19990174 Ver 1_Complete File_20020812

E
A SWCp?
a?.w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 31, 2002
Mr. Michael Bell
Regulatory Project Manager, NCDOT Coordinator
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Bell:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
220 w, J?Wcr/ ANDS 7;; ?Up "J
Subject: Action ID. 199000910, US 17, New Bern Bypass, Craven County,
State Project 6.179001T, TIP ID. No. R-2301
In March 1999, the Section 404/NEPA Merger Team concurred with the
avoidance and minimization efforts (Concurrence Point # 4) for the subject project. The
following members comprised the merger team at that time:
Mr. Michael Bell
Mr. John Wadsworth
Mr. Ron Elmore
Mr. Ron Sechler
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Mr. Tom McCartney
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Ms. Katie West
Mr. John Hennessy
Mr. David Cox
Mr. Scott Jones
Corps of Engineers
Federal Highway Administration
NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
National Marines Fisheries Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
State Historic Preservation Office
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Coastal Management
In a meeting on September 10, 2001, residents and property owners of the
Tuscarora-Rhems community [located along Tuscarora-Rhems Road (SR 1224) near the
southern terminus of the projects requested the NCDOT consider realigning the proposed
New Bern Bypass to reduce impacts to their properties. The preliminary design for the
original alignment (see enclosed map) shows Tuscarora-Rhems Road grade-separated
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
Mr. Michael Bell
July 31, 2002
Page 2
over the proposed New Bern Bypass just east of the community. The proposed Bypass
would not relocate any homes in the area, but the embankment for the grade separation
would be in close proximity to the front side of the homes along Tuscarora-Rhems Road.
The preliminary design also bisects several large, predominantly undeveloped tracts of
property north of Tuscarora-Rhems Road. Access to these tracts is currently provided by
easement from US 17 to the east. The preliminary design includes a service road from
Tuscarora-Rhems Road along the west side of the proposed Bypass to provide access to
the isolated properties.
A realignment to reduce the impacts was evaluated. The preliminary design for
the realignment (also shown on the enclosed map) would shift the proposed Bypass to the
west of the community, grade separate Tuscarora-Rhems Road over the proposed Bypass,
and cross the western edges of the undeveloped properties. A service road would not be
necessary for the realignment. The properties isolated by the realignment would be
treated as uneconomic remnants, and the remnants would be acquired by NCDOT if the
property owners are willing sellers.
The original alignment and the requested realignment were presented at the
Design Public Hearing for the New Bern Bypass held on September 25, 2001. The
Tuscarora-Rhems residents and the property owners attending the design hearing
overwhelmingly supported the realignment.
The wetland impacts for the New Bern Bypass from US 17 south of New Bern to
US 17 north of New Bern are estimated to be 31.5 acres for the original preliminary
design. The wetland impacts from US 17 near the Jones-Craven County Line to US 70
(R-2301A) are estimated to be approximately 19.5 acres for the main line and 2.1 acres
for the service road north of Tuscarora-Rhems Road for a total of 21.6 acres. The wetland
impacts for the realignment for the R-2301 A portion of the project are estimated to be
approximately 24.4 acres.
The realignment in the vicinity of Tuscarora-Rhems Road will impact
approximately 2.8 acres more wetlands than the original alignment. The predominant
wetlands in this area are classified as wet pine flats. It should be noted the increase in
wetland impacts in this area could be offset by the opportunity to develop on-site
mitigation in some of the uneconomic remnants north of Tuscarora-Rhems Road. The
table on the following page gives a comparison of the estimated costs and wetland
impacts in the vicinity of Tuscarora-Rhems Road.
Mr. Michael Bell
July 31, 2002
Page 3
R-2301 A*
NEW BERN BYPASS
Original Alignment
With Service Road Realignment
No Service Road
Construction Cost _ $18,500,000 $17,900,000
Right of Way Cost _ $ 643,000 $ 514,000
Total Cost $19,143,000 $18,414,000
Wetland Impacts 7.0 acres 9.8 acres
* The Limits of the Alternatives Are From Station 11+60 to Station 60+20
By copy of this letter, the NCDOT is requesting concurrence from the Section
404/NEPA Merger Team in proceeding with the realignment of the proposed Bypass in
the vicinity of Tuscarora-Rhems Road as requested by the community and property
owners. Please contact Mr. Michael Bell, Corps of Engineers, by telephone or e-mail
with your comments on the realignment.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Ron
Elmore, Project Development Engineer, at [phone] extension 267 or at
relmore(c-i)dot.state. nc.us.
Sincerely,
Q'Y(. ??mezv
L. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
LGG/re
Enclosure
Copies Furnished To:
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Ms. Cathy Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Mr. Ron Sechler
Habitat Conservation Service
National Marine Fisheries
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. Howard Hall
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Mr. Ted Bisterfield
Office of Environmental Assessment
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Office of Environmental Assessment
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Chris Militscher
Office of Environmental Assessment
US Environmental Protection Agency
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. David Cox
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Mr. John Hennessy
401 Water Quality Certification Unit
NCDENR-DWQ
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ms. Sara Winslow
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
1367 US 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Ms. Renee Geldhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
i
b1rjY. -1.3' 03(THU) 13:51 DEHNR COSTAL NNIT TEL:[phone] P. 002
Siva. or Nown I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOK ATION
11{IVl lit.
I ?I? Itl I-?I'.i
"It "'?"III V0. 110X15101, IZALLMI L N.C. 27n11 %!01
Juste 5, 1995
,Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chier, Regulatory Branch
Army Corps of Enginecrs
Wilmington Field Office
Post office Box 1890
Williiinl;ton, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Wright:
-1-bank you for your recent letter in wliicli you stated your intent to issue tr permit for tlic
Neuse River Bridge subject to its mitigation being made apart ora future mitigation site for
the New Bcm Bypass (R-2301). We appreciate your willingness to agree to a combincd
mitigatidn proposal in order for the Neuse River t3ridge to be Ict on schedule.
At your rcyuesL, I hereby commit the Department oC'Cransportation to complete cnr?slrtictioll
tlf Ilse mitigation site for B-2531 and R-2301, and condLICt monitoring until rcasmiablc
success is demonstrated, prior to beginning construction on any segnicul ol'the New t3ern
pass (R-2301).
.by
Wt: hope this eolilmitment will be sufficient for the permil to be issued.
Sincerely,
r
Sang 1-lunt
SI I/lil'v
cc: 1..arry R. Goode, PhD., P.E., Slate fIighway Administrator
MAY. -1,5' 03 (THU) 13:5?
:1 ,.
REPLY10
ATTgNTMN OF
[regulatory Branch
TEL:[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MIM y
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS of ENGINEERP.q. Box lean •
wu un.rnrnu IJhOTU rAMni WA •1nera.1©40
May 26, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:.
Reference our discussions
the mitigation for the Section
River Bridge at New Bern, North
?5 C E I
; Q,
JOY 3 1;.1995
DNISICN OF
?$ HIGHWAYS
FN
P. 003
ri •'i,
( .5 0" J' l
at our monthly meetings regarding
404 permit for the U.S. 17, Neuse
Carolina.
It is our understanding that the N.C. Department of
Transportation has proposed that the mitigation for the
referenced project, currently being considered for section 404
permitting, be postponed at the present time and that it be
provided as a portion of a larger mitigation proposal for the
future permit application for the U.S. 17 Bypass around.New Bern.
.Lt is also our understanding that the mitigation package for the
two projects will be developed by the N.C. Division of coastal
"anagement to maximize the benefits of providing a single large,
possibly multifunctional, mitigation proposal rather than two
separate unrelated smaller projects.
We have agreed, and the review agencies at the monthly
meetings have not objected, to condition any permit issued for
the Neuse River Bridge at New Bern to require that specific
acreages and types of mitigation be provided for this project
from a future mitigation site for the future U.S. 17 Bypass,of
New Bern. -We have also agreed that the mitigation to cover both
of these two projects must be in place prior to any construction
beginning on oither•segment of the U.S. 17 Bypass of New Barn.
We understand that NCDOT has agreed with this requirement. To
confirm this agreement, we will need a letter of commitment froin
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation stating that
you have agreed to no construction on either segment of the U.S.
17 New Bern Bypass until the entire mitigation site is
constructed and monitoring has shown probable success. lie must
have this latter prior to issuance of the permit for the current
U.S. 17 Bridge at•New Bern.

DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
MAY. -1'S' 03(THU) 13:52 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 004
-z-
A condition would be written for the U.S. 17 Bypass of New
Bern permit which•would require that the entire mitigation "bank."
be in place in accordance with a detailed mitigation plan prior
to any construction 'occurring on the Bypass project. The detailed
mitigation plan for the "bank'' would have to be. furnished,
approved, implemented, and monitored for at least one complete
year prior to issuance of the Bypass permit.
If there ara`any questions regarding this matter, please
contact mc, telephone [phone].
sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

i ? ;
D1A?f. -15' 03 (THU) 13:52 DEHNR COSTAL 6i W TEL:[phone] P. 005
'Ra: t1.2551/R-2301 Draft Meeting Minutes
Subject: Re: B-2531/R•2301 Draft Meeting Minutes
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 200111:52:29 -0400
From: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: Alice Gordon <[e-mail]>
CC: Doug Huggett <Doug.Huggett@ncmail,net>, bill arrington <bill,[e-mail]>,
Kelly Williams <[e-mail]>, Scott Jones <[e-mail]>
Alice,
Attached are compiled DCM edits on the draft March 9, 2001 meeting minutes. I am very sorry for the
delay in getting you these comments. 'T'hanks for doing an excellent job of preparing the draft of the
meeting minutes. Please let me. know if you have any questions or concerns about the attached edits.
Please note that DCM has suggested within our edits to include the following attachements to the final
meeting minutes, in addition to the ones you had already included:
• sign-in sheet
• February 12, 2001 DCM letter
• June 5, 1995 letter of commitment from Stun Hunt to Wayne Wright
We look forward to receiving the final meeting notes once you have received comments from all parties.
Sincerely,
Cathy
Alice Gordon wrote:
Here is a DRAFT of the meeting notes. I have also incorporated
(and cited) a few subsequent e-mails. Please provide your
comments. When I have heard yea or nay from all parties T will
put out the final meeting notes. Ideally these minutes should
accurately reflect the position of all parties. The final
meeting notes will include all of the attachments referenced in
this draft version.
Thanks for your help and input on these issues, Let me know if
you have any questions.
Alice Gordon
Name: Mar 9, 2001 Meeting Notes.doc
Mar 9, 21001 Meeting Notes.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Cathy Brittingham

'HAY. -13' 03 (THU) 13:52 DEHNR COSTAL RNIT TEL:[phone] P. 006
Re: 13-253ViR-2301 Druft Meeting Min=
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
[phone] X238 phone
[phone] FAX
Name: B-2531 Mar 9, 2001 DCM edits.doc
k 13-2531 Mar 9, 2001 DCM edits.doc Type: WlNTVORD File (application/msword)'
Encoding: base64
I^-
tiIAY. -15' 03 (THU) 13:53 DEHNR COSTAL 0V TEL:[phone] _ P, 007
, ?.vntl•
t1.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NhcHAEL F. EASLEY LYNAQ TIPPErr
GOVERNOR S6CRUARY
DRAFT
Seetiot0hi Interagency Meeting
Mitigation for R-2301 and B-2531
March 9, 2001
NANUTES
Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River and the widening of
Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent River in New Bern,
and the Now Bern Bypass
Craven County, North Carolina
T.I.P. Project No. R-2301 & B-2531
State Project No. S.1170801
Federal-Aid Project No. MAF-36.1(33)
.1 QA f
f A Sect+en- II- M"-r-Interagency Meeting was held on March 9, 2001 in the
NCDOT PD & EA Brunch Conference Room at the Transportation Building. The
Building The
purpose of the meeting was to respend-to4att-e?-frerfrDC-m fit. 71-11%q FIT.It?oM
CM) regarding star N R= Cl" November 17, 2000 request for a
permit modification The Agenda for this meeting is attached to these
nunutes. Introductions were made for all attendees and a si min sheet was passed around.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS; (Alice, I reorganized these chronologically)
Y The USACE, USFWS, and DWQ need to submit comments on Sawmill
Mitigation Plan to NCDOT.
1 777-
a Sawmill Mitigation Plan tt ill +WItt '11L III ?j tt I1tiiril ot1Ftiwill be
revised b NCDOT to reflect comments 40 1 61 it I
tt ltftx,?` v
o Croatan MIgI needs to be revised OMIT. j.?.rlf?tTt 1 11 1uY i1t1 t i' L .e r
P
14AILINQ ADDRESS:
NO D9PARTM1NTOF TFANUPORTAT01
PD&EA
1640 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALCUHNO 2700.1EAO
TELEPHONZ: 616-733.3141
FAX: [phone]
WrMITE. WAW.RON.OOT.STATE,Naua
LOCATION:
TfuwPORTATION 11]=N3
1 SOUTH W13W4QT0N8TREE7
R4LEmH NO
MAY. -15' 03 (THU) 13:53 OEHNR COSTAL RNIT
2
TEL:[phone] P. 008
"' T '?-' -.' ?co t tii1 4 lYlth'tfle lf.. ?.r aFZt 1111(1 ;itlRll>J1 h11h't111k11,?1F
.l i iltrOfl bid s:ln r1F.' t . IfPpRY6
#emAnatrpxecl;'t'ith?x.Rric?t',t4.pc?it1111ng;CAjllCilG1Ai1.AR''AtiY• scgnient ul't,he New
X3. e11 l3ypasS 'ra;ject.(ar. any other Pirotea><41t1k.F?lti il???, xhe satna gr.S til?lr
}u?c#se urtd.necc??_or willrjn one_Ypuol` lhe.exiliititin (!rite oi'.Xlls i?ek111it,
?khi'ch` e ` nm g fi t`; NGD&T most-show-ntflnitor:iug-sueeess "'teriti-t'er
l ongycl, wmnill-arsd-6reatan-l?efore?-230' `?? Ow j -Byp s) Met . The
agencies agreed to consider looking at a site after 3 years of monitoring to
determine if it appears reasonably successful.
o SAV and temporary construction site surveys need to be updated this summer,
o NCDOT should wise R-2301 let date.
crF;r l r
rrtiiilGrali ,a tai this tahlc tla ,, 'fit , -fi. ), na'rjy
rlv (ot altar} or a t trdi? nke f p ima G'u F
ifrtdt'istR{cdiiF 'tlrnt till table irFclr}deii.in (40111imFre .n'as.lr?. l?0.ljNsed on,tlrp et4ble
fllFl}/'?p(l jl} 111 ,0. IItstler, bFFt'reviaorl i}jitlF the irFf?S r_-kof 4100}rFi?t?pii.aitd
Table 1. Update on the Impacts and
Y _
Wetland Type 'P 4F+ wNti w
Impact (ac) .aw
Mitigation (ac)
Mitigation Site
Status of Mitigation
Plan % Built
Intertidal Marsh 0.78 1.56 Len el Done 100
Bay Forest 11,81 23.62 Croatan (1250 May 2001•
Naturalized
Ditches 0.27 Sawmill Dec. 2000
Naturalized
Scrub-shrub 1.20 Sawmill Dec.2000
Coastal
Wetlands 0.017 0.034 Lengyel Done 100
Total 14.077 28.854

