conceptual alternatives to the participating
agencies for review and consideration. Based on the last two coordination meetings, it is
your intent, because of potential funding shortfalls to drop all the conceptual alternatives
except for MCB3. However, based on your information, MCB3 has a projected shortfall
of 51.2 million dollars but has the potential for "Public-Private Partnership Funding" to
cover the expected shortfall. Based on the information, a Public-Private Partnership is
only a concept that may be employed to help fund the project but certainly is not a
guarantee that it would happen. We also have concerns that viable alternatives may be
precluded because of funding issues associated with the roadway part of the network.
Under NEPA and Section 404 requirements, alternatives may still be considered
practicable even though current funding is not available for a specific project. Therefore,
we recommend not all the conceptual alternatives be dropped at this point in the process.
2. Is handout # 5 dated June 20, 2007, considered the alternatives screening report justifying
the elimination of alternatives? If so, has the screening report been made available for
public review and comment per section 8.4 of the June 20, 2007 draft coordination plan
and is the lead federal agency, FHWA satisfied that all requirements for eliminating
alternatives under SAFTEA-LU Section 6002 been completed? It is our recommendation
that at a minimum, alternatives MCB2 and MCB3 be included as preliminary alternatives
to be carried forward for public review and input.
3. A part of the purpose and need of the project is to reduce hurricane clearance time for
residents and visitors who use NC 168 and US 158 during a coastal evacuation. While all
the alternatives identified reduce hurricane evacuation times, the only alternative (MCB3)
you're considering to fully evaluate in the NEPA document has the greatest clearance time
(26.2 hours versus 21.4 hours) of all the alternatives. It is recommended as has been
discussed at TEAC meetings that an alternative (MCB4 or MCB3+) be added to improve
the critical link in the highway system so hurricane evacuation times can at least equal
times represented by the other alternatives. Clarification regarding the legislative intent of
North Carolina General Statute 136-102.7 regarding the 18-hour hurricane evacuation
timeframe is still needed as it relates to the purpose and need and the alternatives being
considered for the project. It has been identified that another proposed NCDOT TIP
project along the coast has a unacceptable hurricane evacuation time of 27 hours so why is
a comparable hurricane evacuation time (26.2 hours) acceptable for the MCB3
alternative?
4. Accurate information concerning relocations necessitated by direct impacts and
relocations necessitated by reduced lot sizes needs to be calculated for NC 12 conceptual
alternatives.
5. Alternative interchange configurations must be considered for all project corridors
associated with MCB3 to reduce potential wetland impacts. Additionally, bridging
options must be explored to reduce impacts to high quality wetlands.
6. Impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and migratory bird issues are concerns
which need to be studied in depth for any bridging corridor locations associated with the
alternatives that cross the Currituck Sound.
7. Of the six project corridors across the Currituck Sound, corridors Cl and C2 on the
mainland and Cl, C3, and C5 on the island side are preferred because of reduced impacts
to wetlands and the reduced impacts to the highest quality bay forest system associated
with the crossing of Maple Swamp.
8. Current information and data presented to date for the project are based on a design year
of 2025. Information needs to be updated for 25 years out so decisions concerning
alternatives can be based on good sound data.
As a major permitting and cooperating agency we appreciate the opportunity to
coordinate and comment with you under the guidelines of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002. The
Corps recommends that further evaluation of this project be done within the SAFETEA-LU
2
Section 6002 guidelines prior to the finalization of the DEIS. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
William J. Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C/O FHWA, Raleigh Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mr. David Wainwright
Water Quality Section