1. At a 2:1 ratio for restoration.
2. There is an excess of 4.98 acres of marsh restoration; 5.25 acres brackish marsh preservation and
0.85W upland buffer available at the Lengyel site.
3. 1.54 acres Brackish Marsh and 2.10 acres Cypress-Gum Swamp.
4. Mitigation Plan v©mplew _ 10!19100; MBI to be signed May 2001. t,J ? i
Review or February 12, 2001 transmittal from 17C? M?DOhe Febru 12,
2001 letter was reviewed and copies passed out. ; -1PM(aiat i le'L
+M1 ,? The monies requested in that letter were hand delivered to Cathy
Brittingham by Alice Gordon, In addition, a check for $200 and seven copies of the
MAY. -15' 03 MU) 13:54 DEHNR COSTAL MGM TEL:[phone] P. 009
3
modification request was hand delivered to John Hennessy for processing the Section 401
application per the request of the DWQ.
SA'V Summary: Bruce Ellis presented a status report on the on-going SAV monitoring at
the New Bern Bridge location. Copies of the SAV monitoring reports were distributed to
the agencies. A copy of the report is attached to these meeting minutes, P11 ,.
!'l 7.` I."--'I?^?y f••]_r ?1.4-Ty •y--i YI 1. Aj-- NF1? ?v).?11 -I1?1I F14?Gl A4i y?1G}}'-I1G"•Fat?FLj? r..?
f t ?
t? Bruce said
c?]11111ttSll.4Y t.G1P l.ils f?T l???l?`, st3J?l?,_l?'Jt>a 5.ljghl.ilZd1' Se lllfW1r lgp_Y-PAR .,
that he would be doin additional monitoring in June/earlyJuly of 2001, }. i? ?' xh
Bruce Deal-1F
wtxIr? {e (? ri ttra .?a'•pn:ssn. ry o•
noted that there
, Tg6?P i?T ?w pssl?le explurt k?orlq for tfie }'e E1a11.91)?I1.:kt ??
E 1E? ?} I _ _ t?pflssibly-ba a system wide decline in SAV
O ulatl0na +rL 4p '
? .+YYM1:7Y "?ti` .r1 XIN ] 1 a' -, '?
1w Q?W K'N ?I 'F M 0 . ?Ap surveys 111'e complete tpyttgse?s [nlttg;tttol?' ? iai?crn4i?1
E'cT?p??suteytA ,S ,?Pr S .tls?nutu(:ed_?ujl?i lllis„PFCU(*r,;.u_ ,zcoi ??1111
" ' and requested that we fl.. coordinate with the
NCDMF and the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) on this item.
TemPnrary Work Bridge Site Recovery: Bruce Ellis presented a status sum.mary about
the recovery of the sites that were affected by the temporary work bridges, David Cox
(WRC) asked what species were now growing 311 the recovery areas since invasive species
like phragmites would not be appropriate. Bruce responded that no phragmites was
observed and that the dominant species seemed to be Spartina sp. David Cox suggested
that we ° t ?>? do some stem counts at the temporary construction access areas and if
invasive species are noted then the NCDOT may need to do some remedial planting.
Bruce stated that he will update the vegetation analysis of the recovery sites this summer.
Photographs of the recovery sites were passed around. David Cox noted that on Photo 4
there was a bare area that will need to be looked at in detail. Bruce noted that the
photograph was taken just after the work-bridge had been removed and that the site
would not be expected to show recovery at the time of the photo ?t [irli We will
produce an updated report with special emphasis on the site in Photo 4 following the field
up-date this summer.
This discussion concluded the answers to the questions from DCM in their February 12,
2001 letter. Alice Gordon asked the DCM if the items in their February 12, 2001 letter
had been addressed or if additional discussion was needed. Cathy Brittingham stated that
all of the items had been sueeess€ully-addressed.
The discussion then proceeded to a discussion of the Sawmill, Lengyel, and Croatan
mitigation sites. This was followed by a discussion of the Mitigation Site Schedule and
the New Bern Bypass t i
Snwmlll Mitlgttf'on S te: Ed Lewis coordinated the discussion of the Sawmill Mitigation
Plan which followed the items as presented in the letter to NCDOT (Bill Gilmore) from
DCM (Kelly Williams) dated February 9, 2001. A copy of the letter is attached to these
meeting minutes.
NAY. -1'S' 03 MU) 13:54 UEHNR COSTAL UNIT TEL:[phone] P. 010
4
1. Co e : "The community type restoration and creation that NCDOT
has proposed to perform at this site is acceptable as mitigation for some of
the impacts incurred from the Netwe River bridge construction. These
impacts were most recently described in your November 17, 2000 letter.
The impacts to be mitigated at the Sawmill site were to "naturalized
ditches" and "naturalized scrub-shrub wetlands." The Sawmill site is
mapped as salt/brackish marsh restoration on RCM's wetland restoration
type GIS data. Incorporating additional marsh creation as well as tidal
cypress gum swamp creation will increase the diversity of wetland
habitats at the site. 1 am pleased that the site is located in close proximity
to the project and that upland areas will be preserved to protect and
buffer the wetland areas."
Discussion: Ed Lewis stated that we 20 concur with the statement.
2, Comment: "A planting plan with a specific list of species to be planted ill
the tidal cypress-gum s vanip creation area must be included in the
mitigation plan prior to its approval:"
Discussion: The basis of DCM's request is to insure that cypress and gum
species were included in the planting plan. The DCM has agreed that a
plant list will not have to be submitted prior to plan approval. It will be
provided in the As-Built report. In addition the DCM requested that the
species of gum be appropriate as described in the following excerpt from
an e-mail dated February 15, 2001 from Kelly Williams to Byron Moore
(NCDOT): "Also note that Nyssa aquatica and Nyssa sylvatica var, biflora
can have differing salinity tolerances. i urge you to consider the gum
species found in the vicinity of the site, the source of your plants, and the
salinity of the water the trees will be exposed to prior to planting the site to
ensure the highest level of success in this area. Indeed, if you revise the
Sawmill plan and resubmit it, please include a list of species present at
RFE site (an appendix with a site report summary may be appropriate),"
3. Comment: "The hydrologic success criteria for the swamp and the marsh
areas are acceptable though they are not ideal. 1 would expect the site to
exhibit hydrologic characteristics specific to the community types being
restored and created. Such characteristics would include a certain
flooding frequency, duration, tidal influence and depth of flooding. In the
future, reference hydrology data should be used to determine hydrologic
success criteria when available. The data gathered at reference sites for
this project will be valuable although it does not appear you will use them
as success criteria."
Discussion: A discussion of the h dralogic success criteria resulted in the
agencies agreeing that we pia a l i should use a 25% success criterion for
the Sawmill Site. If there was a year that did not show 25% success, then we
could use the hydrological characteristics of the reference system to
measure success. The reference ecosystem approved for the Sawmill site is
MAY. -15' 03 [THU) 13:54 OEHNR COSTAL RN1T TEL:[phone] P. 011
5
located nearby in the same watershed and is a tidal swamp. Consequently,
the hydrological success criteria to be used for the Sawmill site was agreed
to be 25% inundation.
Sehed e: Cathy Brittingham asked how we EMU ivof doing in
meetin the planting schedule for this year. Ed Lewis responded that wa
will miss the planting period for trees and the June planting period
for marsh grass this year since the plan had not been approved, In addition,
Ed noted that the project needs to be constructed as soon as possible once
the plan is approved. This will allow the project to be planted in 2002 as
well as going through its first year of monitoring.
4. Comment: "Afterfive years, monitoring may cease only if success criteria have
been met (as evidenced in annual reports) and permitting and review agencies
agree in writing that the site is demonstrating success. This must be added to the
plan for it to be approved, "
Discussion: Ed Lewis noted that this is standard operating procedure and
agreed to put this in writing in the mitigation Alan. 1!ilac?fiie'rt%tl?` ii r t
5. Comment: "It is stated in section 7.0, titled: "Pennits", on page 27 that this
proposal involves the conversion of existing wetlands to other wetland types.
Your request for a permit modification in the November 17, 2000 letter does
not specify how many acres of wetlands will be converted (i.e. impacted) at
this site. Although mitigation will not be required for these impacts to
existing wetlands that acreage of impact must be subtracted from the total
mitigation acreage available at the site, It: other words, NCDOT will not be
given restoration or creation credit for converting one wetland type to
another wetland type even though it may be necessaryfor an acceptable
mitigation plan at this site. NCDOT should clarify whether or not they will
impact ietlands at the Sawmill site, indicate what that acreage is, and
subtract it from the total mitigation available at the site. "
Discussion: DCM (Kelly Williams) restated that we should subtract
the acreage of existing wetlands from the site since they will not be restored
wetlands. NCDOT stated that wo will be enhancing those wetlands,
thus we , should be given credit for enhancement instead of
restoration. The DCM agreed to allow us .;aid. t': ?'I to get enhancement credit.
Thus, NCDOT's original assumptions about available credit from the Sawmill
site will be adjusted downward to reflect enhancement (in lieu of restoration
or creation) ratio for converting a small area of scrub-shrub wetland to
forested wetland. John Hennessy stated that even if enhancement credits are
approved that the NCDOT will still need to ensure that the D` Q l; l
restoration requirement is met.
MAY. -1'5' 03 MU) 13:55 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
6
TEL:[phone] P.011
6, Comment: "It appears (lie work done at the Sawmill site, if successfia, will
meet the required mitigation acreage needed at this site, no November 17,
2000 letter allocates 2.47 acres of wetland mitigation to this site. In the final
plan 2,73 acres of creation, ,20 acres of restoration, and.25 acres of
preservation are proposed for this site. If the Sawmill mitigation project itself
will impact any existing wetlands, NCDOT may fall short of the mitigation
allocated to this site for B-2531 as outlined in the November 17, 2000 letter. If
that is the case, a larger debit/allocation front Lengyel may be required-"
Discussion: NCDOT will modify the plan to reflect the expected creation,
restoration, preservation, and enhancement mitigation credit available
ter.
aceountinR for on-site wetland impacts due to implementation. Eft "lail
If the Sawmill Site "falls short" of
the mitigation allocated to B-2531, NCDOT will look to other sites for
mitigation.
7. Comment: I remain very concerned that NCDOT will not meet the B-2531
permit condition #20 which states that: "The DOT shall complete
construction of the mitigation site for B-2531 and conduct monitoring in
accordance with the approved comprehensive mitigation plan required in
condition 18 until success is demonstrated, either prior to beginning
construction on any segment of the New Bern Bypass project (or any other
project that satisfies the same purpose and need) or within one year of rile
expiration of this permit, whichever comes firsts " I read this to mean that
NCDOT must demonstrate success (i.e. must meet success criteria) on the B-
2S31 mitigation sites prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass. It appears NCDOT will not demonstrate success on the Sawmill site
any earlier than 2004. Site monitoring will continue until 2006 if all goes
according to their proposed schedule. If May 2003 is the expected let date for
the New Bern Bypass project, it appears the B-2531 permit condition #20
will not be met.
Discussion: Based upon stated implementation schedules for Sawmill and
Croatan, it is clear that the current letting schedule for R-2301 is unrealistic
by several years. The discussion centered around the concept of what today is
meant by "demonstrating success;" and by what in 1995 was meant b
"demonstrating success" which is when the permit for the New-Bern
? Bridge was issued. The current success criteria concept calls for 5
years of successful monitoring. The agencies recalled that the success criteria
in use in 1995 called for 3 years of successful monitoring.
Y DCM Position: The position of the DCM as clarified in an e-mail from
DoAfflooking tt on 3/13101 is as follows! i , t eke DCM agreed to was
to at a site after three years to determine if it appears
reasonably successful. However, if the site appears Lust marginally
successful at the end of three years, then fha4X-_M fx E would need
to keep looking at the site(s) until the full success criteria dowribed-in the
mitigation plans are satisfied _iw x ,i r` ?it,?t ci' a
IMY. -IT 03(THU) 13:55 DEHNR COSTAL 0V TEL:[phone] P. 013
7
` ? ??%???F" [ ? ?i ! 1~1117',r? The?i??-saw-that?Hi$-W:euld
to rs-te-satiaf3; nnc#-pessibly_gtril?-a-bit lama
Furthermore, iltC-M-ea?E this commitment is ErB for the
purposes of satisfying the Neuse River Bridge (B-2531) permit
conditions. Monitoring must still be carried out in accordance with the
appropriate mitigation plans for each site, including the five-year
(minimum) monitoring requirement.'
The mphasizaikhat Lrrhe commitment hy44WDGM to consider a
project at the end of three years of monitoring should by no means
construed as meaning the process of meeting the success criteria and
satisfying the Neuse River Bridge permit conditions can not take longer.
Additionally, simply meeting the success criteria at the end of three years
will not automatically convey DCM approval that the sites are successful
(see above statement on marginally successful sites) `
`ti The-BCM lu4-t1so-emPhu42ed 1i-aHhoy remain concerned
that the scheduling of the New Bern bypass project will run into
significant problems if the schedule relies heavily on this 3 year review of
the success criteria,9
The WRC (David Cox) agreed that it was probably justified for Sawmill
and Lengyel but that Croatan has to comply with the NMI. He noted in an
e-mail dated 3/13.01 that the three-year success criterion is only tied to the
B-2531/R-2301 projects and the sites themselves still must be monitored
for five years. In that e-mail he further recommended that NCDOT take
remedial action if, at the end of the first year of monitoring, the sites are
not achieving success.
The Corns (Mike Bell) has stated in a confirming e-mail dated 3/13101 that
the USACE has no such time period (i.e. three year monitoring for a
success criterion). Success is usually after five years or later if success is
not achieved within the five-year period. He stated that if DOT wants to
come to the USACE earlier than five years with information, they would
listen.
co The DW ; the DWQ (John Hennessy) stated in an e-mail 3.13.01 that the
DWQ would consider that the permit condition for B-2531 (that required
the mitigation be in the ground and functioning before the construction of
R-2301) was met after three years, and thus allow for the letting and
construction of R-2301. It was understood that the monitoring plan was to
go for at least five years (and longerif success was not met). The plan
needs to have the five-year requirement, and the DWQ will agree to
discontinue monitoring only after a minimum five years and the success
criteria being met.
NCDOT (Alice Gordon) asked if the15 percent
of the Croatan Bank FTM' t lest -aac r671is
could be used for mitigating the bay forest impacts, The
NIAY•, -15' 03 (THU) 13:56 QEHNR COSTAL MNiT TEL:[phone] P.014
s
of Engineers and the DCM Euc1E J1G0
fhat-the mill at1a11 S1te 11111,51 Ge f?6*?,•' f1.1.--1 w r My s.?:
4T1TIgI4Ac.c4s4. lha.? - rwlt«ll>` .4n _
TiTUS4'b??,d??1411g?r ,1,illg.s?l?p ss:l?4Gor,IA e6k4pg,il'M tI]#a.>a ic,t. -,stated
tt-at ? i the site tamed ited?v?t? shewiiig
$?ssesf?asad-ei?lto-nionitaring.
NCDOT (Alice Gordon) noted that R-2301A had independent utility and, in
addition, was a different type of ecosystem from the riverine portion of the
New Bern Bypass. A ruling was requested from the agencies relative to
obtaining a separate permit for R-2301A given the independent utility status.
In addition, a ruling was requested to allow ue C to let R-2301A in
May 2003 before the monitoring of the sites was complete. The formal
response from the USACE, the DCM, the DWQ, the USFWS, and the
NCDNCF (Division of Marine Fisheries) was tliat-R-2301A could not
be let until the three-year-manttertiig-peried t ' 1,
?.:
• 'Q ? ${3ewer#-success. T41o-ageHe?ee-emoted-t}14-El3e-ieatte-e€
independent-u afi?'
S. Comment: " Furthermore, as of the date of this letter I have not received
an MBI for the Croatan Bank site. A site plan has yet to be approved for the
restoration and enhancement activities at the bank site, Portions of the bank
site will be used for B-2531 forested wetlands mitigation and will also have
to demonstrate success prior to construction of the New Vern Bypass. I fear
NCDOT staff may believe that the signing of the MBI will satisfy the permit
condition quoted above, but again, the permit states success must be
demonstrated at the Croatan site in order meet permit condition
requirements. In the November 17, 2000 letter, it is stated that monitoring
on the bank site will begin in 2003. It doesn't seem possible that the
mitigation activities performed at the Croatan site will demonstrate success
by May 2003, the expected let date for the New Bern Bypass project."
ion; Clarence Coleman presented the following information.
R6 'r'?`t• ..,r?ItlS
?]6 G P ?1Qbe3:1 1`? c og-os tiori °tlh?(r ? c` Y: The Croatan MBI
needs to be revised. The disposition of the USFS (US Forest Service)
property issues is taking a long time. It needs to be finalized before an MBI
rl it,'r s t?tiild
`
is si ed. The MBI should be signed by May 2001. 1
ii construction buL,iidt on a Phase I i?s[?gr
will begin this summer
9,'10V and will include the im lleementation of the by forest mitigation needed
forB-2531. G fiitlic ltt n M 11 *MMA
New Bern Bypass (R-2301) Y"'1410VII.•^^ -5,?1fIlJ.?,'i'G tF','i, q}a:••t41'?:?r1 y'S-:?i, .r .., I'T:
?anspoi? ti> ioT1?.Y114?.!?Y_?lg?>l?:C)2!E!<'S?f.L?.??:.l?,
h1AY. -15' 03(THU) 13:56 DEHNR COSTAL MNIT TEL:[phone] P.015
9
itnc c citilcjuot gic?nipin6.u1}?}csp44a-success:is.dFtt14n,5trato,:066r.?c"l
construction ou any,se rljaTlkya :t ie. (aW=?oitl`i yl??iss=(I?-?3(l:l?: :?'Jl s ca} 1]111wtil.-l'q
reflected in e0nditiqi11,. Q','1 '(??.:C??N?! 'NeiiniK NQ, H '-9S'wliicli srttteS thiix ``tll? POT
r
Hh?411 cotlip(ete. constr{JC1j .O1j:,!pf i)iC aii,iig4(iQli sil.6-f6? 0,253.1- t 1 d.conduct mahlE?1111 j,rl
:?G?01'(i?11CC With 01e;Ap.?1'AYPd cAmprehP11Sive-n1iTi'&tioi1 lalan regyiTud.in cOlldit,ipll.l
until suc&es1 is d?r1lQn ti' d; ?ithcr: p?'IAr t4 Wgitt11itlg consrPuctioll an any seglli}lmpi'
that=w Eerie Sys?S,T'pa'eC? ?{; ?3Q:o any r?tllcr,1?t'Pji=:,t)?t1k; SatiSkaes tltu fi:jf?i?:yll
9illllltlx?t}r'?a??a1t?1Le?9r?lY.}11111,].:P.r1.e'yearo?.t.?o'exPi.fa1?o11.o?ill??.Pet?l?il.w 'c11?.:??
Meeting Attendees
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, NCDENR-DWQ
Beth Bums, NCDENR - DWQ
Mike Bell, USACE
Tom McCartney, USFWS
Rick Monaghan, NCDENR, DMP
Kelly Williams, NCDENRR, DCM
Craig Deal, NCDENR
Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR, DCM
Bill Arrington, NCDENR, DCM
Scott Jones, NCDENR, DCM
Kevin Markham, ESI
Doug Huggett, NCDENR, DCM
Alice Gordon, NCDOT, PD & EA
Charles Bruton, NCDOT PD & EA
Clarence Coleman, NCDOT PD & EA
Ed Lewis, NCDOT PD & EA
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT PD & EA
Eric Black, NCDOT PD & EA
Randy Turner, NCDOT PD & EA h
Greg Brew, NCDOT Roadway Design
Katie McKeithan, NCDOT Roadside
Jeff Wait, NCDOT Roadside
Environmental
Dicky Marmon, ESI
MY. -1'5' 03 MU) 13:51 DEHNR COSTAL UM
TEL : [phone] P. 016
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael C. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donau D. Moffitt, Director
February 12, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Craven County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River and the
widening of Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent River in New Bern, Federal
Aid No, BR-000S(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, T.I.P. B-2531, AID No. 199401568.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the NC Division of Coastal Management's
(DCM's) comments on a letter from the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) dated
November 17, 2000 about the above referenced project, B-2531. I have also attached a letter
from Kelly Williams, DCM Wetland Restoradon Specialist, with comments' on the mitigation
proposed for wetland impacts incurred by B-2531(Neuse River Bridge) and R-2301 (New Bern
Bypass).
As you will quickly note from the information provided in this letter and in Ms. Williams'
attached letter, the issues surrounding the permit conditions, project commitments and the
proposed mitigation for T.I.P. No.'13-2531 and T.T.P. No. R-2301 are extraordinarily complex.
For this reason, I strongly suggest that DOT convene a meeting with relevant state and federal
agencies to review the project status. Participants in such a meeting should include at a
minimum N.C. Department of Transportation staff working on B-2531 and R-2301, N.C.
Division of Coastal Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Water Quality, N.C, Wildlife
Resources Commission and N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
If DOT agrees that such a meeting is warranted, I recommend that it be scheduled as soon as
possible. This suggested meeting is not intended to delay final approval of the sawmill and
Croatan wetland mitigation plans. Rather, it is DCM's hope that the suggested meeting would
expedite approval of the Sawmill and Croatan wetland mitigation plans to facilitate DOT's
ability to meet its project commitments relative to T.I.P. No. B-2531 and T.I.P. No. R-2301.
In the November 17Lh letter, DOT requested a modification of existing permits (CAMA Major
Development Permit, Section 404 permit, and Section 401 Water Quality permit), and an
extension of the permit expiration date. CAMA Permit No. 81-95 for T.I.P. No. B-2531 does not
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Intemet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN MIIAI nAP(1A7TINITYI ? Dr?a'rn!a ?r-rinu?unauto cnat oPrvf`l vn ,M r.nmr.nn ....................
h1AY. -15' 03 (THU) 13:57 DEHNR COSTAL UNIT TEL:[phone] P. 017
. r.
contain any conditions that contain the specific requirements that DOT is requesting for
modification in the November 17th letter. Please clarify specifically which conditions within
LAMA Permit No, 81-95 DOT would like to modify. A permit modification request for CAMA
Permit No. 81-95 will require an additional fee of $100.
The renewal of CAMA Permit No. 81-95 was requested by DOT to accommodate a change in
the schedule far completion of the Croatan and Sawmill wetland mitigation sites, which are
being constructed to provide mitigation for B-2531 and R-2301, In the November 17`h letter,
DOT requested a four-year permit renewal. Please note that DCM does not have the authority to
grant a four year permit renewal as requested in DOT's November 17'h letter. The rules of the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) allow DCM to grant as many two year permit extensions
as necessary to complete the initial development for permitted projects where substantial
development has begun and is continuing. Construction of mitigation sites, and monitoring of
those sites to meet conditions of a CAMA permit, are valid reasons for permit renewal,
Therefore, DCM does not anticipate a problem granting a two-year permit renewal this year, and
another two-year permit renewal in late 2002. However, the November 17`h letter did not include
a fee in the amount of $100 as required to process the requested permit renewal. As soon as
DCM receives a check in the amount of $100, a two-year permit renewal for CAMA Permit No.
81-95 will be issued.
In addition to the information provided above in response to DOT's November 171x' letter, DCM
would appreciate a summary of DOT's success in meeting conditions #16, ##17 and #19 of
CAMA Permit No. 81-95.
16) During the construction phases of this project, the DOT will monitor and record all
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat that occurs as a result of the
permitted activity.
17) Prior to the expiration date of this permit, the DOT will develop and implement an
approved mitigation plan to compensate for SAV losses associated with this project, The
plan will be coordinated with and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
19) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access, regardless of the access
alternative chosen, shall be monitored to insure that natural revegetation is occurring, If a
site is not revegetating within one year following removal of the construction access,
NCDOT shall undertake remedial action. Monitoring and restoration of wetlands
impacted by temporary construction access shall be addressed by NC DOT in their
comprehensive mitigation plan.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact either myself or Cathy Brittingham at (919)
733-2293. 1 look forward to working with you and your staff to resolve these issues.
MAY. -IT 03 (THU) 13:57 DEHNR COSTAL UNIT TEL:[phone]
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Charles Jones
Craig Deal, DENR
David Franklin, USACOE
Mike Bell, USACOE
Bill Arrington, DCM
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, DWQ
Alice Gordon, DOT
Ed Lewis, DOT
Tom McCartney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Street, DMF
Ted Tyndall, DCM
Kelly Williams, DCM
P. 018
MAY, -Y5' 03 (THU) 13:58 DEHNR COSTAL RMT TEL:[phone] P. 019
-' North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources p 4
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easlay, Garernor /=DEN? nR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
February 9, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Sawmill Site Final Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I have reviewed the Sawmill Mitigation Site final wetland mitigation plan dated January
2001. To mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands incurred during the construction
of the Neuse River Bridge (B-2531) in 1995 the plan proposes preservation, creation,
and restoration of forested and coastal wetlands at the 4-acre Sawmill site in Now porn.
I have the following comments on the final plan:
1, The community type restoration and creation that NCDOT has proposed to perform at
this site is acceptable as mitigation for some of the impacts incurred from the Neuse
River bridge construction. These impacts were most recently described in your
November 17, 2000 letter. The impacts to be mitigated at the Sawmill site were to
"naturalized ditches" and "naturalized scrub-shrub wetlands." The Sawmill site is
mapped as salt/brackish marsh restoration on DCM's wetland restoration type GIS data.
Incorporating additional marsh creation as well as tidal cypress gum swamp creation will
Increase the diversity of wetland habitats at the site. I am pleased that the site is located
in close proximity to the project and that upland areas will be preserved to protect and
buffer the wetland areas.
2. A planting plan with a specific list of species to be planted In the tidal cypress-gum
swamp creation area must be included in the mitigation plan prior to its approval.
3. The hydrologic success criteria for the swamp and the marsh areas are acceptable
though they are not ideal. I would expect the site to exhibit hydrologic characteristics
specific to the community types being restored and created. Such characteristics would
include a certain flooding frequency, duration, tidal influence and depth of flooding. In
the future, reference hydrology data should be used to determine hydrologic success
criteria when available. The data gathered at reference sites for this project will be
valuable although it does not appear you will use them as success criteria.
4. After five years, monitoring may cease only if success criteria have been met (as
evidenced in annual reports and permitting and review agencies agree in writing that
the elte is demonstrating success. This must be added to the plan for it to be approved.
5. It Is stated In section TO, titled: "Permits", on page 27 that this proposal involves the
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: http:1/dcm2.cnr.state.nc.us
AN M11A1. nPPnRT11NrrY % AFFMMATNE AM0N FMP14YFR..50% RMYCLED! I0T- Pn.W r M.g11MFR PApRR
11AY. -15' 03 (THU) 13:58 OEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 020

conversion of existing wetlands to other wetland types. Your request for a permit
modification in the November 17, 2000 letter does not specify how many acres of
wetlands will bo converted (i.e. impacted) at this site. Although mitigation will not be
required for these impacts to existing wetlands that acreage of impact must be
subtracted from the total mitigation acreage available at the site. In other words,
NCDOT will not be given restoration or creation credit for converting one wetland type to
another wetland type even though it may be necessary for an acceptable mitigation plan
at this site. NCDOT should clarify whether or not they will Impact wetlands at the
Sawmill site, indicate what that acreage is, and subtract it from the total mitigation
avallable at the site.
6. It appears the work done at the Sawmill site, if successful, will meet the required
mitigation acreage needed at this site. The November 17, 2000 letter allocates 2.47
acres of w©tland mitigation to this site. In the final plan 2.73 acres of creation, .20 acres
of restoration, and .25 acres of preservation are proposed for this site. If the Sawmill
mitigation project itself will impact any existing wetlands, NCDOT may fall short of the
mitigation allocated to this site for B-2531 as outlined in the November 17, 2000 letter. li
that is the case, a larger debittallocation from Longyel may be required.
I feel it is inappropriate for names of individuals to be written into mitigation plans. Your
plan references a discussion that took place at a meeting unrelated to this project in
August 2000. The references to a 'verbal agreement" that took place at this meeting are
not entirely accurate nor are they relevant to the morits of this mitigation plan. Please
remove references to that meeting from this mitigation plan.
I remain very concerned that NCDOT will not meet the B-2531 permit condition 420
which states that "The DOT shall complete construction of the mitigation sito for B-2531
and conduct monitoring in accordance with the approved comprehensive mitigation plan
required in condition 1 a until success is demonstrated, either prior to beginning
construction on any segment of the Now Bern Bypass projoct (or any other project that
satisfies the same purpose and need) or within one year of the expiration of this permit,
whichever comes first." I read this to mean that NCDOT must demonstrate success (i.e.
must moot success criteria) on the B-2531 mitigation sites prior to beginning
construction on the New Bern Bypass. It appears NCDOT will not demonstrate success
on the Sawmill site any earlier than 2004. Site monitoring will continue until 2006 if all
goes according to their proposed schedule. If May 2003 is the expected lot data for the
New Bem Bypass project, it appears the B-2531 permit condition #20 will not be mot.
Furthermore, as of the date of this letter I have not received an MBI for the Croatan sank
site. A site plan has yet to be approved for the restoration and enhancement activities at
the bank site. Portions of the bank situ will be used for B-2531 forested wetlands
mitigation and will also have to demonstrate success prior to construction of the New
Bern Bypass. I fear NCDOT staff may believe that the signing of the MBI will satisfy the
permit condition quoted above, but again, the permit states success must be
demonstrated at the Croatan site in order meet permit condition requirements. In the
November 17, 2000 letter, it is stated that monitoring on the bank site will begin in 2003.
It doesn't seem possible that the mitigation activities performed at the Croatan sito will
demonstrate success by May 2003, the expected let date for the Now Bem Bypass
project.
If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know. i think another
discussion on the expectations and requirements for B-2531 mitigation success and its
MAY. -15' 03 (THU) 13: 58 OEHNR COSTAL RN1T TEL: [phone] P.021

relevance to the New Bern Bypass project is necessary. I believe Cathy Brlttingham will
request time at an upcoming agency meeting to discuss the matter again.
Sincerely,
AdiqlWi"
Kelly Williams, P.W.S.
Wetland Restoration Specialist
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 1, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC, 27889-1000
Subject: The New Bern Bypass
T.I.P. No. R-2301; Minimization Concurrence
Dear Mr. Bell,
NCDENR
This letter is in reference to the Minimization Concurrence for the aforementioned project. The project is
being planned in accordance with the 404/NEPA Merger agreement. Based upon the information provided,
we concur with the minimization plans presented by the NCDOT. Please be advised that impacts to Neuse
Buffers (which have not historically been at issue in the NEPA/404 process) will need to be addressed prior
to completion of the Final EIS.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or
John [e-mail].
incere y,
John E. Hennessy
cc: John Dorney, NCDWQ
Debra Sawyer, NCDWQ
Bill Gilmore, P.E., NCDOT
CAncdot\TIP R-2301\R-2301 minimization concun•ence.doc

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%a recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
March 31, 1999
MEMORANDUM
low
'M A
NCDENR
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn y
From: John Henness h? G yn_
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for US311 from High Point East Belt to US 220,
Randolph County
Project # 8.157150 1, TIP # R-2606
DENR # 97-0685
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the
state including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment will
require the discharge of fill material into approximately 2.13 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.81 acres
of surface waters. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned
document:
A) The NCDOT has sufficiently demonstrated avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts.
Based on the impacts described in the EA, wetland mitigation will be required in accordance with
NCDWQ Wetland Rules { I5A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
B) While the EA presents and excellent discussion on the methods used to quantify, qualify, and avoid
wetlands, it does not itemize or elaborate on the nature and extent of impacts to streams.
Consequently, the NCDWQ is unable to comment of the nature and extent of mitigation or
permitting that may be required for impacts to these systems. In accordance with the NCDWQ
Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater
than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. The mitigation plan should be designed and
implemented to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ
Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
WIN McGee Memo
03/31/99
Page 2
C) The NCDWQ concurs with the commitment to place sediment and erosion control measures out of
jurisdictional wetlands. The commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract.
D) The NCDWQ concurs with the commitment to use borrow/waste areas in upland locations.
E) Due to the lack of information regarding the nature and extent of impacts to streams, it is not
possible to determine whether an individual or General Water Quality Certification may be
applicable to the project. 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 and inclusion of appropriate mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Ron Linville, NCDWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
CAncdot\TIP R-2606\ R-2606 FONSI Comments.doc
Department of Enviroriment nd
Office of ,a Natural Resources
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
°roi? verrb?r
Cauncy,
0
(Ji0 1 -e?> evl : 97-C-p&g
L -0el7`f
iris prajec; is g r -,viewed
as indicat-- ..,. below;
I -:icnsl Ofres I Re3tansl Otlica
G Ache idle
C Faye--Ville
j?Warrr
e MccresvIll
XGroundwater
T-Zrd Quality Engineer
'= W'zSHL,on c Recrectiana! Cansultsnt
c WI •„gton
VW inston-SalerZ
Mzralgy-SiP.Q if Cs:oc2:
R--Con=e (check- all applicable)
C No abjection to proje•-t as proposed
a No Coca^eZc
C L^st:d'tc;eZC int?r:?stiOn to cerzp(ete review
C 0L r (srcisl cr attach car,.rr„ts)
Du: 2cc:i ved
?/aa/9q
A Water Quality

Du.: ??a:a Dus ($.? deadline):
4// 3 l g4
C Soil do Water G Lfarize Fisheries
o Ccasczl Manage.=,:,,t
?Wildlif
e Water Resaurc-;
AE vi;c==trll erlth
C Forest Resources
e Solid Waste tif; :z
`= Land Resources
c R diatien Protection
o ParU F? ReCreation c Orher
ate-\N
C' Groundwater
G Air Quality
Dam.

RF•TUR,`! t•O:
Melba NICGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of )??i?lative 3c Intergovernmental Affairs

US 311
1 FROM HIGH POINT EAST BELT TO US 220
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. NHF-311(3)
' STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1571501
T.I.P. NO. R-2606

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

' U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
1
i

' L=1?-9Q
DATE _I .
9
William
ore, P.E., M ager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
' NCDOT
Z Z
o
ATE
t icho Graf, E.
-X
??ivi n Administrator
' FHWA

Ci

US 311
FROM HIGH POINT EAST BELT TO US 220
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. NHF-311(3)
' STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1571501
T.I.P. NO. R-2606
t
1
1
1
1
t

1
J
1
I
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
DAZE I William D. Gilmore. P.E.. M alter
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
7i &7/,PP 4 ow
ATE icho .Graf, E.
ivi n Administrator
FHWA
I
1

D
'i 1
1
1
1
t

1
1
[l

L

US 311
FROM HIGH POINT EAST BELT TO US 220
RANDOLPH COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. NHF-311(3)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1571501
T.I.P. NO. R-2606
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates. P.C
aQ tip.
SE A!
L.J. ard. P.E. 466
Y
Project Manager •., •.;:/y??NE???e •w
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
64.A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., it Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
r
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Project Coordinator
1

1
1

[1.

1

1
I
US 311
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY
THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to construct a freeway facility on new alignment from the US 311 High
Point East Belt to US 220 in Randolph County. The project limits extend from just south
of Tuttle Road (SR 1920) to US 220 north of Pineville Road (SR 1712). The project length
is approximately 14.5 kilometers (9.0 miles). The recommended improvement is a four-lane
divided freeway with a 21-meter (70-foot) wide grassed median. The facility will be
controlled access with interchanges at Cedar Squire Road (SR 1928), existing US 311 and
US 220. The total estimated cost of the project including right of way and construction is
$80,350,000. The estimated cost for the project presented in the Draft 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program (T.1.P.) is $106,756,000.
2. Selected Alternative The corridor recommended is Corridor C as presented in the
Environmental Assessment and shown in Exhibit F-1.
1
11
1
fl
1
t

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts The proposed project will improve travel in the US 311
corridor by reducing travel time, allowing through traffic to avoid congestion on existing US
311, and reducing accident potential. The project will be part of future Interstate 74
connecting Detroit. Michigan with Charleston, South Carolina. There will be 71 residences
and four businesses relocated by the proposed action. No properties protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C.138 including
recreation sites, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or sites listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places will be impacted.
Wetland areas within the preferred corridor were delineated and mapped. Impacts to
wetlands were estimated based on the preliminary design. Fifty-one (51) sites were
delineated containing approximately 9.6 hectares (23.7 acres) of vegetated wetlands and
approximately 7.7 hectares (19.07 acres) of surface water area. The project is expected to
impact only 0.85 hectare (2.13 acres) of wetlands and 0.73 hectare (1.81 acres) of surface
waters.
ii
t
Forty-four receptors are predicted to experience noise levels which approach or exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria. One location was identified as being reasonable and
feasible for barrier construction based on preliminary noise studies. The location is east of
Nelson Park Road (SR 1945). A 600 meter (1968 feet) barrier, 5.5 to 5.8 meters (18 feet to
19 feet) in height would yield an average noise level reduction of 6.2 dbA for 19 receivers
at a per receiver cost of $24,475. A final noise study will be prepared during the final design
of the project.
No threatened or endangered species will be impacted.
4. Summary of Environmental Commitments The commitments recommended for the
proposed action are itemized in Table 1:
TABLE I
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
I Borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the construction of this
proj ect.
2 NCDOT will make every effort during the erosion control design phase for this
project to avoid placing erosion control devices on wetlands.
3 NCDOT will use Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B
.0024), and High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures at all stream crossings
currently or potentially designated as Water Supplies, and where the project is
located in any Watershed Critical Area.
4 Hazardous Spill Basins will be provided at crossings of Muddy Creek, Back
Creek, and their associated tributaries in accordance with NCDOT's Guidance for
the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins.
5. A comprehensive wetland and stream mitigation plan will be provided in the
application for the 401 Water Quality Certification and the 404 permit.
Coordination Several federal, state, and local agencies were provided copies of the
Environmental Assessment to solicit their comments. Comments were received from the
following agencies:
US Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
NC Department of Administration
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
iii

1

t

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
6. Actions Required by Other Agencies Several environmental regulatory permits will be
required from state and federal agencies as a result of the proposed action. NCDOT will
obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. Permits which may be required as part
of this project include the following:
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Section 401 Certification (Water Quality)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Storm Water Certification
NC Division of Forest Resources
Burning Permit
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 (Dredging or filling in US waters or wetlands)
7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additional information concerning the project and the
Finding of No Significant Impact can be obtained by contacting either of the following:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
' Mr. William D. Gilmore. P.E.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]

IV
t
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION
IL DESCRIPTION OF TI IE PROJECT
III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
IV. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
V. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPI.;CIES
VI. WE"I'LAND FINDING
VII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE AL'I'ERNATIVE FINDING
X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
APPENDIX
v
PAGE
2
4
6
9
9
18
19

1
1

11

t

US 311
From High Point East Belt to US220
Randolph County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-311(3)
State Project No. 8.1571501
T.I.P. No. R-2606
1. TYPE OF ACTIO
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Finding of No Significant Impact.
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the Environmental
Assessment for the subject project, which has been independently evaluated by tile FI-IWA
and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues for the
proposed project. Copies of the Environmental Assessment are on file with the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FIIWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation. Division of' Ilighways, proposes to
construct a four-lane divided freeway on new alignment in Randolph County. The project
limits extend from the proposed High Point East Belt (Pr(ject R-609) just south of Tuttle
Road (SR 1920) to US 220 north of Asheboro. The project length is approximately 14.5
kilometers (9.0 miles).
US 311 is classified as a Principal Arterial in the Statewide Classification System.
' The recommended improvement is a four-lane divided freeway with a 21-meter (70-116ot)
wide grassed median. The facility will be controlled access with interchanges at Cedar
i Squire Road (SR 1928), existing US 311, and US 220.
The total estimated cost of the project including right of' way and construction is
i $80,350,000. The estimated cost for the project presented in the Draft 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) is $ 106,756,000.
i

III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
During the planning process for this project, Congress passed legislation that designated US 311 as
part of future I-74, and US 220 as part of future I-73. The proposed I-74 will connect Detroit,
Michigan with Charleston, South Carolina. The North Carolina section of I-74 will follow 1-77 from
Virginia to US 52, US 52 to US 311, continue along US 311 to US 220, follow US 220 to US 74 and
continue on US 74 to US 17 just north of the South Carolina line. The Interstate designation of these
two routes was an important factor in determining the preferred location for the project.
After careful review of the data presented in the Environmental Assessment, and of comments
received from the public and review agencies, and from comments presented at the public hearing,
Corridor C was chosen as the best location for the future Interstate route.
Corridor C was chosen because it includes a much simpler, safer, and less expensive design for the
future interchange of I-73 (US 220) and I-74 (US 31 1). It provides the greatest separation between
local traffic and interstate traffic and is the most direct movement for I-74 through traffic, reducing
vehicle miles traveled, travel time, and the associated costs for the Interstate travelers. Travel
distance for Corridor C is 14.5 kilometers (9.0 miles) compared to 16.7 kilometers (10.4 miles) for
Corridor AA and 17.4 kilometers (10.8 miles) for Corridor A.
Although Corridor AA was preferred by the majority of speakers at the public hearing, it requires
a complex, costly and confusing interchange design at US 220 (1-73) to allow for local access to
Randleman and Interstate to Interstate traffic movements. This results in cumbersome traffic
operations and a complex interchange.
Corridor C minimizes impacts to the critical area of the water supply watershed for the proposed
Randleman Lake. It also is consistent with NCDOT and the North Carolina Department of'
Environment and Natural Resources adopted policies requiring avoidance of the construction of
new roadways in water supply watersheds if practical alternatives exist.
Corridor C is the least expensive of the three alternatives considered, costing $6 million less than
Corridor AA and $11 million less than Corridor A.
Corridor C was preferred by the environmental review agencies and was the consensus corridor
recommended by the project team. The letter of concurrence from the US Army Corps of
Engineers is in the Appendix.
2

t

F?l

IV. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A staged archaeological investigation was conducted for the US 311 project from the proposed High
Point East Belt to US 220. The first stage was a background study and field reconnaissance of the
reasonable and feasible alternatives (Novick 1997). The second stage was an archaeological survey
of the preferred alignment conducted by Wake Forest University (Woodall 1998).
The background work provided a framework and general understanding of the types of
archaeological resources previously reported within and near the study area. Maps, historical
documents, and information about local history in the State Archives, Duke University's Special
Collections, the Southern Historical Collection, the University of North Carolina's North Carolina
Collection, and the Randolph County Public Library were consulted.
Based upon previous archaeological work in Randolph County and results of this background study,
it appeared the most likely places to discover archaeological sites retaining integrity was to
concentrate the archaeological survey on high probability soil areas in the area of potential effect
(APE). Such high probability areas include soils that are not eroded, soils with high productivity
' rating, and soils that have high ratings for wildlife. Other areas were surveyed to corroborate this
proposal.
The NCDOT coordinated with the North Carolina State Ilistoric Preservation Office's (SHPO)
review archaeologists for the region to develop a scope of work for the terrestrial survey and site
assessments for the survey of the preferred alignment's API: of 212 hectares (525 acres). The
archaeological survey of the preferred corridor consisted of pedestrian survey supplemented by
shovel tests excavated in areas of heavy ground cover. The field work for this project was conducted
in October, November, and December 1998. The survey resulted in the discovery of 75
archaeological sites. These include 60 aboriginal sites, 10 historic sites, and 5 multiple components
sites. Of the 75 sites discovered, 1 (31Rd1250) is assessed as eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP).
A data recovery plan for eligible site 31 Rd 1250 is the appropriate form of mitigation. This plan was
' submitted to the NCSHPO and may be reviewed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
in compliance with 36CFR800. No archaeological sites eligible for the National Register requiring
preservation in place were discovered.
t

t
V. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schiveinit-: ii)
as occurring in Randolph County. (USFWS list dated January 15, 1999). Schweinitz's sunflower
is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 2 meters (6 ft.) in
height. The stem may be purple, is usually pubescent, but is sometimes nearly smooth. I.,eaves are
sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above, in shape they are lanceolate and average 5
to 10 times as long as wide. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late August to frost; the yellow
flower heads are about 1.5 centimeters (.6 inches) in diameter. The current range is within 100
kilometers (60 miles) of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats of gentle
slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. The species needs open areas protected from shade
of excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies that were once blackjack-post oak
(Ouercus marilandica, Q. stellata) savannas and woodlands. Disturbances such as fire maintenance
or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat.
Biologists for Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) conducted field surveys of the preferred corridor
on September 25-26, 1997 to determine the potential habitat and evidence of the Schweinitz's
sunflower. Prior to the initiation of' field efforts. ESI biologists reviewed available aerial
photography and wetland mapping of the preferred corridor for US 311. A number of areas were
initially identified for further investigation as potential habitat for the sunflower.
All areas initially thought to contain potential habitat were visited to ground-truth available mapping.
Areas not meeting the habitat criteria were discounted as potential habitat and were not surveyed.
In areas where potentially suitable habitat was identified, ESI biologists conducted systematic
surveys. When necessary, transects were walked, spaced at a maximum of 10 meters (33ft.) apart.
Spacing of transects provided complete visual coverage of herbaceous vegetation present within the
habitat surveyed.
Ground-truthing revealed a number of sites of' potential or marginal habitat. No evidence of
Schweinitz's sunflower was encountered in any of' the areas providing potentially suitable or
marginal habitat. The results of the survey concluded the US 311 project would not impact the
Schweinitz's sunflower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The USFWS also lists (January 15, 1999) the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekestuchlas) as occurring
in Randolph County. The Cape Fear shiner is a small (5 centimeters [2 inches]), moderately stocky
minnow. It is pale silvery yellow with a black band along the sides and the moderate-sized eyes are
located on the sides of the head (USFWS 1988). This species is distinguished from all other
Notropis by having a coiled alimentary tract that is visible through the wall of the belly (Rohde e1
al. 1994). Food items probably include bottom detritus, diatoms, and periphytes. Habitat of the
Cape Fear shiner is generally slow pools, riffles, and runs over gravel, cobble, and boulders. I,ittlc
is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life history. Present distribution (November 1988) includes
portions of Randolph, Chatham, Lee, Moore, and Harnett Counties (FWS 1988). As of 10 December
4