3
North Carolina Division of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Cathy Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr.Clarence W. Coleman, P.E. Operations Engineer
Federal Highway Adminstration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418
4
. 'GTE nr¢S5I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
TERRY SANFROD FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
310 NEW BERN AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
Date: August 8, 2007
Dr. Gregory.l. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Brailch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
for U-3326, US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR 2670 to NC. 14,
Reidsville, Rockingham 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 Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA). The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO'1) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) propose to widen US 29 Business (Freeway Drive) from SR
2670 (South Scales Street) to NC 14 in Reidsville, Rockingham County for an
approximate distance of 6.7 miles. The proposed project incorporates two typical
sections including a four-lane curb and gutter median section with 8-foot shoulders for U-
3326A (4 feet to accommodate bicycles) and a four-lane raised median section for U-
332613 with a curb and gutter section and a sidewalk on one side. The median width for
both sections is 17.5 feet.
The proposed project has been in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger process since
May ot'2002. According to EPA tracking records, ConCL1lTe1'lCe PoilltS 1 and 2 were
signed on May 8, 2002, ConCurrence Point 2A was signed on May 21, 2005. and
Concurrence Points 3 and 4A were signed on March 15, 2007. EPA provided e-mail
review comments on lune 23, 2006, for the Environmental Assessment (EA). Due to
continued involvement in the Merger process and NCDOT's efforts to minimize project
impacts, EPA had few substantial environmental concerns from our review of the EA.
Project Impacts
EPA notes the following project impacts to key environmental indicators tcom the
modifications made to the preferred Alternative 5-Rest lit alignment:
Residential/Business Relocations: 7/17
Hazardous Material Sites: 14
Sections 106/4(t) Properties: 0/0
Churches/Schools: 0/0
Wetlands: 0.023
Streams: 3,074 linear feet
Riparian buffers: 0
Terrestrial forests: 41.0 acres
Prime farmlands: 0
Noise receptors: 2
EJ Communities: 0
Endangered species: 0
Archaeological sites: 0
Air quality: 0 (Ozone)
EPA notes that stream impacts for all of the alternatives increased by
approximately 350 linear feet due to the inclusion of Streams 17 and 18 that were not
included in the original Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR). EPA and other
agencies requested that NCDOT evaluate the use of a retaining wall at Little Troublesome
Creek to minimize impacts from a design of a paved pedestrian walkway at this location.
Impacts at this location have potentially increased due to the construction of this
walkway. Little Troublesome Creek is classified as Class C, NSW and is a 303(d) listed
stream (impaired due to impervious surface runoff). Additional avoidance and
minimization measures for impacts from roadway runoff need to be fully considered
during the hydraulic design phase for the project.
Summary
EPA does not have any environmental objections to the preferred alternative and
we acknowledge that some efforts were made to avoid and minimize impacts to
residences and businesses and waters of the U.S. However, we also note that stream
impacts increased from the issuance of the EA due to a technical oversight and that
certain design changes for local interests have potentially increased impacts to Little
Troublesome Creek. EPA requests that NCDOT give full consideration to the
construction of a retaining wall during hydraulic review and final design in order to
minimize direct and indirect impacts to this impaired system. EPA also acknowledges the
guidance information in Appendix 5 of the FONSI regarding Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs). Should your staff have any questions, please have them call me at 919-856-
4206. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office
For: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
F ?qTF
O a Michael F. Easley, Governor
Willi
R
t
G
S

?x p am
oss Jr.,
ecre
.
ary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`Q
G
CIO 7
a Coleen H. Sullins, Director
>_
w
---?