1
1993, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has designated Critical Habitat for this species in
1 the Deep River, from its confluence with the Haw River (on the Chatham/Lee County line) to the
NC Route 42 bridge (also on the Chatham/Lee County line).
' Information concerning the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistochlas), as included in the EA, was
derived from 1988 survey data. Since that time, a biological assessment associated with the
proposed Randleman Lake (Biological Assessment for Randleman Luke: Randolph and Guilford
Counties, North Carolina, Curter and Heiman 1993) was conducted which included a survey for the
shiner in the US 311 project area. Field work, including fish collections, was conducted during 1992
and 1993. These surveys found no evidence of the Cape Fear shiner in the US 31 l or Randleman
Lake project areas, and resulted in a finding of no impact concerning this species.
1 The closest documented occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner to the US 31 1 project area has been
documented by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission in the Deep River near the community of
Coleridge in southeastern Randolph County. Coleridge is approximately 32.2 kilometers (20 miles)
below the location of the proposed Randleman Lake dam on Deep River and approximately 37 to
38.6 kilometers (23 to 24 miles) below the US 31 1 facility crossings of Muddy Creek and tributaries
to Muddy Creek (Mudd), Creek is a tributary to Deep River).
The Randleman Lake dam is planned to be constructed downstream of the proposed US 311 project
and upstream of the known occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner, thus providing an impenetrable
barrier between the known population and areas directly and indirectly impacted by the US 311
project.
The Cape Fear shiner typically occurs in moderate-sized streams characterized by slow to moderate
current. with intermittent pools and riffles, and substrate consisting of gravel, cobble, and boulders.
' The only stream impacted by the US 311 project that matches these criteria is Back Creek, which
is a tributary to the Yadkin/Pee Dee Basin and therefore not a candidate for supporting the Cape Fear
shiner. Therefore, the US 311 protect would not effect the Cape Fear shiner.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A letter of concurrence from the USFWS was issued stating that they concur with the determination
that the proposed action is not likely to impact either the Schweinitz's sunflower or the Cape Fear
' shiner. Therefore the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of' 1973 have been
satisfied. A copy of this letter, dated April 7, 1998, is included in the Appendix.

5

VI. WETLAND FINDING
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, wetlands were given special consideration in developing
and evaluating alternatives for the proposed action. Based upon the above-stated consideration, it
is determined there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed new construction in wetlands and
that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands which
may result from such use.
Wetlands within the preferred corridor limits were field delineated by Environmental Services. Inc.
biologists during a series of field visits beginning in December 1997 and ending in February 1998.
The entire corridor was traversed and all potential wetland areas were investigated. Wetlands were
identified according to the criteria and methods contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACOE, 1987), supplemented by guidance provided by USACOE
representative Eric Alsmeyer. Other information used includes the National List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands, 1988 National Summary (Reed, 1988), the Hydric Soils of the United Statcs
(USDA SCS,1991). the preliminary Soil Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina (unpublished).
Jurisdictional surface waters of the United States (e.g., perennial streams, intermittent streams
drainageways, ponds and lakes, etc.) were also delineated.
Once an area was determined to have all three wetland indicators (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology), it was considered a tJSACOE jurisdictional wetland and its
boundaries were identified and flagged. Wetland identification was conducted by walking the
perimeter of each wetland, observing vegetation and indicators of wetland hydrology, and checking
soils. Representative selections of the delineated/flagged wetlands were reviewed in the field by
LJSACOI representative Eric Alsmeyer on January 15, 1998 and February 5, 1998. All
jurisdictional wetlands were found to be acceptable and ready to be surveyed.
The delineated wetlands were surveyed by NCDOT contractors using Global Positioning System
technology in July 1998. Wetlands were incorporated in the corridor topographic mapping by
NCDOT. The streams were not surveyed by NCDOT since they were already located on the
topographic mapping. Of the 51 wetland sites delineated/flagged in the corridor, 10 sites were not
surveyed and included in the topographic mapping. The approximate areas of these sites have been
added to the wetland impact figures (See Appendix) by using aerial photography and are identified
by the prefix M. Only three of these wetland areas are located within the construction limits of the
project.
Wetland functions are the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a wetland, while
wetland values are those characteristics that are deemed beneficial to society. The fourth version
of the Guidance for Ratim, The Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (1995) was used to perform
6

1
an assessment of the delineated/flagged vegetative wetlands within the preferred corridor. The
' resulting Wetland Score may range from 0 to 100 and indicates a wetland's water quality protection
value to society. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) uses the Wetland Score to
help rank a wetland as being Low. Moderate, or High for protecting water quality. A wetland is
ranked Low if its Wetland Score is less than 30, Moderate if its Wetland Score is 30-60 and High
if the score is greater than 60.
' Functional assessments were performed on eleven wetlands throughout the corridor which were
considered to be characteristic of the forested wetlands. The scores and rankings are located in 'fable
5 in the Appendix.
The general functional analysis results indicate the wetland systems within the preferred corridor are
I small with NCDWQ scores ranging from 16 to 60 indicating they are low to moderate in quality.
The preliminary alignment for US 311 impacts 15 wetland areas totaling approximately 0.85 hectare
(2.13 acres). Of these, 4 will be completely impacted while the remaining 1 I will only be partially
impacted. The largest wetland impacted consists of 0.14 hectare (0.33 acre) with the remaining
wetland impacts ranging from 0.01 hectare to 0.13 hectare (0.02 acre to 032 acre).

The results of these analyses were presented at the September 24, 1998 Permit Review Agency
Meeting for the Northern Section of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOF). As a result of
this meeting, the preliminary design was revised to further reduce stream impacts and minimize
wetland impacts (see Section VIII.,C., Agency Review Meeting). The alignment near the crossing
of Muddy Creek was shifted slightly to the west to avoid impacting wetland sites 1 and 3 and to
minimize impacts to the creek. This revision also reduced the number of'relocations required from
the adjacent mobile home park (a reduction of 7) and provided an improved crossing of SR 1919
(Poole Rd.). The proposed grade and fill slopes on Ramp CA at the US 220 interchange were
revised which reduced the length of' streams impacted by 334 meters (1096 feet) and avoided
impacting wetland site M5.
Impacts to the waters of the United States, including wetlands, are subject to regulation by USACOL
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Permits issued by the
USACOE for the placement of fill in Wetlands are often conditioned with mitigation requirements.
in accordance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In addition, the USACOE and EPA support the
wetland mitigation policy of "no net loss of wetlands The objective of this policy is to restore and
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the "Waters of the United States"
regulated by the USACOE. The 404(b)(1) guidelines defines the mitigation of impacts to wetlands
and surface waters as avoidance, minimization, and compensation. The North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality also has authority
under the Water Quality Certification program (15A NCAC 2H.0500) to require restoration at a
minimum of 1:1 to the impacts. Under the Division of Water Quality's Wetland Rules, effective
October 1, 1996, impacts over 0.40 hectares (1.0 acre) and within 45.7 meters (150 feet) from a body
7

of water require mitigation even though none may be required under the USACOE Nationwide
Permit program. Also stream mitigation may be required under Division of Water Quality's
Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)] where stream impacts exceed 45.7 meters (150 feet).
When compensatory mitigation is required by the project, the NCDOT will make every effort to
achieve "in kind" mitigation in order to fulfill the Federal Highway's "step down" policy. In this
policy wetland compensation will be prioritized in the following order, 1) In-kind, on-site
replacement, 2) In-kind off-site replacement, 3) Out-of=kind on-site replacement, 4) Out-of-kind off-
site replacement, and 5) Preservation of existing wetland sites. In-kind or out-of-kind refers to the
replacement of habitat, plant community, or wetland functions impacted by the proposed highway
project. On-site can mean within the highway right-of-way, or within some defined radius of the
project centerline, usually less than 8.0 kilometers (5 miles). Off-site is usually outside of that
defined radius but within a defined service area, such as the same river basin and physiographic
region as the impacts.
Avoidance and minimization was emphasized during the preliminary design phase and very little
wetland loss will occur. Compensatory mitigation will be provided for all unavoidable wetland and
stream impacts. Few on-site opportunities are available, however restoration opportunities in or near
the study area may be available. Mitigation opportunities include removal of old fill material from
study area wetlands, enhancement of drainages downstream of developed areas, and preservation of
reparian fringe forests through conservation easements. Another option is to combine US 31 1
mitigation with development of the proposed Randleman Reservoir. Mitigation possibilities include
increasing lacustrine wetland area by removal of topsoil from areas projected to become low islands
or peninsulas; increasing fringe palustrine wetland area through mechanical manipulation of
reservoir shoreline to create marsh or bottomland hardwood forest systems; and increasing riverine
wetland values through enhancement of tributaries to the proposed reservoir.
The USACOE has concurred on Avoidance and Minimization efforts. The concurrence letter is in
the Appendix.
A mitigation plan will be developed during the permitting stage of the project's development
Permits which may be required as part of this project include the following:
NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water
Certification
NC Division of Forest Resources
Burning Permit
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 (Dredging or filling in US waters or wetlands)

VII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING

11

1
Randolph County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Floodways have been delineated by FEMA for all
waterways of flood significance within the county. The proposed alignment of US 311 crosses the
100-year floodplain of Muddy Creek north of SR 1919 (Poole Rd.). There is no practical alternative
to crossing the floodplain since the proposed project must tie into the proposed High Point East Belt
just north of Muddy Creek. The proposed alignment bridges Muddy Creek at 90-degrees and
impacts to the stream and floodplain will be minor. No channel change to Muddy Creek will be
required. The proposed project will not result in a significant encroachment on the floodway or the
floodplain for the creek.
All bridges and culverts on the project will be designed and constructed in accordance with Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and FEMA floodway impact requirements. The project will not
increase the extent or level of flood hazard risk. NCDOT will coordinate with the community and
FEMA during the design phase of the project. The increase in impervious area created by the new
facility is not anticipated to have any adverse effect on adjacent properties nor increase the previous
flood levels of waterways along this project. Detailed flood studies will be completed during final
design for all new structures located in the FEMA mapped areas.
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
' A. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Em-ironmental Assessment was circulated for review and comments to the agencies
listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies that responded with written comments.
Substantive comments are discussed in the following section and copies of the agency
comments are included in the Appendix of this document.
1
Chairman of Randolph County Commissioners
Mayor of Randleman
Mayor of Archdale
Mayor of High Point
' Mayor of Asheboro
Piedmont Triad Water Authority

*US Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
*US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*NC Department of Administration
*NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
9

*Division of Environmental Management
*Division of Forest Resources
B
2
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Federal Agencies
US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Comment:
"Based on the information in the environmental assessment, Alternatives A and AA would
impact the least acreage of wetlands and would have the least number of stream crossings.
However, Alternative C has only slightly more wetland impacts and would minimize impacts
within the Watershed Critical Area for the Randleman Reservoir. Therefore, we concur that
Alternative C would be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative based on
the information we know at this time and the total environmental impacts from the project."
Response:
None required.
US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
"The EA notes (p. 55) that fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat are unavoidable
consequences of highway development on new location, and that such projects will result in
increased road kills of transient species. The Service concurs with this assessment. In order
to minimize these adverse impacts we recommend that the proposed project contain design
features to facilitate the passage of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Design
provisions for animal passage should not be limited to waterway culverts and bridges.
Exhibit 14 indicates that all build alternatives would parallel, to some extent, the expanded
wetland corridor along Muddy Creek after the creation of the Randleman Reservoir. Such
wetlands would provide valuable wildlife habitat and the proposed freeway should not block
access to these areas for wildlife in the area."
Response:
NCDOT recognizes the need for such passage structures to prevent new highways from
acting as barriers against animal movements between required habitats. NCDOT has been
supporting regional/national seminars during the last couple of years studying solutions to
the barrier problem. More recently the Department has proposed a research project to
investigate this issue and develop guidelines. Lacking specific guidelines, the NCDOT
believes the provision of special animal passages is inappropriate for this project at this time.
10

F
' Comment:
"The EA discusses (p.62) the avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. In general
the Service supports the measures mentioned in the document such as the reduction of fill
' slopes, the reduction of canopy removal in and near floodplain systems, and reduced median
width through wetlands. However, any Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
project should provide specific design features which would actually be employed to
minimize wetland impacts."
Response:
Efforts to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts were made in the development
of the preferred alignment during the preliminary design of the project. The design was
further revised to reduce unavoidable impacts as discussed in Section VIII, C, Permit Agency
Review Meeting. The horizontal and vertical alignment of Ramp CA of the US 220
interchange was revised along with the inside fill slopes to reduce stream impacts by 334
' meters (1096 feet). The proposed alignment near the crossing of Muddy Creek was also
adjusted to avoid impacts to two wetland areas.
' Comment:
"The Service believes that the complete absence of a compensatory mitigation plan precludes
an adequate assessment of long-term impacts on wetlands. Since present options range from
restoration to preservation, the net impact of the project currently ranges from a possible
increase in wetlands (all restoration) to a permanent loss of 11-13 wetland acres (all
preservation). Potential compensatory wetlands presumably range from exact in-kind
' replacement to complete out-of-kind replacement. The Service would have serious
reservations on the adequacy of any FONSI which did not discuss the type of compensation
[creation, restoration, enhancement, and the kind of compensation (in-kind versus out-of-
kind)]. Therefore, the Service recommends that the NCDOT determine the long-term
impacts of the project on wetland functions and value prior to the issuance of a FONSI."
' Response:
The avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts during the preliminary design phase
resulted in the project impacting 0.85 hectare (2.13 acre) of wetlands. The wetland areas
vary in size from 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) to 0.13 hectare (0.32 acre). Specific wetland
impacts and mitigation planning will be addressed during the permitting stage of the project.
' Comment:
"The EA states (p. 65) that the nearest known population of the Cape Fear shiner is
approximately 30 miles downstream from the project site. The EA notes (p. 64) that
"present" distribution is based on data from 1988. Based on available data, the EA states (p.
65) that the project would have no effect on this species. However, if suitable habitat would
' be impacted by the project and no significant barriers exist between the known population
and the project area, a determination based on nine year old data would be questionable.
11

by NCDOT. Such support may not require field surveys, but should include:
1. A comparison of stream habitat to be impacted by the project with the habitat utilized
by the species;
2. A consideration of the habitat between the know population in Randolph County and
the project site with a discussion of possible barriers to the upstream movement of'
the species;
3. An indication that the 1988 distribution data are the most accurate accounts available
and that any field surveys in the 1990's, such as work associated with the proposed
Randleman Reservoir, have failed to find the species outside the known location."
Response:
Information concerning the Cape Fear shiner (Nolropis tnekistochlas), as included in the EA,
was derived from 1988 survey data. Since that time, a biological assessment associated with
the proposed Randleman Lake (Biological Assessment,for Randleman Lake: Randolph and
Guilford Counties, North Carolina, Ccrrler and Heiman 1993) has been conducted which
includes a survey for the shiner in the US 311 project area. Field work, including fish
collections, was conducted during 1992 and 1993. These surveys found no evidence of the
Cape Fear shiner in the US 311 or Randleman Lake project areas, and resulted in a finding
of no impact concerning this species.
The closest documented occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner to the US 31 1 project area has
been documented by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission in the Deep River near the
community of Coleridge in southeastern Randolph County. Coleridge is approximately 32.2
kilometers (20 miles) below the location of the proposed Randleman Lake dam on Deep
River and approximately 37 to 38.6 kilometers (23 to 24 miles) below the US 31 1 facility
crossings of Muddy Creek and tributaries to Muddy Creek (Muddy Creek is a tributary to
Deep River).
The Randleman Lake dam is planned to be constructed downstream of the proposed US 311
project and upstream of the known occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner, thus providing an
impenetrable barrier between the known population and areas directly and indirectly
impacted by the US 311 project.
The Cape Fear shiner typically occurs in moderate-sized streams characterized by slow to
moderate current, with intermittent pools and riffles, and substrate consisting of gravel,
cobble, and boulders. The only stream impacted by the US 311 project that matches these
criteria is Back Creek, which is a tributary to the Yadkin/Pee Dee Basin and therefore not
a candidate for supporting the Cape Fear shiner.
12

Comment:
"For the reasons stated above, the Service would not concur with a FONSI for this project.
Additional information is needed on the overall impacts to wetlands and the federally-
protected species in the project area."
Response:
See responses above concerning wetland impacts and federally protected species.
' 3. US Environmental Protection Agency
Comment:
"Although the EA states that the construction time is of a relatively short-term nature, an
estimate of the construction time would help document the magnitude of the impacts. In
addition. all construction equipment should be equipped with noise attenuation devices such
as mufflers and insulated engine housings."
Response:
The project will likely be constructed in sections and will require several years to complete.
' The NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.July 1995, (Sections 107-1
and 108-5), requires the contractor to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
laws, ordinances regarding the use of equipment. Also the NCDOT can require the removal
' of unacceptable equipment from the construction site.
Comment:
"We also add that if the project is implemented. and if archaeological finds are unearthed
during construction, the work at that site must stop until the SHPO approves its
continuation."
Response:
This is required by NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. July 1995.
(Section 225-3).
Comment:
"Environmental Justice (EJ) While an E.1 concern may not exist for this project. the EA
should provide census data for the State, county, and census block group (if available) for
' comparison against the proposed percentage of minority and low-income relocations."
Response:
This data is included in the discussion under Section IV.A.1. of the Environmental
Assessment.
Comment:
"Page 74 discusses dust control during construction. Periodic watering of temporary roads
13

and staging areas is recommended for controlling fugitive dust. We strongly discourage use
of oil solutions for dust control."
4
5
Response:
Dust control is required by NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures,
July, 1995, (Section 107-13E).
State and Local Agencies
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resourc
Comment:
"We could not find any provisions in the document to ensure that the ROW contractor will
attempt to salvage all wood products including chips. Salvage of all forest products should
be done, if at all possible."
Response:
NCDOT supports the salvage of wood products removed from the proposed right-ol=way;
however, the NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. July, 1995,
(Section 200-5) states that "all timber cut during the clearing operations is to become the
property of the Contractor, and shall be either removed fi-om the project or else shall be
satisfactorily disposed of as hereinafter provided."
Division of Water Quality
Comment:
"In order for DWQ to fully endorse NCDOT's specific project alignment, once an alternative
is selected, the FONSI should provide more detailed information with respect to the
following subjects:
Minimization of wetland and stream impacts - NCDOT is proposing construction of a four-
lane divided highway with a 70-foot median and full control of access. In the Wetland
Mitigation discussion (page 62), NCDOT states, "Reduction of fill slopes, canopy removal
in or near floodplain systems, and median widths at stream/wetland crossings will reduce
unnecessary wetland losses." NCDOT should provide details of these minimization
measures once a preferred alternative is selected. In particular, NCDOT should specify the
median widths through wetland areas. In correspondence dated October 26, 1995, DWQ
requested that NCDOT study a 46-foot median through wetland areas.
14
[-I
U

Response:
Avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts were emphasized in the development of the
preferred alignment and are discussed in Section VI, Wetland Finding. During the final
design and permit application process additional measures to reduce wetland impacts will
be investigated. The wetland sites impacted by the project are small in area and scattered
along the length of the project. The reduction of the median width from 21 meters (70 feet)
to 14 meters (46 feet) would result in only minor reductions in the overall total project
wetland impacts. Since the project is part of the Interstate Highway System, the wider
median is more desirable from a safety standpoint.
Comment:
"Quantification of stream impacts - NCDOT has provided a diagram showing all streams
within the study area, along with specific dimensions of each stream. When an alternative
is selected, NCDOT will be able to provide approximate linear distances of stream impacts.
If culverts and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet linear distance of stream charmel at any
stream crossing, stream mitigation may be required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules
{ 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6); . In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal
should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water Quality Certification."
Response:
The approximate linear distances of stream impacts are listed in fable 3 in the Appendix.
A comprehensive stream mitigation proposal will be provided in the application for 401
Water Quality Certification.
I

t

Comment:
"Wetland miti,ag lion - The EA includes a thorough list of potential wetland impact areas
associated with the study area. NCDOT has made significant efforts to avoid wetland areas
by placing corridors on upland ridges. Each corridor is wide enough to allow further
refinement of roadway and intersection locations to avoid and minimize impacts. NCDOT
should provide a wetland map in the FONSI showing all wetlands to be impacted by the
selected alternative. If total project impacts will exceed one acre. mitigation will be required
in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)}. We encourage
NCDOT to study minimization measures very carefully. If the wetland impacts can be
reduced to one acre or less, then DWQ will not require mitigation."
Response:
Maps are attached in the Appendix showing the wetland areas impacted by the project. Also
included are tables summarizing the impact areas of the wetlands and surface waters.
Comment:
" DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland sources
in the construction contract awarded for this project. This should be included in a list of
15
t
environmental commitments in the FONSI."
Response:
This has been included in the list of environmental commitments for the project.
Comment:
"DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed
in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded
for this project."
Response:
This has been included in the list of environmental commitments for the project.
Comment:
"NCDOT should also commit to using Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A
NCAC 04B .0024), plus High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures. These standards
should be implemented at all stream crossings currently or potentially designated as Water
Supplies, and throughout the roadway portions of the project located in any Watershed
Critical Area."
Response:
This has been included in the list of environmental commitments for the project.
Comment:
"All of the streams within the study area are currently designated as Class C waters, with the
exception of Back Creek and its tributaries, which are classified WS-I1. Muddy Creek and
its tributaries will be classified as Water Supply systems when the Randleman Reservoir is
created. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins should be installed at all crossings of Muddy Creek.
Back Creek and any of their associated tributaries. The number of catch basins should be
determined by the design of stream crossings, so that runoff water would enter said basin(s)
rather than directly flowing into the stream."
Response:
The location and design of Hazardous Spill Basins will be determined during the final
hydraulic design studies for the project in accordance with NCDOT's Guidance for the
Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins,July 1996. This policy states that basins will
be provided at stream crossings on highways functionally classified as a rural or urban
arterial and the stream is identified as an Outstanding Resource Water or a WS-1 water
supply, or the stream crossing is within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of the critical area of a water
supply source classified as WS-I1, WS-III and WS-IV. This has been included in the list of
environmental commitments for the project.
16

Comment:
"NCDOT states that a number of small farm ponds occur throughout the study area. DWQ
is developing a pond policy in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b). The policy is
currently undergoing internal review within our agency, and may be in effect prior to the
construction date of this project. With this in mind, we suggest that NCDOT address impacts
to ponds in the FONSI."
Response:
An effort was made during the development of the preferred alignment to minimize impacts
to area ponds as much as possible while still maintaining the minimum design criteria of the
project. The minimization efforts resulted in total unavoidable impacts to ponds of 0.73
hectare (1.811 acres).
6. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The EA provides adequate information regarding the environmental impacts of
the build alternatives. Based on the information provided we recommend alternative A as
the preferred alternative. However, we could also support alternative C if measures were
implemented to maintain wildlife passage and wetland and stream impacts were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable."
Response:
The bridging of Muddy Creek will facilitate the passage of wildlife. NCDOT will
investigate to determine if measures are feasible to provide for wildlife passage at other
stream crossings. Efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts are addressed under Section
V1. Wetland Finding.
t B. Public Hearing
A public hearing was held for the project on June 26, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Randleman Fligh
School auditorium. Prior to the hearing a pre-hearing informational meeting was held in the
New Market Elementary School gymnasium on June 19, 1997. The pre-hearing meeting and
the public hearing were advertised through a public mailing and in the local news media. The
meetings were conducted by NCDOT and included explanations of handouts and display
maps, the purpose of the hearing, current project status, proposed project design right-of-way
1 requirements and acquisition procedures.
Approximately 200 people attended the pre-hearing meeting. The majority of the questions
pertained to potential impacts to individual properties and were addressed at the meeting.
17

Approximately 200 people attended the public hearing with 17 making comments. The
majority of the comments were in support of Corridor AA. The City of Randleman,
Randleman Chamber of Commerce, and Randolph County Commissioners also endorsed
Corridor AA. Corridor C was endorsed by the City of Asheboro. All comments are
available for review at NCDOT offices in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The City of Randleman has subsequently changed its position and has stated the City would
oppose any action to re-establish Corridor AA as the Interstate 74 route. (See comments in
Appendix).
C. Permit Agency Review Meeting
The preliminary design for the US 311 project was presented on September 24, 1998 at the
Permit Agency Review Meeting. The results of the wetland delineation were presented and
are attached in the Appendix. The wetland avoidance and minimization measures considered
in developing the preferred alignment of US 311 were also discussed.
The agencies asked NCDOT to review the design of the interchange at US 220 to determine
if stream impacts resulting from the construction of Ramp CA could be reduced. The design
resulted in 700 meters (2296 feet) of streams being impacted by the fill required for Ramp
CA. Subsequent investigations determined that the length of stream impacts could be
reduced to 366 meters (1200 feet) by adjusting the grade and reducing the inside fill slope
from 4:1 to 2:1. The preliminary design was revised to reduce the stream impacts. This
revision also avoided impacts to the wetland site M 5.
The agencies also asked if the alignment at Muddy Creek could be shifted more to the west
to avoid impacts to wetland site 1 and minimize impacts to Mudd}, Creek. This alignment
shift was investigated and found to be feasible; however, it will require a minor revision in
the alignment of the adjoining project R-609. The preferred alignment was revised and it
eliminates the impacts to wetland sites 1 and 2 and minimizes the impacts to Muddy Creek.
The revised alignment also reduces the required number of relocations from the adjacent
mobile home park and provides an improved crossing of SR 1919 (Poole Rd.).
The revised alignment reduces the total wetland impacts of the project to 0.85 hectare (2.13
acres).
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
Executive Order 11990 (23 CFR 771,125(a)(1)) states that federal agencies shall avoid direct or
indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The
18

subject project will impact approximately 0.85 hectare (2.13 acres) of vegetated wetlands and
approximately 0.73 hectare (1.81 acres) of surface water area. No practicable alternative to this
wetland taking exists because:
1. The No-Action alternative would allow traffic congestion along the existing roadway to
continue.
2. Construction of any of the other alternatives under consideration resulted in greater impact
to wetlands.
Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR Z30), FHWA Stepdown Procedures (23 CFR 777. 1 et. seq.) and mandates expressed
in Executive Order 11990.
NCDOT has incorporated with this project all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
NCDOT will use best management practices in the construction of this project to insure that the
least amount of wetland as practicable will be impacted. Based on the above, it is determined that
there is no practicable alternative to the proposed new construction.
I X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental Assessment, and
upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, and the public, it is the finding of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that the
project will not have a significant impact upon the human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
L_l

t
1

19

' o
O
m
cl a ?'n Z ?
CD C> 0 J?
rX v
m A
CD
n o

I

?r
a =
r
r
z
s
a
z
m
N
O
N Y
a
r
m
.- c
N

CD

C>
?1
=
_
z
M os
=?
D
D
r N
--i
°

ran o
m
ao cz

?
z P?
D -? a
C
m N
o
a)
CD

0
?& I;
s
II ^??
r
61
-i oli
a
a?
d
Sq
£141
so
yA Z sR ? ?
0

m m

r

t
1

t

t

t

APPENDIX
t

it

t
P

1

I

t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section

October 15, 1997
1 Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of April 25, 1997, requesting our comments on
"
the
Federal Environmental Assessment for US 311, From High Point East Belt to
US 220, Randolph County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-311(3), State Project
No. 8.1571501, T.I.P. No. R-2606" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199506088).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
' include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,
;.James H. Bradley, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
O ECG/? .
z 01VIS 199,7
'F yl ???0 ?cF T

t

t

1

October 15, 1997
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 311, From High Point East Belt to US 220,
Randolph County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-311(3), State Project No. 8.1571501, T.I.P.
No. R-2606" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199506088)
1 1. FLOOD PLAINS: -POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Randolph County, which participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 43 of the July 1981 Randolph County Flood
Insurance Rate Mnp, the ccrnmon,_ecti-,n of n!; 1?rcc pr3pas:;d rvui. cordduis would Goss a
detailed study portion of Muddy Creek, which has 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. This crossing is noted on page 67 of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
' and shown in Appendix E.
We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise'
1 Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways," copies of which have been
provided to your office previously. A reasonably thorough discussion of flood plain impacts is
contained in the EA. In addition to working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
1 on any possible map and flood insurance report changes, we also suggest coordination with
the county to ensure compliance with their flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and wetlands. Affected water bodies include Muddy
Creek, Caraway Creek, and Back Creek, and unnamed tributaries to the Deep River, above
headwaters (as defined for regulatory purposes.)
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, oursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the dig charge of excavated or fill material
into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the disposal of
construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. We will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. As
plans for impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, become more definite, our
Regulatory Branch will review these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of
the Army permit requirements. It is probable that the proposed work would require an
individual Department of the Army permit.

October 15, 1997
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 311, From High Point East Belt to US 220,
Randolph County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-311(3), State Project No. 8.1571501, T.I.P
No. R-2606" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199506088)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, regulates the discharge of
excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps of Engineers must
assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department of
the Army rArmA,lfhcri=tion of cquatlc 5:: aGtiwitiea requires ihai the project be water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review emphasis for
NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters and/or wetlands. However, if degradation
to other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered
to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as
preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied
prior to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a
final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved, if required.
Based on the information in the environmental assessment, Alternatives A and AA would
impact the least acreage of wetlands and would have the fewest stream crossings. However,
Alternative C has only slightly more wetland impacts and would minimize impacts within the
Watershed Critical Area for the proposed Randleman Reservoir. Therefore, we concur that
Alternative C would be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative based on
the information we know at this time and the total environmental impacts from the project.
Based on the comment letters from the review agencies on the Environmental
Assessment, there is agency consensus that Alternative C is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. The North C:erniins Wildlife Resnorrps Commission
emphasizes that the plan should include measures to maintain wildlife passage and to
minimize wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.
11

r

t

11

1
r

11

DEPARTMENT 05 THE ARMY
f WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1690
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1690
' NAEPYPZI:;FTO Mi:irch 5, 1999
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199506088, TIP No. R-2606
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
' Project Development and
Environmental Analysis 6rar.ch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference the project team meeting oid on January 8, 19°9,
and your February 12, 1999 letter, on the North Carolina uct u:? X11
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) p' pG
on new location between the High Point EasL Belt and 05 220, in
Randolph County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2606).
The purpose of the project team meeting was to obtain
concurrence from the project team on irrrpact minimization
(concurrence point 44). Information provided at the meeting and
in your letter describes efforts to avoid and minimize wetland
and stream impacts.
Based on the information availar=-e at this to-me, including
the information provided at the project ream meeting and ir. your
letter, we support your minimization efforts to reduce impacts to
regulated waters of the United States. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of
impacts to waters and wetlands should still be undertaken Lo the
maximum extent practicable. Our concurrence on this lssl,:e will
be contingent on information obtained during our public interest
review process.
We anticipate that the NCDOT's final project design will.
incorporate the minirniaation measures that were discussed. We
encourage NCDOT to prepare and submit compensatory wetland and
stream mitigation plane for our approval as early as possible.
As you are aware, the mitigation plans must be approved in
advance of issuance of the Section 404 permit for this project.

AS a cooperating agency, we appreciate the opportunity to
coordinate with your staff prior to the finalization of tho
VONSI. If you have any questions regarding our comments or
correspondence associated with this project, please do not
hesitate to me at telephone (919) 8%6-8441, extension 23.
Sincerely,
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
EnvirorrmenL and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Roy Shelton
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave. , Rm 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
2

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

June 6, 1997
JUN 1 3 i997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways n^? • ;%
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
I Dear Mr. Vick:
' This responds to your letter of April 25, 1997, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Environmental Assessment (EA), dated March 31, 1997, for the US
311 from High Point East Belt to US 220 Project, (TIP No. R-
2606), Randolph County, North Carolina. This report is provided
in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a multilane freeway
on new location from the US 311-High Point East Belt to US 220
northwest of the Town of Randleman. The relocated US 311 would
1 become part of the proposed Interstate highway (I-74). Depending
on the final alignment, the project would be 7.8 to 9.0 miles in
length.
Purpose and Need
Section II of the EA addresses the purpose and need of the
project. The Service believes that the material in this section
should be reorganized to reflect the planning process envisioned
' by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The present EA
starts with the assumption that the proposed multilane freeway
will be constructed and proceeds to discuss the problems which .
the highway would alleviate. The first section notes that the
freeway would reduce travel time, allow through travel to avoid
congestion, and reduce the potential for accidents. This
1 presentation suggests that all other alternatives, which are
considered later in the document, should be rejected because the
freeway on new location has already been selected.

The Service recommends that the Purpcse and Need Statement (PNS)
present a clear analysis of the transportation problems in the
project area without any reference to the preferred build
alternative. The PNS should start with a discussion of traffic
congestion, safety issues, and any other problems which require
action. This discussion should be followed by a statement
regarding the purpose of the project without any reference to a
specific construction project. At this point in the EA, a wide
range of possible solutions such as transportation systems
management, mass transit, and a range of build/upgrade
alternatives should have an equal standing. The PNS should not
conclude with a determination of a preferred alternative.
Alternatives Analysis
Section III of the EA discusses the alternatives for the project.
This section should follow up on the PNS and consider the ability
of each alternative to fulfill the project purpose, and the
results of this analysis should lead to the selection of a
preferred alternative. As noted, much of this section is
meaningless since the PNS states (p. 4) that the proposed action
is ". . . to construct a multilane freeway on new location ."
Considering only the construction of a freeway on new location,
the EA does present an adequate number (4) of potential routes.
The presentation of data in Table 8 (pp. 17-18) is very useful in
evaluating the impacts of the two upgrade and four new location
alternatives.
Design Features and Construction Techniques
The EA notes (p. 55) that fragmentation and loss of wildlife
habitat are unavoidable consequences of highway development on
new location, and that such projects will result in increased
roadkills of transient species. The Service concurs with this
assessment. In order to minimize these adverse impacts we
recommend that the proposed project contain design features to
facilitate the passage of amphibians, reptiles, and small
mammals. Design provisions for animal passage should not be
limited to waterway culverts and bridges. Exhibit 14 indicates
that all build alternatives would parallel, to some extent, the
expanded wetland corridor along Muddy Creek after the creation of
the Randleman Reservoir. Such wetlands would provide valuable
wildlife habitat and the proposed freeway should not block access
to these areas for wildlife in the area.
Wetlands
The EA discusses (p. 62) the avoidance and minimization of
wetland impacts. In general the Service supports the measures

I
11

t
t

1

?J

mentioned in the document such as the reduction of fill slopes,
' the reduction of canopy removal in and near floodplain systems,
and reduced median widths through wetlands. However, any Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project should provide
specific design features which would actually be employed to
minimize wetland impacts.
1 Data in the EA indicate that some unavoidable wetland losses
would occur. Table 20B (p. 59) shows that losses range from 11.3
acres (Alternative A) to 12.7 acres (Alternative C). While the
I EA notes that compensatory mitigation is recommended, there is no
plan for replacing lost wetland functions and values. The EA
does note some potential mitigation "opportunities", including
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of riparian fringe
forests through conservation easements. There also appears to be
a possibility to compensate project losses in conjunction with
compensation for the Randleman Reservoir. While the Service
would need to evaluate a detailed compensation plan, the concept
of a combined compensation effort may be worthwhile.
The Service believes that the complete absence of a compensatory
mitigation plan precludes an adequate assessment of long-term
impacts on wetlands. Since present options range from
restoration to preservation, the net impact of the project
currently ranges from a possible increase in wetlands (all
restoration) to a permanent lost of 11-13 wetland acres (all
preservation). Potential compensatory wetlands presumably range
from exact in-kind replacement to complete out-of-kind
replacement. The Service would have serious reservations on the
' adequacy of any FONSI which did not discuss the type of
compensation (creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or
preservation), the location of compensatory wetlands, and the
kind of compensation (in-kind versus out-of-kind). Therefore,
the Service recommends that the NCDOT determine the long-term
impacts of the project on wetland functions and values prior to
the issuance of a FONSI.
Section 7
Randolph County is known to contain two federally-protected
species. These are the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Both
species are listed as endangered.
The EA states (p. 65) that the nearest known population of the
Cape Fear shiner is approximately 30 miles downstream from the
project site. The EA notes (p. 64) that "present" distribution
is based on data from 1988. Based on available data, the EA
states (p. 65) that the project would have no effect on this
' species. However, if suitable habitat would be impacted by the
1

I
project and no significant barriers exist between the known
population and the project area, a determination based on nine
year old data would be questionable. Therefore, the Service
believes that there should be a stronger support for this
determination by the NCDOT. Such support may not require field
surveys, but should include:
1." a comparison of stream habitat to be impacted by the project '
with the habitat utilized by the species;
2. a consideration of the habitat between the known population '
in Randolph County and the project site with a discussion of
possible barriers to the upstream movement of the species;
and,
3. an indication that the 1988 distribution data are the most
accurate accounts available and that any field surveys in
the 1990s, such as work associated with the proposed
Randleman Reservoir, have failed to find the species outside
the known location.
The EA notes (p. 65) that possible habitat for Schweinitz's
sunflower exists within the project corridor, and that field
surveys will be conducted within such appropriate habitat after
the preferred alternative is selected. The Service has
consistently recommended that field data on the presence of
federally-protected should be used in the selection of a
preferred alternative. The selection of a preferred alternative
prior to the collection of field data can lead to problems if
field surveys find protected species in the selected corridor.
Furthermore, the purpose of an EA is to document the
environmental impacts of a proposed project. The complete
absence of data on this federally-endangered plant precludes such
an assessment.
Based on the need for additional data, the Service
requirements of Section 7 have not been fulfilled.
that any FONSI for the project address impacts on
protected species.
Closing
finds that the
We recommends '
federally-
Based on the absence of data for federally-protected species the
Service cannot state a preference for a particular corridor.
However, if additional information shows that federally protected
species would not be adversely affected by any of the three '
corridors (A, AA, and C) under consideration, the Service
supports the selection of Alternative C. This preference is
based primarily on the fact that this alternative would be
farther from the tributaries of the Deep River near Randleman. '

However, the Service retains the right to recommend other
alternatives if data not contained in this EA become available
and to provide comments on the final alignment on the highway
within the corridor selected.
For the reasons stated above, the Service would not concur with a
' FOnI for this project. Additional information is needed on the
overall impacts to wetlands and federally-protected species in
the project area.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
' the impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext.
27.
Sincerely,
A ohn M. tfner
Supervisor
I cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
' Charles Bruton, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