Division of Water Quality

August 23, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Hank Schwab
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: Michael R. Parker, NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville Regional Office
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Bridge No. 69, Bostic Road, Rutherford
County, TIP No. B-4632.
Reference your correspondence dated August 1, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that there is no potential for impacts to
perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
We have no specific comments at this time for this project. Further investigations at a higher resolution
should be undertaken to verify that no streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands are within the project area.
In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that
NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams (if present) 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.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to streams (and wetlands) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. 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.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: http:/ih2O.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands FAX [phone]
No thCarolina
aturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
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.
NCDOT shall 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 USACE. 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 streambank 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. 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 NCDWQ. 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.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. NCDOT 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 Mike Parker at [phone].
cc: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Jake Risggsbee, Federal Highway Administration
Roger Bryan, Division 12 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ 401 Transportation Permitting Unit
File Copy
O?v ryQG
r
o`llc:, -c
ivncnaci r. zasiey, vovemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 19, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Kristina Solberg, P.E., Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT PDEA
From: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Scoping Comments on Proposed Improvements to NC 3 from the Kannapolis Parkway to
State Road 1691 (Loop Road) Cabarrus County, WBS 39010.1.1, STP -0003(6), TIP U-3440
Reference your correspondence dated August 28, 2007 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. 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
Irish Buffalo Creek Yadkin C 13-17-9-(2)
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 NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
Irish Buffalo Creek is a class C; 303(d) waters of the State. Irish Buffalo Creek is on the 303(d) list for impaired
use for aquatic life due to turbidity. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result
from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be
implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Irish Buffalo Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans
provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
General Project Comments:
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.
NorthCarolina
Naturally
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]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page Two
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance
with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. 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. NC DOT
shall 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.
Page Three
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. 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.
Page Four
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT 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].
cc: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Office
File Copy
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: - Mr. John Hennessy e,.?•
I # 1650
FROM: A, BLDG.
? I
J

ACTION
?.: NOTE AND FILE ?' PER OUR CONVERSATION
?`NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PE OUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS;
?PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE. .?. SIGNATURES
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION s ?. INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
,COMMENTS:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Kimberly D. Hinton
Senior Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 492 on SR 1011 (Hillsborough Street) over Western Boulevard
Wake County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
B-4656 This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 492 on Hillsborough Street over
Western Boulevard.
KDH/cdh
Attachment
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. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser
Mr. Greg Thorpe
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art -McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, 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
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 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 492 ON
SR 1011 (HILLSBOROUGH STREET) OVER WESTERN BOULEVARD
TIP Project No. B-4656
Wake County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on September 18, 2007 between the
hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in Room 105 at the J.C. Raulston Arboretum,
NCSU Horticulture Field Laboratory, 4415 Beryl Road, Raleigh, 27606-1446.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 492 on (SR 1011) Hillsborough
Street over Western Boulevard. Two design alternatives will be presented.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Karen Capps, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at 1551 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1551, phone [phone], fax [phone] or email
kbcapps a-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 Ms. Capps as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
e µ STA7F o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Eileen Fuchs (A--'?
Public Hearing Officer
Human Environment Unit
RE: Notice of a Citizens Informational Workshop for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 184 on SR 1356 (Old Johns River Road) over Johns River
Caldwell County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
B-3819 The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 184 on Old Johns
River Road over Johns River.
EF/cdh
Attachment
September 11, 2007
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cc: Mr. Arnold Lakey, Board of Transportation Member- Div. 11
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser
Mr. Greg Thorpe
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Mike Bruff, P.E.
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. Charles Brown, P.E., PLS
Mr. Jimmy Caudle, Right of Way Agent - Division 11
FHWA
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 184 ON SR 1356
(OLD JOHNS RIVER ROAD) OVER JOHNS RIVER
TIP Project No. B-3819
Caldwell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on Thursday, October 18, 2007, between
the hours of 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Collettsville Elementary School
Gymnasium, 4690 Collettsville School Road, Collettsville, 28611.
Interested individuals may attend this informal workshop at their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments from
the public about this project.
The purpose of the workshop is to present information on this project. The
project proposes to replace Bridge No. 184 on SR 1356 (Old Johns River Road)
over Johns River. The proposed bridge will be on a new alignment just north of
the existing bridge, and the existing bridge will serve as an on-site detour during
construction of the new bridge:
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Natalie Lockhart,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Bridge Unit, 1551 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1551, phone [phone], fax [phone] or
email nnlockhart(cD-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 Ms. Lockhart as early as
possible so that arrangements can be made.