FWS/R4:HHall:6/6/97:WP:A:ranr2606.697

u

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 7, 1998
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
s \v,Ed
v,`?/5J ?1
SUBJECT: US 311 from High Point Eastbelt to US 220, Randolph County, NC;
R-2606, Federal Project # NHF-311(3)
ATTN: Tom Kendig, Project Manager
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your March 26,
1998 letter for the above-referenced proposed project in Randolph County,
North Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
1 Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that this project
is not likely to adversely affect Schweinitz's sunflower, the Cape Fear
Shiner, or any other federally-listed species and their formally
designated critical habitat, under the Endangered Species Act, as amended.

t

We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified
in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Candace
Martino at 919-856-4520 ext. 18. Thank you for your continued cooperation
with our agency.
Sincerely,
John M. He ner
Field Supervisor
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:4-7-98:919-856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\3llRand.NE

t
1

1?

t

t
1

1

e
i
J?,Ito ST'4."
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
100 ALABAMA STREET, S.W.
;??T1c Pa01to ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
4EAD/rkm

t
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
June 16, 1997
RE: EPA review of Environmental Assessment for
US 311 from High Point East Belt to US 220, Randolph County
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-311(3); State Project No. 8.1571501
Dear Mr. Vick:
GEf ..
y ?,UN 1 8 1997
' Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv
(EPA) has reviewed the above-referenced Environmental Assessment (EA). The document
provides information to educate the public regarding general and project-specific environmental
' impacts and analysis procedures. We appreciate your consistency with the public review and
disclosure aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
The proposed action is to construct a multilane freeway on a new location from the US
' 311, High Point East Belt to US 220 in Randolph County. The need for the project is based on
expected traffic flow and safety benefits.
' ? Noise - EPA appreciates the inclusion of the section on construction noise. Although the EA
states that the construction time is of a relatively short-term nature, an estimate of the
1 construction time would help document the magnitude of the impacts. In addition, all
construction equipment should be equipped with noise attenuation devices such as mufflers and
insulated engine housings.
No quantitative data are given for predicted noise level increases for the project.
However, information regarding noise barriers and noise abatement measures are shown. We
wish to emphasize that because noise abatement is difficult, the greatest emphasis should be
placed on alignment shifts as a method to minimize noise impacts (i.e., avoidance may be more
effective than mitigation).
' ? Biotic Resources - Are there endangered species within the project area that will be affected by
the project? If so, measures to minimize impact on these species would be appropriate.
? Cultural Resources - EPA notes NCDOT's coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) regarding cultural resources. Concurrence on NCDOT survey determinations
' RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 1007° Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)

2 1
were well documented. We also add that if the project is implemented, and if archaeological finds
are unearthed during construction, the work at that site must stop until the SHPO approves its
continuation.
? Environmental Justice (EJ) - While an EJ concern may not exist for this project, the EA '
should provide census data for the state, county, and census block group (if available) for
comparison against the proposed percentage of minority and low-income relocations. Once
finalized, the percentage of minority relocations can be determined for comparison (as an impact) ,
against the above census data. Areas of concern would be if most of the impacted residents were
minorities or low-income residents.
This same kind of comparison should also be made for the numerous families (and to a I
lesser extent businesses) that would be impacted'affected by the above-discussed highway noise,
i.e., will noise impacts disproportionately affect minorities and low-income populations relative to
the state, county, and block group census percentages?
? Air Ouality - Page 74 discusses dust control during construction. Periodic watering of ,
temporary roads and staging areas is recommended for controlling fugitive dust. We strongly
discourage use of oil solutions for dust control.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions '
about these comments, please contact Ramona McConney of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Office of Environmental Assessment

North Carolina

Department of A ' 'r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development Branch
1 Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603

Dear Mr. Webb:
June 3, 1997
A l
1. •? i i
dCatie G.Ursi ett, Secretary
PROJECT MA1A„`',;` •!
nou how
& U. 11 "--
SCH File # 97-E-4220-0685; Environmental Assessment Proposed Improvements to US 311 from High
Point East Belt to US 220 in Randolph County; TIP #r-2606
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone]-
Attachments

cc: Region G
Melba McGee, DEHNR
Sincerely,
C'4x-?V ,0/1? `?
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / AlTirmalive Action Employer

t

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MAI
EDEHNR
MEMORANDUM

TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee \V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0685 EA for US 311 from High Point East Belt to US 220, Randloph
County
DATE: June 2, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVLE D
JUN - 3199T
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
r
FAX [phone]
P.O. Box 27687,
r? An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
C
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
N
1 919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Archives-History Bldg.
Raleigh NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Dept. of Agriculture
Dept. of Crime Cont./ Public Safety
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Dept. of Env. Health, & Natural Res
Piedmont Triad COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act

0DK_8
5
1
z..
ERD: Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed Improvements to US 311 from High Point East Belt to US 220 in a dolp
County; TIP #r-2606
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER: 95-E-4220-0474
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
0- NO COMMENT
? COMMENTS ATTACHED
n
SIGNED BY: r/ ,A -0-C '?2"/
DATE :

RECE-NED
MAY 2 2 1997
STATE NUMBER: 97-E-4220-0685
DATE RECEIVED: 05/01/1997
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/27/1997 L?"-
REVIEW CLOSED: 06/01/1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

1
l F02
Ala S

t

1

MAY 0 5 11,197' r
,0 7 MAY ^i997

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 23, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorn4F/
From: Cyndi Bell ?t3
?EHNR
Subject: Environmental Assessment for US 311 from High Point East Belt to
US 220
Randolph County
State Project DOT No. 8.1571501, T.I.P. No. R-2606; EHNR # 97-0685
' The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. At this time, NCDOT has not selected a preferred alternative; rather,
' potential impacts of the two remaining alternatives are described in the EA.
The project will involve fill in up to 2.22 acres of wetlands and up to ten new
stream crossings, depending on which alternative is selected. DWQ offers the
' following comments based on the document review:
A) The EA provides a good inventory of natural resources within each of
' the 1000 to 2000-foot wide study corridors. It appears that the two
ill
remaining alternative corridors (A and C) within the study area w
have roughly equivalent impacts to waters and wetlands. Corridor C is
situated further from the Critical Area of the Muddy Creek Watershed
' Critical Area (to be designated when the Randleman Reservoir is
created) than Corridor A. Based upon this information, DWQ prefers
Corridor C. We would not object to Corridor A if other environmental or
socioeconomic factors warrant selection of that alternative.
B) In order for DWQ to fully endorse NCDOT's specific project alignment,
' once an alternative is selected, the FONSI should provide more detailed
information with respect to the following subjects:
' Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] - FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity ANimi &e Action Employer 501% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
May 23, 1997
Page 2 of 3
Minimization of wetland and stream impacts - NCDOT is proposing
construction of a four-lane divided highway with a 70-foot median and
full control of access. In the Wetland Mitigation discussion (page 62),
NCDOT states, "Reduction of fill slopes, canopy removal in or near
floodplain systems, and median widths at stream/wetland crossings will
reduce unnecessary wetland losses. NCDOT should provide details of
these minimization measures once a preferred alternative is selected.
In particular, NCDOT should specify median widths through wetland
areas. In correspondence dated October 26, 1995, DWQ requested that
NCDOT study a 46-foot median through wetland areas.
Quart ification of stream impacts - NCDOT has provided a diagram
showing all streams within the study area, along with specific
dimensions of each stream. When an alternative is selected, NCDOT will
be able to provide approximate linear distances of stream impacts. If
culverts and/or stream relocations exceed 150 feet linear distance of
stream channel at any stream crossing, stream mitigation may be
required in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC
211.0506(b)(6)1. In such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation
proposal should be included in the FONSI or application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
Wetland mitigation - The EA includes a thorough list of potential
wetland impact areas associated with the study area. NCDOT has made
significant efforts to avoid wetland areas by placing corridors on
upland ridges. Each corridor is wide enough to allow further
refinement of roadway and intersection locations to avoid and minimize
impacts. NCDOT should provide a wetland map in the FONSI showing all
wetlands to be impacted by the selected alternative. If total project
impacts will exceed one acre, mitigation will be required in accordance
with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)1. We encourage NCDOT
to study minimization measures very carefully. If the wetland impacts
can be reduced to one acre or less, then DWQ will not require mitigation.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from
upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
This should also be included in a list of environmental commitments in
the FONSI.
D) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.

0

' Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
May 23, 1997
Page 3 of 3
E) NCDOT has already committed to implementation of Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. Of the two alternatives
remaining, A and C would involve work in or directly adjacent to the
Critical Area of the Muddy Creek Watershed when the Randleman
Reservoir project is completed. Alternate C would also cross Back Creek
' and its tributaries, which are currently classified WS-II. NCDOT should
also commit to using Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A
NCAC 04B .0024), plus High Quality Storm Erosion Control Measures.
These standards should be implemented at all stream crossings
' currently or potentially designated as Water Supplies, and throughout
the roadway portions of the project located in any Watershed Critical
Area.
F) All of the streams within the study area are currently designated as
Class C waters, with the exception of Back Creek and its tributaries,
' which are classified WS-II. Muddy Creek and its tributaries will be
classified as Water Supply systems when the Randleman Reservoir is
created. Hazardous Spill Catch Basins should be installed at all crossings
of Muddy Creek, Back Creek and any of their associated tributaries. The
number of catch basins should be determined by the design of the
stream crossing, so that runoff water would enter said basin(s) rather
than directly flowing into the stream.
' G) NCDOT states that a number of small farm ponds occur throughout the
study area. DWQ is developing a pond policy in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0506(b). The policy is currently undergoing internal review
' within our agency, and may be in effect prior to the construction date
of this project. With this in mind, we suggest that NCDOT address impacts
' to ponds in the FONSI.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual Water
Quality Certification may be required for this project. Final permit
' authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent
upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to
the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where
necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
' Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
' cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
' R2606EA.DOC
t
1
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
t Division of Forest Resources f
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor FD E H N FZ
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Stanford M. Adams, Director
' Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
' May 12, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs-
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester Dl f<
t SUBJECT: DOT EA for US 311 Upgrade on New Location in Randolph County
PROJECT 9 97-0685 and TIP # R-2606
DUE DATE: 5-29-97
' We have reviewed the above subject document of March 1997 and have the following comments:
' 1. As we had previously stated during February 1995, this project will have a heavy impact to woodland.
This impact ranges as follows:
a. Hardwood Forest - 213 to 286 acres
b. Pine Plantation - 0 to 4 acres
c. Forested wetlands - 6.1 to 7.3 acres
d. Total Woodlands - 219.1 to 297.3 acres
' 2. We were ngl asked to participate in the September 1995 Steering Committee/Environmental Resource
Agencies meeting and thus we did not have the benefit to provide input to help lessen the impact to
' woodland.
3. We could = find any provisions in the document to ensure that the ROW Contractor will attempt to
' salvage all wood products including chips. Salvage of all forest products should be done, if at all
possible.
' 4. We would hope that during the final alignment design that the impact to this woodland would be
reduced whenever possible.
' pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Vic Owen - D10-
File

'
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone] OW
%a
N
C
An Equal Opportunity Afflrmative Action Employer
50go recycled/10% post-consumer paper

I

_ L f North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fawood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C or
I labitat Conservation Programrn
DATE: May 30, 1997
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) fbr the US 311 relocation, from the High Point Fast Belt to US
220,, Randolph County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2606, SCI I Project No. 97-
0685.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have rc?,iewed the subject
t l,A 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 relocate US 311 from the proposed High Point East Belt to U5 220
The roadway will be a multi-lane freeway on new location. The project length ranges from 7.8 to
9.0 miles depending on the build alternative chosen. Projected wetland impacts range from 11.3
acres to 12.7 acres.
The EA provides adequate information regarding the environmental impacts of' the build
alternatives. Based on the information provided we recommend alternative A as the preferred
alternative. However, we could also support alternative C if measures were implemented to
maintain wildlile passage and wetland and stream impacts were minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.

Memo 2 May 30, 1997
We concur with the EA Ilor this project. NCDOT should minimize wetland impacts to the
maximum extent practicable. NCDOT Best Management Practices and sedimentation and
erosion control measures liar sensitive watersheds should be strictly enforced,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA, if we can be of any fOrther
assistance please call ne at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

CITY OF RANDLEMAN
?j
101 Hilliary Street
Randleman, North Carolina 27317
[phone] / Fax: [phone]
BRUCE M. MOORE, MAYOR
March 11, 1998
Mr. E. Norris Tolson
Secretary
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. 'Box 25210
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Tolson:
ALDERMEN
Bill Harris, Mayor pro-tempro
Charles Byerly
Wade Craven
Tony Lowe
Jerry Small
We thoroughly enjoyed meeting with you on Tuesday to discuss transportation issues in
Randleman. We appreciate the courteous reception we received from you and your staff.
As we discussed, the City of Randleman originally supported Corridors A & AA for the
routing of Interstate 74. Several months ago, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
selected Corridor C as the preferred route for Interstate 74. The City of Randleman accepted this
decision and moved forward with our planning efforts.
Since that time, we have worked with a developer to begin plans for a major shopping
center. This shopping center will be located in an area that would have been part of the Corridor
A & AA interchange in Randleman. Any attempt to relocate the interstate to the A or AA route at
this time would be economically devastating to us.
We understand that recent efforts have been made by the Sophia community to
re-establish Corridor AA as the Interstate 74 route. Although those people are our good friends,
the City of Randleman must go on record opposing any such action.
In addition, we would like to request that the NCDOT continue to look into the feasibility
of constructing a multi-lane connector road between SR 1950 (W. Academy Street) and the
proposed I-74 interchange near Sophia. This connector road be a great benefit to the City of
Randleman and would require very little, if any acquisition and/or relocation of homes. We do
not feel that this connector road would have a negative impact on the Sophia Community.
1
C
In closing, we appreciate your assistance in these transportation issues. Please have your
staff contact our City Manager, Rick Hardin, if there are questions concerning these issues.
Sincerely,
f ?j .
Bruce M. Moore, Mayor
BMM/ph
cc: Whitmel H. Webb, P.E.
Calvin W. Leggett

fl
u
1

TABLE 1 WETLAND AREAS
AREA IN CORRIDOR AREA IN R/W AREA IN CONST. LIMIT
AREA NO. M2 HA AC M2 HA AC M2 HA AC
1 12076.4 1.21 2.98 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
M 1 635.5 0.06 0.16 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
M 1 A 183.0 0.02 0.05 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
2 170.8 0.02 0.04 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
3 1008.7 0.10 0.25 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
4 4542.7 0.45 1.12 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
5 499.3 0.05 0.12 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
6 1528.6 0.15 0.38 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
7 19515.5 1.95 4.82 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
8 4988.8 0.50 1.23 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
9 1122.9 0.11 0.28 1122.9 0.11 0.28 898.3 0.09 0.22
10 1216.0 0.12 0.30 1216.0 0.12 0.30 479.8 0.05 0.12
11 70.9 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
M7 603.2 0.06 0.15 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
12 435.9 0.04 0.11 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
37 2185.7 0.22 0.54 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
M6 2259.4 0.23 0.56 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
13 707.6 0.07 0.17 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
14 675.5 0.07 0.17 675.5 0.07 0.17 675.5 0.07 0.17
15 403.1 0.04 0.10 403.1 0.04 0.10 403.1 0.04 0.10
16 331.4 0.03 0.08 239.5 0.02 0.06 48.3 0.00 0.01
16a 1033.8 0.10 0.26 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
16b 791.9 0.08 0.20 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
16c 857.2 0.09 0.21 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
17 447.6 0.04 0.11 447.6 0.04 0.11 429.1 0.04 0.11
M2 737.9 0.07 0.18 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
18 7307.0 0.73 1.80 138.3 0.01 0.03 0.0 0.00 0.00
M 10 1608.9 0.16 0.40 1207.8 0.12 0.30 372.0 0.04 0.09
M8 3809.0 0.38 0.94 2042.0 0.20 0.50 979.3 0.10 0.24
M9 5486.9 0.55 1.36 1161.6 0.12 0.29 0.0 0.00 0.00
19 690.9 0.07 0.17 641.1 0.06 0.16 95.7 0.01 0.02
20 644.4 0.06 0.16 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
21 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
22 5848.9 0.58 1.44 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
22a 545.8 0.05 0.13 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
23 1849.2 0.18 0.46 1660.2 0.17 0.41 1306.1 0.13 0.32
24 569.1 0.06 0.14 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
25 711.6 0.07 0.18 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
26 719.6 0.07 0.18 719.6 0.07 0.18 270.1 0.03 0.07
27 1567.0 0.16 0.39 1552.3 0.16 0.38 1353.7 0.14 0.33
28 1545.0 0.15 0.38 1506.0 0.15 0.37 1181.4 0.12 0.29
M3 1228.4 0.12 0.30 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
29 109.1 0.01 0.03 109.1 0.01 0.03 109.1 0.01 0.03
30 29.9 0.00 0.01 29.9 0.00 0.01 1.5 0.00 0.00
31 42.2 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
32 233.3 0.02 0.06 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
33 97.5 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
34 898.1 0.09 0.22 85.3 0.01 0.02 0.0 0.00 0.00
35 151.1 0.02 0.04 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
36 635.8 0.06 0.16 635.8 0.06 0.16 89.2 0.01 0.02
M5 648.4 0.06 0.16 648.4 0.06 0.16 0.0 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 96006.4 9.6 23.7 16242.0 1.6 4.0 8692.2 0.9 2.1

TABLE 2
WATER SURFACE AREAS
AREA IN CORRIDOR AREA IN R/W AREA IN CONST. LIMIT
STATION LOCATION M2 HA AC M2 HA AC M2 HA AC
11+52 LT 2143.4 0.21 0.53 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
13+43 LT 2001.5 0.20 0.49 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
31+25 RT 1122.9 0.11 0.28 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
35+88 RT 2763.1 0.28 0.68 1262.2 0.13 0.31 937.9 0.09 0.23
37+02 CL 1121.9 0.11 0.28 1121.9 0.11 0.28 1121.9 0.11 0.28
40+30 RT 11500.3 1.15 2.84 2593.1 0.26 0.64 1752.1 0.18 0.43
41+25 LT 5875.2 0.59 1.45 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
43+00 LT 4040.1 0.40 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
45+00 RT 2343.5 0.23 0.58 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
47+80 RT 4094.7 0.41 1.01 1798.9 0.18 0.44 109.9 0.01 0.03
50+62 LT 3880.8 0.39 0.96 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
61+30 LT 5943.8 0.59 1.47 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
62+65 LT 5216.2 0.52 1.29 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
63+35 LT 3048.8 0.30 0.75 1824.6 0.18 0.45 577.4 0.06 0.14
65+00 LT 2014.1 0.20 0.50 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
89+00 RT 587.8 0.06 0.15 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
91+88 RT 7076.6 0.71 1.75 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
125+45 LT 2561.7 0.26 0.63 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
133+60 CL 6626.4 0.66 1.64 4605.6 0.46 1.14 2794.4 0.28 0.69
134+60 RT 3034.4 0.30 0.75 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
143+00 RT 215.2 0.02 0.05 215.2 0.02 0.05 50.3 0.01 0.01
TOTAL 77212.4 7.72 19.07 13421.5 1.34 3.32 7343.9 0.73 1.81

1

J

1

1

TABLE 3
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM CROSSINGS
LENGTH IN R/W LENGTH IN CONST. LIMIT
STA. (m) (FT) (m) (FT)
11+85 170 557.7 (BRIDGE)
16+85 130 426.5 70 229.7
18+25 170 557.7 120 393.7
22+38 148 485.6 89 292.0
22+42 302 990.8 90 295.3
28+31 145 475.7 92 301.8
37+40 175 574.1 175 574.1
37+60 500 1640.4 280 918.6
48+70 280 918.6 100 328.1
52+12 175 574.1 92 301.8
52+45 190 623.4 96 315.0
53+90 135 442.9 70 229.7
63+20 52 170.6 25 82.0
74+00 250 820.2 138 452.8
76+60 180 590.5 100 328.1
85+16 118 387.1 78 255.9
88+90 183 600.4 124 406.8
92+00 80 262.5 50 164.0
95+90 64 210.0 35 114.8
101+75 140 459.3 98 321.5
109+40 548 1797.9 548 1797.9
115+80 306 1003.9 292 958.0
117+70 150 492.1 126 413.4
119+40 108 354.3 76 249.3
121+15 150 492.1 100 328.1
123+20 200 656.2 140 459.3
127+20 160 524.9 100 328.1
129+25 120 393.7 75 246.1
133+80 64 210.0 0 0.0
139+50 40 131.2 25 82.0
140+85 120 393.7 80 262.5
147+30 205 672.6 170 557.7
RP. C-A 16+85 535 1755.2 304 997.4
RP. C-A 20+00 130 426.5 50 164.0
RP. C-A 20+75 190 623.4 125 410.1
US 220 26+50 860 2821.5 550 1804.5
US 220 26+50 16 52.5 12 39.4
TOTALS 7489 24570.16 4695 15403.51

TABLE 4 WETLAND TYPES
Wetland Area Size
ha (ac) USFWS
Designation Wetland Area Size
ha (ac) USFWS
Designation
1 1.21 (2.98) PF01 A 18 0.73 (1.80) PF01 /4A
M 1 0.06 (0.16) PF01 A M10 0.16 (0.40) PF01 A
M1A 0.02 (0.05) PEM1A M8 0.38 (0.94) PEM1A
2 0.02 (0.04) PF01 A M9 0.55 (1.36) PEM 1 A
3 0.10 (0.25) PF01 A 19 0.07 (0.17) PF01 A
4 0.45 (1.12) PF01 A 20 0.06 (0.16) PF01 A
5 0.05 (0.12) PF01 C 21 0.05 (0.11) PF01 /4A
6 0.39 (0.98) PF01 A 22 0.58 (1.44) PEM 1 A
7 1.95 (4.82) PF01 A 22A 0.05 (0.13) PF01 A
8 0.50 (1 .23) PF01 A 23 0.18 (0.46) PFO 1 /4A
9 0.11 (0.28) PFO 1 /4A 24 0.06 (0.14) PEM 1 A
10 0.12 (0.30) PF01 C 25 0.07 (0.18) PF01 A
11 0.01 (0.02) PF01 /4A 26 0.07 (0.18) PF01 A
M7 0.06 (0.15) PF01 A 27 0.16 (0.39) PF01 /4A
12 0.04 (0.1 1) PF01 A 28 0.15 (0.38) PF04A
37 0.22 (0.54) PF01 A M3 0.12 (0.30) PF01 A
M6 0.23 (0.56) PF01 /4A 29 0.01 (0.03) PF01 /4A
13 0.07 (0.17) PF01 /4A 30 0.00* (0.01) PEM 1 A
14 0.07 (0.17) PSS1A 31 0.00*(0.01) PF01/4A
15 0.04 (0.10) PSS 1 A 32 0.02 (0.06) PEM 1 A
16 0.03 (0.08) PF01/4A 33 0.01 (0.02) PEM1A
16A 0.10 (0.26) PFO1 /4A 34 0.09 (0.22) PEM 1 A
16B 0.08 (0.20) PF01 /4A 35 0.02 (0.04) PF01 /4A
16C 0.09 (0.21) PFO1 /4A 36 0.06 (0.16) PFO1 /4A
17 0.04 (0.1 1) PF01 A M5 0.06 (0.16) PF01 A
M2 0.10 (0.24) PF01 A

1?

LI

*indicates rounding error ,
PF01 A - Palustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous, subject to temporary flooding
PF01 C - Palustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous, subject to seasonal flooding
PF04A - Palustrine, forested, needle-leafed evergreen, subject to temporary flooding
PF01 /4A - Palustrine, forested, broad-leafed deciduous and needle-leafed evergreen, subject to temporary ,
flooding
PSS1A - Palustrine, scrub-shrub, subject to temporary flooding
PEM1A - Palustrine, emergent, persistent vegetation, subject to temporary flooding
t

C
? •
3 ??
h a.
? 3
N 3 3
?j 3 3
N a ?°
? b
O`
w
w CO
u ??+ H
a?
o
. la C
.
? Q l0
u C
??
?
E

g i
O
H•v y
?? y c
„•v y G
b'v cu
3
u .. „ a a? .? a?
3 v Or o, H
O g a c >, 0
0, 0 aD

V

4

'
u
is
E

G
y 0

C >

?
a.
_ G. c . ,

0 0

W
a
V
N
N N M --• N ^ N N N ^ O
¢

3=
[^ c is
ca >
7 E h N M N M N N •--• N ^
N 4

w
N G

t"a
a c
0 ^N v O N N .. ^ ^ ._ .. ^ O

0

d
`
V ?
w 0
M
N
--
N
N
^
^
N
V ?
7
7
?r
Q
Z LL)
0

? 2
0
w V) ?

0 ?a

o

E
M
'

E
3 .? 0

E
3 .?

.
o0

E

E
..

3 0,
.?

3 0,
..

3 "0
..

3 v,
.. ..

3 ?o 3
LTa ?O Cef O p r OE M O fl M O•p M ON ON ON ON 0-.2
z ..
o ..
U
z .. .•.
? 00 N
Q
N v

M O

co %0
O
C o
^"!
C 110
O o
^ W) ell
0,00
t -+
N a?o
0;
O ONr-
MO
O 000r-
-7C
GC ^O
-
0
G
C
^N
0
Q aJ 0 0 ^e ^ N CD CD 00
O O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 ?3 a a U. a a a Ll. o. a aw. LL.

`l
W' a

?'
2
1
1 .

U a

^ C
O

10

M

N

?

N

N

N

N
0
j z

on
E
y
0
v
u
0
°p o
C
O ?
Gr ?
>
C
v
E v°
o
u
O y
•? C
N
bup
y
y a
? O
V
y
V >
i
O
4+ O
O
ou ?
H
.y C
V V
N
n, 3
r 'fl
d
ow
a i
iQ
G. 4

1

1
1
M
0
m
W
I
(nC'i
Y
4

5i
sr
4
4
1
r 1 ??
1 Q
.S ' Q f
I
1 ? f 1.
1 1 ? f
r /
R
, ? Q f
0P 1
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ S
\\\ ,11 \\\\\\\\ \\ ?S
J00
Iv;
QN
1 1 ' 1
f'?1
Y
- { 1 °' '' f{ 1 ! Z Lam'"'} 1 f ??
5 +00
P,
.? ter.. .... ?•'f/ /?\

Y F
~ C,
4
t ..? 1
?. , JIM
Q
``'4r rq ?-) 15
A'
/1 ?t
1

? rr.rf
i?
,r ?oYS `? I
19
4
4
,r

V
n
/
1
I 1
I
I?
1
1
1
r
1
I

1
1
1 ,
I
I
I
1
1 _
0
/
/ t
tf?
c
Y`? ij ./ r r rr'

`R
C?
•'r

WS
ft?
``:,yam _ f. • , .. ?-,?4` ••y1 .
20-+40
., it fr r.? '/• 7 L,. ,_.?,:J'.
4• r
i
1
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
/
r

r?
I
1
I
I
1
t
I
I
t
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V,I
Q5
v 11<4?!
25+00/f'
N
n
n
r
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
1T
1
1
I1
1
1
N
O
0

m m ° m
i + ?
r r ? r

z z v
v v
M z
?
r r
'U M
.,
_
G)
m
z
0

? A

b
0
9
Q
Q
Q
4
0
0
v
a
Q
0
Q
0
Q
v
U
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
tr
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
Ir
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
J
'? /T l `"' ?,,.. \ 1 Arta. •;5;; >? JAr ? ? ?f =C Q ,{ (Jb',
J a<
7 l,?.i,?' %a \1. ?.. 1 ,s , `'} `'° "„ ?? }'• I ; ? t? ,QI /? ? .i i,.c, "'?a.,.j;
, 1 tb, a but J r ) . r.?
HFt ,'?,. j: ',^. s 1 ?, \i.^ ? ;s :.? ?` ?. ? ti ` Qp ), ?T/ ? J iS-•f
!? `ti. `'t .? 1 ?• ? / ? ? /' d? ??•?,,. 'i• • t'-r' ?J .f `I 7 ` ?)L'`+. f t`??,21 "•••,. ?' ?' ?'l f t Li t-.e,Q
\I ? j . ri' I? Y r .'w \ \ `?' 1„°. I ?,?", {• (it?? J S' y'',s ?
\ ? ;' `y"y,A ) C 1 r`?,%?./ ,? ? 1 ?,k,?\\ ?°'ti / ^,ti ` f•,'? 1, F ?, ""`^,.. 1 , f li,?' •_t 1 ? ?4 M1, Yµ ``' ••.,p
ell \ (1 `\'- y.'4 ¢` ti_.,c.•••.,.:r•r ty is F'., C•.% ' L?
r,y\Q ! T; .yam `i,'t, °'tf Q
f ? / r'?f I1 `i ?j `a `I a f y J `? fJ? t i--
i U-'
11 ,' ? .'Z t? `'` T!/ ? ?'E ? '?,:t ;S t °r ?•°.,,?, k t, t t' ? ~"'` ``ti. ?'i ?` 'o ...:r.:,"-.:,,- . '`" Ci
QI .} A ?w?,?"? ,`` ffYi"?.??';C`3`,,(? 4? ,y \ r.' `j,? ?? 'j' `, 1?•Y?? ,? p
p i. /'7s2r'} .?•..? ,.?.? `^• n••l;; }I"t+- gjt '' ? \\ ?'•:! ??SA?' t`'e,>i"', `• ,?'1 ??? ,? ?Y
C, oe
44
{i t, -- T? 3 ? 'p ti" .;'•,. ?. ??",,. alt , f,t'
/?rr-..4 lj ..` .. ? i ''it .?9! ` i Z?. (I ,•,)".,`l.-. ?? t. L ? / ? 1 \\\\\\\ \ .?0 "•..•,, ,,.u. ? . \, I/ i
N
n
n
r
m
N
in
O
0
f ti ? • ?'f i \ f"
?: l TIr C?•i C=ry '/' ?? r :;:¢ i, a f
17
t. -? .rti,y4 y-
?.n E }'" .! 4 h ( f, ^ ?i fly'
s"N, y ??° ? /'I? ?' -} t,?l "w•{.. `? ?'? ,r 'w ?-'°.4M. <?,rT?ti\,: ?f•?,?}w
y? r:?`" T?...' ? _.\°j d? ? ,\ ???? ? ?. ``(?'%?? i'. "y i?'``•v'^i s_ Y,,`-y ,,,d [?j ,
'qp
`? \ \\ d;r t? ?`r ,F
Alp
1
y

Q
W
• ?. yr ? / ? ?- ..-¢? -_.?
,'?
? - fr° 1 i ?/?? ? • • - ? ??? 000 ?
I be
Y (jl/ / ? ? 41
r ` fl
N
n
C4 m
?N
• 1 7 ??
cn
O
f?Tl 1T? O m
r x r

D 0 Q
n
.. r
n m
0 -4
i
z

i

1
1 '
i
I,
1
l
r -
I
{
t
? t
OQ i
OQo©

a"
a=
0
w

c.s 1 f / -?O
4Q4, 4
s
Y'4
4

'N o
i Ib\I
! \I
Ib>I .I.n \
1 (_d.
i
*4
! Q

8
I;
\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
?A
s
1 1
1
1
1. P..
1 f4..:
1
I
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
t , ' ???' • ?+f`pr ? / ? I ? dry, •? F ?????? \ . `?,. I.
`f 1 d
1 ( I ._4r?' 1 .S"'"•ti. /7 t,14`"t Ji.i} i
1
1
1
1
n?
1
s
f
L f,
/ {.
/ r y0
?•f z Q
4,1
I
I ?
1
1 ,
1 ,
n?
J /.

N
0
n
r
m

IA
11
J
N
O
O
1
1
1
1

=e (7 'D

r r ? r

Z Z v a
v v
X z
.. r a

`
m

M
m
z

? i

1
1
1
1
1C)
l
1
1
1
?I
1
5().?.p0

\Y Tr'v I

/

\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1

o?
a'=
0
I
I i
/ t.
I -
I I' 'f
1
1 h
C?

i

'T
1 -
1 1
--- ----_->

Ir:

1
?

11
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
1
11

I -
mot.... ?^
b
i
1 11 ?
1 ?
` 1 1
11 `
? 11 ,1
1,. 1 1
?? 1 1
1- 1
1 1
\I

\`\ 1

?
j
`-„ y \\ 1

y? `

' `t 1
p 1
1
tP ;? I

?• ? 1 I
?{ p f
' I
Y ?r
d
p P,
A` n ,'?,?r? I
%i
?r(1 p t;:,,
rp t 1 .?
? .i
r, /1 I ;i
I a ?t>
1
1 .?
\ /r
1 ? ,r

p I ?
l
,r 1
t
s' - r
fy ,/p © 1 rf i!
4
®Q4s
p r
ll, 1
QQ^ a ?Y° r!i II
?t,1'1• Sj.,f ? ',li..
F
41Y.. r
7 1

i
1
1
1
1
1
r f?
1

Q
1
i
1
i
1
1
{
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1

roo+O0

I

/
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
<z?
t
/M
M s•° ?
i.,
ell,
^ yr' -. {:,. C.?'"e e_,•, t"F ?-.: 1.i? ? ? I
k%Y +0

it
}1
i
p '
,
k
\' p
1 J
}

X. VIN,
1 r
1 1 \ \ \F
\ 11 ? \\ E-
,j'
r ., ..
<a.,.
tv,
Ir

I?
.r'
1
t"? ?`
`\ l
0
0 'U
m

r r ? r
n n
O ?,
O
O
M z

r z 1-
n ?, m
G7
m
z
0

n
A
r
m
J
N
4Ln
O
0
/'

___-__.-._--•. ?.
1

1

? 1
M © ?
i S

,

I

?? ??--."FAQ ?'??'
/ ,
? ?
??rgryy,r
r
r
i
'
r,
•
to ?
? '

,

. ?, ? p ..i•?r 1

YJA

y '

91

°
4
-.

a

bt 13
Y
0 I
+ u i
!

, ,

tia
r. ;
r?

?!?/r.,• ? `fir ?t`?? S•
Z .z??
5

I
'• 1
1
t,1, TI
tk, 1
1 1t' 1
.y 1
1
1
?h
1
I
. i
' I
i
f„ . I
-?r 1
I
?I
TI
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
U
i
:+ I
1
1
1
1
1
(
I
fJ?• t
1
1
1
f
r
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
IT
I
I
1
1
1
I
In
1
I
I
I
I
f
I
\ 1
?t
,
r
1
i
I
,
I
I
I?
I
1
,
1
1
IT
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _
1
I
1
(A
0
n
r
m

N
tJl
O
O
0 :u

z z 0
0 0 O •=•
n
.-• r

m
0 -1 C;)
m
z

\
\ j
C

F
?A

y

?l \ti
'•
e. _-111
i l ?, `, ! t?
;Fi6t7 ? W •, t

?? I J. s
? iC /f M ` 1/
03 t
0-i

s
ry
}? .
a

?X
I
1
1!
1
l
I
,
I
L1? 1` 1' 1
r-'
1
i
t
1
rJy
t ?
/
r j
/j
P ys:.

4

'
i

yi.
w?
\a

rf
fi
?A
w?
70+00
1
75+00
I `y
1
1
I
1
,
1
I
IT
1 ;
I ;
I_
I
1
i
i
1
1
1
€
1
1
I
o\
\

~•,r
r
/r
/
oN,
V?l
\
\
cl ;'.

.g

/

\
\
\
\
\
\

\'
.
\ ko

\

\
\

v
t
IX f/,
> /qtr/r l? ? `•-? t?1 1 } ©®
r
1 ? 1i. s.. ?•°:? ! cr
r }! q7
t!
A
\'"z i
5i
14
m
y?Z0
03 Nj
1 ?? 1
'm m
ZZ:
(0 19,
n
n
r
m
J
N
0
O

1 y. 1 i
E ??' SI
ZE ? n 'O

-4 ;a m

n n a-• ?.
°
v v o

.? m
z

\ s
1

t
\ 5
. p. ..J
1.
;Se?"
€S '
r.
vvv
\ v
\ a
? A
\ 0
\ 0
` F
\
\
\
\
} ?? / , _ '`t•?A `fir t, ` (• r'\\r, ? Y?
Tj?+?
a ?

9bkp0
\ o

r'1
_l

?
0 ¢
C) }
3

v
.
z ?

0
03
W

?t t
1 `t t
r
?sJ s f ?F;
E. .... ..-?? 1. ..r .. _

A..
1
!?ir
i;.
i.s
O€i?1 t ,T -. .,
Lf
d
0
v?

\

\

\
\ 1

\
\ 1
\ 1

\

\

\T

INV t...
,.., ........
\
\
l\
?

C,j
41
4T i hi
5 P5
I'D
Y ? Q a'iA? ? 3.d , / rl t "T ti., I ; s 1 L
fid
TP
fi
Aj.
5 /
-fq
O
L( / / J
*44

451

A?P
Q ;
,
5?...,s \ T
\\ Y
\ 3\
\ r'• "
\ \ i

12

?.. •. s
?.
....:
!'
{{ i
f ' .?p? -,..F??? i.,f ?s?'• •'?" -`\•-, ?` \ °^s'
•-(9?
[
f
`
/
,r
;
- ? 4 'x;1,3 ? 1 ' _ `\
L
t \ 7 \ Y

14 - 43
N
n
r
m
N
0
0
",? ...,.?: „?..? 1 ,?v ?, iii (( i..- ,.........-?•.. ,,,..." ..-..._ „-,,,. ,,,..,rte ?i ......L (_.• «..?..., '1 ?:1`\ .r \\
tr ?„ , j f r y r -
3

re?rff ,
12p,rp0
::;E n -O
D D O
.. r n
n -4 H
-4 -'1

fix Ei
. t t 7 s J3

?t

''`?-.
'
`'
? "Ol
?
?`
`--?
,,,_..,?
.._.->:-.? \_ ``?,< Syr ??.? '. '->\ 1
1
I
JJj ?t • D',? O®

_r. _ ,•. is

? fem.

©
`t
4{
{{ `' °

14-
-• 13
[1 ? ?\
t'`'om-`
/ ./ 1.
0
°

s
r-
m
N
N
O
O

y
,1 ;yam / I
/ lyr'
.1 .
Y
1
1
i`M 1 ?\t
I
I

1
r
I
I
i
I
!
p ?
°
a 1
m o ?
m
-1 j
m
r F
r
-

v v 00
n
1-. r

`o -?

G7

m
z

° .1
a '
d
p 1
i
q
a '
M 1
!YI 1
a '
a '
a !
a///
/ Ll
/©
.- 1
k'?
1 '
1
i
1
i
1
I
1
A`
?
l
1
?
1
i
1
i
1
r,
I;
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
\
\
?etP /
n
1 ?" ,4 A E„z? /"
.:?`S,• rF}, ° .eft' `'~k`` 1\\
err, °
1 ', p
Q
w , i f
u +
S s ,? w
a
135+00
I `! 0
I '' a
t y °
I
I
I °
I F a
I Y4;Y ? a 1
r' ? p \I
t, ,Y q 11
T
1
I
1
I
I
1
A
IA
I
I
I
I
1
h

1A
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
-i .
I
to
1
1
1
1 p ? t
1 f`/fh
,iW ? v' fw w: fs r.:
r' r
' -- ------ -----
3'3'
1 1
r,'y%,' f ni ? \
'ioo

00
'NO
®° '_<Ka• `(1{ S _ ?? S 1?^ \ay \'% „? Er1 "t,j,? I 1i
y ?..?, ',' / / ! t c? ? ?, i It =t' .,` tJ ?? \+ _ ., ? i r /? i y (.??w.'? ? ^/; , i ;?.. ?: -'-'- •.... t Sz ? i e..='R ,. ? ?,.
<
q(q 4 1
Kt,
0c?........ -_..-. ?..-?'?. ?^' ?:R? ' rr(\? y ? ? /• r ?« ?. ??,,? i1' ? t.. t`.;??../`.. ? °'? ??r ??? ? ?? "f ?r ??R ?i
too(?.?.? f$n ./` ->/';" s . :-1 n J-fu': ?..rr'?":•? f` .,\,??45`p7=rf,< ; , aQ? r.,, c_.)Sa
top
i '?,sj?'4 /?i J ?• ? Y? C\ /?` 5 ? ? Z; 6° fS,• b'' ?_ f ?,? i??v ?, i,.
1 ( /' ' \\ iS??? \ ' `"LLB V©®? ?'?
Ile
/? J?o? ?,? °© f?((?' ??, r. ? , •r X.[p?-F ?' ???:? ' ,/?,^iAV ?? '??'` .,.? _ ? _ ? ....©©? ' l,?a???J i `^y t ? .
_J.•-
`?'?" ?,. ? L-•....r . ?{ ` 4 ? ' is \ ?, j• 7 C ?? E ?'
FF
J.... u' O _ r r' frig (/. 1 \ ;? } 4 \° S -; " Op -
itA? S.
Y ? ? ,1t? tir.;!' ,.• ti' t 1 ? 1 i SC ? ? t / t \ ?' ? 7 JJ °
rf:.• /? p .,J' ! 1 •ti! y,.,r-' ?j•W t.,s?? !`gi- , 3 4 1 h t? ?f,.- ??•
,{
ry X19 1 J ®' cZ 1'SYi ';il t' x; +r r? I / { \ \ \\\ r /
\ \\ ?.
C,
i
'_..._ 1
1
------- - -----
/ ,/- z 4gQ,r?aodra©caocad '? '?, 1 s ? \
/ /' ? I I ,? ?q?040C1AL7AC]LIC=? ?, 1 ? \
9 i i 411 ?,?? C7 ? / Z
n
AN j
a /
is •' \^'S- p ?? /,n •, (?'^''? 0
N D
5 v ca m
r b Lnn
? o
y CioCO
Q
No ?J
> \ 1 /
Q \
\ I .,
-----------------
x
14
to „_
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 1, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC, 27889-1000
Subject: The New Bern Bypass
. T.I.P. No. R-2301; Minimization Concurrence
Dear Mr. Bell,

This letter is in reference to the Minimization Concurrence for the aforementioned project. The project is
being planned in accordance with the 404/NEPA Merger agreement. Based upon the information provided,
we concur with the minimization plans presented by the NCDOT. Please be advised that impacts to Neuse
Buffers (which have not historically been at issue in the NEPA/404 process) will need to be addressed prior
to completion of the Final EIS.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or
John [e-mail].
cerely,
John E. Hennessy
cc: John Dorney, NCDWQ
Debra Sawyer, NCDWQ
Bill Gilmore, P.E., NCDOT
C:\ncdot\TIP R-230 1\R-2301 minimization concurrence.doc
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Cyndi Bell
From: Bell, Michael F SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 6:34 AM
To: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Re: 404/NEPA
Cindy,
I know you are busy and this is just a quick note.
R-2301
We concurred with there minimization efforts which includes removing existing 43 out of the
Neuse River floodplain and bridging all riverine wetlands with the new bridge. I think this is the
best we could have gotten.
R-2510 '
Washington Went from 10 alternatives to 3. Alt. B,C and a commbined outer alternative. Also
sitll looking at a eastern alternative for now, Alt. L. I think you will like this also. All riverine
wetlands bridged. You may want Cox to draw you a map.
Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks and good luck. Mike Bell
?° r»M
v.n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell PAYMENT
Washington Regulatory Field Office RECEIVED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
i . FEB 2 51999
.. WnTER QUALITY?SECT ON._ ,_
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there
is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Thoroughfare plan updates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County include portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
i lls t-st direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown'I d to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard, apd Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
D 0,0
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Domey, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, Including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
proposed activity. An application that Is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS v applicable)
Neuse River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/orAccessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Cohst ruction of a four-lane,
west of the city of New Bern.
full control of access, median-divided roadway
See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
"? C_ " & o--t-
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
,F .
*? SL1? o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FEB 2 5 RA
WETLANDS iNOW)'
WATER OUAUly ?Fchl
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001 T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there
IT
is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Thoroughfare plaq updates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County include portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
.s .
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
Jv 19 J_ /
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
ructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
rmation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of Information, including suggestions for reducing
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
sway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
Ing jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
ars of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
umping it Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure:
closure of requested Information Is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
nit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
posed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
forth Carolina Department of Transportation
'fanning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
'.O. Box 25201
sleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
Residence a. Residence
Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
test, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State
ject No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
ise River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
-ORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
"y C - &L kt; o .-W -
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE
SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
b?•
Swrv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FEB 2 5 1 E
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECT10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there

is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Thoroughfare plan gpdates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County ineHzde portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
ti
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
. . .,+
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested Infonmation is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Neuse River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, andlor Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
R Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
G." -0 wt.-t- ,tom :LS '"`J
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
1 0
?o
?q a.r va??
2 5
ND$ GROUP
waTF nuAU1Y SECTIOfJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001 T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there
4 1
is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
IN 03H
Thoroughfare plan updates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County.itlcWe• portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If Information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
permit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (a applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Neuse River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more then can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
C. &L &
SIGNATURE 43F APPLICANT ATE
SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
FIB
-WMNDS GROUN
WATER QUALITY SEC IIC;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
U
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001 T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there
is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Thoroughfare plaYupdates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County include portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
? VP /
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO.0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material Into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested information Is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
permit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
Neuse River
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (it applicable)
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for.Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE
SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
r0 1 .
y'°M
I
r.-..-....
yiy
FEB 1 , a
WETLA?lOS Gt101.?+'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001 T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there
1 wy
is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Thoroughfare plan updates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County include portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenbumie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
?djv P /?
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0711'0-0d:
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of Information, Including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington,
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigable
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure:
Disclosure of requested Information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a
permit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to
this application (see sample drawings and Instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the
proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, Stat(
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Neuse River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OF
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
C.. t 4-0 o-I.
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE
SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
F-i , ,
11 to
FEB 2 51999
.4;
?WE ANDS GROUP -?
I E ER UALITY S.Frr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 12, 1999
Mr. Michael F. Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, State Project No. 6.179001T, TIP
Project No. R-2301, USACOE Action ID No. 199300910
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to improve the US 17 corridor in Craven County by constructing a four-lane, full
control of access, median-divided roadway west of the city of New Bern. The proposed
freeway would bypass the adjacent municipalities of River Bend, Trent Woods and
Bridgeton.
The proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass was first included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) in 1988. At that time the US 17 corridor was designated a
"Strategic Corridor", giving the route priority status for improvement to a minimum four-
lane divided facility. In 1989, US 17 from South Carolina to Virginia was designated an
"Intrastate System" route in the Highway Trust Fund Act. The Intrastate System is a
network of major, multilane arterial highways designed to connect the major population
centers inside and outside the state and to provide safe, convenient, through-travel for
motorists. The Intrastate System was established to support statewide growth and
development objectives and to connect to major highways in adjoining states.
US 17 is the only principal north-south highway east of I-95. It provides connectivity
between the major population centers of the coastal counties including Elizabeth City,
Edenton, Windsor, New Bern, Jacksonville and Wilmington. US 17 also provides an
important link to major east-west highways such as US 64, US 70, US 74 and I-40. During
the summer months, US 17 serves large volumes of seasonal tourist traffic and is one of the
two primary hurricane evacuations routes for the Outer Banks north of Cape Hatteras.
Within recent years, the coastal region of the state has experienced significant development
for both year-round residents and seasonal visitors. With the increasing population, there

is a growing need to improve evacuation routes for major storm events, such as Hurricane
Bonnie.
Tho4tkhfare plan updates for New Bern-River Bend-Trent Woods-Bridgeton and for
Craven County include portions of the US 17 New Bern Bypass. The Bypass was
identified as a prerequisite to the implementation of the plan. The US 17 New Bern
Bypass is designated as a "key economic development highway" in Governor Hunt's North
Carolina Transportation 2001 plan.
Existing US 17 is a four-lane, non-controlled access highway from the Jones-Craven
County line through the Town of Bridgeton except at the two-lane Neuse River bascule
bridge. North of Bridgeton, US 17 is a two-lane rural highway. US 17 is concurrent with
NC 55 and US 70 Business for approximately 2.7 and 1.7 miles, respectively, as it passes
in an east-west direction through New Bern. In 1987, US 17 traffic congestion in
downtown led to the signing of a designated "bypass route" along NC 43. This designation
increased the traffic use of NC 43 resulting in congestion on the urban section of Neuse
Boulevard and Glenburnie Road.
The annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on US 17 through the project area
ranged from 6,700 to 19,800 vehicles per day in 1989; the AADT on NC 43 ranged from
4,400 to 18,500 vehicles per day. By the year 2010, these volumes are projected to
increase to between 9,900 and 29,200 vehicles per day on US 17 and 6,500 to 27,300
vehicles per day on NC 43.
By the year 2016 it is anticipated between 17,200 and 30,200 vehicles per day will travel
the New Bern Bypass. It is estimated 23 accidents will occur along the bypass in the
design year. If these vehicles traveled on existing US 17 and NC 43, it is estimated an
additional 124 accidents would occur on these facilities as a result of the increased traffic
volumes and the lower design standards on these roadways. Thus, it is anticipated the
construction of the New Bern Bypass will reduce the accident rate along US 17 and NC 43
by approximately 81 percent. This will result in cost savings of $1.23 million per year.
In September 1991, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published evaluating
nine proposed build alternatives and a "no build" alternative. On November 7, 1991, a
corridor public hearing was held. Each of the nine build alternatives impacted the Pleasant
Hill community, a minority community located along NC 55 between Washington Forks
and Beamon Forks. Due in part to opposition received from the Pleasant Hill community
at the corridor public hearing, a tenth alternative was proposed that avoided the community
yet met the transportation objectives established for the original nine build alternatives.
During the study of Alternative 10, potentially important mineral deposits in the vicinity of
US 70 were identified. Alternative 11 was developed to avoid the Pleasant Hill community
and minimize impacts to the unmined mineral deposits. Alternative 12 was subsequently
identified as a means of accomplishing the above objectives while minimizing impacts to
wetlands.
The permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality and Division of Coastal Management; the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; and the United States Coast Guard for the construction of
the Neuse River Bridge Replacement (TIP Project No. B-2531) required certain actions be
taken prior to the construction of the New Bern Bypass. These permits required the
NCDOT to develop a detailed plan to compensate for the wetland impacts associated with
both projects prior to the expiration dates of the permits issued for the Neuse River Bridge
Replacement. The permits further required the NCDOT to complete the construction of the
required compensatory mitigation site prior to beginning construction on the New Bern

Bypass or within one year of the expiration of the Neuse River Bridge Replacement
(12/31/99), whichever comes first. In July 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed
between the NCDOT and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperatively develop a
plan for the compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts associated with the Neuse River
Bridge Replacement and the New Bern Bypass projects.
Currently, the NCDOT proposes to bridge the high-quality, bottomland hardwood wetland
systems associated with the Neuse River, Swift Creek and Bachelor Creek. Other
unavoidable wetland losses would be mitigated by the preservation, restoration and
enhancement (as applicable) from the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank.
The NCDOT hereby submits a permit application form for TIP Project No. R-2301 so
public review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence. This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Following the public review period and the public announcement of the selection of
preferred alternative, wetland delineations and preliminary design within the preferred
corridor will begin. Additional actions, as set forth in the above-mentioned guidelines, will
be required to fulfill the project implementation process. It is expected final issuance of the
permits required for this project will occur near the end of this process.
Enclosed you will find a completed ENG form 4345. This letter, along with the previously
distributed EA, should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project. A set of functional design plans and a copy of the corridor pubic hearing
transcript are being sent under separate cover. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Gail Grimes at [phone] extension 265 or
Ms. Alice Gordon at [phone] extension 307.
Sincerely,
?c w 19 -t- /
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CVB/lgg
cc: w/encl.
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD&EA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-01
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, Including the time for reviewin
Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection c
Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, Including suggestions for reducin
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davi
Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washingtor
DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engines:
having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or affecting, navigabl
waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material Into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpos
of dumping it Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Disclosure
Disclosure of requested Information is voluntary. If Information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can
permit be Issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached t
this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of th
proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upo
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) R-2301) Craven County, US 17 New Bern Bypass, Stat
Project No. 6.179001T.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Neuse River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Craven NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessory's Parcel Number, for example.
See Functional Design Plans (sent under separate cover).
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-t
1 fry N iature of Activity (Description of project, Include all features)
Construction of a four-lane, full control of access, median-divided roadway
west of the city of New Bern. See the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of Highway
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Information to be developed when alternative is chosen (see cover letter for description of process)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No x IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
v C. a & o--t-
SIGNATURE F APPLICANT ATE
SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FM 2 5 I9y'-j
I.
W uNDS GRO I
WA R U,4ITY.w.T
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
February 19, 1999
Mr. Ronald E. Ferrell, Program Manager
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
NCDENR-DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Sir:
SECRETARY
Subject: Caldwell County, SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from SR 1933 to US
321A (Norwood Street), State Project No. 8.273170 1, T.I.P. No. U-2211A.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen SR 1001 (Connelly
Springs Road) in Lenoir between SR 1933 (Southwest Boulevard) and US 321 A. The 1.6-
mile project calls for upgrading the existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane facility and
also involves some new location. The project will involve impacts to Little Gunpowder
Creek. The purpose of this letter is to request that the WRP provide confirmation that you
are willing to accept payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements.
The project is located in Caldwell County on Gunpowder Creek in the Catawba River
basin in Cataloguing Unit 03050101 in the Piedmont Province. Little Gunpowder Creek is
a headwater stream and considered to be a first order stream. Little Gunpowder Creek
[CTB32 11-55-2-(1) D12SE3 C] from its source to U.S. Hwy. 321-A is a class C stream
according to the DWQ and is not a trout stream.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. We need stream
mitigation from the WRP for impacts to approximately 1099 linear feet of jurisdictional
streams. Therefore, using a 2:1 ratio for mitigation we will need 2199 feet of stream
mitigation.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Steve Lund at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ashe Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC
288019'106. Mr. Lund's FAX number is 828-271-4858. The Public Notice for the project
will conclude on March 5, 1999. Therefore we would like to have the letter of confirmation
to the USACE by March 5, 1999.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone] Ext. 307.'
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
r

1101 Haynes Street Suite 101 Raleigh, KC 27604 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
.??
EcoScience
?> Jil
October 19, 2001 5
Mr. John Hennessy
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Re: Confirmation for Application of the Neuse River Buffer Rule 00-046.04
Concerning New Beni Bypass (TIP R-2301), Craven
and Jones Counties.
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
I am writing to confirm the results of our October 9, 2001 on-site meeting concerning the proposed
New Beni Bypass in Craven and Jones Counties. Please see the attached figure for reference to
system locations.
The study corridor is a 6-mile section of the proposed New Bern Bypass. The corridor has a width
of 200 feet for the entire length. Eight systems were identified within the study corridor, all of which
are depicted as streams on topographic mapping and/or soils mapping. These systems have been
numbered sequentially 0A, 1B. 2-7). The purpose of our site visit was to obtain N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) concurrence concerning the applicability of the Neuse River Buffer rule to
streams located within the study corridor and depicted on either USGS 7.5-minute topographic
snapping or the county soil survey. The results of our meeting are as follows.
The buffer status of Systems 1A, 4, 5, and 7 was in question, and these systems were observed or
discussed during the meeting. It was determined that Systems 4 and 7 are ephemeral drainages and
will not require buffers. It was also determined that System IA is a perennial stream and System 5 is
an intermittent stream, both of which require a buffer.

t-
ECOScience Corporation
Mr. John Hennessy
October 19, 2001
Page 2
The buffer status of Systems 113, 2, 3, and 6 was not in question; therefore, these systems were not
visited during our meeting. These systems arc intermittent and/or perennial streams that are subject
to the buffer rule.
If you have any questions about this infonnation, please contact me by phone at 919-828-3433 or by
email at [e-mail].
Yours truly,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
114 ?91
Shay Garriock
Project Scientist
Enclosure
cc (with enclosure):
Alice Gordon
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

-Clow
CO,41 Z)
REST AREA
- -
i ` C 70
I
-- - ?` - -
`'yam
PROPOSED
_, } y O CORRIDOR
"1 b
-' 0P x LEGEND
O System Designation
u`
rb 5
4
•'ti ., ? ??r`?J -y,?- . i!?''t'!? _.?d LPL.
GNn `•.1 ?ir "?•.t?• Y-.-? a '•`?,? ? ? qtr -
Ic{ 9? ?,\ ) yG
p
4 3
.10
wh 'y t
EcoScience NEW BERN BYPASS Dmm. by:
Ckdhy: MA1'
CG FIGURE
Corporation Site location and System Map Date:
JUL
`OOI 1
Raleigh, North Carolina Jones and Craven Counties+ North Carolina
00-0
00-046.04
• i

1101 Haynes Street Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoSc''KAlccA
August 10, 2001
Mr. Mike Bell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wiimingtun, NC 28402-1890
Re: Request for Approval of a Section 404 Jurisdictional Area
Delineation Concerning New Bern Bypass (TIP R-2301),
Craven and Jones Counties.
Dear Mr. Bell:
00-046.04
I am writing to confirm our scheduled on-site meeting for fieldwork concerning the proposed New
Bern Bypass in Craven and Jones Counties. A jurisdictional stream delineation has been completed
within the proposed alignment corridor, and we are interested in obtaining U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) verification of the delineation. We will be meeting at the rest area parking lot at
the junction of Clarks Road (SR1225) and NC 70 at 10 A.M. on Thursday, August 23, 2001. The
rest area is located immediately south of the NC70/SR1225 interchange, which is located
approximately 7 miles west of New Bern, NC. Please find attached figures depicting location of the
rest area, the proposed corridor, system crossings, and Department of Water Quality (DWQ) and
COE stream data forms.
Proiect Description
NCDOT has proposed construction of the New Bern Bypass in Jones and Craven Counties, NC.
The section of corridor under review by ESC is located west of New Bern, NC between NC 17 and
NC 70. The southern end of the corridor intersects NC 17 at SR 1330 (Tuscarora Road)
approximately 8 miles (12.9 kilometers) west of New Bern. The northern end terminates at Atlantic
and East Coast Railroad approximately 6.2 miles (9.9 kilometers) west of New Bern. The proposed
study corridor is approximately 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) in length. Corridor width varies from 200
feet (61.0 meters) along proposed new alignment to 400 feet (122.0 meters) along sections of
existing roadway. Land use throughout the corridor consists of agricultural land, pine plantation,
timbered land, and forested woodlands.

EcoScieiice Corporation
Mr. Mike Bell
August 10, 2001
Page 2
The field survey resulted in the delineation of three streams (Systems 113, 2, and 6) and one open
water area (System IA) resulting from a beaver-impacted drainage.
If any of the attached information is unclear, or if additional information is needed, please contact
me by phone at 919-828-3433, or by email at [e-mail].
Yours truly,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
l
Shay Garriock
Project Scientist
Enclosure
cc (with enclosure):
Howard Hall Alice Gordon
USFWS, Raleigh Field Office NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 33726 Project Development and Enviromnental
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
John Hennessy Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Office
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522

,vp

CIA
C? -Z
h
N
z
?' U x
o? ?o
z
cl
.= U N N
1
1T?
O
c3
U f cv
,/? r•ti U •;J
O
U r-I ? cS
7
701
REST AREA CpgrR Np
6
1 iY r.rrt r ?.+. i •r 6
A -L i
(A?
PROPOSED
r QO CORRIDOR
?e' LEGEND'
Acj?
X
System Designation
.\ t u
! 1 g / ?0d??M 'til k?
' 2 ?,,,, •? -r-- . ! -?._ X1''1, ; • -?•-±5 .. ? - .r.? a?
.? '' 3 1 l
14
?•? it ?? dr' 'J'- 1. d ,?? ? 1 J l'r,'' ?,,•
11.j
iscoScience NEW BERN BYPASS
Corporation CkJ by
Site location and System M^'
Raleigh, North Caroline Jones and Craven Map CG
Counties, North Carolina
JUL 2U0I 1
Project
00-046.04